Why do most Irish people deny the genocide of the 1840's?

Terry

Let's be honest here. It wasn't a famine.
There was enough food to feed twice the population, but it was taken from Ireland under armed guard by British soldiers.

Is it an attempt to appease our largest trading partner by not mentioning the cruelty they bestowed upon our ancestors?

Is it to do with the fact that it took about 70 years to achieve independence after the genocidal acts, and by that time history had been rewritten?

Is it Catholic guilt that is preventing us from accepting that we were not to blame for 1 million deaths?

Why is it that, over 150 years after the fact, we still refer to a genocidal act as a famine?

http://www.noraid.com/Holocaust.htm
http://www.allsands.com/history/events/irishgreatfami_bim_gn.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18156
http://www.nde.state.ne.us/ss/irish/irish_pf.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=KxrnvU39ZpoC&lpg=PA8&ots=-vXZaLzs-X&dq=laissez-faire%20famine%20ireland&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false




Just a note about the picture.
It is from irishholocaust.org
I have read this site and I believe that the owner (Chris Fogarty) is a militant republican.
I believe that he has an agenda which goes further than creating awareness of the genocide committed by the British during the 1840's. This is just my opinion though.

In saying that, he has done his research and I believe the picture to hold accurate data concerning the removal of food during the so-called famine.

To summarise; Taking food from a nation which is starving amounts to nothing more than genocide. There was more than enough food for everyone on this island, but it was taken from the people and they were left to starve.

To call it a famine is an insult to those who died or were forced to leave the country.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

XxMCRxBabyxX

Terry wrote: »

Let's be honest here. It wasn't a famine.
There was enough food to feed twice the population, but it was taken from Ireland under armed guard by British soldiers.

Is it an attempt to appease our largest trading partner by not mentioning the cruelty they bestowed upon our ancestors?

Is it to do with the fact that it took about 70 years to achieve independence after the genocidal acts, and by that time history had been rewritten?

Is it Catholic guilt that is preventing us from accepting that we were not to blame for 1 million deaths?

Why is it that, over 150 years after the fact, we still refer to a genocidal act as a famine?

http://www.noraid.com/Holocaust.htm
http://www.allsands.com/history/events/irishgreatfami_bim_gn.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18156
http://www.nde.state.ne.us/ss/irish/irish_pf.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=KxrnvU39ZpoC&lpg=PA8&ots=-vXZaLzs-X&dq=laissez-faire%20famine%20ireland&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false




Just a note about the picture.
It is from irishholocaust.org
I have read this site and I believe that the owner (Chris Fogarty) is a militant republican.
I believe that he has an agenda which goes further than creating awareness of the genocide committed by the British during the 1840's. This is just my opinion though.

In saying that, he has done his research and I believe the picture to hold accurate data concerning the removal of food during the so-called famine.

To summarise; Taking food from a nation which is starving amounts to nothing more than genocide. There was more than enough food for everyone on this island, but it was taken from the people and they were left to starve.

To call it a famine is an insult to those who died or were forced to leave the country.

When were we ever to blame?

And hasn't this been brought up a few times?

Pittens

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Even by your ridiculous worldview - which fails to mention the social system which kept most people in a position where they sold food as cash crops - it was ,by your logic, the end of protectionist law which made things worse.

But thats all stuff and nonsense anyway. The laws were not prohibiting any exports between Ireland and the UK at any time, they were designed to stop American imports of corn. It was the free trade of Irish food to English cities which casued the problem.

2 stroke

Terry wrote: »

Why do most Irish people deny the genocide of the 1840's?

Short answer. Because most Irish people don't know the truth.

Wolfe Tone

Because If you say anything which is in anyway critical of Britains past in this country you are automatically regarded as a militant republican.

Anyway excellent post Terry, very interesting. I will have to read those sites. I agree wholeheartedly that it was a genocide. A famine suggests that the country had no food when in fact there was plenty. This food was held under guard by a foreign army, and exported for profit while hundreds of thousands died. The British largely looked on, uncaring.

Although the catholic guilt part is rubbish though.

People are afraid to say anything against the British lest they be regarded as RA heads(Its in the PAST!!!! MOVE ON!!! etc etc)

K-9

Genocide?

I don't think so. English and from memory, Scottish peasant farmers suffered too, so, no, I couldn't definitively say it was genocide.

Unless peasant farmers were a cultural group?

wahmeister666

2 stroke wrote: »

Short answer. Because most Irish people don't know the truth.

+1

silverharp

Pittens wrote: »

But thats all stuff and nonsense anyway. The laws were not prohibiting any exports between Ireland and the UK at any time, they were designed to stop American imports of corn. It was the free trade of Irish food to English cities which casued the problem.

you didnt get it. The corn laws raised agricultural prices and created a land bubble in Ireland (including a higher rate of population growth), and shifted agricultural practices in Ireland. dont apply malice to a situation where good old government mismanagement applied.

mathepac

There can be little doubt in the mind of any reasonable person but that the militarily supervised removal of locally-grown food from a starving population was anything other than genocide - a systemic government supervised policy to depopulate vast tracts of valuable agricultural land and resolve "the Irish problem" once and for all.

The Corinthian

mathepac wrote: »

There can be little doubt in the mind of any reasonable person but that the militarily supervised removal of locally-grown food from a starving population was anything other than genocide - a systemic government supervised policy to depopulate vast tracts of valuable agricultural land and resolve "the Irish problem" once and for all.

Interesting theory, but the facts contradict it.

One must remember that we are talking about a period of history where 'justice' was often brutal. If you didn't pay your rent or taxes, you would be evicted, incarcerated or worse, and this was seen as just. If you starved as a result, the morality of the time saw this as a consequence of the actions of the person starving, not of the person evicting them. Such laissez-faire justice could be found in England as well during the same period - Charles Dickens famously wrote about it.

That the famine claimed a huge human price, both in lives and emigrations, is not disputed, however for it to be a genocide it would require a deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of the Irish peasant population of the time. In this, the blight that caused the failure of the potato crops was not engineered by anyone. Neither is there any evidence that the famine was a systemic government supervised policy to depopulate vast tracts of valuable agricultural land and resolve "the Irish problem".

Indeed, some of the British government policy sought to alleviate the situation - albeit incompetently. 'Peel's brimstone' was a nice idea on paper for this purpose, but turned out to be a disaster in practice, for example.

Certainly the effects of the famine were exasperated by a combination of racism, incompetence, indifference, laissez-faire Capitalism and the cruel justice of the Victorian era. At worst, there is evidence that many in the British establishment did not see a thinning out of the Irish population as a bad thing, but that does not mean there was an active policy to achieve it.

Overall, all these fall just short of an official policy to deliberately and systematically attempt to 'cull' the Irish population, and thus falls short of the definition of genocide. It probably was borderline of the definition, but not quite there.

2 stroke

2 stroke wrote: »

Short answer. Because most Irish people don't know the truth.

I don't think so. I figure its more along the lines that we don't care anymore. And we're kind of tired of this victim mentality that runs through our history.

But I have a question for all of you that consider this to be genocide.

40 years later, the Boer War occurred where the British Government got away completely with setting up concentration camps, using poison gas, and using civilians as hostages/bait. That was 40 years after the Famine.

Why didn't they do the same here, when there would have been no intervention by any international country? For all this talk of genocide, the British Empire had plenty of better options to kill off sizable chunks of the Irish population, without affecting the other settlers in this country.

danbohan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

here was no planned genocide, though.[/QUOTE]


in your view which is as always anti irish, pro british at best , if you dont like the irish or ireland or the irish culture and language why do you continuie to live in ireland .

Blisterman

I don't see anything Anti-Irish or Pro British in that post. If anything, it's pointing out the mistakes made by the British government.

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think so. I figure its more along the lines that we don't care anymore. And we're kind of tired of this victim mentality that runs through our history.

Regardless of the validity of the charge of genocide during the Famine, I do think that many feel that anything that perpetuates the nationalist victim mentality of the past represents an Ireland that was, if anything, holding back her own people.

40 years later, the Boer War occurred where the British Government got away completely with setting up concentration camps, using poison gas, and using civilians as hostages/bait. That was 40 years after the Famine.

None of those actually add up to genocide. Poison gas, use of hostages, etc were all tools of war, albeit of dubious morality. Concentration camps are just that - camps meant to keep prisoners in a concentrated area. It is when they become extermination camps, designed specifically to control a potentially hostile ethnic group - they're not even a British invention, but American (for the Cherokee and other North American Indians).

For something to be genocide there has to be a conscious decision to systematically exterminate a group. A case can be made for many North American Indian tribes, the Turkish Armenians as well as some Australian Aboriginal groups (e.g. Tasmanians), but the Boers did not suffer genocide, however appalling their treatment by the British.

Kidchameleon

Its because we don't care anymore

The Corinthian

danbohan wrote: »

in your view which is as always anti irish, pro british at best , if you dont like the irish or ireland or the irish culture and language why do you continuie to live in ireland .

Well someone has to pay for the Dole and grants of all the Romantic Irishmen out there.

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

Regardless of the validity of the charge of genocide during the Famine, I do think that many feel that anything that perpetuates the nationalist victim mentality of the past represents an Ireland that was, if anything, holding back her own people.

Pretty much.

None of those actually add up to genocide. Poison gas, use of hostages, etc were all tools of war, albeit of dubious morality. Concentration camps are just that - camps meant to keep prisoners in a concentrated area. It is when they become extermination camps, designed specifically to control a potentially hostile ethnic group - they're not even a British invention, but American (for the Cherokee and other North American Indians).

For something to be genocide there has to be a conscious decision to systematically exterminate a group. A case can be made for many North American Indian tribes, the Turkish Armenians as well as some Australian Aboriginal groups (e.g. Tasmanians), but the Boers did not suffer genocide, however appalling their treatment by the British.

Sorry, I didn't intend to suggest that it was any form of Genocide. I was merely pointing out that Britain (and the other colonial powers) had pretty much free reign to do what they liked in their territories without external interference. Even internal considerations were mostly muted. So, if they wished to kill off a sizable chunk of the Irish population there were probably easier ways to go about it that an artificial famine. Nobody would interfere.

danbohan

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well someone has to pay for the Dole and grants of all the Romantic Irishmen out there.

ogh so all the unemployed are romantic irishmen? , i suppose that will lead to an increase in the problem !

getz

K-9 wrote: »

Genocide?

I don't think so. English and from memory, Scottish peasant farmers suffered too, so, no, I couldn't definitively say it was genocide.

Unless peasant farmers were a cultural group?

it was the land owners who exported the food to sell in the UK not the british government , and as you said, over in scotland over 1.7 million people moved into england or emigrated,with ireland being island you couldent just walk to another area that had food, why was food exported ?because no one in ireland had the money to buy it, and no business man is going to bankrupt himself[but many did]to give their food away,so if you think it was a british conspiracy to wipe out the irish,you will also have to except it was also their intention to wipe their own people in the north and scotland,

RichieO

Or drop the spoon and use an oar, bound to stir it up a whole lot more...

Is this post designed to provoke and cause resentment?

exaisle

Our country is facing a crisis today and you are debating something which happened over a hundred and sixty years ago?

FFS

+1 Kidchameleon

The Corinthian

danbohan wrote: »

ogh so all the unemployed are romantic irishmen? , i suppose that will lead to an increase in the problem !

Demographically nationalist candidates do well in areas with high unemployment (Sinn Fein being a case in point). Additionally, policies towards nationalist interests, such as the Irish language, are often most strongly supported in areas that benefit from government grants and employment.

Ultimately someone has to pay for these, and it is often the non-nationalistic, non-gaelgore citizen, who ends up with a net sum loss. I would think about that next time you ask someone why they you continue to live in Ireland, because they're paying for your vision of Romantic Ireland.

2 stroke

getz wrote: »

it was the land owners who exported the food to sell in the UK not the british government , and as you said, over in scotland over 1.7 million people moved into england or emigrated,with ireland being island you couldent just walk to another area that had food, why was food exported ?because no one in ireland had the money to buy it, and no business man is going to bankrupt himself[but many did]to give their food away,so if you think it was a british conspiracy to wipe out the irish,you will also have to except it was also their intention to wipe their own people in the north and scotland,

But the land owners were english, planted here by the english government.

Wolfe Tone

The Corinthian wrote: »

Demographically nationalist candidates do well in areas with high unemployment (Sinn Fein being a case in point). Additionally, policies towards nationalist interests, such as the Irish language, are often most strongly supported in areas that benefit from government grants and employment.

Ultimately someone has to pay for these, and it is often the non-nationalistic, non-gaelgore citizen, who ends up with a net sum loss. I would think about that next time you ask someone why they you continue to live in Ireland, because they're paying for your vision of Romantic Ireland.

Shock, taxpayer money is being used to pay for something not everyone agrees with.


But yeah it is rubbish asking why a poster still lives in Ireland.

Or drop the spoon and use an oar, bound to stir it up a whole lot more...

Is this post designed to provoke and cause resentment?

It is this type of attitude I was taking about earlier. Many people have this viewpoint, and from that position it is just a short leap to start accusing people of advocating things such as Enniskillen and Omagh. And no one wants that.

The Corinthian

2 stroke wrote: »

But the land owners were english, planted here by the english government.

And? That the famine caused immense death and suffering is not being debated here. It was a heinous example of brutality, greed, incompetence and prejudice on the part of the British administration that has few rivals in history.

What is being debated is whether this was genocide on the part of the British (government). For it to be so, it would require a deliberate and systematic destruction of the Irish peasantry, and while one could levy many accusations against the British (government), it was neither deliberate nor systematic.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

But yeah it is rubbish asking why a poster still lives in Ireland.

That was my point.

danbohan

The Corinthian wrote: »

Demographically nationalist candidates do well in areas with high unemployment (Sinn Fein being a case in point). Additionally, policies towards nationalist interests, such as the Irish language, are often most strongly supported in areas that benefit from government grants and employment.

Ultimately someone has to pay for these, and it is often the non-nationalistic, non-gaelgore citizen, who ends up with a net sum loss. I would think about that next time you ask someone why they you continue to live in Ireland, because they're paying for your vision of Romantic Ireland.

what a load of tosh sinn feins growth in areas of high unemployment has nothing to do with nationlism , and gaelgores and nationlists pay their taxes too , so we should be very thankfull to you and donegalfella who despite your hatred of irishness continuie to pay taxes here should we ? , i am sure cromwell paid tax when he was here too .

getz

2 stroke wrote: »

But the land owners were english, planted here by the english government.

that is not the issue,we are talking about the victorians,the [if lucky]working class,english,irish welsh or scottish citizens had no rights, say,or vote, as far as the rulers were concerned ,it was about making money,even though it cost more to export it ,no one in ireland had money to buy food,all the irish members of parliament were land owners or sons of land owners

The Corinthian

danbohan wrote: »

what a load of tosh sinn feins growth in areas of high unemployment has nothing to do with nationlism

Yet Sinn Fein is principally a nationalist party (it barely had policies beyond this until quite recently) and it has seen very limited growth in areas without high levels of unemployment. Whether they vote for them because they're unemployed or not is irrelevant - what matters is they're unemployed.

and gaelgores and nationlists pay their taxes too

Which is why I said that "the non-nationalistic, non-gaelgore citizen, who ends up with a net sum loss", as they see little benefit from those taxes, while those, particularly when employed in state sponsored industries, such as those related to the Irish language, are getting back a lot more than they put in - the salaries from which they pay taxes from, to be precise.

so we should be very thankfull to you and donegalfella who despite your hatred of irishness continuie to pay taxes here should we ? , i am sure cromwell paid tax when he was here too .

I think you misunderstand. I do not hate Irishness, and I doubt donegalfella does either, just the gombeen version of Irishness that is sometimes portrayed as the only true orthodox form - often by the very people who would not be able to afford said gombeen version of Irishness without the taxes paid by the rest of the country.

Wolfe Tone

How have Sinn Fein gotten dragged into this? And the people who vote for them and their employment status? All irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The Corinthian

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

How have Sinn Fein gotten dragged into this? And the people who vote for them and their employment status? All irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Sinn Fein, for good or for ill, represents the most nationalist political views in Ireland. Their support base at election time tends also to come from the economically disadvantaged areas where unemployment is much higher than the national average, often in areas with endemic unemployment.

None of this is an attack on Sinn Fein, mind you. Who they get their support from is up to them, just as it is up to voters to support them or not. And fair dues to them for having tapped a market neglected by the more established political parties.

However, when someone questions why you are in the country because you are not nationalist or patriotic enough, it is a fair criticism to point out that people from outside these areas, who are less likely to vote for Sinn Fein are also more likely to be tax payers, paying the Dole of those who statistically are more likely to vote for Sinn Fein.

getz

The Corinthian wrote: »

And? That the famine caused immense death and suffering is not being debated here. It was a heinous example of brutality, greed, incompetence and prejudice on the part of the British administration that has few rivals in history.

What is being debated is whether this was genocide on the part of the British (government). For it to be so, it would require a deliberate and systematic destruction of the Irish peasantry, and while one could levy many accusations against the British (government), it was neither deliberate nor systematic.

That was my point.

if it was deliberate genocide by the british government ,just what part in it, did the 105 irish members of the british parliament[more members than england sent to parliament] have a hand in it ?

Wolfe Tone

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sinn Fein, for good or for ill, represents the most nationalist political views in Ireland. Their support base at election time tends also to come from the economically disadvantaged areas where unemployment is much higher than the national average, often in areas with endemic unemployment.

None of this is an attack on Sinn Fein, mind you. Who they get their support from is up to them, just as it is up to voters to support them or not. And fair dues to them for having tapped a market neglected by the more established political parties.

However, when someone questions why you are in the country because you are not nationalist or patriotic enough, it is a fair criticism to point out that people from outside these areas, who are less likely to vote for Sinn Fein are also more likely to be tax payers, paying the Dole of those who statistically are more likely to vote for Sinn Fein.

Personally I feel it would have been better to just ignore the bottom of the barrel "Why are you still here?" Shite than to derail the thread into a discussion about your beliefs about Sinn Fein and how their voters are being supported by the taxpayers etc etc.

The Corinthian

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Personally I feel it would have been better to just ignore the bottom of the barrel "Why are you still here?" Shite than to derail the thread into a discussion about your beliefs about Sinn Fein and how their voters are being supported by the taxpayers etc etc.

I don't believe that turning the other cheek is a good idea where it comes to such bottom of the barrel comments - better to expose them for what they are.

As I said, my comment was not meant to be an attack on Sinn Fein, in a democracy everyone is entitled to be represented, however those are the voting demographics, like it or not.

Wolfe Tone

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't believe that turning the other cheek is a good idea where it comes to such bottom of the barrel comments - better to expose them for what they are.

As I said, my comment was not meant to be an attack on Sinn Fein, in a democracy everyone is entitled to be represented, however those are the voting demographics, like it or not.

Ever heard the phrase don't feed the trolls?


And none of that is relevant to Irish people denying a genocide is it? I knew from the beginning that it would only a matter of time before SF would be brought up in this.

You made the leap from "Romantic Irishmen"

if you don't like the Irish or Ireland or the Irish culture and language

to SF supporters(thats right, everyone who likes the Irish language and culture votes for them), then chipped in that like a huge amount of people many supporters are unemployed and poor. Which exactly sums up what I was on about earlier, you are branding people who support the Irish language and culture as SF supporters. I am sure the PIRA will be along shortly.

Bottle_of_Smoke

getz wrote: »

it was the land owners who exported the food to sell in the UK not the british government , and as you said, over in scotland over 1.7 million people moved into england or emigrated,with ireland being island you couldent just walk to another area that had food, why was food exported ?because no one in ireland had the money to buy it, and no business man is going to bankrupt himself[but many did]to give their food away,so if you think it was a british conspiracy to wipe out the irish,you will also have to except it was also their intention to wipe their own people in the north and scotland,

I agree this is true. However Ireland was part of the UK since 1801. The government really should have funded handouts for people starving to death.

Why is it a non-issue today? People don't know the truth. Most really believe it was down to potato blight. It is also an awfully long time ago. in 2110 people aren't gonna care much about bloody sunday or the holocaust. so we don't care much about the famine

The Corinthian

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Ever heard the phrase dont feed the trolls?

Trolls don't actually believe the crap they come out with, scarily many others do.

Wolfe Tone

The Corinthian wrote: »

Trolls don't actually believe the crap they come out with, scarily many others do.

Sorry for being so argumentative about this, but time and time again SF and republicans are brought into discussions that they have no part in. Then it rapidly degrades into the fond practice of SF bashing. Thats all I have to say about that, back to the "famine".

cleremy jarkson

exaisle wrote: »

Our country is facing a crisis today and you are debating something which happened over a hundred and sixty years ago?

FFS

Today's economic "crisis" isn't worth mentioning in the same sentence as the events of the 1840's. I can't believe you would ever think it was

looksee

While it is perfectly right that events such as the Irish famine should be remembered, and that people should be aware of it, more often it turns into a self-righteous winge and Brit-bashing exercise.

Just who do you want to blame here, since it is obvious that someone must be blamed. If it is the British Government of the time, carry on. But that government is long gone. It now seems to be a general 'any and all Brits were responsible' feeling.

At the time of the famine Ireland was under British rule, like it or not, and it was the Irish government just the same as for England, Wales and Scotland. But Irish people had no control over them? How much control did the common people of England have? None. They were not only powerless, having no vote or voice, they were living in much the same abject misery as the poor everywhere.

These two excerpts give an idea of the life of the common English people in the mid 1800s.

The government was aware of the problem and in 1819 they passed an act that made it illegal for children under 9 to work in cotton mills. However the act lacked 'teeth' as there were no factory inspectors to check the mills. Another ct was passed in 1833 but this time inspectors were appointed. Children under 9 were banned from working in textile mills. Children aged 9 to 13 were not allowed to work for more than 12 hours a day or a total of more than 48 hours a week. Children aged 13 to 18 must not work for more than 69 hours a week. Furthermore nobody under 18 was allowed to work at night (from 8.30 pm to 5.30 am).
In 1844 another act banned women from working more than 12 hours a day (although it also reduced the minimum age for working in a mill to 8). Then in 1847 women and children were banned from working more than 10 hours a day in textile factories.
In 1850 the law was changed slightly. Women were allowed to work for 10 1/2 hours but textile factories could not be open for more than 12 hours a day. All workers, including men, were allowed 1 1/2 hours for meal breaks.
In 1867 the law was extended to all factories. (A factory was defined as a place where more than 50 people were employed in a manufacturing process). The 1878 Factory Act defined a factory as any place where machines were used in manufacturing.
Meanwhile in 1842 the Miners Act banned women and children under 10 from working underground in mines.
By the 1860s the 10 hour day was common, but not universal. In 'sweated industries' such as making matchboxes and lace people were paid piece rates (i.e. they were paid so much for each one they made). People often worked in their own homes and very often they had to work from dawn to dusk to make a living.
In 1792 well meaning magistrates met at Speenhamland in Berkshire and devised a system for helping the poor. Low wages were supplemented with money raised by a poor rate. Many areas of England adopted the system but it proved very expensive and the government decided to change things.
In 1834 they passed the Poor Law Amendment Act. In future the poor were to be treated as harshly as possible to dissuade them from seeking help from the state. In future able bodied people with no income were to be forced to enter a workhouse. (In practice some of the elected Boards of Guardians sometimes gave the unemployed 'outdoor relief' i.e. they were given money and allowed to live in their own homes).
For the unfortunate people made to enter workhouses life was made as unpleasant as possible. Married couples were separated and children over 7 were separated from their parents. The inmates were made to do hard work like breaking stones to make roads or breaking bones to make fertiliser.
http://www.localhistories.org/19thcentengland.html

Sickness has no claim on the capitalist; a days absence, however necessary, is a day's loss to the workman; nor are the numerous and frightful mutilations by neglected machinery (terminating as they do in the utter ruin of the sufferer) regarded as conferring, either in principle or practice, the smallest pretence to [181] lasting compensation or even temporary relief. We could fill our pages with instances of terrific accidents that have befallen young children
http://studymore.org.uk/xashley.htm#Commission

In Ireland the famine was the final straw, but poor people everywhere died very young of disease, accident, hunger and neglect.

These people not only had no opportunity to know what was going on in Ireland - being illiterate - they had no time to consider it, they were either working or sleeping. And what could they have done anyway, they barely had enough to survive on.

The ruling classes, the wealthy in England, had disease and death in front of them, and with a few notable exceptions, did little or nothing about it, how likely was it that a separate island, several days travel away, would attract their attention? The English landowners had no more in common with their English subjects than the Irish had with theirs.

As an aside, how much thought have you given to the millions dispossessed by floods in Pakistan in the last few days? We have information and education, transport and money - but 'what can we do'?

The traditional landowners have largely gone, to be replaced by the new 'land owners' who have brought the country to its knees. This is happening now, what are you doing about it? The new power is in government, banks and speculators. You cannot do anything about the events of the past, but are you doing anything about the new corruption? Or is it easier to look back, safe in the knowledge that you do not have to do any more than complain about it?

But if you do look back, remember that it was the select few that had power, the vast majority of people had no control whatever over their own lives, much less anyone else's.

Wolfe Tone

I dont think anyone blames the ordinary English peasant of the day.

Rosita

Terry wrote: »

Let's be honest here. It wasn't a famine.
There was enough food to feed twice the population, but it was taken from Ireland under armed guard by British soldiers.

Is it an attempt to appease our largest trading partner by not mentioning the cruelty they bestowed upon our ancestors?

Is it to do with the fact that it took about 70 years to achieve independence after the genocidal acts, and by that time history had been rewritten?

Is it Catholic guilt that is preventing us from accepting that we were not to blame for 1 million deaths?

Why is it that, over 150 years after the fact, we still refer to a genocidal act as a famine?

http://www.noraid.com/Holocaust.htm
http://www.allsands.com/history/events/irishgreatfami_bim_gn.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18156
http://www.nde.state.ne.us/ss/irish/irish_pf.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=KxrnvU39ZpoC&lpg=PA8&ots=-vXZaLzs-X&dq=laissez-faire%20famine%20ireland&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false




Just a note about the picture.
It is from irishholocaust.org
I have read this site and I believe that the owner (Chris Fogarty) is a militant republican.
I believe that he has an agenda which goes further than creating awareness of the genocide committed by the British during the 1840's. This is just my opinion though.

In saying that, he has done his research and I believe the picture to hold accurate data concerning the removal of food during the so-called famine.

To summarise; Taking food from a nation which is starving amounts to nothing more than genocide. There was more than enough food for everyone on this island, but it was taken from the people and they were left to starve.

To call it a famine is an insult to those who died or were forced to leave the country.

To be honest this idea of 'Catholic guilt' while populist is so abstract as to be impossible to measure.

The famous British historian AJP Taylor had no qualms about calling it genocide and indeed used that single word as the very title of his essay on the topic. He started off that essay talking about Belsen and then drew a parallel saying that a century earlier all 'Ireland was a Belsen'.

Why do Irish people not like to hear that or generally not like to call it genocide? It's possible there is some post-colonial hang-ups about it, and that many don't want to be seen to 'blame the Brits'.

But a well-known Irish writer put it in another way which was interesting when he said (he was a History student at third-level) that it was obvious many "Irish historians greatly valued their time in British universities".

I did a post-grad thesis on the reporting of the famine in the media which involved a look at parliamentary archives as well, and I would say the old standard explanation of laissez-faire economics becomes more absurd the more you look at broader evidence. The idea that a million lives anywhere at any time could acceptably be offered up in order to adhere to some economic theory or other is preposterous and generations of historians should be embarrassed that they peddle this nonsense.

But I suppose the question of an emotive term such 'genocide' depends to a great degree on your own pre-disposition on these matters, but it seems inconceivable that such a death toll would have been allowed to occur if it the most significantly affected area was within a 100 mile radius of London. Where the line is between inadequacy/incompetence and genocide is hard to say but something like the 'Gregory Clause' was surely genocidal in effect if not in intent.

looksee

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I dont think anyone blames the ordinary English peasant of the day.

So who is being blamed, its my impression that if you are a Brit it was 'your fault'. If it is only the government of the time that is considered responsible, why does the 'blame the Brits' mentalility continue?

Wolfe Tone

looksee wrote: »

So who is being blamed, its my impression that if you are a Brit it was 'your fault'. If it is only the government of the time that is considered responsible, why does the 'blame the Brits' mentalility continue?

Well personally I have never blamed the ordinary joe for anything... but it is their government. And it is not as if the Famine was Britain's sole transgression against the Irish. If the government acts in their name than it is not surprising that animosity is not restricted to said government(speaking of more recent things here)
Most people I know who speak of the "Brits" are speaking of the establishment, not the ordinary citizen.

The Corinthian

Rosita wrote: »

The famous British historian AJP Taylor had no qualms about calling it genocide and indeed used that single word as the very title of his essay on the topic. He started off that essay talking about Belsen and then drew a parallel saying that a century earlier all 'Ireland was a Belsen'.

Similarly other historians has dismissed calling it genocide, such as Cormac Ó Gráda and James Donnelly who interestingly said of it that it was his "contention that while genocide was not in fact committed, what happened during and as a result of the clearances had the look of genocide to a great many Irish..."

Why do Irish people not like to hear that or generally not like to call it genocide? It's possible there is some post-colonial hang-ups about it, and that many don't want to be seen to 'blame the Brits'.

Isn't that getting a bit old? It appears to be the nationalist response to anything other than outright damnation of the British and at this stage really is not terribly believable any more.

The reality is that after over a century and a half since the famine and almost a century since independence, we have begun to assess these matters dispassionately and without the need to define ourselves solely in terms of "800 years of oppression".

But a well-known Irish writer put it in another way which was interesting when he said (he was a History student at third-level) that it was obvious many "Irish historians greatly valued their time in British universities".

Who said this out of curiosity?

I did a post-grad thesis on the reporting of the famine in the media which involved a look at parliamentary archives as well, and I would say the old standard explanation of laissez-faire economics becomes more absurd the more you look at broader evidence. The idea that a million lives anywhere at any time could acceptably be offered up in order to adhere to some economic theory or other is preposterous and generations of historians should be embarrassed that they peddle this nonsense.

Pretty rhetoric, but a little light on substance.

But I suppose the question of an emotive term such 'genocide' depends to a great degree on your own pre-disposition on these matters, but it seems inconceivable that such a death toll would have been allowed to occur if it the most significantly affected area was within a 100 mile radius of London.

I would certainly agree with the fact had the famine taken place within a 100 mile radius of London the response would have been substantially different, and the British were certainly guilty of a lot. But genocide is a very specific term, and indifference is not one of it's constituents.

Where the line is between inadequacy/incompetence and genocide is hard to say but something like the 'Gregory Clause' was surely genocidal in effect if not in intent.

But genocide is defined by intent, not effect.

Wolfe Tone

Well if it was not famine, and was not genocide then what was it?

Rosita

The Corinthian wrote: »

1) Similarly other historians has dismissed calling it genocide, such as Cormac Ó Gráda and James Donnelly who interestingly said of it that it was his "contention that while genocide was not in fact committed, what happened during and as a result of the clearances had the look of genocide to a great many Irish..."

2) Isn't that getting a bit old? It appears to be the nationalist response to anything other than outright damnation of the British and at this stage really is not terribly believable any more.

3) The reality is that after over a century and a half since the famine and almost a century since independence, we have begun to assess these matters dispassionately and without the need to define ourselves solely in terms of "800 years of oppression".

4) Who said this out of curiosity?

5) Pretty rhetoric, but a little light on substance.

6) I would certainly agree with the fact had the famine taken place within a 100 mile radius of London the response would have been substantially different, and the British were certainly guilty of a lot. But genocide is a very specific term, and indifference is not one of it's constituents.

7) But genocide is defined by intent, not effect.

1) I gave the opinion of one historian who specifically dealt with the word 'genocide'. I never suggesed it was uncontradictable, especially convincing or the only opinion out there.

2) But it is a view that is out there - yes, it will be dismissed as 'nationalist' in order to try to undermine it but I think there is some validity in the view that many opinions are influenced by people's concern as to whether they are being see to be pro-nationalist or not rather than necessarily by the point itself. Arguably your own response is a prime example. I never mentioned 'nationalist' but your response seemed to use it as reference point.

3) I have no idea where you are getting this from. I never mentioned '800 years of oppression'. 'Dispassionately' doesn't come into it. The question was asked why do so many Irish wish to explain away the famine in a manner that deflects blame from the government. When you look at the way the government these days is blamed for everything it is quite remarkable. But I suppose part of the problem is people like yourself who appear to want to block debate by labelling all and sundry as 'nationalists' etc.

4) If you were up to speed on the historiography of the famine you'd know this but I deliberately left out the name as it I thought it would probably incite an ad hominen attack on the writer rather than dealing simply with the opinion. Your reply vindicates my view.

5) This is what I wrote: I did a post-grad thesis on the reporting of the famine in the media which involved a look at parliamentary archives as well, and I would say the old standard explanation of laissez-faire economics becomes more absurd the more you look at broader evidence. The idea that a million lives anywhere at any time could acceptably be offered up in order to adhere to some economic theory or other is preposterous and generations of historians should be embarrassed that they peddle this nonsense.

Frankly your reponse is meaningless. I could write that anything you write is 'light on substance' too. I'm just giving an opinion based on some research I did. If you don't fancy that too much that's fair enough.

6) 'Indifference' is a very specific term too. I'm not sure if its use is justifiable in the context of British government policy in the 1840s though as has already been stated it is the hackneyed explanation.

7) Then let me rephrase that if it upsets you. The 'Gregory clause' was genocidal end of story, from the evidence of man's own mouth.

Rosita

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Well if it was not famine, and was not genocide then what was it?

Good question. The problem is that the term was framed by the UN with specific reference to the Holocaust and can now be used as a blocking mechanism by those who don't like the notion if the adjective is used in the context of the Famine. This is usually followed by a demand for criminal court levels of proof even on a discussion board.

I could accept the old 'ah sure they didn't realise what was going on' argument if the British had generally been bungling and inactive. But where they have a case to answer is in their early reponse to the Famine which acknowledged the situation and then its withdrawal at a critical stage when the consequences of the withdrawal were forseeable, and not just foreseeable but predicted in the House of Commons.

Is it possible for those with primary and direct responsibility in a situation to withdraw measures - that were deemed to be required - in the face of forseeable and inevitable consequences and then argue that the making of that choice does not amount at any level to intent?

I suspect lawyers would be inclined to have a stab at suggesting it is not. How successful that argument would be is another matter of course.

HavingCrack

A genocide implies an official, systematic policy of the UK government at the time of attempting to kill vast numbers of Irish people. Was it a genocide? no. Was it an unintentional famine cause by the actions of the British government of the time? yes.

teg23

+1^^

Wolfe Tone

HavingCrack wrote: »

A genocide implies an official, systematic policy of the UK government at the time of attempting to kill vast numbers of Irish people. Was it a genocide? no. Was it an unintentional famine cause by the actions of the British government of the time? yes.

A famine implies that there was a severe shortage in food in Ireland at the time. There was not.