Queen shakes hands with IRA terrorist

[rocks 494]

In the British Army kill list for South Armagh (which was not long enough), nobody was reported as being shot while they were wearing a loin cloth or a feather headdress

[Captain Oates 911]

Ireland is a small, rather insignificant country and they have St Patrick's day and green beer and not a lot else

If it's such a great place, why does very Irish person who can, leave the joint and never go back ?

Their main export is, and always has been, people

Most of them go to England !

Perhaps that is why the County of Yorkshire has a bigger population than Ireland ?

So even if their ethnic cleansing fantasies ever happened, they still wouldn't move North - they would all be in London behind the bar in Irish pubs serving whiskey to furtive Saudis - and the North would be uninhabited

The average American who claims to be Irish, couldn't even point to it on a world map

[JohnR! 5,495]

Ireland is a small, rather insignificant country and they have St Patrick's day and green beer and not a lot else

If it's such a great place, why does very Irish person who can, leave the joint and never go back ?

Their main export is, and always has been, people

Most of them go to England !

Perhaps that is why the County of Yorkshire has a bigger population than Ireland ?

So even if their ethnic cleansing fantasies ever happened, they still wouldn't move North - they would all be in London behind the bar in Irish pubs serving whiskey to furtive Saudis - and the North would be uninhabited

The average American who claims to be Irish, couldn't even point to it on a world map

You make a good point as to the reasons the British should leave Northern Ireland to the Irish, instead of insisting on fighting for a land and people of so little consequence.

Maybe that is what the Queen is signaling with her handshake.... Maybe she finally saw the light...

Edited June 28, 2012 by Gegel

[rocks 494]

I don’t believe I ever claimed that you, personally, were “English.” But if you can quote me where I said it, I will apologize for insulting you.

I quite clearly said "British". I said that in that post too. You turned it into "English". Not sure why, you should learn about the difference. You have insulted me, I don't expect you to apologize for your mistake.

Um… what ? Where did I say anything of the sort, or try to deny census figures ? I simply acknowledged the source of the info - “according to Wiki.”

You haven't provided any links to facts for anything you have said.

You say your figures are from the census, but you state in your quote stat on African Americans that the source is the CIA World Fact Book, and you don’t include the year. This is why links are so useful - and it’s standard procedure to give the link when directly quoting a source. I don’t know why you keep refusing to do it.

The figures ARE from the census. I have told you this 4 times now. Go to census.gov and look it up. I can't link you to the facts, you have to search yourself.

LOL. The burden of proof is on the claimant. And I didn’t dispute any census figures (you are invited to quote me if you find where I did;) I just asked for the link so I could see which year, etc. Again, I don't know why you don't want to link your source.

Yes, and that is you. You have claimed you know everything. You have spouted numbers but with no links to where you got them from. I told you where mine are from. Stop being lazy and go look for yourself. Again, it's at census.gov. If you had ever looked there you would know you have to search the data. I cannot link you to a search. Not sure why you can't grasp that?

Well obviously, if you don’t know the history of Ireland, then you can’t possibly be of Irish descent - it's common knowledge that this information is transmitted via DNA.

Thanks for telling me my own ancestry. Glad you know it better than I do. People claim to be Irish without knowing their DNA history. Why are you making me repeat myself over and over?

Perhaps you should refer to the Oxford Dictionary more often. Holidays are simply designated days that have a special significance for certain groups. Those groups could be defined by ethnicity, or religion, or nation, or culture. Holidays can be “official” or “unofficial,” (meaning they may or may not be designated "Bank Holidays” and/or involve a general closure of business.) St. Patrick’s Day in the U.S. is an example of a holiday during which businesses and government offices generally do not close, but it’s still considered a holiday by the people who celebrate it.

Repeating myself again. St Patrick's day is a public holiday. Fireworks night is not a public holiday. Why are you comparing apples and oranges? Answer the question instead of providing useless information from a website you haven't cited the link from.

Now, before you go off into the next distortion, I am by no means claiming that all Irish-Americans have a political opinion on The Troubles, or support the IRA, or even know much about it. But a lot of them do.

Yes, you are. It's really quite disgusting and offensive. "A lot of them do"? Where do you get this from? Cite your references. Just because you think it is true, doesn't make it real.

Edited June 28, 2012 by rocks

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

No, clearly you don't understand what being "British" is. I am British, not English.

what's the difference? one likes fish and chips, the other doesn't?

[Captain Oates 911]

You make a good point as to the reasons the British should leave Northern Ireland to the Irish, instead of insisting on fighting for a land and people of so little consequence.

Maybe that is what the Queen is signaling with her handshake.... Maybe she finally saw the light...

I don't think she would declare open season on the 250,000 Ulster People

They have been there 400 years and they are staying and that is for certain

They are as Irish now as people in the South and a slaughter or gassing policy is not practical

Just like I am English and not the Danish/Saxon of my immigrant ancestors

The IRA and their dumb 'ever so tiny bit Irish' sympathizers in the USA will have to accept that

The consequence is that they will continue to be able buy condoms - something the southerners could not do until recently

..and they wont have to fly secretly to England for abortions like the poor priest-ridden southerners

Edited June 28, 2012 by Ashud Cocoa

[JohnR! 5,495]

They have been there 400 years and they are staying and that is for certain

They are as Irish now as people in the South and a slaughter or gassing policy is not practical

'

All the more reason for unifying Ireland. These Ulsters would be more at home in a unified Ireland, as you suggest than being part of GB.

Oh, well, there seems to be a referendum on the subjects - pun intended - in 2016.

[rocks 494]

That’s nice. But it’s England that brought slavery to this continent in the first place, as well as the idea that women and persons of color shouldn’t have the right to vote.

Before you start spouting opinion as fact again or complaining I didn't cite references. here is some reading for you.

Here is a link from Boston University.

Here is a link about the Dutch and slavery. In case you can't work it out, WIC = West India Company

http://www.geheugenvannederland.nl/hgvn/webroot/files/File/extra/atlanticworld/atlanticworld1EN/tentoon3.html

[rocks 494]

what's the difference? one likes fish and chips, the other doesn't?

Who doesn't like fish and chips? Down here it's called catfish and fries, but it's the same. Maybe everyone is secretly a Brit!

A Brit is a person from the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I am not "English", I am British. I am of mixed ancestry within both the United Kingdom and Europe. I was born in the United Kingdom, therefore I am British.

[Captain Oates 911]

'

All the more reason for unifying Ireland. These Ulsters would be more at home in a unified Ireland, as you suggest than being part of GB.

Oh, well, there seems to be a referendum on the subjects - pun intended - in 2016.

The Ulster people don't want to be under a religious state run under the pope's decree

Really you should look at how the south has been run - look at condoms and abortions and divorce - all STATE laws but decreed by Il Papa

It has been run like IRAN and any American should be repulsed by that

The Ulster people are similarly repulsed and will not go under the heel of the vatican

[rocks 494]

The IRA and their dumb 'ever so tiny bit Irish' sympathizers in the USA will have to accept that

The consequence is that they will continue to be able buy condoms - something the southerners could not do until recently

..and they wont have to fly secretly to England for abortions like the poor priest-ridden southerners

[rocks 494]

The Ulster people don't want to be under a religious state run under the pope's decree

Really you should look at how the south has been run - look at condoms and abortions and divorce - all STATE laws but decreed by Il Papa

It has been run like IRAN and any American should be repulsed by that

The Ulster people are similarly repulsed and will not go under the heel of the vatican

It's very much like how life is here. They changed the law here so that the only abortion clinic in the state will be unable to stay open due to death threats etc. Maybe all the Irish should move to the deep south.

[Captain Oates 911]

It's very much like how life is here. They changed the law here so that the only abortion clinic in the state will be unable to stay open due to death threats etc. Maybe all the Irish should move to the deep south.

It's ironic that Britain, who's head of state is also head of the church, is in fact run on totally secular lines whereas the US which is nominally secular, is run on wholly religious lines

The result is that freedom from religion in Britain (including Northern Ireland), has become what the US Constitutions was meant to to achieve for the USA

I would never have my daughter live in the USA and subjected to the laws of the born-again mullahs in states like Oklahoma

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Actually the Portuguese thought they would get to America with the slaves first, but both Portugal and Britain were beaten by the Dutch. You really should learn your history.

OK... since you want to quibble over nits:

The first ship bringing enslaved Africans to what is now the U.S. was actually Spanish, in 1526. That ship brought a very small number of enslaved Africans and established a colony on the east coast, but it did not survive more than a year or two, and the Africans escaped after a rebellion.

The next one was some 40 years later, in 1565, when a Portuguese ship arrived carrying some enslaved and some free Africans along with Portuguese people. They established a colony in what is now Florida, and it survived as a permanent settlement - St. Augustine, Florida.

The English brought enslaved Africans with them when they first arrived in Virginia in 1619.

The Dutch did not get here first. The first Dutch ship with African slaves to arrive in what is now the U.S. landed in 1625. They established a colony around what is now New York City. Their slaves had a few basic rights, families were usually kept intact, they could testify in court, etc. When this Dutch colony failed, they freed these slaves, which grew into a small community of "free Negroes."

All during this early period, slavery was a rather different institution than what developed here (in what is now the U.S.) in the mid 1600s. Until then, African slaves had much the same status as indentured servants (many of them Irish) and many of them eventually obtained their freedom after working off a contract, and/or by converting to Christianity. Slaves were difficult to obtain in the U.S. during this time; most were sold in the Caribbean islands. There just weren't very many of them here.

Things started to change very rapidly around the middle of the 1600s, after a group of English plantation lords from Barbados decided that the island was getting too crowded, and decided to start a colony in what is now South Carolina. They brought African slaves with them, built plantations, and introduced the model that had been created in the Caribbean: chattel slavery.

During the second half of the 17th century, the British economy improved and the supply of British indentured servants declined, as poor Britons had better economic opportunities at home. At the same time, Bacon's Rebellion of 1676 led planters to worry about the prospective dangers of creating a large class of restless, landless, and relatively poor white men (most of them former indentured servants). Wealthy Virginia and Maryland planters began to buy slaves in preference to indentured servants during the 1660s and 1670s, and poorer planters followed suit by c.1700. (Slaves cost more than servants, so initially only the wealthy could invest in slaves.) The first British colonists in Carolina introduced African slavery into the colony in 1670, the year the colony was founded, and slavery spread rapidly throughout the Southern colonies. Northerners also purchased slaves, though on a much smaller scale. Northern slaves typically dwelled in towns and worked as artisans and artisans' assistants, sailors and longshoremen, and domestic servants.

English colonists not only imported Africans but also captured Native Americans, impressing them into slavery. Many Native Americans were shipped as slaves to the Caribbean. Many of these slaves from the British colonies were able to escape by heading south, to the Spanish colony of Florida. There they were given their freedom, if they declared their allegiance to the King of Spain and accepted the Catholic Church. In 1739 Fort Mose was established by African American freedmen and became the northern defense post for St. Augustine. In 1740, English forces attacked and destroyed the fort, which was rebuilt in 1752. Because Fort Mose became a haven for escaped slaves from the English colonies to the north, it is considered a precursor site of the Underground Railroad.[15]

Curiously, chattel slavery developed in British North America before the legal apparatus that supported slavery did. During the late 17th century and early 18th century, harsh new slave codes limited the rights of African slaves and cut off their avenues to freedom. For example, a 1691 Virginia law prohibited slaveholders from emancipating slaves unless they paid for the freedmen's transportation out of Virginia.[16] Virginia criminalized interracial marriage in 1691,[17] and subsequent laws abolished blacks' rights to vote, hold office, and bear arms.[16] The first full-scale slave code in British North America was South Carolina's (1696), which was modeled on the Barbados slave code of 1661 and was updated and expanded regularly throughout the 18th century.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_colonial_United_States

So this is why I say: it was the English who introduced slavery (to be specific: chattel slavery, which was the overwhelmingly predominant form here) into what is now the U.S.

[rocks 494]

It's ironic that Britain, who's head of state is also head of the church, is in fact run on totally secular lines whereas the US which is nominally secular, is run on wholly religious lines

The result is that freedom from religion in Britain (including Northern Ireland), has become what the US Constitutions was meant to to achieve for the USA

I would never have my daughter live in the USA and subjected to the laws of the born-again mullahs in states like Oklahoma

Indeed. I find it ironic that in this booklet I'm supposed to read for my naturalization interview, I should know that freedom of religion means "freedom to practice or not practice a religion", meanwhile I have religion rammed down my throat and no choice but to live under religious law. They tried to outlaw birth control here, that didn't work, which was surprising. What will they attack next?

OK... since you want to quibble over nits:

The first ship bringing enslaved Africans to what is now the U.S. was actually Spanish, in 1526. That ship brought a very small number of enslaved Africans and established a colony on the east coast, but it did not survive more than a year or two, and the Africans escaped after a rebellion.

The next one was some 40 years later, in 1565, when a Portuguese ship arrived carrying some enslaved and some free Africans along with Portuguese people. They established a colony in what is now Florida, and it survived as a permanent settlement - St. Augustine, Florida.

The English brought enslaved Africans with them when they first arrived in Virginia in 1619.

The Dutch did not get here first. The first Dutch ship with African slaves to arrive in what is now the U.S. landed in 1625. They established a colony around what is now New York City. Their slaves had a few basic rights, families were usually kept intact, they could testify in court, etc. When this Dutch colony failed, they freed these slaves, which grew into a small community of "free Negroes."

All during this early period, slavery was a rather different institution than what developed here (in what is now the U.S.) in the mid 1600s. Until then, African slaves had much the same status as indentured servants (many of them Irish) and many of them eventually obtained their freedom after working off a contract, and/or by converting to Christianity. Slaves were difficult to obtain in the U.S. during this time; most were sold in the Caribbean islands. There just weren't very many of them here.

Things started to change very rapidly around the middle of the 1600s, after a group of English plantation lords from Barbados decided that the island was getting too crowded, and decided to start a colony in what is now South Carolina. They brought African slaves with them, built plantations, and introduced the model that had been created in the Caribbean: chattel slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_colonial_United_States

So this is why I say: it was the English who introduced slavery (to be specific: chattel slavery, which was the overwhelmingly predominant form here) into what is now the U.S.

I'm not going to read this. I scanned through and saw that you didn't read my link that you insisted upon. If you can't be bothered to learn facts then I can't be bothered to read your "opinions".

However, colonists began to see indentured servant as too costly, and in 1619, Dutch traders brought the first African slaves to Jamestown.

That is from your own link.

Edited June 28, 2012 by rocks