Multiculturalism

What Catholic Lies Faith? That during the Great Potato Famine, there was enough food aside from potatoes to stave off many of the deaths from starvation that Irish Catholics suffered but that the Protestant English refused to share this food with Catholics, instead choosing to have some of it shipped and some of it even spoil in docked ships? Or is the Protestant system of taking land rights away from Irish Catholics for over a hundred years? What lies from the Catholics are you speaking of? While I don't agree with the IRA's resort to violence in the 1900's, the fact that they turned to violence does not negate the terrible things that were done to Irish Catholics by the Protestants for hundreds of years.

First off, I am at work so I am unable to watch a video at this time, I'll check it out when I get home. However, on this comment: You are looking at only the origination of physical violence. And I would agree that the IRA made the first moves toward actually inflicting physical violence on their enemies. However, in addition to physical violence, there is violence that is more subtle, such as forcefully taking land from individuals, creating an unequal justice system, (With no land rights and the corn laws) forcing Irish farmers into a life of subsistence farming, and creating a wealth of absentee landowners so profits were funneled out of Ireland and into England. In addition to not providing for the poor during the famine and allowing a million Irish Catholics to die of starvation. Is it any surprise that the IRA resorted to violence to protect their rights after all of this? Again, I don't agree with the actions, but while the IRA (and Irish Catholics) may have started the physical violence when they decided that they had enough of being second class citizens, the main cause was the subtle violence the Protestant English had inflicted on them for several hundred years.Faith, let's look at it from another perspective. Let's say in a hypothetical future America, a decision is made that Protestants can no longer purchase land, own land, run a small business or receive assistance when in desperate need from the majority/wealthy/land owners. A major crop failure occurs and the Protestants' crops are failing and the US government not only barely assists, but they tell other countries to not assist more (at risk of making them look bad) and let a million (or for accuracy 1/8 of the entire Protestant population of the US) die from starvation while the US government continues to export crops from the areas, while reducing assistance even more. If a Protestant uprising aimed at gaining rights back that were taken from the Protestants, would you support that movement? What if some members of the movement took a violent turn? Does that negate the needs of the basic freedoms that are being denied?Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Of course, there is no issue with finding resources for this topic. Here is a pretty good one that deals with several of the issues that were implemented to turn Irish Catholics into second class citizens throughout their tenure as a part of England. SourceFrom the Source: So, in 1650 when William III came to power, the rights of Irish Catholics were starting to be taken away by an all Protestant Parliament. Limiting the access to things that can lead to wealth and education is forcing the Irish Catholics into positions of subsistence farming, especially considering they were barred from even owning the land that they farmed on. Rather, that land was owned by absentee landowners who lived in England.Instead of granting limited home rule to the Catholics as England considered doing, they instead partitioned the country into Northern and Southern Ireland in 1920. This was because of the fears of the Protestants and even served their purpose to remain a Protestant controlled country. Some other laws that have been in place, created by the Protestant controlled Parliament are as follows:and and The law which these three sections are from was implemented in 1702, far before the Troubles and the IRA taking action.So, they are basically saying that no Catholic individual has the right to own property. If they convert, they can own property, but if their children are Catholic, they must forfeit the inheritance of the property at the death of the Protestant father unless they also convert.From another law, written in 1709: So, now they can't receive any annuities that are tied to the land they work on either, further reducing the profitability of farming for the Irish Catholics.Here is one of my favorite ones, from 1745: So, the Irish Catholics were allowed to serve and die in the King's forces, but were prevented from acquiring any lands through their deeds in service of the king, while the Protestants did not have this same restriction. The Catholics can fight and die, but they'll be damned if they want to own land. SourceFinally, about the ability of England to have staved off the worst effects of the Irish Potato Famine. So, proper distribution of foodstuffs could have prevented a large portion of these mass starvation deaths, yet what was done with this food? However, the Protestant government did not cut off exports of Irish grain during this time, which left the Irish Catholic subsistence farmers with only the potato (suffering from late blight) as a means of sustenance. How about the Soup Kitchens that Britain set up in Ireland to help stave off starvation. Well, they were actually proving highly effectual in getting nutrients to those in need, but the British cut off the soup kitchens after only six months of operation and during the worst part of the famine (There was a terrible harvest deficiency in 1847, the year the British cut off soup kitchen support. The price of food was grossly inflated in Ireland during the time and the Public works projects the British implemented paid far too low of wages for the Irish Catholics to afford sustenance at these inflated prices. However, the Protestant Parliament continued to pay for these public works at a diminished rate that did not cover the rising cost of food.In addition, even during these troubled growing periods, Protestant landowners were evicting tenants from their homes at an alarming rate, leaving them with no options for survival and no means of escape from the starvation conditions. So, why didn't these Protestants help their fellow humans as they were dying in such large numbers? Some of them took the Laissez-faire mentality of extremely limited government interference: However, it wasn't only thoughts about government restraint that stayed the Protestants hands during the famine. There was also the concept of Providence, or divine judgment against the Catholics. These Catholics were facing starvation because of the doctrinal differences between them and the Protestants in charge. God was punishing them for not accepting the faith of the British invaders. I also cannot find the quote, but when another country offered 10,000 pounds in aid for the Irish Catholics suffering from the famine, the British government responded to them that the country should only donate 1,000 pounds because that was what the English had donated to the cause and for another country to donate more would make the British look bad. When I find the reference for this statement, I will add it to this (Although, it may be in the first reference I posted also) Source for third sectionFinally, take a look at the results of the Great Potato Famine in Ireland on the Wiki page about it. Especially check out the map that is pictured on the right showing the population fall in different regions of Ireland. Notice how very little of Northern Ireland was affected by this late blight? This was a completely avoidable tragedy where an entire eighth of the population was decimated by starvation that could have been mitigated by the Protestant Parliament in charge. Great Famine WikiAll of these items throughout the history of Britain's control over Ireland led to the strong feelings of distrust and hatred that eventually spilled out during the Troubles and the vast majority of these were to disenfranchise Catholics and force them into a position of servitude and second class citizenry. Again, while I don't agree with the IRA's violence as the solution in most cases, it is understandable that after hundreds of years of being browbeaten into submission that some would move toward violent solutions in retribution.

Faith, I did not agree that the violence is always initiated by the Catholics. What I did agree to was that the IRA was responsible for terrorist attacks and more importantly to this point what I had read was that the IRA moved to violence in the Troubles first. Caffeine has said I was incorrect in this and I would be interested in reading more about the topic as I know I can never learn enough to understand something as complicated as the Troubles perfectly. I also did not agree that the violence was predominately committed by the Catholics, especially because I consider the behavior of the Protestant Parliament and the restrictive laws as a form of subtle violence (although instead of killing quickly, it kills hundreds of thousands at a slow pace). And this is an obvious lie, as both sides were fighting against one another. The Northern Irish Protestants did not practice Gandhi's idea of non-violent resistance, after all. The Troubles affected both groups nearly equally according to the numbers that Caffeine just posted. Those crimes were committed by both sides in a conflict for control of a country. The Protestants had subjugated the Irish Catholics for over four hundred years, do you honestly think they would let that power and control go without fighting back? Do you have any evidence (such as death records) to show that only Protestants died in the Troubles? And here is the biggest problem with your view on this topic and what got me involved in this thread. Yes, the Catholic Church was dangerous to Protestants and so you use the treatment during the Inquisition as justification for the treatment of Irish Catholics when Protestants took control from James II. However, the Protestants then went on a campaign of subtle, slow-killing violence against the Irish Catholics (Not the Catholic Church, but the Irish Catholic laypeople) and you refuse to see justification for why the IRA would react violently after the amount of suffering they had endured. If violence done to the people is your justification for Protestant treatment of Catholics, then why does this justification not follow suit for the violence done to the Irish Catholics? I don't agree with any of their decisions, not the original ones practiced by the Catholic Church during the inquisition, nor the laws implemented by the protestants to force Catholics into poverty and squalor, nor the violence committed by the IRA to gain freedoms back. However, I can honestly analyze the situation and see how each group was able to justify their reactions and gain traction. Your use of the Irish Troubles as an example of Catholics attacking Protestants ignores all of the history of the area and simply claims that the Protestants were right, so any violence against them was wrong. Again, if the Protestants were justified to subjugate their fellow human beings, then the IRA was justified in fighting for freedom.Here is a question, If the Protestants were so angry at the Catholic Church, why did they not take these actions against the Vatican and their power, instead of taking it out on the poor Irish Catholic community, the laypeople. They don't control the stances the Church takes on issues, these answers come from Rome. Couldn't the Protestants have found another route to challenge Vatican authority without treating other humans as disposable? Couldn't they have worked to show how the groups could work together and send a much stronger message to Rome? Instead, they chose vengeance against those weaker than they. As they say, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."Use a hypothetical again, You are a member of a Protestant church during the Inquistion (this will allow you to see it from a viewpoint you agree with). The Catholic Church has continued a campaign against your people, bringing violence and death along with them. Would you feel justified in rising against this authority, possibly risking martyrdom, for the freedom to worship in the way of your forebearers? If so, then why do you consider the IRA unjustified? If not, then why are you okay with the treatment of the Irish Catholics for hundreds of years.

Hey Caffeine, just to clarify I had only agreed that the initial acts of terrorism were started by the IRA during the Troubles, but that is only from the things that I have read and could most assuredly be wrong. I would love to read more on the topic, if you would like to post some links, and make my viewpoint of this more in depth. My family history was around in Ireland until the Famine, so I'm always interested in learning more about that history, especially because we had left before the Troubles happened. I also consider the treatment of Irish Catholics by Protestants for hundreds of years as a form of subtle violence that forced them to living on meager rations and disallowed them any route to wealth or power. I also see their willful allowance of the Famine as an extreme form of violence, especially considering they denied assistance from other countries offering to help the Irish Catholics. This is willfully allowing people to die from starvation. Could you post some links to this so that I can continue to read about the topic? Perhaps the information I have managed to find was contaminated with some bias that I could not perceive, so extra information will assist in clearing any misinformation I have received. Thank you for posting this! I knew that the violence was not completely committed by Catholics, but was having trouble locating the actual numbers. I would never have agreed with Faith's assertion that all the violence was committed by Catholics, especially considering that I see the subjugation of humans (in this case Catholics) as violence. I just wanted to clarify that I only agreed with Faith that the IRA had started the violence in the Troubles (which as you mentioned, I had tainted information on), but that if she justified the Protestant treatment of Catholics in Ireland, then the actions of the IRA were similarly justified from similar subjugation and ill treatment they suffered prior to the Troubles.

Yes, it was absolutely the willful choice to allow a million people to die from a cause that was completely preventable. Of course, you want to remove this terrible treatment from the discussion but you want us to remember how the Catholics treated Protestants during the Inquisition. All of these things happened and must be considered as a part of the situation. If the Protestants were justified to take vengeance on the Irish Catholic Laypeople based on the violence committed against them, then likewise the IRA is justified for taking vengeance on a similar violence against them....which includes the treatment during the Great Famine.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Which was brought about primarily because of the laws that the Protestant Parliament had put in place to restrict the Irish Catholics. The laws they put into place forced the Irish Catholics into subsistence farming and removed any opportunity to provide excess for sale to build wealth. This made them more susceptible to the effects of the Famine. So, yes, it was retaliation (You have even stated that these laws were put in place as retaliation because of the risks Protestants considered Catholics as posing) and when presented with the fact that the Irish Catholics were going to suffer massive casualties at the hands of famine, they continued to leave the laws in place as they were, even continuing to evict 500,000 subsistence farmers during the famine. Not only did they refuse to modify or remove the laws, but they also refused extra assistance from other countries for the Catholics. Would you consider the laws denying land rights, crop rights, or inheritance to Catholics as a retaliation to the treatment of Protestants during the years before Protestants took control? If so, do you see how these laws are connected to the deaths during the famine? How is that not retaliation, slow moving, but retaliation nonetheless.

I am not denying that the Catholics did some things to deserve restrictions. The history of the Catholic Church is a long and bloody one. However, accepting this does not change the results of placing these restrictions on the Irish Catholics and those results are a big portion of what led to the future conflict between the Unionists and the Nationalists. Were the Protestants justified in their fear of Catholic uprising? Yes, they were. However, the consistency in maintaining these laws, especially during times of extreme hardship (such as the Famine), was a major cause for animosity between these groups. And again, if the Protestants were justified in subjugating Irish Catholics to avoid uprisings based on previous treatment, then the IRA was as justified in finally attempting to break free and remove the shackles that had been placed on their freedoms. I don't agree that any of these actions should be considered justified. Not the Catholic subjugation of Protestants, nor the Protestant counter-subjugation of Catholics, nor the IRA attempts to use terror to earn freedoms back. But history doesn't give us what we want to see, rather it shows us what actually happened. I can see how each of these groups could claim they were justified in their actions and attract a following, I just don't agree that any of them were. You want to defend one group, but refuse to see how the actions of that one group would generate increasing problems as the plan progressed further. These actions eventually led to the Irish Catholics wanting their freedoms back, which leads to the actions and steps taken by the IRA.

I have listened to most of it at this time, but I'm not finding him very convincing. He has strong opinions about it, having lived through it, but his talk contains definite incorrect facts. As Caffeine already pointed out, he is blatantly lying when he states that the violence was almost all produced by the Catholics. The death counts which were taken from the records (Caffeine already posted these numbers) show that the victims of violence were almost equal from each camp. Plus, the Ballast investigation that was conducted by the Police Ombudsman showed that not only were the Northern Ireland Police and British military secretly involved in the conflict, but that they had found evidence that informants for the police were suspected of committing killings during the Troubles, of hiding evidence from prosecutions and of bringing in murder suspects from the Protestant side and simply letting them walk. Source: Statement by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland on her investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Raymond McCord Junior and related mattersSo, if his claims in this area are falling flat, why should I trust more of the information from his sermon? Especially when he does not seem to be providing any sources to verify outside of personal experiences. Finally, and I do not like attacking the messenger, but Ivan Foster is about the furthest toward the Unionest camp you can find. He even ended his friendship with Ian Paisley after Paisley decided that working and sharing power with Sinn Fein was better than continuing the armed conflict.By the way, for anyone to answer. I've always heard that Northern Irish Protestants refer to themselves as British and not Irish, is this correct? In that case, Ivan Foster is British, not Irish as you stated Faith.

What blanket refusal? I even stated a few messages back that I agree the history of the Catholic Church is a long and bloody one. There is no justification I could see that exculpates the Catholic Church for the crimes and misdeeds they enacted. I also said that I can understand why the Protestants would have wanted to restrict the Catholics. However, where we differ is on the actions of the IRA. If the Protestants are justified to begin their campaign of subjugating and slowly executing through poverty the Irish Catholics because of their treatment at the hands of Rome, then why do you not agree that the IRA is justified in fighting back to break the pattern of subjugation they had been placed under for hundreds of years? Where does the justification for retribution violence end?One could even go back and say that Catholics could be justified for their subjugation of others because of their initial horrid treatment at the hands of the Roman Empire, much of which would make up their future empire. (Of course, I know you don't consider early Christians Catholics, but history does). So, where should we stop this justifying violence, whether subtle or forthright?