|
|
Post by earl on Apr 18, 2008 12:03:54 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. I think you'll find that ALL politicians are economical with the truth. Haven't you got a bone of contention with the DUP? Anyway back to the topic of this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 18, 2008 12:46:26 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. Look I don't give a fiddlers shit about history, it's the bleary eyed Irish version of history still taught in nationalist schools about Cromwell and his hatred of the Irish that is causing people to still die today. Cromwell hated every peasant in the then UK (which included Ireland) he treated them all with contempt, but the Irish are taught that he did it to them because they were Irish. It is the promenence that history holds in Irish culture I object to. I leaned British history mostly at school, King Harold, Richard the Lionheart and crap. I learned nothing about the Battle of the Boyne, or Prince William (He never was a King) It was of no interest to me. Neither is what some axe weilding grunting idiot in a fur leotard did 600 years ago, or a milennia or two ago. Get a life and come into the real world, history is supposed to be remembered so we don't let it happen again, not so it can be repeated again and again. Irish history repeats itself every generation. And if SF don't get what they want out of the present Stormont setup it will repeat itself again. Because the Irish cannot forget their version of Irish history and move on like the rest of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 18, 2008 13:14:10 GMT
bilk we didn't start this thrend WASP did. All we've done is challange what he posted. You joined in and intimated that you agreed with the opening post so we responded to what you wrote as well. I'll try being the bigger man again but my patience is wearing thin. I'm happy to debate the topic of this thrend but I'm not going to dignify your insults about my party with a response. I'll just direct you over to WASP's post on the news section story about Loyalist Arms. I have already read it, an you know what, I believe what he's saying. And you know what else, it is because of what I said above, it is fear that history is going to repeat itself if certain people don't get their way, that makes people think like these people. You are not happy to debate about history Setanta, as long as it agrees with your version of history you are, but deviate from that version and you don't debate, you demand more evidence. I don't care what is taught in accedemic institutions, I learned most of what I know about history after I left school. And you know what, most of what I was taught at school was biased and was a load of crap. If we go back far enough we all came out of Africa ffs. Oh but I suppose the people who have geologically and scientifically proved that are talking crap. Oh I never agreed with anything, I intimated it was as believeable as the Irish republican version. I said many times I don't do history during this thread. What I took umbridge with was the contant jibing of both you and earl about who wrote what and what axe they had to grind. In my post above I suggested that republicans when teaching history have an axe to grind and you took that as an isult you would ignore. Do you believe that only republicans can be insulted when their version of history is totally refuted and the writer accused of having an axe to grind? |
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 18, 2008 14:17:40 GMT
Just had a wee hoke around and look what I came up with. No doubt this is the most rabid catholic unionist in creation, but I'll post it anyway.
"Certainly the Northern Presbyterians never accepted an all-island Catholic state. ''Ireland was naturally,or at least originally, divided,'' says the British Catholic writer Christopher Hollis,in the London Tablet. ''The partition of Ireland into North and South has behind it far more ancient tradition than any notion of Irish unity........Up to A.D. 1000, the High Kingship was always held alternately by a King for the North and a King for the South,in recognition of Ireland's natural division......It was the English,at and after the Reformation,who first conceived of the notion of treating Ireland as a unity; and they did so,of course,in order to impose on it their penal system.''
Oh I don't think this was taught in Catolic/nationalist schools, so I'll forgive you if you haven't heard about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Apr 18, 2008 15:15:55 GMT
Ok Bilk, I'll play along. But you've to help me fill in the holes as this is all new to me. Ulster was somehow separate to the rest of the country, even though it shared the same language, culture, laws and system of governance.
My fathers surname is an ancient Ulster name, originating from Cavan. So by what's been said here, my ancestors on my fathers side were not and cannot be classed as 'Irish' right? So what made them different to the rest of the island to warrant this distinction? If you believe this guy, you must have more to go on that whats present on this thread.
BTW, I love this line. It really cracked me up!
|
|
|
|
Post by He_Who_Walks_in_The_Wilderness on Apr 18, 2008 15:48:32 GMT
High kingship implys a centralised monarchy and by exetension a centralised government you showe me proof that this was the case under boru or even Ui Neil for that matter.
As for similerties in culture ans custom, the RoI shares the same langauge and many of the same laws and customs as the UK does that make it British?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 18, 2008 15:54:53 GMT
Would it be fair to say that much of this is like pre-history times so there is room for disagreement among various historians etc?
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Apr 18, 2008 16:06:27 GMT
As for similerties in culture ans custom, the RoI shares the same langauge and many of the same laws and customs as the UK does that make it British? Please read back to an earlier post directed at Bilk for your answer here. I'm not going to repeat myself. |
|
|
|
Post by earl on Apr 18, 2008 16:09:14 GMT
Why are my Ulster ancestors different to my non-Ulster ancestors? someone please answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 18, 2008 16:34:23 GMT
WHere are your non Ulster anscestors from? Ireland, China, Japan, England, Scotland etc, if they come from any of those then in all probability they had a different outlook to those from Ulster. FFS some of my anscestors could be Irish of all things and they would differ to my Ulster anscestors.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 18, 2008 20:36:00 GMT
Why are my Ulster ancestors different to my non-Ulster ancestors? someone please answer. When did I say they were different in anyway? If they were alive today, they would be different to you in nationality. Back then they would've been your Ulster relatives, who had not yet intermarried with your relatives from some other part of the island, what has this to do with nationality? |
|
|
|
Post by He_Who_Walks_in_The_Wilderness on Apr 19, 2008 11:34:44 GMT
No it does not and is not proof of a central governmemnt, since not everbody paid that tribute.
Late 17th century writers claimed that Ui Neill had held high-kingship of ireland for many centurys. Yet in the study of that early period of irish history little evidence is found of a centrilsed monarchy. Indeed, at any given time there were proberly no less than 150 tribel kings throught the island. Francis Bryne has commented "In later ages this mulitiplication of monarchies caused some embarrassment to patriotic irishmen who were brought up to believe in the glories of the high-kingship centered in tara... The title ard-ri has no pricise significance, and does not necessarly imply sovereignty of Ireland...It is now evident that Neill and his ancestors can in no real semce be discribed as high-kings of ireland. The cliams made for them must be discounted as partisan: few other contemporary documents show special deference being afforded to Ui Neill outside thier own sphere of influnce, and the laws do not even envisage the office of high king of ireland"
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 19, 2008 16:01:55 GMT
Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Ages From the B.B.C. Timelines Northern Ireland
First migrations c.7000 - 6000 BC
The persistence of the last Ice Age prevented the first people arriving in Ireland until, at the earliest, 7500 BC. Rising seas had almost certainly swept away the last land bridges with the British mainland, but it was possible to travel as far west as the Isle of Man and beyond Islay before having to continue by water.
Mesolithic hunter-gatherers first arrived when tundra conditions prevailed, so that although the ice cap had disappeared the subsoil beneath was permanently frozen and the area was treeless. But, as the new arrivals spread over the island, great forests of oak, elm and ash began to replace scrub, pine woods and arctic moorland.
The Mount Sandel archaeological dig The oldest habitation site in Ireland was discovered in 1972 at Mount Sandel, a bluff overlooking the River Bann at Coleraine. The carbon-dating of charred hazelnut shells has revealed that people had lived here from before 7000 BC - a thousand years earlier than had previously been thought possible. Careful analyses have shown that huts had been erected, made of saplings covered with bark or hide; that flints were carried here from the Antrim sea shores and frequently resharpened; and that the inhabitants speared salmon and eels, gathered nuts in the autumn, and hunted wild boar in the forest.
Iron Age
Destruction of the Temple of Emain Macha c.95 BC
An aerial shot showing the circular temple known as Navan Fort No one knows why a circular temple, 43 metres in diameter, was put up inside Navan Fort in County Armagh. It seems to have been built quickly, perhaps by a whole community working together. The roof was held up by concentric rows of posts steadied by horizontal planks and covered with a cairn of stones enveloped with sods. Then the whole structure was set on fire. Had this been a ritual to invoke the aid of the gods WHILE ULSTER WAS UNDER ATTACK? Paleoecologists, by matching oak tree growth rings on timbers found here, dated the event at 95 BC; it is very likely that this was a time WHEN IRON AGE CELTS WERE ATTACKING LATE BRONZE AGE TRIBES IN ULSTER.
'Navan' is the Anglicisation of Emain Macha, meaning the 'twins of Macha' - THIS ANCIENT CAPITAL OF ULSTER had a foundation myth similar to that of Romulus and Remus and the foundation of Rome.
Iron Age
The Cattle Raid of Cooley - up to AD 200
The oldest vernacular epic in western European literature is the Táin Bó Cuailnge, 'The Cattle Raid of Cooley'. The earliest versions were written down in the monasteries of Bangor in County Down and Dromsnat in County Monaghan in the eighth century, but it clearly had a long oral existence before being committed to vellum.Historians are increasingly of the view that behind the story are real events,in particular the advance of the Gaelic conquerors from Connacht AGAINST THE PRE-GAELIC RULERS OF ULSTER during the first two centuries of the Christian era.
Iron Age
The making of the Black Pig's Dyke AD c.250
Aerial view of Dane's Cast After Agricola abandoned his scheme to invade Ireland in 82 AD, the Emperor Domitian ordered his governor north and, later, after Agricola's recall, the Romans retired behind Hadrian's Wall. It may well have been around this time that work began on THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL TO DEFEND ULSTER.
Described on maps as the Dane's Cast, the wall begins in the east near Scarva on the Down-Armagh border; the next section, known as the Dorsey, stands at Drummill Bridge in south Armagh; it continues into Monaghan near Muckno Lake, where it is known either as the Worm Ditch or as the Black Pig's Dyke; and further short stretches extend through Cavan and Fermanagh to Donegal Bay.
A tradition survives that it was ploughed up by the tusks of an enchanted black boar; archaeologists,however,have proved this great linear earthwork to have been a series of massive defences,not continuous,BUT GUARDING THE ROUTEWAYS INTO ULSTER between the bogs,loughs and drumlins.
Iron Age
The formation of kingdoms - up to AD c.400
The annalists were to make lists of High Kings, ruling all of Ireland, from very early times. But it is clear that - even assuming they all existed - none of these High Kings ever held sway over the entire island.
It is likely that a High King exercised a pagan religious function. There were dozens of kingdoms; many of them were no larger than a barony, and as the fifth century approached over-kingdoms were able to dominate and exact tribute from lesser ones. The most important kingdoms were Muma, Connacht, Laigin, Midhe and Uladh, with others emerging including Osraige and Brega. ULADH (ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO ULSTER) WAS IN A RAPID STATE OF FLUX AS THE CONNACHTA DYNASTIES WERE MAKING INROADS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Apr 19, 2008 16:02:51 GMT
Ulster even had its own capitol back then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Apr 20, 2008 9:13:04 GMT
King/Queenship does not define a country. Today QE2 is queen of many countries but they are countries in their own right. Having the same head of state does not make a country.
On the subject I touched on earlier about teaching the Irish that what Cromwell was doing, he was doing to them, because they were Irish, even though he treated the rest of the British peasantry with just as much contempt. When partition came along, the same shit was taught to the nationalists left on the Northern side of the border and still is. A Cromwellian type government was formed at Stormont, in the form of the big house unionists. They too treated the peasants like crap (as in the working classes). But nationalists/Catholics were taught it was happening to them because they were nationalist/Catholics. Same old centuries old tactic with a twist.
|
|
Is that the best argument you can come up with on this topic? How about dealing with the subject matter, instead of throwing insults.