Aside from the famine, was Ireland under British rule really THAT bad?

Home Forums History Aside from the famine, was Ireland under British rule really THAT bad?

Viewing 61 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #196801
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Aside from the famine, was Ireland under British rule really THAT bad?

    • #196802
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Yes it was

      Pic related is from Gustave de Beaumont’s Ireland: Social, Politic and Religious 1839-1842, written before the Famine

      • #196804
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Damn Irish middle class were really that mean to their fellow man

      • #196805
        Anonymous
        Guest

        De Beaumont travelled alongside his friend Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America, who made similar comments in his notebooks and travelogues. Both de Beaumont and de Tocqueville were in agreement that Ireland’s miseries were caused by the Anglo-Irish Protestant aristocracy and their hostility to the native Irish Catholic populace

        • #196806
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Reminder that this was written before the Great Famine proper

        • #196810
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >French philosophers in the 18th & 19th century
          Opinion discarded, you can see how much the account drips with anglophobia

          • #196877
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Opinion discarded, you can see how much the account drips with anglophobia
            yes we should limit ourselves to reading things by the English the most objective people when it comes to Ireland

      • #196809
        Anonymous
        Guest

        De Beaumont travelled alongside his friend Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America, who made similar comments in his notebooks and travelogues. Both de Beaumont and de Tocqueville were in agreement that Ireland’s miseries were caused by the Anglo-Irish Protestant aristocracy and their hostility to the native Irish Catholic populace

        Reminder that this was written before the Great Famine proper

        De Beaumont was a progressive social reformer an French chauvinist. He also wrote scathingly about American society.

        Besides, he visited immediately before the famine, when conditions were at their worst. Ireland had experienced a century of massive population growth that was straining its resources beyond breaking point. Ireland’s condition in the 1840s isn’t really representative of the situation 50 years earlier and a world away from the situation 50 years later.

        • #196813
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Here is W. H. Lecky, an admired Anglo-Irish Protestant Unionist (if a liberal one) describing the condition of the Irish poor under their Anglo-Irish landlords in the 18th century, woke af on the accounts of English visitors to Ireland in the 18th century

        • #196815
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >French philosophers in the 18th & 19th century
          Opinion discarded, you can see how much the account drips with anglophobia

          His views were the same as those of his friend and travelling companion Alexis de Tocqueville who is an admired figure in Anglo-American conservatism

        • #196821
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Ireland’s condition in the 1840s isn’t really representative of the situation 50 years earlier and a world away from the situation 50 years later

          well since we’ve seen what it was like over 50 years earlier than de Beaumont wrote in the 1830s and 40s (

          Here is W. H. Lecky, an admired Anglo-Irish Protestant Unionist (if a liberal one) describing the condition of the Irish poor under their Anglo-Irish landlords in the 18th century, woke af on the accounts of English visitors to Ireland in the 18th century

          ) let’s have a look at 50 years later shall we?

          pic related is from David Ross Locke’s Nasby in Exile (1882), the author’s travel account of Europe, including Ireland. Locke himself had the usual Anglo-American prejudices against Ireland before seeing the place for himself

          • #196835
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >There is no man in the world, not excepting the Frenchman, who will work longer or harder than the Irishman. There is no race of men who are better merchants or more enterprising dealers, and there is no reason but one why Cork should not be one of the largest and richest cities of the world.
            Do you spend literally all your time hunting down obscure authors who wrote ridiculous shit about how great Irish people are?

            • #196836
              Anonymous
              Guest

              I agree that the author is exaggerating the good qualities of the Irish, but I think he’s doing it to compensate for having believed lies and slander about them before visiting Ireland, which is understandable

              • #196845
                Anonymous
                Guest

                There are many such instances of travellers radically altering their opinions of Ireland upon seeing it themselves instead of relying on British misrepresentations:

                >It affords me much satisfaction thus to record the amiable qualities of the Irish; as, previous to my landing, I had conceived strong prejudices against them, in consequence of the misrepresentation of some of the passengers on board our ship, who had described them as rude, irascible, and savage… I had heard from Englishmen,that the Irish, after they get drunk at table, quarrel, and kill each other in duels; but I must declare, that I never saw them guilty of any rudeness, or of the smallest impropriety.
                >They are not so intolerant as the English, neither have they the austerity and bigotry of the Scotch. In bravery and determination, hospitality, and prodigality, freedom of speech and open-heartedness, they surpass the English and Scotch, but are deficient in prudence and sound judgment: they are nevertheless witty, and quick of comprehension… The poverty of the peasants, or common people, in this country, is such, that the peasants of India are rich when compared to them.
                Travels of Mirza Abu Taleb Khan, 1799.

                • #196859
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Among those whose opinions of the Irish changed upon visiting Ireland was Frederick Engels. His first comments on the Irish, woke af on English information and Irish immigrants he saw in English industrial cities, were bigoted and racialist. It’s interesting to watch his sympathy increase as his writings progress. From an early letter written after seeing Ireland:

                  >The English wars of conquest from 1100 to 1850 (au fond they lasted as long as this, as did also martial law) utterly ruined the country. With regard to most of the ruins, it has been established that the destruction took place during these wars. Thus the very people have acquired their unusual character and, for all their fanatical Irish nationalism, the fellows no longer feel at home in their own country. Ireland for the Saxon! That is now becoming a reality. The Irishman knows that he cannot compete with the Englishman, who comes armed with resources in every respect superior to his own; emigration will continue until the predominantly, indeed almost exclusively, Celtic nature of the population has gone to pot. How often have the Irish set out to achieve something and each time been crushed, politically and industrially! In this artificial manner, through systematic oppression, they have come to be a completely wretched nation and now, as everyone knows, they have the job of providing England, America, Australia, etc., with whores, day labourers, maquereaux, pickpockets, swindlers, beggars and other wretches. Even the aristocracy are infected by this wretchedness. The landowners, wholly bourgeoisified everywhere else, are here completely down-at-heel. Their country seats are surrounded by huge and lovely parks but all around there is desolation and where the money is supposed to come from heaven only knows.
                  Engels to Marx, Manchester, 23 May 1856

                  • #196860
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Engels was eventually of the opinion that Ireland and Poland were the only nations in Europe with a ‘duty to be nationalistic’

                    >Thus I hold the view that there are two nations in Europe which do not only have the right but the duty to be nationalistic before they become internationalists: the Irish and the Poles. They are internationalists of the best kind if they are very nationalistic. The Poles have understood this in all crises and have proved it on the battlefields of all revolutions. Take away their expectation to re-establish Poland; or persuade them that the new Poland will soon fall into their laps by itself, and they are finished with their interest in the European Revolution.
                    Engels to Karl Kautsky, 7 February 1882

                • #196948
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >neither have they the austerity and bigotry of the Scotch.
                  Rude tbh

          • #196857
            Anonymous
            Guest

            […]
            Pic related is from a Lecture on Ireland by James Redpath (1881)

            Redpath was a famous abolitionist and anti-slavery activist so his comparison between the condition of the black slave and the Irish peasant can’t be dismissed as an attempt to trivialise black grievances, and he was an Anglo-American actually born in England so his comments on British rule can’t be dismissed as being motivated by Anglophobia

            Other Americans who embraced the Irish cause after visiting the country included Benjamin Franklin, who wrote to his friend Thomas Cushing after seeing Ireland in 1771:

            >The people in that unhappy country, are in a most wretched situation. Ireland is itself a poor country, and Dublin a magnificent city; but the appearances of general extreme poverty among the lower people are amazing. They live in wretched hovels of mud and straw, are clothed in rags, and subsist chiefly on potatoes. Our New England farmers, of the poorest sort, in regard to the enjoyment of all the comforts of life, are princes when compared to them. Perhaps three-fourths of the Inhabitants are in this situation… All Ireland is strongly in favour of the American cause. They have reason to sympathise with us.

            • #196858
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Among the many who compared the condition of the Irish poor to that of African American slaves was Frederick Douglass, himself a former slave, here writing in a letter from 1846:

              >Though I am more closely connected and identified with one class of outraged, oppressed and enslaved people, I cannot allow myself to be insensible to the wrongs and sufferings of any part of the great family of man….I spent nearly six weeks in Dublin, and….I speak truly when I say, I dreaded to go out of the house. The streets were almost literally alive with beggars, displaying the greatest wretchedness–some of them mere stumps of men, without feet, without legs, without hands, without arms–and others still more horribly deformed, with crooked limbs, down upon their hands and knees, their feet lapped around each other, and laid upon their backs, pressing their way through the muddy streets and merciless crowd, casting sad looks to the right and left, in the hope of catching the eye of a passing stranger–the citizens generally having set their faces against giving to beggars. I have had more than a dozen around me at one time, men, women and children, all telling a tale of woe which would move any but a heart of iron. Women, barefooted and bareheaded, and only covered by rags which seemed to be held together by the very dirt and filth with which they were covered–many of these had infants in their arms, whose emaciated forms, sunken eyes and pallid cheeks, told too plainly that they had nursed till they had nursed in vain…

              This particular quote is not the best example I can find right now but he makes the comparison elsewhere more explicitly

              • #196861
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Engels had a passionate sympathy with Ireland, in part due to his Irish wife, but just as much through his deep study of its history and culture:

                >When in the 17th century, however, the Irish people were completely crushed by Elizabeth, James I, Oliver Cromwell and William of Orange, their landholdings robbed and given to English invaders, the Irish people outlawed in their own land and transformed into a nation of outcasts, the wandering singers were hounded in the same way as the Catholic priests, and had gradually died out by the beginning of this century. Their names are lost, of their poetry only fragments have survived, the most beautiful legacy they have left their enslaved, but unconquered people is their music.
                >The melancholy dominating most of these songs is still the expression of the national. disposition today. How could it be otherwise amongst a people whose conquerors are always inventing new, up-to-date methods of oppression? The latest method, which was introduced forty years ago and pushed to the extreme in the last twenty years, consists in the mass eviction of Irishmen from their homes and farms — which, in Ireland, is the same as eviction from the country. Since 1841 the population has dropped by two and a half million, and over three million Irishmen have emigrated. All this has been done for the profit of the big landowners of English descent, and on their instigation. If it goes on like this for another thirty years, there will be Irishmen only in America.
                Engels, Notes for the Preface to a Collection of Irish Songs

                • #196862
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >The English knew how to reconcile people of the most diverse races with their rule. The Welsh, who held so tenaciously to their nationality and language, have fused completely with the British Empire. The Scottish Celts, though rebellious until 1745 and since almost completely exterminated first by the government and then by their own aristocracy, do not even think of rebellion. The French of the Channel Isles fought bitterly against France during the Great Revolution. Even the Frisians of Heligoland, which Denmark sold to Britain, are satisfied with their lot; and a long time will probably pass before the laurels of Sadowa and the conquests of the North — German Confederation wrench from their throats a pained wail about unification with the “great fatherland.” Only with the Irish the English could not cope. The reason for this is the enormous resilience of the Irish race. After the most savage suppression, after every attempt to exterminate them, the Irish, following a short respite, stood stronger than ever before: it seemed they drew their main strength from the very foreign garrison forced on them in order to oppress them. Within two generations, often within one, the foreigners became more Irish than the Irish, Hiberniores ipsis Hibernis. The more the Irish accepted the English language and forgot their own, the more Irish they became.
                  Frederick Engels, Notes for the “History of Ireland” 1870

                  as we can see Engels began with a condescending and disdainful view of the Irish woke af on immigrant ghettos and English propaganda (he called the typical Irishman "a carefree, cheerful, potato-eating child of nature" in one of his early letters) and later moved on to being a full-blown Irish nationalist

        • #196823
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Ireland’s condition in the 1840s isn’t really representative of the situation 50 years earlier and a world away from the situation 50 years later

          well since we’ve seen what it was like over 50 years earlier than de Beaumont wrote in the 1830s and 40s ([…]) let’s have a look at 50 years later shall we?

          pic related is from David Ross Locke’s Nasby in Exile (1882), the author’s travel account of Europe, including Ireland. Locke himself had the usual Anglo-American prejudices against Ireland before seeing the place for himself

          Pic related is from a Lecture on Ireland by James Redpath (1881)

          Redpath was a famous abolitionist and anti-slavery activist so his comparison between the condition of the black slave and the Irish peasant can’t be dismissed as an attempt to trivialise black grievances, and he was an Anglo-American actually born in England so his comments on British rule can’t be dismissed as being motivated by Anglophobia

        • #196837
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >De Beaumont was a progressive social reformer an French chauvinist. He also wrote scathingly about American society.

          He condemned slavery and extermination yes, but what’s wrong with that?

          >Besides, he visited immediately before the famine, when conditions were at their worst. Ireland had experienced a century of massive population growth that was straining its resources beyond breaking point.

          England was undergoing massive population growth too around the same time, to a certain extent sustained on food provided by Ireland, but this fact tends to get left out of English moral lectures to the Irish

        • #197026
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >he said mean things about my country, so he must be badwrong!
          lel

          • #197029
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >he said bad things about country i dont like so he must be right

      • #196819
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Gustave de Beaumont
        lol yeah i’m sure that’s a neutral voice. reminder that fr*nce tried to invade england through ireland and failed

      • #196896
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >I have seen the Indian in his forests…and thought, as I contemplated their pitiable condition, that I saw the extreme of human wretchedness…
        what the fuck was his problem? why would you compare some of the freest and happiest people on earth (injuns in the wild) to literal chattel slaves? what a freaking racist idiot

        • #196897
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >le noble savage meme strikes again

          • #196898
            Anonymous
            Guest

            it’s not really a meme that hunter gatherers with access to lots of resources have high life satisfaction
            civilization is soul crushing, saying otherwise is a cope

            • #196900
              Anonymous
              Guest

              The English routinely compared the "mere Irish" or "wild Irish" (the Gaelic Irish before their total subjugation at the end of the seventeenth century) to Native Americans and vice versa. Thomas Morton’s New English Canaan for instance is one example of an English colonist remarking on the Irish-seeming character of the American coastal peoples in dress, architecture, manner and lifestyle.

              As their descendants would later comment on the astounding physical abilities of peoples like the Comanche the English remarked that the wild Irish were capable of rare physical feats like being able to run as fast as horses for long periods.

              The phrase "nits make lice", used by Colonel Chivington to justify the massacre of Indian children in the Sand Creek massacre, was first recorded in the seventeenth century by John Nalson as something a parliamentarian officer in Ireland had said in justification for the murder of Irish children.

              The fate of the Irish and Native Americans was determined by the fact that to the English they were both part of the same Drang Nach Westen.

              Very sadly many Irish-Americans like General Sheridan were involved in the destruction of the Native American peoples

      • #196998
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This sounds a lot like most modern societies to be honest

      • #197101
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Sounds like modern South America

    • #196803
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >aside from the famine
      Sorry anon the fact you couldn’t help when the goverment was on the verge of bankruptcy means your government is illegitimate and we need to start killing civilians

      • #196808
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Reminder that this was written before the Great Famine proper

        You mean the Anglo-Irish aristocracy

        • #196811
          Anonymous
          Guest

          There was still an irish middle class anon, and a greedy Irish middle class at that

          • #196816
            Anonymous
            Guest

            So?

            There was a small Irish Catholic middle class and it was greedy and self-interested, but that doesn’t change anything. Does a people need to consist only of saints to qualify as having been oppressed?

            >be irish
            >complain about imperialism
            >raid the coasts of britain for slaves for hundreds of years, invade scotland and wipe out/assimilate the picts, spread christianity to the pagan anglo saxons

            Irishmen raided western Britain in late antiquity, but "Ireland" didn’t, because there wasn’t an Irish state at the time. Your whataboutism involves drawing an equivalence between state and non-state actors, and events from millennia ago with recent history

            • #196817
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Irish raiders really did a number on Britain after Rome left that island
              St Patrick was a slave, there was what is known as Dal Riada and many,many place names in Wales, Scotland and Cornwall were Gaelicised.

              • #196834
                Anonymous
                Guest

                the fact that your whataboutism reaches back into things Irish pirates did in the fifth century A.D. speaks for itself

    • #196807
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >was x nation under Freemason rule really THAT bad?
      The answer is always “yes”.

      • #196822
        Anonymous
        Guest

        it’s good to see people aware of the evil role these people have played in Irish history

        the Orange Order is derived from Freemasonry

    • #196812
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >be irish
      >complain about imperialism
      >raid the coasts of britain for slaves for hundreds of years, invade scotland and wipe out/assimilate the picts, spread christianity to the pagan anglo saxons

    • #196814
      trans rights
      Guest

      Yeah it was terrible. Catholics had to pay tithes to the Protestant church even though they were not Protestant.
      No home rule or indepdence which is a subject unto itself
      The English education system was trying to indoctrinate the Irish into being loyal English citizens and forgetting where they really came from
      Fuck the union, fuck Britain and fuck the royal family

      • #196842
        Anonymous
        Guest

        You will never be a woman or of an important people.

        • #196843
          Anonymous
          Guest

          a pretty limp and defeated response to the rest of the thread

      • #197078
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Catholics had to pay tithes to the Protestant church even though they were not Protestant
        Catholic here. I have to pay tithes to a government that says abortion is a Woman’s Right To Choose and that homosexuality gets you into a Protected class.
        Oh, and I live in Colorado, where thugs deface our churches, and the cops give a big yawn when it happens.

      • #197106
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Vae Victis

    • #196818
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Did you know that the Statue of Liberty was a gift from Idaho to New York? We we thought we would give you a potato, but the then we made this big lady statue, she likes potatoes.

      Imagine the Statue of Liberty just holds a giant potato.

      Imagine if the Statue of Liberty just was a giant potato!

      The Irish immigrants would get super pissed.

      No! They would get super high!

      Yeah, because they’re coming with a potato famine and they come to the land and

      LOOK! THERE’S A GIANT freaking POTATO STATUE!

      WE KNOW THIS WAS THE RIGHT CHOICE

      THIS WAS A GOOD DECISION.

      • #196820
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Hehe

    • #196824
      Anonymous
      Guest

      can we really blame the potato famine on inheritance laws?

    • #196825
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >The Catholics of Kinsale, who are also scattered over the surrounding territory, are estimated at about two hundred; many of them live miserably in the country, in mud cabins, badly thatched with straw, sleeping on the ground on short mats, and subsisting chiefly on fish and cockles, which are much smaller than the oyster, and are found in these seas, adhering to the rocks; they have seldom an opportunity of eating bread. Since the insurrection of this kingdom, they have been considered almost as the people of a conquered country, and are treated as slaves, being obliged to cultivate the ground, and to account to the owner even for their scanty profits. […] The revenue which Ireland contributes to the royal treasury is estimated at three hundred thousand pounds sterling a year, arising from what are called the tributes of the crown, which every county in the kingdom pays to the exchequer from the revenues of the property of the rebels; from the annual loans, the right of which the same exchequer reserves to itself; from enfeoffments made of property confiscated in consequence of the pretended rebellion; and, lastly, from duties connected with commerce: which are exacted from the inhabitants, and with more especial rigour from the natives of the kingdom, towards whom the antipathy of the English is so great, that they not only do not allow them to speak in their native tongue, but oblige them to use the English idiom, forbidding them, under the severest penalties, the use of the liturgy in any other language than English, even in the prayers of their own communion.
      Conte Lorenzo Magalotti, The Travels of Cosmo the Third, Grand Duke of Tuscany (1669)

      An Italian account from the seventeenth century. Notice how these accounts from foreign travellers from different nations over different centuries all read remarkably similarly?

    • #196826
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >On our return, Captain S—— gave me a great many interesting details respecting the really atrocious and crying injustice and oppression under which the Irish Catholics labour: it is more intolerable than that which the Greeks suffer from their Turkish masters. The Catholics are not allowed to call their places of worship churches, only chapels; they must have no bells in them,—things inconsiderable in themselves, but degrading and insulting in their intent. No Catholic can, as you know, sit in Parliament, nor be general in the army, minister of state, judge, &c. Their priests cannot perform the ceremony of marriage, in cases where one party is Protestant, and their titles are not recognised by the law. The most scandalous thing however is, that the Catholics are forced to pay enormous sums to the Protestant clergy, while they have entirely to maintain their own, of whom the state takes no notice. This is manifestly one great cause of the incredible poverty of the people. How intolerable must it appear in a country like Ireland, where more than two-thirds of the whole population are most zealously devoted to the Catholic religion!
      Hermann Fürst von Pückler-Muskau, Tour in England, Ireland, and France, in the years 1826, 1827, 1828, and 1829

    • #196827
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >The cause of this defect [Irish disorganisation and fatalism], besides the climate and coldness of blood, may be found in the length of time the Irish have lived under the oppression of England in such bonds of vassalage, that not only were they prohibited from every industrial occupation, and from embarking in commerce, but in a still more miserable slavery were prevented from receiving education, or perfecting themselves in any science.
      The Embassy in Ireland of Monsignor G. B. Rinnuccini, Archbishop of Fermo, in the years 1645-1649

      way back in the mid-17th century we see an Italian observer saying the English oppression of the Irish has been long and severe enough to change their character

    • #196828
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >I saw nothing more remarkable betwen Cork and that Metropolis of Irland than Killkenny with a Country very fertile in Grains, pastures and such Richs of Nature & Art as the above mention’d but with all this the greatest poverty imaginable among the Countrypeople (mostly R. Catholicks); they are almost naked lodge in Hutes made of Earth worse than the Habitations of the Laplanders, and lie on straw, they are (I heard) as great Slaves to the Irish Lords as the Russian Païsants to their Boïars, they live on Potatos and Butter-melk, I did hardly met with one even a Woman but walk’d barefoot either in Winter or Summer; I was assur’d by my Fellow-travellers, (and I had heard already at Cork and Blarney) that there are few or none who eat Bread twice a Year, those who have two Cows and a Field of Potatos of their own reckon themselves happy, however they are strong, healty and handsome Peoples, they breed as Rabbits, nothing more common than to see 5 or 6 Children and more in one Hute, however their Lords and Masters say that they are the most leazy Peoples in the World, one must not conclude from what I have said of the Beauty and Fertility of the Country, that they are general, there are in this as in others many Heaths & barren Lands, where almost nothing grows but Brambles and sweet Brooms: there are several Marshs as dangerous as those of Ingria mention’d in the 2d. & 3d. Chapt. which they call Bogs, especially North West I heard so, I have not seen them, the Wood and forrest, are almost as scarce now in Irland as they were formerly plentifull before the Conquest of this Kingdom by Henry II. They have been cut down to sell or (as they say for Reason) to reduce the Rebels and Tories (as are call’d here High-way-men) who retir’d therein.
      Aubry de la Mottraye, Voyages en anglois et en françois d’A. de la Motraye en diverses provinces, 1723

      the "Irish lords" mentioned were of course almost entirely Anglo-Irish

    • #196829
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >The ruins of ancient castles were pointed out to me; but how could I take any pleasure in them while the desolate ruined huts surrounded me, and testified the distress of the present times more loudly than the others did the grandeur of the past? But then the lords were of the same race — of the same language; they were on the spot, and the people certainly not so wretched as since the confiscations of the English conquerors. Other huts were half fallen down, but the occupants crept into the remaining half, which was not larger than a coffin for the wretched family.
      >When I recollect the well-fed rogues and thieves in the English prisons, I admire, notwithstanding the very natural increase of Irish criminals, the power of morality — I wonder that the whole nation does not go over and steal, in order to enjoy a new and happier existence. And then the English boast of the good treatment of their countrymen, while the innocent Irish are obliged to live worse than their cattle. In Parliament they talk for years together whether it is necessary and becoming to leave 100,000 dollars annually (15,000l.) in the hands of the pastors of 520 Protestants, or 10,750 dollars to the pastors of 3 Protestants; while there are thousands here who scarcely know they have a soul, and know nothing of their body, except that it suffers hunger, thirst, and cold.
      Friedrich von Raumer, Letters from Ireland, 1835

    • #196838
      Anonymous
      Guest

      more Lecky

    • #196839
      Anonymous
      Guest
    • #196840
      Anonymous
      Guest
    • #196841
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Lecky on the destruction of the woods. Regarding the animal cruelty mentioned at the end (of which I am ashamed as an Irishman) the explanation for it seems to be in a deliberate adoption of weird primitivist customs by the Irish out of hatred for their enemies. Here is an early 17th century account:

      >As conquered nations seldom love their conquerors, so in those times Shane O’Neill, the great lord of the North, is said to have cursed his people, at his death, if any of them should build houses or shire towns, to invite the Englishmen to live among them. And in most customs they affected to be contrary to the English. Myself have heard a worthy old captain, who had served long in Ireland, relate some forty customs clean contrary to the English, which I have now forgotten and therefore will only instance one or two of them, namely that women took horse on the contrary side to the Englishmen, with their faces turned the contrary way, and that the Irish used no harness or traces for horses drawing in the plough or drawing sledges with carriage, but only fastened the plough and the carriage by withes to the tails of the horses (or garrans, for so they call them), whereby the tails of them are commonly pulled off, and the very rumps bared. To omit the rest which I cannot remember, we generally observed that not only the women of the mere Irish, but also the old English-Irish, who could speak English as well as ourselves, yet dared not speak it with us if their husbands or their fathers were present. They keep the old calendar, and only the cities have clocks, and keep them as we do in England.
      Fynes Moryson, The Manners and Customs of Ireland

      • #196866
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The animal cruelty thing sounds made up or an embellishment and like something out of Swift

        I don’t believe it simply because it seems impossible to work an animal like that and once the tail is gone you’ve no way to harness it

    • #196844
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Orangemen bad

    • #196846
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >penal laws
      Yes

      • #196854
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Edmund Burke on the penal laws:

        1/

        >For a much longer period than that which had sufficed to blend the Romans with the nation to which of all others they were the most adverse, the Protestants settled in Ireland considered themselves in no other light than that of a sort of a colonial garrison, to keep the natives in subjection to the other state of Great Britain. The whole spirit of the Revolution in Ireland was that of not the mildest conqueror. In truth, the spirit of those proceedings did not commence at that era, nor was religion of any kind their primary object. What was done was not in the spirit of a contest between two religious factions, but between two adverse nations. The statutes of Kilkenny show that the spirit of the Popery laws, and some even of their actual provisions, as applied between Englishry and Irishry, had existed in that harassed country before the words Protestant and Papist were heard of in the world. If we read Baron Finglas, Spenser, and Sir John Davies, we cannot miss the true genius and policy of the English government there before the Revolution, as well as during the whole reign of Queen Elizabeth. Sir John Davies boasts of the benefits received by the natives, by extending to them the English law, and turning the whole kingdom into shire ground. But the appearance of things alone was changed. The original scheme was never deviated from for a single hour.

        • #196855
          Anonymous
          Guest

          2/

          >Unheard-of confiscations were made in the northern parts, upon grounds of plots and conspiracies, never proved upon their supposed authors. The war of chicane succeeded to the war of arms and of hostile statutes; and a regular series of operations was carried on, particularly from Chichester’s time, in the ordinary courts of justice, and by special commissions and inquisitions – first under pretence of tenures, and then of titles in the crown, for the purpose of the total extirpation of the interest of the natives in their own soil – until this species of subtle ravage, being carried to the last excess of oppression and insolence under Lord Strafford, it kindled the flames of that rebellion which broke out in 1641. By the issue of that war, by the turn which the Earl of Clarendon gave to things at the Restoration, and by the total reduction of the kingdom of Ireland in 1691, the ruin of the native Irish, and, in a great measure, too, of the first races of the English, was completely accomplished. The new English interest was settled with as solid a stability as anything in human affairs can look for.

          • #196856
            Anonymous
            Guest

            3/

            >All the penal laws of that unparalleled code of oppression, which were made after the last event, were manifestly the effects of national hatred and scorn towards a conquered people, whom the victors delighted to trample upon and were not at all afraid to provoke. They were not the effect of their fears, but of their security. They who carried on this system looked to the irresistible force of Great Britain for their support in their acts of power. They were quite certain that no complaints of the natives would be heard on this side of the water with any other sentiments than those of contempt and indignation. Their cries served only to augment their torture. Machines which could answer their purposes so well must be of an excellent contrivance. Indeed, in England, the double name of the complainants, Irish and Papists, (it would be hard to say which singly was the most odious,) shut up the hearts of every one against them. Whilst that temper prevailed, (and it prevailed in all its force to a time within our memory,) every measure was pleasing and popular just in proportion as it tended to harass and ruin a set of people who were looked upon as enemies to God and man, and, indeed, as a race of bigoted savages who were a disgrace to human nature itself.

            Edmund Burke, A Letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe, Bart., M.P., On the Subject of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, the Propriety of Admitting Them to the Elective Franchise, Consistently with the Principles of the Constitution, as Established at the Revolution (1792).

            Here we see Edmund Burke, the figurehead of Anglophone conservatism, acknowledging the sadistic tyranny behind British rule in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It makes sense, given he was arguably a Crypto-Catholic Irishman masquerading as an Anglo-Irish Protestant

    • #196847
      Anonymous
      Guest

      fun anecdotes from the seventeenth century

      >“But the most considerable slaughter was in a great straight of furze, seated on a hill, where the people of several villages taking the alarm had sheltered themselves. Now, Sir Arthur having invested the hill, set the furze on fire on all sides, where the people, being in considerable number, were all burned or killed, men, women, and children. I saw the bodies and furze still burning.” – Castlehaven’s Memoirs.

      >[Other] “forces joining Monroe, he made up the strongest army that had been seen in Ireland during the war; it amounting to at least 10,000 foot, and 1,000 horse. It was unfit, however, for any great undertaking, not being furnished with above three weeks’ victual. Monroe advanced with it into the county of Cavan, from whence he sent parties into Westmeath and Longford, which burnt the country, and put to the sword all the country people that they met.” – Carte’s Ormond, I. 495.

      >“He,” [Monroe,] “at Lord Conway’s instance, who attended him in the expedition, advanced with 3,600 foot, three troops of horse, and four field pieces. He did no other service than taking a view of the place on the 16th July, 1642, and saw some parties of the enemy who had no powder to fire; he did not attack them; but making a prey of cattle, and killing seven hundred country people, men, women, and children, who were driving away the cattle, he returned to Newry.”- Carte, vol. I. p. 311.

      >“In the year 1641-2, many thousands of the poor innocent people of the county of Dublin, shunning the fury of the English soldiers, fled into thickets and furze, which the soldiers did usually fire, killing as many as endeavoured to escape, or forced them back again to be burned, and the rest of the inhabitants for the most part died of famine.” – Appendix of Clarendon’s Hist. of the Irish Reb., Wilford, London, 1720.

      • #196848
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >“Among the several acts of public service performed by a regiment of Sir William Cole, consisting of 500 foot and a troop of horse, we find the following hideous article recorded by the historian Borlase, with particular satisfaction and triumph: ‘starved and famished of the vulgar sort, whose goods were seized on by this regiment, seven thousand." – Leland, Book V. chap. 5 (note).

        >“Sir Henry Tichbourne, who had the chief command in that driving of O’Nial from Dundalk, performed that service, and afterwards pursued it with such an amazing slaughter of the Irish in those parts, that he boasts himself that for some weeks after there was neither man nor beast to be found in sixteen miles, between the two towns of Drogheda and Dundalk; nor on the other side of Dundalk in the county of Monaghan, nearer than Carrickmacross, a strong pile twelve miles distant.” – Carte’s Ormond.

        >“Sir Frederick Hamilton,” says Borlase, “entering Sligo about the first of July, 1642, burnt the town, and slew in the streets three hundred of the Irish.” – Borlase, p. 112.

        >“About the same time,” (viz. November, 1641,) Captain Fleming, and other officers of the said regiment commanding a party, smothered to death 220 women and children in two caves. And about the same time also, Captain Cunningham murdered about 63 women and children in the isles of Ross. – Whitelock

        http://irishhistorian.com/IrishHistoryLinks/Historical_Documents/MemoirNativeSaxon.html

    • #196849
      Anonymous
      Guest
    • #196850
      Anonymous
      Guest

      What is it about Ireland and the Irish that makes /poo/ and LULZ seethe

      • #196851
        Anonymous
        Guest

        the resident anti-Irish obsessives have been mostly quiet in this thread because it consists of a quote dump from non-Irish authors which is hard for them to explain away or refute

        • #196852
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Yes.
          >pre 17th Century
          Constant wars between Irish Kingdoms still independent and the expanding English territories. Once conquered, suppression of Irish customs, culture and law was frequent.
          >17th Century
          Brutal suppression and religious persecution, confiscation of land on a massive scale and the deportation of many to be pseudoslaves in the colonies.
          >18th Century
          Land confiscation and religious persecution continues, only in the very late stages do the new emerging Anglo-Irish class begin a "patriot movement" to try and fix things. This too is resisted by the British government. A revolution by radicals in the late 1790s leads to Ireland’s parliament being absorbed, ending the gains it made in fixing Ireland.
          >19th Century
          Widespread poverty still a serious problem, neglected industries, Ireland and its issues are a total afterthought in the British government and as a result many suffer. The Irish Famine hits in the mid 1800s, which drops Ireland’s population by millions due to how vulnerable centuries of inept and negligent British rule had made it. Also used as a means to reform Ireland, somewhat. Finally in the late 1800s the government took an interest, only because the Home Rule Movement and Fenian Movement forced Irish matters to the forefront of British minds.

          Things were shit, and attempts to prevent it being shit were usually shot down. As said, LULZ is rife with scrotebrains who are obsessed with Ireland but when faced with the excellent sources posted by another anon they usually fuck up. Ireland for some has its own horseshoe theory (Britain dindu nuffin is very close to Muh Perpetually Evil Insidious Anglo) but the truth is that there’s a reason historical animosity exists, a very clear one. Diminishing it to save face/portray Irish people as sore losers is a very typical attitude of historical illiterate British people online.

          • #196853
            Anonymous
            Guest

            I used not to care about any of this until I realised how many people actually believe the shit they say about us. The big-brain "ackshually" takes you hear from Anglos about Ireland on the internet seem convincing if you don’t know the facts

            • #197065
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >The big-brain "ackshually" takes you hear from Anglos about Ireland on the internet seem convincing if you don’t know the facts
              I think what actually started to make me angry was when I learn that the British, to this day, still exert soft power on organizations and people such as the Archbishop of New York to present better narratives about incidents like the Famine — they are willing to self-flagellate the rest of their history and punish their own people at this point, for everything *except* for admitting their actual crimes against the Irish.
              This hilarious level of petty spite is just absurd.

              • #197103
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >actual crimes
                Of what exactly?

    • #196863
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >We keep the Irish dark and ignorant, and then we wonder how they can be so enthralled by superstition; we make them poor and unhappy, and then we wonder that they are so prone to tumult and disorder; we tie up their hands, so that they have no inducements to industry, and then we wonder that they are so lazy and indolent. It is in vain to say that these severe laws restrain the Catholics within the bounds of allegiance, and clip those wings, which, if fully fledged, would be hatching new rebellions: for the very contrary seems to be their tendency; they are a restraint, not from doing evil, but from doing good; they keep alive an habitual hostility, and prepare the people’s minds for the most desperate enterprizes. No wonder that it should be part of the Irish character, that they are careless of their lives, when they have so little worth living for.
      Thomas Campbell, A Philosophical Survey of the South of Ireland, in a series of letters to John Watkinson (London 1777)

    • #196864
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Has your question been answered OP?

    • #196865
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Give Ireland back to the Irish!!!!

      Or Paul McCartney will kick your butt!!!

      https://youtu.be/P_O3cCs9qmM

    • #196867
      Anonymous
      Guest

      wonder if the woke afrish actually realise how fortunate they are to have been located next to england. if you were anywhere else you’d be about as relevant as the sorbs

      • #196868
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >sorbs
        literally who

      • #196873
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Why should we be appreciative of "relevance"? Do you think we see our history as a fair price to pay for the fact zoomers like IRA songs they heard on a youtube playlist?

      • #196874
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >sorbs
        literally who

        Slavs are all irrelevant mate no one cares

        Interesting you should bring up the Sorbs in connection with the Irish. Pückler-Muskau made this comparison in Ireland. As a Prussian he preferred the Irish to the Sorbs/Wends (grass is always greener):

        >The melodies which were sung had a striking resemblance to those of the Wendish nations. This is one of the many features of similarity which strike me between those nations and the Irish. Both manufacture, and have an exclusive taste for, spirit distilled from corn; both live almost entirely on potatoes; both have the bagpipe; both are passionate lovers of singing and dancing, and yet their national airs are of a melancholy character; both are oppressed by a foreign nation, and speak a gradually expiring language, which is rich and poetical, though possessed of no literature; both honour the descendants of their ancient princes, and cherish the principle that what is not renounced is not utterly lost; both are superstitious, cunning, and greatly given to exaggeration; rebellious where they can, but somewhat cringing to decided and established power; both like to go ragged, even when they have the means of dressing better; and lastly, spite of their miserable living, both are capable of great exertion, though they prefer indolence and loitering; and both alike enjoy a fertile soil, which the Wendish phrase calls ‘the roast meat of poor people.’ The better qualities which distinguish the Irish are theirs alone.
        Hermann von Pückler-Muskau

        He’s wrong about the Irish having no literature (oldest non-classical literature in Europe in fact) and I don’t know if he’s misrepresenting in the Wends/Sorbs in this regard either but these comments struck me as strangely poignant.

        • #196875
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >irish literature
          There is none that isn’t anglo-irish

          • #196876
            Anonymous
            Guest

            This image is from a recension of Leabhar Gabhála na hÉireann preserved in the 12th century Book of Leinster. The Leabhar Gabhála was a compilation and synthesis of Irish written and oral traditions of many previous centuries

            Since it is Anglo-Irish according to you you should be able to read and understand it. Tell me what it means

    • #196870
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Yes.

      Vae Victis

    • #196872
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      >wars/famine happened under the rule of Irish clans too
      This is not the big brain take you think it is; the point is that British rule actively brought about a colonial aspect, a supremacist government and serious negligence or malice toward the population that simply didn’t exist prior amongst even the biggest Gaelic rivals. The Dál gCais for example did not believe the Uí Néill to be less than them, or heretics, or deserving of colonial servitude; they were primarily political rivals.
      >there was a long period of prosperity between disasters
      No there wasn’t. Ireland is infamous for being stagnant under British rule, the one part that wasn’t (proto-industrialisation with the linen and textile industry in NE Ulster) was actively bonked over by British policy that caused widespread unemployment.
      >there was nothing exceptionally brutal about British rule
      British rule (which arguably began around the mid 1600s) reduced the land ownership of the majority population (Irish Catholics) from an overwhelming majority down to a tiny minority within decades. The majority population had their faith persecuted to the point where priests were hunted and killed, or exiled. Many lost their homes and land, and were driven into a hopeless situation of pseudo slavery to an emergent class of landlords who existed to exploit them under British policy. Attempts to rectify, reverse or even slightly improve the situation were met with fierce opposition or even violence.

      I have no idea why people feel the need to jump through so many hoops to pretend that Britain dindu nuffin. It isn’t the whooping and shrieking of people who "want to be oppressed", its very basic history.

    • #196878
      Anonymous
      Guest

      What I really don’t get is why did the Irish suffer through all this? Literally all they had to do was convert and they would be fine.

    • #196881
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Our second Sketch represents what is called a Scalpeen. There is also something called a scalp, or hole dug in the earth, some two or three feet deep. In such a place was the abode of Brian Connor. He has three in family, and had lived in this hole several months before it was discovered. It was roofed over with sticks and pieces of turf, laid in the shape of an inverted saucer. It resembles, though not quite so large, one of the ant-hills of the African forests. Many of the people whose houses have been levelled take up their abodes in such places; and even in them there is a distinction of wretchedness. A Scalpeen is a hole, too, but the roof above it is rather loftier and grander in its dimensions. It is often erected within the walls when any are left standing, of the unroofed houses, and all that is above the surface is built out of the old materials. It possesses, too, some pieces of furniture, and the Scalpeen is altogether superior to the Scalp. In such, or still more wretched abodes, burrowing as they can, the remnant of the population is hastening to an end, and after a few years will be as scarce nearly as the exterminated Indians, except the specimens that are carefully preserved in the workhouse. Those whom starvation spares, disease cuts off.
      The Illustrated London News, December 15, 1849

      • #196882
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Even from the Scalps the poor are hunted. “None of the houseless class,” says Captain Kennedy, the poor-law inspector, “can now find admittance into some over-crowded cabin, whose inmates seldom survive a month.” A month’s agonies– the result of hunger, dirt, and fever– after being expelled from a home, suffices to destroy life. It is a sort of Majendie experiment made on human beings– not on cats in an air-pump, or on rabbits with prussic acid. Yet the instinctive love of life is so great, so strong is the sentiment by which Nature ensures the continuance of the race, that Brian Connor dreads nothing so much as that he shall not be allowed, now that his hut has been discovered, to burrow longer in security; and like a fox, or some other vermin, he expects to be unearthed, and left even without the shelter of what may be called a preparatory grave. The mud cabins and turf huts that the peasantry lived in before 1846 were denounced by every traveller as the scandal of civilised Europe; and it was supposed that worse habitations were not on the earth; but the Irish have proved that in their lowest deep there is still a lower deep– that a Scalpeen is worse than a mud-hut, and a Scalp worse than a Scalpeen.

        • #196883
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >The present condition of the Irish, we have no hesitation in saying, has been mainly brought on by ignorant and vicious legislation. The destruction of the potato for one season, though a great calamity, would not have doomed them, fed as they were by the taxes of the state and the charity of the world, to immediate decay; but a false theory, assuming the name of political economy, with which it has no more to do than with the slaughter of the Hungarians by General Haynau, led the landlords and the legislature to believe that it was a favourable opportunity for changing the occupation of the land and the cultivation of the soil from potatoes to corn. When more food, more cultivation, more employment, were the requisites for maintaining the Irish in existence, the Legislature and the landlords wet about introducing a species of cultivation that could only be successful by requiring fewer hands, and turning potato gardens, that nourished the maximum of human beings, into pasture grounds for bullocks, that nourished only the minimum. The Poor-law, said to be for the relief of the people and the means of their salvation, was the instrument of their destruction. In their terrible distress, from that temporary calamity with which they were visited, they were to have no relief unless they gave up their holdings. That law, too, laid down a form for evicting the people, and thus gave the sanction and encouragement of legislation to exterminate them. Calmly and quietly, but very ignorantly– though we cheerfully exonerate the parties from any malevolence; they only committed a great mistake, a terrible blunder, which in legislation is worse than a crime– but calmly and quietly from Westminster itself, which is the centre of civilization, did the decree go forth which has made the temporary but terrible visitation of a potato rot the means of exterminating, through the slow process of disease and houseless starvation, nearly the half of the Irish.

          • #196884
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Here we basically see the liberal English press saying contemporaneously with the Great Famine what we’re insistently told is a myth later invented by Irish nationalists: that the Anglo-Irish landlords deliberately exterminated their tenants

    • #196889
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      >Courtesy between evenly matched rivals is not the same as benevolence towards commoners, doesn’t really prove Irish rulers were benevolent angels. Like everywhere else in the world they likely extorted as much as they could from their land.

      Yes, many of the hated bailiffs and middlemen of the Anglo-Irish landlords were Irish Catholics, as in fact were some of the big landlords themselves, including some very cruel ones. What’s your point? Why must the Irish must population consist entirely of spotlessly pure benevolent angels in order for it to be acknowledged that Ireland’s misery was directly caused by the oppression of the British government and the Anglo-Irish?

      >They were not "bonked over" any more than the outer Hebrides in this respect.

      Are you familiar with the fact that there is a long, deliberate and conscious policy of repressing Irish trade and industry? This wasn’t even denied by seventeenth and eighteenth century Englishman because they saw no reason to deny it. Subordinating the economies of colonies and dependencies to that of the ‘mother country’ was just common sense according to the orthodoxy of the time. Look up the Navigation, Wool and Cattle Acts of 1660, 1663, 1666 and 1699. These restrictions were severe enough to inspire even the highly privileged Protestant settlers in Ireland to develop their own kind of Irish nationalism. In the nineteenth century the suppression of Irish industry continued less overtly for political reasons.

      >We did not see how Irish chieftains dealt with the potato famine or what economic policies they used to foster industry, we did not see whether they wished to start their own plantations to export beef and grain

      Plantation in an Irish context means colony, not agricultural estate as in America. There were no "Irish chieftains" around in the 19th century, aside from a few descendants of Gaelic nobility who either assimilated into the Anglo-Irish gentry or held small pre-17th c. confiscation estates

    • #196893
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      I am astounded at the ignorance in your post. Nobody-including Irish historians-claim that Irish kings were "benevolent angels." You are putting words in everyone’s mouth and then accusing us of doing the same. The English/British government practiced extremely grim colonial policies of cultural/religious suppression that simply did not exist prior to the arrival of their administration in Ireland.
      >Again, insufficient evidence
      No, there’s plenty of it. The sudden collapse of the linen industry in NE Ulster absolutely bonked a lot of people over, and it was a direct cause of the Act of Union-which was opposed by a majority in the Irish Parliament largely due to their fears of how the Union would negatively impact Ireland politically and economically. Their opposition was ignored, and bribed/coerced out of a majority.
      >We didn’t see how Irish Chieftans dealt with famine, or what they did with XYZ
      What the utter fuck are you talking about, anon? Is your best argument against British misrule in Ireland really "well idk, maybe Gaels would have done worse. We’ll never know!"

      ITT are answers to OP’s question; were things bad under British rule. The answer-as constantly indicated ITT-is yes. You blithering about this other nonsense while pretending everyone’s foaming at the mouth and throwing you under the bus is weird behaviour.

    • #196899
      Svetovid
      Guest

      Is the rape of Ireland the result of the English taking out their frustration at the Irish because they’re helpless against the Normans?

      • #196903
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Possibly yes but many Irish rebels like the earls of Desmond and Kildare were themselves Normans. The first wave of English colonists in Ireland consisted of Normans who would later join forces with the Gaels to resist the overreach of the newly-Protestant Tudor state after the Reformation

      • #197084
        Anonymous
        Guest

        nah, english think their conquerors are cool, they don’t stay butthurt about it hundreds of years after the fact

    • #196910
      Anonymous
      Guest

      No, they are just extremely sensitive. Cromwell was tame compared to the 30 years war a few years earlier and You’d think the Black and Tans were like dirlewanger brigade by how they talk about them

      • #196912
        Anonymous
        Guest

        If you want to see some Dirlewanger shit, read accounts written by English commanders themselves about what they did in the Confederate War in Ireland, for instance these:

        fun anecdotes from the seventeenth century

        >“But the most considerable slaughter was in a great straight of furze, seated on a hill, where the people of several villages taking the alarm had sheltered themselves. Now, Sir Arthur having invested the hill, set the furze on fire on all sides, where the people, being in considerable number, were all burned or killed, men, women, and children. I saw the bodies and furze still burning.” – Castlehaven’s Memoirs.

        >[Other] “forces joining Monroe, he made up the strongest army that had been seen in Ireland during the war; it amounting to at least 10,000 foot, and 1,000 horse. It was unfit, however, for any great undertaking, not being furnished with above three weeks’ victual. Monroe advanced with it into the county of Cavan, from whence he sent parties into Westmeath and Longford, which burnt the country, and put to the sword all the country people that they met.” – Carte’s Ormond, I. 495.

        >“He,” [Monroe,] “at Lord Conway’s instance, who attended him in the expedition, advanced with 3,600 foot, three troops of horse, and four field pieces. He did no other service than taking a view of the place on the 16th July, 1642, and saw some parties of the enemy who had no powder to fire; he did not attack them; but making a prey of cattle, and killing seven hundred country people, men, women, and children, who were driving away the cattle, he returned to Newry.”- Carte, vol. I. p. 311.

        >“In the year 1641-2, many thousands of the poor innocent people of the county of Dublin, shunning the fury of the English soldiers, fled into thickets and furze, which the soldiers did usually fire, killing as many as endeavoured to escape, or forced them back again to be burned, and the rest of the inhabitants for the most part died of famine.” – Appendix of Clarendon’s Hist. of the Irish Reb., Wilford, London, 1720.

        >“Among the several acts of public service performed by a regiment of Sir William Cole, consisting of 500 foot and a troop of horse, we find the following hideous article recorded by the historian Borlase, with particular satisfaction and triumph: ‘starved and famished of the vulgar sort, whose goods were seized on by this regiment, seven thousand." – Leland, Book V. chap. 5 (note).

        >“Sir Henry Tichbourne, who had the chief command in that driving of O’Nial from Dundalk, performed that service, and afterwards pursued it with such an amazing slaughter of the Irish in those parts, that he boasts himself that for some weeks after there was neither man nor beast to be found in sixteen miles, between the two towns of Drogheda and Dundalk; nor on the other side of Dundalk in the county of Monaghan, nearer than Carrickmacross, a strong pile twelve miles distant.” – Carte’s Ormond.

        >“Sir Frederick Hamilton,” says Borlase, “entering Sligo about the first of July, 1642, burnt the town, and slew in the streets three hundred of the Irish.” – Borlase, p. 112.

        >“About the same time,” (viz. November, 1641,) Captain Fleming, and other officers of the said regiment commanding a party, smothered to death 220 women and children in two caves. And about the same time also, Captain Cunningham murdered about 63 women and children in the isles of Ross. – Whitelock

        http://irishhistorian.com/IrishHistoryLinks/Historical_Documents/MemoirNativeSaxon.html

        Judging Cromwell by whether or not the Drogheda and Wexord massacres happened (they did btw) is like judging Hitler by whether or not the Lidice massacre happened. It’s beside the point, and the emphasis placed on it by English commentators as regards Cromwell’s reputation is for disingenuous reasons. The atrocities of the Confederate War bear ample comparison with those of the Thirty Years’ War

        Regarding the Black and Tans however I somewhat agree with you. Ireland got off very easily from the 20th century all things considered and for that we should be grateful. However the Black and Tans do deserve to stand as yet another example of the British willingness to resort to civilian killings in Ireland, even if on a more minor scale than in previous conflicts

        • #196914
          Anonymous
          Guest

          > Drogheda
          Mostly English royalists were killed
          >And Wexord massacres
          No orders for them to do it, but counterintuitive to punish soldiers who captured a city by their own initiative
          Both of these massacres are small scale compared to Magdeburg

          • #196916
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Mostly English royalists were killed

            Mostly Irish civilians were killed. Here are three contemporary English accounts which paint the sacks of Wexford and Drogheda as an atrocity.

            >15th October, 1649. Came news of Drogheda being taken by the rebels, and all put to the sword, which made us very sad, forerunning the loss of all Ireland.
            Diary of John Evelyn Volume I

            >[The Cormwellians] possessed themselves of the Towne, and used all crueltie imaginable upon the besieged, as well inhabitants as others, sparing neither women nor children.
            Mercurius Elencticus, 15 October 1649

            >He [Thomas a Wood, Anthony’s sis] told them that 3000 at least, besides some women and children, were, after the assailants had taken part and afterwards all the town, put to the sword on September 11 and 12, 1649, at which time Sir Anthony Ashton, the governor, had his brains beat out and his body hacked to pieces. He told that when they were to make their way up to the lofts and galleries of the church and up to the tower where the enemy had fled, each of the assailants would take up a child and use it as a buckler of defence when they ascended the steps, to keep themselves from being shot or brained. After they had killed all in the church, they went into the vaults underneath, where all the flower and choisest of the women and ladies had hid themselves. One of these, a most handsome virgin arraid in costly and gorgeous apparel, kneeled down to Thomas Wood with tears and prayers to save her life, and being stricken with a profound pitie, he took her under his arm, went with her out of the church with intentions to put her over the works to shift for herself, but a soldier perceiving his intentions he ran his sword through her . . . whereupon Mr. Wood, seeing her gasping, took her money, garden gnomeels, &c., and flung her down over the works.
            Anthony a Wood, The Life and Times of Anthony Wood, Antiquary, of Oxford, described by Himself

          • #196917
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Both of these massacres are small scale compared to Magdeburg

            And Magdeburg was small scale compared to the depopulation of Ireland through scorched earth tactics in both the Nine Years’ War and Confederate War.

            Also it’s important to bear in mind that Cromwell is a living legacy not only to Irish Catholics but even moreso to Irish Protestants. Northern Irish "Loyalists" gloat about Cromwell more than Northern Irish Catholics seethe about him. If Dutch and Germans Protestants were intimidated in 2021 by marching bands carrying banners of Tserclaes or the Duke of Alva as they came out of church on Sunday I’d imagine they’d be sore over past history too. You can’t blame a people for being salty about a wound you’re rubbing salt in.

            • #196918
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >Also it’s important to bear in mind that Cromwell is a living legacy not only to Irish Catholics but even moreso to Irish Protestants. Northern Irish "Loyalists" gloat about Cromwell more than Northern Irish Catholics seethe about him. If Dutch and Germans Protestants were intimidated in 2021 by marching bands carrying banners of Tserclaes or the Duke of Alva as they came out of church on Sunday I’d imagine they’d be sore over past history too. You can’t blame a people for being salty about a wound you’re rubbing salt in.

              Proof if you don’t believe me:
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXJicM-vov8

              The song the band are playing in this video is a Scottish anti-Irish sectarian song called "The Famine is Over, Go Home" by the way. Pretty ironic given that the video is from Northern Ireland, where the Protestant population descends substantially from Scots fleeing a late seventeenth-century famine

            • #196920
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Loyalists shouldn’t gloat about Cromwell considering the Parliamentarians killed way more Protestant settlers in Ulster than the Irish insurgents did. Even the Laggan army that was formed by Protestant settlers in west Ulster to defend themselves against the Irish split and half of them who were mostly Scots Presbyterians joined forces with the Irish Catholic Army if Ulster and fought against parliament. The bloodiest battle in the English Civil War fought in Ireland was between Scots Protestants loyal to. The crown against Parliament forces which included their former comrades in the Laggan army. The battle of Scarifholis was fought between men who had been in the Laggan army and then split and joined forces with Irish Catholics against Parliamentarians and Laggan forces that joined that side.

              • #196924
                Anonymous
                Guest

                There’s no consistency to anything Loyalists think and their ideology is brainless and incoherent. They need to recognise that they are Irishmen who have been deceived by forces hostile their own welfare. They need to recognise that Orangeism was created to enslave them mentally as much as to enslave the Catholic Irish materially. They are Irishmen by residence of 400 years and they need to realise their interests are with Ireland, not the island whose government sees them as a card to played on certain occasions.

                • #196956
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >your identity isnt a pan world concept but something woke af on living in bog island

                  • #196959
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Well Orangeism is in fact very attached to the island of Ireland to be fair. Its most sacred symbol is the plain of the river Boyne in Ireland where the Dutch Protestant king William III defeated the English Catholic king James II. Many of them are British Israelists who have weird ideas about figures from the Bible visiting Ireland. Their entire ethos is about Protestant supremacy in Ireland, as well as Britain and the colonies, but they’re pretty insular and Ulster-focused

        • #196915
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Not to mention that the perpetrators of these atrocities became the owners of the land of the Irish through confiscations. The landlords who deliberately evicted their Irish tenants to die of famine in the 19th century were in many cases descendants of men who starved the Irish to death through scorched earth tactics in the 16th and 17th centuries. George Bingham, 3rd Earl of Lucan, "the Exterminator", who evicted his tenants to die in the Great Famine, stating that he "would not breed paupers to pay priests,", was a descendant of the sis of Richard Bingham, an Elizabethan general who used scorched earth tactics on the Irish in the Nine Years’ War, depopulating Ulster and clearing the way for the plantations. The two men even look alike

    • #196921
      Anonymous
      Guest

      In 1584 the English official Henry Wallop remarked that the results of famine as a method of depopulation in in Ireland were impressive and gave scope ‘to repeople it again with a better race and kind of people than the former were’. Compare with this editorial from three centuries later:

      >The change which has taken place in the population and condition of Ireland is inadequately expressed in the fact, prodigious as it is, that during the ten years ending with 1850, about 1,600,000 have emigrated from that island. That calculation is itself below the truth, for it assumes the emigration from Ireland into Great Britain to be no more than that from Great Britain to the Colonies or foreign countries. The change is inadequately expressed in the figures at foot of the census return, putting the decennial decrease at 1,659,300. . . . As for Ireland herself, we resign ourselves without reserve, though not entirely without misgiving, to her continued depopulation until only a half or a third of the 9,000,000 claimed for her by O’Connell remains. We may possibly live to see the day when her chief produce will be cattle, and English and Scotch the majority in her population.
      >The nine or ten millions who by that time will have settled in the United States cannot well be much less friendly, and will certainly be much better customers than they now are. When the Celt has crossed the Atlantic, he begins, for the first time in his life, to consume the manufactures of this country, and indirectly contribute to its customs. Unquestionably, there is much that is consolatory, and even comforting, in the extraordinary turn that we witness in Irish affairs.
      Editor of the Times Newspaper, 2nd January 1852.

      The continuity of English policy in Ireland is remarkable and horrifying.

    • #196927
      Anonymous
      Guest

      this thread should be preserved as an amazing monument to the evasiveness and disingenuousness of the Anglo when it comes to history.

      Ireland is a good control group of the English character because it shows how Anglos behave when they have total dominance and nobody’s looking and how they lie and cover it up as soon as anybody starts looking

      • #196929
        Svetovid
        Guest

        the textbook example of the behavior of those who are traditionally powerless, but find themselves in a position of power.

        • #196930
          Anonymous
          Guest

          As an Irishman I don’t have any vindictive feelings towards the English working class. The girls of Rotherham for instance are victims of the British Empire as much as anyone else. I don’t see any need to gloat about the victims of the Norman aristocracy picking up the tally for that aristocracy’s sins, even if most of my own great-grandparents’ surnames are Norman

      • #197068
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Is this why they are so aggressive towards the Germans? I am not naïve enough to think the Germans are innocent angels, but so much of what I hear about the Hun just sounds like blatant audacious projection

        • #197070
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Personally I’m not too keen on Germanic people in general, but I’d describe the English as a non-autistic version of Prussians. The English are sly, feline, insidious race, and the most skillful people in the world in disguising psychopathically malignant behaviour as just and beneficent. Where the Prussians are edgelords ("might makes right crush ’em all under the German boot") the English are gaslighters ("oh we did our best to civilise those people we really did").

          I really can’t get over how insidious the Anglos are, both in this thread and in general.

          Just look at pic related where they take the mask off and start bragging about what they have done for muh democracy

          There is something eerie I agree about the calm nonchalance of their evil. They have a talent for making very sinister behaviour appear so normal you take it and the moral presuppositions behind it for granted. They’re a bit like Dracula in some ways.

          • #197074
            Anonymous
            Guest

            @12098887
            >Angloid starts crying about how Racist the Irish are after being completely BTFO
            Utterly and completely typical of their playbook

            You’re completely right — they’re probably the most dangerous gaslighters in the entire world (or at least if there are any Races who are even worse with it, they don’t have the amount of influence to throw it around as England does).

          • #197108
            Anonymous
            Guest

            yep
            agree
            dutch are like combination of both
            all deserve rope

    • #196936
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >So long ago as 1613 we find a candid admission in the State papers that the Irish were the better men in the field. "The next rebellion whenever it shall happen, doth threaten more danger to the State than any heretofore, when the cities and walled towns were always faithful; (1) because they have the same bodies they ever had and therein they had and have advantage of us; (2) from infancy they have been and are exercised in the use of arms; (3) the realm by reason of the long peace was never so full of youths; (4) that they are better soldiers than heretofore, their continental employment in wars abroad assures us, and they do conceive that their men are better than ours."
      >This testimony to Irish superiority, coming as it does from English official sources just three hundred years ago, would be convincing enough did it stand alone. But it is again and again reaffirmed by English commanders themselves as the reason for their failure in some particular enterprise. In all else they were superior to the Irish; in arms, armaments, munitions, supplies of food and money, here the long purse, settled organization and greater commerce of England, gave her an overwhelming advantage. Moreover the English lacked the moral restraints that imposed so severe a handicap on the Irish in their resistance. They owned no scruple of conscience in committing any crime that served their purpose. Beaten often in open fight by the hardier bodies, stouter arms and greater courage of the Irishmen, they nevertheless won the game by recourse to means that no Irishman, save he who had joined them for purposes of revenge or in pursuit of selfish personal aims, could possibly have adopted. The fight from the first was an unequal one. Irish valour, chivalry, and personal strength were matched against wealth, treachery and cunning. The Irish better bodies were overcome by the worse hearts. As Curran put it in 1817—"The triumph of England over Ireland is the triumph of guilt over innocence."

    • #196949
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Yeah, brits get the fuck out

    • #196951
      Anonymous
      Guest

      test

    • #196952
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >We feel it will be gratifying to your excellency to find that although the population has been diminished in so remarkable a manner by famine, disease and emigration between 1841 and 1851, and has been since decreasing, the results of the Irish census of 1851 are, on the whole, satisfactory, demonstrating as they do the general advancement of the country.
      From the Census Report for 1851, published 1854.

      >The source of all evil lies in the race, the Celtic race of Ireland. There is no getting over historical facts … The race must be forced from the soil; by fair means, if possible; still they must leave. England’s safety requires it. I speak not of the justice of the cause; nations must ever act as Machiavelli advised: look to yourself. The Orange [Order] of Ireland is a Saxon confederation for the clearing the land of all papists and Jacobites; this means Celts. If left to themselves, they would clear them out, as Cromwell proposed, by the sword; it would not require six weeks to accomplish the work. But the Encumbered Estates Relief Bill will do it better.
      Robert Knox, The Races of Men, pp. 253-54, 1850.

      These are basically the same thing said in the subtle English (census reporter) and unsubtle Lowland Scottish (Robert Knox) way. The English are a very subtle people and they never admit anything upfront, but if you know their dialect you can tell the "although" in the census reporter’s comments really means "because".

      The Encumbered Estates Act was passed in 1849, after the worst years of the Famine proper. The blunt unsubtle Scot blurted out the fact that it was designed to clear the Irish out whereas the English were still busy working to give the impression they were doing their best to save the Irish. The Act’s purpose was to facilitate English speculators buying up the estates of bankrupt Anglo-Irish landlords and accelerate the removal of their tenants and cottiers through eviction.

      • #196954
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Evicted people either starved, went abroad or to death-camp like "workhouses" with a horrifying fatality rate, even after the Famine ended. This is why A. J. P. Taylor the English historian said "all of Ireland was a Belsen" in the mid 19th century.

        In Kerry for example 11% of the population were institutionalised in these things 1851, when the crisis had more or less ended. In the North Dublin Union Workhouse the child death rate from May 1840 until May 1841 was 63%, and that was years before the Famine. These things were not a means of providing "relief".

        These workhouses really do have the energy of death camps.They still have an incredibly evil atmosphere in the air if you visit them.

        • #196967
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >They still have an incredibly evil atmosphere in the air if you visit them.
          It’s all in your head, scrotebrain

      • #196968
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >The consequences of such a rapid rate of increase deserve our most serious attention. Either the increase will continue at its present rate or it will not. If the rate continue, Ireland will contain twenty millions of people in the course of the present century, and we need not insist upon the result. With such physical force, it is quite impossible that it should remain united to Great Britain without sharing, in every respect, the full benefits of its constitution.
        Thomas Malthus (writing anonymously), ‘Newenham and others on the State of Ireland’, Edinburgh Review, 1808.

        If you read between the lines here you can see why Ireland’s growing population caused such anxiety to British statesmen and why the ‘relief effort’ of the Whigs to the potato blight which struck in the 1840s resulted in Ireland being maybe the only country in the world with a smaller population now than then. Malthus later wrote in 1817:

        >The Land in Ireland is infinitely more peopled than in England; and to give full effect to the natural resources of the country, a great part of the population should be swept from the soil into large manufacturing and commercial Towns.

        His pupils, who included Charles Trevelyan, followed this recommendation, except they felt sweeping the Irish into the grave and coffin ship was just as well. When the Irish were swept into industrial and manufacturing cities instead of a workhouse mass grave they ensured they were not Irish cities. See this quoted earlier:

        In 1584 the English official Henry Wallop remarked that the results of famine as a method of depopulation in in Ireland were impressive and gave scope ‘to repeople it again with a better race and kind of people than the former were’. Compare with this editorial from three centuries later:

        >The change which has taken place in the population and condition of Ireland is inadequately expressed in the fact, prodigious as it is, that during the ten years ending with 1850, about 1,600,000 have emigrated from that island. That calculation is itself below the truth, for it assumes the emigration from Ireland into Great Britain to be no more than that from Great Britain to the Colonies or foreign countries. The change is inadequately expressed in the figures at foot of the census return, putting the decennial decrease at 1,659,300. . . . As for Ireland herself, we resign ourselves without reserve, though not entirely without misgiving, to her continued depopulation until only a half or a third of the 9,000,000 claimed for her by O’Connell remains. We may possibly live to see the day when her chief produce will be cattle, and English and Scotch the majority in her population.
        >The nine or ten millions who by that time will have settled in the United States cannot well be much less friendly, and will certainly be much better customers than they now are. When the Celt has crossed the Atlantic, he begins, for the first time in his life, to consume the manufactures of this country, and indirectly contribute to its customs. Unquestionably, there is much that is consolatory, and even comforting, in the extraordinary turn that we witness in Irish affairs.
        Editor of the Times Newspaper, 2nd January 1852.

        The continuity of English policy in Ireland is remarkable and horrifying.

        >The nine or ten millions who by that time will have settled in the United States cannot well be much less friendly, and will certainly be much better customers than they now are. When the Celt has crossed the Atlantic, he begins, for the first time in his life, to consume the manufactures of this country, and indirectly contribute to its customs. Unquestionably, there is much that is consolatory, and even comforting, in the extraordinary turn that we witness in Irish affairs.

        • #196969
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >and why the ‘relief effort’ of the Whigs to the potato blight which struck in the 1840s resulted in Ireland being maybe the only country in the world with a smaller population now than then.
          There is no reason to believe that a "perfect" response would have prevented the decline in fertility rates and the high emigration rates after the famine ended, Ireland already had high emigrations rates before the famine.

          • #197073
            Anonymous
            Guest

            There were drastic food shortages in 1782-84 and 1799-1800 but this was before the Act of Union and Ireland still had its own parliament (even if it was almost exclusively Anglo-Irish). The Irish parliament embargoed food exports and prevented famine

            • #197075
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Ireland couldn’t have fed itself in 1846-1847 without further imports.
              In any case O’Grada’s data shows that food exports collapsed anyway.

              • #197076
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >In any case O’Grada’s data shows that food exports collapsed anyway.
                Altough too late(but still domestic food production during 1846-1850 only 75% of the domestic consumption in 1841-1845)

            • #197077
              Anonymous
              Guest

              From O’Grada:
              >A pivotal sound in Irish playwright Thomas Murphy’s rendition of the Famine tragedy is ‘the noise of a convoy of corn-carts on a road’. This evokes the enduring populist lament that the fundamental problem in 1846 and after was not the availability of food, but grain being shipped out of Ireland to pay rents as the people starved. If food was scarce why not balance supply and demand at a lower price by halting grain exports? Government relied instead on the self-correcting power of the price mechanism and free trade to match supply and demand, pinning their hopes on a quick supply response from overseas. They had the authority of Adam Smith and Edmund Burke on their side in rejecting any interference.57 In the long run, freeing imports made more sense than prohibiting exports. And, to a point, supply response worked as indicated. By the summer of 1847, Irish markets were flooded with foreign corn and maize. In a sense the traditional populist focus on outward shipments of grain is wide of the mark because (as Table 2.3 makes clear) there was a huge drop in net exports in the late I 840s. Nevertheless, as Donnelly and others have argued, a temporary surprise embargo on grain exports in late 1846, in anticipation of imports already on their way, might weIl have helped.
              So the idea that the British not stopping exports was the primary cause of the famine is just false, it’s something they should have done on top of "relying" on the free market but not instead of.

              • #197079
                Anonymous
                Guest

                I’m not a fan of Ó Gráda and I consider a lot of the logical architecture behind his claims strange and unsupported. He’s considered "nuanced" for being emphatic that the Famine was a sequence of hazards and missteps, much like how Sunni Muslims are considered "moderate" so long as they "support Israel", even if they’re in favour of exterminating Shias and grinding religious minorities into the dust. He presents a great deal of interesting statistical information in his books and while I’ve never made the effort to dissect it in depth the logical jumps between facts and arguments in his books often set my intuitive alarm bells ringing. The English and their Irish protégés have a very effective rhetorical strategy of misrepresentation which consists of telling most facts while lying by omission about the most significant ones. It gives a false impression of nuance and comprehensiveness which is extremely convincing and requires mental vigilance to resist. I won’t claim to be an expert on him in particular, I’m just saying that I’m wary of him on the basis of my disillusionment with other establishment Irish and English historians I used to trust

                • #197081
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >I don’t like him and I think he is biased
                  Ok, that doesn’t refute his data.

                  • #197082
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    I’m not claiming to have refuted his data. I’d have to study it in detail for a long time to do that. I’m just saying that I don’t trust him on the basis of my past experience looking into the work produced by historians of his school and I expect that if I were to look into his claims I’d find significant issues with them sooner or later

                    • #197083
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >don’t trust him
                      Why should I trust you and your spam of cherry-picked "primary sources"?

                      • #197085
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        You’re free to be as sceptical of them as you are. In my education I was given the works of people like Ó Gráda to read and I deferred to their interpretations. Later on I was genuinely astonished to discover that figures as famous as Marx and Engels on the left and others on the right wrote about Ireland and I was even more astonished by the things they wrote about it. It made me wonder why my education hadn’t exposed me to such basic information as the fact that Ireland was central to the development of Marx and Engels’s thought (I’m not even a Marxist btw), or that figures as eminent as the renowned human right campaigner were of the opinion that Ireland had subject to artificial famines in modern times, an idea I associated with vulgar Irish Americans. Generally when something is hidden it’s hidden for a reason

                      • #197086
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        *human rights campaigner Roger Casement

                      • #197087
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Later on I was genuinely astonished to discover that figures as famous as Marx and Engels on the left and others on the right wrote about Ireland and I was even more astonished by the things they wrote about it.
                        Are you genuinely incapable of using objective data?
                        You could have gotten the same perspective by just reading the data economist historian gather or simple statistics like how many Irish people lived in 4th class dwellings("single-room mud houses") at the eve of the famine.
                        >was central to the development of Marx and Engels’s thought
                        You were astonished commies demonized capitalists nations and used examples from those places to make their point? Really?
                        >Generally when something is hidden it’s hidden for a reason
                        Oh shut the fuck up, we don’t use contemporary opinions of as evidence for what actually happened because they are not data for anything other than the existence of the opinion itself.
                        You have such an anti-intellectual opinion and have to defer to a strategy where you ignore objectivity and data and rely on observation bias.

                      • #197088
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >we don’t use contemporary opinions of as evidence for what actually happened
                        *opinion of people unrelated to the specific events

                      • #197089
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >anti-intellectual opinion
                        *anti-intellectual stance

                      • #197090
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >we don’t use contemporary opinions of as evidence for what actually happened
                        *opinion of people unrelated to the specific events

                        You seem to be of the opinion that where numbers are involved humans leave the domain of subjectivity and are suddenly in the realm of crystalline objectivity. Economic historians are as human as eyewitness observers you know. Numerical data is something compiled and collated by human beings too, and Irish people have some reason to be wary of the good faith of English number-crunchers and their Irish epigones.

                      • #197091
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I don’t care for your anti-intellectual stance, either provide evidence that the numbers are fake or you have no reason to believe that outside of pure bias.

                      • #197092
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        For instance here’s an example of something weird from Ó Gráda, which I won’t stake too much on not having investigated myself, but he says in one of his books that the Irish ate 5 ibs a day per capita in the early 1840s, which is surprising because that seems like a lot. It’s not footnoted, but it’s believable, if surprising. I get the impression however that some of his figures are the subject of weird sleight-of-hand. When he talks about caloric shortfall does he mean from the requirements of the human body or from the gigantic quantity of potatoes the Irish were apparently used to eating? As I said, I’ve never checked his figures but something seems weird at times about the logical architecture of his work. I won’t go out guns blazing on this since it’s been so long since I’ve read him, I should disclose that I’m paraphrasing a criticism I read from a user on another forum, one from whom I first learned about Casement’s Irish writings

                      • #197093
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        He makes it pretty clear that there was a reliance on potatoes.
                        >For an adult male to consume 12-141bs (or 5-6 kilos) of potatoes daily far most of the year, and the rest of his family in proportion, seems today like a feat worthy of the Guinness Book 01 Records. ‘The Englishman’, noted a contemporary, ‘would find considerable difficulty in stowing away in his stomach this enormous quantity of vegetable food, and how an Irishman is able to manage it is beyond my ability to explain’ [quoted in Bourke, 1968, 76].

                        >When he talks about caloric shortfall does he mean from the requirements of the human body or from the gigantic quantity of potatoes the Irish were apparently used to eating?
                        What do you mean? There was certainly some kind of nutritional shortfall even without the famine, that was the situation for virtually all pre-modern populations but insofar as the Irish population kept growing it clearly was not "starvation-level" before the blight.

                      • #197094
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Actually even nutritionally the Irish weren’t that miserable
                        >In strictly nutritional terms the simple Irish fare was fine, being deficient only in vitamins A and D. A boon of the humble potato was that it shielded the Irish poor from afHictions such as scurvy – ‘the very rarest of diseases in Ireland’ [Crawford, 1984, 155] – and xerophthalmia. Pellagra, too, endemie long after in those parts of the southern United States and Europe in which maize was the staple, was rare in Ireland. The most careful assessment to date of Irish diets on the eve of the Famine suggests that they were ‘excellent, not merely when measured by "recommended daily intake" of the nutritionist, but also when set against the historical reality ofthe later nineteenth century’ [Clarkson and Crawford, 1988, 191].
                        >The poor, it is true, consumed quantities of other foods besides. Milk was a seasonal supplement, and oatmeal was widely consumed in the north and east. Herrings were also widely available: about one-quarter of the Irish Poor Inquiry’s informants in 1835-6 mention them. Other regional variations emerge from recent research. Eggs were apparently consumed in some quantities by the western poor before the Famine, and the role of bread and bacon in the urban diet comes as no surprise. Still, it i~ the potato’s domination that is most strikingly confirmed [Clarkson and Crawford, 1988].

                      • #197095
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        He makes it pretty clear that there was a reliance on potatoes.
                        >For an adult male to consume 12-141bs (or 5-6 kilos) of potatoes daily far most of the year, and the rest of his family in proportion, seems today like a feat worthy of the Guinness Book 01 Records. ‘The Englishman’, noted a contemporary, ‘would find considerable difficulty in stowing away in his stomach this enormous quantity of vegetable food, and how an Irishman is able to manage it is beyond my ability to explain’ [quoted in Bourke, 1968, 76].

                        >When he talks about caloric shortfall does he mean from the requirements of the human body or from the gigantic quantity of potatoes the Irish were apparently used to eating?
                        What do you mean? There was certainly some kind of nutritional shortfall even without the famine, that was the situation for virtually all pre-modern populations but insofar as the Irish population kept growing it clearly was not "starvation-level" before the blight.

                        Yes, that the Irish peasants were healthy and tall because of their potato diet despite their poverty is common knowledge. I get the sense though that when Ó Gráda is discussing whether or not there was enough food to feed the Irish in the Famine he’s discussing whether or not there was enough to feed them at their accustomed calorific intake, which, as we agree, was high enough by European standards. I wouldn’t swear by this in court and I don’t want to slander Ó Gráda in this particular instance because it’s been so long since I read him but I get the sense this kind of sleight-of-hand with figures appears in the work of many economic historians in relation to Irish matters

                      • #197110
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        scrotebrain

                • #197097
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >the english and their irish proteges
                  Even when irish historians are still guilty of the cardinal sin of not wanting to genocide the english

    • #196961
      Svetovid
      Guest

      >English take credit for the British Empire’s conquests
      >make excuses for the attempted extermination of the Irish at the same time, even though they’re part of the said conquests
      Such forms of cognitive dissonance are present in Anatolian Turks, who too was ruled by foreigners for the whole duration of an empire they identify with, how coincidental.

    • #196966
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Holy shit how freaking sensitive and obsessed is the Irishscrote spamming all of this shit?

      • #196970
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I’ve been sick for days and using the time as an opportunity to make this thread a kind of reference manual of useful material that people can refer to in the archive the next 10,000+ times someone makes an Irish thread on LULZ or elsewhere

        Most information about Irish history online is wrong and subject to disingenuous interpretations which is why putting primary source material on display is helpful

        • #196972
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >primary sources
          Most of the "evidence" here merely says that some people thought Ireland was a miserable place, not much more.

          • #196974
            Anonymous
            Guest

            They were pretty damn unanimous in their opinion of why it was a miserable place.

            • #196975
              Anonymous
              Guest

              So what? That’s merely their interpretation.

              • #196976
                Svetovid
                Guest

                It just so happens that half a dozen different authors saw the exact same thing?

                • #196978
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Yes?
                  Riddle me this, do you think that the average Irish person in the early 19th century was economically worse off then Iberians, Balkanites, Russians and other Eastern Europeans?
                  Simple yes or no.

                  • #196981
                    Svetovid
                    Guest

                    Yes, categorically so.

                    • #196982
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Actual modern economists(like Maddison’s) estimate that Ireland was significantly richer than most of the countries/regions I mentioned.

                      • #196983
                        Svetovid
                        Guest

                        They’re full of shit, then.

                      • #196984
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Amazing argument, this is what "muh primary evidence!" comes down to, cherry-picking opinions.

                      • #196985
                        Svetovid
                        Guest

                        Yes, your economists are either historically illiterate, or paid off to lie, which is a widespread phenomenon in the West, but you call it lobbying, instead of corruption.

              • #196980
                Anonymous
                Guest

                There’d be no need for me to autistically infodump all of this if it weren’t for the fact that anti-Irish obsessives spread inaccurate information all the time and people believe it. Most Irish "seething" is an exasperated attempt by Irish posters to correct inaccurate information spread by others

    • #196971
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      Ok?

    • #196973
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      Even if I was English why should I feel "cucked" that English is full of Romance words when early modern English writers embraced those words and brought even more Latinate words in their language?

    • #196977
      Anonymous
      Guest

      There has never been a more universal ass freaking of Anglo scrotebrains on LULZ. This thread is proof that when confronted with actual history, they retreat back into their shells and screech at you.
      >o-obsessed
      >s-s-seethe
      >y-yeah but maybe the gaels would have been worse
      >that source d-doesn’t count
      Incredible. Absolutely stellar job Irish anon for BTFOing these scrotes into orbit.

      • #196979
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >y-yeah but maybe the gaels would have been worse
        Why is that not a valid argument?
        Arguments for "muh colonial oppression" always rely on the implicit assumption that the alternative to foreign rule would have ALWAYS been better, but there is no intrinsic reason to believe this, the entire pre-early modern history of Ireland for around a millennium was demographic stagnation and largely non-ending political division.

        • #196986
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >was British rule bad?
          >"actually we can’t say for sure if the gaels wouldn’t have done the same thing. simply no way to know"

          if you cannot understand how scrotebrained that sounds then you’re beyond saving

          • #196987
            Anonymous
            Guest

            For something to be bad there needs to be a meaningful comparison to other situations, if 90% of everything is bad then saying "X is bad" is not saying much.

            • #196988
              Anonymous
              Guest

              That isn’t true at all. You can comprehend that violently persecuting a population’s religion, forcefully stealing their land, inciting famines to quell resistance and exiling dissenters into colonial slavery is bad without needing to "compare it to something."

              Besides, the "idk, Gaels might have been equally bad" argument is scrotebrained because it assumes that Irish Catholic Gaels for some reason would have decided to impose all of the harsh sectarian and colonial policies on themselves. I cannot fathom how you can actually believe this to be a reasonable "argument."

              • #196991
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >Besides, the "idk, Gaels might have been equally bad" argument is scrotebrained because it assumes that Irish Catholic Gaels for some reason would have decided to impose all of the harsh sectarian and colonial policies on themselves. I cannot fathom how you can actually believe this to be a reasonable "argument."
                Apparently the only type of oppression that can exist is religious and ethnic persecution, someone should tell the various dominant ethnicities that were rebelling during the 1848 that they have no reason to rebel.
                Also apparently state-mandated oppression is the only variable that matters, apparently political division and instability doesn’t matter.

                • #196993
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Again; you have entirely dodged around the fact that British rule was absolutely bad and can easily be labelled as bad in order to pursue the fantasy world where the Gaels were in charge. Of course in some alternate history where Ireland remained a unified Gaelic polity there could have been other injustices or oppression-but its entirely irrelevant.

                  My point is that British rule-and all that it brought-was demonstrably awful for those who endured it. Shrugging and saying "meh, might have been worse if X" is a complete sidestep.

                  • #196995
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Is all foreign rule bad? Were the English worse or better than most foreign rulers?
                    >My point is that British rule-and all that it brought-was demonstrably awful for those who endured it.
                    Again, what’s your baseline? What are you comparing it to?

                    • #196996
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >is all foreign rule bad
                      Not necessarily
                      >What’s your baseline?
                      Not having your religion or ethnicity persecuted or almost exterminated by the government.
                      >but lots of countries did that
                      Now you’re getting it.

                      I don’t know if you’re trying to set up some kind of "gotcha" where I’m forced to admit that the Irish weren’t the only people to suffer in all of history, but if that’s the case then you would have to admit that they did suffer and in that case admit that British rule was bad.
                      >but not bad contextually for its time?
                      Still bad, and worthy of grievance.

                      • #196997
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Not having your religion or ethnicity persecuted or almost exterminated by the government.
                        "Exterminated, kek
                        Refer to

                        You can easily tell when English rule starts and the 3-4 centuries long genocide began.

                        >Now you’re getting it.
                        So the English were not especially cruel, got it.
                        >where I’m forced to admit that the Irish weren’t the only people to suffer in all of history,
                        Not the "only", they weren’t more oppressed than most other people and the oppression they suffered doesn’t change the fact that they weren’t that miserable if you don’t literally compare them to the richest people in the world(Western Europeans) at the time.
                        >and worthy of grievance.
                        You are scrotebrained and this statement gives away your need to be paint yourself as a victim.

      • #196999
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Thank you. It has been satisfying watching them shortcircuit.

        I’m the extract-poster but there’s at least two of us in the thread though

      • #197006
        Anonymous
        Guest

        this

      • #197008
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Thank you. It has been satisfying watching them shortcircuit.

        I’m the extract-poster but there’s at least two of us in the thread though

        >>s-s-seethe
        There are only 3 posts before your own that say "seethe".

        2 claiming LULZ and Northern Irish Catholics "seethe"

        What is it about Ireland and the Irish that makes /poo/ and LULZ seethe

        >Both of these massacres are small scale compared to Magdeburg

        And Magdeburg was small scale compared to the depopulation of Ireland through scorched earth tactics in both the Nine Years’ War and Confederate War.

        Also it’s important to bear in mind that Cromwell is a living legacy not only to Irish Catholics but even moreso to Irish Protestants. Northern Irish "Loyalists" gloat about Cromwell more than Northern Irish Catholics seethe about him. If Dutch and Germans Protestants were intimidated in 2021 by marching bands carrying banners of Tserclaes or the Duke of Alva as they came out of church on Sunday I’d imagine they’d be sore over past history too. You can’t blame a people for being salty about a wound you’re rubbing salt in.

        and the same person quoting himself in 12092507

        >Also it’s important to bear in mind that Cromwell is a living legacy not only to Irish Catholics but even moreso to Irish Protestants. Northern Irish "Loyalists" gloat about Cromwell more than Northern Irish Catholics seethe about him. If Dutch and Germans Protestants were intimidated in 2021 by marching bands carrying banners of Tserclaes or the Duke of Alva as they came out of church on Sunday I’d imagine they’d be sore over past history too. You can’t blame a people for being salty about a wound you’re rubbing salt in.

        Proof if you don’t believe me:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXJicM-vov8

        The song the band are playing in this video is a Scottish anti-Irish sectarian song called "The Famine is Over, Go Home" by the way. Pretty ironic given that the video is from Northern Ireland, where the Protestant population descends substantially from Scots fleeing a late seventeenth-century famine

        There are zero (0) posts by those criticizing OP that use this "argument".

      • #197012
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Yeah i’m gonna have to grant the win to the Mud Islanders on this

      • #197015
        Anonymous
        Guest

        this

      • #197020
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >actual history
        I’ll be sure to get indian nationalist accounts out for why britain bad despite introducing common law and representative democracy to india

    • #196989
      Anonymous
      Guest

      You can easily tell when English rule starts and the 3-4 centuries long genocide began.

      • #196990
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I often see people point to population growth as a sign of prosperity, when ironically Ireland peaked population at a time when most people were the most destitute.

        • #196992
          Anonymous
          Guest

          What’s your argument for why post-famine Ireland didn’t see any such population growth?

          • #196994
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Emigration. Ireland was still unfreaking the legacy of the land disputes a decade after it became independent. Many argue that Ireland only really began its own economic history (ie, one not dominated by or heavily linked to pre-independence economics with Britain) after the Trade War in the 1930s. The economy only really started to improve when De Valera bonked off and Lemass became Taoiseach, until then Ireland still had many problems.

            • #197000
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Plenty of countries that had high emigration rates didn’t see such a demographic decline/stagnation in the long term.
              The answer I think is the lower fertility rates, ironically if the Irish had such fertility rates before the famine they might have been less reliant on potatoes and have been more self-sufficient in case of a potato blight and food shortage, which would have made any Whig-like failed response more trivial.
              Instead what we got is that the Irish farmers ended up multiplying quite rapidly and being reliant on potatoes before the famine and then have very low fertility rates(relative to most other countries) after the famine. This is partially the reason of why the demographic situation of Ireland looks so extreme, if the Irish had the same kind of pre-famine fertility rates they would have had far more people today.

              Just look at India, which is often presented as an example of "British-induced famines", the population still grew even after any given famine, as did the Irish population after 18th century famines.

              • #197002
                Anonymous
                Guest

                The context of Irish population decline is to be found in the Scottish Highlands. The Famine was more or less the same thing as the Highland Clearances but done in one fell swoop rather than over a number of years (although the same process continued for decades afterwards of course, until the land reforms of the late 19th century). It is extremely strange to me that the clearances which depopulated Ireland and the Highlands are regarded in isolation from each other in the historiography when in fact they were the same process, performed by the Anglo-Irish landlords in Ireland on the basis of the Scottish example, and sponsored, overseen and facilitated by the same government personnel in many cases. Charles Trevelyan, a villainous figure in Irish popular memory, was involved in the depopulation process of the Highlands too through the Highland and Island Emigration Society. In Gaelic Scotland too he made racialist comments about the benefit that would come from a replacement of the locals by a more industrious race.

                There was a strong consensus in 19th century Ireland among the British government, the Anglo-Irish landlords and Protestant Loyalist factions in Ireland that the Catholic Gaelic-speaking population had to go. Much pertinent information is to be found in the extracts in this thread.

                • #197004
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  What are you even talking about? Why did England accept Irish immigration if the government hated them this much?
                  Using your logic the government should have heavily sponsored settlement of Protestants in the 19th century but that really didn’t happen.

                  • #197005
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >What are you even talking about? Why did England accept Irish immigration if the government hated them this much?

                    Cheap labour, to divide the working class, and to assimilate and Anglicise the Irish more easily in the English cities. The English don’t hate other races *in themselves*, they hate other races insofar as they represent other national modes of being and other civilisations. Even extreme anti-Irish English racists don’t object to fully-assimilated English people of Irish blood. Casement had strong words to say about the theft of Irish population:

                    >During the last 100 years probably 2,000,000 Irishmen have been drafted into the English fleets and armies from a land purposely drained of its food. Fully the same number, driven by executive-controlled famines have given cheap labour to England and have built up her great industries, manned her shipping, dug her mines, and built her ports and railways while Irish harbours silted up and Irish factories closed down. While England grew fat on the crops and beef of Ireland, Ireland starved in her own green fields and Irishmen grew lean in the strife of Europe. While a million Irishmen died of hunger on the most fertile plains of Europe, English Imperialism drew over one thousand million pounds sterling for investment in a world policy from an island that was represented to that world as too poor to even bury its dead. The profit to England from Irish peonage cannot be assessed in terms of trade, or finance, or taxation. It far transcends Lord MacDonnell’s recent estimate at Belfast of £320,000,000—"an Empire’s ransom," as he bluntly put it.

                    From Roger Casement’s "The Crime Against Europe", 1914.

                    >Using your logic the government should have heavily sponsored settlement of Protestants in the 19th century but that really didn’t happen.

                    Irish writers including the socialist James Connolly complained about rampant immigration from Scotland and England to Ireland at the same time that Irishmen were being forced out of their own country. As we have seen earlier the Times was rapt about the prospect of a population replacement in Ireland:

                    >As for Ireland herself, we resign ourselves without reserve, though not entirely without misgiving, to her continued depopulation until only a half or a third of the 9,000,000 claimed for her by O’Connell remains. We may possibly live to see the day when her chief produce will be cattle, and English and Scotch the majority in her population.
                    Editor of the Times Newspaper, 2nd January 1852.

                    That editor, John T. Delane, was an influential man with government contacts and representative of much elite opinion.

                    • #197007
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >and to assimilate and Anglicise the Irish more easily in the English cities.
                      Any evidence of this?
                      >Even extreme anti-Irish English racists don’t object to fully-assimilated English people of Irish blood.
                      You still call them "racists", kek
                      >Irish writers including the socialist James Connolly complained about rampant immigration from Scotland and England to Ireland at the same time that Irishmen were being forced out of their own country.
                      Was there such immigration or did he made it up? Stop using perceptions of contemporary people over actual data.
                      They are motivated by the same observation bias you show.
                      >and English and Scotch the majority in her population.
                      Except that didn’t even remotely happen. It’s a misplaced fear and you using as evidence for anything is laughable.

                      • #197009
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Was there such immigration or did he made it up? Stop using perceptions of contemporary people over actual data.
                        Statistical data is an important part of historical research but the way English commentators shirk away from any acknowledgement of basic facts into an abstracted discussion about figures and graphs strikes me as evasive. The most basic statistic about Irish demographic history speaks for itself: Ireland has a lower population now than in 1840. This is more or less unique, and it requires an extreme amount of naivety to believe it was accidental. Pardon me then if I seem sceptical about the graphs of English economists which "prove" that Ireland was actually fabulously wealthy at the time all foreign observers were searching in vain for adjectives to describe its poverty.

                        >Except that didn’t even remotely happen. It’s a misplaced fear and you using as evidence for anything is laughable.
                        It wasn’t the fear, it was the hope of the man who wrote the words. He, the editor of the London Times and eminent figure in elite London society, wanted the Irish to be replaced by English and Scots. The intention is what matters, not the outcome.

                        >They are motivated by the same observation bias you show.
                        Anyway I’m not trying to prove there was a massive influx of English and Scots to Ireland in the 19th century because I don’t actually know if there was or not. I’m just presenting some evidence that apparently there was enough to cause some resentment among the Irish as late as the early 20th century.

    • #197010
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      I would just look at O’Grada when talking about Irish economics, including the famine.
      He’s pretty nuanced and bring tons of data.

    • #197011
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It was nothing compared to what Irish are doing to themselves today, considering Americans are mutts, and every American I meet talks of his great 5% irish ancestors, and the mixing of Irish, African and Amerimutt genes into the general wastebasket of history, it makes a potato famine look delightful.

      I spoke to an Irish nationalist about th emuttification of his island and he stopped talking to me, no doubt his patriotism and anti-racism was too strong for my English empiricism.

      Ive lived around celts, they are the blacks of whites, terrible people, lazy, drunk, violent and basically animals given rights. Of course there are good ones, but the exception proves the rule.

    • #197013
      Anonymous
      Guest

      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305748815001012

      About the Irish famine, essentially urban people died less than rural people, rich protestant elites died less than poorer Catholics and Protestants and poorer rural Catholics and Protestant died around similar rates.
      There was no major change in the religious demographics between 1834 and 1861, what an amazing genocide.
      (Ireland lost about 25% of its population from 1834 to 1861, more when using 1845-ish figures instead of 1834)

      • #197016
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The vast majority of Irish historians do not consider the Irish Famine a genocide.

        • #197017
          Anonymous
          Guest

          I know

        • #197018
          Anonymous
          Guest

          That was the case until recently but there’s been a subtle but profound shift over the last few years. Irish history is unfortunately very politicised. During the Troubles Irish historians were extremely anti-nationalistic and keen to downplay nationalist grievances so as not to provide any moral support for the IRA. Ever since Brexit happened though the cosmopolitan liberal class from which these historians come has felt betrayed by Britain and is no longer as keen to shove historic British wrongdoing under the rug.

          • #197019
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >and is no longer as keen to shove historic British wrongdoing under the rug.
            Not calling the Irish a genocide is not "shoving things under the rug", it’s a factual statement.

            • #197021
              Anonymous
              Guest

              *the Irish famine

            • #197023
              Anonymous
              Guest

              I agree that genocide is not the mos precise or helpful term, but it’s closer to the truth than the dindunuffin interpretation of the British response to the Famine

              It’s also important to note that a lot of Irish historians while stating that they don’t consider it a genocide will nonetheless relate facts that which could be fairly interpreted as describing genocide anyway. James S. Donnelly for instance has strongly implied that he thinks John Mitchel’s interpretation of events was pretty much correct

              • #197027
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >It’s also important to note that a lot of Irish historians while stating that they don’t consider it a genocide will nonetheless relate facts that which could be fairly interpreted as describing genocide anyway. James S. Donnelly for instance has strongly implied that he thinks John Mitchel’s interpretation of events was pretty much correct
                If they don’t consider it genocide you shouldn’t either, in any case the actual evidence shows that the famine had a virtually equal impact on both Catholics and Protestants insofar as the whole of Ireland goes.

                • #197032
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  If you read between the lines of what a fair number of Irish historians say they’re describing a genocide even if they’re not using the term and in fact strongly discouraging the use of the term. Christine Kinealy for example described the term as "inappropriately legalistic" but her comments in her more recent work on the responsibility of the landlords and British administrators for the death toll are scathing.

                  Many have become far more sympathetic to the genocide interpretation as the years have gone by even if they do not say it explicitly. Kinealy for example in her early works spoke about how historians had a duty to fight against nationalist terrorism by not providing moral support for its proponents, and accordingly she downplayed and minimised information concerning the removal and export of food from Ireland throughout the Famine, but in her more recent books however she discusses it in detail. You can see a similar evolution in the work of James S. Donnelly in his attitude to the Mitchelite interpretation of the Famine.

                  • #197034
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Still not a genocide

    • #197014
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      Broken analogy and doesn’t make sense here.

      People say British rule was dreadful for the Irish, and that they suffered under it. Historians agree. There is no "race to the bottom" to claim they are as evil as possible, mostly just criticism of people who leap the other way to say they weren’t bad at all.

    • #197024
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Ireland is merely a seceded British province. It has no history or culture worth knowing about that isn’t essentially English in origin.

      That is all.

      :^)

      • #197028
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This tbh, more culture in Liverpool than the whole of ireland

      • #197030
        Anonymous
        Guest

        To be able to post this in the face of the actual facts concerning Anglo-Irish history revealed in this thread is so shameless it’s almost admirable

      • #197039
        Anonymous
        Guest

        All those people are pretty much unknown and uncelebrated here because we don’t really claim them as our own because they were Anglo-Irish and most people in Ireland if they were asked to name a Port, playwright, writer etc would give you the names of someone like Seamus Heaney, Brendan Behan, James Joyce etc.. No one really cares about any of the people mentioned in the wiki about Anglo Irish people. For a small country we have plenty of history and cultural worth of our own. England has very little native culture in this day and age compared to Ireland.

        • #197040
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >England has very little native culture in this day and age compared to Ireland.
          lol

        • #197041
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >England has very little native culture in this day and age compared to Ireland.

          I certainly wouldn’t go that far (England has a surprisingly rich living folk tradition) but you’re right that we don’t really claim Anglo-Irish scientists etc. as our own and it’s disingenuous of people to claim that we do. I don’t recall Pearse or Connolly ever waxing lyrical about how "we the Irish, are the people of Hook, Hamilton, Wrigley Grimshaw and Tyndall, those noble Celts who were oppressed by the Sassanach!"

    • #197033
      Anonymous
      Guest

      When English anons are confronted with actual historical data about Ireland they do one of the following:
      >your source doesn’t count because the author is clearly biased
      >your source doesn’t count because you are clearly biased
      >haha, dumb Irish

      They are incapable of rational discussion and will desperately try to discredit those who pose a threat to their worldview.

      As we see clearly ITT, the idea that the Irish are always whinging is a myth-they merely respond to the constant disingenuous shite thrown at them by wholly misinformed English anons. This thread is a waterfall of them all losing the bap and using wild speculation or bizarre abstract arguments (as well as insults and shitposts) to defect from the fact they have been BTFO.

      • #197036
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Sure

        They’re full of shit, then.

        Yes, your economists are either historically illiterate, or paid off to lie, which is a widespread phenomenon in the West, but you call it lobbying, instead of corruption.

      • #197037
        Anonymous
        Guest

        When irish anons are presented between a choice of a loving relationship or a pint of Guinness (who was a firm unionist btw), the irishman chooses Guinness because he’ll get neetbuxs off the americans if he mildly complains about those damn English

      • #197038
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >be irish
        >chimp out over a cripple being executed for treason
        >60 years later you’re ruled by a gay paki who imports more pakis by the boatload

      • #197042
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >They are incapable of rational discussion and will desperately try to discredit those who pose a threat to their worldview.

        Britain has a Ministery of defense shill unit called Brigade 77 that’s mission is to "Influence and outreach" to people online.

        https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/formations-divisions-brigades/6th-united-kingdom-division/77-brigade/
        Rpnmp

        • #197043
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >calling people that disagree with you shills
          Amazing argument

      • #197044
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >They are incapable of rational discussion and will desperately try to discredit those who pose a threat to their worldview.

        Britain has a Ministery of defense shill unit called Brigade 77 that’s mission is to "Influence and outreach" to people online.

        https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/formations-divisions-brigades/6th-united-kingdom-division/77-brigade/
        Rpnmp

        This is literally of existential importance to the Irish in that past British atrocities in Ireland have been primed by propaganda wars aimed at the British public. These lies can be a matter of life and death to the Irish. For instance, concocted or exaggerated accounts of atrocities committed by Irish rebels in the 1640s created an appetite for genocidal revenge against Ireland:

        >These Irish anciently called Antropophagi, man-eaters: Have a Tradition among them, That when the Devill shewed our Saviour all the kingdomes of the Earth and their glory, that he would not shew him Ireland, but reserved it for himselfe: it is probably true, for he hath kept it ever since for his own peculiar; the old Fox foresaw it would eclipse the glory of all the rest: he thought it wisdome to keep the land for a Boggards for his unclean spirits imployed in this Hemisphere, and the people, to doe his Son and Heire, I mean the Pope, that service for which Lewis the eleventh kept his Barbor Oliver, which makes them so blood-thirsty. They are the very Offall of men, Dregges of Mankind, Reproach of Christendome, the Bots that crawle on the Beast taile, I wonder Rome it self is not ashamed of them.
        >I begge upon my hands and knees, that the Expedition against them may be undertaken while the hearts and hands of our Souldiery are hot, to whom I will be bold to say briefly: Happy is he that shall reward them as they have served us, and Cursed be he that shall do that work of the Lord negligently, Cursed be he that holdeth back his Sword from blood; yea, Cursed be he that maketh not his Sword starke drunk with Irish blood, that doth not recompense them double for their hellish treachery to the English, that maketh them not heaps upon heaps, and their Country a dwelling place for Dragons, an Astonishment to Nations: Let not that eye look for pity, nor that hand to be spared, that pities or spares them, and let him be accursed, that curseth not them bitterly.

        • #197045
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Pic is from John P. Prendergast’s The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland, and the greentext is from Nathaniel Ward’s The Simple Cobbler of Aggawam in America, a text written by an English Puritan in Massachusetts.

          J. P. Prendergast, like W. E. H. Lecky, was a Protestant, an Anglo-Irishman, and a Unionist. Both Prendergast and Lecky were not in favour of Irish Home Rule so their interpretations cannot be dismissed as nationalist fantasy or propaganda. They were simply honest about their own people’s history.

          • #197047
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >wow in the wake of the sepoy mutiny people were really angry and wanted to level dehli after hearing reports of the mass rapes and executions of Christian civilians this means Britain tried to genocide india for 300 years

        • #197046
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >or instance, concocted or exaggerated accounts of atrocities committed by Irish rebels in the 1640s created an appetite for genocidal revenge against Ireland:
          But various massacres did happen.

          • #197072
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Cromwell came to Ireland in 1649 to deal with the threat consisting of both Protestant and Roman Catholic Royalists and the continued Roman Catholic insurgency, elements of which co-operated with each other from time to time. Between 1649 and 1650 parliamentary forces killed more settlers than had been killed by the insurgents since 1641. From 1641 to the end of the Cromwellian period in 1658 the settler population had fallen in northwest Ulster by around fifty per cent. It is estimated that the population of Ireland declined by approximately one third during this period due to killings, famine, plague, outmigration and transhipments. After their defeat in 1650 the consequences for those who had supported the king against parliament were severe. This was particularly true for those Lagganers who had besieged Derry/Londonderry in 1649 and who fought on afterwards against parliament in Ireland, Scotland and England – along with, for example, Sir Robert Stewart, Sir Alexander Stewart, Captain James Hamilton and George Cunningham.

            The Laggan Army from 1641 to 1649 had, when the opportunity arose, displayed Royalist sympathies, and had allied itself with the Catholic Confederacy and other Royalist forces for periods following the execution of Charles I in 1649. However, sections of the army did transfer allegiance to parliament after the former had lifted its siege of Derry/Londonderry in 1649. These probably fought on the parliamentary side at Lisnagarvey in 1649 against their fellow settlers; at Scarrifhollis in 1650 against the remnants of the Ulster Catholic Army; and at the siege of Charlemont in 1650 that ended the war.

    • #197048
      Anonymous
      Guest

      In the opening statement of the Remonstrance of the Irish Princes to Pope John XXII, Domhnall Ó Néill (Donald O’Neill), writing in 1317, complains that the English have been lying about Ireland and misrepresenting its history to the world. I repeat, even back in the early fourteenth century, the Anglos were already like this.

    • #197049
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Muh Anglos were lying for 7+ centuries
      Imagine building such a huge conspiracy theory.

    • #197054
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Irish now complaining about the Norman and Old English settlers that supposedly became more Irish than the Irish themselves
      kek

    • #197056
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >under British rule really THAT bad?
      Uhhh yes.

    • #197062
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Man reading this thread makes me legitimately depressed.

    • #197063
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Be careful what you wish for lads. Anglos complain about the Irish supposedly whining about historic oppression all the time on the internet but in a thread in which the Irish actually live up to the stereotype and do nothing except enunciate past woes it results in the Anglos getting absolutely BTFO’d

    • #197069
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I really can’t get over how insidious the Anglos are, both in this thread and in general.

      Just look at pic related where they take the mask off and start bragging about what they have done for muh democracy

      • #197098
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >cromwell rejected crown
        Because lord protector had far more power than king did, transition to a dynasty of a former commander is how the dutch revolt worked

    • #197071
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >complains about evil Anglos
      >creates racist caricatures about them
      Ironic

    • #197080
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Even slaves were happy to not be Irish

    • #197112
      Anonymous
      Guest

      this thread has been a mask-off moment for the anglos

Viewing 61 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.