BS: Shame on the British

Subject: BS: Shame on the Romans.
From: GUEST,Red Eye
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 10:09 AM

Watched the made for TV drama on Bodicea, Queen of the Iceni tribe, who revolted against Roman occupation in the early part of Roman occupation here on this island. Saw from my British wife tears of revulsion against the treatment, starvation, rape & unlawful imprisonment of the then Celtic tribes under Roman rule, and then her elation for an oppressed people, rising up against the occupiers and the Celtic peoples wish to prefer 'dying on their feet, than living on their knees' under the Romans. The Romans considered this as acts of terrorism against themselves and acted without mercy.   

I know it was a made for TV and some facts were overlooked, but for once I saw a British Citizen realise and partly understand what the Irish have been going through for centuries under an illegal occupation.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: GUEST,Liam
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 10:19 AM

Spot on Red Eye.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Santa
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 10:54 AM

Of course, the odd massacre wouldn't have affected their opinion, would it?

But then anyone who takes a TV play and assumes it accurately reflects not only its subject but some other history altogether, are unlikely to be moved by anything other than his own prejudices.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 11:07 AM

I watched most of it until I fell asleep due to boredom.
What ever happened to the quality drama that used to be produced for British Television? Here we have a set of Romans who appeared to be talking 1980's business-speak. About the only thing they didn't say was that Lunch is for Wimps.
Where was the horror and passion of the characters? Where was the tension? Where the courage of the Celts? What happened to the Woad? Why was it just unutterable dross?
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 06:02 PM

Well there's a sweeping statement! All Brits bad then, is that what you're saying? Once again the inability to let go of the past means the sons being condemned for the sins of the Fathers. All of us who are aware of our history are also aware of the mistakes that were made, the forward thinking amongst us learn from them, and put them behind us.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 06:04 PM

The play next week is about the Irish invasion and occupation of Scotland which followed the Roman withdrawal. Should be even more unpleasant.Completely wiped out the language and culture of the indigenous inhabitants.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 06:15 PM

Illegal occupation?

They lost the war...

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: izzy
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 06:16 PM

Amazing he got one to marry him...

Greg, you fascinate me. Was it the Picts who were wiped out in Scotland?

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 06:23 PM

It was indeed. Anyone remember the Pictish for bodhran or craic?

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 06:34 PM

Interesting switch by Liam who clearly doesn't know the difference between British and English.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: mack/misophist
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 06:36 PM

One word about the sack of London: Most of the population had left. There were few left save women, children, and old men. That didn't save them. The real Roman crime against the Iceni was putting a greedy, stupid, asshole in charge. Politics has never been nice.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 06:45 PM

I'd be interested in knowing why a Joeclone changed the name of this thread. It began with a question/comment on a TV show about the Romans beating up on the proto-British tribes(maybe Celtic, and lets not get into "what is a Celt," please), and was titled "Shame on the Romans." Suddenly, with the first response, the thread title changed to "Shame on the British."

--- The thread title was not changed. Apparently, Red Eye used a different title for the message. I once had a professor who often said, "Jumping to conclusions is the only exercise some people get." Of course, I can see why you might have thought it had been changed. ---
---Jeff (PA)---

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on Woolly Thinkers
From: izzy
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 06:53 PM

Creeping Britanophobia on the part of Liam, artbrooks --or would it be somewhat more precise to say Anglophobia? Because that's what the first two messages basically consist of.

Anyone can change titles...;)

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 07:13 PM

"Anyone can change titles...;) "

But only the Masters of Mudcat Universe can change the title somthat it sticks.

When are we going to have a play about the extirpation of the Neanderthalers? This place is crawling with Cro-Magnons...

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: izzy
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 07:23 PM

Strange, McG. Very strange...

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Gareth
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 07:36 PM

Obviously us Brits did not learn from our mistakes.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 07:37 PM

The Romans quit when they realized that British Beer is better so they said to Caesar 'seeya' and joined up with the locals for one big booze up. Hence the expression 'when with a Roman, let'um buy the beer'.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: kendall
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 07:50 PM

What has happened to real drama? All of the writers are now under 30 years of age, that's what.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: AliUK
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 10:07 PM

I hear that they are going to make a dramatic reconstruction about another bloody and vile invasion by the Brits and the Boshe, where whole communities were wiped out and cultures subsumed. It´s going to be called " Package Holidays - The Costas Offensive"

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 11:34 PM

I didn't make it past the advertisements--it sounded like a poor program with bad acting one doesn't usually associate with British productions. It seems to have lived up to my expectations.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 11:49 PM

"Most of the population had left. There were few left save women, children, and old men."

Misophist, surely you're not implying that men were the population?

Reminds me of someone saying "By and large, the British love their government, and so do most of the wives."

TIC, Misophist, but making a point, at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: mack/misophist
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 12:02 AM

Londinium was without defenses. The population had time to leave and even a few places to go. For some reason there are always people who refuse. They died. When the 2nd Augusta ( I think they were the first legion to return) saw what had been done, they did their best to eradicate the Iceni. The Romans were big on making examples.

Not to say that Boudicca was entirely in the wrong, not by any means. When you commit atrocities, you had better win the war. Especially against the Romans. Remember the Servile Wars, 32,000 curcified.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: mack/misophist
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 12:08 AM

Note to Ebbie: Londinium was a colonia, built and populated primarily by retired soldiers. I think it was about 30 years old at the time of the rebellion. Most of the short timers in England settled there. There was no 'real' town there before that.

PS, What's TIC?

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 01:18 AM

I saw part of this programe, it was the biggest load of shit i have ever seen, i switched it off after 5 minutes, and went to the pub.john

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 01:33 AM

'Tongue in cheek', Misophist. Point taken.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 01:50 AM

"Up the Iceni"

This thread reminds me of that scene in "The Life of Brian" when Brian is caught painting anti-Roman slogans on the wall.

I don't see TV any more. I can't abide the thought of having to PAY to watch commercials interrupted by the overblown, stilted mummery that hopes to pass for drama. All the rest are variations on crime dramas and "reality" shows.

Shame on the BBC for allowing the deterioration of their presentations.

There is more interesting action from the live web cam at "Old Faithful" geyser in Yellowstone National Park.

CB

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 02:39 AM

The Scots who crossed from Ireland didn't, as far as is known, bring rapine and pillage, but merely settled and retained their written language. The Pictish population apparently quite peacably absorbed the incomers [as they did the Vikings, in spite of horrific tales to the contrary]and probably adopted the language where the populations became mingled. The Picts had no written language as far as is known, and this leads to the false conclusion that they "died out".

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Scabby Douglas
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 03:45 AM

Shame on the BBC for allowing the deterioration of their presentations.

Thankfully it wasn't BBC this time round.

This time it was ITV.

BBC2 were showing a dramatisation of the life of Byron at the time...

Cheers


Steven

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: greg stephens
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 04:53 AM

Fascinating history from Boab. So the Irish arrived in Scotland completely peacably, and some years later virtually all the placename in the area they occupied are in the Gaelic new language they brought with them, and nobody speaks the old language anymore. Do you really think that is evidence of a totally peaceful visit in the Dark Ages? I would guess there might have been just the teensiest bit of coercion involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: ard mhacha
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 06:30 AM

I have to agree with the people who criticised this programme, a right load of rubbish this whole Series. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 01:22 PM

I'd be inclined to think that, if the Scotification of Caledonia by the newcomers from Ireland had been a particularly lively affair, that would have left its mark in the way of stories and songs and so forth. They weren't backward about boasting about mayhem. That would go towards suggesting that it might have been a relatively peaceful affair, as those things go.

As has been pointed out, linguistic and cultural changes by no means necessarily imply that the people living there previously have been wiped out.

I imagine the DNA crew will come up with answers to these questions based on a little more than speculation. (Even if these aren't maybe as infallible as they are made out to be.)

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: greg stephens
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 01:37 PM

DNA information is still in its infancy, nd TV programmes tend to draw some big conclusions from small statistical differences. Small numbers of invaders(or peaceful colonisers) can also make a huge cultural difference in spite of tiny numbers. Look at the Normans in England and Ireland, or the British in India or Africa. but itis intriguing as McGrath points out there dont seem to be that many stories/legends/historical account of just what happened from a non-Gaelic situsation in Scotland in say 300AD to 500years later when a big chunk of the area was covered with Gaelic place-names, inhabited by Gaelic speakers with Gaelic names and ruled by Gaels. Two people have postulated a peaceful(or near peceful) process. I ahve my doubts. There is some account in the late Romano-British period of the start of the raids, but after that things go very vague. I agree, you would expect the Gaels (being a touch on the lively side when it comes to warfare) would have made a song and dance boasting about it. I'll have to look into this further, it's intriguing. Mind you, the English havent left many poems about their successful battles when arriving in England, but arrive they certainly did, and I doubt if that was a friendlt city-twinning ceremnoy either.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Arnie
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 04:11 PM

Like many here, I was looking forward to a quality programme in Boudicca but found it a total waste of viewing time. Why on earth did they have the Iceni and Romans speaking in modern idioms? Did you notice how nice and white and regular were Boudicca's teeth?? Looked like an advert for toothpaste. Anyway, on the Roman front there was much more interesting news today. A metal detector(ist?) has discovered a Roman metal pan in Staffs. It is inscribed with an engraving of Hadrian's wall and a person's name. It is thought to be a retirement gift to a Roman soldier who would have done duty on the Wall. What a blast from the past - wonder what his leaving do was like?

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 05:24 PM

Yuo should have watched the life of Byron on the other side -what a poet and what a complete pig dog. Great production and the guy who played Byron and used to be married to Angela Jolie but whose name escapes me-was excellent.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Penny S.
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 06:29 PM

Then there was the drama about Blair and Brown on C4 - that one didn't have any overdone sex in it (or underdone, either). I tried the Boudica thing, but I couldn't believe the Iceni royals would have been so grubby, and gave up on Nero and his mother. (Been there, saw that with I Claudius.) I couldn't believe the way the Romans were behaving at the beginning, and I found the speech to camera irritating. Byron could certainly have given the Caesars a run for their money in the dissipation stakes, but he did try to rescue Greece (must check up on Nero, there, though). I switched back to the last minutes of Boudica - I think some Roman wrote the battle part of the script - but what was that stuff about the daughter disappearing and then reappearing on the Embankment with a party of school- children? Her descendants live? Or time travel? By that time, I was waiting for the Hogwarts train to appear at Kings Cross.

The part I saw didn't convince me about the religion of the Iceni being important to them - I would think more intense belief and practice, but less effective Druid spells would be more realistic.

It was a really stupid evening of scheduling. Can anyone invent a recorder that records all the signals to be sorted out later, rerun the tape four times and watch everything in sequence?

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 07:48 PM

Blair, Brown, Boudicca and Byron. They seem to have left out Bush amnd Bakunin. Are they working through the alphabet?

Subject: RE: BS: Shame about British TV
From: Bassic
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 10:19 PM

I watched "The Life of Biran" on video, better than any of that stuff, and it was historical! He was a "very naughty boy" and his mum wouldnt let him come out to play.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Daithi
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 05:47 AM

History? An account of things that didn't happen written by people who weren't there...

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Tam the Bam (Nutter)
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 11:22 AM

I liked the Prograame it was good.

Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Peg
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 11:54 AM

is this the one starring Alex Kingston? I thought that was still in production...

BTW, if anyone wants to read an amazing play on this very topic, try Howard Brenton's The Romans in Britain. Very controversial when it was presented in London some years ago (onstage acts of simulated buggery, etc.). It does draw a clear parallel between the Roman occupation of Britain and the British occupation of Ireland...

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: GUEST,Chris
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 12:11 PM

I think that the parallels being drawn between the invasion of Britain by the Romans and the invasion of Ireland by Cromweel have similiarities that you can't ignore. Me, Irish of descent, loved when the Celts decided to rise and fight back the invaders of their land and,if they spilt blood,it would be blood spilt on their land and would mingle with their own ancestors. Some of it was quite stirring but I am very dubious about some of the facts. As far as I was aware, Boudicea kiled herself and her daughters with poison??

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Dead Horse
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 02:17 PM

Wasn't it Boudicca who wrote "Roll the old chariot along"?
If so, then this thread out to lose it's BS prefix (BG)

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 02:54 PM

Thinks Greg Stevens wondering about the fate of Pictish normal. I used wonder too. I read somewhere that Pict/ish was 'like' Welsh, but different. However that author might have lied, read some-other who lied or created the story.

Other possibilities are that the BBC makes lots of money telling fibs about it, when they already know the Picts spake Gaelic and it was the Scots who on being enslaved spread the lingo back to Ireland where yet earlier Picts lived but under terrible strain from all the drunks that arrived when the Romans kicked them out of England?

On the other hand, could not real English be the Welsh but hiding in Cardiff? In which case ye olde English is really South Walish but spoken by those fed a diet of Brains?

There is no doubt though that Cromwell was a major posteriorhole; besides helping behead a king he also ate ragwort which made him mighty smelly, so when he sat down all had to take a step backwards. Thus the old saying 'when Cromwell sits, the aire changeth - for the worse'.

King Blogger( Pictish for Cricketbat ) of Angster ( Ireland ) wasn't any better, of this it is writ 'f**t not before the king, for death is fouler'

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: izzy
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 03:32 PM

"The Scots (originally Irish,, but by now Scotch) were at this time inhabiting Ireland, having driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland; while the Picts (originally Scots) were now Irish (living in brackets) and vice versa. It is essential to keep these distinctions in mind (and verce visa.)"

Three cheers for the person who guesses what that is a quote from :D

Sounds rather like the brief run-down of ancient Scottish history that I was given at the beginning of my 1st Gaelic class...

Cheers,

Isabel

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: redhorse
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 05:33 PM

1066 and all that: where else?

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Grab
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 06:56 PM

Saw from my British wife tears of revulsion... for once I saw a British Citizen realise and partly understand what the Irish have been going through for centuries under an illegal occupation.

I hope for your sake that your wife never, ever reads this thread, or you'll be looking for your bollocks in the morning! What a damn stupid thing to say.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: izzy
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 08:48 PM

3 cheers for redhorse for guessing! Hip hip--oh, I think I'm getting tired already. Better get to bed.

Yes, Graham, it certainly was a damned stupid thing to say. One of the stupidest things I've ever read on a message-board --what does his poor wife have to do with the Troubles?. But she won't know he said it, because, like a true troll, he posted as a "guest".

For the nth time, I wish Max would make Mudcat members only.

:(

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 06:24 PM

It was Johnny Lee Miller who played Byron on BBC 2. Next Thursday he plays a young thug in the Canterbury Tales.

It doesn't really make sense to judge dead people by values developed after they died.

How come no-one on this thread has mentioned the occupation of Iraq by alien armies who are killing civilians without asking questions first?

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 05:01 AM

Are the civilians questioning them Kitty? That's a question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" category. Whether we think they should be there or not, put yourself in the shoes of a lot of scared kids, who definitely don't think they should be there. It's sad but not inexplicable.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 05:58 AM

These are trained professionals, in a peacetime army that has had a lot of time for training.

If they can't cope with this kind of situation, the primary blame lies with the people who are responsible for that training, and who have failed to provide them with adequate and appropriate training.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 06:20 AM

Most kids enlist out of bravado, and lack of local employment, and in most cases, don't even think they'll ever pull a trigger in anger.
Training as such largely consists of de-humanisation exercises, they are conditioned to obey orders without question, and thinking for yourself is considered a crime. They are as much "cannon fodder" as the Light brigade was at the battle of Balaclava.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 06:28 AM

Wish someone could make the distinction between the British Government and the British people especially at the time, when by far the vast majority of people were disenfranchised

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Harry Basnett
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 03:32 PM

In latter years didn't one of the brothers of Robert the Bruce become King of Ireland and make rather a hash of it? Wonderfully interesting this history thing....

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 04:05 PM

"Training as such largely consists of de-humanisation exercises, they are conditioned to obey orders without question, and thinking for yourself is considered a crime."

That is the impression I get from what I've seen, in documentaries about army training, and in news coverage from Iraq. And that kind of thing costs lives - dead civilians, and dead soldiers. And the people responsible for sending young men and women effectively untrained, into situations which need proper training to deal with, are the ones who really have blood on their hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Oct 03 - 09:27 AM

Giok - 03 Oct 03 - 06:20 AM & McGrath of Harlow - 03 Oct 03 - 04:05 PM

"Training as such largely consists of de-humanisation exercises, they are conditioned to obey orders without question, and thinking for yourself is considered a crime."

Neither of you has the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 03 - 10:59 AM

Giok, If you dont think for yourself, you get killed very quickly in modern war. The old stand and take it mentality and tactics are not used anymore. As far as dehumanizing, the trials at Nurenburg stand as a historical precedence and counter for those types.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Metchosin
Date: 09 Oct 03 - 01:27 PM

As the instinct "not to kill" is the usual overriding human condition, overcoming natural instincts, in post WWII military training, has made great strides. Perhaps the following will clarify some of the fog Teribus.

Here is the current thought in military training for overcoming this "little obstacle", straight from the horse's mouth. This might explain the huge increase in PTSD in combatants coming out of the Vietnam War.

"American military leaders have been very successful in their task to create combat-effective units.  In response to the War Department's World War II research that revealed that less than 25% of riflemen fired their weapons in combat, the military instituted training techniques—such as fire commands, battle drills, and realistic marksmanship ranges--that resulted in much improved combat firing rates.  In the Korean War, 55% of the riflemen fired their weapons at the enemy,[1]and by the Vietnam War that rate had increased to 90%.[2]"

"Modern combat training conditions soldiers to act reflexively to stimuli —such as fire commands, enemy contact, or the sudden appearance of a "target"—and this maximizes  soldiers' lethality, but it does so by bypassing their moral autonomy."

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 03 - 01:37 PM

The point is, however appropriate that kind of thing might be in certain types of combat situations, it just isn't appropriate in a situation where the army is having to act in a quasi-police role.

And that's what I was meaning by there being a culpable failure to provide soldiers with the kind of training to enable them to cope with what they are being faced with in a set-up like Iraq. And the evidence seems to be that is particularly true in the case of the US Army.

And that kind of failure is not the fault of ordinary soldiers.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Gareth
Date: 09 Oct 03 - 04:36 PM

Hmmm ! I think this thread has drifted, but in view of comments on Armies I offer this one


NORMANDY ORCHARDS
Keith Marsden

They're building a camp on the cornfields at Allingham,
Bulldozers churning and changing the land.
Long barbed-wire fences and acres of tarmac,
Nissen huts ranged where the crops used to stand.
Wide-eyed young village girls, giggling and staring at,
Tanks and transporters that darken the sky.
There's convoys of lorries with fresh faces peering out,
So many young men come learning to die.

CHORUS:
They say you can still hear the village hall band,
Grey, ghostly couples still glide round the floor.
But Normandy orchards were waiting to welcome,
New partners for death in the mad dance of war.

Mother has started a Comforts Committee,
But Reverend John's more concerned about sin.
Hughes at the White Swan is rubbing his hands a lot,
Watching the troops and the profits roll in.
Eager young squaddies with overdone courtesy,
Tipping their caps to the girls going by.
But too soon from school to be licentious soldiery,
So many young men come learning to die.

CHORUS

And mother would have a blue fit if she knew about,
Lieutenant Johnson and walks in the wood.
She's laid down the law and she's always gone on about,
Men being beasts so a girl must be good.
But even she'd laugh at our clumsy propriety,
Me far too fearful and him far too shy.
She might even pity his lonely bewilderment,
One of the young men come learning to die.

Chorus

And peace came to Allingham many long years ago,
Time, passing by, healed the scars on the land.
Tanks on the village green just a fond memory now,
Corn grows again where the huts used to stand.
Yet when I walk in the woods on a summer's night,
At the trees' edge when the wind starts to sigh.
I still hear their voices all rising in harmony,
Lost, wasted young men, come learning to die.

Chorus


From Picking Sooty Blackberries, The Songs of Keith Marsden.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 09 Oct 03 - 07:30 PM

Wise words indeed Gareth. Great songs are always hiding out there and this is one of them.
Thank You

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: GUEST, Obie
Date: 09 Oct 03 - 07:41 PM

I could never understand why the British want to remain in Ireland.
If they could pack up and give Hong Kong back to China why not give Ulster back to Ireland?
Even if a civil war was the result it would be Ireland's ,not Britain's, and in time wounds would heal. Perhaps the U.N. could keep a lid on things until power was transferred.
In any case this has been an open wound for centuries and it is time to start to try and find solutions that have a hope of success. As long as British troops are there it does not seem possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 09 Oct 03 - 09:29 PM

You haven't thought much about the subject, then.

1. "The British" (whoever you imagine they are) do not want to remain in Ireland. Regrettably, it is impossible to withdraw the token military presence in Ulster until the Unionists are no longer a potential threat to the Catholic minority; and, indeed, until all paramilitaries of whatever pursuasion agree to abide by rules of behaviour that apply equally to all parties. This is likely to take at least another generation. It will probably take longer than that for the Irish government to take the steps necessary to ensure that re-unification (which must take place eventually) will actually work.

2. Hong Kong was leased. The lease expired. The tenants left. Simple; though, to give them due credit, the departing tenants insisted on guarantees of basic rights, not allowed in mainland China, for the remaining inhabitants. Comparison is irrelevant.

When I was a naïve teenager, I believed that the British government should withdraw immediately. I changed my mind after meeting a Catholic peace activist who explained what was really happening there. Like it or not, a military presence was needed in the 1960s, and is needed now, though to a lesser extent as the various parties begin to grow up a bit. That military presence, however, needs to be perceived as neutral, and due to the kind of incompetence that led to disasters like Bloody Sunday, it's perfectly true that that is unlikely to be achieved under present arrangements; a United Nations peace-keeping force might be a good idea, but it would need to be very highly trained. Whether or not any of the various factions involved would be prepared to accept that I do not know.

The thread title is, frankly, bloody stupid and calculated to cause dissent. Consider, for example, the occupation of the North of America by European settlers; or, looking further back, the occupation of the West of Scotland by invaders from the island now called Ireland. Are they illegal too? If the issues cannot be addressed dispassionately and without partisanship or bias, they will never be resolved.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 03 - 07:32 AM

The title thread was, I take it, a joke, referring to Boudicca and the Romans. Probably a misplaced joke. The thread has drifted somewhat. Not the same British at all (apart from Gareth and his neighbours in Wales maybe).

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 10 Oct 03 - 10:34 AM

Malcolm,
My point, while overly simplistic is that the British must accept that they are the problem rather than the solution. The U.N. may be of help and I would hope that to be the case.
Nothing has really changed since the 60's or for that matter since the partition.
Perhaps I have given it more thought than you credit me for, but I still don't understand why the British remain ,when most Irish would only wish them good riddance.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Oct 03 - 02:15 PM

Let us fast forward a little...

Watched the made for TV drama on Bo de Cia, Queen of the Iraqi tribe, who revolted against American occupation in the early part of American occupation here in this land. Saw from my Iraqi wife tears of revulsion against the treatment, starvation, rape & unlawful imprisonment of the then Arabic tribes under American rule, and then her elation for an oppressed people, rising up against the occupiers and the Arabic peoples wish to prefer 'dying on their feet, than living on their knees' under the Americans. The Americans considered this as acts of terrorism against themselves and acted without mercy.   

I know it was a made for TV and some facts were overlooked, but for once I saw a American Citizen realise and partly understand what the Iraqis have been going through for centuries under an illegal occupation.

Makes you wonder doesn't it...


:D

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 03 - 04:32 PM

For the analogy to work it'd have to be a lady who'd grown up in the mighty Iraqi Empire in the year 3000, empathising with what happened back in the 20th Cebtury in Iraq, with the penny finally dropping about what happened between her ancestors and that bunch of shaggy barbarians scratching a living way over in the other continent, whom everyone made jokes about these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Desdemona
Date: 10 Oct 03 - 05:15 PM

As an historian, I can only say that *every* culture has had their turn (at least once!) to be oppressed, exploited and enslaved, the native English included (see: Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Celts, Vikings,Normans, et al).

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Oct 03 - 01:25 AM

No one answered Peg's question. Is this the one with Alex Kingston acting as Boudica? Just watched it on PBS's Masterpiece Theater, tonight, and was really disappointed. I hated the use of modern idioms, as someone else noted, among many other things I think could have been done much better.

According to things I've read, Boudicca did commit suicide. ANd, what DID happen with her daughters? I thought the way they left it about Isolda was really stupid!

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 03 - 06:22 AM

Maybe it would have been a better idea if the thread title had been left at the original more relevant "Shame on the Romans" or perhaps "Shame on the Britons".

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 03 - 06:35 AM

Here's a site talking about what would be implied in a basic income for all, pros and cons: PAX CHRISTI

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 03 - 06:46 AM

That last didn't belong here, as some people might have twigged. I'm off to put it in the right thread. (But it's worth reading anyway.)

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 13 Oct 03 - 11:08 AM

If Gealic is Pictish, then the Welsh are descended from Romans and the Scottish eat too much haggis, othewise how do you explain the English being such good umpires? On the other hand while the Shetlands are inhabited by Sweeds and Manx cats are so rare, should Saxons to eat more dog instead?

Thats what my improved Word Processor thinks.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Oct 03 - 12:00 PM

Now I know what pissing in the wind must feel like...:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: wildlone
Date: 13 Oct 03 - 06:08 PM

If you want to know what the troops in England thought about going to Ireland in 1649 follow this link The Levellers
dave

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: LadyJean
Date: 14 Oct 03 - 12:36 AM

I just saw that Boadacea movie on "Masterpiece Theater". My God it was silly!

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Oct 03 - 12:53 AM

HeyaDave!! Hi there, good to see you around!! Thanks for the link!

kat

Subject: BS: re:Shame on the British.
From: GUEST,Cranky Yankee
Date: 14 Oct 03 - 02:31 AM

If you're going to cry about history, at least get the history straight.

Ireland was repeatedly invaded by foreign peoples who stayed on and became "Irish"

Bodicca was Iceni, not Celt. The Picts, and Britons were also their own tribes and not Celts French speaking Belgians are Celts, but the Iceni weren't. The Welsh people of today are the Britons of yesteryear.

What is an illegal occupation?

Are Canada, The USA , Mexico, etc illegally occupying their lands?

You win a war, you occup[y. That's part of "Survival of the fittest".

Are the people of the Irish Republic illegally occupying what was part of the British Empire? Of course not. They claimed their land by force of arms, and rightly so.

"DIALECTIC MATERIALISM" IS WHAT THE COMMUNISTS CALLED, "HISTORY AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN" and we all know what happened to them.

Jody Gibson

---

I moved this message here from another thread on the same topic.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: re:Shame on the British.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 Oct 03 - 04:12 AM

Histories are written by the victors.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: GUEST,Opie
Date: 14 Oct 03 - 05:03 AM

The Welsh are not Celts???
Now that's a new one !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 03 - 05:11 AM

The Iceni weren't Celtic? Whatever that means. They were as Celtic as any other tribe of Britons

"...at least get the history straight." Precisely.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: cattattoo
Date: 14 Oct 03 - 10:29 AM

Now THAT'S a damned stupid thing to say!

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 14 Oct 03 - 05:28 PM

No problem about explaining the brindley cows in the field outside of town, but how can anyone begin to explain Gaelic or its real origins, when there is nothing else like it? In contrast Welsh or whatever you want to call it, is very similar to Bretonic, Galician, Cornish and some more I now cannot recall, so following its trail across Europe is easy.

Solve that puzzle if you can! For those wanting to make a shortcut inserting Indo-whatsits origins, I would like to ask them first to explain how on earth could anybody travel that far on nothing but Gaelic and Guinness?

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 14 Oct 03 - 07:08 PM

If a Celtic language was spoken in Galicia, it does not survive; neither do the other Celtic languages or dialects spoken long ago in Mainland Europe, with the exception of Breton; which was taken there from Britain (hence its name). Relics persist in place-names and the like, of course. Goidelic and Brythonic are the surviving sub-groups of the Celtic language group, which is one of several branches of the Indo-European language family.

Simple enough, but irrelevant to this discussion, except insofar as a good few people so far have displayed a rather limited grasp of history!

The real linguistic mystery is Basque, which is not Indo-European at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 16 Oct 03 - 07:40 AM

"which is one of several branches of the Indo-European language family."
I suspect this academic claim to be 99% guesswork and 1% political convenience.

My point again is that Gaelic has NO similar dialects/languages anywhere whatsoever, whereas Welsh does. Maybe long established prejudices are about to be debunked, thanks to the internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 16 Oct 03 - 10:10 AM

The three main dialects of Gaelic are Irish, Scottish, and Manx.
These people called themselves Gaels. They are classed as "Q Celtic."
Bretons and Welsh are classed as "P Celtic." It is generally thought that the Picts were also P Celtic.
At the time when druid priests existed they trained together, from all over Europe, for 20 years and then returned to their home areas to be priest, judge, and teacher. This process helped keep the old Celtic
tongue the same over wide areas. After the spread of Christianity these links were lost and Latin became the common thread. The Celts became more isolated from each other causing dialects to emerge.
Gaelic peoples who spread from Galacia to Galicia to Ireland to Scotland to Cape Breton are the Gaels. Most of the Celts on the mainland of Europe were overrun and assimilated by others after the retreat of the Romans and their language was lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 03 - 10:24 AM

And Cornish was the other language on the Welsh side.

And there are lots of similarities in vocabulary and structure with other languages across Europe and into India. Even apart from the numerous words whch are shared with English because of borrowing over the last few centuries.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 16 Oct 03 - 07:58 PM

Ok Obie - I think you are stating an accepted dogma and I would not want to disagree with it; however the standard account makes very little sense to the unread observer. Two facts that I think need stating, A Galician IS more like Welsh than anyother language and, B Galician is still widely used in Galicia

A more consistent account would be that the Galician speaking Socts migration to Ireland found a Gaelic speaking population, and that having integrated these Scots adopted Gaelic.

Next any attempt to explain further the origins of Gaelic by drawing conclusions from vague similarities to Indo languages is bound to be MISTAKEN since I can find lots of similarities to Asian languages - indeed by these same criteria we could begin to conlude that Gaelic is an Artic dialect or something equally ridiculus.

For one thing we know concepts and technology did often travel across Eurasia, and some of these -no doubt- would have been the same SOUND so one could be duped into accouting an origin to a whole family of SOUNDS - ie a language - from the similarity of a few. This I think is av error.

I think that using a few similarities between two REMOTE language areas does not explain anything other than that ideas travel; that if we start that kind of thing we might just as easily have claimed that the British Isles were the cradle of civilization from which all IndoEuropean languages grew; so I think this method is invalid.

A far more likely account of preceltic people/languages in Britain would begin in the Atlantic Islands where are still found traces of fair races. It is here that some try to relate Euskera ( what Mr Douglas calls Basque ) or some elements of it to African/Iberian dialects. Indeed I read some accounts that assert that the Canaries were once Atlantis, and as such it would have had a very elaborate developed language.

I am more inclined to believe that preceltic history is also a time of great geological change and that therefore people and culture could have simply walked across land into Britian - FROM the west, than to believe influnces came - by 747?????? - from Asia or India or indeed anywhere that far away.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 03 - 08:41 PM

Galician is very similar to Spanish and Portuguese and totally different from Welsh. Here is a site about the language.

Here is a sample of Galician:

A sociedade galega esta divida no que a lingua se refere. O poder politico, conservador, espanholeiro, usa o força para definir o que cultura e língua é, o que tem que ser para o povo galego e nao aceita dialogo ou discussão. A Xunta, que é o nome ca co o governo galego é conhecido, é a responsavel desta alinheação. Ela rompe ca tradição milenária da construição do galego, do galego tradicional e histórico e aceita o processo de assimilação linguistico ao espanhol e que duma forma unilateral declara ser o galego normalizado.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 16 Oct 03 - 10:14 PM

It is a mistake to compare Galician to Gaelic. The language spoken there 2500 years ago is what carried over to Ireland but after centuries of Roman domination Gaelic did not survive there. There is an obvious latin root to Galician . Gaelic is a much older language than Latin.
Languages change over time, of course. Remember that English is a Germanic dialect that today stands on it's own as a distinct language and that Scots is a sister language to English and not a dialect descended from it. Gaelic is to Welsh what German is to English.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 17 Oct 03 - 06:54 PM

"A sociedade galega esta divida no que a lingua se refere."

This reads like Spanish to me ( a student of Spanish ), but I admit I need new glasses.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 03 - 07:29 PM

Precisely.

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the British
From: GUEST,Chris B
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 09:48 AM

I'm getting a bit tired of all this. Have none of the 'victim' celtic peoples ever committed atrocities? What about all the Irish troops in Custer's 7th Cavalry? Yay, Crazy Horse....

Subject: RE: BS: Shame on the Britons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 10:05 AM

I don't think anybody is denying that, Chris. Boudicca and her followers carried out some pretty gruesome massacres, as well as teh other way round, and that's the context in which this thread started.
It's not a bad idea to read through threads before posting to them.

Mind I'm still puzzled why the title of the thread got changed from Shame on the Romans to Shame on the British rather than Shame of the Britons, to avoid confusion, if it had to be changed at all.