BBC Article

[Nakedmanoncrack]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

an uninteresting note from you. And, another attempt at point scoring. this has the makings of a rerr aul' flag debate. they were not intrinsically "british" were they? from a land occupied by clonialists, who tried there very baddest to keep it that way

Of course they were immigrants, refugees even, I cant believe people are trying to claim otherwise, as though this was in anyway something to be ashamed about.

[CentreLine]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Of course they were immigrants, refugees even, I cant believe people are trying to claim otherwise, as though this was in anyway something to be ashamed about.

“People”? I’m not suggesting it’s shameful to be a refugee or an immigrant. I am pointing out it is not correct to label someone an immigrant if they have moved from one part of a country to another. “Refugee” may fit the bill much more correctly, given the dreadful conditions of the period.
For the record my grandfather moved from, more or less bogland, in Leitrim to Edinburgh where he lived in the Cowgate until 1904. At that time he married and moved out of the city. I never knew him but I do know he was very proud to be Irish in the same way as I am
proud to be a Scot but he was, at that time, as British as I still am now. I don’t know what “people” are finding to argue about. It is up to individuals how they interpret the motives but there is no denying they were British.

[monarch]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes. You just have to look at the way it is used in Brexit arguments or in whipping up right wing elements in all parts of society. Nothing has changed in that respect for a very long time. All of which is why I believe that it is always in the forefront of presentation, written and spoken, when one group in society want to distance themselves from another, just as one part of Britain wanted to do from another part of Britain in the late 19th and in to the 20th century. The, largely very poor and largely catholic, didn’t fit the idle of the gentile, dominant British society, therefore they didn’t belong. They had to be “immigrants”. Our lazy authors of today fail to recognise that. You got to maintain the “us and them”.

Agree. Interesting that the right wing media, especially during the Brexit era, refer to the poorer foreign incomers as immigrants whereas the better off (or maybe sometimes crooked) British nationals who emigrate to Marbella, Torremolinos etc are labelled “ex pats” giving them a greater degree of respectability.

[Mick O'Rourke]

Is immigrant the correct word to describe our forebears who came here from Ireland during The Blight/Irish Famines of the 1840s/and 1870s

Technically it is, as Ireland was then a foreign Country.
As was India and many other Countries at the time,being part of the "Empire"

The Act of Union of 1800/1 established
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

It remained so until 1922.

But it (immigrant)always was and still is a very emotive word/term.

Mick O
Descendant of Irish who fled the famine.

[superfurryhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

“People”? I’m not suggesting it’s shameful to be a refugee or an immigrant. I am pointing out it is not correct to label someone an immigrant if they have moved from one part of a country to another. “Refugee” may fit the bill much more correctly, given the dreadful conditions of the period.
For the record my grandfather moved from, more or less bogland, in Leitrim to Edinburgh where he lived in the Cowgate until 1904. At that time he married and moved out of the city. I never knew him but I do know he was very proud to be Irish in the same way as I am
proud to be a Scot but he was, at that time, as British as I still am now. I don’t know what “people” are finding to argue about. It is up to individuals how they interpret the motives but there is no denying they were British.

Technically they were British, but you also acknowledge that the vast majority of Irish Catholics would not have accepted that point? The populist contemporary view of native Scot’s and English was that the incomers were immigrants too. So, I think describing them as immigrants is reasonable.

You yourself repeatedly refer to them as Irish rather than British, contradicting your own theory?

[FilipinoHibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Of course they were immigrants, refugees even, I cant believe people are trying to claim otherwise, as though this was in anyway something to be ashamed about.

My family were refugees and immigrants - the ended up supporting Hibs over Hearts. I wonder why?

[CentreLine]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Technically they were British, but you also acknowledge that the vast majority of Irish Catholics would not have accepted that point? The populist contemporary view of native Scot’s and English was that the incomers were immigrants too. So, I think describing them as immigrants is reasonable.

You yourself repeatedly refer to them as Irish rather than British, contradicting your own theory?

No contradiction there at all. I refer to myself as Scottish and people from south of the border refer to themselves as English. Both correct but there is no denying we are British. Personally I would prefer not to be.
The Act of Union of 1800 cemented the Union of Great Britain and Irelandas a single country. All part of the British isles and The United Kingdom. A kingdom that had existed sporadically from the 13th century but that was firmly in place from 1544. Ireland was not a colony of Britain, although it was often treated like one, it was part of the United Kingdom and therefore the people British, despite the majority not being happy with that. The justification for executing 14 men for their part in the 1916 uprising, (one of them a very close relation to my grandfather) was because they were British. Ultimately their sacrifice led to the present people of Ireland being very firmly Irish.

[FilipinoHibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No contradiction there at all. I refer to myself as Scottish and people from south of the border refer to themselves as English. Both correct but there is no denying we are British. Personally I would prefer not to be.
The Act of Union of 1800 cemented the Union of Great Britain and Irelandas a single country. All part of the British isles and The United Kingdom. A kingdom that had existed sporadically from the 13th century but that was firmly in place from 1544. Ireland was not a colony of Britain, although it was often treated like one, it was part of the United Kingdom and therefore the people British, despite the majority not being happy with that. The justification for executing 14 men for their part in the 1916 uprising, one of them a very close relation to my grandfather, was because they were British.

Ireland was/is an Irish colony for over 800 years. No voluntary union supported by the majority of the Irish.

[PatHead]

Technically would they have been British and not Irish?

They were part of the United Kingdom but not Britain as Ireland is named separately in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. To me that means that they were always Irish.

[CentreLine]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is immigrant the correct word to describe our forebears who came here from Ireland during The Blight/Irish Famines of the 1840s/and 1870s

Technically it is, as Ireland was then a foreign Country.
As was India and many other Countries at the time,being part of the "Empire"

The Act of Union of 1800/1 established
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

It remained so until 1922.

But it (immigrant)always was and still is a very emotive word/term.

Mick O
Descendant of Irish who fled the famine.

I’m sorry Mick, I have to contradict you. The colonies, such as India, America, Australia etc., were exactly that. Ireland was not a colony but was part of the United Kingdom and it’s people British. In the same way, the Act of Union of 1707 made Scots and English people British. That relationship is very different to being a colonial foreign country. The people of Ireland were British until 1922, however reluctantly. The people of Northern Ireland remain British to this day and that’s a whole other debate that I definitely do not wish to get in to.

[bigwheel]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I’m sorry Mick, I have to contradict you. The colonies, such as India, America, Australia etc., were exactly that. Ireland was not a colony but was part of the United Kingdom and it’s people British. In the same way, the Act of Union of 1707 made Scots and English people British. That relationship is very different to being a colonial foreign country. The people of Ireland were British until 1922, however reluctantly. The people of Northern Ireland remain British to this day and that’s a whole other debate that I definitely do not wish to get in to.

It's a bit more complex than that pre 1801 isn't it...parts of Ireland were maintained as colonies of the English Crown for centuries 1150 onwards...For example, the Pale (Dublin and some surrounding areas) was an English Colony under any definition during large periods of the middle ages. It was ruled by the English Crown and many of it's habitants were of English origin. You are right in your main point though, Ireland as a whole was never an English/British colony..

[Moulin Yarns]

To throw in a bit of less controversial history.

Robert the Bruce was married to Elizabeth de Burgh, daughter of the 2nd Earl of Ulster. It was an 'arranged' marriage, engineered by King Edward 1 to keep Bruce as an ally and took place in Essex where Bruce had an estate.

Why mention this? Well, it shows that Ireland was very much part of English 'territory' in the 14th century.

[Alex Trager]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Interesting point, and not one I'd really considered before.

Agree

[superfurryhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No contradiction there at all. I refer to myself as Scottish and people from south of the border refer to themselves as English. Both correct but there is no denying we are British. Personally I would prefer not to be.
The Act of Union of 1800 cemented the Union of Great Britain and Irelandas a single country. All part of the British isles and The United Kingdom. A kingdom that had existed sporadically from the 13th century but that was firmly in place from 1544. Ireland was not a colony of Britain, although it was often treated like one, it was part of the United Kingdom and therefore the people British, despite the majority not being happy with that. The justification for executing 14 men for their part in the 1916 uprising, (one of them a very close relation to my grandfather) was because they were British. Ultimately their sacrifice led to the present people of Ireland being very firmly Irish.

That’s not the point I made though? I have acknowledged that technically the Irish incomers were under British rule, but I also said that the people who arrived from Ireland didn’t consider themselves British and nor did the people in who’s countries they settled. On that basis, I’m happy with the term immigrants.

I’m a bit puzzled by the history you refer to though. The political entity known as the United Kingdom was surely based on the various treaties of Union, 1707, 1800?

Before the modern era, the English monarchy no doubt long enjoyed the concept of a greater England, in the guise of “Britain”, but it was based on a mythical past and in reality used to justify conquest of other peoples who didn’t want English rule and considered themselves to have a different ethnic/ cultural identity? On that basis the idea that a United Kingdom existed in 1544 is highly spurious. The Irish/ Anglo- Irish were a conquered people, under English rule.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Nice wee film and even better that it will go out on a programme watched by millions of folk who know nothing of the club. Like the folk on an AFC Bournemouth forum, one of whom didn't know Hibs played in Edinburgh and another who was 'surprised' at the quality of our stadium after checking it out on line.

[Mcpakeisgod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Made same journey from Southside to the Inch

When I was growing up there it was nearly all Hibs or lesser greens. Gilmerton was the same. Never up there now but wonder if theres still a big Hibs presence ?

Pretty diluted now mate

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Holy Ground time yet? 😕

[Mick O'Rourke]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Holy Ground time yet? 😕

Aye
Why not ?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs5z5R5gLkU

[CentreLine]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That’s not the point I made though? I have acknowledged that technically the Irish incomers were under British rule, but I also said that the people who arrived from Ireland didn’t consider themselves British and nor did the people in who’s countries they settled. On that basis, I’m happy with the term immigrants.

I’m a bit puzzled by the history you refer to though. The political entity known as the United Kingdom was surely based on the various treaties of Union, 1707, 1800?

Before the modern era, the English monarchy no doubt long enjoyed the concept of a greater England, in the guise of “Britain”, but it was based on a mythical past and in reality used to justify conquest of other peoples who didn’t want English rule and considered themselves to have a different ethnic/ cultural identity? On that basis the idea that a United Kingdom existed in 1544 is highly spurious. The Irish/ Anglo- Irish were a conquered people, under English rule.

Yes I can see your confusion because I don’t want to Write a book and have squeezed 500 years of history in to the use of one word “sporadically“. At different times our neighbours ran all of our countries during that period and I wanted to make that point. Sometimes large parts of France too for that matter. I could, not unreasonably, have gone back to the 12th century for Ireland and 10th century for brief periods in Scotland. As I say I don’t want to write a book, there are plenty out there.

1707 was the act of union that connected Scotland and England as “equal partners” in Union. That union nominally brough wales and Ireland along with England but both had to be formalised. The last act of union involving Ireland, ignoring minor change, was 1800. And of course there has been some much more significan stuff in the more modern era.

The last referendum suggests 45% of Scots that votes do not considered themselves British but we still are. The Irish did something about it at a time when it was possible. Politics is the way to change now though IMHO

[Iggy Pope]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I didn't see that 1st time around.
Beautifully written piece Iggy

Thanks for that.

[majorhibs]

Nae time, lots to come across, but how much prejudice sometimes?

[Tornadoes70]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I’m sorry Mick, I have to contradict you. The colonies, such as India, America, Australia etc., were exactly that. Ireland was not a colony but was part of the United Kingdom and it’s people British. In the same way, the Act of Union of 1707 made Scots and English people British. That relationship is very different to being a colonial foreign country. The people of Ireland were British until 1922, however reluctantly. The people of Northern Ireland remain British to this day and that’s a whole other debate that I definitely do not wish to get in to.

Mostly a bunch of mad foaming at the mouth right wing extremists who require a long spell of governance under a united Ireland to bring them to heel.

[superfurryhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes I can see your confusion because I don’t want to Write a book and have squeezed 500 years of history in to the use of one word “sporadically“. At different times our neighbours ran all of our countries during that period and I wanted to make that point. Sometimes large parts of France too for that matter. I could, not unreasonably, have gone back to the 12th century for Ireland and 10th century for brief periods in Scotland. As I say I don’t want to write a book, there are plenty out there.

1707 was the act of union that connected Scotland and England as “equal partners” in Union. That union nominally brough wales and Ireland along with England but both had to be formalised. The last act of union involving Ireland, ignoring minor change, was 1800. And of course there has been some much more significan stuff in the more modern era.

The last referendum suggests 45% of Scots that votes do not considered themselves British but we still are. The Irish did something about it at a time when it was possible. Politics is the way to change now though IMHO

I suggest the confusion lies at your end, since you can’t address the point I and others made about ethnicity and identity not being the same as political and military governance?

I also explained that the various Kings of England fantasising about a greater England and using military might to try and bring it about didn’t constitute a United Kingdom of anykind. For one, their hold on Scotland extended to a short lived occupation, lasting a decade, and even then there was strife throughout.

Ireland was always Ireland. It was once a conquered land where English and then British rule was imposed by brutal force. People resisted this, except in parts of Ulster where “plantation of people” occured, and finally they regained their independence. The Irish were Irish long before England was conceived and that’s good enough for me.

[CentreLine]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I suggest the confusion lies at your end, since you can’t address the point I and others made about ethnicity and identity not being the same as political and military governance?

I also explained that the various Kings of England fantasising about a greater England and using military might to try and bring it about didn’t constitute a United Kingdom of any kind. For one, their hold on Scotland extended to a short lived occupation, lasting a decade, and even then there was strife throughout.

Ireland was always Ireland. It was once a conquered land where English and then British rule was imposed by brutal force. People resisted this, except in parts of Ulster where “plantation of people” occured, and finally they regained their independence. The Irish were Irish long before England was conceived and that’s good enough for me.

Wow! It looks like you have taken a very selective view of my posts. One of my past relatives, who lived under the same roof as my grandfather, was a signatory to the declaration of independence and executed for his trouble. Something about which I am very proud. I do not, for one minute, deny the fierce pride that Irishmen and women have for their country and nationality. And, although a proud Scot, through my grandfather, I have been equally proud to acknowledge the quarter of my blood that is Irish by gaining Irish citizenship. None of that allows me to deny the fact that all of Ireland, and its people, were British until 1922.

When a study the history of Scotland and Ireland I cannot help but be disgusted at the brutal imposition of British rule and exploitation of our peoples. The same goes for the colonial period and Empire. When I look at the way we, the British, justified and embraced slavery I am ashamed that the Scots people denied themselves the opportunity to break away from that very Britishness as recently as 2014. (Of course in Viking times the largest slave market in the world was Dublin and it did not involve Black Africans).

When I read this political history I also become aware of the very powerful nature of language, especially when justifying a particular attitude towards one section of society. To use a genuinely colonial example, when the peoples of the Indian Sub-Continent rose up against British Rule, we justified armed intervention by calling it "Mutiny". Indian people, in India, objecting to British Colonial rule, but it was "Mutiny". To use a more close to home example, I see the use of the word "Immigrants" as a method of distancing one part of the community from another. The word has the power to do that and is used today in the Brexit debate and in stirring up right wing reaction.

Over centuries of British rule the people of Scotland and Ireland had to put up with all sorts of interventions aimed at bringing us all in to line. Things like test acts, land clearance, religious imposition, etc., etc.. When the British Government failed to adequately intervene in famine ravaged, mainly Western Ireland (and Highland Scotland don't forget), a famine that was eminently avoidable and only affected the down trodden poor, I believe it was a calculated attempt to reduce part of the population by "natural" selection. The reaction of The British Government, and landowners was to abdicate responsibility, offer pathetically inadequate relief and to evict starving people to their fate, all in the conceited belief that to do otherwise would stifle honest enterprise. It was the last straw and eventually led to the "Land War" of the late 19th century. It is little surprise that this led, finally, to armed uprising. Of course the 1916 uprising would not have been possible had it not been for WWI and it was not universally popular in Ireland, especially in very British Dublin. However, the brutal methods and executions carried out by the British Army, on behalf of the British Government, resulted in the galvanising of support for Independence that finally came in 1922 but not without further bloody civil war.

Now I realise that this is a potted version of a very long story but I hope it is enough to convince you that I have a reasonable understanding of the history. I mentioned in an earlier post that I did not wish to write a book on here but I do hope that readers of my post realise that I am in no way trying to be controversial but I would like you, and others, to read my posts rather than glance at them.

Maybe a football forum is not the place for this stuff. Thank goodness there is a game today to take our minds off it. We all have far too much time on our hands when it comes to International breaks.

[superfurryhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Wow! It looks like you have taken a very selective view of my posts. One of my past relatives, who lived under the same roof as my grandfather, was a signatory to the declaration of independence and executed for his trouble. Something about which I am very proud. I do not, for one minute, deny the fierce pride that Irishmen and women have for their country and nationality. And, although a proud Scot, through my grandfather, I have been equally proud to acknowledge the quarter of my blood that is Irish by gaining Irish citizenship. None of that allows me to deny the fact that all of Ireland, and its people, were British until 1922.

When a study the history of Scotland and Ireland I cannot help but be disgusted at the brutal imposition of British rule and exploitation of our peoples. The same goes for the colonial period and Empire. When I look at the way we, the British, justified and embraced slavery I am ashamed that the Scots people denied themselves the opportunity to break away from that very Britishness as recently as 2014. (Of course in Viking times the largest slave market in the world was Dublin and it did not involve Black Africans).

When I read this political history I also become aware of the very powerful nature of language, especially when justifying a particular attitude towards one section of society. To use a genuinely colonial example, when the peoples of the Indian Sub-Continent rose up against British Rule, we justified armed intervention by calling it "Mutiny". Indian people, in India, objecting to British Colonial rule, but it was "Mutiny". To use a more close to home example, I see the use of the word "Immigrants" as a method of distancing one part of the community from another. The word has the power to do that and is used today in the Brexit debate and in stirring up right wing reaction.

Over centuries of British rule the people of Scotland and Ireland had to put up with all sorts of interventions aimed at bringing us all in to line. Things like test acts, land clearance, religious imposition, etc., etc.. When the British Government failed to adequately intervene in famine ravaged, mainly Western Ireland (and Highland Scotland don't forget), a famine that was eminently avoidable and only affected the down trodden poor, I believe it was a calculated attempt to reduce part of the population by "natural" selection. The reaction of The British Government, and landowners was to abdicate responsibility, offer pathetically inadequate relief and to evict starving people to their fate, all in the conceited belief that to do otherwise would stifle honest enterprise. It was the last straw and eventually led to the "Land War" of the late 19th century. It is little surprise that this led, finally, to armed uprising. Of course the 1916 uprising would not have been possible had it not been for WWI and it was not universally popular in Ireland, especially in very British Dublin. However, the brutal methods and executions carried out by the British Army, on behalf of the British Government, resulted in the galvanising of support for Independence that finally came in 1922 but not without further bloody civil war.

Now I realise that this is a potted version of a very long story but I hope it is enough to convince you that I have a reasonable understanding of the history. I mentioned in an earlier post that I did not wish to write a book on here but I do hope that readers of my post realise that I am in no way trying to be controversial but I would like you, and others, to read my posts rather than glance at them.

Maybe a football forum is not the place for this stuff. Thank goodness there is a game today to take our minds off it. We all have far too much time on our hands when it comes to International breaks.

Although I think you do me a disservice by dismissing what I’m saying about nationality and ethnic/ cultural identity, we can agree to differ in our views. You’ve made some fascinating points and I agree with much of what you say. Although my academic background is prehistoric archaeology, I love history and ethnology and I’m sure we could have a fantastic discussion about it over a few pints.

[CentreLine]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Although I think you do me a disservice by dismissing what I’m saying about nationality and ethnic/ cultural identity, we can agree to differ in our views. You’ve made some fascinating points and I agree with much of what you say. Although my academic background is prehistoric archaeology, I love history and ethnology and I’m sure we could have a fantastic discussion about it over a few pints.

Or even a dram since I happen to know a little about that too 🥃

[madsen5]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is immigrant the correct word to describe our forebears who came here from Ireland during The Blight/Irish Famines of the 1840s/and 1870s

Technically it is, as Ireland was then a foreign Country.
As was India and many other Countries at the time,being part of the "Empire"

The Act of Union of 1800/1 established
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

It remained so until 1922.

But it (immigrant)always was and still is a very emotive word/term.

Mick O
Descendant of Irish who fled the famine.

There was no act of union it was a treaty not an act, and it was in 1707 , the union of the crowns was 1603.my grandad was born in Dyers close in the Cowgate in the late 1800's.

[CentreLine]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There was no act of union it was a treaty not an act, and it was in 1707 , the union of the crowns was 1603.

Touché on the Act of Union but don’t get me started on why I believe the expression “Union of the Crowns” is somewhat inaccurate 😉