Ulster Scots History and Culture

[Will Scarlet]

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/7332/ulssclt8ab.jpg


Cultural affinities between Ulster and the western coasts of Scotland probably extend back to at least 8000BC, when the hunter-gatherers who were the first inhabitants of the north coast of Ireland, and whose remains have been found at Mount Sandel, Coleraine, arrived across the North Channel, which was even narrower then than its current 12 miles.

During the Neolithic period, after the adoption of an agricultural way of life, massive stone monuments including passage tombs and court tombs were constructed over much of the northern part of Ireland and the west and north coasts of Scotland. Archaologist Barry Cunliffe observes that "The structural similarities and close geographical proximity of the Irish and Scottish monuments – seperated only by the narrow North Channel – is an indication that the two areas may well have been in regular contact with each other" (2001:171). Similar monuments are found on the western coasts of Wales and Cornwall, and the Atlantic coasts of Europe extending from Sweden to Portugal. Cunliffe has suggested that this shows the importance of the sea in binding together communities such as those in Ulster and Scotland at a time when travel by land was much more difficult.



During the Bronze Age the communal burial rites of the megalithic monuments started to give way to individual burials with grave goods including pottery, reflecting social changes spreading through the Atlantic coastal regions of Europe. Cunliffe observes that the new traditions "including the pottery styles, are shared between eastern and northern Ireland and southern Scotland, particularly the west coast, and clearly indicate a broad zone of contact and cultural interaction extending over a long period of time. Thus, in the third and second millenia (BC) Ireland seems to crystallise into two broad cultural groupings, one facing outwards to the Atlantic and retaining its old collective burial rites, the other facing inwards to the Irish Sea and western Scotland and sharing in the escalating social changes which were gripping Britain at the time (2001:242).



This pattern seems to continue into the Iron Age: Cunliffe notes that the range and quality of elite metalwork available througout the first millenium BC and into the first millenium AD are sufficient to suggest that much of eastern, central, and northern Ireland was under the domination of an aristocratic warrior elite, and it is within this broad central and eastern zone that the great ritual sites, Tara, Navan, Rathcroghan, and Dun Ailinne, are to be found. The Atlantic-facing lands from Co. Donegal to Co. Kerry in the west and from Co. Cork to Co. Wexford in the south lie, for the most part, outside this zone of elite dominance and, apart from a few scattered exotic artefacts emanating from the elite zone, lack a distinctive material culture. Thus, although the artifactual evidence is disparate and contextually lacking, it does suggest that Ireland, in the later first millenium BC, divided into two distinctive socio-economic zones.


The epic tales of ‘the Ulster Cycle’, which were written down by Christian monks in the early medieval period, but probably passed down in the oral tradition for centuries beforehand, have been described by Jackson as "a window on the Iron Age". They portray a society in Ulster dominated by a warrior elite, in accordance with the archaeological evidence. They describe an Ireland divided into five Provinces: Ulster, Leinster, Munster, Connacht and Meath, some of the stories suggesting that the boundary of Ulster lay as far south as the Boyne during this period. They also record regular contacts with Alba, later to become Scotland. The warrior Cuchulain travelled there to be trained in the martial arts, and Deirdre of the Sorrows fled there to escape the wrath of the king of Ulster, her lover Naoise taking service with the king of the Picts.


Ian Adamson has demonstrated the presence in Ulster during the Iron Age of a people known as the Cruthin or Qretani (1974). These are Gaelic or Q-Celtic interpretations of the name Pretani or Prydein which referred to the same people in the P-Celtic or Brittonic language of the neighbouring island. The names Prydein and Pretani were later romanised as Britain and Britons, which was the name by which the Romans referred to those they had conquered. Those elements of the population in the area now known as Scotland, which they did not bring under their control, they referred to as Picts. The names Cruthin, Qretani, Pretani (and hence Briton)and Pict all translate into English as ‘People of the Pictures’ or ‘People of the Designs’, according with Roman accounts of the Britons as heavily painted or tattooed (Davies 1999).



Pictish settlement in Ulster may not have been as extensive as Adamson has claimed, but it seems clear that they formed a significant part of the population of the north-eastern coastal region. The Ulster Cycle legends also make reference to Pictish warriors in Ireland..

The Pictish language was a P-Celtic or Brittonic language, whose closest modern relatives are Welsh and Breton. It is preserved in many Scottish placenames, but there is little evidence of its use in Ulster, and it seems likely that the Cruthin adopted the Gaelic tongue of their neighbours, and eventually became culturally assimilated..

During the 4th Century, Gaels from Ulster whom the Romans described as Scoti or Scots, a term meaning raiders or pirates, allied themselves with the Picts and with other tribes including Saxons from northern Europe to raid the Roman province of Brittania. In the course of this raiding, a romanised Briton named Patricius was seized from his home in northwestern Britannia and taken into slavery in Ulster. He escaped but later returned as an evangelist for Christianity basing himself in Armagh. Cunliffe notes that "If Patrick’s original home was in the north of Britain, possibly in the romanised region of Dumbarton (The Fort of the Britons), his choice of the north of Ireland would have been entirely logical in that he would have been following the long-established and no doubt still-operative trade route across the North Channel (2001:469).

In the 5th and 6th Centuries, raiding gave way to settlement: the Life of St. Columba tells of the landing of a small band of 150 men from Dal Riata in Antrim (Cunliffe 2001:459-60) who gave their name to the land they settled Ar Gael (Argyll) ‘The Coast of the Gaels’.



From this modest initial settlement grew the powerful kingdom of Dalriada, which held power on both sides of the sea. The settlement is well attested by placenames of Irish origin on the mainland and adjacent islands. Similar evidence also points to Irish settlement on the Galloway peninsula. That the settlers on the two sides of the North Channel should have been in close contact with each other in the 5th and 6th centuries need occasion no surprise. A community of common cultural ideas can be traced back to the Neolithic period when the region was closely linked by a common burial ritual, and throughout the Iron Age and Roman period the archaeological record shows that there was constant contact. The 150 settlers mentioned by St. Columba’s biographer were simply part of a continuing process of interaction.

Columba (also known as Columb or Colmcille: ‘The Dove of the Church’), was himself an example of the significance of continued ties between Ulster and the the land which was in the process of becoming Scotland. Originally from Donegal, Columba had founded the monastic settlement at Doire (Derry), where the Church of Ireland cathedral still bears his name.

In about 563 Columba sailed from northern Ireland with twelve followers to Dalriada in west Scotland, and two years later founded a monastery on the island of Iona…The establishment flourished and became highly influential, both as the focus of a group of Columbian monasteries spread throughout the north of Ireland and as the centre from which the Picts were converted (Cunliffe 2001:475).


The Scottish settlement of Dalriada existed alongside Pictland until"by a combination of aggression and intermarriage, the Scots merged with their Pictish neighbours, The traditional date of the final union is 843, when the whole of the Highlands and Islands came under the rule of Kenneth macAlpine. Throughout these four formative centuries the Scots retained a close relationship with their northern Irish forbears, and indeed much of their history as we know it comes from the Irish Annals…the importance of the sea in linking the communities was crucial (Cunliffe 2001:466).



Although the Scots were still a minority of the population, it was their language and culture that gradually came to dominate northern Britain, and from this time on, the kingdom of Scotland was a reality. It only encompassed the central part of the area we now call Scotland however. To the south were the Romano-British Kingdom of Strathclyde, centred on Dumbarton, the Viking Kingdom of Jorvik (York) and the Anglian kingdom of Northumbria, whilst Moray, Caithness and the northern and western isles came to be largely dominated by Vikings, who also maintained a fleet of longships on Lough Neagh, adding a Scandinavian element to the Ulster-Scottish heritage.



The maritime kingdom of Dalriada was replaced by the ‘Lordship of the Isles’ under the powerful Macdonald clan, who traced their descent to the Viking Somerled. The Macdonalds maintained a presence in Ulster, where they became known as MacDonnells, their stronghold being the spectacular castle at Dunluce, County Antrim, and the Lords of the Isles maintained their independence from the Kings of Scotland until the 13th century, holding their maritime realm together with Viking-style galleys, or Bir linn. The traditional wooden fishing boats of Ulster, known as Drontheims, are directly descended from the Viking longships, and a few are still sailed on the north coast.

In 1603, King James VI, now in control of all the territory we currently call Scotland, became King of England as well, following the death of the childless Queen Elizabeth. His first project was ‘The Breaking of the Border’: the subjugation of the turbulent border clans who had effectively ruled the frontier regions of England and Scotland, which James wanted to change from an almost permanent battleground between the two kingdoms into "the Middle Shires’ of a new ‘Great Britain’.


James then turned his attention to an equally turbulent part of his newly acquired domains – Ulster. He planned to settle Scottish Protestants there in order to subjugate the rebellious Catholic natives, and integrate the province into the new ‘British’ economic system. The task was initiated by private enterprise, the counties of Antrim and Down being effectively settled by Presbyterian Scots under the auspices of two Ayrshire lairds, and a similar project was initiated in County Monaghan. The ‘Flight of the Earls’ in 1607 made much greater areas of land available, and this led to a massive state-sponsored Plantation in the six remaining counties of Ulster. The effect of the various Plantations was that Antrim and Down became largely dominated by a Scots-speaking, Presbyterian immigrant population, whilst the whole of Ulster received a significant number of immigrants, mostly Scots, but including a smaller number of English, most of whom were borderers. Many of the Scots were also borderers: refugees or fugitives from James’ army, whilst others were from the western lowlands, with a smaller number from the extreme north-east, chiefly economic migrants fleeing recession and the collapse of rural communities brought about by the change from feudalism to a mercantilist economic system.



For James, the plantations seemed to kill three birds with one stone, pacifying the Gaelic natives of Ulster, making a region which had been reduced almost to desert by years of war economically productive, and removing a surplus population from Scotland, particularly rebellious borderers and ideologically dangerous Presbyterians. Of course, it did not work out exactly as planned.



It was as a result of these population movements that Ulster-Scots became the dominant tongue in those areas that had received the heaviest Scottish settlement, as well as influencing the English spoken throughout the province. It is a mistake to see Ulster-Scots culture as purely a result of the Plantation, however. As we have seen, this was only the latest of a series of population movements and cultural exchanges going back millenia.

During the 18th and early 19th centuries, Ulster experienced massive out-migration to North America as a result of continued economic and religious oppression of both Presbyterians and Catholics. These immigrants, who were called ‘Scotch-Irish’ became hugely influential, particularly in Pennsylvania and the southern colonies, and played a major role in the American Revolution which ended British rule. Their language and culture metamorphosed in response to the new environment and new cultural contacts, but many cultural commonalites remained, particularly in religious practice and in music. The impact of Ulster-Scots participation in the American Revolution also fed back into Ulster, contributing to the growth of the United Irishmen movement in Ulster-Scots communities, and to their traumatic involvement in the rebellion of 1798.

Throughout the modern period, constant movement between Ulster and Scotland has continued from the voyages of fishermen, to the seasonal migration of farm workers, to the permanent migration in both directions into industrial cities such as Belfast and Glasgow. These links are perhaps most strongly symbolised and constantly recreated by the massive support within Ulster for Glasgow Celtic and Glasgow Rangers football clubs. These movements, of course, always included the movement of music and musicans which has been documented since the time of the Gaelic harpers, and no doubt goes back as long as the islands have been inhabited.

http://www.qub.ac.uk/sa-old/resources/Belfast_Project/Sites_2004/USFO/pages/UlsterScotsHistoryCulture.html

[Will Scarlet]

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/mccormick/photos/no1299r.jpg
Through famine and frost,
poverty and persecution,
the Ulster-Scots People
emigrated to the four corners of the earth.

Ulster-Scots can be found
from the Americas
to Australia – ordinary folk,
yet extraordinary achievers.

Our incredible story
is seldom told.
Discover it for Yourself.

Scotland

Most Ulster Scots were in Scotland before they migrated to Ireland. MOST but not ALL.. We'll discuss where else they might have been later. But for now, where were they in Scotland and when did they move to Ireland and why?

Most of them were in areas of Scotland adjacent to Ireland. The largest migration of Scots to Ireland was in the early 1600's. Due to lack of definitive records, we do not have exact numbers, but in the early 1600's 120,000 are believed to have migrated -- from both England and Scotland. Bailyn says in one 24 month period in the 1630's at least 10,000 Scots migrated to Ireland (Bailyn, Bernard. The Peopling of British North America: An Introduction, Vintage Books, 1988, p 26).

In the early 1600's Ireland was the primary destination for migrating Scots because it provided opportunities that Scotland couldn't offer-- and Scots were not welcome in English colonies. Protestants were welcome. Catholic Scots, of which there are many, were not welcomed by the government in Ireland, though some did come, largely at the behest of Scottish Catholic lords, on whose lands in Scotland they may have already been living. But the bulk were Presbyterian lowlanders. They include a group of Protestant lowlanders that the Scottish government settled in Kintyre. They were run off by hostile natives and sheltered by Sir Randal McDonald (Catholic) on his lands in Antrim. He appreciated the lowland farmer. This group were a few of the many victims of the McDonald/Campbell feud.

Many tenant farmers came from Ayrshire -- though Ireland attracted enterprising landlords and merchants from all over Scotland. Other Scots had come from Argyle and other McDonald homelands in the mid 1500's with the McDonalds. Many of them were Catholic. They are still settled in the Glens of Antrim. Many are ethnically Irish because they are Catholic.

Another source of Scottish and English settlers was the Scottish/English border. At the time, James I/VI was breaking up those clans to secure the border between the two countries. Many fled hanging in England or Scotland to Ireland, largely settling in Fermanagh.

Often lords acquiring lands in Ireland recruited from their own Scottish estates or the estates of their neighbors, relatives, and friends.

An unknown number of Scots fled back to Scotland in the 1630's to avoid religious persecution in Scotland.

Ulster

In the early 1600's the Scots joined a small Irish population. Since poor Ulster had been decimated by more than 50 years of war at the time of the Plantations there were not many Irish. AND, contrary to popular belief, they were not "run off". If you doubt me, read Elliott The Catholics of Ulster --or any number of history books. True, the government WANTED to run them off and pursue a "Cherokee" type solution. However they were very short of men to farm and bring in the harvests. They could not afford to displace the Irish as their lives depended on them staying to bring in the harvests.Though the law prohibited the newcomers from renting to Irish, many did anyway. The Church (Protestant) was under no such restraints so many of its tenants were Irish.

The Ulster Irish spoke of course Irish, which was simply a different dialect of Gaelic. Scots and Irish could communicate without difficulty. This isn't surprising since the Scotti, an Irish tribe, moved from Ireland originally. They also followed similar naming patterns to the Irish. There were sons of Hughs, Johns, and James everywhere. So they sometimes ended up with the same or similar surnames as the incoming Scots.

Due to the destruction caused by war, there were no habitable houses. All the churches were in ruin. There were very few priests or Protestant clergy. It is documented that in at least one Antrim parish the entire Irish population became Presbyterian because the only minister about was the Scottish Presbyterian minister. If you wanted the baby baptized, he did it. In a world where religion was not yet politicized, this happened without communal pressure -- in some locations.

In 1641 many Ulster Scots were killed by the Irish in the Rising, but we are not sure how many. We do not know how many people were in Ulster as many had fled to Scotland in the 1630's to avoid the Black Oath. In 1642 more Scots arrived to defend the survivors as part of Monroe's army. It founded the first Presbyterian presbytery in Ireland. Before that, there was none. Though Presbyterian, not all these men were lowlanders. I have an ancestor who presumably arrived in 1642 in Monroe's army. He came from Kintyre and was a Lamont, though the surname of his descendants is BLACK. They settled into Antrim.

In the 1680's more Scots came to Ireland, fleeing the Killing Times in south western Scotland.

In the late 1690's another period of enhanced Scots immigration to Ireland occurred after King William secured his throne. Apparently whole new towns and villages sprang up at this time. There is also evidence of a famine in Scotland which caused increased migration.

After the Williamite Settlement there were no large movements of Scots to Ireland because economic conditions in Ireland were not good. Sometimes they fled to Ireland to avoid religious persecution, though sometimes they fled back to Scotland to escape it in Ireland. People also moved in both directions at various times to avoid political problems. People also migrated seasonally to Scotland to work on farms.

Non-Scots "Ulster Scots"

However not all "Ulster Scots" were from Scotland. Assimilating into this ethnic group, which has become synonymous for Presbyterians in Northern Ireland, were the English settlers of the Ulster Plantations. The English did not survive well in the tough climate of Ulster in the early 1600's. The Scots tended to replace them even in the English Plantations.

Other English/Welsh blood was donated by the Chichesters, who started a colony of their tenants in Antrim from their lands in Devon and Wales in the later 1500's. This is called the "Lost English Colony". The surnames remain in the Belfast area.

Also you have other immigrants such as the Thompson family, who emigrated from Holland. They became a prominent Belfast merchant family. After 1690 many of King William's continental soldiers settled in Ireland. Not too many of Cromwell's soldiers were settled in Ulster since it already was largely in the hands of loyal Protestants.

Protestants such as Huguenots and Germans also settled in Ireland in the 1600's. Many of these settled elsewhere in Ireland than Ulster, though there were settlements of Germans in Antrim and Huguenots in Lisburn -- as well as others.

The surnames of the non-British settlers rapidly became anglicized so that they can be difficult to identify by surname alone.

Finally Irish assimilated into the Ulster Scots ethnic group. As Irish converted to Protestantism, descendants assumed their families came from Scotland as they adopted the myths of the Ulster Scot as their own. However some don't. Surnames were fluid. Adopting a new ethnic identity was very simple: drop the O. Some Irish surnames began with Mac as well as Scots. By dropping the Mac, the name was anglicized and indistinguishable from English surnames.

In the 1600's there appears to have been an ethnic fluidity in Ireland. Your "ethnicity" was determined more by your choice of religion rather than your ancestrage. In some areas in south Antrim, it is believed that, due to lack of both Catholic and Church of Ireland clergy and the presence of Gaelic-speaking Presbyterian clergy, the indigenous population became Presbyterian by default. The first Presbyterian minister in Bushmills was an Irishman named O'Quinn in the early 1600's. He preached in Irish to his congregation and went on missions to convert the Irish. Evidence remains that the Scottish Presbyterians maintained an active ministry in Irish though this became impossible to maintain due to the government policies outlawing the use of Irish. Meanwhile Scottish men were marrying Irish women -- who raised their offspring Catholic and Irish speaking. In fact, when the law was repealed in the early 1600's which made it illegal for Scots to marry Irish, we are told there was "great rejoicing".

Let none of this of course detract from your current ethnic tag. We are who were are; our ancestors, however, may well have been something different. At one time they were Strathclydians, Mercians, Northumberlanders or Irish or Scots warriors fighting with Irish or Scots warriers of differing clans. These kingdoms and the clan rivalries are forgotten though at one time their inhabitants fought bitterly with one another to establish their cultures in Great Britain. In fact, the Scotti of Roman days were an Irish clan -- from County Antrim. They later invaded Scotland (500 AD) and won the local cultural battle with the Picts.

As long as Ireland and Scotland have been next to each other, there's been migration between the two to adjacent areas. Ulster is adjacent to Scotland -- so that's where many Scots went. It was easy to go over and come back again.

Often it was difficult to tell a Scot from an Irish because in many cases, they shared a common culture and spoke a common tongue. They had similar cultures. Many Scots clans are founded by Irish clans. In fact, Scotland is a colony of Ireland. Before 500 AD the "Scotti" were in Ireland. Scotland was called "Alba" then and Picts lived there. The Scotti established a colony on the western shores. Eventually these Antrim boys lost their lands in Ireland to marauding Irish clans, but they supplanted the Picts. Kenneth McAlpin united the thrones of the Picts and Scots. However the eastern lowlanders were a different people. They are the descendants of Angles and Vikings and Pictish clans, not the Irish Scotti.

In the late Middle Ages a new phenomena began to occur that would have a massive impact on Ireland. Irish lords began to hire Scottish mercenaries to help fight their intertribal and wars with the English. They were called Galloglass soldiers from the Irish gall oglaigh or stranger soldiers. They were apparently from the western Scotland and of mixed Scots and Viking origin. They changed the course of history in the 1500's. Through one dynastic marriage an Irish lord got 10,000 of these soldiers. Some of them settled down in Ireland and established clans of their own. The McSweenies are one example of a galloglass clan who assimilated into the Irish. If they stayed Catholic, they assimilated into the Irish and lost their ethnic identity as Scots.

As mentioned, the majority of the Ulster Scots came in the Ulster Plantation period. They came willingly, recruited by their lairds, many of whom were also acquiring Irish estates. Their forte was not only farming but also the skilled labor required to create a colony. They could build homes, raise livestock, blacksmith, and so on.

Seventeen Hundreds

Much of the text on this page has focused on the sixteen hundreds since it was the formative period of the Ulster Scots. It was also a very turbulent hundred years in Ireland. Nonetheless, Scots didn't attempt to emigrate to the Americas in any large numbers. A few did leave. In fact Rev Mckemie began the Presbyterian Church in America. However most didn't leave till the 1700's.

In the early 1700's the political situation in Ireland stabilized. There would be no more rebellions till 1798. However economic conditions worsened, at least partially due to trade restrictions placed on the economy by Parliament.These laws also impacted the Scottish economy. Consequently Ireland was no longer an attractive destination for immigrants.

While in the 1600's the Presbyterians were persecuted and neither they or Catholics worshipped in churches, as the Penal Laws were reduced in the 1700's, they began to construct churches, called meeting houses. While in the 1600's it was common for families to move to new farms frequently, in the 1700's people "settled down" and attempted to hold onto the lease that they'd had. Thrown into competition over reduced resources, Irish and Scots began to conflict locally. For instance the Hearts of Oak disturbance.

The great wave of emigration of Ulster Scots to American began in 1718 and continued till the start of the American Revolution.

Click here to continue (http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~merle/History/index.htm).

http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~merle/History/SI-History.htm#HistUlster

[Will Scarlet]

http://www.lowcountryboys.com/images/LCB-Map-1-lrg.jpg
http://www.lowcountryboys.com/images/LCB-Map-2-lrg.jpg
http://www.lowcountryboys.com/images/LCB-Map-3-lrg.jpg
http://www.lowcountryboys.com/images/LCB-Map-5-lrg.jpg

[Jonathan]

Welcome back :)

Cultural affinities between Ulster and the western coasts of Scotland probably extend back to at least 8000BC

That’s a very narrow way of looking at it. Cultural affinities between “Ireland” and “Scotland” extend back to aprox. 8,000BC

when the hunter-gatherers who were the first inhabitants of the north coast of Ireland, and whose remains have been found at Mount Sandel, Coleraine, arrived across the North Channel, which was even narrower then than its current 12 miles.

It’s more likely that they walked across (there was a land bridge between Ireland and Scotland during this period).

During the Neolithic period, after the adoption of an agricultural way of life, massive stone monuments including passage tombs and court tombs were constructed over much of the northern part of Ireland and the west and north coasts of Scotland. Archaologist Barry Cunliffe observes that "The structural similarities and close geographical proximity of the Irish and Scottish monuments – seperated only by the narrow North Channel – is an indication that the two areas may well have been in regular contact with each other" (2001:171). Similar monuments are found on the western coasts of Wales and Cornwall, and the Atlantic coasts of Europe extending from Sweden to Portugal.

This culture even spread as far as Northern Africa.

During the Bronze Age the communal burial rites of the megalithic monuments started to give way to individual burials with grave goods including pottery, reflecting social changes spreading through the Atlantic coastal regions of Europe.

Well, the individual burials actually didn’t become common until the late Bronze Age, with the introduction of the Bell-Beaker people.

Ireland seems to crystallise into two broad cultural groupings, one facing outwards to the Atlantic and retaining its old collective burial rites, the other facing inwards to the Irish Sea and western Scotland and sharing in the escalating social changes which were gripping Britain at the time (2001:242).

That’s rubbish. Bronze Age Ireland was centred in Munster (south), not on the east/north coast. Most items traded between east/north Ireland and Southern Scotland would have originally been from Munster. And the fact that it was centred in Munster is because the biggest copper deposits are located there. There was no huge gap between western Ireland and eastern Ireland any more so than there was between eastern Ireland and Scotland. The “individual burials” which are being referred to here are the “wedge tombs”. While Wedge tombs were the most popular form of tomb in Ulster in this period, the majority of wedge tombs are actually located in the west of Ireland! Particularly around Killala Bay (Mayo), East Clare, and Cork.

This pattern seems to continue into the Iron Age: Cunliffe notes that the range and quality of elite metalwork available througout the first millenium BC and into the first millenium AD are sufficient to suggest that much of eastern, central, and northern Ireland was under the domination of an aristocratic warrior elite, and it is within this broad central and eastern zone that the great ritual sites, Tara, Navan, Rathcroghan, and Dun Ailinne, are to be found. The Atlantic-facing lands from Co. Donegal to Co. Kerry in the west and from Co. Cork to Co. Wexford in the south lie, for the most part, outside this zone of elite dominance and, apart from a few scattered exotic artefacts emanating from the elite zone, lack a distinctive material culture. Thus, although the artifactual evidence is disparate and contextually lacking, it does suggest that Ireland, in the later first millenium BC, divided into two distinctive socio-economic zones.

Complete rubbish. The article suggests that Ulster and Leinster were the home of Ireland’s Hallstatt tradition with Connaught and Munster being outside this. The vast majority of Hallstatt artefacts are in fact located in Ulster and Connaught.

It is interesting to note that in political terms, Ireland during this period, was divided into Leath Cuinn, and Leath Mogha, the former included Connaught and Ulster, while the latter included Munster and Leinster. The article is way off the mark.

Furthermore, the article suggests that Connaught and Munster were outside the “elite zone” yet it lists Rathcroghan which was the capital of Connaught! It also leaves Mooghaun and Ballylin out of the list. These were the two largest Hillforts in the country at the time and are both located in west Munster!

The epic tales of ‘the Ulster Cycle’, which were written down by Christian monks in the early medieval period, but probably passed down in the oral tradition for centuries beforehand, have been described by Jackson as "a window on the Iron Age". They portray a society in Ulster dominated by a warrior elite, in accordance with the archaeological evidence.

It also portrays the same for Connaught, yet the author of this article has neglected to mention it.

[/I] They describe an Ireland divided into five Provinces: Ulster, Leinster, Munster, Connacht and Meath, some of the stories suggesting that the boundary of Ulster lay as far south as the Boyne during this period.[/I]

The fortification of the Black Pig’s Dyke which is dated to this period is a long way north of the Boyne.

They also record regular contacts with Alba, later to become Scotland. The warrior Cuchulain travelled there to be trained in the martial arts, and Deirdre of the Sorrows fled there to escape the wrath of the king of Ulster, her lover Naoise taking service with the king of the Picts.

Most parts of Ireland were in contact with Scotland at this time, not just Ulster. Ferdiadh macDara of Connaught was fostered in Scotland along with CuChulainn.

Ian Adamson has demonstrated the presence in Ulster during the Iron Age of a people known as the Cruthin or Qretani (1974).

It has still never been established at to whom exactly the Cruithnigh were. Perhaps they were unique to Ulster, but other scholarship suggests that the Ciarraighe of Connaught and Munster, the Erainn of Munster, and the Airtheach Tuath of Connaught and several others may have been part of the same people as the Cruithnigh.

These are Gaelic or Q-Celtic interpretations of the name Pretani or Prydein which referred to the same people in the P-Celtic or Brittonic language of the neighbouring island. The names Prydein and Pretani were later romanised as Britain and Britons, which was the name by which the Romans referred to those they had conquered. Those elements of the population in the area now known as Scotland, which they did not bring under their control, they referred to as Picts. The names Cruthin, Qretani, Pretani (and hence Briton)and Pict all translate into English as ‘People of the Pictures’ or ‘People of the Designs’, according with Roman accounts of the Britons as heavily painted or tattooed (Davies 1999).

If body tattoos are the means by which the Picts were named, then arguably all peoples of Ireland and Britain were Picts.

Pictish settlement in Ulster may not have been as extensive as Adamson has claimed, but it seems clear that they formed a significant part of the population of the north-eastern coastal region. The Ulster Cycle legends also make reference to Pictish warriors in Ireland.

No it doesn’t. The Ulster Cycle didn’t refer to Picts, it didn’t even have a word for them. It did refer to the Cruithnigh however. Whether the Cruithnigh and the Picts are the same people is still unknown.

The Pictish language was a P-Celtic or Brittonic language

This has never been proven

During the 4th Century, Gaels from Ulster whom the Romans described as Scoti or Scots, a term meaning raiders or pirates, allied themselves with the Picts

More like they subjugated the Picts.

and with other tribes including Saxons from northern Europe to raid the Roman province of Brittania.

Actually, most Irish raids on Britannia came from Connaught, not Ulster.

In the course of this raiding, a romanised Briton named Patricius was seized from his home in northwestern Britannia and taken into slavery in Ulster.

Patricius was captured by Níall Naoighiollach (or someone like him) who was from Connaught and sold to Ulster. The article seems to suggest that the raiders were exclusively from Ulster. Ulstermen were not even a majority.

He escaped but later returned as an evangelist for Christianity basing himself in Armagh. Cunliffe notes that "If Patrick’s original home was in the north of Britain, possibly in the romanised region of Dumbarton (The Fort of the Britons), his choice of the north of Ireland would have been entirely logical in that he would have been following the long-established and no doubt still-operative trade route across the North Channel (2001:469).

Whether Patricius actually settled in Armagh/Downpatrick is disputed

From this modest initial settlement grew the powerful kingdom of Dalriada, which held power on both sides of the sea.

Rubbish. The Dál Riada didn’t even have full control of Ulaidh, they were frequently defeated by the Dal bhFiatach and Dal nAraidhe. The Cenel nEoghain could wipe the floor with the Dál Riada, as they did at the battle of Maighe Ratha.

The 150 settlers mentioned by St. Columba’s biographer were simply part of a continuing process of interaction.

This is no different from the Leinstermen who look over Llyen and Dyfed in Wales, or the Uí Liatháin of Munster who took Cornwall. Nobody is sure who took the Isle of Man though.

Columba (also known as Columb or Colmcille: ‘The Dove of the Church’), was himself an example of the significance of continued ties between Ulster and the the land which was in the process of becoming Scotland.

LOL Columba was from the Cenel gConaill. His ancestors were invades from Connaught who smashed and conquered Ulster.

The Scottish settlement of Dalriada existed alongside Pictland

The Irish settlement in Scotland was not exclusively from the Dal Riada tribe. Nearly all Irish tribes went on expeditions to Scotland.

the Scots merged with their Pictish neighbours

Distinguishing between the Scots and the Picts is a bit strange. You might as well distinguish between ever individual tribe considering all the similarities between them.

The maritime kingdom of Dalriada was replaced by the ‘Lordship of the Isles’ under the powerful Macdonald clan

That’s very one-sided. Dál Riada was smashed by the Cenel nEoghain long before the Vikings arrived on the scene. It was through marriage alliance that the MacDonnells got a foothold in Antrim also.

James then turned his attention to an equally turbulent part of his newly acquired domains – Ulster.

Ulster had been pacified before James took the throne.

He planned to settle Scottish Protestants there in order to subjugate the rebellious Catholic natives, and integrate the province into the new ‘British’ economic system.

It wasn’t really his idea. It had been started in the reign of Elizabeth but had failed for the most part.

It was as a result of these population movements that Ulster-Scots became the dominant tongue in those areas that had received the heaviest Scottish settlement, as well as influencing the English spoken throughout the province. It is a mistake to see Ulster-Scots culture as purely a result of the Plantation, however. As we have seen, this was only the latest of a series of population movements and cultural exchanges going back millenia.

This depends on your definition of Ulster-Scots. Most of Ulster was completely Gaelic and had been conquered by Irishmen from Connaught in the 5th century AD. The old Cruithnigh et al. were more or less nonexistent. Those Cruithnigh that did exist were identifying themselves as Gaels. They fabricated their genealogies to fit into the general Irish lineage and adopted Irish customs. Contact continued between the geographical locations of Ulster and Scotland but to suggest that there was one distinct people living in Ulster and Scotland is far fetched.

During the 18th and early 19th centuries, Ulster experienced massive out-migration to North America as a result of continued economic and religious oppression of both Presbyterians and Catholics.

It should be remembered that the Penal Laws affected both Catholics and Presbyterians in Ulster. The Catholic Irish and the Presbyterians had far more in common with each other than they did with the Anglo-Irish and consistently lived on amicable terms. It is sad to think that contemporary Unionism is based on a Presbyterian fear of Irish Catholicism.

The impact of Ulster-Scots participation in the American Revolution also fed back into Ulster, contributing to the growth of the United Irishmen movement in Ulster-Scots communities, and to their traumatic involvement in the rebellion of 1798.

The United Irishmen movement included Catholic and Presbyterian and Anglican but got most support from Presbyterian Ulster-Scots and Catholic Irish (for the gallery). Its goal was an independent united Ireland. What a pity that the Ulster-Scots have been tricked into Unionism.

Throughout the modern period, constant movement between Ulster and Scotland has continued from the voyages of fishermen, to the seasonal migration of farm workers, to the permanent migration in both directions into industrial cities such as Belfast and Glasgow.

That’s a narrow view again. There were as many farm hands in Scotland from Connaught as Ulster during this period.

These links are perhaps most strongly symbolised and constantly recreated by the massive support within Ulster for Glasgow Celtic and Glasgow Rangers football clubs.

In Ireland in general, not just Ulster.

Many tenant farmers came from Ayrshire -- though Ireland attracted enterprising landlords and merchants from all over Scotland. Other Scots had come from Argyle and other McDonald homelands in the mid 1500's with the McDonalds. Many of them were Catholic. They are still settled in the Glens of Antrim. Many are ethnically Irish because they are Catholic.

What makes someone ethnically Irish? Or Ethnically Ulster-Scots for that matter?

AND, contrary to popular belief, they were not "run off".

In fact, the largest plantations of all were given to castle Catholics like Conor roe Maguire and Turlough O’Neill.

Due to the destruction caused by war, there were no habitable houses.

What? LOL Where did people live so? Of course there were houses.

In 1641 many Ulster Scots were killed by the Irish in the Rising, but we are not sure how many.

That’s a refreshing read. Often times, contemporary Unionists actually throw out figures which outstrip the entire protestant population of Ireland at the time!

After the Williamite Settlement there were no large movements of Scots to Ireland because economic conditions in Ireland were not good.

And because William brought in the Penal Laws which were just as tough on Presbyterians as on Irish.

In the 1600's there appears to have been an ethnic fluidity in Ireland. Your "ethnicity" was determined more by your choice of religion rather than your ancestrage.

You could change your religion yes, but those who knew their ethnicity were certain of it.

These kingdoms and the clan rivalries are forgotten

Tell that to “Big Ian” :p

In fact, the Scotti of Roman days were an Irish clan -- from County Antrim.

Scotti just means “Irish”. So no, the Scotti were not all from Antrim :p

Often it was difficult to tell a Scot from an Irish because in many cases, they shared a common culture and spoke a common tongue. They had similar cultures. Many Scots clans are founded by Irish clans. In fact, Scotland is a colony of Ireland.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the argument for a United Ireland^ :p

Irish lords began to hire Scottish mercenaries to help fight their intertribal and wars with the English. They were called Galloglass soldiers from the Irish gall oglaigh or stranger soldiers.

It actually translated as “young foreign warriors”.

The McSweenies are one example of a galloglass clan who assimilated into the Irish. If they stayed Catholic, they assimilated into the Irish and lost their ethnic identity as Scots.

Well, the Sweeney clan had always claimed Irish heritage (even before it came to Ireland). They claimed that their eponym Suibhne was an O’Neill.

[Will Scarlet]

I see you're still up to your usual game of semantic obfuscation and perpetuation of the 'United Ireland' myth, Mikey. Or maybe it's just that your reading comprehension has failed to improve.

Gotta go to work, but I'll rip you a new one when I get home. :)

[Jonathan]

I see you're still up to your usual game of semantic obfuscation and perpetuation of the 'United Ireland' myth, Mikey.
Semantic obfuscation? IYO.

As for a "United Ireland", I've barely mentioned it (in this thread, or on the Phora in general). It's just that when you and I converse, it usually revolves around the topic. Maybe we'll iron out something this time? Furthermore, the Ulster-Scots are inextricably linked to the issue, what did you expect?

Or maybe it's just that your reading comprehension has failed to improve.
Very quick to turn to insults. There was a time when we got on very well if you can remember.

Gotta go to work, but I'll rip you a new one when I get home. :)
Enjoy.

[A. Radek]

and with other tribes including Saxons from northern Europe to raid the Roman province of Brittania.

Actually, most Irish raids on Britannia came from Connaught, not Ulster.

In the course of this raiding, a romanised Briton named Patricius was seized from his home in northwestern Britannia and taken into slavery in Ulster.

Patricius was captured by Níall Naoighiollach (or someone like him) who was from Connaught and sold to Ulster. The article seems to suggest that the raiders were exclusively from Ulster. Ulstermen were not even a majority.

A clarification here: Didn't the raiding go both ways, at least as far as Wales and the southern English coast is concerned? I've run across references somewhere about slave traders operating back and forth between the two islands dating before the Roman occupation.

Also, some historians I've read seem to think some of the raiders came from the northwestern coast of England, and not all were from Ireland, 'pirates' being a rather vague and mobile group and hard to trace definitively.

The impact of Ulster-Scots participation in the American Revolution also fed back into Ulster, contributing to the growth of the United Irishmen movement in Ulster-Scots communities, and to their traumatic involvement in the rebellion of 1798.

The United Irishmen movement included Catholic and Presbyterian and Anglican but got most support from Presbyterian Ulster-Scots and Catholic Irish (for the gallery). Its goal was an independent united Ireland. What a pity that the Ulster-Scots have been tricked into Unionism.

Yes, indeed. That was under Wolf Tone's inspiration, was it not?He was a member of the 'Protestant Ascendancy', I believe. My grandfather regarded him as major hero of his.


Excellent post, Shane. I always learn something new from your posts on Ireland. this one is a keeper.

[Jonathan]

A clarification here: Didn't the raiding go both ways, at least as far as Wales and the southern English coast is concerned? I've run across references somewhere about slave traders operating back and forth between the two islands dating before the Roman occupation.
Certainly. My comment was just a responce to what I saw as the articles Ulster bias. But in general, raids and pirating went both ways. There is archaeological evidence of Irish settlements in Wales and Cornwall, but there are sporadic references to similar style raids on Ireland by various Welsh chiefs in the Irish Annals as well.

Also, some historians I've read seem to think some of the raiders came from the northwestern coast of England, and not all were from Ireland, 'pirates' being a rather vague and mobile group and hard to trace definitively.
It seems perfectly likely. While the "Scotti" were noted for raiding, the native Britons were proficient as well. Also, northern Britannia, while nominally under Roman Rule, was a considerably lawless territory.

Yes, indeed. That was under Wolf Tone's inspiration, was it not? He was a member of the 'Protestant Ascendancy', I believe. My grandfather regarded him as major hero of his.
Theobald Wolfe Tone was from the Anglo-Irish Protestant Ascendancy, yes. He was a founder of the society of the United Irishmen with the aim of setting up an independant Ireland. He tried to organise French invasions (one was turned off the southern coast in 1796 due to bad weather, another landed in Killala, Mayo, in 1798 but was defeated by Cornwallis at Ballinamuck). The Uited Irishmen staged serious rebellions in 1798 - one among the Ulster Presbyterians under Henry Joy MacCraken, one in north Leinster and one in south Leinster (though the latter had considerable input from individuals who were not in the United Irishmen). All were failures though. Wolfe Tone himself was captured by the British on board a French naval vessel in French Officers uniform. He was sent to jail and it has always been a mystery as to whether he killed himself in jail, or was killed in jail by others (so that his public hanging wouldn't make him a martyr). He is often regarded as the father of Irish Republicanism.

Excellent post, Shane. I always learn something new from your posts on Ireland. this one is a keeper.
My pleasure.:)

[Will Scarlet]

Certainly. My comment was just a responce to what I saw as the articles Ulster bias.

Imagine that, being that the article is about the Ulster Scots and all... :rolleyes:

Anyway, Mikey, I lack the time to respond in a point-by-point fashion to your 'I'll distract them from the presence of the forest by pointing out each individual tree' style of argument.


Let me just say this:

You lament the fact that modern Unionism appears to be predicated on what you call "Presbyterian fear of Irish Catholicism" despite the fact that some of the earliest proponents of Irish Republicanism were of Protestant extraction.

I say to you that this would not be the case had Irish Republicanism not been hijacked and turned into a Gaelic Catholic clerical fascist movement by men like that vile Cubano New Yorker we all know and despise (no, I'm not talking about Mazdak). I say to you that Protestant founders of Irish Republicanism would roll over in their graves were they to know that the fruits of their labour would amount to the ethnic cleansing of Protestants from the Republic of Ireland.


http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/charts/declining_prot_1891_1991.gif
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/maps/island_protestants_1861_1991.gif

Meanwhile, both Catholicism and the Irish Gaelic language have flourished under the secular, democratic government of the United Kingdom.

But I'm sure you'll come back with more BS mythology about 'British Oppression." :rolleyes:

[Jonathan]

Imagine that, being that the article is about the Ulster Scots and all... :rolleyes:
Are you implying that an article about Ulster-Scots can't be truthful :p
It is evident that the article is misleading.

Anyway, Mikey, I lack the time to respond in a point-by-point fashion to your 'I'll distract them from the presence of the forest by pointing out each individual tree' style of argument.
No problem.

You lament the fact that modern Unionism appears to be predicated on what you call "Presbyterian fear of Irish Catholicism" despite the fact that some of the earliest proponents of Irish Republicanism were of Protestant extraction.
Perhaps not exaclty, but you wouldn't be far off.

I say to you that this would not be the case had Irish Republicanism not been hijacked and turned into a Gaelic Catholic clerical fascist movement
First you would have to prove that Irish Republicanism was turned into "a Gaelic Catholic clerical fascist movement". If you don't have time for that either, fair enough, but I'd like to see your attempt.

I say to you that Protestant founders of Irish Republicanism would roll over in their graves were they to know that the fruits of their labour would amount to the ethnic cleansing of Protestants from the Republic of Ireland.
I would also like to see you prove that Protestants were ethnically cleasned from the Irish Free State - population charts alone are not proof of ethnic cleansing. You will have to account for the drop in population and prove that it was Catholic aggression that caused this.

Meanwhile, both Catholicism and the Irish Gaelic language have flourished under the secular, democratic government of the United Kingdom.
I don't understand? In Britain? In Northern Ireland? Could you make that clearer?

[Will Scarlet]

Are you implying that an article about Ulster-Scots can't be truthful :p

Not at all. What I'm saying is that the article's focus is on Ulster; therefore, your whining about "Ulster bias" is just that -- whining.


First you would have to prove that Irish Republicanism was turned into "a Gaelic Catholic clerical fascist movement". If you don't have time for that either, fair enough, but I'd like to see your attempt.

Are you denying that in the present day, Irish Republicanism is associated mainly with Catholicism and Gaelic identity?

Wouldn't surprise me, considering that you also deny that blowing up 29 innocent people, Catholic and Protestant, born and unborn, on a busy downtown street counts as "indiscriminate murder."


I would also like to see you prove that Protestants were ethnically cleasned from the Irish Free State - population charts alone are not proof of ethnic cleansing. You will have to account for the drop in population and prove that it was Catholic aggression that caused this.


What the hell do you think caused it, Mikey? Does shooting farmers in their fields, dragging young girls out of their beds in the middle of the night and shaving their heads, and burning people's houses not count as aggression? Do laws, only recently repealed, mandating that children of mixed marriages be raised Catholic not count?

You'll probably say no, though we know it's hard to believe anything you say, given as you are to making excuses for bloodthirsty murderers.

I don't understand? In Britain? In Northern Ireland? Could you make that clearer?

Yes, primarily in Northern Ireland (part of the United Kingdom, you know). Catholicism has been on the ascendancy there throughout the century, while Protestants were ethnically cleansed from the Republic of Ireland. The Irish Gaelic language, as well, has seen increased usage there, spurred on in no small part by programs sponsored by the British Government.

[Jonathan]

Not at all. What I'm saying is that the article's focus is on Ulster; therefore, your whining about "Ulster bias" is just that -- whining.
My comment is based on the fact that the article intentionally misleads the reader into assuming that the Ulster-Scots identity has a lineage stretching back into antiquety. This is done by specifically focusing on, exaggerating, and fabricating, links between the two areas.
In reality, the link between Ulster and Scotland is really no stronger than the link between Ulster and Connaught/Leinster/Munster or the link between Scotland and Ireland(in total).

Are you denying that in the present day, Irish Republicanism is associated mainly with Catholicism and Gaelic identity?
You are confusing Republicanism with Nationalism.

Wouldn't surprise me, considering that you also deny that blowing up 29 innocent people, Catholic and Protestant, born and unborn, on a busy downtown street counts as "indiscriminate murder."
You are taking the comment completely out of context. You commented that the IRA engaged in "indiscriminate murder" of Unionists. I then replied that they did not, and that the murdering/executions carried out was/were not indiscriminate, but specific, and goal-orientated. You then sited the Omagh bombing as an example of "indiscriminate murder" but you completely ignored the fact that the Omagh bombing was an accident and that the bomb itself had a completely different target. Once I pointed this out to you, you retorted that I was defending the incident, which is false.

P.S. You also proceeded to spam the thread with pictures and cuttings of the incident.

What the hell do you think caused it, Mikey?
I know what caused it. It is up to you to prove it though as you are making the claim.

Does shooting farmers in their fields, dragging young girls out of their beds in the middle of the night and shaving their heads, and burning people's houses not count as aggression?
Of course it does, but are you implying that this happened in Ireland? If so, then you must provide evidence.

You'll probably say no, though we know it's hard to believe anything you say, given as you are to making excuses for bloodthirsty murderers.
What excuses have I made?
And which bloodthirsty murderers have I defended?

Catholicism has been on the ascendancy there throughout the century
Define "ascendancy". How has Catholicism been on the ascendancy in N.I.?

while Protestants were ethnically cleansed from the Republic of Ireland.
You have still to prove this.

The Irish Gaelic language, as well, has seen increased usage there, spurred on in no small part by programs sponsored by the British Government.
Can you provide figures to the increasing usage of Gaeilge? Not to mention the fact that numerous Unionists are adopting Gaeilge in their own warped ways. Furthermore, state-sponsored attempts to revive "Gaeilge" have been no more enthousiastic than attempts to revive "Ulster-Scots". The reason that "Gaeilge" far outstrips "Ulster-Scots" is because of the people learning the language themselves.

[Will Scarlet]

My comment is based on the fact that the article intentionally misleads the reader into assuming that the Ulster-Scots identity has a lineage stretching back into antiquety.

It does.

This is done by specifically focusing on, exaggerating, and fabricating, links between the two areas.

In reality, the link between Ulster and Scotland is really no stronger than the link between Ulster and Connaught/Leinster/Munster or the link between Scotland and Ireland(in total).

Hardly, especially considering that Northern Ireland and Scotland are part of the same polity.


You are taking the comment completely out of context.


No, you're either forgetting what we were talking about, or you're spewing more lies from your rotten gob.


You commented that the IRA engaged in "indiscriminate murder" of Unionists.


No, I correctly stated that they engage(d) in "indiscriminate murder" of all sorts of people, Catholic and Protestant, Unionist and otherwise.

I then replied that they did not, and that the murdering/executions carried out was/were not indiscriminate, but specific, and goal-orientated.

What goal, pray tell, was to be accomplished by blowing up schoolchildren on High Street?

You then sited the Omagh bombing as an example of "indiscriminate murder" but you completely ignored the fact that the Omagh bombing was an accident and that the bomb itself had a completely different target.

So remind me again how the 29 innocent men, women, and children (of a variety of religions and nationalities) of that "accident" were not victims of "indiscriminate murder." :rolleyes:

Once I pointed this out to you, you retorted that I was defending the incident, which is false.

You are defending the scum-sucking parasites who committed that vile act.

If one of my country's planes accidentally drops a bomb on a wedding party in the Middle East, you won't see me shrug my shoulders and say, "Oh, well. It was just an accident." I'll say outright that the people who neglected to exercise due diligence should be made to pay for their carelessness. And I'll damn sure acknowledge that the people bombed into oblivion were victims of indiscriminate murder.


P.S. You also proceeded to spam the thread with pictures and cuttings of the incident.


It's important that the world see the fruits of "Irish Nationalism". Most people outside the UK have little idea what bloodthirsty, barbaric horrors it has wrought (except in places like Colombia, where it is well known what terror the IRA is capable of spreading).


I know what caused it. It is up to you to prove it though as you are making the claim.

So what do you think caused it?


Of course it does, but are you implying that this happened in Ireland? If so, then you must provide evidence.

I'm not "implying" that it happened in Ireland, I'm stating outright that it did, and you know it. That you would lie to cover it up is shameful, but not unexpected from you.

See, for example, Peter Hart's The I.R.A. and its Enemies: Violence and Community in Cork, 1916-1923 or the Church of Ireland Gazette circa 1922.

Why would we have any reason to believe that it didn't happen in the Free State, when we can look at the past thirty or so years of history in Northern Ireland and witness for ourselves how bloodthirsty, brutal, and bent on ethnic cleansing "Irish Nationalism" really is?


What excuses have I made?


"It was an accident." :rolleyes:

And which bloodthirsty murderers have I defended?

The sort of scumbags who blow up women and children out about their shopping on Saturday afternoon or strap innocent civilians into cars loaded with explosives and force them at gunpoint to drive into police checkpoints.

You know, Gerry and Martin and company...


Define "ascendancy". How has Catholicism been on the ascendancy in N.I.?


The Roman Catholic share of the Northern Irish population has increased. While it stood at roughly 30% for most of the previous century, it now stands at well over 40%.

Even looking again at this map, you can see that the Protestant share in the Northern Irish population has declined.
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/maps/island_protestants_1861_1991.gif


Not to mention the fact that numerous Unionists are adopting Gaeilge in their own warped ways.


I assume you mean through organizations like the Ultach Trust? In what way is this "warped"?

Furthermore, state-sponsored attempts to revive "Gaeilge" have been no more enthousiastic than attempts to revive "Ulster-Scots".

Sure is nice of the British government to broadcast all of those radio programs in Gaelic, though...

[Jonathan]

It does.
Do you have any proof?

That article you posted at first has already been dealt with. If you have problems with my criticism, you will have to point them out and address them as I have done.

Hardly, especially considering that Northern Ireland and Scotland are part of the same polity.
That's not a reply. I've pointed out numerous areas where the article deviates from history.

No, you're either forgetting what we were talking about, or you're spewing more lies from your rotten gob.
1)No I'm not. Can you prove otherwise?
2)Can you not go through with this without resorting to insults?

No, I correctly stated that they engage(d) in "indiscriminate murder" of all sorts of people, Catholic and Protestant, Unionist and otherwise.
You would have to "prove" these statements before they become "correct". As it stands, you have yet to do this.

What goal, pray tell, was to be accomplished by blowing up schoolchildren on High Street?
Nothing was to be accomplished by blowing up schoolchildren, as they were not the target. You now make it sound as if someone intended to blow them up.

So remind me again how the 29 innocent men, women, and children (of a variety of religions and nationalities) of that "accident" were not victims of "indiscriminate murder." :rolleyes:
Because "indiscriminate" implies "unselective", "Random", "Unrestrained", "wanton" etc. The Omagh bombing was not "unselective", "random", "unrestrained", or "wanton". It had a clear target (unfortunately, things didn't go according to plan).

You are defending the scum-sucking parasites who committed that vile act.
I have never defended them. On the other hand, I have tried to point out what actually happened in relation to the Omagh bombing, which you were using to paint a biased picture.

If one of my country's planes accidentally drops a bomb on a wedding party in the Middle East, you won't see me shrug my shoulders and say, "Oh, well. It was just an accident." I'll say outright that the people who neglected to exercise due diligence should be made to pay for their carelessness. And I'll damn sure acknowledge that the people bombed into oblivion were victims of indiscriminate murder.
Define "indiscriminate murder".

It's important that the world see the fruits of "Irish Nationalism".
To equate "Irish Nationalism" with the Omagh bombing is a sick and twisted thing to do.

So what do you think caused it?
LOL! That's not how this works. In an arguement, one person you[/B]] makes a claim the Irish Free State ethnically cleansed Protestants[/B]], if this claim is disputed [which it is - by me] then that person [you] must provide evidence to back up the claim.

Once you have provided evidence, I will either confirm it, or dispute it, providing a counter arguement, but not until then.

I'm not "implying" that it happened in Ireland, I'm stating outright that it did, and you know it.
No I don't, you've got to prove it.

That you would lie to cover it up is shameful, but not unexpected from you.
I'm not the one who's trying to damn an entire nation :rolleyes: . . . let's try to keep personal attacks out of this.

See, for example, Peter Hart's [i]The I.R.A. and its Enemies: Violence and Community in Cork, 1916-1923 or the Church of Ireland Gazette circa 1922.
Your original claim was that the Irish Free State engaged in "ethnic cleansing". You have neglected to provide any proof. You have now brought up articles on the subject which deals with the IRA, but not with the Irish Free State. There is a big difference.

However, I would dispute that the IRA of 1916-1923 engaged in "ethnic cleansing" of Protestants as well. If you can, I would like for you to post excerpts from both of those two(you are the one making the claim remember), and then I will prove you wrong. :)

Why would we have any reason to believe that it [i]didn't happen in the Free State
Because there is no evidence to suggest that it did. It is up to you to provide this evidence, then I will provide the counter arguement.

when we can look at the past thirty or so years of history in Northern Ireland and witness for ourselves how bloodthirsty, brutal, and bent on ethnic cleansing "Irish Nationalism" really is?
Like I said, it's sick to equate "Irish Nationalism" to "the Troubles".

"It was an accident." :rolleyes:
It's the truth, simple as that.

The sort of scumbags who blow up women and children out about their shopping on Saturday afternoon or strap innocent civilians into cars loaded with explosives and force them at gunpoint to drive into police checkpoints.
I have never defended individuals of that discription. Can you provide evidence that I have?

You know, Gerry and Martin and company...
LOL! I've never been a Sinn Féin supporter. While I support the idea of a United Ireland, I have never supported "Gerry or Martin and company" and have consistantly been one of their harshest critics. My political allegiance is almost as far from Sinn Féin as you'll get on the Irish political spectrum. If you said this to me in public, infront of my aquaintances, they'd find your statement hilarious.

The Roman Catholic share of the Northern Irish population has increased. While it stood at roughly 30% for most of the previous century, it now stands at well over 40%.
I asked you to define "ascendancy". You have failed to do so. "Ascendancy" implies "dominance". While the population of Catholics have increased, there is no such thing as Catholic dominance in NI. Consider yourself refuted.

I assume you mean through organizations like the Ultach Trust? In what way is this "warped"?
To suggest that Cú Chulainn "defended Ulster from Irish attacks" is warped. And to suggest that the UVF/LVF/DUP etc are continuing this tradition is even worse.

Sure is nice of the British government to broadcast all of those radio programs in Gaelic, though...
All what radio programs? :p


I must say, I'm very disapointed with you. I thought that you'd have provided evidence to back up your claims and that We'd be half way through my counter arguement by now.

[Will Scarlet]

Do you have any proof?

The flow of peoples back and forth across the Irish Sea is well documented. It's quite silly for you to claim ancient connections for all of Ireland with Scotland, then turn around and deny them to Ulster specifically.


That article you posted at first has already been dealt with. If you have problems with my criticism, you will have to point them out and address them as I have done.


I stopped reading when I saw that your starting premise was wrong.


1)No I'm not. Can you prove otherwise?


I have done so many times, but the posts keep disappearing. ;)


2)Can you not go through with this without resorting to insults?


Were it anyone else, perhaps. Geist or Steve Davis, I could excuse. Geist doesn't know any better, and Steve thinks it's all part of the Grand:. Masonic:. Conspiracy:.

But since I've come to realize that you know you speak with forked tongue, I just can't look at you the same way.


Nothing was to be accomplished by blowing up schoolchildren, as they were not the target. You now make it sound as if someone intended to blow them up.


Were they or were they not blown up?


Because "indiscriminate" implies "unselective", "Random", "Unrestrained", "wanton" etc. The Omagh bombing was not "unselective", "random", "unrestrained", or "wanton". It had a clear target (unfortunately, things didn't go according to plan).


No, things didn't go according to plan. Instead, 29 random people, distributed unselectively in terms of nationality and religion, were brutally slain in an unrestrained act of wanton murder.

I have never defended them. On the other hand, I have tried to point out what actually happened in relation to the Omagh bombing, which you were using to paint a biased picture.

A biased picture? What biased picture? I believe your original bone of contention was in regards to my statement to the effect that "Irish Nationalists" have killed more people in Northern Ireland than loyalist paramilitaries and the British government combined.

Those statistics still hold, by the way:
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Organisation_Summary.html



Define "indiscriminate murder".


The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language gives us:

in·dis·crim·i·nate (ĭn'dĭ-skrĭm'ə-nĭt) pronunciation
adj.

1. Not making or based on careful distinctions; unselective: an indiscriminate shopper; indiscriminate taste in music.
2. Random; haphazard: indiscriminate violence; an indiscriminate assortment of used books for sale.
3. Confused; chaotic: the indiscriminate policies of the previous administration.
4. Unrestrained or wanton; profligate: indiscriminate spending.

in'dis·crim'i·nate·ly adv.
in'dis·crim'i·nate·ness n.

and


mur·der (mûr'dər) pronunciation
n.

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
2. Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
3. A flock of crows. See synonyms at flock1.


v., -dered, -der·ing, -ders.

v.tr.

1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
5. Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.

v.intr.

To commit murder.

Twenty-nine random victims, some Catholic, some Protestant, some Irish, some British, even some visiting from Spain, some born, some not yet to draw their first breath...

slaughtered in the street.

That's the very definition of "indiscriminate murder."



To equate "Irish Nationalism" with the Omagh bombing is a sick and twisted thing to do.


...by their fruits ye shall know them.



I'm not the one who's trying to damn an entire nation :rolleyes: . . .


Yes, you are, only it's the minority nation inhabiting the isle of Hibernia. You haven't the humanity to accept that they don't want to be you.


Your original claim was that the Irish Free State engaged in "ethnic cleansing".


No it wasn't. What I specifically said was that the heavily Protestant leading lights of the early Irish revolutionary movement "would roll over in their graves were they to know that the fruits of their labour would amount to the ethnic cleansing of Protestants from the Republic of Ireland."

Nowhere does that imply that the state openly engaged in ethnic cleansing, nor had I yet mentioned the words "Irish Free State."


You have neglected to provide any proof. You have now brought up articles on the subject which deals with the IRA, but not with the Irish Free State. There is a big difference.


Once again, I never claimed that it was the state itself which was engaged in such acts. Besides, there are many who would argue that the IRA was the legitimate army of the state at that point.


However, I would dispute that the IRA of 1916-1923 engaged in "ethnic cleansing" of Protestants as well. If you can, I would like for you to post excerpts from both of those two(you are the one making the claim remember), and then I will prove you wrong. :)


I haven't them in front of me. You might enjoy Hart's book, though. He gives a fair treatment, methinks. He offers a critical look at the role of the Protestant churches in violence in the North during the revolutionary period, for example.



LOL! I've never been a Sinn Féin supporter. While I support the idea of a United Ireland, I have never supported "Gerry or Martin and company" and have consistantly been one of their harshest critics. My political allegiance is almost as far from Sinn Féin as you'll get on the Irish political spectrum. If you said this to me in public, infront of my aquaintances, they'd find your statement hilarious.


Yet you'll engage in no end of slippery semantic sleight of hand in order to excuse their butchery.



I asked you to define "ascendancy". You have failed to do so. "Ascendancy" implies "dominance". While the population of Catholics have increased, there is no such thing as Catholic dominance in NI. Consider yourself refuted.


Touché.


To suggest that Cú Chulainn "defended Ulster from Irish attacks" is warped.


It's true enough.


And to suggest that the UVF/LVF/DUP etc are continuing this tradition is even worse.


When have I done so? You're confusing Ulster Unionism with paramilitary activity. If you're going to do that, don't attempt to chide me for conflating Irish "Nationalism" with Sinn Fein.


All what radio programs? :p


There are a variety of programs in Gaelic on BBC Radio Ulster.


I must say, I'm very disapointed with you. I thought that you'd have provided evidence to back up your claims and that We'd be half way through my counter arguement by now.

And I expected nothing more from you than that you'd twist and writhe like a slippery snake, and so far you haven't managed to disabuse me of that notion.

[Jonathan]

The flow of peoples back and forth across the Irish Sea is well documented.
Yes, of course it is. I've brought this up in the past myself. I'm not disputing the fact. What I take issue with, is the articles biased representation of the facts.

It's quite silly for you to claim ancient connections for all of Ireland with Scotland, then turn around and deny them to Ulster specifically.
I'm not denying that Ulster had connections with Scotland, I'm denying that Ulster and Scotland had more contact that Scotland and Ireland, or Ulster and Connaught/Munster/Leinster, which is the impression that the article gives in order to fabricate a lineage for an identity which only started with the Plantation of Ulster.

Do you really think that Suibhne Geilt or Somhairle Buidhe thought of themselves as "Ulster Scots"?


I stopped reading when I saw that your starting premise was wrong.
Pehaps you would like to tell me how it was wrong, then even try to prove it!

I have done so many times, but the posts keep disappearing. ;)
I suppose you've no evidence for that one either? How convenient :rolleyes:

Were it anyone else, perhaps. Geist or Steve Davis, I could excuse. Geist doesn't know any better, and Steve thinks it's all part of the Grand:. Masonic:. Conspiracy:.

But since I've come to realize that you know you speak with forked tongue, I just can't look at you the same way.
A simple "no" would have done. Congratulations, you've just demonstrated that you are incapable of having a discussion with me without trying to insult me. "Everyone makes mistakes, only fools admitt them".:p

Were they or were they not blown up?
That's besides the point. They were not the target.

No, things didn't go according to plan. Instead, 29 random people, distributed unselectively in terms of nationality and religion, were brutally slain in an unrestrained act of wanton murder.
That sentence defeats itself. It was "restrained" and it was not "wanton". There was never an intention for those people to die.

A biased picture? What biased picture? I believe your original bone of contention was in regards to my statement to the effect that "Irish Nationalists" have killed more people in Northern Ireland than loyalist paramilitaries and the British government combined.
Here we go with the "Irish Nationalism" bit again :rolleyes:.

Yet your own source destinuishes it as "Republican Paramilitarism".

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language gives us:

Twenty-nine random victims, some Catholic, some Protestant, some Irish, some British, even some visiting from Spain, some born, some not yet to draw their first breath...

slaughtered in the street.

That's the very definition of "indiscriminate murder."
What you are implying with these definitions and your use of them, is that "Irish Nationalists" carelessly planted a bomb in Omagh which resulted in 29 deaths. That's simply not the truth. The bomb had a specific target (none of the 29 were included in that btw), but "things didn't go according to plan" and a completely "unwanted" act of destruction occurd.

...by their fruits ye shall know them.
The question is "whos fruits". You are implying that "Irish Nationalism" and "The IRA" are one and the same. This is false, and is grounded in a faulty definiton(or interpretation) of "Nationalism" on your behalf.

Yes, you are, only it's the minority nation inhabiting the isle of Hibernia.
When have I ever damned Ulster-Scots?

You haven't the humanity to accept that they don't want to be you.
LOL! Of course I do. Can you prove that I don't?

No it wasn't. What I specifically said was that the heavily Protestant leading lights of the early Irish revolutionary movement "would roll over in their graves were they to know that the fruits of their labour would amount to the ethnic cleansing of Protestants from the Republic of Ireland."
Well in that case, it was put very sloppy. You should have been more specific as to who was doing the so-called ethnic cleansing rather than just refering to the State itself.

Nowhere does that imply that the state openly engaged in ethnic cleansing, nor had I yet mentioned the words "Irish Free State."
It was the logical conclussion to your statement that you meant "Irish Free State" as the "Republic of Ireland" didn't come into existance until 1949, which is long after the main decline of the Protestant Population which we are supposed to be discussing.

Besides, there are many who would argue that the IRA was the legitimate army of the state at that point.
Many? Who are this many?

I haven't them in front of me.
Oh, so what you are saying is that you have no evidence to back up your arguement?

Have you read the book yourself...ever?

If so, then perhaps you could make his arguement yourself, based on memory.

You might enjoy Hart's book, though.
I've read some of it before. I didn't come to the same conclussion as you though.

He offers a critical look at the role of the Protestant churches in violence in the North during the revolutionary period, for example.
Not really. He focuses on Cork, not the North.

Yet you'll engage in no end of slippery semantic sleight of hand in order to excuse their butchery.
I have never "excused their butchery". I take issue with your representation of a certain event.
You on the other hand will engage in no end of slander.

It's true enough.
To suggest that Cu Chulainn was defending Ulster from "Irish attacks"? How so?

When have I done so?
I never said you did. I'm criticisming those Unionists who claim Irish as their own however.

You're confusing Ulster Unionism with paramilitary activity.
No I'm not, I'm just criticising those Unionists who claim Irish as their own.

There are a variety of programs in Gaelic on BBC Radio Ulster.
Bugger all.

And I expected nothing more from you than that you'd twist and writhe like a slippery snake, and so far you haven't managed to disabuse me of that notion.
I have no intention of disabusing you of any notions - I don't care about your opinions.

Now I'd like to get down to the real issues here, so I'd be greatful if you'd provide clear arguements and back them up with evidence. If you can't do that much, then admitt it, and I'll offer some of my counter arguements which you might like to discuss.

[Will Scarlet]

Yes, of course it is. I've brought this up in the past myself. I'm not disputing the fact. What I take issue with, is the articles biased representation of the facts.

As though your (mis)representation bears no bias... :rolleyes:


I'm not denying that Ulster had connections with Scotland, I'm denying that Ulster and Scotland had more contact that Scotland and Ireland, or Ulster and Connaught/Munster/Leinster, which is the impression that the article gives in order to fabricate a lineage for an identity which only started with the Plantation of Ulster.

No, the article "fabricates" no lineage, it simply makes mention of the millenia of shared history between Ulster and Scotland, only one episode of which comprises the Plantation.

Do you really think that Suibhne Geilt or Somhairle Buidhe thought of themselves as "Ulster Scots"?

Do you think they thought of themselves as "Irish"?


Pehaps you would like to tell me how it was wrong, then even try to prove it!


You started from the premise that the article showed bias against the rest of Ireland because its focus was Ulster. Yet if someone had posted an article about a connection between Leinster and Wales, for example, you would hardly have been so critical. That is, of course, only because you don't subscribe to a political agenda that would deprive the Welsh of either their homeland or their identity, as you do that of the Ulstermen.

I suppose you've no evidence for that one either? How convenient :rolleyes:

"[E]ither?" Hardly, Mikey. I suppose it is convenient for you that the old Phora and MSF have been wiped away, so that it would not be so readily apparent what a despicable shill for violent thuggery you are, though you seem determined to show your ass once again.


A simple "no" would have done. Congratulations, you've just demonstrated that you are incapable of having a discussion with me without trying to insult me. "Everyone makes mistakes, only fools admitt them".:p


I call a spade a spade.

That's besides the point. They were not the target.

They were, however, the victims.


That sentence defeats itself. It was "restrained" and it was not "wanton". There was never an intention for those people to die.


They did, however, die. Brutally. Even the ones who had not yet been born.


Here we go with the "Irish Nationalism" bit again :rolleyes:.

Yet your own source destinuishes it as "Republican Paramilitarism".


And what has been the active agent of "Irish Nationalism" in Ulster for the duration of The Troubles? That's right: Republican Paramilatarism.

And what kind of brutal murderers are you making mealymouthed excuses for here? That's right: Republican Paramilitary terrorists. I suppose you'd defend their fuel and cigarette smuggling activities, too.

It's obscene. You won't find me offering up excuses for the likes of the Shankill Butchers, but you'll go on and on about how those murdering Provo thugs are such maligned, misunderstood lads.


What you are implying with these definitions and your use of them, is that "Irish Nationalists" carelessly planted a bomb in Omagh which resulted in 29 deaths.


They carefully planted a bomb in the middle of a busy shopping street and then carelessly detonated it, causing the deaths of 29 innocent people of a variety of religions and nationalities.

And you're making excuses for them. How twisted is your soul?

That's simply not the truth. The bomb had a specific target (none of the 29 were included in that btw), but "things didn't go according to plan" and a completely "unwanted" act of destruction occurd.

Unwanted?

The innocent people they slew were wanted. The unborn children they ripped away from the world before they ever saw the light of day were wanted.


The question is "whos fruits". You are implying that "Irish Nationalism" and "The IRA" are one and the same. This is false, and is grounded in a faulty definiton(or interpretation) of "Nationalism" on your behalf.


In the popular conception (which is largely what matters), it is essentially true. It is the stern assertion of many of the groups calling themselves IRA, as well. And as is demonstrated by your willingness to make excuses for them even when they are caught with the blood of innocents on their hands, they form a larger part of your conception of "Irish Nationalism" than you are readily willing to admit.

When have I ever damned Ulster-Scots?

You do it when you insist that they give up themselves to become you.

You also did it when you turned this, which was intended to be a thread celebrating the culture and folkways of the Ulster Scots, into a battleground with your triumphalist bout of semantic obfuscation designed to rob them of their identity.


Well in that case, it was put very sloppy. You should have been more specific as to who was doing the so-called ethnic cleansing rather than just refering to the State itself.

I foolishly assumed you were aware of the various nuances expressed by the preposition from.


Many? Who are this many?


See above.


Oh, so what you are saying is that you have no evidence to back up your arguement?


No, I'm saying I don't currently possess copies of those books.


Have you read the book yourself...ever?


Yes.


If so, then perhaps you could make his arguement yourself, based on memory.


While he does not specifically use the words "ethnic cleansing," he describes acts of brutality by a variety of parties, both Nationalist and Unionist. He discusses many instances of homes burned as well as people terrorized and killed, and posits these as a major impetus in the adandonment of the Free State on the part of the majority of its Protestants.



Not really. He focuses on Cork, not the North.


You are correct. I was thinking of another of his books, The IRA at War. It is in that work that he proffers a critical look at the role of the Protestant Churches in violence in the North.


I have never "excused their butchery". I take issue with your representation of a certain event.

You deny that those innocent people were indiscriminately murdered. You bat your eye and declare them accidental casualties of war.

Of course, then you open the other side of your face and insist that the perpetrators of the act do not represent "Irish Nationalism" and are not its legitimate agents.

Why do you insist on offering up excuses for these criminal thugs?



To suggest that Cu Chulainn was defending Ulster from "Irish attacks"? How so?


In that he was defending Ulster from attacks by the rest of Ireland.


I never said you did. I'm criticisming those Unionists who claim Irish as their own however.


They are not denying you the right to use it as well. Long before the Irish state began its program of teaching mythology rather than history to Irish schoolchildren, it was understood that one could be both proud to be of Irish extraction and a proponent of remaining in the Union as a guarantee of the preservation of certain rights that would be (and historically have been) denied under the rule of "Irish Nationalists".


No I'm not, I'm just criticising those Unionists who claim Irish as their own.


Does the Republic of Ireland have a copyright on Gaelic?


Bugger all.

You can listen to some (http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/radio/) online. They also offer some programming in Ulster Scots.


I have no intention of disabusing you of any notions - I don't care about your opinions.


You spend an awful lot of time wrestling with me for one who doesn't care.


Now I'd like to get down to the real issues here, so I'd be greatful if you'd provide clear arguements and back them up with evidence. If you can't do that much, then admitt it, and I'll offer some of my counter arguements which you might like to discuss.

The real issues have been on the table for some time now Mikey, and pretending that they haven't been dealt with and that you have some mysterious counter-arguments waiting in the wings doesn't serve nearly as well as you think it does to distract us from your utter lack of substance or truthfulness in this thread.

[A. Radek]

No new material? I think he should carry on with his counterarguments and not waste time responding to what he has already responded to more than once.

As an aside, many Protestants indeed consider themselves Irish, and are pro Republican; they immigrated to Scotland, and many immigrated back, during the so-called 'Protestant Ascendancy'. Some also supported the Easter Uprising, and despise the 1949 Agreements and consider them treason by the South. It is the British, and their gerrymandering puppets like the Paisleys who have confused religion with nativism, not the Nationalists or Republicans. Whatever quarrels with Catholicism they have, they don't conflate the two.

[Will Scarlet]

No new material? I think he should carry on with his counterarguments and not waste time responding to what he has already responded to more than once.

Here comes the Phora's very own Yappy Little Dog to leap around the Big Dogs chanting "Go get him, Shane! Get him, Kamandi! Hey, fella! You don't wanna mess with Sulla!" all while being very careful to stay out of the way of the snapping teeth.


As an aside, many Protestants indeed consider themselves Irish, and are pro Republican; they immigrated to Scotland, and many immigrated back, during the so-called 'Protestant Ascendancy'.


And as has already been dealt with in this thread, others considered themselves both Irish and Unionist, seeing Ireland as having a place within the Union. Indeed, this was largely the case among Unionists until well after the establishment of the Rebublic.

Some also supported the Easter Uprising, and despise the 1949 Agreements and consider them treason by the South.


And as has likewise been dealt with in this thread, the subsequent hijacking of "Irish Nationalism" in favor a Catholic nationalism bordering on clerical fascism, a trend prompting the vast majority of Ireland's Protestant population to flee, is a slap in their faces.



It is the British, and their gerrymandering puppets like the Paisleys who have confused religion with nativism, not the Nationalists or Republicans.


No, fool, Britain has made moves more than once (as they are now) to wash their hands of the Ulster affair and give control of the entire island to Irish rule. That men "like the Paisleys", or their historical counterparts who signed the Ulster Covenant (http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4326), realize(d) that accession to Ireland would spell for them the same fate as that of their coreligionists in the South and demand(ed) that Ulster retain its place in the Union as a safeguard against such an occurrence has been more of a thorn in the side of the British establishment than a boon, so to refer to them as the "gerrymandering puppets" of "the British" is downright idiotic.



Whatever quarrels with Catholicism they have, they don't conflate the two.

Unfortunately, plenty of Catholics conflate "Irish Nationalism" with their religion when they set out to do violence on some "proddy scum." :rolleyes:

[A. Radek]

Here comes the Phora's very own Yappy Little Dog to leap around the Big Dogs chanting "Go get him, Shane! Get him, Kamandi! Hey, fella! You don't wanna mess with Sulla!" all while being very careful to stay out of the way of the snapping teeth.

You're the yapping lil puppy here, and getting surlier by the minute, when your fantasy 'history' gets dragged out into the daylight. Unfortunately, nobody feels like giving you a sqeeky toy and rubbing your tummy.

Stick writing inane loony gibberish about there being some kind of old timey 'Southern Aristocracy' and trying to pass off their amoral, lazy greed as 'white culture'. Those are funnier.

And as has already been dealt with in this thread, others considered themselves both Irish and Unionist, seeing Ireland as having a place within the Union. Indeed, this was largely the case among Unionists until well after the establishment of the Rebublic.

Yes, and you still get it wrong, no matter how many times it's explained to you, in clear english ...

And as has likewise been dealt with in this thread, the subsequent hijacking of "Irish Nationalism" in favor a Catholic nationalism bordering on clerical fascism, a trend prompting the vast majority of Ireland's Protestant population to flee, is a slap in their faces.

Some sectarians adopting a cause for their own ends isn't 'hijacking a movement'; you get this consistently wrong, also, but you're dense, so it's expected ... Does the KKK showing up to 'help' the Minuteman organization ring a bell here? .... Those fucking moron Nazis crashing a press conference in Washington on immigration? ...

No, fool, Britain has made moves more than once (as they are now) to wash their hands of the Ulster affair and give control of the entire island to Irish rule. That men "like the Paisleys", or their historical counterparts who signed the Ulster Covenant (http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4326), realize(d) that accession to Ireland would spell for them the same fate as that of their coreligionists in the South and demand(ed) that Ulster retain its place in the Union as a safeguard against such an occurrence has been more of a thorn in the side of the British establishment than a boon, so to refer to them as the "gerrymandering puppets" of "the British" is downright idiotic.

'Idiotic' meaning it doesn't fit into your dumb theories of Irish Republicanism, which in turn don't fit into your dumb, ignorant theory that the Catholics are going to butcher Protestants if the North gets reunited wit the South. We get it ...

Unfortunately, plenty of Catholics conflate "Irish Nationalism" with their religion when they set out to do violence on some "proddy scum." :rolleyes:

you mean like your conflating 'Brits Out' with Catholicism, even though it's the Brits and the Paisleys who have historically been making it a religious pogrom for three hundred years? Gee, I wonder why?

[Will Scarlet]

You're the yapping lil puppy here, and getting surlier by the minute, when your fantasy 'history' gets dragged out into the daylight. Unfortunately, nobody feels like giving you a sqeeky toy and rubbing your tummy.


No, see, the Big Dogs actually say something. All you are is a fucking cheerleader.

As for the "surlier by the minute" part, it is you whose posts demonstrate a unique tendency to deteriorate in both typographical accuracy and coherence as the conversation wears on. Me? I'm cool as a cucumber.

Some sectarians adopting a cause for their own ends isn't 'hijacking a movement'; you get this consistently wrong, also, but you're dense, so it's expected ...

We're not talking about "[s]ome sectarians adopting a cause for their own ends". We're talking about a total shift in the paradigm.

For most observers, the conflict is couched entirely in terms of religious strife. For some others it's couched in terms of some mythological "English Occupation," which is proven to be false by the very fact that England was prepared to hand over control of the entire island to Irish rule, but the people of Ulster rose up and demanded their place within the Union.

For the people of Ulster, who say that they're British largely because it's their one protection from being, as one particularly vile 'Irish Nationalist' put it, "forced to embrace their Irishness", the reality is much clearer.
http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/4197/irishout0az.jpg



'Idiotic' meaning it doesn't fit into your dumb theories of Irish Republicanism, which in turn don't fit into your dumb, ignorant theory that the Catholics are going to butcher Protestants if the North gets reunited wit the South. We get it ...


Butcher? Well, if the past is any example...
http://www.upmj.co.uk/blood10a.jpg
http://www.upmj.co.uk/blood7a.jpg
http://www.upmj.co.uk/funeral-300.jpg

Or at the very least, brutalize and intimidate them into fleeing their homes, just as was done in the so-called Free State and is [i]still[/b] being done in Ulster today.

you mean like your conflating 'Brits Out' with Catholicism, even though it's the Brits and the Paisleys who have historically been making it a religious pogrom for three hundred years? Gee, I wonder why?

The Paisleys haven't been big players on the political scene for three hundred years, numbskull. And no, the British have not been conducting a centuries-long "religious pogrom," either. As has been shown, Catholicism flourishes under the secular, democratic government of Northern Ireland, while Protestantism has been nearly wiped out in the Republic.

I'll spell it out for you once more, since you're a total retard: If the Unionists (who happen to be majority Protestant) of Ulster didn't have good cause to fear for their survival under Irish rule, based largely on the experiences of their friends and family members who had previously lived in the territory now comprising the Republic of Ireland, they would be far less likely to seek solace in the arms of the United Kingdom. As it stands, though, centuries of attempts at ethnic cleansing, from the uprising of 1641 to 1970's Belfast, have disabused them of any illusion that the Irish care one whit about protecting their religious freedom or allowing them their own national identity.

[Jonathan]

As though your (mis)representation bears no bias...
Would you care to provide a single shred of evidence to refute anything that I posted in relation to the article? . . . Oh no, I forgot, you didn’t have time to read it :rolleyes:
No, the article "fabricates" no lineage, it simply makes mention of the millenia of shared history between Ulster and Scotland, only one episode of which comprises the Plantation.
The purpose of the article is clearly to provide a lineage for the Ulster-Scots.
Why else would you name the thread “Ulster-Scots History and Culture” :rolleyes:
Do you think they thought of themselves as "Irish"?
Let everyone see that GRC has failed and/or refused to answer the question.
I never said that they saw themselves as Irish. The article however, tries to suggest that the likes of Suibhne Geilt and Somhairle Buidhe and part of this “Ulster-Scots lineage” which is false. They certainly didn’t identify with the “Ulster-Scots”.
You started from the premise that the article showed bias against the rest of Ireland because its focus was Ulster.
No, I started with the premise that the article is trying to establish a lineage for the Ulster-Scots.
Yet if someone had posted an article about a connection between Leinster and Wales, for example, you would hardly have been so critical.
That’s quite a wild accusation.
Posting an article about “a connection” is different from fabricating a lineage. I recognise that there a connection between Ulster and Scotland, but no more so than between Scotland and Ireland, or Ulster and Connaught/Munster/Leinster.
If an article detailing the connection between Leinster and Wales tried to suggest that Wales and Leinster were part of some 17th century identity, at the expense of Ireland in total, then I would have come down very hard on it.
That is, of course, only because you don't subscribe to a political agenda that would deprive the Welsh of either their homeland or their identity, as you do that of the Ulstermen.
I do not subscribe to a political agenda, which would deprive the Ulstermen of their homeland and identity either.
"[E]ither?" Hardly, Mikey. I suppose it is convenient for you that the old Phora and MSF have been wiped away, so that it would not be so readily apparent what a despicable shill for violent thuggery you are, though you seem determined to show your ass once again.
If I’m so determined “to show my ass” as you say, then it should be very easy for you to point out in future. I’ll be waiting J
I call a spade a spade.
You are a slanderer. At the moment you are trying to pass me off as a “shill for violent thuggery” and a biased historian. This is not unlike the time that you accused me, in the wrong, of being an irredentist on MSF. The mud just doesn’t stick my friend.
They were, however, the victims.
Like I’ve said (time and time again), that’s not the point.
They did, however, die. Brutally. Even the ones who had not yet been born.
You have not answered any questions with this reply. It looks as if you are now coming around to the realisation that the Omagh bombing does not come under the heading of “indiscriminate murder” but still cannot admit it.
And what has been the active agent of "Irish Nationalism" in Ulster for the duration of The Troubles? That's right: Republican Paramilatarism.
Irish Nationalism=/=Irish Republicanism
Is the GAA part of Irish Republicanism IYO?
I suppose you’ve never heard of the SDLP either?
Furthermore, Irish Nationalism does not solely exist in Northern Ireland. Even if everyone in NI who claimed to be a Nationalist was a Republican, you would still have the entire population in the south to deal with.
And what kind of brutal murderers are you making mealymouthed excuses for here?
To call them murderers implies some sort of prior intent on their behalf, yet you have already admitted that they had no intention of killing the 29.
I suppose you'd defend their fuel and cigarette smuggling activities, too.
This is more slander. Can you provide any evidence to for this claim at all?
It's obscene. You won't find me offering up excuses for the likes of the Shankill Butchers, but you'll go on and on about how those murdering Provo thugs are such maligned, misunderstood lads.
This is more slander again. I have never defended “murdering thugs”. I have taken issue with your representation of the Omagh bombing.
On a technical note, the Provos were not responsible for the Omagh bomb, it was the RIRA. You are displaying an amazing ignorance of the subject.
They carefully planted a bomb in the middle of a busy shopping street and then carelessly detonated it, causing the deaths of 29 innocent people of a variety of religions and nationalities.
They had no intention of do that.

And you're making excuses for them. How twisted is your soul?
Don’t you get tired of throwing mud that doesn’t stick? Especially for a guy who says he doesn’t have the time to reply my original posts :rolleyes:
Unwanted?

The innocent people they slew were wanted. The unborn children they ripped away from the world before they ever saw the light of day were wanted.
You are now saying that the Omagh bombing was intended to kill those people? Any evidence for that one?
In the popular conception (which is largely what matters), it is essentially true.
That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve read on this incarnation of the Phora. I suppose the GAA are responsible for the Troubles too, yeah? :rolleyes:
It is the stern assertion of many of the groups calling themselves IRA, as well.
It’s the stern assertion of some that the IRA council is the legitimate government of the Island of Ireland. So what?
If we were going on “stern assertions” I wouldn’t have replied to your original posts.
And as is demonstrated by your willingness to make excuses for them even when they are caught with the blood of innocents on their hands, they form a larger part of your conception of "Irish Nationalism" than you are readily willing to admit.
Time and time again I have pointed out that Irish Nationalism and Irish Republicanism are not one and the same. You have no evidence to back this up. Your whole argument is with more straw men than I can count.
You do it when you insist that they give up themselves to become you.
When have I insisted that they “become me”. A United Ireland does not necessitate that the entire population is Irish. I’ve said this hundreds of times before. Enjoy attacking your straw man though.

You also did it when you turned this, which was intended to be a thread celebrating the culture and folkways of the Ulster Scots, into a battleground with your triumphalist bout of semantic obfuscation designed to rob them of their identity.
That’s untrue. I made several remarks about the “history and culture of the Ulster-Scots” but you said “I can’t read/reply to all of them”, but you managed to reply to the ones that referred to NI though. It is you who has turned the discussion to NI in this way.
See above.
See above what? Where did you address the claim that “many would regard the IRA as the legitimate force of the Irish Free State at the time”. You haven’t.
While he does not specifically use the words "ethnic cleansing," he describes acts of brutality by a variety of parties, both Nationalist and Unionist.
This is called libel. Let’s dispel a few of your myths. No he never mentions, “ethnic cleansing”, and he never infers it either.
He discusses many instances of homes burned as well as people terrorized and killed
Indeed he does, but none of this points to “ethnic cleansing”. Me mentions many instances in which informers, spies, RIC men, Magistrates, British soldiers etc were killed. These were the careful executions, an intimidation, of legitimate targets in a war, and as far from gratuitous sectarian violence as you’ll get. Let’s not forget that the majority of British forces serving in Ireland at this time were Irish Catholics. For you to suggest that the War of Independence was “ethnic cleansing” is like suggesting that every act of Rebellion on this island since the reformation has been a sectarian conflict, which of course, is nonsense.
quote Lionel Curtis, political advisor to Lloyd George, writing in early 1921 "Protestants in the south do not complain of persecution on sectarian grounds. If Protestant farmers are murdered, it is not by reason of their religion, but rather because they are under suspicion as Loyalist. The distinction is fine, but a real one."
and posits these as a major impetus in the abandonment of the Free State on the part of the majority of its Protestants.
LOL! The book begins with 1919 and ends with 1923. The Irish Free State only came into existence in January 1922, and was engulfed in a Civil War until mid-1923.
However, I’ll give you something to think about:
The first Seanad Eireann(Senate of the Free State) was comprised of 60 members, 30 of which were appointed by the President of the Executive Council (W.T. Cosgrave, an Irish Catholic and veteran of 1916 and the War of Independence). Of these, the vast majority were Anglo-Irish Protestants such as W.B. Yeats, Lord Glenavy (a Unionst) etc. And the Protestant/Unionist University (Trinity College) was given disproportionate representation. These were concessions made by the Irish Nationalist who ran the Free State, to the Anglo-Irish in order to facilitate their transition from “Protestant Ascendancy” to equal citizens in the Free State. Furthermore, the first Minister for Finance in the Irish Free State, Ernest Blythe, was a Presbyterian from Antrim with a solid Ulster-Scot pedigree. The first Minister for Foreign Affairs, Desmond Fitzgerald(Irish Catholic, 1916 and WoI veteran), was married to an Ulster-Scot Presbyterian, Mary McConnell. The first President of Ireland was the protestant Douglas Hyde. And Countess Markievicz(1916 and WoI veteran and Sinn Féin MP) was herself from the Anglo-Irish Gore-Booth family.
Let’s not forget the Proclamation of Irish Independence:
The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.

Or the fact that Padraig Pearse’s father was an Englishman, or that Arthur Griffith(founder of Sinn Féin) was of Protestant descent.

In light of these “revelations” can you still believe that protestants were “ethnically cleansed” from Ireland?
You are correct. I was thinking of another of his books, The IRA at War. It is in that work that he proffers a critical look at the role of the Protestant Churches in violence in the North.
Well then, you can tell me all about it J
You deny that those innocent people were indiscriminately murdered. You bat your eye and declare them accidental casualties of war.
And?
Of course, then you open the other side of your face and insist that the perpetrators of the act do not represent "Irish Nationalism" and are not its legitimate agents.

Why do you insist on offering up excuses for these criminal thugs?
I don’t offer up excuses for criminal thugs.

In that he was defending Ulster from attacks by the rest of Ireland.
He was a man involved in a feud between Ulster and Connacht.
They are not denying you the right to use it as well
I never said that they were.
Long before the Irish state began its program of teaching mythology rather than history to Irish schoolchildren, it was understood that one could be both proud to be of Irish extraction and a proponent of remaining in the Union as a guarantee of the preservation of certain rights that would be (and historically have been) denied under the rule of "Irish Nationalists".
What rights have been denied under the rule of “Irish Nationalists”?
Does the Republic of Ireland have a copyright on Gaelic?
I never said it did. What are you getting at?

You can listen to some online. They also offer some programming in Ulster Scots.
Good for them.
You spend an awful lot of time wrestling with me for one who doesn't care.
You’re not the only one reading these posts.
The real issues have been on the table for some time now Mikey, and pretending that they haven't been dealt with and that you have some mysterious counter-arguments waiting in the wings doesn't serve nearly as well as you think it does to distract us from your utter lack of substance or truthfulness in this thread.
OK, you can start with refuting the comments in my first reply. Then maybe you’ll get on to my comments in this post about the identity of the victims in Cork, or the composition of the Free State government. Or the facts that many protestants left Ireland after the treaty on account of “wanting to live in the UK” or because they were British soldiers who were no longer needed in Ireland, or because many Protestants converted to Catholics because they themselves were only a few generations removed from Catholics who had turned over in hard times, or because many protestants were indiscriminately burned out of their businesses by the Black and Tans, or because they married Catholics and raised their children Catholic(which was a well established practice before the Treaty), or because they left due to increasing pressure in business because of equal opportunities for Catholics after the Land Bills, or because . . . The point is, there were numerous reasons for Protestants to leave/convert etc but none of this evolved “ethnic cleansing” :rolleyes:

[Jonathan]

1)We must try to keep personal insults at a minimum, this is not the Lounge.
2)Pictures which are particularly graphic are not alowed AFAIK, so GRC will have to keep the to a minimun too. This isn't me trying to annoy GRC or whatever, it's just the rules.

[Jonathan]

I also think it's worth pointing out that GRC makes the exact same claims in his replies to A. Radek which he makes in his replies to me, yet he has still to provide evidence to prove them.

In the posts to A.Radek, I note that he mentions Irish Nationalism being the same as "Catholic clerical fascism", and that Southern Protestants were forced to flee from the Free State, and that Unionist fears are based on Catholic Pogroms against Protestants.

GRC, you haven't proven any of these in your replies to me, inspite of me asking you to, so don't try passing them off on A.Radek either.:)

[A. Radek]

Meh, he's repeating himself, and not even addressing the topics.

Funny you should mention Patty Pearse. they were very distant relatives of my grandfather, according to him. I assume you're referring to one of the Pearse brothers executed for their participation in the Easter Uprising.

LOL! The book begins with 1919 and ends with 1923. The Irish Free State only came into existence in January 1922, and was engulfed in a Civil War until mid-1923.
However, I’ll give you something to think about:
The first Seanad Eireann(Senate of the Free State) was comprised of 60 members, 30 of which were appointed by the President of the Executive Council (W.T. Cosgrave, an Irish Catholic and veteran of 1916 and the War of Independence). Of these, the vast majority were Anglo-Irish Protestants such as W.B. Yeats, Lord Glenavy (a Unionst) etc. And the Protestant/Unionist University (Trinity College) was given disproportionate representation. These were concessions made by the Irish Nationalist who ran the Free State, to the Anglo-Irish in order to facilitate their transition from “Protestant Ascendancy” to equal citizens in the Free State. Furthermore, the first Minister for Finance in the Irish Free State, Ernest Blythe, was a Presbyterian from Antrim with a solid Ulster-Scot pedigree. The first Minister for Foreign Affairs, Desmond Fitzgerald(Irish Catholic, 1916 and WoI veteran), was married to an Ulster-Scot Presbyterian, Mary McConnell. The first President of Ireland was the protestant Douglas Hyde. And Countess Markievicz(1916 and WoI veteran and Sinn Féin MP) was herself from the Anglo-Irish Gore-Booth family.
Let’s not forget the Proclamation of Irish Independence:
The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.

Yes, indeed. If we can find this stuff, 'George' surely can.

[Jonathan]

Meh, he's repeating himself, and not even addressing the topics.
Repeating himself is right, I was surfing through the Phora a few minutes ago and found an old thread on Scottish Nationalism where GRC had posted as Alfred_Dunhill and JacksonInTheValley where me makes the exact same assertions without ever backing them up. Several of his posts were deleted by on of the Admins, and CharlesMartel had to close the thread in the end.

Maybe we should call Stan "Cathal Casúr"(Charles Martel in Gaelic ;)) from now on :p

Funny you should mention Patty Pearse. they were very distant relatives of my grandfather, according to him. I assume you're referring to one of the Pearse brothers executed for their participation in the Easter Uprising.
Yes. Patrick Peasre = Padraig Pearse = Padraig Mac Piarais

A relation of yours eh? Good for you.:)

Anyway, I've got to leave now, and I wont be on the internet again until Monday. Enjoy:)