Was the Irish famine a famine or genocide

pedroeibar1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The vast majority of those affected by the famine were landless labourers, cottiers and tenant with less than 5 acres - tenants with 15 acres and over generally survived with little difficulty during the famine and those on more than 25 acres were relatively comfortable (for the mid-19 century). ...........
The deaths during the famine were all down to money - the poor died.

Life went on, albeit at a reduced pace, for example horse racing was a popular country event:
Extracted from the Racing Calendar for the year 1848 by Robert Hunter volume 59 :- The number of races run for in all Ireland and the total sum won in each of the past four years, collected from the Irish Racing Book Calendar

Year / Tot. no of races / Amt. run for £s
1845 / 323 / 17,851
1846 / 252 / 17,557
1847 / 170 / 12,504
1848 / 231 / 15,893

Ostrom

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I read that the Irish peasant in the 19th C was notably taller, fitter and healthier then his/her European counterparts - but can't for the life of me remember where - it was about 20 years ago...

One of O' Grada's books contains a section on clinometric comparison based on military data; if I remember its the 1994 one - (New Economic History?)

He published a few papers on biological standard of living measures also, the journal 'History of the Family' put out a special edition on it in 2008.

pedroeibar1

efla wrote: »

One of O' Grada's books contains a section on clinometric comparison based on military data; if I remember its the 1994 one - (New Economic History?)

He published a few papers on biological standard of living measures also, the journal 'History of the Family' put out a special edition on it in 2008.

Thanks Efla, that would be very interesting to see. I saw that post by Bannasidhe and wanted to dig out a reference or two before I posted; some of the Irish in the London of the late 17th and early 18th century were noted for being taller and stronger - they were much in demand as 'running footmen' and sedan chair operators. Being bi-located I never have what I want to hand!

pedroeibar1

Tall But Poor: Nutrition, Health, and Living Standards in Pre-Famine Ireland

S. Nicolas, Richard H. Steckel

NBER Historical Working Paper No. 39
Issued in August 1992

'The Irish attained roughly the 16th centile of modern height standards and, though smaller than contemporary North Americans, were among the tallest in Europe, including the wealthier English. We suggest that: a nutritious diet and epidemiological isolation were important factors in the high nutritional living standards of the Irish.'

Drake66

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not so - one of the major problems was the plots of land were usually divided equally between the sons. So more and more people were trying to survive from smaller and smaller amounts of land.
By the 1840s this was reaching the point where is was becoming increasing difficult for enough food to be grown - even if that food was just potatoes - as the plots were becoming too small.
Every available scrap of land was being used. If you walk along the Galway shore of Killary fjord you can still see the remains of the potato beds on the Mayo side - not an inch of land was wasted, but it still wasn't enough.

True, primogeniture was outlawed under the penal law system to reduce the size of Catholic land holdings. I if remember correctly only 5% of land was held by Catholics at the beginning of the 19th century. As estates became more subdivided the productivity of each small holding fell. In essence you had an enormous class of agrarian slaves.

P. Breathnach

Drake66 wrote: »

True, primogeniture was outlawed under the penal law system to reduce the size of Catholic land holdings. I if remember correctly only 5% of land was held by Catholics at the beginning of the 19th century. As estates became more subdivided the productivity of each small holding fell. In essence you had an enormous class of agrarian slaves.

The subdivision of rented land had nothing to do with primogeniture, which was concerned with ownership of land.

Further, subdivision did not necessarily happen on the death of a tenant. For example, in West Kerry (which interests me for genealogical reasons) I have found instances of holdings being divided on the marriage of a child - usually a son. In at least some situations landlords found it difficult to restrict or manage how tenants dealt with their leasehold interest.

Bannasidhe

Drake66 wrote: »

True, primogeniture was outlawed under the penal law system to reduce the size of Catholic land holdings. I if remember correctly only 5% of land was held by Catholics at the beginning of the 19th century. As estates became more subdivided the productivity of each small holding fell. In essence you had an enormous class of agrarian slaves.

That figure of 5% Catholic landownership doesn't take into account the quite common practice of the elder son - and heir- being Anglican while the rest of the family remained Catholic. It was a loophole often exploited as under primogeniture - first I heard of it being banned under the Penal Laws do you have a source for this? - the eldest male heir inherited it all. As long as that person was Anglican there was no problem. He, in turn, insured his heir was Anglican but the rest of his family could, and often were, Catholic.

Drake66

Well obviously I meant that primogeniture to the eldest heir, who remained of the Catholic faith, was outlawed; but then again I say you knew what I meant.

Do you access to empirical studies of conversions of faith to retain land during this time period?

Drake66

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The subdivision of rented land had nothing to do with primogeniture, which was concerned with ownership of land.

Further, subdivision did not necessarily happen on the death of a tenant. For example, in West Kerry (which interests me for genealogical reasons) I have found instances of holdings being divided on the marriage of a child - usually a son. In at least some situations landlords found it difficult to restrict or manage how tenants dealt with their leasehold interest.

I didn't say that it did.

Bannasidhe

Drake66 wrote: »

Well obviously I meant that primogeniture to the eldest heir, who remained of the Catholic faith, was outlawed; but then again I say you knew what I meant.

Do you access to empirical studies of conversions of faith to retain land during this time period?

No wanting to sound pedantic but if one posts what they mean instead of what they 'obviously' mean it reduces misunderstanding and inaccuracies.

There is a world of difference between 'primogeniture was outlawed under the penal law system to reduce the size of Catholic land holdings' and 'under the Penal Laws, which forbade a Catholic from inheriting land, combined with primogeniture, a situation arose which necessitated the eldest male heir be Anglican. The rest of the family, however, could and often did remain Catholic. Should the heir remain Catholic the land was sub-divided equally between all of the sons'.

Primogeniture was not outlawed, it was sidestepped in the case of the eldest son being a Catholic and, ironically, a system more akin to that used in Pre-conquest Ireland was employed instead.

Drake66

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No wanting to sound pedantic but if one posts what they mean instead of what they 'obviously' mean it reduces misunderstanding and inaccuracies.

There is a world of difference between 'primogeniture was outlawed under the penal law system to reduce the size of Catholic land holdings' and 'under the Penal Laws, which forbade a Catholic from inheriting land, combined with primogeniture, a situation arose which necessitated the eldest male heir be Anglican. The rest of the family, however, could and often did remain Catholic. .

I think that is pedantic. Although I should of typed the original post better.

What was the rate of conversion of the eldest heir to retain single land holdings during this time period do you know? Are there studies of land holdings and land inheritance available?

Bannasidhe

Drake66 wrote: »

I think that is pedantic. Although I should of typed the original post better.

What was the rate of conversion of the eldest heir to retain single land holdings during this time period do you know? Are there studies of land holdings and land inheritance available?

It is pedantic - but then I am a historian so it comes with the job. It's my default setting.

A google search on Landholdings in Ireland 19th Century throws up a lot of stuff, but TBH it is not my area of expertise so I would be wary of suggesting any particular ones without having had a good read of them first.
There are posters here who have far more knowledge then me on that topic and I am sure you will be inundated with reliable sources soon enough.

P. Breathnach

Drake66 wrote: »

I didn't say that it did.

You posted your bit on primogeniture in direct response to Bannasidhe's post about subdivision. Most of the subdivision in the years leading to the Famine was the splitting of leasehold interests, so the point about primogeniture was largely moot.

Yet it is important to consider why leaseholders split their holdings into ever-smaller parcels. It happened because there were few alternatives available to people. One very important factor has already been mentioned here: the lack of industrial employment.

CDfm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yet it is important to consider why leaseholders split their holdings into ever-smaller parcels. It happened because there were few alternatives available to people.

Strips of land etc were sometimes split for purposes of irrigation, access to water etc etc.

So what seems stupid had practical applications

P. Breathnach

CDfm wrote: »

Strips of land etc were sometimes split for purposes of irrigation, access to water etc etc.

So what seems stupid had practical applications

Rundale divisions are particularly interesting. They often led to the creation of small outfields and a tilled infield that was like a patchwork quilt, with each shareholder occupying a number of plots. Yes, indeed, there was a rationale for every allocation or re-allocation of plots, but I suspect that the big picture got lost in the working out of the detail. In many cases it became impracticable to develop farming practices, even to the extent of using horses.

The Congested Districts Board (precursor of the Land Commission) did a great deal of work in rationalising landholders' interests in the early years of the 20th century. I imagine that at the time people found it difficult to put up with such outside interference in their traditional ways, but I have the impression that once the tangle had been straightened out, the new arrangement worked well.

CDfm

Leasehold interests and possession had something to do with it.

If you ever read a land deed it shows you who owned what going back hundreds of years . It often lists the tenants.

Also , the likes of the O'Connels in Kerry and O'Leary's in West Cork managed to avoid the Penal Laws ?

I have seen someone post about hoarding . Well, Irish stuff is all comparative. Famine all around you and you will ake provisions. If it happens other people it could happen you and in antropology that is the "power of the limited good(commodity)" and that does not mean these slighly better off farmers had a surplus. They were prudently keeping food on the table and a roof over their own heads.

There may have been some profiteering but I can't see how in a non cash economy - it would need to be explained to me.

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

Leasehold interests and possession had something to do with it.

If you ever read a land deed it shows you who owned what going back hundreds of years . It often lists the tenants.

Also , the likes of the O'Connels in Kerry and O'Leary's in West Cork managed to avoid the Penal Laws ?

I have seen someone post about hoarding . Well, Irish stuff is all comparative. Famine all around you and you will ake provisions. If it happens other people it could happen you and in antropology that is the "power of the limited good(commodity)" and that does not mean these slighly better off farmers had a surplus. They were prudently keeping food on the table and a roof over their own heads.

There may have been some profiteering but I can't see how in a non cash economy - it would need to be explained to me.

Re: cash economy. Of course Ireland had a cash economy but the farm labourers existed outside that system. Cash was needed to buy goods in shops, stock the shops, pay wages to non farm labourers, etc etc. Landlords got cash for the agricultural produce they sold.

One of the tragedies of, for example the road building scheme undertaken under the OPW, was that in addition to the amount of calories that were consumed by the physical labour and often long walking distances to the site could not easily be replaced, was that the workers were paid in cash but could not purchase food with it as prices were high or did not have access to shops. I have heard anecdotally that many were reluctant to spend cash, preferring to save it for when it was really needed or to fund emigration - it was a rare commodity to be 'saved' and excavations of famine cottages revealed hidden caches of coins.

Small scale profiteering would have been simple - there was a need for food. The farm labourers went from a situation where they had produced all of their food to one where they needed to purchase it. At the same time relief schemes which required one to work injected cash into the economy. It would be a simple matter for both food wholesalers and retailers to add a farthing on to even basic commodities knowing they had a captive market who were also in possession of cash for the first time and also unused to engaging in a cash economy.
The potential was there for profiteering from the village shop right up to the food producer to inflate prices - after all, it was a free market era and the market sets the price.

We still see it happening - when the water supply in Cork was cut-off during the flooding, blizzards in recent years the price of bottled water shot up and that is with competition. Now, imagine there is no competition...

CDfm

Of course,there is a cash nexus in this.

You can only ride the market so much and it was an agrarian economy. It was more at a macro-economic level the shortages occurred. The supplies if adequete would have driven prices down.

A key issue will be that the shortages were not caused by the larger farmers which JRG implied as they had their own problems.

The authorities weren't stupid and knew enough economics to see this.

I do get your point.

I often find the economic policy arguments trite because at some level or juncture the decision was faced that people will die in vast numbers as a result of the policies.

slowburner

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Rundale divisions are particularly interesting. They often led to the creation of small outfields and a tilled infield that was like a patchwork quilt, with each shareholder occupying a number of plots. Yes, indeed, there was a rationale for every allocation or re-allocation of plots, but I suspect that the big picture got lost in the working out of the detail. In many cases it became impracticable to develop farming practices, even to the extent of using horses.

The Congested Districts Board (precursor of the Land Commission) did a great deal of work in rationalising landholders' interests in the early years of the 20th century. I imagine that at the time people found it difficult to put up with such outside interference in their traditional ways, but I have the impression that once the tangle had been straightened out, the new arrangement worked well.

The subject of field patterns is a subject about which I know very little, but would love to know more.
My interest comes from mention on a programme on RTE this week about farming in Ireland (can't remember the name).
One of the participants mentioned the EEC view that the traditional Irish hedgerows and ditches amounted to the loss of a huge amount of useable land. The policy thereafter ('70s?) was to uproot and fill in the hedgerows and ditches, and create larger, machine friendly fields.
We must have lost a lot more than a few ditches and some Hawthorns.

Jolly Red Giant

CDfm wrote: »

You can only ride the market so much and it was an agrarian economy. It was more at a macro-economic level the shortages occurred. The supplies if adequete would have driven prices down.

There was entensive use of forestallers by the merchants who used to visit farmers to purchase supplies. The tenant farmers consciously hoarded food to try and drive prices up and would then sell either locally or to the forestaller depending on who gave them the higher price.

CDfm wrote: »

A key issue will be that the shortages were not caused by the larger farmers which JRG implied as they had their own problems.

This was not just an issue during the famine - it was one of the main issues during the Caravat (labourers) V Shanavest (tenant farmers) conflict between 1808-1816, during the food riots in 1817, at times during the Rockite rebellion in 1821-1824, during the small scale 'famines' of 1829 and 1831 - indeed throughout most of the 1830s and again during the food riots in 1841.

CDfm wrote: »

The authorities weren't stupid and knew enough economics to see this.

The authorities didn't give a fiddlers - it was only when high food prices (note - not food shortages) threatened to escalate into full-scale food rioting that the authorities and the merchants engaged in efforts to reduce prices in the short term to take the heat out of the situation - and even then the merchants were jockeying for position to try and exploit the situation.

CDfm wrote: »

I often find the economic policy arguments trite because at some level or juncture the decision was faced that people will die in vast numbers as a result of the policies.

I wouldn't necessarily agree - yes policy decisions were made, primarily to drive thouse tenants with less than 5 acres down into the landless labouring class - but in most cases everyone from the landlords and the merchants right down to the tenant farmers were engaged in exploiting the crisis for personal gain.

Just on Rundale - by 1820 it was pretty-much gone in practically every part of the country expect for isolated pockets of Connacht.

CDfm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily agree - yes policy decisions were made, primarily to drive thouse tenants with less than 5 acres down into the landless labouring class - but in most cases everyone from the landlords and the merchants right down to the tenant farmers were engaged in exploiting the crisis for personal gain.

These guys were just a little step up the ladder on the next step of vulnerable.

Convince me because I can't see it.

If it is business its on the scale of Dinny & Myley in Glenroe.

P. Breathnach

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

...
Just on Rundale - by 1820 it was pretty-much gone in practically every part of the country expect for isolated pockets of Connacht.

All my West Kerry ancestors were shareholders in rundale leases at the time of the Famine, and some were for decades later (the earliest non-rundale letting to any of them was in 1871).

Jolly Red Giant

CDfm wrote: »

These guys were just a little step up the ladder on the next step of vulnerable.

That next step up the ladder allowed them to survive the famine relatively unscathed and they did that by walking onto of those below them.

The one thing that bugs me about the written (and spoken) history of the nineteenth century in Ireland is the pretext that it was 'Irish good - brits bad' and it was 'all the Irish V all the British'. The reality was that the landlord exploited the tenants and the Irish tenant farmers exploited the landless labourers and the cottiers. In the urban areas the Irish merchant class exploited the urban working class. If you read through all the records from the nineteenth century the vast majority of the complaints by the poorest sections of society were at the treatment being meeted out to them by their fellow Irish who were the next step (or few steps) up the ladder.

When writing about his tour of Ireland in 1780, Arthur Young outlined the status and condition of life for the rural labourer. He argued that ‘such is the weight of the lower classes in the great scale of national importance, that a traveller can never give too much attention to every circumstance that concerns them’ and calls the system whereby landlords and farmers (my emphasis) kept accounts with the poor as a ‘cruel abuse’ (Arthur Young, A Tour of Ireland, (ed.) Constantina Maxwell, Belfast, 1983, p. 15)

CDfm wrote: »

Convince me because I can't see it.

Take a trip to the national archives - read the police reports, outrage reports etc.

CDfm wrote: »

If it is business its on the scale of Dinny & Myley in Glenroe.

That was the nature of business in the 19th century - the gap (in terms of scale) was significantly smaller then than now - that 20 steps ladder at the time of the famine is now the height of a skyscraper.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

All my West Kerry ancestors were shareholders in rundale leases at the time of the Famine, and some were for decades later (the earliest non-rundale letting to any of them was in 1871).

Came across these few comments - the first two about the late 18th century and then from 1816

The rundale settlements, which developed in the seventeenth century, were housing clusters, which grew organically through the subdivision of land holdings (Heritage Council, Rural Housing in Ireland, Dublin, 2005, p. 3)

A concerted effort was made to eliminate the rundale system, which many viewed as being a serious impediment to agricultural development.(Heritage Council & Foster, Modern Ireland 1600-1972, London, 1989, p. 201)

Mason’s Parochial Survey of County Clare, carried out in 1816, described rundale as an ‘injurious mode of tenure’ explaining that it ‘has been nearly abolished, particularly on Mr. Vandeleur’s estates; but it prevails still, with its usual ill consequences, in some parts of “The West”’(Rev. John Graham, Mason's Parochial Survey, 1814-19, Vol. II, 1816, Union of Kilrush, Killard, Kilfieragh, Moyferta, and Kilballyhone, Chapter IX. Modes of Agriculture, Crops, &c)

bergheim

Population overshoot would immediately be felt in a year with bad crop back then. Unlike today when one country has a bad crop, food is brought in by plane, ships and trucks from other countries with surplus to sell. So I think population overshoot relative to the local means of producing food was a major cause

Jolly Red Giant

I was doing some research this morning and came across this chapter - Roger Wells, ‘The Irish Famine of 1799-1801: Market Culture, Moral Economies and Social Protest’, Adrian Randall & Andrew Charlesworth (Eds.) Markets, Market Culture and Popular Protest in Eighteenth Century Britain and Ireland - dealing with the economics of food supply immediately following the Act of Union. Wells, dealing with Limerick, outlines that local food supplies were integrally linked into the national and British economies.

In Ireland, as in Britain, market forces exercised a powerful influence over later eighteenth century agrarian economy. Local marketing systems, with numerous modest market towns drawing foodstuffs from limited hinterlands, were themselves subsumed in a national marketing system that embraced most of the country with the possible exception of the remotest parts of Connaught (p.163)

The food supply to the Irish was affected by its colonial status and the aftermath of 1798 rebellion by further complications deriving from the political situation as the authorities struggled to extinguish the residues of the rebellion (p.163).

Serious inflationary pressures forced a substantial jump in prices. Small farmers, cottiers and labourers consumed stocks set aside for seed driving up the price of seed potatoes (p. 165).

The potato shortage injected fierce inflationary pressures into the market for corn (p. 166).

Military commanders also articulated perceptions derived from moral-economic outlooks. General James Duff spoke of ‘many rich individuals employed in the monopoly of grain’ at Limerick (p. 178). [The rich individuals Duff was referring to were the Irish Catholic merchants who dominated food supplies in Limerick at the time]

Secret society intervention aimed to protect the poorest strata from exploitation at the hands of their wealthier neighbours, notably in Tipperary, Limerick and Kerry. In this extensive area, the intensification and then continuation of the crisis after the 1800 harvest brought recent and current agrarian changes into even sharper relief. So much land had been converted to permanent pasture for cattle that there was ‘little employment’ for the poor and then at ‘very…low wages’. A mere five or six pence per day ‘which bears no proportion’ to present food prices. Employment was further jeopardised by the influx of labourers from west Kerry. Rents were high and rising (p.183).

eire4

One of the aspects of the famine that for me is not focused on enough is the reality that most of those who died or were forced to emigrate were mostly Irish speakers. These were people who degraded and debased as they were were looked upon as sub human, lazy, prone to violence etc by their then Britsh colonial rulers. This racist outlook by the British I feel was a major factor in their unwillingness to take measures to prevent this horrific event from unfolding. What happened was not a premeditated genocide. But certainly once things were unfolding the British decision makers were quite fine with the outcome which when the scale of what took place is looked at made what happened a genocide in effect especially with regard to the degraded and impoverished Irish speakers.

We as a nation and people I feel have still yet to come to terms with the trauma of that period and that is something I feel we need to address. Like an individual who has suffered a traumatic event we need to deal with what happened, acknowledge and accept it as a monumental and in many ways defining part of our heritage and instead of finger pointing we need I feel to come to know as much as that is possible our ancestors and what they suffered and commemorate and respect that trauma.

Jesus.

New book

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/michael-nicholson-famine-novel-changed-my-mind-on-england-s-guilt-1.2465994#.Vm8Sw58Iwb4.twitter

jonniebgood1

Whilst the authors view changing is interesting im not so sure about the books. Its a novel or quote "famine novel", this is a concept I dislike. Why does it need to be a novel when the facts are so serious.

eire4

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Whilst the authors view changing is interesting im not so sure about the books. Its a novel or quote "famine novel", this is a concept I dislike. Why does it need to be a novel when the facts are so serious.

Have you read Star of the Sea by Joseph O'Connor? I thought that was well done. Well worth a look.

Jesus.

eire4 wrote: »

Have you read Star of the Sea by Joseph O'Connor? I thought that was well done. Well worth a look.

I read that. Sinead's brother wasn't it? Decent read alright