Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Dublin denies racist problem as blacks struggle to find school places
Comments
-
-
-
-
You might tell that to the current inhabitants, who seem to be labouring under the impression that the Saxons eventually drove off the Norman invaders.Slutmonkey57b wrote:Eh, the normans conquered england, as in "took it over and created the nation". Nobody was "english" before the normans arrived.
Oh no, I have no list of these laws. Durr. Terry can I be given a special dispensation to abuse someone in AH? Just this once? Pleeeeeeease?Slutmonkey57b wrote:Got a written list of those laws, have you? Didn't think so.
There is so much wrong with your ideas of history that I really don't know where to start.
If you don't know the difference between the way the Irish were treated and the English were treated, you know nothing about history.
If you say that the Great Famine was not caused by a lack of food, you know nothing about history.
If you don't grasp the required industrial infrastructure to create automatic weapons was not in posesssion of colonised people, you know nothing about history.
If you don't think that the original creation of Iraq, setting the stage for today's debacle, was not the work of incompetent British, you know nothing about history.
The one place the British did prove superb in their foreign policy was as drug dealers, fittingly enough, in China.
The Spanish did so well in Central America because the population had been expecting them. The Aztec prophecy of a white man/horse coming to save them made them bow down quickly to the Spanish invaders.
So I think its fairly safe to say you know nothing about history. What is particularily interesting is that you seem to think that I hate the English. I really don't particularily care about them, to be honest. You on the other hand, appear to hate the Irish, in fact you have said this several times.
Anyway, to wrap this up:
Edmund: Well, you see, George, I did like it, back in the old days when the prerequisite of a British campaign was that the enemy should under no circumstances carry guns -- even spears made us think twice. he kind of people we liked to fight were two feet tall and armed with dry grass.
George: Now, come off it, sir -- what about M'boto Gorge, for heaven's sake?
Edmund: Yes, that was a bit of a nasty one -- ten thousand D'watushi warriors armed to the teeth with kiwi fruit and guava halves. After the battle, instead of taking prisoners, we simply made a huge fruit salad. No, when I joined up, I never imagined anything as awful as this war. I'd had fifteen years of military experience, perfecting the art of ordering a pink gin and saying "Do you do it doggy-doggy?" in Swahili, and then suddenly four-and-a-half million heavily armed Germans hove into view. That was a shock, I can tell you.
The "British Empire" will go down in history as the disgraceful wet fart that it was.0 -
-
-
-
Snake Plisken wrote:Its a Government issue, before this immigration started the majority of the population of Ireland where Catholic and thus the church built schools on their grounds, now for the last 10 years with the Lax immigration laws we have an influx of immigrants and basically the Government did damn all about it and they also didn't fund any extra schools to meet this influx of immigrants.
As for the African immigrants they don't integrate into Irish Society, a lot of their kids don't even speak english and this actually slows down the amount that can be thought in the classes, I should know as it happens in my kids school and 2 teachers have told me the same thing.
Funny thing my wife saw last week in Dunnes Stores in Lucan a row between an African Lady and an Irish Middle aged lady, basically the African Lady jumped the queue for the checkouts and the Irish lady told her to get back to the end of the queue and the African lady shouted your Racist, which the Irish Lady quick as a flash said "I bet thats the first words you learn when you came here!"
Snake
So you think all African immigrants are like that?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
SimpleSam06 wrote:You might tell that to the current inhabitants, who seem to be labouring under the impression that the Saxons eventually drove off the Norman invaders.
Really? I've never met anyone who was of that opinion.Oh no, I have no list of these laws. Durr. Terry can I be given a special dispensation to abuse someone in AH? Just this once? Pleeeeeeease?
Woohoo the brehon laws! And where are the Brehon laws taught in Irish schools? Not at all while I was there! I suppose the brits are to blame for that. And while you're mentioning the brehon laws, please show how the Holy Mother church, which enforced law over the rest of europe, would have supported these laws. Actually, you don't have to, because the british were appointed rulers of ireland by the church themselves, because it wasn't a fan of the existing celtic christianity any more than it was a fan of orthodox chritianity elsewhere, and english law was based on church law anyway. The brehon laws may have been admirable, but they weren't a basis for a nation at the time, in many ways they prevented the Irish from being a unified nation at all.There is so much wrong with your ideas of history that I really don't know where to start. If you don't know the difference between the way the Irish were treated and the English were treated, you know nothing about history.
I never denied the Irish were treated badly. What I do suggest is that the perception that the English were the jackbooted nazis of the middle ages onward is totally misguided.If you say that the Great Famine was not caused by a lack of food, you know nothing about history.
Point me to where I stated that starvation resulted from something other than lack of food. What I did state was that, contrary to popular belief, there was plenty of food available. Ethiopia had a famine because there was no food available. Ireland had an enforced starvation because food producers were profiteers.If you don't grasp the required industrial infrastructure to create automatic weapons was not in posesssion of colonised people, you know nothing about history.
What prevented the colonials having an industrial infrastructure then? And again, please point to how having access to guns helped the pacifist revolution in India. My point was never that the English didn't take over countries. My point was that this takeover was never the simple matter of arrogant racist english pigs stomping round the world putting the boot in at random.If you don't think that the original creation of Iraq, setting the stage for today's debacle, was not the work of incompetent British, you know nothing about history.
The original creation of Iraq has little or nothing to do with America's need to control oil reserves, no. The British created the nation that was invaded, they didn't create the oil that was the reason for invasion. If Iraq had no oil, then the americans wouldn't be there, and the religious wars would be allowed to rage unchecked, just as they are elsewhere.The one place the British did prove superb in their foreign policy was as drug dealers, fittingly enough, in China.
Again, the product of the lack of foreign policy since the Opium Wars were conducted by the East India Company. The British were interested in profit and not a lot else.The Spanish did so well in Central America because the population had been expecting them. The Aztec prophecy of a white man/horse coming to save them made them bow down quickly to the Spanish invaders.
The natives of central america had never seen a horse before the Spanish arrived. The horse did not exist there. Please explain how they "expected" to see a creature they didn't know existed.Anyway, to wrap this up:
Edmund: Well, you see, George, I did like it, back in the old days when the prerequisite of a British campaign was that the enemy should under no circumstances carry guns -- even spears made us think twice. he kind of people we liked to fight were two feet tall and armed with dry grass.
George: Now, come off it, sir -- what about M'boto Gorge, for heaven's sake?
Edmund: Yes, that was a bit of a nasty one -- ten thousand D'watushi warriors armed to the teeth with kiwi fruit and guava halves. After the battle, instead of taking prisoners, we simply made a huge fruit salad. No, when I joined up, I never imagined anything as awful as this war. I'd had fifteen years of military experience, perfecting the art of ordering a pink gin and saying "Do you do it doggy-doggy?" in Swahili, and then suddenly four-and-a-half million heavily armed Germans hove into view. That was a shock, I can tell you.
The "British Empire" will go down in history as the disgraceful wet fart that it was.
You're starting your post stating that the English "All think that they drove off the norman invaders", thereby intimating that they're all arrogant/ignorant/stupid and ending your argument with a quote from Blackadder. I couldn't make that up if I tried.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Not much with the getting out, are you.Slutmonkey57b wrote:Really? I've never met anyone who was of that opinion.
Which would be the reason for my saying they had such laws. Not have. The Brehon laws were very much the basis for a nation, and in fact were adopted by the Normans in Ireland after a period. However your lack of education is extremely plain indeed, thanks for underlining that.Slutmonkey57b wrote:Woohoo the brehon laws! And where are the Brehon laws taught in Irish schools? Not at all while I was there! The brehon laws may have been admirable, but they weren't a basis for a nation at the time, in many ways they prevented the Irish from being a unified nation at all.
Edging from just plain nuts to rabidly foaming at the mouth here... Sprinkle liberally with a healthy portion of ignorance...Slutmonkey57b wrote:And while you're mentioning the brehon laws, please show how the Holy Mother church, which enforced law over the rest of europe, would have supported these laws.
Was this before or after they got excommunicated and started their own church because their king wanted to get his hole?Slutmonkey57b wrote:Actually, you don't have to, because the british were appointed rulers of ireland by the church themselves,
Only in your bizzare little universe. Hows it going in there anyway?Slutmonkey57b wrote:I never denied the Irish were treated badly. What I do suggest is that the perception that the English were the jackbooted nazis of the middle ages onward is totally misguided.
Lollers. Is that meant to make the English look better?Slutmonkey57b wrote:Point me to where I stated that starvation resulted from something other than lack of food. What I did state was that, contrary to popular belief, there was plenty of food available. Ethiopia had a famine because there was no food available. Ireland had an enforced starvation because food producers were profiteers.
They hadn't been wrestling with European nations for centuries?Slutmonkey57b wrote:What prevented the colonials having an industrial infrastructure then?
Bahahaha... They did make a nation out of disparate and opposed groups, however. That was always going to end well. A bit like a lot of Africa, actually. To spell it out for you in small, simple words, I'm not talking aabout the invasion, I'm talking about the shambles that ensued, and is still ensuing.Slutmonkey57b wrote:The original creation of Iraq has little or nothing to do with America's need to control oil reserves, no. The British created the nation that was invaded, they didn't create the oil that was the reason for invasion.
Look it up, sucka...Slutmonkey57b wrote:The natives of central america had never seen a horse before the Spanish arrived. The horse did not exist there. Please explain how they "expected" to see a creature they didn't know existed.
I know, you have nowhere near the satirical skill and intelligence of the creators of blackadder, who displayed an admirable ability to deprecate themselves. Instead you seem to be pushing hate at every opportunity, a bit like those aforemention nazi jackbooted pigs there. Not that I'm saying thats what you are, of course.Slutmonkey57b wrote:You're starting your post stating that the English "All think that they drove off the norman invaders", thereby intimating that they're all arrogant/ignorant/stupid and ending your argument with a quote from Blackadder. I couldn't make that up if I tried. 0 -
-
-
Slutmonkey57b wrote:Ireland is the home of revisionist nonsense. .
well you live here i guess.I never denied the Irish were treated badly
Actually what you said was that there was no famine in Ireland and that english were treated in the same manner by the ruling classes. Now if that was the case then Millions upon milions of people in 19th century britain would have had to have died from starvation and sickness. Millions of others would have had to emigrate. It didnt happen. Hence your assertions are full of sh**e. BTW i seem to remmber having guys like conor cruise obrien writing our history books in school, hardly a case of black and white now.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.
Well you give youreslf a lollypop, thats such a noble thing to do.
You're the one trying to revise history, mainly to suit your own post nationalist worldview and self loathing me ould son. And of course thats fairly common these days. People who want to make a directors cut of the past just to suit their own current world view. Revisionism-is-bad-unless-im-the-one-who's allowed to do the revising type deal Ted :rolleyes:
I can almost hear dave mustaine in the background "a little man with a big eraaaser changing historryyy"0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Bambi wrote:Actually what you said was that there was no famine in Ireland and that english were treated in the same manner by the ruling classes. Now if that was the case then Millions upon milions of people in 19th century britain would have had to have died from starvation and sickness. Millions of others would have had to emigrate. It didnt happen. Hence your assertions are full of sh**e. BTW i seem to remmber having guys like conor cruise obrien writing our history books in school, hardly a case of black and white now.
I've been constantly subjected to the suggestion in this thread that rejection of the word "famine" is equal to rejection of the fact of people's deaths and emigration, along the lines of "holocaust denier".
By rejection the word "famine" I have at no time presented the idea that people did not die of starvation, or that millions emigrated, or that this was not a bad thing, or the fault of the Government of the time.
What I have said is that the phrase "Great Famine" is totally misleading, and wrong. Ethiopia suffered a Famine - the crop system failed, and there was no food for the people to eat. The government did not have the food stocks to feed the people, or the money to buy it in. The international community had to provide the food. That is a famine. That is not what happened here.
What happened here is that people could have been fed, very well, cheaply, with plenty to spare, but the owners of the food chose to let them starve and continued profiteering off their deaths. I am, in fact, advocating a stronger position of guilt on the part of the government than you are. What I suspect people don't like is my factual point that
a) There were Irish people who could have saved the peasantry but chose not to,
b) The government of the time were not singling out the Irish people for treatment any worse than the peasants of their own country. They were more guilty in their indifference, but less calculatingly evil than they are commonly presented.Well you give youreslf a lollypop, thats such a noble thing to do. You're the one trying to revise history, mainly to suit your own post nationalist worldview and self loathing me ould son. And of course thats fairly common these days. People who want to make a directors cut of the past just to suit their own current world view. Revisionism-is-bad-unless-im-the-one-who's allowed to do the revising type deal Ted :rolleyes:
I can almost hear dave mustaine in the background "a little man with a big eraaaser changing historryyy"
For someone who's misunderstood what I've posted so completely, you understand me very well. I hope Dave Mustaine continues to be your psychological guidance in your future life.0 -
-
SimpleSam06 wrote:Not much with the getting out, are you.
I have several (irish) relatives who have lived in England for years and never encountered the the behaviour you describe, even among the ill-educated. Maybe you get out a lot more than they do though?Which would be the reason for my saying they had such laws. Not have. The Brehon laws were very much the basis for a nation, and in fact were adopted by the Normans in Ireland after a period. However your lack of education is extremely plain indeed, thanks for underlining that.
Would have is indicative of past tense. Thank you for misunderstanding me (again).
Also, the piece you linked to indicates the contrary that British law didn't catch up to the standards of Brehon laws' status of the individual until the early 20th century. Did you read the piece, or did you just google "brehon" and link to the first likely candidate?
You attack my education, I point out that my education is perfectly standard in the Irish school system, and yet you continue to attack it. You do realise that by doing so, you are merely making the point that Irish people as a whole are badly educated and that the teaching of history in particular is appaling? And by your misunderstanding of simple tenses in grammar above you are indicating that your own education must be worse than mine?Edging from just plain nuts to rabidly foaming at the mouth here... Sprinkle liberally with a healthy portion of ignorance...
So the Holy Roman Empire never existed then? Kings of France and Spain didn't pledge allegience to the Church of Rome? Bishops didn't dictate laws? The Pope didn't have the authority to start wars or remove kings? Interesting point to make.Was this before or after they got excommunicated and started their own church because their king wanted to get his hole?
Before, obviously, and if you're not aware of that you need to study the period better and/or stop resorting to brainless internet gloating before you've made your point.Only in your bizzare little universe. Hows it going in there anyway?
Attack the post? Since you haven't responded to my question about guns and indian pacifism, I won't hold my breath there.Lollers. Is that meant to make the English look better?
No. And I've consistantly put forward the point that their actions in this situation were worse. But you clearly don't like me suggesting that history isn't a cut-and-paste white hat/black hat affair, do you?They hadn't been wrestling with European nations for centuries?
Bzzzt wrong. Read Guns Germs & Steel. But Wait! I hear! He's using a bestselling book for supporting his argument! He must not know what he's talking about LOL I r winnar!
The writer of Guns Germs and Steel is a respected anthropologist with decades of experience whose work has received plaudits from his peers, and the book in question has received critical praise from people in the field. The whole thrust of the book is that contrary to any nation or people's own self-righteous bombast, history does not go to the "superior" conquering force, but that everything is the victim of context and ultimately circumstance.Bahahaha... They did make a nation out of disparate and opposed groups, however. That was always going to end well. A bit like a lot of Africa, actually. To spell it out for you in small, simple words, I'm not talking aabout the invasion, I'm talking about the shambles that ensued, and is still ensuing.
The shambles that ensued from the American invasion is the fault of the british creation of Iraq? The strength of Islamic militiantism in the region is far more to do with the support of it by American interests in the middle east in the cold war, and the need for the continued control of the supply of oil, than the existence of any nation state. If anything, the primary cause of the chaos in Iraq is the fallout from the American-led involvement in the Iran-Iraq war of the 80's, and the creation of the mujahideen in Afghanistan by the CIA. Neither of which were linked significantly to the creation of Iraq in the 20's.Look it up, sucka...
I didn't need to, but since you make the point the only forerunner of the horse to exist in america died out at the end of the last Ice Age. The mesoamericans and south americans had in some places access to pack animals such as llamas and alpacas, but none of the species of large herd animals that the Europeans enjoyed. Care to quote your sources?I know, you have nowhere near the satirical skill and intelligence of the creators of blackadder, who displayed an admirable ability to deprecate themselves. Instead you seem to be pushing hate at every opportunity, a bit like those aforemention nazi jackbooted pigs there. Not that I'm saying thats what you are, of course.
Again, attacking the post not the poster I see. Still, feel free to continue reporting me to the mod for disagreeing with you. The fact that you're still insulting me (albeit in what you assume to be an incredibly clever "i'll never get banned for this" manner) just proves you've given up attempting to rebut my points and are going to rely on classical childish jeering instead. Well done you.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement