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.
Famine
Responding to Andra's post:
In your post, you comment that, "However, the potato famine was not created by the British, which means that the Irish left the homeland due to a natural disaster, if I may call it that, rather than because of their oppression by the British." You also inquire as to whether there might be a trend in people emigrating from their homes because of oppressive occupations.
While the actual famine wasn't created by England, the British government caused many of the ensuing repercussions. Namely, under British rule as previously mentioned, Irish Catholics couldn't own land, which meant that they were forced to rent plots of land from British landlords. Because the plots were so small, Irishmen chose to cultivate potato rather than grain, as a plot would yield three times the amount of potatoes as it would grain in a year. Potatoes also were one of those foods that really stuck to the ribs. One acre of land would feed a family for a year. When the blight struck, the Irish found themselves unable to pay their rents or feed their families.
Yet, as the British watched the Irish struggle, their "relief efforts" first took the shape of economic reform. In 1846, the Corn Laws were repealed in a belief that a free market would help alleviate the famine; however, the Irish were too poor to buy the newly available grain.
Relief also came in the form of soup kitchens, but these gradually dwindled as England suffered a banking crises and had to withdraw many of its efforts. Ultimately, "aid" came in the form of workhouses (more on this later). So, while the famine, the blight, the rot was not some sort of biological warfare waged on Ireland, England did little to help, and more to exacerbate the problem.
Source: here
In your post, you comment that, "However, the potato famine was not created by the British, which means that the Irish left the homeland due to a natural disaster, if I may call it that, rather than because of their oppression by the British." You also inquire as to whether there might be a trend in people emigrating from their homes because of oppressive occupations.
While the actual famine wasn't created by England, the British government caused many of the ensuing repercussions. Namely, under British rule as previously mentioned, Irish Catholics couldn't own land, which meant that they were forced to rent plots of land from British landlords. Because the plots were so small, Irishmen chose to cultivate potato rather than grain, as a plot would yield three times the amount of potatoes as it would grain in a year. Potatoes also were one of those foods that really stuck to the ribs. One acre of land would feed a family for a year. When the blight struck, the Irish found themselves unable to pay their rents or feed their families.
Yet, as the British watched the Irish struggle, their "relief efforts" first took the shape of economic reform. In 1846, the Corn Laws were repealed in a belief that a free market would help alleviate the famine; however, the Irish were too poor to buy the newly available grain.
Relief also came in the form of soup kitchens, but these gradually dwindled as England suffered a banking crises and had to withdraw many of its efforts. Ultimately, "aid" came in the form of workhouses (more on this later). So, while the famine, the blight, the rot was not some sort of biological warfare waged on Ireland, England did little to help, and more to exacerbate the problem.
Source: here
May 19, 2009
Act of Union (pt. II)
I have come to realize that perhaps my previous linkage to the VictorianWeb website was perhaps not the most thorough choice. Though it is a nice summary of the Act of Union, it excludes a few things. Source 1, I believe, says it better. Given the outline that “The first four articles settled the political basis of the union; the fifth related to the church; the sixth to commerce; the seventh to finance; the eight to law and legal procedure,” I’ll try to put some bullet points down for you (280-281). Since I’m not as concerned with the political representation that Irishmen had under the Act of Union, I shall not include very much at this point. The prior summary did adequately.
It seems to me that the Act of Union was quite transitory, and rightly so. One cannot simply join together two groups of people and expect the union to “stick” right off the bat. Well, one can expect, but one will most certainly be wrong.
To read more on the Act of Union of 1800/1801, you can check out Britannica or Wikipedia.
This entry feeds into this entry.
-Church of England was joined with Church of Ireland. This was “deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the union.
-Subjects should have same privileges in commerce. Basically this meant “free trade”, as mentioned, but “while the excise duties on certain home products and the duties on certain foreign imports continued to be levied at different rates in GB and Ireland, there was to be a system of countervailing duties and drawbacks on such commodities passing from one country to the other” (281). Also, for 20 years, customs duties would remain on cotton and woolen goods, which I assume ties in with non-competition (Ibid.).
-Each country would be responsible for its own national debt.
-Eventually, each country would become responsible for equal parts of UK national debt, at which point the two individual debts would be united.
-Laws and courts would remain the same. All cases at the time of union would be finished in the house of lords of the United Kingdom.
It seems to me that the Act of Union was quite transitory, and rightly so. One cannot simply join together two groups of people and expect the union to “stick” right off the bat. Well, one can expect, but one will most certainly be wrong.
To read more on the Act of Union of 1800/1801, you can check out Britannica or Wikipedia.
This entry feeds into this entry.
Act of Union (pt. I)
I currently have three books checked out of the library, all having to do with Irish history. I was doing some reading on Friday, cleverly wrote down some page numbers on my hand, and then, even more cleverly, I got a manicure and washed my hands several times. Not my finest moment perhaps, but I digress.
The three books are this (we’ll call this source 1), this (source 2), and this (source 3).
In one of them I read the interesting point that The Act of Union (made in 1800, put into effect in 1801) changed the divisions within Ireland itself. To arrive at this conclusion though, we must know what the Act of Union is. As mentioned before, PM Pitt had promised complete emancipation for Catholics to be made within the Act of Union, but the question I left off before was if this actually happened (2). Unsurprisingly, the answer is no. Pitt surrendered his position when faced with strong opposition from the king and other ministers.
In fact, the Act of Union is nicely summarized by this website.
The “Coronation Oath” (wiki-link here) is an act of Parliament which is an equivalent to the Oath of Office in the United States, in which the monarch promises to maintain “the true Profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law.”
This entry feeds into this entry.
The three books are this (we’ll call this source 1), this (source 2), and this (source 3).
In one of them I read the interesting point that The Act of Union (made in 1800, put into effect in 1801) changed the divisions within Ireland itself. To arrive at this conclusion though, we must know what the Act of Union is. As mentioned before, PM Pitt had promised complete emancipation for Catholics to be made within the Act of Union, but the question I left off before was if this actually happened (2). Unsurprisingly, the answer is no. Pitt surrendered his position when faced with strong opposition from the king and other ministers.
In fact, the Act of Union is nicely summarized by this website.
In 1800 the Act of Union was passed by both the Irish and British parliaments despite much opposition. It was signed by George III in August 1800 to become effective on 1 January 1801. Pitt intended to follow the Act of Union with other, more far reaching reforms, including Catholic Emancipation, but was thwarted by George III, who refused to break his Coronation Oath to uphold the Anglican Church. The 1801 Act of Union said that
* Ireland was to be joined to Great Britain into a single kingdom, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
* the Dublin parliament was abolished. Ireland was to be represented at Westminster by 100 MPs, 4 Lords Spiritual and 28 Lords Temporal (all were Anglicans).
* the Anglican Church was to be recognised as the official Church of Ireland.
* there was to be free trade between Ireland and Britain.
* Ireland was to keep a separate Exchequer and was to be responsible for two-seventeenths of the general expense of the United Kingdom.
* Ireland kept its own Courts of Justice and civil service.
* no Catholics were to be allowed to hold public office.
* there was to be no Catholic Emancipation.
The “Coronation Oath” (wiki-link here) is an act of Parliament which is an equivalent to the Oath of Office in the United States, in which the monarch promises to maintain “the true Profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law.”
This entry feeds into this entry.
May 13, 2009
Catholic and Irish?
Congratulations! By the late 18th century, you had some more freedoms.
You could:
-maintain schools
-"join the professions"
-vote at parliamentary elections
Bask in your newfound freedoms for a moment. Done? Let's move on.
You still could not:
-sit in parliament (I believe this means be a member of, not actually sit, though I could be wrong)
-be a judge
-be a colonel in the army
-be a captain in the navy
-be a minister in the government
-hold anything higher than a junior office in the civil government.
But wait! What is this? British PM William Pitt said that this upcoming union between Britain and Ireland will be "followed by complete emancipation for the catholic body" (249)? No way! Yes way.
Source: Moody, T.W. and F.X. Martin, ed. The Course of Irish History. Roberts Rinehart Publishers. Niwot, Colorado. 1995.
This entry feeds into this entry.
You could:
-maintain schools
-"join the professions"
-vote at parliamentary elections
Bask in your newfound freedoms for a moment. Done? Let's move on.
You still could not:
-sit in parliament (I believe this means be a member of, not actually sit, though I could be wrong)
-be a judge
-be a colonel in the army
-be a captain in the navy
-be a minister in the government
-hold anything higher than a junior office in the civil government.
But wait! What is this? British PM William Pitt said that this upcoming union between Britain and Ireland will be "followed by complete emancipation for the catholic body" (249)? No way! Yes way.
Source: Moody, T.W. and F.X. Martin, ed. The Course of Irish History. Roberts Rinehart Publishers. Niwot, Colorado. 1995.
This entry feeds into this entry.
The Irish and Slavery
Last year I wrote a research paper on anti-Irish sentiment in the United States during the 19th century. The nativist reactions to the immigration of Irish people (fleeing from the Potato Famine) were rooted in economic terms, namely the perceived shortages of jobs. One thing I noted in my research last year were the connections between the Irish's oppression by England and the system of slavery in the United States. It was said that Irish work songs resembled slave songs, and some historians have suggested that the Irish became "American" by joining in the discrimination against African-Americans.
But, to bring this back on topic, as I was continuing to read The Great Famine by John Percival, I noticed the following.
Apparently, because of the strongly anti-Catholic justice system in Ireland, Irishmen were predisposed to losing in court. Percival writes that, "Already accustomed to secrecy in matters of religion, they readily took to other kinds of secret society" (24). Which got me thinking more about slaves and their secret schools and resistance efforts. Humorously, one of these "secret societies" was "The Molly Maguires" (also known as "Ribbonmen"), whose members often disguised themselves as women. What really cemented the connection for me was when Percival mentions that, "They might not be able to oppose the landlord by day, but by night they could maim his cattle or fire his ricks" (25). [To interject here, I looked up "fire his ricks" as well as "ricks" and I still haven't the foggiest as to what the phrase means. If someone knows, please share.] Essentially, the Molly Maguires/Ribbonmen worked to undermine their (land)lords, which is quite similar to the malingering efforts of slaves (If you were in Sudie's class last year, you'll remember talking about this).
This entry feeds into this entry.
But, to bring this back on topic, as I was continuing to read The Great Famine by John Percival, I noticed the following.
Apparently, because of the strongly anti-Catholic justice system in Ireland, Irishmen were predisposed to losing in court. Percival writes that, "Already accustomed to secrecy in matters of religion, they readily took to other kinds of secret society" (24). Which got me thinking more about slaves and their secret schools and resistance efforts. Humorously, one of these "secret societies" was "The Molly Maguires" (also known as "Ribbonmen"), whose members often disguised themselves as women. What really cemented the connection for me was when Percival mentions that, "They might not be able to oppose the landlord by day, but by night they could maim his cattle or fire his ricks" (25). [To interject here, I looked up "fire his ricks" as well as "ricks" and I still haven't the foggiest as to what the phrase means. If someone knows, please share.] Essentially, the Molly Maguires/Ribbonmen worked to undermine their (land)lords, which is quite similar to the malingering efforts of slaves (If you were in Sudie's class last year, you'll remember talking about this).
This entry feeds into this entry.
Catholic and Irish?
If so, you'd have some problems in 18th century Ireland.
At this time, around 3/4th of Irish people were Catholic, despite attempts on the behalf of England to convert them to Protestantism. These attemps first took the form of the establishment of the Church of Ireland, but after disappointing results, the mother country turned to force. In the 18th century, if you were Catholic in Ireland and under the rule of England, you could not:
-hold office or practice law
-bear arms or serve as an officer in any armed forces
-buy land
-serve an appreticeship
-attend school
-go abroad to study
-make woollen cloth
-export glassware
(The last two were obviously tied to efforts to strengthen England economically, much like the Navigation Acts.)
As further enticement to convert, any land owned (I'm not sure how this works with the "not buying land" thing) would be divided equally between any male heirs upon death. If, however, one son then decided to convert to Protestantism, then the land would automatically default to him.
These laws, though perhaps not enforced as stringently as they could have been, nonetheless contributed to the strong animosity between Ireland and England rooted in religious discrimination. As this book puts it, "Any hope of Irish subjects becoming reconciled to English rule had been soured by religious discrimination and the Roman Catholic Church had become identified in the minds of many people with the oppressed Irish nation."
Source: Percival, John. The Great Famine: Ireland's Potato Famine 1845-51. Viewer Books. New York, New York. 1995.
This entry feeds into this entry.
At this time, around 3/4th of Irish people were Catholic, despite attempts on the behalf of England to convert them to Protestantism. These attemps first took the form of the establishment of the Church of Ireland, but after disappointing results, the mother country turned to force. In the 18th century, if you were Catholic in Ireland and under the rule of England, you could not:
-hold office or practice law
-bear arms or serve as an officer in any armed forces
-buy land
-serve an appreticeship
-attend school
-go abroad to study
-make woollen cloth
-export glassware
(The last two were obviously tied to efforts to strengthen England economically, much like the Navigation Acts.)
As further enticement to convert, any land owned (I'm not sure how this works with the "not buying land" thing) would be divided equally between any male heirs upon death. If, however, one son then decided to convert to Protestantism, then the land would automatically default to him.
These laws, though perhaps not enforced as stringently as they could have been, nonetheless contributed to the strong animosity between Ireland and England rooted in religious discrimination. As this book puts it, "Any hope of Irish subjects becoming reconciled to English rule had been soured by religious discrimination and the Roman Catholic Church had become identified in the minds of many people with the oppressed Irish nation."
Source: Percival, John. The Great Famine: Ireland's Potato Famine 1845-51. Viewer Books. New York, New York. 1995.
This entry feeds into this entry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
