• Before posting anything about COVID-19, READ THIS FIRST! COVID-19 and Misinformation (UPDATED)
    Misinformation and/or conspiracy theories about this topic, even if intended as humor, will not be tolerated!

Conor

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
5,149
Darren Mac an Phríora said:
Conor said:
[quote="Darren Mac an Phríora":3lpg2mr9]In most circumstances, developments can be named in Irish yes ie. it would be possible to come up with an Irish name. In some cases it wouldn't or an English/bilingual name would be more appropiate.
Again, when would it not be possible to come up with an Irish name?
Is many cases (particularly in county Dublin) its more appropiate to name developments in English with an Irish translation.[/quote:3lpg2mr9]
That's fascinating, but it's got nothing to do with the question I asked.
 

smiffy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
1,279
Website
cedarlounge.wordpress.com
Darren Mac an Phríora said:
smiffy said:
Frankly, I think the latter is rather absurd, but no more absurd that your own use of 'we'.
The reality is that most people either don't care if a development is named in Irish, or think that it is good. Hardly anybody complains, except some extremists on websites such as these.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the sentence of mine you've quoted above. Is it that you don't understand the point being made, or that you're deliberately evading it?
 

DJP

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
14,092
I use the term 'we' in the sense of most people. You can speak for yourself of course. Feel free to use the term 'we' in the sense of what you believe most people want and/or believe.
 

Conor

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
5,149
Darren Mac an Phríora said:
I use the term 'we' in the sense of most people.
When were "most people" invaded?
 

smiffy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
1,279
Website
cedarlounge.wordpress.com
Darren Mac an Phríora said:
I use the term 'we' in the sense of most people. You can speak for yourself of course. Feel free to use the term 'we' in the sense of what you believe most people want and/or believe.
Ah, I see. You just don't understand. You know, if you're trying to understand a sentence, it's usually helpful to read the sentences around it, to help put it into some kind of context.

I'll make it very simple for you (although, I fear, not simple enough):

you said:
Historically, is where a lot of the problems lie ie. a lot of our native Irish history was destroyed by the Normans and the English and by, more recently, Irish people themselves
I said:
Hang on - what do you mean 'our native Irish history'? If you talk about it being destroyed by the Normans, doesn't that imply that those who are descended from the Normans are somehow less 'Irish' than others?
you said:
Native- in the sense of the Irish people who lived here before we were invaded. My name Mac an Phríora is the gaelicisation of Prior, which is a Norman name.
I said:
Oh, I get the 'native'. It's the whole 'we' and 'our' thing that I'm confused on. If you're descended, at least in part, from Normans, why do you consider the pre-Norman Irish to be 'we'? Why not say, for example, the people who lived here before we invaded?

Frankly, I think the latter is rather absurd, but no more absurd that your own use of 'we'.
you said:
The reality is that most people either don't care if a development is named in Irish, or think that it is good. Hardly anybody complains, except some extremists on websites such as these.
Now do you see why your most recent post makes no sense in the context of what went before? Care to give it another shot?
 

MartinM

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Messages
11
Darren Mac an Phríora wrote:
Native- in the sense of the Irish people who lived here before we were invaded. My name Mac an Phríora is the gaelicisation of Prior, which is a Norman name.

This is where my blood starts to boil.

As far as I'm concerned things were fine with us 'natives' until those bastard celts arrived. We had our bronze implements, we had our distinctive pottery styles, we had our matriarchal religion, we had our agrarian lifestyle, we had Newgrange, the sun shone everyday, it was paradise. And then a bunch of germanic 'celts' decide they want a piece of the action and all of a sudden they've overrun the place with their smelly cows, and their horned helmets, and their drinking and their constant rowing, and their 'I'm a bigger bollox then you' poetry, and they turn the place into a feckin' halting site.

I mean name me one decent bit of architecture the 'celts' left behind.

The sooner us natives send them back where they came from the better.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
MartinM said:
Darren Mac an Phríora wrote:
Native- in the sense of the Irish people who lived here before we were invaded. My name Mac an Phríora is the gaelicisation of Prior, which is a Norman name.
This is where my blood starts to boil.

As far as I'm concerned things were fine with us 'natives' until those b****** celts arrived. We had our bronze implements, we had our distinctive pottery styles, we had our matriarchal religion, we had our agrarian lifestyle, we had Newgrange, the sun shone everyday, it was paradise. And then a bunch of germanic 'celts' decide they want a piece of the action and all of a sudden they've overrun the place with their smelly cows, and their horned helmets, and their drinking and their constant rowing, and their 'I'm a bigger bollox then you' poetry, and they turn the place into a feckin' halting site.

I mean name me one decent bit of architecture the 'celts' left behind.

The sooner us natives send them back where they came from the better.
Half of me will second that (or one and a half it if you like). I'm authenticated Fir Bolg on my mother's side, and I'd like my bit of Banba back. Admittedly, I'm English on my father's side (well, partly Scots, which is to say Dalriadan Irish), but they've already been mostly dispossessed, so I reckon I should come out a bit ahead - maybe half a bronze digging implement and a bit of pot? I can save them up for a tiny bit of a badly built house in a badly named development, and justice will clearly have been done to someone somewhere in some way or other.
 

KeithM

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
93
Darren Mac an Phríora said:
[quote="White Horse":1o7gryss][quote="Darren Mac an Phríora":1o7gryss]We all know that our cities and towns in Ireland have many street and placenames called after English monarchs etc.
A large part of our past and heritage is British. Why shouldn't place-names reflect that?[/quote:1o7gryss]

I've no problem with developments being called after British people, providing they weren't part of the British war/imperial appartus.[/quote:1o7gryss]

I assume the reference on these building is to the Duke of Wellington, born and bred in county Meath. :roll:
 

DJP

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
14,092
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Wel ... Wellington

"As a member of the Protestant British squirearchy ruling Ireland, he was touchy about his Irish origins. When in later life an enthusiastic Gael commended him as a famous Irishman, he replied "A man can be born in a stable, and yet not be an animal."


What a figure!!!
 

KeithM

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
93
Darren Mac an Phríora said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Wellesley%2C_1st_Duke_of_Wellington

"As a member of the Protestant British squirearchy ruling Ireland, he was touchy about his Irish origins. When in later life an enthusiastic Gael commended him as a famous Irishman, he replied "A man can be born in a stable, and yet not be an animal."

What a figure!!!
That fact that he was successful on the battlefield and in the political field says it all. Wellington didn't want to be associated with the rabble that were being herded around by O'Connell, and he was entitled to that.
One can be Irish without being a Gael and he was a truely great Irishman.
 

KeithM

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
93
Darren Mac an Phríora said:
He was a Field Marshal in the notorious British empire. He was a scumbag. Let revisionists think otherwise.
Exactly what was "notorious" about the British Empire that doesn't apply to all empires? The British Empire was no worse and a lot better than what went before or after. You are entitled to your myopic anti-imperialist views but you really start losing the arguement with such childish language.

As someone who has benefiited for the unprecedented American investment in this country a lot of which wouldn't have happened if we didn't speak English, I'm thankful that we were part of that empire and that Irishmen like Wellington helped forge it.
 

DJP

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
14,092
KeithM said:
Darren Mac an Phríora said:
He was a Field Marshal in the notorious British empire. He was a scumbag. Let revisionists think otherwise.
Exactly what was "notorious" about the British Empire that doesn't apply to all empires? The British Empire was no worse and a lot better than what went before or after. You are entitled to your myopic anti-imperialist views but you really start losing the arguement with such childish language.

As someone who has benefiited for the unprecedented American investment in this country a lot of which wouldn't have happened if we didn't speak English, I'm thankful that we were part of that empire and that Irishmen like Wellington helped forge it.
People like you make me feel sick out of pity for your lonely viewpoint.

Why was he a gentleman? Was he not a former leader of an army that committed the most appaling crimes in many countries?

Does the fact that they were mostly successful in making the country English speaking mean that their methods were noble?
 

KeithM

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
93
DELETE
 

KeithM

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
93
Darren Mac an Phríora said:
KeithM said:
[quote="Darren Mac an Phríora":2udo742z]He was a Field Marshal in the notorious British empire. He was a scumbag. Let revisionists think otherwise.
Exactly what was "notorious" about the British Empire that doesn't apply to all empires? The British Empire was no worse and a lot better than what went before or after. You are entitled to your myopic anti-imperialist views but you really start losing the arguement with such childish language.

As someone who has benefiited for the unprecedented American investment in this country a lot of which wouldn't have happened if we didn't speak English, I'm thankful that we were part of that empire and that Irishmen like Wellington helped forge it.
People like you make me feel sick out of pity for your lonely viewpoint.[/quote:2udo742z]

What lonely viewpoint? Can I help it if I'm better informed about history than the anti-imperialist rabble? To appreciate the role of empire you need to read and UNDERSTAND history and to put events in a historical setting. You can only judge people by the rules that apply at the time. How do you think future generations will judge us? How will they judge the fact that we let prime agricultural land go fallow while people starve in other countries? How do you think they will judge the fact after our history of clerical child abuse that we still allow the churches to run our schoools? I could go on.

Why was he a gentleman? Was he not a former leader of an army that committed the most appaling crimes in many countries?
He was also the leader of a country that stopped a meglomaniac like Napoleon and abolished slavery before almost every other country. As I said, judge a man and his actions by their context.

Does the fact that they were mostly successful in making the country English speaking mean that their methods were noble?
Whether they were noble of not is secondary, the fact is that their actions were one of the most significant things to benefit this country for generations to come.
 

DJP

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
14,092
KeithM said:
Darren Mac an Phríora said:
KeithM said:
[quote="Darren Mac an Phríora":31riil15]He was a Field Marshal in the notorious British empire. He was a scumbag. Let revisionists think otherwise.
Exactly what was "notorious" about the British Empire that doesn't apply to all empires? The British Empire was no worse and a lot better than what went before or after. You are entitled to your myopic anti-imperialist views but you really start losing the arguement with such childish language.

As someone who has benefiited for the unprecedented American investment in this country a lot of which wouldn't have happened if we didn't speak English, I'm thankful that we were part of that empire and that Irishmen like Wellington helped forge it.
People like you make me feel sick out of pity for your lonely viewpoint.
What lonely viewpoint? Can I help it if I'm better informed about history than the anti-imperialist rabble? To appreciate the role of empire you need to read and UNDERSTAND history and to put events in a historical setting. You can only judge people by the rules that apply at the time. How do you think future generations will judge us? How will they judge the fact that we let prime agricultural land go fallow while people starve in other countries? How do you think they will judge the fact after our history of clerical child abuse that we still allow the churches to run our schoools? I could go on.

Why was he a gentleman? Was he not a former leader of an army that committed the most appaling crimes in many countries?
He was also the leader of a country that stopped a meglomaniac like Napoleon and abolished slavery before almost every other country. As I said, judge a man and his actions by their context.

Does the fact that they were mostly successful in making the country English speaking mean that their methods were noble?
Whether they were noble of not is secondary, the fact is that their actions were one of the most significant things to benefit this country for generations to come.[/quote:31riil15]

I too am interested in history. I judge the past, like the present, in terms of people who either cooperate or uncooperate (through actions) in changing the world for the better.

Wellington cooperated in the despicable notorious British Empire from the top by being a Field Marshal in the army at a time when they were notorious.

Again, were their actions in attempting to destroy the Irish langauge worth it?

Why was he a gentleman?
 

KeithM

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
93
Darren Mac an Phríora said:
KeithM said:
[quote="Darren Mac an Phríora":13fr8dn3]
KeithM said:
[quote="Darren Mac an Phríora":13fr8dn3]He was a Field Marshal in the notorious British empire. He was a scumbag. Let revisionists think otherwise.
Exactly what was "notorious" about the British Empire that doesn't apply to all empires? The British Empire was no worse and a lot better than what went before or after. You are entitled to your myopic anti-imperialist views but you really start losing the arguement with such childish language.

As someone who has benefiited for the unprecedented American investment in this country a lot of which wouldn't have happened if we didn't speak English, I'm thankful that we were part of that empire and that Irishmen like Wellington helped forge it.
People like you make me feel sick out of pity for your lonely viewpoint.
What lonely viewpoint? Can I help it if I'm better informed about history than the anti-imperialist rabble? To appreciate the role of empire you need to read and UNDERSTAND history and to put events in a historical setting. You can only judge people by the rules that apply at the time. How do you think future generations will judge us? How will they judge the fact that we let prime agricultural land go fallow while people starve in other countries? How do you think they will judge the fact after our history of clerical child abuse that we still allow the churches to run our schoools? I could go on.

Why was he a gentleman? Was he not a former leader of an army that committed the most appaling crimes in many countries?
He was also the leader of a country that stopped a meglomaniac like Napoleon and abolished slavery before almost every other country. As I said, judge a man and his actions by their context.

Does the fact that they were mostly successful in making the country English speaking mean that their methods were noble?
Whether they were noble of not is secondary, the fact is that their actions were one of the most significant things to benefit this country for generations to come.[/quote:13fr8dn3]

I too am interested in history. I judge the past, like the present, in terms of people who either cooperate or uncooperate (through actions) in changing the world for the better.

Wellington cooperated in the despicable notorious British Empire from the top by being a Field Marshal in the army at a time when they were notorious.

Again, were their actions in attempting to destroy the Irish langauge worth it?

Why was he a gentleman?[/quote:13fr8dn3]

You seem intent on dragging this (conceptually rather silly) thread around in circles, so perhaps you can answere the question I posed earlier, but which we chose to ignore. Once again, exactly what was "notorious" about the British Empire that doesn't apply to all empires? The British Empire was no worse and a lot better than what went before or after. In Wellington's time slavery was abolished, long before most other European countries did that.

Perhaps I can get an answer this time?
 

DJP

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
14,092
KeithM said:
You seem intent on dragging this (conceptually rather silly) thread around in circles, so perhaps you can answere the question I posed earlier, but which we chose to ignore. Once again, exactly what was "notorious" about the British Empire that doesn't apply to all empires? The British Empire was no worse and a lot better than what went before or after. In Wellington's time slavery was abolished, long before most other European countries did that.

Perhaps I can get an answer this time?
They were notorious- like other empires- because they invaded an pillaged other countries.

You may like to judge them in the context of their time i.e other coutries were doing it as well. But just because they had the military power doesn't mean that they were allowed to create a new moral context.

Jesus, for example, was preaching and acting against the Roman empire 1,800 years beforehand.
 

KeithM

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
93
Darren Mac an Phríora said:
KeithM said:
You seem intent on dragging this (conceptually rather silly) thread around in circles, so perhaps you can answere the question I posed earlier, but which we chose to ignore. Once again, exactly what was "notorious" about the British Empire that doesn't apply to all empires? The British Empire was no worse and a lot better than what went before or after. In Wellington's time slavery was abolished, long before most other European countries did that.

Perhaps I can get an answer this time?
They were notorious- like other empires- because they invaded an pillaged other countries.
Firstly you seem to accept my point that the British Empite was no worse and a lot better than other empires, so at least that is progress. "Notorious" is a rather odd word to use. Certainly the British Empirte was not "notorious" at the time and today it would be no more "notorious" than any other empire of the time, and indeed compared to empires like the Spanish empire of the same and earlier period or the Soviet empire of more recent times it would be a lot less "notorious".

Secondly the Briitish Empire was generally not formed from invading countries. In most cases there were no "countries" as we know them today in most of Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand and even Ireland. The empire was simply the result of more powerful people imposing their ways on others. You can argue the rights or wrongs of this, but don't think for a second that this methodology is dead today, far from it.

Thirdly comes the question as to whether places should be names after people who were successful in periods when the rules that exist today were not in place. Were you to do that, you's have a full time job not only in the UK but and Portugal and their former colonies. I really don't see what such revisionism achieve except REDUCING people's connection to their history.

You may like to judge them in the context of their time i.e other coutries were doing it as well. But just because they had the military power doesn't mean that they were allowed to create a new moral context.
In my opinion, you can ONLY judge people by the standards that apply at the time. Again if you think that having superior military power is not defining a new moral context even today, then I suggest that you are living in a bubble. Just as the European empire builders thought that their actions were not only for their benefit, but the benefit of all, the same happens everyday in the UN and in MNCs today.

Jesus, for example, was preaching and acting against the Roman empire 1,800 years beforehand.
He may have been, but were his actions noble? Did he not think that HE was bettering everybody's lives by following HIS ways? You know he may just have been the most successful imperialist of them all.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom