I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there Vinny. If you're Irish and especially if you're an Irish Catholic, (which both of Ned Kelly's parents were), there is no way they would ever call themselves British, and I tell you this with great authority - believe me I know. They would consider it an insult.
To the Irish (Catholics) anything English, British, Britian was anathema to them.
That may be Nerb, but they were not British and the British government of the day would not have called them "British". Apart from labelling them as Irish scum (which they did) they were called Irish. Could you see the Brit gov soiling their image and lowering their standards? I think not.
How many times were there signs in shop windows or employment ads with signage "No Irish"?
The Irish themselves never ever ever considered themsleves English or British, they'd have died first. We're talking about a people who were down-trodden, kicked off their lands, not allowed to practise their religion, were hated by the English just as much as they hated them, thrown out if rent couldn't be met, in short were treated as less than human. Christ the bloody english thought more of their bloody dogs !
Yeats, Joyce, Kavanagh - Irish poets and writers, would you call them British?
Wolfe Tone- statesman, would you call him British?
Which of my two sentences at #20 are you disagreeing with, Captain? Note that the second sentence is conditional.
I was considering deleting my #24 but I went outside to cool off and then forgot about it. There are very few topics/subjects that get me riled and on my soap-box Vinny. This happens to be one of them.
You ask which of your two sentences I disagree with, then add that the second sentence is conditional. Not sure I understand your meaning of being conditional.
In the first sentence #20 you said " He didn't say they were English he said they were British". In my #19 I haven't written "English".
It is your second sentence that I disagree with -"If "British" means something like "British subject" or "citizen of the United Kingdom", then British they were.
Vinny, I'm from Irish stock ok? My grandma sat me on her knee from when I was a little girl and I learnt a lot.
What I mean by conditional is that there's a conditional clause in the sentence:
If "British" means something like "British subject" or "citizen of the United Kingdom",
then British they were.
So do you disagree that if British has the above meaning, they were British?
Yes, Vinny I do, I really do. And I'll tell you why. I got on my soap-box once before. If you search for a thread titled "Australia says sorry" posted on 13th Feb have a look at #17 and #21. It's on the OZ branch which is where I usually hang out - ie the Australia/NZ/ Antarctica branch.
So, you're saying they were neither subjects of the British crown nor citizens of the United Kingdom and Ireland (as it was then)?
I am saying they were Irish, Vinny. They weren't bloody Brits. Just because a country marches into another sovereign state (country) and takes over doesn't mean that the inhabitants then take on the nationality of the victors. After the nine year war ending in 1603, the bldoy english king continued with the "plantations" of english and scots Protestants thereby hoping to wipe out the Irish altogether. Eventually, most of those "transplanted" sided with the Irish which didn't sit at all well with the English government. So then they planted Scots Presbyterians - mainly in Ulster.
The majority of Protestants lived in the north. Which is why the six counties are called Northern Ireland. Of course de Valera knew what would happen, which is why he sent Collins in his place to Whitehall. Anyway you didn't ask for a history lesson.
I still stand by what I said at the beginning of this post. :-)
