|
| Thread: Your local History |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Wiseman
Known Hero
|
posted March 28, 2004 08:42 PM |
|
|
Before Asmodean replies in more detail -
the northern part o Ireland is a part of U.K and therefore
under british control.IRA only operates there, wanting
to liberate it.Of course the fact that the british
part of population there is mostly protestant and irish catholic isn`t helping.
Asmodean, does IRA want to attach NI to the rest of Ireland
or do they have some kind of independance in mind?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 28, 2004 09:20 PM |
|
|
The big thing to remember is that *now* (as Asmodean mentioned a few times) the IRA don't officially bomb anyone, they have a cease fire agreement in place. Various splinter elements such as the "Real IRA" and similar do continue to occaisionally refuse to admit that peace is the best option and set off a bomb somewhere, but not often. Of course the problem is also working out whether the "Real IRA" are little more than a front for the IRA when they wish to cause tension, or if they really are seperate in all ways.
The IRA have probably never *really* accepted that a divided Ireland is the future, they want it reunited with the republic, however, at the same time, Political wings like Sin Feinn (sp?) and others also recognise that the British Government will never allow this to happen through violence. The only chance for the republicans really lies in a democratic vote on the future of the country and winning that. Given the sizeable protestant population in N.Ireland atm, it's unlikely that the result of such a vote would be to reuinte with the republic, but rather at best for the republicans a semi-autonomous state. Even that though is seen as a stepping stone to reuinification.
Quote:
the northern part o Ireland is a part of U.K and therefore
under british control.IRA only operates there, wanting
to liberate it.
Uhmmm, this sounds wrong, you may have meant it differently, but it sounds like you're saying the IRA only operate in N.Ireland. They have had arms caches and bases in the Republic in the past and have targetted the UK on more occaisions than I can relate here in 1 post. They also have had strong links to other terrorist groups outside of N.Ireland.
To answer Consis, no the British have no control over the Republic of Ireland or it's people. There is a large minority (or at least atm it's a minority) in the North who are of Catholic descent and are what might be considered "Irish" more than "British". However, to hand a sizeable protestant and very British population into the control of the Irish Republic is to cause as big a problem as keeping a sizeable Catholic population inside the UK. Best solution all round for now is probably a semi-autonomous state rather than give it to either country.
Be very aware though when looking into this issue that the terrorism is very much NOT one sided. The UDA and others (usually called "Loyalists" though frankly I think they, like the IRA are scum and are not loyal to the values of my country, however it's a term used) have been retaliating with violent acts throughout this period. Some recent knowledge made public also showed that in the past the British government had linked itself to these groups. A shameful act by my government, though likely to be one mirrored I would imagine in the Republic through the IRA.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 28, 2004 10:09 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 28 Mar 2004
|
What? I Find This To Be Very Odd
Ok, so the brittish govern a small segment of the northern Irish continent? Ok, I'm guessing it was probably done during the Brittish empire time period. What do the peoples' religious preferrence have to do with any of it?
I'm still confused. Why in the world would Brittain want any part of Ireland? From what I understand Ireland isn't exactly a resource rich environment. Do the Irish have some sort of extremely compatible economy that especially suits the Brittish economy? Why the interest so heavily in Ireland?
My point is, I can understand the Brittish empire's interest in South Africa, for example, and it's rich supply of diamond mines but what does Ireland have that would make it so valuable to the English?
Just let Ireland go the way we gave Japan back to its people. Just do it. It's not yours and you have no interests there.
***special note***
I'm aware that nobody asked for my opinion but I gave it anyway. I'm trying to understand the situation over there. I was simply thinking out loud.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 28, 2004 10:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ok, so the brittish govern a small segment of the northern Irish continent? Ok, I'm guessing it was probably done during the Brittish empire time period. What do the peoples' religious preferrence have to do with any of it?
The interests really start in the renaissance period as Asmodean pointed out with the tudors who attempted to "colonise" Ireland by implanting it with Protestant settlers. At this time and for perhaps another 2 centuries religious conflict in the British isles was quite common, wars would rage over one claimant or another to establish himself and by extension his religion on the country at large. Officially, England, and to a lesser degree Scotland have been, since the mid 1500's a Protestant nation, indeed one of the strongest of the period. Ireland has long been Catholic in the main and those Protestants living in the country usually are English descendants, though often many, many generations back.
You have to remember that between about 1420 and 1745 there was literally dozens of mini civil wars in the British isles, and many of them had at their heart the debate over if the Monarch was Catholic or Protestant. The Monarch is head of the Church of England, now a protestant church of course, but England's religious past is very mixed. Ireland's was almost entirely Catholic and strongly so, other than the inherent issues about independance from the English and Celtic/Anglo saxon differences, one of the biggest divides has always been religion. It's not the only one, and frankly, now people of both sides are sick heartily of the conflict.
Quote:
I'm still confused. Why in the world would Brittain want any part of Ireland? From what I understand Ireland isn't exactly a resource rich environment. Do the Irish have some sort of extremely compatible economy that especially suits the Brittish economy? Why the interest so heavily in Ireland?
Ireland secures England's western defences and makes protecting the country easier. During the past quite often insurrection and rebellions began in the country showing that the British/English had a military reason to do it in their minds. Ireland is also close to England making it good proving ground for colonising before trying far distances. Also the colonisation began before England really got involved in America, let alone South Africa. English rulers were thinking much more local I guess. After taking control I guess it was just better for the Empire to secure that flank and also Ireland proved a constant source of soldiers for the empire. In the napoleonic period, some units were so filled with Irish soldiers that orders were given in Gaelic! (and these were ones not officially Irish too!)
Quote:
Just let Ireland go the way we gave Japan back to its people. Just do it. It's not yours and you have no interests there.
Uhmmm this isn't so clear cut. Firstly, over 50% of those in the provinces of N.Ireland actually want to remain in the UK. This is the figure at this moment. Mostly these are protestant unionists, firmly against reunification with the republic. Secondly, the same terrorists (UDA etc) would start back up again against the Republic and probably the UK too for doing it. What you suggest at this moment in time is undemocratic and will not stop violence from breaking out again.
Ireland's a very complicated issue, much more than standard "it's a colony give it back". I wish it was just a colony, I wish we could just be done with the whole issue. We won't be if we just give it back though.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted March 29, 2004 01:12 AM |
|
|
Dammit, I worked a 12 hour day and missed all the questions about my own bloody post!
Though to be fair - Privatehudson is VERY well informed as far as I can see, and has answered all the questions in a very fair manner.
I live in West Belfast - which is predominantly Catholic - and as such, due to upbringing and culture and the school I went to, think of myself of being Irish first, Northern Irish second.
The main dividing issue in my country is religion, but the true issue is national identity. The English weren't the fiirst to invade/colonise Ireland, just the most persistent. The Vikings did it, the Normans did it, the Romans might have done it if the empire had held on long enough. There were even English/Welsh/Scottish settlers that didn't come with armies - but just to set up home somewhere else.
My first name is Seamus (shay-muss) - which is Irish for James. My surname is Meredith - which is an old Welsh name, though I've never found out what for.
Anyways, the first colonisers became - to use a quaint phrase from my junior history classes 'more Irish than the Irish'.
From the English point of view, Ireland was strategically important to the 'Empire'. It was very friendly with Spain, and the English feared the Spanish using Ireland as a back door to England. In fact Spain actually tried this tactic - the Irish provided the Spanish with intelligence and maps of it's coastline and English military strength. If it hadn't been for bad weather/luck/incompetence it might have worked. It's also why there are Spanish Armada shipwrecks found on the Irish coast and why treasure hunters still go hunting for doubloons in the summer.
So the later wave of colonisers kept their alleigance to the English throne, and also the English state religion - Protestantism, while the Irish kept their Catholicism.
Perhaps one of the major turning points in regards to the attitude of the native Irish towards the English was the Irish Potato Blight. Roughly 95% of that years potato crop failed, and it being the staple of the Irish diet - nearly the whole peasant population went hungry. Those crops that were intact, and any other foods were siezed by the English aristocracy. The peasants rioted and were beaten back by the better trained soldiers - but the damage was done, In Irish eyes the English were now despised oppressors, and the English, having to deal with Irish rioters hardened their attitudes towards the people.
This was the reason for the Irish 'Diaspora' which led to cities such as Boston and New York having such high Irish populations, as thousands took ship to the new world in the hope of a better life (then their descendants voted for Bush and look at the mess now!  )
That's enough from me for now - any other questions I'll answer them when I've had some sleep.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 29, 2004 01:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Though to be fair - Privatehudson is VERY well informed as far as I can see, and has answered all the questions in a very fair manner.
Guess not all us Anglo-Saxons are that bad then huh?
On the Spanish link, also important is to recall the other countries, for example, during the Napoleonic wars, Napoleon allied himself to an Irish political leader (who's name escapes me) of the time and intended to use his links in the country to invade and raise the Irish population against the British. It might have worked too, I forget why it failed now as it's been ages since I read the article on it. Also the Germans attempted to raise the country against British rule during WWI IIRC. I think they were supposed to send guns to support the 1916 uprising or something but didn't send enough.
The potato famine was truly a disasterous period of British history which leaves a stain on the history of the empire. However, the extent to which the disaster was caused by sheer neglect and to malice is unkown I think. From what I have read of the period, the extent of the problem was kept from Parliment for some time by the government and authorities in Ireland. I personally think that was what did the damage, not the British public or parliment being malicious, but rather the greed of the small number of landowners and the hiding of the extent of the issue by the government and the people in charge of Ireland at the time.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 29, 2004 03:37 AM |
|
|
Classic PH.
Takes a nice thread about where people are from, and turns it into a history lesson. 
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 29, 2004 04:17 AM |
|
|
HEY! At least I'm not ruining someone elses
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted March 29, 2004 07:47 AM |
|
|
I Am Still Confused
Asmodean and PrivateHudson thankyou for answering my questions but I still have a question.
First off, just when you thought I was intelligent, let this question be a self-defining moment for me and describe my ignorance to great detail.
Having said that, I'll ask the question.
For some reason(unsure why) I thought the English throne had a great history of relations with the catholic church. Thus I had thought the brittish royal religion was catholic. I had thought the crusades were a catholic venture? On top of that ignorance, how is it that the english were and are protestant? How is it the Irish are catholic? I don't understand. I had always thought that Martin Luther was looked down upon by the throne and such.
Wow, ok this truly shows how little I truly know of English/Irish history.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 29, 2004 09:11 AM |
|
|
Roughly speaking, Henry VIII (the one famous for 6 wives) changed the church in the country forever by seperating the church from the Pope. In his desire to divorce his first wife (which the Pope and church considered illegal) he dissolved the Pope's power over the English church and gave it to himself. This lead to later him disolving the power of the Monastaries in the country, essentially looting them for wealth to fight wars on some often feeble grounds. The Catholic church never really recovered from that in the country, though Henry never *officially* changed the religion, the rot set in. His son was young when Henry died, but he and his regents were protestant and tried to change the country thus. Mostly they suceeded until he died when Mary (his half sister) took the throne and being Catholic and married to the Spanish King Phillip tried to forcefully impose Catholic chuch back on the English people. The result was bloodshed and burnings at the stake. When she died, Elizabeth I took the throne and reaffirmed Protestantism as the main faith. She later was excommunicated for this, part of the excuse Phillip of Spain (the same one as above) used to launch the Armarda.
After Elizabeth the Stuarts of Scotland who were catholic took the throne and though there was no big attempt to enforce the religion on the people they were often unpopular in other matters. With one beheaded during the big civil war and one deposed in favour of a Dutchman, it's easy to see that they were not everyone's idea of the perfect royals! Unfortunately this caused a major issue with the Scottish (and specifically the highlanders) who backed the Stuarts on the grounds of nationalism (scotland was still until the early 1700's it's own country though the monarch of England and Scotland was essentially the same person since after Elizabeth) whereas the Irish often supported them on the grounds of faith and nationalism. This lead to the English looking far afield for Protestant kings and queens, hence the Georgians (germans who didn't even speak english) and William (Dutchman who was married to a stuart). Even the civil war between King and Parliment linked to this, Charles' opponents lead mainly by Cromwell eventually imposed a strict puritan religon on the country for some time.
The minor erruptions of civil wars between the Jacobites (stuarts) and others during the period reflects this. Coludden and Bonnie Prince Charlie is the best known outside of the UK and Ireland, but in Ireland prior to this, William of Orange, the dutch king fought the Jacobites who consisted of many catholic troops from Ireland also. William won and kept his throne, punishing those who supported the other side harshly. The Battle of the Boyne is a big part of that and is still remembered today in the memories of the Orangemen (protestants, usually quite severe in their views) who live in the provinces.
Which btw is one reason why the mobile company orange never uses it's most popular add slogan in Northern Ireland (or so modern legend goes). "the future is bright, the future is orange" would often be seen as a political statement!
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 29, 2004 09:25 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 29 Mar 2004
|
Fascinating Stuff PrivateHudson
Absolutely rivetting. As an american citizen raised in Texas I find this so completely intruiging.
How different life is across the ocean. And yet, the two religions are, in fact, both christian.
It seems not the same when compared to the Israeli/Palestinian terrorism and land feuds. There we have Jewish and Islamic people using terrorism in much the same way, but for different reasons.
Historic to be sure, and truly interesting to know.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted March 29, 2004 12:14 PM |
|
|
They USED to use it, but for some reason......they stopped that slogan. I can't for the life of me think why
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Wiseman
Known Hero
|
|
posted March 29, 2004 06:56 PM |
|
|
I don`t know how to ask this Consis and not to
come out totally inpolite so I`ll just say it:
What amount of history did they teach in your school?
I repeat - no offense meant.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 29, 2004 07:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How different life is across the ocean. And yet, the two religions are, in fact, both christian
Allow me to give you an example of how religion was allowed to divide people back then. When I studied Tudor history, some 8 years ago now (YIKES! I'm old!) one of the subjects that arose during the reign of Edward VI (The son of Henry VIII that I mentioned) was something called the book of common prayer, an english attempt at a religious guideline. One of the major issues in the book was that of Mass. Many traditional protestants and most Catholics of the time held to the belief that when recieving mass you literally ate the "body and blood" the bread and wine somehow became these things. The new book stated that the wine and bread were more symbolic and not literally christ. Rebellions broke out in the country over this book alone...
Not that the mass issue was the only problem some had with the book, but it does give you an idea of the almost painfully ludicrous nature of the disagreements. The entire history of religion in the country is littered too often with people fighting over "how" to worship rather than making sure they follow the principle morality of christianity.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 29, 2004 09:21 PM |
|
|
History I Was Taught
Wiseman,
I was taught history while growing up as both an American citizen and a Texan. I was taught American and Texas history.
If we were to learn anything outside of these two focuses then we were given the choice. I believe, starting in junior high school was when we were first allowed to choose some of the classes we took. At this time we could choose to learn of other worldly histories but many people did not.
Many did not because we all had been taught American and Texas history prior to reaching junior high school. So when we entered this level of education many kids wanted an easy credit towards a total grade point average. High total grade point averages(or gpa's) would qualify students for some scholarships for some colleges around the country.
So, because we had already been familiarized with American and Texas history, some people found it easier to simply take a more in-depth lesson of the same class for junior high school. This was merely a continuation of what had already been taught.
This is what I did. My extensive knowledge is limited to American and Texas history. International history is something I am only just beginning to start learning about.
I have found that many of the members of this community were taught history on a similar scale according to their selective upbringing. I have found this place to be an invaluable source of information on international historical facts.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted March 30, 2004 01:11 AM |
|
|
That's quite weird Concis, the British and Irish history curriculae are much fuller.
In primary school (age 4-11) I learned a little of the vikings, mediaevil times and Irish mythology.
In the first 3 years of secondary school (age 11-114) we learned about Irish history from roughly the 9th century all the way through to modern day, and covered Napoleon, the Spanish Armada, the battle of Hastings and the Great Fire of London and the Mary Queen of Scots vs. Elizabeth saga and World War I.
And this is just to teach you how to use historiacl sources in answering questions and writing essays - no state exams at all.
In GCSE history (the state exam you take at 16 yrs old) EVERYONE is required to learn about the events leading to and surrounding World War II.
Then there are choices - and in my school there was not really a choice, it depended on which history teacher you had and what they chose to teach you.
My class studied American history from the turn of the 19th century to modern day, so we had the Great Depression, the various Presidents, the Wall Street crash, the Cuban Missile crisis, Vietnam and the end of the Cold War.
Other classes in my school studied the same time period in Ireland, a third class did the same time period in Africa, and another class were taught the same time period in the Middle East.
You can see from this that the British history class covers LOTS of different aspects, probably due to multiculturalism.
Then the last bit was a choice between the History of Medicine from the Stone Age to modern day, or the History of Energy. I was taught the medicine course, so we learned all about stone age trephining, the history of pennicillin, the first small pox vaccine, the origins of the hippocratic oath, Florence Nightingale and War Medicine, Marie Curie and cancer research and a whole bunch of other medical milestones.
I got a B in history by the way.
Since your history class was just American and Texan - was it very in-depth?
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 30, 2004 01:23 AM |
|
|
Sounds a pretty similar story to the curiculum I studied in school too  In A Levels we studied in depth Tudor History of Britain (mostly england) and post WWII.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 30, 2004 02:27 AM |
|
|
Interesting facts to compare things with the curricilum over here.
And what can i say. Poor Macedonian kids! In primary school (all are obliged, age 10-14) we learned the entire course of history, form Prehistoric times until Cold War. In detail World History, plus in-depth national history.
But, that's way it's basically the same stuff in high-school again, with only few expandings.
And you surprised me Asmodean, with that choice manipulations. I thought a thing like that can happen only here, as it did (when i was second year highschool).
@ Asmodean
What's the percentage of people there who speak Irish (i mean celtic irish)? I thought that all of the Irish speak this ancient language, until you mentioned in a thread some time ago that you can't speak Irish. An Irish that can't speak Irish! Sounds interesting, huh? (too mnay "Irish" words, sorry)
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 30, 2004 02:40 AM |
|
|
I wouldn't worry, hardly any people in Scotland speak Scotish Gaelic
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 30, 2004 02:45 AM |
|
|
Is Gaelic pronounced, GAY-lick?
____________
|
| |
|
|
