The Emerald Isle Blueprint for Turtle Island

The English claimed that they had a God-given responsibility to “inhabit and reform “so barbarous a nation” . No they were not talking about Aboriginal peoples living on Turtle Island.

It was the ‘Irish’ the Crown was referring to.

The Crown would teach them to obey English laws and to stop “robbing and stealing and killing” one another. They would uplift this “most filthy people, utterly enveloped in vices, most untutored of all peoples in the rudiments of faith.”

The English colonizers established a two-tiered social structure. According to sixteenth-century English law, “every Irishman shall be forbidden to wear English apparel or weapon upon pain of death. That no Irishman, born of Irish race and brought up Irish, shall purchase land, bear office, be chosen of any jury or admitted witness in any real or personal action.” To reinforce this social separation, British laws prohibited marriages between the Irish and the colonizers. The new world order was to be one of English over Irish.(


The Statutes of Kilkenny
The Statutes of Kilkenney ultimately helped to create the complete estrangement of the two “races” in Ireland for almost three centuries.
Other statutes required that the English in Ireland be governed by English common law, instead of the Irish March law or Brehon law and ensured the separation of the Irish and English churches by requiring that “no Irishman of the nations of the Irish be admitted into any cathedral or collegiate church … amongst the English of the land”.

It also forbade the settlers using the Irish language and adopting Irish modes of dress or other customs. Sound familiar?
The Crown was keeping everyone compartmentalized so that people wouldn’t get to close, mix, and forget who they owed their loyalties too. The authorities did not want them to learn from one another.


Nature vs. Nurture Argument


Thus, although they saw the Irish as savages and although they sometimes described this savagery as “natural” and “innate,” the English believed that the Irish could be civilized, improved through what Shakespeare called “nurture.” In short, the difference between the Irish and the English was a matter of culture.



The phrase nature and nurture relates to the relative importance of an individual’s innate qualities (“nature” in the sense of nativism or innatism) as compared to an individual’s personal experiences (“nurture” in the sense of empiricism or behaviourism) in causing individual differences, especially in behavioral traits.

The alliterative expression “nature and nurture” in English has been in use since at least the Elizabethan period.

This nature/nurture thinking is demonstrated in Shakespeare’s play ‘The Tempest.”


Origins in Plato


Teaching on social determinism and the need and usefulness of  applying  “nurture” to “correct” nature were also drawn from Plato. These approaches are found in his work “Protagoras.”


Zoology & The Tree of Life


We are talking about man who has become long distanced from the light of the Tree of Life trying. Out of this light he begins to apply his systems of categorization  (a form of ‘zoology’ in effect) on himself and on other people .

In plain English colonization of Turtle Island was not about an instruction from Jesus Christ; yet Christianese was hired to serve a purpose in the conquest.

Instead it is about “man trying to be god over other men in place of God.” It is about God replacement. Said differently, ignoring that people are made in the image of God . Denying the image of God is to be in the gravity of the spirit of anti-christ.


Model for Indian Act
The model for the Indian Act and Treaty System used on Indigenous peoples in the United States and Canada had its more immediate origins with Crown policy on the Emerald Isle (Ireland).
In short there was a Department of Indian Affairs and an Indian Act at work long before Europeans were using these bureaus for drawing up treaties with Aboriginal peoples on Turtle Island.


From Ireland to America

As their frontier advanced from Ireland to America, the Crown began making comparisons between the Irish and the Indian “savages” and wondering whether there might be different kinds of “savagery.”





“The Statutes of Kilkenny”, p.792

David B. Quinn, The Elizabethans and the Irish (Ithaca, 1966), 161;

Francis Jennings, The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest (New York, 1976)

James Muldoon, “The Indian as Irishman,” Essex Institute Historical Collections, 111 (Oct. 1975), 269; Quinn, Elizabethans and the Irish, 76.

5 Muldoon, “Indian as Irishman,” 284; Quinn, Elizabethans and the Irish, 108.

6 Canny, “Ideology of English Colonization,” 593, 582; Jennings, Invasion of America, 153; Frederickson, White Supremacy, 15; Quinn, Elizabethans and the Irish, 132-33.

7 Canny, “Ideology of English Colonization,” 582; Jennings, Invasion of America, 168; Quinn, Elizabethans and the Irish, 44.

8 Canny, “Ideology of English Colonization,” 588; Jennings, Invasion of America, 46, 49; Quinn, Elizabethans and the Irish, 76; Shakespeare, Tempest, ed. Wright and Lamar, 70.

9 Quinn, Elizabethans and the Irish, 121; William Christie MacLeod, “Celt and Indian: Britain’s Old World Frontier in Relation to the New,” in Beyond the Frontier: Social Process and Cultural Change, ed. Paul Bohannan and Fred Plog (Garden City, 1967), 38-39

8 Canny, “Ideology of English Colonization,” 588; Jennings, Invasion of America, 46, 49; Quinn, Elizabethans and the Irish, 76; Shakespeare, Tempest, ed. Wright and Lamar, 70.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: