The article,though not the book, is by Simon Heffer who's always a bit controversial on matters Irish. In my view he'd be one of those British who still feel that, on maps the British Isles should in their entirety be coloured pink just as many Irish feel that the whole island of Ireland should be coloured green.
Providence Lost: The Rise and Fall of Cromwell’s Protectorate
11–20 of 60 posts
Re: Providence Lost: The Rise and Fall of Cromwell’s Protectorate
#12Cromwell really does have a lingering propaganda support, doesn't he? The UK is one of a very small number of countries to have deliberately restored its monarchy after a revolution and period of parliamentary government, and the reason for that is that Cromwellian government was even worse for a lot of people. A modern analogue might be the Iranian Revolution; congratulations on getting rid of the puppet monarch con…
> The UK does an extremely bad job of teaching its historial "religious" conflict, which was rarely about doctrine so much as temporal power-politics.
I disagree. There really is no way to understand the English Civil War without understanding the religious disputes at its cores. Yes, it was a power struggle. But for the most part, many if not most of its major players were fighting out of deep-seated religious convictions. This most certainly includes Cromwell.
The reverberations of this conflict still color our modern-day ideological conflicts. The Royalist strongholds during the conflict are still the areas of England with the highest Anglican identification. Anglican identification is still the strongest predictor of Tory support. The Red/Blue-state divide in America is largely the same map of what areas were settled by Cavaliers and what areas were settled by dissenters.
Re: Providence Lost: The Rise and Fall of Cromwell’s Protectorate
#13Wow, what a truly offensive article. Firstly speaking as an Irish person, the dismissive tone here is outrageous: "And later in the century, as one phase of the conflict between England and Ireland followed another, the sins of Cromwell and his army in rooting out the supporters (both Catholic and Protestant) of the Stuarts in Ireland were used regularly as a stick with which to beat the English, albeit well over 300…
> I don't know where to start, consider me triggered ;-) Ha! You and me both. As an Irish lad in the UK, one of the funniest things I still encounter is republicans (British ones!) who hold him up as a hero. You really have to wonder at times.
Lots of 17th century writers are held up as republican heroes, but usually not Cromwell himself (Levellers/Diggers, Harrington, etc).
Re: Providence Lost: The Rise and Fall of Cromwell’s Protectorate
#14> albeit well over 300 years later, and as further proof that the Irish have perhaps the longest memories in the world. Oh right. At what point do historical figures get a free pass on bringing up their bad doings? And by bad doings, we're talking deaths in the hundreds of thousands, enforced slavery etc.
“Irish slavery” is usually a sign someone is a racist asshole who has no idea what they’re talking about.
Re: Providence Lost: The Rise and Fall of Cromwell’s Protectorate
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't know where to start, consider me triggered ;-) Ha! You and me both. As an Irish lad in the UK, one of the funniest things I still encounter is republicans (British ones!) who hold him up as a hero. You really have to wonder at times.
Lots of 17th century writers are held up as republican heroes, but usually not Cromwell himself (Levellers/Diggers, Harrington, etc).
My comment relates more to irl conversations. I'll freely admit to not reading up too much on British republicanism.
Re: Providence Lost: The Rise and Fall of Cromwell’s Protectorate
#16Cromwell really does have a lingering propaganda support, doesn't he? The UK is one of a very small number of countries to have deliberately restored its monarchy after a revolution and period of parliamentary government, and the reason for that is that Cromwellian government was even worse for a lot of people. A modern analogue might be the Iranian Revolution; congratulations on getting rid of the puppet monarch con…
> The UK does an extremely bad job of teaching its historial "religious" conflict, which was rarely about doctrine so much as temporal power-politics. I disagree. There really is no way to understand the English Civil War without understanding the religious disputes at its cores. Yes, it was a power struggle. But for the most part, many if not most of its major players were fighting out of deep-seated religious convi…
That last line is interesting. Can you please provide any links for further reading?
Re: Providence Lost: The Rise and Fall of Cromwell’s Protectorate
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't know where to start, consider me triggered ;-) Ha! You and me both. As an Irish lad in the UK, one of the funniest things I still encounter is republicans (British ones!) who hold him up as a hero. You really have to wonder at times.
I would love to see Britain become a republic some day for their benefit (up to them of course to vote on that), but agree they need a better hero.
I used to be of that mindset (re: become a republic) but tbh I'm more of the line of thinking, if it ain't broke... With the parliamentary style of government, you need a figurehead. So you'd have to tear up a whole host of UK conventions going back centuries and re-jig everything, just so someone else gets the ceremonial role?
Much as some might like a complete re-write, I say expand the unit tests around it if minor bugs arise ( e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15492607 ) and let the system run unless a major blocker comes up ;)
Re: Providence Lost: The Rise and Fall of Cromwell’s Protectorate
#18> albeit well over 300 years later, and as further proof that the Irish have perhaps the longest memories in the world. Oh right. At what point do historical figures get a free pass on bringing up their bad doings? And by bad doings, we're talking deaths in the hundreds of thousands, enforced slavery etc.
“Irish slavery” is usually a sign someone is a racist asshole who has no idea what they’re talking about.
I'm not American and have no interest in that side of stuff. Keep your partisan political terms and debates to yourselves.
Call them forced to migrate, indented servants or whatever makes yourself feel good. I'll stick with the accurate term for such.
Edit: Sorry for being a dick, I made assumptions there.
Re: Providence Lost: The Rise and Fall of Cromwell’s Protectorate
#19> albeit well over 300 years later, and as further proof that the Irish have perhaps the longest memories in the world. Oh right. At what point do historical figures get a free pass on bringing up their bad doings? And by bad doings, we're talking deaths in the hundreds of thousands, enforced slavery etc.
“Irish slavery” is usually a sign someone is a racist asshole who has no idea what they’re talking about.
This is an article about Oliver Cromwell, where the author completely brushes off the atrocities he committed in Ireland.
You are correct that as well as all the murder and disenfranchisement and land confiscation, it was only indentured servitude (in Caribbean plantations, where the servants often died before their term of servitude was complete) and not chattel slavery.
But that's not really enough to accuse people of being racist assholes.
Re: Providence Lost: The Rise and Fall of Cromwell’s Protectorate
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed - Cromwell wasn't an aberration, he was the start of the occupation of Ireland with all the usual brutality of colonialism, and the Orange Order will happily bring him out as a "stick" in the other direction.
England ruled Ireland well before Cromwell.
Yes and no.
The "English" running Ireland pre-Cromwell were predominantly Anglo-Irish lords, and were mostly Catholic.
Post-Cromwell, the brutality got much worse, and the Catholic vs Protestant dimension caused extremely repressive laws for Irish catholics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws