Oliver Cromwell: Son Of A Bitch

Duckworth_Luas

Kotek Besar wrote: »

I'd question whether history of anything is taught properly in Ireland. A while back my friend's 10 year old son was chatting to me about his day in school here in Waterford. He told me that they were learning history. The teacher was reading and encouraged the pupils that every time she mentioned the word "English" that they should boo.

Was she reading the Irish Press report about the 1987 Munster Hurling Semi Final? Nicky was good that day but to be still booing him today in Waterford is a bit much!

Cú Giobach

Colmustard wrote: »

We were thought he was the big big boogey man and if we were bold he would take us away in our sleep. I kid you not.

Why should that be so hard to believe, since societies all over the planet have used similar "boogey men" based on real historical figures to scare children, and people have done so for millennia.

Colmustard

History what is the point. Is history significant, is it for nations to create their own myths, their own identities, their own claims to territory.

Which is true “ if we don’t learn from history we are doomed to repeat it” or “ if history teaches us one thing we are doomed to repeat it”.

Wibbs

gutenberg wrote: »

Bolded bit: I can assure that they did.

Apologies G. Brainfart. They had the power but rarely used it. One was far less likely to be executed in front of an Inquisition court than in front of a Protestant court(if it even got that far) or a secular court at the time. The Roman Inquisition stats show less than 2% of cases ended in death. In a secular court in England and elsewhere at the time you could be hanged for stealing a side of lamb and few Protestant "courts" were not show trials whipped up on ignorant religious frenzy with a verdict and sentence decided well in advance.

The image of thousands being tortured for confessions by the Inquisition is also highly spurious. Torture was only allowed in certain specific heresy cases so was quite rare and could only be applied the once and if the person recanted a confession gained under torture that confession was considered null and void(there are a few places in the world today where that's not the case). They had far more rules and regulations in it's application than the secular courts. The secular courts could hand down torture as a punishment, which was considered beyond the Pale by the inquisition. Even the images of the Auto de fe procedure are bogus.

Oh sure the inquisitions had their batshít crazy evil moments(particularly regarding Jews), but the vast majority of the images we associate with the inquisitions in Europe are tall tale invention and propaganda to raise the ire of their readers by hard liner Protestant commentators.

Colmustard

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Why should that be so hard to believe, since societies all over the planet have used similar "boogey men" based on real historical figures to scare children, and people have done so for millennia.

I don't disagree, but historical players and figures were human, humans have their own motivations, failings and virtues. Hitler was by all means one great cntu, but he thought he was giving the German people a 1000 year reich and ending the Jewish problem once and for all. He thought he was doing Germany a great favour.

Cromwell also thought he was on the side of right, "warts and all". I would rather be thought the truest history available and form my own judgement. Not the Catholic churches version.

Curly Judge

Could I suggest that people who are interested in a more rounded view than "He was just an Irish hating, English bastard",take up the task of reading this book:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/137552.Cromwellhttp:

By a famous Irishwoman.

Duggys Housemate

LordSutch wrote: »

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

The history of Ireland!

But is the history of Cromwell properly taught here???

Yes. It is incorrectly taught in Britain. If at all.

mathepac

MadsL wrote: »

Now who is being racist? ..

The term Brit is racist? You really need to stay in more as it's been used constantly all week by the Olympic commentators employed by the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Cú Giobach

Colmustard wrote: »

I don't disagree, but historical players and figures were human, humans have their own motivations, failings and virtues. Hitler was by all means one great cntu, but he thought he was giving the German people a 1000 year reich and ending the Jewish problem once and for all. He thought he was doing Germany a great favour.

Cromwell also thought he was on the side of right, "warts and all". I would rather be thought the truest history available and form my own judgement. Not the Catholic churches version.

Any one in their right mind wants to know the reality of history, but I find your "Hitler" comments and comment about the Catholic Church having never forgiven* Cromwell a bit odd.
Though the reasons for those peoples actions is fascinating from a historical point of view and are well worth investigating and learning about, when it comes to forgiveness or even acceptance of the actions, most people (and most particularly the Jewish population) couldn't give a fuck about AH's motives and he shall never be forgiven for them.
The same for Cromwell from an Irish perspective.


*Ignoring "turn the other cheek" and all that stuff for the moment.

Duggys Housemate

Its all very well being a revisionist Irish man, but in fact people are "educated" more by their surrounding environments and culture - now Anglo-American in Ireland - than school. The discourse on Ireland, or Catholicism, is therefore based on English speaking ideologies. And to the English, and most English speakers, he was OK.

A good example of English speaking ideologies dominating the discourse is the rants about the Iquisition. As Wibbs continutally points out it has been massively overestimated. But it will be referenced time and time and time again in Atheist forums, as much here as there. It is in the mother's milk of English speakers - unlike, say, the far more recent 30,000 killed in the Mau Mau rebellion. Far more people. Far more recent. Far more forgotten.

And we hear about the crusades, the nasty crusaders - English/Norman more than Irish, as it happens - taking over Jerusalem and killing thousands. This is an anti-Catholic story.

Here is a story about the bombardment and invasion of Alexandria in 1882 - another thing that has dropped down the memory hole. The city, one of the the ancient world's most amazing, was levelled. Just one example.

So, too with Cromwell. He did in fact have a plan for the ethnic cleansing in Ireland, and he did in fact try and implement it. Had it worked we would be as numerous in Ireland as the Native Americans in Chicago. Why forget? English speaking hegememony.

Cú Giobach

mathepac wrote: »

The term Brit is racist?

Sometimes possibly, with the addition of a certain cardinal point.

Pat X

LordSutch wrote: »

Will never forgive him what he did to the Abbeys, Glastonbury Abbey comes to mind :mad:

LordSutch wrote: »

But is the history of Cromwell properly taught here???

Not in your case, as you seem to be confusing him with Henry VIII.

flyswatter

He was voted in the top 10 Brits of all time by the BBC 10 years ago.

mathepac

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

.... It is in the mother's milk of English speakers - unlike, say, the far more recent 30,000 killed in the Mau Mau rebellion. Far more people. Far more recent. Far more forgotten...

Ah yes the Mau Mau terrorist uprising that was in fact ethnic cleansing to clear valuable land - the people had no value to the British Army and fifth columnists in the pay of capitalists.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

.... So, too with Cromwell. He did in fact have a plan for the ethnic cleansing in Ireland, and he did in fact try and implement it. Had it worked we would be as numerous in Ireland as the Native Americans in Chicago. Why forget? English speaking hegememony.

He had already road-tested his genocide in Scotland to get rid of the Scots and to allow for English expansion northwards.

golden lane

mathepac wrote: »

Ah yes the Mau Mau terrorist uprising that was in fact ethnic cleansing to clear valuable land - the people had no value to the British Army and fifth columnists in the pay of capitalists.
He had already road-tested his genocide in Scotland to get rid of the Scots and to allow for English expansion northwards.

ethnic cleansing of land goes on to this very day......cromwell was a man of his time....not a nice one though.......

Galwayguy35

Wompa1 wrote: »

In fairness to him, he was right about the Catholic church but yeah...some f**ker. It's amazing that he's still so hated by the Irish of today. Seems like the rest of the world has let it go but we're rightly not forgetting what he did..the prick

Ah yeah your right, sure what difference that he murdered practically every man woman and child in two towns.

dirtyden

Kotek Besar wrote: »

I'd question whether history of anything is taught properly in Ireland. A while back my friend's 10 year old son was chatting to me about his day in school here in Waterford. He told me that they were learning history. The teacher was reading and encouraged the pupils that every time she mentioned the word "English" that they should boo.

His actions in Ireland were quite similar to the attempted ethnic cleansing of Bosnia-Herzogoivna by the Serbians. Very similar tactics of siege and then of slaughtering all males capable of bearing arms. Followed by theft of property and resettlement with protestant land owners. His genocidal actions in Ireland appear to have been brushed over by english historians and dare I say it even by some Irlsh historians. His attitude towards irish catholics was genocidal.

But apart from that he was a great lad.

golden lane

dirtyden wrote: »

His actions in Ireland were quite similar to the attempted ethnic cleansing of Bosnia-Herzogoivna by the Serbians. Very similar tactics of siege and then of slaughtering all males capable of bearing arms. Followed by theft of property and resettlement with protestant land owners. His genocidal actions in Ireland appear to have been brushed over by english historians and dare I say it even by some Irlsh historians. His attitude towards irish catholics was genocidal.

But apart from that he was a great lad.

a hero........just as hitler is a hero to many people....

Wibbs

dirtyden wrote: »

His attitude towards irish catholics was genocidal.

The Catholic part is important. For him it was far less an ethnic crusade than a batshít religious one. I suspect in a parallel universe somewhere where most Irish changed to the new faith, Cromwell is a tiny footnote in history

mathepac wrote: »

He had already road-tested his genocide in Scotland to get rid of the Scots and to allow for English expansion northwards.

Scotland has had it's fair share of that shít. The highland clearances later on in the 18th and 19th centuries were unreal. A genocide by any other name by forced expulsion of the locals. A time in history you rarely hear talked about in UK media. Not a lot about it in Horrible Histories...

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Ah yeah your right, sure what difference that he murdered practically every man woman and child in two towns.

Indeed, however he didn't in other towns. It's not so black and white. He didn't order the destruction of Wexford, his men kicked off when he was in negotiations at the time. Of course at the same time he didn't stop his men either. In Clonmel a year after Drogheda, he let the townspeople alone, even though his new model army had suffered the single biggest loss of troops in a single day in it's history. Carlow and New Ross surrendered pretty much straight away and the townspeople were left alone. Kilkenny after a fight brokered a surrender and no massacres took place. The besieged of Limerick held out, but eventually surrendered to Cromwell and the locals were left alone, though many had died of hunger and a plague during the seige. So in fact in the majority of sieges Cromwell didn't stand command over massacres.

Duggys Housemate

The Clonmel pardons are a bit of a side-show then. I come from Clonmel, originally, before moving to England, and then back to Dublin in my childhood. My father's family was always there, as far as any geneology I know. Therefore, its possible my existence is owed, in part, to Cromwell abiding by the terms of surrender when he took over after the siege. If he had put all the town's males to the sword I assume that that would have had a good statistical chance of eliminating an ancestor of mine. (I don't know, possibly my ancestors were later comers to the town, but it's likely I have more than one ancestor in the town at the time on the patrilineal side.)

However, I use Cromwell to mean: Cromwell as General and Lord Protector.

The sieges in Irish towns and the massacres in some of them were either normal, or disproportionate for the age. It depends on the sources, and their bias. That's Cromwell as General. The Cromwellian plantations, were disproportionate in attempt at ethnic cleansing, by any standards. That's Cromwell as ruler.

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

But is the history of Cromwell properly taught here???

Given your last post on the subject, I'd have to say "no".

gutenberg

Wibbs wrote: »

Apologies G. Brainfart. They had the power but rarely used it. One was far less likely to be executed in front of an Inquisition court than in front of a Protestant court(if it even got that far) or a secular court at the time. The Roman Inquisition stats show less than 2% of cases ended in death. In a secular court in England and elsewhere at the time you could be hanged for stealing a side of lamb and few Protestant "courts" were not show trials whipped up on ignorant religious frenzy with a verdict and sentence decided well in advance.

The image of thousands being tortured for confessions by the Inquisition is also highly spurious. Torture was only allowed in certain specific heresy cases so was quite rare and could only be applied the once and if the person recanted a confession gained under torture that confession was considered null and void(there are a few places in the world today where that's not the case). They had far more rules and regulations in it's application than the secular courts. The secular courts could hand down torture as a punishment, which was considered beyond the Pale by the inquisition. Even the images of the Auto de fe procedure are bogus.

Oh sure the inquisitions had their batshít crazy evil moments(particularly regarding Jews), but the vast majority of the images we associate with the inquisitions in Europe are tall tale invention and propaganda to raise the ire of their readers by hard liner Protestant commentators.

I know, I did my history dissertation on the punishments of the Italian inquisition. And you're right re: the use of torture, its application was highly regulated and permission had to be applied for from the central tribunal in Rome. I agree that the inquisition was in many ways more lenient than the secular courts, so no need to have a go at me But to say they didn't execute people is incorrect, they did (or rather, the secular authorities did, on their 'recommendation').

And I don't know where you're getting the idea of 'Protestant courts' from. Church courts dealt with issues like marriage, swearing, etc primarily, and were meant to try and enforce a more moral standard of life. Any serious capital or criminal offence was dealt with by a secular court rather than a church court, who didn't have jurisdiction in those kinds of crimes.

Wibbs

gutenberg wrote: »

I agree that the inquisition was in many ways more lenient than the secular courts, so no need to have a go at me

I'm confused myself G as I most certainly didn't have a go at you.

But to say they didn't execute people is incorrect, they did (or rather, the secular authorities did, on their 'recommendation').

Hence I apologised said I had a bit of a brainfart and expanded on the subject. In any event their execution rates were very low.

And I don't know where you're getting the idea of 'Protestant courts' from. Church courts dealt with issues like marriage, swearing, etc primarily, and were meant to try and enforce a more moral standard of life. Any serious capital or criminal offence was dealt with by a secular court rather than a church court, who didn't have jurisdiction in those kinds of crimes.

I was referring to the kangaroo type religious courts that were popular during the witchhunt period in the UK and elsewhere. Protestants killed far more supposed witches than Catholics or their Inquisition ever did. Their ratio of witchcraft trials to executions was also much higher. Near 50/50 chance of being hanged or burnt at the stake, compared to 1 in 10 chance. They even exported said window licking daftness to their colonies in the New World. Salem was but the near end point of a long period of religious fundy daftness.

Basically I was just going against one of the earlier posts that suggested we may have been better off as Protestants and that by comparison they were a great bunch o lads. A touch of the recent anti Catholic mindset common in Ireland. For good reasons too, but IMHO a lot of it is also down to exposure to more Protestant biased history in our media.

LordSutch

Pat X wrote: »

Not in your case, as you seem to be confusing him with Henry VIII.

Thanks, a freudian slip by me if ever there was

Duggys Housemate

In terms of secular capital punishments. In 1882 were 220 capital punishments on the books, up from 50 in 1668 - the bloody code.

It is a melancholy truth, that among the variety of actions which men are daily liable to commit, no less than a hundred and sixty have been declared by Act of Parliament to be felonious without benefit of clergy; or, in other words, to be worthy of instant death

Benefit of clergy, which we mentioned before on similar threads was the right of clergy originally to be tried in ecclesiastical courts. Then that right came to all literate men, then to everybody for certain crimes, including manslaughter for a while - which is what got Ben Johnson off.

These courts were much more lenient. Which kinda puts the evil Church courts in proportion. It is also, of course, an ideology of the Enlightenment which is bringing in these capital offences. It is well into the Enlightenment, and it is the bourgeois who are making crimes against property capital offences.

karma_

Curly Judge wrote: »

Could I suggest that people who are interested in a more rounded view than "He was just an Irish hating, English bastard",take up the task of reading this book:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/137552.Cromwellhttp:

By a famous Irishwoman.

It's a stretch to call her Irish in fairness.

ejmaztec

Me_Grapes wrote: »

Just looking at the 'people who should be assassinited' thread......and not one person has mentioned auld Ollie. Sure, even Daniel O'Donnell got an assassination wish for god sake.

Does anyone else not think he gets an easy ride in the histroy books? For me he's right up there in the asshole stakes with Hitler, Mussoloni, Stalin, Pol Pot and Ryan Turbity.

The man wished the elimination..... and even worse wished emigration to Connaught for all Irish people.

Yet the man is given an almost hero status in Britian, and his desire for the murder of all Irish men, women and childern is brushed under the carpet when teaching the kids in British schools about the bollix.

All in all, I think the man is a bit of a granny fanny.


Agree?

Hero status? That's bullsh1t, they liked him so much, that when he was dead they decided to kill him again.

kincsem

marketty wrote: »

I could be wrong on this but I'm fairly sure he's already dead

On 30 January 1661, (symbolically the 12th anniversary of the execution of Charles I), Cromwell's body was exhumed from Westminster Abbey, and was subjected to the ritual of a posthumous execution, as were the remains of Robert Blake, John Bradshaw and Henry Ireton. (The body of Cromwell's daughter was allowed to remain buried in the Abbey.) His body was hanged in chains at Tyburn. His disinterred body was thrown into a pit, while his severed head was displayed on a pole outside Westminster Hall until 1685.

Not universally popular, it seems.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

1:30

Duggys Housemate

Hes got a statue outside Westminister.

LordSutch

Who, Morrissey or Cromwell?

Duggys Housemate

Cromwell, all known Morrissey statues are in his own living room.

karma_

LordSutch wrote: »

Who, Morrissey or Cromwell?

Morrissey deserves a statue, cromwell doesn't.

gutenberg

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm confused myself G as I most certainly didn't have a go at you. Hence I apologised said I had a bit of a brainfart and expanded on the subject. In any event their execution rates were very low.

I was referring to the kangaroo type religious courts that were popular during the witchhunt period in the UK and elsewhere. Protestants killed far more supposed witches than Catholics or their Inquisition ever did. Their ratio of witchcraft trials to executions was also much higher. Near 50/50 chance of being hanged or burnt at the stake, compared to 1 in 10 chance. They even exported said window licking daftness to their colonies in the New World. Salem was but the near end point of a long period of religious fundy daftness.

Basically I was just going against one of the earlier posts that suggested we may have been better off as Protestants and that by comparison they were a great bunch o lads. A touch of the recent anti Catholic mindset common in Ireland. For good reasons too, but IMHO a lot of it is also down to exposure to more Protestant biased history in our media.

Ah ok, apologies: I though you had called me a brainfart :o

I agree you about witchcraft in that you were far more likely to die in such a scenario than before an inquisition, although in England certainly the number of witchcraft cases was low compared with, say, Germany, and there the Catholics were convicting witches as well, as part of the 'Witch Craze' of the seventeenth century. All equally batty though.

I see your point about the arguments of Catholics vs Protestants: just a case of people manipulating history to suit their purposes, and incorrectly 'reading backwards' from the current situation to events centuries ago that, while they have undoubtedly had an influence, their precise effects are impossible to measure.

Colmustard

Colmustard

Does it matter as to who burned the most witches or tortured the most heretics or converted the most Jews.

Duggys Housemate

Colmustard wrote: »

Does it matter as to who burned the most witches or tortured the most heretics or converted the most Jews.

It does. This is a thread on an historical figure, and his resuscitation. To explain why he is in fact a Son of a Bitch, and yet there are people who like him, involves explaining historical biases.

entropi

OP, how do you know his ma was a bitch?

Nodin

Colmustard wrote: »

Does it matter as to who burned the most witches or tortured the most heretics or converted the most Jews.

Well finishing in the top 3 guarantees admission to the Champion Bastards league, with the attendant extra revenue.

purplepanda

The English people know more than enough about Cromwell & his actions, just because the political establishment & elite see him & portray him as a hero doesn't mean the man in the street does. The English have a folk memory just like the Irish do!

There are more than enough individuals in elite positions of power who would like a return to the days of Cromwell, & if the general population continue to cower & ignore the changing situation, oppression will ensue & loss of hard won liberties & rights could be lost in a couple of decades or even less.

"Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you-
Ye are many — they are few""

Shelly said it all many moons ago

Colmustard

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

It does. This is a thread on an historical figure, and his resuscitation. To explain why he is in fact a Son of a Bitch, and yet there are people who like him, involves explaining historical biases.

Not really, general oppression of so called witches heretics and Jews was in general a Christian thing, so as to which "brand" of christians are higher in the league table of that oppression is irrelevant.

So if Catholics burned less witches then protestants big cheese. But I would question any stats drawn from those crimes. As for the total of witches burned the estimates range from as low as 25,000 to 300,000 that is a huge range.

wilkie2006

"Oliver Cromwell: Son Of A Bitch"?

Ah, let's leave his aul' one out of this.

Colmustard

wilkie2006 wrote: »

"Oliver Cromwell: Son Of A Bitch"?

Ah, let's leave his aul' one out of this.

You sound impartial.

Duggys Housemate

Colmustard wrote: »

Not really, general oppression of so called witches heretics and Jews was in general a Christian thing, so as to which "brand" of christians are higher in the league table of that oppression is irrelevant.

So if Catholics burned less witches then protestants big cheese. But I would question any stats drawn from those crimes. As for the total of witches burned the estimates range from as low as 25,000 to 300,000 that is a huge range.

Ok, the reputation of Cromwell is always going to be an inter-Christian "brand" thing.

Colmustard

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Ok, the reputation of Cromwell is always going to be an inter-Christian "brand" thing.

Far from it but his puritanism played a huge part in his motivations and the policies he enacted and followed, it was very much a protestant Catholic conflict as well as a Royalist and republican conflict. It's a very complicated time in history and I am not sure how far he is up the table in witch burnings.

Wibbs

Colmustard wrote: »

Not really, general oppression of so called witches heretics and Jews was in general a Christian thing

Nope it was big in Islam too and indeed people have had their head lopped off in public executions after witchcraft convictions in the last few years in Saudi Arabia. It was and is big in some African cultures too.

golden lane

this afternoon in a small town in somerset in the south west of england......

i have asked 22 people....who was oliver cromwell......

it seems from the blank stares and the silly guesses....that he is not a well known historical figure in these parts.....

Colmustard

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope it was big in Islam too and indeed people have had their head lopped off in public executions after witchcraft convictions in the last few years in Saudi Arabia. It was and is big in some African cultures too.

I was more or less referring to the post that in European Protestants burned more witches then European Catholics.

They still kill so called witches in Africa, cases still pop up in Britain among the African immigrants.

who the fug

He did Gods will



























as he saw it

juan.kerr

I worked in Huntingdon in England for a little bit. They were very proud of the fact it was his birthplace. They couldn't understand why we Irish weren't as enthusiastic about him.