|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A measured look at a difficult situation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Read the sources. Present your sources.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Plaisted covers quite a lot of sources, and lists his References at the bottom too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1311 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
You are wrong, a ten minute glance at the wiki article for the rebellion shows that catholics were attacked, (not to mention the reason for the rebellion was a complete erosion of the rights of catholics and the theft of their lands by the authorities for redistribution to the planters).
The terms of the Plantation, particularly in Ulster, were very harsh on the native population, who were forbidden from owning or renting land in planted areas and also from working there on land owned by settlers.
Non-attendance at Protestant church services was punishable by "recusant fines" and the public practice of unapproved faiths by arrest. Catholics could not hold senior offices of state, or serve above a certain rank in the army. The aim of this was essentially a re-colonisation of Ireland, and yes, the native population fought this. What they wanted was religious toleration and land security.
I know the IRA initiated attacks on Protestants in Ireland, and the Irish Rebellion was also an attack on defenseless Protestants.
and you completely ignore all/any attacks by loyalists/Protestants on Nationalist/Catholics?
I'm really only interested in the fact that the RCC was the aggressor there
No. The aggressor was the British Establishment who stripped ordinary Irish people of basic rights. Read up on the "Penal Laws"You simply cannot extract one two year period out of history and examine it in isolation and then claim that the violence was somehow unprovoked. That's tantamount to picking one instance of bristish aggression against civilians out of WW2 and claiming the nazis as the victims. It's ridiculous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
About ten thousand Catholics were massacred during the two reigns.
You might not like thinking about something that paints your tribe in a bad way but that is not history's fault. The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
About ten thousand Catholics were massacred during the two reigns. You might not like thinking about something that paints your tribe in a bad way but that is not history's fault. What I don't "like" is being given information like this without any kind of explanation, description, historical facts or a source. Please provide.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
and you completely ignore all/any attacks by loyalists/Protestants on Nationalist/Catholics? I've seen descriptions of Catholics herding Protestants naked into the snow to die of cold and starvation, and I've seen descriptions of military action to quell the rebellion. Attacks on anybody by ordinary Protestants I haven't seen. If you are going to claim they exist you need to quote a source with link. And the term "Loyalist" really doesn't convey anything to me. abe: Tried a bit of research and came up with some snark, no real history. Got history? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You say there were Catholics "murdered" under Henry 8th and Edward 6th but what I've found says they weren't murdered, they were executed for various kinds of treason or offending the king or whatnot, at least in the case of Henry the 8th, not for being Catholic:
executions There was something called the Prayer Book Rebellion under Edward 6th but I got impatient trying to follow the Wikipedia article about it. I gather the rebellion was by Catholics and was put down by the forces of the King, which doesn't sound like a massacre to me. The Irish Rebellion remains the best description of an actual massacre, where the Catholics herded the Protestants out to die.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You say there were Catholics "murdered" under Henry 8th and Edward 6th but what I've found says they weren't murdered, they were executed for various kinds of treason or offending the king or whatnot, at least in the case of Henry the 8th, not for being Catholic:
Tudor executions There was something called the Prayer Book Rebellion under Edward 6th but I got impatient trying to follow the Wikipedia article about it. I gather the rebellion was by Catholics and was put down by the forces of the King, which doesn't sound like a massacre to me. The Irish Rebellion remains the best description of an actual massacre, where the Catholics herded the Protestants out to die for no reason other than that they were Protestants. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined: |
Faith writes: The Americans won the war, I believe that's all I said, and that is what made for the transfer of authority. You seem to have made up some other version of what I said out of thin air. I understand that you said that the Americans won the war....but what you are missing is that so did the Irish after the rebellion of 1641. In fact, from 1642-1649, after the rebellion, the Irish ruled the country as the Confederate Ireland. From the wiki:
History of Ireland writes: beginning with the Rebellion of 1641, when Irish Catholics rebelled against the domination of English and Protestant settlers. The Catholic gentry briefly ruled the country as Confederate Ireland (1642—1649) against the background of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms until Oliver Cromwell reconquered Ireland in 1649—1653 on behalf of the English Commonwealth. Source So, when Cromwell arrives, it is not that he has legitimate authority (The Irish had already expelled the British for approximately 7 years. In this case, I think our use of the American War of Independence as a similar case is incorrect. Rather, your backing of Cromwell would be similar to backing the British during the War of 1812, when they attempted to reclaim the American colonies. What legitimate authority did Cromwell have as Ireland was considered a free country, vowing loyalty only if the rightful king was returned, after their rebellion?
Faith writes: The Irish Rebellion was the herding of unarmed people out to freeze or starve to death. What does that have to do with the Irish wanting to be in charge of their own destinies? First off, yes I am sure there were some civilians killed in cruel ways, however you came in with a resource that was very suspect, especially considering he claims that Ireland should have increased it's population by 30% during a time when all of Europe's population decreased by 33%. How does that makes sense, why would Ireland not be subject to similar hardships in terms of effects of the Little Ice Age. While I am sure some horrible crimes were committed, most scholars do not agree with the extent of them and state that the total death toll was around 4,000 for the Irish rebellion. That is a point you need to deal with, and not simply by quoting the person you did, but also explaining why his choices of variables (such as the expected 30% increase) are accurate. As for other scholars, they do not agree that it was a massive slaughter when the Irish rebelled:
Irish Cultural Center writes: Atonia Fraser in her biography of Cromwell says that there is no historical evidence that a massacre took place during the 1641 rising. Legend had created a massacre and gave Oliver Cromwell justification for his vengeful assaults on Irish cities. And Cromwell and his men were just as guilty of cruel and unusual punishment against both the Irish Catholics and the Irish Protestant Nationalists. You try to ignore Wexford, and at the same time diminishing the 4,000 killed at Drogheda (2,500 soldiers and 1,500 civilians) as just a casualty of war. I'm pretty sure those 1,500 civilians included some women and children too.
British Civil Wars writes: The following day, Synnot and the aldermen of Wexford agreed to accept Cromwell's terms, by which the soldiers of the garrison would be disarmed and allowed to march away, the officers would become prisoners and the town would not be plundered. Negotiations the following day slowed down, and when a wall was breached (as Cromwell's men were still attacking during negotiations) the commander of the castle agreed to surrender before the assault was launched.
British Civil Wars writes: Cromwell and his officers made no attempt to restrain their soldiers, who slaughtered the defenders of Wexford and plundered the town. Colonel Synott was among those killed. Hundreds of civilians were shot or drowned as they tried to escape the carnage by fleeing across the River Slaney. Margaret Ann Cusack writes: MacGeoghegan mentions the massacre of two hundred women, who clung round the market-cross for protection. Irish Cultural Center writes: Wexford fell next. 2500 Irish were killed, including 250 women and 250 children. Five Franciscan priests and two friars were burned to death when the Franciscan Friary was put to the torch. Cromwell said about Wexford: I thought it not right or good to restrain off the soldiers from their right of pillage, or from doing execution on the enemy. I'm hoping that you would agree that the burning of the monks was definitely related to the religion that they practiced?
Source Source Source And...you have the nerve to talk about forcing people to starve to death, yet all you can say about the million who starved because of Royalist actions during the Great Famine is that it may have been a bit heavy-handed. I find it amusing how easily you are able to forgive Protestant transgressions, but not Catholic ones. Especially considering that you refuse to see that the Irish rebellion of 1641 came after nearly 100 years of Irish Catholics being denied equal rights. This was also when the English began to forcefully take lands from Irish peasants and grant it to Protestants from England and Scotland. These penal laws are similar to those put in place following the Cromwellian reconquest and were specifically designed to put pressure on conversion to Protestantism.
Faith writes: The Americans won the war, I believe that's all I said, and that is what made for the transfer of authority. You seem to have made up some other version of what I said out of thin air. The Irish won their rebellion. They had gotten nearly all Royalists out of Ireland through their actions during the uprising. They governed themselves as the Confederate Ireland for 7 years....until Great Britain decided that they belonged under the crown again. So, again, what legitimate authority did Cromwell possess, since Ireland was actually a free nation during his seige. Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given. Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1311 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
On Rathlin Island Covenanter Campbell soldiers of the Argyll's Foot were encouraged by their commanding officer Sir Sir Duncan Campbell of Auchinbreck to kill the local Catholic MacDonalds, near relatives of their arch Clan enemy in the Scottish Highlands Clan MacDonald; this they did with ruthless efficiency, throwing scores of MacDonald women over cliffs to their deaths on rocks below.[42] The number of victims of this massacre has been put as low as 100 and as high as 3,000. Many settlers massacred Catholics, particularly in 1642—43 when a Scottish Covenanter army landed in Ulster. William Lecky, the 19th century historian of the rebellion, concluded that, "it is far from clear on which side the balance of cruelty rests".[39] Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Here, take a look.
Click here Hope that helps. ABE: but I know it won't help. You will say: "I don't trust that source". Edited by Larni, : No reason given.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
His sources are not scholarly sources. Looking at them none of them seem to use any original source material. He is an anti-catholic using other anti-catholic writings as a source. All this paper is is a rehash of other anti-catholic writings. He repeats the writings unquestioningly. None of it is based on original source material.
He is a computer professor, he has no training or expertise in historical research. It is amazing that no historian has presented such an interpretation of catholic killing of protestants. He is hatemongering nothing more. We have discussed this dreck on another thread. No need to rehash your inability to actually back up the figures with original source material.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
The Spanish Inqusition was not a part of the Catholic Church. It was an office of the Spanish Crown. So the same argument you have for Henry holds for the Spanish Inquisition.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And the earlier Papal Inquisition of Pope Innocent III and Pope Gregory IX was hundreds of years before the Protestant Reformation.
Faith simply can't claim either as examples of Roman Catholicism oppressing Protestants.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Faith will claim anyone deemed heretic before the Protestant reformation, were in fact Protestants, so therefore they qualify as examples.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024