jmg@houxk.UUCP (12/21/83)
Yes Martin, I think you've been asking the question the wrong way around. What we should really be asking ourselves very seriously is "Does pro-English mean anti-Celtic?" Celtic speaking students at English-run schools have been severely punished for speaking even a single word of their native language. At other times ALL SCHOOLS OF ANY KIND WERE PROHIBITED UNDER ENGLISH LAW. After the battle of Culloden the wearing of tartans in Scotland was outlawed by the English while they carried out "search and destroy" operations for TWENTY YEARS after that battle. These facts can be confirmed by viewing the BBC-TV film "Culloden" which can be borrowed free from many public libraries. Certainly there have been countless efforts by pro-English people to undermine Celtic culture and ridicule it as impractical or outmoded. In the past one particular fellow who had some sort of connection with the British Consulate used to show up at Celtic language classes in New York and vent his hate and ridicule on people who attended classes. Finally after repeated incidents he was asked to leave. As far as the laws of Canada regarding limitations on the freedom of speech are concerned, the first step in eliminating someone else's freedom of speech is to have his/her views declared offensive. The British have a long history in this practice, so it comes as no surprise to me that such a law has been passed on to the Canadian people by the English. Such a law would certainly be declared unconstitutional in the U.S. because whatever was allowed to be printed or not allowed would certainly be determined by the individual prejudices of the judge. The history of the U.S. started out with the legitimate political views of the colonists being suppressed by the English. That is why our constitution takes such a strong stand on this issue as well as the issue of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment which was widely practiced under British rule. The British armed forces regularly resorted to flogging and keel hauling among other things to keep their own troops in line. One of the great advantages the colonial forces had was that they refused to allow the flogging of soldiers as the British did. As far as the British sufferings under Cromwell are concerned, I cannot understand how the British would allow an equestrian statue of Cromwell to be erected outside the Houses of Parliament (where it now stands) if they really have negative experiences and feelings about him. British people that I have talked to have stated that they actually admired Cromwell, in spite of the fact that he acted as a dictator over the British people, and felt that he was "misunderstood" and "underrated". This is very similar to the way neo-Nazi's speak of Hitler. Furthermore your accounting of the so-called "Potato Famine" is completely at odds with the version put out in the BBC series on Ireland by Robert Kee. You should at least try to get in step with the propaganda line coming out of London, Martin! Even they admit that vast amounts of food were EXPORTED from Ireland during the so-called "Potato Famine" while relief efforts from other nations were ACTIVELY DISCOURAGED. Meanwhile, food was being IMPORTED into England because that country hasn't been self-sufficient in food production for centuries. You see, Ireland produced many different crops: various grains, vegetables, beef and dairy products, but these were reserved by the English landlords as cash crops for export only. Ireland has been the "breadbasket" of the British isles for a long time. Even today, Ireland is one of the best-fed nations in Europe. It is really England which is overpopulated and which should have experienced food shortages. The potato itself as a crop was introduced into Ireland by Sir Walter Raleigh after he brought it back from America. Sir Walter Raleigh will also be remembered for introducing the European world to tobacco smoking. He should have gone down in history as the patron saint of cancer. This "Potato Famine" must be the most notorious case in history of mass murder in which the murderer/coroner pronounced the victim dead of "natural causes". Martin Taylor's statement about this being an example of aristocratic cruelty to peasants just doesn't hold water. There was no withholding of food from "peasants" in England at the same time and there was also an ample supply of food available for those who converted to a more acceptable religion in Ireland. Even the English poet/author Thackery stated: "It is a frightful document against ourselves - one of the most melancholy stories in the whole world of insolence, rapine, brutal endless persecution... There is no crime ever invented by eastern or western barbarians, no torture of Roman persecutors or Spanish inquisitors, no tyranny of Nero or Alva but can be matched in the history of the English in Ireland". Finally the Irish or the Scottish or any other Celtic people cannot be faulted if half of their recorded history consists of being starved, shot, hanged or otherwise murdered on a massive scale by the English. It is not hate propaganda; it is history. If that history offends you then do something to stop the oppression and murder! In a sermon delivered in Westminster Cathedral, London in December 1980 John Baker said: "No British government ought ever to forget that this perilous moment, like many before it, is the outworking of a history for which our country is primarily responsible. England seized Ireland for its own military benefit; it planted Protestant settlers there to make it strategically secure; it humiliated and penalised the native Irish and their Catholic religion; and then, when it could no longer hold onto the whole island, kept back part to be a home for the settlers' descendants, a non-viable solution from which Protestants have suffered as much as anyone. Our injustice created the situation; and by constantly repeating that we will maintain it so long as a majority (sic) wish it, we actively inhibit Protestant and Catholic from working out a new future together. That is the root of violence, and the reasons why the protesters think of themselves as political offenders".
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/23/83)
The quick answer is: No it doesn't.
No one denies that the English have been guilty of terrible crimes in
Ireland, but that wasn't my point in trying to tone down the virulence
of some of the commentary, primarily by McGhee. I just don't think that
getting people mad is a good way of resolving anything, and particularly
in the case of Ireland there is enough hate on both sides to last for
a very long time. It isn't a question of the truth hurting. It's a
question of trying in a small way to increase the chances that the truth
of the future will hurt less.
I think I am consistent in this attitude. In various postings to other
newsgroups I have tried to bring out the idea that most countries with
imperial possibilities will act imperially. England, Russia, USA, France,
Uganda, VietNam .... It may be a facet of the nature of human organizations.
Not all imperial powers have acted nicely toward their colonies :-(.
Ireland has had a bad time, and the imperial power has always been England,
because who else has been in a position to try to invade Ireland?
England was once a French (well, Norman) colony, and much of France
was English at another time. I don't think the populace was particularly
well treated at either time, until things settled down.
As for the illegality of hate literature, I believe that there are
some laws in the US. Weren't the Nazis prohibited from parading in
some largely Jewish community a few years ago? The idea is to reduce
the probability that innocent people in the hated community will be
subjected to damage, mental or physical. I don't like censorship,
but neither do I like random murder for political (?) purposes.
Hate literature tends to produce an environment suited to terror,
so I support its censorship. I would prefer that it be kept off the
net, whoever might be its object.
Incidentally, I appreciate the positive side of McGhee's history lessons,
and see no objection to factual statements of past wrongs. What I
object to are the moral (?) lessons that accompany them. Celtic
people have made tremendous contributions to all Western societies,
English in particular. Where would English engineering or banking
be without Scots? There is a tremendous amount to be proud of in
Celtic history and culture. Let's celebrate it here.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt