In Laura's post here, she notes that "It’s really interesting to me that it was the arguments over religion that seemed to be the most divisive, that the Dutch people were willing to take a whole lot from their oppressive monarchs as a general rule, to give up a lot of their own freedoms, even their right to their land and money in some cases (although, as we’ll see/we’ve seen, those were two big subjects of contention), but not to give up their religion, even though it had so newly (in the grand scheme of things) become a part of their lives."
This reminded me of the original point I was/I've been trying to make with my various posts, including this one and this one as well as those on the oppression of the Irish here, here, and here. I will try to be succinct.
I think the thing I have been chasing throughout this entire project is the development of Irish identity and specifically how English occupation (and Potato Famine) helped in shaping this. I was specifically intrigued earlier by a bit I read in one of the three books. Basically, it stated that the Protestants in Ireland were initially pro-Union because they believed that they would be better protected from Catholics by their Anglican brethren. However, the Act of Union preceded the Potato Famine. The Potato Famine, I believe, was a key part of the development of the Irish identity. Protestant or Catholic, if you grew and ate potatoes, the blight affected you. This common suffering (and exacerbation by insufficient British aid my post here) solidified the Irish versus English stances (a point coaxed out of me in response to Andra's post here). This in turn led to the struggle for independence in the early 20th century, but curiously, it seems as though Protestant/Catholic resentment returned within Ireland after the declaration of the Republic of Ireland.
May 26, 2009
irish/english animosity
Regarding Andra's question here which asked about Irish/English relations in the present.
I couldn't find a lot on this in official sources, but I did come across an interesting sort of forum in which the same question was being asked. Here are some quotes which I think illustrate a myriad of viewpoints.
"fine I would say"
"i see the irish as a bunch of lovable alchaholics[sic] who are handy whenever a road needs to be repaired"
"According to my Irish Literature lecturer last year, for the majority of young people in Northern Ireland and The Republic, The Troubles are ancient history. I'd say the same goes for most young people in England too.
I think older generations in England still distrust the Irish a bit because of the IRA bombings and mass immigration in past decades but those kinda folks have the Muslims to distract them now."
"Whilst most progressive thinking people can place such issues where the firmly belong, in the past, there is still a deep seated distrust of the English by many with Irish backgrounds, particularly those of the Roman-Catholic persuasion.
A lot of the ill will could be seen as jusitified[sic] to many. As Dara O'Briain explains, 800 years is a bit long to just let it slide.(not a direct quote, but those were his sentiments)."
"There's also the political history to take into consideration. It can't be denied that the actions of a nation define how others see that nation, and if for generations your country contrives to oppress and harass, then it's to be expected you'll be resented for genrations[sic] to come."
"I mean, if it wasn't for the English; Irish would be our first language, but prior to getting our independence, the English banned the teaching of the Irish language so it's more or less dead now..."
"I think that relations are good but only as long as the English don't make light of the issue or forget about what was done to Ireland under their rule."
My impression is that Irish/English animosity still exists if you dig deep enough. If I wanted to be drastic, I might compare it to slavery/racial prejudice in the United States. It's there, people feel it, but for the most part we're trying to leave it behind ourselves, and yet there are still indelible marks (like language) which will stick with us forever.
I couldn't find a lot on this in official sources, but I did come across an interesting sort of forum in which the same question was being asked. Here are some quotes which I think illustrate a myriad of viewpoints.
"fine I would say"
"i see the irish as a bunch of lovable alchaholics[sic] who are handy whenever a road needs to be repaired"
"According to my Irish Literature lecturer last year, for the majority of young people in Northern Ireland and The Republic, The Troubles are ancient history. I'd say the same goes for most young people in England too.
I think older generations in England still distrust the Irish a bit because of the IRA bombings and mass immigration in past decades but those kinda folks have the Muslims to distract them now."
"Whilst most progressive thinking people can place such issues where the firmly belong, in the past, there is still a deep seated distrust of the English by many with Irish backgrounds, particularly those of the Roman-Catholic persuasion.
A lot of the ill will could be seen as jusitified[sic] to many. As Dara O'Briain explains, 800 years is a bit long to just let it slide.(not a direct quote, but those were his sentiments)."
"There's also the political history to take into consideration. It can't be denied that the actions of a nation define how others see that nation, and if for generations your country contrives to oppress and harass, then it's to be expected you'll be resented for genrations[sic] to come."
"I mean, if it wasn't for the English; Irish would be our first language, but prior to getting our independence, the English banned the teaching of the Irish language so it's more or less dead now..."
"I think that relations are good but only as long as the English don't make light of the issue or forget about what was done to Ireland under their rule."
My impression is that Irish/English animosity still exists if you dig deep enough. If I wanted to be drastic, I might compare it to slavery/racial prejudice in the United States. It's there, people feel it, but for the most part we're trying to leave it behind ourselves, and yet there are still indelible marks (like language) which will stick with us forever.
Is Ireland Free?
This is a question I've been toying with since Andra asked a variation on it in this post. She inquired, "Do you think that your [] countr[y] ha[s] gained full and complete independence? Does Ireland still depend on England? Would they be able to do anything if England decided they wanted to occupy Ireland again?" which I transformed into the title of this blog, but I digress.
In all honesty, I don't know if Ireland is free. On one hand, the facts speak for themselves.
-On April 18, 1949 Éire became the Republic of Ireland, effectively freeing itself from any formal allegiance to England, but the two countries were still very much connected. British citizens in the Éire were given the same legal rights and vice versa.
-On December 14, 1955, the republic joined the U.N.
-In the 1960's and 1970's, emigration finally declined, due in large part to the meeting of economic goals and general economic improvement.
-The IRA was denounced for its terrorism early on in the mid-20th century.
-In 1972, Ireland joined the European Community and ended the "special constitutional status of the Roman Catholic church."
On the other, how does one define freedom? Ireland governs itself, but will it ever be free of English influence? Here, once more, I think of traditional, non-European colonization. Look at Buenos Aires? It is forever a mark of European influence in Argentina. What language is more commonly spoken in Ireland, Irish or English?
So my response? Ireland is free, politically, but, by virtue of geographical proximity and cultural ties, not to mention historical involvement, Ireland will never be able to fully shake off England's presence.
(Source)
In all honesty, I don't know if Ireland is free. On one hand, the facts speak for themselves.
-On April 18, 1949 Éire became the Republic of Ireland, effectively freeing itself from any formal allegiance to England, but the two countries were still very much connected. British citizens in the Éire were given the same legal rights and vice versa.
-On December 14, 1955, the republic joined the U.N.
-In the 1960's and 1970's, emigration finally declined, due in large part to the meeting of economic goals and general economic improvement.
-The IRA was denounced for its terrorism early on in the mid-20th century.
-In 1972, Ireland joined the European Community and ended the "special constitutional status of the Roman Catholic church."
On the other, how does one define freedom? Ireland governs itself, but will it ever be free of English influence? Here, once more, I think of traditional, non-European colonization. Look at Buenos Aires? It is forever a mark of European influence in Argentina. What language is more commonly spoken in Ireland, Irish or English?
So my response? Ireland is free, politically, but, by virtue of geographical proximity and cultural ties, not to mention historical involvement, Ireland will never be able to fully shake off England's presence.
(Source)
May 25, 2009
Questions for the Group
Andra: In this post, which I really enjoyed, you talked about emigration from Latvia and asked about conditions under British rule, which I kind of addressed here and here, operating under the fact that a majority of the Irish were Catholic. You talk a lot about things on a very personal level (e.g. the woman's account) or a very large scale level (struggle for independence). I'm curious about somewhere between the two. What exactly were the rules instated by the USSR in Latvia? How did this oppression contribute to animosity between Latvians and the USSR?
Laura: Religion obviously had a large influence in the Spanish Netherlands and Ireland. I wonder how exactly religion was important? On a governing level? On a civilian level? In Ireland, religion was a polarizing factor, dividing countrymen into Protestant and Catholic, but, like in the Thirty Years' war, ultimately religion was not the most important factor in choosing sides. Eventually, after enough oppression and neglect by the British, religious differences fell aside (though, to be fair Protestants were a very small minority).
Laura: Religion obviously had a large influence in the Spanish Netherlands and Ireland. I wonder how exactly religion was important? On a governing level? On a civilian level? In Ireland, religion was a polarizing factor, dividing countrymen into Protestant and Catholic, but, like in the Thirty Years' war, ultimately religion was not the most important factor in choosing sides. Eventually, after enough oppression and neglect by the British, religious differences fell aside (though, to be fair Protestants were a very small minority).
How Ireland became Ireland
Kind of the last bit to tack onto the previous post.
Ireland became Éire (or in English, Ireland) in the 1930's, when Fianna Fáil (who had opposed the treaty, also known as the Soldiers of Destiny) came into power. It is known as the Republican Party and is currently in power as well.
Ireland remained neutral during WWII, though it assisted the Allies minimally.
It declared itself a republic in 1949.
Source
Ireland became Éire (or in English, Ireland) in the 1930's, when Fianna Fáil (who had opposed the treaty, also known as the Soldiers of Destiny) came into power. It is known as the Republican Party and is currently in power as well.
Ireland remained neutral during WWII, though it assisted the Allies minimally.
It declared itself a republic in 1949.
Source
How Ireland Became Free
This is a good question, posed by Andra here.
It's kind of a departure from what I've been talking about, but why not go into this quickly? Or rather, I will try to, since I think one of the problems I've been having in this project is focusing on the big picture, the entire project; I get tunnel vision at points, but here goes.
This is a really good resource.
-In 1917, at the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis all parties in opposition to British rule united with the goal of establishing a free Irish republic.
-In 1919, the Irish Parliament (Dail Eireann) met for the first time and decided to take over local government and let British rule fall away (I'm not exactly sure how this was going to work).
-This obviously turned violent, morphing into guerrilla warfare after Britain outlawed Sinn Fein and Dail Eireann and introduced a much stronger military presence (Black and Tans).
-In 1920, the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was passed, which divided Ireland into North and South. The North accepted the act, while the South did not.
-In 1921, a treaty was reached which maintained Ireland as a part of the British Empire, but with Dominion status. Ireland became The Irish Free State and remained a British Dominion until the 1940's.
-In 1922, the treaty was narrowly passed.
-In 1922-23, civil war broke out between followers of Michael Collins and Eamon de Valera. Collins was killed and Valera became president of the divided Ireland. (Source)
I am most intrigued by this sort of move towards legislative restructuring made by the Irish and their hope that the British government would just fall apart. It kind of reminds me of Solidarity in Poland. I wonder if anything like this was seen in the Spanish Netherlands or Latvia, though I'd think that it'd be more likely in Latvia.
Andra noted that, "I see another connection between Latvia and the Spanish Netherlands in the way they gained their independence. Neither of them really caused their own independence, though both sides fought for it and desperately wanted it. Rather, it was the weakening of the empires that occupied these two countries that allowed them to gain independence." Interestingly, I think this is what the Irish hoped would happen with Britain. Given that their actions directly followed WWI, perhaps they were banking on the fact that Britain had been weakened by the war.
It's kind of a departure from what I've been talking about, but why not go into this quickly? Or rather, I will try to, since I think one of the problems I've been having in this project is focusing on the big picture, the entire project; I get tunnel vision at points, but here goes.
This is a really good resource.
-In 1917, at the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis all parties in opposition to British rule united with the goal of establishing a free Irish republic.
-In 1919, the Irish Parliament (Dail Eireann) met for the first time and decided to take over local government and let British rule fall away (I'm not exactly sure how this was going to work).
-This obviously turned violent, morphing into guerrilla warfare after Britain outlawed Sinn Fein and Dail Eireann and introduced a much stronger military presence (Black and Tans).
-In 1920, the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was passed, which divided Ireland into North and South. The North accepted the act, while the South did not.
-In 1921, a treaty was reached which maintained Ireland as a part of the British Empire, but with Dominion status. Ireland became The Irish Free State and remained a British Dominion until the 1940's.
-In 1922, the treaty was narrowly passed.
-In 1922-23, civil war broke out between followers of Michael Collins and Eamon de Valera. Collins was killed and Valera became president of the divided Ireland. (Source)
I am most intrigued by this sort of move towards legislative restructuring made by the Irish and their hope that the British government would just fall apart. It kind of reminds me of Solidarity in Poland. I wonder if anything like this was seen in the Spanish Netherlands or Latvia, though I'd think that it'd be more likely in Latvia.
Andra noted that, "I see another connection between Latvia and the Spanish Netherlands in the way they gained their independence. Neither of them really caused their own independence, though both sides fought for it and desperately wanted it. Rather, it was the weakening of the empires that occupied these two countries that allowed them to gain independence." Interestingly, I think this is what the Irish hoped would happen with Britain. Given that their actions directly followed WWI, perhaps they were banking on the fact that Britain had been weakened by the war.
Workhouses
A quick aside on workhouses which were briefly mentioned in my previous post.
A workhouse, as defined by is "a place where people who were unable to support themselves could go to live and work." With the word comes images from Oliver Twist, but this post specifically wishes to discuss workhouses in Ireland.
Workhouses were created in Ireland under the Workhouse Act of 1838 (encompassed in the Poor Law Act) which saw to the creation of Poor Law Unions within Ireland. Each union built and managed its own workhouse, as controlled by individual Boards of Guardians which choose who were allowed into the workhouse and discussed all administrative affairs. Each workhouse was built to house 400-800 "inmates," though these numbers swelled during the famine, worsening already squalid conditions.
As conditions worsened and disease became rampant, workhouses faced bankruptcy from over-enrollment, so in 1847, an amendment was made to the Poor Law Act, allowing unions to provide "outdoor relief" (food, money, clothes etc.) as opposed to "indoor relief" (shelter, work within the workhouse).
The Workhouse Act passed in spite of significant Irish dissent. ("Eighty-six petitions from Ireland were presented to the Parliament. They totaled 36,221 signatures against, and only 593 signatures in favor of the work house act. All of Ireland, north and south, Protestant as well as Catholic, were opposed to the Bill" (source).)
Again, here, you can see a theme I referred to earlier in my posts, that the lines between Protestant and Catholic became less important as the relations between England and Ireland became more polarizing.
A workhouse, as defined by is "a place where people who were unable to support themselves could go to live and work." With the word comes images from Oliver Twist, but this post specifically wishes to discuss workhouses in Ireland.
Workhouses were created in Ireland under the Workhouse Act of 1838 (encompassed in the Poor Law Act) which saw to the creation of Poor Law Unions within Ireland. Each union built and managed its own workhouse, as controlled by individual Boards of Guardians which choose who were allowed into the workhouse and discussed all administrative affairs. Each workhouse was built to house 400-800 "inmates," though these numbers swelled during the famine, worsening already squalid conditions.
As conditions worsened and disease became rampant, workhouses faced bankruptcy from over-enrollment, so in 1847, an amendment was made to the Poor Law Act, allowing unions to provide "outdoor relief" (food, money, clothes etc.) as opposed to "indoor relief" (shelter, work within the workhouse).
The Workhouse Act passed in spite of significant Irish dissent. ("Eighty-six petitions from Ireland were presented to the Parliament. They totaled 36,221 signatures against, and only 593 signatures in favor of the work house act. All of Ireland, north and south, Protestant as well as Catholic, were opposed to the Bill" (source).)
Again, here, you can see a theme I referred to earlier in my posts, that the lines between Protestant and Catholic became less important as the relations between England and Ireland became more polarizing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
