Why did English hate the Irish?

[Cicero54]

Well I only hate the Irish, because they offer us that delicious whisky, and then when I’ve asked some of them to help me deal with the crashing hangovers I’ve at times had, break into a chorus of “O Danny Boy”, as if to offer me some sort of exhortation about drinking, or to make fun of me for having such a small liver. I can’t tell which. I don’t appreciate that you Irish! One day I’ll do the same to you If I can only induce you to drink a moderate amount of Gin with me. And then, Oh yes, we’ll see then! O Britannia in a chorus when you"re prostrate in your turn with that futile pillow pressed tightly to your ears the next day in helpless hangover pain. I for one sit in brooding and patient silence for revenge!

Cicero.

 

[Annie39]

haha the funny thing is @OP that you are not getting the answers from actual Irish or English people, but Americans, who still believe that because their ancestors of 300+ years ago make them Irish or English today.



Anyway from a REAL resident of the British Isles you shall have the answer.
Mainly because Ireland was Catholic and England at the time of the reformation and all that was, Protestant, everyone from Wales to Scotland, and England as well as Ireland that was Catholic was no longer allowed by the law to be so.

600,000 Irish were murdered so you can see why they don’t get on too well.

First of all make that 93 years for some of us. Second you folks living across the pond don’t quite understand it all. We of Irish extraction have as much Celtic blood in us as those on Erin’s Isle. As we were being raised we said that we are Irish to distinguish us from the Scots or English. Mexicans today do the same thing. Most Mexican people even those who may never have set foot in Mexico and may be a third generation American refers to themselves as Mexicans. In our country it is understood to mean an American of Irish or Mexican heritage. If the Irish Nationals who visit our country are representative of most of their countrymen they are very pragmatic people. If an American of Irish extraction happens to mention that he is Irish rather than using the more precise “American of Irish extraction” the Irish nationals feel affronted; but when rich famous great-grandchildren of Ireland visit the motherland they are welcomed as a sons-made-good. I reference President J.F. Kennedy for example. The county where his ancestors came from practically made shrines to him I doubt that Cork would do the same for me.
A little more info for those across the pond: Here US most people are categorized by their ancestry. It is not uncommon if people get into a conversation about their family history for a person to say that he is “German” or “Irish” etc. and unless the person has a thick accent or brogue, it is assumed that the person is talking about his ancestry.
One more thing: The terrible treatment of the Irish by the English was due exclusively to their Catholicism and land was indeed confiscated by the English.

Annie

 

[Annie39]

haha the funny thing is @OP that you are not getting the answers from actual Irish or English people, but Americans, who still believe that because their ancestors of 300+ years ago make them Irish or English today.



Anyway from a REAL resident of the British Isles you shall have the answer.
Mainly because Ireland was Catholic and England at the time of the reformation and all that was, Protestant, everyone from Wales to Scotland, and England as well as Ireland that was Catholic was no longer allowed by the law to be so.

600,000 Irish were murdered so you can see why they don’t get on too well.

First of all make that 93 years for some of us. Second you folks living across the pond don’t quite understand it all. We of Irish extraction have as much Celtic blood in us as those on Erin’s Isle. As we were being raised we said that we are Irish to distinguish us from the Scots or English. Mexicans today do the same thing. Most Mexican people even those who may never have set foot in Mexico and may be a third generation American refers to themselves as Mexicans. In our country it is understood to mean an American of Irish or Mexican heritage. If the Irish Nationals who visit our country are representative of most of their countrymen they are very pragmatic people. If an American of Irish extraction happens to mention that he is Irish rather than using the more precise “American of Irish extraction” the Irish nationals feel affronted; but when rich famous great-grandchildren of Ireland visit the motherland they are welcomed as a sons-made-good. I reference President J.F. Kennedy for example. The county where his ancestors came from practically made shrines to him I doubt that Cork would do the same for me.
A little more info for those across the pond: Here US most people are categorized by their ancestry. It is not uncommon if people get into a conversation about their family history for a person to say that he is “German” or “Irish” etc. and unless the person has a thick accent or brogue, it is assumed that the person is talking about his ancestry.
One more thing: The terrible treatment of the Irish by the English was due exclusively to their Catholicism and land was indeed confiscated by the English.

Annie

 

[MSSheBear]

I have to comment about the Mexicans who live in the United States and the ones who live in Mexico. The Mexicans who live in Mexico think the ones who live in the United States talk funny and dress funny. Then there are the Mexicans living in California who never immigrated because the border was moved. And then before that California was a Spanish Colony.

It is much safer talking about the Irish and the English then those details.

 

[JillianRose]

Why the sarcastic eye roll?

What is funny is two British are fighting over who’s more British! LOL

Also, the smugness of this post tells me he is anti-American. The GREAT thing about America is we are so diverse. I am Polish, Cuban, German, and Irish. It is only narrow minded people that think this way. Lighten up, remember who’s country flips the bill for other countries economy problems. It is part of the reason we are in the situation we are in today.

It would be like me whining about how my Cuban great grandfather was discriminated against when he came to America and had to put my grandmother and her sister in an orphanage. ANYONE who has problem with something that happened over 500 years ago is narrow minded and needs help.

 

[Country_Gal]

LOL, that’s the problem with them folk ‘across the pond’.

 

[Country_Gal]

As for me, I’m mainly of English ancestry. I think the Irish, God Bless them, are a musically gifted folk, clever in many ways, but lacking in the art of compromise and political savvy necessary to be ultimately powerful in the wider world. They are our Celtic kin, but a bit daft and prone to drink, to their detriment… I love 'em and thank the Al mighty that they grace this Earth with their presence!

 

[Paddy_Walker]

The question is; “Why did English hate the Irish?”, not why do.
So its a question about some historical period. The Irish spent 700 years fighting against the English, trying to get them out of the country again. It probably all started when the Norman, Strongbow, was more or less invited over by Diarmaid mac Murchadha in 1169ad; mac Murchadha had abducted Derbforgaill the wife of Tighearnan Ua Ruairc, the King of Breifne. So Ruaidri Ua Conchobair, the High King of Ireland took away or dispossessed mac Murchadhs kingdom, mac Murchadha was a king in Leinster. To recover his Kingdom mac Murchadha asked Henry II of England to help in return for his allegiance. Strongbow, and his troops, went and recovered the kingdom and married mac Murchadhas daughter. Henry II then sent an English invasion to control Strongbow. And they never really left. The Normans intermarried with the Irish and assimilated and they are the people spoken of about when you hear the phrase ‘they were more Irish than the Irish themselves’. Interestingly mac Murchadhas father, Donnchad mac Murchada, was King of Leinster and Dublin and his father’s grandmother Dervorgilla (Derbforgaill) was a daughter of Donnchad, King of Munster and therefore she was a grand-daughter of Brian Boru. His father was killed in battle in 1115 by his cousin Sigtrygg Silkbeard, king of the Dublin Vikings. And Brian Boru, as everyone knows, was the first High King of Ireland, he united all of Ireland and met and defeated the Vikings at the Battle of Clontarf in Dublin in 1014, the Vikings were led into battle by Sigtrygg II Silkbeard. The Viking, like the Normans after them, settled down peacefully as traders in Dublin and intermarried with the Irish.

 

[manualman]

I may just be a dumb Amerikin, but here’s my perspective on history over there.

The “reformation” in England was characterized by massive seizures of property of the monasteries, convents and churches, which Henry VIII used to pay off his creditors and enrich himself while cloaking himself in the rationalization of “reform.” His cronies, i.e. “the nobility” made so freakin’ much money of this scam that they decided it should be repeated and Ireland was the most convenient place to plunder. Unlike England though, the English “nobles” didn’t have any local bishops in their pocket to make the takeover look legit. So they did it the bloody way instead. The more you read about Cromwell, the more you wonder if the man had ANY human decency in him whatsoever.

So ultimately, it didn’t start with hatred. It started with old fashioned greed and power lust.

 

[TK421]

Different faith backgrounds = more excuse to cause injury.

It was also logistically and geopolitically convenient to exploit because Ireland has its back to the Atlantic. There was nothing between it and England, and it had the much smaller population. It was a golden condition for England to pin it down and do whatever it wanted to it. England’s transition into Anglicanism also occurred at roughly the same time that it began to rise into preeminence, and more power = more opportunities to project itself.

Like other 1st world countries, England is now drinking the drug of postmodernist self-deprecation. When it comes to distorted attitudes, it is far more likely for the average English person to relentlessly debase themselves over how horrible their history was in every way than to have any continued prejudice towards Ireland.

 

[Cicero54]

I may just be a dumb Amerikin, but here’s my perspective on history over there.

The “reformation” in England was characterized by massive seizures of property of the monasteries, convents and churches, which Henry VIII used to pay off his creditors and enrich himself while cloaking himself in the rationalization of “reform.” His cronies, i.e. “the nobility” made so freakin’ much money of this scam that they decided it should be repeated and Ireland was the most convenient place to plunder. Unlike England though, the English “nobles” didn’t have any local bishops in their pocket to make the takeover look legit. So they did it the bloody way instead. The more you read about Cromwell, the more you wonder if the man had ANY human decency in him whatsoever.

So ultimately, it didn’t start with hatred. It started with old fashioned greed and power lust.

Thomas Cromwell was the archetype of the cousin which was Oliver, who could not restore Catholicism, since that would mean the brigands would have to restore what they in fact wanted to enjoy as a matter of Protestant spiritual health. As we know, Protestantism posits a material means by which they measure God’s grace. And to this very day material prosperity is the very means by which they measure God’s grace upon anyone. No poverty, chastity and obedience with this group. But the satisfaction of material progress as a means to measure God’s satisfaction on any human endeavor.

Peculation unto salvation ought to be their motto.

Cicero.

 

[Ecclesiaticus_S]

Well you americans owe a great deal to Great Britain many of the founding fathers and ideas you have, and ways of doing things are British.

The thing is America is not a race or national identity, it was founded and colonised by Europeans.

 

[manualman]

Well you americans owe a great deal to Great Britain many of the founding fathers and ideas you have, and ways of doing things are British.

The thing is America is not a race or national identity, it was founded and colonised by Europeans.

True enough, and it cuts both ways. We inherited English attitudes about industrial innovation and ingenuity and as a result weren’t much behind them throughout the industrial revolution and inherited global dominance when the world wars were much harsher on the UK treasury than the USA’s.

We also inherited English attitudes about other cultures and peoples in the way of land acquisition and imperial expansion. Thus, the marked difference between English influenced North America (natives evicted and practically exterminated) and Spanish influenced South America (nearly everybody on the continent has native blood).

The colonial period sure is interesting. Lots of good and bad all mixed together in a weird soup.

 

[Country_Gal]

True enough, and it cuts both ways. We inherited English attitudes about industrial innovation and ingenuity and as a result weren’t much behind them throughout the industrial revolution and inherited global dominance when the world wars were much harsher on the UK treasury than the USA’s.

We also inherited English attitudes about other cultures and peoples in the way of land acquisition and imperial expansion. Thus, the marked difference between English influenced North America (natives evicted and practically exterminated) and Spanish influenced South America (nearly everybody on the continent has native blood).

The colonial period sure is interesting. Lots of good and bad all mixed together in a weird soup.

One reason for that was that the English came over with wives and the Spanish came over more as conquistadors, and soldiers, who ended up marrying Native women.

 

[manualman]

One reason for that was that the English came over with wives and the Spanish came over more as conquistadors, and soldiers, who ended up marrying Native women.

I suppose that’s the polite way of seeing it. Seems a little odd to me. If one is primarily viewing a people as a resource to be exploited shamelessly don’t you find it odd that he’d choose a beloved spouse from that people? Something isn’t quite right there.

Conquistadors certainly were motivated by desire for glory and wealth, but so were the English. I think differences there have been greatly exaggerated by the Black Legend (look it up). In reality, the colonizers were a mixed lot. Much like the rest of us!

 

[Country_Gal]

I suppose that’s the polite way of seeing it. Seems a little odd to me. If one is primarily viewing a people as a resource to be exploited shamelessly don’t you find it odd that he’d choose a beloved spouse from that people? Something isn’t quite right there.

Conquistadors certainly were motivated by desire for glory and wealth, but so were the English. I think differences there have been greatly exaggerated by the Black Legend (look it up). In reality, the colonizers were a mixed lot. Much like the rest of us!

In Latin America, the upper class is mainly of European descent. The average soldier of the Spanish invasion was merely an average Joe working for the crown, and under its thumb. Of course, like most men, they needed women. So, they married native women and eventually settled, perhaps getting a land grant if they were lucky.

It’s only human nature. North American was more settled originally by families coming over. Also, there were just fewer native people, population wise. The natives of North America were small groups that hadn’t obtained the population mass to create a civilization, and were still mainly living the hunter gatherer life and using stone tools. In Mexico and south of it great civilizations with millions of people had been achieved, only lacking the wheel and the horse.

 

[manualman]

It’s only human nature. North American was more settled originally by families coming over. Also, there were just fewer native people, population wise. The natives of North America were small groups that hadn’t obtained the population mass to create a civilization, and were still mainly living the hunter gatherer life and using stone tools. In Mexico and south of it great civilizations with millions of people had been achieved, only lacking the wheel and the horse.

Demonstrably untrue. North American civilizations were as populous and widespread as in the South. Their society didn’t focus on massive buildings like the Mayans and Aztecs did, however. But they absolutely practiced agriculture! Their buildings were simpler because they moved with the seasons (gets COLD in North America come January!) But the initial success of the European settlers is largely due to the fact that native North American had widely cleared land for agriculture already. Early Euro explorers brought diseases that wiped out large number of natives even before the settlers arrived. Settlers figured out that vulernability and it was not unknown for primitive biological warfare to be used against the natives (provide them with ‘gifts’ of blankets used by tuberculosis victims, for example).

In any case, historical FACTS (though not impressions) show that the Spanish colonial system consisted of integration (yes, often including exploitation) of natives, while the English system focused primarily on DISPLACING natives, through genocide as often as not. The fact that we to this day stubbornly refuse to face that fact is evidence of the staying power of the Black Legend over time and generations.

 

[tomarin]

Everyone else loves the Irish.

 

[tomarin]

At the risk of seeming to embrace ethnic and racial stereotypes (although I also understand that there is no real “racial” difference between the two peoples), I also think we should consider that the genius of the Irish as a people is simply put, to bring chaos out of order, to subvert the rules and twist adverse conditions to their advantage; whereas the special talent of the English is more administrative, bringing order out of chaos. I think for that reason the English have never really understood the Irish, in the fifteenth century as much as today. People tend to have contempt for what they can’t understand.

I may be way off base, but I think this is part of it, along with the poverty and rural background of most Irish people (historically at least) which tends to make the English view the Irish as uncouth and because of religious bias, superstitious.

It’s probably easier to appreciate a lovable rogue when it’s not your job to govern him.

 

[tomarin]

At the risk of sounding ridiculous would it be too embracing of stereotypes to say that simply put the genius of the Irish is to subvert authority, to bend rules to their own advantage and that the English whose gifts as a people are more administrative cannot abide that? One brings chaos out of order and the other order out of chaos. Apollo and Dionysus, oil and water.

Or maybe I’ve watched John Ford’s “The Quiet Man” one too many times.