The Ulster Scots people

[Wasp]

The popular image of the Ulster Protestant purveyed by much of the world's press and television and by the authors of instant studies of the Irish question is that of a red-faced man, his features contorted,beating a large drum. This simple visual clich'e has been used repeatedly to convey violence,intransigence and bigotry,neat labels under which,in the high speed information world of to-day,a busy journalist can package an entire people. Each television documentary or book on the Ulster troubles offers a history of the so-called native or Catholic Irish but usually nothing on the background of the Protestant people. It is almost as if they were destitue of features,emotions or even intelligent life,without existence in time,a monolith whose only purpose is to be the granite against which the national aspirations of an Irish people are dashed. The intention of this book is to explode that myth.
The ancestors of the Protestant population of Ulster arrived there in a series of immigrations during the seventeenth century,coming from the Scottish Lowlands and Borders and to a lesser extent from various parts of England,as far apart as Lancashire Norfolk and Devon. Within a hundred years they had transformed the north of Ireland from a land composed largely of woods and swamps,interspersed with small areas of modest culivation,into a province with roads,market towns and ports,supported by an increasingly arable system of farming,a thriving cattle trade and a domestic textile industry. Into a country where Catholic medieval values and an indolent pastoral economy pervaded, they brought Calvinastic Protestantism and a stern work ethic.

Although they came into what was an English colony and many of them were originally part of the official settlement of Ulster by the English Crown,the Scots so predominated in numbers,in the toughness of their culture and in the determination with which they acquired land, that the whole Plantation enterprise took on Scottish characteristics and the name 'Ulster Scots' came in time to be applied to the entire non-Irish population of the province which included large numbers of English, much smaller numbers of Welsh and some refugee French Protestants. In America the term 'Scotch-Irish',which had originally been used by Ulster students training for the Presbyterian ministry at Scottish universities,was applied to the Protestant immigrants from Ulster to distinguish them from the Catholic Irish who arrived later. For the purposes of this book,the terms Ulster-Scots or Scotch-Irish are regarded as interchangeable; they are also applied for the sake of identification in chapters dealing with Canada,Australia and New Zealand, lands where these terms would not have been known.

[Jim]

I have three problems with this.

1. Its almost entirely based on religion. My own identity has absolutely 0 to do with religion.
2. What television documentary? I've seen plenty involving "both sides" or even focusing on protestants.
3. Is it not true that a large reason why "Ulster Scots" fitted in with the "native" population is because of the huge similarities in Scottish and Irish culture, and that its thought that the Scottish and Irish have been crossing the Irish sea for many many centuries before plantation?

IMO it has little bearing with common identities found in Northern Ireland today in 2009, or even identities pre-partition, when people moved to America they largely dropped much of their culture and blended with many other cultures and a greater American culture took hand, isolating them from the current climate that was in Ireland.

[earl]

Thanks for that WASP. I was wondering how every British person in NI felt about that term used to describe them.

There's a lot of glossing over elsewhere in those paragraphs.

Within a hundred years they had transformed the north of Ireland from a land composed largely of woods and swamps,interspersed with small areas of modest culivation,into a province with roads,market towns and ports,supported by an increasingly arable system of farming,a thriving cattle trade and a domestic textile industry.

No mention of Elizabeth's 9 year war here, which left Ulster totally decimated by war and famine. No mention either of the English plan to contain all Scottish plantations to the north east of the island, while they tried to colonise Munster and Leinster.

In America the term 'Scotch-Irish',which had originally been used by Ulster students training for the Presbyterian ministry at Scottish universities,was applied to the Protestant immigrants from Ulster to distinguish them from the Catholic Irish who arrived later.

This paragraph talks about Ulster Scots being perceived as bigots, and then mentions that the 'Scotch Irish' were so named so as not to be mixed up with Catholics!

[Wasp]

In those times they were 2 seperate peoples and still are today to a great extent with the catholics being irish and Protestants being British/Ulster-Scots. Back then the vatican had major influence over many countires especially Catholic countries which made obvious problems for mainly Protestant countries. 1 word or letter from the pope had catholics withdrawing support for whatever when there country or area needed them.

[earl]

One word WASP. Nativism. Check it out.

[Wasp]

May 6, 2009 15:31:45 GMT earl said:

One word WASP. Nativism. Check it out.

Earl this wasn't about Elizabeth or that war. It was about the Ulster-Scots. You can't go into every side issue in a short article like that so I dont know why you are nickpicking. I could go further by saying that according to republicans/natioanlists the PUL community has no right to exist....except under their terms.

Here is another part of an article which IMO sums up the attitude perfectly.

''But a curious feature of much Irish nationalist and left wing-thinking about Ireland is that it takes for granted, that one form of ethnicity and nationalism...Irishness...is natural and inevitable but makes the competing form of Protestant Unionism accidental and temporary
.
The 'Irish people' is seen as a natural formation which needs no explanation and which automatically has characteristics such as a right to self-determination. To strengthen that case and make Ulster Protestants disappear from the equation,the competing Protestant ethnicity is described as merely a product of British imperial manipulation. A more plausible account would be that all ethnic collectivities and all nations are social products brought into being by the complex interaction of cultural and material interests and circumstances.

Nations do not create nationalists,nationalists invent nations. For many Protestants in Northern Ireland, Ulster Loyalism has displaced the Ulster Britishness which was common prior to the present conflict. As the British goverment has distanced itself,so Ulster Protestants have had to contemplate the possibility of a future on their own, and the result of that comtemplation......Has not been the one desired by Irish nationalists......recognizing that they are really Irish.

Instead Protestants have come increasingly to see themselves as Ulster people. Though independence remains the preferred option of only a small minority. It is the second best of almost every Unionist.'

[Blue Angel]

I see the British were 'civilising' us again. Presumably the same lot who managed to civilise the naughty Catholic Irish (despite been Catholic Englishmen themselves) had some kids who in their great magnamity decided to show us how we could improve our lot and learn how to 'live properly'.

[Wasp]

May 6, 2009 20:18:17 GMT Blue Angel said:

I see the British were 'civilising' us again. Presumably the same lot who managed to civilise the naughty Catholic Irish (despite been Catholic Englishmen themselves) had some kids who in their great magnamity decided to show us how we could improve our lot and learn how to 'live properly'.

Is any of the above not true where they did advance the state of especially where N.Ireland is situated to a great extent which is an achievment in itself.

[Blue Angel]

That white man's burden must be awful heavy WASP....

[Wasp]

May 6, 2009 20:37:36 GMT Blue Angel said:

That white man's burden must be awful heavy WASP....

That big chip on your shoulder concerning the British must be even heavier.

[Blue Angel]

I don't have one - I have no problem with the British - stop projecting your fears of the Irish people and what YOU think they believe onto me. I did not imply that the British are in any way less or more civilised than the Irish, and if anyone did try and imply the British were less civilised than the Irish I would call them out on it as it would be a stupid remark. Some republicans have done it in the past, even some famous names such as Pearse were not above (which was kind of odd as his father was English) it to choose an example who is prominent historically.

When you make comments about the British civilising us it comes across as though you were stating they were 'putting manners' on us. In NO way did the British civilise us - the myth of some outsiders needing to civilise a group is one of the more foolish claims of colonialism and a defence of it that I thought had long gone into the dustbin of history.

[Blue Angel]

In any case it's a particularly stupid claim as it uses concepts that would have been irrelevant to the original British settlers in Ireland and tries to retroactively glue on concepts from several hundreds of years later. The British monarchy claimed dominion over Ireland primarily due to Laudabilter which was issued by the Pope (you know that fellow who is the Earthly head of the abominable church and in part the bill stated that Ireland was to be returned to the true faith as the Irish clergy allowed marriage still (which had been banned about a century before for western clergy -but was never banned for all rites within the Catholic church) as the early Irish church was influenced more by the east than the west for a long time and many of it's customs were closer to what we would later know as the Eastern Orthodox churches - it had a very on/off relationship with Rome for centuries.

The Irish were NOT uncivilised before the British arrived - not every civilisation has to measure up to one prefered template to be regarded as civilised.

[Wasp]

Rubbish BA. Many countries were helped along and civilized to modern methods of life such as roads, sewers, farming etc etc. The Romans are a good example of their advanced capabilities compared with more backward countries. I have no problem accepting and acknowledging that Britain throughout the centuries gained much knowledge and advancement because of other countires.

Ireland was no different and it took the British to bring it forward and civilise it with their knowledge and capabilities. Theres no big deal here, you just have to look at who helped build America to see that it shouldnt be a topic that people get offended at but you managed to get offended at it and I believe its because it was the British who civilized Ireland you are moping about it, if it had been another country then I dont think you would have the same views. Rather sad really.

So again is any of this part below not true??;

Within a hundred years they had transformed the north of Ireland from a land composed largely of woods and swamps,interspersed with small areas of modest culivation,into a province with roads,market towns and ports,supported by an increasingly arable system of farming,a thriving cattle trade and a domestic textile industry.

[Wasp]

Concerning your last comment about the Irish not being civilized, I did not say that. To civilize a people, a country etc does not necessarily mean that they were savages and not civilized, it also means that they have been modernized to modern civilization which can be more advanced than many other countries.

Britain would have been behind other countries and other countries helped to civilize Britain and other countries bring them up to modern levels which comapered to some countries were advanced levels. To deny Britains role in modernizing and civilizing Ireland is foolish, to deny how the Romans civilized and modernized many countries would be equally foolish.

[earl]

May 6, 2009 22:18:45 GMT Wasp said:

Ireland was no different and it took the British to bring it forward and civilise it with their knowledge and capabilities.

It was French speaking Normans who originally invaded, not 'the British'. The British didn't exist until the first act of union - a couple of hundred years after the first normans arrived in Ireland and around 100 years after the early 1600's where much of the plantations were created.

I believe its because it was the British who civilized Ireland you are moping about it, if it had been another country then I dont think you would have the same views. Rather sad really.

As I've said, 'The British' didn't exist until the 1700's. Before that you had Scots and English, Anglicans and everyone else. You are placing a modern definition in a time where it was impossible for it to exist. The way you are talking about here, you'd nearly think that 'the British', who came from two separate states at this time felt sorry for their uncivilized neighbours and decided to give them a hand in modernising them by coming in, confiscating large tracts of land, making their 'uncivilised' language and culture illegal and making sure that they couldn't be educated properly. You have to keep the poor sods poor and uneducated if they are to become cannon fodder in foreign lands!
The real definition of the phrase 'to civilise' is 'to impose your own values and systems by force on another group of people'. So how are the civilised Native American population doing? I bet you they are delighted that they were civilized. They probably thank every white person they meet every day of their lives that whitey was generous enough to share modern civilisation with them. I'd say that the aborigines are also delighted with being civilised. There were Irishmen involved in these Godless acts of greed and racism too, but I'm not claiming that it was for their own good. I'm ashamed of such behaviour, not proud.

So again is any of this part below not true??;

Within a hundred years they had transformed the north of Ireland from a land composed largely of woods and swamps,interspersed with small areas of modest culivation,into a province with roads,market towns and ports,supported by an increasingly arable system of farming,a thriving cattle trade and a domestic textile industry.

I answered this in my first post. The whole bit about ' land composed largely of woods and swamps,interspersed with small areas of modest culivation'. This wasn't down to the uncivilized natives not having a clue. It's kind of hard to work a farm in an area which is in the middle of a 9 year long war and when famine is stalking the lands.