The Famine Plot - Tim Pat Coogan "Famine was genocide"

General Monck

Jawgap wrote: »

.......but let's assume you are right and that poor people who died were, in fact, murdered......who would you indict? No need to provide a specific name, a broad idea would be fine.

Charles Trevelyan for a start. It's obvious from his writings that he was a twisted individual who believed the Irish were an inferior race, a belief held by many of the British cabinet. He is the 19th century equivalent of Reinhard Heydrich.

Fratton Fred

General Monck wrote: »

Charles Trevelyan for a start. It's obvious from his writings that he was a twisted individual who believed the Irish were an inferior race, a belief held by many of the British cabinet. He is the 20th century equivalent of Reinhard Heydrich.

In what way?

briany

General Monck wrote: »

Charles Trevelyan for a start. It's obvious from his writings that he was a twisted individual who believed the Irish were an inferior race, a belief held by many of the British cabinet. He is the 20th century equivalent of Reinhard Heydrich.

Surely the 20th century equivalent of Reinhard Heydrich is Reinhard Heydrich?

pedroeibar1

General Monck wrote: »

Charles Trevelyan for a start. It's obvious from his writings that he was a twisted individual who believed the Irish were an inferior race, a belief held by many of the British cabinet. He is the 20th century equivalent of Reinhard Heydrich.

You are 6 posts into Boards and your opening anti-Brit post post was locked almost immediately. Brit-bashing is not history. You also claim elsewhere to be studying law - however, your posts show a remarkable ignorance of Law, including the differences between murder, manslaughter and genocide. I couldn't be ar$ed replying to you.

Jawgap

General Monck wrote: »

Charles Trevelyan for a start. It's obvious from his writings that he was a twisted individual who believed the Irish were an inferior race, a belief held by many of the British cabinet. He is the 20th century equivalent of Reinhard Heydrich.

I'll take that case (Trevelyan, not Heydrich). Which writings are you referring to?

Trevelyan was only an Assistant Secretary at the Treasury - why not go for his boss or bosses?

Also could it not be that the government interventions were well intended but poorly calibrated and implemented to the point that they prevented private charity from effectively operating?.....and this lead to a downward spiral driven to a degree by ideology but also by a complete failure to grasp the nature of the problem?

Jawgap

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

You are 6 posts into Boards and your opening anti-Brit post post was locked almost immediately. Brit-bashing is not history. You also claim elsewhere to be studying law - however, your posts show a remarkable ignorance of Law, including the differences between murder, manslaughter and genocide. I couldn't be ar$ed replying to you.

ahh the irony of some called "General Monck" Brit Bashing.........what thread is next......"All Englishmen are Tw@ts" by Horatio_Nelson:D

General Monck

Jawgap wrote: »

I'll take that case (Trevelyan, not Heydrich). Which writings are you referring to?

Trevelyan was only an Assistant Secretary at the Treasury - why not go for his boss or bosses?

Also could it not be that the government interventions were well intended but poorly calibrated and implemented to the point that they prevented private charity from effectively operating?.....and this lead to a downward spiral driven to a degree by ideology but also by a complete failure to grasp the nature of the problem?

No I believe that the governments motive while setting up soup kitchens was to absolve themselves of any blame from a political fallout that may of followed the famine.

General Monck

Jawgap wrote: »

ahh the irony of some called "General Monck" Brit Bashing.........what thread is next......"All Englishmen are Tw@ts" by Horatio_Nelson:D

Since when did this become a debate about me?

General Monck

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

You are 6 posts into Boards and your opening anti-Brit post post was locked almost immediately. Brit-bashing is not history. You also claim elsewhere to be studying law - however, your posts show a remarkable ignorance of Law, including the differences between murder, manslaughter and genocide. I couldn't be ar$ed replying to you.

I didn't know this was a British army reunion thread.

Jawgap

General Monck wrote: »

No I believe that the governments motive while setting up soup kitchens was to absolve themselves of any blame from a political fallout that may of followed the famine.

No, I'd say their motive was to intervene but their intervention had, like all interventions, a raft of unintended consequences, some of which were good others were positively destructive.

The fact they intervened has been cited as a poorly judged decision - in previous famines private charity had proved more effective at providing relief. When the government intervened they squeezed out private charity - but all this only became apparent in hindsight. Also the Great Famine dwarfed all previous such events.

At the time people saw what was happening and there was pressure on to do something, when it's arguable that government inaction might have been 'less bad' (I'd hesitate to use the word 'better') - not that it would have prevented the famine, which itself was a product of ecology, economics, land ownership and land use patterns..

General Monck wrote: »

Since when did this become a debate about me?

It's not - I just thought you were being ironic with your user name

pedroeibar1

Members of Dublin City University's BCL in Law and Society .............alongside students from the hosting Fordham Law School, the facts were debated and a legal case was made for both sides. The judges recruited by the mock tribunal included Adrian Hardiman from the Supreme Court of Ireland, John Ingram of the New York Supreme Court, and William Schabas, a Professor of Law at Middlesex University, London..........................
Unfortunately, we'll have to wait a little longer for the result: in true legal fashion, judgement on the case was frustatingly reserved for 60 days. That means we should find out what the legal experts made of Ireland's biggest tragedy around June 20.

From http://www.worldirish.com/story/35831-irish-famine-tribunal-in-new-york-reserves-judgement-on-britains-responsibility-for-the-great-famine

fryup

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Most Famine victims died of disease, not hunger. Look at what was happening in Britain at about the same time. In 1831 cholera broke out in England, at Durham. Moving north into Scotland and south to London it within a couple of years claimed 52,000 lives. A few years later, measles and "hooping cough" accounted for fifty thousand deaths in England and Wales between 1838 and 1840. In the same period about 25% of all deaths have been attributed to tuberculosis or consumption.

good point,

the famine itself spread from the south of ireland to ulster to scotland and to the north of england, it wasn't just the irish that were affected

wolfpawnat

Not a fan of Tim Pat Coogan. He allows his bias show in his writings, especially concerning two particular political figures of the 20th century.

Was it a genocide. I would say yes. When a third of a population are dependent on one crop and it fails, when the government in charge (Britain) continues to ship all other crops and animals out of the country and not look after the starving then you are most certainly guilty of it.

Yes the vast majority of deaths appear to have been disease (we have no accurate records) Many died in their homes/the side of the road so we are assuming since disease was the most common form of death, but having food to keep the body going would have helped these individuals too. As would shelter, many people lost their homes during the famine due to extortionate rents. It was a horrific thing to happen under the power of a supposedly "civilized" state such as Britain!

Fratton Fred

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Not a fan of Tim Pat Coogan. He allows his bias show in his writings, especially concerning two particular political figures of the 20th century.

Was it a genocide. I would say yes. When a third of a population are dependent on one crop and it fails, when the government in charge (Britain) continues to ship all other crops and animals out of the country and not look after the starving then you are most certainly guilty of it.

Yes the vast majority of deaths appear to have been disease (we have no accurate records) Many died in their homes/the side of the road so we are assuming since disease was the most common form of death, but having food to keep the body going would have helped these individuals too. As would shelter, many people lost their homes during the famine due to extortionate rents. It was a horrific thing to happen under the power of a supposedly "civilized" state such as Britain!

Who actually shipped food out of Ireland? The government should have stopped it, sure, but who were the producers and merchants exporting Food?

wolfpawnat

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Who actually shipped food out of Ireland? The government should have stopped it, sure, but who were the producers and merchants exporting Food?

It was government ordered, but yes, those who actually did the work were agents and the like. I am sure there are a few who wanted to help people, but was fearful for their own families but many were as heartless as they come and did not care about those starving and dying around them.

It was a mixture of powers that be, individuals and government that led to what could easily be argued as a genocide.

Fratton Fred

wolfpawnat wrote: »

It was government ordered, but yes, those who actually did the work were agents and the like. I am sure there are a few who wanted to help people, but was fearful for their own families but many were as heartless as they come and did not care about those starving and dying around them.

It was a mixture of powers that be, individuals and government that led to what could easily be argued as a genocide.

wasn't government ordered, the government's policy was to not interfere with trade at all. That policy was exploited and the government should have acted, but it was not the government exporting food.

Kosseegan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

wasn't government ordered, the government's policy was to not interfere with trade at all. That policy was exploited and the government should have acted, but it was not the government exporting food.

Food was exported under armed escort. During previous potato shortages the export of food had been banned. Deliberate policy choices were made regarding the level of support for poor law districts and the advancing of funds for public works.

pedroeibar1

Kosseegan wrote: »

Food was exported under armed escort. During previous potato shortages the export of food had been banned. Deliberate policy choices were made regarding the level of support for poor law districts and the advancing of funds for public works.

Like most of Coogan’s statements yours is equally overly simplistic, bordering on myth and inaccurate.

A substantial amount of all food distribution had to be carried out under armed guard to prevent riot and robbery. Your statement also assumes that a ban on grain exports would have averted famine, which is not the case. Firstly, total grain exports actually fell during the famine years and Ireland became a net importer of grain. Secondly, the government of the day had an ideology committed to Free Trade (just as today’s government is committed to repaying German Banks) so it was not going to change its policy to suit suffering citizens. Thirdly, even if the ‘exported’ grain was retained for local distribution the peasantry had no money with which to buy it. In autumn 1845 Peel’s government imported £100k s worth of Indian corn which was sold at a penny a pound. Private traders were excluded from buying it. However, Peel was out of office in 1846 and by 1847 these private merchants (i.e. local Irish shopkeepers) had cornered the trade and the price more than doubled – but even at that price it was still cheaper than oatmeal.

P. Solar* has done considerable research on the economics, dietary impact and Famine nutrition. The massive dependence on the potato was such that its departure from the Irish diet for the years 1845-49 meant that the calorific intake dropped on average by almost a quarter. Furthermore, even if all the exported grain had been retained and even allowing for the Indian Meal imported, there remained a net calorific deficit of about 12%.

The economics of public works schemes are a different topic and need to be viewed against the policies of the government in power - which varied considerably.

*just to take one example of his writings - Solar, Peter M. "The Great Famine Was No Ordinary Subsistence Crisis." In ‘Famine: The Irish Experience, 900-1900’, edited by E.M. Crawford. Edinburgh: John Donald, 1989.

Ó Gráda is another whose writings cover the same ground in a very similar fashion.

Coles

Wrong again! Sweet Jesus...

In Ireland Before and After the Famine Cormac O’Grada documents that in 1845, a famine year in Ireland, 3,251,907 quarters (8 bushels = 1 quarter)) of corn were exported from Ireland to Britain. That same year 257,257 sheep were exported to Britain. In 1846, another famine year, 480,827 swine and 186,483 oxen were exported to Britain.

Cecil Woodham-Smith, considered the preeminent authority on the Irish Famine, wrote in The Great Hunger; Ireland 1845-1849 that, "...no issue has provoked so much anger or so embittered relations between the two countries (England and Ireland) as the indisputable fact that huge quantities of food were exported from Ireland to England throughout the period when the people of Ireland were dying of starvation."

"Although the potato crop failed, the country was still producing and exporting more than enough grain crops to feed the population. But that was a 'money crop' and not a 'food crop' and could not be interfered with."

According to John Mitchel, quoted by Woodham-Smith, "Ireland was actually producing sufficient food, wool and flax, to feed and clothe not nine but eighteen millions of people," yet a ship sailing into an Irish port during the famine years with a cargo of grain was "sure to meet six ships sailing out with a similar cargo."

One of the most remarkable facts about the famine period is that there was an average monthly export of food from Ireland worth 100,000 Pound Sterling. Almost throughout the five-year famine, Ireland remained a net exporter of food.

Link

Coles

Fratton Fred wrote: »

wasn't government ordered, the government's policy was to not interfere with trade at all. That policy was exploited and the government should have acted, but it was not the government exporting food.

That's complete nonsense. Governments are supposed to govern, not to stand back and allow millions of people to die so that one class can profit.

You seem to think that not intervening to prevent the famine was an error of omission? It was, but implementing the policies that created the famine, intensified it and prolonged it was an error of commission.

pedroeibar1

Coles wrote: »

Wrong again! Sweet Jesus...


Link

What a delusional, badly expressed and inaccurate response.

For starters, your ‘source’ - an extract from a family website cannot be taken as authoritative. The bias of that source is reinforced by that site’s own admission - Readers should note that the above is mostly extracted from educational websites produced by countries bound by law to teach "genocide studies". ............... While most historians agree that between 1845 and 1850, one million Irish starved to death, the question of whether Ireland was a net exporter of food is contested. Ed. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!:D:D

Factually, until the Famine the export of grain was seen as ‘a good thing’ for example The Kerry Evening Post of June 1834 reported "It is interesting to view the great number of corn stores now in Tralee, full every year of grain for exportation and to think back to the time thirty years ago when not a single corn store was to be seen in the town. In comparison to today Tralee was a miserable hamlet with little in the way of maritime trade, and the poor farmer had no other mode of making up his rent than by the produce of his half-starved cow and the labour of his wife."

While Woodham-Smith is generally a good source, she is not always correct, notably for example her writings about the use of Indian corn. Mitchell had a political agenda to achieve and even his admirers accept that much of what he wrote contained a strong element of propaganda.

You have made your anti-British views known elsewhere several times already – I’m not going to change them but if you expect to be taken seriously you might try to post comment that is historically accurate.

wolfpawnat

Of course the export of food was seen as good before the famine, people were not starving and dying before the famine. Also it is not anti-British agenda to condemn the acts of its government at the time of crisis. There are times in history were you have to accept, Britain were involved in acts that do not shine them in a great light, and the decision to continue to export food and ignore the plight of starving people is most certainly a time that people will attack a government/landlords and their decisions.

Kosseegan

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Secondly, the government of the day had an ideology committed to Free Trade (just as today’s government is committed to repaying German Banks) so it was not going to change its policy to suit suffering citizens. .

So because the government had a policy which involved allowing people to stare to death its alright. If they hadn't a policy and just decided to starve people it would have been different?
Indian meal was no substitute for the staple diet of the Irish in any case.

Coles

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

You have made your anti-British views known elsewhere several times already.

:rolleyes: Is that supposed to be a slur? If anyone presents evidence that presents your precious Britain in a bad light you go hysterical and call them 'Anti British'. Let's just stick to the facts, eh?

pedroeibar1

Coles wrote: »

:rolleyes: Is that supposed to be a slur? If anyone presents evidence that presents your precious Britain in a bad light you go hysterical and call them 'Anti British'. Let's just stick to the facts, eh?

Stick to facts? I do, and have quoted authors and publications, but the problem is that your posts have clearly shown that you do not recognize anything that does not support your biased outlook. Despite ample opportunity you have failed yet again to provide factual evidence to back-up your argument and have resorted to the ad hominem statement above in response. Not surprising really, given the so-called ‘sources’ :D you have earlier put forward.

As for any suggested ‘slur’ I never had any intention of that; I simply pointed out that many of your earlier posts are historically inaccurate, highly politicised and show an anti-British bias. Evidence of which - if any more is needed after your stupid source quote above- that can be seen by all for what it is and you are.

pedroeibar1

Kosseegan wrote: »

So because the government had a policy which involved allowing people to stare to death its alright. If they hadn't a policy and just decided to starve people it would have been different? .

No, that is not what I said or suggested. What I said was that ‘Laissez-faire’ was the political dictum of a ruling party of that era. Alongside that sat its opponents’ equally uncomfortable Malthusian view. One cannot judge what happened 150 years ago using today’s criteria, particularly with the benefit of event hindsight. The simple historical fact is that there were policies, but none of them were particularly effective principally because of successive changes in governments. Nor were they designed to starve people. The Brit Govt’s treatment of Irish famines later in the 1800’s showed that they had learned from the 1845-49 fiasco and handled those crises quite differently. Balfour’s role is a case in point.

Kosseegan wrote: »

Indian meal was no substitute for the staple diet of the Irish in any case.

No, and I never suggested that it was, but it is sustenance. Your comment is a non-sequitor. Eating about 10 pounds of spuds a day was the typical sustenance of an adult. So that makes about 40 lbs per family or 6.5 tons per family per year. You must realize that potatoes cannot be stored for a year, they also have a short harvest season (because only one variety was grown) , they do not transport well and also there was blight elsewhere in potato growing areas so they just were not available. Even if they were try to visualize the logistics that would be involved. Not deigning to eat Indian Meal in the Famine era is the modern day equivalent of the ‘socially deprived’ being unwilling to accept social housing because it is ‘not near my mammy’ or because ‘it is built on a hlll’ (as seen in Cork recently.)

Coles

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

No, and I never suggested that it was, but it is sustenance.

£100,000 of Indian Meal is sustenance? Here's the Bank of England Inflation calculator. Have a look at how much that is worth today. Less than £9 million. That wouldn't feed the people of Ireland now for a single week on the most basic survival rations.

And obviously if it was 'sustenance' then 1'000'000 people would not have died, no? Can you see the logic there?

Here's a thought. More money was spent at the time maintaining the grounds in a single royal park in London.

Coles

Is that me being anti-British again?

Coles

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Not deigning to eat Indian Meal in the Famine era is the modern day equivalent of the ‘socially deprived’ being unwilling to accept social housing because it is ‘not near my mammy’ or because ‘it is built on a hlll’

So the Irish people preferred to die of starvation than to eat Maize? Too snobby, eh?

You're contributions on this subject are deliberately offensive. Why bother?

I would call you 'anti-Irish' but you'd would wear that as a badge of honour, right?

pedroeibar1

Coles wrote: »

£100,000 of Indian Meal is sustenance? Here's the Bank of England Inflation calculator. Have a look at how much that is worth today. Less than £9 million. That wouldn't feed the people of Ireland now for a single week on the most basic survival rations.

And obviously if it was 'sustenance' then 1'000'000 people would not have died, no? Can you see the logic there?

Here's a thought. More money was spent at the time maintaining the grounds in a single royal park in London.

You have incorrectly used a system of measurement because you clearly do not understand its inherent flaws (the BoE site you used actually highlights them but it obviously eluded you or did not suit your hypothesis.) If you want to compare the value of a £100,000 commodity (corn) in 1845 there are three choices. In 2011 the relative real price of that commodity is about £8 million. That tells us nothing as the measure used is not appropriate. A more accurate measure is to examine both the labour value and the comparative income values of that commodity. They are £71 million and £115 million respectively.

Those figures (£71m & £115m) actually are flawed because they are based on the British statistical data I used (Irish stats are not readily available.) Irish incomes were a fraction of those in Britain, so those figures need to be increased considerably. Puts a different complexion on things, no?
You might find this instructive - "Better Measurements of Worth", in Challenge: The Magazine of Economic Affairs, Vol. 49, No. 4 (July/August 2006), pp. 86-110.