Scotch-Irish-L Archives

Archiver > Scotch-Irish > 1998-02 > 0886814550


From: "George & Kay Whitehead" <>
Subject: Re: Fw: The Irish in America
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 18:22:30 -0700


Linda,

Dour & durable - both used to describe the folks you
mention come from the same root word. King James
depended upon our ancestors to hold the line when things went badly. His
faith was not misplaced. Did
not an elder of the kirk pray that he might always be right, "for thou
knowest Lord, I am hard to turn".

Appreciate your insights...

George
-----Original Message-----
From: linda Merle <>
To: <>
Cc: <>
Date: Friday, February 06, 1998 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: The Irish in America

>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: