1 no i was nt taught anything at school
2/they were and as you pointed out they were aimed at protestants also
jewish ,quakers
3/no after 1922 the freestate later the rep had what they wanted and the i.r.a killed not because of the 16/17 century ,they killed because they wanted a united ireland
No 1 - yes
No 2 - yes
No 3 - as william
but I would expess 2 as an ugly chapter in UK history.
I agree with Aileen. They're not a stain on Irish history, instead British (but I know what you mean).
I've an (inherited) little legal tome on some of the Penal Laws, I might dive into it and reproduce some of the 'gems'.
I don't think I quite meant what EWI does or rather perhaps not for the same reason. It's just that the UK is my country and all of Ireland was once in the UK and some of it still is and so this is part of the history of the UK.
Sorry very wordy comment.
william
"no after 1922 the freestate later the rep had what they wanted and the i.r.a killed not because of the 16/17 century ,they killed because they wanted a united ireland"
I'm not talking about the Provisional IRA I'm talking about the IRA that fought in the War of Independence. Before the Free State. Can you understand why there was a desire to fight?
I'm pleased you acknowledge that they were an ugly part of Irish/British history as we need to acknowledge the wrongs on all sides, from all times.
The Penal Laws would probably be the very lowest point of British misrule in Ireland. And that's saying something.
It is almost impossible to believe that such things ever existed. It is completely impossible to understand Irish history without understanding these laws and their aftermath in later years.
Where did terrorism in Ireland started? With those who wrote these laws, and those who enforced them.
It was a different time, but if this legislation was not state terrorism, then the phrase simply has no meaning.
Phantom,
I agree 100 per cent. You simply cannot leave out this hugely important part of Irish history when analysing why the men of 1916 took up arms. Here is a telling statement from Sir Matthew Nathan, who was assistant secretary to Augustine Birrell, the chief secretary for Ireland. Both men resigned after the 1916 Rising and Sir Matthew Nathan said this to the inquiry into the Rising:
"The spirit of what is today called Sinn Féinism is mainly composed of the old hatred and distrust of the British connection, always noticeable in all classes and in all places, varying in degree, and finding different ways of expression, but always there as the background of Irish politics and character...This dislike, hatred, disloyalty (so unintelligible to many Englishmen) is hard to define, but easy to discern, though incapable of exact measurement from year to year. You may assume it is always there, and always dangerous..."
I find Mr Nathan's comments quie revealing. The fact is, the British/Irish connection was built on oppression and discrimination. The backlash was always going to come and indeed it came in varying degrees. With Tone in 1798, with Emmet in 1803, with the Young Irelanders in 1848, the IRB in 1867 and again by the Easter rebels in 1916. If you beat down a people they will hit back and there is no shame in such a backlash. The shame is that the backlash had to happen at all.
It is almost impossible to believe that such things ever existed.
It's not in the least "almost impossible". Such laws were unremarkable in the context of 17th and 18th century Europe.
Get an understanding of history.
ok the ira that fought in that war did the right thing ive always admired the deeds done by these men and all others who had for years giving resinstance.in the north it was different as we all know but they fought for what the belived in
Willow
Religious persecution certainly existed elsewhere in Europe, and if your read of my brilliant post led you to believe otherwise, then a remedial reading class may be in order.
For the sake of the logic-impaired, allow me to rephrase " it is almost impossible to believe that such things existed in Ireland, elsewhere in Europe, or anywhere on the entire planet, as we, with the possible exception of the males of the Paisley family , have moved well beyond such sectarian evil. "
Now if we move back to Ireland, these laws were not only anti-Catholic. The intent was to oppress and demoralize the native population of the ( occupied ) country. The fact that such severe, inhuman laws were not imposed in England would be evidence of this.
Phantom
If you have an understanding of history, it's not "almost impossible" to believe such laws existed in any of the places you mention.
willow
An explanation would be wasted on you. Other readers had no problem understanding the meaning of my comments. Have a nice day.
it was nt occupied persay it was annexed like many countrys were in those days the strong took the borders of europe changed so often ask eta on that one
Accept this wasn't a border...it was an entirely seperate island.....
You can have maritime borders, you idiot!
willow
"You can have maritime borders, you idiot!"
willow, there's no need to call someone an idiot when making your point. Consider that a warning.
For the record, the definition of "border":
"the line dividing two countries"
I'm pretty sure you can't have a line cutting through the sea.
dont the have the 12 mile limit. that is concidered territorial waters so is nt that water borders ?
"1. Were you taught about the Penal Laws in school as children?"
Yes, not in great detail though.
"2. Do you acknowledge that these Penal Laws were a disgraceful and ugly chapter in Irish history?"
Yes, though as has been mentioned not out of the ordinary in Europe at that time.
"3. Do you accept that they played a key part in later generations wanting to make the British pay for their mistreatment of the Irish people?"
Yes, though with some qualifications. Catholic Emancipation came in the 1820s, so the Penal Laws can't be held directly responsible for what happened a century after this. However doubtless the persecution of their religion was a powerful folk memory for Irish Catholics. On the other hand, Ulster Presbyterians were also discriminated against (see the Test Acts for example), yet they were later incorporated into 'loyalism'. I've always thought an intriguing question is what would have happened with Irish nationalism had the Act of Union brought Catholic Emancipation as was originally planned - would Irish Catholics have seen the Union as their saviour in this way?
Mike
"I've always thought an intriguing question is what would have happened with Irish nationalism had the Act of Union brought Catholic Emancipation as was originally planned - would Irish Catholics have seen the Union as their saviour in this way?"
I would say yes seeing as the Catholic church would have been on the side of the government, however a key moment in Irish history was how the British responded to the Great Famine which convinced many people that the Union was not of benefit to Ireland.
What the f*** are you on about maritime borders? I'm more than well aware of bloody maritime borders, as I am the obvious historical references you use to try and make your simple points. My point, which I still stand by, is that Ireland's situation is fairly unique when compared to the rest of Europe. You cannot debate the physical borders of the actual island compared with countries in Europe. If you really want to debate being 'annexed' as opposed to 'occupied' go ahead....if a foreign army came oversees and set up shop in Britain, I don't think we'd be talking about 'annexed' borders but rather foreign occupation, which is exactly what the majority of our Irish ancestors considered themselves to be under.
p.s anyone who is reduced to name calling rather than refuting an argument intelligently looses my respect immediately. I can only imagine how closed minded you are.
and parts of europe are different countrys that grew from small, ireland went in reverse the border made two different places rep of ireland and northern ireland its no different to rest of europe as cyprus is the same
william,
Unfortunately for some, the ROI and NI are not that different.
Ireland is an island and we're separated from everybody else.
thats true for some but in history the strong got rich and the weak got conquered like britian did by the romans in the early days and they got rid of them like the rep did but more in the north wanted to be british back in the day(1916-1922)
UI
I'm pretty sure you can't have a line cutting through the sea.
Why are you "pretty sure" about that?
(You're wrong, by the way.)
willow
"Why are you "pretty sure" about that?"
Such an impressive structure seems beyond the realms of possibility.
I don't think I quite meant what EWI does or rather perhaps not for the same reason. It's just that the UK is my country and all of Ireland was once in the UK
Not by choice. Do you accept this?
Back in the early days of the troubles, I was asked, "as the designated irish" why the IRA was fighting. I remembered my grandfather and the cigar boxes at the end of the bar in the irish saloon in Jersey City, and the talk, and answered, "because they want their f***ing country back". The subject never came up again.
Commenting by HaloScan
