HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: skaamjm@ucl.ac.uk (Matthew Moore)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Casement update
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:43:50 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

halpin@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:

>In article <1993Jan22.163836.20542@e2big.mko.dec.com>,
>holohan@mark.enet.dec.com (Mark Holohan) writes:

>>    March 16, 1988 - Loyalist gunman launches a gun and grenade attack on
>>    the mourners at the funeral of the Gibralter Three.  Three people
>>    were killed and over thirty injured.
>> 
>>    March 19, 1988 - Unarmed mourners at the funeral of Caoimhin
>>    Mac Bradaigh attempted to defend themselves against 
>>    another armed intrusion.  
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Absolute bollox!
>The soldiers stumbled into the funeral, and then panicked. Given
>the circumstances, the crowd *reacted* as if this were another
>attack.

Press reports at the time pointed out a few things which have so
far evaded this discourse.

i) the two soldiers would have found it very difficult to simply
"stumble into" a republican funeral, as there were stewards posted
some distance away. The soldiers had to pass several sets of stewards.
(In any case, West Belfast in general, including the Falls Road in
Andersons Town is out of bounds to off-duty soldiers, and, according
to the press at the time, was even more out of bounds than usual).

ii) Their car proceeded at high speed toward the cortege. It was
headed off, then hemmed in by the black cabs which protect and flank
the cortege. It was at this point that the film shown on TV starts.

>And the soldiers weren't "undercover", they were off-duty. It was
>simple gross stupidity to be where they were, and to react like
>they did.

Out of uniform soldiers in enemy territory during wartime are liable
to be shot as spies, however had the two lived, we might have heard
their story.

>We could do without jerks like you painting everything in
>doctrinaire black and white, because then the real issues in the
>grey areas get lost.

Inflammatory personal statements will not help this discussion.
From: JBrandt@AAA.Uoregon.EDU (Pegasus)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Gaelic equivalent of Peter?
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:09:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: fp1-dial.JBrandt-270193110847
Followup-To: soc.culture.celtic
Distribution: world
Organization: The Polyhedron Group
NNTP-Posting-Host: fp1-dialin-2.uoregon.edu

In article <93026.191337RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>, Aengus Lawlor
<RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> wrote:
> 
> In article <1993Jan26.190247.7451@nmsu.edu>, tnielson@mccoy (THORIN NIELSON)
> says:
> >
Greeting your Grace.
Peter
According to .Gaelic Personal Names. D, O' Corrian and F. Maguire, 1981,
Acacemy Press Dublin page 5. "Mael Petair, Peadar (modern), Piaras
(medieval), Feoras".
Pegasus
From: ruairi@sy.ssl.fujitsu.co.jp (Ruairi.H)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Currency Crises and the British Press.
Date: 25 Jan 93 07:59:37 GMT
Distribution: soc.culture.celtic soc.culture.british
Organization: Fujitsu SSL Ltd. in ShinYokohama.


  Hiya Everyone,
                I've benn hearing stories out here that the British
press is trying to cause/encourage a devaluation of the Irish Punt.
Does anybody know why/where these allegations came from or care to
comment about them (if they're true).
                   
Thanks
--
            ___________________________________________________

                Ruairi Hickey          Fujitsu SSL 1-3-1
		      
	           Shin Yokohama
               Email : ruairi@sy.ssl.fujitsu.co.jp
                 Tel : 045-470-1813    Ext(6319)
            ____________________________________________________
From: cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk (Colin Wilson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: This Favorite Lie Again.
Date: 27 Jan 93 12:01:33 GMT
Organization: BT

In article <9079@news.duke.edu>, kakleman@acpub.duke.edu (Kubilay Akleman) writes:
|> In short: Irish, Scots, Manxmen are Gaels; 
|> 	  Irish, Scots, Manxmen, Welsh, Cornish and Bretons are Celts.

The bald statement that the Scots (in the sense of the word today) are
Gaels, or even Celts, is an oversimplification. The present population
of Scotland is mostly descended from five peoples:

Gaels (who the Romans called "Scotiae"): a Celtic people.

Britons: also a Celtic people.

Picts: possibly Celtic, possibly non-Celtic. It has been claimed that
similarities exist between what fragments of their language we have,
and modern Basque. If this is so, it would tend to suggest the latter.

Angles: not a Celtic people.

Vikings: also not a Celtic people.

The two modern indigenous languages of Scotland - Scottish Gaelic and
Scots - are descended respectively from the speech of the Scotiae and
the Angles, who invaded at approximately the same period. Pictish had
fallen into complete disuse by the end of the first millenium, as had 
Britonic by some two hundred years later, although Norse persisted in
Orkney and Shetland until the seventeenth century.

********************************************************************************
*  Colin Wilson,                           E-mail:  cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk     *
*  Glasgow Engineering Centre,             POTS:    (041) 220 5340             *
*  British Telecommunications plc.                  (+ 44 41) 220 5340         *
*  7 Caledon Street,                                                           *
*  Glesca / Glaschu G12 9BY,             Scotland a Twa-Leidit Fowkrick        *
*  Scotland / Alba.                      Biodh Alba 'na Poblachd Dha-Chananach *
********************************************************************************
Xref: sparky soc.culture.celtic:8904 alt.binaries.pictures:4453
From: holohan@mark.enet.dec.com (Mark Holohan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,alt.binaries.pictures
Subject: casement.gif part 0 of 6
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:30:24 GMT
Reply-To: holohan@mark.enet.dec.com (Mark Holohan)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation



  casement.gif is a grey-scale gif picture of an armed intrusion on 
  March 19,1988 at the funeral of Caoimhin Mac Bradaigh.
  Parts 1-6 (actuall uuencoded gif file) will only be posted in 
  alt.binaries.pictures

                Justice for the Casement Accused

  In Gibraltar, three unarmed members of the Republican movement, all
from West Belfast were executed by British undercover soldiers.  These
deaths led to a sharp rise in tension within the community.

  The death of Kevin McCracken in Turf Lodge, the expected arrival of
the remains of the Gibraltar three, and the hijacking of the funerals by
the RUC all added to a state of high tension in West Belfast.

 Milltown Cemetery: March 16, 1988
  As the three were buried a loyalist gunman launched a gun and grenade
attack on the mourners.  Three men were shot dead and more than thirty
people injured.  Caoimhin Mac Bradaigh was one of those shot dead.

 The funeral of Caoimhin Mac Bradaigh: March 19, 1988
  As the cortege made its way to Milltown, a speeding car drove into the
funeral.  It was surrounded by frightened unarmed mourners.  The
occupants of the car produced guns.  In view of what had happened three
days previously, the crowd defended themselves during which a shot was
fired.  The men were eventually disarmed by the crowd.  They were later
taken from the crowd and eventually shot by the IRA.

 Who are the Casement accused?

 Thirty seven people have been charged with offences arising from the
attack on the funeral cortege of Caoimhin Mac Bradaigh.  Five people
have been sentenced to life imprisonment for their alleged involvement
in the deaths of the armed men, who were later identified as undercover
British army soldiers.  The crown prosecution admits that none of those
sentenced were in possession of firarms or had fired the fatal shots.
One of the accused was given a fifteen year sentence for false
imprisonment.  The crown prosecution admitted that his involvement was
restricted to events at the car.  This 15 year sentence was quashed on
November 16, 1990 after the Lord Chief Justice ruled that the conviction
was unsafe and unsatisfactory.  Almost three years after the incident
men are still being arrested and charged.  Ten men are now awaiting
trial.  One of the defendants is currently taking his trial to Europe.


--
*******************************************************************************

  Mark Holohan, DEC, USA        "Character is what you are in the dark" - BB
  holohan@mark.enet.dec.com
  
  The opinions expressed are not necessarily the opinions of 
  Digital Equipment Corporation.

*******************************************************************************
From: cstadgs@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr R J Tinsley)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: This Favorite Lie Again.
Date: 26 Jan 1993 12:45:32 -0000
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
NNTP-Posting-Host: lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk

In article <9079@news.duke.edu> kakleman@acpub.duke.edu (Kubilay Akleman)
writes:
>Who lived in Ireland BEFORE the Celts is not known and is no longer of much
>consequense.

But it would be if they wanted it back, right?

-Bob
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british
From: dml@philabs.philips.com (Damian M. Lyons)
Subject: Re: This Favorite Lie Again.
Originator: dml@rabbit
Organization: Autonomous Systems, Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:39:40 GMT


In article <1993Jan20.215942.3095@news.clarkson.edu>, walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Walker) writes:
|> From article <1993Jan20.173334.16767@philabs.philips.com>, by dml@philabs.philips.com (Damian M. Lyons):
|> > 
|> > 
|> > An the US is dealing with Native Rights issues today. The British government
|> > is not, as I have argued at length before.
|> > 
|> > Damian.
|> > 
|> As I remember the supreme court ruled that the Black Hills had been
|> taken illegally fron the Lacota Sioux and the Lacota asked for them back
|> (at least the bits that were purely government land) and the US
|> government has point blank refused to give it too them. I suppose that
|> you could call that dealing with the problem!!!!!!
|> 
|> 												GW

Yes I would, because the US government has admitted it is a Native Rights
issue. You or I may consider that they are not dealing with it properly,
but at least they do not deny its existence. My point is that the British
government is not handling NI as a native rights issue; they deny that this
is the problem. I argue that the subtle change of perspective in switching
from civil rights to native rights is what is necessary to throw the 
negotiations along the right path. 

Damian.
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
         Damian M. Lyons | x6444 | dml@philabs.philips.com       
_________________________________________________________________ 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british
From: David_Murphy@Novell.COM (David Murphy)
Subject: Re: This Favorite Lie Again.
Organization: Novell, Inc.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:39:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.125638.23832@newstand.syr.edu> crdunlea@rodan.acs.syr.EDU (Christopher R. Dunlea) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.191831.17248@philabs.philips.com> dml@philabs.philips.com (Damian M. Lyons) writes:
>>Since I prefer to believe the best of you, I'll repeat my argument.
>>NI has long been classified as a civil rights problem; more
>>accurately it is a native rights problem. The solution to stable
>>government of NI is to address this problem openly. My only comment
>>on the US, was that it *is* addressing its native rights problems
>>directly. Whether you or I think its doing a good job is quite a
>>different matter.
>>
>>NI is a native rights problem because 70 years ago NI was set up as
>>a state in which Unionists would have a built-in majority. The only
>>role of the nationalist population was, apparently, to pad out the
>>state, since they were disenfranchised by the purpose built majority.
>>This is how the problem started.
>>
>I cannot really see the point of acting on a "native rights" policy
>in NI, because this would only further divide Ireland into not only
>religious and political but now ethnic groups. Why should we erect more
>further demarcations between "us" and "them"? Has this ever really
>solved a problem or simply redefined it? I tend to believe the latter.
>
>Furthermore, who are the natives and how would you define them? Prove
>to me that anyone is REALLY Irish Celtic. Apart from those who can 
>verifyably trace their ancestry to England, can anyone elses'
>ancestry be proven? The Scots'? The Old English (who are Catholic)? 
>In your scenario, only the Catholics would be "natives". And so we are
>back to square one.
>
>I think in the end it would also separate Ireland into "natives" and
>"non-natives", which has the same perjorative content as "star-belly
>sneeches". 
>
>My tuppence.
>
>Chris
>
>

Sure only the Catholics would be "natives", gee guess this guy is forgetting
about those that "took the soup", converted to other religions, or if
there are still some around or converted back, to Druidism.  See to remember
some out by Rush.

David_Murphy@novell.com         All opinions are my own, not the employer's
                                And I am not a support person either, so 
                                support questions should go to support people.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Gaelic equivalent of Peter?
From: Aengus Lawlor <RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:13:37 EST
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

In article <1993Jan26.190247.7451@nmsu.edu>, tnielson@mccoy (THORIN NIELSON)
says:
>
>That's my easy question.
>
>Got an easy answer, post it or e-mail it directly and I'd be much
>appreciative.
Peadar. Pronounced Padher, sort of. (A very soft d, closer to a th, but
not quite. As you can see, I never did work out all those squiggly bits
in dictionary definitions :-(
>
>Thorin Nielson --

Aengus
--
RBYAML@ROHMHAAS.COM                    Aengus Lawlor
RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET                   (who used to be ALAWLOR@DIT.IE)
"How about some of that famous Dublin wit, Barman?"
"Certainly, sir. Would that be Dry or Sparkling?"
From: crdunlea@rodan.acs.syr.EDU (Christopher R. Dunlea)
Subject: Re: Irish Books/U.S. Bookshops
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 17:15:31 EST

In article <28614@dog.ee.lbl.gov> mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
>Christopher R. Dunlea writes:
>>Culture [in Ireland?]before 1800 had absolutely nothing to do with writing books.
>
>This is flat out wrong, at least in general about Ireland.
>Whose culture?  When?

I see your point, and will make allowances for the vagueness of the answer.
Beside the elite culture of the Ascendancy, however, very little of the
traditional culture of Ireland--that of the songs, poems, sagas, folktales
nd such--were part of an oral tradition. It was left to Lady Gregory and 
Yeats in the earliest part of our century to redact these traditions.

Chris

Xref: sparky soc.culture.celtic:8911 soc.culture.british:19374
From: cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk (Colin Wilson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: This Favorite Lie Again.
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:36:40 GMT
Organization: BT

In article <1993Jan22.163945.22085@bristol.ac.uk>, smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:

|> To take NI as an example -- we have the 'Irish' Irish (predominantly
|> Catholics) claiming to be oppressed by the conquering 'English' Irish
|> (mostly Protestant), since these 'English' Irish took over the country
|> a mere few hundred years ago.  However, most of these 'Irish' Irish are
|> Gaels -- they didn't originate in Ireland, but rather invaded Ireland
|> from Scotland, taking over from the Picts, about 1000-1500 years ago.
|> So, by the same arguments they use, they don't belong there either, and
|> ought to move back to Scotland where they belong.
|> 
|> The Picts, in turn, conquered Ireland sometime back between the Bronze
|> Age and the Iron Age.

Some of the facts in this are rather muddled. The Gaels invaded Ireland
from mainland Europe in pre-Christian times, displacing a people that they
named the "Fir Bolg". They later established a kingdom in Scotland, in the
fifth and sixth century, which previously had been populated by Britons in
the south and Picts in the north. They later became, for a time, the
dominant ethnic group in Scotland. I've not heard of a substantial
Pictish presence in Ireland at any time. I'll stand corrected if anyone
else knows better, though, and I don't dispute the general argument that
was being advanced.

********************************************************************************
*  Colin Wilson,                           E-mail:  cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk     *
*  Glasgow Engineering Centre,             POTS:    (041) 220 5340             *
*  British Telecommunications plc.                  (+ 44 41) 220 5340         *
*  7 Caledon Street,                                                           *
*  Glesca / Glaschu G12 9BY,             Scotland a Twa-Leidit Fowkrick        *
*  Scotland / Alba.                      Biodh Alba 'na Poblachd Dha-Chananach *
********************************************************************************
Xref: sparky soc.culture.celtic:8825 soc.culture.british:19115
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: This Favorite Lie Again.
From: Aengus Lawlor <RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:51:05 EST
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

In article <1993Jan21.032257.10776@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) says:
>
>Besides the Northern Ireland problem has little to do with
>colonialism and much to do with religious hatred.
Have you even the slightest scrap of evidence to support this conclusion?
The conflict in Northern Ireland is based on political differences. These
political differences parallel religious differences, but they do _NOT_
spring from religious differences. There are Catholic Unionists, and
Protestant Nationalists, and if they are targetted, they are targetted
for their politics, not their religion.

Because of the parallels between religion and politics, religion is used as
a 'handy' indicator of politics, leading to purely sectarian attacks. The
most invidious example of this is the targetting of 'mixed' marriages, but
there are suggestions that the dynamics of population growth play a role
in these attacks.
>
>David Garrod

Aengus
--
RBYAML@ROHMHAAS.COM                    Aengus Lawlor
RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET                   (who used to be ALAWLOR@DIT.IE)
"How about some of that famous Dublin wit, Barman?"
"Certainly, sir. Would that be Dry or Sparkling?"
Xref: sparky soc.culture.celtic:8928 soc.culture.british:19406
From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: This Favorite Lie Again.
Date: 26 Jan 93 10:49:28 GMT
	<1993Jan14.182701.24851@philabs.philips.com>
	<93019.150832U53644@uicvm.uic.edu> <1993Jan20.091504.363@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
	<1993Jan20.173334.16767@philabs.philips.com>
	<llro7kINNnal@news.bbn.com>
	<1993Jan22.185739.1699
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1993Jan22.185739.16991@philabs.philips.com> dml@philabs.philips.com (Damian M. Lyons) writes:

[ persuasive argument about NI "native rights" deleted ]

   The only connection I have drawn between the US and Britain is that
   the US admits to a native rights problem (hard for it not to I'd say)
   while Britain does not yeat (to my mind) realize thats what it has in NI.

From the British establishment's point of view, I'd guess that both
populations in NI look "native" - both alien, both strange, both Irish.
That's probably why they're so blind to this "native rights" idea.
--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)

		
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
From: dowling@main.mndly.umn.edu
Subject: Going to Ireland
Organization: the Minnesota Daily (U of MN Student Newspaper)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:56:06 GMT

I finally scraped up the cash and vacation time, and I'm planning my second 
trip to Ireland. I hope to visit during the last two weeks in March.

On my vacation last summer, I drove through Northern Ireland, cutting from 
Co. Donegal to Co. Cavan. The police state scared me, but I'd like to see 
more of the scenery. My question: IS IT SAFE? Really? And even if it is, 
which cities/neighborhoods/streetcorners should I avoid?

Question Two: is there anything going on between March 20th and April 1? I'm 
hoping to avoid the St. Patrick's Day crush (if any).

Any other advice would be much appreciated (posted or E-mailed), especially 
anything about Dublin and Co. Donegal. Those were my favorite stops on a 
grand tour.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
From: hiscrp@nuscc.nus.sg (C R Pennell)
Subject: Re: Irish Books/U.S. Bookshops
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 07:19:18 GMT

mike@nuada.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
: 
: This doesn't prove any "case"; I am not disputing that imperialism
: was practiced by Britain, in Ireland & elsewhere.  What remains
: unproved (that is, unsubstantiated by you) is the argument that
: Ireland was a testbed for imperialism.  This can only mean "testbed
: for imperialist practices of some sort".  If you mean, simply,
: imperialism itself, it fails -- the English were practicing
: imperialists even in Britain itself long before the Tudors set out to
: _reconquer_ Ireland.  If you mean, they practiced their new
: imperialism in Ireland before going on to the rest of the world -- it
: fails, because the British were, simultaneous with the pacification of
: Ireland, setting up colonies in the New World and India. 

I'd like to respond to one aspect of this, for the moment. It is certainly
true that English (term used advisedly) constitutional theorists used the
conquest of Ireland and its consequent legal status as a justification for
they way in which they thought American colonies should be used. Some of
them made a distinction between the "absolute power of a conqueror: who
was "bound by no laws but has power to make laws" and a king with limited
power who ruled by the consent of the peopl by virtue of a contract.
Conquest could be used to justify the king acting as he pleased Francis
bacon argued that Ireland was subject to the laws of England only because
K John (which takes us pretty far back) chose to introduce them. The
English parliament of 1621 used the same argument to say that James I
could govern Virginia as he chose, bcause his right to tule it stemmed
from conquest.
Above taken pretty literally from JP Somerville. Politics and Ideology in
England 1603-1640, London, Longman 1986, pp 66-67. The argument is based
on the writings of such luminaries as Coke.