nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

SafeSurfer

I am not surprised that many British viewers were unaware of the history of the Irish famine.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/entertainment/british-tv-viewers-share-shock-at-portrayal-of-irish-famine-in-victoria-808238.html

It is hardly surprising that any nation's education system glosses over the worst excesses of their past. Whether that be the US slaughter of the native Americans, the treatment of the Aborigines in Australia or the Irish during the famine.
There are many aspects of our own history that are conveniently forgotten in the interests of preserving our notion of ourselves.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh, I agree. There is no moral highground in the 1798 rebellion and the atrocities carried out by both sides have to be taken in context.

I guess what I am getting at, is that you have posters stating things like "The Protestant population was given a higher status than the native Irish". which just seems to highlight that there is a real belief in this country that to be Irish meant to be Catholic and all Catholics were poor and persecuted by Protestants, who were all wealthy.

I know what you're getting at Fred, but I disagree. Obviously there was some rich Catholics like Daniel O'Connell but they kept their land thanks to the kindness of Protestant neighbors. Certainly some Catholic most Catholics were poor and some were rich.

My assertion isn't that Protestants or Catholics are bad or good. It's that the British government passed sectarian laws that benefited the Protestant population of Ireland at the expense of the Catholic Population. The Gavelkind act for instance, also known as the c. 6 An Act to prevent the further Growth of Popery - known as the "Popery Act".

This act applied land division on inheritance in a sectarian fashion. I.E only to Catholics. The law was passed in 1703 and this is what happened to Catholic land ownership in the following years:

Catholic land holdings:

1688: 25% of land
1704: 14% of land
1776: 5% of land

Charles Babbage

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What do most Irish people know of Portuguese history? or of Iceland's history? Or of Belgium's history, besides the two world wars?

Whatever suffering there was in Portugal's history, it is unlikely that Britain has such a central role in inflicting it.

The general whataboutery on this thread is further evidence that some people choose what they learn from history.

Also on TV the Who Do You Think You Are? UK - Mark Gatiss which was on RTE last night showed how his great grandfather had been able to buy back the family lands in Derry stolen at the time of the plantation. He was able to do this because a brother had become rich in Australia. Let's hope this made UK viewers, when shown there, think a bit more about why things are the way they are in the 6 counties.

whisky_galore

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed. It's amazing how the free market can be used for a defense in these times considering there were government regulations on ho much land Catholics could own.

The Penal Laws were over by then. See Catholic Emancipation, Daniel O'Connell and all that. They'd have to wait another while before they could get their land back tbf though.

Not a defence, it's just how things were...and are today.
Property owners sitting on derelict property/land banks until price rises, rents going through the roof because 'the market' and though all this a record number of people sleeping rough on the streets. And it's our own people doing this. Why aren't the govt doing anything? Oh now, that'd be interfering with the market, you can't be giving away houses for free because the poors won't appreciate them and I after scrimping and saving for my own house.

steddyeddy

whisky_galore wrote: »

The Penal Laws were over by then. See Catholic Emancipation, Daniel O'Connell and all that. They'd have to wait another while before they could get their land back tbf though.

Not a defence, it's just how things were...and are today.
Property owners sitting on derelict property/land banks until price rises, rents going through the roof because 'the market' and though all this a record number of people sleeping rough on the streets. And it's our own people doing this. Why aren't the govt doing anything? Oh now, that'd be interfering with the market, you can't be giving away houses for free because the poors won't appreciate them and I after scrimping and saving for my own house.

Wait how are free market rules being applied if there's laws dictating how certain ethnic groups inherit and own land?

Gerrup Outta Dat!

A Little Pony wrote: »

Great drama, not sure Victoria cared that much as displayed on the show. But it was what it was, a different time. Look into the landlords and tenants at the time, the role of the Catholic Church. Plenty of Irish people made money exporting wheat from Ireland to England.

You would say that though. You and your ancestors were responsible for the discrimination and persecution of normal Irish Catholic people. You’re unionist aren’t you?

Nettle Soup

Zebra3 wrote: »

There was plenty of food. The use of the word “famine” is incorrect in this situation.

The British as the occupying force had a moral obligation to ensure people could eat but instead let all the excess food to be exported.

Genocide.

It's not as simple as that.

In 1844, the year before the Famine, Ireland exported 94,000 tonnes of wheat and 314,000 tonnes of oats, and imported 23,000 tons of wheat.
Net exports: 385,000 tonnes.

In 1847, at the height of the Famine, Ireland exported 39,000 tonnes of wheat, and 98,000 tonnes of oats , and imported 199,000 tonnes of wheat, 12,000 tonnes of oats and 682,000 tonnes of maize.
Net imports of 756,000 tonnes, a change of 1,140,000 tonnes.
The problem was that Ireland lacked the milling, the baking, and the transport infrastructure needed cope with the change in the diet of almost half the population.

At the same time other foodstuffs left Ireland in bulk during 1847 including peas, beans, onions, rabbits, salmon, oysters, herring, lard, honey, tongues and seed. 822,681 gallons of butter was exported to England during 1847.

SafeSurfer

Zebra3 wrote: »

There was plenty of food. The use of the word “famine” is incorrect in this situation.

The British as the occupying force had a moral obligation to ensure people could eat but instead let all the excess food to be exported.

Genocide.

Yes you are perfectly correct. There was no shortage of food while people starved. The people just could not afford to eat it. As John Mitchell commented

"I have called it an artificial famine: that is to say, it was a famine which desolated a rich and fertile island that produced every year abundance and superabundance to sustain all her people and many more. The English, indeed, call the famine a "dispensation of Providence;" and ascribe it entirely to the blight on potatoes. But potatoes failed in like manner all over Europe; yet there was no famine save in Ireland. The British account of the matter, then, is first, a fraud; second, a blasphemy. The Almighty, indeed, sent the potato blight, but the English created the famine."

Seeing the British as an occupying force is to give them an excuse for inaction. As if we were a recently defeated people following a war.
At the time of the famine we were British. We were part of the United Kingdom. We had been sending MPs to Westminster for almost half a century. Even if this accounted for only 15% of the total membership of parliament. If subjects in other areas of the UK were starving to death the reaction would have been entirely different. Again John Mitchell

"demanded that, if Ireland was indeed an Integral part of the realm, the common exchequer of both islands should be used—not to give alms, but to provide employment on public works of general utility ... if Yorkshire and Lancashire had sustained a like calamity in England, there is no doubt such measures as these would have been taken, promptly and liberally".

During and in the aftermath of the famine, a large part of the British press continued to portray the Irish as racially inferior, idle, stupid and responsible in whole for the events that had happened to them. This prejudice extended to other parts of the empire and to the US.

Long before the famine, poet Edmund Spenser who wrote the Faerie Queene and gave us the phrase "rhyme or reason" argued
"Great force must be the instrument but famine must be the means, for till Ireland be famished it cannot be subdued"

server down

Back to the general theme of Irish history as taught in Britain. You really have to edit the history of the country to write Ireland out. The King/Queen of England was also King or Queen of Ireland from 1541 (before that it was a lordship) the kingless era of protectorate aside.

Most of what is considered the seminal eras of English, British and later UK history involved actions in Ireland. For Elizabeth the campaigns in Ireland were as important as an existential threat as the armada, and she had only 2 kingdoms. The civil war (now generally called the war of the three kingdoms) was in its latter stages fought in Ireland but the English learn about Cromwell in England and Scotland, and lastly the Glorious Revolution had its main battle here. As the lads with the flegs would agree.

So the Elizabethan era, the civil war and the glorious revolution are either not taught at all, or highly edited.

Ipso

In fairness they have enough of their own history to cram into a curriculum, even in Irish history classes a lot of our own stuff gets overlooked.

server down

topper75 wrote: »

Quite right.

That big lump under the rug there is composed of drunkenness, violence, theft, prostitution, racism, racketeering, bank robbery, rioting, and sundry slaughter of indigenous tribes.

And it will never end up on any Irish school curriculum alongside JFK et al.

I travelled into deepest darkest America myself (where not even the most intrepid J1 student goes) places such as Kentucky, Missouri, Georgia, Tennessee. The frank locals there told me that back in the 19th century the name of the Irish was mud. Were not welcome in the towns by Germans/English etc. Not the saints and scholars of the textbooks.

Of course they were anti-Irish and anti-Catholic movements in the protestant bible belts at that time. Thats well known.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing. How you managed to find the descendents of those nativists is interesting. DId they say "Hi looks like you’re Irish, we used to hate you, now we hate Mexicans"

By the way nobody thinks the Irish were saints and scholars, except to knock down that straw man..]

server down

Ipso wrote: »

In fairness they have enough of their own history to cram into a curriculum, even in Irish history classes a lot of our own stuff gets overlooked.

Pretty essential stuff.

server down

whisky_galore wrote: »

Private trade, farmers/growers and merchants...you think they were going to give all that away for free?

Even classical economists of the 19C would have agreed that a free market needs free actors, not landlordism. If people owned their own spot and or land they wouldnt have been selling food to pay the rent. They would have eaten the food.

server down

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Whatever suffering there was in Portugal's history, it is unlikely that Britain has such a central role in inflicting it.

The general whataboutery on this thread is further evidence that some people choose what they learn from history.

Also on TV the Who Do You Think You Are? UK - Mark Gatiss which was on RTE last night showed how his great grandfather had been able to buy back the family lands in Derry stolen at the time of the plantation. He was able to do this because a brother had become rich in Australia. Let's hope this made UK viewers, when shown there, think a bit more about why things are the way they are in the 6 counties.

I've seen that, was strangely apoligetic for it, even though his only Irish ancestors were northern catholics. It happened to his ancestors.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

I think the British government owe the Irish people reparations for the famine.

I like British people, I have no chip on my shoulder about them, but I think objectively they 'owe' us.

Our population still hasn't recovered to pre famine levels. Basically every country in the world has a bigger population today than 150-200 years ago except Ireland (Armenia are the only other country I can think of off hand).

The famine had a profound and devastating to Ireland, and I think that should be acknowledged.

steddyeddy

There's several narratives on here and not all of them can be right. I know there's movements that blame everything on the British, but equally wrong is a movement which states "there were atrocities on both sides" or vague comments like some from each group were rich and some were poor ect.

There's certainly a narrative of anti-Irish sentiment in British ruled Ireland. That can be backed up by laws passed. We weren't equals in the kingdom.

seachto7

steddyeddy wrote: »

There's certainly a narrative of anti-Irish sentiment in British ruled Ireland. That can be backed up by laws passed. We weren't equals in the kingdom.

Go 'way. Really?

donegaLroad

When a country was being colonised, it made it easier and more justifiable to steal from the natives by de- humanising them. The Australian aboriginals were categorised under 'flowers and fauna' at one stage. This is well documented if anyone wants to Google it.

I worked with a south African guy one time.. he told me that the Koons are really good at 3 things. Singing, arts & crafts, and athletics.. but they just didn't understand economics, they had no concept of the value of money.

steddyeddy

seachto7 wrote: »

Go 'way. Really?

Ha ha, really. Some seem to be in denial in that regard.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

That sums up the Irish Republic perfectly.

What is to take responsibility for it? The British Empire did what many other Empires did around the time. I don't know how far back people would want to go with this.

Acknowledgement of what was done would be a start. If reparations will help to fix what was done, then pay those reparations.

When we as a nation found out what the church had done here, we sided with the victims in seeking redress and acknowledgment. The church, as a result is a shadow of it's former self as is it's influence.

There is really no excuse for the British people not facing up to the damage their colonial past did.

91% of your primary schools are Catholic schools. Children go into school everyday and get an education slanted from the Catholicism perspective. By controlling the views of the children you control the views of the country. Most don't back away from said cultural beliefs even if in later life they don't believe in it. Census records show us this.

Catholicism still has influence on the Irish state, which I'm not knocking but the dishonesty about it and then talking about reparations, well it is lunacy.

WesternZulu

donegaLroad wrote: »

When a country was being colonised, it made it easier and more justifiable to steal from the natives by de- humanising them. The Australian aboriginals were categorised under 'flowers and fauna' at one stage. This is well documented if anyone wants to Google it.

It happened here as well:

marienbad

A Little Pony wrote: »

91% of your primary schools are Catholic schools. Children go into school everyday and get an education slanted from the Catholicism perspective. By controlling the views of the children you control the views of the country. Most don't back away from said cultural beliefs even if in later life they don't believe in it. Census records show us this.

Catholicism still has influence on the Irish state, which I'm not knocking but the dishonesty about it and then talking about reparations, well it is lunacy.

Why do you think religion is the deciding factor in the teaching of history ?

SafeSurfer

A Little Pony wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

That sums up the Irish Republic perfectly.

What is to take responsibility for it? The British Empire did what many other Empires did around the time. I don't know how far back people would want to go with this.

Acknowledgement of what was done would be a start. If reparations will help to fix what was done, then pay those reparations.

When we as a nation found out what the church had done here, we sided with the victims in seeking redress and acknowledgment. The church, as a result is a shadow of it's former self as is it's influence.

There is really no excuse for the British people not facing up to the damage their colonial past did.

91% of your primary schools are Catholic schools. Children go into school everyday and get an education slanted from the Catholicism perspective. By controlling the views of the children you control the views of the country. Most don't back away from said cultural beliefs even if in later life they don't believe in it. Census records show us this.

Catholicism still has influence on the Irish state, which I'm not knocking but the dishonesty about it and then talking about reparations, well it is lunacy.

I don't see how census records can show a link between religious education and identifying as a catholic later in life. Countries such as France, Poland and a Belgium with secular schools also have high numbers of citizens identifying as catholic even with participation rates considerably less than ours.

bear1

Curious after reading what our population was at the time as I remember this from school, but what would out population be now if the famine hadn't have happened? Nearing on 15m approx?

A Little Pony

SafeSurfer wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

That sums up the Irish Republic perfectly.

What is to take responsibility for it? The British Empire did what many other Empires did around the time. I don't know how far back people would want to go with this.

Acknowledgement of what was done would be a start. If reparations will help to fix what was done, then pay those reparations.

When we as a nation found out what the church had done here, we sided with the victims in seeking redress and acknowledgment. The church, as a result is a shadow of it's former self as is it's influence.

There is really no excuse for the British people not facing up to the damage their colonial past did.

91% of your primary schools are Catholic schools. Children go into school everyday and get an education slanted from the Catholicism perspective. By controlling the views of the children you control the views of the country. Most don't back away from said cultural beliefs even if in later life they don't believe in it. Census records show us this.

Catholicism still has influence on the Irish state, which I'm not knocking but the dishonesty about it and then talking about reparations, well it is lunacy.

I don't see how census records can show a link between religious education and identifying as a catholic later in life. Countries such as France, Poland and a Belgium with secular schools also have high numbers of citizens identifying as catholic even with participation rates considerably less than ours.

91% of the primary schools aren't secular. State funded schools, well over 90% of them. It is written into your laws that religion is the determining factor on who gets into those schools. State religious education and people say the Church has lost it's grip on the country, they must be joking.

server down

A Little Pony wrote: »

91% of the primary schools aren't secular. State funded schools, well over 90% of them. It is written into your laws that religion is the determining factor on who gets into those schools. State religious education and people say the Church has lost it's grip on the country, they must be joking.

Still the gays are getting married all the same.

tomwaterford

A Little Pony wrote: »

91% of the primary schools aren't secular. State funded schools, well over 90% of them. It is written into your laws that religion is the determining factor on who gets into those schools. State religious education and people say the Church has lost it's grip on the country, they must be joking.

While in practice religion has zero say in determining who gets into the schools....and most secondary schools are not religious aligned

You appear to be horribly misinformed lad

A Little Pony

tomwaterford wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

91% of the primary schools aren't secular. State funded schools, well over 90% of them. It is written into your laws that religion is the determining factor on who gets into those schools. State religious education and people say the Church has lost it's grip on the country, they must be joking.

While in practice religion has zero say in determining who gets into the schools....and most secondary schools are not religious aligned

You appear to be horribly misinformed lad

You couldn't make it up. Face up to the facts, 90% are Catholic schools.

server down

A Little Pony wrote: »

You couldn't make it up. Face up to the facts, 90% are Catholic schools.

So what. Nothing to do with this thread. Maybe there are a lot of Hindi schools in India but famines still happened.

tomwaterford

A Little Pony wrote: »

You couldn't make it up. Face up to the facts, 90% are Catholic schools.

There not?

Well outside of dublin anyways,most are community colleges and those that are religiously aligned have not gotten the numbers of monks/nuns required to run them.and most left are well into there 80s at this stage (and in effect religious aligned in name only)

I'd be curious to know which law you think was passed to make religion a determining factor in deciding if you get into school or not....this should be changed-but I think you've made it up

ZeroThreat

marcbrophy wrote: »

If that's in anyway true, it's because of the TV show Archer.
He calls the Irish as being part of the Axis and Nazi, more than once :pac:

It's actually his mother Mallory who has a problem with the Irish