The British Empire Thread

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

He does, you know! Next thing he'll be proposing a statue of Queen Victoria be erected somewhere in Ireland to acknowledge the paltry few bob sent. The British propaganda machine is relentless on good old boards.

The Irish people are hugely indebted to the generosity of the Choctaw tribe during this period, a people who themselves suffered famine a few years previous who managed to give $710, a relatively huge amount for such poor people to offer. Anyone who suggests we are even remotely indebted to the British Empire at this time is a liar, a fraud and a fake.

No I don't stop being so rediculously sensitive. who is suggesting gratitude to the British empire? I was talking about the people of Britain not the Empire.

Fratton Fred

I guess it is like the massacres of 1641, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of all the propaganda and spin.

PHB

Fratton Fred wrote: »

two different points, please explain what you mean.

You attempted to claim that the government policy was not a genocide of sorts (I don't like the use of the phrase, as it has a very very specific meaning. I'd rather describe it through mass-killings through a combination of neglect and choosing not to act)

You've said that this was just how these people thought about government in general, it was as you said I think, a laissez faire approach to economics, let charity handle these things etc.

At the same time, you've admitted that this would never have happened in Britain.

If that was the case, then maybe the government policy of laissez faire wasn't exactly a dead set policy, as to intervene in Britain would have been to change its policy. As such, those two views are contradictory.

PHB

Cromwell post moved into this thread

Pathfinder

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I guess it is like the massacres of 1641, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of all the propaganda and spin.

Catholic schools don't teach 1641, wonder why. Just about evil Cromwell.

Pathfinder

kreuzberger wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

. The policy was implemented by the people who controlled Ireland on the ground , the landlords and the administrators . if you were evicted from your home you and your family either starved to death or died of exposure , whichever got you first . If your own relatives tried to shelter you , they were evicted also . This was British policy in Ireland in the midst of mass starvation . This ensured death or exile . Britain engaged in mass evictions from the land while simultaneously removing the food during mass starvation .That was genocide .

The man charged with administering relief wrote at the height of the crisis that the potato failure was a

‘mechanism for reducing surplus population’.

and that

‘The judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated. …The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people’.

i thought you preferred to ignore quotes , and youd be as well ignoring that one . Indian corn was brought to Ireland and sold at vastly inflated prices . Poor people couldnt afford to buy it . So they died , but not before the rich had made a serious profit from them after theyd sold what few belongings they had to pay for it . The corn soon ran out , but food exports from Ireland continued in abundance . The many thousands of troops protecting the landlords and the exports whilst also carrying out mass evictions were hoowever well provsioned . They didnt go hungry .
Eventually ships carrying supplies to Ireland were turned back on the orders of the man , Trevelyan , who viewed starvation as a means of reducing surplus population



Private charities , US and Canadian citizens were not the people responsible for policy in Ireland . Therefore dont try and credit the British regime in Ireland with their activities . The regime itself began refusing entry to ships carrying aid to Ireland , during the height of the holocaust in 1847 . .



you believe Irish people should actually be thankful to Britian for the 1840s and express some gratitude ?

my my , what an ungrateful lot we are . Must be our inveterate evil and perverse moral characters or something

The fact is many English people were appaled at what their country men were doing in Ireland . One such person was Benjamin Jowett, Master of Balliol college of Oxford . He once wrote "I have always felt a certain horror of political economists, since I heard one of them say that he feared that the famine of 1848 in Ireland would not kill more than one million people, and that would scarcely be enough to do much good." The person he was referring to was Nassau Senior , the senior British governemnt advisor during the potato blight

There is no evidence of any mass extermination plan, post evidence not political propaganda.


The famine was caused simply by blight and lassie fare economics.

Presbyterians in East Antrim had smaller plots of land but survived it due to having less mouths to feed and being better organised.



"The limited food in the depots was intended to be SOLD at market prices plus 5% to the pauperised, starving Irish, not distributed free, but Trevelyan was afraid government entry into food distribution might upset his precious "free" markets.
"We attach the highest public importance to the strict observance of our pledge not to send orders (for food) abroad, which would come into competition with our merchants and upset all their calculations".
Trevelyan, 1846.


In 1846 food shortages were widespread across Europe, and many governments entered the markets to buy food for their people. So by the time (September) Trevelyan eventually gave permission for more food to be bought there was little to be had. Worse, the 1846 US corn crop would not be fit to move until December 1846, by which time US rivers would be ice-bound, and winter Atlantic gales raging."

Fratton Fred

PHB wrote: »

You attempted to claim that the government policy was not a genocide of sorts (I don't like the use of the phrase, as it has a very very specific meaning. I'd rather describe it through mass-killings through a combination of neglect and choosing not to act)

as would I.

PHB wrote: »

You've said that this was just how these people thought about government in general, it was as you said I think, a laissez faire approach to economics, let charity handle these things etc.

At the same time, you've admitted that this would never have happened in Britain.

If that was the case, then maybe the government policy of laissez faire wasn't exactly a dead set policy, as to intervene in Britain would have been to change its policy. As such, those two views are contradictory.

I don't think the government would have reacted any differently initially to a famine in England than they would here, lets face it, the victorian ruling classes wouldn't have gone out of their way to help any of the poor, they considered their positions in life confirmation of their superiority.

The difference is, I believe, that the absent landlords of Ireland would be shocked into doing something if starving people turned up in Kensington or Mayfair. Also, the factory owners needed to keep people alive so they could operate their mills and machinery. A family who owned a couple of acres that they lived off were not profitable to anyone, someone who operates a mill is.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No I don't stop being so rediculously sensitive. who is suggesting gratitude to the British empire? I was talking about the people of Britain not the Empire.

Who are you kiddding? You've been the Empires biggest cheerleader on this forum from day 1. In the face of facts that have been presented to you on this and countless other threads, you should at the very least condemn your countrys actions during this period, and put an end to this incessant, dishonest waffling about how Britain did everything it could to help Ireland in its time of need. Its really annoying to see you so much wedded to a mindset that you can't even acknowledge what actually happened. Propaganda, propaganda, and more propaganda, a bit of honesty for a change wouldn't go amiss.

Speaking as one who has both English & Irish ancestory, I am both angry and embarrased about the famine.

BUT I don't believe in blaming British people of the sins of their fathers!
I have no problem in condemning the establishment of the day for allowing it to cause as much death as was caused, but more than likely even if things were different, thousands (rather than hundreds of thousands) may have still died.
Famines were common in Europe right up until quite recently (late 19th century) excepting those created by WWI & WWII.

Pathfinder

Deleted User wrote: »

Speaking as one who has both English & Irish ancestory, I am both angry and embarrased about the famine.

BUT I don't believe in blaming British people of the sins of their fathers!
I have no problem in condemning the establishment of the day for allowing it to cause as much death as was caused, but more than likely even if things were different, thousands (rather than hundreds of thousands) may have still died.
Famines were common in Europe right up until quite recently (late 19th century) excepting those created by WWI & WWII.

I am actually more embarrassed that nearly 160 years on republicans still use it and the British empire as an excuse of their own inadequacy/failure. Notice how in the outside would these people are usually total failures (a bit like fascists going on about Jews).

I am an ex-soldier who did four tours in the north, some of the people we had to deal with and houses we searched were unreal.Deranged women, faeces and used tampons thrown under beds,

A week later later a paper from Sinn Fein would appear in the local paper saying soldiers had pissed on their kids toys and assaulted them etc.

If you went back and confronted them and said no such thing happened, they would say, "its all part of the war".

Sinn Fein/IRA would also anonymously tip of the security services about decent Catholic families having arms in their houses, when searched none were found, it was to done to turn ordinary decent Catholics against the security forces.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Who are you kiddding? You've been the Empires biggest cheerleader on this forum from day 1. In the face of facts that have been presented to you on this and countless other threads, you should at the very least condemn your countrys actions during this period, and put an end to this incessant, dishonest waffling about how Britain did everything it could to help Ireland in its time of need. Its really annoying to see you so much wedded to a mindset that you can't even acknowledge what actually happened. Propaganda, propaganda, and more propaganda, a bit of honesty for a change wouldn't go amiss.

ying and yang my friend.

Because I refuse to put up with your's and Mcarm's constant propaganda fuelled slating of everything and everyone British that makes me an apologist? it is very clear that I think the British regime was lacking in Ireland, I have never said they did all they can. I just don't accept the view it was genocide or even deliberate. like most of irish history, (The winners write the history books remember) the famine has been used as propaganda so the reality is hidden.

Much has been said about Trevelyans percieved relief that the famine was reducing the numbers of Irish people, but lets face, a great many republicans seem to love it the way they use it as a constant stick to beat the British with.

Erin Go Brath

Hiding behind the winners write the history chestnut eh.
If the glorious empires official position was that the earth was flat, is that the version you'd be still believing today

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Hiding behind the winners write the history chestnut eh.
If the glorious empires official position was that the earth was flat, is that the version you'd be still believing today

no, but if they said it was round there would be plenty of people denying it and claiming the reason it is not flat is because of the British:D

McArmalite

Pathfinder wrote: »

I am actually more embarrassed that nearly 160 years on republicans still use it and the British empire as an excuse of their own inadequacy/failure. Notice how in the outside would these people are usually total failures (a bit like fascists going on about Jews).

I am an ex-soldier who did four tours in the north, some of the people we had to deal with and houses we searched were unreal.Deranged women, faeces and used tampons thrown under beds,

A week later later a paper from Sinn Fein would appear in the local paper saying soldiers had pissed on their kids toys and assaulted them etc.

If you went back and confronted them and said no such thing happened, they would say, "its all part of the war".

Sinn Fein/IRA would also anonymously tip of the security services about decent Catholic families having arms in their houses, when searched none were found, it was to done to turn ordinary decent Catholics against the security forces.

Your a complete fantasist pal, completely, totally :rolleyes:

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Hiding behind the winners write the history chestnut eh.
If the glorious empires official position was that the earth was flat, is that the version you'd be still believing today

Agree completely Erin, he's just typical of a unionist* - NO, NO, NOOOOO.

* ( though in all fairness, very, very few English people are unionists or want anything to do with them )

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Agree completely Erin, he's just typical of a unionist* - NO, NO, NOOOOO.

* ( though in all fairness, very, very few English people are unionists or want anything to do with them )

and I am no exception to the rule. what gives you the impression I am a unionist, if I were Scottish, Welsh or from NI I would want to determine my own future. It's a shame the English aren't given the same right.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

what gives you the impression I am a unionist,

Almost any posting to do with british history :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would want to determine my own future. It's a shame the English aren't given the same right.

It's a shame the Irish aren't given the same right as our country was partitioned under the threat of force from a much larger state and the secterian gerrymander called 'northern' Ireland created.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Almost any posting to do with british history :rolleyes:

then I suggest you read my posts and don't judge me by your own standards.

McArmalite wrote: »

It's a shame the Irish aren't given the same right as our country was partitioned under the threat of force from a much larger state and the secterian gerrymander called 'northern' Ireland created.

yes it is, but that is something that can now be addressed. the people of Northern Ireland have the same right to leave the union as the people of Scotland, what they don't have is the willingness.

kreuzberger

micmclo wrote: »

Gotta be honest. It drives me mad when posters quote a massive post and then just add a few lines.
Making it harder for everyone to read :mad:

it drives me mad when someone just cuts and pastes a massive post praising a discredited revisionist historian . it doesnt deserve more than a few lines dismissing it in my opinion

kreuzberger

Pathfinder wrote: »

I am actually more embarrassed that nearly 160 years on republicans still use it and the British empire as an excuse of their own inadequacy/failure. Notice how in the outside would these people are usually total failures (a bit like fascists going on about Jews).

I am an ex-soldier who did four tours in the north, some of the people we had to deal with and houses we searched were unreal.Deranged women, faeces and used tampons thrown under beds,

A week later later a paper from Sinn Fein would appear in the local paper saying soldiers had pissed on their kids toys and assaulted them etc.

If you went back and confronted them and said no such thing happened, they would say, "its all part of the war".

Sinn Fein/IRA would also anonymously tip of the security services about decent Catholic families having arms in their houses, when searched none were found, it was to done to turn ordinary decent Catholics against the security forces.

this is just racist fantasy and disturbed offensive rubbish , and id advise anyone else to simply ignore it and not be drawn into a situation where they could be deliberately provoked and then banned . Its a hate post

kreuzberger

quote=PHB;55262129]You attempted to claim that the government policy was not a genocide of sorts (I don't like the use of the phrase, as it has a very very specific meaning. I'd rather describe it through mass-killings through a combination of neglect and choosing not to act)

Indeed it does and Britians behaviour in its Irish colony more than fulfilled the definition of genocide . You seem to be hiniting that genocide however only occured in world war 2 and anything that falls below the behaviour of the nazis cant be described as such . If that is the case you are very very wrong

The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959), a Polish-Jewish legal scholar, in 1943, firstly from the Greek root génos (γένος) (family, tribe or race - gene); secondly from Latin -cide (occido—to massacre, kill).

In his study commisioned by the Carnegie institute Lemkin made the following proposal which was accepted into international law and formed the legal basis for the prosecution of Nazi war criminals in the Nuremberg trials . According to the man who invented the word and formulated the legal basis for its prosecution

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.[5]

Englands behaviour in Ireland more than qualifies as genocide , and genocide occured for a much more sustained period than during the potato blight of the 1840s . The bulk of Britains occupation of Ireland has seen them engaged in the persuit of genocidal policies in persuit of conquest . So , there is the very very precise meaning by the man who invented the phrase and the legal concept for prosecution . One could therefore ask why you prefer not to use the term in light of its definition .

McArmalite

kreuzberger wrote: »

this is just racist fantasy and disturbed offensive rubbish , and id advise anyone else to simply ignore it and not be drawn into a situation where they could be deliberately provoked and then banned . Its a hate post

I agree " disturbed offensive rubbish ". But that's nothing, read his posting from the Politics discussion about Mairead Farrell -

Pathfinder wrote: »

Her boyfriend was an SAS member, theres even pics of them together. Apparently she was abit of a girl.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Violent-Delights-Scott-Graham/dp/1857821963


Synopsis
The true stoy of a tragic love affair between an heroic SAS operative and an IRA terrorist. Scott Graham was decorated for hereoism in Northern Ireland and the Falklands, and he fought battles in which more than a dozen IRA terrorists were killed. Mairead Farrell was petite, young and darkly beautiful and she planted bombs for the IRA. Together the two shared a deadly and terrible secret. They loved one another, against the taboos of both their armies, for 14 years. The clandestine love affair reached its crescendo with one of the most controversial incidents in the history of the SAS.

I know he referencing from a book, but well, I agree totally when you say "disturbed".

kreuzberger

kreuzberger wrote: »

quote=PHB;55262129]You attempted to claim that the government policy was not a genocide of sorts (I don't like the use of the phrase, as it has a very very specific meaning. I'd rather describe it through mass-killings through a combination of neglect and choosing not to act)

Indeed it does and Britians behaviour in its Irish colony more than fulfilled the definition of genocide . You seem to be hiniting that genocide however only occured in world war 2 and anything that falls below the behaviour of the nazis cant be described as such . If that is the case you are very very wrong

The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959), a Polish-Jewish legal scholar, in 1943, firstly from the Greek root génos (γένος) (family, tribe or race - gene); secondly from Latin -cide (occido—to massacre, kill).

In his study commisioned by the Carnegie institute Lemkin made the following proposal which was accepted into international law and formed the legal basis for the prosecution of Nazi war criminals in the Nuremberg trials . According to the man who invented the word and formulated the legal basis for its prosecution

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.[5]

Englands behaviour in Ireland more than qualifies as genocide , and genocide occured for a much more sustained period than during the potato blight of the 1840s . The bulk of Britains occupation of Ireland has seen them engaged in the persuit of genocidal policies in persuit of conquest . So , there is the very very precise meaning by the man who invented the phrase and the legal concept for prosecution . One could therefore ask why you prefer not to use the term in light of its definition .

Please learn how to "quote" :mad:

kreuzberger

Deleted User wrote: »

Please learn how to "quote" :mad:

either address the issue raised or dont . the issue is not punctuation .

kreuzberger

Fratton Fred wrote: »

ying and yang my friend.

it is very clear that I think the British regime was lacking in Ireland, I have never said they did all they can.

did all they could to do what ? Civilise the Irish ? Help them ?
The fact is they did all they could to grind our people into the ground , and pretty much succeeded .

I just don't accept the view it was genocide or even deliberate. like most of irish history, (The winners write the history books remember) the famine has been used as propaganda so the reality is hidden.

the Irish people did not win , they were slaughtered

Much has been said about Trevelyans percieved relief that the famine was reducing the numbers of Irish people, but lets face, a great many republicans seem to love it the way they use it as a constant stick to beat the British with.

I see . Have you considered the possibility that Irish people may have deliberately reduced themselves to vagrant-esque poverty and starved themselves to death in order to make Britian look bad , therefore providing propaganda opportunites to nationally minded Irish people in future generations ?

I must confess as an Irish citizen Im quite proud of the fact my country was reduced to a nation of dispossessed illiterate beggars who forgot how to speak their own language in the course of single generation and became so numerically and militarily weak and mentally and culturally damaged they could never hope to do away with colonialism in this country .
Im happy our population is around 5 million people in a partitioned country who mostly cant speak their own language as opposed to an estimate of 15 million today who might be capable of asserting themselves in a more dignfied manner , as citizens of a fully independent sovereign united Irish republic . An actual nation as opposed to the 2 sectarian Bantustans Britian created for our people within our nation.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Please learn how to "quote"

kreuzberger wrote: »

either address the issue raised or dont . the issue is not punctuation .

It makes your posts easier to follow, readers then know who said what!

I see you've followed my advice, a bit

kreuzberger

Deleted User wrote: »

It makes your posts easier to follow, readers then know who said what!

I see you've followed my advice, a bit

i see you are still incapable of addressing the issue and persuing an irrelevance instead , a lot

kreuzberger

kreuzberger wrote: »

i see you are still incapable of addressing the issue and persuing an irrelevance instead , a lot

I have already addressed the issue, see post #160

kreuzberger

Deleted User wrote: »

I have already addressed the issue, see post #160

ive no idea where post 160 is nor any intention of looking for it

I see one post though were youve referred to the fact Britain eventually annexed Ireland after colonising it as a claim that it was part of Britain and not a colony of the empire .
I see nothing though addressing the issue of genocide in Ireland

Stev_o

kreuzberger wrote: »

ive no idea where post 160 is nor any intention of looking for it

I see one post though were youve referred to the fact Britain eventually annexed Ireland after colonising it as a claim that it was part of Britain and not a colony of the empire .
I see nothing though addressing the issue of genocide in Ireland

A genocide seems a bit extreme in the context of British occupation. Did it occur? Yes! Did Irish people on both sides do it? Of course they did.

Give examples of such genocide that your aware of in Ireland then

kreuzberger

Stev_o wrote: »

A genocide seems a bit extreme in the context of British occupation. Did it occur? Yes! Did Irish people on both sides do it? Of course they did.

Give examples of such genocide that your aware of in Ireland then

Im unaware of the Irish commiting genocide against the British . Im startled to hear an accusation that this occured . Seriously..Id like to see some evidence of your claim this happened .

Ill refer you to the definition of genocide

The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.[5]

Over a prolonged period Irelands political , social and legal instituions were abloished and firmly criminalised by the occupation forces as policy , to the point where the law of the land took the open opinion that as far as the law was no concerned no such person as an Irish roman catholic existed . That is no different to the policies persued by the nazis which saw European Jews stripped of their rights under the law , the seizure of their property , the outlawing of their religion and places of worship , their disbarment from all professions and commerce and employment . Those policies by the nazis were genocidal . British policies were no different , but lasted almost 2 centuries .

As far back as 1641 it was estimated by the British governemnts own commisioned survey that around 40% of the Irish population had been eliminated during the Cromwellian conquest .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Petty . This involved not only the physical destruction of the islands inhabitants by troops but by the deliberate destruction of their foodstocks in order to cause mass suffering and csualties among the civilian population . The remaining civilian population were stripped of their possessions . That in itself was an act of genocide .
The surviving remainder of the national population were then subject to almost 2 centuries of penal laws which outlawed their religion ,outlawed their language , forbid them from engaging in commerce , education , owning property , or taking part in the national life of their own nation . Commerce and manufacturing was forbidden . Their churches destroyed . Their very language , their religion their economy were criminalised and penalised ,and in effect their nation was criminalised . This was done in order to destroy their very existence as a nation. Those policies were aimed at the destruction of the Irish people . They were genocidal policies . They were most definitely intended to bring about the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups , as the definition of genocide describes.


By the 1840s the effects of centuries of this regime upon the national population were very clear and marked . Prominent English writer of that period William Makepeace Thackeray insisted that "...It is a frightful document against ourselves...one of the most melancholy stories in the whole world of insolence, rapine, brutal, endless slaughter and persecution on the part of the English master...There is no crime ever invented by eastern or western barbarians, no torture or Roman persecution or Spanish Inquisition, no tyranny of Nero or Alva but can be matched in the history of England in Ireland." (Metress, 2)

There was clearly no shortage of food in Ireland during the 1840s either
As the The Pictorial Times, October 10, 1846, pointed out :"Around them is plenty; rickyards, in full contempt, stand under their snug thatch, calculating the chances of advancing prices; or, the thrashed grain safely stored awaits only the opportunity of conveyance to be taken far away to feed strangers...But a strong arm interposes to hold the maddened infuriates away. Property laws supersede those of Nature. Grain is of more value than blood. And if they attempt to take of the fatness of the land that belongs to their lords, death by musketry, is a cheap government measure to provide for the wants of a starving and incensed people."

British policies in Ireland , genocidal policies aggressively persued for centuries had left an illiterate , defenceless and leaderless population in a position of extreme poverty and wholly dependent upon one single food item , the potato . National culture was replaced with a potato culture of dispossessed , defencelss ,leaderless remedyless subservience . No recourse to law or politics was open to the Irish people . No call for mercy was listened to . When that food item failed military , political and legal policies were persued to remove all other foodstuffs from the island . Policies were also persued to remove the islands population from the island through mass eviction from their homes and the physcial destruction of their homes , along with further laws to forbid other Irish people from offering them shelter . Policies were persued to ensure harbours , fisheries , land reclamation and attempts to provide food , a necessity of life , would not take place . The persuance of these policies led to the near physical destruction of all what remained of the Irish nation , its people .


It was genocide .