|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 13, 2008 22:59:49 GMT
Long before 1912 and 1921,Ulster had always stood alone against the rest of the island. Unionists did not invent a new history. It was always there. Even before the Plantation it was there,stretching back centuries. Below are some excerpts from different books. I don't know the politics of these people,they are historians ,journalists,writers and lecturers.
One thing I believe is lacking among the loyalist Ullish people is confidence. A lack of confidence which means that some have to cling onto an Irish identity. They have the history behind them. Time to step forward and proclaim proudly who and what they are.
P.L. Henry (a prominent historian) has described the difference between Ulster and the rest of the island as - ''One of the most deeply rooted ancient,and from a literary point of view,most productive facts of the island's history'' Futhermore ''Ulster's bond with Scotland counterbalances her lax ties with the rest of the island.....P.L. Henry.
'Ulster was a special prize. Her warriors had a proud tradition having been engaged in endemic warfare with the 'men of Ireland' since early Celtic times'....Goverment & Politics of Northern Ireland,Paul Arthur, Ulster Polytechnic.
Ulster has always been sturdily independant in spirit,and its present defiance of the South in claiming local self-determination has centuries of precedent behind it. Many of the Ulster people ------perhaps the majority of them ------- have what one critic has called ''a united,well-defined and entirely self-conscious provincial nationality.''
The island of Ireland,in spite of oceans of propganda to the contrary,has never been a united,independant nation with a centralized Irish goverment ruling over the whole territory. The High Kings of the golden age of the ninth century were only nominal rulers of all-Ireland,and until the English unified the land by conquest the country was a collection of political fragments. The concept of all-Ireland nationhood arose as defensive dream,a natural and compelling dream,but nevertheless a dream,manufactured by the Irish rebels in their fight against English misrule,and historically never more than an aspiration and a hope.
......''there was no such people as the Irish,that the island was inhabited by no one homogenous race and had no one language or culture destined to be distinctively its own........Even Gaelic was a language imposed by a conquering minority,as English was later imposed; and it is meaningless to call the inhabitants of the country 'Gaels' or 'Celts'.......Early as was the emergence of Ireland in the European dawn,the division of the island and its people into two parts was already there.'' Over two thousand years ago the geological frontiers of Ulster had been frontiers of human sentiment.
Paul Blanshard......Under Mayor La Guardia head of New York City's Department of Investigations and Accounts. He was a State Department offical in Washington and the Caribbean. Educated at Michigan,Harvard and Columbia. Member of the New York Bar.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 14, 2008 12:00:50 GMT
Mostly these are historians,Setanta, not only journalists, and we are reading extracts of their opinion. I'm sure they didn't make all this up, and I'm sure in the full text of what they are saying would be explained in the books these extracts are taken from. No historian would ever think they would get away with saying something unless they had some facts to base their argument upon.So don't keep answering with a question, it's very annoying mate. If you reject what these people are saying then you give us your evidence to prove them wrong. I happen to have read many books on the subject of the Ulish, and for the uninitiated that is the ancient name given to people from Ulster, and they all agree with what these people are saying. I have said many times. The crap "A nation once again" so loved by republicans is just that, crap. The only time Ireland was a nation was when they were ruled by the Brits. Prior to that the provinces had their own kings and queens and fought endless wars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 14, 2008 13:40:58 GMT
I've already said that the society was feudal in structure. what is todays 9 county Ulster was part of that. I'm not disputing that. But it was still part of Ireland. I am disputing that Ulster was seperate or different from the rest of Ireland. No where, in no instituate of education is this thought as fact. This artical doesn't present any evidence to support that claim. Plus it makes false claims of a Celt Invasion that imposed the Gaelic language. We know that didn't happen but that the language and culture evolved. I am disputing, that historically the 9 counties of Ulster had more in common with Scotland then with the rest of Ireland, before Plantation. There is no evidence to support this, Ulish is a new word and part of the "Home Coming" Unionist revision of history, Google Ullish and this is what you get www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=Ullish&meta=Google Irish on the other hand www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=Irish%27&meta=I am disputing that there was a difference in language, custom and culture. This guy would say to that that he is disputing your theory Setanta, that is all I'm saying. You know I don't do history because there is no truth in history, only the truth of the writer. This guy would argue that there are historical events that point to him being right. You or some other republican with an axe to grind would point me in the direction of someone else. The only thing in my opinion that is coming to the fore now, that was not there in the past, is another version of Ulster/Irish history. There are always two sides to an argument, I am just glad that for a change the other side of the Ulster/Irish argument is actually being studied. The only side we ever heard in the past was the "A nation once again" one, that to me never did stand up to scruitny. |
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 14, 2008 14:34:25 GMT
This guy would say to that that he is disputing your theory Setanta, that is all I'm saying. You know I don't do history because there is no truth in history, only the truth of the writer. This guy would argue that there are historical events that point to him being right. I haven't read any of them yet though that stand up to scrutiny. I've seen lots of opinion but no actual events or artifacts to back what he's saying, I don't have an act to grind. I have a basic knowladge of Irish History and that's all anybody needs to refute this guys assertions. Dig deeper on any specific point he has to make and his assertions become laughable. ahhh so you agree it's revisionism? (whinding you up bilk  ) There are always two sides to an argument, I am just glad that for a change the other side of the Ulster/Irish argument is actually being studied. The only side we ever heard in the past was the "A nation once again" one, that to me never did stand up to scruitny. a history based on a song is never going to be accurate. I'm not sure what you think we're actually thought about history but that isn't. I'm just going to re-state that what is now Ulster was never seperate, distinct or differant from the rest of Ireland These are your opinions mate, and you are entitled to them. But your study of Irish history obviously didn't include what this guy and people of his ilk have said. Or if they did they were disgarded as rubbish because they did not fit your view. This is not a criticism of you, we are all human and we all do it. Like I said that is why I don't do history. The truth or otherwise of history depend a lot on the historian. The most accepted book in the world is the Bible, it's a history, but it was written by people with an agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 14, 2008 15:36:33 GMT
Ah bilky, you just have to look at any academic institutions teachings in Britian or Ireland to know this guy is has a revisionist agenda. If his teachings make it on to the British or Irish Department of Educations cirriculum (on merit and not because of DUP/Lord Laird pressure) then I might look at his assertions differently. But I doubt they will for the reasons I outlined earlier. Oh I didn't realise that it had to get onto the education curiculum to be truthful. It was a hell of a long time before Darwin managed that, and you expect someone to do it overnight. It was the same for a lot of people who were considered cranks and are now cosidered scholars. |
|
|
|
Post by He_Who_Walks_in_The_Wilderness on Apr 14, 2008 16:06:30 GMT
Ever heard of black pigs dyke, or danes cast, what about the kingdom of dalriada is that made up? fact of the matter is ireland only became a nation state under british rule before then it was a collection of rivil kingdoms which for all tense and purpose might as well have been different countrys
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 14, 2008 21:35:14 GMT
So basically the British united Ireland, and now there are those Irish who want the Brits out even thought they united the country in then first place. These historians are certainly putting the notion of a nation once again to be nothiung more than a dream.
|
|
|
|
Post by He_Who_Walks_in_The_Wilderness on Apr 14, 2008 22:39:38 GMT
Yes I have heard of them. I've also heard of various other fortifications that kingdoms used. Still doesn't make the language, customs, culture or even the Brehon Laws they followed different or seperate from the rest of Ireland. bilk what academic institution has accredited this work? Or changed their findings on Irih History? If "Ulster" really was seperate from the rest of Ireland for all those millenia and centuaries then why is this only coming up now when there's NO new information, artifacts or writings found? would have thought you would know your history better as you still seem to be trying to impose the notion of a nationstate in a time when even the idea of Ireland did not exist, dalriada since you have heard of it i am sure you will know that it was a kingdom that included a big chunk of ulster and scotland which would make it very much seperate from the rest of the Island |
|
|
|
Post by earl on Apr 15, 2008 13:05:50 GMT
It is very foolish to try and define a people then under the same way in which we define people nowadays.
Back in the 'long long ago' (to quote mad max 3), people were not and should not be grouped under simply one government or one king. During these times, there was no such thing as an Irish state, just as there were no such things as the UK, or any of it's constituent parts. Nationalism on these islands really began under Longshanks and his quest to rule all of the islands.
How you group people back in a time before Nationalism was even a concept, is generally more down along cultural lines. Ulster spoke in Gaelic, used the same system of law as the rest of the island, had the same religion, and also shared other customs and attributes, such as folklore.
There has been absolutely no evidence of a separate culture co-existing with Gaelic culture on any part of the island during these times. Ulster may have had a king, but so did the other provinces, so again, this was not a unique situation and again, this king obeyed the same rules as all the other kings.
Many of these arguments like those above about separate tribes really try to bring it down to some kind of Victorian era eugenics theory where 'never the blood did mix' and that this northern tribe were completely isolated by blood, therefore possibly also by culture or some other sort. There were many tribes on the island, but they all shared in the things I've stated above. This qualifies them as part of Ireland, rather than being separate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 15, 2008 15:03:45 GMT
I think you should read my posts a bit better. I never said a Nation State existed. Ireland's kingdoms all followed the same Brehon Laws, customs, language, culture. It was United under the high kings, before Britian was united under one king as well. But invasion halted Irelands natural progression. Just like I've already said, As for Dalriadia are you saying that this  equates to this being seperate?  even though Dalriadia was split into several Kingdoms and was only nominally united under a King and still followed the same Laws, customs, culture and language as the rest of Ireland? and let us not forget that the Irish part of Dál Riata was still subservant to the Ulster Kings who in turn were subservant to the High King. It lasted two centuaries with the Irish part and the Scottish part developing seperatly until the link with Scotland was broken. Now, if you're going to give an example I thought you'd know your history better becasue there was no difference, as I've already said, between the Irish Dál Riata and the rest of Ireland. But the whole ethos of republicanism is to untite Ireland into a nation state, which it never was. And gives lie to the republican ethos of "a nation once again". A very emotive line if you are looking for people to die for Ireland, a country that has never existed, except for the period it was British. Because everyone in the UK speaks English it does not make them all English, so the language thing is just stupid. The culture thing is just stupid too, because cultures evolve and change constantly. None of these things make a country, what makes a country are it's borders amd it's rulers. Whether we like that analogy or not then that's up to the person, but that is how it is. And Ireland before the Brits came was never a soverign state with one ruler or government controling the whole island. That is fact not fiction. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 15, 2008 15:23:35 GMT
Ireland or Ulster was not unique back then and if I recall right, after the Romans left England the place was even more tribal than Ireland was, considering its population compared to Irelands.  This shows who and what attacked the various english kingdoms.  Various English kingdoms. Once these became united and formed what we today call England it wasnt long until invasions into Scotland and the actual annexation of Wales took place, and ofcourse, the invasion of Ireland. Under the then English, now British colonial rule the four kingdoms of Ireland became four provinces. Does that mean that Ulster or Munster are not Irish? No it doesn't. The British considered them all Irish, they themselves would have considered themselves Irish or at least all from the one island, speaking the same language and using the same customs, when under threat from foreign invasions from all sorts of people, namely the Vikings who eventually settled, and the British, their neighbours. The idea of "we are Irish / we are British" is a very modern concept in Ulster, no more than a hundred years old, unionists of their day pre and just after partition didn't consider themselves Ulster British, they considered themselves Irish Unionists and the main man of the day Carson was proudly so. So basically the British united Ireland, and now there are those Irish who want the Brits out even thought they united the country in then first place. These historians are certainly putting the notion of a nation once again to be nothiung more than a dream. No, they united it politically to call it the one entity but it has been shown many times various historians that Ireland was considered one entity to foreign countries, and back in Ireland, the various kings had their squabbles and agreements and wouldnt have thought twice about uniting to save their own skin. Your argument is some sort of perverse way of saying that we are British because the British united us, and its simply not true its far too complex to put it down to that. Are the Germans not really German because they too were once various kingdoms? The Saxons, the Bavarians, the Prussians later on, the Alemanni.. Are the Japanese not really Japanese? They had a centuries long fuedal system right up untill the days that we were under British rule and most of Europe had blown itself up, and the Portugese had been the world over. I think your argument is flawed from the beginning if you are trying to crack that the Irish (Ulster included, I am from Ulster and I am Irish) aren't really a nationality or a people then you can say the same for pretty much every modern country at one point. I find it a highly tedious argument and one that doesn't mean a whole lot in modern times. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 15, 2008 15:27:21 GMT
I think you should read my posts a bit better. I never said a Nation State existed. Ireland's kingdoms all followed the same Brehon Laws, customs, language, culture. It was United under the high kings, before Britian was united under one king as well. But invasion halted Irelands natural progression. Just like I've already said, As for Dalriadia are you saying that this equates to this being seperate? even though Dalriadia was split into several Kingdoms and was only nominally united under a King and still followed the same Laws, customs, culture and language as the rest of Ireland? and let us not forget that the Irish part of Dál Riata was still subservant to the Ulster Kings who in turn were subservant to the High King. It lasted two centuaries with the Irish part and the Scottish part developing seperatly until the link with Scotland was broken. Now, if you're going to give an example I thought you'd know your history better becasue there was no difference, as I've already said, between the Irish Dál Riata and the rest of Ireland. But the whole ethos of republicanism is to untite Ireland into a nation state, which it never was. And gives lie to the republican ethos of "a nation once again". A very emotive line if you are looking for people to die for Ireland, a country that has never existed, except for the period it was British. Because everyone in the UK speaks English it does not make them all English, so the language thing is just stupid. The culture thing is just stupid too, because cultures evolve and change constantly. None of these things make a country, what makes a country are it's borders amd it's rulers. Whether we like that analogy or not then that's up to the person, but that is how it is. And Ireland before the Brits came was never a soverign state with one ruler or government controling the whole island. That is fact not fiction. I don't think using a plan for the future from a song title is very realistic and I can't think of Republicans that sing that song when thinking about their ideal future. Ireland was considered a nation (i.e one entity) within the UK when the "kingdoms" where made into "provinces" and divided by a county by county basis. Its a system that was kept after the south split from the UK and I see nothing wrong with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 15, 2008 16:11:08 GMT
But the whole ethos of republicanism is to untite Ireland into a nation state, which it never was. And gives lie to the republican ethos of "a nation once again". A very emotive line if you are looking for people to die for Ireland, a country that has never existed, except for the period it was British. Because everyone in the UK speaks English it does not make them all English, so the language thing is just stupid. The culture thing is just stupid too, because cultures evolve and change constantly. None of these things make a country, what makes a country are it's borders amd it's rulers. Whether we like that analogy or not then that's up to the person, but that is how it is. And Ireland before the Brits came was never a soverign state with one ruler or government controling the whole island. That is fact not fiction. I don't think using a plan for the future from a song title is very realistic and I can't think of Republicans that sing that song when thinking about their ideal future. Ireland was considered a nation (i.e one entity) within the UK when the "kingdoms" where made into "provinces" and divided by a county by county basis. Its a system that was kept after the south split from the UK and I see nothing wrong with it. What it was cosidered (by some) and what it was are two totally different things. And this thread was a historical one, so it was not looking to the future, it was looking back. The only thing that united the Irish was a common enemy, the British. Now I don't think todays republicans care one iota about Ireland, if you could just get those who see themselves as British off it, it could be as many countries as you like. They are still fighting a war that started centuries ago, it is a hatred for all things British that drives them, not a love for Ireland. |
|
|
|
Post by He_Who_Walks_in_The_Wilderness on Apr 15, 2008 16:19:55 GMT
It is very foolish to try and define a people then under the same way in which we define people nowadays. Back in the 'long long ago' (to quote mad max 3), people were not and should not be grouped under simply one government or one king. During these times, there was no such thing as an Irish state, just as there were no such things as the UK, or any of it's constituent parts. Nationalism on these islands really began under Longshanks and his quest to rule all of the islands. How you group people back in a time before Nationalism was even a concept, is generally more down along cultural lines. Ulster spoke in Gaelic, used the same system of law as the rest of the island, had the same religion, and also shared other customs and attributes, such as folklore. There has been absolutely no evidence of a separate culture co-existing with Gaelic culture on any part of the island during these times. Ulster may have had a king, but so did the other provinces, so again, this was not a unique situation and again, this king obeyed the same rules as all the other kings. Many of these arguments like those above about separate tribes really try to bring it down to some kind of Victorian era eugenics theory where 'never the blood did mix' and that this northern tribe were completely isolated by blood, therefore possibly also by culture or some other sort. There were many tribes on the island, but they all shared in the things I've stated above. This qualifies them as part of Ireland, rather than being separate. bollocks, it amounts to a interest in history, it suits republican idology to promote the idea of ireland always being one nation but it is as much of a lie as anything 'home-coming'unionists promote. The mother of all nation states England was at one point a land of sepperate kingdoms who again for all tence and purpose were differebt countrys regardless of what similerties they had with each other. The capital city of your own country was at one point a viking slave port, various parts of this island were under viking rule at one point or another and as such would have followed different laws and cutosm to the rest of island. And as for a high king only brian boru camr close to uninting the whole island under one thrown and even he did'nt manage it. As for the term Ullish well i be the first to admit that i have only heard them therm recently but i have heard the terms Cruthin who were of pict decent, the ulaid who came ireland before the celts did, the celts that came to this part of the world came via spain |
|
|
|
Post by earl on Apr 15, 2008 16:53:50 GMT
The Celts never came here. Latest genetic studies have shown this. Their culture came here and was adapted by our ancient ancestors, but the Celts themselves never came.
The Cruthin? I think you'll find that there was no such things as countries never mind nationality back during the iron age!! How far back do you want to go?
|
|
)
