black and tan ice cream

emeraldstar

Toots85 wrote: »

Why wasn't I informed of this?? To the shops......

Consider yourself informed. Indeed, go, for tis well worth it.

Wertz

pwd wrote: »

it's an english drink

lol well that's even worse...

Terry

Dudess wrote: »

I don't think it's fair on Holocaust survivors and the relatives of those who perished to compare what the Irish suffered under British rule, and how we are affected by it, to the plight of Jewish people - even though the Black and Tans were absolute *****.

Why not?
About 1/4 of the population died during the famine as a direct result of British greed and apathy. In my eyes, that's just as bad as what Hitler did to the Jews.
There is also a pattern.

Owing to its almost entire dependence upon the monsoon rains, India is more liable than any other country in the world to crop failures, which upon occasion deepen into famine.[1] There were 14 famines in India between 11th and 17th century (Bhatia, 1985). For example, during the 1022-1033 Great famines in India entire provinces were depopulated. Famine in Deccan killed at least 2 million people in 1702-1704. Drought in India has resulted in tens of millions of deaths over the course of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.[2] Indian agriculture is heavily dependent on the climate of India: a favorable southwest summer monsoon is critical in securing water for irrigating Indian crops. In the past, droughts have periodically led to major Indian famines, including the Bengal famine of 1770; the 1876–1877 famine; and the Bengal famine of 1943.[3][4] "The prospect of a devastating famine every few years was inherent in India's ecology"[5]

From the earliest endeavours of the British East India Company on the Subcontinent but especially since 1857—the year of the first major Indian rebellion against British rule—the British Raj, as the British governing body was known after 1857, had instituted a widespread series of mercantilist economic rules intended to foster a favourable balance of trade for Britain relative to the Subcontinent as well as other colonies, which had a dramatic impact on the economic milieu within India. Because of these effects and the Raj's role as the supreme governing body within India, contemporary scholars such as Romesh Dutt in 1900—who had himself witnessed the famines first-hand—and present-day scholars such as Amartya Sen agree, that the famines were a product both of uneven rainfall and British economic and administrative policies. These policies had, since 1857, led to the seizure and conversion of local farmland to foreign-owned plantations, restrictions on internal trade, heavy taxation of Indians to support unsuccessful British expeditions in Afghanistan like the Second Anglo-Afghan War, inflationary measures that increased the price of food, and substantial exports of staple crops from India to Britain. (Dutt, 1900 and 1902; Srivastava, 1968; Sen, 1982; Bhatia, 1985.) In the century preceding, the first Bengal famine of 1770 is estimated to have taken nearly one-third of the population. In 1865-66, severe drought struck Orissa and was met by British official inaction. Secretary of State for India Lord Salisbury later regretted,
“ I did nothing for two months. Before that time the monsoon had closed the ports of Orissa—help was impossible—and—it is said—a million people died. The Governments of India and Bengal had taken in effect no precautions whatever.… I never could feel that I was free from all blame for the result. (quoted in Davis 2001:32) ”

Some British citizens such as William Digby agitated for policy reforms and famine relief, but Lord Lytton, the governing British viceroy in India, opposed such changes in the belief that they would stimulate shirking by Indian workers. Reacting against calls for relief during the 1877-79 famine, Lytton replied, "Let the British public foot the bill for its 'cheap sentiment,' if it wished to save life at a cost that would bankrupt India," substantively ordering "there is to be no interference of any kind on the part of Government with the object of reducing the price of food," and instructing district officers to "discourage relief works in every possible way.... Mere distress is not a sufficient reason for opening a relief work." (quoted in Davis 2001:31, 52) The Famine Commission of 1880 observed that each province in British India, including Burma, had a surplus of foodgrains, and the annual surplus amounted to 5.16 million tons (Bhatia, 1970). At that time, annual export of rice and other grains from India was approximately one million tons. At about the same time the British devised the first ever famine scales and engaged themselves in a series of canal building and irrigation improvements. The results were that the mortality rate decreased rapidly. There was the threat of famine but after 1902 there was no major famine in India until 1943. In 1907 and in 1874 the response from the British was better: in both cases rice was imported abroad and famine was averted.

The famines continued until Independence in 1948, with the Bengal famine of 1943-44 being among the most devastating, killing 3-4 million during World War II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

Let them eat cake, To hell or to Connaught and several other quotes.

Dudess

Was "let them eat cake" not uttered by a French chick?!

Yeah, I suppose I'm just thinking in terms of the two reactions to such ice creams (Black and Tan/Nazi). We Irish got annoyed, Jewish people would be sick.

But bloody hell, the British occupation of India! I was watching a programme about eugenics on BBC3 or 4 recently - four-part series, can't remember the exact name. Racism: A Science, something like that. Absolutely superb stuff. But anyway, one programme focused on India under British rule, and that famine which killed millions upon millions of people - I watched it through my fingers like a little kid watching a horror. It was devastating. Shook me up good. Not dissimilar to the Holocaust I suppose, but the Holocaust seems to have left behind more of a legacy.

RuggieBear

What did the black and tans ever do to you personally Terry?

Terry

Dudess wrote: »

Was "let them eat cake" not uttered by a French chick?!

Yeah, I suppose I'm just thinking in terms of the two reactions to such ice creams (Black and Tan/Nazi). We Irish got annoyed, Jewish people would be sick.

But bloody hell, the British occupation of India! I was watching a programme about eugenics on BBC3 or 4 recently - four-part series, can't remember the exact name. Racism: A Science, something like that. Absolutely superb stuff. But anyway, one programme focused on India under British rule, and that famine which killed millions upon millions of people - I watched it through my fingers like a little kid watching a horror. It was devastating. Shook me up good. Not dissimilar to the Holocaust I suppose, but the Holocaust seems to have left behind more of a legacy.

Jewish people were deliberately murdered.
Irish and Indian people died through apathy, which just suited the regime at the time.

Also, yes, the cake quote was made by Marie Antoinette (actually Austrian, but was the French queen at the time). I just threw it in for [word to be inserted when I get back from the shop and think of the applicable word, or someone helps me out here]

Terry

RuggieBear wrote: »

What did the black and tans ever do to you personally Terry?

Pissed me off.

RuggieBear

Terry wrote: »

Pissed me off.

sure

Dudess

The Black and Tans were absolute brutes, however many of them were WWI veterans so their heads were fuked up. In a way I'd have more of a beef with the cynical ***** who decided "yeah, we've a group of young men who are seriously damaged after being sent to fight in the 'war to end all wars', let's drag them out of whatever they're doing and send them back into battle - to sort out all those rebelling paddies."

SheroN

That would be Winston Churchill then?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

I thought that this thread was about Ice Cream, not historic events that happened before (almost) the entire current human population was born!!!

RuggieBear

one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter....yadda yadda.

I just don't think it is all so black and white.

And most of the accounts from the time are very questionable...or have been spun for neonationalistic purposes

while all history is bias, that period of time in ireland is quite pejorative for all things british.

fullstop

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its actually Smithwicks and Stout

RuggieBear

fullstop wrote: »

Its actually Smithwicks and Stout

sounds good to me...except for the stout bit.:)

Terry

RuggieBear wrote: »

one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter....yadda yadda.

I just don't think it is all so black and white.

And most of the accounts from the time are very questionable...or have been spun for neonationalistic purposes

while all history is bias, that period of time in ireland is quite pejorative for all things british.

What are you talking about?
Are you saying that daveirl's grandparents were terrorists?

There were no terrorists back then, just freedom fighters.
The British were here against the wishes of the majority and were rightfully fought against.

I suppose all those English people who fought against Wilhelm II were terrorists too, or the Dutch who fought against Hitler?

Edit: just saw your edited post.

Are you saying that the British were not vicious tyrants in their treatment of Irish people?
They certainly were not benevolent.

ron_darrell

Lot of good points made by many posters here (some slightly sick ice-cream flavors suggested also I might add) but if I may I'd like to make a few points.

Before I begin, I do not work for B&J (what a great name ), am not a royalist nor a sympathiser of racism in any form.

With the greatest of respect to our American neighbours they are not the best educated people in the world. They have a strata of highly schooled (notice I didn't say educated) people who have specialised in a particular area, stratae of less well schooled people (performing 'menial' research tasks for their more schooled colleagues) and a large strata of very poorly schooled people who perform the actual menial jobs in their society.

I do not honestly think that once someone found out that there was a drink made from Irish stout named a Black & Tan that they did any further research on the name; not from a lack of desire but from a simple lack of knowledge. Most Americans would have a hard time pointing Ireland out on a map never mind knowing about any of the things that happened during the 800 years of occupancy.

Which leads on to my second point. The 800 years of occupancy; it's time to let it go. As has been pointed out millions of Irish died, and if we look into some were related to us. But they are all of them a long time dead. Holding grudges is for children. Ireland has come through that trial and now is one of the most prosperous countries in the world. I'm not saying forget the sacrifices made but feelings of anger and hurt for something done to people dead longer than Ireland has been a sovereign nation seems to me a little silly.

An my final point. It is not possible to compare what was done to the Irish (or the Indians or the Boers or any of the other nations that the British conquered) with what was done to the Jews. What was done to us was 'accidental' for the most part; things that happened to us were not as a consequence of any planned extermination but as by-products of various economic policies held by the British. What the Nazis perpetrated against the Jewish race was a planned policy of extermination,the sole aim of which was the extinction of the Jewish bloodline. Now for both blood was spilled and people died but I think, to be fair, the Jews actually have a right to feel sore about it. We sorta need to get over it.

Ok that's my two cents anyways. Let the insults fly

-RD

fullstop

RuggieBear wrote: »

sounds good to me...except for the stout bit.:)

It is quite nice actually, but then again i drink stout anyway!!

RuggieBear

Terry wrote: »

There were no terrorists back then, just freedom fighters.
The British were here against the wishes of the majority and were rightfully fought against.
.

LOL

ok Terry, I'll stop now.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ScumLord

Terry wrote: »

Jewish people were deliberately murdered.
Irish and Indian people died through apathy, which just suited the regime at the time.

The Tans killed allot of people out here in the west. There are plaques and large gravestones dedicated to people that where gunned down either for no reason or retaliation for republican attacks.

RuggieBear

All i'm saying is that I believe there is a huge amount of distortion surrounding the entire period. Here's an essay written by an obviously unionist student:

http://www.reform.org/TheReformMovement_files/article_files/articles/cork.htm

Is his view wrong? More accurate? Complete BS? I don't know as I wasn't around back then. But I use it as an example of how we will never get the entire picture.

What is history after all? History is facts which become lies in the end; legends and lies which become history in the end.

ejmaztec

There are a couple of places in Kerry where the Free-Staters didn't exactly act in a reasonable manner. No doubt, all over Ireland during the "Civil? War", both sides did things to their fellow countrymen that would have made the B&Ts blush.

Terry

SheroN wrote: »

That would be Winston Churchill then?

A hero to the British, but still human and with all the flaws that come with being human.

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought that this thread was about Ice Cream, not historic events that happened before (almost) the entire current human population was born!!!

It was about the name of an ice cream which insulted people because of the historical connotations.
BTW, the black and tans were not named after a drink. The name was given because of the uniforms they wore, which were bits and pieces of other British army uniforms. The uniforms were done on the cheap.

ron_darrell wrote: »

Which leads on to my second point. The 800 years of occupancy; it's time to let it go. As has been pointed out millions of Irish died, and if we look into some were related to us. But they are all of them a long time dead. Holding grudges is for children. Ireland has come through that trial and now is one of the most prosperous countries in the world. I'm not saying forget the sacrifices made but feelings of anger and hurt for something done to people dead longer than Ireland has been a sovereign nation seems to me a little silly.

Never forget the past. It's what makes us live a better now and a better future.
Nobody is holding a grudge, as such.
What I'm doing is arguing that what was done to the Irish people should never be forgotten. It is a huge part of who we are now and a huge part of what moulded this country.
Not everything done by the British was bad, but the bad stuff was really fúcked up.

An my final point. It is not possible to compare what was done to the Irish (or the Indians or the Boers or any of the other nations that the British conquered) with what was done to the Jews. What was done to us was 'accidental' for the most part; things that happened to us were not as a consequence of any planned extermination but as by-products of various economic policies held by the British. What the Nazis perpetrated against the Jewish race was a planned policy of extermination,the sole aim of which was the extinction of the Jewish bloodline. Now for both blood was spilled and people died but I think, to be fair, the Jews actually have a right to feel sore about it. We sorta need to get over it.

If some of the British of the time had their way, the Irish bloodline would have also been obliterated. To some of them, we were no better than dogs.

There is a comparison with the Jews, insofar as percentages go.
Now it's been 20 years since I studied this in school, but I remember my history book telling me that in 1801 the population of Ireland was 8 million.
It was around the 2 million mark in the 1860's and 3 million in 1901.

Yes, millions left the country, but millions also died as a result of British greed and apathy towards (according to them and their act of union) their own citizens.

Ok that's my two cents anyways. Let the insults fly

-RD

I'd be more worried about the anti American stuff, if I was you.

Morlar

RuggieBear wrote: »

All i'm saying is that I believe there is a huge amount of distortion surrounding the entire period

"If a police barracks is burned or if the barracks already occupied is not suitable, then the best house in the locality is to be commandeered, the occupants thrown into the gutter. Let them die there – the more the merrier.

Should the order ("Hands Up") not be immediately obeyed, shoot and shoot with effect. If the persons approaching (a patrol) carry their hands in their pockets, or are in any way suspicious-looking, shoot them down. You may make mistakes occasionally and innocent persons may be shot, but that cannot be helped, and you are bound to get the right parties some time. The more you shoot, the better I will like you, and I assure you no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man."

Lt. Col. Smyth, June 1920

That seems clear enough to me.

Terry

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I was of the opinion that he was trolling and was trying to call him out on it.
See below for confirmation of my suspicions.

RuggieBear wrote: »

LOL

ok Terry, I'll stop now.

ScumLord wrote: »

The Tans killed allot of people out here in the west. There are plaques and large gravestones dedicated to people that where gunned down either for no reason or retaliation for republican attacks.

there is no doubt in my mind that they did indiscriminately kill many people (bloody Sunday 1913).
However, my point regarding apathy, numbers and percentages were aimed at the bigger picture.

RuggieBear wrote: »

All i'm saying is that I believe there is a huge amount of distortion surrounding the entire period. Here's an essay written by an obviously unionist student:

http://www.reform.org/TheReformMovement_files/article_files/articles/cork.htm

Is his view wrong? More accurate? Complete BS? I don't know as I wasn't around back then. But I use it as an example of how we will never get the entire picture.

What is history after all? History is facts which become lies in the end; legends and lies which become history in the end.

I didn't really see anything substantial there apart from a few facts and figures.
The guy is of course entitled to his opinion, but All I see is someone lamenting the loss of 26 counties.

There is a law in Germany which prohibits the denial of the holocaust.
I think there should be a similar one in Ireland which prohibits denial of British atrocities carried out here during their occupation.

ejmaztec wrote: »

There are a couple of places in Kerry where the Free-Staters didn't exactly act in a reasonable manner. No doubt, all over Ireland during the "Civil? War", both sides did things to their fellow countrymen that would have made the B&Ts blush.

Nobody ever said that the saying "War is hell" was meant to be ironic.
The fact is, there was no war in Ireland when the British were killing Irish people in their millions.


At the end of the day, what the British did here did actually happen, despite any spin put on it by wannabe historical revisionists.
Nobody is holding the current British population responsible, but it still happened and should never be forgotten.

RuggieBear

ah terry i was stopping because there is no point arguing with someone who refuses to open ones mind to the possibility that there was more to it than the overly simplified black and white version we are all spoon-fed at school.

I just see it as perpetuating the tradition of shouting down anyone who dares argue that perhaps there were two sides to the story.

Anyway, I've said my piece (badly).


Besides Was the ****ing ice cream actually any good?

Morlar

RuggieBear wrote: »

there is no point arguing with someone who refuses to open ones mind to the possibility that there was more to it than the overly simplified black and white version we are all spoon-fed at school.

I just see it as perpetuating the tradition of shouting down anyone who dares argue that perhaps there were two sides to the story.

I would like to see how far you get with saying that to an israeli person about wwII.

Whatever way to look at it was a mistake to send ww1 trench-hardened pts suffering veterans along with the military prison dregs to police a civilian population. On the bright side though they were sent home in boxes Also they did manage to do one good thing in their sorry lives which was to unite Irish people to kick them out once and for all.

Terry

RuggieBear wrote: »

ah terry i was stopping because there is no point arguing with someone who refuses to open ones mind to the possibility that there was more to it than the overly simplified black and white version we are all spoon-fed at school.

I just see it as perpetuating the tradition of shouting down anyone who dares argue that perhaps there were two sides to the story.

Anyway, I've said my piece (badly).


Besides Was the ****ing ice cream actually any good?

I can see two sides to it. Of course there was brutality done on the part of the Irish people.
The thing is, at least they had good cause (for the most part. There's always gonna be someone doing crap like that because they get a kick out of it). The British only did it because they were of the mind that Ireland belonged to them and that the Irish people were a lower form of human. Christ, they did it the world over.

Failure to recognise the brutality of the British is just as bad as what you have accused me of.

ejmaztec

Terry wrote: »

At the end of the day, what the British did here did actually happen, despite any spin put on it by wannabe historical revisionists.
Nobody is holding the current British population responsible, but it still happened and should never be forgotten.

I'm not saying that it should be forgotten. It should also not be forgotten that, during British rule, there were plenty Irish people acting in collusion, who didn't give a damn about their fellow countrymen, even at the time of The Famine. Someone pointed out to me that some machinery contractor in this area, is a descendant of someone who used to demolish the cottages when the landlords kicked people off the estates. He's carried on the family tradition, even in recent years, demolishing a house for dubious reasons, which I won't mention here, in case he flattens my "hovel" as well. :eek: