Dublin denies racist problem as blacks struggle to find school places

Terry

Scally07 wrote:

*Terry throws rattle out of pram*

:rolleyes:

Hmm. A dissenter. I wonder what your agenda is.
Let's all have a look.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53913711
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53904956
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53428015
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53427984
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53427929
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53395700
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53310724

I'll see you in ten years time. Then you can say you told me so.
Banned.

SimpleSam06

Kassandra Large Self-expression wrote:

I'm assuming your skin is lily white because I find Irish people EXTREMELY racist. Not only the skangers, taxi drivers etc with their blatant racism, but also a lot of people who seem like they would know better. I'm not even black, or even foreign, I have an Irish name, an Irish passport, my family is Irish and I still get loads of ignorant comments because my GREAT grandparents are from southern Europe.

Yes but for all we know, you could be Mickey Joe Mulrooney from Wickla trying to stir it. And while we're swapping utterly baseless anecdotes, an ex girlfriend of mine had two brothers, and swarthy devils they were too, wouldn't have looked out of place in Spain or Italy. N-th generation Leitrim people, they never had any problems with their skin colour, socially speaking. Quite the opposite.

Kassandra Large Self-expression wrote:

I really wish some people would get it into their thick heads that Irish does NOT have to equal pale skin and freckles.

Honestly, I've never even heard of anything like that. You aren't in school, are you? Kids will pick on anything, some of them.

SimpleSam06

jdivision wrote:

immigration policy has been tightened but doesn't mean that people born here aren't Irish tbh.

In a very literal sense, that's exactly what it does mean. Recently anyway.

dent

meditraitor wrote:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/the-problem-isnt-racism-its-the-tidal-wave-of-immigrants-1071385.html

Food for thought

Thanks for sharing, really hit the nail on the head, hopefully rte will stop pandering to the residents against sense crowd.

dodgyme

pwd wrote:

What did you see in Lagos?

chk out "Legal Bid fails to stop Nigerian family's deportation" in the politics section for more info (I suggest you read milmos contributions also) Basically at the time there was constant meetings etc in Lagos hotels (mainly on eko island where the rich and middle class nigerians hang out organising asylum scams (airports flights etc) often within ear shot, I would often move tables coz it p&ssed me off so much. Middle class nigerians (well off and good jobs) asking me for headed company paper to write up letters of invite etc and going thru your stuff when you left the office to get some. Constant questions about how to get into ireland coz they had friends there etc etc. All by middle class nigerians. It was the funniest thing ever. Then you come back to ireland and you hear the rubbish spouted here about asylum and poor africans etc. Maybe you had to be there to realise the mugs we are. Genuine aslylum seekers dont make it to countries that just happen to be lacz on immigration. Middles class chances from a country noted to be number one for corruption in the world do!

Terry

I'm gonna need more than anecdotal evidence for that one.

dodgyme

Terry wrote:

I'm gonna need more than anecdotal evidence for that one.

Presuming this is directed to me what evidence do you require?. I put a reference to the other place I posted on this, so perhaps check there. It seems to me that the people who have actually been to Nigeria have to prove more on their side than those who have never been there but speak with great authority. I am talking form experience as someone who spent time there. The passport stamps I have to prove it and the phone number for control risks also.

milmo

Terry,

I can understand your need for non-anecdotal evidence but there aren't a whole pile of studies being carried out on this at the moment.

I don't know dodgy, and my west african experiences are not from Nigeria (two other countries in the region), but my own experiences echo what he describes. He is not exaggerating unfortunately.

For the many africans I met, getting into europe was the sum total of their ambitions.


People are all born equal, but to assume that the rest of the world share our world view and values is naive and prejudiced.

Please don't dismiss my experiences because they aren't veried by a quango or partial agency. Very few posters on boards have questioned or reacted to what i've posted. If I am so wrong please question me, but I suspect that many are unwilling to confront their own positive prejudices. I had quiet liberal views on immigration until my experiences forced me to reevaluate my position.

Please read my contribution on page five of this thread (including the quote) to see where I'm coming from.

Terry

I don't doubt either of your experiences, but as it stands, all you can give here is anecdotal evidence.
You might be lying, or you could be telling the truth. Nobody here knows for sure. That's the problem.

I would just suggest you phrase your posts in such a way that people know that you are just speaking from experience and nothing else.

milmo

Terry,

I have lived and worked in countries in West Africa for a year and I only comment on that of which I have direct experience. My comments do not extend to asylum seekers from other parts of the world

Before my African experiences I would have held liberal attitudes similar to those expressed in the previous threads. However I am now quiet cynical and take each case on a case by case basis.

I am not trying to be pedantic, and I am aware of the minefield you have to navigate moderating something like this.

I am also more than aware of the difficulties of trying to articulate my views in a moderate way to my peers under in the current PC climate! My frustration with being dismissed out of hand as a racist by people who have never been to Africa may be coming through in some of my posts!

Just for the record, the above mentioned quote was the start of my post on page five. I genuinely appreciate the advice though.

Thanks for listening!

Milmo

Snake Plisken

well Milmo,

I for one appreciate your contribution and personal insight into what you have seen on your travels in Africa, and I suspect that alot of what you say is true, just one thing the Africans arriving in fishing boats to the canary islands, who normally look in a fairly poor state of health etc, what way would you clasify those particular people?

Thanks

Snake

milmo

Snake Plisken wrote:

well Milmo,

I for one appreciate your contribution and personal insight into what you have seen on your travels in Africa, and I suspect that alot of what you say is true, just one thing the Africans arriving in fishing boats to the canary islands, who normally look in a fairly poor state of health etc, what way would you clasify those particular people?

Thanks

Snake

Thanks Snake,

I'm afraid thought that you are going to have to be more specific when you say "classify those particular people".

Are you asking about them/their motivations/how to deal with them/etc etc or something else??

Milmo

Yes but for all we know, you could be Mickey Joe Mulrooney from Wickla trying to stir it. And while we're swapping utterly baseless anecdotes, an ex girlfriend of mine had two brothers, and swarthy devils they were too, wouldn't have looked out of place in Spain or Italy. N-th generation Leitrim people, they never had any problems with their skin colour, socially speaking. Quite the opposite.

Well funnily enough I had no problems whatsoever in school in a small town in the north - hardly the most tolerant of places to be. People knew who my parents were, knew my family was local and it never occurred to them I wasn't from 'around'. For whatever reason there were a good few swarthy kids in the school, some were part Italian or Spanish and some just had olive skin but everyone was considered local. Since I moved to Dublin I constantly get 'you're not Irish!' As I said, most of the time it isn't intended as an insult, it's that a lot of people can't grasp the concept that some Irish people look 'foreign' for whatever reason. I don't mind people assuming I'm Spanish or Italian, it's a fair assumption without knowing me, but once I say I'm Irish, why isn't it accepted without me having to tell them where all my family are from and show them my I.D? I can't believe you think this doesn't happen. I'm not even talking about people being blatantly racist/xenophobic (had my fair share of comments) but people having a narrow view of how Irish people should look. Whenever I'm in England nobody asks where I'm 'really from'.

It just seems to be a thing here in Ireland - I have several Irish friends who are part Chinese, of Iranian descent and half Spanish respectively and they always experience the same thing. Despite having strong Dublin accents people constantly ask how long they're staying in Ireland, if they miss home etc :rolleyes:

Snake Plisken

milmo wrote:

Thanks Snake,

I'm afraid thought that you are going to have to be more specific when you say "classify those particular people".

Are you asking about them/their motivations/how to deal with them/etc etc or something else??

Milmo

Just how you would classify them, I mean they don't look like they are well off people getting off the boats, and they are certainly risking their lives to get to europe, so I suppose I don't see them as being the middle class africans who want to get into europe via such a risky route.

As for how to deal with the boats and boats of them arriving every week, I soppose I would probably be more hardline and send them back, but the problem is that most of them won't say where they have come from and are processed through the system and sent on their merry way onto mainland europe.

Snake

dodgyme

Snake - Not being smart but I cant remember the Africans arriving to Dublin in log boats. The canary island are off Africa, Ireland IS NOT. The people getting off the boats in the canaries probably never heard of ireland. Alot of counties I was in africa the people never heard of ireland, apart from some through the missionaries. What we are talking about is quite the opposite of this. It involves meetings and planning, the use of the email, internet, company invitations, multiple flights and tickets, discussion of what to say when you get stopped etc and details of what to do when you get to the country. It is organised in offices and hotels from which if you look outside you probably may see the poorer classes who might be more in fitting with the people you are talking about in the boats.

Snake Plisken

dodgyme wrote:

Snake - Not being smart but I cant remember the Africans arriving to Dublin in log boats. The canary island are off Africa, Ireland IS NOT. The people getting off the boats in the canaries probably never heard of ireland. Alot of counties I was in africa the people never heard of ireland, apart from some through the missionaries. What we are talking about is quite the opposite of this. It involves meetings and planning, the use of the email, internet, company invitations, multiple flights and tickets, discussion of what to say when you get stopped etc and details of what to do when you get to the country. It is organised in offices and hotels from which if you look outside you probably may see the poorer classes who might be more in fitting with the people you are talking about in the boats.

Dodgy thats what I wanted to find out, so its not really the people arriving in the boats to the canary islands who are the people coming here and abusing the system. But yet once they've been processed into the EU, they can travel wherever they want. And its not only the irish who have reservations about them coming into the EU, I know that a lot of Spanish don't like it either, get an email from a Spanish friend with a document that outlines how Emigrants are jumping housing/schools waiting lists because of the Socialist Government in Spain. If I get a chance I'll translate it and post it on here because a lot of the Spanish concerns echo those of the irish.

Snake

Scoobydoobydoo

Would just like to add my opinion.

I don't believe this issue is for one second based on nationality or colour.

I do believe it is partly based on religion but do not believe the school is at fault for not accepting children who aren't Catholic over children of other religious persuasions, as this would be a very obvious preferencial consideration when a school is oversubscribed.

I don't understand how the church is being held responsible for this. As far as I can see, the government is irresponsible for allowing so many immigrants in, without providing new schools. They seem to have been happy to a huge extent to just rely on the church run schools. When the church run schools account for 98% or whatever high figure it is, it is plain to see there are going to be issues when Catholic kids and others are competing for a place.

If I was in Israel for example, I wouldn't expect my Catholic child to get a place in a Jewish school if he was competing with a Jewish child for the last place. Yes, I'd feel very stuck, but I wouldn't blame the school. However, I'd expect my child to get the place if he was Jewish, against an Israeli of a different religion.

Recently, I applied to a Protestant school for my son - I knew he'd be at the back of the list and that if a Protestant child joined the queue they'd jump my son's place. We knew that, and accepted it because we can understand they need to give their own priority when there is a shortage of places.

Nevyn

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0912/education.html

The Equality Authority says it believes primary schools that apply a Catholics first enrolment policy could be in breach of both Irish and European anti-discrimination legislation.

The Authority has written to the Government, the Archdiocese of Dublin and some Dublin schools outlining its concerns and it has called on the Government to carry out a review of education provision in Ireland.

The Authority says it is deeply concerned about any racial segregation in Irish schools.
Advertisement

It says it believes oversubscribed schools that admit Catholic children first are in effect refusing children from ethnic minorities.

It says it is questionable whether exemptions given to religious run schools, to allow them to protect their ethos, can be relied on to allow for the preferential treatment of Catholic children.

The Equality Authority also cites the European Race Directive, which takes precedence over all Irish legislation. It forbids any direct or indirect discrimination against any ethnic minority.

The Minister for Education, Mary Hanafin, has said primary schools will have to look at their enrolment policies and practices.

She said the Equality Authority's analysis was 'fair comment' and something she would be looking at.

The minister said the Race Directive had not come to her attention before and that she would now be discussing the matter with the Minister for Justice, Brian Lenihan, to see what the implications are.

The Irish National Teachers' Organisation (INTO) has called on Minister Hanafin to establish a forum of all the education partners to plan for what it calls a rapidly changing future.

General Secretary John Carr said the problem is that education systems and structures developed in the 1800s are still being used in a much changed 21st century Ireland.

He said no child should be excluded from any school because of religion or race, the time they have spent in the State, or a lack of school places.

He also said the State has a responsibility to make sure education policy does not undermine community cohesion.

SimpleSam06

Kassandra Large Self-expression wrote:

It just seems to be a thing here in Ireland - I have several Irish friends who are part Chinese, of Iranian descent and half Spanish respectively and they always experience the same thing.

Well in fairness, there has only really been a lot of immigration in Ireland over the last six years or so, barely an eyeblink. Before that, we were a nation of emigrants - no one in their right mind wanted to come here, except maybe Germans looking to sample a "rustic" lifestyle or Americans seeking their roots. Give it twenty years or so.

SimpleSam06

It says it believes oversubscribed schools that admit Catholic children first are in effect refusing children from ethnic minorities.

Here we go...

Dyr

meh.saw this earlier on. Once you have the media spotlight on the issue then you'll have all your usual suspects wading in like this trying to make some gains.

purple'n'gold

“You'll find that most Irish people aren't racist, publically or privately.”

There seems to be a mind set among certain people in this country that because we are Irish we cannot possibly be racist. This is absolute and utter nonsense. We are as racist or un racist as any other western European country. I say western European because that is where we are. We don’t empathize with Africans because of our shared colonial past, we were part of the United Kingdom (the same as Scotland and Wales, and of course the present day Northern Ireland) until we decided to break away, 85 years ago. So, please lets put this “good paddy, loves all people" rubbish to rest and accept the fact that some Irish people, will always be racist, ignorant or whatever. We are no different than anyone else.

milmo

Snake,

The educated Africans I worked with daily were certainly better off than these individuals. That is not to say that those in the boats are badly off by local standards. Many pool their resources to afford the fare, but these fares are still well beyond the capabilities of the ordinary rural villagers I encountered on a daily basis when I was in the jungle. In the refugee camps people were vaguely aware of the promised land of Europe but didn't know much else of it. That changed in urban areas but their notions of what Europe was sometimes bordered on the naive to the ridiculous.

There are a few factors involved in them taking such risks to cross by boat.
This ignorance is the major one. They have little idea what the journey by sea will entail, or how dangerous it will be.

Secondly the risk taken is worth it given the potential reward that they expect when they land in Europe. Live hasn't changed much for the African on the ground in the past years. They are just as badly off as they were before now. Some things have combined to result in a change over the pass number of years is EU open borders policy, EU refugee law, and the coming of the internet and mobile phones throughout Western Africa. Knowledge is more more available and ditributed than ever before.

Thirdly is the almost certain knowledge that they will not be deported if they land on European soil and claim asylum.

[On a side these people smugglers are African, the boats are overcrowded to maximise profit. The conditions are as a direct result of them being either incompetent, incapable, or unwilling to plan their operations (usually all three) to incorporate an element of survivability.]

However, due to our geographic location boats are not landing on our shore. Most of the "boat people" are destined for continental Europe. Only those determined enough from Anglophone countries come as far north as the UK.

A tiny fraction might enter Ireland this way but the majority take more direct routes. If they can afford an airfare you have to question their social financial status in their home country.


Again I agree with dodgy's reply to your post.

SimpleSam06

purplengold wrote:

I say western European because that is where we are. We don’t empathize with Africans because of our shared colonial past, we were part of the United Kingdom

Shared colonial past my hole. The population still hasn't recovered to the level it was at in 1840. We were the colonised, and brutally so, not part of some mythical kingdom.

purplengold wrote:

This is absolute and utter nonsense. We are as racist or un racist as any other western European country... We are no different than anyone else.

Believe it or not, not all cultures in Western Europe are homogenised. This ain't the US here, baby. Far from it.

milmo

Terry,

This is just anecdotal evidence but I usually find the BBC reliable. The basic arguments put forward by myself and dodgy are covered here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3632347.stm


milmo

purple'n'gold

Whether you like it or not, from 1801 to 1922 we were part of the United Kingdom.

SimpleSam06

purplengold wrote:

Whether you like it or not, from 1801 to 1922 we were part of the United Kingdom.

Funny, thats what the English were saying around the same time, too. Whether you like it or not, we don't share a colonial past.

purple'n'gold

We were part of the United Kingdom for all that time, so whatever the United Kingdom done during that time for good or evil, we were part of it. I have made my point and will say no more on the subject. (For now)

Terry

purplengold wrote:

We were part of the United Kingdom for all that time, so whatever the United Kingdom done during that time for good or evil, we were part of it. I have made my point and will say no more on the subject. (For now)

Technically we were part of it and some Irish people did participate in their colonialism. They were few in number though.
At the time the majority of Irish people had no say in any govenmental decisions.

david1two3

mise_me_fein wrote:

Maybe it's about time the parents got to know how it works here.

I reckon the immigrants - especially those from Africa - don't mix in with us Irish and they don't really know the craic with the schools and the class sizes.

If this is the case, fcuk them. I'm sick of seeing groups of fat black women shouting at each other in native African languages.

Hopefully more of the kids will mix in.

I don't have a problem with anyone's colour or any culture but when you live be Ireland, I want you to live like an Irish person.

You are quite ridiculous in your view, which is so stereotypically pretentious with regard to your insinuation that you "dont have a problem with anyones colour",of course if you didnt have a problem there would be no need for you to bring it up in the first place,especially in the way that you did. If you think people are blind/blinkered enough to not see your racist comment for what it is then youve got a bit of learning to do. I suspect your beyond redemption and I am at a loss to figure out why this and other statements of a similar ilk are allowed on these boards. So you want them to be pissed out of their minds on Friday , Saturday and if they earn enough , Sundays aswell. This would be so that they could be like an Irish person. And maybe they could be as narrow minded as you aswell, just to fit in. Racists are by there very nature exuders of their beliefs and just like the incapable drunk being incapable of demonstrating othewise the bigoted racist will always advertise their beliefs ,incapable of supressing them.

Terry

david1two3 wrote:

You are quite ridiculous in your view, which is so stereotypically pretentious with regard to your insinuation that you "dont have a problem with anyones colour",of course if you didnt have a problem there would be no need for you to bring it up in the first place,especially in the way that you did. If you think people are blind/blinkered enough to not see your racist comment for what it is then youve got a bit of learning to do. I suspect your beyond redemption and I am at a loss to figure out why this and other statements of a similar ilk are allowed on these boards. So you want them to be pissed out of their minds on Friday , Saturday and if they earn enough , Sundays aswell. This would be so that they could be like an Irish person. And maybe they could be as narrow minded as you aswell, just to fit in. Racists are by there very nature exuders of their beliefs and just like the incapable drunk being incapable of demonstrating othewise the bigoted racist will always advertise their beliefs ,incapable of supressing them.

Attack the post, not the poster.

You are threading a thin line here.
Be careful what you say.

david1two3

treading. I know exactly what Im saying, I know exactly what I speak of , for I had the misfortune to have to leave Ireland in 84 at the height of the poverty stricken times that came before the present mess of money descended on us. All these hate campaigns stem from the same core, a need for people to hate and denigrate those less fortunate than themselves .They then find a victim , almost certainly incapable of defending themselves, then they attack knowing there will be little or no comeback. They carry on in this fashion for as long as there is little or no chance of being found out or prosecuted, which is most of the time.

The English racist had a problem , he didnt know he hated me until I opened my mouth. At first I knew not what to do and said nothing. Slowly but surely i got angrier and angrier at this injustice that was visited upon me , remember that all I did was jump on a ferry and travel 60 miles to become as it was, an instant problem . Eventually I stood my ground ,fought back , mostly with my mouth . I was 10 and a half stone when i arrived and 6 foot 3 and got picked on a lot. I am still 6 foot three but Im 44 and 14 stone ,bordering on super fit and nobody abuses me , except three hooray Henrys ,yes three ,who have made derogatory remarks about my origins.Two of them were in a position to escape ,one did ,the other thought he had,because as he said he was bigger than me, I just laughed at that, cornered him with my bike ,he threw his bike away and hit me full whack on the jaw ,to see me fall in a heap.Horrors, as I just advanced on him and he ran away. It was the funniest thing thats ever happened to me.The other one was so off his trolley at Richmond Station that it was funny.We waited for our train ,it arrived and as it did so we could hear anguished screams from the road ,where someone was obviously being attacked.It turned out not to be my train and this chap dressed in early twentieth century garbe arrived on the platform and screamed at the platform attendant about " how dare you not hold the train for me you dreadful .................." and so on and so forth.I mentioned to him that we thought hed been attacked on the street ,he retorted to me "to get back on the boat to Belfast".I lied and said I had never been.This was all done fog horn style by a pompous little man who thought the world owed him something ,a walking talking disaster. My demeanour is quite easy going and these boyos think they will get away with it but when I need to defend there is only one permissable outcome. Im only living one life,to the best of my ability and Im lucky to be able to protect myself and anyone else who needs it, yes anyone.Cops ,robbers the lot. I will even protect suspected thieves if they are under attack.

I am quite sure the recent immigrants to Ireland have to put up with this same kind of apalling treatment on a regular basis and I would step in anytime to stop it ,even if it endangers me and if everyone did likewise it would be stopped in its dirty tracks.

A couple of years ago a settled friends daughter refered to fact that you couldnt trust the *******ians,I enquired as to why she had a problem with this nationality and her reply was ," you wouldnt know what they are saying and they are always in groups".I asked her dad what this reminded him of thirty years ago and his reply was "the travellers".I get the impression that he would have preferred the ground to swallow me up and also that Im not welcome anymore but Im not going to worry about that.

Other travellers living nearby on the side of the road were fed by us at christmas .They didnt just eat as we did , they ate off our best china at the side of the road.I was eleven and as I was the dishwasher anyway it was I who saved the whole family from a fate worse than death.That was an eleven year old child being terrified by this awful poverty,they had nothing except two ponies and a cart,yes I mean nothing .They didnt make much of a mess as they had NOTHING.They are still my friends , those that are still alive and when as a teenager trouble brewed they protected me.They had twenty two children and less than 50 % survival rate.Other than us very few people gave a dam about them.There was an unwritten and unmentioned rule,it was that they werent allowed in the house. I knew this to be wrong but felt powerless to say any thing.

Whenever we decide to dislike/hate people who are for whatever reason, different , we are behaving in a way that has no plusses at all ,even if it makes us feel better as it will be a temporary improvement, having as it is to be revisited regularly to top up with more absurd reasons to keep the hatred going, as it doesnt have a natural fuel source.It will eventually rot what is commonly known as the soul or life source. Now is the time to encompass all creeds and cultures and I speak as one who couldnt give a toss for religion of any variety.

Creachadóir

Catholic schools spend 30 mins teaching religion daily. A lot of this "religion" is social education; exploring feelings, friendships growing up, the seasons... I'd be very surprised if any teacher explored Hell with a class, because it's not mentioned in the text-books. If it was mentioned, it would probably be because another child asked a question about Hell, and the teacher just replied. This could happen in the playground, the street, a multi-denominational school or anywhere. All it would take is for one child to have heard the topic mentioned at home.

Another poster mentioned that there are not enough "quality" teachers in Ireland. The teachers in Ireland take children to a high standard of numeracy and literacy when compared to our neighbours. That is in addition to teaching all of the other subjects to a very high standard. Furthermore, the government pumps a lot less money into resources for schools than most other countries. There is little motivation for further education (for teachers). Irish teachers generally need to obtain better results in secondary examinations than our neighbours. If anyone has any doubts about the hours teachers put into their job outside the classroom, check out www.educationposts.ie


In England, muslim children are going to Catholic schools because there are no spaces for them in a muslim school. Ireland is not alone in having over-crowding issues. However, the numbers in some classrooms are not just reaching 30 as suggested by another poster. Many schools have classes as large as 38. 30 children in a class is the norm as opposed to the exception.


No school could refuse admittance based on the fact that the child couldn't speak English. This would not be grounds for exclusion.

Every child deserves an education.

thefinalstage

david1two3 wrote:

treading. I know exactly what Im saying, I know exactly what I speak of , for I had the misfortune to have to leave Ireland in 84 at the height of the poverty stricken times that came before the present mess of money descended on us. All these hate campaigns stem from the same core, a need for people to hate and denigrate those less fortunate than themselves .They then find a victim , almost certainly incapable of defending themselves, then they attack knowing there will be little or no comeback. They carry on in this fashion for as long as there is little or no chance of being found out or prosecuted, which is most of the time.

The English racist had a problem , he didnt know he hated me until I opened my mouth. At first I knew not what to do and said nothing. Slowly but surely i got angrier and angrier at this injustice that was visited upon me , remember that all I did was jump on a ferry and travel 60 miles to become as it was, an instant problem . Eventually I stood my ground ,fought back , mostly with my mouth . I was 10 and a half stone when i arrived and 6 foot 3 and got picked on a lot. I am still 6 foot three but Im 44 and 14 stone ,bordering on super fit and nobody abuses me , except three hooray Henrys ,yes three ,who have made derogatory remarks about my origins.Two of them were in a position to escape ,one did ,the other thought he had,because as he said he was bigger than me, I just laughed at that, cornered him with my bike ,he threw his bike away and hit me full whack on the jaw ,to see me fall in a heap.Horrors, as I just advanced on him and he ran away. It was the funniest thing thats ever happened to me.The other one was so off his trolley at Richmond Station that it was funny.We waited for our train ,it arrived and as it did so we could hear anguished screams from the road ,where someone was obviously being attacked.It turned out not to be my train and this chap dressed in early twentieth century garbe arrived on the platform and screamed at the platform attendant about " how dare you not hold the train for me you dreadful .................." and so on and so forth.I mentioned to him that we thought hed been attacked on the street ,he retorted to me "to get back on the boat to Belfast".I lied and said I had never been.This was all done fog horn style by a pompous little man who thought the world owed him something ,a walking talking disaster. My demeanour is quite easy going and these boyos think they will get away with it but when I need to defend there is only one permissable outcome. Im only living one life,to the best of my ability and Im lucky to be able to protect myself and anyone else who needs it, yes anyone.Cops ,robbers the lot. I will even protect suspected thieves if they are under attack.

I am quite sure the recent immigrants to Ireland have to put up with this same kind of apalling treatment on a regular basis and I would step in anytime to stop it ,even if it endangers me and if everyone did likewise it would be stopped in its dirty tracks.

A couple of years ago a settled friends daughter refered to fact that you couldnt trust the *******ians,I enquired as to why she had a problem with this nationality and her reply was ," you wouldnt know what they are saying and they are always in groups".I asked her dad what this reminded him of thirty years ago and his reply was "the travellers".I get the impression that he would have preferred the ground to swallow me up and also that Im not welcome anymore but Im not going to worry about that.

Other travellers living nearby on the side of the road were fed by us at christmas .They didnt just eat as we did , they ate off our best china at the side of the road.I was eleven and as I was the dishwasher anyway it was I who saved the whole family from a fate worse than death.That was an eleven year old child being terrified by this awful poverty,they had nothing except two ponies and a cart,yes I mean nothing .They didnt make much of a mess as they had NOTHING.They are still my friends , those that are still alive and when as a teenager trouble brewed they protected me.They had twenty two children and less than 50 % survival rate.Other than us very few people gave a dam about them.There was an unwritten and unmentioned rule,it was that they werent allowed in the house. I knew this to be wrong but felt powerless to say any thing.

Whenever we decide to dislike/hate people who are for whatever reason, different , we are behaving in a way that has no plusses at all ,even if it makes us feel better as it will be a temporary improvement, having as it is to be revisited regularly to top up with more absurd reasons to keep the hatred going, as it doesnt have a natural fuel source.It will eventually rot what is commonly known as the soul or life source. Now is the time to encompass all creeds and cultures and I speak as one who couldnt give a toss for religion of any variety.

You sir are a condescending bastard. You attack others for spelling yet you don't even know how to do it properly yourself. To bad really, you had some nice little stories to tell.

Slutmonkey57b

Bambi wrote:

Even if these poor kids get to hop skip ahead of the indigenous kids in the massive waiting lists for school places just because they is black, they'll STILL be expected to learn irish!! Why its racisms i tells ya!!


Cry me a f****ng river, and when yiz do then build a boat and paddle up it back to whatever other EU country yis snuck in from, yee shower of goldbricking chancers.

I always love it when I hear Irish people make comments like this. Always reminds me of everything that's worth hating about this place and its people.

Note to Irish people: For centuries, IRISH people were the goldbricking chancers with no social morals who leeched off other better off societes and charmed the locals with massive drunkenness and weekend fighting, which of course we like to conveniently forget. Not for nothing were police vans in new york called Paddy Wagons.

Slutmonkey57b

Terry wrote:

Technically we were part of it and some Irish people did participate in their colonialism. They were few in number though.
At the time the majority of Irish people had no say in any govenmental decisions.

At the time, neither did a lot of English people, what with women not having the vote. :rolleyes:

Slutmonkey57b

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Funny, thats what the English were saying around the same time, too. Whether you like it or not, we don't share a colonial past.

Since the english were originally invited over by an Irish warlord, then yes, we do.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Shared colonial past my hole. The population still hasn't recovered to the level it was at in 1840. We were the colonised, and brutally so, not part of some mythical kingdom.

Look through your history books and you'll find that the poor of england were treated just as badly as the poor of Ireland. Workhouses, overcrowded slums, mass poverty and disease, social inequality. You might also like to look at whether catholic irish landowners spent their time profiting from the famine just like their british counterparts, the difference being of course they weren't absentee landlords and could actually see what was going on. There was never a famine in ireland, there was an exploitation of the the poor by the landowning rich. The same social conditions existed to a large extent in england, and the same remedies (workhouses) would have been deployed. Laissez-faire government was the same everywhere.

And Irish people had no problems joining the British Army to increase colonial rule abroad, did they? But of course unlike the english soldiers who mostly joined from the ranks of the poor or conscripted criminals, the irish soldier was 100% victim.

Not to mention the fact that british colonial rule relied almost entirely on the co-operation of key ruling people in the conquered lands. They didn't have the army to subjugate the world brutally, and never gained it. Once they lost local co-operation the empire disintegrated.

SimpleSam06

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Since the english were originally invited over by an Irish warlord, then yes, we do.

That would be the Normans, who were French and before that Scandanavian.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Look through your history books and you'll find that the poor of england were treated just as badly as the poor of Ireland.

So the population of England is the same as it was in the 1840s? Wow, I must have missed a step there. Did you know that during the height of the famnine, they voted more money to refurbish a park in London than for famnine relief for Ireland?

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

You might also like to look at whether catholic irish landowners spent their time profiting from the famine just like their british counterparts, the difference being of course they weren't absentee landlords and could actually see what was going on.

Its not a catholic versus protestant issue, its about the conditions created by the English occupation of Ireland. If they hadn't done that, there would be no landlords, absentee or otherwise.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

There was never a famine in ireland

And thats my shoo-in for quote of the year.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

And Irish people had no problems joining the British Army to increase colonial rule abroad, did they? But of course unlike the english soldiers who mostly joined from the ranks of the poor or conscripted criminals, the irish soldier was 100% victim.

Actually a great many people had problems with joining the British army. And English soldiers were not mostly conscripted criminals, you don't build one of the finest armies on earth of the time on the backs of convicts. Also, its not like the people of the day, from large families struggling through poverty with no escape, could claim social welfare or join a FAS course.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Not to mention the fact that british colonial rule relied almost entirely on the co-operation of key ruling people in the conquered lands. They didn't have the army to subjugate the world brutally, and never gained it. Once they lost local co-operation the empire disintegrated.

So let me see here, you are pinning the entire existence of the British Empire on the existence of local collaborators? I think my previous quote of the month just got supplanted! So in your twisted little world view, the countries conquered by the UK really wanted to be conquered? Jesus H. Christ.

I invite you to take a look at this, a map of the British Empire over time. Note how completely crap it was until around the 1860s (also a lot of their earlier efforts were directly the result of the efforts of the British East India Company), and ponder the correlation between that and the development of battlefield gatling cannons and mobile howitzers.

The British Empire lasted just long enough for the natives to figure out which was the business end of a machine gun, which goes to show the level of ability the British had at keeping an Empire. Which is to say, little to none.

Dyr

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

I always love it when I hear Irish people make comments like this. Always reminds me of everything that's worth hating about this place and its people.

Note to Irish people: For centuries, IRISH people were the goldbricking chancers with no social morals who leeched off other better off societes and charmed the locals with massive drunkenness and weekend fighting, which of course we like to conveniently forget. Not for nothing were police vans in new york called Paddy Wagons.

When i read the revisionist nonsense that people like you spew out, i feel exactly the same way, so we have something in common.

We should really do with your ilk what the germans do with people who deny the holocaust happend, Jail time buddy and plenty of it

MySelf56

There is similar thread started Politics few days back. Please find my comments from the below post.

My post

Terry

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

I always love it when I hear Irish people make comments like this. Always reminds me of everything that's worth hating about this place and its people.

Note to Irish people: For centuries, IRISH people were the goldbricking chancers with no social morals who leeched off other better off societes and charmed the locals with massive drunkenness and weekend fighting, which of course we like to conveniently forget. Not for nothing were police vans in new york called Paddy Wagons.

I'd say they charmed the locals by actually working.
They drank after work.
You see, there was no welfare state for them to sponge off, so they had to work.
Where else would they get money to buy all that alcohol?

At the time, neither did a lot of English people, what with women not having the vote.
Look through your history books

I sugget you follow your own advice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws_%28Ireland%29

There was never a famine in ireland

LMFAO.

thelastangryman wrote:

You sir are a condescending bastard. You attack others for spelling yet you don't even know how to do it properly yourself. To bad really, you had some nice little stories to tell.

You sir, are banned.

Flex

purplengold wrote:

We were part of the United Kingdom for all that time, so whatever the United Kingdom done during that time for good or evil, we were part of it. I have made my point and will say no more on the subject. (For now)

Oh geez what a brilliant point :rolleyes: The Poles, Austrians and Czechs should feel mighty damn shamed for what their country (Germany) was doing from 1939-1945 aswel so, since they were integral parts of the German state for those years.

Slutmonkey57b

SimpleSam06 wrote:

That would be the Normans, who were French and before that Scandanavian.

Well then, blame the scandanavians for the british empire by that logic. Ah, but we don't like that in little old england-hating ireland, do we?

So the population of England is the same as it was in the 1840s? Wow, I must have missed a step there. Did you know that during the height of the famnine, they voted more money to refurbish a park in London than for famnine relief for Ireland?

Did I state at any point that the government of the time behaved well? No. Get off your emotional soapbox. My point was that the government of the time treated all its poor citizens, all over the empire, like crap - by simply ignoring them.

Its not a catholic versus protestant issue, its about the conditions created by the English occupation of Ireland. If they hadn't done that, there would be no landlords, absentee or otherwise.

Really? So before the english occupation, there were no local "kings" of ireland who had subjects? They all lived in a big hippy commune did they?

And thats my shoo-in for quote of the year.

Really? A famine is what you get when there's a systematic failure of the crop system and there is nothing to eat. This did not happen in Ireland. What happened was that the landowners sold the crops and starved the people.

Actually a great many people had problems with joining the British army. And English soldiers were not mostly conscripted criminals, you don't build one of the finest armies on earth of the time on the backs of convicts. Also, its not like the people of the day, from large families struggling through poverty with no escape, could claim social welfare or join a FAS course.

Sir Arthur Wellesly (born in Ireland) would disagree with you there. His army was made up of criminals given an "army or jail" choice, conscripts, and aristocrats who funded the army by buying commissions. Which doesn't in any way change my point that the poor of ireland joined up to the army in the exact same circumstances as the poor of england, does it? But while people love to use colonialism as an excuse to rant spite at the english, they ignore the fact that the Irish soldier was doing the exact same as the english soldier. But the brits, oh they did it coz they're intrinsically evil, right?

So let me see here, you are pinning the entire existence of the British Empire on the existence of local collaborators? I think my previous quote of the month just got supplanted! So in your twisted little world view, the countries conquered by the UK really wanted to be conquered? Jesus H. Christ.

No. What I said was that the english relied on local co-operation to have an empire at all. How did the english conquer India? A: They didn't, the East India Company played politics among the maharajas and took over by stealth. There was no way the british could have mustered enough troops to land in India and take it by force. By contrast, they conquered Australia by overwhelming technological superiority. You only have to look at how the empire disintegrated to see how reliant it was on locals to maintain it.

I invite you to take a look at this, a map of the British Empire over time. Note how completely crap it was until around the 1860s (also a lot of their earlier efforts were directly the result of the efforts of the British East India Company), and ponder the correlation between that and the development of battlefield gatling cannons and mobile howitzers.

Which just goes to prove my point, doesn't it? The english empire existed for less than a hundred years where it had enough technological and monetary superiority, and a government that made a point of not getting involved in the quality of its subject's lives.

The British Empire lasted just long enough for the natives to figure out which was the business end of a machine gun, which goes to show the level of ability the British had at keeping an Empire. Which is to say, little to none.

The natives had more than enough smarts to work out how to work a gun. And on the one hand, you're berating the english for "800 years of oppression" in ireland, then complaining that they were clueless twats really who couldn't oppress a nunnery for more than five minutes.

Maybe it took the Irish 800 years to work out how to point a sword at someone? Or maybe your argument is emotive crap.

Slutmonkey57b

Terry wrote:

I'd say they charmed the locals by actually working.
They drank after work.
You see, there was no welfare state for them to sponge off, so they had to work.
Where else would they get money to buy all that alcohol?

If the locals found them so charming, why did the Irish, by your reckoning, face such racism? It's because all those foreigners are racist against us pious god-fearing Irish, while us Irish are the salt of the earth, not a prejudiced bone in our bodies, except against all those n*****s and russkies and slant-eyes comin over here and takin our jobs....

I sugget you follow your own advice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws_%28Ireland%29

Did I at any point deny the penal laws? No. I pointed out that the english government was just as good at oppressing english people as it was Irish people. The main difference was that Ireland, being a catholic country, was a point of invasion for hundreds of years where the vatican wanted the protestent nations destroyed.

LMFAO.

Again, you show me where the crop system failed and there was no food in the country, and I'll admit there was a famine. It didn't happen. What happened was enforced starvation as a result of greed and disinterest. That is not a famine. Ethiopia had a famine.

Slutmonkey57b

Bambi wrote:

When i read the revisionist nonsense that people like you spew out, i feel exactly the same way, so we have something in common.

We should really do with your ilk what the germans do with people who deny the holocaust happend, Jail time buddy and plenty of it

Ireland is the home of revisionist nonsense. Especially when someone questions the publicly acceptable face of irish history, and threatens to insert some facts. Irish history is always taught as a black and white "poor beaten down Ireland, subjugated under the boot of the immoral hate-filled english and subjected to racism wherever they went" without any contextualising of the greater world around. I particularly enjoy the fact that most of the heroes of Irish independence, who are famed in rebellious song for starting the independence movement, were anglo-irish proddies. But that's just me.

SimpleSam06

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Well then, blame the scandanavians for the british empire by that logic.

Thats not too far from the truth. Of course by the time the British actually had an empire, the Scandanavians were so well integrated that they might as well have been English. Which doesn't change my point in the slightest; the first "English" invaders, as you call them, were in no way English.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Did I state at any point that the government of the time behaved well? No. Get off your emotional soapbox. My point was that the government of the time treated all its poor citizens, all over the empire, like crap - by simply ignoring them.

There is a big difference between treating your citizens like crap and indulging in attempted genocide by indifference.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Really? So before the english occupation, there were no local "kings" of ireland who had subjects? They all lived in a big hippy commune did they?

They had laws and systems of society which applied to all people. Unfortunately, we'll never know what Ireland might have been without foreign interference.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Really? A famine is what you get when there's a systematic failure of the crop system and there is nothing to eat. This did not happen in Ireland. What happened was that the landowners sold the crops and starved the people.

Christ almighty. POTATO BLIGHT. You actually don't know what happened, do you? This ignorance is profoundly telling in someone who is arguing about Ireland.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Sir Arthur Wellesly (born in Ireland) would disagree with you there. His army was made up of criminals given an "army or jail" choice, conscripts, and aristocrats who funded the army by buying commissions.

There were mercenary and private armies from all sides back in those days. That doesn't mean that the official government troops were largely conscripted criminals as a general rule. They weren't.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Which doesn't in any way change my point that the poor of ireland joined up to the army in the exact same circumstances as the poor of england, does it?

The average British soldier may have had few enough alternate choices with regard to their choice of career, but I guarantee you the Irish had less. And even then, very few Irish people joined the British army.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

No. What I said was that the english relied on local co-operation to have an empire at all. How did the english conquer India? A: They didn't, the East India Company played politics among the maharajas and took over by stealth. There was no way the british could have mustered enough troops to land in India and take it by force. By contrast, they conquered Australia by overwhelming technological superiority. You only have to look at how the empire disintegrated to see how reliant it was on locals to maintain it.

The British Empire is widely regarded as one upon which "the sun never set", not the squabbling territories they had managed to influence the policy of before the advent of gatling cannons. And they conquered a great deal more than Australia with the use of these weapons, as the maps I linked to clearly display.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Which just goes to prove my point, doesn't it? The english empire existed for less than a hundred years where it had enough technological and monetary superiority, and a government that made a point of not getting involved in the quality of its subject's lives.

Your point seems to be that local people wanted to be conquered, no doubt due to the innate superiority of the British way of life. This is once again ignorance in the extreme, which you really make a habit of displaying.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

The natives had more than enough smarts to work out how to work a gun.

Being able to squeeze a trigger and being able to get your hands on said triggers are two very different matters. Still with me? Good lad.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

And on the one hand, you're berating the english for "800 years of oppression" in ireland, then complaining that they were clueless twats really who couldn't oppress a nunnery for more than five minutes.

Theres a big difference between overrunning a weaker next door neighbour by coining such phrases as "scorched earth policy", being barely able to hold on to the cities while raiding the villages for chickens for a few centuries, then cementing your grasp on the place when your guns fire eight rounds a second, and running an empire. As they indubitably proved. Hell, even the current debacle in Iraq is directly the result of trademark British incompetence.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Maybe it took the Irish 800 years to work out how to point a sword at someone? Or maybe your argument is emotive crap.

Or maybe your ignorance is only surpassed by your desire to see history revised to better suit your twisted little world view.

Terry

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Again, you show me where the crop system failed and there was no food in the country, and I'll admit there was a famine. It didn't happen. What happened was enforced starvation as a result of greed and disinterest. That is not a famine. Ethiopia had a famine.

It was a potato famine.
The potato was the main source of food for the majority of people.

Yes, other crops were successfully grown, but the landlords (who were either landed gentry or employed in some way by the british) exported all those crops.
This is what made it a famine. You can throw all the technicalities you want at it, but the fact that millions died and millions more were forced to emigrate is a testament to what happened.
As we were part of Britain at the time, it was up to the british government to take a stand on this. They failed to do so.
As a result of this failure, the population of both hell and Connaught increased considerably during the 1840's.

The natives had more than enough smarts to work out how to work a gun. And on the one hand, you're berating the english for "800 years of oppression" in ireland,

Ahh, the old 800 years arguement.
Regularly seen when trying to defend the actions of the British in Ireland and insinuate that the opponent is a complete 'RA head.

Has it occurred to you that the Irish who joined the army at the time might just have done so to help feed their families?
There is no great conspiracy involved here. People were hungry. There were no jobs. The army was the only option.
You do know that the British army wasn't the only one with a large Irish contingent, dont' you? Other European armies also took on Irish people. It just happened that the British army was the closest to home.

Ireland is the home of revisionist nonsense. Especially when someone questions the publicly acceptable face of irish history, and threatens to insert some facts. Irish history is always taught as a black and white "poor beaten down Ireland, subjugated under the boot of the immoral hate-filled english and subjected to racism wherever they went" without any contextualising of the greater world around. I particularly enjoy the fact that most of the heroes of Irish independence, who are famed in rebellious song for starting the independence movement, were anglo-irish proddies. But that's just me.

Just like the revisionist history of Britain?
You would be quite surprised how many British people actually believe that Britain brought civilisation to the rest of the world.
Take a look at America's publicity surrounding the current occupation in Iraq. They say they are there to help bring democracy. Well that's what a lot of British people were led to believe about their own countries' excursions around the world.

Regarding the anglo-irish proddies, British people were not all genocidal colononists.
In fact, i'm quite sure they were in the minority. It's just unfortunate that this minority were the ones in power at the time.

Let's just call a spade a spade here.
The British invaded Ireland. They were not wanted here, but they decided that they didn't want to leave.
How hard is it to understand that they were the ones who invaded Ireland?
Little incursions in Scotland 1,000 years ago is not the same as a full scale invasion and occupation.

Slutmonkey57b

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Thats not too far from the truth. Of course by the time the British actually had an empire, the Scandanavians were so well integrated that they might as well have been English. Which doesn't change my point in the slightest; the first "English" invaders, as you call them, were in no way English.

Eh, the normans conquered england, as in "took it over and created the nation". Nobody was "english" before the normans arrived.

There is a big difference between treating your citizens like crap and indulging in attempted genocide by indifference.

If they were indifferent, they weren't attempting anything. They were ignoring it, just like they ignored the poor everywhere.

They had laws and systems of society which applied to all people. Unfortunately, we'll never know what Ireland might have been without foreign interference.

Got a written list of those laws, have you? Didn't think so.

Christ almighty. POTATO BLIGHT. You actually don't know what happened, do you? This ignorance is profoundly telling in someone who is arguing about Ireland.

I DO know what happened, and please point me to where I said there was no potato blight! The point I've made, several times now, that you are either ignorant of due to your deperate grip on the misinformation fed to you in history class, your inability to read, or your plain stupidity, is this:
I'll put it in bold for you this time:

There was more than enough food to feed the starving. Lack of food was not the problem. Lack of food is not why people died. People died because the owners of the land chose to sell the food abroad rather than give it (or sell it) to the starving peasant classes.

The average British soldier may have had few enough alternate choices with regard to their choice of career, but I guarantee you the Irish had less. And even then, very few Irish people joined the British army.

Convenient whitewashing of the Irish involvement there! Please point to facts that show that the poor of, say East London, had more opportunities than the poor of Dublin. Or that the poor of scotland who lived under oppressive (scottish, not english) land laws had more choices in life than irish country peasants. During the 1916 rising, Dublin women beseiged the GPO demanding the rebels hand over the money their men were owed from the army on pay day.

Your point seems to be that local people wanted to be conquered, no doubt due to the innate superiority of the British way of life. This is once again ignorance in the extreme, which you really make a habit of displaying

No, my point was clearly that the British used assistance from local powerful rulers to fight that ruler's enemies, then install him in a position of power to assist them in running the empire. I didn't at any point suggest that the british way of life was superior, in fact I've repeatedly said that the british way of life was uniformly bad for the poor of the empire, regardless of where they were from. Not that that stops you from putting words in my mouth to stop me from suggesting that Irish history isn't as black and white as our schools and received wisdom like to pretend it is.

Being able to squeeze a trigger and being able to get your hands on said triggers are two very different matters. Still with me? Good lad.

What stopped them getting their hands on the weapons before that? And please explain how "getting your hands on the weapons" helped the Indians end colonial rule. I'm still with you, but I'm having to slow my cognative processes considerably. Bear with me though, I think I can stoop to your level.

Theres a big difference between overrunning a weaker next door neighbour by coining such phrases as "scorched earth policy", being barely able to hold on to the cities while raiding the villages for chickens for a few centuries, then cementing your grasp on the place when your guns fire eight rounds a second, and running an empire. As they indubitably proved. Hell, even the current debacle in Iraq is directly the result of trademark British incompetence.

So we should hate the British for their ruthless, constant, 800 year oppression of our poor nation on the one hand, but laugh at them for their incompetence at running an empire on the other. Again, that argument beggars the question why the Irish, with the support of the catholic powers of europe, failed to throw off the pathetically inept British rulers before the advent of the gattling gun, doesn't it?

And as the Spanish proved in South and Central america, you don't need gattling guns to subjugate a less advanced nation - just a superior edge. The spanish had a couple of hundred men, guns that fired (it at all) once every couple of minutes, and horses. They took over nations of millions, with standing armies numbering in the thousands. Horses were enough of a technological advantage. They didn't need machine guns.

Or maybe your ignorance is only surpassed by your desire to see history revised to better suit your twisted little world view.

Seeing as you are seemingly under the impression above that Britain started the invasion of Iraq, not america, then I would suggest it's you who are desperate to see history revised to suit your desperation to hate the english at all costs.

is_that_so

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

I DO know what happened, and please point me to where I said there was no potato blight! The point I've made, several times now, that you are either ignorant of due to your deperate grip on the misinformation fed to you in history class, your inability to read, or your plain stupidity, is this:
I'll put it in bold for you this time:

There was more than enough food to feed the starving. Lack of food was not the problem. Lack of food is not why people died. People died because the owners of the land chose to sell the food abroad rather than give it (or sell it) to the starving peasant classes.

Famine - a severe shortage of food (as through crop failure) resulting in violent hunger and starvation and death.
Need I say more. A lot of people died due to lack of food due to crop failure of which there was a lot - that potato blight again. Sounds pretty much like a famine in my book. Whether other classes or authorities exacerbated this problem is a matter of debate and does not preclude the actual existence of said famine.

TBH throwing up misguided historical revisionism that reflect your own prejudices just to prove a point undermines your own credibility.

Slutmonkey57b

Terry wrote:

It was a potato famine.
The potato was the main source of food for the majority of people.

Yes, other crops were successfully grown, but the landlords (who were either landed gentry or employed in some way by the british) exported all those crops.
This is what made it a famine. You can throw all the technicalities you want at it, but the fact that millions died and millions more were forced to emigrate is a testament to what happened.
As we were part of Britain at the time, it was up to the british government to take a stand on this. They failed to do so.
As a result of this failure, the population of both hell and Connaught increased considerably during the 1840's.

Not only did I not deny that, I pointed it out. I also pointed out that the government of the time treated its native citizens just as badly, leaving hundreds of thousands of poor to die of disease, malnutrition, overcrowding, and starvation for no good reason other than that they didn't care.

Ahh, the old 800 years arguement.
Regularly seen when trying to defend the actions of the British in Ireland and insinuate that the opponent is a complete 'RA head.

The old "800 years" argument is the basis of the teaching of history in this country, and I've never heard it used to defend the actions of the british in ireland. The only argument I've heard to defend the actions of irish occupation are those of "expand or die" in the face of protestant - vs - catholic in post-reformation europe, which happened after the initial "invasion" that a lot of people like to forget was instigated as a result of local irish politics.

Has it occurred to you that the Irish who joined the army at the time might just have done so to help feed their families?
There is no great conspiracy involved here. People were hungry. There were no jobs. The army was the only option.
You do know that the British army wasn't the only one with a large Irish contingent, dont' you? Other European armies also took on Irish people. It just happened that the British army was the closest to home.

Eh, no, it had occurred to me. In fact, again, I pointed it out. What I also pointed out is that the english soldier, for the most part, joined under the same conditions. Which is something that people don't seem to like me pointing out for some reason.

Just like the revisionist history of Britain?
You would be quite surprised how many British people actually believe that Britain brought civilisation to the rest of the world.

No I wouldn't. All countries are revisionists when it comes to their own history. But since I'm born in Ireland, I'll take it upon myself to attack our own revisionist history at the moment thank you. There are more than enough historians working in england at the moment perfectly willing to revise their own history, even if it hasn't filtered through to the textbooks yet.

Take a look at America's publicity surrounding the current occupation in Iraq. They say they are there to help bring democracy. Well that's what a lot of British people were led to believe about their own countries' excursions around the world.

Another poster comparing what the americans are at to what the british were at hundreds of years ago. Maybe that's why a lot of British political commentators are exasperated at the american's refusal to learn the lessons of Imperial Britain, eh?

Regarding the anglo-irish proddies, British people were not all genocidal colononists.
In fact, i'm quite sure they were in the minority. It's just unfortunate that this minority were the ones in power at the time.

And as I keep pointing out, the Irish love to hate the english as a whole on general principle, don't they?

Let's just call a spade a spade here.
The British invaded Ireland. They were not wanted here, but they decided that they didn't want to leave.
How hard is it to understand that they were the ones who invaded Ireland?
Little incursions in Scotland 1,000 years ago is not the same as a full scale invasion and occupation.

How hard is it to understand that national politics tends to be a little more complicated than the mentality of the average Sun reader? (which has a large circulation over here).