The Brits have a complicated history. Mostly involving the development of stupendous principles, but with a history of castes and of not living up to their stated convictions. Especially as it regards land.
The 4-century long problems in Northern Ireland date, as Tidewater has pointed out, to the 1603 "movement" of Scots (NOT "Scotch") to Ulster. Essentially, the English dispossessed the native Irish and planted Scots on their land, at the point of a gun.
The fact that the Scots were primarily Protestant (mainly Presbyterian) and the dispossessed Irish were primarily Catholic was a convenient dividing line that extends to today. But it's largely irrelevant to the true conflict....which at its core isn't religious. It's about who rightfully owns the land.
Then the English did it again with the lesser-known Highland Clearances. Only this time the Scots were on the receiving end of the red-hot poker. Whereas 200 years prior the English had given Scots land on which Irish had lived and worked, now the Scots would be the dispossessed ones.
Thousands of Scots were forcibly removed from their homes, often with little to no notice, to be "settled" elsewhere. It was done in two phases, one in the mid 1700s and the next in the late 1700s through the early 1800s.
Reasoning? To change the use of the land from non-economic subsistence farming to more profitable sheep (i.e., wool) grazing and to consolidation into larger farms that generated economies of scale. IOW, to pay off patrons of The Crown.
At their best, the Brits provided a wonderful framework on which to build a country. At their worst, they were some brutal and untrustworthy &)(*)(*&s. They're some complicated folks -- neither as benign as the shining knights they like to picture themselves as being, nor the most evil people ever to walk the earth as some others think of them.
And yes, I recognize the parallels between the US and the Native Americans. I'm still wrestling with that one.
The 4-century long problems in Northern Ireland date, as Tidewater has pointed out, to the 1603 "movement" of Scots (NOT "Scotch") to Ulster. Essentially, the English dispossessed the native Irish and planted Scots on their land, at the point of a gun.
The fact that the Scots were primarily Protestant (mainly Presbyterian) and the dispossessed Irish were primarily Catholic was a convenient dividing line that extends to today. But it's largely irrelevant to the true conflict....which at its core isn't religious. It's about who rightfully owns the land.
Then the English did it again with the lesser-known Highland Clearances. Only this time the Scots were on the receiving end of the red-hot poker. Whereas 200 years prior the English had given Scots land on which Irish had lived and worked, now the Scots would be the dispossessed ones.
Thousands of Scots were forcibly removed from their homes, often with little to no notice, to be "settled" elsewhere. It was done in two phases, one in the mid 1700s and the next in the late 1700s through the early 1800s.
Reasoning? To change the use of the land from non-economic subsistence farming to more profitable sheep (i.e., wool) grazing and to consolidation into larger farms that generated economies of scale. IOW, to pay off patrons of The Crown.
At their best, the Brits provided a wonderful framework on which to build a country. At their worst, they were some brutal and untrustworthy &)(*)(*&s. They're some complicated folks -- neither as benign as the shining knights they like to picture themselves as being, nor the most evil people ever to walk the earth as some others think of them.
And yes, I recognize the parallels between the US and the Native Americans. I'm still wrestling with that one.
Last edited:
