Do all Catholics in the six counties want a united Ireland?

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The idea that there was a large-scale Celtic migration to Ireland and Britain is something of a myth.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote: »

The idea that there was a large-scale Celtic migration to Ireland and Britain is something of a myth.

Exactly. Contrary to the myth, Ireland has never been a nation of immigrants. The celts made very little impact on the gene-pool. Geneticists believe that most Irish people are in fact descended from the original stone-age settlers who moved here over 9 thousand years ago.

The Corinthian

O'Morris wrote: »

Exactly. Contrary to the myth, Ireland has never been a nation of immigrants. The celts made very little impact on the gene-pool. Geneticists believe that most Irish people are in fact descended from the original stone-age settlers who moved here over 9 thousand years ago.

LOL. That really is the most incredible BS I've heard in a while.

I suppose the Vikings, upon founding Dublin and Wexford, all went home to Scandinavia. The Normans and British had no impact on the genetic pool. And sure, the ancestors of a big chunk of the population up north never came from Scotland.

Where do you get all these 'facts' O'Morris? You've been pronouncing them continually throughout this thread, and from what I can see, have been pretty thin where it comes to evidence.

O'Morris

The Corinthian wrote:

I suppose the Vikings, upon founding Dublin and Wexford, all went home to Scandinavia. The Normans and British had no impact on the genetic pool.

They did have some impact on the gene-pool but it wasn't as great as some people would like us to believe. The Celts, Vikings, Normans and some of the British were assimilated into the dominant indigenous population.

The Corinthian wrote:

And sure, the ancestors of a big chunk of the population up north never came from Scotland.

I forgot about them. It's true that most of the orangemen up in the north are the descendants of immigrants from Scotland and England.

The Corinthian wrote:

Where do you get all these 'facts' O'Morris?

I got it from this Inside Ireland article
http://www.insideireland.com/sample19.htm

"The prevalence of ancient genes in Ireland suggests that the Irish have largely maintained their pre-Neolithic genetic heritage. There has been little genetic influence from outside the country since the first people came to Ireland almost 9,000 years ago."

The Corinthian

O'Morris wrote: »

They did have some impact on the gene-pool but it wasn't as great as some people would like us to believe. The Celts, Vikings, Normans and some of the British were assimilated into the dominant indigenous population.

Genetically dominant indigenous population? Their DNA got totally suppressed? Otherwise, you'll really need to back up that there was no impact with credible figures and evidence.

I forgot about them.

Indeed.

I got it from this Inside Ireland article
http://www.insideireland.com/sample19.htm

Surely you're joking.

O'Morris

The Corinthian wrote:

Genetically dominant indigenous population? Their DNA got totally suppressed?

I don't know what you mean by that. Do you think that I believe that foreign DNA got totally suppressed in the Irish gene-pool? I didn't say that, I said that the Vikings, Normans and some of the British were assimilated into the majority population on the island and so genetically the foreigners were absorbed into the dominant population.

The Corinthian wrote:

Otherwise, you'll really need to back up that there was no impact with credible figures and evidence.

I didn't say there was no impact. I said the impact was not as great as some people would like us to believe. Quoting from the Inside Ireland article again:

"The prevalence of ancient genes in Ireland suggests that the Irish have largely maintained their pre-Neolithic genetic heritage. There has been little genetic influence from outside the country since the first people came to Ireland almost 9,000 years ago."

nesf

O'Morris wrote: »

I didn't say there was no impact. I said the impact was not as great as some people would like us to believe. Quoting from the Inside Ireland article again:

"The prevalence of ancient genes in Ireland suggests that the Irish have largely maintained their pre-Neolithic genetic heritage. There has been little genetic influence from outside the country since the first people came to Ireland almost 9,000 years ago."

Doesn't that she divided the men into those with Gaelic, Norman, Scottish and English surnames just underline how much immigration has been going on? Whether said immigration had a major genetic effect is a separate question.

O'Morris

nesf wrote:

Doesn't that she divided the men into those with Gaelic, Norman, Scottish and English surnames just underline how much immigration has been going on?

Not really because it wasn't revealed what percentage of the Irish population do have Norman, Scottish or English surnames. The fact that the majority of men with Norman, Scottish or English surnames have the haplogroup 1 gene might also indicate that many of the people with those surnames are not really of direct Norman, Scottish or English descent.

nesf wrote:

Whether said immigration had a major genetic effect is a separate question.

The haplogroup 1 gene is carried on the y chromosome and can only be passed on the male line, the same line as surnames.

nesf

O'Morris wrote: »

Not really because it wasn't revealed what percentage of the Irish population do have Norman, Scottish or English surnames. The fact that the majority of men with Norman, Scottish or English surnames have the haplogroup 1 gene might also indicate that many of the people with those surnames are not really of direct Norman, Scottish or English descent.

The haplogroup 1 gene is carried on the y chromosome and can only be passed on the male line, the same line as surnames.

Your first point and second point clash. Unless you assume vast tracts of these people changed their surnames. Also the haplogroup 1 gene is quite common among other Europeans so we might not be able to distinguish people of Norman, English or Scottish descent by looking for it. Just because someone has it doesn't mean their ancestors weren't immigrants to this country.

T runner

Camelot wrote: »

The thing about the use of the word 'Colony' in relation to Ireland, is that (as I have already said) it has become 'fashionable' by some to call Ireland an ex-colony, which from a Unionist perspective makes no sence at all, because we see all the peoples of the british isles (Celtic, Angles, Saxons, Normans, Picts, etc) as having a connection as in 'One Big Family' - so the very idea of Ireland being a Colony is Rediculous!

Hi Camelot,

I think the point about a colony is that one country militarily occupies another.
Because the occupation lasts several centuries doesnt change this.
Ireland is a country in itself and not just an Island off the coast of Britain.
(Britain is 13 miles off the coast of France BTW, this doesnt make the British and the French the same, one big happy family.)
As far as Im aware Ireland was always referred to in British law as a seperate Kingdom.

The political argument as to whether Northern Ireland should remain a part of the UK political state is a seperate issue.

ATQ Stewart, a historian from Queens and author of "The narrow Ground" describes the Irish (Ulster) Unionists as being loyal to a country supranational to there own. I.e they are loyal to Britain which is not their own country.
BTW Stewart's book defends the protestant position over the last 400 years.

oscarBravo

T runner wrote: »

Ireland is a country in itself and not just an Island off the coast of Britain.
(Britain is 13 miles off the coast of France BTW, this doesnt make the British and the French the same, one big happy family.)

Zealand and Funen are off the coast of Jutland - where does that leave Denmark? Where does it leave the other 442 islands that make up Denmark?

Geography is a silly way to define a nation-state.

As far as Im aware Ireland was always referred to in British law as a seperate Kingdom.

Haven't you heard of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? Sounds like one kingdom to me.

Deedsie

oscarBravo wrote: »

Zealand and Funen are off the coast of Jutland - where does that leave Denmark? Where does it leave the other 442 islands that make up Denmark?

Geography is a silly way to define a nation-state. Haven't you heard of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? Sounds like one kingdom to me.

I think that came in around 1801. It no longer exists. Nor should it have ever. It worked out well for the Irish didnt it? 120 years of forced occupation. The Kingdom of Ireland would supersede this id have thought?

The Corinthian

O'Morris wrote: »

Quoting from the Inside Ireland article again:

For the love of whatever god you worship, would you try to give us credible evidence, not the pronounced opinions from some questionable amateur site.

Deedsie wrote: »

I think that came in around 1801. It no longer exists. Nor should it have ever. It worked out well for the Irish didnt it? 120 years of forced occupation. The Kingdom of Ireland would supersede this id have thought?

It was 1801, not around. It was called the Act of Union, and was in fact the second of such acts; the first creating a union between Scotland and England a century earlier.

It resulted in the transfer of local government from Dublin to London. It did not introduce any 'forced occupation' of Ireland.

I suggest you check the historical facts.

O'Morris

nesf wrote:

Also the haplogroup 1 gene is quite common among other Europeans so we might not be able to distinguish people of Norman, English or Scottish descent by looking for it.

It's not very common among the Norwegians and the Danish and yet according to the article over 80% of people with Norse or Norman surnames have the gene.

nesf wrote:

Just because someone has it doesn't mean their ancestors weren't immigrants to this country.

You're right, it doesn't. The article makes clear that a high percentage of people with English, Norse and Norman surnames have the gene as well.

The Corinthian wrote:

For the love of whatever god you worship, would you try to give us credible evidence, not the pronounced opinions from some questionable amateur site.

The article on that questionable amateur website is written by Dr. Emmeline Hill. She has a Ph.D in human population genetics from the department of genetics of Trinity College Dublin.

She wrote this:

"The prevalence of ancient genes in Ireland suggests that the Irish have largely maintained their pre-Neolithic genetic heritage. There has been little genetic influence from outside the country since the first people came to Ireland almost 9,000 years ago."

Deedsie

What Irish people voted to become part of it? Forced or Gerymandered if you will. Of course i knew it was 1801, I was being sarcastic. Everything i have said is completely accurate no need to check my facts.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

Geneticists believe that most Irish people are in fact descended from the original stone-age settlers who moved here over 9 thousand years ago.

Oh, FFS. Not this **** again.

O'Morris wrote: »

They did have some impact on the gene-pool but it wasn't as great as some people would like us to believe. The Celts, Vikings, Normans and some of the British were assimilated into the dominant indigenous population.

Please have a read of this before you attempt to discuss genetics.

O'Morris wrote: »

It's true that most of the orangemen up in the north are the descendants of immigrants from Scotland and England.

I think it’s fair to say that there are plenty of non-“Orangemen” who also have British ancestors.

O'Morris wrote: »

I got it from this Inside Ireland article
http://www.insideireland.com/sample19.htm

So your still standing by this crap? Even though in another thread I gave you with the original paper that this article is based on, which presented conclusions rather different to those stated in your article? I also presented you with more recent work which shows that the influence of migration (Scandinavian migration in particular) on the genetic make-up of the Irish population was quite significant.

O'Morris wrote: »

… so genetically the foreigners were absorbed into the dominant population.

Please. No more before you read this.

O'Morris wrote: »

The haplogroup 1 gene is carried on the y chromosome and can only be passed on the male line, the same line as surnames.

It’s also one of the most common genetic markers in Europe. The fact that it is present in any given individual means virtually nothing.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote:

Oh, FFS. Not this **** again.

What is it about this subject that makes people like yourself and the Corinthian get so worked up?

djpbarry wrote:

So your still standing by this crap?

I'm still standing by this crap which was written by Dr. Emmeline Hill, a Ph.D graduate of the department of human population genetics of Trinity College in Dublin, our nation's finest university.

djpbarry wrote:

Even though in another thread I gave you with the original paper that this article is based on

I don't remember that. Can you link to it again.

djpbarry wrote:

Please have a read of this before you attempt to discuss genetics.

I can only read one book at a time. Economics for Dummies has taken me over a month so far and I'm still only on Chapter 4. It will take me at least another 2 months before I'll be able to handle another 'For Dummies' book. Them books are really tough going.

djpbarry wrote:

It’s also one of the most common genetic markers in Europe. The fact that it is present in any given individual means virtually nothing.

Dr. Emmeline Hill of Trinity college's department of genetics doesn't seem to think that it means virtually nothing. I'll repeat again what she wrote:

The prevalence of ancient genes in Ireland suggests that the Irish have largely maintained their pre-Neolithic genetic heritage. There has been little genetic influence from outside the country since the first people came to Ireland almost 9,000 years ago.

Fratton Fred

O'Morris wrote: »

most Irish people are in fact descended from the original stone-age settlers who moved here over 9 thousand years ago.

And some, obviusly, haven't evolved too much either

What are you trying to show, that the Irish are some sort of "Pure" race?

What does it matter, we are who we are and there is diddly squat we can do to change any of it.

The Corinthian

Deedsie wrote: »

What Irish people voted to become part of it? Forced or Gerymandered if you will.

You claimed that it resulted in "120 years of forced occupation", nothing about whether it was forced upon the Irish population. It didn't add any 'occupation' to Ireland. Actually, the problem is that is resulted in a departure from Ireland as the political centre moved to London.

Of course i knew it was 1801, I was being sarcastic.

I don't think you know what sarcasm is.

Everything i have said is completely accurate no need to check my facts.

Then could you explain the accuracy of your "120 years of forced occupation" claim?

The Corinthian

The following article would seem relevant to the present discussion, especially in light of my earlier suggestion that an increasing number of people in NI see themselves largely as Northern Irish rather than Irish or British.

Survey shows shift in Northern Irish identity

People in Northern Ireland are increasingly abandoning the traditional national and religious identities which for decades underpinned the Troubles, it was revealed today.

Ten years after the Belfast Agreement signalled a new dawn, an increasing number of people are choosing to describe themselves as Northern Irish or “equally Irish and British”, according to a report published by Queen’s
University.

The university based its findings on information from the 2007 Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey conducted by Ark, a joint research initiative by Queen’s and the University of Ulster.

The research explored the extent to which people felt an attachment or loyalty to national and religious group labels - such as Irish, British, Catholic or Protestant.

It found that, while the national and religious identities which had underpinned difference and division in Northern Ireland still remain, an increasing number of people are moving away from the traditional labels of Irish
Catholic or British Protestant.

The author of the report, Professor Orla Muldoon, from the University of Limerick, said: “As you might expect, Catholics in Northern Ireland are more likely to describe themselves as being Irish, while Protestants are more likely to describe themselves as British.”

Almost two-thirds of those who responded to the survey identified themselves as either British Protestants or Irish Catholics, she said.

But she added: “There was, however, an increase in the number of people who identified themselves as being Northern Irish, with around one in four opting for this label, compared to around one fifth in previous surveys.”

Within the Northern Irish group, around a third described themselves as being equally British and Irish.

“They did not see Britishness or Irishness as being mutually exclusive and rejected the notion that these identities are opposites.

“That indicates a shift away from the traditional national and religious identities that underpinned the Troubles,” said Prof Muldoon.

Researchers also presented the 1,179 people who took part in the research with emblems or historical images that might be viewed differently by those with differing identities.

Prof Muldoon said emotional responses to images such as flags and emblems were stronger among those who stuck to traditional identities.

Those who identified themselves as Irish Catholic were more likely to feel uneasy or annoyed when presented with the image of a Union flag or a photograph of a news presenter wearing a poppy, she said.

Conversely, those sticking with the British Protestant identity were uneasy or annoyed by a Tricolour or Irish language letterhead.

Prof Muldoon said: “While this research has confirmed that national and religious identity in Northern Ireland are often interlinked, it has highlighted that an increasing number of people are moving away from the traditional labels that have for so long been used by the majority of people here to describe themselves.”

T runner

oscarBravo wrote: »

Zealand and Funen are off the coast of Jutland - where does that leave Denmark? Where does it leave the other 442 islands that make up Denmark?

Camelots point, I believe was that because Ireland is a part of the geographical Island group called the British Isles, it couldnt be considered a colony of Britain.

I contend the colonisation would depend on if Ireland itself was a country.

I agree that Geography alone is not a valid way to define a country. But geography is an extremely important factor: seas, mountain ranges, large rivers etc. form a lot of national frontiers.

Haven't you heard of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? Sounds like one kingdom to me.

Apologies, Of-course thats true, under British Law the Irish Kingdom established by the British in 1542 under right to conquest, ceased to exist with the act of Union in 1801. I believe that the perception of Ireland (by a majority of its population) as a distinct country (not political entity).


I would view the UK as a State consisting of 3 countries and a statelet.
I would see Ireland as a country made up of 2 states.

oscarBravo

T runner wrote: »

I would view the UK as a State consisting of 3 countries and a statelet.
I would see Ireland as a country made up of 2 states.

The UK is a state made of countries, and Ireland is a country made of states?

I'm confused.

Not that it matters; your view doesn't coincide with, or have any influence on, reality.

O'Morris

Fatton Fred wrote:

What are you trying to show, that the Irish are some sort of "Pure" race?

No, I'm not trying to show that we're a pure race. You need to read more carefully old chum.

Fratton Fred wrote:

What does it matter, we are who we are and there is diddly squat we can do to change any of it.

It matters feck all to me who we are or where we came from. It obviously matters to people like djpbarry though.

The Corinthian wrote:

The following article would seem relevant to the present discussion, especially in light of my earlier suggestion that an increasing number of people in NI see themselves largely as Northern Irish rather than Irish or British.

How can a man who considers himself northern Irish not consider himself Irish at the same time? If there are more orangemen in the north who consider themselves northern Irish than British then that's a good thing. They're half way there.

This NI Life and Times Survey for 2007 shows more interesting results on the question of identity
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2007/Identity/IRBRIT.html

If you look at the table in the 'Results for people of different ages' section you'll see that a higher percentage of the north's adult population under the age of 24 consider themselves Irish than consider themselves British.

When you add everything up you'll see that 48% of the north's 18-24 year olds consider themselves either completely Irish or more Irish than British compared with 34% of the same age group who consider themselves either completely British or more British than Irish. Although most 25-34 year olds consider themselves British, a higher percentage of 35-44 year olds consider themselves Irish than British. Overall, while a majority of the north's population consider themselves British, those are mostly made of people over the age of 45.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

I'm still standing by this crap which was written by Dr. Emmeline Hill, a Ph.D graduate of the department of human population genetics of Trinity College in Dublin, our nation's finest university.
...
Dr. Emmeline Hill of Trinity college's department of genetics doesn't seem to think that it means virtually nothing. I'll repeat again what she wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me how people will treat any old rubbish they find on the internet as gospel. Do I need to point out that this article (that you must have produced in at least 3 threads now) was published in an internet newsletter that is edited by somebody called Brenda? I don't know about you, but I'm not going to be treating "Inside Ireland" as a credible scientific source any time soon.

There are several posters on boards.ie who either have PhD's or are working towards them (there's a list in the Postgraduates forum), but you'll still find their posts questioned by others and rightly so. A PhD is not a badge of infallibility.

T runner

oscarBravo wrote: »

The UK is a state made of countries, and Ireland is a country made of states?

I'm confused.

Not that it matters; your view doesn't coincide with, or have any influence on, reality.

It depends how you define reality.

My view doesn't coincide with your view clearly. Im not trying to give offence by the way, Im expressing my views honestly.

By reality I take it you mean in a legal sense and by internationally recognised political borders? This makes the UK one State (with no constituent countries.) This legal reality meant that from 1801 to 1921 the UK was one state with no constitutent countries.

Legally Ireland (all of it) wasnt recognised anywhere as a country between 1801 and 1921, and between 1998 and present.

Individuals in Scotland, Wales and England might perceive that England, Scotland and Wales are countries although their individual opinions would have as much influence on "reality" as mine according to yourself as defined in the legal sense.

My nationality is Irish. I would view that in the 32 county sense.
Im from the North west, have a girlfriend from Belfast so travel in and out of NI a lot. When I cross the border I am aware that I am entering a different state but I dont consider that I'm entering a different country. Coming from Sligo, I would have more in common with someone from Belcoo than I would with someone from Cork. This is my reality.

I contend that a lot of people in the republic would consider themselves Irish in the 26 county state sense as well as in the larger "country" sense.
A lot of people feel this way in the North: some even hold Irish passwords. Even those with a strong loyalty to Britain would have a certain view of themselves in the "Irish" sense even if Sigmund Freud had to be resurrected to help them find it. Although clearly such a person would feel a lot more identity with the state of the UK, than the country of Ireland.

Heres a quote I quickly found from the historian I referenced ATQ Stewart.

"The partition of Ireland was never intended to be a permanent solution, but the steady development of the southern state as a predominantly Catholic state instead of a pluralist one meant that the gap between the two parts of Ireland widened."

I believe this shows he views Ireland in the country / 2 state way even though
politically he would view the Status Quo as more workable than a United Ireland.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me how people will treat any old rubbish they find on the internet as gospel.

What do you mean 'any old rubbish'. The article is written by an expert in the field of genetics.

djpbarry wrote:

Do I need to point out that this article (that you must have produced in at least 3 threads now) was published in an internet newsletter that is edited by somebody called Brenda?

What's wrong with someone being called Brenda? Is it a bit too working class for you? A bit too north of the Liffey?

djpbarry wrote:

I don't know about you, but I'm not going to be treating "Inside Ireland" as a credible scientific source any time soon.

I'm not asking you to treat "Inside Ireland" as a credible scientific source. I'm asking you to treat the woman who wrote the article as a credible scientific source.

djpbarry wrote:

There are several posters on boards.ie who either have PhD's or are working towards them (there's a list in the Postgraduates forum), but you'll still find their posts questioned by others and rightly so.

And I'm not objecting to the idea of people questioning the article written by Dr. Emmile Hill of the department of genetics at Trinity College Dublin. If you have any evidence disproving anything she wrote in that article then I would happily reconsider my position. It wouldn't matter much to me whether it turns out to be proven inaccurate or out of date. Unlike you, it doesn't much matter to me where Irish people came from.

djpbarry wrote:

A PhD is not a badge of infallibility.

It's not a badge of infallibility but is a very impressive achievement at the same time. I'd sooner trust the word of someone with a PhD than I would trust the word of someone called Brenda.

GuanYin

O'Morris wrote: »

What do you mean 'any old rubbish'. The article is written by an expert in the field of genetics.

Hardly. She is an animal genomic researcher in the department of Agriculture in UCD it seems and not "of Trinity's department of genetics" (and as an academic, yes there is a difference).

While distinguished among her peers (which is the animal genomics core in Ireland), I wouldn't call a PhD thesis enough to make her an expert in anything, except the matter dicussed in her thesis and maybe animal genomics (which is the field that most of her professional work appears to be in).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

O'Morris wrote: »

How can a man who considers himself northern Irish not consider himself Irish at the same time? If there are more orangemen in the north who consider themselves northern Irish than British then that's a good thing. They're half way there.

I think the point, that you've missed, is that increasingly people in the north see themselves as Northern Irish as a separate identity which is neither British or Irish.

Such an identity is indicative of the very obvious fact that they are not the same as mainland Britons or southern Irish, but have developed a separate culture distinct from these other two over the last few centuries.

If you look at the table in the 'Results for people of different ages' section you'll see that a higher percentage of the north's adult population under the age of 24 consider themselves Irish than consider themselves British.

The same data also shows that the vast majority also identify with being to some degree British - indeed, it points to a mixed identity being the majority view rather than identifying exclusively with one or the other.

Additionally, the question of viewing their identity as something separate is not asked, which means we cannot assess the impact of this from the survey.