Someone else wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:17:17 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke.usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
>>> Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
>>>> Someone else wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl <jl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <68johfF2thkejU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>>>> Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. <homestud@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>> Someone else wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" <ask@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
be
>>>>>>>> given>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest
>>>>> cover
>>>>> please see:
>>>>>
>>>>> www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> "The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow.
>>>>> About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the
>>>>> birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed
>>>>> by
>>>>> a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly,
>>>>> ash, beech, hornbeam and maple."
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had
>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>> to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over
>>>>>>> harvesting
>>>>>>> of trees were the main causes of the deforestation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting?
>>>>
>>>> NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own,
>>>> but
>>>> also im****ted any woods for ****p building mostly from
>>>> Scandinavia.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for
>>>>>> charcoal
>>>>>> and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was
>>>>>> available
>>>>>> of course - but only after the forests had made room for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it was always available...
>>>>
>>>> Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is
>>>>>> surprising that any trees survived at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Manufacturing, farming, and the
>>>>>>> monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main
>>>>>>> causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the
>>>>>>> British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish
>>>>> forests
>>>>> to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada.
>>>
>>> Nonsense! : See
>>>
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/S2003/jessiewhit/deforestation.html
>>
>> Which, among other things, says "The deforestation effects of
>> increased ****pbuilding was most visible in the change of Great
>> Britain’s landscape during the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries.
>> Those who traveled across Ireland at this time re****ted that one
>> could ride all day and not see a single tree, an image that
>> contrasts sharply with
>> the carpet of trees that covered the area only centuries before
>> (Brown, Terry)."
>>
>> So I guess your own source is spouting "nonsense".
>
> Reread what you've just posted.
What do you think I'm going to find there?
>>>>> http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the
>>>>> peak
>>>>> British armada years where much of it was cut down for making
>>>>> ****ps."
>>>>>
>>>>> and, interestingly,
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later
>>>>> plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance
>>>>> one
>>>>> of
>>>>> his expeditions."
>>>
>>> So? If the estates were his, then he had every right to do as he
>>> pleased.
>
> Only in the sense of a 'Conqueror's right'...of course stolen
> property
> remains stolen property even if it was taken as the spoils of war
> and
> in no way guarantees that that property will remain in their
> control....
Estates were given to him by the Queen. I'm sorry, but Raleigh didn't
"conquer" them. If you have a problem it's with the Queen, not with
Raleigh.
>>> In any case, how many ****ps?
>
> No idea.
>
>>> Possibly two at most?
>
> How can you make that claim? What evidence do you have?
>
>>> Not a lot of Oak involved in that.Why do you isist on being such
>>> a
>>> begrudger against the English?
>
> I begrudge them their invasion and occupation of Ireland. It has
> stunted Ireland's development as a sovereign nation for
> centuries...happily this is finally coming to an end...
>
>> You're the one turning "British" into "English".
>
> People quibble about that...it is true though that at 1588 it was
> only
> England and not Britain that was doing the fighting.
What does 1588 have to do with anything?
>>> After all, without England, Ireland would not
>>> have progressed past the Iron age.
>
> Ireland has
>
>>> Technology, smelting iron, using wood for that?
>
> Of course...Celts were the first western Europeans to have damascene
> steel...
>
>>> The largest industry in Wicklow for many a long year
>>> was Forestry. Nothing to do with the English.
>
> I'm not disagreeing but I'm interested in your justification for
> that
> claim.
>
>> So what did they do with the wood?
>>
>>>>> "He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund
>>>>> his
>>>>> expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in
>>>>> English outposts."
>>>
>>> Your source?
>
> http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html
>
> Bibliography
>
> 1. Lacey, Robert, Sir Walter Ralegh, Atheneum, New York, 1974
> 2. Pollard, A.F., The Political History of England, Greenwood Press
> Publishers, New York,1969
> 3. Rodriguez-Salgado, M.J., England, Spain and The Gran Armada,
> Barnes
> and Nobel Books,Savage Maryland, 1990
> 4. www.devon-cc.gov.uk/tourism/pages/woodbury/raleigh.html
> Sir Walter Raleigh, of Hayes Barton
> 5. Sale, Kirkpatrick, The Conquest of Paradise, First Plume
> Printing,
> New York, 1990
>
>
>>>>>>> Britain had more than enough
>>>>>>> forests of her own to build all the ****ps she wished!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut
>>>>> down the trees of Ireland.
>>>
>>> Bull****. Over simplification and merely your own unsup****ted
>>> opinion. See:
>>>
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/S2003/jessiewhit/deforestation.html
>
>> Which sup****ts his view, not yours.
>
> Right.
>
>>>>>> As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> the Baltic countries
>>>>>
>>>>> What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia?
>>>>>
>>>>> For the ****ps that fought the Spanish Armada?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the
>>>>> trees
>>>>> in nearby Ireland?
>>>>>
>>>>>> - that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in
>>>>>> various history books.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which ones precisely?
>>>
>>> Maybe you should use Google Nik, everyone else seems to!
>>>
>>> ROTFL
>>
>> You really should read your own sources in their entirety before
>> using them to refute the statements of others.
>
> Like I've said, on a number of occasions, Merrick is an idiot who
> has
> no compunction when it comes to ignoring basic logical truths, sad
> but
> true.
>
> Nik
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure
> Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com
The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
> Encryption
> =----
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|
