New film BLACK 47 .. A Q - Why the Great Hunger amnesia?

aidanodr

"Black 47" famine film is a must-see so we can end the Great Hunger amnesia

This important movie goes a little way towards increasing the understanding of what Ireland's desperate famine times were like.
The new Irish-made film Black 47 directed by Lance Daly got a very positive reception when it opened at the Berlin Film Festival.

Jessica Kiang in Variety wrote that Daly has delivered “a resonant, beautifully performed Irish Western that benefits from the exotic sound of Irish Gaelic spoken as a living language.”

The film played the Dublin Film Festival last week and as you might expect got a great reception.

It is a very important film that goes a little way towards increasing the understanding of what those desperate famine times were really like.

And this is the point I have always been curious about:

Amazing as it seems, there has been no other movie ever made which attempted to place the Famine front and center.

Calls it the famine amnesia .. Just curious about your thoughts on this. Why is the Irish Famine kept sort of quiet .. internationally? As was said there, never front and centre as a movie subject?

Recently I think the Beeb had a mini drama about the young victoria. At least one episode was fullon Irish Famine. Social Media in UK by people from the UK exploded with most incredulous that they never knew about this event and were horrified by learning it now!

Ipso

Just because someone at Irish Central (or Irish center of the universe) says there’s amnesia, doesn’t mean there is.

aidanodr

Ipso wrote: »

Just because someone at Irish Central (or Irish center of the universe) says there’s amnesia, doesn’t mean there is.

I just think its because it has never been a subject of major cinema until now.

Esel

aidanodr wrote: »

I just think its because it has never been a subject of major cinema until now.

Any other major famines that have?

pedroeibar1

@OP - where have you been for the last century or so that make you believe that there is amnesia?
Ever thought about casting a film? How about finding actors of appropriate girth to star/feature?

archer22

I would imagine it's hard to make realistic famine movies...not many actors are prepared to be starved to near death before the camera's start rolling .

Esel

archer22 wrote: »

I would imagine it's hard to make realistic famine movies...not many actors are prepared to be starved to near death before the camera's start rolling .

Christian Bale?

Del2005

aidanodr wrote: »

"Black 47" famine film is a must-see so we can end the Great Hunger amnesia

And this is the point I have always been curious about:



Calls it the famine amnesia .. Just curious about your thoughts on this. Why is the Irish Famine kept sort of quiet .. internationally? As was said there, never front and centre as a movie subject?

Recently I think the Beeb had a mini drama about the young victoria. At least one episode was fullon Irish Famine. Social Media in UK by people from the UK exploded with most incredulous that they never knew about this event and were horrified by learning it now!

Imagine if they found out what their empire did to the Indian's. Our famine, when food was still being exported, is nothing compared to the deaths in India by the British empire.

I'm sure if you asked any person brought up in a country that had an empire what atrocities were committed by the empire they would have no idea, go to the country were the atrocity happened and you'll get a different answer.

pinkypinky

I don't think there's any amnesia about the famine, but it's hardly a fun topic that'll have people running to their nearest cinema. There's a number of significant books, both fiction and fact. There's a massive art exhibition just opening in Dublin Castle which has come from the Quinnipiac museum in Connecticut of famine art.

Sure it's not taught in any great details in other countries, which is why the British were so surprised at the episode of Victoria (I found that quite a tough watch. It's a pity that the author decided to change the queen's attitude to the famine though!)

LoughNeagh2017

They wouldn't be as quick to make a film about the Nine Years War and Flight of the Earls, it would offend the orange people you see.

My area wasn't effected much by the famine as it is beside the biggest Lough in Ireland, however the area did experience a population increase with people moving in from the inland areas.
My great grandmother was from Mayo though so I would have ancestors involved in the roughest areas.

VirginiaB

As to Ulster, might I recommend a book? 'The Famine in Ulster: The Regional Impact' by Christine Kinealy. They were harder hit than many think.

I saw the Victoria episode and was shocked that viewers were shocked. How can they not know? Admittedly, if you polled Americans, yes, even Irish-Americans, you would be just as shocked at the lack of knowledge. Even those whose ancestors, like mine, arrived in the US courtesy of the Famine. Part of the reason, I am convinced, is that our ancestors did not talk about it. They were ashamed.

Ireland and its diaspora have produced some of the greatest writers, actors, filmmakers. We need a Schindler's List-level film, one that everyone will see and no one will ever forget.

pedroeibar1

VirginiaB wrote: »

Part of the reason, I am convinced, is that our ancestors did not talk about it. They were ashamed.
.

I agree with the lack of knowledge bit but disagree on the 'shame'. There was little shame; most of the Irish-Americans of Famine exodus descent that I know are proud of their roots. Just like those of Mittel-Europ Jewish immigrant descent are proud of the success they have achieved, starting from nothing.

Films are produced to make money. They do that by entertaining, not by educating. Even when the ‘film industry’ – US led – sets out to make a historical drama, the first items to be pushed out the window is historical fact and truth. Consider the gross misrepresentation of fact in the US War of Independence film ‘The Patriot’, or any ‘Western’ film on ‘cowboys’ or the film about a US submarine capturing an Enigma machine, or the story of William Wallace in Braveheart. The list is endless. I cannot think of an historic event honestly portrayed by Hollywood. Now think of what would be done to the story of the Famine.

The Famine is an emotive topic, an event used as political propaganda and as a tool to excite nationalism. Look at the various threads on this forum and read the nonsense that is posted / believed to this day. I have researched my family in the famine - some branches had transportees, immigrants, bankrupts and my own hung on by a thread as the father, a PLG, died of Famine fever. The Famine is a complex event and what could be crammed into a 90 minute 'event' that would sell and be factually correct is impossible.

Having lived in the US (NYC) for several years and traveled extensively throughout North America, I remain of the view that US citizens are considerably less informed about international events than their European counterparts. When it comes to Irish-Americans their understanding of Ireland/Irish history often borders on the nonsensical. (Later I’ll put an interesting Famine discovery of mine over on the ‘chat’ thread as it is more appropriate to there.)
PS Maybe the Angelina Joli film on Zamperini borders it, but it was panned by the critics and although it was not a failure, neither was it a commercial success.

VirginiaB

I respectfully disagree. In the 19c, Harriet Beecher Stowe put a human face on slavery with her book 'Uncle Tom's Cabin', supposedly the biggest best-seller of the 19c. In the 20c, there have been a number of films that put a human face on the Holocaust--'Sophie's Choice' is just one example. We need that for the Famine.

As for shame, again I'm sorry to disagree. It was one among many emotions, including great anger, felt by the Famine generation and their children, and in Ireland as well as among the diaspora.

pedroeibar1

VirginiaB wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. In the 19c, Harriet Beecher Stowe put a human face on slavery with her book 'Uncle Tom's Cabin', supposedly the biggest best-seller of the 19c. In the 20c, there have been a number of films that put a human face on the Holocaust--'Sophie's Choice' is just one example. We need that for the Famine.

As for shame, again I'm sorry to disagree. It was one among many emotions, including great anger, felt by the Famine generation and their children, and in Ireland as well as among the diaspora.

Life without disagreement would be boring. I feel no shame about the Famine, nor anger, because I have taken the trouble to research it and also place the members of my ancestry through it in perspective.

You prove my point - both the book and film you have chosen are fiction; that selection is meaningless when one is discussing history on a history forum. Furthermore, I reiterate films/movies (in particular US ones) are totally useless as purveyors of historic fact.

If for example we were to discuss the Royal Navy in the Napoleonic era and I mentioned the film ‘Master and Commander’ as being appropriate, the suggestion is immediately flawed because that film does not represent the writings of its author, Patrick O’Brian, because the film does not accurately portray the novels or several characters (including the No.2, Maturin) or the ship they were chasing. (For the film it was changed from aUS vessel to a French one, as a US audience would ‘prefer’ that.)

Similarly, ‘Saving Private Ryan’ hailed by many as ‘representative’ is another WW2 nonsense, although the opening scene is partly accurate. It does, of course, omit the real reason for the failure to clear the beaches. The historically correct version is that the US gunners were afraid of hitting their own men, elevated the guns and so bombarded the interior. Result? Thousands of French civilian deaths, and beaches remaining as death-traps. While almost every Hollywood WW2 film depicts the French as ‘surrender monkeys’, the truth is the opposite. At the beginning of WW2 the populations of France and the US were 42 and 129 millions respectively. France lost 600k troops killed and wounded, the US the same, with a population more than three times the size. Although the US lost no civilians, France had 270k of them killed with innumerable others injured. And that is a generation after the French had come through WW1, with about 1.3 million French men killed, an average of about 900 per day. ‘Freedom Fries’ anyone?

Back to the Great Famine – Much of what Irish Americans trot out on the Famine is folklore, culled from late 19th century Irish nationalist propaganda. Are you aware that there were riots on the quays in several Irish and English ports because Irish passengers thought that the ships were going to sail without them? Are you aware that there were queues (lines) of people wanting to benefit from assisted emigration? Or that hundreds of people were demanding the intercession of the local priest to help them go, to get a fresh start? No shame, if you had been living in a mud hut on an Irish mountainside or bog and saw a chance to improve your lot in NYC or elsewhere by sharing a room with a roof, a timber floor, a window with glass and the prospect of employment. What is worth studying is the slow rise of the Irish – they largely were illiterate unskilled labourers, often did not speak English, whereas the influx from MittelEuropa had either a trade (tailors) or skills in trading, the barrowmen.

And as you started with Uncle Tom’s Cabin, did you know that John Mitchell, the Fenian, and a significant contributor to anti-English propaganda and myths about the Famine,(the originator of "The Almighty, indeed, sent the potato blight, but the English created the Famine") was pro-slavery, writing "We deny that it is a crime, or a wrong, or even a peccadillo to hold slaves, to buy slaves, to keep slaves to their work by flogging or other needful correction. We wish we had a good plantation well-stocked with healthy negroes in Alabama.”
No shame there, but in his anger he did not even bother to grant his fellow man the dignity of a capital letter. A true Irish patriot indeed.

tabbey

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Life without disagreement would be boring. I feel no shame about the Famine, nor anger, because I have taken the trouble to research it and also place the members of my ancestry through it in perspective.

Back to the Great Famine – Much of what Irish Americans trot out on the Famine is folklore, culled from late 19th century Irish nationalist propaganda. Are you aware that there were riots on the quays in several Irish and English ports because Irish passengers thought that the ships were going to sail without them? Are you aware that there were queues (lines) of people wanting to benefit from assisted emigration? Or that hundreds of people were demanding the intercession of the local priest to help them go, to get a fresh start? No shame, if you had been living in a mud hut on an Irish mountainside or bog and saw a chance to improve your lot in NYC or elsewhere by sharing a room with a roof, a timber floor, a window with glass and the prospect of employment. What is worth studying is the slow rise of the Irish – they largely were illiterate unskilled labourers, often did not speak English, whereas the influx from MittelEuropa had either a trade (tailors) or skills in trading, the barrowmen.

I agree with most of your post, but suggest that the typical famine emigrant was less the poorest of the poor and more the small to medium farmer.

Unless someone else (landlord or PLU) was paying, the impoverished labourer had no money to buy his passage to Liverpool, never mind Gros Ile or New York.

From my own perusal of the newspapers in the 1847 -1853 period, there are frequent mentions of relatively comfortable farmers heading in droves to the ports.

Because they arrived in the New World with little possessions, hungry and ill from heavy seas, they still would be looked down on as inferior by the more established residents of North America, especially if their English was poor.

English was only the second language in much of Munster and Connaught and even in Leinster the less educated would have spoken a sort of Hiberno - English. Combined with ignorance of mod-cons, such as plumbing, they would have seemed inferior to Americans compared with their own perceived status.

pedroeibar1

tabbey wrote: »

I agree with most of your post, but suggest that the typical famine emigrant was less the poorest of the poor and more the small to medium farmer.

Unless someone else (landlord or PLU) was paying, the impoverished labourer had no money to buy his passage to Liverpool, never mind Gros Ile or New York.

From my own perusal of the newspapers in the 1847 -1853 period, there are frequent mentions of relatively comfortable farmers heading in droves to the ports.

Because they arrived in the New World with little possessions, hungry and ill from heavy seas, they still would be looked down on as inferior by the more established residents of North America, especially if their English was poor.

English was only the second language in much of Munster and Connaught and even in Leinster the less educated would have spoken a sort of Hiberno - English. Combined with ignorance of mod-cons, such as plumbing, they would have seemed inferior to Americans compared with their own perceived status.

The Famine (1840’s) is a very emotive topic and made more so by the substantial amount of misinformation that has been spread since then. The foundations were laid by nationalists long before, to exaggerate the 'despotism' of the English Protestant landlord class. Later, the Famine was exploited as a propaganda vehicle for e.g. by the Young Irelanders and the Fenians. Part of the misinformation problem continues to lie with those who have an agenda, who fit ‘facts’ to the message they want to push and misrepresent or disregard any material data that does not suit. Asserting that the Famine was 'Genocide' is an example. Too much of that type of claptrap is accepted as dogma and if you take an opposing view you are viewed as a misguided idiot or, at best, a revisionist.

Your comment is mostly true, although the Emigration Commissioners in Ireland and the manifests of the ships arriving in the US do not fully support it. In 1836 sixty percent were described as labourers & servants, compared to 75% in 1846 and 80 – 90% in the early 1850’s. It’s generally accepted that not much more than 50,000 emigrants to the US were passage paid. It has been estimated that about one third of Famine emigrants were monoglot Irish, and a further 20% also had basic English – there are reports of priests having to address their congregations in Irish.

In addition to the failure of the potato there was a downward economic spiral for the landlord (not always a Protestant or Anglo-Irish), the ‘middling farmer’ or even the larger tenant farmer. Primarily this was caused by the increasing burden of the Poor Rate, unpaid rent and the repeal of the Corn Laws (1846) and led to the emigration of the better-off farming class.

Emigration was not new. In the three decades before the Famine (1815 – 1844) about one million Irish emigrated to North America. (They tended to be wealthier & almost half were Protestant.) During the Famine, generally speaking, the poorest of those who emigrated usually went to England. They next went to Canada, because of a cheaper fare, but after scraping passage money together it usually left them ill-provisioned, ill-clad and more liable to disease and death. This particularly was the case in 1847, when (round numbers) 120,000 went to the US and 100,000 went to Canada. (After 1848 only 15% or so of annual emigrants went to Canada.) It also has been asserted that the Irish who landed in NYC were of higher status than those who landed in Canada.

Frequently a family used what little cash it could collect to send a son – usually the strongest – to the US and hope that he would remit money to bring over other members. In the period 1850 – 55 the US based Irish remitted about £1 million annually, much of it for the purpose of bring over family members.

Franz Von Peppercorn

I think pedro’s post is an example of not just the historical amnesia but the rewriting of history.

Of course the famine was the responsibility of the landlord classes and the London government. They were in power.

pedroeibar1

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I think pedro’s post is an example of not just the historical amnesia but the rewriting of history.

Of course the famine was the responsibility of the landlord classes and the London government. They were in power.

Puerile comments that add nothing to the topic. Go read up on the subject and come back when you have something of merit to say.

tabbey

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I think pedro’s post is an example of not just the historical amnesia but the rewriting of history.

Of course the famine was the responsibility of the landlord classes and the London government. They were in power.

This is an over- simplistic view, indeed ill-informed.

Between 1815 and 1845, the Irish rural population bred excessively, sustained by dietary dependence on the lumper variety of potato. As this was prone to blight in bad weather, it was inevitable that sooner or later a disaster would occur. There had been lesser famines over the decades, for example 1834, which should have given warning.

The root of the problem was the change from tillage, which gave employment to labourers, to pasture, in which farmers chose to put labourers off the land, as larger farms were wanted for grazing.

Combined with the rapidly increasing population, the way of life was unsustainable.

Who can we blame? Indeed who should the famine victims have blamed?

First the farmers perhaps, who altered the system of agriculture.

Secondly and more importantly, the leaders of the uneducated, poverty stricken masses, namely the church and clergy. They were the only people who should have seen what was happening, and who had influence over the poor.

Unfortunately they were more interested in taking the "offerings" for baptisms and marriages, even where the labouring community could not afford them.
They also wanted to increase the catholic population and thus their influence.

This has parallels with the nonsense about birth control, which we have seen over the last half century.
The church should be educated in such matters and advise their flocks prudently, rather than bury their heads in the sand, causing widespread misery and distress.

Franz Von Peppercorn

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Puerile comments that add nothing to the topic. Go read up on the subject and come back when you have something of merit to say.

I’ve read dozens of books on the topic. If you wish to argue your point you should make it without ad hominen or generalised attacks on “nationalists”. Whatever that means.

Franz Von Peppercorn

tabbey wrote: »

This is an over- simplistic view, indeed ill-informed.

Between 1815 and 1845, the Irish rural population bred excessively, sustained by dietary dependence on the lumper variety of potato. As this was prone to blight in bad weather, it was inevitable that sooner or later a disaster would occur. There had been lesser famines over the decades, for example 1834, which should have given warning.

The root of the problem was the change from tillage, which gave employment to labourers, to pasture, in which farmers chose to put labourers off the land, as larger farms were wanted for grazing.

Combined with the rapidly increasing population, the way of life was unsustainable.

You seem to ignore that most of these farmers also grew cash crops. Those crops were food. Blaming over population doesn’t cut it. The question is whether the total of food within Ireland, or indeed the United Kingdom was enough to survive a “famine”.

Who can we blame? Indeed who should the famine victims have blamed?

First the farmers perhaps, who altered the system of agriculture.

Secondly and more importantly, the leaders of the uneducated, poverty stricken masses, namely the church and clergy. They were the only people who should have seen what was happening, and who had influence over the poor.

Sorry that’s extreme revisionism. You’ve totally ignored the social structures of the day. The Catholic Church was subject to the penal laws until a few years before. In fact catholics had to pay tithes to the COI. Nor were Protestant churches or any church supporting birth control either.

This has parallels with the nonsense about birth control, which we have seen over the last half century.
The church should be educated in such matters and advise their flocks prudently, rather than bury their heads in the sand, causing widespread misery and distress.

You guys sound like an orange order meeting in 1950 or a 19C Times editorial.

As for African or third world population increases, of that is what you are referring to, that doesn’t correlate with Catholicism either although I don’t want to drop down that rabbit hole for any number of reasons.

The question about the Irish famine comes to this. Who was in control - London after the act of union. Who owned the land? The Protestant ascendancy in the main. Was food exported from Ireland? Yes. Was it exported from food producers? Yes. Would it have been exported by sovereign nation. No

Try to stop blaming the victims for “breeding”

tabbey

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Sorry that’s extreme revisionism. You’ve totally ignored the social structures of the day. The Catholic Church was subject to the penal laws until a few years before. In fact catholics had to pay tithes to the COI. Nor were Protestant churches or any church supporting birth control either.
You guys sound like an orange order meeting in 1950 or a 19C Times editorial.

Try to stop blaming the victims for “breeding”

The C of I had no influence over the great majority of the rural labouring classes, or most farmers. Only the catholic clergy could provide leadership in this regard.

The penal laws were largely abolished in the 1780s and 1790s, half a century before the great famine.

your point about tithes is a valid one, the only one in your two posts, but labourers did not have to pay them.

I did not and never did blame the famine victims for breeding, but I do condemn their advisors for failing to promote a prudent attitude to early marriage and large families without having resources to sustain such families.
In order to survive, a balanced diet is needed, so that if one crop fails, there is an alternative to fall back on. The young labourer who got a quarter acre sublet from a farmer's holding, could only grow the lumper potato, for other food he needed more land. The local farmer generally gave such people the worst land.

Without industry, rural Ireland could not sustain a rapidly increasing population for reasons which I gave, if only you were prepared to read them.

As for your comment suggesting "you guys" - "orange order meeting" or "Times editorial" is merely abuse based on your own inability to countenance the facts which differ from your own prejudiced agenda.

Franz Von Peppercorn

tabbey wrote: »

The C of I had no influence over the great majority of the rural labouring classes, or most farmers. Only the catholic clergy could provide leadership in this regard.

The penal laws were largely abolished in the 1780s and 1790s, half a century before the great famine.

Largely is not totally.

your point about tithes is a valid one, the only one in your two posts, but labourers did not have to pay them.

Tenant farmers did. Interestingly that the social structure is not a valid point. Would have thought it was.

I did not and never did blame the famine victims for breeding, but I do condemn their advisors for failing to promote a prudent attitude to early marriage and large families without having resources to sustain such families.

That argument is wrong on many counts. no Christian church promoted late marriage or abstinence with marriage. The English often married early.

There were huge increases in the English and particularly (white,Anglo) American populations during the 19C. The argument is post hoc ergo proctor hoc.

In order to survive, a balanced diet is needed, so that if one crop fails, there is an alternative to fall back on. The young labourer who got a quarter acre sublet from a farmer's holding, could only grow the lumper potato, for other food he needed more land. The local farmer generally gave such people the worst land.

You seem to want to blame both the lowest rungs of the ladder and expect a 20C nutritional knowledge from 19C peasants. Both farmer and labourer would have been producing food that was exported during the “famine”. A balanced diet isn’t possible if food you produce is taken from you, in fact it isn’t possible for any 19C or previous peasantry to have balanced diets.

Without industry, rural Ireland could not sustain a rapidly increasing population for reasons which I gave, if only you were prepared to read them.

Industry doesn’t necessarily produce more food.

As for your comment suggesting "you guys" - "orange order meeting" or "Times editorial" is merely abuse based on your own inability to countenance the facts which differ from your own prejudiced agenda.

If the shoe fits. The blaming the locals or the colonised for over breeding is a common colonial tactic, accusing catholics of particular over breeding was a particular orange order trope.

You seem to miss the major points I made. I had a lot of questions at the end there that you elided over. To be fair I did answer them myself.

pedroeibar1

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I’ve read dozens of books on the topic. If you wish to argue your point you should make it without ad hominen or generalised attacks on “nationalists”. Whatever that means.

I'm not sure of the books you have read, but if you absorbed any info from those by the more respected authors you would not write ill-informed comment like yours above.
I did not attack nationalists, I pointed out that they skewed the history of the famine for propaganda. The same is being done today on recent events by politicians and lobby groups.
You are wrong about a blanket statement that tenant farmers had to pay tithes. Some did until the law changed when tithes ceased to be paid by tenants in 1838.
Most of those who died or emigrated were landless cottiers who did not have the land space to grow crops and their existence was so borderline that droves of them went begging during the summer months.

Ireland was a net importer of food during the famine, not as you contend.

I could go on, but it is a waste of time trying to change ill-informed prejudice.

the_syco

aidanodr wrote: »

Calls it the famine amnesia

Ireland produced lots of food. It was just taken by the brits. When the blight hit, the brits bought/took the good food, and mainly only the blighted food was left.

If you want to use the word amnesia, call it british amnesia of all the crap it did in the past to other countries, and how it has brushed it under the mat.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

It does, of course, omit the real reason for the failure to clear the beaches.

The reason the beaches weren't cleared was that it was cloudy, and the bombs that should have been dropped onto the gunners, were dropped a few seconds late, and thus hit far inland.

Franz Von Peppercorn

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I'm not sure of the books you have read, but if you absorbed any info from those by the more respected authors you would not write ill-informed comment like yours above.

Can you mention any books you have read.

I did not attack nationalists, I pointed out that they skewed the history of the famine for propaganda. The same is being done today on recent events by politicians and lobby groups.
You are wrong about a blanket statement that tenant farmers had to pay tithes. Some did until the law changed when tithes ceased to be paid by tenants in 1838.
Most of those who died or emigrated were landless cottiers who did not have the land space to grow crops and their existence was so borderline that droves of them went begging during the summer months.

Plenty of people were dispossessed of their houses and tenants were thrown into workhouses or died building roads. And according to a previous post it wasn’t cottiers who emigrated.

Ireland was a net importer of food during the famine, not as you contend.

This is in dispute actually. And irrelevant. Firstly there were plenty of foods exported. Enough to reduce death by starvation to just hunger. The ports were closed in the 18C famine. And many of the deaths were in workhouses and on the famine follies. Secondly the union existed. The U.K. - the richest country in the world - could have transferred food from Britain. If your argument to this is that Britain was not in surplus itself then explain why nobody starved there. The answer is countries can import food even if not in surplus. I dispute however that Ireland was in deficit.

I could go on, but it is a waste of time trying to change ill-informed prejudice.

The pro colonial prejudice is all yours. It strikes me that some of the rhetoric and logic here would exempt any man made famine and any colonial famine. Do you think the natives responsible for the Bengal famine, or indeed any of the famines causes during the British rule in India?

Or, let’s take the Chinese great famine. I think it would be a distortion of history to blame the peasantry for not diversifying from rice, and to exempt the authorities. Some Chinese communist authorities and historians do exactly that, however.

the_syco

the_syco wrote: »

Ireland produced lots of food. It was just taken by the brits. When the blight hit, the brits bought/took the good food, and mainly only the blighted food was left.

If you want to use the word amnesia, call it british amnesia of all the crap it did in the past to other countries, and how it has brushed it under the mat.


The reason the beaches weren't cleared was that it was cloudy, and the bombs that should have been dropped onto the gunners, were dropped a few seconds late, and thus hit far inland.

The Brits didn't "Take" anything and this is another example of how the whole thing has been politicised.

The British government's policy of Lassez Faire meant that the exact same reasons why they didn't stop the export of food, were also the exact same reasons why they didn't "Take" anything. It was sold by Irish producers at the market rate and if this meant it was exported to Britain, then that was just part and parcel of the free market economics that the government had faith in.

So, it wasn't the Brits taking anything, it was the Irish selling it to them. This, of course, leads to an argument as to why the British government didn't step in and stop this export, but that is a different conversation.

the_syco

Aegir wrote: »

The British government's policy of Lassez Faire meant that the exact same reasons why they didn't stop the export of food, were also the exact same reasons why they didn't "Take" anything. It was sold by Irish producers at the market rate and if this meant it was exported to Britain, then that was just part and parcel of the free market economics that the government had faith in.

Although the british government didn't "take" anything, the absentee landlords (who were english) did via middlemen who were ruthless in getting the rent. So although it's true the british government didn't take anything, the british absentee landlords did.

The brits brought in a tax to help the poor. Said tax caused further evictions. The brits thought anyone starving was lazy, and anything they did to help the Irish was done with this mindset.

pedroeibar1

You have ignored those of your comments I have corrected, Franz, so I assume you accept my corrections.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Can you mention any books you have read.

Yet another silly post. Please use the search function for my input on famine threads in this forum and you will find that I have considerably more than 100 famine-related posts, many of which contain source references. Your contribution is exactly what (even without references)?

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Plenty of people were dispossessed of their houses and tenants were thrown into workhouses or died building roads. And according to a previous post it wasn’t cottiers who emigrated.

Wrong again. ‘Plenty’ amounts to how many, actually? It appears you know nothing about land tenure in the early 1840’s. Houses? Have you ever looked at the demographics and the quality of the housing stock? Have you done any basic work on the 1841 Census? Nobody was ‘thrown’ into the workhouse, it would pay you to learn about workhouse admission and research the Gregory Clause. Selective reading and snipping of earlier posts and using them out of context is typical of both the uninformed desperate and the troll.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

[Food imports – exports] - This is in dispute actually. And irrelevant. Firstly there were plenty of foods exported. Enough to reduce death by starvation to just hunger. The ports were closed in the 18C famine. And many of the deaths were in workhouses and on the famine follies.

No dispute, the figures on imports/exports are there. Read O Grada and any other authority on the economics of the famine. Ports were closed in the 18C? ? What ports? Why? Are you not aware that coal ships could not sail from Newcastle in 1741 because the coal was frozen on the quays? Or that several Irish ports were closed to shipping because of ice? Or that the mill wheels froze and there was both unemployment and no output of produce as a result? Or that when the eventual thaw came, the blocks of ice floating on the Liffey were of sufficient size and strength to crush small vessels and larger ones were wrenched from their moorings? Your comment on the places of death shows an ignorance of the facts behind the mortality rates.

You conclude by introducing ill-informed comparisons with Bengali and Chinese famines, calamities that are irrelevant to the cause of the Irish Famine. Your comments on my "The pro colonial prejudice is all yours" is also illmannered and incorrect. I am no apologist for how the Famine was handled, I deal in historical fact, not waffle written by those with an agenda, be they British or Irish commentators.

Everything you have written to date shows no depth of knowledge on the various famines. It’s clear that you have no idea about their true causes and management. You need to go away and do some homework before your arrival in this forum can be taken seriously.

Dakota Dan

This film won't cure the amnesia.

Snickers Man

tabbey wrote: »

Who can we blame? Indeed who should the famine victims have blamed?

We know who the authorities blamed: God.

Both Alexander Trevelyan and the Commissioners who produced the report on the 1851 Census (the one that showed that the population of the island of Ireland had decreased by 20% over the years 1841-1851) used the phrase "all-wise providence" to explain the catastrophic double whammy of "famine and pestilence" which hit Ireland in those years.

Have a look at the primary source (a link to which was found on the website of the Central Statistics Office) to verify.

Just read the last paragraph on that page and then click into the next one. Personally, it made my jaw drop.

pinkypinky

I think you might mean Charles Trevelyan.

Snickers Man

pinkypinky wrote: »

I think you might mean Charles Trevelyan.

You're quite right.

Thanks for pointing it out.