Making a Documentary on The Famine

Neewbie_noob

billybudd wrote: »

At the time the Queen of England gave 10 times more in relief money than the catholic church.

Is this true?? Thought the English seized all of our other food sources and held our religion to ransom (ie, become Anglican or starve) ???

Fratton Fred

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Is this true?? Thought the English seized all of our other food sources and held our religion to ransom (ie, become Anglican or starve) ???

That's it. Yes. Anything else is considered West Brit revisionism.

Neewbie_noob

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's it. Yes. Anything else is considered West Brit revisionism.

Seriously, it's a serious question I'm asking, did the UK actually help us then or was what I was told just anti British propoganda / hate speech / brainwashing??

awec

billybudd wrote: »

At the time the Queen of England gave 10 times more in relief money than the catholic church.

Didn't know this, if that's true it's pretty shocking. You have to wonder how the church held such power over the people for so long.

Fratton Fred

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Seriously, it's a serious question I'm asking, did the UK actually help us then or was what I was told just anti British propoganda / hate speech / brainwashing??

There was a lot of help, but no where near enough and very little of it came from the British government.

The Government also failed to clamp down on speculating and profiteering by merchants, which meant that what food was available was way too expensive for the starving to get hold of.

For the Famine itself http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Famine

and for the Private relief http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Private_Responses_to_the_Famine3344361812

http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/British_Relief_Associations

Proselytism (Or souperism) wasn't as common as it is portrayed and was widely condemned by both the Catholic and Anglican church.

podgemonster

LordSutch wrote: »

I have always wondered about 'other foods' that were eaten (not eaten) during this period. Was the humble potato the only food available in Ireland/Britain at the time? What about fish for example, or other vegetables like carrots, cabbage, runner beans, and then all the livestock + rabbits, hares etc etc? what about making & baking bread to fill the Carb deficit? did bread even exist at the time? and if it did, then why . . . .

I have little or no knowlewdge of the period myself, but I have always wondered why people couldn't survive on other food stuffs for the duration of the potato blight.

If i recall correctly Summer 1846 not a single loaf of bread was availalbe at a farmers market in Skibbereen causing the townsfolk to demand meal be brought in but there wasn't enough and country communites flocked to the town to get food or a place in a workhouse. During the Autumn of 1846 reports in west Cork said how people we living off wild berries and nettles but once winter hit these resources dried up and children eventually started to die. Groups of men also hunted to countryside "Like Wolves" for meat.

Bare in mind families were large and each houshold has no more than an acre of land to farm if at all and the cheap and most rewarding crop in terms of fast growth and sustainance was the spud.

I have often wondering about the fishing question myself, I would assume a lack of wealth to buy a boat/nets/pots. Perhaps someone could shed some light on that.

johnr1

9959 wrote: »

Eek!
Does your own personal view of the similarities in 'atmosphere' between the museums of Skibbereen and Auschwitz extend to extrapolating a genocidal equivalence between The Famine and The Holocaust?

Please tell me no.

For the Great Hunger in Ireland to be definitively a genocide event, as far as I know, there would have had to be premeditation, or shall we say, it would have to have been planned.

Nothing that I've ever read, heard or seen about it convinces me that it was planned.

Therefore, - No, I don't consider it genocide.

However, it was damm handy from a British landowner's point of view.

What I meant in the post you quoted was that if you visit the field where so many hunger victims are buried, it's a chilling place, with a similar feel to Auschwitz.

Note, I won't usually refer to the event as the famine, because there cannot be a famine in a country overflowing with food in my opinion.
.

9959

johnr1 wrote: »

OP, you might want to read....
........I'd also second the poster who suggested the Famine museum in Skibbereen, - to me the place has the same atmosphere as Auschwitz.

.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Although it could be helpful to compare reactions of people who experience these extreme events. I’m thinking of the ending of Daniel Defoe’s novel "A Journal of the Plague Year" Or Primo Levi’s famous reflection on his experience in AuschwitzDo we have those perspectives in our Famine accounts? Maybe we do, I just wouldn’t know. I’m not conscious of comment that explores how we’re not descended from the people buried in Skibbereen. We’re descended from the people who buried them.

Thanks for the well-written reply.
I believe one should be wary when one group of victims attempt to 'hitch their wagon' to that of another group.
It's a pity that de Valera wasn't as empathetic when he signed the book of condolence for Hitler at the German Embassy in Dublin.

I'm more interested in ascertaining whether 'johnr1' equates the 'perpetrators' of the Famine - I'm assuming he blames perfidious Albion, apologies in advance if incorrect - with the Fascist perpetrators of The Holocaust.

johnr1

9959 wrote: »

Thanks for the well-written reply.
I believe one should be wary when one group of victims attempt to 'hitch their wagon' to that of another group.
It's a pity that de Valera wasn't as empathetic when he signed the book of condolence for Hitler at the German Embassy in Dublin.

I'm more interested in ascertaining whether 'johnr1' equates the 'perpetrators' of the Famine - I'm assuming he blames perfidious Albion, apologies in advance if incorrect - with the Fascist perpetrators of The Holocaust.

I've answered and explained my pov after your misunderstanding ofmy first post.

Nowhere did I or anyone else here attempt to "hitch the wagon" of the famine to the Holocaust.

This thread is neither about where I apportion blame or where you do, if indeed you apportion any blame at all for the event.

Stop trying to make a row.

.

kylith

LordSutch wrote: »

I have always wondered about 'other foods' that were eaten (not eaten) during this period. Was the humble potato the only food available in Ireland/Britain at the time? What about fish for example, or other vegetables like carrots, cabbage, runner beans, and then all the livestock + rabbits, hares etc etc? what about making & baking bread to fill the Carb deficit? did bread even exist at the time? and if it did, then why . . . .

I have little or no knowlewdge of the period myself, but I have always wondered why people couldn't survive on other food stuffs for the duration of the potato blight.

The potato was the staple food for most of the country because of it's relatively high yield for the space it took up. Most other vegetable foodstuffs wouldn't have been grown because you could get more potatoes out of a plot of land than carrots or cabbage. Corn (wheat, oats etc.) was generally grown and owned by the landlords and was shipped out of Ireland all throughout the 'famine', and you can't really bake bread when you have no flour. The same would have been true for most farm animals; they'd have been raised for export.

A permit was required to fish, and that was beyond the means of most Irish people. Hunting would probably have involved trespassing on the landlord's property, and can be a very labour intensive endeavour for relatively little caloric payout, especially when you're already half-starved and have contracted one of the many illnesses which were prevalent at the time.

LordSutch

I guess Cholera played a part too.

GRMA

LordSutch wrote: »

I have always wondered about 'other foods' that were eaten (not eaten) during this period. Was the humble potato the only food available in Ireland/Britain at the time? What about fish for example, or other vegetables like carrots, cabbage, runner beans, and then all the livestock + rabbits, hares etc etc? what about making & baking bread to fill the Carb deficit? did bread even exist at the time? and if it did, then why . . . .

I have little or no knowlewdge of the period myself, but I have always wondered why people couldn't survive on other food stuffs for the duration of the potato blight.

The native Irish typically had the worst land - the best was used for crop and cattle - those who tilled the land and cared for those crops often starved. Spuds will grow anywhere with little effort, they are not high maintenance crops. For many tenants the rent they were charged was higher than the value of anything they could possibly grow, so they grew spuds and worked at manual labour.

Spuds were not the only type of food, there was a wide variety, carrots, vegetables etc and lots of cattle and other livestock. As well as wheat etc. The vast majority of this was exported.

Look at the Devon report commissioned just a few years before the famine, it called for the consolidation of farms below seven acres, and the removal of around 192,368 families - a million people.

Massively conveniently the "famine" occurred just a few years later and happily for the British ladlords this was coupled with the easy ejectment laws from 1815 and after, where it was simple to evict those from holdings where the rent was under £50 a year. These laws were unknown in England.
Then we have the new poor law which was enacted to "help" the Irish - no relief until he gave up his land. A man went into the workhouse, a pauper came out. Thus the landlords were able to seize the land off those who got relief and took the land after those who didn't died.

As for food exported, Thoms Almanac records that 1,875,393 quarters of grain were exported in 1847, along with countless amounts of cattle, vegetables, bacon, butter etc etc. The amount of exports were so high that in 1826 the British placed it "on the footing of a coast trade" - no official records were to be kept. If we look at the records which were kept before 1826 there is a clear upward trend, the food exported even then would have been ample to fill all of Ireland's bellies healthily during the famine years. And exports and production shot up in those years between 1826 and the famine, and even increased during the famine.

And if the starving Irish were to steal food, well this example demonstrates what would happen; Timothy Leary and Mary Leary were both indicted for stealing on January 14th, at Oakmount, for feloniously stealing twenty turnips and fifty parsnips, the property of James Gillman. Their punishment was 7 years transportation.

And then we have the whole host of new treason laws which were used to transport those who agitated and attempted to rouse the native Irish.

The Irish were pauperized by the British and their laws. They were relegated to such a plight that they were incredibly vulnerable to a potato failure. The"famine" was nothing less than a land grab by the British, it was facilitated and encouraged.

It was, in my opinion, a more stomachable type of genocide - they didn't have them lined up and shot but killed them by laws and abuse.

Ash.J.Williams

mikemac1 wrote: »

The Sutlan of the Ottman Empire, something like that sent a ship or three with food and aid to the wee county, Drogheda to be exact

And so Drogheda has a town crest with a star and a crescent on it

Mary McAleese told this story a few years back

But then some others said it was incorrect

I don't mind, I like this story

is that 100% fact?

kylith

Has there ever been an official "Sorry for letting everyone starve" from any British agency? Not that I hold anyone now living in any way responsible, of course, but just an acknowledgement that what happened was reprehensible.

Fratton Fred

GRMA wrote: »

The native Irish typically had the worst land - the best was used for crop and cattle - those who tilled the land and cared for those crops often starved. Spuds will grow anywhere with little effort, they are not high maintenance crops. For many tenants the rent they were charged was higher than the value of anything they could possibly grow, so they grew spuds and worked at manual labour.

Spuds were not the only type of food, there was a wide variety, carrots, vegetables etc and lots of cattle and other livestock. As well as wheat etc. The vast majority of this was exported.

Look at the Devon report commissioned just a few years before the famine, it called for the consolidation of farms below seven acres, and the removal of around 192,368 families - a million people.

Massively conveniently the "famine" occurred just a few years later and happily for the British ladlords this was coupled with the easy ejectment laws from 1815 and after, where it was simple to evict those from holdings where the rent was under £50 a year. These laws were unknown in England.
Then we have the new poor law which was enacted to "help" the Irish - no relief until he gave up his land. A man went into the workhouse, a pauper came out. Thus the landlords were able to seize the land off those who got relief and took the land after those who didn't died.

As for food exported, Thoms Almanac records that 1,875,393 quarters of grain were exported in 1847, along with countless amounts of cattle, vegetables, bacon, butter etc etc. The amount of exports were so high that in 1826 the British placed it "on the footing of a coast trade" - no official records were to be kept. If we look at the records which were kept before 1826 there is a clear upward trend, the food exported even then would have been ample to fill all of Ireland's bellies healthily during the famine years. And exports and production shot up in those years between 1826 and the famine, and even increased during the famine.

And if the starving Irish were to steal food, well this example demonstrates what would happen; Timothy Leary and Mary Leary were both indicted for stealing on January 14th, at Oakmount, for feloniously stealing twenty turnips and fifty parsnips, the property of James Gillman. Their punishment was 7 years transportation.

And then we have the whole host of new treason laws which were used to transport those who agitated and attempted to rouse the native Irish.

The Irish were pauperized by the British and their laws. They were relegated to such a plight that they were incredibly vulnerable to a potato failure. The"famine" was nothing less than a land grab by the British, it was facilitated and encouraged.

It was, in my opinion, a more stomachable type of genocide - they didn't have them lined up and shot but killed them by laws and abuse.

You obviously didn't read the links I pasted to above.

Ash.J.Williams

Now that we all have a fair idea how our country really works! It would fair to say there were many irish fat f*ckers eating very well during the famine!

ejmaztec

kylith wrote: »

Has there ever been an official "Sorry for letting everyone starve" from any British agency? Not that I hold anyone now living in any way responsible, of course, but just an acknowledgement that what happened was reprehensible.

Didn't Tony Blair apologise, or was that for something else?

9959

johnr1 wrote: »

I've answered and explained my pov after your misunderstanding ofmy first post.

Nowhere did I or anyone else here attempt to "hitch the wagon" of the famine to the Holocaust.

This thread is neither about where I apportion blame or where you do, if indeed you apportion any blame at all for the event.

Stop trying to make a row.

.

Don't know what happened there, I posted my reply to GCU before I read yours.
Reading your reply above, I don't believe there's any reason for a row, even if I were 'trying to make' one.

mikemac1

kylith wrote: »

Has there ever been an official "Sorry for letting everyone starve" from any British agency? Not that I hold anyone now living in any way responsible, of course, but just an acknowledgement that what happened was reprehensible.

Tony Blair apologized about 5 or 6 years ago

kylith

mikemac1 wrote: »

Tony Blair apologized about 5 or 6 years ago

Ah, that's grand so.

Zebra3

johnr1 wrote: »

For the Great Hunger in Ireland to be definitively a genocide event, as far as I know, there would have had to be premeditation, or shall we say, it would have to have been planned.

Nothing that I've ever read, heard or seen about it convinces me that it was planned.

Therefore, - No, I don't consider it genocide.

However, it was damm handy from a British landowner's point of view.

It was "damn handy" from the British establishment's point of view of driving down the population in Ireland. Death or emigration, it didn't really matter.

It was their obligation to ensure their citizens didn't starve, and they left them to rot in the fields and on the coffin ships.

That alone makes it genocide.

MadsL

Zebra3 wrote: »

It was "damn handy" from the British establishment's point of view of driving down the population in Ireland. Death or emigration, it didn't really matter.

It was there obligation to ensure their citizens didn't starve, and they left them to rot in the fields and on the coffin ships.

That alone makes it genocide.

Damn Handy? Explain the repeal of the Corn Laws by Peel? Doesn't that make seem unlikely as a planned genocide if your Prime Minister works against the supposed genocide?

Zebra3

MadsL wrote: »

Damn Handy? Explain the repeal of the Corn Laws by Peel? Doesn't that make seem unlikely as a planned genocide if your Prime Minister works against the supposed genocide?

And did the repeal of theose laws actually make any difference?

Juging by the number of dead, and the numbers forced to flee starvation, that's probably a no.....

Lots of politicans (here and abroad) pass legislation for window dressing purposes knowing they will make no difference to the status quo.

Fratton Fred

Zebra3 wrote: »

And did the repeal of theose laws actually make any difference?

Juging by the number of dead, and the numbers forced to flee starvation, that's probably a no.....

Lots of politicans (here and abroad) pass legislation for window dressing purposes knowing they will make no difference to the status quo.

if they wanted the Irish dead, why did they let so many emigrate to England?

MadsL

Zebra3 wrote: »

And did the repeal of theose laws actually make any difference?

Juging by the number of dead, and the numbers forced to flee starvation, that's probably a no.....

Lots of politicans (here and abroad) pass legislation for window dressing purposes knowing they will make no difference to the status quo.

Peel's government fell shortly after so we will never know what measures would have been brought in by that Govt.

However, famile relief measures including providing made-up-labour schemes in order to provide some income are not really the actions of a state hell-bent on genocide.

I understand why some wish to turn the British into cartoonish villains but the genocide label is politically charged rather than historically sound.

LivelineDipso

Jesus christ Drogheda United really are a Hun club!

Qualitymark

MadsL wrote: »

Peel's government fell shortly after so we will never know what measures would have been brought in by that Govt.

However, famile relief measures including providing made-up-labour schemes in order to provide some income are not really the actions of a state hell-bent on genocide.

I understand why some wish to turn the British into cartoonish villains but the genocide label is politically charged rather than historically sound.

Peel's Brimstone, they called the Indian corn; it needed to be cooked with ashes (lye breaks it down, and this is done in central and south America), but Irish people didn't know this, and it caused a scouring diarrhoea if you cooked it otherwise.

Not to bring in the Nazis in the classic internet-argument method - but seriously, many of the Nazy labour camps provided food in exchange for slave labour. Saying that labour plans suggest non-genocide doesn't work.

The terrible thing about the Famine roads and Famine walls was that men and women weak from starvation were forced by hunger to attempt to work, while falling from hunger, and they failed to earn enough to feed themselves and their children by this work.

Famine relief work was a shameful crime.

MadsL

Qualitymark wrote: »

Peel's Brimstone, they called the Indian corn; it needed to be cooked with ashes (lye breaks it down, and this is done in central and south America), but Irish people didn't know this, and it caused a scouring diarrhoea if you cooked it otherwise.

Not to bring in the Nazis in the classic internet-argument method - but seriously, many of the Nazy labour camps provided food in exchange for slave labour. Saying that labour plans suggest non-genocide doesn't work.

The terrible thing about the Famine roads and Famine walls was that men and women weak from starvation were forced by hunger to attempt to work, while falling from hunger, and they failed to earn enough to feed themselves and their children by this work.

Famine relief work was a shameful crime.

labour camps provided food in exchange for slave labour = famine relief work. I'm sure you can see through this absurd analogy.

What should the British Govt have done instead given that the food trade and land was in private hands?

brosy

Fantastic to see such a lively debate. Thanks to all who have contributed, you've given me some excellent ideas of avenues to explore. Also just got a copy of Atlas of the Great Irish Famine by John Crowley, William J. Smyth and Mike Murphy. Excited to get stuck into it.

SeaFields

brosy wrote: »

Fantastic to see such a lively debate. Thanks to all who have contributed, you've given me some excellent ideas of avenues to explore. Also just got a copy of Atlas of the Great Irish Famine by John Crowley, William J. Smyth and Mike Murphy. Excited to get stuck into it.

Prof Smyth was the best lecturer i ever had. He is very approachable and enthusiastic about is subject matter. If you could meet with him to discuss stuff i am sure he would be very accommodating.