this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
379 points (100.0% liked)

196

16224 readers
3935 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t see how that’s in any way controversial. The colonization of Ireland by the English using the Scots-Irish as the primary Settler class is pretty well documented.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The facts of English rule over Ireland is well-documented. The particular framing of it as colonization is something that stands out to me is all.

Wikipedia only uses that terminology Sparingly. Again, not because it's not colonization, but because I think most people think of colonization as a thing that white people do to brown people.

The choice of framing is interesting because when you think about it colonization is just invading a place and imposing your citizens as a ruling class and your culture as superior (etc.). There are LOTS of instances of that throughout history that we don't usually call "colonization" (say, the Normans colonizing England), because in practice that word evokes the very specific kind of colonization that was practiced by Europeans from the 1400s onward. So I see insisting on saying that "Ireland was colonized" instead of "Ireland was invaded/oppressed" (both of which are correct) as a way to emphasize the harshness of British rule by appealing to colonial remorse. I don't say that judgmentally, I just find the linguistic aspect interesting.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Sometimes i forget that not everyone has an oversized interest in colonization, and things that seem obvious to me may not be so to others or widely held as popular opinion. Thanks for your perspective, I appreciate it. Cheers!