Choctaw and Irish History | Hacker News Reader

Choctaw and Irish History

choctawnation.com

57 pointswalterbell23 comments

The Irish aided the Navajo during the pandemic:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23216817

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/06/world/ireland-native-american...

"1801: Ireland established, in effect, as a colony of Great Britain"

In short, the Dublin parliament was abolished, and Ireland was folded into the United Kingdom. Its independence was pretty limited before that.

For the previous century, yes. However the British crown power was relatively contested up till the Battle of the Boyne.

But thanks to that tangled history, the Irish passport is now one of the best in the world, since post-Brexit, Irish citizens are the only nationality with freedom to live anywhere in the EU and the UK.

Even more OP is being from Northern Ireland, where (to simplify somewhat) you are basically able to claim both Irish and British citizenship and have both passports.

Which is great, because it gives you the maximum possible options to get the fuck out of Northern Ireland until it sorts itself out.

I doubt it will ever sort itself out :)

(I have two passports)

At the Battle of the Boyne, the forces of two contenders for the English crown fought it out. (English crown, because the battle preceded the Act of Union bringing Scotland and England together as the United Kingdom.) But yes, I see what you mean.

[edit: Yes, and Scottish and Irish crowns, as I should have said.]

It's hard to call it a 'colony' if its citizens were as much citizens of the mother country as any other citizen.

I think you’re letting semantics get in the way of the raw truth.

Don’t recall the other citizens (in Britain) of said “mother” country having their non-potato crops exported while they starved.

If colony is being used as a pejorative here, it’s deserved to the point where it overrides the semantics of governance and citizenship.

It's also misleading to cite 1801 as the date of Ireland becoming a colony. Ireland was pretty much the prototype for the rest of Britain's overseas colonies, starting with the plantations of Ulster in the 1600s[1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantation_of_Ulster

Viewing colonization of Ireland as starting with the Plantation of Ulster is misleading, since the Plantation was motivated by the fact that Ulster was the least effectively colonized part of Ireland at that point.

(Which, I guess, further underlines the error of saying colonization of Ireland started two hundred years after the Plantation.)

Well... yes, but also no. I bring up the plantation of Ulster because it has the most direct comparison to more recent colonization efforts; that makes it easy to draw a nice line in the sand saying "this is when it happened". With the rest of Ireland, it's a slower process that started with the norman invasion and isn't nearly as clear cut.

Fair enough.

They weren't treated like citizens though. Irish Catholics were prohibited from holding office, voting, owning property, having professional jobs, attending college, owning fire arms, etc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws

You do yourself a disservice by the ignorance of this comment. British rule of Ireland was cruel and self interested and persisted well into the 20th Century.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_civil_right...

This is a very easy comment to make if you know nothing about Irish history.

They weren't though. If you look at things like the penal laws you'll see there were great efforts to limit the rights of Catholics, who made up the bulk of the native Irish population. Not to mention the plantations which were done to forcefully alter the demographics of the island, and even things like that statutes of Kilkenny which served to limit the use of the Irish language long before that.

Most of the Penal Laws were repealed before the Act of Union, and the passage of the Act itself was predicated on the enfranchisement of the remaining disenfranchised Roman Catholics, which did happen.

Did oppression and abuse of a group happen? Yes. Was it a colony? No, not in any defined meaning of that word.

Edit: the comment above about the Plantation is much more convincing, though I would still dispute that status post-1800.

>Yes. Was it a colony? No, not in any defined meaning of that word.

Since you only responded to one comment and not the numerous other points that were made by other posters, maybe you could provide these defined meanings you speak of.

Again, I propose that you're letting strict semantics get in the way of a wider truth. During the famine Ireland's "relief" programme was run by a colonial administrator. It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

But to extend an olive branch to your argument, let's pull the first definition of colony from Google.

"a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country and occupied by settlers from that country."

Sounds like the shoe fits to me. Now you might not agree with the definition, but it is a defined definition all the same.

Again though, my argument in another thread is that you're myopically focused on textbook definitions instead of wider patterns.

I'd have the same lack of patience for someone insisting that what is going on in Ukraine is "not a war" because of a lack of formal delcarations. A "special operation", it is not.

Your definition is fine.

Trevelyan was not a colonial administrator at the time, he was a civil servant in the treasury. He was a colonial administrator in other parts of his career.

The definition you cite doesn't match the conclusion you draw, since Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom. This is the sole point I was raising.

There is a wider pattern of English military, cultural, and political dominance within the UK. That complexity should argue for use of precise language and avoidance of provocative metaphor.

For Cornwall, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, the north, did the domination of England within the UK mean that their national freedom was curtailed? Yes. Is that bad? Sure. Does that make them colonies? No. They were not ruled by the FCO, did not have an appointed governor, did have a say in the laws that affected them.

To abuse the ugly counterexample you raise at the end: I'd have the same lack of patience for someone insisting that what is going on in Ukraine is "not a war" because of the involvement of two major powers. A "world war", it is not.

>To abuse the ugly counterexample

Apologies, probably was a a bit of a blunt instrument, no linkage with your views intended.

> It's hard to call it a 'colony' if its citizens were as much citizens of the mother country as any other citizen.

It's hard to call it 'institutional racism' if its citizens were as much citizens of the mother country as any other citizen.

Irish immigrant descendants had also intermingled with the Choctaw, so now there are tribe members of Irish ancestry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com