He's certainly not doing himself any favors with this condescending appeal to authority. In general, the exchange between Jensen and Fried is a perfect example of how to handle a nasty person with grace.
I wouldn't put it past the fact that the high schooler probably knows how to google better than the "phd"
"Jensen attracted a lot of attention because he did not just write that the NINA signs did not exist, he said the Irish were and are delusional, that in order to sustain a sense of victimhood they had manufactured a group-wide lie of discriminatory anti-Irish ads and signs"
Oh wow, lovely lad
Another edit: "Wanted - A Middle Aged protestant woman... no Irish need apply" I think it would be hard to find an Irish Protestant at that time, no?
Belfast (and the whole of Ulster) was full of them.
Poverty throughout the counties was common and they wanted to find a new and better life just as much as their Roman Catholic neighbours did.
They were Irish, but the unionists agreed (along with Great Britain) that Ireland should be ruled by the King and be under British rule, and subsequently they all adopt the "British" sect of Christianity (Anglicanism).
The relationship between Unionism and Protestantism and Nationalism and Catholicism was and still is much more grey than many realise. The current situation with Northern Ireland makes this appear much more dry-cut than it actually is because NI was set up on sectarian grounds. However, historically many, in fact the majority, of the prime movers in Irish nationalism have been from Anglican backgrounds that would naively be associated with Unionism.
Also, Irish Nationalism was contrary to Unionism, but a good number of prominent Nationalists had Monarchist tendencies too, such as the founder and leader of the original Sinn Fein, Arthur Griffith[1]. Republicanism was something that came out of the more militant strains of Nationalism, as represented by the Irish Republican Brotherhood, who infiltrated Sinn Fein to use it as a vehicle for their own aims.
Moreover, the vast majority of Irish Protestants have been Presbyterian, not Anglican. Anglicanism was the church of the Establishment, not the common people. Presbyterians, being Nonconformist, were subject to many of the discriminatory practices of the various penal laws, just as Catholics were, because they weren't Anglicans, albeit not to quite the same extent. Anglicanism was historically the church of the upper classes and parts of the middle class.
[1] Griffith wasn't technically what you'd call a Monarchist, but he wasn't a Republican either. He supported the idea of an independent Ireland under a dual monarchy with the United Kingdom.
The question was "Did they [Irish Protestants] really consider themselves "Irish", though?" and the answer is "yes".
> Moreover, the vast majority of Irish Protestants have been Presbyterian, not Anglican.
The Church of Ireland is (and has been in recent history) the second largest Christian "sect" (as I put it earlier) in Ireland after Roman Catholicism. The Church of Ireland follows Anglicanism.
Of course are many many complications to the entire subject but that wasn't the original question, I was referring to the national identification of the Protestant islanders during the time frame of Jensen's claims.
Yes, you're correct in that the CofI is slightly bigger than the Presbyterian churches. However, that's not my main point. What I was disagreeing with was your conflation of Unionism and Anglicanism, which is entirely incorrect.
Protestants in what is now Northern Ireland could consider themselves eg, 'Ulster Scots'
"Ulster Scots refers to (largely) Presbyterian descendants of Scottish planters who emigrated to the US."
Which implied otherwise.
She'll go places.