If the UK asked Ireland to rejoin the Union, how would you vote?

tipptom

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, seen as your asking - I find it amusing that there is no attempt to back up what is being said with anything.

Now, if you want you can bring economics and Schumpeter's Gale into this but you are mixing concepts - creative-destructionism is an economic concept written about in the context of capitalism and socialism.

Thus far the discussion has related to the cultural and the sectarian nature of the Penal Laws.

So what is it you think needs discussing?

And for clarity - I don't think one 'culture' supplanted another - I think each subsumed elements from the other.

Ha Ha,your priceless,Fuc*kin "subsumed"!!!
Here was I thinking Hitler invaded France,but no,he went over to "Subsume" their culture with each other,nice one.

Jawgap

marienbad wrote: »

Of course , but it was not an equal exchange and not voluntary , would you agree ?

No, because the research does not indicate an involuntary exchange and is inconclusive as to the equality of the exchange......

In "The Dynamics of Cultural Nationalism" - John Hutchinson distinguishes cultural from political nationalism in Ireland: the latter seeks to rationalise the state through law, whereas the former delineates the customs and culture of the historic moral community.

Hutchinson's argument is that secular intellectuals- scholars, literary men, and artists-act as moral innovators to create cultural nationalism, which is adopted and disseminated by the intelligentsia- barristers, doctors, journalists, schoolteachers, and minor civil servants.

A product of the British state in nineteenth-century Ireland, the intelligentsia found cultural nationalism attractive because of an identity crisis (Irish Catholics working for Protestant Britain) and blocked mobility (severe competition for employment).

He looks at the three acknowledged cultural revivals (from 1780 to 1798, 1830 to 1848, and 1890 to 1892) but it was only the last of the three, the 'rural Gaelic revival,' where there was a rejection of British materialism and secularism and this, he suggests, prepared the way for the creation of the Irish nation state.

Nodin

Jawgap wrote: »

Out of interest, given you're not so keen on any consideration of any kind of 'union' or federation with the other countries that currently make up the UK.......do you see any irony in quoting an English poet - Alexander Pope?

You seem to be confusing me with some sort of Taleban-esque organisation.

Jawgap

tipptom wrote: »

Ha Ha,your priceless,Fuc*kin "subsumed"!!!
Here was I thinking Hitler invaded France,but no,he went over to "Subsume" their culture with each other,nice one.

Well the option was 'supplanted' or 'subsumed' - and Hitler invaded France to subsume their economy - he was no more interested in their culture than he was ours because in his view there was no French culture, or Irish culture because only the Aryans were capable of 'producing culture' - other nationalities could be 'culture bearing' (he offered only the Japanese as an example) or 'culture destroying.'

But what am I saying - your statement above indicates you already know this;)

Jawgap

Nodin wrote: »

You seem to be confusing me with some sort of Taleban-esque organisation.

Oh dear! Did we not realise that quote you threw out came from Pope

marienbad

Jawgap wrote: »

No, because the research does not indicate an involuntary exchange and is inconclusive as to the equality of the exchange......

In "The Dynamics of Cultural Nationalism" - John Hutchinson distinguishes cultural from political nationalism in Ireland: the latter seeks to rationalise the state through law, whereas the former delineates the customs and culture of the historic moral community.

Hutchinson's argument is that secular intellectuals- scholars, literary men, and artists-act as moral innovators to create cultural nationalism, which is adopted and disseminated by the intelligentsia- barristers, doctors, journalists, schoolteachers, and minor civil servants.

A product of the British state in nineteenth-century Ireland, the intelligentsia found cultural nationalism attractive because of an identity crisis (Irish Catholics working for Protestant Britain) and blocked mobility (severe competition for employment).

He looks at the three acknowledged cultural revivals (from 1780 to 1798, 1830 to 1848, and 1890 to 1892) but it was only the last of the three, the 'rural Gaelic revival,' where there was a rejection of British materialism and secularism and this, he suggests, prepared the way for the creation of the Irish nation state.

None of the above , which is fascinating in its own right , has any relevance to the subject in hand .

What we are discussing is that you had two separate and distinct cultures and the question did one 'subsume' the other . You have already accepted that it did and that it was not voluntary.

In a sense whether it was a good or a bad thing is also irrelevant , the fact is the Ireland that existed was changed irrevocably .

Now if you like we can discuss was it inevitable , or a good or bad thing or a fair exchange or were there winners and losers or whatever , but lets not pretend it never happened .

Nodin

Jawgap wrote: »

Actually - it's a lot of learning

And the quote from Carr is pretty much what you get on about day two of your history degree at undergrad level - What is History? - pg 87 for the full quote.

I'd say you could be a few hundred days into it and still have learnt SFA at the rate you're going.

Nodin

Jawgap wrote: »

Oh dear! Did we not realise that quote you threw out came from Pope

You seem in a hurry to try and provoke people. Tell me, what about that statement made you think that I didn't know where the quote came from?

marienbad

Jawgap wrote: »

Oh dear! Did we not realise that quote you threw out came from Pope

Ah come on will you, and give people some credit !

Jawgap

marienbad wrote: »

None of the above , which is fascinating in its own right , has any relevance to the subject in hand .

What we are discussing is that you had two separate and distinct cultures and the question did one 'subsume' the other . You have already accepted that it did and that it was not voluntary.

In a sense whether it was a good or a bad thing is also irrelevant , the fact is the Ireland that existed was changed irrevocably .

Now if you like we can discuss was it inevitable , or a good or bad thing or a fair exchange or were there winners and losers or whatever , but lets not pretend it never happened .

Well if you want to dismiss a book that inquires into the origins of Irish cultural nationalism - go ahead.

Second, if you are going to persist - as other do in this thread - in not reading what I post then there's not much point in proceeding with the discussion.

What I said was that each subsumed elements from the other......not that one subsumed the other.....

Jawgap wrote: »

........

And for clarity - I don't think one 'culture' supplanted another - I think each subsumed elements from the other.

and that the nature of the exchange was not indicated as involuntary by the research (which you dismiss as irrelevant)....

Jawgap wrote: »

No, because the research does not indicate an involuntary exchange and is inconclusive as to the equality of the exchange......

...........

Jawgap

Nodin wrote: »

I'd say you could be a few hundred days into it and still have learnt SFA at the rate you're going.

Well, it's a very long time since I had to read that book and I'm more than a few hundred days into studying history - fewer days spent studying Irish history though.

Nodin wrote: »

You seem in a hurry to try and provoke people. Tell me, what about that statement made you think that I didn't know where the quote came from?

Ah look, if I wanted to provoke you I'd have picked up on the "Taleban-esque organisation" and equated you to a "Ten Dollar Taliban" but I didn't.

.......and if you are, as a student of Pope and the 'heroic couplet,' saying you knew where the quote came from, then I'll accept your word.

marienbad

Jawgap wrote: »

Well if you want to dismiss a book that inquires into the origins of Irish cultural nationalism - go ahead.

Second, if you are going to persist - as other do in this thread - in not reading what I post then there's not much point in proceeding with the discussion.

What I said was that each subsumed elements from the other......not that one subsumed the other.....


and that the nature of the exchange was not indicated as involuntary by the research (which you dismiss as irrelevant)....

I am not dismissing anything , but you concentrating on issues after the event. You do agree that there was a Gaelic Ireland separate and distinct from our neighbour - yes ? And after a period of interaction with that neighbour that Gaelic Ireland is no more - can we agree on that ?

Jawgap

marienbad wrote: »

I am not dismissing anything , but you concentrating on issues after the event. You do agree that there was a Gaelic Ireland separate and distinct from our neighbour - yes ? And after a period of interaction with that neighbour that Gaelic Ireland is no more - can we agree on that ?

When did this Gaelic Ireland exist? define it.

Are we talking the period pre-Norman times, pre-Viking?

Does Gaelic Ireland include the Hiberno-Normans? The Desmonds and Geraldines?

Pre-Christian?

Is the wrtiting of Gaelic Ireland only to be found in ogham? What about Latin and Medieval French, as well as Primitive Irish?

marienbad

Jawgap wrote: »

When did this Gaelic Ireland exist? define it.

Are we talking the period pre-Norman times, pre-Viking?

Does Gaelic Ireland include the Hiberno-Normans? The Desmonds and Geraldines?

Pre-Christian?

Is the wrtiting of Gaelic Ireland only to be found in ogham? What about Latin and Medieval French, as well as Primitive Irish?

Does it matter ? This is just smoke and mirrors at this stage , lets just say by the time of the Flight of the Earls a process spanning centuries was effectively done and dusted .

Why we are even debating this is ridiculous , it is obvious at this stage you have no interest in discussion .

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

When did this Gaelic Ireland exist? define it.

Are we talking the period pre-Norman times, pre-Viking?

Does Gaelic Ireland include the Hiberno-Normans? The Desmonds and Geraldines?

Pre-Christian?

Is the wrtiting of Gaelic Ireland only to be found in ogham? What about Latin and Medieval French, as well as Primitive Irish?

the Irish language is distinctive to Ireland and the teaching of it was banned by the English at one stage in our own country. we will never be part of the british empire again and we will be all the better for it.anyone who wants to go live in this fantastic empire is free to do so,im sure ryanair will get ye there cheap.we're doing just fine here on our own.the already high standard of living in ireland is on the rise yet again.

Jawgap

marienbad wrote: »

Does it matter ? This is just smoke and mirrors at this stage , lets just say by the time of the Flight of the Earls a process spanning centuries was effectively done and dusted .

Why we are even debating this is ridiculous , it is obvious at this stage you have no interest in discussion .

I'm happy to debate, but if you introduce something you can't define then it's hardly my problem.

And to be honest I would have gone with Brehon Law in defining Gaelic Ireland - but only because I did my thesis on it.

Wherever the King's writ did not apply would have been Gaelic Ireland or where land passed through tanistry.

In fact I'm surprised that none of the learned individuals talking how perfidious Albion did for us have thus far mentioned the supplanting of Brehon Law by the Common Law.

Glad to see they're up to speed on such a distinctive part of our heritage.

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

the Irish language is distinctive to Ireland and the teaching of it was banned by the English at one stage in our own country. we will never be part of the british empire again and we will be all the better for it.anyone who wants to go live in this fantastic empire is free to do so,im sure ryanair will get ye there cheap.we're doing just fine here on our own.the already high standard of living in ireland is on the rise yet again.

That so? Home come I can go to Scotland and speak Irish to Scots Gaelic speakers and be understood?

Irish also has some commonality with Manx......

.......but I suppose distinctive is one way to describe it.

on the river

Jawgap wrote: »

That so? Home come I can go to Scotland and speak Irish to Scots Gaelic speakers and be understood?

Irish also has some commonality with Manx......

.......but I suppose distinctive is one way to describe it.

True. However distinction is key for any country to assert it's right for nationalism and independence.
Something the irish nationalists were keen to introduce in the early 1900s.
Without culture a nation and their people's have no soul

marienbad

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm happy to debate, but if you introduce something you can't define then it's hardly my problem.

And to be honest I would have gone with Brehon Law in defining Gaelic Ireland - but only because I did my thesis on it.

Wherever the King's writ did not apply would have been Gaelic Ireland or where land passed through tanistry.

In fact I'm surprised that none of the learned individuals talking how perfidious Albion did for us have thus far mentioned the supplanting of Brehon Law by the Common Law.

Glad to see they're up to speed on such a distinctive part of our heritage.

Well most posters don't find it necessary to wear their qualifications on their sleeve as a constant reminder to others of how learned they are .

But it is nice to see that at last you except that there was a Gaelic Ireland and that it was surpassed by the king's writ .

Now we can get on to discussing if it was a good thing or a bad thing or just an inevitability .

jank

Nodin wrote: »

No, your right, nothing bad has ever ever happened here. We only communicated in grunts and traded horse ****e before the Brits civilised us, mere ape creatures that we were.

I never said any of the above, and tbh your continuous refusal to engage shows you up.

Answer the question please, 4th time of asking....
a) Define Gaelic/Irish Culture
b) Did the destruction of this culture begin with the Normans?

Nodin

jank wrote: »

I never said any of the above, and tbh your continuous refusal to engage shows you up.

Answer the question please, 4th time of asking....
a) Define Gaelic/Irish Culture
b) Did the destruction of this culture begin with the Normans?

We had no culture. We had no clothes. We still had tails. But then we were invaded, and had daycency bate into is, thank the jaysus......

Vandango

marienbad wrote: »

Well most posters don't find it necessary to wear their qualifications on their sleeve as a constant reminder to others of how learned they are.

Hey you're online and for all you know, you could be addressing a failed circus clown.

Jawgap

marienbad wrote: »

Well most posters don't find it necessary to wear their qualifications on their sleeve as a constant reminder to others of how learned they are .

But it is nice to see that at last you except that there was a Gaelic Ireland and that it was surpassed by the king's writ .

Now we can get on to discussing if it was a good thing or a bad thing or just an inevitability .

Well, I haven't said what my quals are and I didn't wear them 'on my sleeve' I hinted at them in response to the following

Nodin wrote: »

A little learning is a terrible thing.

Nodin wrote: »

I'd say you could be a few hundred days into it and still have learnt SFA at the rate you're going.

.......from someone who has yet to post a single source.

I accept there both was and is a Gaelic Ireland and that Brehon Law was 'supplanted' (not surpassed) by the Common Law. Also that Gaelic Ireland never went away (as evidenced by the serious of revivals mentioned in the book you described as irrelevant) - it did what all cultures did evolved and changed under a range of influences.

Even Brehon Law changed when, for example, St Patrick had ecclesiastical law incorporated into it and the Cambro-Normans assimilated and some of their customs and practices were adopted into it.

Now, if you want to discuss we can discuss, but for the second time - can you read what's written, not what you wish was written.

Jawgap

Vandango wrote: »

Hey you're online and for all you know, you could be addressing a failed circus clown.

Quite true - I could be a failed circus clown - and I wouldn't be the first person to fail in one area and succeed wildly in another.

Jawgap

Nodin wrote: »

We had no culture. We had no clothes. We still had tails. But then we were invaded, and had daycency bate into is, thank the jaysus......

Not at all - I'm sure you're aware of the ways the Brehon Law was superior to what replaced it. Indeed it was positively progressive in some key areas even compared to what we have now.

Pity it lacked that one key ingredient to would have allowed it to survive.

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

That so? Home come I can go to Scotland and speak Irish to Scots Gaelic speakers and be understood?

Irish also has some commonality with Manx......

.......but I suppose distinctive is one way to describe it.

Irish isn't the same as those other two Gaelic languages. I'm fluent in Irish and as part of the leaving cert we'd to study these differences.some words might sounds familiar but then so would Irish words and just about any other language in the region.

MRnotlob606

I value our Independence.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

We had no culture. We had no clothes. We still had tails. But then we were invaded, and had daycency bate into is, thank the jaysus......

So, your just trolling at this stage.. how nice.
I can take your blanket refusal to answer two simple questions as a means that you have no answer to my question, therefore you retract your initial statement by default.

No to reject rejoining the Union

The very idea that Ireland should rejoin the union!

We have nothing in common with the country next door.

We have our own language that the country speaks,
We enjoy our own home grown TV channels and programmes
We enjoy our own sport
We enjoy shopping in our own shops
We drive on our own side of the road
We enjoy fantastic passport controls between our neigbours

No sir, we have nothing in common with our closest neighbours, im happy to be part of the European Empire where we have everything in common.

smurgen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The very idea that Ireland should rejoin the union!

We have nothing in common with the country next door.

We have our own language,
We enjoy our own home grown TV channels and programmes
We enjoy our own sport
We enjoy shopping in our own shops
We drive on our own side of the road
We enjoy fantastic passport controls between our neigbours

No sir, we have nothing in common with our closest neighbours, im happy to be part of the European Empire where we have everything in common.

We speak the same language is the crux of your reasoning?weak

smurgen

No to reject rejoining the Union

smurgen wrote: »

We speak the same language is the crux of your reasoning?weak

It shows we have a lot in common with the UK.

In fact we were members of the UK, the fact that we chose to leave cant change the fact that we will continue to be similar to the UK.

MRnotlob606

No to reject rejoining the Union

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

I value our Independence.

Shame we don't have any.

EU.

truedoom

The only positive thing I could get from ireland joining the UK is free delivery from any UK shop, and next day and all that jazz.

Would be nice to order on amazon without having to rely on parcel motel :P

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

Irish isn't the same as those other two Gaelic languages. I'm fluent in Irish and as part of the leaving cert we'd to study these differences.some words might sounds familiar but then so would Irish words and just about any other language in the region.

I didn't say they were the same - I disputed that Irish was distinctive to the degree suggested.

It is not distinct in the way Basque, for example, is distinct - Irish is part of a family of languages and within that family (Insular Celtic Languages) it's part of the Goidelic branch - along with Scottish Gaelic and Manx - the three trace their origins back to Primitive Irish.

Beyond that there's shared heritage with Welsh, Breton, Cornish and the Continental Celtic languages.

smurgen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It shows we have a lot in common with the UK.

In fact we were members of the UK, the fact that we chose to leave cant change the fact that we will continue to be similar to the UK.

So what? Just because we've something in common with them doesn't mean they've our best interests at heart. What would we benefit from in joining the UK that we wouldn't have in the EU as we are now? Unless you can tell me exactly I suspect you're just on some kind of wind up

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

I didn't say they were the same - I disputed that Irish was distinctive to the degree suggested.

It is not distinct in the way Basque, for example, is distinct - Irish is part of a family of languages and within that family (Insular Celtic Languages) it's part of the Goidelic branch - along with Scottish Gaelic and Manx - the three trace their origins back to Primitive Irish.

Beyond that there's shared heritage with Welsh, Breton, Cornish and the Continental Celtic languages.

You're trying to make out there's nothing unique about us so we might as well join a ridiculous union. There are part of the Irish language that are unique to this country alone that we do not share with any other Gaelic language.

The whole premise of a kingdom in this day and age is ridiculous and imo at ends with the idea of democracy. When the English sort all that out maybe then they can join us in some union.

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

You're trying to make out there's nothing unique about us so we might as well join a ridiculous union. There are part of the Irish language that are unique to this country alone that we do not share with any other Gaelic language.

The whole premise of a kingdom in this day and age is ridiculous and imo at ends with the idea of democracy. When the English sort all that out maybe then they can join us in some union.

Actually I'm not - I'm just pointing out that Irish culture has, and will continue, to evolve -drawing influences in from a lot of sources and serving in it's own right to influence others.

The language did not spontaneously arise here as it is not regarded as a 'linguistic isolate' - in fact "Goidelic" means pirate or raider, and was borrowed from one of the Annals to describe the family of languages.

Irish only arrived here between 500 BCE and 100 BCE, and even you discount the historical evidence and decide to go with the pseudo-historical narrative, the suggested origin of the language then that fairy tale tells the story of how the language was given to us by 'Gaedhael Glas" - grandson of Noah - who fashioned it from the best elements of the 72 languages that were spoken at the Tower of Babel.

It borrowed from Latin which arrived a few hundred years later and Norse which arrived another couple of hundred years after that.

Do people seriously think that the Irish speak today bears any resemblance to what the locals were speaking 1,500 years ago before the arrival of Latin, Norse, French and English? Anymore than the English we speak now bears a resemblance to Old English?

Yes, there are parts of the language that are unique in the same way there are parts of the dialects spoke in Donegal, Kerry etc that are unique to those regions - that's the same in any language.

Btw- if you took the time to read what I've written (rather than crudely assuming) you'd see that I said a monarchy would be an undoubted redline issue and that only a federal republic with a strong upper house providing equal representation to each country would be acceptable (to me anyway).

AnLonDubh

Jawgap wrote: »

That so? Home come I can go to Scotland and speak Irish to Scots Gaelic speakers and be understood?

That would surprise me, even for simple sentences. I have met and spoken with a Scots Gaelic speaker from the North Uist who came to Ireland to learn Irish, specifically because she could not understand it and wanted to. I have also been told directly by native speakers of both languages that they can not understand the other language when they hear it. There is ease of comprehension for the written languages, but not the spoken languages.

Jawgap

AnLonDubh wrote: »

That would surprise me, even for simple sentences. I have met and spoken with a Scots Gaelic speaker from the North Uist who came to Ireland to learn Irish, specifically because she could not understand it and wanted to. I have also been told directly by native speakers of both languages that they can not understand the other language when they hear it. There is ease of comprehension for the written languages, but not the spoken languages.

I'm not talking about having a fluid conversation or a technical discussion, but at a low level (around Fort William, Oban, Tobermory and Bowmore) it was possible to exchange pleasantries and engage in preliminary small talk using Irish and Scots Gaelic.

The only other place I tried it was around Inverness and it's like a different language there. Beyond pleasantries and greetings it wasn't possible.

AnLonDubh

Jawgap wrote: »

The language did not spontaneously arise here as it is not regarded as a 'linguistic isolate' - in fact "Goidelic" means pirate or raider, and was borrowed from one of the Annals to describe the family of languages.

It wasn't borrowed from the Annals. It was the old Irish word for Irish "Goídhelic" and hence is the root word for the language's name in Scots, Irish and Manx Gaelic.

Do people seriously think that the Irish speak today bears any resemblance to what the locals were speaking 1,500 years ago before the arrival of Latin, Norse, French and English? Anymore than the English we speak now bears a resemblance to Old English?

I would say Old Irish has a strong resemblance to Modern Irish. It's clear they are the same language.
English went through a rapid (and possibly artificial, since Old English was probably not contemporary to its time, but purposefully archaic) evolution, but Middle English is obviously English.

AnLonDubh

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not talking about having a fluid conversation or a technical discussion, but at a low level (around Fort William, Oban, Tobermory and Bowmore) it was possible to exchange pleasantries and engage in preliminary small talk using Irish and Scots Gaelic.

The only other place I tried it was around Inverness and it's like a different language there. Beyond pleasantries and greetings it wasn't possible.

I'm not talking about having a fluid conversation or a technical discussion either, even low-level talk is different enough to be incomprehensible.
Even "I am pleased to meet you" is very different, both the words used and especially the pronunciation.

marienbad

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, I haven't said what my quals are and I didn't wear them 'on my sleeve' I hinted at them in response to the following





.......from someone who has yet to post a single source.

I accept there both was and is a Gaelic Ireland and that Brehon Law was 'supplanted' (not surpassed) by the Common Law. Also that Gaelic Ireland never went away (as evidenced by the serious of revivals mentioned in the book you described as irrelevant) - it did what all cultures did evolved and changed under a range of influences.

Even Brehon Law changed when, for example, St Patrick had ecclesiastical law incorporated into it and the Cambro-Normans assimilated and some of their customs and practices were adopted into it.

Now, if you want to discuss we can discuss, but for the second time - can you read what's written, not what you wish was written.

It is somewhat irrelevant to the issues under discussion as to the changes effected in Brehon Law and Irish Culture in general by St Patrick etc. These were the natural collisions between cultures and could have been rejected if the populace so wished . And the end result might even have been the same in time as we see today with the Americanisation of societies.


But something more that that happened , as Mountjoy himself said

'We do now continually hunt all their woods, spoil the corn, burn their houses, and kill so many churls as it grieveth me to think it is necessary to do it’

It was no longer assimilation or subsumption but simply conquest

Jawgap

AnLonDubh wrote: »

It wasn't borrowed from the Annals. It was the old Irish word for Irish "Goídhelic" and hence is the root word for the language's name in Scots, Irish and Manx Gaelic.

Really, well you need to take that point up with Professor MacGiolla Chriost - his book "Irish Language in Ireland: From Goidel to Globalisation" suggests otherwise.

I would have thought his writings (especially "Jailteacht") would be familiar to some of the people rattling about on this thread

AnLonDubh wrote: »

I would say Old Irish has a strong resemblance to Modern Irish. It's clear they are the same language.
English went through a rapid (and possibly artificial, since Old English was probably not contemporary to its time, but purposefully archaic) evolution, but Middle English is obviously English.

Again really? Old / Primitive Irish was only codified and written down when Latin arrived and had the structures and grammars of that language applied to it - so having gone through that filter you reckon what went in (the pre-Latin language) would still be comprehensible to us? I reckon it would be about as comprehensible as Ogam writing which itself was replaced by Latin text allowing some of the great works of Irish history (including the various Annals etc) to be produced. An example of how our culture was enhanced by coming into contact with others.

By the way many of the words we now use in Irish went from Latin to Welsh to Irish (according to the good professor) - and words went from Irish into Welsh.

Indeed he says "the fuller literary expression of Irish only became possible through the the greater impact again of Latin and its written culture upon society in Ireland."

But let me guess, he's wrong?

Jawgap

marienbad wrote: »

It is somewhat irrelevant to the issues under discussion as to the changes effected in Brehon Law and Irish Culture in general by St Patrick etc. These were the natural collisions between cultures and could have been rejected if the populace so wished . And the end result might even have been the same in time as we see today with the Americanisation of societies.


But something more that that happened , as Mountjoy himself said

'We do now continually hunt all their woods, spoil the corn, burn their houses, and kill so many churls as it grieveth me to think it is necessary to do it’

It was no longer assimilation or subsumption but simply conquest

Yes, I get it - everything that doesn't suit is irrelevant.......:rolleyes:

on the river

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, I get it - everything that doesn't suit is irrelevant.......:rolleyes:

No you don't. You can't just have a selective memory. You must provide a broader history to understand and evaluate the past.

marienbad

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, I get it - everything that doesn't suit is irrelevant.......:rolleyes:

We are at complete cross purposes here , For a guy that supposedly studied history you seem to reduce everything to a binary choice or a one moment in time option .

The interaction between the two cultures was both benign and maglignant , indeed sometimes at the same time and all transpiring over a long period of time . At some point though it changed to a process of conquest .

This is simply history 101 .

Jawgap

on the river wrote: »

No you don't. You can't just have a selective memory. You must provide a broader history to understand and evaluate the past.

I agree - hence why I cited two broad based works - one that looked at the rise of Irish cultural nationalism and the other that traced the development of the language.

They provide context on their discussion of the topics they address.

irishfeen

Ireland rejoining the UK is absolutely a ridiculous suggestion, if a UI was ever to come about I would support Ireland joining the British commonwealth as a republic though.

on the river

irishfeen wrote: »

Ireland rejoining the UK is absolutely a ridiculous suggestion, if a UI was ever to come about I would support Ireland joining the British commonwealth as a republic though.

Outrageous. The commonwealth is just a colonial club for talking nonsense.
The empire is long gone. Europe or Separation is the two choices presently

smurgen

No to reject rejoining the Union

smurgen wrote: »

So what? Just because we've something in common with them doesn't mean they've our best interests at heart. What would we benefit from in joining the UK that we wouldn't have in the EU as we are now? Unless you can tell me exactly I suspect you're just on some kind of wind up

Who is they?

If we rejoined the UK the union would represent us as much as the English,
Welsh or Scots.

In fact after the Scottish referendum it's quite clear that in future the control of Westminster over areas such as Scotland will be very much different.

We would gain a lot from the UK, certainly far more direct investment, certainly financial Union with our biggest trading partners and a say in setting our own interest rates.

A lot of the other stuff we never let go, we still speak the language, support their soccer teams and shop in Uk stores.