Better be British, Scots told

[Maggie Stewart-Grant]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=421167
Better be British, Scots told
By Paul Kelbie Scotland Correspondent
03 July 2003
Students at one of the UK's oldest universities have been advised to
call themselves British rather than Scottish, Welsh or Irish on job
applications, in case prospective employers regard them as troublesome
nationalists.
Career advisers at Aberdeen University have issued a guide to students
seeking work outside Scotland, which warns them that their best chance
is to declare British nationality.
The advice has caused political outrage. "Scotland is a nation and not
a region," said the Aberdeen MSP Richard Lochhead, who has complained
to the university.
"We have our national Parliament and when the country should be
rebuilding its confidence, we shouldn't be advising our young people
to deny their birthright."
The guide book is the idea of Locker Madden, head of the careers and
appointments service, who says his sole purpose is to help graduates
gain good jobs by assisting them with application letters, CVs and
interviews.
"Some employers might see 'Scottish' on the application form and
think, 'This might be a daft bloke in a kilt who will celebrate
Bannockburn and upset me'," Mr Madden said.
In leaflets and brochures distributed to students at Aberdeen, English
scholars are also advised to call themselves British.
A spokesman for Aberdeen University said: "In the feedback from our
business contacts we have been told applicants who declare their
nationality as British are more likely to get an interview than those
who put down Scottish, Welsh or Irish."

This is the first time I've gone to the "Independent" web site. What a
crock of....baloney! After cruising through most of the site and doing a
quick check of some of the information provided on several of the articles,
I find the validity of the articles questionable, and certainly negative
when it comes to its feel for the national and ethnic identity of any member
of the UK. I would rank it lower than used toilet tissue.

I've just written to Mr. Madden, referencing this article. For anyone else
who might be interested in letting Mr. Madden know their thoughts, his
e-mail address is as follows:

Senior Careers Advisory Officer
Student Affairs, Careers & Appointments
***@abdn.ac.uk

I'm sure he would be interested in hearing the thoughts of others on this
issue, so that he has the opportunity to refute the article that has been
posted, or attempt to support his position.

By the way, has Logan met the inimitable Henderson? They're clearly two of
a kind. Logan just hit my killfile. I should have done it sooner.

~M.

[Scottish]

Unlike the USA, the UK has an Independant press with diverse viewpoints.
--
Scottish

Post by Maggie Stewart-Grant

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=421167
Better be British, Scots told
By Paul Kelbie Scotland Correspondent
03 July 2003
Students at one of the UK's oldest universities have been advised to
call themselves British rather than Scottish, Welsh or Irish on job
applications, in case prospective employers regard them as troublesome
nationalists.
Career advisers at Aberdeen University have issued a guide to students
seeking work outside Scotland, which warns them that their best chance
is to declare British nationality.
The advice has caused political outrage. "Scotland is a nation and not
a region," said the Aberdeen MSP Richard Lochhead, who has complained
to the university.
"We have our national Parliament and when the country should be
rebuilding its confidence, we shouldn't be advising our young people
to deny their birthright."
The guide book is the idea of Locker Madden, head of the careers and
appointments service, who says his sole purpose is to help graduates
gain good jobs by assisting them with application letters, CVs and
interviews.
"Some employers might see 'Scottish' on the application form and
think, 'This might be a daft bloke in a kilt who will celebrate
Bannockburn and upset me'," Mr Madden said.
In leaflets and brochures distributed to students at Aberdeen, English
scholars are also advised to call themselves British.
A spokesman for Aberdeen University said: "In the feedback from our
business contacts we have been told applicants who declare their
nationality as British are more likely to get an interview than those
who put down Scottish, Welsh or Irish."

This is the first time I've gone to the "Independent" web site. What a
crock of....baloney! After cruising through most of the site and doing a
quick check of some of the information provided on several of the articles,
I find the validity of the articles questionable, and certainly negative
when it comes to its feel for the national and ethnic identity of any member
of the UK. I would rank it lower than used toilet tissue.
I've just written to Mr. Madden, referencing this article. For anyone else
who might be interested in letting Mr. Madden know their thoughts, his
Senior Careers Advisory Officer
Student Affairs, Careers & Appointments
I'm sure he would be interested in hearing the thoughts of others on this
issue, so that he has the opportunity to refute the article that has been
posted, or attempt to support his position.
By the way, has Logan met the inimitable Henderson? They're clearly two of
a kind. Logan just hit my killfile. I should have done it sooner.
~M.

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by Maggie Stewart-Grant
This is the first time I've gone to the "Independent" web site. What a
crock of....baloney! After cruising through most of the site and doing a
quick check of some of the information provided on several of the articles,
I find the validity of the articles questionable, and certainly negative
when it comes to its feel for the national and ethnic identity of any member
of the UK. I would rank it lower than used toilet tissue.
I've just written to Mr. Madden, referencing this article. For anyone else
who might be interested in letting Mr. Madden know their thoughts, his
Senior Careers Advisory Officer
Student Affairs, Careers & Appointments
I'm sure he would be interested in hearing the thoughts of others on this
issue, so that he has the opportunity to refute the article that has been
posted, or attempt to support his position.
By the way, has Logan met the inimitable Henderson? They're clearly two of
a kind. Logan just hit my killfile. I should have done it sooner.
~M.

More info on this story from another newspaper:

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/2-7-19103-0-21-14.html


Scots students told British is best on CVs

Careers advisers spark nationality row

GRAEME SMITH

UNIVERSITY careers advisers yesterday were accused of encouraging
Scottish students to deny their birthplace to help them gain good
jobs.

Scottish students at Aberdeen University applying for work in England
are being advised to give their nationality as "British".

Locker Madden, the head of the university's careers and appointments
service and a self-confessed Scottish nationalist, gives the advice in
a brochure to help students write a curriculum vitae.

It was condemned yesterday by Richard Lochhead, SNP MSP, who said it
would undermine the confidence of young Scots.

However, Mr Madden said the sole aim was to help students obtain
interviews, not to encourage them to deny their birthright.

"Some employers might see 'Scottish' on the application form and
think: 'This might be a daft bloke in a kilt who will celebrate
Bannockburn and upset me' - although I very much doubt that would
happen," said Mr Madden.

The advice is contained in one of a host of brochures available on the
campus designed to help graduates write application letters, complete
CVs and undertake interviews.

Mr Madden said the information in them was based on advice from major
employers.

"British is our official nationality not Scottish or English and I
don't mind being British because it is a Scottish invention by King
James VI of Scotland and I of England," he said.

"Neither Scotland nor England are members of the EU or of the United
Nations, although I look forward to the day Scotland is an independent
member, and someone who is British can work all over the European
Union.

"Students should be made aware that if they apply for jobs in England
and call themselves Scottish many common misconceptions could be made
about them.

"An employer may think the fact they are making an issue over their
birthplace means they are mad nationalists who want to celebrate Burns
night all the time.

"If, of course, you are marketing yourself on the fact that you are
Scottish, that is different and you should promote your nationality if
applying for a job in Scotland."

The booklet also advises the English to call themselves British in the
"essential biodata" section and offers advice on what employers might
want to know about activities and interests, work experience and
relevant skills and how to write the accompanying letter.

Applicants are also advised that employers might want to know their
marital status and the booklet suggests "single can mean that you are
more likely to be flexible and mobile."

Mr Madden said they were simply offering the best possible guidance to
help students and they were not trying to impose any strict rules on
the students.

However Mr Lochhead criticised the brochure.

He said: "This kind of advice sends out completely the wrong message
to young Scots.

"In this day and age, with our national parliament up and running, it
is ludicrous to suggest that students looking for work should not take
pride in being Scottish.

"In modern-day Scotland, people's Scottish identity takes precedence
over all others and if we want future generations to express
confidence then we should encourage students to choose their own
identity.

"Any employer who puts job applicants down the pecking order for
calling themselves Scottish would be foolish because all they would be
doing is letting potential talent slip through the net.

"Careers advisers giving this type of advice could plant a seed of
doubt and make it an issue for employers. They could also undermine
the confidence of young Scots."

He added: "If the problem lies with the employers, they should rethink
their recruitment policies. Employers must recognise that Scotland has
moved on."

Emma Taylor, 19, an Aberdeen student thought it was a stupid
suggestion and if someone was from Scotland they should say so on
their CV.

She said: "I'm not a mad nationalist but I still like to say I'm
Scottish and if that puts a company off employing me then I wouldn't
want to work for them in the first place."

She added: "It would be interesting to find out how many Scots firms
turn an applicant down for saying they are English.

"I bet it doesn't happen very often."

[Dave]

Students at one of the UK's oldest universities have been advised to
call themselves British rather than Scottish, Welsh or Irish on job
applications, in case prospective employers regard them as troublesome
nationalists.

I wonder, is it Mr Madden, or Paul Kelbie of the Independent that
fails to understand that Ireland is not part of Britain.

[Dave]

And how do you work that one out ?

(excluding of course anyone with dual nationality)

[Féachadóir]

Post by Dave
And how do you work that one out ?

I look at the bit of Ireland that is part of the United Kingdom and
full of people who call themselves British and carry British
passports.

Post by Dave
(excluding of course anyone with dual nationality)

That'd be all of them.

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by Dave

Students at one of the UK's oldest universities have been advised to
call themselves British rather than Scottish, Welsh or Irish on job
applications, in case prospective employers regard them as troublesome
nationalists.

I wonder, is it Mr Madden, or Paul Kelbie of the Independent that
fails to understand that Ireland is not part of Britain.

I don't think either man is saying that Ireland is part of Britain. I
think what they are saying is that you have a better chance of getting
a job in England if you call yourself British instead of Irish,
Scottish or Welsh.

[David H]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Dave

Students at one of the UK's oldest universities have been advised to
call themselves British rather than Scottish, Welsh or Irish on job
applications, in case prospective employers regard them as troublesome
nationalists.

I wonder, is it Mr Madden, or Paul Kelbie of the Independent that
fails to understand that Ireland is not part of Britain.

I don't think either man is saying that Ireland is part of Britain. I
think what they are saying is that you have a better chance of getting
a job in England if you call yourself British instead of Irish,
Scottish or Welsh.

Or English. Maybe you didn't read that far? (Paragraph 7,
so you can skip 2,3,4,5 & 6)

David H

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by David H
Or English. Maybe you didn't read that far? (Paragraph 7,
so you can skip 2,3,4,5 & 6)

But why should an Irish person have to describe themselves as "British"
if they want to get a job in England?

[David H]

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 20:18:06 +0000 (UTC), "Diarmid Logan"

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
Or English. Maybe you didn't read that far? (Paragraph 7,
so you can skip 2,3,4,5 & 6)

But why should an Irish person have to describe themselves as "British"
if they want to get a job in England?

Firstly, I doubt that all Irish people are advised to do so - only
those entitled to be British as well by being Northern Irish
(1.5 million) or by being British but also Irish by the Irish
Grandparent rule (another few million).

Secondly, no one *has* to describe themselves as
British. I am sure that many of the posters to this group
got jobs across the UK as Irish people. Instead, it was
just a bit of helpful advice from a careers advisor. I'm
sure I would consider my options as pragmatically if I
was going to look for a job in Dublin, and tailor my
CV accordingly. After all - someone like you might
get to see it!

Thirdly - and this applies just to the Irish rather than
the Scots or English - employers may be bothered by
the paperwork involved in employing a foreigner.
Ironically, the extra paperwork is minimal even for the
exclusively Irish, but a lot of small employers aren't
going to know that.

Then of course, there's the perceived threat of
nationalist violence. More imaginary than real these
days, but the Real IRA still attack the mainland when
they can, and that sort of thing can offset a lot of
real-life goodwill when an employer is sorting through
a stack of CVs. Who wants to see their business go
up in smoke? Who wants to take even the slightest
unneccessary risk?

David H

[Murchadh]

Post by David H
Then of course, there's the perceived threat of
nationalist violence. More imaginary than real these
days, but the Real IRA still attack the mainland when
they can,

.........and where exactly might the "mainland" be?

France.


Murchadh

[David H]

Post by David H
Then of course, there's the perceived threat of
nationalist violence. More imaginary than real these
days, but the Real IRA still attack the mainland when
they can,

.........and where exactly might the "mainland" be?

It's the great big place 20 miles east of me - the one
that contains 95% of the UK.

David H

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by David H
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 20:18:06 +0000 (UTC), "Diarmid Logan"

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
Or English. Maybe you didn't read that far? (Paragraph 7,
so you can skip 2,3,4,5 & 6)

But why should an Irish person have to describe themselves as "British"
if they want to get a job in England?

Firstly, I doubt that all Irish people are advised to do so - only
those entitled to be British as well by being Northern Irish
(1.5 million) or by being British but also Irish by the Irish
Grandparent rule (another few million).
Secondly, no one *has* to describe themselves as
British. I am sure that many of the posters to this group
got jobs across the UK as Irish people. Instead, it was
just a bit of helpful advice from a careers advisor. I'm
sure I would consider my options as pragmatically if I
was going to look for a job in Dublin, and tailor my
CV accordingly. After all - someone like you might
get to see it!
Thirdly - and this applies just to the Irish rather than
the Scots or English - employers may be bothered by
the paperwork involved in employing a foreigner.
Ironically, the extra paperwork is minimal even for the
exclusively Irish, but a lot of small employers aren't
going to know that.
Then of course, there's the perceived threat of
nationalist violence. More imaginary than real these
days, but the Real IRA still attack the mainland when
they can, and that sort of thing can offset a lot of
real-life goodwill when an employer is sorting through
a stack of CVs. Who wants to see their business go
up in smoke? Who wants to take even the slightest
unneccessary risk?

If you are afraid of violence from indigenous Irish people then the
best way to avoid that would be for the British government to
dismantle its colony in the north of Ireland and repatriate its
colonists back to Britain where they belong.

[Robert Peffers]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 20:18:06 +0000 (UTC), "Diarmid Logan"

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
Or English. Maybe you didn't read that far? (Paragraph 7,
so you can skip 2,3,4,5 & 6)

But why should an Irish person have to describe themselves as "British"
if they want to get a job in England?

Firstly, I doubt that all Irish people are advised to do so - only
those entitled to be British as well by being Northern Irish
(1.5 million) or by being British but also Irish by the Irish
Grandparent rule (another few million).
Secondly, no one *has* to describe themselves as
British. I am sure that many of the posters to this group
got jobs across the UK as Irish people. Instead, it was
just a bit of helpful advice from a careers advisor. I'm
sure I would consider my options as pragmatically if I
was going to look for a job in Dublin, and tailor my
CV accordingly. After all - someone like you might
get to see it!
Thirdly - and this applies just to the Irish rather than
the Scots or English - employers may be bothered by
the paperwork involved in employing a foreigner.
Ironically, the extra paperwork is minimal even for the
exclusively Irish, but a lot of small employers aren't
going to know that.
Then of course, there's the perceived threat of
nationalist violence. More imaginary than real these
days, but the Real IRA still attack the mainland when
they can, and that sort of thing can offset a lot of
real-life goodwill when an employer is sorting through
a stack of CVs. Who wants to see their business go
up in smoke? Who wants to take even the slightest
unneccessary risk?

If you are afraid of violence from indigenous Irish people then the
best way to avoid that would be for the British government to
dismantle its colony in the north of Ireland and repatriate its
colonists back to Britain where they belong.

Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
Aye! Richt! We will do that when the Irish take back all those sectarian
idiots from Scotland's West Coast. That will leave plenty room for the
returnees.
--
Aefauldlie,
Auld Bob Peffers,
***@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/


---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.497 / Virus Database: 296 - Release Date: 04/07/2003

[David H]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
Then of course, there's the perceived threat of
nationalist violence. More imaginary than real these
days, but the Real IRA still attack the mainland when
they can, and that sort of thing can offset a lot of
real-life goodwill when an employer is sorting through
a stack of CVs. Who wants to see their business go
up in smoke? Who wants to take even the slightest
unneccessary risk?

If you are afraid of violence from indigenous Irish people then the
best way to avoid that would be for the British government to
dismantle its colony in the north of Ireland and repatriate its
colonists back to Britain where they belong.

How do you tell who is a colonist and who is indigenous?
After all - with 400 years of immigration, emigration,
conversion, intermarriage and infidelity, how could
you ever tell?

Adams and Hume are colonist names, aren't they?

David H

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by David H
How do you tell who is a colonist and who is indigenous?

The Unionists are the colonists while the Nationalists are the
indigenous population.

Post by David H
After all - with 400 years of immigration, emigration,
conversion, intermarriage and infidelity, how could
you ever tell?

Wrong. There has been very little intermarriage or conversion. When the
Plantation was started the English made sure to pick colonists who were
prejudiced against Ireland's indigenous population. This prejudice has
not declined over the centuries as can be seen by the popularity of the
Orange parades in the colonial population.

Post by David H
Adams and Hume are colonist names, aren't they?

Adams is indigenous but Hume does have British colonial ancestry. It is
the reason why Hume has always advocated a weak-kneed form of
Nationalism and perpetually licks the boots of the British.

[Steve]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
How do you tell who is a colonist and who is indigenous?

The Unionists are the colonists while the Nationalists are the
indigenous population.

Whatever will you do if the 'colonists', when asked by the repatriation
committee if they are Unionist, state: "Oh no, definiteley not. We're
Nationalist, always have been, we've wanted an independent Ireland for
ages".

--
Steve

[Allan Connochie]

Post by Steve

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
How do you tell who is a colonist and who is indigenous?

The Unionists are the colonists while the Nationalists are the
indigenous population.

Whatever will you do if the 'colonists', when asked by the repatriation
committee if they are Unionist, state: "Oh no, definiteley not. We're
Nationalist, always have been, we've wanted an independent Ireland for
ages".

24% of the Protestant population [according to these polls] when asked
declared that they did not consider themselves Unionists; 45% of the
Catholics said they were neither Nationalist or Unionist. In fact only 60%
of Catholics said that their preferred long term aim was a united Ireland,
and in the 1993 poll it was in fact only 49%. 36% of Catholic women and 21%
of Catholic men wish to retain links with Britain. When asked their
preference only 62% of Catholics regarded themselves as primarily Irish,
with 28% calling themselves Northern Irish; and 10% British. Of the
Catholics who wished to retain links with Britain only 40% regard themselves
as primarily Irish, 38% Northern Irish and 22% British. I know people will
cry lies, damn lies and statistics, but it seems pretty clear that political
lines and religious lines are not always as clear cut as Logan suggests.
77% of people in Northern Ireland married someone of the same religious
denomination compared with 55% in the UK as a whole. It didn't give figures
for Catholic/Protestant marriages as such.


http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/ni/religion.htm




cheers


Allan

Post by Steve
--
Steve

[Richard Kaulfuss]

Polls are notoriously unreliable in the Six Counties.

Does that include the one you keep quoting,
(http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/research/nisas/rep1c2.htm), or does
it only apply to those that come up with results that you find
unpalatable?

For example, most polls overestimate the support of the SDLP and underestimate the
support of Sinn Fein.

How could you possibly know? Do the numbers differ markedly from
election results?

The reality is that most of the indigenous
population in the North does not like to answer polls honestly because
they have no idea as to the political sympathies of the people taking
the poll or what those people might do with the information.

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by Richard Kaulfuss

Polls are notoriously unreliable in the Six Counties.

Does that include the one you keep quoting,
(http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/research/nisas/rep1c2.htm), or does
it only apply to those that come up with results that you find
unpalatable?

Any poll that shows that most Nationalists are happy with partition is
wrong since if Nationalists were happy with partition they would not
vote for Sinn Fein or the SDLP since both those parties are against
partition.

Post by Richard Kaulfuss

For example, most polls overestimate the support of the SDLP and underestimate the
support of Sinn Fein.

How could you possibly know? Do the numbers differ markedly from
election results?

Yes, Sinn Fein always does better while the SDLP always does worse
than the polls would indicate.

[Richard Kaulfuss]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Richard Kaulfuss

Polls are notoriously unreliable in the Six Counties.

Does that include the one you keep quoting,
(http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/research/nisas/rep1c2.htm), or does
it only apply to those that come up with results that you find
unpalatable?

Any poll that shows that most Nationalists are happy with partition is
wrong since if Nationalists were happy with partition they would not
vote for Sinn Fein or the SDLP since both those parties are against
partition.

I wasn't aware that they were single issue parties.

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Richard Kaulfuss

For example, most polls overestimate the support of the SDLP and underestimate the
support of Sinn Fein.

How could you possibly know? Do the numbers differ markedly from
election results?

Yes, Sinn Fein always does better while the SDLP always does worse
than the polls would indicate.

But is the difference greater than the sampling error? Do
Nationalists always vote with their consciences? Or their kneecaps?

[Allan Connochie]

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Steve

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
How do you tell who is a colonist and who is indigenous?

The Unionists are the colonists while the Nationalists are the
indigenous population.

Whatever will you do if the 'colonists', when asked by the

repatriation

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Steve
committee if they are Unionist, state: "Oh no, definiteley not. We're
Nationalist, always have been, we've wanted an independent Ireland for
ages".

24% of the Protestant population [according to these polls] when asked
declared that they did not consider themselves Unionists; 45% of the
Catholics said they were neither Nationalist or Unionist. In fact only 60%
of Catholics said that their preferred long term aim was a united Ireland,
and in the 1993 poll it was in fact only 49%. 36% of Catholic women and 21%
of Catholic men wish to retain links with Britain. When asked their
preference only 62% of Catholics regarded themselves as primarily Irish,
with 28% calling themselves Northern Irish; and 10% British. Of the
Catholics who wished to retain links with Britain only 40% regard themselves
as primarily Irish, 38% Northern Irish and 22% British. I know people will
cry lies, damn lies and statistics, but it seems pretty clear that political
lines and religious lines are not always as clear cut as Logan suggests.
77% of people in Northern Ireland married someone of the same religious
denomination compared with 55% in the UK as a whole. It didn't give figures
for Catholic/Protestant marriages as such.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/ni/religion.htm

Polls are notoriously unreliable in the Six Counties. For example,
most polls overestimate the support of the SDLP and underestimate the
support of Sinn Fein. The reality is that most of the indigenous
population in the North does not like to answer polls honestly because
they have no idea as to the political sympathies of the people taking
the poll or what those people might do with the information.

These polls apart from election and referendum results are the best thing we
have though apart from individual poster's personal opinions. What are the
results then? 94.39% of people who voted in the referendum in the Irish
Republic backed the peace process, and 71.12% of people in the north did
too. So there we have the vast majority of people in the island as a whole
backing a process which clearly states that whether there is a united
Ireland or not depends on the democratic will of all the people in Northern
Ireland. It seems that most people's main wish is to live normal peaceful
lives. Though of course there are bigots and extremists on both sides who
wish to keep things enflamed. Your bigoted and crackpot ideas that people,
whom you claim to be colonists even though they have been in the country for
400 years or so, should be kicked out if they don't conform to your personal
wishes, is plainly evil. Any resonable person will recognise this.


Allan

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by Steve

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
How do you tell who is a colonist and who is indigenous?

The Unionists are the colonists while the Nationalists are the
indigenous population.

Whatever will you do if the 'colonists', when asked by the repatriation
committee if they are Unionist, state: "Oh no, definiteley not. We're
Nationalist, always have been, we've wanted an independent Ireland for
ages".

As long as they support an united Ireland free of British rule then I
have no problem with them staying. The ones that I have a problem with
are the ones that want to see British rule maintained in the Six
Counties.

[Murchadh]

Post by Steve

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
How do you tell who is a colonist and who is indigenous?

The Unionists are the colonists while the Nationalists are the
indigenous population.

Whatever will you do if the 'colonists', when asked by the repatriation
committee if they are Unionist, state: "Oh no, definiteley not. We're
Nationalist, always have been, we've wanted an independent Ireland for
ages".

As long as Unionists and Nationalists support a united Ireland under
British rule then I have no problem with the native Irish staying. The
ones that I have a problem with are the ones that want to see Irish
rule maintained throughout Ireland.


Murchadh

[Murchadh]

Post by Murchadh

Post by Steve

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
How do you tell who is a colonist and who is indigenous?

The Unionists are the colonists while the Nationalists are the
indigenous population.

Whatever will you do if the 'colonists', when asked by the
repatriation committee if they are Unionist, state: "Oh no,
definiteley not. We're Nationalist, always have been, we've wanted
an independent Ireland for ages".

As long as Unionists and Nationalists support a united Ireland under
British rule then I have no problem with the native Irish staying. The
ones that I have a problem with are the ones that want to see Irish
rule maintained throughout Ireland.

then you got a lot of problems.
Allo!

Don't panic - I'm simply reversed Diarmid's last post to show how
stupid it and he are.

Murchadh

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by Murchadh

Post by Murchadh
As long as Unionists and Nationalists support a united Ireland under
British rule then I have no problem with the native Irish staying. The
ones that I have a problem with are the ones that want to see Irish
rule maintained throughout Ireland.

then you got a lot of problems.
Allo!

Don't panic - I'm simply reversed Diarmid's last post to show how
stupid it and he are.

I am afraid all your post has done is to show how stupid it and you are.

[Allan Connochie]

Post by Murchadh

Post by Steve

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
How do you tell who is a colonist and who is indigenous?

The Unionists are the colonists while the Nationalists are the
indigenous population.

Whatever will you do if the 'colonists', when asked by the
repatriation committee if they are Unionist, state: "Oh no,
definiteley not. We're Nationalist, always have been, we've wanted
an independent Ireland for ages".

As long as Unionists and Nationalists support a united Ireland under
British rule then I have no problem with the native Irish staying. The
ones that I have a problem with are the ones that want to see Irish
rule maintained throughout Ireland.

then you got a lot of problems.

Find the sense of humour though. He's poking fun at Logan's idea of
democracy.

Allan

Allo!

[Jochen Lueg]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
How do you tell who is a colonist and who is indigenous?

The Unionists are the colonists while the Nationalists are the
indigenous population.

How can you tell? What if a unionist becomes a nationalists - is he
suddenly indigenous or do you mean ingenious?

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
After all - with 400 years of immigration, emigration,
conversion, intermarriage and infidelity, how could
you ever tell?

Wrong. There has been very little intermarriage or conversion.

That'a total rubbish. I've been living here for 35 years and I've seen
plenty of both, even in this little corner of paradise.

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
Adams and Hume are colonist names, aren't they?

Adams is indigenous

There I agree with you. He is bound to go back right to the bible. With a
name like that - it is bound to make scientific sense.

Jochen

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by Jochen Lueg

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
How do you tell who is a colonist and who is indigenous?

The Unionists are the colonists while the Nationalists are the
indigenous population.

How can you tell? What if a unionist becomes a nationalists - is he
suddenly indigenous or do you mean ingenious?

It is very rare for an Unionist to become a Nationalist. Please look
up the word "indigenous" since you apparently do not understand its
meaning. To be indigenous you have to be a native of a country. The
Unionists, being British, are not indigenous to Ireland.

Post by Jochen Lueg

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
After all - with 400 years of immigration, emigration,
conversion, intermarriage and infidelity, how could
you ever tell?

Wrong. There has been very little intermarriage or conversion.

That'a total rubbish. I've been living here for 35 years and I've seen
plenty of both, even in this little corner of paradise.

Check out the following website:


http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/research/nisas/rep1c2.htm


(1)"The dichotomy between 'British' and 'Irish' national identity in
Northern Ireland might have become less sharp had it not been for high
rates of intra-group marriage (that is, endogamy). Most ethnic groups
show a strong preference for endogamy."

(2)"In Northern Ireland, however, despite a Protestant majority,
endogamy has been preserved. This has been due partly to an adequate
gender balance within each community and partly to religious and
political objections to intermarriage."

(3)"In any society in which the boundaries between communities are
clearly defined, endogamy is frequently the single most important
factor in maintaining the boundaries. In Northern Ireland, endogamy is
both a reflection and a cause of strong communal identity."

(4)"Rose (1971) found that only 5% of marriages crossed the communal
divide; 10 years later, Moxon-Browne (1983) found the proportion to be
the same, and the figure in the current survey is only slightly less
(4%). The consistency of these figures reflects not only the
crystallisation of the sectarian division in Northern Ireland, but a
strong belief in maintaining such a division."

(5)"This lends support to the conclusions of a recent discussion
(Whyte, 1986) of the factors which may be responsible for delineating
boundaries between the two communities in Northern Ireland.
Educational segregation and high rates of endogamy were considered to
be more pertinent than party political affiliations, residential
segregation, economic status or membership of the Orange Order. Much
earlier, Harris (1972) had found endogamy to be the single most
powerful factor in maintaining the divide between the two communities
in the rural area she studied. The supremely important ties of kinship
never crossed the sectarian divide. The fundamental relevance of
sectarian identity patterns is underlined by Whyte's observation that
when intermarriage did occur, 'it bridged no gaps, for usually the
husband cut off all ties with his own kin' (Whyte, 1986, p.230). This
fear of 'diluting' the prime reference-point for identity points to
its significance. Marriages across social class boundaries do not
arouse the same negative reactions."

Post by Jochen Lueg

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
Adams and Hume are colonist names, aren't they?

Adams is indigenous

There I agree with you. He is bound to go back right to the bible. With a
name like that - it is bound to make scientific sense.

Please do some research on Irish history. Under British rule, Gaelic
was made illegal and so Irish people had to anglicize their names if
they wanted to engage in any sort of activity where they had to write
down their names.

[Allan Connochie]

Post by Diarmid Logan

In article

Post by Diarmid Logan
Wrong. There has been very little intermarriage or conversion.

That'a total rubbish. I've been living here for 35 years and I've seen
plenty of both, even in this little corner of paradise.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/research/nisas/rep1c2.htm
(4)"Rose (1971) found that only 5% of marriages crossed the communal
divide; 10 years later, Moxon-Browne (1983) found the proportion to be
the same, and the figure in the current survey is only slightly less
(4%). The consistency of these figures reflects not only the
crystallisation of the sectarian division in Northern Ireland, but a
strong belief in maintaining such a division."

So with 90,000 marriages having taken place between 1988-2001 and a 'known'
mixed-marriage rate of around 5% then we must have about 4,500 mixed couples
who were married in this short period alone. That would make probably
around 9,000 or so kids from this short 13 year period. We can multiply
this over and over for preceding decades and see that this shoots your
theory out of the sky. Many marriages officially down as single religion
marriages will not take account of their parents/grand-parents ethnic
origin, rather it will only take account of the bride's/groom's current
religion.


Allan







Allan

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Diarmid Logan

In article

Post by Diarmid Logan
Wrong. There has been very little intermarriage or conversion.

That'a total rubbish. I've been living here for 35 years and I've seen
plenty of both, even in this little corner of paradise.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/research/nisas/rep1c2.htm
(4)"Rose (1971) found that only 5% of marriages crossed the communal
divide; 10 years later, Moxon-Browne (1983) found the proportion to be
the same, and the figure in the current survey is only slightly less
(4%). The consistency of these figures reflects not only the
crystallisation of the sectarian division in Northern Ireland, but a
strong belief in maintaining such a division."

So with 90,000 marriages having taken place between 1988-2001 and a 'known'
mixed-marriage rate of around 5% then we must have about 4,500 mixed couples
who were married in this short period alone. That would make probably
around 9,000 or so kids from this short 13 year period. We can multiply
this over and over for preceding decades and see that this shoots your
theory out of the sky. Many marriages officially down as single religion
marriages will not take account of their parents/grand-parents ethnic
origin, rather it will only take account of the bride's/groom's current
religion.

*Sigh* People here keep trying to make the claim that between 4-5% of
the members of each and every family in the Six Counties engaged in
intermarriage. There is no evidence to back up this belief.

[Alan Smaill]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Diarmid Logan

In article

Post by Diarmid Logan
Wrong. There has been very little intermarriage or conversion.

That'a total rubbish. I've been living here for 35 years and I've seen
plenty of both, even in this little corner of paradise.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/research/nisas/rep1c2.htm
(4)"Rose (1971) found that only 5% of marriages crossed the communal
divide; 10 years later, Moxon-Browne (1983) found the proportion to be
the same, and the figure in the current survey is only slightly less
(4%). The consistency of these figures reflects not only the
crystallisation of the sectarian division in Northern Ireland, but a
strong belief in maintaining such a division."

So with 90,000 marriages having taken place between 1988-2001 and a 'known'
mixed-marriage rate of around 5% then we must have about 4,500 mixed couples
who were married in this short period alone. That would make probably
around 9,000 or so kids from this short 13 year period. We can multiply
this over and over for preceding decades and see that this shoots your
theory out of the sky. Many marriages officially down as single religion
marriages will not take account of their parents/grand-parents ethnic
origin, rather it will only take account of the bride's/groom's current
religion.

*Sigh* People here keep trying to make the claim that between 4-5% of
the members of each and every family in the Six Counties engaged in
intermarriage. There is no evidence to back up this belief.

*Sigh* no such claim is being made.

Where on earth do you see such a claim in the reasoning above ??

Given the average rate you accept, and the average number of chidren
to a marriage, this is the number of chidren born in this situation;
or do you wish to maintain that marriages between the two communities
are significantly less likely to have children than other marriages?

I know of know research that supports such a claim.
If you are aware of any such research, please report the appropriate
URLs and contact addresses so that we may consider it.

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Diarmid Logan

In article

Post by Diarmid Logan
Wrong. There has been very little intermarriage or conversion.

That'a total rubbish. I've been living here for 35 years and I've seen
plenty of both, even in this little corner of paradise.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/research/nisas/rep1c2.htm
(4)"Rose (1971) found that only 5% of marriages crossed the communal
divide; 10 years later, Moxon-Browne (1983) found the proportion to be
the same, and the figure in the current survey is only slightly less
(4%). The consistency of these figures reflects not only the
crystallisation of the sectarian division in Northern Ireland, but a
strong belief in maintaining such a division."

So with 90,000 marriages having taken place between 1988-2001 and a 'known'
mixed-marriage rate of around 5% then we must have about 4,500 mixed couples
who were married in this short period alone. That would make probably
around 9,000 or so kids from this short 13 year period. We can multiply
this over and over for preceding decades and see that this shoots your
theory out of the sky. Many marriages officially down as single religion
marriages will not take account of their parents/grand-parents ethnic
origin, rather it will only take account of the bride's/groom's current
religion.

*Sigh* People here keep trying to make the claim that between 4-5% of
the members of each and every family in the Six Counties engaged in
intermarriage. There is no evidence to back up this belief.

*Sigh* no such claim is being made.
Where on earth do you see such a claim in the reasoning above ??
Given the average rate you accept, and the average number of chidren
to a marriage, this is the number of chidren born in this situation;
or do you wish to maintain that marriages between the two communities
are significantly less likely to have children than other marriages?
I know of know research that supports such a claim.
If you are aware of any such research, please report the appropriate
URLs and contact addresses so that we may consider it.

*Sigh* Again you are engaging in number games based on an unproven
assumption i.e. that between 4-5% of the members of each and every
family in the Six Counties engaged in intermarriage. All the pretty
number games in the world will not prove an assumption that has no
evidence to back it up.

[Alan Smaill]

....

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Alan Smaill

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Allan Connochie
So with 90,000 marriages having taken place between 1988-2001 and a 'known'
mixed-marriage rate of around 5% then we must have about
4,500 mixed couples
who were married in this short period alone. That would make probably
around 9,000 or so kids from this short 13 year period. We can multiply
this over and over for preceding decades and see that this shoots your
theory out of the sky. Many marriages officially down as single religion
marriages will not take account of their parents/grand-parents ethnic
origin, rather it will only take account of the bride's/groom's current
religion.

*Sigh* People here keep trying to make the claim that between 4-5% of
the members of each and every family in the Six Counties engaged in
intermarriage. There is no evidence to back up this belief.

*Sigh* no such claim is being made.
Where on earth do you see such a claim in the reasoning above ??
Given the average rate you accept, and the average number of chidren
to a marriage, this is the number of chidren born in this situation;
or do you wish to maintain that marriages between the two communities
are significantly less likely to have children than other marriages?
I know of know research that supports such a claim.
If you are aware of any such research, please report the appropriate
URLs and contact addresses so that we may consider it.

*Sigh* Again you are engaging in number games based on an unproven
assumption i.e. that between 4-5% of the members of each and every
family in the Six Counties engaged in intermarriage. All the pretty
number games in the world will not prove an assumption that has no
evidence to back it up.

*Sigh* No I'm not.

Please point out where this assumption is made -- which statement
exactly depends on this assumption? (I ask again, because
you ignored the question last time.)

What do you think that the statement "there is a mixed marriage rate
of 5%" means, then?

Alan Smaill
School of Informatics tel: [phone]
University of Edinburgh

[David H]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:47:14 +0000 (UTC), "Diarmid Logan"

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
How do you tell who is a colonist and who is indigenous?

The Unionists are the colonists while the Nationalists are the
indigenous population.

Post by David H
After all - with 400 years of immigration, emigration,
conversion, intermarriage and infidelity, how could
you ever tell?

Wrong. There has been very little intermarriage or conversion.

Where do your figures come from? I know a number of
people in mixed marriages, and I know two who have converted.
There is also:

http://irishchurches.org/Briefing_Paper/Provos/UUP/Church/Mixed_Marriage/body_mixed_marriage.html

That survey was conducted during the troubles. But suppose that
1 in 16 marriages has been mixed in the 6 counties since the
plantation - that's 16 generations. Gosh - only about 1/e - 37%
of people don't have a mixed marriage in the direct paternal line!

But there's more. 16 generations is 1+2+4+......+65536=131071
marriages among the ancestors, so 131071/16 = about 8000
mixed marriages in the ancestry of most nordies.

Maybe you don't like the figure of 1/16, and you reckon it was
lower in the past? How much lower? Here's an article from the
SCI favoured resource - it focusses more on the problems for
people in mixed marriages, but it won't comfort you much:

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/marriage/ccmni.htm

Or there's this:

http://www.ccruni.gov.uk/research/csc/mixed.htm

Post by Diarmid Logan
When the
Plantation was started the English made sure to pick colonists who were
prejudiced against Ireland's indigenous population. This prejudice has
not declined over the centuries as can be seen by the popularity of the
Orange parades in the colonial population.

And that prejudice produces a mixed marriage rate of 1/16, when
it should be about 1/2. But - you believe in prejudice. You
wouldn't marry a 'colonist', would you?

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
Adams and Hume are colonist names, aren't they?

Adams is indigenous

The surname is a bit of a giveaway, I'm afraid. There
is colonial ancestry there. You could, I suppose, be hoping
that the intermarriage happened in the very first planter
generation, and there was only one colonial ancester?

Post by Diarmid Logan
but Hume does have British colonial ancestry. It is
the reason why Hume has always advocated a weak-kneed form of
Nationalism and perpetually licks the boots of the British.

Brits and unionists don't see him like that. It seems that just
denouncing violence is enough to earn your condemnation.

David H

[Féachadóir]

Post by David H

Post by Diarmid Logan
Adams is indigenous

The surname is a bit of a giveaway, I'm afraid. There
is colonial ancestry there.

Probably. Adams in Ireland is usually of English or Scottish origin.

In the south, it may be Norman, as some Barry's of Cork adopted the
patronymic Mac Adaim at one stage.

Scottish Mac Ádhaimh (MacAdam) in Ulster can predate predate the
plantations. Remember there were population movements back and forth
for centuries.

The name may also be Gaelic, a corruption of Mac Cadain in Armagh.

Assuming any one ancestry over the others is a leap of faith for
Logan.

[Allan Connochie]

Post by Féachadóir

Post by David H

Post by Diarmid Logan
Adams is indigenous

The surname is a bit of a giveaway, I'm afraid. There
is colonial ancestry there.

Probably. Adams in Ireland is usually of English or Scottish origin.
In the south, it may be Norman, as some Barry's of Cork adopted the
patronymic Mac Adaim at one stage.
Scottish Mac Ádhaimh (MacAdam) in Ulster can predate predate the
plantations. Remember there were population movements back and forth
for centuries.
The name may also be Gaelic, a corruption of Mac Cadain in Armagh.
Assuming any one ancestry over the others is a leap of faith for
Logan.

One of the most sensible looking posts on this subject that I've seen! Of
course the Catholic politician who was given the peace prize was a Hume. A
name from the Scottish Borders if there ever was one. Logan's simplistic
views are mind boggling sometimes.


Allan

Post by Féachadóir
--
"Ferr fíor fertaib"
Féachadóir

[Murchadh]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:39:57 +0100, "Allan Connochie"

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Féachadóir

Post by David H

Post by Diarmid Logan
Adams is indigenous

The surname is a bit of a giveaway, I'm afraid. There
is colonial ancestry there.

Probably. Adams in Ireland is usually of English or Scottish origin.
In the south, it may be Norman, as some Barry's of Cork adopted the
patronymic Mac Adaim at one stage.
Scottish Mac Ádhaimh (MacAdam) in Ulster can predate predate the
plantations. Remember there were population movements back and forth
for centuries.
The name may also be Gaelic, a corruption of Mac Cadain in Armagh.
Assuming any one ancestry over the others is a leap of faith for
Logan.

One of the most sensible looking posts on this subject that I've seen! Of
course the Catholic politician who was given the peace prize was a Hume. A
name from the Scottish Borders if there ever was one. Logan's simplistic
views are mind boggling sometimes.
Allan

And Féachadóir's surname is Cunningham, also a Border name.

Murchadh

[Féachadóir]

Post by Murchadh
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:39:57 +0100, "Allan Connochie"
And Féachadóir's surname is Cunningham, also a Border name.

Not necessarily. It may also be a corruption of Cuinneagáin, a native
Irish name. Be wary of simple assumptions when it comes to Irish
genealogy.

[snip Scots of the name]

[Murchadh]

Post by Féachadóir

Post by Murchadh
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:39:57 +0100, "Allan Connochie"
And Féachadóir's surname is Cunningham, also a Border name.

Not necessarily. It may also be a corruption of Cuinneagáin, a native
Irish name. Be wary of simple assumptions when it comes to Irish
genealogy.
[snip Scots of the name]

Well, you live in Donegal and quite a few Protestants and probably
"former Protestants/now Catholics" live in Donegal, so the assumption
that local Cunninghams are of Scots descent is not without validity.

Murchadh

[Madra Dubh]

Post by Murchadh

Post by Féachadóir

Post by Murchadh
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:39:57 +0100, "Allan Connochie"
And Féachadóir's surname is Cunningham, also a Border name.

Not necessarily. It may also be a corruption of Cuinneagáin, a native
Irish name. Be wary of simple assumptions when it comes to Irish
genealogy.
[snip Scots of the name]

Well, you live in Donegal and quite a few Protestants and probably
"former Protestants/now Catholics" live in Donegal, so the assumption
that local Cunninghams are of Scots descent is not without validity.

Donegal?
It is Gearoil Cunningham, the bane of my existence!!!

[Madra Dubh]

Post by Féachadóir

Post by Murchadh
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:39:57 +0100, "Allan Connochie"
And Féachadóir's surname is Cunningham, also a Border name.

Not necessarily. It may also be a corruption of Cuinneagáin, a native
Irish name. Be wary of simple assumptions when it comes to Irish
genealogy.

Surely to God this is not Gearoil Cunningham, the bane of my existence?

[Murchadh]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:04:41 GMT, "Madra Dubh"

Post by Madra Dubh

Post by Féachadóir

Post by Murchadh
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:39:57 +0100, "Allan Connochie"
And Féachadóir's surname is Cunningham, also a Border name.

Not necessarily. It may also be a corruption of Cuinneagáin, a native
Irish name. Be wary of simple assumptions when it comes to Irish
genealogy.

Surely to God this is not Gearoil Cunningham, the bane of my existence?

now known as Féachadóir, Gaelic for lurker or onlooker.

Murchadh

[Murchadh]

Post by Murchadh
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:04:41 GMT, "Madra Dubh"

Post by Madra Dubh
Surely to God this is not Gearoil Cunningham, the bane of my existence?

now known as Féachadóir, Gaelic for lurker or onlooker.

Bystander?

Sure!

David H

Murchadh

[Féachadóir]

Post by Murchadh
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:04:41 GMT, "Madra Dubh"

Post by Madra Dubh
Surely to God this is not Gearoil Cunningham, the bane of my existence?

now known as Féachadóir, Gaelic for lurker or onlooker.

Bystander?

Observer, bystander, witness.... lurker

[David H]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:47:14 +0000 (UTC), "Diarmid Logan"

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
After all - with 400 years of immigration, emigration,
conversion, intermarriage and infidelity, how could
you ever tell?

Wrong. There has been very little intermarriage or conversion.

Where do your figures come from? I know a number of
people in mixed marriages, and I know two who have converted.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/research/nisas/rep1c2.htm
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Numbers Diarmid? Where are they? I posted references to
three articles on ancestry and inter-marriage - each of them
quoting rates of intermarriage, an trying to describe the factors
influencing them. One of them mentioned the reduced rates
of intermarriage in very small rural communities - which is just
about the only thing covered by your quotes.

But where are the numbers?

Ah - you left them out:

(3.5) Rose (1971) found that only 5% of marriages crossed the communal
divide; 10 years later, Moxon-Browne (1983) found the proportion to be
the same, and the figure in the current survey is only slightly less
(4%).

So let's take the lowest estimate in your favoured source - 4%.
That assumes all of your ancestors lived in small rural communities.
So, in the 16 generations since the plantation, there would have
been 131071/25 = 5000 mixed marriages in your ancestry. So
that means only 5000 'colonists' and 5000 'traitors' instead of the
8000 each that I suggested before.

I love this science stuff. I wish it had paid better...

David H

[David H]

Post by David H
So let's take the lowest estimate in your favoured source - 4%.
That assumes all of your ancestors lived in small rural communities.
So, in the 16 generations since the plantation, there would have
been 131071/25 = 5000 mixed marriages in your ancestry. So
that means only 5000 'colonists' and 5000 'traitors' instead of the
8000 each that I suggested before.
I love this science stuff. I wish it had paid better...

So the fact that 95-96% of each generation only married within their
own group is irrelevant to you?

It's irrelevant to the conclusion. Even with the lowest figures for
mixed marriages that you could find, it's still easy to show that
you probably have thousands of mixed marriages in your ancestry
since the plantation. So much for your original, and preferred,
figure - i.e. - none whatsoever! And you have argued for months
that the actual rate of mixed marriages was zero.

David H

[Jochen Lueg]

Post by David H
It's irrelevant to the conclusion. Even with the lowest figures for
mixed marriages that you could find, it's still easy to show that
you probably have thousands of mixed marriages in your ancestry
since the plantation.

I was amazed when reading one of Dawkins' books at just how few
generations it takes for every one to be related to nearly everyone else
in quite a large area.

Jochen

[David H]

Post by David H

Post by David H
So let's take the lowest estimate in your favoured source - 4%.
That assumes all of your ancestors lived in small rural communities.
So, in the 16 generations since the plantation, there would have
been 131071/25 = 5000 mixed marriages in your ancestry. So
that means only 5000 'colonists' and 5000 'traitors' instead of the
8000 each that I suggested before.
I love this science stuff. I wish it had paid better...

So the fact that 95-96% of each generation only married within their
own group is irrelevant to you?

It's irrelevant to the conclusion. Even with the lowest figures for
mixed marriages that you could find, it's still easy to show that
you probably have thousands of mixed marriages in your ancestry
since the plantation. So much for your original, and preferred,
figure - i.e. - none whatsoever! And you have argued for months
that the actual rate of mixed marriages was zero.

You are making the incorrect assumption that between 4-5% of the
members of each and every family in the Six Counties engaged in
intermarriage. There is no evidence to support your assumption.

Irrelevant. I am not the product of one family, and probably neither
are you. I have two parents, four grandparents, 8 G-grandparents,
16 GG-grandparents.

16 generations back I have 65536 ancestors. So I don't have
one family to consider, I have thousands. Are you assuming
that all of your many thousands of ancestors shared your
unusually exclusive views over 400 years, or that you have
only a small fraction of the usual numbers of
GGGGGGGGGGGGGG-grandparents, and that your family really
is that special?

David H

[Chris Hedley]

Post by David H
Irrelevant. I am not the product of one family, and probably neither
are you. I have two parents, four grandparents, 8 G-grandparents,
16 GG-grandparents.
16 generations back I have 65536 ancestors. So I don't have
one family to consider, I have thousands. Are you assuming
that all of your many thousands of ancestors shared your
unusually exclusive views over 400 years, or that you have
only a small fraction of the usual numbers of
GGGGGGGGGGGGGG-grandparents, and that your family really
is that special?

I think you've just stumbled across evidence of the dangers of
excessive inbreeding... that would explain both the iron-headed
logic and the lack of any trace of "germanic" ancestry. A
marriage of brother and sister through the generations would
make for easy research, I suppose.

Chris.

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by David H

Post by David H

Post by David H
So let's take the lowest estimate in your favoured source - 4%.
That assumes all of your ancestors lived in small rural communities.
So, in the 16 generations since the plantation, there would have
been 131071/25 = 5000 mixed marriages in your ancestry. So
that means only 5000 'colonists' and 5000 'traitors' instead of the
8000 each that I suggested before.
I love this science stuff. I wish it had paid better...

So the fact that 95-96% of each generation only married within their
own group is irrelevant to you?

It's irrelevant to the conclusion. Even with the lowest figures for
mixed marriages that you could find, it's still easy to show that
you probably have thousands of mixed marriages in your ancestry
since the plantation. So much for your original, and preferred,
figure - i.e. - none whatsoever! And you have argued for months
that the actual rate of mixed marriages was zero.

You are making the incorrect assumption that between 4-5% of the
members of each and every family in the Six Counties engaged in
intermarriage. There is no evidence to support your assumption.

Irrelevant. I am not the product of one family, and probably neither
are you. I have two parents, four grandparents, 8 G-grandparents,
16 GG-grandparents.
16 generations back I have 65536 ancestors. So I don't have
one family to consider, I have thousands. Are you assuming
that all of your many thousands of ancestors shared your
unusually exclusive views over 400 years, or that you have
only a small fraction of the usual numbers of
GGGGGGGGGGGGGG-grandparents, and that your family really
is that special?

You are still going on the assumption that 4-5% of the members of each
and every family in the Six Counties engaged in intermarriage. No
matter how much you may like to indulge in mathematical games you
still cannot find any evidence to support this assumption.

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
16 generations back I have 65536 ancestors. So I don't have
one family to consider, I have thousands. Are you assuming
that all of your many thousands of ancestors shared your
unusually exclusive views over 400 years, or that you have
only a small fraction of the usual numbers of
GGGGGGGGGGGGGG-grandparents, and that your family really
is that special?

You are still going on the assumption that 4-5% of the members of each
and every family in the Six Counties engaged in intermarriage. No
matter how much you may like to indulge in mathematical games you
still cannot find any evidence to support this assumption.

Not so. Firstly, I must point out that you still seem to
think that you are the product of one family. You are not.
Since the plantation, you are the result of tens of
thousands of 'matches' between families. You seem to
want to think that *none* of those tens of thousands
of families engaged in intermarriage before they
produced you. What do you suppose are the odds on
that?

If my family engaged in intermarriage why does no one in my family
remember it?

But, suppose you could find tens of thousands of families
who refused to - knowingly - marry anyone with colonist blood,
how could you be sure? If you met Pearse's GG-granddaughter
a month ago, you wouldn't have known she was 'tainted' by
exogamy, would you? Or do you have a family tradition of demanding
a family tree from each marriage partner, going back to the
plantation, listing the tens of thousands of purebred neolithic
ancestors?

If intermarriage had been practiced there would be people in the
family who remembered it. You seem to believe that people engage in
intermarriage and then forget about it. What is this magical process
that makes people engage in intermarriage and then mysteriously forget
that such intermarriages took place?

Do you have such a family tree to offer in return?

Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations? What were
the names in your family tree back then?

I think that people would remember something as important as a family
member who was descended from the British colonial population.

[James C. Woodard]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations? What
were the names in your family tree back then?

I think that people would remember something as important as a family
member who was descended from the British colonial population.

Why?, if they can't even remember your Great grandfather's first name?
Give just the surnames of your 8 great grandparents. Go on, Diarmid,
show us how great your family's memory is.

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by James C. Woodard

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations? What
were the names in your family tree back then?

I think that people would remember something as important as a family
member who was descended from the British colonial population.

Why?, if they can't even remember your Great grandfather's first name?
Give just the surnames of your 8 great grandparents. Go on, Diarmid,
show us how great your family's memory is.

Only idiots put the names of their family members on Usenet where any
psychotic could find them.

[T N Nurse]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by James C. Woodard

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations? What
were the names in your family tree back then?

I think that people would remember something as important as a family
member who was descended from the British colonial population.

Why?, if they can't even remember your Great grandfather's first name?
Give just the surnames of your 8 great grandparents. Go on, Diarmid,
show us how great your family's memory is.

Only idiots put the names of their family members on Usenet where any
psychotic could find them.

And what would a psychotic do with the names of long dead g/g-parents?
Sounds to me like you're looking for an excuse to dodge your own
claim when challenged with it.

[Chris Hedley]

Post by T N Nurse
And what would a psychotic do with the names of long dead g/g-parents?
Sounds to me like you're looking for an excuse to dodge your own
claim when challenged with it.

Certainly. I see no problems putting my genealogy stuff on a webpage,
even if it is only of interest to other family members; the only thing
I'm cautious about is naming living relatives unless I (or another
researcher) have their explicit permission after describing what the
implications may be.

From my point of view, there isn't really any convincing explanation
for keeping such things a guarded secret... unless, of course, it
undermines some bizarre racial philosophy which doesn't stand up to
much scrutiny, be it because of compromising facts or the total
absence thereof.

Chris.

[Murchadh]

Post by Chris Hedley

Post by T N Nurse
And what would a psychotic do with the names of long dead g/g-parents?
Sounds to me like you're looking for an excuse to dodge your own
claim when challenged with it.

Certainly. I see no problems putting my genealogy stuff on a webpage,
even if it is only of interest to other family members; the only thing
I'm cautious about is naming living relatives unless I (or another
researcher) have their explicit permission after describing what the
implications may be.
From my point of view, there isn't really any convincing explanation
for keeping such things a guarded secret... unless, of course, it
undermines some bizarre racial philosophy which doesn't stand up to
much scrutiny, be it because of compromising facts or the total
absence thereof.
Chris.

He disnae want ye to ken aboot Granny, born in Blackpool, England.

Murchadh

[Turlough]

Post by Diarmid Logan
Only idiots put the names of their family members on Usenet where any
psychotic could find them.

The mathematical odds of your family not having any of what you term
*British Colonial* folks in it are astronomical. If you're unwilling to
name your own ancestors, then point to just one family tree of *any*
family that you term indigenous Irish, to prove your theory...



Turlough

[Malcolm]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by James C. Woodard

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations? What
were the names in your family tree back then?

I think that people would remember something as important as a family
member who was descended from the British colonial population.

Why?, if they can't even remember your Great grandfather's first name?
Give just the surnames of your 8 great grandparents. Go on, Diarmid,
show us how great your family's memory is.

Only idiots put the names of their family members on Usenet where any
psychotic could find them.

How many of your great grandparents would be bothered if "any psychotic
could find them"?

[James C. Woodard]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by James C. Woodard

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations? What
were the names in your family tree back then?

I think that people would remember something as important as a
family member who was descended from the British colonial
population.

Why?, if they can't even remember your Great grandfather's first
name? Give just the surnames of your 8 great grandparents. Go on,
Diarmid, show us how great your family's memory is.

Only idiots put the names of their family members on Usenet where any
psychotic could find them.

Why? What is the psychotic going to do, kill your dead ancestors?
You're a joke, Diarmid. Just not a very funny one.

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by James C. Woodard

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by James C. Woodard

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations? What
were the names in your family tree back then?

I think that people would remember something as important as a
family member who was descended from the British colonial
population.

Why?, if they can't even remember your Great grandfather's first
name? Give just the surnames of your 8 great grandparents. Go on,
Diarmid, show us how great your family's memory is.

Only idiots put the names of their family members on Usenet where any
psychotic could find them.

Why? What is the psychotic going to do, kill your dead ancestors?
You're a joke, Diarmid. Just not a very funny one.

No, but they could use the information to track living relatives.

[Murchadh]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by James C. Woodard

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by James C. Woodard

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations? What
were the names in your family tree back then?

I think that people would remember something as important as a
family member who was descended from the British colonial
population.

Why?, if they can't even remember your Great grandfather's first
name? Give just the surnames of your 8 great grandparents. Go on,
Diarmid, show us how great your family's memory is.

Only idiots put the names of their family members on Usenet where any
psychotic could find them.

Why? What is the psychotic going to do, kill your dead ancestors?
You're a joke, Diarmid. Just not a very funny one.

No, but they could use the information to track living relatives.

If mentioning your ancestors attracts psychotics, what effect does
mentioning your own name have? Do you find you're being attacked a lot
more often since you started posting the name Diarmid Logan in scs?
How many attenpts have been made on your life in the past 24 hours? In
the last month? Ever?

I think the only psychotic around here is you, a sad, sick person.

Murchadh

[James C. Woodard]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by James C. Woodard

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by James C. Woodard

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no
one remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations?
What were the names in your family tree back then?

I think that people would remember something as important as a
family member who was descended from the British colonial
population.

Why?, if they can't even remember your Great grandfather's first
name? Give just the surnames of your 8 great grandparents. Go
on, Diarmid, show us how great your family's memory is.

Only idiots put the names of their family members on Usenet where
any psychotic could find them.

Why? What is the psychotic going to do, kill your dead ancestors?
You're a joke, Diarmid. Just not a very funny one.

No, but they could use the information to track living relatives.

Impossible from the surnames, only, of your great grandparents. You
don't, in fact, know those eight surnames, do you, Diarmid? And in the
absence of such knowledge, you can't claim to know their ethnic or
religious background, can you, Diarmid?

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by James C. Woodard

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by James C. Woodard

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by James C. Woodard

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no
one remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations?
What were the names in your family tree back then?

I think that people would remember something as important as a
family member who was descended from the British colonial
population.

Why?, if they can't even remember your Great grandfather's first
name? Give just the surnames of your 8 great grandparents. Go
on, Diarmid, show us how great your family's memory is.

Only idiots put the names of their family members on Usenet where
any psychotic could find them.

Why? What is the psychotic going to do, kill your dead ancestors?
You're a joke, Diarmid. Just not a very funny one.

No, but they could use the information to track living relatives.

Impossible from the surnames, only, of your great grandparents. You
don't, in fact, know those eight surnames, do you, Diarmid? And in the
absence of such knowledge, you can't claim to know their ethnic or
religious background, can you, Diarmid?

You want a bunch of surnames? Fine, how about O'Reilly, O'Malley,
Ryan, Sullivan and Murphy for starters? Now it is up to you to prove
whether or not those are the names of my actual ancestors.

[T N Nurse]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by James C. Woodard

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by James C. Woodard

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by James C. Woodard

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no
one remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations?
What were the names in your family tree back then?

I think that people would remember something as important as a
family member who was descended from the British colonial
population.

Why?, if they can't even remember your Great grandfather's first
name? Give just the surnames of your 8 great grandparents. Go
on, Diarmid, show us how great your family's memory is.

Only idiots put the names of their family members on Usenet where
any psychotic could find them.

Why? What is the psychotic going to do, kill your dead ancestors?
You're a joke, Diarmid. Just not a very funny one.

No, but they could use the information to track living relatives.

Impossible from the surnames, only, of your great grandparents. You
don't, in fact, know those eight surnames, do you, Diarmid? And in the
absence of such knowledge, you can't claim to know their ethnic or
religious background, can you, Diarmid?

You want a bunch of surnames? Fine, how about O'Reilly, O'Malley,
Ryan, Sullivan and Murphy for starters? Now it is up to you to prove
whether or not those are the names of my actual ancestors.

Still tap-dancing, I see.

[T N Nurse]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by James C. Woodard

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by James C. Woodard

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations? What
were the names in your family tree back then?

I think that people would remember something as important as a
family member who was descended from the British colonial
population.

Why?, if they can't even remember your Great grandfather's first
name? Give just the surnames of your 8 great grandparents. Go on,
Diarmid, show us how great your family's memory is.

Only idiots put the names of their family members on Usenet where any
psychotic could find them.

Why? What is the psychotic going to do, kill your dead ancestors?
You're a joke, Diarmid. Just not a very funny one.

No, but they could use the information to track living relatives.

Oh really? How so?

[Murchadh]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by James C. Woodard

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations? What
were the names in your family tree back then?

I think that people would remember something as important as a family
member who was descended from the British colonial population.

Why?, if they can't even remember your Great grandfather's first name?
Give just the surnames of your 8 great grandparents. Go on, Diarmid,
show us how great your family's memory is.

Only idiots put the names of their family members on Usenet where any
psychotic could find them.

Ah, ye're right there, Diarmid, ye're right! I mentioned me great
great great grandfather just once and by the next week there were
dozens of witches from Donegal dancing naked round his grave on Skye.
Some had already got the body excavated and were sitting round the
grave, cracking his bones with their teeth to get at the marrow. Silly
buggers - the original mourners got the marrow 200 years earlier!

Murchadh

[sidheseeker]

Post by Diarmid Logan
Only idiots put the names of their family members on Usenet where any
psychotic could find them.

Okay.. fess up.. you really don't know who your great grandparents were..
as you stated in another thread..

..

[Jim Stewart]

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations? What were
the names in your family tree back then?

If intermaggiage took place in my family, nobody would own up to it.
Right, cousin Rick?

There has always been intermarage in my family--all of the men married women
and all of the women chose men.

Jim Stewart

[Murchadh]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:24:40 -0500, "Jim Stewart"

Post by Jim Stewart

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations? What were
the names in your family tree back then?

If intermaggiage took place in my family, nobody would own up to it.
Right, cousin Rick?

There has always been intermarage in my family--all of the men married women
and all of the women chose men.
Jim Stewart

That's very posh! Family legend has it that some of my ancestors may
have been married to each other, but there's no real proof of it and I
think it was just lies to impress the neighbours.

Murchadh

[Jim Stewart]

Post by Murchadh
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:24:40 -0500, "Jim Stewart"

Post by Jim Stewart

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations? What were
the names in your family tree back then?

If intermaggiage took place in my family, nobody would own up to it.
Right, cousin Rick?

There has always been intermarage in my family--all of the men married women
and all of the women chose men.
Jim Stewart

That's very posh! Family legend has it that some of my ancestors may
have been married to each other, but there's no real proof of it and I
think it was just lies to impress the neighbours.
Murchadh

Nae, we waz all Presbyterian to a fault...

Jim Stewart
(I can't even spell it...)

[Madra Dubh]

Post by Murchadh
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:24:40 -0500, "Jim Stewart"

Post by Jim Stewart

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations? What were
the names in your family tree back then?

If intermaggiage took place in my family, nobody would own up to it.
Right, cousin Rick?

There has always been intermarage in my family--all of the men married women
and all of the women chose men.
Jim Stewart

That's very posh! Family legend has it that some of my ancestors may
have been married to each other, but there's no real proof of it and I
think it was just lies to impress the neighbours.

Giving rise to the old Scottish expression:
"It's a wise child that knows his own father"

[Madra Dubh]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:07:00 GMT, "Madra Dubh"

Post by Madra Dubh

Post by Murchadh
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:24:40 -0500, "Jim Stewart"

Post by Jim Stewart

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations? What

were

Post by Murchadh

Post by Jim Stewart

the names in your family tree back then?

If intermaggiage took place in my family, nobody would own up to it.
Right, cousin Rick?

There has always been intermarage in my family--all of the men married

women

Post by Murchadh

Post by Jim Stewart
and all of the women chose men.
Jim Stewart

That's very posh! Family legend has it that some of my ancestors may
have been married to each other, but there's no real proof of it and I
think it was just lies to impress the neighbours.

"It's a wise child that knows his own father"

During a family argument over that very point, my mother handed me a
phonebook and coldly invited me to take my pick.

Which immediately closed the argument!

[Madra Dubh]

Post by Jim Stewart

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations? What were
the names in your family tree back then?

If intermaggiage took place in my family, nobody would own up to it.
Right, cousin Rick?

There has always been intermarage in my family--all of the men married women
and all of the women chose men.

How blessed you are.

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations? What were
the names in your family tree back then?

People would remember something as important as intermarriage since it was so rare.

[Allan Connochie]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations? What were
the names in your family tree back then?

People would remember something as important as intermarriage since it was so rare.

Buit it's not so rare! 5% in Northern Ireland as you posted yourself. That
is one in every 20 weddings. Besides the percentage of Protestants who
married outwith their religion is far higher outwith the north of Ireland.
It is one of the reasons given for the drastic drop in the Republic's
Protestant population. I think your avoiding tactics are pretty obvious.

Allan

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations? What were
the names in your family tree back then?

People would remember something as important as intermarriage since it was

so rare.
Buit it's not so rare! 5% in Northern Ireland as you posted yourself. That
is one in every 20 weddings. Besides the percentage of Protestants who
married outwith their religion is far higher outwith the north of Ireland.
It is one of the reasons given for the drastic drop in the Republic's
Protestant population. I think your avoiding tactics are pretty obvious.

Why do people here keep making the assumption that 4-5% of the members
of each and every family in the Six Counties engaged in intermarriage?

[Allan Connochie]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations? What were
the names in your family tree back then?

People would remember something as important as intermarriage since it was

so rare.
Buit it's not so rare! 5% in Northern Ireland as you posted yourself.

That

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
is one in every 20 weddings. Besides the percentage of Protestants who
married outwith their religion is far higher outwith the north of Ireland.
It is one of the reasons given for the drastic drop in the Republic's
Protestant population. I think your avoiding tactics are pretty obvious.

Why do people here keep making the assumption that 4-5% of the members
of each and every family in the Six Counties engaged in intermarriage?

Stop squirming around. No-one is saying that. I said "one in every twenty
weddings" and said nothing about individual families. The figures 'you'
supplied yourself claimed that the rate was around 4% - 5%. No one has made
the absurd suggestion that therefore 5% of every single family has
intermarried. It is clear that you've backed yourself into a corner and are
simply attempting to take the thread up some blind alley to hide the fact.


Allan

[Séimí mac Liam]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no
one remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations?
What

were

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan

the names in your family tree back then?

People would remember something as important as intermarriage
since it

was

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
so rare.
Buit it's not so rare! 5% in Northern Ireland as you posted yourself.

That

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
is one in every 20 weddings. Besides the percentage of Protestants
who married outwith their religion is far higher outwith the north
of

Ireland.

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
It is one of the reasons given for the drastic drop in the
Republic's Protestant population. I think your avoiding tactics
are pretty

obvious.

Post by Diarmid Logan
Why do people here keep making the assumption that 4-5% of the
members of each and every family in the Six Counties engaged in
intermarriage?

Stop squirming around. No-one is saying that. I said "one in every
twenty weddings" and said nothing about individual families. The
figures 'you' supplied yourself claimed that the rate was around 4% -
5%. No one has made the absurd suggestion that therefore 5% of every
single family has intermarried. It is clear that you've backed
yourself into a corner and are simply attempting to take the thread up
some blind alley to hide the fact.
Allan

He does scramble well, though, I must admit.

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations? What

were

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan

the names in your family tree back then?

People would remember something as important as intermarriage since it

was

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
so rare.
Buit it's not so rare! 5% in Northern Ireland as you posted yourself.

That

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
is one in every 20 weddings. Besides the percentage of Protestants who
married outwith their religion is far higher outwith the north of

Ireland.

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
It is one of the reasons given for the drastic drop in the Republic's
Protestant population. I think your avoiding tactics are pretty

obvious.

Post by Diarmid Logan
Why do people here keep making the assumption that 4-5% of the members
of each and every family in the Six Counties engaged in intermarriage?

Stop squirming around. No-one is saying that. I said "one in every twenty
weddings" and said nothing about individual families. The figures 'you'
supplied yourself claimed that the rate was around 4% - 5%. No one has made
the absurd suggestion that therefore 5% of every single family has
intermarried. It is clear that you've backed yourself into a corner and are
simply attempting to take the thread up some blind alley to hide the fact.

It is you who are squirming. You are creating number games on the
basis of an unproven assumption. If every family in the Six Counties
has mixed ancestry, as you seem to believe, then why is there such
hostility to mixed marriages in the Six Counties?

[Allan Connochie]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Does anyone in your family remember back 8,9,10 generations?

What

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
were

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan

the names in your family tree back then?

People would remember something as important as intermarriage since it

was

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
so rare.
Buit it's not so rare! 5% in Northern Ireland as you posted yourself.

That

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
is one in every 20 weddings. Besides the percentage of Protestants who
married outwith their religion is far higher outwith the north of

Ireland.

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan
It is one of the reasons given for the drastic drop in the Republic's
Protestant population. I think your avoiding tactics are pretty

obvious.

Post by Diarmid Logan
Why do people here keep making the assumption that 4-5% of the members
of each and every family in the Six Counties engaged in intermarriage?

Stop squirming around. No-one is saying that. I said "one in every twenty
weddings" and said nothing about individual families. The figures 'you'
supplied yourself claimed that the rate was around 4% - 5%. No one has made
the absurd suggestion that therefore 5% of every single family has
intermarried. It is clear that you've backed yourself into a corner and are
simply attempting to take the thread up some blind alley to hide the fact.

It is you who are squirming. You are creating number games on the
basis of an unproven assumption. If every family in the Six Counties
has mixed ancestry, as you seem to believe, then why is there such
hostility to mixed marriages in the Six Counties?

The unproven assumption that 5% of marriages are mixed was from information
that 'you' chose to post! Plus please show me where I said that 'every'
family in the six counties has mixed ancestry. Hello.....wake up......read
my sentence in the last post again. [No one has made the absurd suggestion
that 5% of every single family has intermarried.] Apart from avoiding
tactics obviously another favourite of yours is putting words in people's
mouths.


Allan

[Séimí mac Liam]

Post by Allan Connochie
another favourite of yours is putting words in people's
mouths.

Especially into the mouths of the researchers he cites.

[James C. Woodard]

Post by Allan Connochie
The unproven assumption that 5% of marriages are mixed was from
information that 'you' chose to post!

Wrong! You have twisted information to support an assumption that 4-5%
of the members of each and every family in the Six Counties have
engaged in intermarriage. There was no information in what I posted
that supports the assumption that every family in the Six Counties has
engaged in intermarriage.

Post by Allan Connochie
Plus please show me where I said that 'every'
family in the six counties has mixed ancestry.

Your little number games are based on the assumption that every family
has engaged in intermarriage. If you accept that most families have
not engaged in intermarriage then the number games become meaningless
since the intermarriage rate for those families would be 0%.

Post by Allan Connochie
Hello.....wake up......read
my sentence in the last post again. [No one has made the absurd
suggestion that 5% of every single family has intermarried.] Apart
from avoiding tactics obviously another favourite of yours is putting
words in people's mouths.

Your little number games only work if 4-5% of each family has engaged
in intermarriage. For a family that has not engaged in intermarriage
the intermarriage rate would be 0%.

You are assuming that "families" intermarry. Individuals intermarry. By
the figures you posted, 4-5% of individuals who married in the last 13
years in the six counties have intermarried. By figures posted by others
that rate has varied between 2% and 20% over the last 200 years. For the
sake of argument let's say 4% average. If we go back 10 generatons we
find that descendants of a mixed marriage have 2048 descendants+/-
average. If the number of married couples in the six counties at the
time of that mixed marriage was 100,000 and we take 4% of that we get
4000 mixed marriages. We multiply that by 2048 we get 8,192,000
descendants of mixed marriages living in the six counties over the last
200 odd years. Care to calculate the odds of every person living today
in Northern Ireland having at least one of those for an ancestor,
Diarmid.

[David H]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
16 generations back I have 65536 ancestors. So I don't have
one family to consider, I have thousands. Are you assuming
that all of your many thousands of ancestors shared your
unusually exclusive views over 400 years, or that you have
only a small fraction of the usual numbers of
GGGGGGGGGGGGGG-grandparents, and that your family really
is that special?

You are still going on the assumption that 4-5% of the members of each
and every family in the Six Counties engaged in intermarriage. No
matter how much you may like to indulge in mathematical games you
still cannot find any evidence to support this assumption.

Not so. Firstly, I must point out that you still seem to
think that you are the product of one family. You are not.
Since the plantation, you are the result of tens of
thousands of 'matches' between families. You seem to
want to think that *none* of those tens of thousands
of families engaged in intermarriage before they
produced you. What do you suppose are the odds on
that?

If my family engaged in intermarriage why does no one in my family
remember it?

Maybe you are the very last person they would tell?

Or if your family are like you maybe they wouldn't want to
tell anyone - after all, in a couple of generations, who's to know?

Or if they are not like you, maybe they thought it came way down
the list of thing they needed to tell you about your GGG-Grandma
Anne - "She was the belle of Ballygobackwards, she beat John
Mitchell in a fair fight and - oh yes - her Da converted to marry
your GGGG-Grandma Bridget."

How much do you actually know about your 32 GGG-Grandparents?

Post by Diarmid Logan

But, suppose you could find tens of thousands of families
who refused to - knowingly - marry anyone with colonist blood,
how could you be sure? If you met Pearse's GG-granddaughter
a month ago, you wouldn't have known she was 'tainted' by
exogamy, would you? Or do you have a family tradition of demanding
a family tree from each marriage partner, going back to the
plantation, listing the tens of thousands of purebred neolithic
ancestors?

If intermarriage had been practiced there would be people in the
family who remembered it. You seem to believe that people engage in
intermarriage and then forget about it. What is this magical process
that makes people engage in intermarriage and then mysteriously forget
that such intermarriages took place?

I doubt that the participants forget :-) and their children know,
but maybe their grandchildren don't know, and probably their
great-grandchildren don't know, especially if they move outside
the parish. The magical processes are called 'time', 'distance',
'change' and 'generations'. I don't know anything about my great-
grandparents. I could find out a little if I questioned my surviving
grandma, but to be honest we have other things to talk about.

Post by Diarmid Logan

Do you have such a family tree to offer in return?

Again, if intermarriage took place in my family why does no one
remember it?

Maybe they weren't there? I don't believe my grandparents were
present at my G-grandparents weddings, but they were mostly
townies, so I suppose it's possible. How far does living memory
reach back in your family? It goes only to 1914 on my mother's side,
1920 on my father's (and that's a great-aunt - not an ancestor).

David H

[Séimí mac Liam]

Post by David H

Post by David H
So let's take the lowest estimate in your favoured source - 4%.
That assumes all of your ancestors lived in small rural
communities. So, in the 16 generations since the plantation,
there would have been 131071/25 = 5000 mixed marriages in your
ancestry. So that means only 5000 'colonists' and 5000
'traitors' instead of the 8000 each that I suggested before.
I love this science stuff. I wish it had paid better...

So the fact that 95-96% of each generation only married within
their own group is irrelevant to you?

It's irrelevant to the conclusion. Even with the lowest figures for
mixed marriages that you could find, it's still easy to show that
you probably have thousands of mixed marriages in your ancestry
since the plantation. So much for your original, and preferred,
figure - i.e. - none whatsoever! And you have argued for months
that the actual rate of mixed marriages was zero.

You are making the incorrect assumption that between 4-5% of the
members of each and every family in the Six Counties engaged in
intermarriage. There is no evidence to support your assumption.

No, it's just giving an estimate for the likely number, on the figures
for marriage between the groups that you accept; of course, there will
be fewer in some cases, and more in others.
I am unaware of any alternative model that is better supported;
if you have any evidence of a better model, please post
the appropriate URLs and contact details so that we can consider it.

I had that discussion with him in the winter. He says it's all mumbo
jumbo and voodoo math. But he's managed to argue himself into the
position where he's either an inbred nose-picker from Ballybadger'sarse
or he has as many colonizing British Germanic oppressing ancestors as the
next yob.

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by David H

Post by David H
So let's take the lowest estimate in your favoured source - 4%.
That assumes all of your ancestors lived in small rural communities.
So, in the 16 generations since the plantation, there would have
been 131071/25 = 5000 mixed marriages in your ancestry. So
that means only 5000 'colonists' and 5000 'traitors' instead of the
8000 each that I suggested before.
I love this science stuff. I wish it had paid better...

So the fact that 95-96% of each generation only married within their
own group is irrelevant to you?

It's irrelevant to the conclusion. Even with the lowest figures for
mixed marriages that you could find, it's still easy to show that
you probably have thousands of mixed marriages in your ancestry
since the plantation. So much for your original, and preferred,
figure - i.e. - none whatsoever! And you have argued for months
that the actual rate of mixed marriages was zero.

You are making the incorrect assumption that between 4-5% of the
members of each and every family in the Six Counties engaged in
intermarriage. There is no evidence to support your assumption.

No, it's just giving an estimate for the likely number, on the figures
for marriage between the groups that you accept; of course, there will
be fewer in some cases, and more in others.
I am unaware of any alternative model that is better supported;
if you have any evidence of a better model, please post
the appropriate URLs and contact details so that we can consider it.

Again, you are assuming that 4-5% of the members of each and every
family in the Six Counties engaged in intermarriage. There is no
evidence to support this assumption.

P.S. While games with math may be interesting they do not serve as a
substitute for evidence.

[Alan Smaill]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H

Post by David H
So let's take the lowest estimate in your favoured source - 4%.
That assumes all of your ancestors lived in small rural communities.
So, in the 16 generations since the plantation, there would have
been 131071/25 = 5000 mixed marriages in your ancestry. So
that means only 5000 'colonists' and 5000 'traitors' instead of the
8000 each that I suggested before.
I love this science stuff. I wish it had paid better...

So the fact that 95-96% of each generation only married within their
own group is irrelevant to you?

It's irrelevant to the conclusion. Even with the lowest figures for
mixed marriages that you could find, it's still easy to show that
you probably have thousands of mixed marriages in your ancestry
since the plantation. So much for your original, and preferred,
figure - i.e. - none whatsoever! And you have argued for months
that the actual rate of mixed marriages was zero.

You are making the incorrect assumption that between 4-5% of the
members of each and every family in the Six Counties engaged in
intermarriage. There is no evidence to support your assumption.

No, it's just giving an estimate for the likely number, on the figures
for marriage between the groups that you accept; of course, there will
be fewer in some cases, and more in others.
I am unaware of any alternative model that is better supported;
if you have any evidence of a better model, please post
the appropriate URLs and contact details so that we can consider it.

Again, you are assuming that 4-5% of the members of each and every
family in the Six Counties engaged in intermarriage. There is no
evidence to support this assumption.

*sigh*
No, I'm not -- I'm assuming it's the *average*.
That's a *different assumption*.

Post by Diarmid Logan
P.S. While games with math may be interesting they do not serve as a
substitute for evidence.

maths is the language of science, Dermi -- I thought you were
interested in population studies, which is just full of mathematical
models?

Or are you just playing the troll as usual?

Someone who was really interested in knowing what the average level of
intermarriage in the ancestry of folk in Ireland would not simply
dismiss this as irrelevant; if they objected to it, they would look
for, or be aware of, some alternative model (especially someone
well-read in genetic studies, such as yourself).

Or are you just playing the troll as usual?

[Stephen Gallagher]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=421167
Better be British, Scots told
By Paul Kelbie Scotland Correspondent
03 July 2003
Students at one of the UK's oldest universities have been advised to
call themselves British rather than Scottish, Welsh or Irish on job
applications, in case prospective employers regard them as troublesome
nationalists.

But if you're English, you don't have to say British, you can say
English?

Stephen Gallagher

[Murchadh]

Post by Stephen Gallagher

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=421167
Better be British, Scots told
By Paul Kelbie Scotland Correspondent
03 July 2003
Students at one of the UK's oldest universities have been advised to
call themselves British rather than Scottish, Welsh or Irish on job
applications, in case prospective employers regard them as troublesome
nationalists.

But if you're English, you don't have to say British, you can say
English?
Stephen Gallagher

If you're *nglish, we'd certainly prefer that you do so that as little
as possible of the stigma attaches to the Scots...

Murchadh

[Pete Cassidy]

What does the length of the occupation have to do with anything? There
is no expiration date on colonialism.

Correct, as usual, Diarmid! So when are you damn Celtic blow-ins gonna
hoppit out of Ireland and back to Indo-Europe where you belong?

The only people I want to see
removed from Ireland are those who want the continuation of a
political system that treats the indigenous Irish population as
second-class citizens in their own land.

You want to remove Fianna Fáil? I'll vote for that!

This system is British
colonialism.

Yawwwn.

Pete C

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by Pete Cassidy
Correct, as usual, Diarmid! So when are you damn Celtic blow-ins gonna
hoppit out of Ireland and back to Indo-Europe where you belong?

*Sigh* Are you incapable of doing any research? The Irish are descended
from the ancient people who have lived in Ireland since at least the
Neolithic. Celtic culture did not come to Ireland through mass invasion.
If such a mass invasion had happened there would be archaeological
evidence of it.

Post by Pete Cassidy

The only people I want to see
removed from Ireland are those who want the continuation of a
political system that treats the indigenous Irish population as
second-class citizens in their own land.

You want to remove Fianna Fáil? I'll vote for that!

Fianna Fail are not in power in the Six Counties. The British are in
power there since it is a British colonial state.

[Murchadh]

Post by Diarmid Logan
Fianna Fail are not in power in the Six Counties. The British are in
power there since it is a British colonial state.

I've been in British colonies. Nothing like here at all - we don't even
have a high commissioner running around with a funny hat

As you are a student of British lunacy, I thought it would please you
to know that the typical High Commissioner's hat, with white plumes
dangling from the crown, is known in Nu Gini TokTok (New Guinea Talk
Talk - the local English) as "Him feller (denotes a noun) grass
bilonga (belonging to) cockatoo's arse (cockatoo's rear end).

Murchadh

[Jochen Lueg]

Post by Murchadh
As you are a student of British lunacy, I thought it would please you
to know that the typical High Commissioner's hat, with white plumes
dangling from the crown, is known in Nu Gini TokTok (New Guinea Talk
Talk - the local English) as "Him feller (denotes a noun) grass
bilonga (belonging to) cockatoo's arse (cockatoo's rear end).

Thank you. That's much better than anything I could have though up with
and describes the strange head gear perfectly.

Jochen

[Murchadh]

Post by Jochen Lueg

Post by Murchadh
As you are a student of British lunacy, I thought it would please you
to know that the typical High Commissioner's hat, with white plumes
dangling from the crown, is known in Nu Gini TokTok (New Guinea Talk
Talk - the local English) as "Him feller (denotes a noun) grass
bilonga (belonging to) cockatoo's arse (cockatoo's rear end).

Thank you. That's much better than anything I could have though up with
and describes the strange head gear perfectly.
Jochen

Niu Gini TokTok is equal to all occasions!

Helicopter - Him feller mixmaster.

For a look at the language...

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Niugini+toktok&spell=1

It's pidgin English spelled phonetically. The pleasure comes from the
colourful local names for ordinary things.

Wanpela (one fellow) Someone.
Haus bilong dispela (House belong this fellow) This person's house.


Murchadh

[Allan Connochie]

Post by Allan Connochie
These polls apart from election and referendum results are the best

thing

Post by Allan Connochie
we
have though apart from individual poster's personal opinions. What are

the

Post by Allan Connochie
results then? 94.39% of people who voted in the referendum in the

Irish

Post by Allan Connochie
Republic backed the peace process, and 71.12% of people in the north

did

Post by Allan Connochie
too.

Backing the Peace Process doesn't mean you are against an united
Ireland.

That is not the point. That is not what we are talking about. There are
very few British people who object to the idea of a united Ireland. It is a
valid and quite justified position. The point is that the central plank of
the peace process is the agreement that a united Ireland would only come
about once the people of Northern Ireland, through the democratic process,
decide that it should be. 94.39% of those who voted in the Republic voted
for this. It is an absolutely whopping massive thumbs up. That can not be
denied. It is fact. No amount of squirming about changes that. Do you
honestly belive that your evil idea for ethnic cleansing has any sort of
mass appeal like that? It is people on both sides who spout your kind of
hatred who hinder reconciliation and any united Ireland.


Allan

[Diarmid Logan]

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Allan Connochie
These polls apart from election and referendum results are the best

thing

Post by Allan Connochie
we
have though apart from individual poster's personal opinions. What are

the

Post by Allan Connochie
results then? 94.39% of people who voted in the referendum in the

Irish

Post by Allan Connochie
Republic backed the peace process, and 71.12% of people in the north

did

Post by Allan Connochie
too.

Backing the Peace Process doesn't mean you are against an united
Ireland.

That is not the point. That is not what we are talking about. There are
very few British people who object to the idea of a united Ireland.

You obvious have not met many members of the Unionist community.

Post by Allan Connochie
It is a
valid and quite justified position. The point is that the central plank of
the peace process is the agreement that a united Ireland would only come
about once the people of Northern Ireland, through the democratic process,
decide that it should be. 94.39% of those who voted in the Republic voted
for this.

Yes, but they only voted for this because it was the only way to get
any form of civil rights for the indigenous population in the Six
Counties.

Post by Allan Connochie
It is an absolutely whopping massive thumbs up. That can not be
denied. It is fact. No amount of squirming about changes that.

Who's squirming? All I am doing is pointing out that the only way that
the British would even pretend to do anything about the civil rights
situation in the Six Counties was if the indigenous population on both
sides of the border agreed to a British colonial veto on unification.

Post by Allan Connochie
Do you
honestly belive that your evil idea for ethnic cleansing has any sort of
mass appeal like that?

It is the British colonists who have engaged in ethnic cleansing. All
the indigenous population has ever done was to fight back in
self-defense.

Post by Allan Connochie
It is people on both sides who spout your kind of
hatred who hinder reconciliation and any united Ireland.

It is British colonists and West Brits who prevent an united Ireland.
No indigenous population has ever gained freedom by licking the boots
of the colonial population that was oppressing them. Fortunately, many
young Nationalists in the Six Counties are beginning to realize this
fact.

[Allan Connochie]

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Allan Connochie
These polls apart from election and referendum results are the best

thing

Post by Allan Connochie
we
have though apart from individual poster's personal opinions. What are

the

Post by Allan Connochie
results then? 94.39% of people who voted in the referendum in the

Irish

Post by Allan Connochie
Republic backed the peace process, and 71.12% of people in the north

did

Post by Allan Connochie
too.

Backing the Peace Process doesn't mean you are against an united
Ireland.

That is not the point. That is not what we are talking about. There are
very few British people who object to the idea of a united Ireland.

You obvious have not met many members of the Unionist community.

For a start I should have made it clear what I meant by British people. I
meant people from Great Britain. Though that is besides the point even if
you look at the UK as a whole the Protestant community in Northern Ireland
amounts to only 1.52% of the UK population. Given as an estimated 52% of
this community backed the peace process, and have accepted the possibility
of a united Ireland even if it's not their ideal, then we have 0.729% of the
UK population who we know are vehemently anti the idea. The figure of
course would be inflated by some on the mainland, mainly from areas of Irish
immigration [eg Glasgow] but all the same it would remain a tiny minority of
the population. Quite frankly most British people have no problem with a
united Ireland and there are many who basically couldn't give a toss one way
or the other. The discussions have to take place in Ulster and the current
peace process is not perfect but it's the best chance there has been.


And you obviously

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Allan Connochie
It is a
valid and quite justified position. The point is that the central plank of
the peace process is the agreement that a united Ireland would only come
about once the people of Northern Ireland, through the democratic process,
decide that it should be. 94.39% of those who voted in the Republic voted
for this.

Yes, but they only voted for this because it was the only way to get
any form of civil rights for the indigenous population in the Six
Counties.

"Any form of civil rights" come on stop being so melodramatic. Most of the
remaining issues [eg the policing] are still around solely because of the
troubles. I concede that this would also be part of why people voted, but
the right to not have their brains blown out and live some kind of normal
existence, would also be major points. Remember the figures [90 odd per
cent] and then come up with any poll showing any kind of popular support for
your evil extermination policy.

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Allan Connochie
It is an absolutely whopping massive thumbs up. That can not be
denied. It is fact. No amount of squirming about changes that.

Who's squirming? All I am doing is pointing out that the only way that
the British would even pretend to do anything about the civil rights
situation in the Six Counties was if the indigenous population on both
sides of the border agreed to a British colonial veto on unification.

I'm ignoring the colonial thing again as it's blatantly absurd. By veto on
unification you mean referendum. Yes you're pissing against the wind. The
vast majority of people in Ireland totally disagree with you for whatever
reason. You are a dinosaur. A pretty viscious one at that.

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Allan Connochie
Do you
honestly belive that your evil idea for ethnic cleansing has any sort of
mass appeal like that?

It is the British colonists who have engaged in ethnic cleansing. All
the indigenous population has ever done was to fight back in
self-defense.

Both sides in Belfast during the troubles have been subjected to mobs
burning them out of their homes. It is a two way evil. Besides answer the
question. Do you think it has any kind of mass appeal? If so show me
something to back up how you come to this view.

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by Allan Connochie
It is people on both sides who spout your kind of
hatred who hinder reconciliation and any united Ireland.

It is British colonists and West Brits

What on earth is a West Brit, and how on earth can they prevent a united
Ireland when it's solely in the hands of the Northern Ireland electorate?


who prevent an united Ireland.

Post by Diarmid Logan
No indigenous population has ever gained freedom by licking the boots
of the colonial population that was oppressing them.

Trying to live in peace with another community and licking boots are not the
same thing.


Fortunately, many

Post by Diarmid Logan
young Nationalists in the Six Counties are beginning to realize this
fact.

They are??? Then how come Sinn Fein/IRA only had their vote rise
dramatically once they started to repudiate violence? Again show me any
polls to back up your claim that there is a massive push towards violence
again - if that is what you're saying.


Allan

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Post by Steve

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Steve
rg...

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
How do you tell who is a colonist and who is indigenous?

The Unionists are the colonists while the Nationalists are
the indigenous population.

Whatever will you do if the 'colonists', when asked by the

repatriation

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Steve
committee if they are Unionist, state: "Oh no, definiteley
not.

We're

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Steve
Nationalist, always have been, we've wanted an independent
Ireland

for

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Steve
ages".

24% of the Protestant population [according to these polls]
when asked declared that they did not consider themselves
Unionists; 45% of the Catholics said they were neither
Nationalist or Unionist. In fact

only
60%

Post by Allan Connochie
of Catholics said that their preferred long term aim was a
united

Ireland,

Post by Allan Connochie
and in the 1993 poll it was in fact only 49%. 36% of Catholic
women

and
21%

Post by Allan Connochie
of Catholic men wish to retain links with Britain. When asked
their preference only 62% of Catholics regarded themselves as
primarily

Irish,

Post by Allan Connochie
with 28% calling themselves Northern Irish; and 10% British.
Of the Catholics who wished to retain links with Britain only
40% regard

themselves

Post by Allan Connochie
as primarily Irish, 38% Northern Irish and 22% British. I know
people

will

Post by Allan Connochie
cry lies, damn lies and statistics, but it seems pretty clear
that

political

Post by Allan Connochie
lines and religious lines are not always as clear cut as Logan

suggests.

Post by Allan Connochie
77% of people in Northern Ireland married someone of the same

religious

Post by Allan Connochie
denomination compared with 55% in the UK as a whole. It didn't
give

figures

Post by Allan Connochie
for Catholic/Protestant marriages as such.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/ni/religion.htm

Polls are notoriously unreliable in the Six Counties. For
example, most polls overestimate the support of the SDLP and
underestimate the support of Sinn Fein. The reality is that most
of the indigenous population in the North does not like to answer
polls honestly because they have no idea as to the political
sympathies of the people taking the poll or what those people
might do with the information.

These polls apart from election and referendum results are the best
thing
we
have though apart from individual poster's personal opinions. What
are the results then? 94.39% of people who voted in the referendum
in the Irish Republic backed the peace process, and 71.12% of people
in the north did too.

Backing the Peace Process doesn't mean you are against an united
Ireland.

Post by Steve
So there we have the vast majority of people in the island as a
whole backing a process which clearly states that whether there is a
united Ireland or not depends on the democratic will of all the
people in Northern Ireland.

The reason why most Nationalists agreed to that, both North and South,
was because they hoped it would lead to great protection of the civil
and human rights of the indigenous population in the Six Counties.
Unfortunately this has not happened.

Post by Steve
It seems that most people's main wish is to live normal peaceful
lives.

Yes, and the best way for that to happen for the indigenous population
of the Six Counties would be for the British to dismantle their colony
in the Six Counties and repatriate their foul unionists back to
Britain.

Post by Steve
Though of course there are bigots and extremists on both sides who
wish to keep things enflamed.

The only bigots are on the unionist side. These are the people who
want to see the maintenance of British colonialism in Ireland.

Post by Steve
Your bigoted and crackpot ideas that people,
whom you claim to be colonists even though they have been in the
country
for
400 years or so, should be kicked out if they don't conform to your
personal
wishes, is plainly evil. Any resonable person will recognise this.

What does the length of the occupation have to do with anything?

Well, you seem to think it's acceptable to continue occupying NZ, fjuckwit.

Bertie

[Alan Edgey]

Post by Steve

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Steve
rg...

Post by Diarmid Logan

Post by David H
How do you tell who is a colonist and who is indigenous?

The Unionists are the colonists while the Nationalists are
the indigenous population.

Whatever will you do if the 'colonists', when asked by the

repatriation

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Steve
committee if they are Unionist, state: "Oh no, definiteley
not.

We're

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Steve
Nationalist, always have been, we've wanted an independent
Ireland

for

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Steve
ages".

24% of the Protestant population [according to these polls]
when asked declared that they did not consider themselves
Unionists; 45% of the Catholics said they were neither
Nationalist or Unionist. In fact

only
60%

Post by Allan Connochie
of Catholics said that their preferred long term aim was a
united

Ireland,

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Allan Connochie
and in the 1993 poll it was in fact only 49%. 36% of Catholic
women

and
21%

Post by Allan Connochie
of Catholic men wish to retain links with Britain. When asked
their preference only 62% of Catholics regarded themselves as
primarily

Irish,

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Allan Connochie
with 28% calling themselves Northern Irish; and 10% British.
Of the Catholics who wished to retain links with Britain only
40% regard

themselves

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Allan Connochie
as primarily Irish, 38% Northern Irish and 22% British. I know
people

will

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Allan Connochie
cry lies, damn lies and statistics, but it seems pretty clear
that

political

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Allan Connochie
lines and religious lines are not always as clear cut as Logan

suggests.

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Allan Connochie
77% of people in Northern Ireland married someone of the same

religious

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Allan Connochie
denomination compared with 55% in the UK as a whole. It didn't
give

figures

Post by Allan Connochie

Post by Allan Connochie
for Catholic/Protestant marriages as such.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/ni/religion.htm

Polls are notoriously unreliable in the Six Counties. For
example, most polls overestimate the support of the SDLP and
underestimate the support of Sinn Fein. The reality is that most
of the indigenous population in the North does not like to answer
polls honestly because they have no idea as to the political
sympathies of the people taking the poll or what those people
might do with the information.

These polls apart from election and referendum results are the best
thing
we
have though apart from individual poster's personal opinions. What
are the results then? 94.39% of people who voted in the referendum
in the Irish Republic backed the peace process, and 71.12% of people
in the north did too.

Backing the Peace Process doesn't mean you are against an united
Ireland.

Post by Allan Connochie
So there we have the vast majority of people in the island as a
whole backing a process which clearly states that whether there is a
united Ireland or not depends on the democratic will of all the
people in Northern Ireland.

The reason why most Nationalists agreed to that, both North and South,
was because they hoped it would lead to great protection of the civil
and human rights of the indigenous population in the Six Counties.
Unfortunately this has not happened.

Post by Allan Connochie
It seems that most people's main wish is to live normal peaceful
lives.

Yes, and the best way for that to happen for the indigenous population
of the Six Counties would be for the British to dismantle their colony
in the Six Counties and repatriate their foul unionists back to
Britain.

Post by Allan Connochie
Though of course there are bigots and extremists on both sides who
wish to keep things enflamed.

The only bigots are on the unionist side. These are the people who
want to see the maintenance of British colonialism in Ireland.

Post by Allan Connochie
Your bigoted and crackpot ideas that people,
whom you claim to be colonists even though they have been in the
country
for
400 years or so, should be kicked out if they don't conform to your
personal
wishes, is plainly evil. Any resonable person will recognise this.

What does the length of the occupation have to do with anything?

Well, you seem to think it's acceptable to continue occupying NZ, fjuckwit.
Bertie

Human beings are only indiginous to East Africa.
Everywhere else they are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants.

Alan