Ireland over the last 11,000 years:
- -9000: Ice Age: covered in ice, part of mainland Europe
- -8000:
- -7000:
- -6000: Stone Age: people arrive
- -5000:
- -4000: Neolithic: farming (-3500) arrives from Spain, forests cleared with stone axes; wheat, barley, sheep, goats, cows; walls, forts; passage tombs (-3200, pictured above)
- -3000:
- -2000: Bronze Age (-1800): bronze made with tin from Spain; gold jewellery, the wheel, oxen, weaving, alcohol
- -1000: Iron Age: Celts arrive (-700), the first Indo-Europeans, probably from Spain; bog men, kings
- +1: Christianity (432), flowering of Irish culture (500s), sends missionaries to Britain, Book of Kells (800), Vikings found Dublin (841).
- +1000: Off-and-on British rule, starting in 1171, the Great Potato Famine (1845-1849), millions flee famine and poverty, going to the Americas and Australia.
Ireland over the last 1,000 years, century by century:
- 1000s: Vikings overthrown at the Battle of Clontarf (1014)
- 1100s: British rule (1171)
- 1200s: parliament
- 1300s: Scotland tries to take over (1315), fails but seriously weakens British rule, now limited to Dublin and the Pale, the region nearby
- 1400s:
- 1500s: British reconquest, particularly under Elizabeth I
- 1600s: plantations: land taken from Irish Catholics and given to Protestant Ulster Scots, who become overlords; Catholics lose rights; Cromwell puts down uprising, hundreds of thousands die (1650); Battle of the Boyne (1690);
- 1700s: Ireland screwed by British trade policy; many Ulster Scots move to North America where they become the Scotch Irish, settling especially in Appalachia.
- 1800s: Catholic Emancipation: Catholics regain many rights (1829), the Great Potato Famine (1845-1849) kills a million while a million and more flee, mainly to America where they become Irish Americans.
- 1900s: after hundreds of years of uprisings the Sinn Fein overthrows British rule in the south (1922); Northern Ireland remains under British rule.
More on British rule:
In the 1600s the British government took land from Irish Catholics, made it into plantations and gave it to the Ulster Scots – English-speaking Protestants from Britain, mainly Scottish Presbyterians. In America they are called the Scotch Irish. They are not Irish by blood – just Scottish people who lived in Ireland for a time before coming to America. Andrew Jackson, Davy Crockett and John McCain are Scotch Irish.
Meanwhile the Irish Catholics lost not just their land but their rights too: the right to practise their religion (Catholicism), speak their language (Irish Gaelic), to buy property, stand for parliament, teach school, serve in the army, etc.
On paper Ireland became part of the United Kingdom, but in practice it was a British colony serving British interests, complete with dispossessed natives. A model for America?
Ireland as an island full of unhappy Catholics made it a threat to Britain (Protestant) since a Catholic enemy state – read France – could stage an uprising, free Ireland and then use it as a base to strike at Britain. It came close to that in 1690, but the British were able to defeat the French and Irish led by James II, the overthrown Catholic king of Britain, at the Battle of the Boyne.
Despite Catholic Emancipation in 1829 Protestants remained firmly on top, possessing most of the wealth. The Irish had lost their language, now speaking mainly English, but not their religion.
– Abagond, 2010, 2015.
See also:
- Irish Americans
- White American racism against Natives in the 1500s – the Irish were the original “natives”
- Proto-Indo-Europeans – the people the Celts came from, as they were before -4000, near the Black Sea.
- Catholic
- British Empire
- rootedness
547
The writer Robert E. Howard created a pretty good fictionalized version of the Battle of Clontarf in his story “The Grey God Passes”.
LikeLike
A model for America?
Oh, very much so. And consciously, too, for the most part.
LikeLike
Proud to be Irish… Not so proud to also be part ‘Scots-Irish’.
LikeLike
And why is that ColorofLuv??
Without being pedantic…well I am actually ha ha ha, if we strictly sticking to precise ‘labels’ and ‘terms’ I think 1100s was the Anglo-Norman who ruled
LikeLike
Proud to be a merkin!
LikeLike
Ouch… argh… lol
LikeLike
The Influence of Ireland – The Marcus Garvey & UNIA Papers
Starting at lxx:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CKJrUKdSZwkC&pg=PR78&lpg=PR78&dq=Marcus+Garvey+on+Irish+Nationalist+Eamon+de+Valera&source=bl&ots=EuGl7R5zCN&sig=J8gmY-L8KtSVOItGym6R4yNlWTs&hl=en&ei=CnOzS93RO8_C4gaZ1KzWAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Marcus%20Garvey%20on%20Irish%20Nationalist%20Eamon%20de%20Valera&f=false
LikeLike
Interesting J…
and Dubois –
http://books.google.com/books?id=2dTVrpkls-UC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=web+dubois+and+irish&source=bl&ots=l2fqxbwVlE&sig=wBDFHfisnqXsgvJugTjBQ_OrQ_8&hl=pt-BR&ei=HXizS6WlNsL58AbLooH0AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Then again: Interesting how Dubois & Garvey were at odds with one another…
http://afgen.com/garvey_dubois.html
LikeLike
I’ve often wondered why there wasn’t more interaction within the Irish American and Black communities, but after reading part of the excerpt from the link I shared above, I understand a bit better.
LikeLike
Despite Catholic Emancipation in 1829 Protestants remained firmly on top, possessing most of the wealth. The Irish had lost their language, now speaking mainly English, but not their religion.
In light of revelations about the Catholic Church, especially in Ireland, it would have been better for the Irish to have kept their language and lost their religion.
LikeLike
ColorOfLuv
“Proud to be Irish… Not so proud to also be part ‘Scots-Irish’.”
The Ulster Scots were a tough group, it wasn’t there idea to move to Ireland. For the most part they were taken from there homes at the Scottish border and planted in Ireland with nothing more than the cloths on there back. I’m proud to be both.
abagond
Wow I’m impressed, you summed everything up pretty nicely in such a short article.
The Gaeilge language is seeing resurgence in Ireland, over 500,000 thousands speakers and growing, more schools are popping up everyday, and it is the official language of the government, and officially recognized by the European union.
LikeLike
No Slappz
“In light of revelations about the Catholic Church, especially in Ireland, it would have been better for the Irish to have kept their language and lost their religion.”
Not often I agree with you, but on this I agree 100%!!
LikeLike
@O Dochartaigh…
I was stating that simply because there are some instances that “some” Scots-Irish did indeed have slaves; however, if you could point to the contrary, I would greatly appreciate it. (Granted, I would say this was very limited, but would like some numbers on it.) Just interested in it from a historical perspective.
LikeLike
Very well done, Abagond. I’m interested to see the comments to come.
Because when whites look at the British-Irish dynamic, they’re oddly “insightful” when analyzing the colonization of an indigenous people, even to the point of open outrage against colonialists.
Drop some POC into the mix, however, and suddenly…everything’s “different”.
LikeLike
@Ankhesen,
You said, “Drop some POC into the mix, however, and suddenly…everything’s “different”.”
I don’t think that is the case with a lot of the posters here. I think the main problem is society in general. People live in their own bubbles without paying much attention anything else.
LikeLike
No, I agree with Ankhesen, it is more than just bubbles. The Irish are Real People now, so now their history is taken way more seriously.
LikeLike
ah… gotchya. I think I misunderstood. I see what you’re saying.
LikeLike
Colorofluv
Well most of the people who owned slaves in Ireland were Anglo Irish, usually wealthy born Englishmen. I’m sure some of the wealthy Scotch Irish owned slaves, but most of the people from the Scotch border planted in Ireland were poor and forced to move to Ireland against there will by King James the 1st. The majority of this poor Scotch Irish stock were the ones to move to America.
LikeLike
What explains the rising success of the Irish in America? How does the Irish Experience compare with the black experience? How does it differ?
What have the Irish do that blacks have not?
Does any of Ireland’s ancient history matter to the Irish alive today?
LikeLike
Right, this post is just for starters. I am going to do posts on Irish Americans, particularly as compared to Black Americans.
LikeLike
Ireland: a brief history
6000 BC: stone age: people arrive
Earliest recorded evidence of white flight.
LikeLike
can u post on irish men & black women eventually?
LikeLike
Bay Area guy,
LOL. Oh, honey…I don’t battle; I just observe. While I’ll be the first to tout patience as a virtue, battling is more for the likes of our dear Abagond, as he is a far more patient person than I.
LikeLike
i kno next to nada about irish history other than st.patrick’s day and i had always wondered about the little tensions between the british and irish…
LikeLike
there is a book,”how the irish became white.”
LikeLike
@Peanut –
Yeah, up until recently, there were still signs in London that said “No Blacks, No Irish”. (For this reason some overlap in the Irish & Jamaican neighborhoods.)
IN THE U.S.
http://www.victoriana.com/Irish/IrishPoliticalCartoons.htm
LikeLike
To ColorofLuv
Yeah, up until recently, there were still signs in London that said “No Blacks, No Irish”. (For this reason some overlap in the Irish & Jamaican neighborhoods.)
I think it was supposedly to be usually:
“No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs”
That said I have heard about the signs but never seen a photograph. I suspect that it was actually quite rare to see such a sign (I mean after all, if I saw such a sign and I were Irish or Black I would be inclined to toss a rock through the window of such a business late at night..) but expresses the reality of being often rejected by landlords and employers if you fell within one of those groups.
LikeLike
Just google those same words NO Blacks No Irish ,No dogs as an IMAGE and you will see pictures
LikeLike
Uncle Milton,
And no the signs were not ‘rare’
LikeLike
Somewhat related to Irish discrimination. If you’ve never seen it, it is a great Film and based on a true story.
“In The Name of Thy Father”, with Daniel Day Lewis.
LikeLike
(Origins of the phrase) ‘taking the mick’
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=take%20the%20mick
And again:
http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/Irish/Irish_pf.html
LikeLike
Abagond, i love your blog as a site of intense intellectualism and scholarly debate. As a young 16 year-old black girl, it naturally helps me deal with a lot of stereotypes. I’m a fan.
That said, why don’t you ever post on the resurgence of the black middle class. In your article about racial steering, you note that the middle class is 9% black. I, myself,am part of the black middle class. And i live in an area that is 96% white. The black middle class has grown 50% in the last 40 years (black in america Cnn). So why don’t you address in a post the unique difficulties the black middle class faces and whether you believe the black middle class will grow in the future. I am optimistic, in the last few years, I have seen more black people move into my heavily Caucasian neighborhood and I believe the black middle class is growing and will soon become a powerful force in America.
LikeLike
@ Abagond,
thanks for this, mate! I love Irish history and although I’m a dark-brown British-born Trinidadian, I am also 1/8 Irish on my gran’s side. I am also a Catholic so the recent struggles in Northern Ireland mean more to me than to most Britons of any hue.
Thanks again.
Menelik Charles
London England
LikeLike
I walk the line said:
I believe the black middle class is growing and will soon become a powerful force in America.
Menelik says:
Barack & Michelle Obama!
Menelik Charles
London England
LikeLike
I entreat you to address this abagond.
LikeLike
I walk the line:
I did do a post on the black middle-class in America:
LikeLike
Menelik Charles said:
“I am also a Catholic so the recent struggles in Northern Ireland mean more to me”
Same here.
LikeLike
What have the Irish do that blacks have not?
Access to formal equality during 234 years of U.S. history, for starters.
Blacks have had access to that for 43 years.
It makes a difference, RR.
LikeLike
^Thad, you mean no_slappz, I’m presuming? I know… easy to get those two confused. 🙂
LikeLike
I get them confused all the time.
LikeLike
Black Jamaican (bi-racial) here with Irish heritage. (Mother is black Jamaican, Father is Scot-Irish American-His maternal grandparents and mother are full Irish) In the Caribbean, (and also in the US, however it is rarely discussed in the history books) Irish indentured servants and black slaves often came together, intermarried and fought against the British slave owners. My grandmother always brings up this bit of information when we have family gatherings and my papa’s grandparents/parents give my mommie hell. She always scoffs at them and says “When the British saw the power we had, they turned you (Irish) white and you (Irish) left we . You (the Irish) forget we was once one and the same.”
LikeLike
thaddeus, I wrote:
What have the Irish DONE that blacks have not?
You wrote:
Access to formal equality during 234 years of U.S. history, for starters. Blacks have had access to that for 43 years.
Okay. Where is the benevolent, prospering black nation in Africa that rights all the wrongs of America?
Anyway, here’s what the Irish did — they went to school and they became a potent social force — for the betterment of their communities.
After large numbers of Irish arrived in NY City, they began their rise into local politics, civil service and education — and the bar business, the construction business and Wall Street.
In fact, when it came to paving the way into life in NY City, it was the Irish who showed the later-arriving Jews how it was done.
LikeLike
This excellent article from Abagond also demononstrates how within Whites, there was a hierarchy. It’s in man’s nature to fight and conquer their neighbours (that even look similar to them) when there are cultural between them.
One of the reasons why there is instability in Africa is because when the Europeans carved up Africa for themselves, they stupidly put warring tribes into the same country.
Africa is made up of many different peoples. Even within the same country, you can get a huge number of different languages and peoples who have nothing in common with the next tribe.
The sheer amount of tribes and languages is one explanation why there are civil wars there.
England was able to virtually stamp out Irish, Scottish and Gaelic language and a lot of their culture but they only had those few neighbours. Had been landlocked with HUNDREDS of different neighbours/ HUNDREDS of different languages and HUNDREDS of different cultures, the English would have been warring to this day. But even today, there is great resentment, the Scots, Irish and Welsh toward the English for their brutal colonialism.
One of the things that made Botswana a success was that there was 1 tribe/1 people in the country and that the British LEFT before the discovery that there were diamond mines. As a result, they were able to negotiate with DeBeers to mine the diamonds for a fairtrade sum.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Okay. Where is the benevolent, prospering black nation in Africa that rights all the wrongs of America?
What does that have to do with anything?
Ireland has hardly been benevolent or prosperous for 99% of its history. This “Celtic Tiger” sh1t is a very recent phenomenon.
After large numbers of Irish arrived in NY City, they began their rise into local politics, civil service and education — and the bar business, the construction business and Wall Street.
Don’t forget organized crime. 😀
LikeLike
@Thaddeus
Right? Ireland was considered a Third World country until ….. mid 80’s/early 90’s?????
LikeLike
grenda, you wrote:
One of the reasons why there is instability in Africa is because when the Europeans carved up Africa for themselves, they stupidly put warring tribes into the same country.
In other words, according to grenda, rather than work cooperatively and build bridges to cross cultural gulfs, black tribes go to war. Yeah. Seems to be true.
grenda wrote:
Africa is made up of many different peoples. Even within the same country, you can get a huge number of different languages and peoples who have nothing in common with the next tribe.
Yeah. These people who speak a huge number of different laguages have nothing in common. Including a sense of irony.
you wrote:
The sheer amount of tribes and languages is one explanation why there are civil wars there.
On that basis, at any time there should be at least 20 civil wars raging in the US.
LikeLike
thaddeus, I wrote:
Okay. Where is the benevolent, prospering black nation in Africa that rights all the wrongs of America?
You asked:
What does that have to do with anything?
Here’s what it has to do with. If there were a benevolent, prospering black nation in the world, its existence would convince a few hundred million whites that blacks are capable of successful self-rule.
However, as long as their is no successful black nation, whites will believe that it makes no difference what is done to improve black life — anywhere.
When most countries an entire continent is hundreds of years behind the leading nations of the world, there is cause for concern.
LikeLike
On that basis, at any time there should be at least 20 civil wars raging in the US.
Don’t feel bad, NS: you’re getting there. I give the U.S. 10-20 years until its next civil war.
If there were a benevolent, prospering black nation in the world, its existence would convince a few hundred million whites that blacks are capable of successful self-rule.
The fact that whites systematically f$%cked Africa over longer than they did Ireland – and Ireland only beginning to climb out of that hole in tyhe last two decades – means nothing to you, huh?
LikeLike
Excellent point. Thanks, Thad.
LikeLike
… and Grenda
LikeLike
thaddeus,
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you’ve made the point — blacks are incapable of overcoming anything that happened anywhere on the globe at any time in history.
Singapore went from an asian backwater to one of the most prosperous nations in the world in 40 years.
China — with 1.5 BILLION people — is climbing out of its laggard state and heading for the top of the heap.
It happens everywhere except Africa — and the muslim middle east.
LikeLike
Ireland is a textbook example of the problems of colonialism. Ireland was poor and underdeveloped for so long because the English kept it that way. The British government shut down local industries in Ireland, for example, because they competed with English exports.
No Slappz mentioned the success of Irish immigrants in North America. The reason for that is simple; in the US they didn’t have to contend with the barriers they faced at home. The US has been a paradise for white European immigrants. Europeans have always discriminated against other Europeans based on religion, class and ethnicity. In the US white people face far less barriers. As long as you’re not black, or possibly brown-skinned Hispanic, Americans face very little ethnic, religious, or class discrimination. So white Europeans who couldn’t make it at home in Europe because of discrimination can make it overseas.
Finally most black countries in the world aren’t controlled by black people. They’re still colonies. The governments of these countries aren’t going to work in their citizens’ best interests because they’re not run by their citizens.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Cpt,
Very well stated. *shivers*
LikeLike
Cpt:
I agree with Ankhesen: excellent points. Especially the last paragraph which No Slappz refuses to understand.
Gabon is one of the most “successful” black countries in Africa – yet the place is still being run for the benefit of the French and, increasingly, the Chinese. This is something No Slappz does not get because in the Wikipedia it says:
Independence
– from France August 17, 1960
LikeLike
“The fact that whites systematically f$%cked Africa over longer than they did Ireland – and Ireland only beginning to climb out of that hole in tyhe last two decades – means nothing to you, huh?”
I don’t know how long white people have been systematically F$%cking Africa, but Ireland has had persecution from the French, English, and Scandinavia for over 1,500 years. I know that real European involvement and colonization in Africa was much more recent.
LikeLike
“Finally most black countries in the world aren’t controlled by black people. They’re still colonies. The governments of these countries aren’t going to work in their citizens’ best interests because they’re not run by their citizens.”
Excellent point; No Slappz are you reading this^^^^? I doubt it.
LikeLike
There wouldn’t be civil wars in the USA vs Africa because 1 “tribe”,the English were able to take over and dominate whole regions and establish a uniform set of laws that people had to follow. Any rebels were squashed.
Africa is too diverse and too big for 1 set of laws. The majority of tribes are too small for just 1 to gain power in each country.
We see the same fighting your neighbour mentality in Canada where the French had terrorism in the 70’s against English supporters because they wanted Quebec to separate from English Canada. They cannot get along even to today.
We see India and Pakistan fighting. We also see how Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and almost Canada broke up violently because these White people who look alike can’t get along…..
Contrast this with the Caribbean where there are Black people who are all speaking 1 or 2 languages on each island, and are not landlocked with many different peoples. This has led to the rise of successful, peaceful Black countries in that region.
It has NOTHING to do with the European influence. It’s because of UNIFORMITY of rule and ASSIMILATION of the peoples within a region. It has NOTHING to do with colour or race.
If someone in England decided to separate people based on hair/eye colour,say, only brunettes with brown eyes could get the best jobs, are always shown on TV only, get to live in the best areas, only get hired to run the country…trust me, humans are humans….. Tensions and resentment will result where the Blonds and Redheads will want to separate from the rest of the country.
LikeLike
With regard to:
If someone in England decided to separate people based on hair/eye colour,say, only brunettes with brown eyes could get the best jobs, are always shown on TV only, get to live in the best areas, only get hired to run the country…trust me, humans are humans….. Tensions and resentment will result where the Blonds and Redheads will want to separate from the rest of the country.
This has ‘sort of’ actually happened and the ‘tension’ and ‘resentment; alluded to above are present . Though the dynamics in essence are completely different.
The English have oppressed their i.e neighbours, Scotland, Wales & North of Ireland to keep them in the ‘English kingdom’ which is collectively known (to the world as the) ‘United Kingdom’.
One of the problems that occurs is when the ‘thinking processes’ views history as ‘static’ as opposed to understanding the history of societies and countries, how they evolved into what they are today.
In other words England may be a ‘democratic’ society but that process took hundreds of years and it did not just evolve overnight, and the processses is still on-going as I type and even you read these very words.
LikeLike
I agree with Angel. It shows why No Slappz’s comparison of China and “Africa” is a gross simplification.
No Slappz seems to blame race for the differences in prosperity between China and Africa, completely overlooking the fact that China has pretty much on culture and one government and, compared to Africa, was never heavily heavily colonized by European powers.
What success China has did not take place overnight – it spent the early 1900s sunk in civil war and warlordism, in trying to throw out foreign powers. Mao, despite some huge mistakes which I am sure No Slappz will happily jump on, did make China for China not China for Rich Foreign Powers – like what much of Africa is.
Even France took at least 500 years to become “France” – one country with one government, one language, one culture.
LikeLike
Thanks Abagond and J. There’s also the Basque separatists in Spain, the Chechnya situation in Russia. Even Italy was a warring region till all the regions came together under 1 language and governent. It’s very fascinating to read historical accounts of italian families fighting over land and power for centuries.
LikeLike
“Finally most black countries in the world aren’t controlled by black people. They’re still colonies. The governments of these countries aren’t going to work in their citizens’ best interests because they’re not run by their citizens.”
Excellent point; No Slappz are you reading this^^^^? I doubt it.
Unfortunately, all of you expressing these naive feelings about backward countries are expressing your paralyzing lack of knowledge of Economics, Democracy and Capitalism.
There are many democratic capitalist countries in the world that have created societies enjoying reasonable prosperity even though the countries themselves have no natural resources or a good location on the planet.
But none of the nations are black nations. However Zimbabwe was getting along okay until Mugabe went dictator. But the Zimbabwean economy had depended on the productivity of the white farmers who were responsible for the bulk of the country’s exports.
Practically overnight Mugabe ruined the export business.
There are virtually NO black business leaders in the world. I know, I know, there are a few guys in Africa. But, if you look at their businesses, it is clear they make money by obtaining lucrative government contracts to provide cell phone service or something similar, where bribing an official is the secret to getting the business.
None of them them have created international businesses.
Anyway, I see, as usual, the excuses about why resource-rich black African nations remain sewers are endless.
No matter how many examples of countries moving from backwardness toward modernity there are, you will claim black nations simple cannot join that parade because, because, because…
LikeLike
I don’t know how long white people have been systematically F$%cking Africa, but Ireland has had persecution from the French, English, and Scandinavia for over 1,500 years. I know that real European involvement and colonization in Africa was much more recent.
With all due respect to the Irish romanticists among us, that earlier “persecution” by the vikings was suffered all across the British Isles.
I think that if you want to talk the systematic colonization of Ireland, as a whole, you really got to date it from Cromwell – perhaps a bit earlier. Not from 500 AD (roll eyes).
LikeLike
I don’t think it is “romanticism” that Irish people fought and died to protect that Island from foreign control. Especially Norman and English control which started around 1,000 years ago.
LikeLike
Anyway, I see, as usual, the excuses about why resource-rich black African nations remain sewers are endless.
You’d love to go there and exploit their untapped natural resources, wouldn’t you?
LikeLike
I don’t think it is “romanticism” that Irish people fought and died to protect that Island from foreign control.
If you’re talking about the Vikings, the same could be said for most of northern Europe. Fighting the Norse wasn’t an Irish specialty.
Especially Norman and English control which started around 1,000 years ago.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but the Normans controlled only the area around the Pale, correct? And from what I’ve read, they were pretty well assimilated by the Irish.
I’ll remind you that the Normans actually CONQUERED and HELD England around this time as well. The Irish did better than the English in this respect, so again, I hardly see it as poor Ireland taking it on the nose while the rest of Europe gets off scot-free.
If we’re talking about successful imperial control of Ireland – and not just wars, dynastic struggles and the odd (and easily assimilated) foreign colony here and there, we need to fast-forward to the 15th century, when England decided to go for full control of the island.
LikeLike
*chuckles*
As I believed I predicted, y’all…everything was yippy-skippy until POC were brought up. Suddenly, everything’s “different”.
*shakes head*
Kudos to some of you, by the way; seriously holding your own right here about the colonization of Africa.
*tips hat*
LikeLike
Hi guys and gals.
Just so you have a better idea what this no_slapz fellow is attempting to achieve here (thus far successfully) here’s a vitally important link which I’m sure you’ll all be referencing yourselves one day:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/allcaps.htm
go on, chreck it out!
Menelik Charles
London England
LikeLike
Thad
You made the statement that Africa was under white foreign colonization longer than Ireland I disagree and so does history. Now your getting all technical about how they were colonized, and what level of persecution they experienced blah blah blah, come on man get over it. Yes the Normans controlled the pale, but their influence and customs spread throughout Ireland as did the Vikings and the English. I agree the foreign control was worse in the 1500s, but they were still under control 500 years prior to that.
LikeLike
herneith, you wrote:
You’d love to go there and exploit their untapped natural resources, wouldn’t you?
I’d love to see Nigeria learn the same lessons as Norway and become a prosperous advancing nation enjoying the huge boost granted by Nature’s gift of oil.
But half the population of Nigeria is still waiting for indoor plumbing and electricity. And it’s becoming clear that things will get worse instead of better. The islamic influence is spreading in Nigeria, and that guarantees more economic and social failure.
LikeLike
You made the statement that Africa was under white foreign colonization longer than Ireland I disagree and so does history. Now your getting all technical about how they were colonized, and what level of persecution they experienced blah blah blah, come on man get over it.
History is made of those technicalities, O. History isn’t something we practcie so that you can feel more self-fulfilled and in touch with your “heritage”.
LikeLike
Funny how only you made these technicalities, and not British and Irish historians.
LikeLike
I had thought the colonisation of Africa per se began 1860 onwards (ie New Imperialism) and ended in 1960s roughly.
The New Imperialism which refers to the
‘new’ global expansion across the world occured roughly between 1860s-1914
LikeLike
Really, now. OK, O, tell me the names of three British and Irish historians who believ that Ireland has been a colony from AD500 on.
LikeLike
had thought the colonisation of Africa per se began 1860 onwards (ie New Imperialism) and ended in 1960s roughly.
One word for you, J: Angola.
LikeLike
No idea mate, would you like to tell me please??
LikeLike
I should have said also:
Or perhaps if you do not want to then that is fine. You can then continue your dialogue with Ó Dochartaigh…
LikeLike
I never said it was a colony.
LikeLike
LOL maybe I did say colonization, perhaps repeated invasion would have been a better term.
LikeLike
But Ireland had been occupied by the British for close to 900 years. I realize the vikings did not colonize all of Ireland, but the island had been occupied by foreign invaders for close to 1,500 years. The systematic Fu$%cking as you so eloquently put did not start until around 1171 CE. Which is still longer than Africa.
LikeLike
Whether you say ‘invasion’ or ‘colonisation’ or ‘colony’
This article seems to suggest all of the above:
ANGLO-NORMAN INVASION OF IRELAND
http://warandgame.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/anglo-norman-invasion-of-ireland/
Perhaps its one of these conversation that is referred to in the Philosophy of Science as the ‘problem of language’
LikeLike
Wow great article, very in depth. Thanks J
LikeLike
And if you really want to get technical, the Druids were in Ireland before the Celts which was about 500 BCE.
LikeLike
I never said it was a colony.
We’re talking about imperialism, right, not just countries which have suffered from war?
But Ireland had been occupied by the British for close to 900 years.
A small chunk of it was occupied by the NORMANS, who weren’t British. And said Normans were well assimilated by 1300.
British imperialism only began in the 1500s.
This isn’t a not, O: it’s simple history.
The high-point of English colonial initiative had been reached by the mid-thirteenth century, after which a combination of unfavorable political and economic circumstances ensured the so-called Gaelic revival. A steady colonial retreat occurred even in core regions such as the Wexford area, where the first settlers had established themselves, and where the town was exhibiting signs of urban decline already by the end of the thirteenth century. A critical turning-point in a process of de-colonization and loss of English governmental control was reached with the outbreak of plague in 1348. A distinctive “Anglo-Irish” political identity emerged out of the peculiar strains of perennial insecurity experienced by the colonial ruling elite in Ireland, coupled with a sense of its neglect, disregard and misunderstanding by the English crown, while culturally it formed an intermediate grouping characterized by varying degrees of Gaelicization or assimilation. Tensions between the English born in Ireland and the English of England who were sent recurrently as administrators remained constant. An English invasion there may have been in the twelfth century, but a conquest of Ireland was never achieved. In reality, the greater part of Ireland did not experience thoroughgoing Anglicization, and on the eve of the Tudor plantations English governmental control had shrunk to the defensive area known as the Pale, the colonial hinterland of Dublin.
This was typical medieval dynastic politics, not imperialism.
LikeLike
Listen Thad you can play semantics all you like, the island has been invaded and colonized for over a thousand years. Your now saying imperialism didn’t start until the 1500s, but history disagrees with you. The Laigin tribes and most of south eastern Ireland accepted the British King Henery the 2nd around 1171 as their King, in essence; imperialism. All be it, the British failed for a short time, but their presence has been felt in Ireland ever since. Language, culture, and surnames were all changed in the eastern part of Ireland because of this.
And I’m not changing history to suit my “heritage” my family is just as much British as it is Irish.
LikeLike
O, it’s not “semantics” to make a distinction between imperialism and viking raids and colonies. The two aren’t the same phenomena at all and their isn’t a historian in the world who sees them that way.
Simple truth, man.
Imperialism is a complex topic, but it’s not one big blanket that can be pulled over any and all human conflicts. The Vikings didn’t have an empire. Neither did their Norman descendants. And there isn’t a historian on the face of the Earth who defines medieval dynastic politics as “Imperialism”.
And I’m not changing history to suit my “heritage” my family is just as much British as it is Irish.
Why should that make any difference? The point of the matter is that you seem to approach history as if it were a simple story of good guys versus bad guys which needs must explain your personal identity. As a Brit/Irish, it’s no wonder you’re focused on the history of contact and conflict in the British Isles.
LikeLike
We must not lose sight of the fact that the issue
before us is:
Was Africa (THE CONTINENT) colonised before Ireland (THE COUNTRY)??
If we are attempting to answer correctly this question then it has to be answered by way of imperialism. This is why I suggested that the colonisation of the continent per se rather than individual countries on the continent came with Imperialism and NOT BEFORE
LikeLike
Imperialism: The policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
This is exactly what Henry the 2nd did in 1171. Not once did I say that the Vikings or the Normans were trying to build an empire, but they were colonizing. Britain on the other hand was trying to build an empire. Besides Scotland and Wales, Ireland was one of the first countries that the English empire spread to.
The comment of me being a Brit/Irish somehow effecting my understanding of history is ridiculous, I am also an American but that does not stop me from seeing the horrible things that both the American and British governments have done. I am interested in it because of my heritage, but I do not romanticize it. Remember Thad I’m an Atheist, I try to disregard what I want to be real, and accept what is fact.
LikeLike
Was Africa (THE CONTINENT) colonised before Ireland (THE COUNTRY)??
Colonization and imperialism are actually two different things.
But to tell the truth, imperialism gets started in Africa and Ireland ’round about the same time: the 15th century.
Imperialism: The policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
“Empire or nation”, O. That’s the key part of that definition. 12th century Normans were neither. England in 1171 was neither: it was a dynastic kingdom.
I am also an American but that does not stop me from seeing the horrible things that both the American and British governments have done.
My point has nothing to do with whether or not you see horrible things, but it’s telling that you believe it does. History is not a “good guy versus bad guy” game whose purpose is to allow you to make sense of your own life.
LikeLike
And if we taking the issue that little bit further nearer pendantic, semantic ha ha ha that rhymes…
No seriously if we are using term ‘spot on’. Then
Imperialism
A Dictionary of Contemporary World History
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O46-imperialism.html
LikeLike
I love how J has been the mediator this whole time lol. Thanks J.
LikeLike
Well Thad if you would have said Imperialism from the beginning instead of saying systematic fu%$cking, then we probably would not be having this conversation, but it wasn’t until late in the conversation that you decide imperialism is what you meant. What ever you want to call it, Ireland has been Systematically Fu%$cked longer than Africa, by white people.
LikeLike
Putting aside all meanings of differences in definition nd trying to understand terms like ‘colony’ etc.
I think it is safe to say that ‘invasion’, ‘colonisation’, ‘colony’ or even ‘imperialism’ – whether of the ‘old’ or the ‘new’ variant – occurs first in Ireland then subsequently in Africa
LikeLike
Thank you Ó Dochartaigh
Do you think I can oust Abagond out of his
position….ha ha ha…As if I would dare do such a thing??
LikeLike
To J
Good luck with that, some of his positions are sound, others not so much, either way I think he is set in his ways.
LikeLike
Well Thad if you would have said Imperialism from the beginning instead of saying systematic fu%$cking, then we probably would not be having this conversation…
Sorry. I tend to see the two as synonyms. I think Ireland had problems before British imperialism got involved, but these aren’t what I’d qualify as “a systematic fuc@ing”. After all, England got conquered by the same people – and much more thoroughly so – at the same time. So if we’re going to describe the Norman conquest as a horible thing in these terms, England was much more screwed over than Ireland.
The specific attempt to really toss Irleand in the colonial stewpot comes in the 15th century.
LikeLike
Ireland has been a free republic for fewer years than Haiti. Anyone want to live in Haiti? How about Ireland?
Ireland suffered plenty for adhering to Catholicism as rigidly as it has. Maybe now that the Pope appears to be the head of a global ring of pedophiles, things will loosen up in Ireland.
Is there any hope for Nigeria? Can it become a prosperous nation? With all that oil it should have no trouble springboarding from the 19th century to the 21st century.
But. That’s not happening. No matter how many natural advantages exist in black nations, they remain slums of backwardness, disease and violence.
The Irish seem to have settled their differences with the English. The Catholics and Protestants are managing to co-exsit without violence. See. It can happen. Meanwhile, the violence in Northern Ireland never reduced the country to the base level found in most African nations.
Somalia has not had a functioning government for 20 years. Simply amazing. For a while a comparable non-black nation was Afghanistan. Both suffer from the scourge of islam.
LikeLike
^^
how is Somalia got anything to do with Ireland
LikeLike
It is in his Commenting Handbook: “Each comment must say something bad about blacks or Muslims.” That makes Somalia a two-fer.
LikeLike
The No_Slappz trifecta, blacks muslims and to a lesser degree women!
LikeLike
abagond,
You are a factory of excuses.
You: Woe is us. Life for us blacks is just not fair as long as white people are out there doing all the stuff they do that we don’t.
LikeLike
Faye:
See: No Slappz just did it again!
LikeLike
no slappz you must be really lonely person to be able to have the time to write these tactless comments.
it isn’t the fact that you come across as self-hating but deluded in your own world that you think saying stuff about other people will make yourself feel superior but I bet you it doesn’t because at the end of the day you have to face others such as us
LikeLike
Great article on the Irish in Jamaica & West Indies:
http://www.thewildgeese.com/pages/jamone.html
EXCERPT:
“The Irish prisoners made up for a serious labor shortage caused by the English planter’s lack of access to African slaves. The Dutch and Portuguese dominated the slave trade in the early 17th century and most white landowners in Barbados and the neighboring islands were unable to purchase slaves of African origin.
Numbers vary, but reliable estimates put the number of Irish shipped out at between 30,000 and 80,000 persons.”
LikeLike
colorofluv
From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade.
Maybe you were just referring to the west indies, but there were far more Irish slaves overall than just 80,000.
LikeLike
Right O’ Dochartaigh… I was just pointing out Jamaica/West Indies mostly.
Interestingly, I was digging into early Irish/Black American history and came across an interesting piece by WEB DuBois, who attempted to draw upon the commonalities of both communities. Unfortunately, many of the freed Slaves and Irish were competing with one another for the menial jobs, resulting in violence. This is most likely the reason the two communities never forged stronger bonds.
LikeLike
By the way, are you an Anthropology major?
LikeLike
No, just a history buff. Mostly the British Isles, Japan and North America. I actually have thought about perusing Anthropology, but I’m not sure what kind of living I could make with that, and I don’t want to teach. So it probably isn’t right for me, but I do love learning about other cultures.
Have you ever watched Marten Scorsasis(?) Gangs of New York? It deals with a lot of the issues the Irish had after getting off the boat.
LikeLike
I see you commented about “In the name of the Father,” that was a great movie. Daniel Day Lewis also played in a movie called The Boxer it is very similar to In the name of the Father, about the struggles in Northern Ireland.
LikeLike
Oh yeah… Good Movie… I recommended earlier in this thread, “In The Name of the Thy Father”, with Daniel Day-Lewis. (true story)
LikeLike
ColorOfLuv
Great article on the Irish in Jamaica & West Indies:
http://www.thewildgeese.com/pages/jamone.html
With regard to the Irish connection in the Caribbean. I think there may be a far bigger cultural continuity in the island of Montesarrat.
LikeLike
Ó Dochartaigh,
Gangs of New York and In the Name of the Father are feature films that bear virtually no connection to history.
I was both impressed and disturbed by some of the cinema techniques of In The Name of the Father.
You may remember the early scene where the two characters are on the roof-top with broomsticks or something similar. The shot fills the entire screen, making it the scene you, as the viewer, accept as the truth of the moment.
Then the camera shifts to the point of view of the British soldiers looking through telescopic sights at the two characters, who then appear to be holding rifles.
Viewers are led to assume their own vision of two guys on a rooftop with broomsticks is the true scene, while the perspective of the British soldiers who see two men with guns is conjured up from their evil nature.
Nice trick. Unfortunately, this particular story is one of those stories in which the leading victim is the truth.
Were the two characters carrying rifles or broomsticks? We really do not know.
LikeLike
No Slappz
Yeah well most historical movies are inaccurate. Take Braveheart for instance, the film took place in the 11th century, yet they were all wearing kilts, yet kilts were not worn by Scotsman until the 16th century. Or the fact that the whole film was in English, when most highlanders at that time spoke Gaelic and most lowlanders spoke lowland Scots. It is still a good introduction to British history, for most ignorant Americans.
LikeLike
Ó Dochartaigh,
Getting the costumes wrong is not what I meant when I said in these movies the truth is the leading victim.
The stories themselves are fictionalized accounts contrived by opportunists out to make a buck off the masses. In other words, purely entertainment and utterly lacking in historical fact.
Unfortunately, too many viewers think they are close enough.
In a film about a more recent time, Denzel Washington starred in American Gangster in which it was claimed that during the Vietnam War, massive quantities of heroin were smuggled from Vietnam to the US in the caskets of dead soldiers.
DID NOT HAPPEN. This is an urban myth. But viewers bought it, ate it up, and swear it’s true.
LikeLike
No Slappz
Hey I’m not arguing with you, most Americans are stupid, ignorant, and lazy. They will eat up anything the TV tells them, but if these types of movies did not exist, then a lot of Americans probably wouldn’t even know there is a conflict in Ireland.
LikeLike
Hi guys and gals.
Just so you have a better idea what this no_slapz fellow is attempting to achieve here (thus far successfully) here’s a vitally important link which I’m sure you’ll all be referencing yourselves one day:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/allcaps.htm
go on, check it out!
Menelik Charles
London England
LikeLike
I came across this discussion by accident and find it counterproductive. Iam American. Both my parents came from Ireland, Donegal and Tyrone. I know the history, and the history is the history and must be acknowledged. Acknowledged in order that those that through their suffering guaranteed our identity and survival. But, we cannot live our lives in the past nor should we conduct our relations with others by our opinion of their nations past acts no matter how inhuman, immoral, etc. There are those that will always want to return to the past, they will want to put you down, they will make sick jokes and whatever else they can do to try and give themselves a feeling of superiority. But they can only succeed if you let yourself be distracted by their sickness. Leave them where you find them. Move on get an education, build a life. Those that live their life in the past will leave this world and leave nothing of value behind. If you get a chance buy one of these misfits, buy him a drink and let him vent, smile at his stupidity and in your eyes he will see an ugly and sickening reflection.
LikeLike
There was no ‘Britain’ in half the posts you use the word in…
This also makes no sense: “300s: Scotland tries to take over (1315), fails but seriously weakens British rule, now limited to Dublin and the Pale, the region nearby”, Scotland is part of Britain
LikeLike
@ Ella
Abagond uses the word “British” (in his timeline) at 1171 AD
The Romans have records using the word “Britannia” long before that.
LikeLike
hey Abagond, Here’s a good idea for a post The Irish slave trade argument,
LikeLike
Who cares? They should have reunited years ago, yawn.
LikeLike