How were Anglos able to consistently BTFO the irish over the centuries?
>>18760997Irish are cool in a lot of ways - heroism in battle, music, passion for self-determination - but unfortunately they're very very stupid. There's never once been a good Irish mathematician. Their one guy, Hamilton, after whom Hamiltonians in physics are named, was Anglo-Irish. Turns out you need a bit of brains if you want to beat the anglo. Even to this day, when the Anglos are so desperate to prove their anti-racism they've elected an Irish prime minister, he's a complete dunce
Ah yes the daily Irish seethe thread. Waiting for the qualityposters to come and DESTROY the seethers with facts, logic and evidence.
>>18760997I don't like to say it but low iqIrish people and Scottish people had essentially identical foundations yet Scottish people achieved much more and were only annexed into England (as most people in Scotland felt then) because of their own oligarchs feelings.
>>18761005I live in the same city George Boole taught. Booleans are named after him. Ireland had its fair share of scientific achievements in its history, though most of it was before modern science in the middle ages. Irish monasteries were important on the European level.
ir*sh are subhumans
>>18761005>heroismsuch a laugh, the ir*sh literally pride themselves on being backstabbing cowards.
>How were Anglos able to consistently BTFO the irish over the centuries?Essentially the problem is you are seeing Ireland as one unit which England regularly fought and beat, when in reality England only ever really had to fight small coalitions or collections of Kingdoms/tribes and still took several centuries to actually conquer the island.The strongest force England ever faced was actually that of High King Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair, who very famously lead a counter offensive which put the Normans on the back foot-only brought to an end by an astoundingly lucky surprise attack on a siege camp outside Dublin. After that was the Irish Alliance lead by Hugh O'Neill in the late 16th Century, which brought English governance to its knees in Ireland before a botched battle at Kinsale allowed England to rebuild their presence. The reality is that England simply had more money, more manpower and more resources when pitted against even the larger of Ireland's provincial Kingdoms. The better question, frankly, is how England managed to fuck it up for so long?One answer is in the way the Lordship of Ireland was run; Norman lords intended to be England's administration in Ireland were constantly losing wars against the Gaels or simply assimilating into their society, creating a nightmarish situation where even "English Ireland" was of dubious loyalty. While the ruthless brutalising of the island's population in the 17th and 18th Centuries did bring things more under control, the fact that Britain regardless managed to botch not only the Irish Patriot Movement but also the Home Rule Movement through sheer incompetence (or malice, depending who you ask) is a testament to how godawful they were at running the place. I would highly recommend James O'Neill's book/s on the "Nine Years War" in Ireland, or his writings on battles such as Yellow Ford.
>>18762999Some book suggestions for the points I am making:>Early Medieval Ireland (Matthew Stout)Why Ireland was the way it was, and how its quite unique society was enormously beneficial in some ways and enormously troublesome in others-the difficulty centralising and the vulnerability to foreign invasion by the Norse being two principle examples of the latter.>The Nine Years War, 1593-1603 (James O'Neill)Great book about how English administrative failures-made worse by extremely poor decision making in dealing with Irish vassals-lead to the birth of an early modern Irish military force that they were utterly unprepared to face. England's armies in Ireland were defeated outright several times, and in the eyes of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland brought England to the brink of total collapse in Ireland. Extremely interesting book for political history or military history fans, as its rife with both; O'Neill's time engaging with the English court before hostilities began are very interesting to read about.Books on the Irish Patriot movement aren't very common but any decent book that covers the 18th Century will mention it. "The Year of Liberty" (Thomas Pakenham) does a decent job of setting it up, so I'd recommend it. For those curious, it was basically;>Irish Parliament cucked by English Parliament since the medieval period>In the 1780s, Protestants-backed by Catholics who aren't able to participate in politics to the same level-decide to try reform Ireland>They believe Ireland should be a nation, in the British Empire, but self-governing and proud>They believe the pitting of Catholics+Protestants against each other is retarded>They threaten revolution if their reforms are not implemented, and gain limited successes>Ultimately get suppressed by Britain, those dissatisfied breakaway to form the more revolutionary French-inspired Republican movement
>>18760997Much of Ireland, particularly around Dublin, is basically flat. The English had to fight much harder battles against the Welsh in their hills. Things got so bad they had to build dikes just to stop the Welsh raids and offer a buffer for every time an English army had to retreat home. By the time they were done chewing through the Welsh they had learned everything they needed to know to defeat the Irish in a much easier terrain.Ireland itself was also very isolated. They traded with the Romans but it's unclear if they were able to adopt any advanced Roman technology in terms of shipbuilding. We know Irish pirates raided the British coast because St. Patrick was captured by from Wales. But the quality of Irish ships would not have been able to stop an English fleet. And toe to toe the English had more land and more lumber to build ships.
>>18761215George Boole was English, retard>Ireland had its fair share of scientific achievements in its history,No it doesn't that's the point. The Irish are some of the greatest warriors in the world (Irish Americans have earned half of all Medals of Honor ever awarded, the Irish companies served with great distinction in Afghanistan and India and Crimea during the British Empire) but they are not smart, broadly speaking
>>18761753Even if you limit yourself to the military history of the British army the Irish have no shortage of heroic episodes. It’s Irish regiments have long and storied histories in basically every conflict Britain ever fought since the act of Union. Even ignoring Wellington’s Anglo Irish origins, his armies in the peninsular war and at Waterloo were about one third Irish, more Irishmen fought for the British Army in WW1 than the combatants on both sides of Ireland’s war of independence combined, even the most famous British mercenary of modern times, Mike Hoare, was an Irishman. One thing British haters of the Irish and Irish nationalists are unanimous on, is conveniently ignoring Ireland’s history as part of the UK
Ireland was a giant swamp inhabited by throwbacks to the iron age. It was not relevant until the 18th century after decades of intensive farming and development by Anglo-Irish landlords which transformed the economy and the landscape from basically nothing to the export of beef, butter and wool and later wheat and indentured servants.
>>18763741Simon Mann>>>>Mike Hoare
Are the Irish white?
>>18760997A one minute talk with any will show you that the English did nothing wrong in regards to them.
>>18760997Because Ireland, like India, is a country that only really exists because the British took the nothing that was there and turned it into something. Arguably the Brits did better with Ireland than they did with India, but the Irish seem to be determined to destroy themselves as quickly as possible.
>>18763725>they had learned everything they needed to know to defeat the Irish in a much easier terrainNo idea where you got this idea, hostile terrain is what allowed the Irish most of the greatest successes against England, probably the single largest problem they faced in fact.>>18763759The "Ireland was...le backwards" meme was debunked as early as the 18th Century by historians loyal to English rule in Ireland. Ireland had extensive trade/political/religious ties to Britain and continental Europe long before the Kingdom of England even existed, anon. The "backwards" image is mostly just the fact that outside of monastic settlements there were no large market towns until the arrival of the Norse settlers. Ireland certainly wasn't rife with bustling metropolitan cities but the idea that a heavily boggy+forested island on the very far limit of the known world for centuries is perhaps not at the forefront of European civilisation isn't that big a surprise.>>18763767Yes, the only academic to ever really contest this was a Jewish American guy. Outside of Ireland itself, the Irish enjoyed positions in high society in many nations; Spain, Austria, Russia, France, and many new world colonies or the nations they became also had many Irish people in their governments/high positions in their army. >>18763829A stronger argument can be made that England turned what was in Ireland into nothing. There is only a single period of actual semi-competent governance by Britain in all of history and it was a brief period in the late 19th Century where they were forced to throw money at land reform-and even that was mostly just to try kill off the calls for self governance.It is very interesting that, as always, the people who seethe about this island the most almost never provide any sources for what they have to say.
>>18763741>Mike Hoare, was an Irishmanhe was an anglo irish protestant lmao, hoare is an anglo surname
irish nats on twitter are trying to claim the irish were a huge part of 18th century colonial america by cherrypicking a few irish surnames who are far dwarfed by anglo surnamesthey also larp and pretend the american south is le celtic and gaelicpeak delusion
>>18761215George Boole was from Lincoln. He has a statue here and everything.
>>18763741Yeah, there was that time they murdered the unarmed woman because she gave a soldier a cup of tea. Or that time they kidnapped a guy and chained him to a car with a bomb in it and said they'd kill his family if he didn't drive it at a British checkpoint. SO brave!
>>18764045>Discuss the history of Irishmen in the British military>whatabout the IRA tho Are you in love with the IRA? Can you think about anything else for 5 minutes?
>>18760997Something seems a little off about those anglos names but I can't quite put my finger on it
>>18763932>The "Ireland was...le backwards" meme was debunked as early as the 18th Century by historians loyal to English rule in Ireland. Ireland had extensive trade/political/religious ties to Britain and continental Europe long before the Kingdom of England even existed, anon. The "backwards" image is mostly just the fact that outside of monastic settlements there were no large market towns until the arrival of the Norse settlers.Ok... how does that not make it more backwards than England and France in of itself?Also define "large town", as far as I know it didn't even have small towns>is perhaps not at the forefront of European civilisation isn't that big a surprise.Yeah, it was backwards
>>18763932>A stronger argument can be made that England turned what was in Ireland into nothing. There is only a single period of actual semi-competent governance by Britain in all of history and it was a brief period in the late 19th Century where they were forced to throw money at land reform-and even that was mostly just to try kill off the calls for self governance.Irish population stagnated for the entire 1st millennium CE, it got cities through Vikings despite Vikings being relatively hostile newcomers, its population grew under Anglo-Norman rule, it grew under English rule and it industrialized under its rule.You are just coping
>The conclusion offered here, and it must perforce be an interim one, is that the second possibility is the most likely.>There is sufficient evidence to underpin a case that, structurally, Irish society could have supported primitive urbanization before the Anglo-Norman invasion.>A valuable if limited analysis has been advanced by Doherty but a sustained discussion of the relationships between marketing, defence and temple and the broader societal processes such as the emergence of incipient feudalism has yet to be developed.>Conceptually and empirically, the "extension hypothesis" cannot be sustained.>The evidence points to no more than a small number of primeval, immature solar central places, lacking any degree of hierarchical sophistication.>To designate points as "proto-urban" does not obviate this conclusion. It thus appears that after 1169 the Anglo-Normans encountered a form of urbanization which had not developed beyond a nascent state.>Hence, the development of an urban network only occurred after their invasion and colonization.>While the notion of the monastic town is a welcome advance, it is in an early state of development.>The limitations of the model must be carefully explicated, above all to avoid exaggeration and assumption which the exceedingly limited evidence cannot sustain.>The specificity of area which characterizes urban genesis in Ireland has yet to be adequately explained.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305748887800038Ireland did not have towns before the Normans, let alone the vikings
>Anthropologists have already provided a well-tested model for a preindustrial urban centre relying on a non-agrarian economy, where the population consists largely of manufacturers and/or merchants.>In Ireland what little trade existed before and during the Viking age was largely under royal control.>Irish monasteries had craftsmen but not an industrial economy.>Although there were monastic fairs and eventually market places at Irish monasteries, there is no evidence for a market economy at these monasteries.>what little trade existedvs>Ireland had extensive trade/political/religious ties to Britain and continental Europe long before the Kingdom of England even existed, anon.>While scholars of good intention have fostered the concept of the Irish 'monastic town', the time has come to admit that even though monasteries were involved in local trade and manufacturing in a limited way, they were not the 'hub of a redistributive system', 'proto-urban', nor any sort of 'town'.>While around a bare handful of ecclesiastical centres, mostly those under Anglo-Norman control, towns did develop, there is nothing to suggest that the urban centres were in any way 'monastic'.>The 'monastic town' is thus a misleading term that needs to be excised from our vocabulary in order to pursue more useful avenues of research. Ireland merely lacked "large towns" before Vikings, it totally had large towns by 1000 CE, LOL
>>18764200Source:https://www.jstor.org/stable/30007059
>>18764085They unironically did identify as English and were seen as English by the Irish
>>18764200>>18764200These sources are from over 30 years ago and as noted, openly state that one of the authors does not consider their conclusions to be the final answer.We know that Ireland had extensive religious+political ties (to contest this would border lunacy) so we'll focus on trade, which (while undeniably the least established of the 3 I mentioned) absolutely did exist. Many goods were highly sought after by Irish Kings from abroad, in particular things like>wine>pottery>olive oil>glassAnd among Ireland's exports were goods in abundance, like>butter>hidesThe main ports through which Irish merchants conducted their business were Nantes and Bordeaux, while the pre-viking towns from which Irish exports typically left were places like Trim or Buttevant. While the larger monastic towns like Armagh featured numerous structures of both stone and wood, there are also old as fuck settlements with hundreds of houses-often ringforts which simply didn't cease expanding, like at Bursselstown-which later became the home of the Uí Mail after a shrink in size through the centuries. As I said earlier ITT, these were not at the forefront of European civilisation but the idea that Ireland in the "iron age" as some silly anons have put it is a reach. You can read about this in the earlier mentioned work of Stout, or in Volume 1 of the Cambridge History of Ireland, or in the works of Edel Bhreathnach on Ireland and the Medieval World.The bottom line is that-as historians will confirm-Ireland was certainly "behind" but very far from totally backwards and even further from the hyperbole offered ITT.
>>18764183>Ok... how does that not make it more backwards than England and France in of itself?If you view somewhere being "backwards" as a binary on/off thing, then both England and France can be described as being backwards at various stages.As even the most introductory book will confirm (including some written by Anglophile historians from the peak of the penal laws), Ireland was in a correctly labelled "golden age" prior to the disruption brought by the Vikings. Towns were already d(albeit gradually) developing independently of them and existing trade/political/religious ties to the rest of Europe were strengthening. The "Viking Towns" such as Dublin did not thrive solely because of the Vikings but were instead heavily reliant on the Irish hinterlands to thrive, especially when the slave trade was disrupted by various Gaelic Kings intervening numerous times.Ireland had an incredibly advanced and universally applied system of law, it had its "magna carta" equivalent centuries prior. I would call it "behind" in a purely economic or "how developed was the land" sense, but certainly not backwards. You could certainly find areas where this may have seemed the case, but it's ludicrous to apply it island wide. It is one to (frankly, correctly) state that Ireland lacked the economic centres you'd find across much of the rest of Europe until the 9th Century onwards-but historians will correctly note that there are reasons for this, and none of them are due to any insufficient ability but more due to an insufficient need. It's another thing to do as some anons do and jump the shark to win some made up debate in their heads by "proving" that the Irish were eating rocks and shitting in each others mouths until the benevolent English (see: Normans, Tudors, Stuarts, etc) came along and saved them from themselves.A VERY good argument can be made for British rule being positive in Ireland-had they made several extremely different a non-retarded decisions.
>>18764608>we wuz kangs in a golden age before the vikings destroyed uswhy dont the english do this larp then
>>18764583>>18764608>please do not take the fact multiple scholars have consistently over the decades argued X over the fringe view Y, only take the fringe opinion as primaryNo I won't
>>18764583>but the idea that Ireland in the "iron age" as some silly anons have put it is a reach.True, La Tene had bigger towns than Ireland, it was actually bronze age
>>18762999When the modern age starts is a thing that might get claimed to begin when Cromwell creates the New Model Army
>>18764608>Towns were already d(albeit gradually) developing independently of them and existing trade/political/religious ties to the rest of Europe were strengthening.No there 0 towns before the Normans and certainly before the vikings, that's the modern historical consensus
>>18764731>please do not take the fact multiple scholars have consistently over the decades argued X over the fringe view Y, only take the fringe opinion as primaryIt isn't a fringe opinion, anon. The Cambridge History of Ireland isn't fringe. For decades (realistically, centuries) the Battle of Clontarf in 1014 was lauded as a tremendous victory of the Gaels over the Vikings-later evidence emerged showing Norse troops on both sides, cementing it as primarily a rebellion against Brian Boru backed by a wave of Norse invasions.Should we ditch that and return to Clontarf being a legendary Irish Nationalist symbol of victory because the new evidence doesn't support non-nationalist worldviews? As I said, Ireland was absolutely "behind" in regards to urban settlements but they existed, as did trade with the continent, as did political and religious ties to continental Europe (these were much stronger and older than the trade, however.)>>18764624I'm not English, anon. I have read that Northumbria was in a similar situation to Ireland but for differing reasons, but from what I've come across the "golden age" of Anglo-Saxon parts of Britain came post-vikings, not before them.>>18764744>before the normansnot at all true, kekked>before the vikingsthey were sparse and definitely the outliers (and were more religious than economic in purpose), but they existed. That the vast majority of the population didn't live in them does not exclude their existence. As I said earlier ITT, the fact that they weren't bustling metropolitan centres does not exclude them from being towns, as they categorically don't belong under the same label as scattered ringforts/crannogs/other rural dwellings of clans or tribes.
>>18765887As people have been (for no real reason) sceptical to accept Irish history books as a source, the sources I listed are cited in Chapter 4 of Vol 1. of the Cambridge History of Ireland. The crux of the matter is:>What few towns existed in Ireland were very sparse, and not considered the norm>They primarily grew around monastic settlements, or at the behest of a King heavily involved in trade with continental (as described in the Instructions of King Cormac, who's ships began to bring in so many goods that a small but rapidly growing harbour settlement grew to accommodate them)The book flatly states that the "traditional depiction of Ireland as an insular, pastoral, and reciprocal society only introduced to trade and the market by Viking towns" has by and large been debunked, although I'd argue that the towns that did exist were the exception not the rule. The underlying point of the matter is that those who would portray Ireland as a hopelessly backward and helplessly primitive island, particularly after 8th Century or so, are not suggesting so in good faith.
>>18765887>not at all true, kekkedThose are what most modern sources say on the topic that look at this specific issueIrish wewuzzing is so pathetic>they were sparse and definitely the outliersNo they were in fact not actually towns by any definition of the term as evidence by my sources>these were much stronger and older than the tradeBecause there was nearly 0 trade in fact, you lied.>The Cambridge History of Ireland isn't fringe"Topics covered will include the motivation for those first expeditions, the establishment of Ireland’s first towns""The early medieval world was very different. It was overwhelmingly rural. There were no towns in Ireland before the Norse arrived, and even on the eve of the Anglo- Norman invasion only a tiny percentage of the population lived in towns."This clearly states there were no towns before the Vikings, from your own sourceWhere does your quote actually come from?"The Cambridge History of Ireland Volume 1, 600-1550" this is where I lookedI don't know why my previous sources and this own disagree on viking era towns and trade, but regardless the idea of no pre-viking towns is a consensus that keeps getting reinforced
>>18766182>Irish wewuzzing is so patheticit is, they literally LARP and pretend american southerners are le irish gaelic celts when in reality they're almost 100% anglo
Same way they did all the other native tribes: they played them against each other. The British practiced this tactic on the Irish before they took it on a global tour.
>>18766239that's more of an ulster scots thing doe
>>18766271I love how they abridge the actual quote>"If all else fails, I will retreat up the valley of Virginia, plant my flag on the Blue Ridge, rally around the Scotch-Irish of that region and make my last stand for liberty amongst a people who will never submit to BRITISH TYRANNY whilst there is a man left to draw a trigger."
>>18766182>Irish wewuzzing is so patheticThis is what I mean; when you approach historical discussion from a perspective of needing to BTFO a group of people you don't like, it tends to be a waste of time engaging with you anon.>Because there was nearly 0 trade in fact, you lied.This isn't true at all. There absolutely was trade. It is quite well recorded in fact, its just that said trade was usually more driven by Kings than by a central market in Ireland-which makes sense as it was a cashless society. You listed this point yourself, in Valante's writings (which I have read, and written about years ago).>Where does your quote actually come from?Referring specifically to the Cambridge book, Máire Ní Mhaonaigh in the section "Lord and Subject" section and later Margaret Murphy's writing on the economy of early medieval Ireland.What I claimed in the post that has caused so much seethe is that fledging urban settlements around monastic towns (for lack of a better term for them) did indeed exists, even if they paled in comparison to typical medieval towns found on the continent. All of this-pointing out that political+trade+religious ties existed to continental Europe before the Vikings against the claim of many that Ireland was a backwater shithole of darkest hibernia-isn't beyond the Pale of what historians would suggest.If I should have said "fledging urban settlement" instead of "monastic town" then fair enough, anon. But given that I think you're mostly ITT to get some sort of epic win in a mental battle you're having with the Irish, I assume any response will be less than understanding.
>>18766271ulster unionists are kind of endearingly retarded though. they do nothing but get cucked and chimp out but I can't help but root for them
>>18766285>when you approach historical discussion from a perspective of needing to BTFO a group of people you don't likeWondering why the Irish are subjected to this. As a homo I'm quite used to this sort of treatment. Your posts have been interesting and informative, anon
>>18763932>A stronger argument can be made that England turned what was in Ireland into nothingYou can't turn something into nothing if it's never been anything.
>>18766285>This is what I mean; when you approach historical discussion from a perspective of needing to BTFO a group of people you don't like, it tends to be a waste of time engaging with you anon.No, the issue is your claim are not found in any of the major sources talking about this topic, you are straight up lying.And it's clear you are incredibly biased yourself, I'm not even Anglo in identity, ancestry or anything.Me recognizing that Irish people act like white niggers is not indicative of bias, it's indicative of how you act and end up being perceived by me.>Referring specifically to the Cambridge book, Máire Ní Mhaonaigh in the section "Lord and Subject" section Your quotes are not found there, all mentions of pre-viking towns is that they did not existMore quotes:> The division of Ireland between natives and Ostmen, between the north and west and the viking towns of the south and east, mirrored pre-conquest England’s division between Danelaw and West Saxon hegemony.>Yet even here, Wessex possessed an urban and administrative sophisticationunknown in Ireland>Wessex possessed an urban and administrative sophistication unknown in IrelandEven during the viking age Wessex remained more advance than Ireland. This is not Carolingian Italy or France, it's the direct neighbor of Ireland.
>>18766295Ireland on the whole has pretty good PR. You generally see occasional threads like this as a product of a particular kind of embittered, unhappy politically and ideologically invested British person. They don't even have to be super right wing, they could be voting labour, but its a British person who identifies with their country with a certain kind of energy. The particular resentment for Ireland definitely comes in large part from dissatisfaction with how history played out with Ireland itself, with the emergence of Irish nationalism and Irelands independence, with the Troubles not being sufficiently "punished" and the compromises of the Good Friday Agreement. But a huge part of it too is America's attitude to Ireland. No other western country has their colonial hangups rubbed in their face in such an offensive way. Because they have no dignity towards America. They are so consciously a subordinate vassal little brother begging for America's attention and favour, and they know it(and look, Ireland is too in a slightly different way, but Ireland didn't used to be the most powerful country in the world. It doesn't have that complex). And far more than not treating Ireland in a manner that is proportionate to how inferior and unimportant as they think it is relative to Britain, they clearly like it more. Imagine having absolutely no dignity and being willing to give anything for America's approval, and they like a country that you're already mad at and that "should" just be part of your country more. Not to mention the role America's favour played in it becoming independent and in having to negotiate your way out of the Troubles instead of crushing it and getting revenge.
stereotypes are no joke. the Irish lifestyle is based around drinking and fighting, not intellectual pursuits.
>>18761005when even Slavs have a strong intellectual culture. the Irish have nothing.
>>18766496no it's because you LARP >le irish americansliteral subhumans who have contributed nothing to america. ulster scots gave america everything yet taigs are trying to pretend they're fellow celtic gaels
>>18766496and it's quite funny pretending le brits are unhappy and obessed with ireland when in reality its the oppositetaigs are so obessesed with british people they go around vandalising postboxes in the dead of night
>>18766496most British people don't think about Ireland at all, some visit Brighton and think they're looking at the Atlantic Ocean
>>18760997>How was (much more advanced and populous power) able to btfo (small and less advanced power)
>>18766611That doesn't actually contradict that comment though
>>18766558> ulster scots gave america everything Irish Americans today: literally Joe Biden Scotch Irish Americans today: Appalachian meth victims
>>18766621Its all over the place to merit much of a response, like there's labour voters seething that the squaddies didn't kick the doors in in norn iron lol
>>18766496Bongs will seethe because this is too true
>>18766637>Irish Americans today: literally Joe Bidenlol he's half-French Huguenot and his surname is also French not Irish
>>18766611this and a shocking number of britbongs are not even aware that NI is British owned
>>18766637nta but>claiming the worst president in American historyBiden is an Anglo-Saxon surname. Legitimate white new englanders especially of his and Liz Warren's generation have some pathetic social pathology where they LARP as some sort of victim group. He may be Catholic or whatever but he's one of those cringe Americans who calls himself Irish and he's just genuinely not. Not ethnically, probably barely even genetically. I would not claim that faggot ever. t. Anglo btw
>>18766642Pretty sure Joe Biden goes around calling himself Irish
>>18766649All Irish Americans are Irish. Makes me kek that most of them are literally entitled to Irish citizenship because for some reason their existence makes Anglos mald
>>18766639Wasn't a response at all, just a sort of aimless response to a touched nerve I guess
>>18766649The worst President was Carter but we're not ready to have that conversation
>>18766659>over one in four (27%) Britons say Northern Ireland should seek reunification with Ireland, and an additional 36% say they don’t know. It appears there is significant disinterest amongst the British public regarding the future of Northern Ireland, as more than half of all Brits (54%) say they would not be bothered either way by the region leaving the UKBongs genuinely don't really care.
>>18766670Once again not contradicting what was actually said.
>>18766673Committed to this aren't we
>>18766674It'd certainly be we
>>18766637appalachian americans cleansed america from the wildneress while taigs in boston did literally nothing apart from work in docks
>>18760997Same way they destroyed other non-White primitives.
>>18766652He does, and he's proud of it.
could've just paid half the paddies a couple cows and a half bucket of poteen to kill the other half 2bh, why did they never think of that
>>18764045If I name two of the worst specific things the British Army ever did they won't be better than those.
>>18766642Biden is an Anglo-Saxon surname
