Scotch-Irish-L Archives

Archiver > Scotch-Irish > 1998-02 > 0886780824


From: linda Merle <>
Subject: Re: Fw: The Irish in America
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 08:00:24 -0800


Bill said

> It is a crying shame that the Plantation Undertakers didn't realize that
> by taking up residence in Northern Ireland they were converting themselves
> from Scotch to Irish.

<grin> From what I've read actually it was their expressed intent to NOT
convert them from Scots to Irish. The conversion of English to Anglo if
not outright "wild" Irish had been an issue of concern for centuries. It
is why laws were passed in the middle ages making intermarriage illegal,
why Irish within the Pale were required to adopt English surnames and
other English habits, why they were not allowed at some times to live
within the Pale at all. Other than the distaste felt at this conversion,
it had serious consequences and possibly cost the English the colony.
Ie the Anglo Irish fought among themselves constantly. They destroyed
enough of their own a number of times that not enough able men were
left to defend and manage the colony.The last earl of Ulster was
assassinated
by Anglo Irish tennants --not Irish.

"A History of Medieval Ireland" by A J OTway-Ruthven is the most recent
and most detailed history I've read.

What King James liked about the Scots is they didn't tend to merge
and they were dependibly themselves. He depended on those traits to
make the colony succeed. Down in the "felds" of
the Ulster plantation where the priests and squires controled people,
like in England, your "race" was carefully noted. It was noted in 1610
when the Plantation was set up (see Hanna, the Scotch Irish - complete
lists of the early grantees and their race) and even in 1831 (if I
recall
correctly) in the Carrickfergus courts your religion -- an
oversimplification
for the "racial" marker but one that did practically separate the "sheep
and the goats". Now...we don't do this in America
today -- it's not significant. But it was made significant in Ulster by
design by King James. And even today -- what's the first thing you
think when you hear someone was killed in NI? What's their religion,
that's what. And then in your mind, unless you have done a bang up job
of liberating yourself from King James' brainwashing, you know whether
to feel really bad or just a little, or maybe just disgusted. But in any
case I suspect you do want to know the religious tag and it impacts
resultant feelings.

I think we've been brainwashed by King James.

> This was readily apparent in the New World which
> considered all immigrants from Ulster to be Irish.

Yes, but the folk in the Mass Bay Colony also thought the Indians were
the Ten Lost Tribes. Neither consideration proves that the newcomers
were
what they were claimed to be.

And now in 1998 we need to acknowledge that most Ulsterfolk adopt one
of two ethnic identities which history has given them little choice but
to do. And that the way forward is to acknowledge that and to find a
way to forge a new identity -- which is inclusive of both ethniticies --
or some other solution which we cannot foresee because only our children
can. I don't find denying the ethnic problem's validity helpful.
A new "Irish" ethnicity must evolve that is inclusive, not exclusive.

Linda Merle

This thread: