British TV viewers react with horror to portrayal of famine in ITV drama Victoria.

Back to whether the famine should be taught or not. Most people know the Irish population then is higher than now. Specifically it was about 8M. As opposed to 6M now. (We are talking about the island).

You probably know that most other European populations have increased. So what was Britain?

The 1841 UK Census counted the population of England and Wales to be 15.9 million.Ireland's population was 8.2 million in 1841. The population of Scotland was 2.6 million.

So a total UK population of 15.9 + 8.2 + 2.6 = 26.7M. Ireland was slightly more than 31% of that total population. Close enough to 50% of the population of Britain. Not “tiny”.

So should the UK teach a famine that effected an island that was about 30% of its then area and population?

I say yes.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It isn't just the English, in fairness.

I can guarantee you, more than a few readers in this thread are looking at 1948 and thinking "what happened between us in 1948"?

Similarly, say 'The Battle of Kinsale', 'the 1918 General Election', or 'The First Constitution of Ireland' to most Irish people, and whilst they might have heard of all of these terms, they probably can't utter three sentences on any of them.

Despite the fact that most of us have had at least 8 years' worth of education in Irish History.

It's a bit like the Irish language. Many claim to support it, but don't engage in it either academically or practically.

I think you’re making things up now to suit your narrative. Of course people can forget but this was taught.

server down wrote: »

I think you’re making things up now to suit your narrative. Of course people can forget but this was taught.

I know it was taught. That's why I acknowledged that people may have heard of these things.

But the fact that most people probably aren't able to utter 3 cogent sentences on these topics, probably points to a lack of engagement with them. So it isn't just the English and Welsh whom we can accuse of being ignorant of their modern history. It probably happens in many countries; although it certainly isn't universal.

kingchess

LordSutch wrote: »

I get your drift Western, but that bit I corrected above ^ is a constant mistake many people make here, (confusing the UK with England) in the same way that English get confused or mistaken with our political identity.

In fairness it confused a lot of English people too,I am of an age when we would have only the likes of "Dads Army" to watch on tv,and still have that theme song in my head after all these year-"Who do you think you are kidding mr Hitler if you think old england"s done",,No mention of Scotland or Wales for example;

server down wrote: »

There were Native American atrocities against settlers too. You could concentrate on that I suppose but it would miss the larger picture.

Every decision for war or retaliation is based on a catalyst moment to give reason for that decision. For the Americans it was 9/11 for the Iraq war.
The Alamo for the Mexican war.
Indian attacks for war against them.
Protestant massacres in fermanagh (I think) for Cromwell.
They all are used for justification for retaliation with the subsequent actions by them. It makes them sleep better at night.:rolleyes:

When rebellion broke out in Wexford any protestant men in easy reach of enniscorthy were taken at first to be used as hostages for protection but then later either killed a few days into the rebellion on the hill or killed after on Wexford bridge. A mass grave has been examined lately on the hill and it was estimated to hold about 600. Most of those were the hostages taken at the start and then the insurgents at the end of the rebellion made a lesser part.
Most of the insurgents escaped before the British attacked.

But all these events influence future decisions. You can imagine when the British heard about the famine first. The first reaction would have been. F**k em!

jimmycrackcorm

Did they put up the usual message on screen at the end where if you've been affected by any of these issues to call a phone number

Floki wrote: »

Every decision for war or retaliation is based on a catalyst moment to give reason for that decision. For the Americans it was 9/11 for the Iraq war.
The Alamo for the Mexican war.
Indian attacks for war against them.
Protestant massacres in fermanagh (I think) for Cromwell.
They all are used for justification for retaliation with the subsequent actions by them. It makes them sleep better at night.:rolleyes:

When rebellion broke out in Wexford any protestant men in easy reach of enniscorthy were taken at first to be used as hostages for protection but then later either killed a few days into the rebellion on the hill or killed after on Wexford bridge. A mass grave has been examined lately on the hill and it was estimated to hold about 600. Most of those were the hostages taken at the start and then the insurgents at the end of the rebellion made a lesser part.
Most of the insurgents escaped before the British attacked.

But all these events influence future decisions. You can imagine when the British heard about the famine first. The first reaction would have been. F**k em!

The famine was a generation later. All of the examples you gave in the original list are larger powers attacking weaker powers based on over exaggerated atrocities by the smaller powers, race or people. Which is exactly why trawling through history to find some atrocities by the oppressed is bad history.

For years white children would be put to bed with tales of Nat Turner. And tales of Native American atrocities last until the mid 20th C, the cowboys were the good guys.

These wexford uprisings didn't come out of nowhere, they were reactions to land seizures, penal laws, etc.

( Actually Cromwell justified his campaign against Irish catholics based on some atrocity or other, not the reverse).

By the way the 1798 rebellions were not mostly sectarian except for some exceptions, in fact it was the reverse.

server down wrote: »

By the way the 1798 rebellions were not mostly sectarian except for some exceptions, in fact it was the reverse.

Look at the death records and the denomination of those deaths in the first few days of the rebellion.
Paints a different story than what you're taught in school.
Templeshanbo and killanne were mostly cleared out.

Sam Kade

server down wrote: »

Back to whether the famine should be taught or not. Most people know the Irish population then is higher than now. Specifically it was about 8M. As opposed to 6M now. (We are talking about the island).

You probably know that most other European populations have increased. So what was Britain?

The 1841 UK Census counted the population of England and Wales to be 15.9 million.Ireland's population was 8.2 million in 1841. The population of Scotland was 2.6 million.

So a total UK population of 15.9 + 8.2 + 2.6 = 26.7M. Ireland was slightly more than 31% of that total population. Close enough to 50% of the population of Britain. Not “tiny”.

So should the UK teach a famine that effected an island that was about 30% of its then area and population?

I say yes.

6m? 4.77m in the 2016 census, highest since the famine.

tomwaterford

Sam Kade wrote: »

6m? 4.77m in the 2016 census, highest since the famine.

6 million across the whole island?

Census would be only for the free state,I assume!

Floki wrote: »

Look at the death records and the denomination of those deaths in the first few days of the rebellion.
Paints a different story than what you're taught in school.
Templeshanbo and killanne were mostly cleared out.

Well here is what wiki says:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion_of_1798

The aftermath of almost every British victory in the rising was marked by the massacre of captured and wounded rebels with some on a large scale such as at Carlow, New Ross, Ballinamuck and Killala.[14] The British were responsible for particularly gruesome massacres at Gibbet Rath, New Ross and Enniscorthy, burning rebels alive in the latter two.[15] For those rebels who were taken alive in the aftermath of battle, being regarded as traitors to the Crown, they were not treated as prisoners of war but were executed, usually by hanging. Local forces publicly executed suspected members of the United Irishmen without trial in Dunlavin in what is known as the Dunlavin Green Executions and in Carnew days after the outbreak of the rebellion.[16]

In addition, non-combatant civilians were murdered by the military, who also carried out many instances of rape, particularly in County Wexford.[17][18] Many individual instances of murder were also unofficially carried out by local Yeomanry units before, during and after the rebellion as their local knowledge led them to attack suspected rebels. "Pardoned" rebels were a particular target.[19]

You may want to edit it to promote your own view that only Irish Protestants were victims, and only Irish catholics perpetrators but thats not the widely held belief.

Sam Kade wrote: »

6m? 4.77m in the 2016 census, highest since the famine.

I even said in parenthesis that I was referring to the Island.

myshirt

The famine shows that you will pay the price if you are a fussy eater.

We are obsessed with potatoes. Obsessed. And standing your ground on that obsession done no one any favours.

Quite frankly, if you can afford to emigrate, you can afford to eat at a moderately priced restaurant.

myshirt wrote: »

The famine shows that you will pay the price if you are a fussy eater.

We are obsessed with potatoes. Obsessed. And standing your ground on that obsession done no one any favours.

Quite frankly, if you can afford to emigrate, you can afford to eat at a moderately priced restaurant.

I did laugh at this, but it's shocking when you think how recent in was, in terms of generations.

My own Grandmother, who often helped me with my homework (this was in the 1990's) used to repeat to me the stories her Grandad told her about the Famine. He was born in the 1830s.

He remembered people knocking on his door with green mouths. The green discolouration wasn't caused by illness, but, according to my Grandmother, by the eating of grass.

I once told this story to a history academic, and he told me this did indeed happen, but it probably wasn't grass they were eating; they were eating wood-sorrel from the forestry (which is edible).

It was only in recent years that I realised how nuts it all was. I was talking to someone who heard famine testimony first-hand. Many people will have been in this situation, especially those who are older.

jca

CrabRevolution wrote: »

While it's almost certainly a minority, the number of British people who honestly seem to think Ireland fought alongside the Nazis in WW2 makes me worry about how history is taught in the UK.

Nah it was Franco’s charmers in the Spanish civil war, helped by the Catholic Church that the Irish fought alongside.

server down wrote: »

Well here is what wiki says:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion_of_1798

The aftermath of almost every British victory in the rising was marked by the massacre of captured and wounded rebels with some on a large scale such as at Carlow, New Ross, Ballinamuck and Killala.[14] The British were responsible for particularly gruesome massacres at Gibbet Rath, New Ross and Enniscorthy, burning rebels alive in the latter two.[15] For those rebels who were taken alive in the aftermath of battle, being regarded as traitors to the Crown, they were not treated as prisoners of war but were executed, usually by hanging. Local forces publicly executed suspected members of the United Irishmen without trial in Dunlavin in what is known as the Dunlavin Green Executions and in Carnew days after the outbreak of the rebellion.[16]

In addition, non-combatant civilians were murdered by the military, who also carried out many instances of rape, particularly in County Wexford.[17][18] Many individual instances of murder were also unofficially carried out by local Yeomanry units before, during and after the rebellion as their local knowledge led them to attack suspected rebels. "Pardoned" rebels were a particular target.[19]

You may want to edit it to promote your own view that only Irish Protestants were victims, and only Irish catholics perpetrators but thats not the widely held belief.

Chill the beans.

I've never said that Catholics weren't killed.
Everyone knows what happened to them it's been taught in the schools.
I'm saying every action has a reaction.

But if you're going to teach history you should teach the full history warts and all.
Not some heroes of 98 ****e fighting for freedom when the first bloody thing that happened down here was a round up of any protestant men and boys and take them to the rebel camp in vinegar hill to be starved for days and then piked to death and old men going around with pikes after to make sure they're dead.
There's nothing patriotic or grandiose about that. That's sectarian ****e.

So off your high horse if you think you've the copyright of castigation.

Irish history is ugly but the victors write the history books.

FrancieBrady

myshirt wrote: »

The famine shows that you will pay the price if you are a fussy eater.

We are obsessed with potatoes. Obsessed. And standing your ground on that obsession done no one any favours.

Quite frankly, if you can afford to emigrate, you can afford to eat at a moderately priced restaurant.

You could have had the decency to credit that to it's author. Unless you are Steve Coogan

Nettle Soup

server down wrote: »

The idea that there was anything like equal shame on both sides is ludicrous. Ireland didn’t even have a parliament. Even when it did it was ruled by a supremacist class hostile to most of the population. The landlord class was predominantly Anglo Irish and often absentee and hostile as well.

I love that 8 people liked this post when it was perfectly clear it was wrong i.e. I never suggested equal shame (see post below it which server chose to ignore, I wonder why

). Why is outrage so easy for some people and are Boards people that sheep-like??

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104862723&postcount=28

Ipso

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You could have had the decency to credit that to it's author. Unless you are Steve Coogan

Needless to say, he's not.

tomwaterford

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I did laugh at this, but it's shocking when you think how recent in was, in terms of generations.

My own Grandmother, who often helped me with my homework (this was in the 1990's) used to repeat to me the stories her Grandad told her about the Famine. He was born in the 1830s.

He remembered people knocking on his door with green mouths. The green discolouration wasn't caused by illness, but, according to my Grandmother, by the eating of grass.

I once told this story to a history academic, and he told me this did indeed happen, but it probably wasn't grass they were eating; they were eating wood-sorrel from the forestry (which is edible).

It was only in recent years that I realised how nuts it all was. I was talking to someone who heard famine testimony first-hand. Many people will have been in this situation, especially those who are older.

During farm clearnences of ditches and overgrowth/dead ground from 1930s on many remains of famine victims were found...upon farms where relatives of mine worked

Often heard stories passed on of people waking up and finding people dead/dieing nearby where grandmother is from....it would make hairs stand on your neck some of them

Floki wrote: »

Chill the beans.

I've never said that Catholics weren't killed.
Everyone knows what happened to them it's been taught in the schools.
I'm saying every action has a reaction.

But if you're going to teach history you should teach the full history warts and all.
Not some heroes of 98 ****e fighting for freedom when the first bloody thing that happened down here was a round up of any protestant men and boys and take them to the rebel camp in vinegar hill to be starved for days and then piked to death and old men going around with pikes after to make sure they're dead.
There's nothing patriotic or grandiose about that. That's sectarian ****e.

So off your high horse if you think you've the copyright of castigation.

Irish history is ugly but the victors write the history books.

How come you never mentioned the most famous massacre, Scullabogue?

If the rebels were so sectarian why did they put Bagenal in charge? Maybe there was a bit more to it all than just naked sectarianism, like turned out to be the case with Scullabogue

Nettle Soup wrote: »

I love that 8 people liked this post when it was perfectly clear it was wrong i.e. I never suggested equal shame (see post below it which server chose to ignore, I wonder why ). Why is outrage so easy for some people and are Boards people that sheep-like??

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104862723&postcount=28

What do you mean by 'Irish side'? A minority of rich Irish/Catholic farmers who worked within the British system and contributed to the death of starving Irish people certainly weren't on the 'Irish side'

riffmongous wrote: »

How come you never mentioned the most famous massacre, Scullabogue?

If the rebels were so sectarian why did they put Bagenal in charge? Maybe there was a bit more to it all than just naked sectarianism, like turned out to be the case with Scullabogue

I did mention Scullabogue and I'd say it was well mentioned in the British press at the time too.

I don't know much about Bagenel but he seems to have been part of the exceptions and I did mention there were exceptions. I don't know was he a good leader with military experience or did he just get a knock on the head as a child.
Haven't a clue about him.

There's a link to the protestant deaths during 98 in the enniscorthy thread on boards here in the Wexford section you might have to go back a few pages.
I'm not sure how to link on the phone.:rolleyes:

I don't want to get bogged down here on the sectarian ****e but these things did happen.

enda1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think that's the thing, in the UK, the Irish aren't seen as "Foreign" in the same way a German or a Spaniard would be.

I think it was on the military board that someone, upon joining the British army, took offence at being called a paddy bastard, until he realised that the guy from Newcastle was a Geordie bastard, the Londoner a cockney bastard and the Welsh guy a taffy bastard.

Very true. Under the Ireland Act 1949, Ireland is not considered a foreign country and Irish citizens are not considered foreign.

FrancieBrady

riffmongous wrote: »

What do you mean by 'Irish side'? A minority of rich Irish/Catholic farmers who worked within the British system and contributed to the death of starving Irish people certainly weren't on the 'Irish side'

Indeed, there have always been Irish born people who have more allegiance to Britain than to their fellow countrymen and women.

Nettle Soup

riffmongous wrote: »

What do you mean by 'Irish side'? A minority of rich Irish/Catholic farmers who worked within the British system and contributed to the death of starving Irish people certainly weren't on the 'Irish side'

There was evidence of profiteering in terms of food and rent prices and also stockpiling of food during the famine - even grain imported into Ireland (while we were also exporting grain) was hoarded in the larger ports and often did not reach the most impoverished areas. The Catholic church could have spent more on famine relief but instead increased their own property portfolio during that time. Just examples.

Edit: I saw just FrancieBrady's comment above. Stay classy. If you are not willing to learn, go to the simpler threads. "Allegiance" to people that lived and died 170 years ago? Dope

Berserker

CrabRevolution wrote: »

While it's almost certainly a minority, the number of British people who honestly seem to think Ireland fought alongside the Nazis in WW2 makes me worry about how history is taught in the UK.

Complete and utter tosh. If anything, they'd believe that the Irish were part of the British Army at the time. To this day the Irish aren't considered foreign in GB in the same way that the likes of the French, Germans etc are. Even the likes of the BNP, as unpalatable as they, consider the Irish to be part of Britain. See the quote below from Nick Griffin, when he was leader.

The Irish are part of Britain says BNP leader : THE BRITISH National Party would make an exception for Irish people under its anti-immigration policies, leader Nick Griffin said yesterday.

Speaking on BBC radio, Griffin vowed to shut the door to migrants because Britain, he claimed, is “the most overcrowded country” in Europe.

“We are certainly not going to shut the doors to the Irish, because the Irish, as far as we are concerned, are part of Britain and fully entitled to come here,” the leader of the far-right party said.

“If you are talking about Polish plumbers or Afghan refugees, the doors are going to be shut, because Britain is full.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

riffmongous wrote: »

What do you mean by 'Irish side'? A minority of rich Irish/Catholic farmers who worked within the British system and contributed to the death of starving Irish people certainly weren't on the 'Irish side'

Indeed, there have always been Irish born people who have more allegiance to Britain than to their fellow countrymen and women.

And there have been many, many non Irish born people who have done more for Ireland than a whole lot of Irish born people.
The reality is that currently and throughout our history, a large percentage of people born on and living on the island of Ireland have a closer affinity to Britain than Ireland.