The Irish Famine

Denerick

The temptation to insult some people here is driving me insane. For that reason I'll bow out now. You fine folks believe whatever it is what you want to believe, you all buy into a political faith, no amount of reason or evidence will change your minds.

Denerick

Actually, I'll answer this first:

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

I've already told you several times that the Irish Famine is not a holocaust or a genocide because the British government did not engineer or deliberately conspire for the deaths of millions. I asked you a comparative question and you evaded it. You believe that historians are in the pay of some conspiratorial evil neo imperialist power aimed at keeping the 'truth' from coming out. This is the nature of this forum and ergo I cannot argue against that.

I'd imagine it would be kinda fun to debate with you in a pub environment. But in a genuine, real debate where facts, not opinions, are respected, its impossible to maintain this level of pretense. I'm not arsed arguing with people who think historians are involved in some massive conspiracy to conceal the truth.

Brown Bomber

Flamed Diving wrote: »

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...

HA! Thats rich.

Why do you bother discussing the topic?

Why do you bother reading about it?

You have apparently your own made up. My take on your opinion is that you blame the barbaric Irish more than the British rule, for having the audacity to pro-create

Enno has claimed he has an open mind on the subject, as have I. Has it not occured to you that you argument is unconvincing?

Denerick

Brown Bomber wrote: »

HA! Thats rich.

Why do you bother discussing the topic?

Why do you bother reading about it?

You have apparently your own made up. My take on your opinion is that you blame the barbaric Irish more than the British rule, for having the audacity to pro-create

Enno has claimed he has an open mind on the subject, as have I. Has it not occured to you that you argument is unconvincing?

LOL!

The 'audacity'!

Both me and Flamed have offered reasoned explanations and explained the economic and social context. You have positively refused to discuss this and much prefer to cling on to some belief that historians are in the pay of the British in order to keep the 'truth' from coming out!

Brown Bomber

Denerick wrote: »

LOL!

The 'audacity'!

Whats funny? Do you deny the fundamental right of procreation to the Irish?

Denerick wrote: »

Both me and Flamed have offered reasoned explanations and explained the economic and social context.

Again in your own highly held opinion.

As I've said, I was/am open to persuasion, my mind is not made up on the matter but what you and flamed diving have presented has not impressed me in the slightest, its O'Grada regurgitated blaming a combination of natural causes (potato blight), which I fully accept as a factor and British Liberal economic principles while ignoring the fact that the British viewed us as "white negroes" and treated us with contempt for hundreds of years in a systemathic attempt at destroying our Religion, culture and society.

This is from the legal definition of genocide

"Article II: [FONT=Courier New, Courier, mono] [/FONT]In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.

Now you can bring up every famine in history but the only thing that really matters was intent.

You haven't come close to convincing me that there was no intent on the part of the British to weaken the Irish position through genocide.

Denerick wrote: »

You have positively refused to discuss this and much prefer to cling on to some belief that historians are in the pay of the British in order to keep the 'truth' from coming out!

Major exaggeration here.

I have refused to discuss an unconnected and altogether irrelevant famine. And to be clear I don't believe Irish Famine historians are in the pay of the British, I compared Soviet scholarly denial of the Ukranian holocaust to Irelands situation.

Denerick

You're a funny guy.

Mahatma coat

Flamed Diving wrote: »

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...

you owe me a new IronyMeter :P

romajules

Check out the facebook page "There never was a famine"

robroy1234

Denerick - Treveleyan, the man sent by the Brits to assist and alleviate the distress of the famine, did more so to make matters worse. In his own words he described the famine "as a perfect mechanism for ridding of excess population." His attitude and behaviour was exhibited in other dubious characters colonel Hogrove and Captain Primrose and their actions that led directly to the Doo Lough Tragedy, knowing full well of the state of the people and conditions outside. The amount of food that was exported from Ireland measured in thousands of tonnes and yet the Irish people were forbidden to buy food marked for export and imported food for famine relief was restricted and the cost overly inflated. The incident when Queen Victoria pledged 2000 guineas to the famine relief and yet the money failed to appear, but Britain was prepared to go to war against Turkey when the Emir of Turkey offered 5000 guineas towards the famine relief -It was not permitted that any individual can donate or pledge more than the Queen of England. Turkey was forced to withdraw the donation.

Hitler also once stated that he modelled the SS on the British Black and Tans and that the Irish Famine was a prime example of how to deal with undesireables.

ed2hands

robroy1234 wrote: »

Denerick - Treveleyan, the man sent by the Brits to assist and alleviate the distress of the famine, did more so to make matters worse. In his own words he described the famine "as a perfect mechanism for ridding of excess population." His attitude and behaviour was exhibited in other dubious characters colonel Hogrove and Captain Primrose and their actions that led directly to the Doo Lough Tragedy, knowing full well of the state of the people and conditions outside. The amount of food that was exported from Ireland measured in thousands of tonnes and yet the Irish people were forbidden to buy food marked for export and imported food for famine relief was restricted and the cost overly inflated. The incident when Queen Victoria pledged 2000 guineas to the famine relief and yet the money failed to appear, but Britain was prepared to go to war against Turkey when the Emir of Turkey offered 5000 guineas towards the famine relief -It was not permitted that any individual can donate or pledge more than the Queen of England. Turkey was forced to withdraw the donation.

Hitler also once stated that he modelled the SS on the British Black and Tans and that the Irish Famine was a prime example of how to deal with undesireables.

Great info.thanks.
http://gazatvnews.com/2011/06/how-turkeys-sent-ships-loaded-with-aid-to-ireland-during-the-famine-in-1847/

robroy1234

I stand corrected on certain points. Thank you very much. There was one more outstanding effect of the Doo Lough tragedy that forever will not be forgotten, and that was the Choctaw Nation in the United States

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/michael/www/choctaw/irish.htm

Where Britain shame shall forever be a testament to our nation resolve and strength, and to our fellow man whom has also suffered.

Ash.J.Williams

ed2hands wrote: »

Great info.thanks.
http://gazatvnews.com/2011/06/how-turkeys-sent-ships-loaded-with-aid-to-ireland-during-the-famine-in-1847/

was that story not proved to have been fantasy?

ed2hands

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

was that story not proved to have been fantasy?

Not that i heard of. Enlighten me.

studiorat

robroy1234 wrote: »

Treveleyan, the man sent by the Brits to assist and alleviate the distress of the famine, did more so to make matters worse. In his own words he described the famine "as a perfect mechanism for ridding of excess population."

Treveleyan attributed the famine to a judgement by God on the Irish people, not genocide.

The following quote is also attributed to him,

"Our measures must proceed with as little disturbance as possible of the ordinary course of private trade, which must ever be the chief resource for the subsistence of the people, but, at any cost, the people must not, under any circumstances, be allowed to starve."

So although his efforts were a disaster, it doesn't signify purposeful genocide either.

Ash.J.Williams

ed2hands wrote: »

Not that i heard of. Enlighten me.

if you google it, most pages begin with "a popular tale..." "a popular myth....." etc. The only time i've ever seen it mentioned as fact was when Mary Mcaleese used the tale in her speech.

robroy1234

Studiorat - if Treveleyan's aim was not to allow the people of Ireland to starve - he completely messed up there. The potato blight affected a portion of the potato crop throughout the US, North Europe, Scotland and Ireland, and even though a few people perished in Scotland it was Ireland that suffered the worse. This indicates that it was governmental action (or inaction) that was a major factor, especially considering that when Treveleyan arrived in Ireland the situation got worse. It wasn't until he left that the conditions in Ireland improved. And, yet Queen Victoria decorated him with the highest honours.

Only Britain downplays the cause and effect of the famine, blaming the whole famine on the collapse of the potato crop and that the Irish were too stupid to eat anything else. History as taught in England does not mention Treveleyan nor the Doo Lough Tragedy and for most part they deny the event ever happened at all.

ed2hands

robroy1234 wrote: »

Studiorat - if Treveleyan's aim was not to allow the people of Ireland to starve - he completely messed up there. The potato blight affected a portion of the potato crop throughout the US, North Europe, Scotland and Ireland, and even though a few people perished in Scotland it was Ireland that suffered the worse. This indicates that it was governmental action (or inaction) that was a major factor, especially considering that when Treveleyan arrived in Ireland the situation got worse. It wasn't until he left that the conditions in Ireland improved. And, yet Queen Victoria decorated him with the highest honours.

Only Britain downplays the cause and effect of the famine, blaming the whole famine on the collapse of the potato crop and that the Irish were too stupid to eat anything else. History as taught in England does not mention Treveleyan nor the Doo Lough Tragedy and for most part they deny the event ever happened at all.

+1

And of course the potato had been a necessity not a choice before the famine as it was the only crop that could feed a family in the tiny allotments.

robroy1234

Considering that even small plot farmers were producing other foodstuff that was usually taken away by the landlords or land agents to be exported to Britain. The Irish small plot holders were only left with unedible throw offs, on top of being heavily levied with indiscriminant rent increases and illegal land grab by landlords.

studiorat

I couldn't agree more. I believe I have already mentioned laissez faire previously in the thread and good old protestant divine providence, although previous to the famine attempts had been by Britain made to ascertain the state of the Irish Poor.

Treveleyan affirming this belief in 1848:

God grant that the generation to which this great opportunity has been offered may rightly perform its part...'

He really thought it was gods revenge, suffice to say that he was not alone. There was a wealth of homegrown ideas for the potato blight as well, not least those of Irish Catholics who also saw it as divine punishment.

Oddly enough there were also rumors of vapors from underground volcanoes and blame for the blight on static electricity from locomotive trains blamed on causing the disease.
Some things never change eh?

ed2hands wrote: »

And of course the potato had been a necessity not a choice before the famine as it was the only crop that could feed a family in the tiny allotments.

It should be noted that this was not a specifically Irish phenomena. This was the case in most of Northern Europe also. Engles I believe said they were as important as steel regarding the Industrial Revolution. Potatoes generate between 2 and 4 times more calories than corn, grains however are easier to ship, meaning in Ireland potatoes became the subsistence crop.

Once English merchants began buying Irish grain in 1806, large flour mills were built, and communication routes and agricultural technology both improved. Cottage industry declined in favour of agriculture. Nevertheless, the poorest classes did not see much of this money because the benefit of higher export prices was cancelled out by the rise in food prices. In some ways, this polarisation towards food production increased the poor's vulnerability to crop failure. As the farmers got poorer they were forced to sell more of their crops (usually oats) for money while eating more potatoes (a crop that couldn't be transported easily).

It was not until the collapse of the price of grain in the early part of the 19th century (1810-1820) that the Irish land workers found themselves surplus to requirments as the land owners returned to grazing. This high unemployment also lead to the reliance on potatoes.

robroy1234 wrote: »

Only Britain downplays the cause and effect of the famine, blaming the whole famine on the collapse of the potato crop and that the Irish were too stupid to eat anything else. History as taught in England does not mention Treveleyan nor the Doo Lough Tragedy and for most part they deny the event ever happened at all.

Not really true anymore actually.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.shtml


.
The Irish Poor Inquiry made in 1830 gave a wide description of the state of the people in Ireland and was performed by the British to assess the situation in 1830 .

http://www.clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclare/history/poverty/poor_inquiry.htm

On every side we were assailed by the theories of those who were born or had long resided in the country, and consequently might be supposed to have possessed good opportunity for ascertaining the soundness of their opinions. One party attributed all the poverty and wretchedness of the country to an asserted extreme use of ardent spirits, and proposed a system for repressing illicit distillation, for preventing smuggling, and for substituting beer and coffee. Another party found the cause in the combinations amongst workmen, and proposed rigorous laws against Trades Unions. Others again were equally confident, that the reclamation of the bogs and waste lands was the only practicable remedy. A fourth party declared the nature of the existing connexion between landlord and tenant to be the root of all evil ; pawnbroking, redundant population, absence of capital, peculiar religious tenets and religious differences, political excitement, want of education, the maladministration of justice, the state of prison discipline, want of manufactures, and of inland navigation, with a variety of other circumstances, were each supported by their various advocates with earnestness and ability, as being either alone, or jointly with some other, the primary cause of all the evils of society ; and loan funds, emigration, the repression of political excitement, the introduction of manufactures, and the extension of inland navigation, were accordingly proposed each as the principal means by which the improvement of Ireland could be promoted.

Makes interesting reading.
.

robroy1234

In my own particular view there is a huge difference between a famine in a country and a national natural disaster. The Irish great famine was not a natural disaster, the Brits only point at the blight affecting the potatoes but in actuality a natural disaster affects the whole population regardless of wealth, class, nationality, or race. However, certain groups of people thrived and the landowners even used the famine to reinforce their take over of land from the local population.

An American friend of mine asked me last year what would be the worse insult to give another Irish person...the only one I could think off is "your family took the soup." the extent and devastation caused by the great famine still hits a raw nerve and makes such an insult hard hitting....

Undergod

robroy1234 wrote: »

An American friend of mine asked me last year what would be the worse insult to give another Irish person...the only one I could think off is "your family took the soup." the extent and devastation caused by the great famine still hits a raw nerve and makes such an insult hard hitting....

"Your great-great-great-grandparents resorted to charity to survive!"

Me:

robroy1234

No - one side of my family refused to take the soup, and somehow managed to maintain their holdings. But, we haven't really delved deep enough into that side of the family's history. On the other side I am afraid that they were prods well before such times and escaped pretty much. Considering that both sides of my family came to different parts of the country, had the same size areas of holdings and harvested the same crops etc., the only difference was that one side was catholic and the other protestant. The catholic side suffered terribly and the protestant side thrived. Indicating that the famine was not a natural disaster that blighted the potato, but as Treveleyan stated " The famine is an ideal mechanism to deal with excess population."

Undergod

robroy1234 wrote: »

No - one side of my family refused to take the soup, and somehow managed to maintain their holdings. But, we haven't really delved deep enough into that side of the family's history. On the other side I am afraid that they were prods well before such times and escaped pretty much. Considering that both sides of my family came to different parts of the country, had the same size areas of holdings and harvested the same crops etc., the only difference was that one side was catholic and the other protestant. The catholic side suffered terribly and the protestant side thrived. Indicating that the famine was not a natural disaster that blighted the potato, but as Treveleyan stated " The famine is an ideal mechanism to deal with excess population."

You're afraid they were prods? Right.

robroy1234

Not afraid, but just pointing out that their survival during that period was secure because of their religious affliation, not only that they prospered, yet in the same area many catholics perished or left Ireland.

markesmith

Undergod wrote: »

"Your great-great-great-grandparents resorted to charity to survive!"

Me:

Undergod wrote: »

You're afraid they were prods? Right.

Anything real to add to this Undergod?

Undergod

Yeah, I was trying to figure out what he meant; I didn't think it was particularly clear.

CiaranMT

Undergod wrote: »

Yeah, I was trying to figure out what he meant; I didn't think it was particularly clear.

Ditto.