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

Coles

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

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.

Wrong again! And posting up your 'flawed' figures and trying to deflect from the issue doesn't change the point.

The amount of 'aid' was insufficient to prevent the death of a million people from starvation. It wasn't sustenance. It did not make up for the massive quantities of food that was being taken from the country. If it did then people wouldn't have starved, right?



So what about your claim that the Irish people starved because they were too snobby to eat Maize? That was fairly obnoxious. Still stand by that?

Coles

Blaming the victims is a new low. Even for you.

pedroeibar1

Coles - uneducated childish posts, beneath me to continue.

Coles

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Coles - uneducated childish posts, beneath me to continue.

You've run out of rope.





Here's an interesting thought.

Let's have a look at the 'aid' that was supposed to provide sustenance while the food was taken from Ireland.

£105,000 of maize from the US and another £45,000 of maize from Britain. This maize was sold at 'a penny a pound'. So this wasn't actually aid at all. The price was set so as not to impact on the local economy, but even if we are generous and assume that there was no profit margin, no transport costs, no distribution costs, no wastage, no spoilage etc. the total amount of 'aid' can't have exceeded 16,000 metric tons and is actually likely to have been half that amount. Now compare this to the 485,000 tons of wheat that was taken from the country in 1845 alone. Now consider how much was being taken from the country in all the other years of the Famine. Now consider all the meat and butter being taken.

And this 'aid' wasn't given to people. It was sold to them.

There was no 'aid'.

Coles

And pedroeibar1 claims that the Irish people starved because they were to snobby to eat maize?

Fratton Fred

Coles wrote: »

And pedroeibar1 claims that the Irish people starved because they were to snobby to eat maize?

Four million Irish people didn't starve.

Kosseegan

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

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

People couldn't digest it. You cannot get sustenance from a substance running down your legs after eating it. You are trying to suggest that people were turning up their noses st it. That is nonsense. People had grass juice running down their mouths so they were no way going to refuse maize even if it was useless.
Laissez faire is nonsense. they had set up poor law unions. If they were following laissez faire they would not have set up poor law unions. they would have left the "market" to solve all problems.

Fratton Fred

Kosseegan wrote: »

People couldn't digest it. You cannot get sustenance from a substance running down your legs after eating it. You are trying to suggest that people were turning up their noses st it. That is nonsense. People had grass juice running down their mouths so they were no way going to refuse maize even if it was useless.
Laissez faire is nonsense. they had set up poor law unions. If they were following laissez faire they would not have set up poor law unions. they would have left the "market" to solve all problems.

The theory was, if people had money they could buy food, but speculators were buying up stocks and manipulating the market. There are plenty of references apparently to work houses complaining about the high cost of staples due to profiteering.

Coles

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Four million Irish people didn't starve.

Nobody said 4 million Irish people starved.

pedroeibar1

Kosseegan wrote: »

People couldn't digest it. You cannot get sustenance from a substance running down your legs after eating it. You are trying to suggest that people were turning up their noses st it. That is nonsense. People had grass juice running down their mouths so they were no way going to refuse maize even if it was useless.
Laissez faire is nonsense. they had set up poor law unions. If they were following laissez faire they would not have set up poor law unions. they would have left the "market" to solve all problems.

Like most of your views there often is a grain of truth behind the huge amount of folklore and myth you express. People actually did ‘turn up their noses' at yellow meal, that is documented - they called it ‘brimstone’. Eating ‘grass’ did happen but it is generally accepted as not widespread – however, it is documented that in times of hardship/earlier famines people had for centuries been eating ‘weeds’ – notably charlock (a member of the cabbage family) and nettle soup, both of which actually are highly nutritious.

Your comment on the PLU’s is overly simplistic, misleading and shows a lack of understanding of the events surrounding their establishment. The Poor Law Act (main one for Ireland) was 1838 based on the English Act of 1834; so it predates the Great Famine by about 10 years, (thereby making your comment look foolish.) However, nobody expected (or could foresee) the overwhelming consequences of the ’47 famine numbers on the PL system.

To bring the comments back on topic, I have yet to see any articulate sourced comment giving proof of ‘genocide’ or any comment contradicting the point that it was not the British authorities but the Irish Catholic merchants were the ones regularly profiteering on the sale of foodstuffs. That, of course, would not suit the agendas of the gombeen Brit-bashing republicans.:rolleyes:

Coles

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

To bring the comments back on topic, I have yet to see any articulate sourced comment giving proof of ‘genocide’ or any comment contradicting the point that it was not the British authorities but the Irish Catholic merchants were the ones regularly profiteering on the sale of foodstuffs. That, of course, would not suit the agendas of the gombeen Brit-bashing republicans.:rolleyes:

Why do you wish to frame the discussion in sectarian terms? The religious faith of individuals members of the society is not an a factor in judging the policies of the government. The British government ruled all of Ireland at the time, Catholics and Protestant.

The most ignorant anti-Republicans always try to stoke the sectarian divide. A bit pathetic in this day and age. A Republic by it's very definition can not be sectarian.

But anyway, we've established that the amount of Maize imported and sold to the starving Irish people was about 3% of the wheat that was being taken from the country in a single year. It's important to remember that this was not charity.

But you're still trying to claim that the thick Paddies starved themsleves to death because they 'turned their noses up at eating Maize'? You claim it's well documented. Present you link. Show me a single person who chose to die of starvation rather than to eat Maize. Just one.


It is clearly documented that the Maize was not available for free. It was sold. The price was set so as not to impact on the price of other foodstuffs. So, if someone found the Maize to be inedible and priced similar to other products, surely they would have spent their precious money on other food?

That's quite different from your pig ignorant claim that a million Irish people turned their nose up at the stuff and chose to die of starvation instead.

wandatowell

Really enjoyed reading this thread

P. Breathnach

Coles wrote: »

... But anyway, we've established that the amount of Maize imported and sold to the starving Irish people was about 3% of the wheat that was being taken from the country in a single year....

Have we?

Jawgap

Coles wrote: »

Why do you wish to frame the discussion in sectarian terms? The religious faith of individuals members of the society is not an a factor in judging the policies of the government. The British government ruled all of Ireland at the time, Catholics and Protestant.

It is. This was the era when science and religion were very mixed up, and the prevailing view of the established church was very much in evidence in the scientific and the then emerging field of political economy.

Coles wrote: »

But anyway, we've established that the amount of Maize imported and sold to the starving Irish people was about 3% of the wheat that was being taken from the country in a single year. It's important to remember that this was not charity.

I've added some emphasis above just to illustrate the words you choose to use which suggests a latent bias - maize was imported, but wheat was 'taken'? (from whom, is the question?)

Coles wrote: »

But you're still trying to claim that the thick Paddies starved themsleves to death because they 'turned their noses up at eating Maize'? You claim it's well documented. Present you link. Show me a single person who chose to die of starvation rather than to eat Maize. Just one.


It is clearly documented that the Maize was not available for free. It was sold. The price was set so as not to impact on the price of other foodstuffs. So, if someone found the Maize to be inedible and priced similar to other products, surely they would have spent their precious money on other food?

That would assume that people behave rationally and make choices logically, which they don't in many cases. For a start many people would have been concerned with 'stigma' - I wonder how many died because they wouldn't buy corn or submit to the workhouse because of the stigma attached? Equally why would those with sufficient, albeit modest, means choose to emigrate at this time time when - as long as you had enough not to starve- you could avoid the risk of a sea voyage and an uncertain future?

Coles

Jawgap wrote: »

It is. This was the era when science and religion were very mixed up, and the prevailing view of the established church was very much in evidence in the scientific and the then emerging field of political economy.

That doesn't have any thing to do with the point that I made. The British government were governing everyone, not just protestants. The policies and laws had to be followed by all, regardless of faith.

I've added some emphasis above just to illustrate the words you choose to use which suggests a latent bias - maize was imported, but wheat was 'taken'? (from whom, is the question?)

Taken from Ireland to Britain. Taken on ships. Ireland was not an independent state and was governed from London as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Wheat that was 'taken' from Ireland to England was not exported because the two islands were part of an open trading unit. The United States of America was outside this trading unit so it is correct to describe food that was brought into Ireland from America as 'imported'.

That would assume that people behave rationally and make choices logically, which they don't in many cases. For a start many people would have been concerned with 'stigma' - I wonder how many died because they wouldn't buy corn or submit to the workhouse because of the stigma attached? Equally why would those with sufficient, albeit modest, means choose to emigrate at this time time when - as long as you had enough not to starve- you could avoid the risk of a sea voyage and an uncertain future?

This bullsh*t that people starved to death because they were too snobby to eat food needs to be put to rest. It's so unbelievably ignorant that it's just ridiculous. If you have any doubts about it I would suggest that you read up on the absolute horror of Famine anywhere around the world. And we've already established that the Maize was sold as a product, it wasn't given out widely as charity.

Coles

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Have we?

It involves fairly simple maths. Have a go at it.

P. Breathnach

Coles wrote: »

It involves fairly simple maths. Have a go at it.

You made the claim. Furnish the data.

Coles

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You made the claim. Furnish the data.

£105k Maize from US, £45k Maize from England. Sold 'for a penny a pound'.

240 pennies in £1.

240lbs x £150k = 36,000,000 lbs of Maize
36,000,000 / 2240 = 16,071 long tons of Maize, or 16,363 metric tonnes.

485,000 tons of Wheat were taken from the country in 1845.

The quantity of Maize imported was at most 3.3% of the quantity of wheat that was taken from the country. (16071/485000*100%=3.3%) Of course it was far less than that because much of the cost of the maize went on shipping/distribution and an amount of the maize was lost due to spoilage.

P. Breathnach

Coles wrote: »

£105k Maize from US, £45k Maize from England. Sold 'for a penny a pound'.

240 pennies in £1.

240lbs x £150k = 36,000,000 lbs of Maize
36,000,000 / 2240 = 16,071 long tons of Maize, or 16,363 metric tonnes.

485,000 tons of Wheat were taken from the country in 1845.

The quantity of Maize imported was at most 3.3% of the quantity of wheat that was taken from the country. (16071/485000*100%=3.3%) Of course it was far less than that because much of the cost of the maize went on shipping/distribution and an amount of the maize was lost due to spoilage.

I'd prefer to take the word of real historians. E. Margaret Crawford, in Food and Famine [in The Great Irish Famine, Ed. Cathal Póirtéir] says that during the Famine, Ireland became a net importer of grain (p. 64). Cormac Ó Gráda, who has probably done more substantial research in this area than anybody else, arrives at the same conclusion [there is a useful paper online here http://www.ucd.ie/economics/research/papers/2004/WP04.25.pdf - note the table on p.19.].

Food that was exported to Britain during the famine years was sold by those who owned the food. It was not expropriated by the government and shipped out. If there is a complaint to be made, it is that it was not expropriated by the government and given to the starving peasantry. That's what laissez-faire was about: if a wealthy tenant farmer in Kilkenny sold his cereal crop to a merchant for profit, or an impoverished tenant in Sligo sold his crop in order to pay his rent, the government did not believe that it had a right to interfere with those transactions.

There is no way in which I would defend the government's behaviour during the Famine. But neither do I see advantage in distorting the facts.

pedroeibar1

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Food that was exported to Britain during the famine years was sold by those who owned the food. It was not expropriated by the government and shipped out. ...........There is no way in which I would defend the government's behaviour during the Famine. But neither do I see advantage in distorting the facts.

Sadly P.B. that point cannot be accepted by some as their ignorance is so deeply imbedded it cannot be ameliorated. Nor are they open to fact, or to polite discussion. Coles figures are - as one would expect - totally incorrect, off by a factor of six with a spurious claim that 485k tons of wheat were 'taken' from the country in 1845. The actual figure for wheat exported was 78k tons. If wishing to be kind to that daft claim, and to stretch the point, a further 89 tons of wheatmeal & flour were exported. Additionally, that year 17k tons of barley, 95k of oatmeal and 235k of oats were exported to England giving the yearly total of 514 k for all corn, meal & flour.

But for those who are interested in fact, not ranted myth a la Cole and Tim Pat and their ilk, here are the factual export figures which show almost a 50% year-on-year decline of corn exports during the Famine period.

Exports of Corn in the period 1843 – 49 (thousands of tons)
1843 ........................478
1844 ........................424
1845 ........................514
1846 ........................285
1847 ........................147
1848 ........................293
1849 ........................215

Figures from ‘The Great Irish Potato Famine’ James Donnelly page 61 - sourced from the Ledgers of Imports, England.

What is interesting about this is that the corn production did not drop by that much (e.g. the 1846 figures of 514k to 285k), but that the corn crop was being diverted to animal feed (obviosly some for human consumption also) by Irish farmers. Something had to replace the staple diet (potato) of animals. They (animals) accounted for about one third of the annual potato crop consumption on the lead-up to the Famine. Huge profits were made by Irish farmers who has surplus corn. The knock-on effect of the potato failure was also shown in the impact on animal breeding and numbers in post-Famine years.

Coles

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'd prefer to take the word of real historians. E. Margaret Crawford, in Food and Famine [in The Great Irish Famine, Ed. Cathal Póirtéir] says that during the Famine, Ireland became a net importer of grain (p. 64). Cormac Ó Gráda, who has probably done more substantial research in this area than anybody else, arrives at the same conclusion [there is a useful paper online here http://www.ucd.ie/economics/research/papers/2004/WP04.25.pdf - note the table on p.19.].

Food that was exported to Britain during the famine years was sold by those who owned the food. It was not expropriated by the government and shipped out. If there is a complaint to be made, it is that it was not expropriated by the government and given to the starving peasantry. That's what laissez-faire was about: if a wealthy tenant farmer in Kilkenny sold his cereal crop to a merchant for profit, or an impoverished tenant in Sligo sold his crop in order to pay his rent, the government did not believe that it had a right to interfere with those transactions.

There is no way in which I would defend the government's behaviour during the Famine. But neither do I see advantage in distorting the facts.

You can't hide behind Laissez Faire when you try to absolve the government of their sins. It was not the 'policy of the time'. It was the policy of the government.

And your rejection of the figures I have presented shows how completely myopic you are on this issue. Why is that?

And what facts have I distorted? Withdraw that please.

P. Breathnach

Coles wrote: »

You can't hide behind Laissez Faire when you try to absolve the government of their sins. It was not the 'policy of the time'. It was the policy of the government.

I'm not hiding behind anything, and I wonder how you can construe "There is no way in which I would defend the government's behaviour during the Famine" as at attempt to absolve the government.

And your rejection of the figures I have presented shows how completely myopic you are on this issue. Why is that?

Because I trust the work of substantial scholars such as Ó Gráda rather than dodgy back-of-the-envelope jottings.

And what facts have I distorted? Withdraw that please.

The simple facts that cereal imports exceeded cereal exports during the Famine (as reported by Crawford) and that food imports exceeded food exports in the period 1846-50 (as reported by Ó Gráda).

Coles

@PBreathnach. The level of imports has no bearing no this discussion. People who could afford food bought food. Farmers who could afford crops for their animals bought it. The fact remains that nothing effective was done to prevent the starving to death of one million Irish people over 5 years. You can wring your hands about this issue all you like but the facts remain. 16k tons of maize was made available for sale to starving people. While millions of tons of food was taken from the country.



Here's an interesting thought. The British Government spent less than 0.1% of it's GNP on Famine relief over the period 1845-1850. And that money wasn't granted. It was loaned and expected to be paid back. And meanwhile 1 million people died of starvation.

P. Breathnach

Coles wrote: »

@PBreathnach. The level of imports has no bearing no this discussion....

But the level of exports has?

Coles

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But the level of exports has?

During every other serious food crisis up to that point the 'export' of food was restricted to ensure that famine was either limited or completely avoided. Why was the policy changed for the 1845-1850 Famine? Why was it not reintroduced when it was patently clear how many people were dying? The Famine dragged on for more than 5 years!!

Perhaps it might be instructive for you to look at what other policies were put in place with regards to the Poor Law, the qualification for relief, and indeed the Highland clearances in Scotland where the Gaels there were also obliterated from their land.

The policy was to consolidate the land in to larger holdings and the result was the starvation to death of 1 million Irish people.

P. Breathnach

Coles wrote: »

During every other serious food crisis up to that point the 'export' of food was restricted to ensure that famine was either limited or completely avoided. Why was the policy changed for the 1845-1850 Famine?

Change in government; change in economic philosophy. The free-marketeers had won the political argument.

Why was it not reintroduced when it was patently clear how many people were dying?

Because of the deeply-held political and social beliefs of the Russell government.

The Famine dragged on for more than 5 years!!

I think that is fairly well known. It was a food deficiency on a scale unknown in Western Europe. It seems evident to me that the scale of the catastrophe was such that people in London (and to a lesser extent, in Dublin) were unable to comprehend it.

Perhaps it might be instructive for you to look at what other policies were put in place with regards to the Poor Law, the qualification for relief, and indeed the Highland clearances in Scotland where the Gaels there were also obliterated from their land.

It might be instructive for you to read this thread: we have been over this ground before, and I have already indicated that I have done my reading.

The policy was to consolidate the land in to larger holdings and the result was the starvation to death of 1 million Irish people.

Oh. The successive failures of the potato crop had nothing to do with it?

Whose policy was it to consolidate land holdings? Perhaps you might recognise that from the point of view of the landowner it made economic sense to clear the land of an impoverished tenantry. Laissez faire in action.

pedroeibar1

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Because I trust the work of substantial scholars such as Ó Gráda rather than dodgy back-of-the-envelope jottings.

Sorry P.B, I do not fully agree with you on 'jottings'. Coles' figures are not jottings, they are ravings, as jottings – even those on the back of an envelope - at least have a semblance of accuracy.

The past figures quoted by Coles are so grossly inaccurate I suggest Coles is a troll because when challenged the retort is personal abuse instead of debate or valid argument or even – heaven help up – a source or two. That is why I could no longer be ar$sed responding, as Coles' figures have always shown a total ignorance of statistical understanding, economics, history and an absurd level of bias.

The inflow of grain from abroad during the Famine hugely exceeded the outflow, particularly from 1846 onwards. So, in 1847 and 1848

the total exports amounted to 432 tons, whereas

the total imports amounted to 1,328,000 tons.

Even a ‘jotting‘ would show that exports were about one third of imports. (Figures from PMA Bourke, ‘The Visitation of God?: the potato and the great Irish famine. Ed. Jacqueline Hill and Cormac O’Grada (Dublin 1993)

The food gap created by the failure of the potato was so huge that even if the ports were closed to exports the shortfall in the country’s requirement would not have been made up. Some of Peter Solar’s work goes into this in detail, and he has extrapolated the grain/corn import/export figures into calorific values – his work is regularly referred to by O’Grada and other experts.

Coles

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Sorry P.B, I do not fully agree with you on 'jottings'. Coles' figures are not jottings, they are ravings, as jottings – even those on the back of an envelope - at least have a semblance of accuracy.

The past figures quoted by Coles are so grossly inaccurate I suggest Coles is a troll because when challenged the retort is personal abuse instead of debate or valid argument or even – heaven help up – a source or two. That is why I could no longer be ar$sed responding, as Coles' figures have always shown a total ignorance of statistical understanding, economics, history and an absurd level of bias.

Let's leave out the ad hominems, eh? They just make you look like an arse*ole, and none of us want that.

So, in 1847 and 1848

the total exports amounted to 432 tons, whereas

Oh sweet Jesus!

Not even wrong.

Coles

@PBreathnach, Pedroeibar1, Do you guys still stand over your claim that 1 million people starved themselves to death decause they were 'too snobby' to eat maize?




I've been waiting for a response to this question for quite a while now.




And you now accept that the £150,000 of Indian Meal/Maize amounted to no more than 16,000 tons? That's good. And that it wasn't given to starving people? It was sold to them at the market rate.




You have accepted that there was no shortage of food during the Famine too, right? It was sent to England. That's all very well documented.




You can accept that the Famine didn't impact on the whole society, can't you? Certain classes of people did very well. Merchants, Large Farmers, Landowners? They didn't starve to death, did they? So who did die? Exclusively the racial group who died of starvation were the Gael. The native Irish. Why is that? Perhaps one of you guys would like to present your views on it. Perhaps you could make reference to the history of Ireland up to that point in time and the relationship between the Ireland and Britain? Who owned the land? Who had power? Who governed who? Perhaps it might be worth looking at what happened in Scotland?




With so many people dying and emigrating of course agriculture was disrupted. Hence the imports of food. It wasn't for the starving native Irish, was it?




I'm starting to think that I'm the only one of us who actually studied Economic History...

P. Breathnach

Coles wrote: »

@PBreathnach, Pedroeibar1, Do you guys still stand over your claim that 1 million people starved themselves to death decause they were 'too snobby' to eat maize?

Where did I say or imply such a thing? Or is truth just an inconvenience to be discarded when it doesn't suit your prejudices?

... I'm starting to think that I'm the only one of us who actually studied Economic History...

Not very attentively, it seems.