GENIRE-L ArchivesArchiver > GENIRE > 2003-03 > 1047336765
From: Jim Pettit <>
Subject: Re: What is the meaning of the term "Scot-Irish"
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 22:52:45 GMT
References: <email@example.com> <2wKaa.10721$wJ1.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <3E6C79FD.E93790F3@rogers.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sean MacLochlainn wrote:
> Antrim and Down had a private-sector plantation (ie: colonisation), the
> rest of Ulster had a government sponsored plantation. Colonisation is
> colonisation is colonisation. Next you'll be arguing that Antrim and Down
> were terra incognita.
In the case of Down, it was the landlords who recruited tenants from
Scotland. In Antrim, it was more refugees fleeing a revolt who were
offered land by the landlord. Neither case fits the word colonization.
> The plantation was more than a change in landlords. It was the eradication
> of the native social system by the wholesale import and plantation of tens
> of thousands of loyal Scots and English colonists.
As the "importation" occurred largely in Ulster, this doesn't explain
the decline of the social system in the rest of Ireland. That took its
worst blow with the development of a market economy when Irish farmers
discovered that they could export to England.
> ie: your massacres were worse than our massacres. So that makes the penal
> laws OK then. Do you realise thar the penal laws discriminated against
> Presbyterians as much as they discriminated against Roman Catholics? I
> thought not.
All massacres are bad, however, telling someone he couldn't own a gun
was probably of little interest when most people couldn't afford one
anyway. The laws were also indifferently enforced and there was a series
of Indemnity Acts forgiving previous trespasses as the whole thing was
moe politics than reality.