What would America had been like if it was established by the Irish Catholics instead of the English Protestants?

What would America had been like if it was established by the Irish Catholics instead of the English Protestants?

Shit

Everyone in the world would dress like this and I'd be absolutely fine with it

don't see nearly enough men in yoga pants these days.
tis a shame

our "fundamentalists" would pretty much be the self-aware trolls we have today.
and they'd hopefully laugh about it instead of being serious.

but this is only based off of a stereotypical understanding of what ancient irishmen were like based off of a few viewings of Braveheart.

>Braveheart
>ancient
>Irish
what

Everything would be potatoes.

it wouldn't be a zionist puppet

there was that guy who said he owned all of ireland.

brought some of his boys to wallaces fight.

The America we know could not have happened with Irish Papists. Romanist slave mentality would have never allowed the flourishing of a self-reliant, independent movement which swept the American colonies.

America would have probably remained an exploited colony until the potatoes started throwing bombs when the technology would have become available. Ultimately, Britain would get bored ruling over the potatoes and let them go, British Protestants would retain a small portion of land and separate from the papists.

Is being the Pope's puppet that much better though?

It would be more like Canada

you guys really overestimate the actual influence the pope has over catholics

The leading intellectuals of the American Revolution were Scots. The Irish zoomed ahead of the UK in economic development once freed from a nation which only ruled them due to extreme advantage in numbers.

Scottish and Irish mercenaries were highly desired in the 30 Years War due to their discipline.

Western Germany also is by far the most advanced region.

Since the mid-1800s, the time America became a great power, the largest ethnic groups were Irish and German.

Simply put, Celtic genetics are superior and a US that had been more Celtic from the beginning would be superior.

The best parts of Germany and France are those with the most Celtic influence.

Celts also bested the Romans in warfare and organization time and time again. A truly fantastic people.

Fuck off Anglo scum.

>were literally genocided by Caesar because were not disciplined enough to hold a line
This is what 1/8th irish muh heritage fags actually believe

Braveheart is about Scots.

It would be Argentina, which is basically Catholic USA.

Expect more Italian, Spanish, Irish, Welsh, Polish and French immigrants than what America got IRL, with a significant German population but slightly smaller than IRL, and small Anglo populations peppered throughout.

Official language would still be English, and ironically a Catholic USA would end up being a LESS religious country by 2018 than in real life.

With no puritan traditions to draw from, the secular wave of the 1960s hits America harder, and it's social attitudes to religion would resemble those of other Western Catholic countries.

>germanics didn't best the romans in war
>germanics weren't employed as soldiers and mercenaries by rome
laffin at u pal

>Official language would still be English, and ironically a Catholic USA would end up being a LESS religious country by 2018 than in real life.

This is false, catholic countries are more religious

I thought those were nomads for a sec wtf

No.

All rich nations tend to be less religious than poor ones. Yet, among rich countries the USA stands alone for its embrace of religion.

All First World, Catholic countries are less religious than the USA.

See pic and map here

until potatos were brought over, irish were basically sedentary nomads

Definitely. How is that a question?
People who have an issue with Zionist control, have a problem with the money oriented goal of Zionists and their desire to subjugate everyone else.
The pope is the complete opposite of that.

Varg always says Catholics are 99% pagan

That's because of the "prosperity gospel" churches that have corrupted Christianity in the US.

Varg’s a tard, in general. Best not to pay him any mind

That's probably because of all the blacks and the people who live in the south or rural areas.

Wow. I guess the part where Jesus said “You cannot serve two masters” referring to God and money, applies here

Medieval and Early Modern Irish people were semi-nomadic for the most part

Basically the same except 0% instead of 56%

Condoms would be illegal, prohibition would have never happened, big ass tax, etc

Abortion would also be illegal.
Would weed be legal?

Gets taken over by the French.

Paradise

Heaven on earth desu

yes, but there is the one Irish character (stephen, pic related) who fought alongside wallace against the english, he got some Irish peasants to fight too I think.

since when did "religious importance" become a measurable statisic?

Less french fries

>Be colonial Amerimutt
>get told to pay your share of taxes just like other Englishmen
>chimp out, destroy property and terrorize loyalists
>Muh Freedumb

Yeah that's totally what happened Nigel

I wonder how Irish dress would've changed with the colder and hotter climates of the Americas. Would they have started wearing pants?

>no shoes

That is what happened actually. Taxes went up after the Brits packed it up and rolled out.

>taxes go up because a fledgling government needs money after the British left
>this somehow means the American Revolution was because Americans didn't want to pay taxes
what

>NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
>throw stacks of pack tea over ships
>it turns out representation costs a fuckton
>has to disband entire navy
>break it's Anglo tradition instead of preserving the empire

Where did we go right?

Pretty dumb reasoning desu. Jesus wasn't the best philosopher.

What the fuck are you even saying? You just admitted the American Revolution was about representation and not taxation.

>Jesus wasn't the best philosopher

I'd say so. What he was mentioning was only one of NT clips too. It's in line with his foundation.

>bitch about the stamp act
>bitch about the sugar tax
>"but we didn't care about the taxes user!"

Okay. Right. You're not very good at arguing, or google.

They were forced to pay taxes without having any representation in Parliament, that was the primary grievance of all the founding fathers. The taxes going up after the Revolution proves that people cared about representation, not taxation itself. Is this the power of Yuro education?

No

>The taxes going up after the Revolution proves that people cared about representation, not taxation itself

I'm American. And no it doesn't prove that at all. We literally had Shay's rebellion right afterward because we were taxing people too hard. FFS learn our own history before you post using the dumbest non-arguments. Basic facts man. I wasn't prepared for this kind of ignorant today.

The pagan Celts were declawed and defanged by Roman Catholicism. A truly slavish people.

First of all, Shay's Rebellion only consisted of around 4,000 people. Secondly, this doesn't disprove that the primary gripe the revolutionaries had was taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION, not taxation itself.

What's your point, anyway? We should've just stayed in the Empire even though we utterly outclass modern Commonwealth countries today?

>"only consisted of around 4,000 people"
>The entire continental army was only about 20k
>literally 20% the force the size that beat Britain is now turning on us after we deactivated the militias and army units
>user thinks the 4k means nothing
>these people just fought a war and are trying to war again

>What's your point, anyway?

Because when people revolted solely because of taxes being too high right after the revolutionary war, you think it somehow had nothing to do with said taxes. Either you don't have an IQ over 80 or you're just baiting for (yous). Do you think Shay's rebels were all loyalists?

>We should've just stayed in the Empire even though we utterly outclass modern Commonwealth countries today

Imagine the size of the empire if we were there to keep it together. The things we could do. The things we would have but lost.

We dominate the world. We are way more powerful than the British Empire was at the time of the American Revolution. We have managed to put military bases in first-world, relevant countries that aren't populated by tribals who still use spears, and the United States is the primary driving force behind popular culture all over the world. What the fuck are you on about?

What's so great about shoes?

>What the fuck are you on about?

Okay, so imagine all that, compounded with the rest of the commonwealth. Actually, don't bother responding. No IQ's under 90.

So Britain dominates the world and we get arrested for saying mean things about gays online?

user you shouldnt be in a history board if all you want to do is self jerk your perception of modern geopolitics

>we get arrested for saying mean things about gays online?

M-maybe I didn't think this through. I've lived long enough to see myself become the brainlet.

Name one country that has as much of an effect on the pop culture of the West than the US. Do it now.

His whole point is that you're getting off the topic of history, and you keep bringing up points you feel you can win. Of course you're American so you're going to say America. Anyone with a brain stem would point out pop culture has little do with his. Or anything at all outside /v/ and so on. You proved his point with the dumbest post you could've crafted.

That's because this autistic fantasizing about the British Empire brought it up first.

im not even that user you were arguing with, just calling you out because you clearly dont belong here

Japan

Your reading comprehension is awfully poor for someone having received such a supposedly good education. This guy went off on a tirade composed entirely of lies about the American Revolution, and then said we would've been better off if we stayed in the Empire. I pointed out that the US is very powerful as to prove that we probably wouldn't have been better off. Then this other guy said I was jerking off to a "perception" and I asked him to challenge that perception.

But never mind all that, I'm sure another Amerigoblin will prove that you're right and I'm wrong. Clearly my discussion of a historical event and a potential scenario if that event had not occurred doesn't belong here while garbage /int/ memes do. This board has really gone down the shitter.

>This guy went off on a tirade composed entirely of lies about the American Revolution
as someone who hasnt read up on american history, it looks like you were the one who didnt understand the significance of shays rebellion user, or any of the relevant details
>and then said we would've been better off if we stayed in the Empire
that is a very broad and open question that can be answered any number of ways through a cultural, economic, military, humanitarian perspective etc. for instance i could argue that america staying in the commonwealth would be more beneficial for general human happiness and utility as slaves would have been freed earlier(the point is that this is such a large stupid question that it is not worth arguing about). you are not necessarily wrong, however the way you argued it is very weak as you seem to think that an american film industry(as a representation of 'pop culture') wouldnt develop if america was still in the commonwealth(?), and that the american film/culture in general has been beneficial to the worlds development(another broad question which is far outside the scope of a Veeky Forums thread)
in general you seem to not be very suited to a the mental processes required to properly contribute to a history board

I didn't say Shay's Rebellion was insignificant, because it was instrumental in the shaping of the Constitution, but the fact that Shay's Rebellion happened doesn't disprove the fact that the Revolution was fought over representation and not taxation, which was the point I was trying to get across before this thread turned into whatever the fuck it is now.

You can't really make a strong argument when you're arguing alternate history. It's fantasy, anything could've happened and we have no idea. I just highly doubt the US would've developed into the cultural and geopolitical powerhouse it is today if the colonies were kept in the Empire

But clearly the guy who is making assertions about a topic he hasn't read about is more "qualified" to post about history on a mandarin finger-painting message board than I am.

i have not made any claims to the specifics of the american revolution or shays rebellion user, as that is not my field of study
what i have said is that from a historiography standpoint you are really dense and have issues making properly supported claims. Both in the sense of lack of sources and/or knowledge of details, but also a general lack of sound logic. These are very key skills

>potentially interesting thread with novel premise
>gets dominated by two autists having a back and forth about American history that nobody gives a fuck about

>i did not make any claims
>claims that I downplayed the importance of Shay's Rebellion
>making properly supported claims about a literal fantasy
I'm fucking done, you're too retarded for me to argue with. I'm very sorry to anyone who was talking about the original subject matter for engaging in this pitiful excuse of a "discussion".

Good post

Mexico