The Irish Famine

getz

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

oh sh1t I'm fukked so:eek:

I think we are all aware of irelands history with britain.I think the problem is to what extent Britain was cupable.My person opinion on what I have read/seen over the years about the famine was that it was gross indifferrence(insert not giving a sh1t if you want) on the part of the brits and their insistance on the government not interfering with trade.

Genoicide/holocaust no,but a man made famine which could of been avoided by a few people that had the power to interfer for the better but didnt,yes.

Irrespective of which side you take it did shape our history and our identity as a group of people

good one,also note that 2.5 million people also had to leave scotland because of the potato famine,cannot see anyone calling that a attempt by the english to wipe out the scottish race

Denerick

mysterious wrote: »

lol. I've told the facts on pretty much everything. I state my beliefs and opinions where i don't have facts. I'm really honest in that stance.

You see I do reserach and don't rely on authority, teachers, scientist to find out whats real.

He has only said his belief, because I asked him on it and he wont answer my question or back up his statement. He actually doesn't even sound sure of himself on his points. He hasn't really given much points.

Other than, "No the British government could never cause genocide or do this terrible act".

The horror, is oh no nobody in power could ever do soemthing so sinister. thats utterance of just a conditioned belief system and we are all victim to these belief systems. Because we are told and taught in school what to believe.. The facts are, genocide, holocauists and very horrific events have happened in our past that have been created by royal families, superpowers and tyranny goverments and it has never changed in history.

The Irish famine isn't an exception to this rule. I understand this is so painful for many of you to actually think about. But I like getting to the root of things. And in that you realise that all events in history were planned of provoked.

The greatest truth is, we didn't create history, it's people in position of power who wrote history and we followed it. In most cases, they directed millions to the slaughter.

Hello there again. I only regret that you've never stopped to read some Irish history, because your understanding of history is rather simplistic. I have answered your questions before you arrived on this thread, and do not want to rehash what I've already posted. Life is too short.:)

With relation to what BB says; We have a respectful difference of opinion. He considers the Famine to be a holocaust/genocide, I do not, because a genocide requires a deliberate intent to murder entire groups of people.

The British economic system in Ireland was inhumane and preconditioned towards periodic hungers and famines - there were several famines in ireland before the 1840s.

If we really adopt BBs understanding of a genocide, then every single western country has had a genocide at some stage, because every western country has experienced a famine at some stage. It doesn't matter if it was in the 1840s or the middle ages - the poor died because the land system was unjust. But this does not mean a genocide.

If you had even a basic understand of the immense complexity of history, you wouldn't take such a holistic approach to a profoundly complex question. The reality is that you've admitted that you are completely ignorant of the historical context and have never read any books on Irish history.

The reason why I don't answer your questions is because you clearly have no understanding of western European history.

Denerick

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

oh sh1t I'm fukked so:eek:

I think we are all aware of irelands history with britain.I think the problem is to what extent Britain was cupable.My person opinion on what I have read/seen over the years about the famine was that it was gross indifferrence(insert not giving a sh1t if you want) on the part of the brits and their insistance on the government not interfering with trade.

Genoicide/holocaust no,but a man made famine which could of been avoided by a few people that had the power to interfer for the better but didnt,yes.

Irrespective of which side you take it did shape our history and our identity as a group of people

This is my position. The famine was a tragedy which occured mainly because of overpopulation and because our land system was an utter disgrace. Irish nationalism was shaped by the Famine, because British indifference was evidence to them that they were unfit to rule this country. The Land League emerged mainly because of a famine scare in the 1870s - there were ghosts of the Irish Famine haunting Mayo again. It is the most important event in Irish history, no-one denies its primacy in our history.

Brown Bomber

getz wrote: »

good one,also note that 2.5 million people also had to leave scotland because of the potato famine,cannot see anyone calling that a attempt by the english to wipe out the scottish race

Yeah but they were predominately the highlanders who were Gaelic-Celts. The famine in the highlands of Scotland only strengthens the argument of a policy of extermination IMO.

EDIT: I should make it clearer. Not the famine itself but the British response (food exports at gunpoint, evictions, forced migrations etc) to the situation in the Highlands is what strengthens the argument.

Denerick

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah but they were predominately the highlanders who were Gaelic-Celts. The famine in the highlands of Scotland only strengthens the argument of a policy of extermination IMO.

Rural people survived in far great numbers than urban people during the Black Death of the mid 14th century.

Did the rural peasantry commit a genocide against the urban proletariat during the Black Death?

Brown Bomber

Denerick wrote: »

Rural people survived in far great numbers than urban people during the Black Death of the mid 14th century.

Did the rural peasantry commit a genocide against the urban proletariat during the Black Death?

well did the rural peasantry contribute in any way?

Denerick

Brown Bomber wrote: »

well did the rural peasantry contribute in any way?

Are you seriously considering the question?

I'll offer a different example. Europe experienced a great famine in 1315. Hundreds of thousands of peasants across the continent died. None of the aristocracy died from hunger.

Did the European aristocracy commit a genocide against the European peasantry?

enno99

Denerick wrote: »

Rural people survived in far great numbers than urban people during the Black Death of the mid 14th century.

Did the rural peasantry commit a genocide against the urban proletariat during the Black Death?

Do you think that wide spread plague that killed indiscriminately regargless of sex creed or social standing can be equated to a famine?

The 1315 famine killed people all over europe

And the 1845 famine killed mostly Irish and Scots who were under british rule yet the blight affected all europe

Do you see what people are getting at

Denerick

enno99 wrote: »

Do you think that wide spread plague that killed indiscriminately regargless of sex creed or social standing can be equated to a famine?

The 1315 famine killed people all over europe

And the 1845 famine killed mostly Irish and Scots who were under british rule yet the blight affected all europe

Do you see what people are getting at

English have died from Famine too. You misunderstand, the Famine in Ireland has been elevated to an exceptional historiographical position because its effects were so vast and long lasting. Less severe famines were commonplace throughout Europe, for most of our history. If you truly believe that the Irish Famine was an act of genocide, then you also have to label every other famine to ever affect any western country a famine because the rich never died of hunger. This is the reality. There are economic forces at work which causes famines, gruesome as they are. But it is not a deliberate genocide which deliberately murdered millions of peoples. Please understand the distinction, because it is an important one.

mysterious

Denerick wrote: »

This is my position. The famine was a tragedy which occured mainly because of overpopulation and because our land system was an utter disgrace. Irish nationalism was shaped by the Famine, because British indifference was evidence to them that they were unfit to rule this country. The Land League emerged mainly because of a famine scare in the 1870s - there were ghosts of the Irish Famine haunting Mayo again. It is the most important event in Irish history, no-one denies its primacy in our history.

Just please don't start with the overpopulation soap now.....!


JYour not fooling me and I'm just not going to sit here and take this debate serious after this has already been put under the dust.

The whole Island peaked before the famine at 8million. It wasn't over population it was a one crop mandatory food that failed. We were not able to afford to eat the other crops because the landlords exported them. Irish people also didn't own their lands either. The area is 85,000 sqm or km, can't rememeber in miles or km.. Ireland can easily handle a population of 40million. Over population is only a probllem when there is to many greed people taking it all.:rolleyes:

England has 50 million and has an area of 127,000km.
Holland the size of Leinster has 16,300,000.

i'm really curious as to why you keep going on the fence on the holocaust and yet still be overtly defensive on the British imperalism and rule. To the point you will happily find some other excuse for the reason of the famine.

Oh in 2010 I just cannot accept these ignorant claims.

mysterious

enno99 wrote: »

Do you think that wide spread plague that killed indiscriminately regargless of sex creed or social standing can be equated to a famine?

The 1315 famine killed people all over europe

And the 1845 famine killed mostly Irish and Scots who were under british rule yet the blight affected all europe

Do you see what people are getting at

He's really showing up to be really defensive about the British like as usual "believe what we were told and shush"

Famine happened, and it was of natural causes

People don't believe this tripe anymore.

Denerick

mysterious wrote: »

Just please don't start with the overpopulation soap now.....!


JYour not fooling me and I'm just not going to sit here and take this debate serious after this has already been put under the dust.

OK.

The whole Island peaked before the famine at 8million. It wasn't over population it was a one crop mandatory food that failed. We were not able to afford to eat the other crops because the landlords exported them. Irish people also didn't own their lands either. The area is 85,000 sqm or km, can't rememeber in miles or km.. Ireland can easily handle a population of 40million. Over population is only a probllem when there is to many greed people taking it all.:rolleyes:

Ireland does not have particularly good agricultural land. Much of the west is boggy land unsuitable for any crop other than the potatoe. Much of the borderlands is suitable only for dairy farming. Don't equate land size with land fertility.

England has 50 million and has an area of 127,000km.

England imports much of its food.

Holland the size of Leinster has 16,300,000.

Holland engages in some of the most intensive agriculture on the face of the earth. It also has some of the most fertile land in the world. It also imports much of its food.

i'm really curious as to why you keep going on the fence on the holocaust and yet still be overtly defensive on the British imperalism and rule. To the point you will happily find some other excuse for the reason of the famine.

Oh in 2010 I just cannot accept these ignorant claims.

I'm not on the fence about anything. The difference is that I'm educated and well read about this, and this is a quality that doesn't give me the privilege of having simplistic all round general answers for a very complex historical question.

I recommend you read some history, because your level of ignorance with basic western European history is rather obvious.

enno99

Denerick wrote: »

English have died from Famine too. You misunderstand, the Famine in Ireland has been elevated to an exceptional historiographical position because its effects were so vast and long lasting. Less severe famines were commonplace throughout Europe, for most of our history. If you truly believe that the Irish Famine was an act of genocide, then you also have to label every other famine to ever affect any western country a famine because the rich never died of hunger. This is the reality. There are economic forces at work which causes famines, gruesome as they are. But it is not a deliberate genocide which deliberately murdered millions of peoples. Please understand the distinction, because it is an important one.

Ok lets put these countries on the list
If they had their produce removed under armed guard and their people evicted from their land
And their refugees returned to certain death

Can you name any?

Denerick

enno99 wrote: »

Ok lets put these countries on the list
If they had their produce removed under armed guard and their people evicted from their land
And their refugees returned to certain death

Can you name any?

In any medieval famine the local Lord would take his share of the crop straight away. In fact, the same would've happened as happened in Ireland. Jeremiah O'Donovan Rossa recalls in his autobiography that one of his earliest memories is of the local landlord's agent laying claim to his parent's corn field after news of the failure of the potatoe crop spread to his part of Cork. They took the corn from his parents to pay the rent. The same thing would have happened during the middle ages.

I don't hear you up in arms, claiming that the Great European Famine of 1315 was a genocide against the European peasantry.

Flamed Diving

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Live or die on the trip they were gone from Ireland thereby making the population fewer and easier to control.

Yet seventy years later, this country, with its population now halved, gained control of the 26 counties.

Well controlled, Britain.

Undergod

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Now that is completely irrelevant.

Yep. Kinda my point. There were many atrocities committed on both sides of Ireland's history with Britain, can't let it distract us from the facts.

Flamed Diving

enno99 wrote: »

On June 21, 1847, the British government, intending to aid besieged Liverpool, passed a tough new law allowing local authorities to deport homeless Irish back to Ireland. Within days, the first boatloads of paupers were being returned to Dublin and Cork, then abandoned on the docks. Orders for removal were issued by the hundreds. About 15,000 Irish were dragged out of filthy cellars and lodging houses and sent home even if they were ill with fever

When they robbed their land from them for the price of the fare

This reads like a quote. What's the source?

Flamed Diving

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah but they were predominately the highlanders who were Gaelic-Celts. The famine in the highlands of Scotland only strengthens the argument of a policy of extermination IMO.

EDIT: I should make it clearer. Not the famine itself but the British response (food exports at gunpoint, evictions, forced migrations etc) to the situation in the Highlands is what strengthens the argument.

What argument? An argument is goes something like:

Proposition A: etc

Proof A: etc

But your argument is:

Proposition A:

Proof A: ?


I'm not saying it didn't happen, I would just like to know your source.

Flamed Diving

enno99 wrote: »

Do you think that wide spread plague that killed indiscriminately regargless of sex creed or social standing can be equated to a famine?

The 1315 famine killed people all over europe

And the 1845 famine killed mostly Irish and Scots who were under british rule yet the blight affected all europe

Do you see what people are getting at

enno99, I'm a bit dismayed at your lack of knowledge of why the blight had different effects across Europe here. Seriously.

Flamed Diving

Oh dear, here we are, with of a century of historical research and we still have people making ignorant claims. I see some of the thinking, and it just seems dumb, to me.


I learn from the best.

Brown Bomber

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I learn from the best.

:D:D:D

WTF?

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Yet seventy years later, this country, with its population now halved, gained control of the 26 counties.

Well controlled, Britain.

How can you equate "this country" with the "26 counties" exactly? And you deny where a majority is ruled by a minority is easier to control when the majority is weakened substansially in numbers? Or are you just being contrary?

Brown Bomber

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What argument? An argument is goes something like:

Proposition A: etc

Proof A: etc

But your argument is:

Proposition A:

Proof A: ?


I'm not saying it didn't happen, I would just like to know your source.

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Source for what?

Denerick

Brown Bomber wrote: »

:D:D:D

WTF?



How can you equate "this country" with the "26 counties" exactly? And you deny where a majority is ruled by a minority is easier to control when the majority is weakened substansially in numbers? Or are you just being contrary?

What? Are you going to respond to the question I asked you?

Brown Bomber

Denerick wrote: »

What? Are you going to respond to the question I asked you?

I'll try. Think we have our wires crossed here. Iäve missed the question, could you repeat please?

Flamed Diving

Brown Bomber wrote: »

:D:D:D

WTF?

Sorry, its true meaning may come to light soon. Or not.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How can you equate "this country" with the "26 counties" exactly? And you deny where a majority is ruled by a minority is easier to control when the majority is weakened substansially in numbers? Or are you just being contrary?

I don't, but it still didn't work out so well for them. That is if you assume that their policy was for better control. Seems like they lost it, to me.

It depends really, what use are greater numbers when they are mostly starving? Either way, Britain lost control. So in this case, it didn't work.

Nope.

Flamed Diving

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Source for what?

Whatever you claimed. People being thrown out of homes and deported back to Ireland in 1847. I'm not denying it, just would like to know more.

Brown Bomber

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Sorry, its true meaning may come to light soon. Or not.





I don't, but it still didn't work out so well for them. That is if you assume that their policy was for better control. Seems like they lost it, to me.

It depends really, what use are greater numbers when they are mostly starving? Either way, Britain lost control. So in this case, it didn't work.

Nope.

Have you studied under O'Grada?

Denerick

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'll try. Think we have our wires crossed here. Iäve missed the question, could you repeat please?

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

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Whatever you claimed. People being thrown out of homes and deported back to Ireland in 1847. I'm not denying it, just would like to know more.

http://www.highlandclearances.info/clearances/index.htm

enno99

Flamed Diving wrote: »

This reads like a quote. What's the source?

the source of the quote

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/famine/coffin.htm

As to the effects of the blight across Europe point taken If you mean the reliance on potatoe crops in other countries
But the action or inaction of the English government while other governments stopped exports seems to be the question