Kipling's Ulster

[British and Proud]

"Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are works of inquity and the act of violence is in their hands." — isaiah lix. 6.


The dark eleventh hour
draws on and sees us sold
to every evil power
we fought against of old -
rebellion, rapine, hate,
oppression, wrong and greed
are loosed to rule our fate
by England's art and deed.

The faith in which we stand,
the laws we made and guard,
our honour, lives, and land
are given for reward
to murder done by night
to treason taught by day,
to folly, sloth, and spite,
and we are thrust away.

The blood our fathers spilt,
our love, our toils, our pains
are counted us for guilt
and only bind our chains -
before an empire's eyes
the traitor claims his price.
What need of further lies?
We are the sacrifice.

We know the war prepared
on ever peaceful home
we know the hells prepared
for such as serve not rome
the terror, threats, and bread
in market, hearth, and field -
we know, when all is said,
we perish if we yield.

Believe we dare not boast,
believe we dare not fear:
we stand to pay the cost
in all that men hold dear.
What answer from the north?
One law, one land, one throne!
If England drives us forth
we shall not fall alone.

From Wikipedia:

Kipling sympathised with the anti-Home Rule stance of Irish Unionists. He was friends with Edward Carson, the Dublin-born leader of Ulster Unionism, who raised the Ulster Volunteers to oppose "Rome Rule" in Ireland. Kipling wrote the poem "Ulster" in 1912 (?) reflecting this. The poem reflects on Ulster Day (28 September 1912) when half a million people signed the Ulster Covenant.

[Gooding]

A very beautiful poem.Thank you so much for sharing it,BritishandProud!:thumb001:

[Orange&BlueBear]

Kipling also gave money to help the UVF secure arms. A true British patriot.

[Fortis in Arduis]

He is on the list of approved authors.

[Óttar]

I have to say I've lost a bit of my high respect for him after this, despite his knowledge of the Hindustani tongue and India in general. While I believe in peace between Ulster Scots and the Irish, I'm more inclined to sympathize with the latter, as the former are opportunists vehemently opposed to the Irish Gaelic tongue.

[British and Proud]

I have to say I've lost a bit of my high respect for him after this, despite his knowledge of the Hindustani tongue and India in general. While I believe in peace between Ulster Scots and the Irish, I'm more inclined to sympathize with the latter, as the former are opportunists vehemently opposed to the Irish Gaelic tongue.

How so?

[Óttar]

How so?

They settled in Northern Ireland as planters invited by the murderous Cromwell. Ireland is a tiny island, it need not be split in twain no matter how small the 6 northern province block is.

[Osweo]

They settled in Northern Ireland as planters invited by the murderous Cromwell. Ireland is a tiny island, it need not be split in twain no matter how small the 6 northern province block is.

You plainly know nothing about it. I would recommend keeping your nose out of other people's business. Especially considering the fact that comments such as those you have made go a great way to supporting continuing bloodshed in a pointless struggle for something that the majority of people in Northern Ireland do not want.

If you so respected Kipling before, try to figure out WHY he felt as he did. You must have thought him an intelligent insightful man. Could he have been so wrong in this instance?

Plantation began long before Cromwell, the latter was not exceptionally brutal in his day or in comparison with his enemies, Ireland is not 'tiny', and most importantly;

THE 1640s are ANCIENT HISTORY. Present day situations should be looked at as they are.

[Gooding]

Wasn't it His Royal Highness King James Stuart IV of Scotland and I of England who offered the Lowland Protestant Scottish settlers lands in Ulster to ensure a loyal British presence in that region? Please correct me if I'm wrong..:)

[Osweo]

Wasn't it His Royal Highness King James Stuart IV of Scotland and I of England who offered the Lowland Protestant Scottish settlers lands in Ulster to ensure a loyal British presence in that region? Please correct me if I'm wrong..:)

His reign saw much if not the majority of it, but there were independent Scotch colonies that went and bought land from Gaelic chieftains earlier. I forget the names and dates...

[Óttar]

You plainly know nothing about it.

HTF do you know what I do or do not know?

The poem reveals that Kipling's motivation was because he wanted to ensure that the Empire was not divided... But how can Irish be traitors if they don't swear fealty to a British king?

I said I believe in peace. I'm not "inciting bloodshed."

[Osweo]

HTF do you know what I do or do not know?
You broad-brushed an entire people as 'opportunists', and implied they were accomplices to 'murderous' goings on. I took issue with that.

And your profile says you live in Boston, presumably not the Lincolnshire one, so you haven't had your town bombed in recent years by Irish 'Nationalists'. That sort of thing puts matters in a different perspective, and it's exactly such cowardly terrorism that Kipling deplored in his poem.

The poem reveals that Kipling's motivation was because he wanted to ensure that the Empire was not divided...
That is in there, and is of its day. The disgust I mention is more prominent there, though, and is still valid today.

But how can Irish be traitors if they don't swear fealty to a British king?
'Treason' or not, the situation with Ulster is one of a bunch of terrorists trying to FORCE a mass of people into a state that they have little feeling for. Some honest IRA supporters openly acknowledge that they'd gladly wipe out Protestantism in Ireland.

I said I believe in peace. I'm not "inciting bloodshed."
Glad to hear it, but peace must be founded upon understanding and honest appraisal of history, an arena in which it's always near enough 'six of one, half a dozen of the other'. There aren't straightforward 'Goodies' and 'Baddies' in this issue.

[Óttar]

That sort of thing puts matters in a different perspective, and it's exactly such cowardly terrorism that Kipling deplored in his poem.

When he wrote the poem, Ireland was not yet a free country. Guerilla warfare against soldiers is legitimate especially if one considers the vast technological and numerical superiority of the British Army at that time.

Kipling mentions "rule by Rome". Part of a greater tradition of bringing religion into an area it doesn't belong. I highly doubt it really boils down to whether someone venerates the saints or not, or whether you go to Mass in a decadent domus aurea, or a boring converted farmhouse with no decor.


Some honest IRA supporters openly acknowledge that they'd gladly wipe out Protestantism in Ireland.

And I'm certain the same is true of UVF supporters in regards to "Catholicism." People need to be careful of framing it as a religious conflict.



Glad to hear it, but peace must be founded upon understanding and honest appraisal of history, an arena in which it's always near enough 'six of one, half a dozen of the other'. There aren't straightforward 'Goodies' and 'Baddies' in this issue.

The next referendum is a while from now, hopefully neither side will do anything tricky. Fair enough.

[Osweo]

When he wrote the poem, Ireland was not yet a free country. Guerilla warfare against soldiers is legitimate especially if one considers the vast technological and numerical superiority of the British Army at that time.
Not a 'free' country? Not independent, sure. About to be granted a great deal of autonomy, yes. 'Free'? What does that mean? It wasn't a prison state of awful repression or exploitation. Wales and Scotland were not in a too dissimilar situation, and yet they weren't excusing murder and terrorism. Most Irish were quite content to receive limited Home Rule. Only 1916 changed mattters.

Kipling mentions "rule by Rome". Part of a greater tradition of bringing religion into an area it doesn't belong. I highly doubt it really boils down to whether someone venerates the saints or not, or whether you go to Mass in a decadent domus aurea, or a boring converted farmhouse with no decor.
They don't do 'mass' in (tastefully restrained in decor :P) Protestant churches!
Are you criticising Kipling for bringing religion into politics, do I read you right? If so, then Catholic rule would have presented many intolerable cultural problems to the Northern Irish.

And I'm certain the same is true of UVF supporters in regards to "Catholicism." People need to be careful of framing it as a religious conflict.
Religion just provides symbolism for it. See Adams's own curiously heretical theological comments in this thread;
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4001

The next referendum is a while from now, hopefully neither side will do anything tricky. Fair enough.
Aye. But don't expect the media's darlings in the Republican camp to get the 'balanced' press treatment of the sort that the Unionists are regularly meted out in the meantime...

[Óttar]

'Free'? What does that mean?

I meant independent then.


They don't do 'mass' in (tastefully restrained in decor :P) Protestant churches!

Fine, then substitute "services" for "mass." ;)



Are you criticising Kipling for bringing religion into politics, do I read you right? If so, then Catholic rule would have presented many intolerable cultural problems to the Northern Irish.

The central issue is not "rule by Rome." Yes, the majority population would be Catholic in a united Ireland, but this is ultimately besides the point. The Irish had a right to rule their whole island. Protestant and Catholic could live peaceably side by side.


Religion just provides symbolism for it. See Adams's own curiously heretical theological comments in this thread;
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4001

Religion has always been misused for political ends (esp. so after the advent of Abrahamic creeds, but I won't go off on tangents). I think it's important to not see this as a conflict between Protestant and Catholic per se. There are examples of Protestant republicans.

[British and Proud]

His reign saw much if not the majority of it, but there were independent Scotch colonies that went and bought land from Gaelic chieftains earlier. I forget the names and dates...

Indeed:


The really effective plantation of Ulster took place from a different source altogether - through an originally small privately-organized Protestant settlement of Scots that had begun on the Ards peninsula of Ulster's east coast a few years earlier. There, Scotland lies only just across the water. For centuries, before the Reformation, Scots had been coming across this North Channel and settling in this part of of Ireland, usually becoming indistinguishable from the Gaelic Irish people among whom they settled. But just before the 1610 plantation -in 1606 - a private settlement had been undertaken by two Scottish Protestant adventurers named Montgomery and Hamilton after a deal with the local Gaelic chieftain. This eastern Protestant planation of Ulster prospered rapidly and became the bridgehead by which, for the rest of the century and beyond, individual Scottish settlers flocked to Northern Ireland. They spread outward from there through the town of Belfast, over the whole of Antrim and Down. They even spread right across Ulster to fill the gaps left in the official plantation of the west. The geographical distributions of Protestant and Catholic in Northern Ireland today still reveal clearly the two separate settlements of Ulster of over 300 years ago.

Ireland, A History; Robert Kee; Abacus, London; Chapter 3, No Surrender; pp 41, 42.

The above is included in the thread entitled The Spirit of Carson (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2563).

Let's not forget that in The Battle of The Boyne, many Irishmen fought for an English king, James II. Thus the Irish were happy to be rul,ed by a Catholic monarch. From Wikipedia:


James II and VII (14 October 1633 – 16 September 1701)[2] was King of England, Scotland,[1] and Ireland from 6 February 1685. He was the last Catholic monarch to reign over the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Some of James's subjects were unhappy with James's belief in absolute monarchy and opposed his religious policies, leading a group of them to depose him in the Glorious Revolution. The Parliament of England deemed James to have abdicated on 11 December 1688. The Parliament of Scotland on 11 April 1689 declared him to have forfeited the throne. He was replaced not by his Catholic son, James Francis Edward, but by his Protestant daughter, Mary II, and his son-in-law, William III. William and Mary became joint rulers in 1689. James II made one serious attempt to recover his crowns, when he landed in Ireland in 1689 but, after the defeat of the Jacobite forces by the Williamite forces at the Battle of the Boyne in the summer of 1690, James returned to France. He lived out the rest of his life under the protection of his cousin and ally, King Louis XIV.

James is best known for his belief in absolute monarchy and his attempts to create religious liberty for his subjects. Both of these went against the wishes of the English Parliament and of most of his subjects. Parliament, opposed to the growth of absolutism that was occurring in other European countries, as well as to the loss of legal supremacy for the Church of England, saw their opposition as a way to preserve what they regarded as traditional English liberties. This tension made James's three-year reign a struggle for supremacy between the English Parliament and the Crown, resulting in his ouster, the passage of the English Bill of Rights, and the Hanoverian succession.

[Osweo]

I meant independent then.
My Catholic great grandparents in Tipperary never wanted independence. Hotheads and rebellious types pushed the issue.

I remember you damned the Loyalists as 'opportunists'. I suggest you look at the use of the opportunity afforded the trouble-causers by the UK's involvement in the Greatest War of all time in 1916, and decide what to call it... German rifles on the Banna Strand - you may know the rebel song about Sir Roger Casement? A clear case of 'stabbing in the back', cooperating with enemy powers, forcing issues that others had almost solved by other peaceful means, and little dissimilar to the activities of the (equally German-sponsored) Bolsheviks in Russia a year later.

The central issue is not "rule by Rome." Yes, the majority population would be Catholic in a united Ireland, but this is ultimately besides the point. The Irish had a right to rule their whole island. Protestant and Catholic could live peaceably side by side.
This IS the central issue.

"The Irish had a right to rule their whole island"

WHICH IRISH?!??!? NOT those who didn't want to be a part of a rebellious theocratic state founded by traitors!

Do the English have a right to rule their whole island? Do they fuck. Other people live on the island too, and they have their own rights which deserve respect. The same is true in the island of Ireland, and always has been. Ireland has NEVER been monocultural.

[Óttar]

My Catholic great grandparents in Tipperary never wanted independence. Hotheads and rebellious types pushed the issue.

Maybe if other Irish hadn't had such a complacent attitude, their tongue might have been recovered after it was ripped out of their heads. I suppose you support the use of the "Welsh not" also.


A clear case of 'stabbing in the back', cooperating with enemy powers

First off, the Germans were not Ireland's enemies and Hitler admired the British and never wanted to go to war with them in the first place.



WHICH IRISH?!??!? NOT those who didn't want to be a part of a rebellious theocratic state founded by traitors!

Again, traitors to whom? Theocratic? Ha!


That's about as ridiculous as Muslims conquering France, and then a Musulman claiming "Look, those Catholic infidels are fighting us, it is the duty of every Muslim to defend 'Muslim' land."



Do the English have the right to rule their whole island?

That's a good question, but I don't see you calling for the dissolution of the Union anytime soon, so why don't you tell me?

[Osweo]

Maybe if other Irish hadn't had such a complacent attitude, their tongue might have been recovered after it was ripped out of their heads. I suppose you support the use of the "Welsh not" also.
You said summat about the Gaelic a bit ago, which I ignored. What exactly does this matter have to do with anything in this thread?!?
Tongue ripped out of their heads! Christ, Man, get over this fantasy version of history you've absorbed!

First off, the Germans were not Ireland's enemies and Hitler admired the British and never wanted to go to war with them in the first place.
I mentioned the GREAT War, not its sequel. Who gives a toss what Hitler thought about anything. Thousands of Irishmen, Catholic and Protestant joined up, despite the lack of conscription in the island. More Northerners, perhaps, but the southerners were by no means insignificant in numbers. My Great Uncle Harry even joined up for WWII. The Irish were never so two dimensional in their attitudes as you like to portray them.

(The entire War was a folly, but as H.G. Wells said, there wasn't a way seen to get out of it at the time.)

Again, traitors to whom? Theocratic? Ha!
Ireland will always be England and Britain's neighbour. These peoples should do their damnedest to stay on the good side of each other. In the world of 1916, the Rising was clearly a stab in the back, not only for 'Britannia' and George V, but for the thousands of Irishmen in Flanders.

Actually, the returning soldiers were scorned by the Sinn Feiners, see the rebel song Salonika. Shameful.

That's about as ridiculous as Muslims conquering France, and then a Musulman claiming "Look, those Catholic infidels are fighting us, it is the duty of every Muslim to defend 'Muslim' land."
You think it's okay to boot people out of homes they've lived in for four centuries? To boot them out of a land their ancestors gave everything to, and in which their bones now lie? Or, in the 'moderate' variant, to have them subject to a majority with a different culture, that will push for legislation and a public life that doesn't suit them.

SHAME on you!

That's a good question, but I don't see you calling for the dissolution of the Union anytime soon, so why don't you tell me?
I am not the Union's biggest fan, but I don't see it as a priority at the moment.

[Óttar]

You said summat about the Gaelic a bit ago, which I ignored. What exactly does this matter have to do with anything in this thread?!?

This is about the historical erosion of Irish identity by the British. Protestants were settled there to ensure a loyal trojan horse.


Tongue ripped out of their heads! Christ, Man, get over this fantasy version of history you've absorbed!

Of course they gave up the Gaelic tongue completely voluntarily. :rolleyes:


In the world of 1916, the Rising was clearly a stab in the back, not only for 'Britannia' and George V, but for the thousands of Irishmen in Flanders.

Bull. The Irish republican majority had a right to fight for their own independent nation.

You English chauvinists have some gall. An acquaintance from Britain told me "the Irish stabbed the Brits in the back because of their decision to adopt the Euro." So not only can't the Irish majority have their own country, but when they are independent they're somehow not allowed to make their own decisions.


You think it's okay to boot people out of homes they've lived in for four centuries?

And you seem to think it's OK for the British to confiscate lands and colonise their neighbors, despite the fact that you are half Irish. Who is the traitor? Besides who said anything about booting Protestants out of their homes?

There's no reason why the two communities can't live together in peace in a united Ireland.

[Osweo]

This is about the historical erosion of Irish identity by the British. Protestants were settled there to ensure a loyal trojan horse.
That's simplistic, but anyway - so what? What would you do if there was an island next to yours with a recalcitrant clergy that were acting as a fifth column for your major Super Power enemies in Spain and France? No thankyou to your Bloody Marys, James IIs, Torquemadas, Alvas and whatevers! And that's what Britain would have got if they hadn't kept a tight hold on Ireland.

Of course they gave up the Gaelic tongue completely voluntarily. :rolleyes:
Okay then, tell me - WHY did the language survive in Connemara and the other Gaeltachta? Wicklow even, right up near the centre of your supposedly Gaelic-oppressing power.


Bull. The Irish republican majority had a right to fight for their own independent nation.
What majority is this? The majority of Irish Catholics were not pro-Republicanism even in 1914!

You English chauvinists have some gall. An acquaintance from Britain told me "the Irish stabbed the Brits in the back because of their decision to adopt the Euro."
What does that have to do with me? I don't think like that! How can you compare that to an armed uprising in the middle of a terrible war?!? :confused:

And you seem to think it's OK for the British to confiscate lands and colonise their neighbors, despite the fact that you are half Irish. Who is the traitor?
That was history, and largely inevitable as long as the British state was threatened militarily by Continental powers. Unfortunate, but inevitable, and pointless to whine about now. Being half Irish, I see both halves, without romantic distortion.

Besides who said anything about booting Protestants out of their homes?
That and horrendously bloody civil war would have been inevitable if the Six Counties hadn't been treated separately back in the 20s.

There's no reason why the two communities can't live together in peace in a united Ireland.
NOWADAYS, that may be the case. Tempers were different back in the last century. If you hope for it, however, you're not going to achieve it by petty sniping at the Ulster Protestants. People with your anachronistic notions ruin everything in Ulster, and create an atmosphere highly conducive to further bloodshed, merely hardening your opponents' positions.

I stand for a calm cool evaluation of the present situation, without mantras like '800 years of Oppression' rubbish clouding people's reason. Nobody in Ireland now has stolen land or wiped out a language or whatever. Those who don't want to be united to Eire should be heard and respected.

[Óttar]

Okay then, tell me - WHY did the language survive in Connemara and the other Gaeltachta? Wicklow even, right up near the centre of your supposedly Gaelic-oppressing power.


So what? Now only a minority speak it due to historical oppression by the British.

The gaeltacht in Connacht was populated by people who were deported to a much lesser arable area... A kind of Gaelic Irish ghetto


What majority is this? The majority of Irish Catholics were not pro-Republicanism even in 1914!

Source? And besides, I don't give a $#!%. I want to see a united Ireland. Stop making excuses and calling the Irish traitors for fighting for independence.


What does that have to do with me?

Because your support for Unionism is motivated by jingoism, simple as that.



That and horrendously bloody civil war would have been inevitable if the Six Counties hadn't been treated separately back in the 20s.

If the Unionists would've fought the Irish republicans without British aid, they would've been made short work of. The Unionists merely want union with Britain because this affords them technological superiority in the event of a British-Irish conflict. Why don't they go back to Lowland Scotland if they love it so much.

[Osweo]

So what? Now only a minority speak it due to historical oppression by the British.
:rolleyes2:

The gaeltacht in Connacht was populated by people who were deported to a much lesser arable area... A kind of Gaelic Irish ghetto
Those nasty plans were never really put into effective execution. Connemara Irish is not a hodgepodge of dialects from all over the island, but a distinct form of its own. What you're on about didn't happen.

Source? And besides, I don't give a $#!%.
:D

I want to see a united Ireland.
That's just a weird fetishism. Why the whole thing? All or nothing is a great position from which to start negotiations in the real world, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Stop making excuses and calling the Irish traitors for fighting for independence.
It wasn't 'the Irish' who started the rebellion in 1916, but a small group. Yawn.

Because your support for Unionism is motivated by jingoism, simple as that.
And your support for 32 county extremists is what?

If the Unionists would've fought the Irish republicans without British aid, they would've been made short work of.
Nonsense.

The Unionists merely want union with Britain because this affords them technological superiority in the event of a British-Irish conflict.
They are ethnically distinct from the southern Irish. End of story. :rolleyes2:

[Óttar]

:rolleyes2:Those nasty plans were never really put into effective execution.

The transition from Gaelic to English wasn't voluntary. The suppression of the Gaelic tongue goes on even today in "Loyal Ulster."



Why the whole thing? All or nothing is a great position from which to start negotiations in the real world, isn't it?

Why should Ireland be carved up? Why can't the two communities live together in a united Ireland?


And your support for 32 county extremists is what?

British administration has no place in Ireland.


They are ethnically distinct from the southern Irish. End of story. :rolleyes2:

Well, if they have extra-territorial loyalties then they can go back to the mainland. Or better yet, stand up and pursue the independent Ulster third option instead of being bend-over billy boys for the British.

[Osweo]

The transition from Gaelic to English wasn't voluntaryYou can't police what people speak in their own homes.

Why should Ireland be carved up?
Why should Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union?

Why can't the two communities live together in a united Ireland?
Because they don't want to.


British administration has no place in Ireland.
It does as long as it is desired by a sizeable and compact body of people there.
Well, if they have extra-territorial loyalties then they can go back to the mainland. Or better yet, stand up and pursue the independent Ulster third option instead being bend-over billy boys for the British.
It's up to them. Childish name-calling like 'bend-over billy boys' doesn't win hearts and minds either. :rolleyes2:

[Óttar]

You can't police what people speak in their own homes.

No, but you can hamper its preservation by systematic oppression and violence. I'm pretty sure you're a supporter of the "Welsh not."


Because they don't want to.

Carving up an area going by district is ridiculous then you get an India-like situation. Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his Muslim League were traitors in their context, and Ian Paisley and his ilk are in this case. The two cases are linked because of a classic British divide and rule strategy.

The protestant counties were kept because the British want to maintain a certain leverage on the island, and to control sea-lanes as military choke points.

[Óttar]

I remember you damned the Loyalists as 'opportunists'. I suggest you look at the use of the opportunity afforded the trouble-causers by the UK's involvement in the Greatest War of all time in 1916, and decide what to call it... German rifles on the Banna Strand

It is a fact that the Germans also supplied the UVF, and they were supposedly fully loyal to the British!


That's simplistic, but anyway - so what? What would you do if there was an island next to yours with a recalcitrant clergy that were acting as a fifth column for your major Super Power enemies in Spain and France? No thankyou to your Bloody Marys, James IIs, Torquemadas, Alvas and whatevers! And that's what Britain would have got if they hadn't kept a tight hold on Ireland.

Maybe if the English hadn't completely established themselves as lords of Ireland and wiped out the Ard rianna, the Irish wouldn't have felt the need to enlist the help of the French and Spanish. In other words, Irish alliance with "super power enemies" was the effect of Britain's "tight hold" of Ireland, not the other way around. Just as English aggression had brought about the Auld Alliance between Scotland and France.




Maybe so, but the hanging of the leaders of '16 enraged enough Irish people that they ended up feeling an independent Ireland was legitimate.

[QUOTE=Oswiu;41386]:And your support for 32 county extremists is what?

It's not extremism.

In the Republic of Ireland:

A 2006 Sunday Business Post survey reported that almost 80% of voters in the Republic of Ireland favour a united Ireland.

In Great Britain:

There is significant support in Great Britain for Ireland to reunify as a political entity. An ICM poll conduced by The Guardian in 2001 revealed that only 26% of Britons supported Northern Ireland remaining a part of the UK, while 41% supported a united Ireland.

In Northern Ireland:

In 2006, according to ARK Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey, 31% support a United Ireland.

How can it be "extremism" if even 41% of Britons support a United Ireland!


They are ethnically distinct from the southern Irish. End of story. :rolleyes2:

OK so then you admit that the Ulster Scots "Irish" are ethnically distinct. Therefore, the question WHICH IRISH?!! is completely erroneous as the Ulster "Irish", aren't Irish they're Lowland Scots. It's very convenient for them to consider themselves "British" to be vassals of Westminster b/c the British have superior fire-power. Thus they are 1. opportunists. 2. bigots. 3. provocateurs.

"Rome rule" is a crock, how the Hell is the pope in Italy gonna rule Ireland? Get real. This is part of a larger tradition where the Brits stirred up irrational Protestant fears in order to keep their grip on Ireland.

The United Irishmen in 1798 was a majority Protestant movement... This is proof that Protestants and Catholics can work together.

See you in '16. The 100th anniversary of Ireland's historic triumph. A bunch of rag-tag militiamen taking on the greatest empire the world had ever seen. Even in more modern times a bunch of rag-tag 18 year old kids with third rate artillery take on a superior military with aid from the SAS, the most modern cutting edge weaponry, and the M15!

Great Britain you are tremendous
No one knows like me
But WTF are you doing
In that land across the sea?

[Fortis in Arduis]

I think that most of us Brits here who wish to see Ulster remain democratically British, wish to do so as exponents of third way solutions.

I have never encountered pro-Tory type Loyalism on preservationist fora, ever.

I have encountered this myopic view in real time.

Óttar, you are in favour of what exactly?

An undemocratic dissolving of Ulster's tenuous sovereignty perhaps? :rolleyes:

[Osweo]

It is a fact that the Germans also supplied the UVF, and they were supposedly fully loyal to the British!
I didn't know that, but if it's true (sources?) then it just goes to show that the Kaiser was only intent on causing trouble for the British rear, and didn't give a toss about the Irish cause. Choosing such 'friends' would only have rebounded on the rebels anyway, as the sponsors only wanted carnage and mayhem.


Maybe if the English hadn't completely established themselves as lords of Ireland and wiped out the Ard rianna,
You've got a lot of Mediaeval History to do! Nobody wiped the High Kings out, they just crumbled away due to the traditional enemy of Celtic solidarity - endless internecine feuding.

Actually, a good analysis I read lately about the failure of the Irish to achieve a united monarchy (Morris's Age of Arthur) blamed the CHURCH for this! Seems that some saint and some king had a big row about secular vs. canon law. A murderer was sheltered by a priest, the king's men came and seized him, all the monks in the country started damning the king and going on hunger strike and the like. The king was baffled, insisting that he was an honest diligent servant of Christ, but the monks wouldn't have any of it. They won the day, and severely wounded the prestige of the High Kingship.

Diarmait mac Cerbaill (died c. 565) was the feller, now I came to look.

the Irish wouldn't have felt the need to enlist the help of the French and Spanish. In other words, Irish alliance with "super power enemies" was the effect of Britain's "tight hold" of Ireland, not the other way around. Just as English aggression had brought about the Auld Alliance between Scotland and France.
All inevitable parts of European history. The time of centralisation and the growth of Great Powers meant that small nations such as the Irish had to suffer eclipse. That time is now gone, and nobody living now can be blamed for what went on then. Save your anathemas for the dead, and hope you never have to argue the case with them!

Maybe so, but the hanging of the leaders of '16 enraged enough Irish people that they ended up feeling an independent Ireland was legitimate.
These heavy-handed actions (?) had some impact, but the later Black and Tan stuff is arguably more important here. My lot in Tipp didn't give much of a damn for Dublin matters, but when undisciplined veterans were unleashed on the countryside it was a different matter. This sort of thing was seen in every country that had taken part in the Great War, however. Veterans were psychologically messed up, and occasionally violent. They were used by several political movements. See the Frei Korps in Germany or what went on in Russia... :(


It's not extremism.
Pretty drastic then!

In the Republic of Ireland:

A 2006 Sunday Business Post survey reported that almost 80% of voters in the Republic of Ireland favour a united Ireland.
Maybe 80% of Hungarians favour the reannexation of the Vojvodina. Doesn't mean it's going to happen, or that it should. Only people in the territory concerned should have a major say. And what are the allegiances of that paper? What is the context? Is it a purely economical argument?

In Great Britain:
There is significant support in Great Britain for Ireland to reunify as a political entity. An ICM poll conduced by The Guardian in 2001 revealed that only 26% of Britons supported Northern Ireland remaining a part of the UK, while 41% supported a united Ireland.
The Guardian is about as left wing multikult crazy as you can get. A good half of the reporters have foreign names, and the remainder are probably married to foreigners. I'd be surprised if they had the faintest idea what ordinary Englishmen or Scotsmen think about anything!

In Northern Ireland:

In 2006, according to ARK Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey, 31% support a United Ireland.
So few? Well, that's it. Case closed.

How can it be "extremism" if even 41% of Britons support a United Ireland!
I'd support it if the people in the Six Counties did. That's my only condition! And I wouldn't rule out 'repartition' either.

OK so then you admit that the Ulster Scots "Irish" are ethnically distinct. Therefore, the question WHICH IRISH?!! is completely erroneous as the Ulster "Irish", aren't Irish they're Lowland Scots.
The latter form a good proportion of their genetic stock, but by no means all of it. There's a fair bit of Gael in there too! And anyway, the MOST important thing is that they've become something New and Distinct there on that island. Something irreplaceable. They have their own Story.

It's very convenient for them to consider themselves "British" to be vassals of Westminster b/c the British have superior fire-power. Thus they are 1. opportunists. 2. bigots. 3. provocateurs.
:D Broken record, so you are!

But how crude to label an entire people that way! And you want them to accept an All Ireland state, in which your cronies will be chucking such insults at them all day long? :rolleyes2:

"Rome rule" is a crock, how the Hell is the pope in Italy gonna rule Ireland? Get real. This is part of a larger tradition where the Brits stirred up irrational Protestant fears in order to keep their grip on Ireland.
Irrational? You ought to read about some of the atrocities that the 'Goodies' did in the 1600s to them! Oh, but sorry, Mel Gibson and co. don't make films about those... :rolleyes2:
That said, these are a thing of the past. The problem remains, however, that the Catholic Church remains a stifling influence Beyond. Many southern Irish flee to Britain to get away from it - many of my own friends and relatives. Protestant morality would find it hard to get a look in.

The United Irishmen in 1798 was a majority Protestant movement... This is proof that Protestants and Catholics can work together.
Ah, back in the days when they weren't getting labelled 1. opportunists. 2. bigots. 3. provocateurs all the live long day, eh? :rolleyes2:

See you in '16. The 100th anniversary of Ireland's historic triumph. A bunch of rag-tag militiamen taking on the greatest empire the world had ever seen.
slap bang in the middle of the Greatest war the world had ever seen. When a good proportion of the male population was itself fighting abroad. Not to mention with the active support of the second biggest Empire of all time!

Even in more modern times a bunch of rag-tag 18 year old kids with third rate artillery take on a superior military with aid from the SAS, the most modern cutting edge weaponry, and the M15!
Yeah great, Arabs and Afghans are also good at sneaking about putting bombs in civilian marketplaces too.

Great Britain you are tremendous
No one knows like me
But WTF are you doing
In that land across the sea?
What's done is done,
What's won is won,
And what's lost is lost and gone forever...

I think that most of us Brits here who wish to see Ulster remain democratically British, wish to do so as exponents of third way solutions.

I have never encountered pro-Tory type Loyalism on preservationist fora, ever.

I have encountered this myopic view in real time.

Óttar, you are in favour of what exactly?

An undemocratic dissolving of Ulster's tenuous sovereignty perhaps? :rolleyes:
:thumb001:

[Óttar]

Actually, a good analysis I read lately about the failure of the Irish to achieve a united monarchy (Morris's Age of Arthur) blamed the CHURCH for this!

Figures. I have never been sympathetic to the Church, any Abrahamic Faith, or normative sect thereof. The Pope granted Ireland to the English king in the first place, so you won't get any argument from me here. Christianity in Ireland was originally Orthodox until the Irish were afraid of being accused of heresy by the continental Church.


And you want them to accept an All Ireland state, in which your cronies will be chucking such insults at them all day long?

Not before Catholics in the north will be bombarded with taunts like "Taig" and "Fuck the Pope!", while being held up and terrorised by the RUC (cough, cough, I mean the PSNI).


Protestant morality would find it hard to get a look in.

Morality?! My hatred for the church as the most evil institution in the history of mankind is rivaled only by my hatred of the other great evils, Protestantism (and Islam.)

I agree with peace and cooperation between both sides and efforts to heal historical wounds, but I am incensed when I see these Orange Lodge types making a big song and dance, beating their lambegs in an attempt to stir-up trouble.

[Osweo]

Christianity in Ireland was originally Orthodox until the Irish were afraid of being accused of heresy by the continental Church.
I have Orthodox sympathies, having spent a decade in Russia, and can tell you that the attempt to link the 'Celtic' Church with it is simplistic in the least. The Irish Church was never too isolated from the Roman orthodoxy.

Not before Catholics in the north will be bombarded with taunts like "Taig" and "Fuck the Pope!", while being held up and terrorised by the RUC (cough, cough, I mean the PSNI).
THings were rarely that bad over there. Don't believe all the horror sttories.


Morality?! My hatred for the church as the most evil institution in the history of mankind is rivaled only by my hatred of the other great evils, Protestantism (and Islam.)
I'm no Christian, but am rather more moderate in my attitudes to this enormous influence in our history. You are too angry about it - you sound like some raving Varg Vikernes kid. Cool it! It was hardly sustainedly 'evil'! It had its highs and its lows, sure, but deserves better than this verdict. Read some hagiographic literature, might make you see it differently.

I agree with peace and cooperation between both sides and efforts to heal historical wounds, but I am incensed when I see these Orange Lodge types making a big song and dance, beating their lambegs in an attempt to stir-up trouble.
Let people do their traditions, don't get incensed. It's the getting incensed that's the problem, not the marching and pipe playing! If everyone stuck to their traditions, however seemingly 'irrational', the worrld'd be a better place.

[Óttar]

THings were rarely that bad over there. Don't believe all the horror sttories.

So, the Protestants will be called names, but the Catholics aren't called "taigs" and there aren't cries of "fuck the pope!" ? The Protestants are paragons of virtue, meanwhile in a united Ireland a deranged army of nuns with clothespins will go about beating the Ulster Scots. :rolleyes:


I'm no Christian, but am rather more moderate in my attitudes to this enormous influence in our history. You are too angry about it - you sound like some raving Varg Vikernes kid. Cool it! It was hardly sustainedly 'evil'!

Any religion which attempts through aggression, to violently stamp out all opposition, all the while championing virgin births, and resurrection from the dead is not only highly illogical, but downright evil.


Read some hagiographic literature, might make you see it differently.

When I was younger I read some of the Lives of the Saints. What someone does in a monastery is their business, it's when the institution seeks to delude populations, and destroy indigenous beliefs, meanwhile having its main objective being to secure and expand its power that I have a problem.

The Church throughout history has had the function of Big Brother and the anti-sex league all at once.

If Christianity had never emerged, the world would be a better place.

[Osweo]

So, the Protestants will be called names, but the Catholics aren't called "taigs"
Who'd be offended at such a naff name! :p

and there aren't cries of "fuck the pope!" ?
Fuck him. It's a bit different to calling people things based on ancient historic events as though they were there themselves and fully responsible...

Any religion which attempts through aggression, to violently stamp out all opposition, all the while championing virgin births, and resurrection from the dead is not only highly illogical, but downright evil.
It amazes me that people can think so strongly about it. Perhaps your environment is not as secularised as in Britain? Incidentally, that's a good reason to try to stay in the Union!

If Christianity had never emerged, the world would be a better place.
It was largely inevitable with increased communications and state possibilities. Look on it as 'growing pains' for humanity, something necessary to get through, a phase. And calm down...

[Óttar]

Who'd be offended at such a naff name! :p

Right. But I highly doubt that the people who employ this term pejoratively mean to commend their opponents' poetic talents.



Fuck him.

I agree. But this is used with the sole intent of being inflammatory, and is not meant to be taken seriously as a theological or metaphysical position. You know that.


It was largely inevitable with increased communications and state possibilities. Look on it as 'growing pains' for humanity, something necessary to get through, a phase.

Something to overcome indeed, but it was not a progressive stage of a more highly evolved morality by any stretch.

The fact that there are loads of people who actually believe in virgin birth, and resurrection of the dead makes me ill.

Yeah, a Jewish carpenter descended to earth through parthogenesis to take on the "sins" of the world to appease the wrath of a petty celestial tyrant. Please.