 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
David James
|
 |
Kingston, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"But wait... back in the Middle Ages, if my imperfect ignorance of history isn't too imperfect, I seem to recall the fact that England was ruled by French speaking people called Normans."
Right, but it was still the English crown. But that's irrelevant, the original question is if the Irish had been persecuted. Whether done by Anglo or Norman, the Irish had been persecuted. You disputed whether that had happened.
|
I don't really think that feudal lunacy against peasants quite counts as persecution in the same sense as events like the Inquisition. Your use of the term helps not a bit as in that sense pretty much everyone in history has been persecuted (take note, progenitor of this thread). Oppress, yeah, I'd agree to that as pretty much everyone in feudal times was oppressed. But persecution is active and deliberate, again, as in the Inquisition or witch trials. If anyone was "persecuted" in those times it would be the descendents of the old Anglo-Saxon kings and nobility; in that sense my use of the term generalized to all Anglo-Saxons was out of order. Oppressed, yes, like peasants everywhere, but not persecuted.
quote:
"Next off, Charles I and Charles II are both of the House of Stuart, so why the Irish would support their descendents if these two had persecuted them is beyond me ."
It's only beyond you because you are stupid and ingnorant of history. James II had suspended the penal laws against Catholics(as well as dissidents against the Church of England).
|
There you go again. But never mind. You have not disproved or proved anything here. *If* the Charles' had persecuted the Irish, then why would they support their descendents later on? Unless you're telling me that James II's suspension of the penal laws was enough to undue all the ill-will generated by his father and brother?
quote:
"Moreover, Charles I was married to a Catholic and had Catholic sympathies whilst Charles II was a closet Catholic, Protestant in name only."
Their being Protestant is what counts though- although Charles II made a deal with Louis XIV to restore England to Catholicism, the plot never was enacted. You rationalized the persecution of the Irish in that they supported Catholic Pretenders to the throne. I pointed out the main persecutors of the Irish people came before the era when they were supporting Catholic Kings in exile.
|
How convenient for you that they were essentially pretending to be Protestant. For the rest, I'm going to wait till I get to the end.
quote:
"
I'm not going to go and defend everything Cromwell did; yes he massacred a lot of Irish but he did the same in England and Scotland as well, often among people who had formerly supported him."
Right, but his actions in Irish were far, far, worse. After his conquest of Ireland many Irish were also in fact sent away to the New World to be slaves in the Caribbean.
"Cromwell is an unfortunate feature of England's ascent from government by decree to Parliamentary rule."
Most people use harsher words then "unfortunate" when discussing massacres on the scale he comitted.
"You also seem to have ignored the fact that the Calvinist Dutch suffered mightily at Spanish hands."
Trying to worm out of this by changing the subject, are we? We are discussing the persecution of the Irish.
|
Umm, no, rather trying to bring this back onto subject. This started out by someone trying to claim that the Irish weren't Northern Europeans on the spurious grounds that they had been "persecuted" by Cromwell. I made a passing comment on why I didn't think this was a legitimate grounds for them to be excluded. Looking back I realize this was not done too well as I said practically nothing about it as it so plainly silly to think that the Irish are not Northern European. Nevertheless, it was you who sidetracked the discussion, not me.
quote:
You said that Irish persecution started when they were supporting the Catholic pretenders to the throne. In fact the worst of it came before Cromwell, and it continued until well after the threat of Catholic pretenders was gone. Your original statement was stupid, incorrect, and insulting. |
From most of what you've written it might at first appear that the worst the Irish ever suffered was at the hands of Cromwell (being sent away, massacres, etc). I would agree to that. I would also agree that I phrased it badly when I made it seem like the Irish persecution began with support of the Catholic pretenders. I had intended that to mean in Cromwell's era ("after the Reformation" - which isn't too clear either). My apologies on what was, as I said, essentially a poorly written passing comment. But what I don't agree with, and I don't think most anyone else would either, is your claim that the "worst of it came before Cromwell". And especially not at the hands of closet Catholics like Charles I and II. I don't think much of either of these two (or indeed anyone who ruled England after Elizabeth's death until Queen Anne) but as much as I dislike them I don't think they were ruthless persecutors of the Irish, as you seem to imply. I have looked for such things in the books I have and have not found any. The closest I can come is incompetence on Charles I's part in England, Scotland and Ireland that ultimately led to a tri-nation revolution that we call the English Civil War. So if you'd care to enlighten me, go right ahead.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Felch
|
 |
Germantown, Maryland
Sep 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David James
I don't think much of either of these two (or indeed anyone who ruled England after Elizabeth's death until Queen Anne) but as much as I dislike them I don't think they were ruthless persecutors of the Irish, as you seem to imply. |
So you didn't like the Stuarts?
However, I've never heard of either Charles being all that terrible to the Irish. Cromwell, yes, but Charles I, and to a greater extent Charles II were always highly regarded by my family (Irish Catholics) as being perfectly decent kings.
Cromwell was the real persecutor though. He was a brutal, ruthless, religious fundamentalist, who strove with all his energy to make other people's lives suck just a little bit more. No one who believes in liberty could honestly claim he was a step in the right direction. If anything he was a warning of the despotism of the future, military and religious dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, and Mullah Omar.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
YES, urban blacks (hispanics, asians, whites, etc) don't get the education they need. So, yes, they aren't as educated.
And no, I'm not white  . |
Imran: you're being an idiot so I'll try to spell this out for you.
First, look at the stupidity of your statement that "urban blacks (hispanics, asians, whites, etc) don't get the education they need." Do you really think that all urban schools provide sub-par educations. Come off it. The quality of urban schools may be below average, but that doesn't mean that all students of urban schools fail to get the education they need.
Just because a person went to an urban school doesn't automatically mean "they aren't as educated."
From what I heard about American schools, the odds are that urban students get a poorer education, but that doesn't mean all of them are uneducated.
Do you understand this, or do I have to explain this like I was talking to a four-year-old?
This is the big part of the racist assumptions in statements like yours and others that claim that the solution to racism against blacks is to provide them with better education. The racist assumption is that the discrimination faced by these people is because they lack the right qualifications.
What you can't get through your little head is the fact that non-whites with excellent qualifications still face discrimination. We routinely have court cases that show how highly qualified blacks, asians, etc. are passed over for promotion because of their colour.
Providing a better education to all people is desirable, but it will not end racism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
Ok -- let's forget about the history of past discrimination and crimes against humanity.
I still do not see how white, heterosexual men are discriminated against because of their race or sexual orientation in today's society. |
If by "discriminate" you mean
"To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice"
. . . programs like affirmative action do that all the time while some posters talking about the "white male" do it all the time as well if they attribute some negative trait to white males
If you mean discriminated against in the sense of facing adversity that requires a redress well lets just say I am not crying a river for the plight of the white male ( and I am one). I do find some affirmative action programs to be offensive when they totally preclude a white male from getting a certain job ( I gace an example of a college that won't hire any male faculty for something like 10 years) because I believe it is unnecessarily restrictive and does not promote merit ( there would HAVE to be a couple of exceptional male candidates in all those years that were ignored). But in the scope of wrongs that go on out there . . . lets just say that there are bigger issues to get riled up over.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monolith94
Affirmative action doesn't reinforce the stereotype that black people can't get jobs on their own: it reinforces the (correct) stereotype that businesses tend to have some racist members. |
I sincerely doubt that many people in this country agree with you.
quote:
p.s. The United States is not 80% white. Within 20 years, it is projected that whites will in fact constitute less than half of the populace. |
According to the 2000 census, whites are >75% of the population. The only way that number will drop to 50% in 20 years is if the entire population of mexico moves up here. Bar that, or a "white only" pestilence, its virtually impossible.
Last edited by SpencerH on 25-05-2002 at 18:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
Ok -- let's forget about the history of past discrimination and crimes against humanity.
|
I was not sure if this was a serious comment or intended to be sarcastic. My view is that we must always remember the history from which we come and
honor it, disparage it, rail against it or whatever but always always remember it.
BUT
I see enough to do in trying to correct injustices today that I see little point in trying to redress every wrong in history. The fact that 8 generations ago someone's ancestor enslaved another (OR killed him and took his castle and his earldom for that matter) provides the historical backdrop but little else.
I am most interested in the NOW. . . . trying to "fix" now that which can be fixed and getting to the root cause to the extent we can. I think that there is more than enough work to do now to try to level the playing field and that one can NEVER fully address the wrongs of the past.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:19
|
|
While I am here . . . I generally support the idea of affirmative action but I have seen a lot of weird stuff in the implementation that does not make sense
1. friend of mine wanted to be a dentist . . . he applied 2 years in a row and his marks were not good enough for dentistry school (he didn't even make it into the group that got interviewed to fill the last 3rd of the class)--he then realized that the fact that he was 1/8 native could help-- he applied for "native status", and then reapplied as a minority candidate. He got in with a small scholarship to boot.
2. The law school I was in had an affirmative action program called the Indigineous Black and Micmac Program . The idea was to assist these minority groups in attending law school as they made up about .5 % of the lawyers despite each being about 10% of the provincial population. A laudible goal but the implementation was weird
(a) first the program offered exactly the same assistence to each individual in both groups. For example: fully paid tuition, books and a living allowance. Meanwhile the Micmac students also had federal government grants meaning that they were the most financially secure students around.
(b) students that had gained admission through the regular process were "encouraged" to join the program as administration wanted to bolster both the admission numbers and the chance for successful completions. Some students accepted for the free money
(c) one of these ( a black woman) was the daughter of a doctor and a former beauty queen winner (had won something like $50,000) who took taxis everywhere. I did not understand the point of giving financial assistance to the rich.
(d) several of the Micmac were 1/2 to 3/4 "white", had grown up in suburbia and "looked" like Barbie or Ken and so could only have faced cultural discrimination as they could not be discriminated against by the way they looked.
(e) meanwhile
-- student aid had nowhere enough money for students in need
-- there was no assistence at all for any other racial minority
-- even the blind student had to scramble to a number of sources to obtain money for the help she needed
For all that, I was not and am not against the goals of the program. It just seemed like once a person was identified as part of the disadvantaged group, they got package A, with no examination as to the needs of the individuals in the group.
Someone stated that there is no stigma with affirmative action. I have seen different. In that same law school, I dated a women that was 7/8 Micmac and had grown up on a reservation. Despite all the monetary incentives, she refused to apply for the school's affirmative action program and was a regular status student (note she did get a lot of financial support from her band and the federal government). I think the school only caught on when she showed up LOL.
Back home, in her native community, she was told a number of times that she did not deserve to be in law school . . . that the only reason she was there was because she was in the "stupid Indian" program. She said it gave her great pleasure to inform them that she had never mentioned her native status in the application.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
While I am here . . . I generally support the idea of affirmative action but I have seen a lot of weird stuff in the implementation that does not make sense
|
I have to agree with what you say.
I got into a Master of Arts program partially because the administration thought I was from Manitoba. (I was working there when I applied, but I actually grew up in Toronto). Having a Manitoba address made a small difference, although I will never know if I would have got in if I was living in Toronto.
The thing is the administration never bothered to check where I was actually from.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
"I don't really think that feudal lunacy against peasants quite counts as persecution in the same sense as events like the Inquisition."
What the Hell? Someone murders you and it's considered acceptable, and that's not persecution?
In any case, it wasn't just the Normans. Much of the conquest came during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, who sent forces and tried to impose Protestantism on the Irish people and ordered the lives of Catholic priests to be forefit. Elizabeth herself was very bloody and conducted many massacres in Ireland let by her servant Sir Peter Carew.
"*If* the Charles' had persecuted the Irish,"
They both did, but not to same extent as some of the other English. Charles I tried to brutally supress an uprising, in which there were some massacres. Charles II worked to destroy the Irish economy by banning the Irish from exporting wool.
"Unless you're telling me that James II's suspension of the penal laws was enough to undue all the ill-will generated by his father and brother?"
James II was a different person then the Charles', and James II had treated the Irish better then the Protestant monarchs. Also, after the William of Orange had come to power in England, James II went from France to Ireland and there was some hope he could be King of an independent Ireland.
"How convenient for you that they were essentially pretending to be Protestant."
Charles I was a protestant, though not much of a bigot and Charles II didn't convert to Catholicism until he was on his deathbed.
"This started out by someone trying to claim that the Irish weren't Northern Europeans on the spurious grounds that they had been "persecuted" by Cromwell. I made a passing comment on why I didn't think this was a legitimate grounds for them to be excluded. Looking back I realize this was not done too well as I said practically nothing about it as it so plainly silly to think that the Irish are not Northern European"
Che said the Irish were not considered White, but when he was doing so I think he was referring to their treatment in the United States. But the English most certainly did not see the Irish as anything other than barbarians and savages.
"But what I don't agree with, and I don't think most anyone else would either, is your claim that the "worst of it came before Cromwell"."
If I wrote that I mis-typed. I had meant to say the worst of it came during Cromwell. But don't claim the Irish weren't persecuted(or say they were with "reservation") or try to brush it off by saying they were supporting Catholic pretenders.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
Lets not forget the brilliance that allows for advantages for a french speaking anglophone in Canada compared to an english speaking francophone. |
What are you talking about?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SnowFire
|
 |
New York City, NY
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
What the Hell? Someone murders you and it's considered acceptable, and that's not persecution?
I think what DJ was getting at here was the difference between the assassin who kills you because it's his job and the zealot who kills you because he hates your (religion, race, etc.). Life sucked to be a serf. But it sucked in other parts of Europe too, and the anti-Catholic element wasn't huge.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Queen Elizabeth, who sent forces and tried to impose Protestantism on the Irish people and ordered the lives of Catholic priests to be forefit. Elizabeth herself was very bloody and conducted many massacres in Ireland let by her servant Sir Peter Carew.
News to me. As far as I know, one major thing that was nice about Elizabeth was that she didn't hate Catholics; but being that the Pope said any Catholic who killed her would get a free ride into heaven, a reasonable number of Catholics were out to get her. But she only executed Catholics for treason, not merely the crime of being Catholic- loyal English Catholics suffered no persecution from her. As a result (this is a stat I heard), she killed fewer Catholics in her 40 years of rule then Bloody Mary killed Protestants in the last 3 and a half years of rule.
(shuffle shuffle) Hmm... all I can find on this is that there was an Irish revolt, and it was surpressed. No particular mention of religious motivations on the English side. Maybe I'll check more on it later.
Anyway, not sure what this all has to do with the original thread topic, but it's more interesting. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orange
|
 |
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
Imran: you're being an idiot so I'll try to spell this out for you.
First, look at the stupidity of your statement that "urban blacks (hispanics, asians, whites, etc) don't get the education they need." Do you really think that all urban schools provide sub-par educations. Come off it. The quality of urban schools may be below average, but that doesn't mean that all students of urban schools fail to get the education they need.
Just because a person went to an urban school doesn't automatically mean "they aren't as educated."
From what I heard about American schools, the odds are that urban students get a poorer education, but that doesn't mean all of them are uneducated.
Do you understand this, or do I have to explain this like I was talking to a four-year-old? |
Apparently you're the one who needs to be talked to as if you're a four year old, as you're clearly speaking out of your ass. Urban schools are an absolute joke in America, half the people would be better off attending K-4 and then working for the rest of their lives - they'd make more money in the long run. Philadelphia recently had to privatize the public schools because of absolutely horrendous failure percentages (something along the lines of 40-50% failure rate!) as well as the fact that inner city schools are more likely to experience acts of crime, and becuase local taxation is never enough to improve standards, many of the schools simply can't keep up with the rest of their state or the nation.
I live in Pennsylvania, and I guarantee if you take any random suburban/rural kid with 13 years of public schooling and have him take a GED or other standardized knowledge test, and give the same test to a randomly chosen inner city student, 9:1 odds the suburbanite wins by an astonishing margin.
And I'm not talking about these really smart public/private schools like the one Speer attends either. I'm talking inner city Philadelphia public schools.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David James
|
|
Kingston, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"I don't really think that feudal lunacy against peasants quite counts as persecution in the same sense as events like the Inquisition."
What the Hell? Someone murders you and it's considered acceptable, and that's not persecution?
|
No, it's not considered acceptable. But that doesn't make it persecution either.
quote:
In any case, it wasn't just the Normans. Much of the conquest came during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, who sent forces and tried to impose Protestantism on the Irish people and ordered the lives of Catholic priests to be forefit. Elizabeth herself was very bloody and conducted many massacres in Ireland let by her servant Sir Peter Carew.
|
Most of that, frankly, was amongst the nobility, who as we both agree weren't all that Irish. And this was only after the Pope demonstrated his supreme tolerance by excommunicating her, which led to the very real threat of assassination. But I suppose she should have done nothing, been assassinated or deposed and life would have been hunky-dory ever after.
quote:
"*If* the Charles' had persecuted the Irish,"
They both did, but not to same extent as some of the other English. Charles I tried to brutally supress an uprising, in which there were some massacres. Charles II worked to destroy the Irish economy by banning the Irish from exporting wool.
|
Would that happen to be the Ulster Rising of 1641? That would be the one where Irish Catholics went out and massacred Irish Protestants? And also acted as a catalyst for the Civil War which ultimately brought in Cromwell? Charles I had little choice but to attempt to put it down because even he would have recognized the danger that such events posed, as indeed was the case. But this isn't a case of persecution; it's a desperate bid to stay in power. It wasn't planned and it had no ideological basis. This goes back to my claim that Charles I was incompetant - he managed to piss off practically *everyone* in Ireland, the nobility and the Kirk in Scotland and the Parliamentarians in England. This is hardly the record of someone adept at the 'art' of persecution.
As for Charles II and banning wool exports, I can just imagine the scene in his Court;
Charles: " Esteemed courtiers; I really detest the Irish. How might we go about persecuting them?"
Courtier #1: "Sire, we could ban wool exports. That would really show them"
Courtier #2: "I disagree Sire; we should raze their monasteries and burn their priests at the stake, ban Mass and all idolitrous worship"
Charles : "I think not; banning wool exports sounds far more effective to me"
This is of course ludicrous. I suspect the banning of wool exports had far more to do with the political clout of Scottish and English landowners who kept sheep and wanted to protect their economic interests from cheaper Irish imports than it did any great hatred of the Irish themselves. Kind of like Bush and Canadian softwood lumber; I seriously doubt Bush hates Canadian lumbermen and wants to persecute them - far more likely that he responded to domestic interests. Now maybe Irish interests weren't sufficiently represented; no doubt true. But even that might not have been enough. Nor does it seem that the interests of English and Scottish wool consumers were considered either. My point? Stop seeing persecution at every perceived slight to the Irish.
quote:
"Unless you're telling me that James II's suspension of the penal laws was enough to undue all the ill-will generated by his father and brother?"
James II was a different person then the Charles', and James II had treated the Irish better then the Protestant monarchs. Also, after the William of Orange had come to power in England, James II went from France to Ireland and there was some hope he could be King of an independent Ireland.
|
James II was ...an idiot. He attempted to impose Catholicism on a weary population as well as build up his power. They had already been through Cromwell's attempt to impose a fundamentalist (Puritan) variety of Protestantism on them, and they didn't particularly want to see essentially the same thing happen again. Charles II, whilst I don't particularly like him, was shrewd enough to see that he walked a fine line when it came to religious matters, which is probably one of the reasons he remained a closet Catholic. His brother James didn't. James also seemed to have forgotten that it was Parliament that now had the ultimate right to decide the succession.
quote:
"How convenient for you that they were essentially pretending to be Protestant."
Charles I was a protestant, though not much of a bigot and Charles II didn't convert to Catholicism until he was on his deathbed.
|
Right, Charles I married a Catholic and Charles II was, as I said, a closet Catholic or pretended to be a Protestant.
quote:
"This started out by someone trying to claim that the Irish weren't Northern Europeans on the spurious grounds that they had been "persecuted" by Cromwell. I made a passing comment on why I didn't think this was a legitimate grounds for them to be excluded. Looking back I realize this was not done too well as I said practically nothing about it as it so plainly silly to think that the Irish are not Northern European"
Che said the Irish were not considered White, but when he was doing so I think he was referring to their treatment in the United States. But the English most certainly did not see the Irish as anything other than barbarians and savages.
|
I'm sure the Irish regarded the English quite highly as well 
quote:
"But what I don't agree with, and I don't think most anyone else would either, is your claim that the "worst of it came before Cromwell"."
If I wrote that I mis-typed. I had meant to say the worst of it came during Cromwell. But don't claim the Irish weren't persecuted(or say they were with "reservation") or try to brush it off by saying they were supporting Catholic pretenders. |
We obviously have different opinions as to what constitutes "persecution". I think that it was only really in Cromwell's era and to a lesser degree afterwards. I don't consider feudalism alone to be persecution.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
That is irrevelant.
There are no persecutions. I agree. Just because we haven't suffered means we we can't have the same rights as african/americans or gays?
Yes I mean rights. Becuase stuff in the other thread says we don't have the right to form certain groups.
But you are right. We haven't been persecuted because of race, only because of religion or nationality which is different. |
You're sooo right. You know, I applied for a job as an interior decorator and was turned down!!!
But I'm going out right now to buy a do rag, because I have rights too.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-05-2002 07:26
|