History Hub permalink
The Great Irish History Swindle!
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by Harpo (U14643022) on Tuesday, 20th September 2011
Why did the Irish repeatedly attempt to rid Ireland of English/British rule? What was different about Ireland and the Irish that set them apart from Scotland and Wales?
It is being argued by some on other threads that republican/nationalist movements have mythologized Irish history, skewing it into a caricature of the truth, twisting the facts and playing up the suffering of the Irish people in an effort to justify the drive for independence. The case being offered seems to be that the Irish were not justified in seeking independence, that their suffering was essentially no different from that experienced by people elsewhere and that there was nothing untoward or exceptional about the behaviour of the English/British government in dealing with the Irish; that republicans and nationalists have retrospectively used modern standards and sensibilities in their analysis of the history of Anglo-Irish affairs; and/or that the problems of the Irish are really of their own making and therefore their own fault.
This begs a fundamental question, the answer to which gives the lie to these spurious arguments: why did Ireland have republican/nationalist movements in the first place? If Ireland under the Empire was essentially no different to other places like Scotland and Wales why did a false interpretation of history lead to independence? Why did the greatest power on earth capitulate to those who were supposedly maligning it dishonestly and who were espousing a caricature of history?
Why did Irish people buy into their lies and misrepresentations? In every generation the Irish resisted English/British rule by various means, including armed rebellion. Were all their sacrifices and sufferings for a lie? -
Message 2
Posted by VoiceOfReason (U14405333) on Tuesday, 20th September 2011
I think you are not very well versed in British/Irish history
-
Message 3
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 20th September 2011
What was different about Ireland and the Irish that set them apart from Scotland and Wales?
Wales was incorporated into the Kingdom of England and sent MPs to Parliament at Westminster. Ireland on the other hand was ruled as a Lordship by the Norman rulers of England and later as a separate Kingdom by the Tudors. But Ireland was never incorporated into the Kingdom of England. Even Calais sent MPs to Westminster while Ireland didn't.
Scotland negotiated a Treaty of Union with England in 1707 creating Great Britain. There was no such treaty, however, in 1800. The twin acts were virtually identical* and the text of the Irish Act was presented to the Irish Parliament by the Chief Secretary Lord Castlereagh on a take-it-or-leave it basis. And it was indeed duly rejected by the Irish Parliament in 1799. With shades of the EU's Nice Treaty farce in 2001, however, it was hurriedly resumitted to a second vote the following year accompanied by no short measure of bribery, brow-beating and arm-twisting until the 'correct' result was achieved.
*The introductory text to the Dublin Act read:
'The parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland have resolved to concur in measures for uniting the two kingdoms'
while the introductory text to the Westminster Act read:
'The parliaments of England and Ireland have agreed upon the articles following'
Spot the crucial difference? -
Message 4
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Tuesday, 20th September 2011
The problem with the OP is that it bases the questions it raises on certain false premises that are prime examples of the mythologising of Irish history. Eg:
Why did the Irish repeatedly attempt to rid Ireland of English/British rule?
and...
In every generation the Irish resisted English/British rule by various means, including armed rebellion.
Looking at the seventeenth century, eg, about which the Irish whinge so much, we find that thousands of Irishmen both invaded the mainland, in order to prop up Charles I, and fought for James II, not in return for any promise of independence, but in order to establish Catholic/absolutist supremacy throughout the British Isles.
The OP is also highly selective in that it ignores the evidence for Irish loyalty (if not loyalism) and contentment, opting instead for a tired and inaccurate image of an Irish nation that spent hundreds of years constantly seething with discontent at British/Irish rule. It would be interesting if we were able to look at the total figures for any given year of Irishmen fighting against the crown and Irishmen fighting for the crown, particularly, eg, 1798 and 1914-18...
Irish enthusiasm for the Boer War, and for early 20th century royal visits also don't seem to have registered with those who see 1918-22 as the climax of 700 years of struggle against the Evil Mainlanders.
All is not lost, however! Harpo has, this time, at least had the sense to refer to long-dead irishmen in the third person, rather than the first. Let us show characteristic British generosity towards the Irish malcontent and congratulate him on this small, but worthwhile, improvement in his historical understanding.
-
Message 5
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 20th September 2011
A few months ago I watched a "transAtlantic session" which featured James Taylor playing with an Irish folk group.. I was struck for the first time not by how Irish the instruments were but the striking continuity with the instruments employed both in Ireland in the Muslim area of Spain.. Many of these were seamen's instruments and it raises questions about whether the Iberians who according to local legend had been sailing to North America to fish Cape Cod a long time before Columbus also got to Ireland.. A few years ago a book was published putting forward the thesis that Muslim slave ships had plagued the South West of England for centuries.
Along with recent posts on the Romans and their involvement in the Celtic mining industries and the possible connections between industrial Cornwall and South Wales and agricultural Ireland, it raises up the prospect that the survival of Christianity in Ireland during the Dark Ages may owe as much to the possibility of Ireland maintaining at least some tenouos links down to those Southern waters when the Barbarians made travel by land and by the narrow seas impossible.
For -if we think only of the two kingdoms of Scotland and Ireland - it seems most likely that Scotland was more closely tied to the Baltic economic system and Scandinavia. and politically to France. The Scots who agreed to Union only did so when Marlborough's victory at Blenheim changed the history of Europe. France would never rule the whole continent.
When they were having another "go" Ireland jumped on the bandwagon in 1798. But perhaps Ireland's religious attachment to Roman Catholicism reflected a greater affinity to Spain than France. Is there an Irish word for "guerrilla" fighter? For in a way the armed struggle has often shown continuities with that Spanish form of fighting.
For though France supported (as Catigern has said) Irish attempts to put absolutist kings on the throne of England, France was far from being a champion of the Papacy or of the Counter-Reformation. The King of France had been Head of the Church since about 1438- 100 years before the Henrician Reformation.
Cass -
Message 6
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Tuesday, 20th September 2011
For -if we think only of the two kingdoms of Scotland and Ireland - it seems most likely that Scotland was more closely tied to the Baltic economic system and Scandinavia.
Rather than England?
and politically to France.
Not since the Scottish Reformation!
The Scots who agreed to Union only did so when Marlborough's victory at Blenheim changed the history of Europe. France would never rule the whole continent.
Hardly a case of causality. Eg, in 1703, the year before Blenheim, the Scottish Parliament passed the bill that would become the 1704 Act of Security. While sometimes carefully edited to make it seem like an anti-Union statement, the full Bill was actually something of a blueprint for the Union of 1707... -
Message 7
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Wednesday, 21st September 2011
The problem with the OP is that it bases the questions it raises on certain false premises that are prime examples of the mythologising of Irish history ...
All is not lost, however! Harpo has, this time, at least had the sense to refer to long-dead irishmen in the third person, rather than the first. Let us show characteristic British generosity towards the Irish malcontent and congratulate him on this small, but worthwhile, improvement in his historical understanding
How good that there isn´t the slightest mythologising of English history and how remarkable that you show us again your typical arrogance towards other posters on here to underline the clichè of the "English", Catigern.
"Well done"! -
Message 8
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Wednesday, 21st September 2011
Thank you very much for that post, Vizzer.
-
Message 9
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 21st September 2011
Catigern
Well for the foresighted the failure of the Darrien Scheme when the English backers pulled out after the Scots had acted as privateers seizing an English merchant ship and hanging its Captain because there was a state of war with France- did show that Scotland's economic future was going to be inextricably linked with English finance.. But Trevelyans account of Scotland on the eve of the Union suggests very little really developed economic activity: And the economic impact of union with England only really started to manifest itself after 1745.
But of course within England itself the ties between the Humber and the Baltic that made Hull the second city in England during the seventeenth century (hence Charles I's retreat to Hull from London) was related to a Yorkshire sense of a certain independence from "England"
And no doubt those who looked at the fundamentals of the war would have looked at the events of 1688-70- [PS. Economic considerations until the "English" built the military roads up to Fort William coming by ship from across the North Sea was probably just as convenient as from England- and the goods may well have been cheaper] - and foreseen that, now that England had the Bank of England as well, it was always going to be able to gather Grand Alliances that would defeat the ambitions of France.
And the Scots like the Irish were famous for the gift of second sight.
Cass -
Message 10
Posted by Harpo (U14643022) on Wednesday, 21st September 2011
Glencairn99
I think you are not very well versed in British/Irish history
Is that response meant to further discussion of this issue, or are you just being personal? -
Message 11
Posted by Harpo (U14643022) on Wednesday, 21st September 2011
Vizzer
Other than knowing that England does not equal Great Britain I am failing to grasp your point here.
Regarding the Irish Parliament’s rejection of the proposed Act of Union legislation in 1799, it should be understood that that Dublin parliament was not representative of the Irish people but spoke for a Protestant oligarchy that ruled the country. In fact, that is precisely why the Westminster government could so readily and effectively overturn their initial decision. As you said, they simply bribed the opposition with money, preferment and titles.
The overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland were not asked their views. They were Catholics and Non-Conformists. The Catholics were promised emancipation if the union was effected but this promise was not delivered and had to be extracted a generation later. -
Message 12
Posted by Harpo (U14643022) on Wednesday, 21st September 2011
Catigern
<quote>The problem with the OP is that it bases the questions it raises on certain false premises that are prime examples of the mythologising of Irish history. Eg: “Why did the Irish repeatedly attempt to rid Ireland of English/British rule?” and “In every generation the Irish resisted English/British rule by various means, including armed rebellion.”</quote>
The fact remains that the Irish people did oppose English/British rule. Are you claiming that they did not? If it is the case that they did not then why was English/British rule characterized by repression and coercion for the most part and frequently by the necessity to exercise military force.
<quote>The OP is also highly selective in that it ignores the evidence for Irish loyalty (if not loyalism) and contentment, opting instead for a tired and inaccurate image of an Irish nation that spent hundreds of years constantly seething with discontent at British/Irish rule.</quote>
What loyalty? Are you referring to their loyalty to their conscience in religious practice, their wish to remain Roman Catholics? That was the position of the overwhelming majority of Irish people throughout the centuries. Have you evidence to the contrary? Maybe you are referring to the so-called loyalty of certain sections of Irish society who were always loyal to their own self-interest at the expense of the majority of the people? Or is it to the so-called loyalty of those who illegally and undemocratically armed themselves in opposition to the decision of parliament to grant 鶹Լ Rule to Ireland?
<quote>It would be interesting if we were able to look at the total figures for any given year of Irishmen fighting against the crown and Irishmen fighting for the crown<quote>
You would probably find more fought for the crown. But did they fight out of loyalty or necessity. I would suggest that they had taken the ‘King’s Shilling’ more out of economic necessity than conviction.
<quote> Let us show characteristic British generosity towards the Irish malcontent and congratulate him on this small, but worthwhile, improvement in his historical understanding.</quote>
I shall leave judgement of your ad hominem comments to others. I make it a policy of mine to always address the issue and not the man. I believe that to be a professional standard that ought to be maintained by any academic with integrity. -
Message 13
Posted by Harpo (U14643022) on Wednesday, 21st September 2011
Cass
the striking continuity with the instruments employed both in Ireland in the Muslim area of Spain
Such instruments are played all along the Atlantic seaboard of Europe and Iberians have been coming to Ireland for millennia, long before Mohammed was a twinkle in his father’s eye. This is supported by archaeology and other disciplines. The same comments could be made of Brittany, southern England, Wales and western Scotland.
the prospect that the survival of Christianity in Ireland during the Dark Ages may owe as much to the possibility of Ireland maintaining at least some tenuous links down to those Southern waters when the Barbarians made travel by land and by the narrow seas impossible.
Christianity survived in Ireland because it was never extinguished by pagan ‘barbarians’. Are you saying that if it was not for these tenuous links with southern Europe Christianity would have been lost in Ireland? These limks were mainly with France. As far as I know, there are no known direct Christian links between Ireland and Spain in the Roman or post-Roman period.
When they were having another "go" Ireland jumped on the bandwagon in 1798.
What band-wagon was that? Republicanism?
perhaps Ireland's religious attachment to Roman Catholicism reflected a greater affinity to Spain than France. Is there an Irish word for "guerrilla" fighter? For in a way the armed struggle has often shown continuities with that Spanish form of fighting.
The Irish word for a guerrilla fighter is a ‘tory’! When people are driven off their land because essentially their religion and ethnicity are of the wrong kind they become pretty determined ‘guerrillas’. What would you do if you were dispossessed of your land and your dispossessors were better organised, better trained and better equipped than you? -
Message 14
Posted by Harpo (U14643022) on Wednesday, 21st September 2011
Thomas,
How good that there isn´t the slightest mythologising of English history
Too true! I have tried to point this out before where certain posters are concerned. Mythologising is part of the popularisation of history and is part of every 'national' history. -
Message 15
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 21st September 2011
Harpo
Thank you for you post
(a) Thankyou for confirming my suggestion.. of course Islam took over the thriving Arab culture that went all along North Africa and up the Atlantic seaboard.. And as I say the Carleon and Camarthen Bay posts have stressed the importance of "the West" and its minerals in the Mediterranean world in Ancient times.
(b) Regarding Celtic Christianity and the Dark Ages I was intrigued by the particular nature of the Christianity that emerged among the Visigoths when they were converted.. According to the Medieval History that I read recently the Church in Iberia from the first exercised more secular authority than elsewhere and was less inclined to take orders from the Papacy, when it started to emerge as the force that it became.. It seemed to me possible that this too reflected some aspects that Ireland and Iberia had in common.
(c) Well the tricolour for a start..but as part of a European Revolution that would overthrow the old order. General Bonaparte had written to the French Foreign Minister "Our Government must destroy the English monarchy , or expect itself to be desroyed by those intriguing and eneterprising islanders". France had 50,000 veterans of the Italian campaign, and Wolfe Tone suggested to the French Directory that the best place to attack Great Britain was at its weakest point Ireland.
(d) Did I criticise "guerrillas"? As far as I am aware the Spanish guerrillas who were on the same side as the British against Napoleon were treated as valuable and honourable warriors. .. But it may also be the case that a rough and difficult, economically underdeveloped region was more appropriate for guerrilla warfare than some others.. This was the case in Iberia during the Moorish conquests and the later Napoleonic ones.
But the poverty of Imuch of Ireland was a real problem for any hope that Napoleon and France would liberate Ireland from the English monarchy.. The French could loot Italy and other places in Europe in order to fund the liberation of the common man, but Ireland had not much to loot. The French officers captured in Ireland complained to the English that the Irish had lined up to receive equipment like military uniforms, gone away and buried them , and come back to get some more pretending that they had never been given any.. Perhaps all lies.. But I think that the poverty of the Irish common people is an establshed fact.
Cass -
Message 16
Posted by VoiceOfReason (U14405333) on Wednesday, 21st September 2011
Glencairn99
I think you are not very well versed in British/Irish history
Is that response meant to further discussion of this issue, or are you just being personal?
Scotland wasn't under English rule or part of an English Empire
The Scots and Welsh fought against English colonial ambitions
Your OP isn't really valid
Not a personal attack at all -
Message 17
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 21st September 2011
Other than knowing that England does not equal Great Britain I am failing to grasp your point here.
The point is that the act of union which was nodded through Westminster in 1800 was obviously not subjected to any serious degree of scrutiny - hence the clanger in referring to the Parliament of Great Britain as 'the parliament of England' right at the beginning of the document. The British MPs most probably viewed the bill as just another boring 'government of Ireland' type piece of legislation - yawn - what's for supper?
Not so with regard the 'twin' act presented to the Irish Parliament. At least Castlereagh and Cornwallis etc attempted some degree of legal accuracy with the wording of that document and obviously took the matter a lot more seriously than did their counterparts in Westminster.
The inaccuracy in the wording of the (Westminster) Act of Union 1800 could quite possibly invalidate the whole exercise. But - shh - don't tell the UK unionists that.
As an aside - but interestingly - the (English language) text of New Zealand's Treaty of Waitangi 1840 is also erroneous in this way. In the pre-amble it refers to Queen Victoria as 'Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' but then in Article 1 it refers to her as 'the Queen of England' even though the Kingdom of England had ceased to exist for over 130 years by that time. The Maori language text is at least consistent in its usage but refers to Victoria as 'Kuini o Ingarani' (Queen of England) throughout rather than as 'Kuini o Piritana Nui o Aerana' (Queen of Great Britain and Ireland). Is this perhaps another example of an important historical document which is also potentially invalidated by casual 'English/British' conflation?
The overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland were not asked their views.
True. Although exactly the same could also be said about the people of Great Britain in 1800 and also about the people of Scotland in 1707 and also about the people of England in 1707. -
Message 18
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Wednesday, 21st September 2011
Shows that NZers never have cared about the difference between Great Britain and England, Vizzer! Let's face it, England have always been the dominant 'partner' in any of these treaties/agreements. Comes from having the main seat of Parliament in Westminster, I suppose.
But I didn't come here to talk about this really. I came to take up the point of Irish fighting for the British crown. I think people often become soldiers when there is a lack of other options and a community of people becoming soldiers sometimes at least shows poverty in that area. (Witness black American numbers in their USA army.)
Recent books I have read seem to point this out with regard to the Irish. The Surgeon of Crowthorne talks of William Minor working for the US army and specifically says that many of the Irish in the US army were 'practicing' for fighting against the English back in Ireland, and were sometimes branded in America to make that difficult for them.
I am reading a book on settlers to NZ, and one passage says, "Some of those [Irish ex-soldiers] were men who were discharged from British regiments brought to New Zealand in 1845 -46. Over half of the soldiers given release in New Zealand during these years were Irish. Others came with the Royal NZ Fencibles, the majority of whom were Irish, * who were settled with their wives and children to provide protection for the area south of Auckland in 1847...There is a striking spike in Irish representation in the
mid-1840s. Over a third of those from our sample of Auckland death
registers in that decade were Irish-born." The Fencibles seem to have
been a 'just-in-case' sort of soldiery. It also says that in the 1869s 56.8% of the discharged soldiers were Irish by birth. I don't know whether people were discharged from the army because of their own wishes (which might suggest they have been in the army specifically to get out of Ireland and into another country) or whether they were forced out by the army when it no longer needed them.
* The majority of people coming to NZ generally were not Irish - Irish people made up about a quarter of the population.
Cheers, Caro (and apologies - though of the nature 'I'm sorry I offended you' more than 'I'm sorry I used it') - to Vizzer for any loose language here) -
Message 19
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 21st September 2011
Caro
Those dates would seem to correspond to a point that came up first when Thomas mentioned an Irish RC who achived major status in Malta..
And I checked in the Oxford History which said that with RC emancipation there were new opportunities for RC in various British government positions..
Around 1834-5 there was a major trade/economic slump in Britain that greatly reduced the employment opportunities for all workers- especially the Irish in Lancashire.. It sounds like many enlisted. After all Daniel O'Connell was suggesting a two realms and two Parliaments approach, saying often enough that he had no problem with Victoria being Queen of Ireland..
The military oath (Catigern may correct me) was to the monarch and not to the country or nation- and republicanism had not become so central to Irish aspirations.
Cass -
Message 20
Posted by Thomas (U14985443) on Thursday, 22nd September 2011
Harpo
Too true! I have tried to point this out before where certain posters are concerned. Mythologising is part of the popularisation of history and is part of every 'national' history.
I know about the ordeal you´ve undergone as well as I´ve had my try for various times. It´s sometimes quite hopeless.
In former times, I used to read books from the period of the historical topic I was interested at the time. There you find the "plain language" of that time and the mythologising of the past. It was then, not as in our times, very unpopular to write some "unpatriotic" books and get published. I don´t mean the political books and manifestos, I mean some books about outstanding characters of one nation, may they still be alive or dead since decades or centuries.
There was, in the 19th Century, a "pamphlet" called "Punsh". In this the Irish were described as some sort of "Apes". Aside from the point that such pamphlets rather served some kind of satyr, even some "well known" historians like Trevelyan joined this kind of view upon the Irish and also expressed it in their opinions occasionally. Even when and by considering the spirit of that time, it find it plain offensive and disgusting to paint humans in that way, because they did have their effects on the common people outside Ireland.
To be fair in some ways, there were also some pictures of "John Bull" representing the "British character" as an caricature, but I´ve got the impression that the British were rather proud of that picture. It´s not so much about the picture itself, it´s about the message that sticks on that and has also been delivered, even without comments. -
Message 21
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 22nd September 2011
Thomas
I am intrigued by your mention of Trevelyan .. for he did know Ireland..
His father George Otto Trevelyan agreed to become Secretary for Ireland (if that was the correct title) when a friend of his who had held the post was assassinated.
So G.M., as younger than his brothers who were away at boarding school, spent much of his childood in the great house at Phoenix Park guarded by a huge Irish security officer named Dunn who was his companion.
GM' father was a great friend and supporter of Italian Nationalism and had gone to fight there as a young man, and GM recalls that a great family tradition was re-enacting great battles of History with masses of lead soldiers.. In his fragment of autobiography he explains that Mr Dunn taught him that there was "another view" of the Battle of the Boyne..
And as a young historian Trevelyans first great work followed his father's passion for Italian Nationalism for it was a very detailed study of Garibaldi.
Perhaps some of this sympathy for such struggles came from the fact that the family had survived almost two centuries of disadvantage due to their status as nonconformists.
Cass -
Message 22
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 22nd September 2011
PS
From the house grounds in Phoenix Park one of GMT's childhood entertainments was to watch the army trainind and carrying out maeouvres in the more extensive and wilder part of the Park.. And I suppose as a child, living with the need to have a personal security officer, all the time would leave its mark.
Cass -
Message 23
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Thursday, 22nd September 2011
The fact remains that the Irish people did oppose English/British rule. Are you claiming that they did not?
No, the fact is that *some* Irish people *sometimes* opposed British rule. As I pointed out, using examples, other Irish people fought for the crown, or for pretenders who had their eyes on the whole archipelago and had no intention of granting Ireland independence.
What loyalty?...
As I thought I'd made clear, the sort of loyalty that led to the tremendous enthusiasm for the Boer War and for Royal visits to pre-Great War Ireland...
You would probably find more fought for the crown.
But did they fight out of loyalty or necessity. I would suggest that they had taken the ‘King’s Shilling’ more out of economic necessity than conviction.
Yeah, right, because no Irish lad in the long 19th century *ever* grew up wanting to be a soldier, or a policeman, or a naval sailor...
I make it a policy of mine to always address the issue and not the man.
Really? So what was that feeble attempt at a sarcastic response to my hilarious post about Irish 'soldiers' on Raieigh choppers...?
I believe that to be a professional standard that ought to be maintained by any academic with integrity.
If this were an academic arena, the likes of Harpo wouldn't even be admitted. -
Message 24
Posted by Harpo (U14643022) on Friday, 23rd September 2011
… the fact is that *some* Irish people *sometimes* opposed British rule.
It is a rather lame argument that needs to rely on semantics. The facts actually are that opposition to English/British rule in one form or other was fairly consistant over the centuries.
As I pointed out, using examples, other Irish people fought for the crown, or for pretenders who had their eyes on the whole archipelago and had no intention of granting Ireland independence.
That was before the emergence of modern nationalist and republican movements when kings and pretenders alike, aided and abetted by their self-serving supporters, treated the vast majority of the people as pawns to be used for the achievement of their own ambitions. The kings against whom those pretenders fought were opportunists themselves and were equally set against granting Ireland its independence. They were all the same whether Lancastrian, Tudor, Stuart or something else.
… because no Irish lad in the long 19th century *ever* grew up wanting to be a soldier, or a policeman, or a naval sailor
Semantics again. The 19th century was no longer than any other century! I have no doubt that many Irish youths wanted to be soldiers or sailors. I think their desire to be soldiers or sailors was the over-riding attraction, not their loyalty to either Britain or the monarchy. You get three square meals a day and you get to see the world – better any day than having no prospects at home in Ireland, going hungry or even starving.
As I thought I'd made clear, the sort of loyalty that led to the tremendous enthusiasm for the Boer War and for Royal visits to pre-Great War Ireland
Many Irishmen, paid soldiers in the British army, fought against the Boers. However, it was Irish nationalists that led the protests against the Boer War in Westminster and, at home in Ireland, there was substantial support for the cause of the Boer’s against British imperialism. They were seen as being in an analogous position to Ireland under the Empire. Irishmen organised and fought for the Boers, including Major John MacBride who was later executed for his part in the 1916 Rising and whose son later won a Nobel Peace Prize.
… the sort of loyalty that led to the tremendous enthusiasm for …Royal visits to pre-Great War Ireland
Pre-Great War royal visits to Ireland were orchestrated royal pageants and were reported with typical journalistic hyperbole. The official reason given out for Victoria’s 1900 visit was to reward the ‘loyalty’ of those Irish who died in the Boer War. Cynics said it was to boost falling levels of Irish recruits into those regiments that were decimated in the Boer conflict. One newspaper reported that she had overcome ‘her repugnance towards Ireland in order to put in a stroke for her Army, her Empire and her Throne’! Protests regarding her visit were baton-charged off the streets and newspaper offices raided and closed down (so much for freedom of speech!).
This visit was a choreographed public spectacle. Her route was lined by soldiers and policemen and it only passed through known ‘loyalist’ areas of the city. It even avoided Dublin’s main thoroughfare, O’Connell St.. Yeats considered those cheering the Queen (there were many – should I say *some*!) as guilty of dishonouring the country because she represented ‘an empire that is robbing the South African Republics of their liberty, as it robbed Ireland of hers.’ Despite the deliberate choice of route I would seriously doubt the motives of many of those who cheered along the way. Some (*some*), no doubt, were genuine ‘loyalists’ but many (*many*) were cheering the public spectacle in the excitement of the moment. They came out to ogle a well choreographed public display of a celebrity and were caught up in the clapping and cheering of the moment. It is a well understood psychological phenomenon. I would not overplay the perceived ‘loyalty’ of the crowd, particularly the ‘lower orders’, during something as ephemeral as a staged public celebrity show. It is worth noting that the Dublin City Council itself was split in its support for the visit and it was they who had issued the invitation. -
Message 25
Posted by Patrick Wallace (U196685) on Saturday, 24th September 2011
The primary distinction between Ireland on the one hand, and Scotland and Wales on the other, is no indigenous Reformation movement. Protestantism came in as a colonial invasion; the imposition of penalties on Catholics became part and parcel of a suppression of ethnic identity as well. Combine that with economic development becoming dominated by non-Catholics, and you have a much sharper divide between a sense of native identity and the foreign power. There were similar divides in Scotland, but they were between native Scots (I assume much the same to be true of Wales). If the Bible had been translated into Irish in the sixteenth century....?
Couple that with both sides doing, at crucial moments, the one thing that might almost have been calculated to increase the other side's hostility (asking for French support in 1798 and German support in 1916 on the one side, on the other, broken promises on Catholic emancipation, land reform and home rule, together with outlandishly brutal reprisals). -
Message 26
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 24th September 2011
Shows that NZers never have cared about the difference between Great Britain and England
And still don't it seems.
Today, for example, prior to the England v Rumania match, the stadium announcer in Dunedin described 'God Save The Queen' as the 'National Anthem of England' and this error was repeated by the on-screen caption provided by New Zealand's Sky Network Television. And it's not as though the tournament organisers are incapable of subtlety and attention to detail in this respect. For instance they are scrupulous in correctly identifiying 'Ireland's Call' as being the Irish Union's 'Team Anthem' rather than the 'National Anthem of Ireland'.
P.S. I'd just like to commend Harpo and Patrick Wallace for 2 excellent, honest and thoughtful posts (Messages 24 and 25). -
Message 27
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 24th September 2011
Vizzer
I second both points.. I really think that it is time we realised that pandering to the commercial exploitation of sport as some kind of form of sublimating of national and tribal hostilities may ultimately totally compromise the most important aspect of all sports - viz, that sport brings people TOGETHER and should not reinforce old hatreds and divisions..
What is wrong with just plain "anthem" = "a song of praise or devotion"?
At least they did not insist that English and Georgian supporters could not both wave the flag of St. George.
Cass -
Message 28
Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Saturday, 24th September 2011
Why did the Irish repeatedly attempt to rid Ireland of English/British rule? What was different about Ireland and the Irish that set them apart from Scotland and Wales?
Roman Catholicism, there was no indigenous Protestant Reformation movement. It was a very strong factor in forming a national identity at a mass level. The brutality of repression, for example the plantations.
However the most politicised Republican and nationalist movements were not sectarian (ie based on religion). Wolfe Tone was of course Protestant and there were leading Protestant figures in early 20th century nationalism too.
However to deny the existence of resistance to forms of English domination in Scotland and wales would be mistaken too. -
Message 29
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Saturday, 24th September 2011
Why did the Irish repeatedly attempt to rid Ireland of English/British rule? What was different about Ireland and the Irish that set them apart from Scotland and Wales?
Religion, mostly. English protestants like to pretend that they never prosecuted people because of their religion, but in reality the repression and discrimination of active Catholics soon enough took a sharp edge; that people were not being prosecuted because of their religion was often a legal fiction. For centuries there was a high degree of public paranoia about the threat represented by the "papists"; and occasional outbursts of panic, complete with rumours of atrocities and imminent invasion.
Reading some accounts of the civil war, you get the impression that for the good people of London, there wasn't that much difference between the Irish and the hordes of Atilla the Hun. (And it isn't entirely something of the past: Even today, you can encounter anti-Catholic paranoia on this very message board.)
That had the effect of denying the majority of Irish "equal opportunities" within the kingdom. For many Scottish or Welsh people, the union with England definitely opened new individual opportunities, whatever they think of the way in which their country was run. The Irish were never really given the same chances to integrate. Even the protestant members of Ireland's old aristocracy appear to have been regarded with a degree of suspicion. Or even the Englishmen that were sent over to rule Ireland, if they stayed long enough. -
Message 30
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 24th September 2011
There was also the whole question of Ireland's legal status in the eighteenth century as a Crown colony- whereas Wales and Scotland were part of the kingdom.. This meant that the Mercantilist System and the Navigation Acts meant that Ireland's development was placed of subsidiary importance to that of the "Mother Country".
This was one of the major reasons for the American Declaration of Independence and probably was a factor in the support of people like Wolfe Tone for an independent Ireland in charge of its own economic development.
Cass -
Message 31
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Sunday, 25th September 2011
Off deviating again. We were at that game, Vizzer. Enjoyed the experience of the new Dunedin stadium very much.
I (and my family) feel that you are wrong about the IRB (my husband is rather strong about New Zealand not getting the blame – or the credit – for things out of their control) being either mistaken or unable to manage subtleties about calling the song the National Anthem of England. Perhaps they should have called it the national song but apart from that, in these circumstances, it is England’s anthem they are playing, not the British one. There is a different song used for Scotland and for Wales, and it is not the IRB’s fault that England doesn’t have a separate national song. Swing Low Sweet Chariot won’t quite do, being so associated with sport. They have been playing the song of importance for the countries playing each game.
I wasn’t aware till my son mentioned it that the Irish team is a combined one – I had just assumed it was the southern Ireland that was playing. (I do feel it is unfortunate that one of the Irelands didn’t change its name fully.) I don’t know the Irish national anthems – Ireland can’t play all that many sports, since we just don’t hear it the same as the others – so the song didn’t mean anything to me. Nice tuneful anthem though.
Much more disappointing was that Romania didn’t score at all – nearly in the last couple of minutes which had everyone off their seats cheering and stamping.
And Cass, sport doesn’t have to reinforce old hatreds. The supporters in any sport in New Zealand are never segregated according to who they support, and all these rugby supporters are sitting mingled. The Romanian captain has said the game he is looking forward to most is the clash against Georgia. Though I do admit that sport is the main thing that detaches New Zealanders from appreciating Australians. Without it, we might have more favourable views of them.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 32
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 25th September 2011
Caro
(a) The Ireland Rugby team has been for me one of the beacons of hope in this history. For I have always maintained that Rugby School developed this game specifically so that the boys that it was education to take Great Britain forwards could get rid of some of the aggressive feelings from their heritage on the pitch.. A game of thugs played by gentlemen. Take your aggression out on people who have opted to be part of it and not on innocente bystanders that just creates a dynamic of evil.
In NZ I can still remember the first time (I think) that an England side played NZ Maori.. It seemed to me that it was a key moment for many Maori players to prove themselves worthy of top level rugby.
(b)I was very careful to point my comment at the way that the media is trying to market sport in order to reach a mass audience.
Some of my very special sporting moments were years ago when a friend, whose father taught in a PE college in Wales used to get us tickets for Twickenham.. The best matches were Wales v England when I found myself the lone Englishman in a predominantly Welsh crowd- all no doubt from the same South Wales allocation.. As you probably know the Welsh public understand rugby almost like the NZers- and there was a great spirit in which we exchanged appreciation for good play shown by the opposition.. For me it was the genuine character of sport.. We were privileged to be like the Gods on Mount Olympus seeing people trying to achieve their very best.
My last visit to Twickeham was last year when I had the privilege of standing out on the pitch.. Our daughter had volunteered me for a people's choir that was going to sing a number of English songs to welcome the Welsh at the opening of the Six Nations. As well as singing during the pre-match we were marched onto the pitch dressed in red ponchos to form the Red Cross of a flag of St George.. and sang Jerusalem as well as the National Anthem.
We only got together at Twickers the night before and I got the chance to make friends with the people around me in this "English" choir of all ages.. There were a couple of Irish girls, a woman from Cumbria, at least one Welsh man, and a Scot.. not to mention others I talked to as we made our way back home.. I had a lovely chat with a teenage girl whose background was Cypriot and for whom the whole experience had been just beautiful.
Our instructions were not to join in the Welsh National Anthem- though our Welsh man muttered something and defiantly sang-- but, having attended matches in Cardiff Arms Park when I was a student down there, I said to myself that the Welsh who had flooded in would need no help. I have to say that standing on that pitch in what is now a great cathedral and hearing the Welsh element in a crowd of 80,000 singing was a spine-tingling moment..
The Welsh supporters that I chatted to while waiting for the trains and crushed into them were quite analytical about the Welsh errors and accepted the defeat with that phlegmatism of the genuine supporter.
Cass -
Message 33
Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Sunday, 25th September 2011
Perhaps they should have called it the national song but apart from that, in these circumstances, it is England’s anthem they are playing, not the British one.
That is quite true, it is the only team for which it is played.
I wasn’t aware till my son mentioned it that the Irish team is a combined one – I had just assumed it was the southern Ireland that was playing. (I do feel it is unfortunate that one of the Irelands didn’t change its name fully.) I don’t know the Irish national anthems
There is one Irish national anthem (that of the Republic). Why should "one of the Irelands" change its name? The vast majority of people in Ireland didn't want the division and didn't expect it to last (I'm not talking about whether people want reunification now) and why should either give up the name? The rugby team has always been all Ireland (unlike football where there are two teams) and so much the better. If you want to know about the history of flags and anthems of the team here it is: -
Message 34
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 25th September 2011
Harpo
Try absentee landlords who just leeched off their tenants.
Try also the loss of legitimacy when Henry VIII broke with Rome.
The rule of Ireland from London was by an alien cuture which brought no economic value to the Irish.
Even in Scotland the local landlords fell back on the old strategy of encourgaing the migration of the people with the dance called `America'. A similar strategy without the music was attempted in Ireland but with a far less effect. Perhaps the landlords should have adapted `America' for the penny-whistle? -
Message 35
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 25th September 2011
it is not the IRB’s fault that England doesn’t have a separate national song.
Agreed Caro and I wasn't having a particular go at the Kiwis here.
The IRB and the world cup organisers can only go along with what they are advised by England's RFU. The question needs to be answered by the RFU as to why they permit 'God Save The Queen' to be described as the 'National Anthem of England' when it quite clearly is not.
And it's not just at the Otago Stadium where this has happened. The stadium announcer at Twickenham has also begun doing the same. Note how I say that the question needs to be 'answered' rather than 'asked' because I have indeed already formally ask the RFU this exact question several months ago following a Six Nations match. My correspondence, however, remains unanswered. But their silence speaks volumes.
The question has also been asked of soccer's FA and they did at least have the decency to reply. The FA’s response was that they play 'God Save The Queen’ because it is the ‘national anthem’ of the UK and they have always played it. That’s fair enuff I suppose but one wonders what exactly the FA’s business is in running England’s international football fixtures etc if the FA believes the UK (rather than England) to be a ‘nation’.
The fact is that ‘God Save The Queen’ is neither the ‘national anthem of England’ and nor is it the ‘national’ anthem of the UK. (The UK is not a nation but a collection of nations.) ‘God Save The Queen’ is the state anthem of the UK.
This is why, for example, ‘God Save The Queen’ is also played by the Irish Football Association before Northern Ireland international soccer matches. As Peggy Monahan has said, unlike in (rugby) union where there is just one Ireland team - in soccer Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland field separate teams. -
Message 36
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Sunday, 25th September 2011
If this or that little piece of music causes such a stramash, why don't they simply not play any national - or quasi-national - anthems at all? Who needs them?
Play the 'Internationale' - then you could all be happy. -
Message 37
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Sunday, 25th September 2011
The problem isn't really with the anthems; the problem is that Vizzer is so knowledgable and fastidious about the variations of nation/state/country etc. that it is actually very difficult to discuss things with him. I hesitated for quite a few seconds before writing British (or did I write UK in the finish?), never being quite certain who fits where. But everyone would have known what I meant. I was contrasting England with bigger England! England that included Scotland and Wales and whatever bits of Ireland fit today. I think it was absolutely accurate to call the anthem the English anthem for the English game. That's all it was on that occasion.
But I think it's perfectly reasonably for sporting bodies to play an anthem individually for a nation and call it that nation's anthen, even it id does belong to a wider body in a different setting. God Save the Queen is NZ's national anthem, but only played when the Queen is at state functions. (Maybe when the governor-general is there in her place. Not sure.) But most of the time it's not our national anthem.
Bit the same with languages - NZ has three official languages - English, Maori and NZ Sign Language. But really we only use English. (They had a little extra television window showing our national anthem on Saturday night in sign language, which my children was uncertain was needed and which I, not knowing sign language at all, assumed was some sort of Maori greeting/addition/protocol.) It was somewhat noticeable at the opening of the world cup that our PM did not include a Maori greeting whereas the head of the IRB managed to. But people didn't care very much.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 38
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 25th September 2011
I think it was absolutely accurate to call the anthem the English anthem for the English game.
But the IRB didn't call God Save The Queen 'the English anthem' - they didn't even call it 'the team anthem of England' (as with Ireland's Call with Ireland) - they called it the 'National Anthem of England'. And they must have had the approval of the RFU to do this. Even England's FA (i.e. soccer) doesn't call it the 'National Anthem of England' they use the more ambiguous term 'the National Anthem'.
My interest is in why the RFU has begun to specifically call God Save The Queen the 'National Anthem of England'. Someone, somewhere (and very recently) has taken this decision. And yet this description is absolutely inaccurate. -
Message 39
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Sunday, 25th September 2011
John 11, 35 - is all I can say.
-
Message 40
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Sunday, 25th September 2011
'National Anthem of England' they use the more ambiguous term 'the National Anthem'.
But that is what I mean, Vizzer. It isn't all that important, these tiny differentiations. In fact it isn't important at all. We use language to communicate, not to make national points. The National Anthem of England told us all exactly what we needed to know - England was playing in a rugby competition in which other teams from their (I don't know what to call the UK exactly, since you will be fussy about this - country? state? nation? nation seems all the separate little bits that make you up) state were also playing, and England doesn't have a national song apart from the national anthem. Jerusalem hasn't quite made it, I think. Can't call it the National Anthem of Great Britain or the UK in this situation, because it isn't. It is the nation of England's anthem, so national anthem is fine.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 41
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Monday, 26th September 2011
I forgot to thank you, Peggy, for that link. We looked up the All Blacks on wikipedia the other day and that had interesting bits too. Amazing that a fairly short-lived game not played in that many countries has so much interesting history to it, and little oddities.
Caro. -
Message 42
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 26th September 2011
Harpo
To go back to your OP
"If Ireland under the Empire was essentially no different to other places like Scotland and Wales why did a false interpretation of history lead to independence? Why did the greatest power on earth capitulate to those who were supposedly maligning it dishonestly and who were espousing a caricature of history?"
You do assert that the Irish people were fighting for the right to govern themselves, but that is not necessarily the same as struggling not to be governed by the powers based in England- either the Anglo-Norman barony or the later Kings and Queens of England/Britain.
But, however tenuously to English eyes, Wales did achieve the status of a principality and "married" one of its princely house into the English royal family and marriages of the English royal house to Kings of Scotland go right back to Queen Margaret of the Holy Rood around 1066.
I am not a great one for Royal dynaticism but -apart from the regional monarchy that claimed an overall lordship and resulted in Strongbow having married into one of the royal houses of the island of Ireland, and then passing his own claims on to the English sovereign- I am not aware of any similar connection between an established sovereign royal family in Ireland with which the English/British monarchy could arrange a marriage formalising the relations between the two countries on the same basis as England had with Wales or Scotland.
It certainly seemed at times that the thing that unified the Irish was a determination to render themselves ungovernable. ..
As rugby has come up-- I recall the "good old days" when the game reflected national character rather more than it does and certainly what the English had to fear when playing Ireland was their ability to reduce the game to mayhem and disorder, getting away from the structure and order of the set-pieces.. THE Irish tactic was the Garryowen and the massed charge.
A great quote from those days by the 鶹Լ's Scottish Rugby correspondent:
"Fergus Slattery did not just flirt with the offside law, he had a full-blown love affair".
Cass -
Message 43
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 26th September 2011
Sorry for going back to rugby-- but it is one thing that brings Ireland together- I could not resist pasting this quote from Inaki Basauri of the USA team:
"It just goes to show, anyone can play this sport, no matter where you are from or at what age you pick up the ball," says Basauri. "And there's no other sport better to teach you how to become a man and a responsible human being.
"You can travel, learn about new cultures, pick up new languages, meet new people. I know if I go to any club in the world they'll have a bed for me and a cold pint. It's a beautiful game and if you're passionate about it and work hard, you can end up playing in a World Cup for your country."
Sums it up for me.
Cass
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 to 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
鶹Լ iD
鶹Լ navigation
鶹Լ links
鶹Լ © 2014 The 鶹Լ 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.