irish history thread


Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

irish history thread

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Please no. We have had enough of these.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      What happened to the Protestants living outside of Northern Ireland? I remember seeing a side by side of before and after the independence war and the southern Protestants basically disappeared when the island was maybe 1/3 Protestant.

      Someone redpill me on Scots. Are they Celtic or Anglo? Are they Anglo-Saxon?

      Why do they hate and despise the Irish man so much?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        All of the British Isles are descended from Celts in varying degrees. Around London is the least Celt (up 40% Germanic/Saxon but dropping off quickly from there) and northern Scotland, Wales and Ireland are the most Celtic. (Celtic can just be a stand-in term for those on the isles before the Anglo-Saxons arrived) Every Briton is Celtic descended with some dashes of continental Germanic to varying degrees. Germanic and Celtic aren’t even that far genetically to begin with either. The real question dividing them, then, isn’t ethnicity, but language, culture, and history. The English adopted Germanic customs and language really early on, since they had the most mixing with the Anglo-Saxons. The Welsh and highlands of Scotland held out on the fringes, speaking Celtic, while southern Scotland, the lowlands, mixed and adopted Germanic things early on too. The highlands and lowlands were quite different for awhile, but they eventually mixed and meshed and the highlanders succumbed to those Germanic things too. They eventually formed the modern idea of the scot, perhaps around the 1700s, though the regionalism was still alive. Perhaps there was always a Scottish identity before, highlanders and lowland era being in the same kingdom, but not as we now see them. The Scottish have a long history of defying the English, but they joined England in Union via a Scottish monarch in 1603. Since then, it’s been a slow process of further adopting of Germanic things, but the Scots in the lowlands have always had a cultural affinity to England and many of their monarchs liked English things. Anti-English sentiment only ever was roused by political actors for quick gain, but those same actors would turn around and seek English aid if it’d help them gain power in Scotland.
        Ultimately, the Scottish are northern Britons with more a bit more Celtic ancestry, but they too adopted those Germanic things early on and are not very different from the English aside history.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          [...]
          Someone redpill me on Scots. Are they Celtic or Anglo? Are they Anglo-Saxon?

          Why do they hate and despise the Irish man so much?

          They hate the Irish primarily because many Scots were brought in to settle Irish plantations, particularly in ulster. You see it in many of the surnames of ulstermen. There was also a lot of Irish migration to Scotland that the Scots didn’t like. The Irish were also much slower to adopt Germanic things like the Scots and the English. The Irish likewise were not really equals in the Union, being forced into it by conquest. The Irish are also much more Catholic while the Scots were strongly Protestant, little Catholic enclaves of the highlands aside.
          Those would be the primary reason for the tension, I think.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          This poster is not Scottish and does not know what he's talking about. Disregard what he says.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            It’s true I’m not Scottish. I’m only giving my general consensus from the couple books I’ve read about Scotland and from the posters here.
            Elaborate on where I went wrong.

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              The only thing you said that was correct was that the Union of crowns happened in 1603, and it wasn't "Scots formed a Union", in fact the idea of actual Union was unpopular in both kingdoms when James VI took the English throne. You don't even have a correct idea of what the "lowlands" actually are

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                And that remote areas spoke Celtic longer, of course

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                The lowlands are south of the Firth of Forth and they spoke Scots there, which is a dialect branching off from old English/Anglo-Saxon. At least there were some Anglo-Saxon petty kingdoms there and those Anglo-Saxon language and customs spread into the lowlands from them. Is that correct?
                I’m guessing you don’t disagree with the genetics part because you didn’t really mention that. As in, the Scottish had a lot less Anglo-Saxon admixture. Is that correct?
                There also seemed to be a language and cultural divide between the highlands and lowlands to some degree until around the Jacobite rising. Can you elaborate on that not being true?
                I also know what I said about the Scottish monarchs and political actors rallying anti-English sentiment is definitely true. Several monarchs had an affinity for England, despite there being times when they were at odds with each other. I mean, James VI basically abandoned Scotland to go rule in England. This also shines through in the fact that there would have been a union between Scotland and France had the Scottish not hated the French and preferred the English.
                Is it also not true that Scotland has slowly become more and more anglicized?
                I’m asking these things genuinely and I’m open to you correcting anything I’ve said.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The lowlands are south of the Firth of Forth and they spoke Scots there
                The highlands/lowlands divide is not the same as the Forth-Clyde line.
                >At least there were some Anglo-Saxon petty kingdoms there and those Anglo-Saxon language and customs spread into the lowlands from them
                Northumbria in the south east, yes. The spread of the language and "germanic customs" outwith that area mostly happned in after King David though
                >I’m guessing you don’t disagree with the genetics part because you didn’t really mention that. As in, the Scottish had a lot less Anglo-Saxon admixture. Is that correct?
                Anglo Saxon admixture is centred around the previously mentioned kingdom of Northumbria in the south east, dropping off as you move away from it.
                >a language and cultural divide between the highlands and lowlands to some degree until around the Jacobite rising.
                It is true, and it was a large divide by the era of the Jacobite risings, but it's not as primordial as often suggested. The highlands were speaking Gaelic and kept old social organization longer because they're more difficult terrain to enforce Anglo-Norman style feudalism on.
                >I also know what I said about the Scottish monarchs and political actors rallying anti-English sentiment is definitely true
                "Anti-English" sentiment was common even when it didn't suit the political elite. As late as the passing of the Acts of Union it caused unrest
                >Several monarchs had an affinity for England
                Obviously, but not actually very novel compared to ever monarch having a affinity for France
                >I mean, James VI basically abandoned Scotland to go rule in England.
                Very rude of him. He even promised not to
                >This also shines through in the fact that there would have been a union between Scotland and France
                How did you determine that this absolutely would have happened in your imaginary alternative history?
                >Is it also not true that Scotland has slowly become more anglicized?
                Obviously true when you word it that way.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Also please be careful talking about "celtic" and "germanic" genetics. While most normal people will know exactly what you mean and understand you, those two groups cluster closely together and this fact will inspire serveral autists on here to have a massive sperg out about it.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Informative post, but it essentially confirms most of what I previously wrote.
                >How did you determine that this absolutely would have happened in your imaginary alternative history?
                I can’t remember the specifics because the book is not with me. But when reading a book called something like “The Kings of Scotland” it explains that there was a point in the 1500s when Scotland was indeed in a personal Union with France. France began garrisoning troops in Scotland, but the Scots really didn’t like it. There were revolts and they essentially replaced the French marriage that would’ve solidified that Union with the English one that did solidify the Union of Crowns. I will post specifics when I can later.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm sure what you're thinking of is the reign of Queen Mary, who was unpopular due to being a catholic at the height of the Reformation, and thus had lots of Royal ties to France. But like I said people being anti-Catholic or prefering to ally with England against Catholics internationally isn't the same as being pro Union-with-England. It was Mary's immediate successor who would actually unite the two crowns, and despite him wanting it really badly the idea of actually uniting the two kingdoms in one state was unpopular in both Kingdoms at the time. And even a century later when the acts of Union were passed it was hugely unpopular in Scotland(one big motivation for it on England's part was the the Scottish Parliament was basically threatening to break up the personal Union), my own small town apparently had a few hundred people gather briefly expecting to form an army to fight against it before the local Lord told them to stop.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Interesting. Did the Union ever become popular then? Or has it always been a sort of necessity type of situation where it was mostly pushed by the nobles?

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                It became very popular during the 1800s when urban areas of Scotland got very rich off trade links to the empire and industry, and this lasted well into the 20th century.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                The Scottish Covenanters were a Taliban tier gigabased chungus spartan holy warrior society. Notice me Paddy O'Furniture. Thoughts?

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                I knew it

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                A comparison between the Covenanters and the Taliban is legitimately pretty apt.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                except the Taliban are competent

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >British Isles

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Where do the pre-indo European inhabitants of the isles (the Newgrange and Stonehenge builders) figure into this? How much did the Celts replace them genetically?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think their genetic legacy up there is pretty minimal, got out competed by the Beaker folk well before Celtic was even a language branch (not going to double check this). Some of them surely survived and assimilated, might have even maintained some prestige in certain areas like Orkney, but the figure I've heard is that generally local farmers were rapidly 9:1ed by beaker farmers.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Someone redpill me on Scots. Are they Celtic or Anglo?
        Anglos larping as Celts.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          The English are just Celts larping as Germanics. The Scots then are Celts acting as Germanics but larp as if they aren’t acting as Germanics.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            English are Germanics

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              Genetically, they’re a mix of the native Britons and the Anglo-Saxons. They’re primarily of native Briton admixture with some having the Anglo-Saxon haplogroup. But, they really did mix and adopt Anglo-Saxon stuff way faster than the rest of the island so no one in England really tries to identify with what was there before.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                You are assuming Britons are 100% Celtic genetically or if you are excluding the pre-Celtic admixture then you are applying a double-standard.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                I honestly don’t know much about the genetic composition of the isles before celtic language came to dominate it. I do know that whatever that was plus whatever Celtic influence came is enough to distinguish whatever that is from the Anglo-saxons that arrived later (although admittedly Celts and Germans are very close genetically anyway). My assertion is that they’re mostly descended from whatever was there before the Anglo-Saxons, like other place traditionally called Celtic. The Anglo-Saxons being a big haplogroup contributor and some spice thrown into their admixture. Essentially their blood is mostly that of the native Britons but they mixed with the Anglo-Saxons and adopted their Germanic languages and customs after their elite became Anglo-Saxons.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        We're Celts.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      THE IRISH THREADS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        I hate seeing Irish threads even though I'm the most prolific contributor to them. I just compulsively have to respond to the dumb things people say in them.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >THE IRISH THREADS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES
        You might enjoy this anon

        IRA v British Army - Seamus Kearney Tells His Story

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      More like not enough. Tired of retarded summer homosexuals and their high school takes on muh Rome.

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    What happened to the Protestants living outside of Northern Ireland? I remember seeing a side by side of before and after the independence war and the southern Protestants basically disappeared when the island was maybe 1/3 Protestant.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      My dad is a rural tipperary man, according to him they got slowly ostosized and left in droves to Uk and Canada.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        This isn't true. There is no evidence of social intimidation of Protestants or former Unionists in independent Ireland on a significant level and people have looked and looked for it and not found it. I won't speculate about your father's reasons for saying this (Tipperary may be an exception for whatever reason and he may be right) but the reason most Irish people who think this think this is because Irish people instinctively have guilt complexes and are desperate to have something like the Holocaust or slavery to feel truly guilty about, and given that our history is remarkably clean on our part this tendency produces nonsensical and hallucinatory past Holocausts like the Magdalene Laundries (I'm not talking about the Industrial Schools - those were indeed awful and shameful) and the supposed Holocaust of Protestants during and after the War of Independence.

        That said there are some mini-Ulsters in parts of the country where sectarian tensions are still strong. Wicklow, West Cork and Wexford are the examples that come to mind, and this is due to parts of the local Protestant community being both economically privileged and hostile to Catholics for the typical settler-colonialist reasons that were the norm among Irish Protestants until independence broke the spell for most of them.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Irish people instinctively have guilt complexes and are desperate to have something like the Holocaust or slavery to feel truly guilty about

          I disagree with that statement. If you live in Ireland and know the average person especially working class they have no sort of guilt complex and such things as you mention couldn't be further from mind. I know the likes of the Irish times and journalists, NGOs and historians like that Liam Hogan fella and various brainwashed middle class liberal types on Twitter and even some politicians push all sorts of guilt tripping stuff but I don't think the vast majority of people pay them any heed or care about what they're saying. I think most Irish people are impervious to it all. The only one I can think of thats really taken hold and is so dumb and illogical is the "sure the Irish went all over the world so how can you be against people immigrating to Ireland" is the worst one but even still the average working class person at least doesn't buy that argument and usually have counter arguments. People actually take insult when you have liberal white guilt types try to link Ireland to the slave trade for example for because they know full well our ancestors were impoverished and oppressed themselves and if anyone in Ireland benefited from slavery it wasn't our oppressed peasant ancestors.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think it depends on the region. In Ulster (I'm talking of course of all nine counties) people have much higher national self esteem than elsewhere and these pathologies are less present.

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              >In Ulster (I'm talking of course of all nine counties) people have much higher national self esteem than elsewhere and these pathologies are less present.

              Very true. I'm in Ulster myself and couldn't agree more. There's a fairly big contrast between Southern and Ulster Irish in their mentality and things like sense of humor even. People down the country are far more under the influence of such things as RTE and Irish Times journalists etc and people pushing various agendas through the MSM which aren't good for Ireland or the people and a lot of it is pushing things like multiculturalism and critical theory directed towards Irish history and society. I think Ulster Irish definitely have more pride in themselves and I'd say are a more hardy people too in mindset and not prone to any sort of guilt tripping.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Are you Irish? I lived in Wexford for 30 years and have never heard of any of this supposed sectarian tension.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Don't want to give too many personal details away but I have family connections to Wexford and know people there. It's not something that would pop up in daily life but if you end up mentioning certain things to certain people you might be surprised about how strong their opinions on certain things are. As with almost everything in Irish life this a subterranean thing you need to be attuned for. If you have Protestant friends, ask them if any of their relatives ever went north of the border to participate in an Orange march. There was a residual Orange culture in Wexford until quite recently.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            There was a lot of sectarian massacres around there during the 1798 rebellion so maybe it's something that lingers on from the times and other events after.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Also at the time Irish Catholic birthrate was like 6, and protestant like 3.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      My dad is a rural tipperary man, according to him they got slowly ostosized and left in droves to Uk and Canada.

      Not true.

      >In the early 1990s, David Fitzpatrick, among Ireland's foremost demographic historians, first supervised and then examined Hart's doctoral dissertation at Trinity College Dublin, with Charles Townshend the external examiner. In 2013, Fitzpatrick made a remarkable intervention in the Hart controversy with his article “Protestant depopulation and the Irish revolution,” which all but demolished his former student's thesis. “To advance the study of Irish ‘ethnic cleansing’ beyond conjecture,” Fitzpatrick announced, “we must search for new sources.” Among the purportedly “fresh evidence,” Fitzpatrick uncovered is a “neglected set of annual returns” recording the membership of the Methodist Church in Ireland. Between the census years of 1911 and 1926, the Methodist returns enabled Fitzpatrick to forensically profile the Methodist demographic year by year. Fitzpatrick hypothesised that the Methodists characterise wider Protestant experiences of population decline. In the revolutionary triennium 1920 1923, Fitzpatrick reported native southern Protestant decline was slower than during the relative pre-war calm of 1911–1914. [...] Confirming earlier research by other scholars, Fitzpatrick concluded that after 1911 chronically low levels of births and marriages, alongside the failure to recruit new church members, explains the dramatic decline in the native southern Protestant population. Native Protestants had not been forced out. They had died out, in a demographic trend which can be traced to the mid-nineteenth century.
      John M. Regan, “All the nightmare images of ethnic conflict in the twentieth century are here”: Erroneous statistical proofs and the search for ethnic violence in revolutionary Ireland, 1917–1923' Nations and Nationalism (2021), 4.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Having employed a false interpolation to report another false correlation, Hart introduces his third source. Between 1911 and 1926, parish preachers' books record attendance at Sunday services in sampled Episcopalian churches across West Cork. “After 1919,” Hart writes, “attendance fell by 22 per cent with more than two thirds in a single year—1922.” Switching his statistical base from 1911–1926 (school enrolments) to 1919–1926 (church attendance) gives the false impression of sudden decline, because in the shorter period effects peculiar to 1922 are amplified. Notably, the evacuation from Southern Ireland of non-native Protestants in British crown forces along with their dependents.art's West Cork churches go unidentified, but it is possible to examine the surviving preachers' books in the
        parish unions he sampled. Hart notably said that the crown forces “played no part in the West Cork figures” (because many were non-natives), but this is unlikely, if not impossible, because the preachers books record church attendance, not the occupations of members of the congregations. Nevertheless, Abbeystrewry church is excluded from my sample, because before February 1922 its congregation was swelled by Skibbereen's British Army garrison. In the remaining five churches, between 1919 and 1926, Figure 3 identifies average Sunday attendance fell
        by 25%, and 1922 accounts for 63% of the total decline 1919–1926. These figures are extremely close to Hart's. However, counting Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) Auxiliary cadets among its congregation, my sample still includes St Coleman's Macroom. Excluding St Coleman's in Figure 4, typically, attendance falls by 32% between 1911 and 1926 in the remaining churches, with 1922 accounting for 8% of the total decline in this period.
        6.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >These Episcopalians behave much more like Fitzpatrick's Methodists than Hart's refugees, further establishing the Methodists are indeed representative of the wider Protestant experience. Accurately reported, none of Hart's datasets identify correlations between a mass exodus of native southern Protestants and the onset of republican violence. Moreover, all of Hart's datasets are miscalculated or misrepresented, yet somehow they are all made to agree with one another.

          Basically a Canadian historian with an Ulster Unionist family background called Peter Hart is responsible for propagating the idea that there was a massive sudden Protestant population decline in Ireland and that it was caused by ethnic cleansing and he this he did by cooking up figures to suit his thesis. Peter Hart's other classics involve claiming to have interviewed men shortly after they had died and engaging in some of the most brazen instances of selective citation from primary sources in the history of the historical profession.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        The fact that some of them died in ww1 enters nobodies thinking. Some retarded private freemason larp composed of unemployable illiterates needs to believe there was some sort of 'protestant genocide' which is a complete fabrication or else their entire larger in a can worldview implodes. Fascinating how many of them don't even realise that many of the better Republicans WERE protestants, for example world tone

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          The most prominent public advocate for the recognition of the 'genocide' of Protestants in 'Southern Ireland', Robin Bury, complained about how the playing of the Angelus on state tv and radio was sectarian against Protestants because it 'reflected Catholic theology' about the 'the virgin birth'. The absolute cretin didn't realise that Protestants, of which he is one, also believe in the virgin birth of Our Lord to Mary. For his ilk Protestantism isn't an expression of Christian belief but an ethnic identity based around mourning for past supremacy.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Most of the Protestant population decline used as evidence of 'ethnic cleansing' literally consisted of British soldiers, civil servants and administrators going home with their families after independence.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >What happened to the Protestants living outside of Northern Ireland? I remember seeing a side by side of before and after the independence war and the southern Protestants basically disappeared when the island was maybe 1/3 Protestant.
      They went to Northern Ireland where they could continue a sectarian state based on the idea that if you were protestant you got given a vote a job and a house. A few wandered off back to England since their only source of employment was the British government and a few decent ones stayed, in fact a few of them because president

      My dad is a rural tipperary man, according to him they got slowly ostosized and left in droves to Uk and Canada.

      >My dad is a rural tipperary man, according to him they got slowly ostosized and left in droves to Uk and Canada.
      They did not get particularly ostracised, more that they did not like their new status as equal under the law.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      We ate them.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        kek so

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      I knew several protestant lads growing up. They are pretty chill and consider themselves Irish, unlike the weirdos up norf.

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      SVOL

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      i've never seen any Irish claim Jackson

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        The anon you're replying to is particularly lunkheaded and obsessed and he'll dig out some instance of an American who doesn't appreciate the distinction between Gaelic/Catholic Irish, Scots-Irish and Anglo-Irish referring to Andrew Jackson or other Ulster-Scots Americans as 'Irish' and he'll sperg about in dozens and dozens of threads as evidence that the Irish are trying to usurp the heritage of all Anglo-Saxon nations. He also believes that Irish folksingers who sing English songs are stealing them even if they acknowledge the song is English because he's a bizarre (if consistent) ethnopurist who believes people should not be allowed to sing songs not belonging to their immediate heritage.

        He's one of the most tedious posters on this board.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >https://www.claddaghdesign.com/ireland/irish-american-presidents/
          >Andrew Jackson was the 7th US President and the first to claim Irish ancestry. He held office from 1829 – 1837. Born in 1767 in the border region of North and South Carolina, his parents emigrated from Ireland just two years previously with their two Irish-born sons
          AHAHAHAHAH

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >https://www.claddaghdesign.com/ireland/irish-american-presidents/
          >Andrew Jackson was the 7th US President and the first to claim Irish ancestry. He held office from 1829 – 1837. Born in 1767 in the border region of North and South Carolina, his parents emigrated from Ireland just two years previously with their two Irish-born sons
          AHAHAHAHAH

          >https://group.irishecho.com/2011/02/echo-opinion-jacksons-irish-roots-are-too-often-forgotten-2/
          >It’s not particularly hard to figure out why Jackson hasn’t been adopted by the Irish-American community: Jackson was a Protestant. That complicates matters, doesn’t it?Well, it shouldn’t. While I realize that Jackson’s faith would disqualify him from leading the St. Patrick’s Day parade in New York, he nevertheless deserves to be understood and appreciated as an Irish-American, and as a child of immigrants.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your own source says explicitly says 'Jackson hasn’t been adopted by the Irish-American community', which is contrary to what claim. Your posts are so consistently dumb I'd wonder if you're false flagging if I didn't know you'd been doing this for so long.

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              it's literally an irish american trying to claim andrew jackson as his own
              here's another
              >https://oghamart.com/pages/irish-american-heritage-history-amp-politics
              >Did you know that 23 U.S. presidents have ancestral ties to Ireland? The parents of Andrew Jackson and James Buchanan were all born in Ireland. JFK was the first president to visit Ireland while still in office. And when Ronald Reagan visited his ancestral hometown in 1984, a bar was named after him!

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, an American who doesn't understand the distinction between Irish and Scots-Irish. What are these isolated individuals and their misconceptions indicative of?

                That said, is he actually wrong? Ulster Scots, while culturally very different from Irish Catholics and despite a frequent history of mutual hostility, proudly identified as Irish at the time Jackson's parents emigrated. They were perceived as Irish and a lot of the American stereotype of the Irish is true of the Scots-Irish than the Irish proper. Ulster Scots are Gaels from the West of Scotland, and extremely closely related (as shown by DNA) to the Gaelic Irish, being really the same race. Ulster ethnic separatism is quite recent.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                wrong
                "scots irish" in america come from northern english border reiver origins not the later west scottish immigrants to ulster
                stop stealing my cultural history. why is it fine for you to seethe at dumb ulster scots who claim chu cullain as their hero but when the irish claim my peoples history as their own suddenly its fine?
                it was anglos who founded america, who built the cities, who fought the wars, who killed the injuns. the irish came after the job had been done

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                more culture than the irish ever had

                Most Ulster Scots emigrants to America came during the 18th century, at which time the vast bulk of Ulster Scots were descendants of late 17th and 18th century immigrants and famine refugees to Ireland, not the original Plantation colonists (of which by no means all or even most were Borderers). It is true that there are a lot of Borderer names still current and common in Ulster but in general Ulster Scots and their American progeny came from Ayrshire, Galloway and the west coast in general.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                1/2
                Ulster Scots are Gaels from the West of Scotland, and extremely closely related (as shown by DNA) to the Gaelic Irish, being really the same race. Ulster ethnic separatism is quite recent.
                Source? My ass
                Jesus christ you are a retard
                Some Ulster-Scots have Gaelic ancestory but most are lowland descendants
                Lowland and Northern English make up the majority. You mean national or cultural separatism btw all inhabitants of the British Isles are genetically similar.
                >proudly identified as Irish at the time Jackson's parents emigrated Ulster ethnic separatism is quite recent.
                The leader of a group of Ulster-Scot settlers in Massachusetts wrote in a letter to the Royal Governer that they were shocked to be called Irish only 47 years before Jackson was born
                Planters have always saw themselves as being distinct. The Irish language only starting dying off in the 1800s, Planters were arriving Early 1600 to late 1700 and a large amount of the Planters were setting up towns in virginland in other areas the Irish were moved to shitter land so the Planters could settle in the areas with good farmland. It wasn't like they were mixing together into one people; sure in some towns Irish and planters walked through the same centres but you're not going to be mixing with these people when you don't speak the same language or go to the same church. Sure when Ulster-Scots immigrated to America they would have said "I'm from Ireland" but that wasn't the same thing as saying "I'm Irish".

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'd say some planters identified themselves as Irish after many many generations of living on the Island but it wasn't in the same way that an Irish Gael saw identified themselves as Irish in that they were connected to the British Kingdom of Ireland. The Planters never adopted Irish culture or spoke the Irish language the Irish adopted Planter customs. It's hard to explain but Planters commonly considered themselves Irish but didn't see themselves as the same people as the actual Irish. They only saw themselves as Irish because they were from Ireland.

                To explain the Irish and Ulster-Scot difference remember that if the Irish language didn't die out it would be undebatable that the British population in Ireland are distinct from the Irish population. But since the Irish language died ,and the British government was too retarded to call Northern Ireland literally anything else, both groups are easily lumped together; because both speak the same language have similiar accents and live in Countries with Ireland in their name.

                I hate these threads because I always write some retarded rant like the autist I am

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Some Ulster-Scots have Gaelic ancestory but most are lowland descendants

                My point is that the 'Lowlands', particularly the western Lowlands, were much more Gaelic at the time of the plantation and subsequent emigration than one would think. In the Flyting of Dunbar and Kennedy (c. 1500), Dunbar derisively refers to Kennedy (who was from Galloway, far south of the Highlands, but where Gaelic survived until relatively recently, and where much of the emigration to Ulster came from) as 'Erse' and as a Highlander for the very fact of being 'Erse'. Margaret McMurray, the last native speaker of the Gallovidan dialect of Gaelic, died in 1760. Ulster Scots whose ancestors came over to Ireland from the West of Scotland in the 17th and 18th centuries are fairly likely to be descended from Gaelic speakers in part, not including Highlanders.

                >The leader of a group of Ulster-Scot settlers in Massachusetts wrote in a letter to the Royal Governer that they were shocked to be called Irish only 47 years before Jackson was born

                I simplifed things slightly for emphasis, so you're correct to offer a qualification, but it's not quite a rebuke because it's also an oversimplification to say they didn't consider themselves Irish at all. Sociologically speaking the Scots-Irish in America tended to identify as Irish except where tension with Catholic Irish in the area made them re-evaluate. Observe the names of significant early Ulster-Scots bodies in America: The Friendly Sons of St. Patrick (1711), the Charitable Irish Society (1738) and the Hibernian Society of Savannah (1812). All of these were Scots-Irish/Ulster-Scots bodies but bearing the pride in Ireland typical of immigrants and colonists of that time.

                Before calling me a retard, please make sure you know what I'm talking about first.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Lowland and Northern English make up the majority.

                That was true of the original Ulster Plantation but most Ulster Scots and Scots-Irish Americans are not descendants of the original planters (many of whom, if they were not killed, fled back to Britain during the 1641 massacres and never returned), but rather from later waves of emigrants from Scotland, particularly the west of Scotland, during the 17th and 18th centuries. Many in particular came during the 'Seven Ill Years' of the 1690s as famine refugees (making a particular song which is sung to the tune of Sloop John B beloved of Loyalists somewhat ironic) and these tended in particular to be from Galloway and Ayrshire, and would doubtless of included many Gaelic speakers. The idea that Ulster Scots are Border Reivers is mostly a meme.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The leader of a group of Ulster-Scot settlers in Massachusetts wrote in a letter to the Royal Governer that they were shocked to be called Irish only 47 years before Jackson was born
                Source?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Ulster Scot
      >Uses English flag
      Why didn't you just use Oscar wilde or something? He was a gay English pedophile that the Irish love to claim

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Andrew Jackson was a YORKSHIRE MAN

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    I recently learned that my mother's paternal grandfather was some kind of Irish nationalist that killed someone and then immigrated to Canada to escape the feds after.

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ireland is like Ukraine, a country of all but assimilated rapebabies whose culture has been reduced to being anti-Britain/Russia

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Almost nobody in Ireland (outside of parts of Northern Ireland where legitimate historic grievances still remain) hates Britain. Irish people are constitutionally some of the chillest and least butthurt/seething people by temperament in Europe and the only reason you can't see this is because you are blinded by Anglophone pop-culture and LULZ memes.

      If you judge Ireland by analogy with another country based on superficial similarities and infer from them ("gee, I reckon Ireland is Britain's Poland/Ukraine/Portugal/Finland/Catalonia/Basque Country etc.) you will ALWAYS go wrong.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not so but if there is one thing that shines forth from this thread, it is that the English underclass are as ever, illiterate, unemployable and mentally and spiritually impoverished. No wonder the DUP in Northern Ireland are loathed by anybody., including most protestants.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        This thread isn't bad at all when it comes to that kind of thing, so far at least.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/white-irish-in-uk-earn-41-more-than-white-british-pay-gap-report-finds-1.4527558?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fsocial-affairs%2Fwhite-irish-in-uk-earn-41-more-than-white-british-pay-gap-report-finds-1.4527558

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      The only thing that bothers Irish people in the slightest is the delight certain others seem to take in their willful ignorance of our history.

  6. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/us-presidents-irish-roots
    >The reputation of the Irish in the US
    >Carl Shanahan, the founder of Wild Geese, an organization that promotes Irish culture in the US and worldwide, says "Being Irish doesn't hurt you at any level of society. We were never at war with Americans like the Germans, the Italians, and the Japanese. In Washington's army, the numbers were a third Irish or Scottish-Irish …There is an affinity by association. It's the reputation of the Irish, the Fighting Irish. A guy who gets off his feet and fights the battle and wins. We had boxing champs and baseball teams."
    >He continues, "We fought their wars, opened up their territories, and built their cities. There's nowhere to tell that story and if we don't tell it, then people will forget."
    fucking hell is there any level these people won't stoop to? Why are they so obsessed with stealing anglo/lowland scots american cultural heritage?

  7. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Bordernaggers
    >Culture

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      more culture than the irish ever had

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        England had some measure of difficulty bringing Ireland to heel, while Border reivers weren't even cool bandits who managed to fight the state. They only existed for as long as England and Scotland were fine with their border being full of violent naggers who would hinder a opposing army trying to invade them, as soon as that stopped being a issue the entire class of people were shipped off to Ireland without any trouble.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Border reivers weren't even cool bandits who managed to fight the state
          yeah because they realised that they'd rather fight a bunch of foreign catholic fenians than each other

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            But they didn't do the actual work of subduing Ulster, the English did. After the English had depopulated it via scorched earth tactics the Border Reivers among others were given the land to settle in.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >we actually wanted to be deported to a depopulated shithole at the exact same time having use naggering around the Anglo-Scottish border stopped being in the two kingdom's best interest.
            Now this is a cope. I've seen Anglocope about being conquered and ruled by frogs, ersecope about getting turned into a european colony before even most places outside of Europe and only getting freed in time to be a globohomo economic zone, loyalistcope about being slavishly loyal to a state that at best doesn't think of them at all and at worst hates them and wishes they would go away, and jockcope about selling out to the English after building the entire national mythology around fighting them. But I think this is the first time I've ever seen this extremely specific favour of bordercope.
            When will I see Taffycope about their only notable achivement being a cheese sandwich?

  8. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Cromwell was framed btw
    https://www.theirishstory.com/2014/08/13/opinion-cromwell-was-framed/#.YrcGwxam2aO

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Garbage post which obfuscates the issue, very typical of Anglo-sympathetic Irish historiography. Reilly is a hysterical anti-Republican with his own Staterish biases.

      The reason Cromwell's name lingered down the centuries in Ireland is because his soldiers received the land of the Irish as a reward for their services and formed the new ruling class in Ireland thereafter, keeping the wound alive. It's like if Generalplan Ost had succeeded and 200 years later the descendants of the surviving Slavic peasants were tilling fields for 'Oskar Graf von Dirlewanger IV' while preserving bitter and accurate memories of what happened in World War II.

      When people online talk about Cromwell and Ireland they talk about his conduct when besieging the towns of Drogheda and Wexford, and whether or not it was abnormal according to the rules of war at the time, which is basically irrelevant to the issue at hand. Judging Cromwell by whether or not the Drogheda and Wexord massacres happened is like judging Hitler by whether or not the Lidice massacre happened. Cromwell isn't hated in Ireland because he committed massacres during the siege of two towns, he's hated because he presided over a massive transfer of land by which the Irish Catholic population of Ireland lost almost all their land. Ireland's population dropped by a third (and according to some estimates by as much as 41%) during the Confederate War, and the survivors were forced into agricultural slavery by the perpetrators of the war crimes which depopulated Ireland in this manner, and they never forgot that.

      The consequences of the Confederate War were a living legacy until the Land Acts, concluding with the Wyndham Act of 1903, broke the power of the Anglo-Irish landlords in the late 19th century, meaning that Cromwell's legacy was central to Ireland's agrarian, political and social history until very recently. It's not that 17th century war crimes were being remembered and brooded over in isolation.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      His paternal grandmother bore the Scottish surname Creath, of Gaelic derivation (Mac Rath).

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Sorry, meant for:

        [...]

        .

  9. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >irish people itt literally claiming anglo/lowland scots history as their own
    why?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      They don't. The anon saying they do is like a bot at this stage and just repeating the same thing over and over again despite him having little evidence other than articles written on some obscure American websites written by a persons who don't even know the distinction between the peopled that came from Ireland.

  10. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >57 posts
    >14 posters
    Another thread, another samefagging fest

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Samefagging means something different to a handful of posters arguing with each other.

  11. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why didn't the fish?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why didn't the fishes ate the Irish?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        *fish eat

  12. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    english folk music has more soul than irish folk music
    this is undeniable

  13. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >border reivers were english

    Yes, Northern English and Lowland Scottish, but not of the same kind of English as had fought the Nine Years' War. The Borderers were hillbillies scraped off the moors of the Anglo-Scottish Border and dumped on land that had been depopulated by artificially-induced famine.

    >Border reivers were fine with slaughtering taigs. one border reiver could take down ten irish """warriors""". border reivers were a literal klingon tier warrior society and their descendents became the best fighters and frontiersmen on earth

    I'm gonna need a source for that my dude.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Yes, Northern English and Lowland Scottish, but not of the same kind of English as had fought the Nine Years' War
      they were english, stop arguing against that fact
      >I'm gonna need a source for that my dude.
      ?????
      Border reivers and their descendants were the most violent warlike people on earth. practically every great frontiersman and indian fighter was of english and half of those were of border reiver descent

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >they were english, stop arguing against that fact

        Racially they were Anglo-Saxon, certainly, but nationally they straddled both sides of the Anglo-Scottish border.

        >Border reivers and their descendants were the most violent warlike people on earth. practically every great frontiersman and indian fighter was of english and half of those were of border reiver descent

        That's not a source. The Indian Wars of America's early frontier history aren't something to be proud of by the way. I'm not sure if you're the same anon obsessed with the notion that the Irish are trying to 'steal' Andrew Jackson, but you can keep him. The Trail of Tears isn't something we'd want to have credit for. The Indian Removal Act was uncannily similar in fact to the Cromwellian policy of western transplantation, but alas regrettably was even more effectively executed.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >That's not a source. The Indian Wars of America's early frontier history aren't something to be proud of by the way.
          From kit carson to jack hinson jesse james we were the best fighters and woodsmen the world had ever seen
          the native americans fought well and with bravery and so did we. ultimately we won. the trail of tears was bound to happen sometime

          [...]
          And yet you didn't manage to avoid getting cleared off your homeland the second your weren't wanted as old school border protection.

          no genocide happened to us. we were cleared off and given a new homeland

          Overwhelming British state power militarily guaranteeing the security of the status quo there. If we regain the place we won't throw you out though. We'll leave you to keep making retarded posts on teh interweb in peace. The siege mentality which fuels these paranoid superiority fantasies needs a rest.

          you will never regain it

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Can you name a single instance of a conflict between Border Reivers and Irishmen in Ireland?

  14. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    It's fascinating how childish you are

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      if us reivers were such bad warriors then why do their descendants still inhabit northern ireland?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Overwhelming British state power militarily guaranteeing the security of the status quo there. If we regain the place we won't throw you out though. We'll leave you to keep making retarded posts on teh interweb in peace. The siege mentality which fuels these paranoid superiority fantasies needs a rest.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Power rangers were better warriors especially the red ranger he'd batter the shite into the inbred council flat dysgenic prods

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          cringe

          Can you name a single instance of a conflict between Border Reivers and Irishmen in Ireland?

          >The Border Horse also served in lreland during the O'Neill and Tyrone rebellions. The Irish, fighting on their home ground, generally confined themselves to "skirmishing in passes, bogs, woods and all places to their advantage". The Border Horse were in their element here, especially as they were better mounted than the Irish, "having deep war saddles with stirrups and using pistolles as well as staffes and swords many having jak of plate and such-like defensive arms, and being bold and strong for encounters and long marches and of greater stature than the lrish must needs have great advantage over them". In 1540, it was said that a hundred English Northern spears on horseback combined with a like number of longbow men and hack butters would be a much more effective force than 1,000 of the regular army stationed in Ireland.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's genuinely very interesting and I hadn't heard that before, so thank you for that, but I've looked up the source and the author frustratingly enough does not cite a source himself for this claim. For that reason I still remain sceptical.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's genuinely very interesting and I hadn't heard that before, so thank you for that, but I've looked up the source and the author frustratingly enough does not cite a source himself for this claim. For that reason I still remain sceptical.

            I looked up the quote and it's real but it doesn't specify that the English cavalry are Borderers:

            >Their horses are of a small stature, excellent Amblers, but of litle or no boldnes, and small strength either for battell or long marches, fitt and vsed only for short excursions in fighting, and short Iourneyes and being fedd vppon boggs, and soft ground, are tender houed and soone grow lame, vsed vppon hard ground.So as our English horsemen having deepe warr sadles and vsing pistolls aswell as Speares and swords, and many of them having Corsletts, and like defensiue Armes, and being bold and strong for incounters and long marches, and of greater stature then the Irish, our Troopes must needs haue great advantages ouer theirs.
            Graham Kew, The Irish Sections of Fynes Moryson's Unpublished "Itinerary", Analecta Hibernica, No. 37 (1998), pp. 1, 3-137, at 69.

            I wonder if in referring to stature is he referring to that of the horses, because almost every English source from the Nine Years' War I've read emphasises that the Irish were taller and stronger and more suited to close combat than the English, and within the same text Moryson notes of the Irish that 'the bodyes of men and wemen are large for bignes and stature' (p 115).

            On the whole I still don't see any evidence for Borderers being participants in the Nine Years War.

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              >because almost every English source from the Nine Years' War I've read emphasises that the Irish were taller and stronger and more suited to close combat than the English

              Here's one such example of an English Tudor writer ascribing superiority as troops to the Irish:

              >Question. What nomber of souldiers will suppress the rebells of Ireland managed in garrisons? Answere. To answere this question will require deepe iudgment, and yt is the cunningest pointe of the warrs of Ireland to giue a right iudgment or answerre unto it; for in the understanding of this answere, you ought well to note all things that be formerlie declared, wherein you shall finde that the nomber of Rebells is great, the Countries where they rest exceeding strong and full of straights, lying waste to the assailants, and well inhabited and full of releife to the defendantes; ther understanding good, howe to make ther defence, and ther Captaines ouer skillfull in the knowledge of warr; ther souldiers expert in ther seuerall weapons they weare, and as curious and delightfull to kepe them cleane and redy for all sodeine seruices; ther bodies full of agilitie to trauell and endure all paine, and very well able to take the best aduantage of the groundes that will saue themselues or indaunger the Queenes forces; hunger colde and heate they will indure better then anie people liueing, and therwithall as valliant as anie men can be, saueing that they are mercyles where they ouercome, which is declaration that ther vallour is but barbarous, and hear I thinke good to leaue this aunswere unperfect, untill I haue said somwhat of our English souldiers and Captaines, as we use to sett them forthe unto the warrs.
              Hiram Morgam (ed.), A Booke of Questions and Answars concerning the Warrs or Rebellions of the Kingdome of Irelande, Analecta Hibernica, No. 36 (1995), pp. 79, 81-132, at 102-103.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >But now contempt and rancor steeping, and the general ill affections to the state, as well for the cause of religion, as for the new plantations encreasing, (whereby they are united) the next rebellion, whensoever it shall happen, doth threaten more danger to the state than any that hath preceded, and my reasons are these: (I) They have the same bodies they ever had, and therein they had and have advantage of us. (II) From their infancies they have been and are exercised in the use of arms, (III) The realm, by reason of long peace, was never so full of youth as at this present.
                Etc.
                1613 state paper, quoted in Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica: or, A select collection of State papers; consisting of Royal instructions, directions, dispatches, and letters. To which are added, some historical tracts. The whole illustrating the opening of the political systems of the chief governors and government of Ireland during the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth, James the First, and Charles the First (Dublin, 1772), 432-433.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >But now contempt and rancor steeping, and the general ill affections to the state, as well for the cause of religion, as for the new plantations encreasing, (whereby they are united) the next rebellion, whensoever it shall happen, doth threaten more danger to the state than any that hath preceded, and my reasons are these: (I) They have the same bodies they ever had, and therein they had and have advantage of us. (II) From their infancies they have been and are exercised in the use of arms, (III) The realm, by reason of long peace, was never so full of youth as at this present.
                Etc.
                1613 state paper, quoted in Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica: or, A select collection of State papers; consisting of Royal instructions, directions, dispatches, and letters. To which are added, some historical tracts. The whole illustrating the opening of the political systems of the chief governors and government of Ireland during the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth, James the First, and Charles the First (Dublin, 1772), 432-433.

                >Now if it shall please your majesty to compare your advantages and disadvantages together, you shall find, that though these rebels are more in number than your Majesty’s army and have (though I do unwillingly confess it), better bodies, and perfecter use of their arms, than those men whom your Majesty sends over, yet your majesty, commanding the walled towns, holds and champaign countries, and having a brave nobility and gentry, a better discipline, and stronger order than they, and such means to keep them from the maintenance of their life, and to waste the country which should nourish them, your Majesty may promise yourself that, that this action will in the end be successful, though costly...
                Letter of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, to Queen Elizabeth I, 25 June 1599, quoted in Lives and Letters of the Devereux, Earls of Essex: In the Reigns of Elizabeth, James I and Charles I, 1540-1646, ed. Walter Bourchier Devereux, Vol II (London, 1853), 40.

                Here is Essex is basically saying that the Irish should be starved to death by scorched earth tactics because the Irish couldn't be beaten in actual combat. Such policies were in fact how the English eventually won the war.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                the irish literally coudn't beat anglo americans in puglism so they shot them instead
                pathetic

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                William Poole wasn't Anglo Americans and whoever the other person was wasn't the Irish. They were two individuals and whatever happened wasn't some clash between both groups. Nothing as dumb and illogical as attributed the actions of one persons to the whole group they belong too like you're doing.

                [...]

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >William Poole wasn't Anglo American
                He was an american of english descent who fought for anglo americans against fenian immigrants

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >who fought for anglo americans

                Did he say that though in his own words or are they just yours? He was a gangster who had a feud with another gangster and nothing else.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                he was a literal anglo nativist know nothing party member gangster who fought against irish immigration
                are you retarded?

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not the poster you're replying to but I'm 99% certain the reason you've heard of William Poole is because he was the inspiration for the character Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York who is indirectly responsible for starting for the anti-Irish memes on /misc/ which at some point stopped being ironic. The way they started off was in the spirit of 'tee hee I'm so hardcore racist I still hate the Irish, as though it were the 19th century! isn't that so quirky and quaint?' but eventually the potatonagger memes took on a life on their own and many people who browsed /misc/ developed a genuine and burning hatred for the Irish because of them. It amazes me how much people, particularly Americans, believe the things they read here without bothering to do any investigation first.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm the original guy who shilled all the Anglo autism stuff. I love how it took on a life of it's own. But yes the real William Poole was a Know Nothing and they did put together a big patriotic funeral for him after he died if I remember correctly. Not a whole lot is really known about him other than snippets of newspapers from the time, other than he was a gigachad who liked to brawl and that he wasn't racist, he just didn't like em'. Simple as.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Did you do it for the lulz or do you actually dislike the Irish? You've been successful either way.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Mostly for the lulz but I got into heritage autism as a teen and I always wondered why everyone in America is so keen on the Irish, why there are so many people who claim Irish ancestry etc. and yet originally at least we were supposed to be a mostly English country. I am unironically annoyed by the popular opinions Americans have on this topic. I also kinda like poking fun at how both Irish and Irish-American people perceive themselves and their identity. But I'm American after all so I myself am part Irish ;^) although it's only a small bit.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >why there are so many people who claim Irish ancestry etc. and yet originally at least we were supposed to be a mostly English country. I am unironically annoyed by the popular opinions Americans have on this topic.

                If America was too comfortable with its British heritage it would turn into Canada. If America completely loses sight of all its heritage it would also turn into Canada. I guess there's your answer.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                literally never seen gangs of new york. why the fuck is daniel day lewis playing a 6'2 16 stone boxer?

                I don't dispute that but the reasons for him fighting Morrissey and the dispute between them wasn't simply Anglo v Irish and of personal nature between them and not like they were both fighting on behalf of both their ethnic groups even though they probably hated each other along those lines too. It was a dispute over a previous boxing match.

                >Though the two men were of differing ethnic backgrounds and political parties, the initial grounds for their dispute may have arisen from an earlier bet by Poole on a boxing match at Boston Corners on October 12, 1853, in which Poole had placed his bet on Morrissey's opponent, "Yankee Sullivan". The results of the boxing match were disputed—Sullivan beat Morrisey but was then distracted into leaving the ring by Morrisey's friends and the referee announced Morrisey winner for being in the ring—and Poole was against Morrissey being paid. In 1854 a fight was arranged between Morrissey and Poole, which Poole won.[7]

                The person who shot Poole was also Anglo and a Nativist.
                You are a retard.

                both lew baker and jim turner were pro irish you retard

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't dispute that but the reasons for him fighting Morrissey and the dispute between them wasn't simply Anglo v Irish and of personal nature between them and not like they were both fighting on behalf of both their ethnic groups even though they probably hated each other along those lines too. It was a dispute over a previous boxing match.

                >Though the two men were of differing ethnic backgrounds and political parties, the initial grounds for their dispute may have arisen from an earlier bet by Poole on a boxing match at Boston Corners on October 12, 1853, in which Poole had placed his bet on Morrissey's opponent, "Yankee Sullivan". The results of the boxing match were disputed—Sullivan beat Morrisey but was then distracted into leaving the ring by Morrisey's friends and the referee announced Morrisey winner for being in the ring—and Poole was against Morrissey being paid. In 1854 a fight was arranged between Morrissey and Poole, which Poole won.[7]

                The person who shot Poole was also Anglo and a Nativist.
                You are a retard.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                It says on wiki that both the dudes who went to confront him worked for Tammany Hall and that Lewis Baker specifically (the shooter) was always an enemy of the Nativists though?
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Poole#Shooting_and_death

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                I still don't understand the lack of pitched battles for during example the Desmond rebellions. Crown forces rampaged through the country burning all the crops and food while the rebels seemed to just do nothing.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Everything about the Desmond rebellions is strange and dreamlike to me, including their nightmarish conclusion, which is what makes them so fascinating. I think the early Geraldine rebels failed to understand exactly what they were up against with regard to the ruthlessness and efficiency of new Tudor state.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Please elaborate

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                I refuse to because I want you to read about them for yourself. Go open a book, and immerse yourself in a world of reading adventure!

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                That would probably be quite accurate, the old days of decentralised rule were over. The Tudors had centralised power absolutely in the hands of the crown.

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              >because almost every English source from the Nine Years' War I've read emphasises that the Irish were taller and stronger and more suited to close combat than the English

              Here's one such example of an English Tudor writer ascribing superiority as troops to the Irish:

              >Question. What nomber of souldiers will suppress the rebells of Ireland managed in garrisons? Answere. To answere this question will require deepe iudgment, and yt is the cunningest pointe of the warrs of Ireland to giue a right iudgment or answerre unto it; for in the understanding of this answere, you ought well to note all things that be formerlie declared, wherein you shall finde that the nomber of Rebells is great, the Countries where they rest exceeding strong and full of straights, lying waste to the assailants, and well inhabited and full of releife to the defendantes; ther understanding good, howe to make ther defence, and ther Captaines ouer skillfull in the knowledge of warr; ther souldiers expert in ther seuerall weapons they weare, and as curious and delightfull to kepe them cleane and redy for all sodeine seruices; ther bodies full of agilitie to trauell and endure all paine, and very well able to take the best aduantage of the groundes that will saue themselues or indaunger the Queenes forces; hunger colde and heate they will indure better then anie people liueing, and therwithall as valliant as anie men can be, saueing that they are mercyles where they ouercome, which is declaration that ther vallour is but barbarous, and hear I thinke good to leaue this aunswere unperfect, untill I haue said somwhat of our English souldiers and Captaines, as we use to sett them forthe unto the warrs.
              Hiram Morgam (ed.), A Booke of Questions and Answars concerning the Warrs or Rebellions of the Kingdome of Irelande, Analecta Hibernica, No. 36 (1995), pp. 79, 81-132, at 102-103.

              the border reiver horses were literally irish ones so it obviously refers to the size of the reivers themselves

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          lold

  15. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    And yet you didn't manage to avoid getting cleared off your homeland the second your weren't wanted as old school border protection.

  16. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can someone explain why ireland wasn't accepted into the EEC until the U.K. did?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      From what I understand Ireland wasn't economically developed enough to pass muster as an EEC member but it got in with the UK on compassionate grounds because the UK joining without Ireland also joining would have been ruinous for Ireland economically.

  17. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >border reivers were a literal klingon tier warrior society

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's so funny someone would even think like that let alone say something like it

      What a bizarre individual

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        That poster is absolutely tedious. Always angry, always posting, always furious at the Irish over complete nothing.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >It's so funny someone would even think like that let alone say something like it
        It's hilarious and I burst out laughing at it.

        >Border reivers were fine with slaughtering taigs. one border reiver could take down ten irish """warriors""". border reivers were a literal klingon tier warrior society and their

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          William "Taigsbane" MacDonald slew 40 fenians with nothing but a bull's horn at the Battle of Kilmacrennan.

  18. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >tfw William "Fenian slayer" Poole (PBUH) beat up and humiliated John Morrissey, his irish american nemesis in a boxing match so hard that morrisey, instead of accepting the loss and moving on had to cowardly hire two people to shoot poole to death
    the "fighting irish" everybody

  19. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    how did ireland go from a staunchly catholic nation to gigapozzed lgbt trash in like 5 years?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      For one it didn't happen over 5 years, it was a gradual process from the 50s onwards like most western countries.

      There's also the fact that the Catholic Church abused the fuck out of people in Ireland but that's another topic altogether.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        On the contrary I'd say the black legend propagated by the media regarding the Catholic Church in Ireland is a major contributor (really the main contributor) to the national descent into nihilism.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Except it's not a black legend, these things actually happened and were practically institutional in Ireland for a very long time.

          Regardless I don't buy the narrative that the uncovering of these abuses are what caused the decay of Irish society considering that Ireland was and is following a trend that is present in pretty much every western country.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Abuses certainly did happen, but the media reporting of them removed them from their context and amounted to an anti-Catholic hate campaign. Compare for example the dramatic contrast between the public image of the Magdalene Laundries and the relatively benign reality described in the McAleese report, or compare the media's account of the Tuam babies episode with the actual reality of what happened (for which the best guide is Brian Nugent's book). The media reported that 800 babies had been found in a septic tank (the implication being that they were murdered by nuns) even though there is documentary evidence that the children who died in the Bon Secours home had coffins specially made for them. The children in question were given a proper burial, but their graves were destroyed during infrastructure construction work their bones were re-interred in a makeshift ossuary which was later misinterpreted as a septic tank.

            If you want some context on the (admittedly terrible) abuse in the Industrial Schools and Mother and Baby Homes, see Dr. Nelleke Bakker's Mother and Baby Homes in the Netherlands in the 20th century: Report for the Irish Commission of Investigation: Mother and Baby Homes and Certain Related Matters (Order 2015), an ancillary document prepared as part of the 2015 Report of the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes. The point is that the Irish situation was not unique in the slightest. It was an appalling tragedy, but all across Europe such institutions were rife with abuse, and Ireland was far from the worst, and probably not even worse than average.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      You can ask that about the whole of Europe because differences in terms of descent into poz are only a matter of degree and pace, not of kind. Given the decline into pozz has been so sadly universal it can't be seen as reflecting something fundamental or inherent to the nations it has brought down except insofar as it a reflection of a disease common to the carcass of western Christendom in general. Nobody is effectively resisting this so far it seems, but God willing that will change.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >gigapozzed lgbt trash

      I don't know what your basing this off but I'd hardly say it's giga pozzed like many other places especially other English speaking countries. Other than gay marriage and the usual pride bullshit in cities once a year its not something you'd ever come across and people just barely tolerate it. You wouldn't see trannys about the place in Ireland or gay couples holding hands or much gay bars and all assorted LGBT stuff all around the place like other English speaking countries. Ireland is still a more conservative country than all English speaking countries but not in an American sense and more subtle and people aren't a bunch of attention seekers freaks that go about pushing their lifestyle like in the LGBT in America. It's not all in your face like more liberal countries. It wouldn't be safe or acceptable for LGBT people to behave the way in Ireland they do elsewhere. That Folsom street fair thing in America that I seen a Pic of of a man with his arm rammed up the anus of another on a public street would cause outrage in Ireland and there would be calls by society to shut it down. People aren't as individualist here and abide by like some sort of unspoken rules or something and society keeps the sort of thing in check.

  20. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    1. raped by british
    2. british move protestant scotts into the north of ireland
    3. more rape

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      There are better ways of expressing that, even if you confine yourself to expressing it via metaphors involving rape:

      >Limited at first to a territory enclosed within palisades, or Pale, which, during more than four centuries, enlarged or got narrowed, according to the fortune of war and the relative strength of the belligerent parties, the English rule was destined at last to spread over the whole of the island. But, of this seven-century struggle, the last word is not yet said. The wound is ever bleeding. Ireland has never accepted her defeat; she refuses to accept as valid a marriage consummated by a rape. Always she protested, either by direct rebellion, when she found the opportunity for it, as in 1640, in 1798, and in 1848; either by the voice of her poets and orators, by the nocturnal raids of her Whiteboys and Ribbonmen, by the plots of her Fenians, by the votes of her electors, by parliamentary obstruction, by passive resistance, by political or commercial interdict — opposed to the intruder; in a word, by all the means, legal or illegal, that offered to interrupt prescription. A striking, and, one may say, a unique example in history: after seven centuries of sustained effort on the part of the victor to achieve his conquest, this conquest is less advanced than on the morrow of Henry the Second's landing at Waterford. An abyss still severs the two races, and time, instead of filling up that abyss, only seems to widen it. This phenomenon is of such exceptional and tragic interest; it beats with such crude light on the special physiology of two races and the general physiology of humanity, that one needs must stop first and try to unravel its tangible causes if one be desirous of comprehending what is taking place in the land of Erin.
      Paschal Grousset, Ireland's Disease: Notes and Impressions, translated by Philip Darryl (Paris/New York 1888), 74.

  21. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    For me its the autistically-detailed Brehon law
    >The main text on bee-law, Bechbretha, also devotes much attention to the legal consequences of stings from bees
    >If a person is stung while robbing or moving the bee-hives, or even whilel looking over the hives at swarming time, the beekeeper is not liable. But if a bee stings a neighbour or passer-by who is not interfering with the bees in any way, the beekeeper must provide him with a meal of honey. The victim must, however, swear an oath that he did not kill the bee which stung him. This is because of the general principle in early Irish law that the life of an animal is forfeit for its offence.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      I love this stuff too.

      William "Taigsbane" MacDonald slew 40 fenians with nothing but a bull's horn at the Battle of Kilmacrennan.

      The Battle of Kilmacrennan is not something you hear much mention of, and for obvious reasons. O'Doherty's rebellion was a very depressing little postscript to the Nine Years' War whose main significance was in expediting the beginning of the Ulster Plantation.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        remind me of slav collaborators with nazis

  22. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Am i irish enough to post here?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      You don't have to be Irish at all to post here pal.

      While it's not true that Irish people dislike Irish-Americans, as some here would have you think, it is true that Irish people in Ireland do get irritated at how Americans casually use the terms Irish and Irish-American as though they were interchangeable. It results in frustrating debates and arguments in which people are talking about different things.

  23. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Irishbros…

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Normans were overpowered and on the whole the Irish resisted them far better than the English did.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because Ireland wasn't that interesting to the Normans, they simply had bigger fish to fry than investing large amounts of money and men into conquering a backwards people with not much to offer in terms of wealth.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Land was wealth in the middle ages and Ireland had exceptionally good land, particularly pastureland, as well as superb natural harbours. England's medieval wealth was based to a certain extent on its woolen trade, and Ireland produced even better wool, hence why the Irish woolen industry was suppressed by England in the early modern period. The Normans had every incentive to conquer Ireland and they grabbed as much land as they could, but over the four centuries long struggle between 1169-1542 they ended up semi-assimilating into the native society as partially autonomous warlords rather than imposing their regimen as members as a cohesive and centralised colonial body. Ireland was not really conquered until the Tudor Conquest at the earliest, and completely until Cromwell.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            *not completely until Cromwell

  24. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >catholic birthdate is huge, that’s why we will retake Northern Ireland!
    >THE BRITS GENOCIDED US, LOOK HOW MANY CATHOLIC IRISH HAD TO LEAVE IN THE MIDDLE OF A FAMINE, ITS THEIR FAULT FOR NOT SUPPORTING ENDLESS MASSIVE POPULATION GROWTH ON AN ISLAND THAT CANT SUSTAIN IT

    I don’t understand how people have both these views.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Can you think other than according to grotesque strawmen you have yoked together? Your posts are always recognisable and always very boring. It's actually rude of you to expect a reply past a certain point.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >if you disagree with me you must be this person I argued with before

        And you’re complaining about straw men?

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Ok, assuming you're a separate poster, the Irish population was culled in the 19th century precisely because of the manpower with which its population growth was providing it. Logically coherent enough for ya? It's not incoherent to take solace in the demographic advantage of birthrates because your traditional enemy took very brutal steps to neutralise that advantage at an earlier time.

  25. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    once again anglos win

  26. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    irelands biggest contribution to the culture of the world is mrs brown's boys

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Which absolutely nobody watches in Ireland because that kind of vulgar dreck suits only English tastes and is intended for an English audience.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        vulgar uncultured dreck appeals to the paddy mind which is why perverted freak james joyce is the best writer ireland has to offer

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          James Joyce was hugely popular in intellectual circles in Britain, Europe and America whereas (as Irish liberals are sanctimoniously keen to remind us) his work was banned and censored in Ireland for much of the 20th century.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            English writers
            >Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale, Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
            Irish writers
            >bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonner ronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk!

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ulysses was never banned in Ireland

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              Never officially but de facto it sort of was by not being stocked.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why do Irish people (at least since Brexit) like to pretend that only England has chavs/white trash, but that Ireland is somehow more “cultured” and “respectable”. It’s like a weird inverse of the snobbish Victorian stereotypes that the Irish were loutish, drunken and poor, compared to Protestant England’s more reserved and hard-working society. In reality it’s always the pot calling the kettle black in either direction tbh. Ireland has pretty much the same White trash problem that England does with plenty estates full of cokeheads, moped gangs and stabbings. Not to mention the knackers/pikeys.

        irelands biggest contribution to the culture of the world is mrs brown's boys

        >irelands biggest contribution to the culture of the world is mrs brown's boys
        Lol. I will commend that the average Irishmen has more of an awareness of their sense of national self than English people sometimes do. That’s partly because the public education has been very wary of emphasising Englishness for fear that it would aid nationalism and undermine their agenda for normalising multiculturalism. However, Irish pop cultural exports have been very minimal for the last couple of decades; a couple of sitcoms like mrs browns boys and father ted (which redditors quote so much that it’s become unfunny). Only writer I can think of is sally rooney.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Why do Irish people (at least since Brexit) like to pretend that only England has chavs/white trash, but that Ireland is somehow more “cultured” and “respectable”. It’s like a weird inverse of the snobbish Victorian stereotypes that the Irish were loutish, drunken and poor, compared to Protestant England’s more reserved and hard-working society.

          There's nothing new in this because it is the traditional Irish attitude to the English:

          >It is only the truth that wounds. An Irishman to-day in dealing with Englishmen is forced, if he speak truly, to wound. That is why so many Irishmen do not speak the truth. The Irishman, whether he be a peasant, a farm labourer, however low in the scale of Anglicization he may have sunk, is still in imagination, if not always in manner, a gentleman. The Englishman is a gentleman by chance, by force of circumstances, by luck of birth, or some rare opportunity of early fellowship. The Irishman is a gentleman by instinct and shrinks from wounding the feelings of another man and particularly of the man who has wounded him. He scorns to take it out of him that way. That is why the task of misgoverning him has been so easy and has come so naturally to the Englishman. One of the chief grievances of the Irishman in the middle ages was that the man who robbed him was such a boor. Insult was added to injury in that the oppressor was no knight in shining armour, but a very churl of men; to the courteous and cultured Irishman a "bodach Sassenach," a man of low blood, of low cunning, caring only for the things of the body, with no veneration for the things of the spirit—with, in fine, no music in his soul. The things that the Irishman loved he could not conceive of.
          Roger Casement, The Crime Against Europe (1915), 53.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            The Irish have traditionally tended to see the English as a race of chavs:

            >For the Irish man Irish of gentilitie standeth so much vpon his gentilitie, that he termeth anie one of the English sept, and planted in Ireland, Bobdeagh Galteagh, that is, English churle: but if he be an Englishman borne, then he nameth him, Bobdeagh Saxonnegh, that is, a Saxon churle: so that both are churles, and he the onelie gentleman. And therevpon if the basest pezzant of them name himselfe with his superior, he will be sure to place himselfe first, as I and Oneile, I and you, I and he, I and my master, whereas the courtesie of the English language is cleane contrarie.
            Richard Stanihurst, The Disposition and Maners of the Meere Irish, Commonlie Called the Wild Irish, in Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland, ed. Henry Ellis (London, 1807), 67.

            Foreign writers tend to corroborate that even the poorest Irish had amiable and gentlemanlike traits that distinguished them from the coarseness and brutality of the non-aristocratic classes in England:

            >As I left the fair, a pair of lovers, excessively drunk, took the same road. It was a rich treat to watch their behaviour. Both were horribly ugly, but treated each other with the greatest tenderness, and the most delicate attention. The lover especially displayed a sort of chivalrous politeness. Nothing could be more gallant, and at the same time more respectful than his repeated efforts to preserve his fair one from falling, although he had no little difficulty in keeping his own balance. From his ingratiating demeanour and her delighted smiles, I could also perceive that he was using every endeavour to entertain her agreeably; and that her answers, notwithstanding her ‘exalté’ state, were given with a coquetry and an air of affectionate intimacy which would have been exquisitely becoming and attractive in a pretty woman. My reverence for truth compels me to add that not the slightest trace of English brutality was to be perceived: they were more like French people, though their gaiety was mingled with more humour, and more genuine good-nature; both of which are national traits of the Irish, and are always doubled by Potheen (the best sort of whisky illicitly distilled.)
            Hermann Fürst von Pückler-Muskau, Tour in England, Ireland, and France, in the years 1826, 1827, 1828, and 1829. With remarks on the manners and customs of the inhabitants, and anecdotes of distinguished public characters, in a series of letters (Philadelphia, 1833), 340.

            >irish are refined polite twinks
            >english are rough hardy barbarians
            sounds great

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              In his 1596 pamphlet A View of the present State of Ireland, Edmund Spenser claimed that one of the reasons the Irish were so barbaric and backward was that they all considered themselves aristocrats too good for labour, on account of knowing their genealogies well and their descent from various noble lineages, hence their preference to live as brigands earning their bread by pillaging rather than actually working:

              >Yee, marye, most specially; for this you must knowe, that all the Irishe almoste boste them selves to be gentlemen, noe lesse then the Welchmen; for if he cane deryve hymselfe from the heade of a sept, as most of them can, they are [so] experte by there Bardes, then soe holdeth hyme selfe a gentleman, and thereupon scorneth eftsones to worke, or vse anye harde laboure, which he saith is the liese of a pessant or churle, but thenceforth either becometh a horseboye, or a stocage to some kerne, inuring hyme selfe to his weapone, and to the generall traide of stealinge, (as they count it).

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                yet border reivers were taller and stronger

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                border reivers also had massive willy's that shot lasers and they also were like ninjas but really buff ninjas, even better than the teenager mutant ninja turtles and could like kill a taig just by reciting the doctrines of grace

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                lol'd

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Why do Irish people (at least since Brexit) like to pretend that only England has chavs/white trash, but that Ireland is somehow more “cultured” and “respectable”. It’s like a weird inverse of the snobbish Victorian stereotypes that the Irish were loutish, drunken and poor, compared to Protestant England’s more reserved and hard-working society.

          There's nothing new in this because it is the traditional Irish attitude to the English:

          >It is only the truth that wounds. An Irishman to-day in dealing with Englishmen is forced, if he speak truly, to wound. That is why so many Irishmen do not speak the truth. The Irishman, whether he be a peasant, a farm labourer, however low in the scale of Anglicization he may have sunk, is still in imagination, if not always in manner, a gentleman. The Englishman is a gentleman by chance, by force of circumstances, by luck of birth, or some rare opportunity of early fellowship. The Irishman is a gentleman by instinct and shrinks from wounding the feelings of another man and particularly of the man who has wounded him. He scorns to take it out of him that way. That is why the task of misgoverning him has been so easy and has come so naturally to the Englishman. One of the chief grievances of the Irishman in the middle ages was that the man who robbed him was such a boor. Insult was added to injury in that the oppressor was no knight in shining armour, but a very churl of men; to the courteous and cultured Irishman a "bodach Sassenach," a man of low blood, of low cunning, caring only for the things of the body, with no veneration for the things of the spirit—with, in fine, no music in his soul. The things that the Irishman loved he could not conceive of.
          Roger Casement, The Crime Against Europe (1915), 53.

          The Irish have traditionally tended to see the English as a race of chavs:

          >For the Irish man Irish of gentilitie standeth so much vpon his gentilitie, that he termeth anie one of the English sept, and planted in Ireland, Bobdeagh Galteagh, that is, English churle: but if he be an Englishman borne, then he nameth him, Bobdeagh Saxonnegh, that is, a Saxon churle: so that both are churles, and he the onelie gentleman. And therevpon if the basest pezzant of them name himselfe with his superior, he will be sure to place himselfe first, as I and Oneile, I and you, I and he, I and my master, whereas the courtesie of the English language is cleane contrarie.
          Richard Stanihurst, The Disposition and Maners of the Meere Irish, Commonlie Called the Wild Irish, in Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland, ed. Henry Ellis (London, 1807), 67.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why do Irish people (at least since Brexit) like to pretend that only England has chavs/white trash, but that Ireland is somehow more “cultured” and “respectable”. It’s like a weird inverse of the snobbish Victorian stereotypes that the Irish were loutish, drunken and poor, compared to Protestant England’s more reserved and hard-working society.

            There's nothing new in this because it is the traditional Irish attitude to the English:

            >It is only the truth that wounds. An Irishman to-day in dealing with Englishmen is forced, if he speak truly, to wound. That is why so many Irishmen do not speak the truth. The Irishman, whether he be a peasant, a farm labourer, however low in the scale of Anglicization he may have sunk, is still in imagination, if not always in manner, a gentleman. The Englishman is a gentleman by chance, by force of circumstances, by luck of birth, or some rare opportunity of early fellowship. The Irishman is a gentleman by instinct and shrinks from wounding the feelings of another man and particularly of the man who has wounded him. He scorns to take it out of him that way. That is why the task of misgoverning him has been so easy and has come so naturally to the Englishman. One of the chief grievances of the Irishman in the middle ages was that the man who robbed him was such a boor. Insult was added to injury in that the oppressor was no knight in shining armour, but a very churl of men; to the courteous and cultured Irishman a "bodach Sassenach," a man of low blood, of low cunning, caring only for the things of the body, with no veneration for the things of the spirit—with, in fine, no music in his soul. The things that the Irishman loved he could not conceive of.
            Roger Casement, The Crime Against Europe (1915), 53.

            Gee I dunno it's almost like people's with considerable animosity towards each other tend to think the worst of each other

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              The significance of what I'm saying is that the Irish didn't despise the English as effete hoity-toity toffs (as Lowland Scots did to an extent), it's that they looked down on them as vulgar, crass and boorish churls, even when they themselves had been reduced to serfdom tilling the fields of English colonists who were living the lifestyles of lords and gentlemen.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Sounds like a cope tbh

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Foreign writers tend to corroborate that even the poorest Irish had amiable and gentlemanlike traits that distinguished them from the coarseness and brutality of the non-aristocratic classes in England:

                >As I left the fair, a pair of lovers, excessively drunk, took the same road. It was a rich treat to watch their behaviour. Both were horribly ugly, but treated each other with the greatest tenderness, and the most delicate attention. The lover especially displayed a sort of chivalrous politeness. Nothing could be more gallant, and at the same time more respectful than his repeated efforts to preserve his fair one from falling, although he had no little difficulty in keeping his own balance. From his ingratiating demeanour and her delighted smiles, I could also perceive that he was using every endeavour to entertain her agreeably; and that her answers, notwithstanding her ‘exalté’ state, were given with a coquetry and an air of affectionate intimacy which would have been exquisitely becoming and attractive in a pretty woman. My reverence for truth compels me to add that not the slightest trace of English brutality was to be perceived: they were more like French people, though their gaiety was mingled with more humour, and more genuine good-nature; both of which are national traits of the Irish, and are always doubled by Potheen (the best sort of whisky illicitly distilled.)
                Hermann Fürst von Pückler-Muskau, Tour in England, Ireland, and France, in the years 1826, 1827, 1828, and 1829. With remarks on the manners and customs of the inhabitants, and anecdotes of distinguished public characters, in a series of letters (Philadelphia, 1833), 340.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Ireland, unvisited by the legions and the law of Rome, had evolved a different vision of the life of men in community, or, in other words, a different idea of the State. Put very briefly the difference lay in this. The Romans and their inheritors organised for purposes of war and order, the Irish for purposes of culture. The one laid the emphasis on police, the other on poets. [...] In a world in which right is little more than a secretion of might, in which, unless a strong man armed keeps house, his enemies enter in, the weakness of the Gaelic idea is obvious. But the Roman pattern too had a characteristic vice which has led logically in our own time to a monstrous and sinister growth of armaments.To those who recognise in this deification of war the blackest menace of our day the vision of a culture State is not without charm. The shattering possibilities enfolded in it would have fevered Nietzsche and fascinated Renan. But, be that as it may, Ireland played Cleopatra to the Antony of the invaders. Some of them, indeed, the "garrison" pure and simple, had all their interests centred not only in resisting but in calumniating her. But the majority yielded gaily to her music, her poetry, her sociability, that magical quality of hers which the Germans call Gemütlichkeit. In a few centuries a new and enduring phrase had designated them as more Irish than the Irish themselves. So far as any superiority of civilisation manifests itself in this first period it is altogether on the side of Ireland. This power of assimilation has never decayed. There never was a nation, not even the United States, that so subdued and re-fashioned those who came to her shores, that so wrought them into her own blood and tissue. The Norman baron is transformed in a few generations into an Irish chieftain, and as often as not into an Irish "rebel."
                Thomas Kettle, The Open Secret of Ireland (London, 1912).

  27. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ireland = Éire = Aryan

  28. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >irish history
    take it, you're gonna need some

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Irish people actually aren't butthurt at all despite the stereotype. Ireland is one of those countries completely overshadowed in the popular imagination by the pop-culture version of itself which says that all Irish people redhead comical drunks forever seething at the English. If anything modern Ireland's problems come from blindly following the UK's lead on things.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Ireland is one of those countries completely overshadowed in the popular imagination by the pop-culture version of itself which says that all Irish people redhead comical drunks forever seething at the English
        >If anything modern Ireland's problems come from blindly following the UK's lead on things
        The ;ack of self awareness is real

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Believe whatever you're set on believing, that's fine.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Irish people actually aren't butthurt at all despite the stereotype.
        I don't think that's a stereotype of the irish outside of projecting spergs on here tbh
        >Irish people redhead comical drunks forever seething at the English.
        Redheaded comical drunks yes

  29. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    ulster scots are the descendants of my people
    all this anti english propaganda from the irish trying to claim that the "Ulster scots" are not borderers but gaels is proof of their lies. just like how they try to claim andrew jackson

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Are you an Ulster Scot, a Scots-Irish American or someone living in the Scottish Borders?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        i am an englishman with northumbrian border blood

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          You're even stranger than I thought then lad. I had assumed you were a youngster posting from a council estate in Lurgan or somewhere else up north. Are you the same poster who complains about the Irish 'stealing' English folksongs and (supposedly) claiming US presidents as their own? Why are you so fixated on Ireland?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because he's a freak, they're all freaks

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            yes
            why shouldnt i be fixated on a nation that steals and destroys my culture? youre fixated on us because we destroyed you as a people why shouldnt i? anglos in the american northeast were ethnically cleansed from their own cities and now their heritage in places like the south is being called "irish"

  30. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Let's be honest here, the English actually are a bunch of braindead dysgenic chavs and I say that as an Anglo-American who lived in both England and Ireland

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Are the Irish any different in your experience?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          In what way?

  31. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    why couldn't you dumb fucks just convert to anglicism and remain in the uk, the pope never did anything for ireland

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Should the Greeks have converted to Islam under the Turks in your view?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, Venice should be sunk to the bottom of the ocean. turk vs greek is completely different to white vs white cultures

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Are you some kind of ortho?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lol you don't need to be an Ortho to think Venice should have sunk to the bottom of the ocean

            t. not the person you were replying to

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              Venetians were the Anglos of the East.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      One could just as easily say why didn't the English just remain Catholic?

  32. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Footnote of British history

  33. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    TELL ME ABOUT LEE! WHY DOES HE WEAR THE SEAICÉAD?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      There was a trope at the time of triumphant commanders wearing the costumes of defeated enemies for paintings, hence why Lee, an English commander, is in an Irish kern's dress. I must say it looks fucking awful on him. The delicately limp wrist is the absolute worst part. Nigga thinks he's still a twink!

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        his limp hand is a reference to Mucius Scaevola, the roman who disguised himself to infiltrate the etruscan camp and attempted to kill the etruscan king.
        the latin phrase "Et facere et pati fortia" was spoken by Scaevola while burning his left hand to show his resolve before the etruscans.

        Just like Scaevola had to disguise himself, so captain Lee dressed like a savage Irish Kern. And just like Scaevola was 100% loyal to Rome despite his Etruscan dress, so Lee is 100% loyal to England and Queen Elizabeth.

        Guy massacred hundreds of Irish, personally assassinating clan chieftains.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Very interesting!

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Guy massacred hundreds of Irish, personally assassinating clan chieftains.
          BASED

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            He was himself ended undertook secret negotiations with certain Irish lords subsequently executed for his treason for his role in Essex's plot.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      There was a trope at the time of triumphant commanders wearing the costumes of defeated enemies for paintings, hence why Lee, an English commander, is in an Irish kern's dress. I must say it looks fucking awful on him. The delicately limp wrist is the absolute worst part. Nigga thinks he's still a twink!

      https://www.jstor.org/stable/2542015

      Guy was a very interesting character. you can find this article on zlib/libgen, it gives a good insight in tudor-period ireland

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      his limp hand is a reference to Mucius Scaevola, the roman who disguised himself to infiltrate the etruscan camp and attempted to kill the etruscan king.
      the latin phrase "Et facere et pati fortia" was spoken by Scaevola while burning his left hand to show his resolve before the etruscans.

      Just like Scaevola had to disguise himself, so captain Lee dressed like a savage Irish Kern. And just like Scaevola was 100% loyal to Rome despite his Etruscan dress, so Lee is 100% loyal to England and Queen Elizabeth.

      Guy massacred hundreds of Irish, personally assassinating clan chieftains.

      Strangely enough in light of Lee's own conduct he was the author of memorandum complaining that such atrocities (such as sending out calls for recruits for soldiers among the Gaelic Irish and killing them as soon as they arrived to enlist) were alienating potential allies and causing further problems:

      >They have drawn unto them by protection, three or four hundred of these country people, under colour to do your majesty service, and brought them to a place of meeting, where your garrison soldiers were appointed to be, who have there most dishonourably put them all to the sword; and this hath been by the consent and practice of the lord deputy for the time being. If this be a good course to draw these savage people to the state, to do your majesty service, and not rather to enforce them to stand upon their guard, I humbly leave to your majesty.
      Thomas Lee, A brief Declaration of the Government of Ireland; opening many corruptions in the same; discovering the discontentments of the Irishry; and the causes moving those expected troubles: and shewing means how to establish quietness in that kingdom honourably, to your majesty's profit, without any encrease of charge, in John Curry (ed.) An Historical and Critical Review of the Civil Wars in Ireland (Dublin, 1810), pp 587–609 at p 587.

  34. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Did anyone here read Unhappy the land?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      It is what it is, which is a book written from a willfully anti-nationalist perspective. Kennedy concerns himself mostly with 19th and 20th century history because it's pretty much impossible to handwave away the reality of oppression before then, and the only reason it's easier afterwards is because the 19th century British state adopted a form of face-saving rhetoric for Kennedy to take at its word and deploy as evidence. His treatment of the Great Famine is awful and amounts to a great lie of omission. His treatment of the language question is based on false analogies (19th century Britain didn't need to resort to the measures Prussia and Russia resorted to to suppress minority languages because it already had centuries of work done already to marginalise the Irish language) and such false analogies are characteristic of the rest of the work too.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *