The Irish Famine

enno99

Denerick wrote: »

I'm curious about whether you think the Great European Famine of 1315 constitutes a genocide by the aristocratic class against the peasantry? This goes for every other famine that has effected Ireland and Europe for the past thousand years.

Hardly europe was not under foregin rule and all its poor citizens suffered their fair share

But maybe we should go back to Egyptian famines next and try to justify it that way

Brown Bomber

Denerick wrote: »

I'm curious about whether you think the Great European Famine of 1315 constitutes a genocide by the aristocratic class against the peasantry? This goes for every other famine that has effected Ireland and Europe for the past thousand years.

To be honest I have no clue, never heard of it before so I couldn't say. If famine A = genocide it doesn't automatically follow that famine B, or any other famine = genocide. It appears to me that famines can come about through a multitude of diverse reasons.

What I will say though is that food can be used as a weapon, control of food that is.

All famines IMO need to be judged on their broader historical context as a possible cause, which is what is being ignored with regards to the Great Irish Famine IMO.

Denerick

Brown Bomber wrote: »

To be honest I have no clue, never heard of it before so I couldn't say. If famine A = genocide it doesn't automatically follow that famine B, or any other famine = genocide. It appears to me that famines can come about through a multitude of diverse reasons.

What I will say though is that food can be used as a weapon, control of food that is.

All famines IMO need to be judged on their broader historical context as a possible cause, which is what is being ignored with regards to the Great Irish Famine IMO.

Food was taken away from the peasants and stockpiled by fuedal lords for their own personal use and resale. This is identical to what happened in the Irish feudal landowning system of the 1840s. ERGO, if you believe that the British government engineered a genocide in the 1840s it stand to reason that you blame it on an economic and landowning system (Feudalism) which collected the crops of tenants (Peasants)

The famine is judged by a broader historical context, this is precisely why historians do not consider it to be a genocide or a holocaust.

Denerick

enno99 wrote: »

Hardly europe was not under foregin rule and all its poor citizens suffered their fair share

But maybe we should go back to Egyptian famines next and try to justify it that way

The great famine of 1315 predated nationalism so the concept of 'foreign' was fluid to say the least. The conditions are pretty much the same, I don't understand why you are reluctant to claim that it too, like any other famine in a society with a similar land owning system to Ireland in the 1840s, was a genocide.

Brown Bomber

Denerick wrote: »

Food was taken away from the peasants and stockpiled by fuedal lords for their own personal use and resale. This is identical to what happened in the Irish feudal landowning system of the 1840s. ERGO, if you believe that the British government engineered a genocide in the 1840s it stand to reason that you blame it on an economic and landowning system (Feudalism) which collected the crops of tenants (Peasants)

The famine is judged by a broader historical context, this is precisely why historians do not consider it to be a genocide or a holocaust.

Like I said I know absolutely nothing about middle-ages famine so I couldn't possibly comment.

With regards to Ireland I am talking about the British hegemony over Ireland for hundreds of years prior to the Famine. The absentee landlords who exploited their land rather than invest. Irish Catholics having no land rights whatsover, therefore no incentive to invest. Every Irish Catholic in the country was a victim of British oppression. All the good land was stolen from the Irish and given to the British who's only interest was quick profits. Therefore natural agricultural progression did not and had no incentive to take place.

Throw imperialist anti-Catholic and anti-Irish scientific racism, we were the "white negroes" of the day with culltural and religious superiority and you have your motive.

enno99

Denerick wrote: »

Food was taken away from the peasants and stockpiled by fuedal lords for their own personal use and resale. This is identical to what happened in the Irish feudal landowning system of the 1840s. ERGO, if you believe that the British government engineered a genocide in the 1840s it stand to reason that you blame it on an economic and landowning system (Feudalism) which collected the crops of tenants (Peasants)

The famine is judged by a broader historical context, this is precisely why historians do not consider it to be a genocide or a holocaust.

History is what happened, and also what historians make of what happened, and they have a nearly impossible task trying to get it right—not necessarily because of ignorance or bias or lack of objectivity, but because of systematic problems of historical reconstruction. Historians have been writing about the Constitution since it was written, but there are some things about it that are almost impossible to get right, and that leads to important misconceptions.

http://legalhistoryblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/bernard-bailyn-on-how-historians-get-us.html

So they are not infallable as you would like to think

Denerick

Will you please stop quote mining? It only reveals that you are completely ignorant of the context you are trying to write about.

BB,

I still don't see how your explanation differs to the economic system of feudal Europe, and its frequent famines. I don't see why you aren't claiming that every famine that has ever happened in western Europe was a genocide, as the feudal lord never died of hunger.

Why is that exactly?

Flamed Diving

Just read another paper about famine in general, and it seems accusations of 'engineered famines' are quite commonplace, going right back to the Roman times.

Hardly surprising, really.

Brown Bomber

enno99 wrote: »

History is what happened, and also what historians make of what happened, and they have a nearly impossible task trying to get it right—not necessarily because of ignorance or bias or lack of objectivity, but because of systematic problems of historical reconstruction. Historians have been writing about the Constitution since it was written, but there are some things about it that are almost impossible to get right, and that leads to important misconceptions.

http://legalhistoryblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/bernard-bailyn-on-how-historians-get-us.html

So they are not infallable as you would like to think

There was a famine/genocide in Ukraine in the 30's under the Bolsheviks were up to 10 million died. According to BBC Ukraine 19 seperate states accept it as a genocide.
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fukrainian%2Fdomestic%2Fstory%2F2008%2F03%2F080313_latvia_holodomor_oh.shtml&sl=uk&tl=en
Where it fits in to your post is that up until the 80's the Soviets flatly denied the famine had ever happened. All Soviet historians, scholars, economists, and researchers argued succesfully that it never happened, it dissapeared from history.

Who's to say that the scholars/deniers on the Irish Famine doesn't have politically or financially motivations to make the Irish Famine dissapear from history to cover the crimes of the British.

Brown Bomber

Denerick wrote: »

Will you please stop quote mining? It only reveals that you are completely ignorant of the context you are trying to write about.

I'm sorry but there really is no need to get so personal:mad:

Denerick wrote: »

BB,

I still don't see how your explanation differs to the economic system of feudal Europe, and its frequent famines. I don't see why you aren't claiming that every famine that has ever happened in western Europe was a genocide, as the feudal lord never died of hunger.

Why is that exactly?

Like I said I know little about the Irish famine and nothing about any medieval famines so I cannot compare .

Besides, we are discussing Ireland.

What I would likke to ask you though ist this -

Do you think drunk drivers who kill another whilst driving under the influence should be charged with murder?

Flamed Diving

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Who's to say that the scholars/deniers on the Irish Famine doesn't have politically or financially motivations to make the Irish Famine dissapear from history to cover the crimes of the British.

Who's to say that aliens don't control our minds to make us deny the genocide?

A statement of equal weight and merit.

Flamed Diving

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm sorry but there really is no need to get so personal:mad:

Why did you not say the same to mysterious when he accused someone of making ignorant claims?

Denerick

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There was a famine/genocide in Ukraine in the 30's under the Bolsheviks were up to 10 million died. According to BBC Ukraine 19 seperate states accept it as a genocide.
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fukrainian%2Fdomestic%2Fstory%2F2008%2F03%2F080313_latvia_holodomor_oh.shtml&sl=uk&tl=en
Where it fits in to your post is that up until the 80's the Soviets flatly denied the famine had ever happened. All Soviet historians, scholars, economists, and researchers argued succesfully that it never happened, it dissapeared from history.

Who's to say that the scholars/deniers on the Irish Famine doesn't have politically or financially motivations to make the Irish Famine dissapear from history to cover the crimes of the British.

The Ukranian famine was completely different, it came about as a result of a catastrophic breakdown in social and economic forces following the Bolshevik revolution.

THe Irish famine fits neatly into a comparison with the feudal famines of medieval Europe. Due to the landowning system in which peasants were little better than slaves, they had barely any land in which to grow food (There are social problems involved here too, such as the plague of 'subdivision', caused entirely by Irish peasants having too many children) and even the better off tenants had to give a substantial part of their crop in rent to an inherited, often absentee landlord. These are economic forces at work which in large part caused the famine - if the nation had have had mass ownership of land, with a more equal distribution of land, there would not have been such a catastrophic loss of life.

You really need to be blaming John Locke and the principle of inherited private property, not the British government.

As for your line about vested interests looking to cover up the famine - I'll take you seriously the moment you admit to having actually read ANY of the scholarship of the period. Otherwise its a statement with no informed merit whatsoever, as anyone who has ever spent any time in an archive will tell you.

Denerick

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Like I said I know little about the Irish famine and nothing about any medieval famines so I cannot compare .

Besides, we are discussing Ireland.

What I would likke to ask you though ist this -

Do you think drunk drivers who kill another whilst driving under the influence should be charged with murder?

Yes, we are discussing Ireland, but Ireland does not exist in an historical vacuum. The historians you hold with such contempt do not view Ireland as exceptional either, and tend to draw in parallels from similar countries in order to get away from the notion that the British were exceptional in their treatment of Ireland. If you could just please answer the question - is a famine always a genocide? If the rich survive and the poor die, then surely every famine is an economic genocide against the poor? By your logic?

Brown Bomber

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Who's to say that aliens don't control our minds to make us deny the genocide?

A statement of equal weight and merit.

Well no actually. There is a precedent, as I have shown with the Ukranian example for committers of genocide to attempt to cover up their crimes.

What precedent is there for aliens controlling our minds?

Genocide is a dirty word, nobody wants to accept it so they minimise or deny the impact.

Look at the Armenian Massacre, a genocide to all except Turkey, or the holocaust deniers amongst the neo nazi types. It seems to be a natural reaction. A natural reaction everywhere except Ireland.

This was from the Ukranian link:

arch 11, 2008 | UKRAINEDenial of the Holodomor: Whom to punish?

12 грудня 2007 | ДОКЛАДНО

December 12, 2007 | RELATED

For some reason we seem alone in denying our own genocide. Living away from Ireland I have realised Irish people are ashamed to be nationalistic, probably through its association with Republicanism

Brown Bomber

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Why did you not say the same to mysterious when he accused someone of making ignorant claims?

Because accusations of making ignorant claims and accusations of someone being ignorant are two completely different charges.

Flamed Diving

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Because accusations of making ignorant claims and accusations of someone being ignorant are two completely different charges.

No, he said he was being ignorant of the context. So what is the difference?

Flamed Diving

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well no actually. There is a precedent, as I have shown with the Ukranian example for committers of genocide to attempt to cover up their crimes.

What precedent is there for aliens controlling our minds?

Genocide is a dirty word, nobody wants to accept it so they minimise or deny the impact.

Look at the Armenian Massacre, a genocide to all except Turkey, or the holocaust deniers amongst the neo nazi types. It seems to be a natural reaction. A natural reaction everywhere except Ireland.

This was from the Ukranian link:

arch 11, 2008 | UKRAINEDenial of the Holodomor: Whom to punish?

12 грудня 2007 | ДОКЛАДНО

December 12, 2007 | RELATED

For some reason we seem alone in denying our own genocide. Living away from Ireland I have realised Irish people are ashamed to be nationalistic, probably through its association with Republicanism

Amazing. You actually prove the rule, then choose the exception.

hehehe

Brown Bomber

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, he said he was being ignorant of the context. So what is the difference?

A Person.

A Comment.

You tell me...

Brown Bomber

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Amazing. You actually prove the rule, then choose the exception.

hehehe

Yeah hilarious. You equate something currently unprovable with something completely ridiculous. Its a false comparison and achieves nothing except belittlement.

bonkey

Guys...enough of the squabbling.

If you have issues with posts, report them, rather than engaging with this back-and-forward squabbling on who's not acting appropriately.

Brown Bomber

Denerick wrote: »

Yes, we are discussing Ireland, but Ireland does not exist in an historical vacuum.

However "The Irish Famine" is the topic

Denerick wrote: »

The historians you hold with such contempt do not view Ireland as exceptional either, and tend to draw in parallels from similar countries in order to get away from the notion that the British were exceptional in their treatment of Ireland.

To be clear I don't hold any historians with contempt.

Denerick wrote: »

If you could just please answer the question - is a famine always a genocide? If the rich survive and the poor die, then surely every famine is an economic genocide against the poor? By your logic?

I have answered this

Denerick wrote: »

I'm curious about whether you think the Great European Famine of 1315 constitutes a genocide by the aristocratic class against the peasantry? This goes for every other famine that has effected Ireland and Europe for the past thousand years.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

To be honest I have no clue, never heard of it before so I couldn't say. If famine A = genocide it doesn't automatically follow that famine B, or any other famine = genocide. It appears to me that famines can come about through a multitude of diverse reasons.

What I will say though is that food can be used as a weapon, control of food that is.

All famines IMO need to be judged on their broader historical context as a possible cause, which is what is being ignored with regards to the Great Irish Famine IMO.

Perhaps now you could answer my questions.

How you feel about the Irish Famine being described as a holocaust? and Why?

Would you consider it murder for a drunk driver who kills another whilst driving under the influence?

Flamed Diving

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah hilarious. You equate something currently unprovable with something completely ridiculous. Its a false comparison and achieves nothing except belittlement.

Belittlement? A bit harsh a term, there, methinks. I just pointed out that flinging baseless speculation around is as good as any guessing. But, I should remember the forum I'm occupying, I guess. But, for you to suggest that all Irish Famine historians, from Ireland/UK/US/etc might be in the pocket of some... whoever, is very insulting to the profession. I have met some of these authors, and they are extremely passionate about the subject. They express visible anger when discussing Britain's handling of the famine. But even the most damning of the British still failed to go as far as the genocide claim. They see no evidence for it. But this is falling on deaf ears, I know. I imagine you will read my description of the angry historian and conclude that he must be angry at himself, for taking that bribe to hold back the terrible truth. But there is nothing I can say to such thinking...

enno99

Denerick wrote: »

Will you please stop quote mining? It only reveals that you are completely ignorant of the context you are trying to write about.

Why not quote mine?

Why dont you refute the claim the quote makes?
or if you have a problem with its source say so

So historical works can be and in this case most probably are not the full picture

As to your banging on about The 1315 european famine is there evidence of outside influence in any of these misfortunes?
If not then that is just the natural order of things the rich will live and the poor will die nothing strange there happening in the world at the moment.

Fast forward 500 years Now we have a different scenario we have outside influence in the shape of a foreign government with a deep hatred for the citizens of the oppressed country
Pointless going back over quotes and statements concerning extermination and the likes you just dont want to listen to them. Remember these are also part of the history but you still ignore them what else are you wiling to ignore that you might find distastful.

I came to this with no preconcieved ideas and i dont have a political bone in my body But i am leaning on the side of gonocide /holocaust not as been contrived but as being metered out with cunning when the opportunity arose

A top law professor concluded in his study that it was genocide according to the law that you said you subscribe to
I am not interested in your professed high level of education or how many scholarly tomes you have read
Your attempt to equate the famine with the black death?
leaves me to think it came at the expense of common sense and the ability to get your head out of a book and look at the world around you

Flamed Diving

enno99 wrote: »

A top law professor concluded in his study that it was genocide.

If I have a heart attack, I wouldn't go see my dentist.

It's kind of depressing, however, that you will only listen to the "experts" who agree with your already-reached conclusion on the subject. Why do you bother discussing the topic? Why bother reading about it? You already have your mind made up anyway...

enno99

Flamed Diving wrote: »

If I have a heart attack, I wouldn't go see my dentist.

It's kind of depressing, however, that you will only listen to the "experts" who agree with your already-reached conclusion on the subject. Why do you bother discussing the topic? Why bother reading about it? You already have your mind made up anyway...

So are we to rely on historians to interpet the law now

Flamed Diving

enno99 wrote: »

So are we to rely on historians to interpet the law now

No, we rely on them to interpret history. I think you refer to this Wikpedia quote:

In 1996 Francis A. Boyle, a law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, wrote a report commissioned by the New York-based Irish Famine/Genocide Committee, that concluded "Clearly, during the years 1845 to 1850, the British government pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland with intent to destroy in substantial part the national, ethnic and racial group commonly known as the Irish People.... Therefore, during the years 1845 to 1850 the British government knowingly pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland that constituted acts of genocide against the Irish people within the meaning of Article II (c) of the 1948 [Hague] Genocide Convention."[138] On the strength of Boyle's report, the U.S. state of New Jersey included the famine in the "Holocaust and Genocide Curriculum" at the secondary tier.[139]

So, this lawyer got together with the "Irish Famine/Genocide Committee" to decide that their already held conclusions were actually true.

Hmm, that sounds familiar. Yet again, we must cast aside the tens of thousands of man hours worked by varied (culturally, politically, religiously) historians on the subject who almost unanimously came to the conclusion of "no genocide".

No, we must trust the unbiased, heh, "Irish Famine/Genocide Committee".

:rolleyes:

Flamed Diving

Anyway, this thread is too depressing to deal with. Honestly.

Remember its:

Hypothesis-->Evidence-->Conclusions

not:

Conclusions-->Opposing evidence-->Conclusions


So long, folks.

enno99

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, we must trust the unbiased, heh, "Irish Famine/Genocide Committee".

To be fair hes not just any lawyer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_A._Boyle

enno99

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Anyway, this thread is too depressing to deal with. Honestly.

Remember its:

Hypothesis-->Evidence-->Conclusions

not:

Conclusions-->Opposing evidence-->Conclusions


So long, folks.

Thats fine good luck