Ireland
-
What is it with England, anyway (I have English in me, so I'm allowed to say this:-D )? Some of their history, that is. Now adays, at least that I'm aware of, they don't have superiority problems. But think about their relationship with the Scottish in the 14th century (William Wallace, Braveheart), with the American settlers in the 18th century, and whenever it was that they came to Ireland. If that is indeed the history (sinse I don't have the text's in front of me), England has been quite the bully in the past, haven't they? This is nothing more than a rhetorical question, but what has changed between then, and now (other than the UN and nuclear weopons)? Wild. Thanks for the info, Chris! Jamie Nordmeyer Portland, Oregon, USA
I think the two World Wars had a lot to do with it, but the "attitude of British superiority" didn't really die out until after (I guess) the 1960s when the UK started to become a multi-cultural society. Andy Metcalfe - Sonardyne International Ltd
(andy.metcalfe@lineone.net)
http://www.resorg.co.uk"I used to be a medieval re-enactor, but I'm (nearly) alright now..."
-
Hey, I was reading on Yahoo! that there is more fighting going on between the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. Why is the fighting going on between them? I can't seem to find anything on the web that really talks about it. Is it religious differences, or is it because of land dispute, where one side has mostly Catholics, and one side has mostly Protestants, so it only LOOKS like a religious war? Please, for the sake of getting a neutral, fact based answer, please don't answer if you have religious opinions on the matter. Thanks. Jamie Nordmeyer Portland, Oregon, USA
The North of Ireland has always been an unusually violent area. Long before the coming of Christianity, the clans of the O'Neals and the McDonalds and others fought bloody battles for that land. In fact, Scotland was settled by Irish tribes escaping the violence of Ulster. The descendents of those same tribes formed the bulk of the "Scots-Irish" who resettled in Ireland as protestants. The only role religion plays is that it is currently the best excuse either side has to want to kill the other. If it were not religion, the lines would quickly reform over some other equally petty issue and the violence would go on.
-
The North of Ireland has always been an unusually violent area. Long before the coming of Christianity, the clans of the O'Neals and the McDonalds and others fought bloody battles for that land. In fact, Scotland was settled by Irish tribes escaping the violence of Ulster. The descendents of those same tribes formed the bulk of the "Scots-Irish" who resettled in Ireland as protestants. The only role religion plays is that it is currently the best excuse either side has to want to kill the other. If it were not religion, the lines would quickly reform over some other equally petty issue and the violence would go on.
Very interesting... Thanks for the info, Stan! :) I've been trying to figure this whole thing out now for a while. Jamie Nordmeyer Portland, Oregon, USA
-
I agree with you - it does (history and politics are full of examples). Wallace and Edward were products of their time - both were aristocrats (Wallace was the son of a minor Scottish noble), and both were equally vicious with those who stood in their way (Wallace wasn't above burning Scottish villages to stop the English taking them). One postscript to the story is what eventually happened to Edward's son (Edward II) - he was murdered by his wife and son in a pretty unpleasant manner (clue: it involved a hot poker). Not a good time to live in. Andy Metcalfe - Sonardyne International Ltd
(andy.metcalfe@lineone.net)
http://www.resorg.co.uk"I used to be a medieval re-enactor, but I'm (nearly) alright now..."
Ya, I believe that. Hollywood has a nack for inflating one charectors side to make a better movie. I also read that both Longshanks and Wallace were huge men, especially for their day. Both were over 6'5", from what I remember, and they were both behemoths (very muscular). And though I didn't know it was his wife and son that killed him, I do know the story of how Edward II died. OOOUUUCCCHHH!!! :laugh: Jamie Nordmeyer Portland, Oregon, USA
-
Hey, I was reading on Yahoo! that there is more fighting going on between the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. Why is the fighting going on between them? I can't seem to find anything on the web that really talks about it. Is it religious differences, or is it because of land dispute, where one side has mostly Catholics, and one side has mostly Protestants, so it only LOOKS like a religious war? Please, for the sake of getting a neutral, fact based answer, please don't answer if you have religious opinions on the matter. Thanks. Jamie Nordmeyer Portland, Oregon, USA
The guys at The Onion have a solution to this, as well as other regional squabbles: http://www.theonion.com/onion3723/west\_bank.html :-D -John
-
Ya, I believe that. Hollywood has a nack for inflating one charectors side to make a better movie. I also read that both Longshanks and Wallace were huge men, especially for their day. Both were over 6'5", from what I remember, and they were both behemoths (very muscular). And though I didn't know it was his wife and son that killed him, I do know the story of how Edward II died. OOOUUUCCCHHH!!! :laugh: Jamie Nordmeyer Portland, Oregon, USA
Complete English history, as gathered from Mel Gibson movies...... Then again he is Australian, and raised in the US... Just wondering where Mad Max fits in (Which, incidentally, was filmed mostly on my Uncle's property in Broken Hill) :D Senior Test Engineer GLI Australia www.gli.com.au
-
Complete English history, as gathered from Mel Gibson movies...... Then again he is Australian, and raised in the US... Just wondering where Mad Max fits in (Which, incidentally, was filmed mostly on my Uncle's property in Broken Hill) :D Senior Test Engineer GLI Australia www.gli.com.au
Well me laddy, according to the yanks *looks around and backs into a corner quickly*, they captured Enigma (the German U-Boat communications encryption device) first, not the British. ala U571. Great pop-corn movie but really... the Brits did it first and having a few lines of text at the end of the movie really does not constitute good intent towards historical-accuracy. But then again, if you don't have stars and stripes in it, it won't sell. regards, Paul Watson Cape Town, South Africa e: paulmwatson@email.com w: vergen.org
-
The guys at The Onion have a solution to this, as well as other regional squabbles: http://www.theonion.com/onion3723/west\_bank.html :-D -John
Ethniklashistan was formed on the day Apartheid was overthrown (I love that, how can Apartheid have been overthrown when the apartheid president very nicely stepped aside... but then again revolt and coupes are so much more news worth arent they?) in South Africa. I could list all the cultures, ethnicities, tribes, races, religions and what not we have in our rainbow nation but I am sure there is a limit on how much one can write in this text area box. Not only do we have have the entire spectrum in SA but we also have people like myself, who have no culture, race, religion of ethnic right to live. Actually I do think we are missing Hutus, but that is mainly due to the Zulus intense dislike for Hutus. Instead of grenade and mortar attacks we have drive by corruption, comes in three flavours: BMW, Mercedes and Lear Jet Instead of ethnic cleansing we have affirmative action. Instead of... believe me we can claim to have it all in SA. thanks for the link though John, good laugh it is indeed, and not far off from what half the world would gladly do if it werent so "terribly, terribly wrong. Now everyone lets hug". ;P regards, Paul Watson Cape Town, South Africa e: paulmwatson@email.com w: vergen.org
-
Well me laddy, according to the yanks *looks around and backs into a corner quickly*, they captured Enigma (the German U-Boat communications encryption device) first, not the British. ala U571. Great pop-corn movie but really... the Brits did it first and having a few lines of text at the end of the movie really does not constitute good intent towards historical-accuracy. But then again, if you don't have stars and stripes in it, it won't sell. regards, Paul Watson Cape Town, South Africa e: paulmwatson@email.com w: vergen.org
Historical accuracy, well if you want that ask Ronald Reagan about Vietnam and he'll tell you that Mr Stallone's movie was an accurate portrayal... :-) Stephen Kellett -- C++/Java/Win NT/Unix variants Memory leaks/corruptions/performance/system problems. UK based. Problems with RSI/WRULD? Contact me for advice.
-
The North of Ireland has always been an unusually violent area. Long before the coming of Christianity, the clans of the O'Neals and the McDonalds and others fought bloody battles for that land. In fact, Scotland was settled by Irish tribes escaping the violence of Ulster. The descendents of those same tribes formed the bulk of the "Scots-Irish" who resettled in Ireland as protestants. The only role religion plays is that it is currently the best excuse either side has to want to kill the other. If it were not religion, the lines would quickly reform over some other equally petty issue and the violence would go on.
Though one has to marvel at the wonder that is organised religion and it's historically very violent attributes. They probably would carry on the fight even after religion, but mainly because religion started it all and they cant very well put down the AK's now and hug their former enemies. That would just not be on. Pride and former honour are far to powerful to ignore. regards, Paul Watson Cape Town, South Africa e: paulmwatson@email.com w: vergen.org
-
Though one has to marvel at the wonder that is organised religion and it's historically very violent attributes. They probably would carry on the fight even after religion, but mainly because religion started it all and they cant very well put down the AK's now and hug their former enemies. That would just not be on. Pride and former honour are far to powerful to ignore. regards, Paul Watson Cape Town, South Africa e: paulmwatson@email.com w: vergen.org
Well, being of Scots-Irish descent, I can't resist a good argument. I am not a person of deep religious conviction myself, however, I do not think religion has "historically very violent attributes". Religion is only violent to the extent that humanity is violent, and humanity is violent only to the extent the nature from which we have been derived, is violent. If you claim that the North of Ireland is violent because of religion, than why was it just as violent when everyone there worshipped the same gods, spoke the same language, and were ethnically indistinquisable from one another? The philosophical war against religion going on today, primarily by the left, is itself just another manifestation of the same violent processes that religion itself is accused of. It never ends. Most who attack religion are the same species of brain dead true believers that make religion, or any philosophy, so dangerous.
-
Well, being of Scots-Irish descent, I can't resist a good argument. I am not a person of deep religious conviction myself, however, I do not think religion has "historically very violent attributes". Religion is only violent to the extent that humanity is violent, and humanity is violent only to the extent the nature from which we have been derived, is violent. If you claim that the North of Ireland is violent because of religion, than why was it just as violent when everyone there worshipped the same gods, spoke the same language, and were ethnically indistinquisable from one another? The philosophical war against religion going on today, primarily by the left, is itself just another manifestation of the same violent processes that religion itself is accused of. It never ends. Most who attack religion are the same species of brain dead true believers that make religion, or any philosophy, so dangerous.
By way of your arguement, "Religion is only violent to the extent that humanity is violent...", we could simply just skirt every conflict and say "oh but it is human nature, violent creatures are we." I do agree, we are a rather violent lot and a lot of it has to do with our origins in the fight for survival. But frankly there is not much we can do to kerb those violent tendencies. We are progressing as a race, I believe, becoming more "civilised" and realising the extent of our actions to a degree where we are actively starting to try and right the wrongs, and also prevent wrongs being wrought. However to reach a kind of stability from which we can progress further we need to look at the roots of our beliefs and change them for the good of everyone else, no matter how strongly you believe in them. Christians believe their way is the only way, Islamics -while protesting that their religion literally means peace- believe they are better than the rest and all that oppose them (in whatever way) must simply be cleansed from their world. Living in SA we have quite a gamut of religions and beliefs. From staunch dutch reformists who believe "darkies are animals and should be used as such", to rabid Christians hell bent on "helping" everyone (but through opression rather than enlightenment). From the muslims who feel everyone else is unclean, to the Jews who think they are a cut above the rest. From the hindus who preach peace, tolerance etc. and then persecute in the lust for power to the proto-religion's of the African tribes who want the trappings of the west but not its responsibilities. I know there are plenty of other reasons for our wars, clashes, skirmishes and disagreements, but on every continent, in every country, through every town one will find religious intolerance which leads to hatred and violence. My history is not very good but I believe even the good old U.S of A (bless their socks) has had it's fair shair of religious violence. --------- Anyway. Being of Scottish descent and not a believer in organised religion (very different from personal religion) I can only wish that more people practised what they preach. regards, Paul Watson Cape Town, South Africa e: paulmwatson@email.com w: vergen.org
-
By way of your arguement, "Religion is only violent to the extent that humanity is violent...", we could simply just skirt every conflict and say "oh but it is human nature, violent creatures are we." I do agree, we are a rather violent lot and a lot of it has to do with our origins in the fight for survival. But frankly there is not much we can do to kerb those violent tendencies. We are progressing as a race, I believe, becoming more "civilised" and realising the extent of our actions to a degree where we are actively starting to try and right the wrongs, and also prevent wrongs being wrought. However to reach a kind of stability from which we can progress further we need to look at the roots of our beliefs and change them for the good of everyone else, no matter how strongly you believe in them. Christians believe their way is the only way, Islamics -while protesting that their religion literally means peace- believe they are better than the rest and all that oppose them (in whatever way) must simply be cleansed from their world. Living in SA we have quite a gamut of religions and beliefs. From staunch dutch reformists who believe "darkies are animals and should be used as such", to rabid Christians hell bent on "helping" everyone (but through opression rather than enlightenment). From the muslims who feel everyone else is unclean, to the Jews who think they are a cut above the rest. From the hindus who preach peace, tolerance etc. and then persecute in the lust for power to the proto-religion's of the African tribes who want the trappings of the west but not its responsibilities. I know there are plenty of other reasons for our wars, clashes, skirmishes and disagreements, but on every continent, in every country, through every town one will find religious intolerance which leads to hatred and violence. My history is not very good but I believe even the good old U.S of A (bless their socks) has had it's fair shair of religious violence. --------- Anyway. Being of Scottish descent and not a believer in organised religion (very different from personal religion) I can only wish that more people practised what they preach. regards, Paul Watson Cape Town, South Africa e: paulmwatson@email.com w: vergen.org
Still, you skirt my essential point. It is an easy thing to demonstrate that religion is not the cause of human violence. That cause lies much deeper within our intrinsic nature. Obviously, one could solve the problem of religion, yet not solve the problem of violence. So why is there so much emphasis on solving the problem of religion among certain philosophical quarters? Could it be that, far from having any desire to solve the problem of violence, violence is in fact a useful ally to those wanting to solve the problem or religion, simply because religion represents a competing source of moral authority? Speaking of competing sources of moral authority, what sense does it make to speak of righting wrongs or to "...prevent wrongs being wrought."? In the absence of religion what does it mean for something to be "wrong"? If "wrong" is not defined by God, than by who? You? Me? The State? Do we decide democratically the difference between right and wrong? The entire reason statements about right vs. wrong even make any sense in modern dialogue is due directly to the influence of religion upon our perceptions of the human condition. The entire thrust of your argument comes roaring out of the sentiments religion itself has imbued into our character. The irony is that without right vs. wrong being defined by a people's body of commonly held, grass-roots, non-secular, religious beliefs, it must be defined by the state. The state, as always, will be more than happy to fill that void in our lives. God only knows where that will end. More gas chambers, I'm sure. :rose:
-
Still, you skirt my essential point. It is an easy thing to demonstrate that religion is not the cause of human violence. That cause lies much deeper within our intrinsic nature. Obviously, one could solve the problem of religion, yet not solve the problem of violence. So why is there so much emphasis on solving the problem of religion among certain philosophical quarters? Could it be that, far from having any desire to solve the problem of violence, violence is in fact a useful ally to those wanting to solve the problem or religion, simply because religion represents a competing source of moral authority? Speaking of competing sources of moral authority, what sense does it make to speak of righting wrongs or to "...prevent wrongs being wrought."? In the absence of religion what does it mean for something to be "wrong"? If "wrong" is not defined by God, than by who? You? Me? The State? Do we decide democratically the difference between right and wrong? The entire reason statements about right vs. wrong even make any sense in modern dialogue is due directly to the influence of religion upon our perceptions of the human condition. The entire thrust of your argument comes roaring out of the sentiments religion itself has imbued into our character. The irony is that without right vs. wrong being defined by a people's body of commonly held, grass-roots, non-secular, religious beliefs, it must be defined by the state. The state, as always, will be more than happy to fill that void in our lives. God only knows where that will end. More gas chambers, I'm sure. :rose:
Ok, your issue head on ;) : I did imply that without religion all this violence would end. I apologise, that is not what I really meant and is not at all true. I not a religious man and yet even I at times I exhibit violent tendencies. That all stems from our past, our reptilian brain core. Add on to that often irrational thoughts, jealousy and many other aspects and even without religion we all have violent tendencies. We as a species are not mature or developed enough to have eradicated violence from our ways. Saying that, by having religion in our lives we are adding an extra way to hate each other, discriminate against each other and generally disagree with each other. In the same vein we are also adding an extra way to love one another, respect other people and find common ground with fellow humans. With the good comes the bad, and vice versa. However to me religion often is too extreme. It ellicits irrationally strong reactions from people when one either disagrees or opposes their beliefs. It also gives an excuse to some to persecute others in the name of their religion. Also you say "violence is in fact a useful ally to those wanting to solve the problem of religion". I personally have never used violence to solve my problems with religion, I do not stone christians into disbelief. I simply disagree and point out why, in most cases rationally, some times heatedly :). In fact I would say most religious persecution has been between two opposing beliefs, both religious. Yes there has been much religous vs. non-religous groups, but in a way they are really competing beliefs (as you said.) When two religions meet there is a far greater chance of something going terribly awry than when a religious and non-religious body meet. Oh and do not get me started on the "without God how would we know what is wrong and what is right?" arguement. If I had been born a heathen native in a remote pacific island I truly believe that I would know it is wrong to kill another, simply because it hurts the community and environment one lives in. Same with most forms of violence, stealing etc. There is a lot of logic to morals. Also a lot of religous decrees on right or wrong I feel are antiquated and not fit for our modern world. At the end of the day (and I am sure we could go on, and on =) my opinion is that religion has served its purpose in the past, it still has a purposes to serve in the present and future but to a lesser degree. Religious factions must become more tolerant and realise that even the