Scotch-Irish-L Archives

Archiver > Scotch-Irish > 1998-02 > 0886788745


From: John Carpenter <>
Subject: Re: Fw: The Irish in America
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:12:25 -0800 (PST)


I believe you're preaching to the choir, but that
doesn't make the message any less valid. At least
many Ulstermen, Orange or Green, know that they can
only live together if they allow each other to live.
If they can persuade the English and the other
Ulstermen of it, things will improve.

---linda Merle wrote:
>
> 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
>
>

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.co

This thread: