P.S. Caderyta ceased to be Viceroy of Nueva Espana in 1640. Lamporte was still apparently in Ireland at that stage.
This looks like myth being accepted as history without proper research.
Sid.
I am proud to be a American
-
John Kilmartin
- Contributor
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:50 pm
- Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Hi Sid,
If I understand it correctly it was not independence that Lamporte was fighting but the powers of the Inquisition. Memoirs of an Impostor is the novel by Mexican General Vicente Rica Palacios that put folklore into print but Johnston McCauley in 1929 wrote another novel using the name Zorro in which the setting becomes California and Zorro becomes Diego de la Vega. I'm sure that if Disney were to make Paul Bunyan and his blue ox into an animated feature he would move from the upper Saint John river valley to either the US Pacific Northwest or the US western Great Lakes area as the media feels that anything that is not familiar is not commercially viable.
I don't consider Canada a particularly Anglo-Saxon country with less than 30 % of the population identifying themselves as Protestant and a quarter of the population using the civil code instead of common law never mind being a bilingual country. I also think that the policy of transportation for punishing debtors and lesser criminals may have something to do with the Irish ending up in some countries rather than others. I always find it amusing when citizens of the US make comments about Australia being partially settled by this method ignoring the fact that the same thing occurred in their own country.
If I understand it correctly it was not independence that Lamporte was fighting but the powers of the Inquisition. Memoirs of an Impostor is the novel by Mexican General Vicente Rica Palacios that put folklore into print but Johnston McCauley in 1929 wrote another novel using the name Zorro in which the setting becomes California and Zorro becomes Diego de la Vega. I'm sure that if Disney were to make Paul Bunyan and his blue ox into an animated feature he would move from the upper Saint John river valley to either the US Pacific Northwest or the US western Great Lakes area as the media feels that anything that is not familiar is not commercially viable.
I don't consider Canada a particularly Anglo-Saxon country with less than 30 % of the population identifying themselves as Protestant and a quarter of the population using the civil code instead of common law never mind being a bilingual country. I also think that the policy of transportation for punishing debtors and lesser criminals may have something to do with the Irish ending up in some countries rather than others. I always find it amusing when citizens of the US make comments about Australia being partially settled by this method ignoring the fact that the same thing occurred in their own country.
' Strip war of the mantle of its glories and excitement, and it will disclose a gibbering ghost of pain , grief, dissappointment and despair'
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi John,
My point related to who set up the system of government and held the reins of power in these countries, not their ethnicity. They have all changed greatly in ethnic composition over the centuries but they were all set up predominantly by Britons and retain British precedents in their central legal and governmental systems. Even the US has the Magna Carta on display with its Constitution. The Irish overwhelmingly emigrated to countries that were either the result of a self confessed assertion of traditional rights of Englishmen (the USA) or countries that were still under British rule. (Even England and Scotland were favoured destinations. There are some 750,000 Irish passport holders in the UK at present, which means that there are more Catholic Irish in the UK than there are in Northern Ireland.)
And, despite initial prejudices, the Irish diaspora has prospered as a result. In the 1970s and 1980s the Prime Minister of the UK (Callaghan), the President of the USA (Regan), the PM of Canada (Mulroney), the PM of Australia (Keating) and the PM of New Zealand (Muldoon) were all the most powerful men in each of the "Anglo-Saxon" countries. (Even the then President of Israel was Dublin-born!)
Some Scots try to pretend that they were not full participants in the British Empire, when they were in fact at least proportionally represented. The Irish weren't equal participants in the British Empire, but they were nevertheless significant players and net beneficiaries.
Awful and reprehensible things were done to the Irish by the Anglo-Scots. But that is only part of the story and to tell only half the story does no favours to the wider truth and history. As I proposed above - the Anglo-Scots are both the worst and best thing that ever happened to the Irish. The latter half of the proposition deserves an occasional airing, or nationalist propaganda will continue to have a free hand to tell half truths, exaggerations and outright lies amongst the Irish diaspora. Fortunately, Eire today seems to be the most tolerant and reasonable part of the Irish world. Let's hope Ulstermen and the Irish diaspora catch up.
Cheers,
Sid.
My point related to who set up the system of government and held the reins of power in these countries, not their ethnicity. They have all changed greatly in ethnic composition over the centuries but they were all set up predominantly by Britons and retain British precedents in their central legal and governmental systems. Even the US has the Magna Carta on display with its Constitution. The Irish overwhelmingly emigrated to countries that were either the result of a self confessed assertion of traditional rights of Englishmen (the USA) or countries that were still under British rule. (Even England and Scotland were favoured destinations. There are some 750,000 Irish passport holders in the UK at present, which means that there are more Catholic Irish in the UK than there are in Northern Ireland.)
And, despite initial prejudices, the Irish diaspora has prospered as a result. In the 1970s and 1980s the Prime Minister of the UK (Callaghan), the President of the USA (Regan), the PM of Canada (Mulroney), the PM of Australia (Keating) and the PM of New Zealand (Muldoon) were all the most powerful men in each of the "Anglo-Saxon" countries. (Even the then President of Israel was Dublin-born!)
Some Scots try to pretend that they were not full participants in the British Empire, when they were in fact at least proportionally represented. The Irish weren't equal participants in the British Empire, but they were nevertheless significant players and net beneficiaries.
Awful and reprehensible things were done to the Irish by the Anglo-Scots. But that is only part of the story and to tell only half the story does no favours to the wider truth and history. As I proposed above - the Anglo-Scots are both the worst and best thing that ever happened to the Irish. The latter half of the proposition deserves an occasional airing, or nationalist propaganda will continue to have a free hand to tell half truths, exaggerations and outright lies amongst the Irish diaspora. Fortunately, Eire today seems to be the most tolerant and reasonable part of the Irish world. Let's hope Ulstermen and the Irish diaspora catch up.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Ernest,
I had a look at the Lamports' origins. Apparently they were an Anglo-Norman aristocratic family and not actually Irish at all. They fell out with the British during the Reformation over religious issues. Before that they were part of the apparatus of Anglo-Norman dominance over the Irish.
Cheers,
Sid.
I had a look at the Lamports' origins. Apparently they were an Anglo-Norman aristocratic family and not actually Irish at all. They fell out with the British during the Reformation over religious issues. Before that they were part of the apparatus of Anglo-Norman dominance over the Irish.
Cheers,
Sid.
Sid
Your Interpretation of Boston Irish is correct, But like anything your interpretation is not the whole truth but is true in the majority. Our argument points directly at past policy decisions of nations, vs how they carry out policy today. Your point is nations are exempt from past mistakes as long as they have seen there errors of thier ways and act differently in the present.
The US is one of the only(western and of global impotance) countries in the world besides Great Britain that is still the same government since WW2. Which the US a target for both interpreting past policy and present. While your points are good, its easy to judge the US now and past. We just cant change governments when things go bad. We have to live with the mistakes and try our best to make them right. The US must answer to past and present thats not easy. Slack please
And while its easy to characterize Boston Irish as removed which I agree with too some extent. Historically you must remember the potato famine was 160 years ago, my grand mother was 90 when she died her mother was 87 Im 44. American Irish were starved out of Ireland and we Irish dont forget. Im over it but you can see why Boston might still be republican while finding a republican in Ireland might be hard. Im two generations removed from renting a potato farm in Ireland that went bad.
Vpatrick
Your Interpretation of Boston Irish is correct, But like anything your interpretation is not the whole truth but is true in the majority. Our argument points directly at past policy decisions of nations, vs how they carry out policy today. Your point is nations are exempt from past mistakes as long as they have seen there errors of thier ways and act differently in the present.
The US is one of the only(western and of global impotance) countries in the world besides Great Britain that is still the same government since WW2. Which the US a target for both interpreting past policy and present. While your points are good, its easy to judge the US now and past. We just cant change governments when things go bad. We have to live with the mistakes and try our best to make them right. The US must answer to past and present thats not easy. Slack please
And while its easy to characterize Boston Irish as removed which I agree with too some extent. Historically you must remember the potato famine was 160 years ago, my grand mother was 90 when she died her mother was 87 Im 44. American Irish were starved out of Ireland and we Irish dont forget. Im over it but you can see why Boston might still be republican while finding a republican in Ireland might be hard. Im two generations removed from renting a potato farm in Ireland that went bad.
Vpatrick
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi vPatrick,
I presume you refer to constitutional continuity in the USA and UK. That is certainly a defining characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon world - evolution rather than revolution.
The scale of the Potato Famine and the various British injustices are well known, and I am not surprised that it still looms large in the minds of Irish Bostonians. However, it is surrounded by half truths.
For example, who comments on the fact that the Irish population had multiplied several times under British misrule. This implies that along with the well known characteristics of British misrule there must also have been redeeming features of British administration before the potato famine.
While it is true that the the Gaelic language retreated under British rule, who points out that it has also retreated since independence?
The black legend was put about in America that Queen Victoria gave only £5 to Irish famine relief. In fact she gave £5,000, which would be worth a million today.
And who knows that the impact of the famine was put off by a whole year by food relief from the rest of Britain?
By presenting a partial, unremittingly bleak and negative picture of British rule, exiled Irish nationalists have stored up a reservoir of blind hate in parts of the Irish diaspora that is desperately ill informed. And they have the nerve to do so from soil that a logical extension of their arguments about Ireland would imply ought to belong to Native Americans or Australian Aborigines! Fortunately this extremism seems to be on the wain.
Cheers,
Sid.
I presume you refer to constitutional continuity in the USA and UK. That is certainly a defining characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon world - evolution rather than revolution.
The scale of the Potato Famine and the various British injustices are well known, and I am not surprised that it still looms large in the minds of Irish Bostonians. However, it is surrounded by half truths.
For example, who comments on the fact that the Irish population had multiplied several times under British misrule. This implies that along with the well known characteristics of British misrule there must also have been redeeming features of British administration before the potato famine.
While it is true that the the Gaelic language retreated under British rule, who points out that it has also retreated since independence?
The black legend was put about in America that Queen Victoria gave only £5 to Irish famine relief. In fact she gave £5,000, which would be worth a million today.
And who knows that the impact of the famine was put off by a whole year by food relief from the rest of Britain?
By presenting a partial, unremittingly bleak and negative picture of British rule, exiled Irish nationalists have stored up a reservoir of blind hate in parts of the Irish diaspora that is desperately ill informed. And they have the nerve to do so from soil that a logical extension of their arguments about Ireland would imply ought to belong to Native Americans or Australian Aborigines! Fortunately this extremism seems to be on the wain.
Cheers,
Sid.
Sid
We are doomed to disagree about everything. But to suggest that the British had an amicable policy towards the Irish during the potato famine in any way shape or form is simply not true. You seem to pick the wrong oppressors. I think further argument between us is futile. But I enjoyed our debate,
Respect
Vpatrick
We are doomed to disagree about everything. But to suggest that the British had an amicable policy towards the Irish during the potato famine in any way shape or form is simply not true. You seem to pick the wrong oppressors. I think further argument between us is futile. But I enjoyed our debate,
Respect
Vpatrick
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Vpatrick,
I am not suggesting that the English had an amicable policy towards the Irish during the potato famine. However, to suggest that they had an unremittingly hostile attitude towards the Irish is equally untrue. There was no attempted genocide, only a mixture of culpable British indifference and gross incompetence.
That the shortfall in food as a result of the first year of partial failure of the Irish potato crop was met reasonably effectively by imports of food is now a well established fact. However, the total failure of the potato crop the following year was not met by the British with adequate compensatory grain imports with massive resultant loss of life. That Britain had the resources to buy the necessary food is undoubted, and so the British Government was undoubtedly heavily culpable for the deaths in the Potato Famine.
However, Irish Nationalist (essentially Sinn Fein/IRA) propaganda doesn't want a grey picture, however truthful or accurate. It wants everything in black and white. Good and Bad. It is therefore opposed to a true understanding of what happened (and is happening) because its political and financial credit in the Irish diaspora is heavily dependent on a black legend that forever fixes the Irish as perpetual victims and the British as universally bad. Neither is true. The historical picture is far more complex.
For example, have you ever wondered what happened to the vast majority of the ±500,000 Protestants who lived in Eire's 26 counties after 1923, or why a recent Irish book was titled "Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy"? It is absolutely vital that the Irish everywhere know the full tale of their own history, not just nationalism's simplistic black legend.
Sure, British rule was often vicious and exploitative, but that isn't the whole story. Fortunately, the Irish of Eire are increasingly aware of this.
Cheers,
Sid.
P.S. Did you know that the "Irish Pub" is actually based on licencing laws introduced in the era of British rule? Or that the oldest archaelogical building remains in Dublin show Anglo-Saxon, not Viking, features? Or that there are more people of Irish descent in Great Britain than in Ireland? The Irish and British have been far more closely intermingled for far longer than either nationalism or orangeism are prepared to admit.
I am not suggesting that the English had an amicable policy towards the Irish during the potato famine. However, to suggest that they had an unremittingly hostile attitude towards the Irish is equally untrue. There was no attempted genocide, only a mixture of culpable British indifference and gross incompetence.
That the shortfall in food as a result of the first year of partial failure of the Irish potato crop was met reasonably effectively by imports of food is now a well established fact. However, the total failure of the potato crop the following year was not met by the British with adequate compensatory grain imports with massive resultant loss of life. That Britain had the resources to buy the necessary food is undoubted, and so the British Government was undoubtedly heavily culpable for the deaths in the Potato Famine.
However, Irish Nationalist (essentially Sinn Fein/IRA) propaganda doesn't want a grey picture, however truthful or accurate. It wants everything in black and white. Good and Bad. It is therefore opposed to a true understanding of what happened (and is happening) because its political and financial credit in the Irish diaspora is heavily dependent on a black legend that forever fixes the Irish as perpetual victims and the British as universally bad. Neither is true. The historical picture is far more complex.
For example, have you ever wondered what happened to the vast majority of the ±500,000 Protestants who lived in Eire's 26 counties after 1923, or why a recent Irish book was titled "Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy"? It is absolutely vital that the Irish everywhere know the full tale of their own history, not just nationalism's simplistic black legend.
Sure, British rule was often vicious and exploitative, but that isn't the whole story. Fortunately, the Irish of Eire are increasingly aware of this.
Cheers,
Sid.
P.S. Did you know that the "Irish Pub" is actually based on licencing laws introduced in the era of British rule? Or that the oldest archaelogical building remains in Dublin show Anglo-Saxon, not Viking, features? Or that there are more people of Irish descent in Great Britain than in Ireland? The Irish and British have been far more closely intermingled for far longer than either nationalism or orangeism are prepared to admit.