Ireland In The 1700s
The 1700s were a definitive historical period for the Irish, culturally, economically, and inter-relationally with the English. Just as noble English landowners ascended to prominence, the Irish were beset with insolvency and poverty. Yet this massive disparity in Irish and English power stemmed from a troubling set of circumstances. This dualistic era was predated by social havoc, excessive penal oppression, and military suppression of the Irish. Thus, the English who resided in Ireland were allocated esteemed positions in society, at the expense of the Irish population. While they constituted the bulk of Ireland’s Population, the Irish possessed less than 30% ownership of the land, granting English a distinct, social advantage. Land ownership, thus equated, to economic authority. Before the Age of Ascendancy, in the 1700s,
…show more content…
the gentrification of the Irish and English became abundantly clear. This had tremendous implications in terms of English perceptions of the Irish population, the Irish experience, and the basis of their historical conflicts as well. Marginalized by English laws, and suppressed by English authority, the Irish grappled firmly (but unsuccessfully) onto their customs. Catholicism and Irish traditions and laws were equally suppressed by Protestant based, English laws. However, if one examines this conflict in greater depth, this issue regarded more than mere forlorn religious disputes. The marginalization of the Catholic population secondarily ostracized the Irish population, from an ethno-cultural standpoint. They were denied the right to partake in voting, and traditional Irish assemblies. Given on their marginal perceptions of the Irish, English policy grew increasingly impositional during the 17th century, leading to many societal woes, pertaining English ascendancy and Irish poverty.
“A View of the Present State of Ireland” reflects scathingly on these ideas. This writing reflects a distinguished human dialogue, in which the speaker cites a multitude of grievances. From this dialogue, one may acquire a glimpse into the economic prejudice that tarnished English-Irish relationships. Thus, to fully deconstruct the basis of 17th century policy, one must break down the grievances noted in this text. This banter, between the English and the Irish, gives profound insight into their relations, the compelling forces that shaped English policies, and other attributes of their disparate relationship. The historical context of this text is as follows. The conditions in which this text was composed are highly significant. This text was written during the Nine Years Rebellion. It is crucial to note that after suppressing this rebellion, the woes of poverty befell Ireland like never before. This rebellion to English rule sought to reclaim Catholic rights and Irish power. The English presided its monarchic influence of Ireland, yet, the growing unrest among the Irish population threatened the scope of their power. It was during the course of this rebellion that this work was composed, of course its publication was delayed due to the tumultuous circumstances at the time. As one will note, the View is insightful and systematizes its discourse on the English-Irish Relations The first portion of this text notes the intrinsic flaws in this strained penal system, and the preponderant necessity for change legally, culturally and religiously as well. This very rebellion stemmed from the invariable suppression of these fundamental freedoms. The inability to express one’s religion, culture, and laws was a definitive marker in this rebellion. The impregnable English forces fought relentlessly to placate this rebellion.
The second portion of his text is significant, as it details strategic steps needed to revitalize the socioeconomic structure of Ireland reduce the waste of resources, and to preclude the prospect of future rebellions. By sprouting additional modes of safety, and carvings wider roads, they aimed to jeopardize all chances of future rebellion. Finally, the third component in this text regards the authoritative aspects of this massive social reform. In order to modify the infrastructure of Ireland for the future, these changes must be headed by a figurehead of power of course. Therefore, these writings inform the reader not only of social and cultural perceptions (which accounted largely for Irish marginalization and oppression), but also systematic avenues through which the English could further subjugate the Irish.
Irish Criticism
This text commences with scathing criticism of the Irish population. The primary figures in this text, are known as Irenaeus and Eudoxus, who reside in England. Irenaeus, who has explored Ireland, has gleaned a profound understanding of both Irish society and their internalized challenges as well. His critiques strategically position the English viewpoint, citing justifications for their subjugation and their legal domination of the Irish. His critiques range from grandiose, sanctimonious, and morally conflicted, to sheerly pragmatic, political and economic. He notes there are three forms of malice among the Irish population (which seems to derive from his subjective viewpoint) and they are Irish laws, customs and religion. From this, the reader observed an inherent cultural bias gains the Irish way of living. Seemingly, the English presumed a superior stance in expression, spirituality, and economics, And this perceived superiority seemingly justified their wretched subjugation of the Irish populace. The deeply entrenched biases were more than a visceral response to the Irish rebellion. Rather, the signaled a socialized turmoil with the Irish entirely Furthermore, there is an implicit desire, in this text, to alter the very spiritual, legal, and customary fabric of the Irish altogether. This signals the desire to gentrify, dominate, and suppress a population.
The speaker elaborates on his qualms with the Irish religion, culture, and laws.
He contends that the legal infrastructure of this society is alone is not the nexus of Ireland’s issues. Rather, he assails the manner in which they execute their laws and employ them in altogether. Seemingly, he presented a sensible analysis of a flawed legal structure. But upon further analysis, even this assail unveils a deeply tainted bias. He attributes their faulty legal structure, not to mishandling of laws. But rather, he characterizes them as “barbaric”. This prevailing idealization of the Irish, as barbaric, has thus skewed Irish and English relationships. There is a presumed inferiority of this perceived lower status, rendering them marginalized and victims of an unwavering system of influence. Thus, “barbarism” is used to justify the English gentrification and oppression of the Irish. It is employed to further their (English) vehicle of social, political and economic power against a group beset in poverty. Thus, the misgivings are not merely economic in nature, but rather, represent a larger, subjective conception, which the English coined of the
Irish.
This negative conception, of the Irish, encases a largely, embedded scheme of inequality. As noted, the Irish occupied 80% of the land, yet, they lacked substantial land ownership, and were divested of legal and social power. The premise of this conclusion is largely unverified and faulty. Yet, these stereotypical norms prevailed, and drove the ideological impulses of the dominant, English leaders. He elaborates on this ideological foundation, by citing the stubbornness of the Irish, and their seeming uncivilized nature. Before the English influence pervaded Irish society, the Brehon law was their primary penal code. He remarks that even in these conditions, they failed to uphold their own laws. However, history suggests this is inaccurate, and the Irish were attentive to their orderly cultural customs, and
Catered to a virtuous code of ethics. They reward violations of these codes with punishment, and order was sustained through brethren kinships and hospitality. Thus, the speaker in this text speaks not from factual knowledge, but rather, a socially embedded perception based on inter-group tension. Thus he deems the Irish laws archaic, discriminatory and ineffective. This serves as a juncture, from which the reader can gauge the motives of 17th century English policy the English imposed their policies because they viewed Irish laws an antiquated and inferior. The speaker reveals another vexing facet of English policy. As noted, their visions and their actions were driven by ideological precepts. And to justify their penal oppression of the Irish, they touted fallacious proclamation of racial superiority (much like the speaker in this text). The speaker as links Irish “barbarism” to their seemingly inferior racial past. He feels they are ill suited for the rigors of English's structures in society. Instead of reforming the infrastructure of the laws, he links their conflict ridden society to an inherent sense of inferiority. By correlating their ancestral roots to their legal ineffectiveness, he portrays them an insufficient for leading their own society. Thus he positions them as feeble and vulnerable to English Power. For this reason, he concluded that laws should be customized to the characteristics of the people, over which they presided. As implied in this text, 17th century English policy was shaped by skewed perceptions of Irish customs as well. This speaker issues scathing statements regarding risky customs. He perceives their customary differences as displays of inferiority. He expresses a common position from which the English construed their laws. Once again, he debunks the Irish laws by citing a racial-ethnic argument, linking their ancestral qualities to their customary flaws. This perspective unveils a deleterious element of English-Irish relations. He belittles their barbaric practices, nomadic traits, garments, as well as their hair and dress. Rather than civilly acknowledging their differences, he characterizes their Celtic inspired feature as an offense to civilization. He makes a telling proclamation in which he correlates choice of garments to the societal integrity. Thus, he views their seemingly archaic customs a breach of human civility. Due to their customers, he infers that they are incapable of leading a complex societal order. There was a clear duel in cultural norms and virtues, as noted in this text. The speaker recounts how Old English adopted Irish language and custom, much to the detriment of their character and morality. Somehow, he equates this linguistic infusion with evils and malice beyond comprehension. He found that adopting the speech of another made them culturally embedded in that society. Thus, when the Old English adopted Irish traditions, they too became Irish. To him, this meant the decimation of one’s cultural fabric, along with numerous moral implications as well. He displays a radical disgust for their acculturation into English society, and perceives this a blight to his English civility. He inquires how an “Englishman...ni sweet vicinity as England affords, should like...that barbarous rudeness…”. Once again, he reveals the English oppression of Ireland was not merely a socioeconomic effort. Rather, it revealed an underlying ideological drive as well (54).
As his argument evolves, he transitions from subjective bias, to pragmatic critiques of economic practices. In particular, he reflects on the blundering policies of Irish landlords. He questions the utility of one year leases, which removed Irish tenants of farmland. He deems these short term leases a partial contributor to their economic failure. The lack of long term residency meant precarious economic conditions. Hence, in a short portion of the text, he viewed the Irish incapable for managing a sustainable economic system. The fundamental flaws of this system derive from the shortness of lease agreements. Tenants could easily terminate an agreement and seek additional opportunities elsewhere. Hence, the culmination of this was an instable economic system. From this, he deduced that short term tenants were less likely to erect fences, which would put off criminal behavior. This deficiency in fences meant a lack of social stability. So, in this way, England justified their legal imposition of Ireland. After the statement of his biased views of Irish traditions, he proposed a strategy-centered approach, one which mirrored with English policies in the 17th century. His insights and plans reflect with the oppression to come in the 1700s (e.g. famine, religious suppression, violence). For example, he voices his mordant plan to crush Irish society by facilitating a massive famine. Thus, he would wield the power of starvation to weaken a suffering society. He offers three discernible plans to usurp Irish control. The first plan entails constricting Irish assemblies, as a means of diminishing power. The second plan involved fencing in farms. And his third plan, an effort to suppress Irish religion. In the 17th century, when Scottish and English protestants arrived in Ireland, they formulated penal laws that typified Irenaeus’ aforementioned statements. Inherent in their laws were disparately charged views which only reinforced social inequalities. By ascending to the ruling class, the English successfully changed the direction of legal codes, customs, and religious expression in Ireland. These shifts were reflective of their self-proclaimed, cultural superiority over the Irish. Any doctrine of superiority will naturally conflate with oppression and denigration of the marginalized group. Their first mode of discrimination was against the Irish regarded religion. But prohibiting non-Protestant religions, they also leveled a slight against Irish culture, history and values. Thus, the religious tenets which constituting Irish social norms would be dissolved in this framework. And by engulfing their traditions and social order, they also overpowered their culture. This cultural dominance reveals the deeply woven philosophies expressed by Irenaeus in the text. In the final excerpts of the text, the listener, Eudoxus, suggests humane laws, designed to assimilate the Irish, rather than suppress them. However, Irenaeus offers a strict condition in response to this. He warns the Irish will contend with English laws, and thus would justify the use of force.
the gentrification of the Irish and English became abundantly clear. This had tremendous implications in terms of English perceptions of the Irish population, the Irish experience, and the basis of their historical conflicts as well. Marginalized by English laws, and suppressed by English authority, the Irish grappled firmly (but unsuccessfully) onto their customs. Catholicism and Irish traditions and laws were equally suppressed by Protestant based, English laws. However, if one examines this conflict in greater depth, this issue regarded more than mere forlorn religious disputes. The marginalization of the Catholic population secondarily ostracized the Irish population, from an ethno-cultural standpoint. They were denied the right to partake in voting, and traditional Irish assemblies. Given on their marginal perceptions of the Irish, English policy grew increasingly impositional during the 17th century, leading to many societal woes, pertaining English ascendancy and Irish poverty.
“A View of the Present State of Ireland” reflects scathingly on these ideas. This writing reflects a distinguished human dialogue, in which the speaker cites a multitude of grievances. From this dialogue, one may acquire a glimpse into the economic prejudice that tarnished English-Irish relationships. Thus, to fully deconstruct the basis of 17th century policy, one must break down the grievances noted in this text. This banter, between the English and the Irish, gives profound insight into their relations, the compelling forces that shaped English policies, and other attributes of their disparate relationship. The historical context of this text is as follows. The conditions in which this text was composed are highly significant. This text was written during the Nine Years Rebellion. It is crucial to note that after suppressing this rebellion, the woes of poverty befell Ireland like never before. This rebellion to English rule sought to reclaim Catholic rights and Irish power. The English presided its monarchic influence of Ireland, yet, the growing unrest among the Irish population threatened the scope of their power. It was during the course of this rebellion that this work was composed, of course its publication was delayed due to the tumultuous circumstances at the time. As one will note, the View is insightful and systematizes its discourse on the English-Irish Relations The first portion of this text notes the intrinsic flaws in this strained penal system, and the preponderant necessity for change legally, culturally and religiously as well. This very rebellion stemmed from the invariable suppression of these fundamental freedoms. The inability to express one’s religion, culture, and laws was a definitive marker in this rebellion. The impregnable English forces fought relentlessly to placate this rebellion.
The second portion of his text is significant, as it details strategic steps needed to revitalize the socioeconomic structure of Ireland reduce the waste of resources, and to preclude the prospect of future rebellions. By sprouting additional modes of safety, and carvings wider roads, they aimed to jeopardize all chances of future rebellion. Finally, the third component in this text regards the authoritative aspects of this massive social reform. In order to modify the infrastructure of Ireland for the future, these changes must be headed by a figurehead of power of course. Therefore, these writings inform the reader not only of social and cultural perceptions (which accounted largely for Irish marginalization and oppression), but also systematic avenues through which the English could further subjugate the Irish.
Irish Criticism
This text commences with scathing criticism of the Irish population. The primary figures in this text, are known as Irenaeus and Eudoxus, who reside in England. Irenaeus, who has explored Ireland, has gleaned a profound understanding of both Irish society and their internalized challenges as well. His critiques strategically position the English viewpoint, citing justifications for their subjugation and their legal domination of the Irish. His critiques range from grandiose, sanctimonious, and morally conflicted, to sheerly pragmatic, political and economic. He notes there are three forms of malice among the Irish population (which seems to derive from his subjective viewpoint) and they are Irish laws, customs and religion. From this, the reader observed an inherent cultural bias gains the Irish way of living. Seemingly, the English presumed a superior stance in expression, spirituality, and economics, And this perceived superiority seemingly justified their wretched subjugation of the Irish populace. The deeply entrenched biases were more than a visceral response to the Irish rebellion. Rather, the signaled a socialized turmoil with the Irish entirely Furthermore, there is an implicit desire, in this text, to alter the very spiritual, legal, and customary fabric of the Irish altogether. This signals the desire to gentrify, dominate, and suppress a population.
The speaker elaborates on his qualms with the Irish religion, culture, and laws.
He contends that the legal infrastructure of this society is alone is not the nexus of Ireland’s issues. Rather, he assails the manner in which they execute their laws and employ them in altogether. Seemingly, he presented a sensible analysis of a flawed legal structure. But upon further analysis, even this assail unveils a deeply tainted bias. He attributes their faulty legal structure, not to mishandling of laws. But rather, he characterizes them as “barbaric”. This prevailing idealization of the Irish, as barbaric, has thus skewed Irish and English relationships. There is a presumed inferiority of this perceived lower status, rendering them marginalized and victims of an unwavering system of influence. Thus, “barbarism” is used to justify the English gentrification and oppression of the Irish. It is employed to further their (English) vehicle of social, political and economic power against a group beset in poverty. Thus, the misgivings are not merely economic in nature, but rather, represent a larger, subjective conception, which the English coined of the
Irish.
This negative conception, of the Irish, encases a largely, embedded scheme of inequality. As noted, the Irish occupied 80% of the land, yet, they lacked substantial land ownership, and were divested of legal and social power. The premise of this conclusion is largely unverified and faulty. Yet, these stereotypical norms prevailed, and drove the ideological impulses of the dominant, English leaders. He elaborates on this ideological foundation, by citing the stubbornness of the Irish, and their seeming uncivilized nature. Before the English influence pervaded Irish society, the Brehon law was their primary penal code. He remarks that even in these conditions, they failed to uphold their own laws. However, history suggests this is inaccurate, and the Irish were attentive to their orderly cultural customs, and
Catered to a virtuous code of ethics. They reward violations of these codes with punishment, and order was sustained through brethren kinships and hospitality. Thus, the speaker in this text speaks not from factual knowledge, but rather, a socially embedded perception based on inter-group tension. Thus he deems the Irish laws archaic, discriminatory and ineffective. This serves as a juncture, from which the reader can gauge the motives of 17th century English policy the English imposed their policies because they viewed Irish laws an antiquated and inferior. The speaker reveals another vexing facet of English policy. As noted, their visions and their actions were driven by ideological precepts. And to justify their penal oppression of the Irish, they touted fallacious proclamation of racial superiority (much like the speaker in this text). The speaker as links Irish “barbarism” to their seemingly inferior racial past. He feels they are ill suited for the rigors of English's structures in society. Instead of reforming the infrastructure of the laws, he links their conflict ridden society to an inherent sense of inferiority. By correlating their ancestral roots to their legal ineffectiveness, he portrays them an insufficient for leading their own society. Thus he positions them as feeble and vulnerable to English Power. For this reason, he concluded that laws should be customized to the characteristics of the people, over which they presided. As implied in this text, 17th century English policy was shaped by skewed perceptions of Irish customs as well. This speaker issues scathing statements regarding risky customs. He perceives their customary differences as displays of inferiority. He expresses a common position from which the English construed their laws. Once again, he debunks the Irish laws by citing a racial-ethnic argument, linking their ancestral qualities to their customary flaws. This perspective unveils a deleterious element of English-Irish relations. He belittles their barbaric practices, nomadic traits, garments, as well as their hair and dress. Rather than civilly acknowledging their differences, he characterizes their Celtic inspired feature as an offense to civilization. He makes a telling proclamation in which he correlates choice of garments to the societal integrity. Thus, he views their seemingly archaic customs a breach of human civility. Due to their customers, he infers that they are incapable of leading a complex societal order. There was a clear duel in cultural norms and virtues, as noted in this text. The speaker recounts how Old English adopted Irish language and custom, much to the detriment of their character and morality. Somehow, he equates this linguistic infusion with evils and malice beyond comprehension. He found that adopting the speech of another made them culturally embedded in that society. Thus, when the Old English adopted Irish traditions, they too became Irish. To him, this meant the decimation of one’s cultural fabric, along with numerous moral implications as well. He displays a radical disgust for their acculturation into English society, and perceives this a blight to his English civility. He inquires how an “Englishman...ni sweet vicinity as England affords, should like...that barbarous rudeness…”. Once again, he reveals the English oppression of Ireland was not merely a socioeconomic effort. Rather, it revealed an underlying ideological drive as well (54).
As his argument evolves, he transitions from subjective bias, to pragmatic critiques of economic practices. In particular, he reflects on the blundering policies of Irish landlords. He questions the utility of one year leases, which removed Irish tenants of farmland. He deems these short term leases a partial contributor to their economic failure. The lack of long term residency meant precarious economic conditions. Hence, in a short portion of the text, he viewed the Irish incapable for managing a sustainable economic system. The fundamental flaws of this system derive from the shortness of lease agreements. Tenants could easily terminate an agreement and seek additional opportunities elsewhere. Hence, the culmination of this was an instable economic system. From this, he deduced that short term tenants were less likely to erect fences, which would put off criminal behavior. This deficiency in fences meant a lack of social stability. So, in this way, England justified their legal imposition of Ireland. After the statement of his biased views of Irish traditions, he proposed a strategy-centered approach, one which mirrored with English policies in the 17th century. His insights and plans reflect with the oppression to come in the 1700s (e.g. famine, religious suppression, violence). For example, he voices his mordant plan to crush Irish society by facilitating a massive famine. Thus, he would wield the power of starvation to weaken a suffering society. He offers three discernible plans to usurp Irish control. The first plan entails constricting Irish assemblies, as a means of diminishing power. The second plan involved fencing in farms. And his third plan, an effort to suppress Irish religion. In the 17th century, when Scottish and English protestants arrived in Ireland, they formulated penal laws that typified Irenaeus’ aforementioned statements. Inherent in their laws were disparately charged views which only reinforced social inequalities. By ascending to the ruling class, the English successfully changed the direction of legal codes, customs, and religious expression in Ireland. These shifts were reflective of their self-proclaimed, cultural superiority over the Irish. Any doctrine of superiority will naturally conflate with oppression and denigration of the marginalized group. Their first mode of discrimination was against the Irish regarded religion. But prohibiting non-Protestant religions, they also leveled a slight against Irish culture, history and values. Thus, the religious tenets which constituting Irish social norms would be dissolved in this framework. And by engulfing their traditions and social order, they also overpowered their culture. This cultural dominance reveals the deeply woven philosophies expressed by Irenaeus in the text. In the final excerpts of the text, the listener, Eudoxus, suggests humane laws, designed to assimilate the Irish, rather than suppress them. However, Irenaeus offers a strict condition in response to this. He warns the Irish will contend with English laws, and thus would justify the use of force.