Why do people love hating on monuments we inherited from British rule.

theological

Sean.3516 wrote: »

We were a part of Britain from 1801 to 1920. That’s an objective fact.

How did they steal counties that didn’t exist when the British took these areas over? The concept of a county didn’t exist in Ireland before the plantations.

Zebra3 wrote: »

For those posting in here who don't understand basic geography, allow me to part to you a quick lesson.

Britain = England + Scotland + Wales.

I agree with Zebra3 here. There's a reason why the UK's long name is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

However, to those saying that Ireland had the status of a colony, this is untrue. Ireland was a constituent country of the United Kingdom and had Members of Parliament. Admittedly because many were disenfranchised that effectively didn't matter much, but it isn't true to say that Ireland had the same status as India within the British Empire.

Sean.3516

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Catholics and Presbyterians werent allowed into or vote for grattan parliment,they made up 66% of irish population

Catholic’s were able to vote in Grattan’s Parliament for most of its existence. But most couldn’t because of the property qualification. This wasn’t a religious thing. Most Protestants living in England couldn’t vote at that time let alone Catholics living in Ireland. This was eased in 1791 giving a lot more Catholic’s the vote.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Presbyterians were as much hated as catholics by prodestants here,hence why they had such influence over 1798 rebellion and birth of irish republicanism.......who were its prodestant leaders?

Wolfe Tone and Edward Fitzgerald we’re both in the Church of Ireland and played central roles in 1798.

Odhinn

Sean.3516 wrote: »

...............


Wolfe Tone and Edward Fitzgerald we’re both in the Church of Ireland and played central roles in 1798.

Tone was a presbyterian "dissenter" and thus 'the wrong kind of protestant'.

Sean.3516

Zebra3 wrote: »

Hang on a second!!!

Full civil rights?????

In what year????

From 1829 onwards, Catholics could vote, sit in parliament and all of the Penal Laws designed to intentionally keep Catholics down had been repealed. They had the same rights as their Protestant counterparts.

Yes, Catholics would still be an underclass in socio-economic terms for a bit longer but this was merely a shadow effect of the legal discrimination from before. You can tell because by the turn of the next century in 1900, the gap between Catholics and Protestants had decreased hugely in Ireland.

(None of this negates the situation in the North where there was still informal discrimination against Catholics. This mainly existed because 1. Protestants still made up a majority, 2. Because of the “Seige Mentality” among Protestants in the North. I’m simply saying that in net terms, Catholics in Ireland were doing much better after legal discrimination ended in 1829.)

Sean.3516

Odhinn wrote: »

Tone was a presbyterian "dissenter" and thus 'the wrong kind of protestant'.

Do you have a source on this?

From what I can find on him, his father was Church of Ireland and his mother was a Catholic who converted to Church of Ireland from which it followed Wolfe Tone was also Church of Ireland. Did he convert to Presbyterian himself later on?

Are you sure you’re not confusing him with Henry Joy McCracken who was a Presbyterian leader in 1798?

Odhinn

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Do you have a source on this?

From what I can find on him, his father was Church of Ireland and his mother was a Catholic who converted to Church of Ireland from which it followed Wolfe Tone was also Church of Ireland. Did he convert to Presbyterian himself later on?

Are you sure you’re not confusing him with Henry Joy McCracken who was a Presbyterian leader in 1798?

You're correct, Mea Culpa

Bebop

Just to refer back to the original post regarding Nelson’s Pillar,

This photo of the Pillar suggests that it was built in 1801, which was 4 years before the Battle of Trafalgar (Oct 21st 1805)
What gives?

https://images.app.goo.gl/69HCxATTcyVbQacw8

dotsman

Bebop wrote: »

Just to refer back to the original post regarding Nelson’s Pillar,

This photo of the Pillar suggests that it was built in 1801, which was 4 years before the Battle of Trafalgar (Oct 21st 1805)
What gives?

https://images.app.goo.gl/69HCxATTcyVbQacw8

Battle of Copenhagen April 2nd, 1801.

Each of the 4 sides of Nelson's Pillar had the dates of different major battles he was in.

Zebra3

Sean.3516 wrote: »

From 1829 onwards, Catholics could vote, sit in parliament and all of the Penal Laws designed to intentionally keep Catholics down had been repealed. They had the same rights as their Protestant counterparts.

Yes, Catholics would still be an underclass in socio-economic terms for a bit longer but this was merely a shadow effect of the legal discrimination from before. You can tell because by the turn of the next century in 1900, the gap between Catholics and Protestants had decreased hugely in Ireland.

(None of this negates the situation in the North where there was still informal discrimination against Catholics. This mainly existed because 1. Protestants still made up a majority, 2. Because of the “Seige Mentality” among Protestants in the North. I’m simply saying that in net terms, Catholics in Ireland were doing much better after legal discrimination ended in 1829.)

Not true.

The tithe was still law.

State sanctioned theft of money from non-CoI members to fund the CoI.

View

Zebra3 wrote: »

Not true.

The tithe was still law.

State sanctioned theft of money from non-CoI members to fund the CoI.

A tax is not “state sanctioned theft of money”.

There are many examples of the state using our taxes to fund facilities that many people don’t use be those sports ones, community ones and both denominational and non-denominational schools. Just because you don’t use those facilities doesn’t mean that it was a “state sanctioned theft of money”.

markodaly

riffmongous wrote: »

Was Britain defeating Napoleon good for Ireland? Would we have had the Famine under French rule I wonder

Is that a rhetorical question or a point of view.

The French treated their colonies worse than British.
The Spanish were probably worse again.
The Germans.. well have a look at what they did in modern-day Namibia.
The Portuguese don't come out smelling of roses either.
Belgium, arguably the worst of the lot...

The point being, if it were not the British, it would have been someone else.

A free independent Ireland free from foreign influence for centuries if it were not for the British is a myth. One of the bigger boys would have come and taken over, at some stage.

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

Napoleon has gotten caught up in the British military jingoism and people seem to equate him to the likes of Hitler.

It'd take quite a compelling argument to convince me that we'd have been worse off had Napoleon won.

It's not even an argument really. The proposal is, would we have been better off?

If you really think that, then try and convince me.

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

A reformer, with a tremedous intellect. While he had his flaws he was frequently a force for good. His awarding station by merit in the army and civil service rather than wealth and title scared the Brits senseless.

No one doubts the historical significance of Napolean but let's be very clear on this, he was Europe's 'first' dictator and when he didn't get his way, he would just use his army to conquer you.

If people are not too familiar with his methods, just read up on his actions and orders that he gave regards the Haitian Revolution, where he used makeshift gas chambers on ships with locally collected sulphur to kill up to 100,000 black slaves who rebelled against France.

But I guess because he was a Brit he was a 'great' guy.

I love how the Irish still sees everything through an anti-British tint and that in general, no matter what, the Britsh are always the worst.
Its historical ignorance.

markodaly

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

The British did as much wrong around the world as the Germans did in WW2. Any reference to them here should be completely wiped, there’s still too many left.

I guess you should stop speaking English so...

Zebra3

View wrote: »

A tax is not “state sanctioned theft of money”.

There are many examples of the state using our taxes to fund facilities that many people don’t use be those sports ones, community ones and both denominational and non-denominational schools. Just because you don’t use those facilities doesn’t mean that it was a “state sanctioned theft of money”.

It most certainly is when the tax is based on racism or sectarianism.

Junkyard Tom

markodaly wrote: »

Is that a rhetorical question or a point of view.

The French treated their colonies worse than British.
The Spanish were probably worse again.
The Germans.. well have a look at what they did in modern-day Namibia.
The Portuguese don't come out smelling of roses either.
Belgium, arguably the worst of the lot...

The point being, if it were not the British, it would have been someone else.

A free independent Ireland free from foreign influence for centuries if it were not for the British is a myth. One of the bigger boys would have come and taken over, at some stage.

The reverse of everything you've wrote there is true.

The British were worse than the French with their colonies.
The Spanish probably weren't as bad as the French.
The Germans barely register in relative terms when it comes to colonial crimes.
Belgium, in numeric terms weren't as bad as the French, British, Spanish, or Germans.

Had Ireland been a little further out in the Atlantic with a larger population and natural resources equivalent to Britain we'd not have been colonised and we'd be a century ahead of where we are.

I'm making a point here. You could waste all day cobbling together sources and numbers in an attempt to prove me wrong and I could do that for you but it's better to just point out that you've puked up a bag of fallacies, counterfactuals and what-ifs to try to stifle criticism of British colonialism.

You should be better at this by now.

joseywhales

In what frame is Napoleon the bad guy? He was the only none monarch ruler of his time, he championed free education and the dismantling of oppressive anti meritocratic European monarchies. He had many flaws but his rise to power was based on merit not birthright. The idea that an ordinary person would choose the side of the established aristocracy in any fight is bizarre. I would rather have a statue of Napoleon than Nelson's pillar but really I'd prefer neither because they are both foreign.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

In what frame is Napoleon the bad guy? He was the only none monarch ruler of his time, he championed free education and the dismantling of oppressive anti meritocratic European monarchies. He had many flaws but his rise to power was based on merit not birthright. The idea that an ordinary person would choose the side of the established aristocracy in any fight is bizarre. I would rather have a statue of Napoleon than Nelson's pillar but really I'd prefer neither because they are both foreign.

And one of his merits was being a very good general, so countries were subjected to his benevolence whether they liked it or not.

Mad_maxx

joseywhales wrote: »

In what frame is Napoleon the bad guy? He was the only none monarch ruler of his time, he championed free education and the dismantling of oppressive anti meritocratic European monarchies. He had many flaws but his rise to power was based on merit not birthright. The idea that an ordinary person would choose the side of the established aristocracy in any fight is bizarre. I would rather have a statue of Napoleon than Nelson's pillar but really I'd prefer neither because they are both foreign.

Oliver Cromwell also challenged the inherent power privilege of aristocracy and monarchy, probably the most important figure in British history in terms of parliamentary power

Wasn't a swell guy overall though just like napoleon?

View

Zebra3 wrote: »

It most certainly is when the tax is based on racism or sectarianism.

Since the tithe wasn’t based on either, that point is moot.

Are you seriously trying to claim that the government funding denominational schools around the country - as it has done since the 19th Century and continues to do - is “sectarian”? If so, we must be one of the more sectarian countries in the world...

(and that’s leaving aside the question of whether the state funding various sporting bodies is “sectarian” given the predominant religious profile of the players/fans of some of the sports)

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The reverse of everything you've wrote there is true.

The British were worse than the French with their colonies.
The Spanish probably weren't as bad as the French.
The Germans barely register in relative terms when it comes to colonial crimes.
Belgium, in numeric terms weren't as bad as the French, British, Spanish, or Germans.

The French were massacring Algerians right up to the 60's.
Look at their record in Western Africa and the legacy of that.

The Spanish, christ where do you start... well, do a little bit of research into the Philippines and how 'well' the natives were treated. Then go back to their treatment of the natives of Latin America. An easy 8 million killed there.

The Germans, great bunch of lads, who ethnically cleansed most of Namibia, a test run of what they would do in eastern Europe in the 1940's.

The Belgiums, another great bunch of lads, who chopped the hands of natives who didn't meet their quotas for Congo rubber. For a small nation, they racked up a body count of approx 10 million. Impressive stuff.


Ah, yea but 'da Brits' the Greatist Satan of the lot, because some paddy tells us so...

The point is not a point-scoring exercise, but a dismantling of the myth that if Britain left Ireland alone, we would have been free and independent, which of course is nonsense.

The fact is, the British were good colonisers, good in the sense that they were in it for the long run, to make money of course, but they also invested in a civil service, infrastructure and so on because it made them more money in the long run.

If the Spanish came, they would have killed who they wanted, raped who they wanted, and plundered what they wanted, and left us all in abject poverty a few decades later for the next ****er, be it the French, Belgiums or whoever was close by and big enough to come along and do the same, again and again, and again.

We Irish always think we had it worst.

Talk to a Pole.
Talk to a Romanian.
Talk to Ukrainian.
Talk to a Jew.

In truth, our treatment was about average. The big exceptions were Cromwell and the Famine which brings the score down.

Had Ireland been a little further out in the Atlantic with a larger population and natural resources equivalent to Britain we'd not have been colonised and we'd be a century ahead of where we are.

If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.
Yea, it would be great if we have North sea equivalent oil and gas off the Atlantic, but we don't, so its a nonsense point.
Ireland has always been resource-poor, in fact it may have helped us in the long run because we weren't a target.

I'm making a point here. You could waste all day cobbling together sources and numbers in an attempt to prove me wrong and I could do that for you but it's better to just point out that you've puked up a bag of fallacies, counterfactuals and what-ifs to try to stifle criticism of British colonialism.

And.... you points are peer-reviewed and whiter than white?
Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

markodaly

joseywhales wrote: »

In what frame is Napoleon the bad guy? He was the only none monarch ruler of his time, he championed free education and the dismantling of oppressive anti meritocratic European monarchies. He had many flaws but his rise to power was based on merit not birthright. The idea that an ordinary person would choose the side of the established aristocracy in any fight is bizarre. I would rather have a statue of Napoleon than Nelson's pillar but really I'd prefer neither because they are both foreign.

Napoleon crowned himself Emperor of France. An emperor is a monarchal title.

Nelson was neither a king nor self-appointed emperor, he was in fact the son of a lowly reverend, so if it were a choice of men for merely being the average person, Nelson would win hands down.

topper75

The best thing that could have happened from an Irish perspective with the Napoleonic wars would be for them to keep going

When they ended, the price for agri produce went off a cliff and we got fupped on account of it.

One could argue that An Gorta Mór (mór because there were anything up to a dozen smaller ones in the lead up to it) was merely a culmination of a protracted economic slump occurring over the first half of the 19th century.

The real interesting fork in the history book for me wouldn't be Old Boney winning and conquering Ireland. It would be him staying on his horse and battle after battle being fought on the continent and the Irish living off inflated prices in the British marketplace.

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

Did nelson not fight for the english,who caused a famine here?

Nelson died in 1805 a full 40 years before the Famine, so no, he did not 'cause' the famine. In fact, is there a record of him ever being in Ireland?

But, hey who needs facts when one can invent a bogeyman on the fly.

markodaly

topper75 wrote: »

The best thing that could have happened from an Irish perspective with the Napoleonic wars would be for them to keep going

When they ended, the price for agri produce went off a cliff and we got fupped on account of it.

One could argue that An Gorta Mór (mór because there were anything up to a dozen smaller ones in the lead up to it) was merely a culmination of a protracted economic slump occurring over the first half of the 19th century.

The real interesting fork in the history book for me wouldn't be Old Boney winning and conquering Ireland. It would be him staying on his horse and battle after battle being fought on the continent and the Irish living off inflated prices in the British marketplace.

One of the reasons why other empires didn't their bother their ass looking at then British controlled Ireland was because we were worth nothing, apart from a military back door to invade Britain.

We were certainly not exporting gold or gemstones so had little value in real or economic terms.

Now, if we were on our own, then yea, easy picking for some plundering and raping, while being a handy back door to Britain to boot, but since we were fortified by the Brits, it was too much effort.

Kinsale of 1602 was really the last time another empire eyed us up, it didn't go well.

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

Where anywhere did i say nelson caused the famine


Why are you berating people,without reading there posts?

You mentioned, Nelson, English, Famine..... what is your point, exactly?

Junkyard Tom

markodaly wrote: »

If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

Your lack of self-awareness is quite funny. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

markodaly wrote: »

if it were not the British, it would have been someone else

You just sank your own sub.



Amused,

JYT.

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Amused,

JYT.

Oh wow, you used a smiley face.
Great rebuttal.
Well done.

Odhinn

markodaly wrote: »

Oh wow, you used a smiley face.
Great rebuttal.
Well done.

The 'oh well, it would have somebody else' deflection deserves no better.

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

Do the victims of french/spanish colonisation behold statues to them??

Pizzaro statue in Lima, Peru.



You are welcome.

why should we put up with staties of english here?

Because they are inanimate objects that cause no real harm for the most part and most people don't give two ****s either way, apart from a few random malcontents online.

Thats why.