At 06:32 AM 6/22/2002 -0700, you wrote: So far as the term "Scotch-Irish" goes this is an Americanism and not used >in the U. K. The late Michael O'Brien believed that it came about when >bigoted (for which read "anti-Catholic") descendants of Ulster Scots wanted >to distance themselves from any connection with the famine Irish who came >over in the 19th century. If this is true (O'Brien was a partisan who wrote >with some venom but was sometimes right) then the term "Scotch-Irish" would >be an insult to both the Irish and the Scots. I'll have to wait until I get the full printed paper, but I believe this is the "one man" I referred to in my earlier post who was noted as having erroneously proposed it having been an American invention and actively promoted its acceptance. The speaker suggested that he had an agenda of his own. > Billy Kennedy (an Irishman) >wrote an article in the current issue of BELLEFONTE and he uses >"Scots-Irish" or "Ulstermen." Being from Ireland he ought to know. The paper I heard was presented to group containing a sizeable contingent of scholars, more with Ph.D.s than without, from N. Ireland, mostly from Ulster. Not a word of rebuttal was heard from this group. In their own papers, they used the term Scotch-Irish. In the discussion period following, I commented that on this list that it was largely a practical matter. The only way to avoid getting into a debate with those supporting the "correctness" of the term Scots Irish (I have previously been among that quite vocal group!) was to use the term Scots Irish. I have previously been one of the more vocal in explaining that the more appropriate term to use was Scots Irish. My post was merely to report that I have learned better, and that those who prefer to continue to refer to themselves and others of their ilk as "Scotch Irish", that may do so comforted by the knowledge that the preponderance of use and evidence favors that historic usage. Those committed to the use of Scots Irish will not likely seriously consider this evidence and will likely continue to use the term for reasons of their own. The point I am making, is that if you have been told all your life that your people are Scotch Irish, there is no reason that you should not tell your children the same thing (and many good reasons that you should). If persons insist on calling your people Scots Irish when they are aware that you prefer the historic term Scotch Irish, it is reasonable to assume that their primary concern is something other than that of maintaining a dialogue and good continued relations with you. [I pointed out earlier that this same principle applies in the use of patriot/whig/rebel and loyalist/tory]. It might be your right to call a people by a name they do not prefer, but it is their right to think less of you for doing so. Another right involved is that of a people to call themselves by whatever name they choose for themselves, and not one chosen for them by others.

This is a great thread! John, I can't wait to see that paper. Murray, would you be willing to share a copy of the page from that McComb journal? I hope while we all continue a freindly dialog on this subject the semantics do not obscure the history that we are after. Scotch-Irish, Scots-Irish, Ulster Scot, Ulsterman, whatever, the real point is the story of a people who were planted on a foreign soil, dogged about until they moved again, carved a new nation out of a jungle, fought for their beliefs, persevered, struggled, lived, loved, and overcame. (I seem to be suddenly possessed by Cat Stevens). I use Scotch-Irish, Scots-Irish, and Ulster Scot at different times but the historical story above is what it all really means to me. That having been said it looks like this thread will teach me the most important lesson - more about what it meant to THEM! David Armstrong 201 Graham St Elkins, WV 26241 Ph (304)-636-3964 ----- Original Message ----- From: John Robertson <jr@jrshelby.com> To: <AMERICAN-REVOLUTION-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 2:10 PM Subject: Re: [A-REV] Scots-Irish > At 06:32 AM 6/22/2002 -0700, you wrote: > So far as the term "Scotch-Irish" goes this is an Americanism and not used > >in the U. K. The late Michael O'Brien believed that it came about when > >bigoted (for which read "anti-Catholic") descendants of Ulster Scots wanted > >to distance themselves from any connection with the famine Irish who came > >over in the 19th century. If this is true (O'Brien was a partisan who wrote > >with some venom but was sometimes right) then the term "Scotch-Irish" would > >be an insult to both the Irish and the Scots. > > I'll have to wait until I get the full printed paper, but I believe this is > the "one man" > I referred to in my earlier post who was noted as having erroneously > proposed it having been > an American invention and actively promoted its acceptance. The speaker > suggested that he had an agenda of his own. > > > Billy Kennedy (an Irishman) > >wrote an article in the current issue of BELLEFONTE and he uses > >"Scots-Irish" or "Ulstermen." Being from Ireland he ought to know. > > The paper I heard was presented to group containing a sizeable contingent > of scholars, more with Ph.D.s than without, from N. Ireland, mostly from > Ulster. Not a word of rebuttal was > heard from this group. In their own papers, they used the term Scotch-Irish. > > In the discussion period following, I commented that on this list that it was > largely a practical matter. The only way to avoid getting into a debate with > those supporting the "correctness" of the term Scots Irish (I have > previously been > among that quite vocal group!) was to use the term Scots Irish. > > I have previously been one of the more vocal in explaining that the more > appropriate term to use was Scots Irish. My post was merely to report that > I have > learned better, and that those who prefer to continue to refer to > themselves and > others of their ilk as "Scotch Irish", that may do so comforted by the > knowledge > that the preponderance of use and evidence favors that historic usage. > > Those committed to the use of Scots Irish will not likely seriously consider > this evidence and will likely continue to use the term for reasons > of their own. > > The point I am making, is that if you have been told all your life that > your people > are Scotch Irish, there is no reason that you should not tell your children the > same thing (and many good reasons that you should). If persons insist on > calling your people > Scots Irish when they are aware that you prefer the historic term Scotch > Irish, it is > reasonable to assume that their primary concern is something other than that > of maintaining a dialogue and good continued relations with you. [I > pointed out > earlier that this same principle applies in the use of patriot/whig/rebel > and loyalist/tory]. > It might be your right to call a people by a name they do not prefer, but > it is their > right to think less of you for doing so. Another right involved is that of > a people to > call themselves by whatever name they choose for themselves, and not one > chosen for them by others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== AMERICAN-REVOLUTION Mailing List ==== > > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 >