TAL Blogs

"those Irish immigrants that fled famine and hunger to set up home in the hostile environments of the West of Scotland in the late 19th Century"

Hostile how? Western Scotland during that era was in a period of tremendous growth for Glasgow and its surrounding areas the only thing I'd consider hostile about the area in that period of time was social problems that even then had not peaked.

 

Don't even bother replying mate. This guy is the worst attempt at a WUM I think I may have ever seen.

The sooner Pud does his deed as new moderator of the board, and just deletes or changes every post the **** makes, the better!

 

Not wanting Rebel's thread to be ruined with comments that don't contribute to the thread, so I have deleted one and edited others.

 

pud's a ****in legend! What a great appointment.

Well done Rebels as well ... great articles.

 

Don't spoil it for Rebel. He enjoys being the put upon victim.

 

Hostile? Not as hostile an environment as their own ****ing country was to them.

 

I'm not one for usually getting involved in this Irish ****e but:

As late as 1923, the Church of Scotland could still publish a pamphlet entitled ‘The Menace of the Irish race to our Scottish Nationality’. The Irish were seen as drunken, idle, uncivilised and undermining the moral fibre of Scottish society. They were also seen as carriers of disease. Typhus, for example, was known as ‘Irish fever’.

Although the accusations had some force, they had nothing to do with ethnicity and more to do with poverty. The incidence of fever among the Irish was due to their unsanitary housing. It was also because many of the immigrants who arrived fleeing the famine were so weak that their resistance to disease was low. The Irish-born in Dundee constituted 20% of all burials in 1848, whereas seven years earlier they had only constituted 5%.

http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/higher...ionandempire/experienceofimmigrants/irish.asp

 

just pointing out that there was a reason they left in the first place. Surely famine is a more hostile environment than some folk that don't like you?

 

No one said one was more hostile than the other Mr T but the truth is they fled povery and famine and received a hostile welcome in Britain. It's not as if they're the only ones it's happened to.

 

I think the point is, Mick, that the Huns have typically re-written history and now spin this line about "ungrateful immigrants" being welcomed "with open arms".

Something along the lines of the "there was no signing policy - the Taigs were too scared of the reaction from their own community to sign for Rangers" trash.

 

As said in my post, that was during the peaks of Glasgows social problems and contrary to popular belief the 1900s where the 20th century, not the 19th as stated on that website.

And as MrT is saying, how can famine be compared to a rough city? as for your pish rebel you clearly know **** all about Glasgow during between early 19th and the early 20th centuries, stick to republicanism and leave the history to those who know what they are talking about eh <wink>

Bib i don't think that's the point at all, looking back in history during that time there was never the problems that the site seems to insinuate and at the very least got the century wrong (big bloody mistake if you ask me)

It would be like saying since 1888 Rangers and Celtic have been bitter rivals so much so that we have been fighting ever since, its just not true.

 

Who's comparing famine to a rough city?

There appears to be a touch of scotoma when it comes to this issue.

 

That site claims that Irish immigrants left Ireland to escape famine to settle in hostile western scotland in the 19th century, bit of a kick in the nuts when famine isn't as bad as staying in scotland?

I quoted the website, you brought up a fact proving my point that the serious problems didn't exist until the 20s/30s.

 

But they're not comparing the two or saying one is worse than the other.

They're simply stating that they left behind one bad situation and found themselves in another one. A bit like when an African flees a war torn nation to come to Britain then becomes a victim of racism.

I don't understand what point it is you're trying to make? That famine is worse than bigotry? Well duh.

 

I was asking Rebel a question, i expected his usual ****e reply as i was curious to know if he knew just as much about the history of glasgow as he does republican values i didn't expect so many other people replying to be honest.

It doesn't say ones worse than the other, my problem is with the use of the word hostile, i don't think you can seriously say something like that without it sounding stupid.

My point would be if i cared enough that is, how can you trust a site that doesn't get the facts right.