|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 16, 2008 17:50:04 GMT
Look I don't need to prove anything here, nationalists on here quote Irish historians all day long and I never ask them to prove anything. I am merely pointing out there are historians who disagree with their view of history. But when I do I'm hit with "Ah but he/she is "decended from three generations of protestan unionists". Why should their opinion be scorned because of their roots. I don't scorn Irish writers because of their roots. This is typical republican speak, only the Irish tell the truth. Everybody else is a liar and is making it all up. I refuse to discuss this with anyone with that mindset. I've said nowt about historians I don't think, I just asked you a question. Do you think Cornish nationalists are right since they put up pretty much the same argument as you do? The rest of England seem to think theyre a laughing matter when they bang on about the cornish nation. No I don't think the cornish nationalists are right, they don't put up the same argument as I do. They put up the same argument as republicans. All I said was, the same as all the rest the things I mentioned, culture does not make a country. Neither does language, half the world speaks the English language, but they are not all English. |
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 16, 2008 17:53:23 GMT
*Ulster had the same religion as the rest of the island *Ulster spoke the same language as the rest of the island *Ulster had the same customs as the rest of the island *Ulster had the same traditions as the rest of the island *Ulster had the same code of laws as the rest of the island These points are all proven through archaeology, genetics and custom. To suggest that one half of my family were separated in any way from the rest of the island is ridiculous and has never been proved. Of course it's ridiculous, it doesn't fit in with republican thinking so it must be. I have said already none of the things above make a country or mrean that Ireland was a nation. |
|
|
|
Post by earl on Apr 16, 2008 19:24:23 GMT
I wasn't talking about you jim, this is what I was talking about. "A descendant of three generations of Protestant clergymen, Blanshard was trained in both theology and law, and was a member of the New York bar." He's an American, but he doesn't see himself as Irish American, so that makes him a liar. He has an agenda, that's all I'm pointing out. He didn't make all that up, he got that information from others. Funny though how you consider actual history as one big republican coverup. As Setanta says, we could quote British historians if that makes you more comfortable. |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 16, 2008 20:03:09 GMT
Would you like me to quote British Historians? Setanta why are you being smart arsed? Bilk has on his own today answered all your posts on his own and you treat him like that. Why the fuck not just quote from them as I did instead of bing smug and smart about it? Quote away from whoever you want and I am sure those who have been quoted from bothsides of the arguement will have done there research and got second hand info. But if anything goes against the republican version of history then its lies. No-one here has proved anything because it cannot be 100% proved, but I did quote from Irish people and I didn't feel the need to try and be smart about it to belittle you or anyone else the way you have with bilk. |
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 16, 2008 20:06:50 GMT
I wasn't talking about you jim, this is what I was talking about. "A descendant of three generations of Protestant clergymen, Blanshard was trained in both theology and law, and was a member of the New York bar." He's an American, but he doesn't see himself as Irish American, so that makes him a liar. He has an agenda, that's all I'm pointing out. He didn't make all that up, he got that information from others. Funny though how you consider actual history as one big republican coverup. As Setanta says, we could quote British historians if that makes you more comfortable. As long as those British historians concur with republican thinking you would. Not if they didn't, and you got me all wrong I don't do history. Too many people in Ireland have died in the name of a flawed history. Each side has their own version, somewhere in the middle is the truth, I just can't be bothered looking for it. I live in the today, that's all that matters to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 16, 2008 21:39:26 GMT
In 1932 the Minister for Industry and Commerce of the Irish Free State (Saorstat Eireann) commissioned an offical handbook in which Eoin MacNeill wrote...'While the Celts were still newcomers to Ireland and Britain,the inhabitants of both countries were known to them by the name Pretani or Qreteni. From Queteni came their old name in Irish --- Cruthin.
The old Celtic name for Ireland was... Everio,for Britain,...Albio. In Irish Everio became Eriu,and afterwards Eire. Albio became Albu,then Alba. The Greeks who knew of these islands mainly through intercourse with the Gallic Celts,called Ireland, Ierne,and Britain, Albion and they called both islands the Pretanic Islands,the islands of the Pritani.
The forms and application of these names were changed by Latin writers,following the example of Julius Caesar. Caesar substituted the Brittani for Pretani and gave the name to the people of Britain only,calling that island Britannia instead of Albion. Ireland was renamed Hibernia,its people Hiberni. Later on before AD 300 a new name Scotti,began to be used in Latin for the people of Ireland and a new name Picti for the people formally called the Pretani.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 17, 2008 10:45:04 GMT
Setanta if you have then why try and belittle him by asking does he want you to quote from British historians??? I know in the heat of debate we can all be a bit strong with our wording etc and I am probably one of the gulitiest among us, but to come across so arrogant and demeaning does not show repect in anyway shape or form. Infact it shows the opposite.
I could quote from British politicians who are in favour of a UI for whatever reason, does that make them right and everybody else wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Apr 17, 2008 12:33:55 GMT
No I don't think the cornish nationalists are right, they don't put up the same argument as I do. They put up the same argument as republicans. All I said was, the same as all the rest the things I mentioned, culture does not make a country. Neither does language, half the world speaks the English language, but they are not all English. again, Bilk, you are applying modern conditions to a different time. Culture and language are not what they were back in the times discussed as the world was a completely different place. Modern transport and communications has meant that the world is a smaller place now and culture intermingles a lot more freely with others and any changes to modern culture are adapted worldwide very quickly. Back in the day it would have taken several day's to go from one end of the island to the other, nevermind the time and difficulty of going anywhere else, language and culture are a lot better of a barometer from which to group people together. There were no such things as nations back then, so this is how people are grouped from then. Can any Unionist show anything at all on their side of the story, and I'm not talking about some other guy's opinion. What made Ulster separate? A fortification proves nothing, as there were fortifications everywhere and it's not uncommon for kingdoms to be at war with each other. AS far as I know, the area around Tara was not considered a part of the kingdom of Leinster, but was something like the Vatican city is to Rome. So if the same logic is applied, can people in the Tara area also claim that they were a separate country? |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 17, 2008 13:10:04 GMT
I am not an historian and I am more interested in modern times etc, but it does seem that Ulster by its very nature have been seperate from the rest of Ireland. As already stated it took the Brits to unite Ireland so reunification is reall going back to what the British created.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Apr 17, 2008 17:26:29 GMT
I am not an historian and I am more interested in modern times etc, but it does seem that Ulster by its very nature have been seperate from the rest of Ireland. As already stated it took the Brits to unite Ireland so reunification is reall going back to what the British created. Please explain further. How, by it's nature, were my fathers ancestors separated from my mothers ancestors? |
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 17, 2008 18:19:04 GMT
Why go over old ground, the reason "why" has been put on a number of posts. But those reasons have been refuted by the very people who are now asking for more reasons. Because you don't agree with the reasons given does not give you the right to demand that you be given more reasons. I don't believe the republican version of ancient Irish history. Now I have refuted your assertion that Ireland was, at one time united. So please give me a reason I should believe it was? Oh I know you have given me loads, but I have refuted those.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Apr 17, 2008 20:18:15 GMT
You can refute it all you want Bilk. It won't make it any less true and, accepted. Go study a course on Irish history anywhere in the world, and you'll find that it is the 'republican' version that is taught. By your own admission, you've stated that in general, the unionist community don't know their own history and both yourself and WASP have stated that ye don't have any interest in the subject. That would make your opinion on the subject as relevant as my opinion on cricket.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 17, 2008 22:48:04 GMT
As already said by bilk earlier that things don't always make there way straight into the education circuit straight away. I only quoted from Irish people, so by what you are saying then these historians/writers etc are all wrong and only the republican version is correct because it follows some of the lines taught in educaion circles hroughout the world?
Now we all know how economical republicans can be with the truth so we all know to not take there version of anything as concrete. These people are all wrong accocrding to some on here because there verion of history is different to what you believe to be correct.
BTW Earl what exactly do you mean by claiming that Bilk said the Unionist community don't know their own history? I think you will find there are a number of Unionist historians. Some Unionists are educated you know, we aren't all thick.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Apr 18, 2008 8:36:29 GMT
As already said by bilk earlier that things don't always make there way straight into the education circuit straight away. I only quoted from Irish people, so by what you are saying then these historians/writers etc are all wrong and only the republican version is correct because it follows some of the lines taught in educaion circles hroughout the world? Also, things don't make it because they are simply not true or proven. It's very convenient to label Irish history as 'republican' just because you don't like it. Not everyone in the south are card carrying republicans, yet you will find that normal folk and the vast majority of academics accept the 'republican' version of history as proven through research, archives, artifacts, traditions, placenames and culture. You will believe this guy without a shred of evidence to back himself up, yet you will brand centuries of proven history as simply republican propaganda. Only a small percentage on this island believe this stuff and those that do have a motive for doing so. Yes WASP, we're all liars.  Is that the best argument you can come up with on this topic? How about dealing with the subject matter, instead of throwing insults. I merely echoed what Bilk stated on another thread. If you have a problem with that, take it up with him. So come on Unionists, show us something, anything that helps in anyway towards showing how this man's opinion in history is based on anything else other that misinformation and wishful thinking. Show us how multiple universities around the world, who teach Irish culture and history courses, have all got it wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 18, 2008 11:19:08 GMT
Hang on I did not say that Irish history was republican, I quoted from Irish people on Irish history so there version of history is hardly the same as some of the republican version. Setanta if you don't know that sinn fein and their ilk are economical with the truth, twist facts and circumstances around to appeal to their propaganda then you are very naive.
|
|
Is that the best argument you can come up with on this topic? How about dealing with the subject matter, instead of throwing insults.