History HubÌý permalink
Removed
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 2
Posted by silvery (U8422462) on Sunday, 18th September 2011
Holocaust is not exactly an appropriate word to use in this context.
I suggest you go off and study a little bit more history. -
Message 3
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 18th September 2011
Catigern
I think the answer to your question is that the Church of England played a large part in the foundation of state-funded schooling in England and the UK legislators were expecting the Irish Catholic church to act in the same manner.
What was very definite is that following the foundation of the Free State the Catholic church was allowed to take on an unassailable status within the country; a status that continued into modern times. My part-Irish mother on a visit to Dublin in 1961 came back remarking on the priviliged status of the Catholic clergy and the poverty of a significant proportion of the population.
My view is that the manner of the ejection of Unionist rule left very few organised institutions within Ireland and so the Catholic church took up the slack.
The notion that all of Ireland's woes are down to the British went out with de Valera. Somewhere along the line Ireland became independent which means taking responsibility.
Lastly, I attended a British state grammar school in the Fifties and Sixties. It was a hell-hole of bullying, brutality and fear with sexual abuse mixed in for good meaure. The normal teachers were the exception. In the late Sixties and early Seventies I used to spend time with my Irish friends swapping school horror stories. I will accept that the Christian Brothers always took the prize. -
Message 4
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Sunday, 18th September 2011
Is it all the Brits' fault...?
British governments have always been generous, even soft to the point of rashness, when dealing with Irich Catholicism. One example would be the way in which, prior to Southern Irish independence, Westminster allowed the RC church to take the lead in the education of most Irish children. Did this indulgence lead to such a build-up of momentum that the Free State and Republic's governments had no choice but to allow the RC church to dominate both Irish schools and the care of orphans etc...?
Just a thought.
Ìý
The child abuse wasn't confined to Éire, it happened in the north and in Britain. -
Message 5
Posted by Manichaeism (U2957371) on Sunday, 18th September 2011
"British governments have always been generous, even soft to the point of rashness, when dealing with Irich Catholicism"
You obviously never heard of the Penal Laws!. -
Message 6
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Sunday, 18th September 2011
stanilic
What was very definite is that following the foundation of the Free State the Catholic church was allowed to take on an unassailable status within the country; a status that continued into modern times. My part-Irish mother on a visit to Dublin in 1961 came back remarking on the priviliged status of the Catholic clergy and the poverty of a significant proportion of the population.
My view is that the manner of the ejection of Unionist rule left very few organised institutions within Ireland and so the Catholic church took up the slack.
The notion that all of Ireland's woes are down to the British went out with de Valera. Somewhere along the line Ireland became independent which means taking responsibility.Ìý
You want to be careful about making that kind of assertion, which suggests that the particular form that Irish independence took (thanks to the IRA) may not have been universally beneficial to the Irish people. Such a suggestion is likely to bring down upon you the wrath of Shane, Harpo, Thomas etc, who clearly feel that the systematic rape and torture of tens of thousands of vulnerable children is an acceptable price to pay for 'freedoms' such as the right to paint postboxes green, instead of red...
The child abuse wasn't confined to Éire, it happened in the north and in Britain.Ìý
But not to anything like the same extent, and not with anything like the same degree of connivance from the state and wider society. Nobody over here is talking about abuse in britain being 'our own holocaust'...
-
Message 7
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Monday, 19th September 2011
You want to be careful about making that kind of assertion, which suggests that the particular form that Irish independence took (thanks to the IRA) may not have been universally beneficial to the Irish people. Such a suggestion is likely to bring down upon you the wrath of Shane, Harpo, Thomas etc, who clearly feel that the systematic rape and torture of tens of thousands of vulnerable children is an acceptable price to pay for 'freedoms' such as the right to paint postboxes green, instead of red...Ìý
I´d like to recommend your advise back to yourself, Catigern and be careful about such assertions you´ve made there about me and the listed other Irish Patriots.
I´ve always argued against De Valera and his strong ambitions towards the Clergy in Ireland. So your statement is rather offensive. Next time you´re making such false assertions, I´ll report your post to the moderators.
I hope that this was clear enough.
Some other posters recently meant that you´re an "academic historian". I doubted it already while reading that assertion, because from acadamic historians, one is rather not expecting such kind of posts you´re providing on here. -
Message 8
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 19th September 2011
I don't see this problem as primarily the fault of either Ireland or Britain exactly in the sense suggested by the OP. It is most definitely however a rather disgusting symptom of a greater malaise which appears to have afflicted the entire island of Ireland, helped in no small measure to develop unhindered by the political realities which prevailed, and one of those realities being that the elected government and its agencies - both north and south - failed completely to guarantee the safety of its most vulnerable constituents.
In a society where religious affiliation was worn as a badge of identity distinguishing one from an "enemy" who shared this outlook, and in which such distinction of identity was perceived as something of infinitely more importance than basic welfare or even the will to achieve it, then it was almost inevitable that the most tragic victims of abuse would be those most dependent on the capability of others to provide acceptable levels of care and welfare on their behalf. In the north this led to a blind eye being turned to abuse in religious-run institutions. In the south the same applied but could be said to have been so much worse in that the abusers portrayed themselves as the power behind the power (with huge justification) in the new state, making the plight of the victims even more forlorn in that they could not even envisage a scenario whereby they would be believed, let alone find redress.
For what it's worth one should add that the Free State and Northern Ireland largely took up and continued an educational system as established and run by the Boards and Commissions appointed under British rule, and that institutionalised abuse appears to have had its roots in this case long before either entity appeared as an autonomous country. It is also worth noting that the first revelations in recent decades which caused a snowball effect in terms of public awareness and political will to intervene centered on Protestant institutions in Northern Ireland. While the southern government as an institution, and the Catholic Church in particular, must indeed bear much responsibility for the crimes they both allowed to be committed in their name, there is a danger that so close a focus on such obvious perpetrators deflects attention (and therefore prospects of justice) from the victims of other tormentors who behaved equally despicably.
Trying to make this issue into a political football related only to "Britain" versus "Ireland" or even "Secular" versus "Religious (or "Catholic", or "Protestant" etc)" carries with it a risk that the bland assumptions which such an approach engenders will actually hinder rather than help the still pressing case for justice for those whose lives were so gratuitously damaged and destroyed by the villains involved. -
Message 9
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Monday, 19th September 2011
I don't see this problem as primarily the fault of either Ireland or Britain exactly in the sense suggested by the OP.Ìý
I agree on that Nordmann and apart from the British-Irish topic, it´s more a matter of hypocracy within both Churches. Such abuses occured also in Germany through decades and we´ve had this topic as well during the past two years. But I consider the term "Holocaust" in relation to the content of the OP not only as inappropriate, but as tasteless and exaggerated from the meaning of that word. They don´t committed mass-murdering.
Some say it´s the dogma of celibacy in the RCC that caused these cases of abuse, but the Protestants don´t have that and there has been reported such abuses as well.
Trying to make this issue into a political football related only to "Britain" versus "Ireland" or even "Secular" versus "Religious (or "Catholic", or "Protestant" etc)" Ìý
That´s the whole thing in which it has been turned since the Â鶹ԼÅÄ Rule debate and the militarizing of the Unionist in 1912 and in reaction by the Irish Republicans. -
Message 10
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 19th September 2011
I have hesitated to enter this thread.. But I think that Nordmann's drift is an appropriate one.. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation there can be no doubt that the whole history of the people of Ireland over the last few centuries has been one marred by tragedy - the kind of tragedy that was experienced by the German region during the Thirty Years War, and which left an enduring legacy.. In terms of German childhood that was reflected in the really nasty side of the folk tales collected by the Brothers Grimm.. My wife was influenced by the psychologist Bruno Bettelheim, a survivor of Nazi concentration camps, to believe that children really did need to learn about the dark side of life from the earliest ages. And I must say that I was shocked by the original versions.
So I think that the whole question of childhood sexual abuse within institutions must be put into the wider context of sexual abuse in the industrial age. Beatrice Webb described in My Apprenticeship how she discovered working class incest quite by chance, and went on to carry out some of the work in this field that is regarded as being of seminal importance in exposing just to what extent this was prevalent in the poor quarters of the East End of London, where W.M. Stead carried out the research that got him sent to prison because a mother had sold him her daughter.. These were the days of the "White Slave trade".
More recently Billy Connelly has talked of the sexual abuse he suffered from his father- who was left by his wife to bring up the children on his own. And more recently we have had Gerry Adams going public about the incest within the last two generations of the Adams family.
But coming back to the OP-- My long experience of the impact of economic migration on West Indian families probably colours my understanding of the not dissimilar migration of men from Ireland to the British mainland from during the second half of the eighteenth century. This often left the parish priest as the only male - almost certainly the only male of education and with that intellectual and administrative power that many women and their families could have relationships with.
No doubt there were cases in which vows of chastity and fidelity were violated. But the film "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie" explores the sexual tension that can develop in situations in which the sexual attraction between two adults can not possibly find an expression between them and finds an outlet through the young.
Acton "All power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely."
But, as has been said by other people, that corruption was common in English institutions as well- as most factual accounts of public school life show.. See Stephen Fry.
Cass -
Message 11
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 19th September 2011
But I consider the term "Holocaust" in relation to the content of the OP not only as inappropriate, but as tasteless and exaggerated from the meaning of that word. They don´t committed mass-murdering.
Ìý
Holocaust is a word which very few seem to understand, Thomas. Unless the action involves a subject which (or who) is burnt then it is meaningless. It has nothing to do with genocide (another much misused term) or even mass murder.
Catigern likes to provoke. Were it simply lively debate that he wished to provoke then such semantic aberrations could be forgiven. But it seems from the bulk of his contributions that he is equally or even more satisfied just to provoke offence, so in my view he runs the risk of finding himself in the future corresponding only with others who hold so silly an aim. I can't see the point in that myself.
Recently however his opening posts, however clumsily constructed, have addressed worthwhile topics of debate. When he is not hell-bent on insult he has even managed to make further contributions to his own threads which are worthy of consideration and response. I agree that it can be quite tedious engaging such a mentality in conversation but I would not give up on him just yet.
(Maybe soon, but not quite yet
) -
Message 12
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 19th September 2011
PS - It wasn't Catigern who first employed the term "holocaust" to describe the issue of institutionalised child abuse in Ireland. He is actually citing a description used by one of its victims, if I remember correctly.
It's his use of the term "rashness" in the context of his OP that I'm struggling with -
Message 13
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 19th September 2011
There are also questions of cultural attitudes to "libido" ..
Mahatma Gandhi wrote quite extensvely about ancient Hindu obsessions with the supression of "libido", for, ideally a High Caste Hindu, as he was, was expected to only have during one session of sexual activity a year until his wife was pregnant. And once the couple had enough children they would then give up sexual activity for life.. Gandhi did so about 45 years before he died and tried to observe all the Hindu wisdoms related to limiting the sexual drive- no meat, no dairy products etc.
The large families that were such a feature of the rate of population growth in Ireland in the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century indicate quite a lot of sexual activity-- perhaps not disassociated with long periods of absence and abstinence-.
And certainly the works that I have read of James Joyce suggest an attitude to sex that is different, for example, to that of the sexually obsessed D.H. Lawrence, who was very much aware of trying to break down the restrictions and barriers to sexual activity with which he associated English culture.
All such areas are liable to great subjectivity, over simplification and no doubt error, but those of us who remember the real Iris Murdock can only admire the portrayal of her on film by Judi Dench, a national treasure and Yorkshire Rose, but detect in Miss Dench a total absence of Irish Murdock's raw sensuality and sexuality that comes through her husband's accounts of their life together.
Cass -
Message 14
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Monday, 19th September 2011
I´d like to recommend your advise back to yourself... one is rather not expecting such kind of posts you´re providing on here.Ìý
Consider my post as the response of a reasonable person to the provocation offered by you and these 'Irish patriots', Thomas. If you do, you might begin to grasp just how offensive is the nonsense you all post ('We suffered', '700 years struggle', 'traitors' etc). -
Message 15
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Tuesday, 20th September 2011
Holocaust is a word which very few seem to understand, Thomas. Unless the action involves a subject which (or who) is burnt then it is meaningless. It has nothing to do with genocide (another much misused term) or even mass murder.Ìý
I know, Nordmann. But without dead corpses there is no burning, unless they were burned alive, but neither that happened in regards to the OP.
Catigern likes to provoke. Were it simply lively debate that he wished to provoke then such semantic aberrations could be forgiven. But it seems from the bulk of his contributions that he is equally or even more satisfied just to provoke offence, so in my view he runs the risk of finding himself in the future corresponding only with others who hold so silly an aim.Ìý
We´ve had similar posters of his like on here for the past years and once they get bored, they vanish. You may remember that poster located in NI, I can´t remember his nickname now, but he was also very eager on Irish topics, but at least he talked about the deeds of the Unionists as well, even when it was less than about the PIRA. But the subject of the OP in this thread wasn´t raised then. -
Message 16
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Tuesday, 20th September 2011
In reply to Catigern:
Consider my post as the response of a reasonable person to the provocation offered by you and these 'Irish patriots', Thomas. If you do, you might begin to grasp just how offensive is the nonsense you all post ('We suffered', '700 years struggle', 'traitors' etc).Ìý
Historical remarks are just offensive to those who take offence and you as an Englishman are naturally doing so, because it doesn´t gives one comfort being remembered to face the darker side of one countries history in regards of its foreign relations / colonial behaviour.
Again, please "remember the 700 years the Irish suffered under the English and struggled for their freedom and were let down by traitors in their efforts to achieve it": Have I omitted something in this?
-
Message 17
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 20th September 2011
There is nothing offensive about mentioning that England's unwelcome involvement in Irish affairs lasted 700 years or so. That is simply a fact. It is however very sloppy historical analysis if that's as far as the diagnosis of events brings the individual.
The point where bigots on both sides will always fail to meet is in the consideration of the term "unwelcome". The die-hard pro-British nationalistic standpoint either refuses to acknowledge this fact at all (inferring a mendacity on the part of the counter claimant) or uses it as "proof" of an ingratitude on the part of these unwilling subjects (inferring inferiority of character on the part of the counter claimant). The die-hard pro-Irish nationalistic standpoint either exaggerates this aspect to British rule (inferring also an inferiority of character on the part of the counter claimant) or uses it as justification for whatever the Irish may have inflicted in retaliation (inferring inferiority of worth and purpose on the part of the counter claimant).
The truth of the matter however is that Ireland, of all the "home" kingdoms which England once wished to include within its direct political control, was also the one which most often and most vociferously objected to that control being exercised - be that objection raised by nationalists, Catholic English settled in Ireland, republicans, radical Presbyterians, et al, or be it expressed in polite debate, civil protest or even insurrection. There was hardly a generation throughout that period that did not produce a form of opposition, though the character of the opposers and the opposition expressed fluctuated wildly over the years. Equally true is that the English/British response was equally varied and ranged widely from extreme brutality to quite altruistic endeavours, all of which have surviving legacies within the independent state to this day, some of which are even rightly cherished.
Like Catigern, I object to the term "suffering" as a description of the overriding condition of Irish people throughout the best part of a millennium, and especially if it is inferred that this was a condition unique to Irish people. That's just plain silly if it is not qualified with intelligent data, and when it is then the "suffering" is placed in a context which by far transcends bilateral political policies, however brutal some of them may have been. -
Message 18
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Tuesday, 20th September 2011
There is nothing offensive about mentioning that England's unwelcome involvement in Irish affairs lasted 700 years or so. That is simply a fact. It is however very sloppy historical analysis if that's as far as the diagnosis of events brings the individual.Ìý
That´s a good point Nordmann, because historical analysis refers more to the collective than to the individual.
The point where bigots on both sides will always fail to meet is in the consideration of the term "unwelcome".Ìý
No conquering force has ever been welcome to the natives and so the thread of the Anglo-Irish relationship through the centures starts at this very point and leads straight to
... (inferring a mendacity on the part of the counter claimant) or uses it as "proof" of an ingratitude on the part of these unwilling subjects (inferring inferiority of character on the part of the counter claimant). Ìý
Like Catigern, I object to the term "suffering" as a description of the overriding condition of Irish people throughout the best part of a millennium, and especially if it is inferred that this was a condition unique to Irish people. That's just plain silly if it is not qualified with intelligent data, and when it is then the "suffering" is placed in a context which by far transcends bilateral political policies, however brutal some of them may have been.Ìý
Depends on what you see as the best part of a millennium and how you consider the Irish in their majority though the past millennium.
I always understood the use of the term "suffering of the Irish people" in their majority as to be referred to the common Irish people. Those who had to struggle to gain the least for their own living from that bit of soil which was rent to them, those who worked on the estades of the English landowners, those who get less paid for their crops and meat they sold, those who were unemployed and emigrated either to the USA in the 19th and 20th Century, or who went to Great Britain to get work and a living, still unwelcome by the English, but good enough to work in their factories for they took up work for less wages than their English colleagues. These are the Irish people who suffered and not those who were better off under the English, arranging themselves to get the best conditions for themselves for which none of them is to blame (everybody has its own right to make his fortune). The depriviation of prospects to these suffering Irish people is the point that kept their hate towards the English alive.
When you´re speaking about inferiority I suggest that to also consider the attitude of the English in all these centuries and it is also a fact that, despite the changing policies of the English Crown / British government, they acted and they behaved as an superior power, because this is the simple nature of an imperial power, otherwise they´d lost their power and forthwith their Empire.
The intelligent datas you requier may be given by the amount of those Irish who were forced by the circumstances to leave Ireland for a foreign country. 43 Million people claim to be of Irish descendance in the USA (that is taken from Tim Pat Coogan´s book "Ireland in the 20th Century"). Those who went abroad, were lucky when they got the money to pay the ship fare and even more lucky when they arived there alive and passed Elis Island to enter the USA. These American-Irish, in Ireland sometimes mocked as "Plastic-Paddy", take pride in their ancestors and they see Irish history the way they were told by their parents nd grandparents who came from Ireland decades or hundred years ago.
If there hadn´t been any problems for the Irish in the USA, why else did they stick together in their Irish communities? Not necessarily mixing with the English or any other nation in this land of the free, where everybody is equal and has equal chances? Again more simple but they didn´t left their experiences behind in Ireland when they went off, they took them over there and ordinary people don´t cared much about politics, they cared more about the prospects they were promissed and the opportunities they can get. I´m not referring by this to the time after the great famin, but to the decades of the highest level of immigration to the USA on the turn of the 19th Century.
I know the other nationalities who went to the USA had and have also their own communities, nothing against that. It´s their choice and it helps the newcomers.
Your efforts to bring a balanced view about the Anglo-Irish history deserves admiration from my part, but I´m too much disillusioned that such an undertaking can be accomplished without assessing the accounts of both Irish and English. -
Message 19
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Tuesday, 20th September 2011
What the 'Oirish' fail to see sometimes is the overall context.
Yes, the British done some awful things in Ireland, but at a time when awful things were the norm.
Cromwell massacred a few thousand, but have they looked at what went on in the Continental wars of Religion at the same time? If the citizens of France, Hungary, etc, were to revolt against their King, (whether they thought he was their legal King or not) they suffered as much, and usually far more, than the Irish did at the hands of the dreaded Sassenach.
The British Government largely ignored the Famine, offering too little help, too late, but again what Government AT THAT TIME would have done any more, or was capable of organising it much better? The Black and Tans atrocities? - check out the Russian revolution around the same period! Check how those nice democratic American chaps handled the Phillipine revolt.
Even in the 1970s, the NI demonstrators chanted 'SS RUC' at the Police - had they any idea what the the real SS would have done to them in the same situation? Their bullets were NOT rubber, not their gas CS.
Exaggeration is the fuel of political bigots everywhere, but let's try not to confuse it with history! -
Message 20
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 20th September 2011
No conquering force has ever been welcome to the natives ...
Ìý
This implies a sudden violent invasion and takeover of an indigenous people by a foreign aggressor - and such has been the pattern in many cases where one country has conquered another.
But is that actually what happened in Ireland? And if you take, for example, three of the more notorious instances of England strengthening its grip on Ireland - the Norman invasion, the Tudor expansion and the Cromwellian campaigns - can you say in all honesty that the phrase "native Irish" represents the same people in all three time frames?
Unless you account for the fact that this was a protracted process played out over centuries involving shifting demographics, cultures, weltanschauungs and political imperatives on all sides then you are stuck with a cartoon version of events which fails to explain anything, either related to the history of events or an understanding of the situation that now prevails. -
Message 21
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 20th September 2011
What the 'Oirish' fail to see sometimes is the overall context.
Ìý
What is the "Oirish" ? -
Message 22
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 20th September 2011
At the level of the individual, I looked again at a book that I bought back in the Sixties written by an author called Brian Connelly- It was based upon the private papers of Lord Palmerston's father who came into his title in the early 1760's as quite a young man..
The Palmerstons took that title from estates in Ireland. and Mr Connelly observes that the Second Viscount Palmerston performance as a landlord was no better than the circumstances of being an absentee landlord permitted.. And it is pretty clear from the entries from the estate book that many of these failings were in not protecting the poor under-tenants who were sub-let small plots by his own tenants, and were exploited by them- as in the case of one of his sub-tenants who persuaded his own tenants to build a road to some docks at their own expense and then made them pay for using it.
And it is also obvious [to me at least] that his chief agent in Ireland really took advantage of the long gaps between Palmerston's visits to basically have a free hand confident that he was never going to be called to account, which he was not- taking to his bed as too ill etc when Palmerston let him know that he had arrived in Dublin on a brief visit to go over the books.. I have recounted before on the MB the dramatic climax that ruled business out before Palmerston had to return to England.
As I used to say to coleagues who fancied no go areas for law and order in parts of Central Lambeth-- there are only one kind of people who are ultimately served by the failure of law and order, and I think that it is well-established that one of the ongoing challenges to the "peace process" is that "the troubles" have so often been exploited opportunistically by those who are reluctant to give up various forms of criminal and uncivil activity.
And of course the absent English landowner was a convenient person on whom to pass the blame- because he was not around to prove otherwise.. As a teacher I often had pupils raising the fearsome prospect of what their parents might do to me, which usually subsided very quickly when I suggested going and phoning them that minute.
Cass -
Message 23
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Tuesday, 20th September 2011
But is that actually what happened in Ireland? And if you take, for example, three of the more notorious instances of England strengthening its grip on Ireland - the Norman invasion, the Tudor expansion and the Cromwellian campaigns - can you say in all honesty that the phrase "native Irish" represents the same people in all three time frames?Ìý
Not suddenly, but as you said, in more attempts until they succeeded, Nordmann.
Of course the Irish people have changed through the generations like in every other nation too. There must had been some undieing desire for Ireland to get it because otherwise it doesn´t makes sense to all the efforts taken by the English to get it. This desires may be of various reasons according to the three time frames you´ve mentioned.
I admit that it wasn´t always without some advantages the Irish got in the aftermath, but the question should be allowed to ask whether these hadn´t been achieved without invasion as well?
Unless you account for the fact that this was a protracted process played out over centuries involving shifting demographics, cultures, weltanschauungs and political imperatives on all sidesÌý
I do.
then you are stuck with a cartoon version of events which fails to explain anythingÌý
I don´t think I´m on such a track.
an understanding of the situation that now prevailsÌý
I think I understand what prevails, but I´m also (ocassionally) go to read some pages of the Â鶹ԼÅÄ NI, related to some news and read the comments of the people there when they use the "have your say" page to the topic. This gives one an impression about this prevailing thing is developing. More disillusioning I think.
A short example which I´d like to tell you from that. In April an PSNI officer was killed by a car bomb, when he was to take his car to get to work, parked in front of his home. That officer was from the Catholic community and the incident was condemned by all sides, politicians, priests, the public and the GAA which he was a member of too. It was stated that this man was killed just because he was a Catholic serving in the PSNI, the bomb was placed under his car by a split group of the PIRA. I think that they caught the perpetrators some months afterwards. On the comments to that incident, you´ve had the "opportunity" to read the usual pros and cons about Republicans / Unionists and so on. The difference which I noticed was, that there were more comments condemning this incident and to plead for peace, not going back to the old dark days. A step foreward I think and then in July, you see in the news some rioters again, like in these by gone days.
They have a long road ahead to go, but I hope for them that they will manage it and once upon in a time, they live together in peace and talk about such grievious events as history.
PS:
You´ve raised one term in your question about the "native Irish". That´s a point of Irish identity I´ve often asked on these boards more in relation to the people in NI on the Unionist side, but no-one is going to answer that. -
Message 24
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Tuesday, 20th September 2011
giraffe47:
Even in the 1970s, the NI demonstrators chanted 'SS RUC' at the Police - had they any idea what the the real SS would have done to them in the same situation? Their bullets were NOT rubber, not their gas CS.Ìý
Must have had something to do with the black uniforms the RUC had (and the PSNI still has).
Exaggeration is the fuel of political bigots everywhere, but let's try not to confuse it with history!Ìý
What is downplaying then in this regard ("Cromwell massacred a few thousand, ...)?
The British Government largely ignored the Famine, offering too little help, too late, but again what Government AT THAT TIME would have done any more, or was capable of organising it much better?Ìý
What had you done at that time in their place when potatoes were the only one nurishment you´ve got and they were all rotten, so nothing to eat for yourself and your family? The largest Empire at that time, but not capable to get a gripp on a hunger problem in the nearest of its countries (even part of its own United Kingdom). The answer might be somewhere in a biography about Queen Victoria or a book about her reign.
If the citizens of France, Hungary, etc, were to revolt against their King, (whether they thought he was their legal King or not) they suffered as much, and usually far more, than the Irish did at the hands of the dreaded Sassenach.Ìý
Neither the French, nor any other nation on the European continent cared for what the Irish went through, they had their own trubles, so why should the Irish care about them?
Yes, the British done some awful things in Ireland, but at a time when awful things were the norm.Ìý
Who was setting up the norm in Ireland? -
Message 25
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Tuesday, 20th September 2011
Must have had something to do with the black uniforms the RUC had (and the PSNI still has).Ìý
Actually, RUC uniforms were 'Rifle Green', adopted (along with some peculiarities of drill) from the Light Infantry who trained them.
-
Message 26
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Tuesday, 20th September 2011
Historical remarks are just offensive to those who take offence and you as an Englishman are naturally doing so, because it doesn´t gives one comfort being remembered to face the darker side of one countries history in regards of its foreign relations / colonial behaviour.Ìý
Not at all: I object to 'we suffered' because use of the first person is inappropriate when describing the experiences of other, long-dead generations; I object to '700 years struggle' because it's grossly historically inaccurate; I object to 'traitors' because it is such a ridiculously subjective term.
Again, please "remember the 700 years the Irish suffered under the English and struggled for their freedom and were let down by traitors in their efforts to achieve it": Have I omitted something in this?Ìý
Yes, you have omitted, eg, Irish rebels' attempts at 'ethnic cleansing', Irish invasion of the mainland and the attrocities that resulted, Irish attempts to place an absolutist monarchy in power in London... -
Message 27
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 20th September 2011
Thomas
I have never seen it suggested that during the Irish Famines the Westminster Government should have treated the island of Ireland as it did the famine hit areas of the North of England that is by deploying an army- as was the case with General Napier and his unit that included cannon. Perhaps Nordmann will tell me that they did.
Did they really want that kind of government?
Did they want to develop a rural money- making- economy in Ireland as was suggested by some commercial farmers at the Union so that Ireland too like England, but unlike Scotland, would have poor rates levied on local land values that could support the poor in times of need-- which in those days were still usually local or regional and best dealt with by local comunities?
None of this would have been easy.. And the peace process has not been easy. Life is not easy and rarely has been for most people for most of the time.
Organised famine relief was developed as feature of the late Victorian British Raj in India where a peasant society living with a tradition of sub-division of plots- and thus constantly families living really at the margins- was extemely vulnerable to famines that killed millions of people. The British introduced a compulsory Famine Relief Fund that developed methods of tackling these as best as they could- though the Bengal Famine in 1943 was reckonned a real disgrace to all involved from whom some compassion might have been expected... But in order to have this "British quality" government the Indian peasant paid a 40% land tax on his produce..
Western Governments still cost nearly 40% of GDP.. probably more in these debt laden times.
Vince Cable in a speech yesterday echoed something that T.B. Macaulay said in a speech in 1842- and Nick Fitton leader of the BNP said as a serious policy proposal in the last GE- that some people think that there is some infinite pot of money somewhere so that governments can just help people irrespective of "ability to pay"...
As Greece and now Italy are finding assessments of the public ability to pay for the Government's help is a vital factor in raising international credit .
Cass -
Message 28
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Wednesday, 21st September 2011
In reply to Catigern:
Actually, RUC uniforms were 'Rifle Green', adopted (along with some peculiarities of drill) from the Light Infantry who trained themÌý
Right, I´ve never heard of such a colour therefore checked this and indeed it can be seen that way, but it´s a very dark green and from a far distance, it also can be seen as black. -
Message 29
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Wednesday, 21st September 2011
In reply to Catigern:
Yes, you have omitted, eg, Irish rebels' attempts at 'ethnic cleansing' ...Ìý
Same can be said towards the Orangemen e. g. "ethnic cleansing".
There is a link to an Â鶹ԼÅÄ article about some part of the last 40 years in NI:
Just to quote some extract from that article:
Mr McDonald is the leader of an organisation which murdered hundreds of people during the Northern Ireland Troubles.
However during the peace process, he has been a regular visitor to Aras an Uachtarain, the home of the president and her husband.
Since announcing his candidacy, Mr McGuinness has faced calls on both sides of the border for him to make more admissions abut his role in the IRA.
Speaking to the Good Morning Ulster programme, Mr McDonald said that, while he understood well the concerns of victims, such demands were misguided and it would be impractical for Mr McGuinness to "tell the truth" in isolation.
He added: "If they are talking about telling the truth, will the British government tell the truth? Will everybody tell the truth?
"He's isolated himself by nominating himself for president but in the overall picture, if we talk about truth, we have to talk about everybody telling the truth, not bits and pieces of the truth.
"I am not so much interested in what he did - there will be people more concerned about his past or his present or his future, but I would rather Martin McGuinness be doing what he is doing now."Ìý
So much for telling the real history, without blinkers and these questions were rightly asked. So what´s the basis that makes you so sure that your opinions are the ones that come closer to the truth? -
Message 30
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Thursday, 22nd September 2011
Thomas, you sidestep my points like a ballet dancer!
The 'SS RUC' chants were nothing to do with the colour of their uniforms - they were all about extremists inciting fear and hatred of the Police in the young people, who knew little of the SS or it's methods.
I am not downplaying Cromwell killing thousands, merely pointing out that he was no worse than many of his contemporaries on the continent at the time. The events and slaughter, starvation, etc, of the 30 years war in Germany would make old Ironsides look like a Pussycat. Those were the norm in continental warfare at that time, (not 'set' by anyone - barbarity ruled), but we look back on Cromwell and demonise him, for doing what many commanders of his day would have done, or worse.
What would I have done when the spuds failed? No doubt what my ancestors did - go hungry, and fight for survival as best they could. There was no organisation, no precedent, no will, no anything to cope with the Irish Famine the way there is now - many ordinary English folk did send aid, and did their best, but it would have required a change of mindset and a whole new way of looking at the poor by the Government to do much different. Maybe Ireland's problem was a start in creating the attitude to famine that we have today.
I am not suggesting that the Irish should care about the troubles of the French, or Hungarians - all I am saying is that most minorities in most empires have suffered far worse persecutions that the Irish did at the hands of England, yet we persist in claiming to be unique in our suffering.
Ireland is not unique - live with it! -
Message 31
Posted by Thomas (U14985443) on Thursday, 22nd September 2011
giraffe47
Thomas, you sidestep my points like a ballet dancer!Ìý
This is giving me some strange imagination
The 'SS RUC' chants were nothing to do with the colour of their uniforms - they were all about extremists inciting fear and hatred of the Police in the young people, who knew little of the SS or it's methods.Ìý
To know little doesn´t mean to know nothing and as NI is part of the UK, according to the never ending screening of WWII documentaries and films, I doubt that they knew little of the SS "and" it´s methods.
I also don´t think that Oliver Cromwell is demonised, because he was one of the most "determined" leaders of the century in which he lived and he hold strong on his convictions, if not to say strictly. He is also seen as the man who prevailed his ideas which became the set up of the modern constitutional monarchy in England and later Britain. But this is not the point of this thread. He was also a man of "faith" and for this he is also known in history. You can trace this back in his family back to Thomas Cromwell who served King Henry VIII and everybody knows where he ended up.
To draw the line from the 30 years war from 1618 to 1648 might be a point in referring to the religious wars in the 17th Century, but this 30 years war was a European war but Cromwell´s campaigne was later. That means, that he or the people then didn´t put into account what it means to make a country devastated. Germany after the 30 years war was, as you said, the best example.
It´s easy to say to have done the same as the ancestors did and go hungry if one has not to take up that experience. It is also not necessarily the point that the Irish blamed the British for the Famine, because the rotting of the spuds were not their fault. The British got the blame because they left the Irish peasants no alternative to grow substitude crops on their land. What I´ve read recently was that if the peasant improved the crops on the land, the landlord demanded him to pay more for the use of land. So which way round the peasant did, there was no way out of getting better for himself.
Maybe the Famine taught the British a lesson to re-think the situations of the poor in the whole UK, but I also think that without some initiative from Prince Albert, Queen Victoria had been left to the advice of her PMs on this matter. The workhouses were not the best solutions for the poor, but maybe a start for further developments and at least to have some shelter.
... all I am saying is that most minorities in most empires have suffered far worse persecutions that the Irish did at the hands of England,...Ìý
I thought that the minority in Ireland were the English who ruled over the majority of the Irish. That´s quite the other way round as what you say in regards to the treatment of native people by the English in their colonies.
Ireland is not unique - live with it!Ìý
Ireland is unique as it is every country and every nation and no, I won´t live with your opinion but I take note of it. -
Message 32
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 22nd September 2011
Actually Oliver Cromwell was demonised in England until the Scots writer Thomas Carlyle began the personal journey that made him end up as a proto-fascist, his biography of Frederick the Great being one of the books that Hitler had in his Berlin bunker.
In the 1840's Carlyle started a whole new vogue of hero-worship arguing that the times called for Hard Men able to enforce their authority.. He selected Oliver Cromwell as an English hero of republicanism and miltary rule, whereas his reputation in England had been as a chief regicide and the person who overthrew Parliamentary rule and set up the Rule of the Major Generals placing his control over the New Model Army (England's first properly professional one) above his duties as an MP.
After the Second World War, when a second heroic Churchill had changed the destiny of Britain and Europe by military means, G.M. Trevelyan gave a talk on the Â鶹ԼÅÄ justifying the idea of placing a statue of Cromwell near the Houses of Parliament- as someone who had been a great leader of the Parliamentarians against the King. Perhaps people should have realised the new kind of "Rule of the Major Generals" that the UK was in for with the Welfare State etc. The finally the Rule of the Elect and the Saints.
Cass -
Message 33
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Thursday, 22nd September 2011
Catigern Message 6
I know full well that my experience of Ireland and its more recent history is at odds with the Republican view but I have long accepted that difference comes from the Irish Catholics in my background being Unionists who quit Ireland because they did not like to reside in the same country as de Valera and his gunmen. This never stopped them from observing their religion and being Irish.
In turn this never stopped me as a British Protestant from utterly condemning the vile behaviour associated with the perpetuation of the Protestant Ascendancy in the Six Counties which I came to confront as a young man at the time of Civll Rights because many of my mates were London Irish with families along the Border. I was at the time more aware of my Scots origin than the Irish origin that lay further in the background. I will never forget the enormous kindness of Irish people in those days who made me welcome despite their grinding poverty because as a human being I simply took their side.
I can accept that there are many aspects to history. I have resolved never to get into an argument with an Irishman over Irish history as he will know it better than me but this does not stop me from pointing out to anyone when they get their behaviour badly wrong. But the thing that unites us is the recognition that we are all sinners and I thank Gerry Adams for that useful observation which strangely helped me enormously at the time he made it.
I can advise that the RUC-SS chant came directly from Les Evenments in Paris in 1968. There the chant CRS-SS really got the French riot police seriously uptight as no Frenchman in those days wanted to remember the Occupation. Le Chagrin et La Pitie did not come out until later. We took the SS slogan to Belfast but it missed its point for the obvious reason the Orangies fought against the Nazis in WW2 when many Republicans could not.
I have taken great satisfaction in reminding both rabid Ulster Unionists and Irish Republicans that my father's Irish cousin was killed fighting the enemies of humanity wearing the uniform of his King and carrying a commission from his King. Yet this does not stop me from appreciating the great ability and skill of Michael Collins who dragged the Irish into a necessary independence.
The historical relationship between Britain and Ireland could have been managed so much better as the two peoples have more in common than even they think.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.