Get ready to wave them flegs - Lily Windsor's coming

[Evil Genius]

President Reagan Visitor Centre in Ballypooreen:


Website of the Kennedy Cultural Museum and Visitor Centre in Dunganstown in Wexford.
http://www.kennedyhomestead.com/main.htm

Notable Americans of Scotch-Irish descent:

Andrew Jackson
7th President, 1829-37: He was born in the predominantly Ulster-Scots Waxhaws area of South Carolina two years after his parents left Boneybefore, near Carrickfergus in County Antrim. A heritage centre in the village pays tribute to the legacy of 'Old Hickory', the People's President. Andrew Jackson then moved to Tennessee, where he served as Governor.

James Knox Polk
11th President, 1845-49: His ancestors were among the first Ulster-Scots settlers, emigrating from Coleraine in 1680 to become a powerful political family in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. He moved to Tennessee and became its governor before winning the presidency.

James Buchanan
15th President, 1857-61: Born in a log cabin (which has been relocated to his old school in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania), 'Old Buck' cherished his origins: "My Ulster blood is a priceless heritage". The Buchanans were originally from Deroran, near Omagh in County Tyrone where the ancestral home still stands.

Andrew Johnson
17th President, 1865-69: His grandfather left Mounthill, near Larne in County Antrim around 1750 and settled in North Carolina. Andrew worked there as a tailor and ran a successful business in Greeneville, Tennessee, before being elected Vice-President. He became President following Abraham Lincoln's assassination.

Ulysses S. Grant
18th President, 1869-77: The home of his maternal great-grandfather, John Simpson, at Dergenagh, County Tyrone, is the location for an exhibition on the eventful life of the victorious Civil War commander who served two terms as President. Grant visited his ancestral homeland in 1878.

Chester A. Arthur
21st President, 1881-85: His election was the start of a quarter-century in which the White House was occupied by men of Ulster-Scots origins. His family left Dreen, near Cullybackey, County Antrim, in 1815. There is now an interpretive centre, alongside the Arthur Ancestral Home, devoted to his life and times.

Grover Cleveland
22nd and 24th President, 1885-89 and 1893-97: Born in New Jersey, he was the maternal grandson of merchant Abner Neal, who emigrated from County Antrim in the 1790s. He is the only president to have served non-consecutive terms.

Benjamin Harrison
23rd President, 1889-93: His mother, Elizabeth Irwin, had Ulster-Scots roots through her two great-grandfathers, James Irwin and William McDowell. Harrison was born in Ohio and served as a brigadier general in the Union Army before embarking on a career in Indiana politics which led to the White House.

William McKinley
25th President, 1897-1901: Born in Ohio, the descendant of a farmer from Conagher, near Ballymoney, County Antrim, he was proud of his ancestry and addressed one of the national Scotch-Irish congresses held in the late 19th century. His second term as president was cut short by an assassin's bullet.

Theodore Roosevelt
26th President, 1901-09: His mother, Mittie Bulloch, had Ulster Scots ancestors who emigrated from Glenoe, County Antrim, in May 1729. Roosevelt praised "Irish Presbyterians" as "a bold and hardy race."[67] However, he is also the man who said: "But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native"* before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen." [1] (*Roosevelt was referring to "nativists", not American Indians, in this context)

Woodrow Wilson
28th President, 1913-21: Of Ulster-Scot descent on both sides of the family, his roots were very strong and dear to him. He was grandson of a printer from Dergalt, near Strabane, County Tyrone, whose former home is open to visitors.

Richard Nixon
37th President, 1969-74: The Nixon ancestors left Ulster in the mid-18th century; the Quaker Milhous family ties were with County Antrim and County Kildare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_American

Fixed that for ya E.G.

Actually mates with one of Woodrow Wilson's English relatives. Just back from the pub with here actually.

Actually, in this instance, altering it to "Ulster-Scots" would have been more accurate/illustrative than either "Scotch-Irish" or "Irish", but I wasn't bothered to alter it in my cut-and-paste.

Anyhow, my point was that whilst recent Presidents such as Kennedy (esp), Reagan, Clinton and now Obama are evidently keen to emphasise their (often somewhat tenuous) Catholic/Gaelic/Natiionalist etc "roots" deriving from emigration from Ireland in the 19th Century, in fact the influence of Ulster-Scots Presbyterians a century earlier was infinitely more significant in the founding of the modern United States.

"If all else fails, I will retreat up the valley of Virginia, plant my flag on the Blue Ridge, rally around the Scotch-Irish of that region and make my last stand for liberty amongst a people who will never submit to British tyranny whilst there is a man left to draw a trigger." - General George Washington at Valley Forge, 1777.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

President Reagan Visitor Centre in Ballypooreen:


Website of the Kennedy Cultural Museum and Visitor Centre in Dunganstown in Wexford.
http://www.kennedyhomestead.com/main.htm

Notable Americans of Scotch-Irish descent:

Andrew Jackson
7th President, 1829-37: He was born in the predominantly Ulster-Scots Waxhaws area of South Carolina two years after his parents left Boneybefore, near Carrickfergus in County Antrim. A heritage centre in the village pays tribute to the legacy of 'Old Hickory', the People's President. Andrew Jackson then moved to Tennessee, where he served as Governor.

James Knox Polk
11th President, 1845-49: His ancestors were among the first Ulster-Scots settlers, emigrating from Coleraine in 1680 to become a powerful political family in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. He moved to Tennessee and became its governor before winning the presidency.

James Buchanan
15th President, 1857-61: Born in a log cabin (which has been relocated to his old school in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania), 'Old Buck' cherished his origins: "My Ulster blood is a priceless heritage". The Buchanans were originally from Deroran, near Omagh in County Tyrone where the ancestral home still stands.

Andrew Johnson
17th President, 1865-69: His grandfather left Mounthill, near Larne in County Antrim around 1750 and settled in North Carolina. Andrew worked there as a tailor and ran a successful business in Greeneville, Tennessee, before being elected Vice-President. He became President following Abraham Lincoln's assassination.

Ulysses S. Grant
18th President, 1869-77: The home of his maternal great-grandfather, John Simpson, at Dergenagh, County Tyrone, is the location for an exhibition on the eventful life of the victorious Civil War commander who served two terms as President. Grant visited his ancestral homeland in 1878.

Chester A. Arthur
21st President, 1881-85: His election was the start of a quarter-century in which the White House was occupied by men of Ulster-Scots origins. His family left Dreen, near Cullybackey, County Antrim, in 1815. There is now an interpretive centre, alongside the Arthur Ancestral Home, devoted to his life and times.

Grover Cleveland
22nd and 24th President, 1885-89 and 1893-97: Born in New Jersey, he was the maternal grandson of merchant Abner Neal, who emigrated from County Antrim in the 1790s. He is the only president to have served non-consecutive terms.

Benjamin Harrison
23rd President, 1889-93: His mother, Elizabeth Irwin, had Ulster-Scots roots through her two great-grandfathers, James Irwin and William McDowell. Harrison was born in Ohio and served as a brigadier general in the Union Army before embarking on a career in Indiana politics which led to the White House.

William McKinley
25th President, 1897-1901: Born in Ohio, the descendant of a farmer from Conagher, near Ballymoney, County Antrim, he was proud of his ancestry and addressed one of the national Scotch-Irish congresses held in the late 19th century. His second term as president was cut short by an assassin's bullet.

Theodore Roosevelt
26th President, 1901-09: His mother, Mittie Bulloch, had Ulster Scots ancestors who emigrated from Glenoe, County Antrim, in May 1729. Roosevelt praised "Irish Presbyterians" as "a bold and hardy race."[67] However, he is also the man who said: "But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native"* before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen." [1] (*Roosevelt was referring to "nativists", not American Indians, in this context)

Woodrow Wilson
28th President, 1913-21: Of Ulster-Scot descent on both sides of the family, his roots were very strong and dear to him. He was grandson of a printer from Dergalt, near Strabane, County Tyrone, whose former home is open to visitors.

Richard Nixon
37th President, 1969-74: The Nixon ancestors left Ulster in the mid-18th century; the Quaker Milhous family ties were with County Antrim and County Kildare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_American

Fixed that for ya E.G.

Actually mates with one of Woodrow Wilson's English relatives. Just back from the pub with here actually.

Actually, in this instance, altering it to "Ulster-Scots" would have been more accurate/illustrative than either "Scotch-Irish" or "Irish", but I wasn't bothered to alter it in my cut-and-paste.

Anyhow, my point was that whilst recent Presidents such as Kennedy (esp), Reagan, Clinton and now Obama are evidently keen to emphasise their (often somewhat tenuous) Catholic/Gaelic/Natiionalist etc "roots" deriving from emigration from Ireland in the 19th Century, in fact the influence of Ulster-Scots Presbyterians a century earlier was infinitely more significant in the founding of the modern United States.

"If all else fails, I will retreat up the valley of Virginia, plant my flag on the Blue Ridge, rally around the Scotch-Irish of that region and make my last stand for liberty amongst a people who will never submit to British tyranny whilst there is a man left to draw a trigger." - General George Washington at Valley Forge, 1777.

You ignore the fact that when their ancestors arrived in the 13 colonies and early United States of America, they were Irish and proud of it, only turning into Scotch-Irish (as known in North America) after the filthy Catholics arrived in numbers on those shores. You know its true.

They all Irishmen to me. I wouldn't start dividing other Irishmen Irishwomen into Gaelic-Irish, Cymro-Norman-Irish, Norse-Irish, Ulster-Scot-Irish, Huguenot-Irish, Paletine-Irish, Immigrant-Irish, Irish Traveller etc. Being Irish does not alter your political or religious views, I am Nationalist, Republican in the European tradition and an Atheist, but Irish to the bone.

[Banana Man]

right so for all your bluster you still can't answer the question and fire out childish points, no point engaging you further as you obviously don't want to seriously engage and no other method of debating (and i use the term loosely) than resorting to childish remarks and personal abuse

as for your exact quote it followed the line 'and i quote' can you not grasp that??? i give up

Now you are simply lying.

This is what I wrote:

if people have ideological reasons for not wanting President Obama to come they should state them or say nothing.

This is what you still claim I wrote:

you mentioned my opposition to Obama, not president but obama

By the way you fill your own posts with insults while whinging about other people insulting you. If you that easily offended maybe you should stay out of the fire.

you still don't get this???

stay out of the fire??? i put up a point about the garda budget and you were the one who slid in with name calling and abuse, you're the one who took the first shot, continued to talk shite until you tried to piggyback of a sensible argument hours later then tried to twist things, i'd love to see what insults i threw

not easily offended, just disappointed that you can't be civil and try and make a point without trying to find ulterior motives for why someone would post something - you still haven't answered my point about the garda budget, i'm waiting....

You could not see any tourism benefits from a visit by the President of USA. I thought this was a straw man argument for some other agenda as, to me, it seems ludicrous. It now seems that you actually do hold really this opinion. That is your right and my mistake for assuming there had to be more to it than that.

As for your question this thread has offered many answers but you refuse to even acknowledge them. I posted links to two museum and visitor centres which came out of previous visits by serving Presidents. These have provided decades of employment and receive thousands of vistors annually. You ignored them. Jim Murphy posted the more obvious exposure angle of this type of visit.

You then resorted to misquoting me, I notice you have gone quiet on that.

As for your insults towards me, they are water off a ducks back like most people on here. This is an internet discussion board and flaming is pretty common place. But your indignation about insults thrown at you while doing exactly the same is hypocritical.

"You have just lose any crumbling remains of credibility with that absolutely ludicrous statement that i have ideological concerns over Obama - you are named well, you really are a muppet"
"you really are in knots now you muppet"
"it's like talking to a stuffed animal - sorry i am" -
"Now why don't you slide on back down to Sesame street, i think they are doing the letter 'Z' today, nice we easy one to break you in, good lad"

Finally I am now subject to accusations of 'anti-SF prejudice' on another thread specifically for arguing with you on this one. I am not saying that is anything to do with you but can you shed any light as to why a poster would write that?

Where did i say any? i said i would like to know how it can be justified then i went further to ask you and your sidekick (who has gone very quiet) to explain to me the economic benefits of such a visit, you are therefore misquoting me and are luying yourself.

you notice i have gone quiet on misquoting you? i replied and you ignored the reply, go back and trawl through my posts like your so good at

i replied to jim's point, i don't see how 5 hours here will justify the bill, something you fail to grasp, you say you posted links to two museums, facts are museums (if the archelogical society are doing their work) will come to pass whether the president vistis or not.

Did the Eqyptian section of the museum in London need to invite the pharaoh's over in order to get a museum built? no so again this attempt at an argument you put up a day and a half later doesn't cut it

furthermore what someone else posts is up to them, ''i am not my brother's keeper'' - to even ask me why someone would say something just shows a total lack of intelligence on your part, absolutley astounded that you ask me to shed light on why someone else posted something, you have totally lost the run of yourself

[muppet]

Where did i say any? i said i would like to know how it can be justified then i went further to ask you and your sidekick (who has gone very quiet) to explain to me the economic benefits of such a visit, you are therefore misquoting me and are luying yourself.

you notice i have gone quiet on misquoting you? i replied and you ignored the reply, go back and trawl through my posts like your so good at

i replied to jim's point, i don't see how 5 hours here will justify the bill, something you fail to grasp, you say you posted links to two museums, facts are museums (if the archelogical society are doing their work) will come to pass whether the president vistis or not.

Did the Eqyptian section of the museum in London need to invite the pharaoh's over in order to get a museum built? no so again this attempt at an argument you put up a day and a half later doesn't cut it

furthermore what someone else posts is up to them, ''i am not my brother's keeper'' - to even ask me why someone would say something just shows a total lack of intelligence on your part, absolutley astounded that you ask me to shed light on why someone else posted something, you have totally lost the run of yourself

This is great fun!

I ask you a simply question regarding another poster's comment about you and me, even giving you an out as I know how sensitive you are, and you say it shows a 'total lack of intelligence' on my part. You are 'absolutely astounded' with this? Really? Yet you derisively reference my 'sidekick' for doing something, who afaik I've never met. Where does this leave your intellect by your own logic.

As for your Pharaoh point, this really is funny and you are obviously not serious. But it is very entertaining. You would need to consider the Knights' (or whatever they had then) overtime bill if the Pharaoh visited. You would no doubt be against this.

facts are museums (if the archelogical society are doing their work) will come to pass whether the president vistis or not.

Many people seem to confuse 'facts' with opinion. Fact is, neither museum was there before the President in question visited. Fact is, those museums represent an economic benefit to Ireland from our connection to those US presidents. It is my opinion that the same may happen again.

[trueblue1234]

Where did i say any? i said i would like to know how it can be justified then i went further to ask you and your sidekick (who has gone very quiet) to explain to me the economic benefits of such a visit, you are therefore misquoting me and are luying yourself.

you notice i have gone quiet on misquoting you? i replied and you ignored the reply, go back and trawl through my posts like your so good at

i replied to jim's point, i don't see how 5 hours here will justify the bill, something you fail to grasp, you say you posted links to two museums, facts are museums (if the archelogical society are doing their work) will come to pass whether the president vistis or not.

Did the Eqyptian section of the museum in London need to invite the pharaoh's over in order to get a museum built? no so again this attempt at an argument you put up a day and a half later doesn't cut it

furthermore what someone else posts is up to them, ''i am not my brother's keeper'' - to even ask me why someone would say something just shows a total lack of intelligence on your part, absolutley astounded that you ask me to shed light on why someone else posted something, you have totally lost the run of yourself

This is great fun!

I ask you a simply question regarding another poster's comment about you and me, even giving you an out as I know how sensitive you are, and you say it shows a 'total lack of intelligence' on my part. You are 'absolutely astounded' with this? Really? Yet you derisively reference my 'sidekick' for doing something, who afaik I've never met. Where does this leave your intellect by your own logic.

As for your Pharaoh point, this really is funny and you are obviously not serious. But it is very entertaining. You would need to consider the Knights' (or whatever they had then) overtime bill if the Pharaoh visited. You would no doubt be against this.

facts are museums (if the archelogical society are doing their work) will come to pass whether the president vistis or not.

Many people seem to confuse 'facts' with opinion. Fact is, neither museum was there before the President in question visited. Fact is, those museums represent an economic benefit to Ireland from our connection to those US presidents. It is my opinion that the same may happen again.

Not for everyone else!

[Evil Genius]

Anyhow, my point was that whilst recent Presidents such as Kennedy (esp), Reagan, Clinton and now Obama are evidently keen to emphasise their (often somewhat tenuous) Catholic/Gaelic/Natiionalist etc "roots" deriving from emigration from Ireland in the 19th Century, in fact the influence of Ulster-Scots Presbyterians a century earlier was infinitely more significant in the founding of the modern United States.

"If all else fails, I will retreat up the valley of Virginia, plant my flag on the Blue Ridge, rally around the Scotch-Irish of that region and make my last stand for liberty amongst a people who will never submit to British tyranny whilst there is a man left to draw a trigger." - General George Washington at Valley Forge, 1777.

You ignore the fact that when their ancestors arrived in the 13 colonies and early United States of America, they were Irish and proud of it, only turning into Scotch-Irish (as known in North America) after the filthy Catholics arrived in numbers on those shores. You know its true.

Re-read the quotation by Washington - he refers to the "Scotch-Irish". In 1777.

Listen, I don't want to make a big deal of it, but back then, the USA didn't exist at all (pre-1776), and even after that date, couldn't even be said to have been a truly unified, single Nation until after the Civil War.

Therefore my point was that the nascent/early United States was made up of a whole host of Nationalities/Races/Ethnic Groupings etc, often only very loosely "united" under one flag or cause.

However, when it came to the Independence Movement and founding of the new Republic etc, the influence of those people who generally called themselves "Scotch-Irish", but may be more properly termed Ulster-Scots (imo), was arguably the most influential of any grouping.

Which I accept is (or at least should be) of no great significance, other than the Historical, in the 21st Century. Except that in the rush to celebrate their "Irish" roots, the great majority of an estimated 40 million "Irish-Americans", including modern-day politicians on-the-make, usually claim a heritage deriving from the 19th Century Catholic-Irish emigrants, when if only they knew it, many (most?) actually descend from an earlier grouping which was markedly distinct in culture, politics, religion and history etc.

Then again, we shouldn't be surprised at this, since whatever their other many fine qualities etc, in my experience the average American's ignorance of History is perhaps exceeded only by his ignorance of Geography.

They all Irishmen to me. I wouldn't start dividing other Irishmen Irishwomen into Gaelic-Irish, Cymro-Norman-Irish, Norse-Irish, Ulster-Scot-Irish, Huguenot-Irish, Paletine-Irish, Immigrant-Irish, Irish Traveller etc. Being Irish does not alter your political or religious views, I am Nationalist, Republican in the European tradition and an Atheist, but Irish to the bone.

I wouldn't argue with the principle in that, but my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.

However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).

Which would be bad enough (imo), were it not a fact that the forgotten/excised tradition is/was at least as important in making them and their country what they are, if not rather more important.

Oh well.

[Hardy]

… my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.

However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).

I’m not sure I understand your motivation in trumpeting this perceived characteristic of US politicians on the make. It reads at worst like an attempt to denigrate the contribution of 19th century Irish emigrants, at best like a bit of a whinge.

In either case, I don’t think your observations do anything to redress the lack of regard for the “Scotch-Irish” tradition that you bemoan. Surely it speaks little for the general perception of that heritage that these people shun it, deny it and perceive any association with it and whatever it may betoken as an electoral liability.

[Banana Man]

Where did i say any? i said i would like to know how it can be justified then i went further to ask you and your sidekick (who has gone very quiet) to explain to me the economic benefits of such a visit, you are therefore misquoting me and are luying yourself.

you notice i have gone quiet on misquoting you? i replied and you ignored the reply, go back and trawl through my posts like your so good at

i replied to jim's point, i don't see how 5 hours here will justify the bill, something you fail to grasp, you say you posted links to two museums, facts are museums (if the archelogical society are doing their work) will come to pass whether the president vistis or not.

Did the Eqyptian section of the museum in London need to invite the pharaoh's over in order to get a museum built? no so again this attempt at an argument you put up a day and a half later doesn't cut it

furthermore what someone else posts is up to them, ''i am not my brother's keeper'' - to even ask me why someone would say something just shows a total lack of intelligence on your part, absolutley astounded that you ask me to shed light on why someone else posted something, you have totally lost the run of yourself

This is great fun!

I ask you a simply question regarding another poster's comment about you and me, even giving you an out as I know how sensitive you are, and you say it shows a 'total lack of intelligence' on my part. You are 'absolutely astounded' with this? Really? Yet you derisively reference my 'sidekick' for doing something, who afaik I've never met. Where does this leave your intellect by your own logic.

As for your Pharaoh point, this really is funny and you are obviously not serious. But it is very entertaining. You would need to consider the Knights' (or whatever they had then) overtime bill if the Pharaoh visited. You would no doubt be against this.

facts are museums (if the archelogical society are doing their work) will come to pass whether the president vistis or not.

Many people seem to confuse 'facts' with opinion. Fact is, neither museum was there before the President in question visited. Fact is, those museums represent an economic benefit to Ireland from our connection to those US presidents. It is my opinion that the same may happen again.
[/quote]

that is a terrible reply even by your pathetic standard, you are still flogging that one? how would i know what he meant, i never commented on what he said, the key difference between you and abbeyside is that you chose to interpret what he said and comment on it, i never commented on the other person you chose to reference, your failure to see the key fundamental difference, leaves my intellect on this matter totally sound  - so yes i am totally astounded

giving me an out? don't you worry about me looking out, why would i want when you are in tatters, you feel free to dive under the rock anytime you want my dear muppet

by the way what's a 'simply question' - i don't do muppet jargon, can you translate?

prove it, give me a breakdown of their running costs, turnover generated, how long the payback was on the original cap ex to build the museum and how the wages of these employees are paid i.e. are they fully self sustaining or are they part funded by the state, i.e. can they stand on their own 2 feet - in fact don't bother i know you can't, you just fire out soundbites about tourism and can't back it up when asked to drill down beneath the surface

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

Anyhow, my point was that whilst recent Presidents such as Kennedy (esp), Reagan, Clinton and now Obama are evidently keen to emphasise their (often somewhat tenuous) Catholic/Gaelic/Natiionalist etc "roots" deriving from emigration from Ireland in the 19th Century, in fact the influence of Ulster-Scots Presbyterians a century earlier was infinitely more significant in the founding of the modern United States.

"If all else fails, I will retreat up the valley of Virginia, plant my flag on the Blue Ridge, rally around the Scotch-Irish of that region and make my last stand for liberty amongst a people who will never submit to British tyranny whilst there is a man left to draw a trigger." - General George Washington at Valley Forge, 1777.

You ignore the fact that when their ancestors arrived in the 13 colonies and early United States of America, they were Irish and proud of it, only turning into Scotch-Irish (as known in North America) after the filthy Catholics arrived in numbers on those shores. You know its true.

Re-read the quotation by Washington - he refers to the "Scotch-Irish". In 1777.

Listen, I don't want to make a big deal of it, but back then, the USA didn't exist at all (pre-1776), and even after that date, couldn't even be said to have been a truly unified, single Nation until after the Civil War.

Therefore my point was that the nascent/early United States was made up of a whole host of Nationalities/Races/Ethnic Groupings etc, often only very loosely "united" under one flag or cause.

However, when it came to the Independence Movement and founding of the new Republic etc, the influence of those people who generally called themselves "Scotch-Irish", but may be more properly termed Ulster-Scots (imo), was arguably the most influential of any grouping.

Which I accept is (or at least should be) of no great significance, other than the Historical, in the 21st Century. Except that in the rush to celebrate their "Irish" roots, the great majority of an estimated 40 million "Irish-Americans", including modern-day politicians on-the-make, usually claim a heritage deriving from the 19th Century Catholic-Irish emigrants, when if only they knew it, many (most?) actually descend from an earlier grouping which was markedly distinct in culture, politics, religion and history etc.

Then again, we shouldn't be surprised at this, since whatever their other many fine qualities etc, in my experience the average American's ignorance of History is perhaps exceeded only by his ignorance of Geography.

They all Irishmen to me. I wouldn't start dividing other Irishmen Irishwomen into Gaelic-Irish, Cymro-Norman-Irish, Norse-Irish, Ulster-Scot-Irish, Huguenot-Irish, Paletine-Irish, Immigrant-Irish, Irish Traveller etc. Being Irish does not alter your political or religious views, I am Nationalist, Republican in the European tradition and an Atheist, but Irish to the bone.

I wouldn't argue with the principle in that, but my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.

However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).

Which would be bad enough (imo), were it not a fact that the forgotten/excised tradition is/was at least as important in making them and their country what they are, if not rather more important.

Oh well.

No different from the millions of English who are proud Brits and love the Royalty, but claim Irish stock. Generally they are decended from people who hated British interference in Ireland and hated the British Royalty. They are often shocked when they find out the disloyalty  and UN-Britishness of their ancestors, who more than often never spoke a word of English before landing in England. Then again many DUP folk are decended from United Irishmen who fought for Irish Independence or Border Reivers fighting off the Monarchs of England and Scotland. Versions of identity change over time. So maybe the Gaelic identity is more in vogue than the Lowlander one these days, in America at least.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

... my point is that when politicians like Obama come to Ireland, their motive is usually to suck up to the "Irish-American" vote back home. Which is fair enough, I suppose, since that is what politicians do.

However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).

I'm not sure I understand your motivation in trumpeting this perceived characteristic of US politicians on the make. It reads at worst like an attempt to denigrate the contribution of 19th century Irish emigrants, at best like a bit of a whinge.

In either case, I don't think your observations do anything to redress the lack of regard for the "Scotch-Irish" tradition that you bemoan. Surely it speaks little for the general perception of that heritage that these people shun it, deny it and perceive any association with it and whatever it may betoken as an electoral liability.

They call them W.A.S.P.'s its generally not a compliment.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).

Many of those were far from ever being termed Loyalist, part of the reason they were in America in the first place.

[Evil Genius]

I'm not sure I understand your motivation in trumpeting this perceived characteristic of US politicians on the make.

Evidently so. Let me try again.

It is my contention that recent American Presidents have generally only involved themselves with Ireland, whether substantively (Peace Process etc), or symbolically (roots etc), in order to curry favour with the "Irish-American" vote. (Which as I said, and you seemed to overlook, is "fair enough").

And since the overwhelming majority of Irish-American voters associate their Irishness with that of the (Catholic, Gaelic, Nationalist) emigration of the 19th Century, then it is hardly surprising that US politicians with Irish roots play up that particular aspect in their own background, regardless of how tenuous it may be.

However, many (even most?) Irish Americans actually derive their Irishness from the earlier (Ulster-Scots) migration, even if they are unaware of it. Furthermore, that earlier migration from Ireland was arguably more influential in the making of the modern USA than later waves of immigration (Irish or otherwise). 

Of course such ignorance or misunderstanding is hardly critical in the grand scheme of things, but as someone who is interested in History generally, and who is also descended directly from the same Ulster-Scots roots specifically, I feel it is a shame that the full story is not better known.

It reads at worst like an attempt to denigrate the contribution of 19th century Irish emigrants, at best like a bit of a whinge.

Really? You may have inferred that, but nowhere did I imply that, either in word or tone. In fact, the only comment I made about the 19th Century Irish  emigration to America was when I agreed it was "equally valid" to that of the 18th Century.
Of course, if you care to quote back to me anything which I posted which might reasonably be considered to be denigratory or whinging, I should be happy to address it.

In either case, I don't think your observations do anything to redress the lack of regard for the "Scotch-Irish" tradition that you bemoan.

Fine. That is your opinion.

Surely it speaks little for the general perception of that heritage that these people shun it, deny it and perceive any association with it and whatever it may betoken as an electoral liability.

I agree that the general perception by Irish Americans of exactly what the contribution of the various waves of emigration from Ireland to the New World entailed is woefully inadequate. In fact, I would go further and agree that that the resulting misunderstanding and ignorance etc is not confined to America, either, it is all-too-prevalent back in Ireland, too.
And where that ignorance or misunderstanding is of the contribution of the Ulster-Scots, I would accept that those people often are/were their own worst enemies in telling their story etc.
So be it; we cannot change past misunderstandings etc, but we may do something to redress the situation in future.

[Evil Genius]

No different from the millions of English who are proud Brits and love the Royalty, but claim Irish stock. Generally they are decended from people who hated British interference in Ireland and hated the British Royalty. They are often shocked when they find out the disloyalty  and UN-Britishness of their ancestors, who more than often never spoke a word of English before landing in England. Then again many DUP folk are decended from United Irishmen who fought for Irish Independence or Border Reivers fighting off the Monarchs of England and Scotland. Versions of identity change over time.

Don't disagree with any of that. But neither do I see how it negates or contradicts any of what I posted earlier, either.
Many Americans are ignorant of their heritage, as are many DUP voters. Bears s h i t in the woods. I am neither American, a DUP voter, nor a bear*.


* - Though tbf, I cannot be cartain that I've never done a s h i t in a wood, at least back in my student days...

So maybe the Gaelic identity is more in vogue than the Lowlander one these days, in America at least.

No doubt, but surely History should be concerned with accuracy and fact, rather than fashion or vogueishness?

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

No different from the millions of English who are proud Brits and love the Royalty, but claim Irish stock. Generally they are decended from people who hated British interference in Ireland and hated the British Royalty. They are often shocked when they find out the disloyalty  and UN-Britishness of their ancestors, who more than often never spoke a word of English before landing in England. Then again many DUP folk are decended from United Irishmen who fought for Irish Independence or Border Reivers fighting off the Monarchs of England and Scotland. Versions of identity change over time.

Don't disagree with any of that. But neither do I see how it negates or contradicts any of what I posted earlier, either.
Many Americans are ignorant of their heritage, as are many DUP voters. Bears s h i t in the woods. I am neither American, a DUP voter, nor a bear*.


* - Though tbf, I cannot be cartain that I've never done a s h i t in a wood, at least back in my student days...

So maybe the Gaelic identity is more in vogue than the Lowlander one these days, in America at least.

No doubt, but surely History should be concerned with accuracy and fact, rather than fashion or vogueishness?

I have had a shit in a Mango Orchard in the Northern Territory in my backpacking days.

[Evil Genius]

However, my point is that in doing so, they nowadays invariably hark back to one Irish heritage (i.e. Catholic/Gaelic/Nationalist etc), whilst completely ignoring another equally valid Irish heritage (i.e. Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian/Loyalist etc).

Many of those were far from ever being termed Loyalist, part of the reason they were in America in the first place.

Of course - I used the term "Loyalist" in the Irish context, to contrast it with their Nationalist Irish counterparts.

But whilst we're on the subject of the Ulster-Scots role in the American War of Independence, it is not actually known exactly what proportion of the Ulster-Scots in America fought on the side of the Revolutionaries, and what proportion fought on the side of the Crown.
However, it is possible that the proportions were closer to even than is popularly thought. This is because (a) many of the Ulster Scots who emigrated to America did so simply to avoid poverty and famine, rather than persecution and oppression etc i.e. they were not natural revolutionaries; (b) those Ulster-Scots who did get involved on the winning side subsequently integrated and assimilated into the new country much more deeply than later waves of emigrants; (b) many Ulster-Scots who had fought on the losing side and who stayed in the USA understanadably "kept their head down"; and (c) others of those Ulster-Scots on the losing side upped sticks once more and headed north to continue living under the Crown in Canada, this last group being known as United Empire (ahem) Loyalists:
http://www.uelac.org/