Emigration - post Famine

slowburner

It seems that the Irish diaspora is cyclical.
From 1851 to 1865, 1,630,722 emigrated.
In 1868 100,000 emigrated.
http://www.libraryireland.com/HistoryIreland/Emigration-Statistics.php

Jumping forwards considerably, there were periods of intense emigration from Ireland, usually in association with, or as a consequence of unfavourable economic circumstances.
500,000 emigrated in the 1950s.
The 60s witnessed a steady decline in emigration and the 70s saw a period of net imigration.
1982 to 1993 there were 472,300 emigrations from Ireland.

The 90s hardly need mentioning - we were there (most of us).


This is from the work of Piaras Mac Einrí, Dept. of Geography, UCC
http://migration.ucc.ie/etudesirlandaises.htm


Reflecting on the lessons History has taught us: how might we apply them to the current exodus?
Is it in the blood?
Are we primarily adventurers or opportunists?
Do we suffer if our fittest and brightest leave us?

In Margaret Anne Cusack's words, not mine -

As the emigrants generally leave their young children after them for a time, and as aged and imbecile persons do not emigrate, the consequence is, that, from 1851 to 1861, the number of deaf and dumb increased from 5,180 to 5,653; the number of blind, from 5,787 to 6,879; and the number of lunatics and idiots, from 9,980 to 14,098.

See first link above.

dubhthach

What would be interesting would be to see a graph showing "Natural Increase/Decrease" (Deaths versus births) over this time period. Basically for most of it Births heavily outnumbered Deaths, however emigration cancelled it out.

The other thing to do as well in factor in population at time (emigration per 1000 population). During the 1980's the population was 700k higher in 1986 compared to 1956 for example. Now of course the population is over 50% higher then during 1950's.

Peregrinus

slowburner wrote: »

Reflecting on the lessons History has taught us: how might we apply them to the current exodus?
Is it in the blood?
Are we primarily adventurers or opportunists?
Do we suffer if our fittest and brightest leave us?

In Margaret Anne Cusack's words, not mine -

As the emigrants generally leave their young children after them for a time, and as aged and imbecile persons do not emigrate, the consequence is, that, from 1851 to 1861, the number of deaf and dumb increased from 5,180 to 5,653; the number of blind, from 5,787 to 6,879; and the number of lunatics and idiots, from 9,980 to 14,098.

See first link above.

That last bit doesn’t make a lot of sense, on reflection.

If the number of deaf and dumb increased from 5,180 to 5,653, is Cusack suggesting that 473 people were struck deaf and dumb during the period because other people emigrated? That can hardly be. True, people suffering from a disability are less likely to emigrate, but at most this can explain a constant number of disabled people, and perhaps rise in the proportion of disabled people in the population, as the able-bodied leave. But it can’t explain an absolute rise in the number of disabled people.

What it can do, though, is account for a rise in the number of people consigned to workhouses or other forms of relief as the able-bodied people who would otherwise support them emigrate. If Cusack’s figures represent, not the total number of deaf and dumb people, but the total number of deaf and dumb people in workhouses, or otherwise in the public care, then it could be linked to emigration. But what that would point to is not emigration making the population deafer and dumber, but emigration destroying the social mechanisms by which deaf and dumb people are cared for, and forcing the development of other mechanisms.

(It can also point to people who are on the margins of deaf-and-dumbness being “labeled” as such for the purpose of getting them into workhouses, when they might otherwise have escaped that designation. This probably isn’t so much a factor with the rise of 479 (9.2%) in the deaf and dumb population over the period, but I suspect it is with the rise of 4,109 (41.2%) in the population of “lunatics and idiots”. I suspect that a lot of them were neither lunatics nor idiots; they were just old and weak, but they were labeled as such to get them admission to workhouses).

On the wider issue of whether emigration “degrades” the nation, this was a major element of the “vanishing Ireland” meme which was widespread in the middle years of the last century. It rests on the assumption that it’s the “best and brightest” who leave (as opposed to, say, the most desperate, or the ones who lose out in the domestic competition for jobs, etc) and also on the highly controversial eugenic assumption that those who remain are not only the more stupid and feeble members of the population, but that they will have more stupid and feeble children. Since we are, by and large, the descendants of those who remained in Ireland, we are inclined to reject the argument that our forebears, and so ourselves, are more stupid and feeble than those who left, and their descendants.

slowburner

Peregrinus wrote: »

That last bit doesn’t make a lot of sense, on reflection.

If the number of deaf and dumb increased from 5,180 to 5,653, is Cusack suggesting that 473 people were struck deaf and dumb during the period because other people emigrated? That can hardly be. True, people suffering from a disability are less likely to emigrate, but at most this can explain a constant number of disabled people, and perhaps rise in the proportion of disabled people in the population, as the able-bodied leave. But it can’t explain an absolute rise in the number of disabled people.

What it can do, though, is account for a rise in the number of people consigned to workhouses or other forms of relief as the able-bodied people who would otherwise support them emigrate. If Cusack’s figures represent, not the total number of deaf and dumb people, but the total number of deaf and dumb people in workhouses, or otherwise in the public care, then it could be linked to emigration. But what that would point to is not emigration making the population deafer and dumber, but emigration destroying the social mechanisms by which deaf and dumb people are cared for, and forcing the development of other mechanisms.

(It can also point to people who are on the margins of deaf-and-dumbness being “labeled” as such for the purpose of getting them into workhouses, when they might otherwise have escaped that designation. This probably isn’t so much a factor with the rise of 479 (9.2%) in the deaf and dumb population over the period, but I suspect it is with the rise of 4,109 (41.2%) in the population of “lunatics and idiots”. I suspect that a lot of them were neither lunatics nor idiots; they were just old and weak, but they were labeled as such to get them admission to workhouses).

On the wider issue of whether emigration “degrades” the nation, this was a major element of the “vanishing Ireland” meme which was widespread in the middle years of the last century. It rests on the assumption that it’s the “best and brightest” who leave (as opposed to, say, the most desperate, or the ones who lose out in the domestic competition for jobs, etc) and also on the highly controversial eugenic assumption that those who remain are not only the more stupid and feeble members of the population, but that they will have more stupid and feeble children. Since we are, by and large, the descendants of those who remained in Ireland, we are inclined to reject the argument that our forebears, and so ourselves, are more stupid and feeble than those who left, and their descendants.

What a masterful demolition of Cusack's comment.
She makes no mention of the origin of these figures. Perhaps the source was questionable.

On the subject of 'lunatics and idiots': I heard a radio interviewee (I can't remember who it was) a few years back, painting a harrowing picture of daily life during the famine.
One of the aspects mentioned was that indeed there was a notable increase in madness.
This was due to excessive consumption of cabbage, which causes a toxic build up of iodine, in turn, causing a deterioration in mental health.

Since we are, by and large, the descendants of those who remained in Ireland, we are inclined to reject the argument that our forebears, and so ourselves, are more stupid and feeble than those who left, and their descendants.

I sincerely hope that we have grounds for rejecting this view.
Could it not be argued that only the fittest survived?

I think we need to look at the degree to which Irish people emigrate, relative to other populations.
Do the Irish have a greater propensity for 'wanderlust'? Do we just need the slightest excuse?
I think a discussion in an historical context, could help to understand the current exodus.

pedroeibar1

slowburner wrote: »

On the subject of 'lunatics and idiots': I heard a radio interviewee (I can't remember who it was) a few years back, painting a harrowing picture of daily life during the famine.
One of the aspects mentioned was that indeed there was a notable increase in madness.
This was due to excessive consumption of cabbage, which causes a toxic build up of iodine, in turn, causing a deterioration in mental health.

Not sure that it would cause madness. The brassica family contains Goitrins (Thiocyanates) which interfere with the uptake of iodine, an element crucial to the working of the thyroid.............eating a large amount of cabbage can aggravate a pre-existing thyroid problem, but cannot initiate one. (Harold McGee, ‘On Food’, Fireside, New York 1984, page 161). I imagine one would have to eat copious amounts to produce goitre – the mind boggles at the notion of the Irish population all looking like Marty Feldman. Let’s avoid comment on the other side effects;). I’ve read somewhere that the Japanese have very high levels of iodine in their systems, due to a much higher intake of seaweed & fish, so anyone on an Irish mountain would have a long way to catch up. The book on the Highland Clearances also has a bit on iodine effects in crofter diet, will look it up next week when I get my hands on it.
McGee states that cabbage was introduced into Britain by the Romans. (and no doubt Slowburner can confirm it arrived in Wicklow at that time also;). Brussels sprouts were developed in N. Europe supposedly in the 5thC but the first clear record of their existence is 1587 (ibid. pg. 196)

slowburner

Cabbage is the primary reason for the Romans' lack of success in Wicklow.
There was a specialist group known as the 'Fír Boladh' who were masters at detecting a particular waft associated with a foreign diet.

The radio item was a half heard comment, a long time ago; so maybe I got it wrong.
There was mention too, of the sufferers in their rags who would go no further then the back door of the church.

The only reference I could find to psychological effects concerns surgical damage to the thyroid.

Adults suffering from a surgically damaged thyroid may develop myxedema, a disorder with symptoms much resembling cretinism. These symptoms include lowered body temperature and pulse rate, lethargy, retardation of metabolic and mental processes, and a puffing of skin and tissues.

http://www.springboard4health.com/notebook/min_iodine.html






So nice to see an 'ibid.' A precedent for the forum?

thecommietommy

slowburner wrote: »

It seems that the Irish diaspora is cyclical.
From 1851 to 1865, 1,630,722 emigrated.
In 1868 100,000 emigrated.
http://www.libraryireland.com/HistoryIreland/Emigration-Statistics.php

Probably due to what is known as chain migration, i.e. where one memebr of the family, often the oldest or one who has a trade or skill, migrates and sets down roots often saving the money an dreturning it home for another member of the family to follow and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_migration

Manach

A little OT - but these series of Punch cartoons depict how the Irish were viewed at the time from a certain point of view. Hence perhaps a push factor in the decision to leave the country.
link.

slowburner

Caustic propaganda like that certainly wouldn't help, that's for sure.

The Scientician

slowburner wrote: »

1982 to 1993 there were 472,300 emigrations from Ireland.

I find this hard to believe. Where did you get this figure? In fact the chart you included in your post doesn't back up that figure, if I'm reading it right.

The Scientician

slowburner wrote: »

Do we suffer if our fittest and brightest leave us?

I don't think it matters who leaves but we do suffer. Ireland's economic and social development over the last 2 centuries has IMHO been stymied by its haemorrhaging of people from all walks of life, of all abilities. People across the social spectrum, skilled and unskilled, went to Britain and North America's cities and contributed towards their world beating prosperity while also typically benefiting from it as well. I don't think chronic emigration is the only reason why Ireland was so poor for so long but it must be a significant factor.

slowburner

The Scientician wrote: »

I find this hard to believe. Where did you get this figure? In fact the chart you included in your post doesn't back up that figure, if I'm reading it right.

The chart only covers the period up to 1989.
The figures are from this reference,
Courtney, D., (1995) "Demographic Structure and Change in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland", in Irish Society: Sociological Perspectives. Institute of Public Administration, Dublin, p. 41.
quoted in the work below.

As pointed out by Courtney (25), there were approximately 472,300 emigrations from Ireland (26 Counties) between April 1982 and 1993; in the same period, there were approximately 263,500 immigrations

The link is in the OP.

The Scientician

slowburner wrote: »

The chart only covers the period up to 1989.
The figures are from this reference,
Courtney, D., (1995) "Demographic Structure and Change in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland", in Irish Society: Sociological Perspectives. Institute of Public Administration, Dublin, p. 41.
quoted in the work below.
The link is in the OP.

Thanks for your references. However, I'm still confused. Up to 1989 the outward migration was 50,000 approx. according to the chart, was there really a spike of emigration in '89-'93 that lead to another 160,000 leaving?

slowburner

I understand that there was a dramatic increase in emigration in 1989, but I don't have access to primary sources for precise figures, so I'll have to make do with secondary sources.

Simultaneously, there was considerable demand for white labour in Britain, especially in London. Emigration from Ireland rose throughout the decade, peaking in 1989 when over 70,000 left the country.

http://migration.ucc.ie/nmr/publications1.html

conor.hogan.2

Lindsey Earner-Byrne said something that always stuck with me, Ireland emigration has never really stopped it has just gotten higher and lower and certain periods (paraphrased).