BS: The Curse of Cromwell

Subject: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 07:10 PM

There seems to be a lot of interest in Oliver Cromwell in another thread here. So was the man a hero or villain ?

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 07:15 PM

Like everyone else, a little bit of both.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Bert
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 08:14 PM

More like a lot of both.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 08:55 PM

*G*

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Nickhere
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 09:29 PM

In Ireland, as you know, he is remembered as being a sectarian genocidal maniac on a rampage. Unfortunately we had no CNN those days to broadcast our plight around the world and put a stop to him in his tracks. When I was young, old people might talk of where he had hanged so-and-so, as if it had happened yesterday. I was watching a documentary on him on BBc ages back, and saw how he might be perceived as a hero among his own people, liberating them from the yoke of corrupt monarchy and establishing England's first republic of sorts (making him an odd icon for Northern loyalists, when you think about it). Then of course he began to cut down the maypoles, ban laughing and insist everyone dress in black.... pretty soon the English got tired of him as well. It struck me that he was a man who genuinely seemed to believe he had a mission. He seemed to have no doubt that what he was doing was absolutely the right thing.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 09:49 PM

Sort of like George Bush and Tony Blair, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: John O'L
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 03:29 AM

...with a bit of bin Laden thrown in?

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 03:30 AM

Pasted from Amazon. Might be of interest.

Cromwell An Honourable Enemy by Tom Reilly

Synopsis
This re-examination of the Cromwellian invasion of Ireland argues that the viewpoint of Cromwell as a genocidal maniac and religious fanatic lacks solid evidence. Placing his conquest within the rules of war at the time, it concludes he was the first successful military conqueror of Ireland.

From the Author
This book is ahead of its time
As author of this book, I feel that many historians in Ireland are not ready yet for 'an honourable' Cromwell - nor indeed are the people of Ireland. I thought that I would change the history books and public opinion about this much maligned historical figure by publishing the truth about Cromwell's Irish campaign. The reaction - among the under forties on the whole - was good, but among historians and the over forties it was bad. They can't seem to accept that an amateur could discover such a fundamental flaw in Irish history ie that neither Cromwell or his men ever engaged in the killing of any unarmed civilians throughout his entire nine month campaign. The facts are there for all to see. But God bless Ireland the past is still the present here and we MUST have our English hate figures - despite the truth. How sad is that?
Tom Reilly Author - Cromwell An Honourable Enemy

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 04:15 AM

Hm ....sounds a bit like the historian who could prove the inhabitatnts of Belsen had a reasonable enough diet.

He didn't get a reputation like that for a few lapses in table manners.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Bruce from Bathurst
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 04:18 AM

The husband of the Governor of New South Wales is Sir Nicholas Shehadie, a former front row forward who played rugby union for Australia for over ten years back in the 1940s and 50s.

A few years ago Mary Robinson, who was President of Ireland at the time, was on a State visit to Australia and was introduced to Sir Nick. She told him that although the Irish are a warm and forgiving people, there are two individuals who would not be welcomed back to Eire. One was Oliver Cromwell, still not forgiven for his activities in Ireland 450 years ago. The other was Nick Shehadie, still not forgiven for knocking out one of the star Irish players in a match in Dublin 50 years ago.

He said she was smiling when she told him, so it must be true!

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: GUEST,Janine
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 06:38 AM

You have to judge O.C. as a man of his time. Although his military conquest of Ireland was hardly within what we would regards in the 20th/21st centuries as military acceptable (was the bombing of Dresden?), it was certainly well within the standards of his time. That's no excuse but he was certainly no Bush/Blaire.

Janine

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 06:52 AM

"The standards of his time..."

So lets have no more silliness about witch trials or judicial torture or the slave trade or torture executions or religious persecution or historical anti-semitism or genital mutilation of women and so forth. All well within the standards of the relevant time and/or place.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: GUEST,Cats
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 07:19 AM

I have musket ball holes in my bedroom wall and cannon balls in my garden because of him...Our house came under fire in the English Civil War on the retreat from the Seige of Lostwithiel, 1644.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: robomatic
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 11:57 AM

Loved The Movie

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: ard mhacha
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 12:07 PM

Cromwell transported thousands of Irish to the West Indies as slaves, the man was ahead of his time in most things particularly genocide, and despite trying he never quite succeeded, the English in the 1840s did a much better job.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Les from Hull
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 12:25 PM

'sectarian genocidal maniac on a rampage'

The actions of Cromwell, though reprehensible by modern standards, were fairly benign for that day and age. They were in response to the Irish Uprising of 1641 which does not get nearly as much publicity as, say, the Siege of Drogheda. The actions of the English Army in Ireland were fuelled to some extent by unscrupulous pamphleteers who claimed 100,000 protestants killed by the catholics (modern estimate 12,000).

You have to understand how siege warfare worked in those days. The besiegers would batter at the walls with their cannon until they had a 'practicable breach' - a hole in the walls that they could attack through. They would then call upon the defenders to surrender. If they refused to surrender and the attackers had to storm the breach it was understood that the town would be sacked, and the defenders massacred. There are many examples in history, not least in the European 'Wars of Religion'.

It was also normal for landowners who rebelled against the 'government' to have their lands confiscated and handed over to soldiers who had fought on the 'government' side.

So sectarian? - yes (hated Catholics but he did allow the Jews back in), genocidal? - certainly not, maniac? - no evidence but plenty of evidence to the contrary, on a rampage? - reportedly lost his temper once at Drogheda.

I would urge anyone who is presenting a view of historical events or characters to make some effort to read and understand the historical context before committing their thoughts to the public.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 01:24 PM

Les, the Lord said we must be humble, and oh, if we are in the company of you we shall be humble. ...

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 01:31 PM

Was that a dig at our Les, Guest?

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Les from Hull
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 04:16 PM

It's fine for people to post their opinions. I'll always be interested in reading people's opinions. But unless they are backed by some sort of evidence they can only be opinions.

My opinion of Cromwell. Not the sort of bloke that I would care to sit and chat with socially - and I'm sure that he wouldn't be short of opinions himself! But his reputation has suffered from people who assume that every action taken in those years was his own and only his. People assume that he was a despotic dictator in the style of say, Stalin. I don't think that historical eveidence bears this out.

There are plenty of things to hate about the Commonwealth. The failure to set up a form of government that was acceptable to the English people, and that would survive the overthrow of the Monarchy. The treatment handed out to the Levellers. And of course I deplore the sending into slavery of thousands of Irish during Cromwell's 'rule'. But that's just my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 04:33 PM

Yeh you're right Les, we've all had that sort of week......forgive and forget, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 04:58 PM

Well, he wasn't the same as Stalin, and Stalin wasn't the same as him. History never repeats itself.

I gather in Russia there are a lot of people who think Stalin was quite a good chap, and no doubt in time there'll be more. Out in Mongolia Ghengis Khan is a national hero, and they've just renamed their main airport after him. I suspect Saddam will have his fans in time.

That's how it goes, as history rubs off the rough edges.

In London there's the Cromwell Road, and a statue outside Parliament. The old man isn't doing too badly, considering. Just don't anyone try putting up a statue to him in Ireland.   And it'd be better is he doesn't get put up as a kind of role model. Anyone using him as a role model is likely to turn out a lot worse than he did.

Which gets us back to Stalin. Here is an extract from an interview he gave in 1934 to HG Wells:

Stalin: 'The Communists base themselves on rich historical experience which teaches that obsolete classes do not voluntarily abandon the stage of history. Recall the history of England in the seventeenth century. Did not many say that the old social system had decayed? But did it not, nevertheless, require a Cromwell to crush it by force?'

HG WELLS: 'Cromwell operated on the basis of the constitution and in the name of constitutional order...'

STALIN: 'In the name of the constitution he resorted to violence, beheaded the king, dispersed Parliament, arrested some and beheaded others!'

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 05:06 PM

Les, you are entitled to have an opinion on this or any subject as much as the next man. I enjoy reading yours. There is also a Cromwell Road in Belfast.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Les from Hull
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 05:37 PM

Yeah - even Stalin's at it. No one refers to 'Parliament', 'The Army', 'The Committee of Safety', 'The Major-Generals' or any other officers of state. Or Ireton. Or Fairfax...

Cromwell had to be convinced that the execution of the King was necessary. He was at first for giving him his throne back with reduced powers. Stalin assumes that he was judge, jury and executioner!

Mind you one of those beheaded was Sir John Hotham, former Governor of Hull who tried to betray the town back to the King. And there's a road in Hull named for him too, Divis!

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 05:40 PM

Cromwell wasn't alone. Nor was Stalin.

Mind in both cases you'd be pushing your luck to try to stop him doing what he thought was necessary to consolidate his power.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Les from Hull
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 05:45 PM

And there are a surprising number of people who think that Napoleon Bonaparte was a good bloke!

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 05:54 PM

The noted men of history will always be someones hero or villain.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: John O'L
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 06:29 PM

Humanity has always been humanity. We know this from the authors. Humans have always known what was wrong from what was right, and have always been aware of all the different hues in between. Military savagery is not OK just because everybody else has been doing it for centuries. Is that the best you hope for?
Be careful, history is still going on, and not a lot has changed. It might end up being what you get.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Nickhere
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 07:39 PM

Les - I was saying how Cromwell is remembered in Ireland, not planning to write an academic treatise on same (it was pushing on for midnight). Revisionist historians may be kinder to Cromwell than memory (they wouldn't 'earn' as much academic kudos anyway if they just wrote the same old stuff about him) but apparently to people who were alive at the time and who handed down their memories he stood out as something exceptionally cruel and savage. And remember, this must have been judged against the standards of the time,since his victims and their relatives did not have the benefit of 21st cent hindsight.

I know about the rebellion of 1641, the last ditch effort of Irish catholics, Gaels and Old English (the Anglo-Norman catholic settlers) to drive out the invading English. It should be added that the Irish had supported Charles 1st in the Civil War, seeeing him as their best hope. A bad mistake as it turned out, since Charles was beheaded and Cromwell then turned his attention to Ireland to 'teach it a lesson' and ensure ther'd be no more support for a monarch (Charles' son was still about). Almost 50 years later at the Boyne, the Irish were again taking sides in an English civil war in the hope of getting a better deal for themslves. Again they backed a losing horse (James) and paid dearly for it. You could say they'd have been better off minding their own business, but the two countries were so close that their foreign policies became entertwined.

I'm still right about Crowmell being dour, though, aren't I? I gather he wasn't too popular in England either which is why his body was dug up and his head stuck on a spike after the Restoration.

By the way, if we argue about 'the standards and rules of the time' - there was no such crime as genocide officially until the Nuremberg trials. The statute of the crime had to be invented (though the fact was real) especially in time for the trials. Nor was genocide unknown prior to that: most of the colonists engaged in a good bit of it: the French, the Belgians, the English, Spanish, anyone who could....

Won't bore you with endless examples though, have a look at this rather interesting site:
Concentration camps and colonialism

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 08:09 PM

At all times there have been some people who did not share the "standards of the day", just as there are today for the atrocities which are shrugged off and routinely accepted.

Sometimes they openly resisted, sometimes they did so covertly, more often they did their best to get by without lending their support to the commonplace atrocities, but giving a kind of silent witness.

There is a danger that if we go too far down accepting the crimes of history as inevitable, and exonerating those responsible, we are showing a failure of respect for the people who did not consent.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 08:43 PM

In the village of Fishtoft in Lincolnshire, where I grew up - there used to be a local man who had elected himself The Lord Protector of Fishtoft, and he rode around all day on a horse with a sword. Such things went unremarked in those days.

But you're quite right; he wasn't a good role model.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: GUEST,Dazbo
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 06:09 AM

Nickhere said "but apparently to people who were alive at the time and who handed down their memories he stood out as something exceptionally cruel and savage" which sounds like accepting their contemporaries saying that the Catholics massacred 100,000 protestants(which I infer is a figure you'd dispute?)

If its your mother, father, brother, sister, son or daughter that was killed (whether as a 'normal' act of war or not) must feel cruel and savage. Does the death of a close relative seem more or less cruel and savage if it's an isolated incident or part of genocide?

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: ard mhacha
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 06:35 AM

Thanks Nickhere for that Site on Cocentration camps and Colonialism, I had a look through the England and Ireland pages, truly a horror story.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 07:01 AM

Thanks Nickhere, for that link.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 08:08 AM

lets face it history can be written a dozen different ways. the history of recent times, I think would be written differently by different people on this thread.

however on the subject of Oliver Cromwell, there does seem to be a fair amount of consensus that he was a complete bastard. Perhaps not complete - nobody's perfect. But a piece of shit, rather than a rough diamond.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: GUEST,Penguin Egg
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:09 AM

I think the concensus is unfair. My understanding of Cromwell is that he was a compassionate general. He kept strict discipline within his army and no Irishman not in arms had no reason to fear his army. A soldier that stole some eggs in Ireland was immediately hanged. A bit rough, maybe, but this is the 17th Century, don't forget.

Guest quoted "Cromwell An Honourable Enemy" by Tom Reilly which really does paint a generous picture of Cromwell, detailing how the crimes Cromwell was supposed to have committed could not have really happened. Cromwell's time in Ireland, although not a happy time for the Irish, was not one of tyranny. It is worth remembering that Cromwell was sent by Parliament to defend the Republic against Royalist forces.

Antonia Fraser's biography of Cromwell, which is highly readable and highly detailed, offers the same opinion. It also shows that even though he was a devout Puritan, he had a lively sense of humour and was liked by those who knew him. He was neither a piece of shit nor a rough diamond. Rather, he was a man of his time who was brave enough to tackle the issues that he faced head on, and conquer them. He was a man of enormous integrity, as well.

The trouble with Cromwell is that he is judged by the standards of our time instead of his. 17th Century England is a foreign country to us. Over 300 years have gone since his death and people still cannot judge him objectively. He gets distorted through the lenses of Irish nationalist propagander, modern day royalist symphisers, and democrats.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:22 AM

Concensus? On mudcat? Quick shoot it, it's a dangerous animal!

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 12:01 PM

Penguin, how do you know no Irishman had anything to fear from him. You weren't there.

that wasn't the impression that he left. there has to be a reason for that.

Antonia Fraser's dad thought Myra Hindley was a bit of a doll. that family don't have a good reputation for character judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Big Mick
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 12:35 PM

Dress it up all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the events at Drogheda (anybody else pay attention to the fact that this attack occurred on 9/11 1649) and Wexford included the massacre of large numbers of civilians. We know that Cromwell initial orders indicated that excessive violence was to be avoided then he did nothing to stop that same violence. We know that he and his troops burned St. Mary's church with all the civilians inside. All attempts to revise the history must end with the deaths of all these civilians. Even under the standards of 17th century warfare, this was a brutal campaign intended to set an example. Cromwell even alluded to this later, and suggested that it was Providence that this occurred.

To those that want to make the claim that this was retribution for the 1641 uprising should recognize the fundamental difference in the two events. One is the act of an oppressed people whose ancestral lands had been stolen, and whose rights had been taken away. The other was the act of an oppressor to subjugate through any means possible the citizenry of a country against its will. He was indiscriminate as to who was slaughtered. They need only be Irish and Catholic.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: ard mhacha
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 02:02 PM

There were plenty more to follow on from Cromwell, the most despicable quote of all time regarding an opressed people was the London Times comment, "soon an Irishman will be as uncommon as a a red Indian on the banks of the Hudson".
I can imagine those germs of the earth having a good belly laugh at the thought of the disappearing Irish.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: ard mhacha
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 02:03 PM

This comment of course was regarding the potato famine.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: The Walrus
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 02:40 PM

Big Mick,

I'm no fan of Cromwell, but

"...Dress it up all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the events at Drogheda (anybody else pay attention to the fact that this attack occurred on 9/11 1649) and Wexford included the massacre of large numbers of civilians. We know that Cromwell initial orders indicated that excessive violence was to be avoided then he did nothing to stop that same violence...."

As Les from Hull pointed out, if a town had to be taken by storm, then, under the rules of war at that period, the town belonged to the soldiers (not the Army) for a time, it was 'given over to sack', effectively all the rules of civilised behaviour went out of the window, this was partially because the men who'd had to storm the town were high on adrenaline and it's doubtful if they could have been controlled; Partly because those same men had seen their friends being killed all around them in the assault and were in no state of mind to be friendly to those who'd been trying to kill them (remembering that the defence was not left only to the military); Partly because it's odds on that the assaulting army hadn't been paid for some time and a stormed town gave opportunities for loot and because the sacking of a town was an horriffic affair and served as a lesson to other such towns which were likely to be beseiged and may cause them to surrender before being stormed (thus saving life - and time - for the besieging forces and saving the town from sacking).

By today's standards this was barbaric but then was fairly standard practice - check the Thirty Years War.

I honestly believe that Cromwell couldn't have stopped the massacres even if it had been his dearest wish.

W

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 04:37 PM

He and his supporters seem to have been the 17th Century Taliban.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Les from Hull
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 06:18 PM

You can get all sorts of different views on the internet, some say that 3,000 defenders were killed, some state that 30,000 inhabitants were murdered. I don't know, I wasn't there. (Cromwell's army numbered 12,000.)

But I do object to the term 'revisionist' which seems to me have the idea of changing history to suit a purpose. Modern historians try to seek out evidence to give a truer picture of events. Revisionism is the stock in trade of politicians and bigots. I have suggested that people read widely on a subject before they try to give us facts. Opinions are fine, but they only are opinions. My brief is not for Cromwell but for correct (or as correct as we can get) facts.

To be oppressed by Crowmell, you had to be a rebel or traitor. Now of course the Catholic Irish didn't see themselves as either - they were fighting bravely for their homeland against a cruel foreign oppressor. I'm not trying to say who was right. My ancestors in Ireland at the time were probably fighting Cromwell.

Comparing the Commonwealth with the Taliban doesn't help. You could say the same about the sons of the Pilgrim Fathers in King Philip's War.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 06:31 PM

Cromwell's forces, as likewise the Royalists' forces are as far as I know thought to have committed many an atrocity in England during the early 17th century.

The Romans were none too kind to Boudicca's forces either.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Nickhere
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 08:27 PM

Dazbo, you said "Nickhere said "but apparently to people who were alive at the time and who handed down their memories he stood out as something exceptionally cruel and savage" which sounds like accepting their contemporaries saying that the Catholics massacred 100,000 protestants(which I infer is a figure you'd dispute?)

If its your mother, father, brother, sister, son or daughter that was killed (whether as a 'normal' act of war or not) must feel cruel and savage. Does the death of a close relative seem more or less cruel and savage if it's an isolated incident or part of genocide?"

I'm sorry, I must be getting old, but I simply cannot follow what you are trying to say. I'll do my best to repsond (since it seems to be a question) if it can be made a bit clearer. In particular I don't understand the sentence after the quote pasted from my previous post.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 09:07 PM

You ain't going to get the truth.

I live in Nottinghamshire which was like the centre of where all the stuff was going off in the miner's strike.

There as many different accounts of that period as there are people. they all believe they're right. that was 22 years ago.

You ain't going to get truth about Oliver Cromwell. 350 years ago. But its a fair bet when someone make such an impression of being obnoxious - there is more than a grain of truth in it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 10:09 PM

Didn't read all the posts because I am out of time, but must point out that inside the city of Drogheda during it's siege and eventual fall there were folks from all over Britain. Cromwell didn't exclusively nasty up the Irish, he nastied up everybody opposing him. That included in Ireland AngloIrish as well as the rest.

He was not a nice person!

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: ard mhacha
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 06:56 AM

Cromwell`s atrocities in Ireland paled in comparsion to what happened to the Irish in the 1840s,Charles Trevelyan the British treasury secretary and his colleagues were responsible for countless more deaths than Cromwell.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: Fiolar
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 08:29 AM

Just in passing I remember watching a televsion programme many years ago about one of the West Indian islands. I cannot remember the name, but what amazed me was the fact that every one of the people interviewed spoke with a pure Irish accent and even used some Irish dialect. A few of them stated that they were the descendents of the people that Cromwell had transported there.
Also a good few of my colleagues at work in past years were native to the West Indies and had names like Tyrell and Burke to quote as examples.

Subject: RE: BS: The Curse of Cromwell
From: ard mhacha
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 09:59 AM

That West Indian island was Montserrat.