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

SafeSurfer · 04-10-2017 10:49PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

Sectarian laws created the famine? It was a fungus type infection which destroyed the potato which was the main source of food people had then. No one is saying the British government handled it well but they certainly didn't start it. The Irish famine of 1740 was nearly as bad and was started because of weather effects, again the humble potato took a battering due to frost which made them inedible.

Why were a third of the population dependent on the potato?

Anything to do with sectarian laws that mandated subdivision of land to uneconomic, subsistence level?

Why did many more people die in the famine after the act of union than in the one before?

Why were mostly catholic peasants forced onto marginal land in the first place?

Mainly protestant tenants in Ulster enjoyed tenant rights not enjoyed elsewhere in the country.

steddyeddy · 04-10-2017 10:53PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

Sectarian laws created the famine? It was a fungus type infection which destroyed the potato which was the main source of food people had then. No one is saying the British government handled it well but they certainly didn't start it. The Irish famine of 1740 was nearly as bad and was started because of weather effects, again the humble potato took a battering due to frost which made them inedible.

Yes they contributed to it. The landholdings in Ireland were determined by the popery law. It enforced sectarian Gavelkind. Simply put this meant landholdings were divided equally upon death. This reduced Catholic land ownership to 5%. 90% of the population owning 5% of the land. This produced mono-culture as there was only enough room to grow one crop. Genetic similarities resulted and the potato strain hadn't got the variety to withstand the blight.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 04-10-2017 10:56PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You will often hear statements like "The Irish were prevented from having an education" or the "Irish were prevented from owning land", which is untrue. Catholics were and Catholics in England and Scotland had the exact same restrictions on them, in fact they were more strictly adhered to in England than in Ireland.

If A Catholic wanted to inherit their family's land, they just had to nip along to the local Anglican church every Sunday and pretend to be protestant.

A black person in the Jim Crow South couldn't pretend to be white, could they?

But there was a clear link between religion and colonialism. Most Catholics were native Irish, most Protestants were colonizers. You can pretend that's not true all you like but it doesn't change the facts.

steddyeddy · 04-10-2017 11:01PM

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

But there was a clear link between religion and colonialism. Most Catholics were native Irish, most Protestants were colonizers. You can pretend that's not true all you like but it doesn't change the facts.

Indeed the reasons given for colonialism at the time were that the Irish needed educating, civilising and ironically looking after.

caff · 04-10-2017 11:01PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes they contributed to it. The landholdings in Ireland were determined by the popery law. It enforced sectarian Gavelkind. Simply put this meant landholdings were divided equally upon death. This reduced Catholic land ownership to 5%. 90% of the population owning 5% of the land. This produced mono-culture as there was only enough room to grow one crop. Genetic similarities resulted and the potato strain hadn't got the variety to withstand the blight.

Loss of parliament was also a big cause, when famine hit in 1782 the grattan parliament closed the ports and banned exports. Grain was kept in the country and provided for relief. Even though Ireland returned 105 ministers to parliament in London during the great hunger they were divided and did not present a united front for the country. Retaining a parliament in Dublin would have greatly changed the situation

Fratton Fred · 04-10-2017 11:03PM

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

But there was a clear link between religion and colonialism. Most Catholics were native Irish, most Protestants were colonizers. You can pretend that's not true all you like but it doesn't change the facts.

Most native Irish were only Catholics because the Normans brought it to Ireland in the first place.

Fratton Fred · 04-10-2017 11:04PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed the reasons given for colonialism at the time were that the Irish needed educating, civilising and ironically looking after.

At what time?

tomwaterford · 04-10-2017 11:19PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Most native Irish were only Catholics because the Normans brought it to Ireland in the first place.

So?

What exact rabbit hole of logic is going into??

Explaining away the famine as being the fault of the Norman is certainly a new one

steddyeddy · 04-10-2017 11:42PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Most native Irish were only Catholics because the Normans brought it to Ireland in the first place.

What are you blathering on about now?

steddyeddy · 04-10-2017 11:43PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

At what time?

Various times.

Sand · 04-10-2017 11:56PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Most native Irish were only Catholics because the Normans brought it to Ireland in the first place.

To be clear - the Irish were Catholic long before the arrival of the Normans. Where do you think all the Irish clergy and missionaries working in continental Europe came from?

I'm genuinely puzzled by what you're trying to achieve. Yes, being Protestant is not a disqualifier to being Irish, and Irish and Catholic are not one and the same today. However, at the time of the Penal laws the Protestant Irish certainly did not identify as Irish. They identified as British or English, but never Irish - to be Irish was to risk being associated with the Irish Catholic majority in Ireland who were definitely seen as a defeated underclass, not as equals. Edmund Burke identified as an English Protestant - his political enemies used his Catholic background and his Irish origin to mock and disparage him. Likewise, the Duke of Wellington never actually said the famous stable/horse quote, but he certainly didn't identify as Irish for the same reasons. It goes as far back as the medieval laws where new arrivals from England were banned from calling the Anglo-Irish "Irish" as it was seen as insulting and degrading and caused fights.

Its very clear that Irishness and Catholicism were seen as one and the same at the time, and both were definite handicaps to a persons rights and standing. Anglo-Irish Protestants (largely) didn't identify with the Catholic Irish. They identified with the English/British Protestants. In so far as the Penal Laws were anti-Catholic they were definitely anti-Irish as both the English and the Anglo-Irish understood it. Trying to deny that is bizarre.

Charles Babbage · 05-10-2017 12:04AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Penal laws were directed at the wealthy in an attempt t get people to convert. I guess they could have used the french or Spanish methods, they were a bit more aggressive in their attempts at stamping out religious flavours they didn't like.

Ah yes, the old MOPE argument. Anything in Ireland is justified as long as a worse example can be found elsewhere.

Why don't you just say that they were a disgrace, which would shame any nation.

steddyeddy · 05-10-2017 12:20AM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Ah yes, the old MOPE argument. Anything in Ireland is justified as long as a worse example can be found elsewhere.

Why don't you just say that they were a disgrace, which would shame any nation.

I never understood the attitude. Complete denial of the reality that colonialism carried with it a tendency to look down on the natives they were subjecting. Then trying to reason that they considered the Irish they were colonising on par with then English population and it wss just Catholics they didn't like. Can you think of any colonisers that didn't look down on the natives?

That's what I don't get. If people aren't proud of imperialism why try to defend it? Call it what it is. It happened years before you were born. I think these deluded attitudes about Britain as a nation contributed towards the ignorance that is Brexit.

FrancieBrady · 05-10-2017 06:38AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I never understood the attitude. Complete denial of the reality that colonialism carried with it a tendency to look down on the natives they were subjecting. Then trying to reason that they considered the Irish they were colonising on par with then English population and it wss just Catholics they didn't like. Can you think of any colonisers that didn't look down on the natives?

That's what I don't get. If people aren't proud of imperialism why try to defend it? Call it what it is. It happened years before you were born. I think these deluded attitudes about Britain as a nation contributed towards the ignorance that is Brexit.

As me auld granny used to say, 'the confounded cultural contortionists and defenders of the realm are working hard on this thread'.

Fratton Fred · 05-10-2017 06:47AM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Ah yes, the old MOPE argument.

Are you seriously trying to claim that that attitude doesn’t exist in some quarters?

I think eddy is proving nicely that is does.

LordSutch · 05-10-2017 06:54AM

I heard it was due to be aired on TV3 sometime.

Maybe it's been already?

Jawgap · 05-10-2017 07:20AM

keano_afc wrote: »

You only have to watch UK quiz shows to see the lack of knowledge about Ireland. Its incredible how little they know about any aspects of Irish history.

I'd say it goes both ways - we really don't understand or have an in-depth knowledge of their history either.....

.....we don't even have an in-depth knowledge of our own history! The curriculum up until quite recently was bordering on propaganda and inculcating a certain view of the Irish nation and state into young minds, not teaching them about - and how to analyse history - a fact I really only tumbled into when I started an advanced degree in history!

The Famine is a classic example - as a tragedy it was exceeded by at least one previous famine in the 18th century (we generally suffered a famine every 50 to 75 years and in between there were 'hungers'), but 'unfortunately' in that case we couldn't blame the Brits and the Prods were charitable. We hear so much about the Great Famine because it plays into the narrative of developing 19th Century Irish nationalism.

steddyeddy · 05-10-2017 07:38AM

Jawgap wrote: »

I'd say it goes both ways - we really don't understand or have an in-depth knowledge of their history either.....

.....we don't even have an in-depth knowledge of our own history! The curriculum up until quite recently was bordering on propaganda and inculcating a certain view of the Irish nation and state into young minds, not teaching them about - and how to analyse history - a fact I really only tumbled into when I started an advanced degree in history!

The Famine is a classic example - as a tragedy it was exceeded by at least one previous famine in the 18th century (we generally suffered a famine every 50 to 75 years and in between there were 'hungers'), but 'unfortunately' in that case we couldn't blame the Brits and the Prods were charitable. We hear so much about the Great Famine because it plays into the narrative of developing 19th Century Irish nationalism.

Well alctually the famine in the 18th century wss most lilely caused by reduced landholdings ydue to the gavelkind act.

In fairness if a government passes laws that handicap one portion of the population then it's only fair to lay some of the blame there. I don't think it's nationalistic to think that penal laws might have had a bad effect.

steddyeddy · 05-10-2017 07:45AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to claim that that attitude doesn’t exist in some quarters?

I think eddy is proving nicely that is does.

Well then again Fred you also think the Normans brought Catholicism/Christianity to the island.

I had to look up MOPE there, but I don't fit the bill. People have provided reams of historical evidence and you respond, yet again with one liners based on your uninformed narrative. Sorry you don't like me saying the British discriminated against Irish, but why should it affect you? Colonialism doesn't represent you Fred anymore than Nazi Germany represents someone born today.

steddyeddy · 05-10-2017 07:48AM

But yes, I don't think we here enough about the Anglo-Irish who helped fight against Catholic discrimination. Too easily in a segregated society we lump all the beneficiaries in together.

Daniel O'Connell's Protestant neighbours helped him avoid the penalties of the popery acts and let him keep his own land.

tomwaterford · 05-10-2017 07:52AM

Jawgap wrote: »

I'd say it goes both ways - we really don't understand or have an in-depth knowledge of their history either.....

.....we don't even have an in-depth knowledge of our own history! The curriculum up until quite recently was bordering on propaganda and inculcating a certain view of the Irish nation and state into young minds, not teaching them about - and how to analyse history - a fact I really only tumbled into when I started an advanced degree in history!

The Famine is a classic example - as a tragedy it was exceeded by at least one previous famine in the 18th century (we generally suffered a famine every 50 to 75 years and in between there were 'hungers'), but 'unfortunately' in that case we couldn't blame the Brits and the Prods were charitable. We hear so much about the Great Famine because it plays into the narrative of developing 19th Century Irish nationalism.

Surly the reason the famine is most well known is you can't a middling sized town in the country without passing a mass grave for famine victims?

Countless abandoned villages around the country which were left during famine,reason it's known is there's so much physical evidence of it about

I known old people and have relatives what found famine remains will working on farm clearnences,stories of finding dead at the time are still passed down

It is notable and correct to say we suffered such calamities (including small one in 1880s which hardened people towards nationlism)..?but none since independence??

Jawgap · 05-10-2017 08:01AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well alctually the famine in the 18th century wss most lilely caused by reduced landholdings ydue to the gavelkind act.

In fairness if a government passes laws that handicap one portion of the population then it's only fair to lay some of the blame there. I don't think it's nationalistic to think that penal laws might have had a bad effect.

Indeed, but the point being that a much greater tragedy (perhaps even the greatest tragedy suffered by the population on the island) barely rates a mention in the history curriculum - which is not to say the Great Famine should not be taught, only that the reasons why so much attention is given to it and not other famines also need to be explored.

Hoboo · 05-10-2017 08:06AM

Some awful bs being spouted on this thread. If any of the denials, excuses and ignorance were on a holocaust thread it'd be permanent bans all round.

Jawgap · 05-10-2017 08:06AM

tomwaterford wrote: »

Surly the reason the famine is most well known is you can't a middling sized town in the country without passing a mass grave for famine victims?

Countless abandoned villages around the country which were left during famine,reason it's known is there's so much physical evidence of it about

I known old people and have relatives what found famine remains will working on farm clearnences,stories of finding dead at the time are still passed down

It is notable and correct to say we suffered such calamities (including small one in 1880s which hardened people towards nationlism)..?but none since independence??

....which lends weight to Sen's thesis - ''No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy".....

....it kind of comes as surprise to most people, but the concept of 'nationalism' is very much a late 18th Century and 19th Century construct - so I'd suggest there's an argument for viewing how the history of the Great Famine is taught/discussed through the lens of the need to develop those constructs, and in particular the need to identify the 'shared events' which bind 'nations' together.

steddyeddy · 05-10-2017 08:09AM

Hoboo wrote: »

Some awful bs being spouted on this thread. If any of the denials, excuses and ignorance were on a holocaust thread it'd be permanent bans all round.

You don't combat ignorance by silencing it. Let it show itself and reason with it.

Hoboo · 05-10-2017 08:14AM

No point. Ignorance is always afraid of change.

tomwaterford · 05-10-2017 08:18AM

Jawgap wrote: »

....which lends weight to Sen's thesis - ''No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy".....

....it kind of comes as surprise to most people, but the concept of 'nationalism' is very much a late 18th Century and 19th Century construct - so I'd suggest there's an argument for viewing how the history of the Great Famine is taught/discussed through the lens of the need to develop those constructs, and in particular the need to identify the 'shared events' which bind 'nations' together.

Irish people looking for independence since before 1798....at least a century sooner than you perceive nationlism to exist?

The biggest lie in a shared history told about the Famine is that it was a famine

steddyeddy · 05-10-2017 08:32AM

Hoboo wrote: »

No point. Ignorance is always afraid of change.

Well take solace in the fact it is ignorance. The posters had to be corrected on several basic facts that informed their narrative.

SafeSurfer · 05-10-2017 08:54AM

Jawgap wrote: »

keano_afc wrote: »

You only have to watch UK quiz shows to see the lack of knowledge about Ireland. Its incredible how little they know about any aspects of Irish history.

I'd say it goes both ways - we really don't understand or have an in-depth knowledge of their history either.....

.....we don't even have an in-depth knowledge of our own history! The curriculum up until quite recently was bordering on propaganda and inculcating a certain view of the Irish nation and state into young minds, not teaching them about - and how to analyse history - a fact I really only tumbled into when I started an advanced degree in history!

The Famine is a classic example - as a tragedy it was exceeded by at least one previous famine in the 18th century (we generally suffered a famine every 50 to 75 years and in between there were 'hungers'), but 'unfortunately' in that case we couldn't blame the Brits and the Prods were charitable. We hear so much about the Great Famine because it plays into the narrative of developing 19th Century Irish nationalism.

Scale.
We hear so much about the great famine for the same reason everyone has heard of the shooting in Las Vegas yet few have heard of the shooting in Kansas. In one 59 people died, in the other 3 people died.

The great famine isn't well known because it played into a certain narrative. It well known because it shaped the nation st home and abroad for generations to come.

As a student of "advanced" history I am surprised you don't see this.

Jawgap · 05-10-2017 09:13AM

tomwaterford wrote: »

Irish people looking for independence since before 1798....at least a century sooner than you perceive nationlism to exist?

The biggest lie in a shared history told about the Famine is that it was a famine

Sorry, but is the year 1798 not the very definition of "late 18th Century"?

Plus, if you look at what went before, allegiances were to the "chief" not the idea of "nation" and the support was directed towards supporting those leaders in their power struggles against the sovereign......the issue was autonomy and the degree to which "nobles" should have it from the Crown and latterly Parliament.

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

Comments