American Renaissance

U.S. Worried Anti-Muslim Film Could Trigger Violence Abroad

AR Articles on Islam in Europe/Asia
More news stories on Islam in Europe/Asia
Richard Esposito and Christine Brouwer, ABC News, January 24, 2008

The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI Wednesday circulated a report on the expected release of a 10-minute anti-Islam film by Dutch far-right Party for Freedom Founder and Chairman Geert Wilders, which is expected to spark global protests and raises the possibility of violence in Europe.

The DHS/FBI report was published in anticipation of a Friday release of the film; however, Wilders himself told a Dutch newspaper yesterday that he needs at least two more weeks to finish the film. So far, no one has seen even as single pre-release frame of the film.

The DHS/FBI report follows weeks of speculation on the reactions to the film that continues to gain momentum in overseas media and online outlets. The DHS/FBI report states clearly in its headline and key findings section that “the film is unlikely to incite violence in the United States but may provoke protests overseas.”

The film, however, reportedly will show a Quran being destroyed, which the report states is “tantamount to heresy” in Islam. In the past, Wilders has stated that the Quran should be banned like Adolph Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”

A spokesperson for Wilder’s political party said he would not be available for comment, and they would neither confirm nor deny whether the Quran will be depicted as destroyed in the film.

{snip}

And Radio Netherlands Worldwide reports: “Dutch people living abroad are worried about the effects of right-wing politician Geert Wilders’ anti-Qu’ran film. In recent weeks Dutch embassies have been busy making emergency plans, a move which many people have judged as an over-reaction. However, Dutch expats in Islamic countries in particular say that they are already having problems as a result of comments made by Wilders and that they are beginning to fear for their personal safety.”

{snip}

Wilders, a self-professed anti-Islam politician is rumored to argue in the film that the Quran encourages violence against non-Muslims, the report states.

A Dutch news agency recently published excerpts from a letter by the minister of domestic affairs to all Dutch mayors warning them to be “extra cautious” about cultural tensions and violence that could arise in their cities after the release of the film. According to the article, police departments in Amsterdam and Rotterdam are already preparing for possible problems after the film comes out. Dutch Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende has spoken publicly of a “crisis” situation.

{snip}

In the United States there were only peaceful protests at consulates, embassies and at colleges. The report states, “U.S. media refrained from widely re-printing the controversial cartoon images of the Prophet Muhammad in 2005, which probably helped ease Muslim tensions in the Homeland. . . .Regardless of media reaction, the film likely will be shown and discussed on Internet forums.”

Overseas, some Muslim governments and religious leaders have warned the Dutch government against releasing the film and the Syrian Grand Mufti has asked for an open dialogue with Wilders but is unwilling to meet with him if the Quran is indeed destroyed in the film. An Iranian lawmaker threatened a “review” of Tehran’s relationship with the Netherlands if the film is shown.

[Editor’s Note: See also yesterday’s ARNews story on this film here.]

Original article

(Posted on January 25, 2008)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment      Search

Comments

Even though we’re in a supposed “War on Terror” (how can you fight a war against a tactic?), the American Federal government seems to have a fixation against European right-wing parties that want to check radical Islam. What am I missing here?

https://countenance.wordpress.com/2007/02/13/can-the-state-department-really-be-this-dangerous/
https://countenance.wordpress.com/2007/05/13/can-the-state-department-really-be-this-dangerous-part-2/

Posted by St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister at 6:24 PM on January 25


The film, however, reportedly will show a Quran being destroyed, which the report states is “tantamount to heresy” in Islam.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
Why should the US care about this? Has Uncle Sam become the self-appointed protector of the Religion of Peace? And this only 7 years after we were attacked on 9/11! It seems you can burn a US flag and that’s quite OK, or burn a bible, but destroying a Koran is going beyond the limit. Time to call in the Feds.

Anyway, I don’t see why he needs to “destroy” (whatever that means?) a Koran, which seems only needlessly provocative. He can make a film about Islam and say whatever he has to say without such inflammatory actions. The are better ways to get his message across without inciting the mobs. Of course, none of this problem would even exist if we didn’t have them living among us.Who promoted all this Diversity in the first place?

Posted by voter at 7:02 PM on January 25


The Muslim extremists will riot, threaten murder and mayhem over anything - a Danish cartoon - any Hollywood movie or MTV, you can be sure it offends something in their very intolerant religious cult.

Instead of worrying if a certain film offends the Muslims and trying to ban it, instead produce your own very accurate, funny film, music video that tells the truth about the…

Religion of peace

And let your White/Western neighbors know that there is no way to appease the invading Muslim hordes, you either give in “submit” Islam means “submission” or you resist and fight back, fight against “Them” fight for “Us”.

We think our film/music video has to be much better than anything this Dutch political leader Dutch Party for Freedom Founder and Chairman Geert Wilders could produce.

Check out ours and please leave some comments (comments threatening rape of our women, throat cutting etc will be deleted).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n731ujoR2Q

Posted by JR at 7:52 PM on January 25


The fact that muslim extremists riot, burn, loot and kill anyone that disagrees does not seem to hit home to the stupid apathetic average joe citizen.

The muslims are bullies and the stupid apathetic average joe citizen panders, accomodates and cowers, doing the politically correct right thing.

Years of communist teaching have resulted in generations of brain dead people that cannot think for themselves.

There will never to be enough accomodation to satisfy muslims.

They will have enough when you and your family are dead and gone.

I guess by then it really doesn’t much matter does it?

Posted by at 8:30 PM on January 25


‘Kill the infidel.’(straight from The Quran)
That’s you and me to the Nation of Islam. They’re gunning for us whether we try to fight back or not. (Their last jihad, before 9/11/01, was stopped in Italy on September 11, 1098.(?)- I’ll have to refer to my notes.)
Have at it, Wilders. Take the pressure off of the U.S. for a time.

Posted by GAonMYmind at 8:58 PM on January 25


The enemy is not terrorism. It is islam. It is specifically against those races where islam is dominant. The solution really is quite simple and direct. We must get rid of those people from our lands. Strip them of citizenship and deport them en masse. Permanently bar immigration from their countries of origin. Specifically disempower those countries using our immense wealth and political influence.

The US has done this before. It is hardly a novel idea. It works.

Posted by at 9:50 PM on January 25


Homeland Security? FBI? ‘Controversial’? Crisis Situation?

Wouldn’t it just be easier to have your film degrade Christianity, the West, or demeaning the president of the United States? They give you an academy award for that…

Posted by Absorber at 10:45 PM on January 25


Muslims. What will they become hysterical about next? There seems to be no issue, no matter how trivial, that they cannot find offence to. Remember those Teddy Bears? Islam is the world’s problem child.

Posted by at 11:55 PM on January 25


How disappointing! I had hoped that there was a typo in the headline, and that GENE Wilder had made an anti-Islam movie. “Blazing Korans”, or “Young Muhammedstein”. I’d spend ten bucks to see that.

Posted by Schoolteacher at 3:57 AM on January 26


As offensive as burning a bible. Just because I don’t want third and second worlders in my country doesn’t mean I hate Muslims and Islam. People need to grow up and be more rational. You are nothing but a neo-conservative shill otherwise, lets us remain focussed on whats important and starting a fake arguement over a religion which is as close to Christianity as you can get is not what matters.
Like Northern Ireland its not religion its race. They weren’t shooting each other over their differing opinions on trans substantiation but because they were differnet ethnic groups. We race relists should be calling the third worlders who dress their racial hatred and jealousy of Europeans in religion on this fact. We might make some head way. Its the race stupid not religion.

Posted by at 5:47 AM on January 26


Islam is no where near Christianity.

They believe Jesus was a great man. They do not believe Jesus is the Son of God and God in human form. Many readers may not have this belief. But you probably do a better job of keeping it to yourself, rather than killing the infidel or killing yourself, all in the name of Allah.

Posted by GAonMYmind at 12:41 PM on January 26


“Like Northern Ireland its not religion its race. They weren’t shooting each other over their differing opinions on trans substantiation but because they were differnet ethnic groups.”

No, they weren’t! You’ve gotten a bit off topic, but religion being the subject here, and since you’ve said it, I’ll correct you. They weren’t “different ethnic groups” at all; Scots originally came from Ireland and like the Irish they are all Celts. They are — both north and south — but for religion, the SAME. The fussing wasn’t really about either race or religion. It was at bottom about ECONOMICS and about politics — about who were the haves and who were the have-nots, who the rulers and who the ruled — with religion merely furnishing the outward marker to distinguish them.

Also you say it’s the race, not the religion. Well, in that case, what “race” is Islam?

Posted by browser at 1:08 PM on January 26


“As offensive as burning a bible.”

And if someone does that, precisely what do you expect the
response to be, from Christians?

Posted by at 5:31 PM on January 26


What is the name of this “FILM”? I think it is weird that they do not give the name of this film perhaps we should give the film a name called the “NO NAME” film. Very odd that they do not give the name of the film. The Film is only ten minutes long if it is that bad a horror movie maybe it should get academy award.

Posted by at 7:00 PM on January 26


Muslim incursions into Europe from the east were finally stopped at the gates of Vienna on September 11, 1683.

With no caliph appointed since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Bin Laden took it upon himself to declare his own jihad.

Posted by GAonMYmind at 7:35 PM on January 26


“…..the American Federal government seems to have a fixation against European right-wing parties that want to check radical Islam.”

Yes, but not only that, the entire Western world places a handful of neo-nazis on a critical watch level, but ignores the eminent threat of radical Muslims whom they usher in to their countries as if they were the answer to man’s salvation.

Here in the US the radical hate groups, the SPLC and the ADL, carry on as if white conservative groups are the same as death squads, but they completely ignore radical jihadists, which is amazing since it is only they that have a proven track record of violence and bombings.

Both the SPLC and the ADL are bogus hate watch groups. They don’t give a rap about love and tolerance. It’s a cover for their agenda. They are consumed with a hatred for all things conservative and of a traditional values nature. That’s why they concentrate so heavily on white groups that are of the God, mom, and apple pie variety. They’re too conservative and too white for them.

Their subversive agenda works for a secular, permissive society where all workers live in a utopian paradise of “equality,” a rainbow of smiling faces, all holding hands and drinking a coke.

In other words, they live in a fantasy world that will never be, and proof of that is the squabbling masses of races at each others throats throughout the West, whether it’s the riots in France, Germany or the UK, along with assorted murders and chaos in the Netherlands, Australia, and about every where else they have fled to, to say nothing of the bombings in Spain and the US, and the recent revelation that jihadist groups are training in the US, one of which is in the Atlanta area.

But we need them, right? I mean, because “Diversity is Our Strength!” Right?

Posted by Ranger at 8:27 PM on January 26


“Here in the US the radical hate groups, the SPLC and the ADL, carry on as if white conservative groups are the same as death squads, but they completely ignore radical jihadists”

Well, that tells you who they consider the greater threat, right?

Posted by at 9:04 PM on January 26


“…is rumored to argue in the film that the Quran encourages violence against non-Muslims”

When the film is released, I guess we’ll find out if this is true or not, won’t we? Violence from Muslims, in reaction to this film, will only vindicate Mr. Wilders. If the Muslims are smart, they’ll hold peaceful protests and candle light vigils, not lifting a hand against anybody. Such a response would surely embarrass Mr. Wilders and show him to be wrong in front of the whole world. Are Muslims, as a whole, mature enough to see that and react peacefully? Don’t count on it but one could always hope.

Posted by jewamongyou at 9:08 PM on January 26


The film will not be released.

The muslim bully has won again.

Plus the Dutch government threw in the right of muslims to wear their head gear.

Talk about getting the results you want.

Posted by at 2:06 AM on January 27



What is this Homeland Security business? Whatever happened to NATIONAL security? Why does the idea of NATIONhood scare the elites?

Actually, because they are busy trying to make the global community; the really frightening thing is it seems to work. How many protested or questioned the Homeland Security when it was created? Why did no one question why it was not called NATIONAL security?

Posted by Buzz words mean stuff at 7:59 AM on January 27


browser-you claim the Scots and the Irish belong to the same ethnic group, all being Celts, and the argument was about economics and politics, ‘who were the haves and the have nots’ not ethnicity. This is incorrect on several counts.
Firstly, ‘Celt’ is a rather generic term, and does not describe an ethnic group or a race. The on-line dictionary i have just looked at describes ‘ethnic’ as

“pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.”

The Scots and the Irish clearly fall into their own seperate ethnic groups. They have their own histories, languages and culture. Of course they have much in common, but then so do all Northern Europeans. But we also all have our own distinctive ethnicities.

Secondly, to say that the argument was about economics and politics does not explain anything. There are economic differences between Catholics in Northern Ireland. Why were Catholics not attacking each other over these economic differences on an organised level as well? There are political differences between Protestants in Northern Ireland, yet the streets are not divided into Capitalist and Socialist areas. The economic and political differences to which you refer are themselves merely manifestations of the ethnic divide, as are the signifiers ‘Catholic’ and ‘Protestant’. To reduce everything to the level of economics is Marxism in my book: politics is 90% tribal.

The original comments to which you were responding about the differences being about race not religion were correct, although the two are intertwined, as races will create and adapt religious systems that suit their character, so religions will naturally reveal deeper racial/ethnic divides, and become synonyms for the ethnic group they represent. That said, I thouroughly disagree with his statement that those who oppose Islam in Europe are ‘neocons’. With our own people asleep, we in Europe should be using anything we can to stir and offend other ethnic groups to angry protest against us. We need to force Europeans to take sides in an argument in which it is clear that one side already hates them and rejects them. The Marxists claim diversity is a strength. We should test this thesis to destruction.
At the moment Islam seems like the only branch to grab at, and we should take it with both hands. This is hardly a neocon agenda. It isnt a very charitable one either, and once they are gone and no longer a threat we can revert to a respectful silence of their cultural standards. But only when they are gone.

Posted by Regulation18b at 9:02 AM on January 27


“Secondly, to say that the argument was about economics and politics does not explain anything.”

The reason for the violence in Northern Ireland was basically because catholics were treated as third class citizens and shut out of decent employment and higher education.

When their non violent protest for civil rights (which actually had a significant ammount of protestant members and supporters) was met with violence and entire catholic neighbourhoods being burned - the PIRA were formed initially as protectors of catholic areas and protestants responded with their own armed paramilitary groups and it all went down hill from there.

So yes the issuse WAS about economics and politics.

Posted by Danny at 3:38 PM on January 27


“The Scots and the Irish clearly fall into their own seperate ethnic groups. They have their own histories, languages and culture.”
- - - - - - - - -
You have ignored my statment that the Scotti were originally an Irish tribe.
Also, I stated that the bone of contention is fundamentally over who will be the rulers and who will be the ruled, who will be the landlords and who will be the rentpayers. You dismiss that by calling it Marxism?

Posted by browser at 3:58 PM on January 27



browser-you claim the Scots and the Irish belong to the same ethnic group, all being Celts, and the argument was about economics and politics, ‘who were the haves and the have nots’ not ethnicity. This is incorrect on several counts.
To reduce everything to the level of economics is Marxism in my book.

That said, I thouroughly disagree with his statement that those who oppose Islam in Europe are ‘neocons’.This is hardly a neocon agenda.
Posted by Regulation18b
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
It seems to me that the only one “reducing this to Marxism” has been you. In fact, you are the only one who has inserted that word into the discussion. Fussing over who will be the employers and who will be the employees is mere Marxism? Ownership and power are a concern everywhere. And to claim that the Irish, South and North, are racially distinct groups is absurd. The ONLY thing separating them is religion (and through that, economics and political power, which are what it’s all about), and that distinction being for only for the past four centuries — not really much in historical terms. He is fully correct about the Scots having originally migrated from Ireland into what is (now) called “Scot”land. They are racially, linguistically, culturally the same people. (Although the highland Picts and lowland Angles are admittedly another story.)

I can understand his statement about neocons and a neocon agenda: perhaps they are the only ones, thus far, who DARE oppose Islam? Who else is openly or effectively opposing it? Perhaps, also,they are too well disguised for you to recognize them?

Posted by voter at 2:16 AM on January 28


Yes an ethnic conflict over control of resources. I don’t see your point.
You are quite clearly not from Scotland or Northern Ireland or else you would well understand that the Ulster Scots are predominantly Lowland Scots whose ancestors are Germanic and have always spoken the English dialects Scots. The Scoti were Irish invaders who made little impact on the Picts in lowland Scotland. ‘Celts’ were a tribe in France and no where else. On the religion point yes there is an ethnic reason lowland Scots became Presbyterian and their enemies the Highland Scots remained Catholic.
Race not religion. Balkans, Sri Lanka etc.

Posted by at 6:38 AM on January 28


The scariest point to me regarding this issue, isn’t the Muslim readiness to riot, when they are “insulted” but the apparent willingness of Western Countries, America included to cave into doing as the Muslim’s demand, in the interest of “homeland security.” Freedom is gone folks, when speech is censored preemptively because it ‘insults’ someone who has been dead for 1300 years.

Posted by at 7:21 AM on January 28


danny-none of what you have written proves to me that this was not an ethnic dispute. Economics may be a method of oppressing a population, but what was the cause, if not the fact that the British settlers regarded themselves as the masters in Northern Ireland? On what basis were those treated as ‘third class citizens’ deemed to be third class citizens? Was it on account of their political views, economic status, or was it something they were born into? Were they not being kept out of higher education etc because the British wanted to keep control over the province and prevent it being turned over to Ireland, because they did not want to live in Ireland? Isnt political dominance really not just a means to an end and not the end itself?

browser-I was not ignoring the comment. Perhaps we just differ in what we regard as being an ethnicity. The Scots, like most ethnic groups if you go back far enough, are amalgamations of different groups and tribes,(and i know of no indication that scotti are any greater a component than the other constituent elements, in fact lowland scotland was also settled by angles)The important thing i would have thought is that geographic isolation and seperation creates a unique history, outlook and culture which they regard as making them ‘different’. The Ulster Scots clearly do not believe themselves to be ‘the same’ as the Irish, do they?
The ‘Marxism’ remark, not meant as an insult, merely meant that there is a tendency with those on the left (which im sure your not) to stress economic factors over biological/cultural. All societies have economic differences, but I doubt that an entirely Irish or British Northern Ireland would have experienced the same tensions. Why not, if not because of the fact they are a multi-ethnic society, and therefore view their wealth/status relative to the other community that exists there?

Posted by Regulation18b at 8:27 AM on January 28


“Freedom is gone folks, when speech is censored preemptively because it ‘insults’ someone who has been dead for 1300 years.”

The problem is not censorship. There’s been censorship since the day the printing press was made. The problem again and again is that it’s the wrong sort of people wielding this power.

Posted by at 2:18 PM on January 28


Celts’ were a tribe in France and no where else.
Posted by at 6:38 AM
………………………………………..
What nonsense is this? Sometimes I am amazed at the misinformed comments that appear here.

The Celts were a broad group that extended from the farthest extremities of Iberia and the British Isles all the way into Anatolia, covering most of Europe, hardly “France” alone (which didn’t exist yet, anymore than England).

Perhaps you meant Gauls? But those were also Gaels, or relatives, not just in France. Gallegos in Spain, etc. Same difference. Visit Brittany in France, or Galicia in Spain, and see how “Irish” they look.

Here are some good maps. Particularly the last.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Celts_in_Europe.png
https://www.maps.com/map.aspx?pid=15729
https://www.resourcesforhistory.com/map.htm


Posted by ghw at 2:37 PM on January 28


As someone who is from Northern Ireland I would like to reiterate the point made by the poster of 6.38 am on Jan 28. The Protestants of Northern Ireland are the descendants of peoples who emigrated from Lowland Scotland and northern England, who were themselves descendants of Germanic tribes. These Protestants (quite rightly) consider themselves to be Anglo-Saxons, in contrast to the Catholic Celts of Ireland. As such, while there is not a racial division, there certainly is an ethnic one. It is these Protestants who look to Britain and consider themselves British.

Indeed, the IRA has made numerous references to the “Saxon planters (settlers)” within its literature as part of its protest against the existence of the British province of Northern Ireland.

Posted by at 5:29 PM on January 29


“The Protestants of Northern Ireland are the descendants of peoples who emigrated from Lowland Scotland and northern England, who were themselves descendants of Germanic tribes.”
- - - - - - - -
It seems to me that those several posters who are determined to believe that the Scots-Irish are fundamentally different from the real Irish (!), are also (however unwittingly) arguing, essentially, that they don’t belong there, are intruders who came from elsewhere, and should therefore go back to where they came from — a position that I would NEVER advocate. But that is the necessary outcome of their argument.

They also ignore the fact that a great many Anglo-Saxons were settled in Ireland during the Middle Ages (the “English Pale”), thus making parts of central Ireland probably more Anglo-Saxon in blood and in fact than the very Celtic north which today fancies itself to be British!

It’s also a fact (so I have read) that all the cities and towns of Ireland were settled by either Vikings or Saxons, as the native Irish were a rural, pastoral people, not town-dwellers. Thus, Saxons (and Vikings) have been settling throughout Ireland and blending in for a thousand years.

Posted by browser at 2:05 AM on January 30


voter-it seems that some people view race and ethnicity as meaning the same thing. They are not. And as the above posts will hopefully prove, Ulster Scots are the Irish are not the same linguistically or in any sense, other than the racial-and not everyone is a white nationalist.

I’m not sure I follow your meaning about the neocons. They are not really opposing Islam, are they? If they were, they would be stopping Muslim immigration into America, and opposing immigration into Europe. Their war in Iraq was driven by other considerations, perhaps the people you are referring to when you say about them being well disguised. Many people in the West may be blind to the neocon agenda, but most in the Arab world, and I’m sure most on this website, will have an inkling about who pulls the strings, and why.

Posted by Regulation18b at 8:42 AM on January 30


Browser,

your assertion that ‘parts of central Ireland [are] probably more Anglo-Saxon in blood and in fact than the very Celtic north which today fancies itself to be British!’ is too much. There was never anything like the same level of immigration into these areas of Ireland as there was into the north. The latter immigration was on a much larger scale, in three concentrated waves, at the start, middle, and end of the 17th Century. This is reflected (to some degree) in the map below (allowing for Protestants to represent Anglo-Saxons).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Irland_protestants_1861-1991.gif

While it is true that those who settled in the Pale eventually assimilated with the Gaelic Irish, converting to Catholicism, (thus rendering the above map slightly misleading), nevertheless, as regards central Ireland, the immigration here tended to be in dribs and drabs, with various assorted followers and hangers-on of Norman Lords coming over to settle in this region.

Posted by at 1:12 PM on January 30


“While it is true that those who settled in the Pale eventually assimilated with the Gaelic Irish”

The protestants in the North did the exact same thing.

The very concept of Irish republicanism was invented by protestants such as Theobald Wolfetone in Belfast and protestants also formed and ran the United Irishmen movement to remove Ireland from Britain’s yolke.

I hate to burst your bubble but there is no biological evidence whatsoever to prove that northern protestants are a different people.
Before the troubles started in the 60s they refered to themselves as Irish and even the so called Ulster Scots identified themselves as Irish when they first arrived in America.

Posted by Danny. at 2:42 PM on January 31


Re. neocons. They are not really opposing Islam, are they? If they were, they would be stopping Muslim immigration into America, and opposing immigration into Europe. “
Posted by Regulation18b


You”re assuming that they are concerned about America or Europe. I think you are mistaken.

Posted by at 4:54 AM on February 1


Danny

It does not follow that any political alignment between the Protestants and Catholics of Ireland at a particular point in history signifies unfettered assimilation. What you refer to is a political matter… the Presbyterians of this time were motivated primarily by perceived injustices against the Presbyterian community by the English Anglican establishment - making common cause with the Gaelic Catholics in this regard as a matter of convenience, not because of any strong affinity as kindred peoples. So, from the outset, they remained conscious of their identity as a distinct religious and ethnic group - there was no large scale intermarriage between the two communities, as there was in the Pale before.

You are correct in mentioning that the Protestants have referred to themselves as Irish in the past (although this is certainly not the case today), but one must take care not to assume from this that they identified with the Gaelic Catholic Irish in any way. Rather it was an attempt to legitimise their presence in Ireland and to claim Ireland as THEIR land, to counter Catholic claims against them as the ‘planters’ of the British Crown. These WASPS who desribed themselves as Irish were at the same time no less hostile to Catholic Ireland.

As regards biological evidence I’m not sure what your point is. I suppose that one could also say there is no definitive biological evidence that the Flemings and Walloons of Belgium are distinct peoples, yet who could doubt that they are? In any case, I’m not aware of any survey or research that denies any biological distinctions…has one even been carried out?

In case there are any doubts I write as a Northern Irish Protestant.

Posted by at 1:19 PM on February 1


Before the troubles started in the 60s they refered to themselves as Irish and even the so called Ulster Scots identified themselves as Irish when they first arrived in America.
Posted by Danny

That is true. My now-deceased uncle (Irish Catholic descent, here in America) married a woman, Protestant, who came from Northern Ireland. This was before those “troubles that started in the 60s”. They made no fuss about any distinction. She always simply referred to herself as Irish, and so did he.

Posted by at 2:13 PM on February 1


“While it is true that those who settled in the Pale eventually assimilated with the Gaelic Irish, converting to Catholicism, (thus rendering the above map slightly misleading), nevertheless, as regards central Ireland, the immigration here tended to be in dribs and drabs…”
Posted by at 1:12 PM
……………………………………………..
The settlers of the Pale came in the Middle Ages, centuries before the Reformation. There was no need for them to “convert to Catholicism” because they were already Catholics, all of them — English or Irish. This immigration from Britain continued through successive centuries.

“Eventually, after the 16th and 17th centuries, and especially after the Anglican Reformation and the Plantation of Ulster, the English settlers were gradually assimilated into the Irish nation, in large part due to their reluctance to give up Roman Catholicism (those who became Protestants were rewarded with a higher status).

They were, in fact, joined by other English Catholics fleeing persecution under Elizabeth I and subsequent monarchs. Even in the 19th century, Leinster had few Gaelic-speakers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ireland_1450.png


Posted by ghw at 9:25 PM on February 1


“The Ulster Scots identified themselves as Irish”,,,,,

Then why didn’t they join the Republic of Ireland in 1921? Why did they strive so ardently for a separate state? Why do they stress their loyalty to Britain so strongly?

Posted by at 9:58 PM on February 1


ghw

“While it is true that those who settled in the Pale eventually assimilated with the Gaelic Irish, converting to Catholicism, (thus rendering the above map slightly misleading), nevertheless, as regards central Ireland, the immigration here tended to be in dribs and drabs…”
Posted by at 1:12 PM

……………………………………………..

The settlers of the Pale came in the Middle Ages, centuries before the Reformation. There was no need for them to “convert to Catholicism” because they were already Catholics, all of them — English or Irish.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

You’re quite right - an oversight on my part. A fundamental difference between the Anglo-Saxon settlers in the Pale and in the North was that the former were already Catholic whilst the latter were fervent Protestants.

Posted by at 7:29 AM on February 2


The Ulster Scots identified themselves as Irish”,,,,,

Then why didn’t they join the Republic of Ireland in 1921? Why did they strive so ardently for a separate state? Why do they stress their loyalty to Britain so strongly?
Posted by at 9:58 PM
— — — — — — -
Because the Republic, which had originally been largely the creation of Irish Protestants (NOT Catholics!) was coming heavily under the domination of the Catholic church and was discriminating against them — the very people who had conceived it. Many of the Protestants in the “south” fled because of religious discrimination or hostility against them.

Posted by at 7:38 PM on February 2


I have read over all of the above comments about Ireland with much interest; and can say - from a stance of complete personal neutrality - that I find the position of “Danny” to be the most persuasive.

On the other hand, I find the notion (really wishful thinking, masquerading as history) that the two peoples are entirely distinct to be ill-informed, unreasonable, biased and emotional … an attempt to disguise ethnic/political passions as history or logic, and to believe what one WANTS TO BELIEVE, regardless of all the facts to the contrary. I must say, it is unobjective thinking worthy of any Moslem!

Posted by ghw at 12:27 AM on February 5



Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Search

Post a Comment

Commenting guidelines: We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. Statements of fact and well-considered opinion are welcome, but we will not post comments that include obscenities or insults, whether of groups or individuals. We reserve the right to hold our critics to lower standards.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)