|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A measured look at a difficult situation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
"Showing evidence" for everything that comes down the pike at EvC is a lost cause and often only serves to wear a person out, especially when there are half a dozen opponents to deal with. My eyes are bad, I strain them just being here most of the time, I don't see subjecting them to lengthy utter nonsense.
Tempe posted something very long starting out saying that the Irish Rebellion was the same as the American war of independence or at least the first stage of it or something like that, and I simply refuse to compare a mass murder with that historical event. He then went on to say that the War of 1812 was similar to Cromwell's invasion and by that time I'm just not listening, sorry. I did check to see if he made a case for the similarity and he didn't, simply said they were the same thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined: |
Faith writes: Tempe posted something very long starting out saying that the Irish Rebellion was the same as the American war of independence or at least the first stage of it or something like that, and I simply refuse to compare a mass murder with that historical event. And your issue is that you regard this as mass murder of Protestants and not a rebellion against a group who had taken land from the Irish and forced them into a position of subservience. The reason you see it as mass murder is that you accept without hesitation the source that you posted because the writer championed the Protestant cause. You have yet to provide evidence that his estimate of 200,000 killed is accurate. Even the Guardian article you posted considered the death toll to be closer to the historically accepted 4,000-12,000 deaths during the Irish Rebellion. If you want us to agree with you Mass Murder suggestion, you need to justify why the numbers your source claimed are accurate. Again, Why does he assume that Ireland should have had a 30% increase in population during a century when all of the rest of Europe saw a 33% decrease in population? So, using the historically accepted numbers, which would have included defenders and soldiers in addition to Protestant land holders, it seems far less like the mass murder you attempt to portray the rebellion as. Also, as you have already been shown that it was not Protestants that were uniquely targeted (as per Son Goku's information about other Protestant groups), but rather those who had usurped the land from the Irish and forced them deeper into peasantry. They conquered towns and expelled those who had stolen their lands, which did cause undue hardship and lead to hundreds of deaths, but what would you suggest the Irish do with those they felt had stolen the land of their forefathers once they had fought to reclaim it and won?
I did check to see if he made a case for the similarity and he didn't, simply said they were the same thing. I did make a case for similarity based on the fact that both were rebellions, fought against the same empire, attempting to regain a measure of freedom that had been winnowed away throughout the history of their relationship with the parent country. Both were violent, with the Irish killing approximately 4,000 people and displacing hundreds of loyalists and the Americans killing 6,400 British/allied forces (30,000 if you consider all causes, not just battle) and displacing over 70,000 loyalists. Both groups were successful in their bid for freedom, with the United States setting up its government after the war and the Irish functioning as Confederate Ireland after the end of their rebellion. Then, in both of these scenarios, Great Britain sent forces to reclaim these lands after these countries had run themselves following the success of their respective rebellions. For the Irish, it was the Cromwellian invasion, while for the Americans, it was the War of 1812. Let me know if this helps clear up some of the similarities that I am seeing between these two conflicts. If you'd like to continue to claim mass murder, Faith, you need to provide some evidence that they were specifically targeted for being Protestant, that the number of dead is closer to your claimed 200,000, and that the Irish were driving people into the wilderness out of spite, rather than as a means of reclaiming their land. Notice that the Americans also displaced a large majority of those who tried to remain loyal to England in their rebellion. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, I see it as mass murder because it was mass murder. In fact I didn't even say they were Protestants this time. The victims were unarmed, the perps undressed them and herded them out to die. That's mass murder, that's not a battle over land. And the settlers weren't the enemy anyway, it was the English government.
Cromwell was sent to put down the rebellion, that is not the same thing as the English coming over here to make another try at conquering America. What I don't understand in all this is why the Protestants would put themselves in such a dangerous position in the first place. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
The victims were unarmed, the perps undressed them and herded them out to die.
Source?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 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sure go back to the Guardian article. But I think it's at Wikipedia too. I got it from one of those places.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Your assertion post the evidence please.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined: |
Faith writes: No, I see it as mass murder because it was mass murder. In fact I didn't even say they were Protestants this time. The victims were unarmed, the perps undressed them and herded them out to die. That's mass murder, that's not a battle over land. And the settlers weren't the enemy anyway, it was the English government. Yes, situations like this occurred at the beginning of the rebellion, when it was still a fractured movement without any centralized leadership.
Wiki writes: Historian Nicholas Canny suggests that the violence escalated after a failed rebel assault on Lisnagarvey in November 1641, after which the settlers killed several hundred captured insurgents. So, again your statement that it was only the Irish killing settlers, and not both ways is incorrect. It was a war between the two groups. Yes, some civilians were killed, but not everyone was unarmed during this conflict. However, it is important to remember that this chaos did not reign for the entire rebellion and beginning in 1642 the Irish found leadership, which would continue the rebellion by obeying the rules of war.
Wiki writes: The widespread killing of civilians was brought under control to some degree in 1642, when Owen Roe O'Neill arrived in Ulster to command the Irish Catholic forces and hanged several rebels for attacks on civilians. Thereafter, the war, though still brutal, was fought in line with the code of conduct that both O'Neill and the Scottish commander Robert Monro had learned as professional soldiers in continental Europe. Finally, you state that the settlers weren't the enemy, and in technical terms, you might be correct since the British were the ones giving away the lands, but they were the ones living on the lands that were previously owned by the Irish. The Irish were taking back the lands that had been stolen, displacing the settlers and forcing them out into the cold. And yes, Faith, some people did this in a remarkably cruel way, I am not denying it, but it was war to reclaim their homeland and violent activities happen. Plus, there were massacres committed against the Irish during these same time periods, many of which have already been pointed out to you and that equal those you are discussing at this time.
Faith writes: Cromwell was sent to put down the rebellion, that is not the same thing as the English coming over here to make another try at conquering America. I am not sure how many times I have to explain this, but let's see if this one finally gets through. The Irish Rebellion occurred in 1641, ending in 1642 with the Irish winning the war and setting up an Irish government to control Irish affairs. This was called Confederate Ireland. They won their rebellion. Cromwell, who arrived in Ireland in 1649, cannot be putting down a rebellion that ended 7 years before his arrival. He was making an attempt to reconquer Ireland after Great Britain had lost control of it to the Irish. How is trying to reconquer one place years after a rebellion ended different from trying to reconquer another place? Remember....Cromwell arrived 7 years after the rebellion ended.
Faith writes: What I don't understand in all this is why the Protestants would put themselves in such a dangerous position in the first place. Extremely cheap/freely available land at the expense of others? Ability to have more political power than the native population in a new area? I'm not sure why they would risk it, but I would hazard a guess that it could be seen similarly to how some American settlers were willing to take the risk of being in close proximity to dangerous native tribes for the available resources they could gain from the location. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined: |
Wrong thread...
Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : Posted in incorrect thread.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 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1053 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
I am not sure how many times I have to explain this, but let's see if this one finally gets through. The Irish Rebellion occurred in 1641, ending in 1642 with the Irish winning the war and setting up an Irish government to control Irish affairs. This was called Confederate Ireland. They won their rebellion. Cromwell, who arrived in Ireland in 1649, cannot be putting down a rebellion that ended 7 years before his arrival. He was making an attempt to reconquer Ireland after Great Britain had lost control of it to the Irish. How is trying to reconquer one place years after a rebellion ended different from trying to reconquer another place? Remember....Cromwell arrived 7 years after the rebellion ended. This isn't right. The wars in Ireland continued long after 1642, and the Confederates never controlled the whole country. They weren't fighting with Great Britain at the time, either, since there was no such beast. James I did use the term informally to refer to the personal union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England under himself, but that union had been torn asunder by the civil wars. The Confederates were fighting variously against English and Irish Royalists, Parliamentarians, Scottish covenanters who invaded Ulster in 1643, and Irish nobles who feared the loss of their power. They eventually tried to form an alliance with the Royalists, some of whom were Protestant, against the Parliamentary forces, leading to many of the Confederate leaders being excommunicated by the papal nuncio, who had brought money from abroad to try and establish a papal state. This was all before Cromwell's arrival. To clearly see that Great Britain didn't exist at the time, we just have to look where Cromwell invaded after Ireland - Scotland, where the hardcore Protestant Covenanters had declared Charles II king in exchange for his agreement to impose their strict, anti-episcopalian brand of Protestantism on England and Ireland, as well as Scotland. This was somewhat ironic, as it was the Covenanters who had been the first to take up arms against the crown in 1638. Charles was almost certainly lying for political gain, as he had some sympathy for Catholicism, and supposedly promised to convert some years later to get military support from the King of France. The main thing I'm getting at here is that anyone who tries to present the complex wars and revolutions of Britain and Ireland in the seventeenth century as some kind of simple 'Catholics vs. Protestants' struggle either doesn't know much about them, or is intentionally misrepresenting them for religious or nationalist motives.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Just a little reminder that I'm not interested in Irish history as such. I noted two things, the Irish Rebellion and the aggressions of the IRA, both as examples of Catholic aggression against Protestants. According to the other contributors to this thread these things ought to be understood in the broader context of Irish politics and not specifically as Catholic-Protestant events. Since they just ARE Catholic-Protestant events, while I accept that they occurred in a broader political context, I still have to keep their religious nature in mind.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 886 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
Never before have I met someone who is so incapable of seeing the world in more than one dimension.
Edited by herebedragons, : spelinWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Since they just ARE Catholic-Protestant events, while I accept that they occurred in a broader political context, I still have to keep their religious nature in mind. Unless in Proddy on Catho violence, of course. All the best.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 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Except the "Proddy" violence was all in the form of military retaliation, not wholesale murder of unarmed people by herding them out to die in the snow, or bombs blowing them up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Was it Matthew that said "Those that have armies let them slaughter"?
Edited by jar, : missed an "m"Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined: |
Caffeine writes: This isn't right. The wars in Ireland continued long after 1642, and the Confederates never controlled the whole country. They weren't fighting with Great Britain at the time, either, since there was no such beast. James I did use the term informally to refer to the personal union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England under himself, but that union had been torn asunder by the civil wars. Understood, if there was not an actual victory then I will definitely stop using the war of 1812 as any sort of comparison. As for the great Britain thing, this is a fault of my terminology. I've never been comfortable with which descriptor to use for certain time periods in that area, so i tend to choose Great Britain simply for consistency of location. I will try to fix that error in the future.
Caffeine writes: The main thing I'm getting at here is that anyone who tries to present the complex wars and revolutions of Britain and Ireland in the seventeenth century as some kind of simple 'Catholics vs. Protestants' struggle either doesn't know much about them, or is intentionally misrepresenting them for religious or nationalist motives. I will freely admit I do not know much about them and that is another reason I wanted to start this thread. The main reason was to show Faith that her simple Catholics versus Protestants did not properly encompass all that was really happening during the struggles in Ireland. Plus, that one cannot make a judgement or use as examples of Catholic evilness the Irish conflicts, which had multiple combined causes that led to the events that unfolded and were not simply a religious war. Also, I realized that while I knew some of the history of the region, in my education process the history of Ireland was glossed over very quickly and I knew there would be some incorrect information I would have received. Even right off the bat, those with knowledge were able to show me it was not as religiously based as what we are taught here. 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024