Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Topic: English domination of Ireland Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 20:48 |
Originally posted by DukeC
Originally posted by Paul
The English didn't do the highland clearances. |
No, it was the Lairds, but I think it was encouraged by the crown to break up the clan system. |
I think it was more encouraged by greed. The highlands were unable to support the population. Most lived in depravation and poverty and were forced to raid the lowlands. The lowlanders naturally wanted something done about this, so gave the highland aristocracy license to reign free. never a good idea. So the highland lords screwed their own people, pretty much the same as they had done for the last thousands years, only this time with full support of the country.
|
|
|
elenos
Chieftain
Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 21:58 |
Perhaps an
actual story may help clear up some of the points raised here, or complicate
them! Flora McDonald, was the fine lady who helped Bonnie Prince Charlie escape
after loss at Culloden by disguising him as her serving maid. She was arrested
by the British and sent to the Tower of London for a few months. After her release
she advertised for a husband and met a sympathic Scottish captain (who had
served the English Redcoats). They married and immigrated to North Carolina to get away from it all. However
that was not to be. The American War of Independence came along and her brave
sons fought on both sides. Their father again fought on the English side and
was captured by the Americans who kept him in a Guantanamo
Bay like situation. Meanwhile Flora went back to Scotland and lived on the island of Skye. On her death she requested her
body be wrapped in a sheet that Bonnie Prince Charlie had slept in.
Speed, bonnie boat, like a bird on the wing,
Onward! the sailors cry;
Carry the lad that's born to be King
Over the sea to Skye.
Loud the winds howl, loud the waves roar,
Thunderclouds rend the air;
Baffled, our foes stand by the shore,
Follow they will not dare.
Speed, bonnie boat, like a bird on the wing,
Onward! the sailors cry;
Carry the lad that's born to be King
Over the sea to Skye.
Though the waves leap, soft shall ye sleep,
Ocean's a royal bed.
Rocked in the deep, Flora will keep
Watch by your weary head.
Speed, bonnie boat, like a bird on the wing,
Onward! the sailors cry;
Carry the lad that's born to be King
Over the sea to Skye.
Many's the lad fought on that day,
Well the claymore could wield,
When the night came, silently lay
Dead in Culloden's field.
Speed, bonnie boat, like a bird on the wing,
Onward! the sailors cry;
Carry the lad that's born to be King
Over the sea to Skye.
Burned are their homes, exile and death
Scatter the loyal men;
Yet e'er the sword cool in the sheath
Charlie will come again.
Speed, bonnie boat, like a bird on the wing,
Onward! the sailors cry;
Carry the lad that's born to be King
Over the sea to Skye.
The Skye Boat Bong Song
|
elenos
|
|
DukeC
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 22:51 |
Some of my older relatives used to talk about Culloden like it happened a few years ago, one of my great-grandfathers wouldn't eat Campbells soup.
I think it was more encouraged by greed. The highlands were unable to support the population. Most lived in depravation and poverty and were forced to raid the lowlands. The lowlanders naturally wanted something done about this, so gave the highland aristocracy license to reign free. never a good idea. So the highland lords screwed their own people, pretty much the same as they had done for the last thousands years, only this time with full support of the country. |
Yes, the Scots could be their own worst enemies, if the clans could have got along they probably would have dominated the British Isles or at least remained independent.
|
|
elenos
Chieftain
Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 00:53 |
Campbells soup
made out of Scots, with the Irish thrown in as flavoring? At least it is red tomato
instead of gruel! My old Granny used to talk about the Campbell
betrayal, but its all over now bar the shouting. Lets face it the English
developed more rapidly as a nation and took from what the others could
have been if they had the chance.
The situation of the poorer classes in England
was not much different from all over nobility ridden Europe
except that the winds of change were starting to blow; the British people questioned their rights sooner. Some argue Cromwell and his kind used
suppression of neighboring lands as an object lesson to those noted for having an attitude. The slogan of those that ruled them could
have been, You rebel; we repel and look how we cut down all those who
are not going along with us!
I apologize for incorrectly pointing out the types of
Lairds. The uncouth locals lived as Celtic clan chiefs, feasting, fighting and
whatever. The couth nobility had grown up around the throne of Scotland
doing the same thing, in a more elegant way of course. The point is the native
lairds took an awful beating when they rebelled against the throne of England,
but they were fighting for those lairds that supported the restitution of the throne
of Scotland. It
can get confusing about who was fighting for what.
The situation could have been worse but it is hard to see
how for those clansmen that invaded England
and had them on the run for a while. I suppose it's better to have tried and failed at mighty things than never tried at all.
Canadian Boat Song
Listen to me, as when ye heard our father
Sing long ago the song of other shores -
Listen to me, and then in chorus gather
All your deep voices, as ye pull your oars.
From the lone shieling of the misty island
Mountains divide us, and waste of seas -
Yet still the blood is strong, the heart
is Highland,
And we in dreams behold the Hebrides.
We never shall tread the fancy-haunted valley,
Where 'tween the dark hills creeps the small clear stream,
In arms around the patriarch banner rally,
Nor see the moon on royal tombstones gleam.
When the bold kindred, in the time long vanished,
Conquered the soil and fortified the keep -
No seer foretold the children would be banished,
That a degenerate lord might boast his
sheep.
Come foreign rage - let Discord burst in slaughter!
O then for clansmen true, and stern claymore
The hearts that would have given their blood like water,
Beat heavily beyond the Atlantic roar. Fair these broad meadows - these hoary woods are grand But we are exiles
from our father's land.
sheiling=highland hut used when herding cattle from
lower to upper valley claymore=Highland broadsword
This song was written by an anonymous author in the 18th
century at a time when the Highland clans were breaking
up and emigration to foreign shores was growing into a flood.
Edited by elenos - 11-Jul-2007 at 01:10
|
elenos
|
|
Dolphin
Arch Duke
Suspended
Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 04:38 |
What I reacted to was the wording of Paul's post which quite manifestly mixed up personal opinion with the opinions of the Protestant ruling class at the time of the famine. To be then hit with a series of personal comments about my intelligence, my reading ability, and the 'stupidity' event I was part of is not adequate behaviour for someone in his position. If he was aware that people were mis-reading or mis-interpreting his loose post then he should have clarified, not returned with personal insults against someone he has never met. That's all I'm going to say on the matter.
|
|
Dolphin
Arch Duke
Suspended
Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 05:43 |
Two hundred miles from Donegal, there's a place that's called Rockall And the groping hands of Whitehall are grabbing at its walls
Oh rock on Rockall, you'll never fall to Britain's greedy hands Or you'll meet the same resistance that you did in many lands May the seagulls rise and pluck your eyes and the water crush your shell, And the natural gas will burn your ass and blow you all to hell.
For this rock is part of Ireland, 'cos it' s written in folklore That Fionn MacCumhaill took a sod of grass and he threw it to the fore, Then he tossed a pebble across the sea, where ever it did fall, For the sod became the Isle of Man and the pebble's called Rockall.
Now the seas will not be silent, while Britannia grabs the waves And remember that the Irish will no longer be your slaves, And remember that Britannia, well, - she rules the waves no more So keep your hands off Rockall - it's Irish to the core.
|
|
Parnell
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 05:45 |
Originally posted by Paul
Any good farmers knows you don't grow just one kind of crop, even with modern strains and pesticides. You grow several kinds of different tolerance to be sure you a get a crop no-matter what the climatic event.
|
You realise the tiny size of the subsistence holding?
Potatos are the laziest crop, they require no work whatsoever to grow. You simply plant them and bum around for a few months.
|
There's a little more to it than that.
When the potato crops failed there was somewhat of a mixed reaction amongst protestants who believed in the work ethic.
|
You imply Catholics do not believe in a work ethic?
They in many ways sure it as god's punishment on the lazy.
|
Yes, in their high class pubs and clubs in London and Bristol etc.
Instead of working hard throughout the year and planting multiple work intensive crop varieties the potato growers had grown just a single kind and the laziest.
|
Because the potatoe is the most efficient crop for the tiny area of land they had... THEY COULD NOT ROTATE BECAUSE THEY HAD F ALL LAND! When will this go through your pedantic little brain???
I've read his original post and I still think it glares of inaccuracy and bigotry. But heh, he's a mod. He can walk all over us little people.
|
|
elenos
Chieftain
Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 05:54 |
I agree with you Dolphin, whatever the motives Paul did not
choose his words very well. To stir things in another way why keep on saying
Protestant? Surely you mean the Church of England? Despite present day reforms
(they are officially the Anglican Church now) here was a strange beast that was
neither one nor the other for a long time. We all know the history (many
histories?) of Henry breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church by setting up
a church to force a separation between church and state.
Whether this was a good or bad move depends. However, the
idea spread around the world. Governments gradually became elected for their
political ability and not for their knowledge of religion. Those people who
said I protest (against political rule by the Church) became known as the Protestants.
Those for the Church claimed a country could have proper rule without spiritual
basis and all people need to develop a Catholic (worldwide) point of view, so
we get Catholics and Protestants.
However, the old Church of England considered they were
upholding the rights of man, maintaining the Catholic and Apostolic Faith while
only being Protestant with regard to the Roman Catholic Church. It can be
argued the true Protestants were the ones that protested against the Church of
England and that definition definitely included Irish and Scottish Catholics!
Edited by elenos - 11-Jul-2007 at 05:58
|
elenos
|
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned
Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 08:47 |
Originally posted by elenos
To stir things in another way why keep on saying
Protestant? Surely you mean the Church of England?
|
No, not really. Most of the Planters weren't Englishmen - mainly Scots. Presbyterianism was the most common denomination.
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 09:10 |
Originally posted by Ovidius
I actually agree. Potato farmers in Ireland were seen as lazy, the Irish in general were seen as lazy. Elenos you say that Irish labour was in demand?? I'd like to see some evidence of that, is it not that Irish labour was cheap and in large supply? My only question is how Highland farmers in Scotland were not viewed in the same light. Maybe something to do with different conditions of farming...? |
A couple of interestibng articles here that seem to agree with you.
Edited by Paul - 11-Jul-2007 at 09:11
|
|
|
elenos
Chieftain
Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 09:23 |
I agree edgewaters, most of the planters were Scots Presbyterians, but they were being used as a catspaw for the English establishment controlled by their state church.
Edited by elenos - 11-Jul-2007 at 09:24
|
elenos
|
|
Dolphin
Arch Duke
Suspended
Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 09:42 |
BRITISH IDEOLOGICAL ATTITUDES: MALTHUSIANISM
The famine came to be seen widely in Britain as a confirmation of the prevailing Malthusian doctrine (Thmas Malthus was a leading classical liberal economist) that asserted that poverty and famines were the consequences of a combination of indolence and lack of "moral restraint" by the poor, which inevitably led to over-population and, eventually, food shortages due to inadequate resources. Whereas it had once been hailed widely as the miracle food-source, the potato now came to be denounced as the "lazy root" which, by allowing the Irish peasants to provide for themselves with the minimum of effort and efficiency, had perpetuated Ireland's backward economic state and allowed the land to support a much larger population than was desirable. From this point of view, "indiscriminate charity" by the British would only encourage continued Irish irresponsibility: like the "lazy potato", charity could lead only to either a recurrence of the famine or permanent Irish dependence on British aid. These views were expressed not only in leading organs of public opinion (such as The Times), but also by leading Cabinet members. Charles Edward Trevelyan, the British Treasury Secretary overseeing Irish famine relief, regarded the famine as a providential lesson to the Irish to become less feckless and more industrious! From this point of view, the best course was to allow the famine to drive home its lesson and encourage the Irish to improve their morals and work habits. Indeed, many saw the famine as a welcome opportunity to wean the Irish off the potato, reconstruct Ireland's agricultural economy, and reform the Irish character. Such callous attitudes only hardened following the abortive Young Ireland uprising in 1848. (3)
Strange that, because I thought that the potato was introduced by foreigners, not by the Irish themselves. So, does that mean that the Irish are at fault for becoming reliant on a food source that bloated their population and singularised their diet, when they seemed perfectly capable of sustaining themselves as a race before the potato was introduced?
The article states that the economic thinking of the time was not to pepper the irish with handouts, as this would make them reliant on british aid. Well, it was Britain that invaded Ireland, it was not the Irish that had stuck its hand out for help, it had its hand tied by an invader. It is counter-rational to say that Ireland must avoid becoming reliant on aid when it was totally unnecessary before the country giving aid invaded. This overly imperialistic view does not reflect the economic state of Ireland in the mid 19th Century, and does not hold up under modern retrospective opinion.
Ireland was invaded and oppressed, farmers lost their lands and were forced to use small plots to sustain their families. As a family tradition (that still exists in some parts of the west of Ireland) the father's land was divided equally amongs his sons, not just given to the eldest. This was a measure used to give each son the best chance of rearing a family, as there was little or no work in the cities for native Irish speakers, but of course lowered the land area per person to dangerously low levels. As a consequence, yield was valued higher than quality, as, just like on Maslow's list of human needs, food comes first, meaning that the most high yielding and nutritious crop would be grown - the potato. It was high in starch, relatively disease resistant, and a welcome source of carbohydrate. The peasants even made alcohol out of them - poitn.
It was categorically not down to laziness that the Irish peasant grew potatoes, it was due to their most basic needs for survival amidst a hostile agrarian society that was being ruled by an outside force with little or no respect for the true owners of the land, as this article points out.
While of course the contemporary thinking of the time reflected a sense of superiority towards the savages in Ireland, all prudent modern thinking concedes that Britain was wrong, and that the Irish were not the authors of their own horrible misfortune. So, at the very least, personal opinion and contemporary opinion has been intermingled, with not enough distinction between the two.
Ovidius - who saw the Irish in general as lazy? Specify, because this is news to me, who has studied Irish history for 14 years. Was this just an example of cultural bigotry and elitism or do you have specific historic examples of the Irish being lazy and being judged as such? Why were they seen as lazy? Irish labour was cheap and it was in large supply. Would that mean it was in demand? Or is it that the Irish were so badly thought of that no-one would employ them? Did you take language into account?
|
|
Ovidius
Baron
Joined: 20-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 422
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 10:01 |
Originally posted by Parnell
Originally posted by Paul
Any good farmers knows you don't grow just one kind of crop, even with modern strains and pesticides. You grow several kinds of different tolerance to be sure you a get a crop no-matter what the climatic event.
|
You realise the tiny size of the subsistence holding?
Potatos are the laziest crop, they require no work whatsoever to grow. You simply plant them and bum around for a few months.
|
There's a little more to it than that.
When the potato crops failed there was somewhat of a mixed reaction amongst protestants who believed in the work ethic.
|
You imply Catholics do not believe in a work ethic?
They in many ways sure it as god's punishment on the lazy.
|
Yes, in their high class pubs and clubs in London and Bristol etc.
Instead of working hard throughout the year and planting multiple work intensive crop varieties the potato growers had grown just a single kind and the laziest.
|
Because the potatoe is the most efficient crop for the tiny area of land they had... THEY COULD NOT ROTATE BECAUSE THEY HAD F ALL LAND! When will this go through your pedantic little brain???
I've read his original post and I still think it glares of inaccuracy and bigotry. But heh, he's a mod. He can walk all over us little people. |
without really wanting to go back to what Paul originally said, but all of it is true. Potato's are a lazy crop and were seen as a lazy crop. You suggest that High class pubs were the only places where such attitudes were displayed - you are wrong. I tell you now that support for Ireland was very small and there was little support even for the limited help given to Ireland by Peel. There was a true feeling in England that the Irish were lazy. I also don't see how its relevant to argue about Pauls post when all you do is confirm what he said. Paul never suggested that the Peasant farmers could grow other crops, he was talking about PERCEPTIONS and considering PERCEPTION was vital to the way in which England reacted to hte famine, I think you should perhaps take note. There are no innacuracies within that post, nor is it riddled with bigotry. It is merely that you are putting too much meaning into what he said because you come from a position of partiality.
|
|
Parnell
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 10:06 |
His reactions didn't help either. For God sake - Talking about the Irish famine to an Irishman is the same as talking about the Holocaust to a Jew. A bit of tact, please!
|
|
elenos
Chieftain
Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 10:14 |
What did
the Irish eat before the potato? No problems, they ate beef for the Celts were
the greatest cattle raisers of all times. Now what was the best way to weaken
their countryside? Send in an army to kill off the cattle, restrict ownership
of live stock and have them grow vegetables instead. Even with a mix of vegies
you soon become protein deficient. To have just a mono crop like potatoes would
soon turns traditional meat eaters from lively people into a state of seeming laziness.
I know Im
going to cop flack (any vegetarians out there?) but its an obvious fact for look at what happened in England as well. A man would get hung for stealing
a cow. And just who owned the cattle in England? Not the villagers for sure! Some of you guys miss the point, to dominate you don't have to fight wars for there are all sorts of other tricks to use.
|
elenos
|
|
Parnell
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 10:26 |
The Gaelic had long depended on Cattle, but it caused many pointless minor wars and conflicts between each other. A staple crop was better in the long run in terms of minimising stupid inter-regional raids.
|
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned
Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 10:28 |
Originally posted by elenos
the Irish eat before the potato? No problems, they ate beef for the Celts were
the greatest cattle raisers of all times. Now what was the best way to weaken
their countryside? Send in an army to kill off the cattle, restrict ownership
of live stock and have them grow vegetables instead.
|
Hmmm. Well it wasn't quite that. The English didn't show up and start slaughtering their cattle.
What they did do was bring the system of private property that caused the Enclosures to Ireland. The pastoral life of the Irish depended on access to common land for pasturage and when the land was privatized they lost the right to use it, just like the English peasant had lost the right to hunt in the fens or graze sheep on the hillsides. This did more or less put an end to the widespread practice of pastoralism.
|
|
elenos
Chieftain
Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 20:04 |
You are
well informed edgewaters! The overall effect of the English invasions was to
push the Irish onto marginal lands where they had to grow potatoes for a living.
Like every good conqueror of other nations, past, present or future the English Royal Church establishment (who were not
Protestant really) pushed the unwilling natives who wouldnt kiss their ass
onto marginal lands where they had to scratch around for a living. The hopelessness
of the situation never does serve to inspire but keeps the future generations
in a state of constant dire poverty.
What else
the English genius for divide and conquer doing in the dreaming fields, the
rolling mists of the Irish countryside? You mean they kept on invading over
many centuries to dig up some peat or gather a few dirty sacks of cheap
potatoes? One word, horses. Under the cover of the flim-flam diversion of
religious division they quietly spearheaded inland to raise horses for their
world expansion. Never heard of it? If you havent then their plan of making
people argue about the unimportant side issues still works perfectly.
Racehorses still are an integral part of the Irish economy! Irish history should be taken as a whole
not just as a part.
|
elenos
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 04:48 |
Originally posted by elenos
To stir things in another way why keep on saying Protestant? Surely you mean the Church of England? Despite present day reforms (they are officially the Anglican Church now) |
Nope, it's still the Church of England, with the Queen at its head. It is part of the Anglican Communion (which includes, among many others, the Episcopal Church in the United States).
And you're right, it's not Protestant
here was a strange beast that was neither one nor the other for a long time.
|
It's still Catholic.
We all know the history (many histories?) of Henry breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church by setting up a church to force a separation between church and state.
|
Separation of Church and State was the last thing Henry wanted. The idea was - still is in theory - that the Church should be subordinate to the state.
That's one of the reasons the Protestants emigrated to the New World, where they could make the state subordinate to their church.
Whether this was a good or bad move depends. However, the idea spread around the world. Governments gradually became elected for their political ability and not for their knowledge of religion. Those people who said I protest (against political rule by the Church) became known as the Protestants. |
Nope again. They are called 'protestants' because originally they protested against revocation of the Reichstag decision of 1526, which had established the principle of 'ejus regio, cujus religio': the religion to be followed in a region of the HRE should be that approved by the local ruler, not the Emperor. The protest was in 1529 at Speyer.
At that point England was still Roman Catholic, and Henry did not break with Rome until four years later. Even then of course he did not adopt the religious doctrines associated with Luther, let alone Calvin, to which the name of Protestantism was later given.
Those for the Church claimed a country could have proper rule without spiritual basis and all people need to develop a Catholic (worldwide) point of view, so we get Catholics and Protestants.
However, the old Church of England considered they were upholding the rights of man, maintaining the Catholic and Apostolic Faith while only being Protestant with regard to the Roman Catholic Church. It can be argued the true Protestants were the ones that protested against the Church of England and that definition definitely included Irish and Scottish Catholics! |
It's true the Protestants continued to fight against the Church of England pretty well through to 1660 - it was a major theme of the Civil War - and temporarily established their ideal of the subordination of the State to religion. But they were even more bitterly opposed to Roman Catholicism.
|
|
elenos
Chieftain
Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 07:45 |
Excellent work gcle2003, I admire the way you polished up what I was trying to say and used verifiable facts to work through the more complex points. Subjects like these are walking through a minefield of opinions. You are not going there to offend anybody's religion but to separate a mixture of subjects so they can be studied in more logical ways than before.
|
elenos
|
|