Kipling's Ulster

[Óttar]

You plainly know nothing about it.

HTF do you know what I do or do not know?

The poem reveals that Kipling's motivation was because he wanted to ensure that the Empire was not divided... But how can Irish be traitors if they don't swear fealty to a British king?

I said I believe in peace. I'm not "inciting bloodshed."

[Osweo]

HTF do you know what I do or do not know?

You broad-brushed an entire people as 'opportunists', and implied they were accomplices to 'murderous' goings on. I took issue with that.

And your profile says you live in Boston, presumably not the Lincolnshire one, so you haven't had your town bombed in recent years by Irish 'Nationalists'. That sort of thing puts matters in a different perspective, and it's exactly such cowardly terrorism that Kipling deplored in his poem.

The poem reveals that Kipling's motivation was because he wanted to ensure that the Empire was not divided...

That is in there, and is of its day. The disgust I mention is more prominent there, though, and is still valid today.

But how can Irish be traitors if they don't swear fealty to a British king?

'Treason' or not, the situation with Ulster is one of a bunch of terrorists trying to FORCE a mass of people into a state that they have little feeling for. Some honest IRA supporters openly acknowledge that they'd gladly wipe out Protestantism in Ireland.

I said I believe in peace. I'm not "inciting bloodshed."

Glad to hear it, but peace must be founded upon understanding and honest appraisal of history, an arena in which it's always near enough 'six of one, half a dozen of the other'. There aren't straightforward 'Goodies' and 'Baddies' in this issue.

[Óttar]

That sort of thing puts matters in a different perspective, and it's exactly such cowardly terrorism that Kipling deplored in his poem.

When he wrote the poem, Ireland was not yet a free country. Guerilla warfare against soldiers is legitimate especially if one considers the vast technological and numerical superiority of the British Army at that time.

Kipling mentions "rule by Rome". Part of a greater tradition of bringing religion into an area it doesn't belong. I highly doubt it really boils down to whether someone venerates the saints or not, or whether you go to Mass in a decadent domus aurea, or a boring converted farmhouse with no decor.

Some honest IRA supporters openly acknowledge that they'd gladly wipe out Protestantism in Ireland.

And I'm certain the same is true of UVF supporters in regards to "Catholicism." People need to be careful of framing it as a religious conflict.

Glad to hear it, but peace must be founded upon understanding and honest appraisal of history, an arena in which it's always near enough 'six of one, half a dozen of the other'. There aren't straightforward 'Goodies' and 'Baddies' in this issue.

The next referendum is a while from now, hopefully neither side will do anything tricky. Fair enough.

[Osweo]

When he wrote the poem, Ireland was not yet a free country. Guerilla warfare against soldiers is legitimate especially if one considers the vast technological and numerical superiority of the British Army at that time.

Not a 'free' country? Not independent, sure. About to be granted a great deal of autonomy, yes. 'Free'? What does that mean? It wasn't a prison state of awful repression or exploitation. Wales and Scotland were not in a too dissimilar situation, and yet they weren't excusing murder and terrorism. Most Irish were quite content to receive limited Home Rule. Only 1916 changed mattters.

Kipling mentions "rule by Rome". Part of a greater tradition of bringing religion into an area it doesn't belong. I highly doubt it really boils down to whether someone venerates the saints or not, or whether you go to Mass in a decadent domus aurea, or a boring converted farmhouse with no decor.

They don't do 'mass' in (tastefully restrained in decor ) Protestant churches!
Are you criticising Kipling for bringing religion into politics, do I read you right? If so, then Catholic rule would have presented many intolerable cultural problems to the Northern Irish.

And I'm certain the same is true of UVF supporters in regards to "Catholicism." People need to be careful of framing it as a religious conflict.

Religion just provides symbolism for it. See Adams's own curiously heretical theological comments in this thread;
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4001

The next referendum is a while from now, hopefully neither side will do anything tricky. Fair enough.

Aye. But don't expect the media's darlings in the Republican camp to get the 'balanced' press treatment of the sort that the Unionists are regularly meted out in the meantime...

[Óttar]

'Free'? What does that mean?

I meant independent then.

They don't do 'mass' in (tastefully restrained in decor ) Protestant churches!

Fine, then substitute "services" for "mass."

Are you criticising Kipling for bringing religion into politics, do I read you right? If so, then Catholic rule would have presented many intolerable cultural problems to the Northern Irish.

The central issue is not "rule by Rome." Yes, the majority population would be Catholic in a united Ireland, but this is ultimately besides the point. The Irish had a right to rule their whole island. Protestant and Catholic could live peaceably side by side.

Religion just provides symbolism for it. See Adams's own curiously heretical theological comments in this thread;
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4001

Religion has always been misused for political ends (esp. so after the advent of Abrahamic creeds, but I won't go off on tangents). I think it's important to not see this as a conflict between Protestant and Catholic per se. There are examples of Protestant republicans.

[British and Proud]

His reign saw much if not the majority of it, but there were independent Scotch colonies that went and bought land from Gaelic chieftains earlier. I forget the names and dates...

Indeed:

The really effective plantation of Ulster took place from a different source altogether - through an originally small privately-organized Protestant settlement of Scots that had begun on the Ards peninsula of Ulster's east coast a few years earlier. There, Scotland lies only just across the water. For centuries, before the Reformation, Scots had been coming across this North Channel and settling in this part of of Ireland, usually becoming indistinguishable from the Gaelic Irish people among whom they settled. But just before the 1610 plantation -in 1606 - a private settlement had been undertaken by two Scottish Protestant adventurers named Montgomery and Hamilton after a deal with the local Gaelic chieftain. This eastern Protestant planation of Ulster prospered rapidly and became the bridgehead by which, for the rest of the century and beyond, individual Scottish settlers flocked to Northern Ireland. They spread outward from there through the town of Belfast, over the whole of Antrim and Down. They even spread right across Ulster to fill the gaps left in the official plantation of the west. The geographical distributions of Protestant and Catholic in Northern Ireland today still reveal clearly the two separate settlements of Ulster of over 300 years ago.

Ireland, A History; Robert Kee; Abacus, London; Chapter 3, No Surrender; pp 41, 42.

The above is included in the thread entitled The Spirit of Carson.

Let's not forget that in The Battle of The Boyne, many Irishmen fought for an English king, James II. Thus the Irish were happy to be rul,ed by a Catholic monarch. From Wikipedia:

James II and VII (14 October 1633 – 16 September 1701)[2] was King of England, Scotland,[1] and Ireland from 6 February 1685. He was the last Catholic monarch to reign over the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Some of James's subjects were unhappy with James's belief in absolute monarchy and opposed his religious policies, leading a group of them to depose him in the Glorious Revolution. The Parliament of England deemed James to have abdicated on 11 December 1688. The Parliament of Scotland on 11 April 1689 declared him to have forfeited the throne. He was replaced not by his Catholic son, James Francis Edward, but by his Protestant daughter, Mary II, and his son-in-law, William III. William and Mary became joint rulers in 1689. James II made one serious attempt to recover his crowns, when he landed in Ireland in 1689 but, after the defeat of the Jacobite forces by the Williamite forces at the Battle of the Boyne in the summer of 1690, James returned to France. He lived out the rest of his life under the protection of his cousin and ally, King Louis XIV.

James is best known for his belief in absolute monarchy and his attempts to create religious liberty for his subjects. Both of these went against the wishes of the English Parliament and of most of his subjects. Parliament, opposed to the growth of absolutism that was occurring in other European countries, as well as to the loss of legal supremacy for the Church of England, saw their opposition as a way to preserve what they regarded as traditional English liberties. This tension made James's three-year reign a struggle for supremacy between the English Parliament and the Crown, resulting in his ouster, the passage of the English Bill of Rights, and the Hanoverian succession.

[Osweo]

I meant independent then.

My Catholic great grandparents in Tipperary never wanted independence. Hotheads and rebellious types pushed the issue.

I remember you damned the Loyalists as 'opportunists'. I suggest you look at the use of the opportunity afforded the trouble-causers by the UK's involvement in the Greatest War of all time in 1916, and decide what to call it... German rifles on the Banna Strand - you may know the rebel song about Sir Roger Casement? A clear case of 'stabbing in the back', cooperating with enemy powers, forcing issues that others had almost solved by other peaceful means, and little dissimilar to the activities of the (equally German-sponsored) Bolsheviks in Russia a year later.

The central issue is not "rule by Rome." Yes, the majority population would be Catholic in a united Ireland, but this is ultimately besides the point. The Irish had a right to rule their whole island. Protestant and Catholic could live peaceably side by side.

This IS the central issue.

"The Irish had a right to rule their whole island"

WHICH IRISH?!??!? NOT those who didn't want to be a part of a rebellious theocratic state founded by traitors!

Do the English have a right to rule their whole island? Do they fuck. Other people live on the island too, and they have their own rights which deserve respect. The same is true in the island of Ireland, and always has been. Ireland has NEVER been monocultural.

[Óttar]

My Catholic great grandparents in Tipperary never wanted independence. Hotheads and rebellious types pushed the issue.

Maybe if other Irish hadn't had such a complacent attitude, their tongue might have been recovered after it was ripped out of their heads. I suppose you support the use of the "Welsh not" also.

A clear case of 'stabbing in the back', cooperating with enemy powers

First off, the Germans were not Ireland's enemies and Hitler admired the British and never wanted to go to war with them in the first place.

WHICH IRISH?!??!? NOT those who didn't want to be a part of a rebellious theocratic state founded by traitors!

Again, traitors to whom? Theocratic? Ha!


That's about as ridiculous as Muslims conquering France, and then a Musulman claiming "Look, those Catholic infidels are fighting us, it is the duty of every Muslim to defend 'Muslim' land."

Do the English have the right to rule their whole island?

That's a good question, but I don't see you calling for the dissolution of the Union anytime soon, so why don't you tell me?

[Osweo]

Maybe if other Irish hadn't had such a complacent attitude, their tongue might have been recovered after it was ripped out of their heads. I suppose you support the use of the "Welsh not" also.

You said summat about the Gaelic a bit ago, which I ignored. What exactly does this matter have to do with anything in this thread?!?
Tongue ripped out of their heads! Christ, Man, get over this fantasy version of history you've absorbed!

First off, the Germans were not Ireland's enemies and Hitler admired the British and never wanted to go to war with them in the first place.

I mentioned the GREAT War, not its sequel. Who gives a toss what Hitler thought about anything. Thousands of Irishmen, Catholic and Protestant joined up, despite the lack of conscription in the island. More Northerners, perhaps, but the southerners were by no means insignificant in numbers. My Great Uncle Harry even joined up for WWII. The Irish were never so two dimensional in their attitudes as you like to portray them.

(The entire War was a folly, but as H.G. Wells said, there wasn't a way seen to get out of it at the time.)

Again, traitors to whom? Theocratic? Ha!

Ireland will always be England and Britain's neighbour. These peoples should do their damnedest to stay on the good side of each other. In the world of 1916, the Rising was clearly a stab in the back, not only for 'Britannia' and George V, but for the thousands of Irishmen in Flanders.

Actually, the returning soldiers were scorned by the Sinn Feiners, see the rebel song Salonika. Shameful.

That's about as ridiculous as Muslims conquering France, and then a Musulman claiming "Look, those Catholic infidels are fighting us, it is the duty of every Muslim to defend 'Muslim' land."

You think it's okay to boot people out of homes they've lived in for four centuries? To boot them out of a land their ancestors gave everything to, and in which their bones now lie? Or, in the 'moderate' variant, to have them subject to a majority with a different culture, that will push for legislation and a public life that doesn't suit them.

SHAME on you!

That's a good question, but I don't see you calling for the dissolution of the Union anytime soon, so why don't you tell me?

I am not the Union's biggest fan, but I don't see it as a priority at the moment.

[Óttar]

You said summat about the Gaelic a bit ago, which I ignored. What exactly does this matter have to do with anything in this thread?!?

This is about the historical erosion of Irish identity by the British. Protestants were settled there to ensure a loyal trojan horse.

Tongue ripped out of their heads! Christ, Man, get over this fantasy version of history you've absorbed!

Of course they gave up the Gaelic tongue completely voluntarily.

In the world of 1916, the Rising was clearly a stab in the back, not only for 'Britannia' and George V, but for the thousands of Irishmen in Flanders.

Bull. The Irish republican majority had a right to fight for their own independent nation.

You English chauvinists have some gall. An acquaintance from Britain told me "the Irish stabbed the Brits in the back because of their decision to adopt the Euro." So not only can't the Irish majority have their own country, but when they are independent they're somehow not allowed to make their own decisions.

You think it's okay to boot people out of homes they've lived in for four centuries?

And you seem to think it's OK for the British to confiscate lands and colonise their neighbors, despite the fact that you are half Irish. Who is the traitor? Besides who said anything about booting Protestants out of their homes?

There's no reason why the two communities can't live together in peace in a united Ireland.