Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Was the Irish famine a famine or genocide
Options
Comments
-
-
I don't see the joke here.
I do, and think it's funny.:D Rather Mylesian, in the vein of 'Ireland, mother Ireland, you're rar'in 'em yet'
The remark on fishing by StoppingPower is so profoundly ignorant I initially did not bother to reply. It is very clear to anyone who has read any book on the Famine that there were many fishermen all along the West and South coasts, that their basic craft - the currach - was unsuitable, that they did not have suitable fishing gear (and those few that did had already pawned it for seed potatoes). Currachs were suitable only for inshore fishing, with handlines.
- just to quote a few bits from 'The Great Hunger' by C Woodham Smith pp. 289-93
on adverse weather conditions -
The curraghs and small fishing-boats of the Irish were "powerless in these circumstances"; and an inspector reporting from Skibbereen, wrote that the failure of Irish fisheries was due to the want of boats suitable for deep-sea fishing, "though this coast and the coast of Kerry abound with the finest fish in the world".
On selling fish -
.........In 1847 there were no railways in the west of Ireland and no means of refrigeration; even if great quantities of fish had been caught they could not have been sold. In Galway, when the catch was plentiful, the market was piled with unwanted fish, tons lay everywhere, producing "the most disgusting effluvia".
And before it is mentioned, fish could not be salted because the fishermen did not have the capital to buy salt.
And as for the 'proddies' and other 'heathen' Brits :rolleyes:-
The Society of Friends, through local committees, gave substantial help to a number of fishing communities. In Arklow, for instance, the Vicar estimated that 161 families were kept alive through the winter of 1847 because the Friends had lent them money to redeem their boats and nets; the Ring fishermen were restored to a condition of being able to support themselves without seeking Poor Law relief, and the Claddagh men, in addition to being lent money, were provisioned so that they could remain at sea for several days and given warm clothing.
Fishing stations were established by the Society of Friends at Ballinakill Bay, near Clifden in Galway, Achill Sound in Mayo, and Belmullet in Erris, where a fleet made up of ten curraghs and other boats fully equipped with nets, lines and all gear was provided at a cost of 300 pounds. At Castletown Berehaven, in west Cork, a fish curing establishment was set up, as well as a fishing station, and a trawler, Erne, hired for six months at 45 pounds a month, to accompany rowing-boats and curraghs to the fishing -grounds. In addition, six fish -curing stations were established by the British Government, at which was purchased at a fair price, and experience fish curers were brought from Scotland to teach their trade.
I've also heard a hypothesis ( I have not researched this) that the main fish stocks unfortunately moved out into deeper water - to the 40 fathom line - during Famine years, a result of a sort of Irish 'El Nino' effect which coincided with Famine years, so even if the gear was not pawned, the fishing grounds were too far out for frail currachs.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »the penal laws applied to Catholics and applied to all Catholics, it didn't matter if they were Irish, English or Mongolian.
Also, Catholics were forbidden to teach, not to be taught. But if you were poor it didn't matter if you were catholic, presbytarian or Muslim, you had no ability to teach, be taught, vote or any other rights we have today.
I don't want to deviate, but both you and I know there was no way Catholics, Irish Catholics could not have easily gotten out of their situation. One of the most succesful 18thC catholics Daniel O'Connel was a landlord and may have been the leading member of the irish bar had he not been blocked by the strong Protestant Ascendancy, frequently placed in the hands of men of inferior ability such as William Saurin. You can not argue that institutionalised sectarianism ment that Catholics could not escape their situation. Even the greatest of them had huge obstacles placed in their way.0 -
I don't want to deviate, but both you and I know there was no way Catholics, Irish Catholics could not have easily gotten out of their situation. One of the most succesful 18thC catholics Daniel O'Connel was a landlord and may have been the leading member of the irish bar had he not been blocked by the strong Protestant Ascendancy, frequently placed in the hands of men of inferior ability such as William Saurin. You can not argue that institutionalised sectarianism ment that Catholics could not escape their situation. Even the greatest of them had huge obstacles placed in their way.
No one is arguing that there was no institutionalised sectarianism. What is being disputed is that existed only in Ireland and only against Catholics.
There was an official State religion - all who did not belong to that religion were discriminated against under the Penal Laws regardless of whether they were Irish, English, Scots or Welsh.
BTW - another fact - reform of the Penal Laws began in 1778 -full emancipation was granted to Catholics in 1829 - so the Penal Laws had been repealed long before the Famine. http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/The_campaign_for_Catholic_Emancipation_1823ndash1829. There existed no legal barrier to a Catholic holding any office - except Monarch.
Their religion did not prevent the O'Connells from being very wealthy, nor did it prevent Daniel O'C from being well educated. Nor did it prevent him from being called to the Bar.
http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Daniel_OConnellDaniel O’Connell was born on 6 August 1775, in Carhan near Cahirciveen, Co. Kerry. The O’Connells were a wealthy landed family. O’Connell spent much of his early life with his uncle, Maurice, at Derrynane House near Waterville, Co. Kerry. He was educated at a small boarding school near Cork and later he attended Saint-Omer (1791–2) and Douai (1792–3), two of the best Catholic schools in France. There he witnessed the turmoil of the French Revolution which left him with a lifelong abhorrence of violence for political ends. In 1794 O’Connell enrolled in Lincoln’s Inn, London, and two years later transferred to the King’s Inns, Dublin, to study law...O’Connell was called to the Irish Bar in 1798
A Presbyterian or Methodist would have faced exactly the same problems as O'Connell.
Were no members of the Anglican Ascendency Irish? Not even the O'Briens of Dromoland?
Do you really believe there were no Catholic professional class? That every single doctor, lawyer, teacher etc in Ireland was Anglican? Then who taught in the Catholic boarding school O'Connell went to near Cork?
Some Irish Catholic families were even wealthy enough to send their daughters to France for an education - such as the Nagle's of Cork.
Nano Nagle not only founded the Presentation Sisters in Cork in 1775, she had also persuaded the Ursuline Sisters to open a girl's school in 1771.
The Christian Brother's opened their first school in Ireland in 1802 - where did their pupils come from?
1808 saw the formation of the Presentation Brothers - who were their pupils? Were there really enough well to do Catholics to be able to support both the Christian and Presentation Brothers? Apparently there were.
Not all Irish Catholics were reduced to living on a scrap of land dependent only on the potato. Even if half of the population was in that dire state - that still left 4 million who weren't. They were well to to farmers - as my own family on both sides were in Cork and Kerry. Or they were bakers, shop keepers, butchers, grocers, tobacconists, or even landlords.
Not for a second am I going to say the Famine wasn't the most appalling waste of human lives - lives that did not need to be lost as the resources were there to deal with the problem. Lives that were needlessly wasted and destroyed by a combination of political ideology, greed, indifference and snobbery.
What I will dispute is this notion that the entire population of Ireland was starving - they weren't. The Catholic peasants were starving and many Middle Class Irish Catholics turned their backs on them.
I will also dispute statements that the Penal Laws were aimed only at Irish Catholics because it simply is not true and to maintain it is is to twist the facts to suit a particular ideology - that of Catholic-Nationalist pseudo-history.0 -
stopping power wrote: »From all i have read about the famine in my own opinion is that the british controlled food in Ireland for their own gain. Irish couldnt even fish their own waters or own land or have education.
Irish tenants worked on irish lands owned by british land lords just to acquire a patch of ground to grow potatoes.
So they were forced to live on potatoes, when the blight came they had very little other options.
The british law enforced on the Irish, the PENAL LAW restricted the Irish from doing many things that are necessary in order to succeed and prosper in life.
Irish exports of livestock actually increased during the famine. The food was shipped under guard.
Who ever thinks Ireland was covered in nothing but potatoes and nothing else grew here is a complete and utter moron and deluded.
The potato famine is just a way for the british to hide the real facts of the famine. It was part of the cause in one way, but if the brits didnt have control of the Irish lands, the Irish would never starve........ I laugh when I see them (british) write about the poor Irish, why didnt we help them and give them food, they dont realise that it was them who took our food.
It wasn't that potatoes were the only food, but rather that they were consumed by the poor quite often as the potato mixed with milk was considered a staple diet. People relied on the potato. Not every person had livestock and certainly poor tenants had very little and very often what livestock families had was sold and sadly even stolen by neighbours during the famine.
I really do agree that the British had a huge part to play, but i do consider it poor form for anyone to suggest it was genocide. I hold the British responsible for a great deal more harm after the famine regarding our independence but the famine is highly sketchy when there were so many factors involved in the tragedy. Neglect is the true word here by the British. I revert back to the saying, "the poor mans burden," when you look at the other countries that the British empire invaded and took over, the native people towards the end became a burden and the empire failed to care for the countries they had invaded in the first place. Different topic for another thread but Ireland was no different during the famine. In response to your post "stopping power" I actually read as well about the intent of the British to control food and I do agree somewhat, I read an article somewhere of how Ireland's population had become problematic with many poor people unemployed and hungry. It did suggest that the early days of the famine were seen as a solution up until it became epidemic and disease was rampant.
For anyone whose very interested on the landlords involved in the famine, they should read up on Strokestown in Roscommon, really interesting on what happened there when evictions took place and also less well known landlord who was considered a wonderful landlord The Moores of Moore Hall in County Mayo. There isn't much material for non academic historians or students outside of the libraries or universities unless you have access to such archives, but his son wrote a wonderful book about his father George Henry Moore and his political and social life during the famine and afterwards. I found it very balancing and interesting. One of his sons was of course the famous George Moore and the history of Moore Hall as an estate that never lost a single tenant during the famine is incredible and not publicised at all. This was a family who were at the very core educated and brought up in British upper class standards in the Uk but at the end of the day were born Irish and proud. Sadly after the civil war, their home was burnt down by anti treaty men who believed the family were connected with pro treaty side. A really sad ending for a family who had remained pro Irish and fought for Irish rights from the famine up to the civil war and had always advocated peace ad kindness towards their tenants at their own expense.0 -
Advertisement
-
Wikipedia has never been accepted as a concrete reference for history nor english and I took both in uni to degree level. Strangely enough it was a teacher in secondary school who used to tell me about history at third level, that wikipedia should be used as a tool to understand the "jist of the story" but never acknowledge it in your references as a reference.
In college, lecturers practically said the same thing, and went to further to say, it isn't against the guidelines to use it, but it would severely damage your overall grade as part of history isn't just the facts you write in essay, but the strength of your sources and references. A letter from a library archive is far more impressive looking when referenced compared to the same letter being referenced under wikipedia. same article perhaps, but different standing attached to it.
I think the danger is, wikipedia is written by the public and therefore subject to bias and error. It isn't censored to the extent to correct such errors so obviously to ensure that your work is up to the highest standard possible with credible sources.0 -
Came across this recently via Clare Library Archives:
http://www.clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclare/history/condition_of_ireland/condition_of_ireland_iln_dec15_1849.htmThe present condition of the Irish, we have no hesitation in saying, has been mainly brought on by
ignorant and vicious legislation. The destruction of the potato for one season, though a great calamity,
would not have doomed them, fed as they were by the taxes of the state and the charity of the world,
to immediate decay; but a false theory, assuming the name of political economy, with which is has no
more to do than with the slaughter of the Hungarians by General Haynan, led the landlords and the
legislature to believe that it was a favourable opportunity for changing the occupation of the land
and the cultivation of the soil from potatoes to corn. When more food, more cultivation, more employment,
were the requisites for maintaining the Irish in existence, the Legislature and the landlords set about
introducing a species of cultivation that could only be successful by requiring fewer hands, and turning
potato gardens, that nourished the maximum of human beings, into pasture grounds for bullocks, that
nourished only the minimum. The Poor-law, said to be for the relief of the people and the means of their
salvation, was the instrument of their destruction. In their terrible distress, from that temporary
calamity with which they were visited, they were to have no relief unless they gave up their holdings.
That law, too, laid down a form for evicting the people, and thus gave the sanction and encouragement of
legislation to exterminate them. Calmly and quietly, but very ignorantly - though we cheerfully exonerate
the parties from any malevolence; they only committed a great mistake, a terrible blunder, which in legislation
is worse than a crime - but calmly and quietly from Westminster itself, which is the centre of civilization,
did the decree go forth which has made the temporary but terrible visitation of a potato rot the means of
exterminating, through the slow process of disease and houseless starvation, nearly the half of the Irish.0 -
Came across this recently via Clare Library Archives:
http://www.clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclare/history/condition_of_ireland/condition_of_ireland_iln_dec15_1849.htm
Poor law triggered in my head as well the deplorable state of the workhouses, overcrowded and filled with disease, the last resort to have some residence if emmigration wasn't an option and eviction compulsory.0 -
Rebelheart wrote: »The irony of you of all people accusing Irish people of not knowing Irish history, when you come out with this supremely ignorant rubbish. Typical of your posting style, yet incredible just the same. Are you trolling or something? You could only be. Because nobody with a scintilla of awareness of Irish history would say somebody as utterly stupid, particularly with regard to education and land ownership.
Go away, and take your rabidly and consistently anti-Irish, ignorant British nationalist views from this, and every other Irish forum.
Infraction for personal abuse.
Please heed warning.
Moderator.0 -
Rebelheart wrote: »The irony of you of all people accusing Irish people of not knowing Irish history, when you come out with this supremely ignorant rubbish. Typical of your posting style, yet incredible just the same. Are you trolling or something? You could only be. Because nobody with a scintilla of awareness of Irish history would say somebody as utterly stupid, particularly with regard to education and land ownership.
Go away, and take your rabidly and consistently anti-Irish, ignorant British nationalist views from this, and every other Irish forum.
Now the mod has dealt with this post, I will respond.
All you have managed to do is to display your own ignorance of Irish history tbh. You constantly accuse anyone who has a different view to you of being anti Irish.
Rather than listen to your usual abusive rubbish, it would be good if you could engage in debate and prove me (and several other very learned posters) wrong.0 -
Advertisement
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »Now the mod has dealt with this post, I will respond.
All you have managed to do is to display your own ignorance of Irish history tbh. You constantly accuse anyone who has a different view to you of being anti Irish.
Rather than listen to your usual abusive rubbish, it would be good if you could engage in debate and prove me (and several other very learned posters) wrong.
Infraction for personal abuse.
Please heed warning. (the saying 'whats good for the goose is good for the gander' comes to my mind). In future when an issue is dealt with by a moderator you do not need to comment on it. Any further comment on this by PM.
Moderator.0 -
am i the only one leftjonniebgood1 wrote: »Infraction for personal abuse.
Please heed warning. (the saying 'whats good for the goose is good for the gander' comes to my mind). In future when an issue is dealt with by a moderator you do not need to comment on it. Any further comment on this by PM.
Moderator.0 -
pedroeibar1 wrote: »On selling fish -
.........In 1847 there were no railways in the west of Ireland and no means of refrigeration; even if great quantities of fish had been caught they could not have been sold. In Galway, when the catch was plentiful, the market was piled with unwanted fish, tons lay everywhere, producing "the most disgusting effluvia".
And before it is mentioned, fish could not be salted because the fishermen did not have the capital to buy salt.
And as for the 'proddies' and other 'heathen' Brits :rolleyes:-
So for the want of salt to preserve fish people starved.
Hardly a great advertisment for the establishment.
The pawning of boats and gear for food. The harvesting of seaweed and its affects on the eco-system and fishing.
The regulation of fishing, fishing rights & licenses etc.
Motor back a generation or two to South Leinster and the skilled workers engaged in deeper sea fishing and saltfish industry were recruited for the saltfish industry in Canada.
There were lots of reasons and if Britain had the logistical skills to deal with feeding an army in the Napleonic Wars it could have dealt with it.
The general trend is that they did not care. Laissez faire -french for couldn't give a ****.0 -
-
So for the want of salt to preserve fish people starved.
Hardly a great advertisment for the establishment.
The pawning of boats and gear for food. The harvesting of seaweed and its affects on the eco-system and fishing.
The regulation of fishing, fishing rights & licenses etc.
Motor back a generation or two to South Leinster and the skilled workers engaged in deeper sea fishing and saltfish industry were recruited for the saltfish industry in Canada.
There were lots of reasons and if Britain had the logistical skills to deal with feeding an army in the Napleonic Wars it could have dealt with it.
The general trend is that they did not care. Laissez faire -french for couldn't give a ****.
But they were utterly incapable of supplying the necessaries during the Crimean War in the 1850s.
Yes, Laissez-Faire and the tendency to 'privatise' everything from supplying the army to distribution of the meagre relief measure in place lead to corruption, price inflation and profit making by those lacking in ethics. Is there any proof that Irish Catholics were not awarded some of these contracts?
But again it must be noted that laissez faire was also part of the Irish political system long before the Act of Union. The appalling conditions experienced by the Irish peasantry were in firmly in place when we had a devolved parliament in Dublin and that parliament made no efforts whatsoever to improve conditions.
It was only when Westminster assumed control that workhouses were established (yes- awful places but a very slight improvement over the alternative which was starvation) and free infirmaries and dispensaries were established to provide some health care - before Westminster intervened there was no State support system for the poor in place who were at the mercy of their landlord's largesse and reliant on their equally poor family.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »But they were utterly incapable of supplying the necessaries during the Crimean War in the 1850s.
Yes, Laissez-Faire and the tendency to 'privatise' everything from supplying the army to distribution of the meagre relief measure in place lead to corruption, price inflation and profit making by those lacking in ethics.
Wellington had been able to do it in Portugal.
What was a politically expedient excuse should not leave them off the hook.Is there any proof that Irish Catholics were not awarded some of these contracts?
You mention the Crimea, Mother M Francis Bridgeman of the Mercy Order revolutionised nursing care for soldiers.
She wrote the book on it.Florence Nightengale gets all the credit.
You don't need to go very far to see how endemic it was culturally. Wellington's 1832 letter tells you how predictable the famine was and what the result would be.
Next thing you know we will be demolishing the O'Connell monument and replacing it with W.S. Trench.0 -
The standard method for preserving fish in at least some places on the western seaboard was drying them on the roofs of houses. A weather-dependent practice, I imagine. Can you imagine what would have happened in 1847 if a fisherman festooned his thatch with freshly-caught mackerel?So for the want of salt to preserve fish people starved.
The establishment (whatever that is) did not expect or anticipate famine conditions as severe as those in the 1840s. There was some prior experience of famine, and the workhouse system might have been adequate for the sort of circumstances that had arisen earlier in the 19th century.Hardly a great advertisment for the establishment.
A case of the urgent taking priority over the important. When the gear was pawned, the owners had no way of knowing that there would be repeated crop failures.The pawning of boats and gear for food.
So far as I know, there was no official restriction on sea-fishing. There were some unofficial restrictions imposed by local interests - most famously, the Claddagh fishermen asserted exclusive rights over fishing in Galway Bay.The regulation of fishing, fishing rights & licenses etc.
There was lively fishing activity in South Leinster during the Famine years - for example, Arklow had 144 boats crewed by 1672 men and boys in 1836, and 332 boats crewed by 1882 men and boys in 1855 (Source: Jim Rees: The Fishery of Arklow, 1800-1950). It seems reasonable to interpolate a pattern of growth in the fishing industry during the famine years. But fish landed by my Arklow ancestors were almost entirely irrelevant to my Rundale farmer ancestors in West Kerry.Motor back a generation or two to South Leinster and the skilled workers engaged in deeper sea fishing and saltfish industry were recruited for the saltfish industry in Canada.
Viewed through a contemporary eye, that is true. But they were different times, and some people, especially the wealthy who had the capacity and opportunity to read, sincerely believed that economic forces were the working out of God's law. Malthusianism was an important doctrine.There were lots of reasons and if Britain had the logistical skills to deal with feeding an army in the Napleonic Wars it could have dealt with it.
The general trend is that they did not care. Laissez faire -french for couldn't give a ****.0 -
Wellington had been able to do it in Portugal.
What was a politically expedient excuse should not leave them off the hook.
You mention the Crimea, Mother M Francis Bridgeman of the Mercy Order revolutionised nursing care for soldiers.
She wrote the book on it.Florence Nightengale gets all the credit.
You don't need to go very far to see how endemic it was culturally. Wellington's 1832 letter tells you how predictable the famine was and what the result would be.
Next thing you know we will be demolishing the O'Connell monument and replacing it with W.S. Trench.
Not a politically expedient excuse at all - it's looking at the factors that were in place at the time. Laissez faire was the dominant political philosophy in the western world - not just in the UK. It is such an emotive issue that it is hard to judge - but as a historian I must be careful not to do that and stick to assessing events according to the socio-political dynamics of the time they occurred.
Yes - Wellington could do it - like him or hate him, one must admit Wellington was an exceptional man - and a control freak. It must also be remembered that much of his army 'lived off the land' and foraged - something that was not possible in the wasteland that the Crimea became. His army also did not have to contend with the severe weather conditions as experienced in the Crimea.
The same kind of extreme cold meant Bonaparte's troops in Russia were unable to forage and his supply lines failed utterly - that and the weather was the cause of his defeat.
The same thing happened to the Nazis in the Soviet Union - the same people who would launch the precisely timed blitzkrieg couldn't maintain their own supply lines or deal with the weather.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »The standard method for preserving fish in at least some places on the western seaboard was drying them on the roofs of houses. A weather-dependent practice, I imagine. Can you imagine what would have happened in 1847 if a fisherman festooned his thatch with freshly-caught mackerel?
Maybe so, but it still does not get around the rotting food issue for the want of salt.
Butter was also exported.
You don't have to be a Bob Geldof to work it out and there were Geldofs who were ignored.The establishment (whatever that is) did not expect or anticipate famine conditions as severe as those in the 1840s. There was some prior experience of famine, and the workhouse system might have been adequate for the sort of circumstances that had arisen earlier in the 19th century.
Wellington did.
http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/FamineA case of the urgent taking priority over the important. When the gear was pawned, the owners had no way of knowing that there would be repeated crop failures.
Ah but, when you pawn something you do so as there is no other short term solution.So far as I know, there was no official restriction on sea-fishing. There were some unofficial restrictions imposed by local interests - most famously, the Claddagh fishermen asserted exclusive rights over fishing in Galway Bay.
Skills etc and salmon licenses etc.
From a practical point of view there was with access to harbours etc.
So if you can't access harbours and markets etc it is a bit of a mess.There was lively fishing activity in South Leinster during the Famine years - for example, Arklow had 144 boats crewed by 1672 men and boys in 1836, and 332 boats crewed by 1882 men and boys in 1855 (Source: Jim Rees: The Fishery of Arklow, 1800-1950). It seems reasonable to interpolate a pattern of growth in the fishing industry during the famine years. But fish landed by my Arklow ancestors were almost entirely irrelevant to my Rundale farmer ancestors in West Kerry.
My point was they were gone.
Wexford's population did not decrease really during the famine.Viewed through a contemporary eye, that is true. But they were different times, and some people, especially the wealthy who had the capacity and opportunity to read, sincerely believed that economic forces were the working out of God's law. Malthusianism was an important doctrine.
Looked thru Wellington's eyes it was preventable and forseeable.
He was wealthy and did not believe the system would work.
Why do you say others believed it would.?0 -
Looked thru Wellington's eyes it was preventable and forseeable.
He was wealthy and did not believe the system would work.
Why do you say others believed it would.?
Why do Libertarian's still advocate lassez faire and insist government's should never act to regulate businesses or interfere in the Free Market?
Because the system does work for some. It works very well indeed for those who own the businesses/have the money. If these same people also hold political power...:eek:
That is the sad reality of the Irish famine - 2 million people were surplus to requirements.
The mid-1900s were all about the Free Market - under such an ideology workers/peasants/poor are merely 'resources' and if one has too many of these resources, or more efficient methods of making more money at less cost can replace them, then they become expendable.0 -
Advertisement
-
My point was they were gone.
Wexford's population did not decrease really during the famine.
Did it not?
Where do you get this from?
From http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire1841.htm based on census data there was a decrease.
Wexford population 1841 -202,033
Wexford population 1851 -180,158
Population decrease -11%
Numbers decrease -21,8750 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Did it not?
Where do you get this from?
From http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire1841.htm based on census data there was a decrease.
Wexford population 1841 -202,033
Wexford population 1851 -180,158
Population decrease -11%
Numbers decrease -21,875
I have read it somewhere based on parish data but not published . I will run with that then.
I do think the death toll trumps sophisticated thinking.0 -
-
Of course not. My point was that it wasn't the want of salt that was the problem, but the fact that salting fish was not a common practice throughout Ireland.Maybe so, but it still does not get around the rotting food issue for the want of salt.
Yes, Wellington saw recurrent famine as a problem, and saw that population increase would probably exacerbate the problem. I doubt if he foresaw a catastrophe on the scale of what actually happened.
Yes. That's what I meant. Plus the point that they did not foresee the repeated crop failures. I suspect that in 1845 just about nobody foresaw what was to follow.Ah but, when you pawn something you do so as there is no other short term solution.
Can be taughtSkills etc
If there were licensing issues (and I don't know if there were) they could be ignored in an emergency. Ignoring licensing was a strong tradition in Ireland until enforcement was stepped up in the last 40 years or so.and salmon licenses etc.
Much of the fishing on the west coast was done from naomhógs, which did not need true harbours.From a practical point of view there was with access to harbours etc.
And my point is that fishing seemed to increase in the south-east during the famine years.My point was they were gone.
The south-east was less adversely affected than the west, largely because the population there was not as heavily dependent on the potato as a subsistence crop.Wexford's population did not decrease really during the famine.
I don't think that is true. I think he was concerned about a lesser scale of calamity than the one that actually happened. He might have thought that the measures that had just been implemented (the setting up of the workhouses) would suffice.Looked thru Wellington's eyes it was preventable and forseeable.
He seemed to believe that the wealthy had responsibilities to the poor, in the tradition of noblesse oblige. It was a more appealing attitude than that of the liberals who, as Bannasidhe has suggested, were more like today's libertarians.He was wealthy and did not believe the system would work.
I don't say that. My position is that nobody foresaw what was to come. People did see considerable poverty and destitution, and were aware of the threat of famine, but a famine on a smaller scale than the one that actually happened.Why do you say others believed it would.?0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »I don't say that. My position is that nobody foresaw what was to come. People did see considerable poverty and destitution, and were aware of the threat of famine, but a famine on a smaller scale than the one that actually happened.
Exactly - Famine was very common in Europe during the period and Ireland had suffered from famine in 1740–41 (bliain an áir ‘the year of the slaughter’), 1756–7, 1800, 1807, 1821–2, 1830–34, 1836, and 1839 (http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Famine#FamineinIreland) apart from 1830-34 these had been of a short duration so there would have been an expectation that this was a one off crop failure and things would be back to 'normal' the following season. Therefore pawning nets etc is an understandable, if ill advised, short-term solution. (Note that 3 of these famines occurred before the Act of Union).
No-one was prepared for the severity or duration of the 'Great' Famine.
A modern comparison would be that the cracks in the Irish economy can be seen from 2005 onwards, by 2007 it was obvious something was very wrong but we were assured of a 'soft landing'. By 2009 it became clear our economy was in very serious trouble but still the powers that be issued assurances and many people continued to live a 'Celtic Tiger' lifestyle - indeed it would appear (granted it was in the Indo - the Irish version of The National Enquirer IMHO) that some people currently having difficulty paying their mortgages are outraged that the banks are insisting the get rid of their Sky movie/sports packages and take little Faichre and Fionnuala out of fee paying schools and put them in - gasp - state schools so the Celtic Tiger mentality is still among us even as our economy is in the toilet.
No One in 2005 saw how severe this was going to be, in 2007 a few voices in the wilderness were shouting warnings about the banks and the housing bubble, even in 2009 we thought we'd be over it soon. Now, it's 2012 with no end in sight...0 -
So for the want of salt to preserve fish people starved.
Hardly a great advertisment for the establishment.
There was not a ‘want’ of salt, it was available if the people could afford it. From small farmers and up, salt was used to cure bacon. The poor could not obtain it primarily because they lived outside a cash society. Most had no assets except what they stood up in, and a couple of years into the Famine there were reports of pawnbrokers refusing to take clothes, blankets and bedding as (a) they were primarily rags and )b) they already had enough. By the time the Famine arrived it was too late for salt, any cash was needed for food. Salt was an expensive commodity, and in fishing there was no tradition of extended credit (unlike, say, farming, where payment after the harvest was the norm.) The fish would have to be pickled / dried and brought to market from areas where there were no railways, no surfaced roads and not an easy task through hordes of starving locals. The credit period necessary was too long to make it profitable and furthermore there was no sales infrastructure in place – catch landings and size of catch landing were too inconsistent and sporadic for any industry to develop. An interesting exercise would be to compare and contrast the foregoing factors with today’s economic woes in the SME sector, where high transport costs and inability to raise finance have a severe impact on corporate survival.The pawning of boats and gear for food. The harvesting of seaweed and its affects on the eco-system and fishing.
The regulation of fishing, fishing rights & licenses etc.
Fishermen are optimists, they have to be. Nobody knew that the Famine would run until ’48. Marginal fishermen, like small cottiers, depended on the potato crop for survival and seed potatoes for the following year’s crop were an important commodity. Regular fishing was very difficult because of bad weather, and with regular gales, boats were kept onshore for weeks at a time. Hence pawning the gear. (‘Shur it’ll be grand next year’) Harvesting of seaweed was a long-established tradition, (I admit that several landlords charged the tenants or controlled it) and at the rate it was carried out in the 1840s probably did not have any impact on the ecosystem. Fertilizing the soil was not the issue, it was potato blight. Fishing rights were there from the Cromwellian era and often long before; however they relate to ‘game’ fish, Salmon/Seatrout which are very seasonal. Apart from those species, fishing was not controlled. Whether fishing was done from a naomhog, currach or canoe is semantics; they were used because they were light, portable and did not need a harbour, which is why the seineboat did not catch on in a big way until the Congested Districts Board harbours were constructed in the 1890’sMotor back a generation or two to South Leinster and the skilled workers engaged in deeper sea fishing and saltfish industry were recruited for the saltfish industry in Canada.
So? There have been strong fishing links between Ireland and US/Canada since the early1600s - take the Irish in Newfoundland as a typical example.There were lots of reasons and if Britain had the logistical skills to deal with feeding an army in the Napleonic Wars it could have dealt with it.
Interesting point - but not conclusive: Napoleon had his army live off the land, taking what they needed. Wellington, otoh, paid his way buying from the natives and most of the supplies went to ships on blockade, not to troops. Neither had an effective means of provisioning, as Boney learned to his cost in the Russian winter.
Nope, it's 'ils s'en fichent';)e. Laissez faire -french for couldn't give a ****.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Meaning???
Numbers ?
All I am saying is that if you sat down with Wellington and his brother Mornington and took tea,you would have had a hard time convincing them that famine on a major scale was not on its way from 1832.
Wellington was the more conservative of them.
A medieval farmer would have been against monoculture and pro crop rotation etc. So to expect anything else would take a fundamental shift in belief systems. No surprise for him either.
There may have been surprise at the blight but there was no surprise at the famine.
So I think it would have been much harder to convince the Wellselley brothers and the excuses are a bit lame in that context.
Once you accept that the Establishment were very aware that a major famine was due and that the death toll would be large , all you are left with is debating numbers.
Of all generations, the Victorians were more aware of public health than previous generations so famine fever would have been forseeable.pedroeibar1 wrote: »
Nope, it's 'ils s'en fichent'
When people have to resort to french it is bad.
Had Wellington done the maths ? I reckon so.0 -
Numbers ?
All I am saying is that if you sat down with Wellington and his brother Mornington and took tea,you would have had a hard time convincing them that famine on a major scale was not on its way from 1832.
Wellington was the more conservative of them.Once you accept that the Establishment were very aware that a major famine was due and that the death toll would be large , all you are left with is debating numbers.
The numbers are important because they put real figures on what can often be emotional descriptions. They quantify the loss. I think it is easy to say that something was predictable with hindsight so it follows then that an observation of a potential famine before it happened would be perceptive but was it widely accepted (by other leading figures)? Lots of people make predictions of gloom and not all are listened to. Leading on from the numbers (and the loss which they quantify) is the reasons for this and the actions taken in the years that the famine progressed. The policy of government changed throughout the famine years so they clearly had either changing motives or were moved to change policy as they realised they were not being successful in whatever they sought to achieve (this also suggests that they had not predicted the famine as it turned out). In this case that would seem to be free market principles that had not worked as they thought.0 -
I don't accept that the establishment envisaged a major famine on anything like the scale of the one that actually happened. I think they were making some provision with the introduction of the Poor Law, and were planning for the possibility of thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands, becoming destitute. They were entirely unprepared for hundreds of thousands, not because of wilful neglect to plan, but because they never envisaged, probably could not even imagine, such a catastrophe....
Once you accept that the Establishment were very aware that a major famine was due and that the death toll would be large , all you are left with is debating numbers....
I think you are over-interpreting the Duke of Wellington's words.0 -
Advertisement
-
jonniebgood1 wrote: »The numbers are important because they put real figures on what can often be emotional descriptions. They quantify the loss. I think it is easy to say that something was predictable with hindsight so it follows then that an observation of a potential famine before it happened would be perceptive but was it widely accepted? Lots of people make predictions of gloom and not all are listened to.
Wellington anticipated something more significant.P. Breathnach wrote: »
I think you are over-interpreting the Duke of Wellington's words.
Maybe so, but he had the brain to think strategically and in large numbers and had vast experience.
And, he had been military advisor to his brother c 1800 who was Governor General of India and subsequently Viceroy of Ireland and he himself Prime Minister until 1830. He had experience.
He was the dude.
It seems reasonable to me.0
Advertisement