Re: Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

Someone else wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 05:39:33 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke.usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Someone else wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:55:43 -0700, Billy <wildbilly@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <68lse9F2u12jfU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>> Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. <homestud@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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,
>>>>
>>>> Oh so now you have gone and done it. You had to bring up the
>>>> conquest
>>>> and all the troubles that entails. There was a considerable 
>>>> amount
>>>> of
>>>> resistance to the idea of Irish property being requisitioned by 
>>>> the
>>>> English. You may have heard about it.
>>>
>>> The crime of taking property using force is, in law, called
>>> 'aggravated robbery'. Furthermore, the passing of time makes that
>>> property no less stolen.
>>
>> So you're saying that the Normans should give England back to the
>> Anglo Saxons?
>
> <cough>
>
> Practical difficulties there...rather obvious ones.
>
> Tell me though, are there still Norman Soldiers present on English
> soil?

Of course there are.  They're called the "British Army".

-- 
-- 
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)