You know, people with surnames like Johnson, Armstrong, Elliott, Hume, Adams...
http://www.u.tv/utvplayer/video/134863
The Author/Presenter, Senator James Webb, is not your average "Irish-American" politician:
http://www.jameswebb.com/about/about.htm
(http://www.jameswebb.com/reviews/bf.jpg)
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 02, 2011, 05:19:58 PM
You know, people with surnames like Johnson, Armstrong, Elliott, Hume, Adams...
http://www.u.tv/utvplayer/video/134863
The Author/Presenter, Senator James Webb, is not your average "Irish-American" politician:
http://www.jameswebb.com/about/about.htm
(http://www.jameswebb.com/reviews/bf.jpg)
Is it any good?
Wad abut der Scotch-Irish?
and?
Worth watching, skims over how things affected the native Irish (having their lands take, penal laws) but I suppose the programme is really about the Scotties. Interesting his comments on how the Scotties that are still here are now blind loyalists to London whereas their ancestors were not due to being treated so harshly.
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 02, 2011, 05:19:58 PM
You know, people with surnames like Johnson, Armstrong, Elliott, Hume, Adams...
http://www.u.tv/utvplayer/video/134863
The Author/Presenter, Senator James Webb, is not your average "Irish-American" politician:
http://www.jameswebb.com/about/about.htm
(http://www.jameswebb.com/reviews/bf.jpg)
Great, all you need is one of the above surnames to be Ulster Scot and then be able to speak English with a thick accent to be fluent in the Ulster Scot language. I will watch with great interest.
QuoteGreat, all you need is one of the above surnames to be Ulster Scot and then be able to speak English with a thick accent to be fluent in the Ulster Scot language. I will watch with great interest.
Ulster Scots would be better described as a dialect rather than a language ... would it not?
Is it not about people who came over from Northern Ireland and settled in the states? Kinda like New Foundland?
From the UTV website
In the first of two documentaries, US Government Senator James Webb goes on a personal journey to trace the story of the Scots-Irish who helped build modern America.
Quote from: Denn Forever on February 02, 2011, 09:06:57 PM
Is it not about people who came over from Northern Ireland and settled in the states? Kinda like New Foundland?
From the UTV website
In the first of two documentaries, US Government Senator James Webb goes on a personal journey to trace the story of the Scots-Irish who helped build modern America.
Basically they were fighting in Alba, in Ireland and are still fighting centuries later on behalf of the yanks.
Quote from: Denn Forever on February 02, 2011, 09:06:57 PM
Is it not about people who came over from Northern Ireland and settled in the states? Kinda like New Foundland?
From the UTV website
In the first of two documentaries, US Government Senator James Webb goes on a personal journey to trace the story of the Scots-Irish who helped build modern America.
Yeah I think the history books show that a fair few of them settled in the Appalachians and points further south explaining the cross Atlantic trend in bluegrass music among other things, as for the Southern States Calvinist strain of religious fundamentalism, well who are we to comment...........
Quote from: mylestheslasher on February 02, 2011, 07:01:19 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 02, 2011, 05:19:58 PM
You know, people with surnames like Johnson, Armstrong, Elliott, Hume, Adams...
http://www.u.tv/utvplayer/video/134863
The Author/Presenter, Senator James Webb, is not your average "Irish-American" politician:
http://www.jameswebb.com/about/about.htm
(http://www.jameswebb.com/reviews/bf.jpg)
Great, all you need is one of the above surnames to be Ulster Scot and then be able to speak English with a thick accent to be fluent in the Ulster Scot language. I will watch with great interest.
Interesting that you leap straight to thinking about the language/dialect...
Anyway, I found Jim Webb's book very entertaining and interesting - bought it when studying over in the States about 4 years ago not long after he was elected to the Senate. One of my lecturers was a friend of his so I had a good chat with him about Webb's ideas on the centrality of Scots-Irish people in American life.
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 02, 2011, 05:19:58 PM
You know, people with surnames like Johnson, Armstrong, Elliott, Hume, Adams...
http://www.u.tv/utvplayer/video/134863
The Author/Presenter, Senator James Webb, is not your average "Irish-American" politician:
http://www.jameswebb.com/about/about.htm
(http://www.jameswebb.com/reviews/bf.jpg)
Should be interesting, will watch it when I get a chance. I remain disappointed that I missed "On Eagle's Wings" - the musical story of the Scots-Irish in America.
However I must pull you on the following:
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 02, 2011, 05:19:58 PM
You know, people with surnames like Johnson, Armstrong, Elliott, Hume, Adams...
Many Armstrongs claim to be descended from the Ó Labhradha Tréan clan, the strong arm of the Lavery clan. Indeed Mac Thréinfhir has also been anglicised as Armstrong. Most people will be aware that many Irish names were translated literally into an English equivalent and have no direct link to the planter name and people bearing those names may not have had their blood diluted by that of the planter. You appear not to be aware though.
Of course Ramsey and Buchanan for example have no defence.
also interesting that these ulster scots names don't have a 'Mc' or 'Mac' in them, probably because they were all lowland scots who destroyed the ancient clans during the highland clearances and deplored the 'wild irish' of the glens yet they love their music i.e. bagpipes, yet the irony is lost on them, it's akin to the US army naming their helicopter 'apache'
Saffron Sam, while i completely agree with you on the point you made that many bastardised Irish names have been misconceived as 'planter' names (hawthorne, armstrong etc. among others) i take issue with the fact that you say that people who may have been mistaken as being of planter stock have had their blood 'diluted'. It is a such an extreme right wing statement to make.
I am presuming by that statement that you are a nationalist who is of the opinion that the greater Irish ancestry you are the better an Irish person you are which is complete balls. So waht if someone has a 'planter' name or an english name, it doesn't matter. Tone clearly stated that it didn't matter whether you were Gael, Scot, Anglo-Norman or Huguenot in terms of descent but it was your own personal outlook that mattered. People's Irish credentials should be based on their own personal outlook.
Quote from: Poc me on February 03, 2011, 01:33:01 PM
Saffron Sam, while i completely agree with you on the point you made that many bastardised Irish names have been misconceived as 'planter' names (hawthorne, armstrong etc. among others) i take issue with the fact that you say that people who may have been mistaken as being of planter stock have had their blood 'diluted'. It is a such an extreme right wing statement to make.
I am presuming by that statement that you are a nationalist who is of the opinion that the greater Irish ancestry you are the better an Irish person you are which is complete balls. So waht if someone has a 'planter' name or an english name, it doesn't matter. Tone clearly stated that it didn't matter whether you were Gael, Scot, Anglo-Norman or Huguenot in terms of descent but it was your own personal outlook that mattered. People's Irish credentials should be based on their own personal outlook.
You should presume nothing my fellow, albeit clearly diluted, Gael. I accept it is hard after only five posts but you'll get there in the end.
Now, off I go to find some nice red headed, freckled, slightly turned-up nosed people with fadas in their name to converse with.
Quote from: Denn Forever on February 02, 2011, 05:22:52 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 02, 2011, 05:19:58 PM
http://www.u.tv/utvplayer/video/134863
(http://www.jameswebb.com/reviews/bf.jpg)
Is it any good?
At 45 minutes, I'd guess it might be a bit dull for people who aren't particularly interested in history etc. But if you are, then I'd say it was well worth watching.
You may have missed the UTVPlayer link I supplied, so why don't you give it a try?
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2011, 05:48:54 PM
Wad abut der Scotch-Irish?
As the programme points out, the people usually known in the north of Ireland/NI as "Ulster-Scots", became known as "Scotch-Irish" after they arrived in the New World.
Btw, the first part of the programme dealt with their initial migration from Scotland to Ireland; Part Two (next week) covers what happened to those of them who migrated a second time.
Enjoyed this programme the other night.
A great presenter, very balanced and fair... especially when he called those land and livelihood robbing orange bastards for what they were :D
Quote from: spuds on February 02, 2011, 06:56:56 PMWorth watching, skims over how things affected the native Irish (having their lands take, penal laws) but I suppose the programme is really about the Scotties.
Er, yes. If you're only worried about the plight of the "native Irish", then perhaps you might have been better off watching this other
self-indulgent pile of crap estimable contribution to our island's rich culture...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y44gx
Quote from: spuds on February 02, 2011, 06:56:56 PMInteresting his comments on how the Scotties that are still here are now blind loyalists to London whereas their ancestors were not due to being treated so harshly.
After 400-odd years, I think you'll find that these people are no longer "Scotties" [
sic], but are every bit as Irish as you.
Moreover, the descendants of the Ulster-Scots in Ireland have adjusted their attitudes with the times, as have the English, even if you haven't:
"But I will never be neutral when it comes to expressing my support for the Union. So, today, let us pledge ourselves to come together as Conservatives and Unionists in a new and dynamic political force in Northern Ireland. For the good of our parties. But, above all, for the good of the people and our United Kingdom." - Future Prime Minister (and Englishman!) David Cameron, in December 2008.
Quote from: balladmaker on February 02, 2011, 07:53:17 PM
QuoteGreat, all you need is one of the above surnames to be Ulster Scot and then be able to speak English with a thick accent to be fluent in the Ulster Scot language. I will watch with great interest.
Ulster Scots would be better described as a dialect rather than a language ... would it not?
In balladmaker's terms, yes (imo).
But this programme was not about the language/dialect called Ulster Scots, it was about the people who are called Ulster Scots.
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 03, 2011, 08:17:16 AMHowever I must pull you on the following:
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 02, 2011, 05:19:58 PM
You know, people with surnames like Johnson, Armstrong, Elliott, Hume, Adams...
Many Armstrongs claim to be descended from the Ó Labhradha Tréan clan, the strong arm of the Lavery clan. Indeed Mac Thréinfhir has also been anglicised as Armstrong. Most people will be aware that many Irish names were translated literally into an English equivalent and have no direct link to the planter name and people bearing those names may not have had their blood diluted by that of the planter. You appear not to be aware though.
Of course Ramsey and Buchanan for example have no defence.
I am well aware that many seemingly Scottish or English surnames are actually corruptions of Irish names.
But I thought to include "Armstrong" as an example of a "Planter" name for three reasons. First, it is still one of the most common surnames in NI of those who derive from Planter stock.
And second, although I have no hard evidence, I would guess that more Armstrongs in Ireland today are so-named for their Planter origins than from Ó Labhradha Tréan/Lavery roots.
And finally, Webb specifically mentioned the (sometimes forgotten) contribution of the Riever clans of the Scottish/English borders towards the migration to Ulster during the Plantation. And there is no more Riever surname than Armstrong:
Border 'Names' and Clan statusThe border families can be referred to as clans, as the Scots themselves appear to have used both terms interchangeably until the 19th century. In an Act of the Scottish Parliament of 1597 there is the description of the "Chiftanis and chieffis of all clannis... duelland in the hielands or bordouris" - thus using the word clan and chief to describe both Highland and Lowland families. The act goes on to list the various Border clans. Later, Sir George MacKenzie of Rosehaugh, the Lord Advocate (Attorney General) writing in 1680 said "By the term 'chief' we call the representative of the family from the word chef or head and in the Irish (Gaelic) with us the chief of the family is called the head of the clan". Thus, the words chief or head, and clan or family, are interchangeable. It is therefore possible to talk of the MacDonald family or the Maxwell clan. The idea that Highlanders should be listed as clans while the Lowlanders are listed as families originated as a 19th century convention.[9]
Other terms were also used to describe the Border families, such as the "Riding Surnames" and the "Graynes" thereof. This can be equated to the system of the Highland Clans and their septs. e.g. Clan Donald and Clan MacDonald of Sleat, can be compared with the Scotts of Buccleuch and the Scotts of Harden and elsewhere. Both Border Graynes and Highland septs however, had the essential feature of patriarchal leadership by the chief of the name, and had territories in which most of their kindred lived. Border families did practice customs similar to those of the Gaels, such as tutorship when an heir who was a minor succeeded to the chiefship, and giving bonds of manrent. Although feudalism existed, tribal loyalty was much more important and this is what distinguished the Borderers from other lowland Scots.[citation needed]
In 1587 the Parliament of Scotland passed a statute: "For the quieting and keping in obiedince of the disorderit subjectis inhabitantis of the borders hielands and Ilis.".[10] Attached to the statute was a Roll of surnames from both the Borders and Highlands. The Borders portion listed 17 'clannis' with a Chief and their associated Marches:
* MIDDLE MARCH: Elliot, Armstrong, Nixon, Crosier
* WEST MARCH: Scott, Bates, Little, Thomson, Glendenning, Irvine, Bell, Carruthers, Graham, Johnstone, Jardine, Moffat and Latimer.
Of the Border Clans or Graynes listed on this roll, Elliot, Armstrong, Scott, Little, Irvine, Bell, Graham, Johnstone, Jardine and Moffat are registered with the Court of Lord Lyon in Edinburgh as Scottish Clans.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Reivers
(And yes, I know it's Wiki, but I think my point stands...)
Quote from: Banana Man on February 03, 2011, 09:34:26 AMalso interesting that these ulster scots names don't have a 'Mc' or 'Mac' in them, probably because they were all lowland scots who destroyed the ancient clans during the highland clearances and deplored the 'wild irish' of the glens yet they love their music i.e. bagpipes, yet the irony is lost on them, it's akin to the US army naming their helicopter 'apache'
Dear oh dear.
There were many reasons why the old Highland clan system broke down, but to ascribe it simply to "destruction by the lowland Scots" is ignorant (bigoted?), even by your standard.
But if you really need to reduce it to the most simplistic of terms, then much of the blame must surely lie with the Clan chiefs themselves, who often willingly sold (literally) their people from off the land and replaced them with sheep, for pure financial gain.
And if you want proof of that, you only have to study the surnames and ancestry of the current owners of huge Estates and Castles etc in the Highlands and Islands, to see that many are the direct descendants of the Clan Chiefs of the late 18th/early 19th Centuries who cleared "their" land of people. (If you need further clues, you might want to Google eg "The McLeod of McLeod", or Alexander Ranaldson MacDonell of Glengarry)
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 03, 2011, 06:42:29 PM
Quote from: spuds on February 02, 2011, 06:56:56 PMWorth watching, skims over how things affected the native Irish (having their lands take, penal laws) but I suppose the programme is really about the Scotties.
Er, yes. If you're only worried about the plight of the "native Irish", then perhaps you might have been better off watching this other self-indulgent pile of crap estimable contribution to our island's rich culture...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y44gx
Never said anything about being
only worried about the plight of the native Irish....just that Webb mentions issues such as the Penal laws being aimed at the Ulster Scotts when their effects were felt most severely by the natives ! As I said, the programme was about the Scotties, and an interesting one too.
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 03, 2011, 06:42:29 PM
Quote from: spuds on February 02, 2011, 06:56:56 PMInteresting his comments on how the Scotties that are still here are now blind loyalists to London whereas their ancestors were not due to being treated so harshly.
After 400-odd years, I think you'll find that these people are no longer "Scotties" [sic], but are every bit as Irish as you.
Moreover, the descendants of the Ulster-Scots in Ireland have adjusted their attitudes with the times, as have the English, even if you haven't:
"But I will never be neutral when it comes to expressing my support for the Union. So, today, let us pledge ourselves to come together as Conservatives and Unionists in a new and dynamic political force in Northern Ireland. For the good of our parties. But, above all, for the good of the people and our United Kingdom." - Future Prime Minister (and Englishman!) David Cameron, in December 2008.
I have found otherwise ! You seem a bit sensitive to any comments whatsoever posted here. I mentioned the above due to the fact that at that time they were loyal to their way of life and religion and that they were f**ked over by London which resulted in many of them moving on again to the new world for freedom of expression etc. The fact that many of those who stayed on are now in cahoots with the conservatives et al is clear for all to see...but thanks for stating the obvious.
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 03, 2011, 07:02:01 PM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 03, 2011, 08:17:16 AMHowever I must pull you on the following:
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 02, 2011, 05:19:58 PM
You know, people with surnames like Johnson, Armstrong, Elliott, Hume, Adams...
Many Armstrongs claim to be descended from the Ó Labhradha Tréan clan, the strong arm of the Lavery clan. Indeed Mac Thréinfhir has also been anglicised as Armstrong. Most people will be aware that many Irish names were translated literally into an English equivalent and have no direct link to the planter name and people bearing those names may not have had their blood diluted by that of the planter. You appear not to be aware though.
Of course Ramsey and Buchanan for example have no defence.
I am well aware that many seemingly Scottish or English surnames are actually corruptions of Irish names.
But I thought to include "Armstrong" as an example of a "Planter" name for three reasons. First, it is still one of the most common surnames in NI of those who derive from Planter stock.
And second, although I have no hard evidence, I would guess that more Armstrongs in Ireland today are so-named for their Planter origins than from Ó Labhradha Tréan/Lavery roots.
And finally, Webb specifically mentioned the (sometimes forgotten) contribution of the Riever clans of the Scottish/English borders towards the migration to Ulster during the Plantation. And there is no more Riever surname than Armstrong:
Can I add a possible fourth reason? That Armstrong, like Johnson, is the Scottish-sounding surname of a reasonably well-known former Northern Ireland footballer who also happened to be a Fenian.
By the way, many Johnsons claim that their surname is the anglicised corruption of Mac Seáin.
Evil Genius, one thing your forgetting here is that names such as armstrong/johnston etc. probably all derive from scots Gaelic which obviously was brough to Scotland by the Irish around the 5th Century, when Irish missionaries and indeed clans dominated the western shores of Scotland and penetrated further East as time went by, eventually introducing their language to the Picts. . Therefore these names qutie likely are anglicised from gaelic.
Oh and Saffron Sam, if you're going to rate the quality of someones responses based on the number of posts they make then thats just a tad snobbish.
Quote from: Poc me on February 04, 2011, 09:00:24 AM
Evil Genius, one thing your forgetting here is that names such as armstrong/johnston etc. probably all derive from scots Gaelic which obviously was brough to Scotland by the Irish around the 5th Century, when Irish missionaries and indeed clans dominated the western shores of Scotland and penetrated further East as time went by, eventually introducing their language to the Picts. . Therefore these names qutie likely are anglicised from gaelic.
Oh and Saffron Sam, if you're going to rate the quality of someones responses based on the number of posts they make then thats just a tad snobbish.
I also consider someone's ability to use the apostrophe when rating the quality of his / her responses.
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 03, 2011, 07:23:28 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on February 03, 2011, 09:34:26 AMalso interesting that these ulster scots names don't have a 'Mc' or 'Mac' in them, probably because they were all lowland scots who destroyed the ancient clans during the highland clearances and deplored the 'wild irish' of the glens yet they love their music i.e. bagpipes, yet the irony is lost on them, it's akin to the US army naming their helicopter 'apache'
Dear oh dear.
There were many reasons why the old Highland clan system broke down, but to ascribe it simply to "destruction by the lowland Scots" is ignorant (bigoted?), even by your standard.
But if you really need to reduce it to the most simplistic of terms, then much of the blame must surely lie with the Clan chiefs themselves, who often willingly sold (literally) their people from off the land and replaced them with sheep, for pure financial gain.
And if you want proof of that, you only have to study the surnames and ancestry of the current owners of huge Estates and Castles etc in the Highlands and Islands, to see that many are the direct descendants of the Clan Chiefs of the late 18th/early 19th Centuries who cleared "their" land of people. (If you need further clues, you might want to Google eg "The McLeod of McLeod", or Alexander Ranaldson MacDonell of Glengarry)
wow wow wow EG I never attributed the breakdown of the clan system entirely to the lowland scots, i would agree that yes the clan leaders were seduced by the monetary gains of grazing and the seduction of the high class living of Edinburgh however the lowland scots played a massive part in it, entering into the highlands and manipulating the ordinary clan members left leaderless by the cieftain who swilled beer in edinburgh.
You also avoided the main point (as usual) that being that Scotland was basically 2 countries divided by the great glens, with the old gaelic/celtic trib in the north whilst the lowlands were an entirely differen tribe(s) and religion, they hated the highlanders and sought their destruction, yet every time they get misty eyed they reach for a set of bagpipes and don a kilt, this lack of understanding of where these so called ulster scots came from never ceases to astound me and the irony is totally lost on you and them.
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 04, 2011, 08:47:24 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 03, 2011, 07:02:01 PM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 03, 2011, 08:17:16 AMHowever I must pull you on the following:
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 02, 2011, 05:19:58 PM
You know, people with surnames like Johnson, Armstrong, Elliott, Hume, Adams...
Many Armstrongs claim to be descended from the Ó Labhradha Tréan clan, the strong arm of the Lavery clan. Indeed Mac Thréinfhir has also been anglicised as Armstrong. Most people will be aware that many Irish names were translated literally into an English equivalent and have no direct link to the planter name and people bearing those names may not have had their blood diluted by that of the planter. You appear not to be aware though.
Of course Ramsey and Buchanan for example have no defence.
I am well aware that many seemingly Scottish or English surnames are actually corruptions of Irish names.
But I thought to include "Armstrong" as an example of a "Planter" name for three reasons. First, it is still one of the most common surnames in NI of those who derive from Planter stock.
And second, although I have no hard evidence, I would guess that more Armstrongs in Ireland today are so-named for their Planter origins than from Ó Labhradha Tréan/Lavery roots.
And finally, Webb specifically mentioned the (sometimes forgotten) contribution of the Riever clans of the Scottish/English borders towards the migration to Ulster during the Plantation. And there is no more Riever surname than Armstrong:
Can I add a possible fourth reason? That Armstrong, like Johnson, is the Scottish-sounding surname of a reasonably well-known former Northern Ireland footballer who also happened to be a Fenian.
You can add as many as you like, but you'd likely be as wrong with the rest as you are with your "fourth".
I selected the first three Planter names as the first to come into my head for being common in my part of Ulster (i.e. relations, neighbours, schoolmates etc).
I then added Hume and Adams for amusement.
At no time was I thinking of Damien Johnson, Gerry Armstrong, Stuarty Elliott. or even Billy McAdams (can't think of any NI footballers called "Hume")
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 04, 2011, 08:47:24 AMBy the way, many Johnsons claim that their surname is the anglicised corruption of Mac Seáin.
I'm sure they do.
Doesn't stop it being a very common (the most?) Planter name.
Nor does it mean that I would cite "Johnson" (or "Armstrong", for that matter) if I were asked to come up with a list of surnames common amongst people whose ancestry is Irish Gaelic, funnily enough...
Quote from: Poc me on February 04, 2011, 09:00:24 AMEvil Genius, one thing your forgetting here is that names such as armstrong/johnston etc. probably all derive from scots Gaelic which obviously was brough to Scotland by the Irish around the 5th Century, when Irish missionaries and indeed clans dominated the western shores of Scotland and penetrated further East as time went by, eventually introducing their language to the Picts. . Therefore these names qutie likely are anglicised from gaelic.
Not forgetting it at all.
I was merely citing common surnames amongst those Planters who came to Ulster in the early 17th century, surnames which for the most part, are still common amongst their decendants today.
The fact that some of those names may have had earlier Irish Gaelic roots does not alter my point.
And in any case, not every Planter was Scottish, a considerable number were English, or Borderers (Reivers), amongst whom Irish Gaelic ancestry is likely to have been negligible.
Moreover, the modern system of Surnames long post-dates the 5th Century, therefore I fear you overstate the significance of Irish Gaels and Missionaries etc.
For example, my own surname, impeccably Planter but by no means excliusively Prod/Unionist today, was first recorded in the 12th Century, in Scotland. I guess my ancestors were given, or assumed it, from the name of the place where they lived. And that place was called after the local landowner, whose own origins were actually Anglo-Norman.
Anyhow, I appreciated your reply to Saffron Sam, even if he didn't! ;)
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 04, 2011, 09:06:28 AM
Quote from: Poc me on February 04, 2011, 09:00:24 AM
Oh and Saffron Sam, if you're going to rate the quality of someones responses based on the number of posts they make then thats just a tad snobbish.
I also consider someone's ability to use the apostrophe when rating the quality of his / her responses.
In that case, you might be advised to use apostrophes correctly.
That is, the personal possessive does not take the apostrophe, otherwise it would be included in "his", "hers", "ours" or "theirs" etc.
And that would look silly, just like you...
Surely these are Ulster-Northumbrians or Ulster-Anglish.
I have Ulster-Scots (Irish-Scots) ancestors but they were Gall-Gaels or Norse-Gaels from the Hebrides.
Evil Genius, I ask this in earnest. As things stand today, in your opinion, what percent of the descendents of Planter stock would label themselves as Irish? And what percent would opt for the term Ulster-Scots or British? I certainly consider them Irish but wonder if they themselves do. In my young day—I know I sound antediluvian—I hazard a guess that the vast majority of them would have been unabashedly British, but I sense a movement away from that characterization. Maybe I'm wrong.
On a separate note, I watched the show, found it enjoyable for the most part, but was a little unsettled by a couple of things. First, the segment about O'Neill and Carrickfergus Castle intimated that the Plantation occurred at the behest of the native population, a sort of latter-day Dermot McMurrough/Strongbow, implying that the natives willingly surrendered their lands, rather than a land grab. Second, Senator Webb lauded the Scots Presbyterians for their spirit of independence, and their belief in freedom of worship, equality and democratic principles. How I wonder, did they justify/rationalize casting off those latter two principles in ignoring the election of 1918 in Ireland and subsequently denying those two qualities to the minority population of Northern Ireland. I write this not to be incendiary but to reflect on Sen. Webb's description of the Ulster-Scots ethos.
Quote from: Banana Man on February 04, 2011, 09:33:16 AMwow wow wow EG I never attributed the breakdown of the clan system entirely to the lowland scots etc etc
No, but it was the one you singled out, when it was only one amongst many, of which the others were often as much socio-economic as political (or tribal).
Moreover, you instinctively (and typically) betrayed your sympathy for the (Gallic) Highlanders over the Lowlanders (from whose ranks the Ulster Planters of the 17th C more frequently came).
Not only that, but the way you asserted that the Lowlanders hated the Highlanders, left no room for the corollary i.e. that the Highlanders hated the Lowlanders just as much!
Quote from: Banana Man on February 04, 2011, 09:33:16 AMYou also avoided the main point (as usual) that being that Scotland was basically 2 countries divided by the great glens, with the old gaelic/celtic trib in the north whilst the lowlands were an entirely differen tribe(s) and religion, they hated the highlanders and sought their destruction, yet every time they get misty eyed they reach for a set of bagpipes and don a kilt, this lack of understanding of where these so called ulster scots came from never ceases to astound me and the irony is totally lost on you and them.
Again, a gross over-simplification.
Take, for example, the two best-known events which immediately preceeded (and hastened) the end of the clan system, the Glencoe Massacre (1692) and Culloden (1745)
With the former, it was the
Highland Clan Campbell who did King Billy's dirty work for him against their fellow Highlanders, the McDonalds.
And with the latter, not only did more Scots fight on the Hanoverian side than the Jacobite at the final battle of Culloden, but they included Highlanders as well as Lowlanders. Moreover, there were Lowlanders, and even some English(!) who fought for the Jacobite side.
In addition, the Jacobites were supported by the French, whilst the Hanoverian forces included troops from continental Europe (modern day Germany/Austria etc).
And, of course, it would not be a proper fight without some Irish input, some of whom fought fought for Charlie, but others (from Ulster, I believe!) who fought alongside Cumberland.
But hey, if you want to reduce it to nice easy stereotypes, like people do today ("Good Taigs" and "Nasty Huns" etc), knock yourself out.
Meanwhile, there is a bottle of red calling my name, so I shall go now...
Evil Genius, in your opinion, was it the advantages bestowed to the Settler people after the act of Union that swayed most of the Planter population or was it the much later Victorian anti-Catholicism that swung the pendulum away from the common belief in a modern Republic based on the ideals of the French and American revolutions?
Quote from: hardstation on February 05, 2011, 12:16:29 AM
They must have settled in the free state.
Which Free State? The Orange one?
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 04, 2011, 08:00:15 PM
Evil Genius, I ask this in earnest. As things stand today, in your opinion, what percent of the descendents of Planter stock would label themselves as Irish? And what percent would opt for the term Ulster-Scots or British? I certainly consider them Irish but wonder if they themselves do. In my young day—I know I sound antediluvian—I hazard a guess that the vast majority of them would have been unabashedly British, but I sense a movement away from that characterization. Maybe I'm wrong.
On a separate note, I watched the show, found it enjoyable for the most part, but was a little unsettled by a couple of things. First, the segment about O'Neill and Carrickfergus Castle intimated that the Plantation occurred at the behest of the native population, a sort of latter-day Dermot McMurrough/Strongbow, implying that the natives willingly surrendered their lands, rather than a land grab. Second, Senator Webb lauded the Scots Presbyterians for their spirit of independence, and their belief in freedom of worship, equality and democratic principles. How I wonder, did they justify/rationalize casting off those latter two principles in ignoring the election of 1918 in Ireland and subsequently denying those two qualities to the minority population of Northern Ireland. I write this not to be incendiary but to reflect on Sen. Webb's description of the Ulster-Scots ethos.
Im a prod and i certainly consider myself an irishman, much to the chagrin of a few of the bigots on here i might add.
I watched the show, thought it was very simplistic and sweeping to be honest, i suppose a two hour documentary covering such a lot of ground was always going to suffer from this though.
I have to say i had a different take on the carrick castle story, simplistic yes, but the 'natives asking for it' no, just a person with power/wealth doing whatever it takes to hang onto some semblance of it, its been repeated through history ad infinitium.
Quote from: delboy on February 05, 2011, 12:58:29 AM
Im a prod and i certainly consider myself an irishman, much to the chagrin of a few of the bigots on here i might add...
Big deal Paddy! ;)
Quote from: hardstation on February 05, 2011, 12:36:37 AM
No, the one where they reckon the are entitled to live like millionaires, without doing a hands turn. The one in which material possession still mean everything to them while they float deeper into the shitter. The one that misses the Celtic Tiger and the comfy big seat they had on its mane.
The one that believes that their government was to blame and that the greedy shower of Capitalist hoors (almost all of the country) are the victims.
O well it can't be worse than the paranoid, free-loading, terrorist-ridden, statelet to its North.
Quote from: delboy on February 05, 2011, 12:58:29 AM
Im a prod and i certainly consider myself an irishman, much to the chagrin of a few of the bigots on here i might add.
I have no problem with Irish followers of a false deity who follow it in a slightly different way to the majority back in the homeland, kissed one a fortnight back, have another bringing me over some proper Irish rashers from the Ireland this week and had going for a pint with another tonight.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on February 05, 2011, 04:50:48 PM
Quote from: hardstation on February 05, 2011, 12:36:37 AM
No, the one where they reckon the are entitled to live like millionaires, without doing a hands turn. The one in which material possession still mean everything to them while they float deeper into the shitter. The one that misses the Celtic Tiger and the comfy big seat they had on its mane.
The one that believes that their government was to blame and that the greedy shower of Capitalist hoors (almost all of the country) are the victims.
O well it can't be worse than the paranoid, free-loading, terrorist-ridden, statelet to its North.
You rightly refer the six counties as a statelet and must therefore accept the twenty six counties as a statelet aswell. In making reference to the whole island the constitution confirms this.
You refer to the north as terrorist ridden and must also then accept that the southern state was fornded by what you would refer to as terrorists. Furthermore, chances are that your southern statelet will have a government with the main party having emerged from blueshirt facism and its partners having not so long ago been very "Official" in their actions. Hope someone asks Eamon Gilmore how he first got "involved" in politics sometime soon.
Had to laugh at the "free loading" reference. How much of your boom was subsidised by Europe? And now the southern statelet goes cap in hand lookin for Europe to bail it out.
And dont even talk about paranoia...
Quote from: Malvinas on February 05, 2011, 06:32:34 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on February 05, 2011, 04:50:48 PM
Quote from: hardstation on February 05, 2011, 12:36:37 AM
No, the one where they reckon the are entitled to live like millionaires, without doing a hands turn. The one in which material possession still mean everything to them while they float deeper into the shitter. The one that misses the Celtic Tiger and the comfy big seat they had on its mane.
The one that believes that their government was to blame and that the greedy shower of Capitalist hoors (almost all of the country) are the victims.
O well it can't be worse than the paranoid, free-loading, terrorist-ridden, statelet to its North.
You rightly refer the six counties as a statelet and must therefore accept the twenty six counties as a statelet aswell. In making reference to the whole island the constitution confirms this.
You refer to the north as terrorist ridden and must also then accept that the southern state was fornded by what you would refer to as terrorists. Furthermore, chances are that your southern statelet will have a government with the main party having emerged from blueshirt facism and its partners having not so long ago been very "Official" in their actions. Hope someone asks Eamon Gilmore how he first got "involved" in politics sometime soon.
Had to laugh at the "free loading" reference. How much of your boom was subsidised by Europe? And now the southern statelet goes cap in hand lookin for Europe to bail it out.
And dont even talk about paranoia...
mmmm Paranoid much? Read the post above it. Only a very very small part of the original F.G. had anything to do with the Blueshirts. By the way it was a tongue in cheek response to Hardstation. Share an apartment with a few Nationalists from the North (who claim to vote S.F.) who have British passports because they where cheaper, ha ha and they bitch about Collins.
Quote from: Banana Man on February 03, 2011, 09:34:26 AM
also interesting that these ulster scots names don't have a 'Mc' or 'Mac' in them,
Eh?
Plenty of Ulster-Scots (or Scots-Irish) names have a Mc/Mac in them, including my own :-\
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 04, 2011, 08:00:15 PM
Evil Genius, I ask this in earnest. As things stand today, in your opinion, what percent of the descendents of Planter stock would label themselves as Irish? And what percent would opt for the term Ulster-Scots or British? I certainly consider them Irish but wonder if they themselves do. In my young day—I know I sound antediluvian—I hazard a guess that the vast majority of them would have been unabashedly British, but I sense a movement away from that characterization. Maybe I'm wrong.
Speaking personally, I would see my national identity as being Northern Irish and British. Ulster-Scots or Scots-Irish would I guess be my "ethnic" identity. I wouldn't label myself as Irish, but wouldn't react against that label being applied (in the right context) - the reason I wouldn't is that there's an Irish identity out there that I wouldn't see myself as having any affinity with, essentially I'd be using the same word to mean a different thing.
I think there's certainly quite a few people among the Protestant/unionist community (using this as an imperfect proxy for "Planter stock") who would view themselves as Irish (probably not as a nationality though), and many who wouldn't. I think British identity would still be strong (and I would say the great majority who would see themselves as Irish would be "British and Irish"). IMO the greatest development in identity would probably be the strengthening of Northern Irish identity (probably linked to a consequent weakening of an "Ulster" identitiy which would also have referred to NI).
Don't know if that makes any sense to a reader...
Quote from: Banana Man on February 04, 2011, 09:33:16 AM
You also avoided the main point (as usual) that being that Scotland was basically 2 countries divided by the great glens, with the old gaelic/celtic trib in the north whilst the lowlands were an entirely differen tribe(s) and religion, they hated the highlanders
Scottish identity is in itself very interesting. For ethnic and geographical reasons it's actually surprising Scotland became a country at all. Even before the Reformation, Highlanders and Lowlanders saw each other as basically foreigners (indeed Lowlanders came to see the Highlanders as "Irish" in many instances). The relatively recent phenomenon of viewing some Highland cultural emblems as "Scottish" emblems may be to some extent symptomatic of a need to differentiate Scottishness from Englishness.
Basicially mw you are whatever you wish to be depending on whom you are talking to at the time.
This northern Irish of whch you speak? where does somebody get a passport for that nationality? Ballymena? Portydown?
Quote from: stew on February 06, 2011, 03:08:18 PM
Basicially mw you are whatever you wish to be depending on whom you are talking to at the time.
Nope. That's far from what I said.
Quote
This northern Irish of whch you speak? where does somebody get a passport for that nationality? Ballymena? Portydown?
Can't get a Scottish, English or Welsh passport either. What's your point?
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 04, 2011, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 04, 2011, 09:06:28 AM
Quote from: Poc me on February 04, 2011, 09:00:24 AM
Oh and Saffron Sam, if you're going to rate the quality of someones responses based on the number of posts they make then thats just a tad snobbish.
I also consider someone's ability to use the apostrophe when rating the quality of his / her responses.
In that case, you might be advised to use apostrophes correctly.
That is, the personal possessive does not take the apostrophe, otherwise it would be included in "his", "hers", "ours" or "theirs" etc.
And that would look silly, just like you...
Er, surely an intellectual gaint like yourself would know that there is an exception to the rule you quote, namely the apostrophe does occur in the possessive case of
indefinite pronouns such as anybody's or someone's. We did that in first year.
Not for the first time in our dealings, it would appear that it's you, rather than I, who is looking silly.
Wally.
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 07, 2011, 08:13:18 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 04, 2011, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 04, 2011, 09:06:28 AM
Quote from: Poc me on February 04, 2011, 09:00:24 AM
Oh and Saffron Sam, if you're going to rate the quality of someones responses based on the number of posts they make then thats just a tad snobbish.
I also consider someone's ability to use the apostrophe when rating the quality of his / her responses.
In that case, you might be advised to use apostrophes correctly.
That is, the personal possessive does not take the apostrophe, otherwise it would be included in "his", "hers", "ours" or "theirs" etc.
And that would look silly, just like you...
Er, surely an intellectual gaint like yourself would know that there is an exception to the rule you quote, namely the apostrophe does occur in the possessive case of indefinite pronouns such as anybody's or someone's. We did that in first year.
Not for the first time in our dealings, it would appear that it's you, rather than I, who is looking silly.
Wally.
Gaint.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 07, 2011, 08:56:10 AM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 07, 2011, 08:13:18 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 04, 2011, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 04, 2011, 09:06:28 AM
Quote from: Poc me on February 04, 2011, 09:00:24 AM
Oh and Saffron Sam, if you're going to rate the quality of someones responses based on the number of posts they make then thats just a tad snobbish.
I also consider someone's ability to use the apostrophe when rating the quality of his / her responses.
In that case, you might be advised to use apostrophes correctly.
That is, the personal possessive does not take the apostrophe, otherwise it would be included in "his", "hers", "ours" or "theirs" etc.
And that would look silly, just like you...
Er, surely an intellectual gaint like yourself would know that there is an exception to the rule you quote, namely the apostrophe does occur in the possessive case of indefinite pronouns such as anybody's or someone's. We did that in first year.
Not for the first time in our dealings, it would appear that it's you, rather than I, who is looking silly.
Wally.
Gaint.
Just too quick there Tony. Thankfully it was you and not the gaint himself!
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 07, 2011, 09:03:05 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 07, 2011, 08:56:10 AM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 07, 2011, 08:13:18 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 04, 2011, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 04, 2011, 09:06:28 AM
Quote from: Poc me on February 04, 2011, 09:00:24 AM
Oh and Saffron Sam, if you're going to rate the quality of someones responses based on the number of posts they make then thats just a tad snobbish.
I also consider someone's ability to use the apostrophe when rating the quality of his / her responses.
In that case, you might be advised to use apostrophes correctly.
That is, the personal possessive does not take the apostrophe, otherwise it would be included in "his", "hers", "ours" or "theirs" etc.
And that would look silly, just like you...
Er, surely an intellectual gaint like yourself would know that there is an exception to the rule you quote, namely the apostrophe does occur in the possessive case of indefinite pronouns such as anybody's or someone's. We did that in first year.
Not for the first time in our dealings, it would appear that it's you, rather than I, who is looking silly.
Wally.
Gaint.
Just too quick there Tony. Thankfully it was you and not the gaint himself!
You could fix it and we could delete these posts before he sees it.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 07, 2011, 09:08:35 AM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 07, 2011, 09:03:05 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 07, 2011, 08:56:10 AM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 07, 2011, 08:13:18 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 04, 2011, 07:17:09 PM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 04, 2011, 09:06:28 AM
Quote from: Poc me on February 04, 2011, 09:00:24 AM
Oh and Saffron Sam, if you're going to rate the quality of someones responses based on the number of posts they make then thats just a tad snobbish.
I also consider someone's ability to use the apostrophe when rating the quality of his / her responses.
In that case, you might be advised to use apostrophes correctly.
That is, the personal possessive does not take the apostrophe, otherwise it would be included in "his", "hers", "ours" or "theirs" etc.
And that would look silly, just like you...
Er, surely an intellectual gaint like yourself would know that there is an exception to the rule you quote, namely the apostrophe does occur in the possessive case of indefinite pronouns such as anybody's or someone's. We did that in first year.
Not for the first time in our dealings, it would appear that it's you, rather than I, who is looking silly.
Wally.
Gaint.
Just too quick there Tony. Thankfully it was you and not the gaint himself!
You could fix it and we could delete these posts before he sees it.
Thought about that, but I reckon there is a hell of a difference between a transposition error and ignorance of the apostrophe. One is a regular mistake that most people will make, the other an unforgivable abomination.
Unforgivable.
Quote from: MW on February 06, 2011, 01:18:32 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on February 03, 2011, 09:34:26 AM
also interesting that these ulster scots names don't have a 'Mc' or 'Mac' in them,
Eh?
Plenty of Ulster-Scots (or Scots-Irish) names have a Mc/Mac in them, including my own :-\
i was referring to EG's post above mine that you quoted, he cited planter names and i was highlighting the fact that none had mc in them