lucr...@florence.it writes:
>
> No need, they were both at fault for wrong reasons but both made the
> territory unsafe if you didn't have to be there!
In spite of my last name being Irish, a genealogical study indicates
I'm half French and 40% Scottish . . . with 10% "who knows what?" Mostly
I'm a Canadian. So I didn't have a horse in the Troubles race.
I do study history, and the British were pretty brutal everywhere in
the 1800s and early 1900s until their empire rotted away (as all empires
do over time.) They didn't mind executing people who were 'sub
standard' and stealing anything of value for the motherland. Again a
classic feature of all empires, not unique to the British.
Ireland was not spared. They let ~2.5 million starve during
the 1845-1850 potato famine and another 2.5 million emigrate to NA,
Australia, etc. This when there was plenty to eat for the whole country
hoarded in Belfast for the Scottish Presbyterians brought in to
'civilize' the country. A good way to try to rid the island of the
animals!
Queen Victoria donated about 250K pounds of her personal 'allowance'
money to the starving Irish - the British Parliament wouldn't give them
a penny - sort of the way the Republicans think about non-WASPs in the
rotting empire south of us. They are not 'real' people.
No wonder there was a lot of hatred - the Irish carried out many
horiffic attacks on the British (Whee! Look! There goes pieces of Uncle
Louie Mountbatten, etc.), and the British summarily executed the ones
they caught for a couple of centuries. All in the name of the same god
and multi-generational hatred and mistrust on both sides.
At least it seems to have settled down these days.
--
HRM Resident