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

Irish potato famine - Irish were really this hated??

bo0li5eumx12kp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2zklucyTFU

I learned about this a little in school but, wasn't aware the full extent of the depravity.

The pivotal aspect for me is this videos description of the British leaders contempt for the Irish "personality".

Abbreviated it goes, "this is a punishment of the character of the Irish, one we don't want to interfere with too much".

Helluva statement.

I was raised in Ireland and to be quite frank, I wipe my ass with Irish culture also.

One aspect of it I like is its affinity for the sport of boxing, but this arguably stems from culture manifesting via the IABA, and.... that promoted by the travelling community?
Correct me if I'm wrong.

That being said, I would never wish such a fate on anyone or any culture as heinous as a famine; some leaders at the time were clearly not as cool headed however.

Elitism and financial gain were clearly at play also as, Ireland had plentiful food stocks, but exported everything for profit, ahead of using it to feed their own starving citizens.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

whippet

Finn Dwyer's Podcast - Irish History Podcast has an incredible 30 or so episode long series giving a really in-depth history of the time.

It is worth a listen as he tries to be as impartial as possible about the whole thing and it is quite clear that there is more to it than what was in our history books in school

whisky_galore

Brit whingefest #1,674,234 and counting.

[Deleted User]

whisky_galore wrote: »

Brit whingefest #1,674,234 and counting.

And not half enough. Vile nation.

bo0li5eumx12kp

whisky_galore wrote: »

Brit whingefest #1,674,234 and counting.

Dafuq??

Just for record, I am British.

It's not one nation versus another, it's an attempt to understand the concept of actions.

whisky_galore

Paulina Fat Manganese wrote: »

Dafuq??

Just for record, I am British, dipsh1t.

It's not one nation versus another, it's an attempt to understand the concept of actions.

Language, Timothy.

whisky_galore

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

And not half enough. Vile nation.

Build a bridge and get over it, sweetheart.

It's tiresome and more than a little boring.

LaFuton

wipe ur ass with irish culture?

nobody is stopping ye leave.

Boredstiff666

It had nowt to do with being Irish. Ireland had nothing that England wanted. No gold or anything. So the only thing the business men and aristocracy wanted was to make money from peasants. Just as they did all over the UK.

The Irish peasant was no different than the English, Welsh, or Scottish peasant. Or in fact any other peasant all over Europe.

The peasants weren't allowed land anywhere and you paid your masters rent and other taxes. And the landlords in Ireland weren't all English either. Some were Irish and even took their place in Westminister as well. So it wasnt a hatred of the Irish as some would make you believe.

But the potato famine just happened to come along at a convenient time after the industrial revolution and gone were the days of your granny with a spinning wheel. Now they had industrialised wool and other production and the demand for wool was huge.

So the money was in sheep for wool and meat and peasant farmers were uneconomical.

So the land clearances began all over Europe. People off......sheep on.

Hence the mass emigration/immigration of Europeans to the New World.

But that aint a popular history story to tell.

Of course thousands of starving peasants in Englands streets wouldn't have gone down too well. But Ireland was far away so out of sight out of mind.

If they could have done the same in England, they certainly would have no problem and probably did in some places.

[Deleted User]

whisky_galore wrote: »

Build a bridge and get over it, sweetheart.

It's tiresome and more than a little boring.

Oh, well if you say so that changes everything. Will get right on it.

RobertKK

I find it emotional reading about the famine or watching programs or videos on it.
The comments under the video are interesting too.
It could all have been avoided if the powers that be had wanted it to avoided. It is something we still live with to this very day as the effects of the famine are still present.

Graces7

As we know; the blight was a natural disaster; the famine was man-made. Genocide. Including by rich Irish .

RobertKK wrote: »

I find it emotional reading about the famine or watching programs or videos on it.
The comments under the video are interesting too.
It could all have been avoided if the powers that be had wanted it to avoided. It is something we still live with to this very day as the effects of the famine are still present.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

So the land clearances began all over Europe. People off......sheep on.

Hence the mass emigration/immigration of Europeans to the New World.

But that aint a popular history story to tell.

Of course thousands of starving peasants in Englands streets wouldn't have gone down too well. But Ireland was far away so out of sight out of mind.

If they could have done the same in England, they certainly would have no problem and probably did in some places.

Not sure I understand your point here exactly.

Your contention is this was a case of class vs class as oppose to culture vs culture?

I've historically viewed the majority of Irish culture, especially the old school areas out in the sticks like Gaeltacht areas, as really hanging on by their nails to some old school values.

Ireland rode the coattails of the EU all the way to modern standards of living but historically?
Is Ireland the embodiment of peasant class?
In some ways, I've believed that.

Maybe like out regions of some dump baltic states like romania, place where Borat was filmed etc.

So, to surmise what you seem to be saying is, crap rolls down hill?

My beef is, how can peasant classes ever evolve without support from the more fortunate...

RobertKK

Paulina Fat Manganese wrote: »

Not sure I understand your point here exactly.

Your contention is this was a case of class vs class as oppose to culture vs culture?

I've historically viewed the majority of Irish culture, especially the old school areas out in the sticks like Gaeltacht areas, as really hanging on by their nails to some old school values.

Ireland rode the coattails of the EU all the way to modern standards of living but historically?
Is Ireland the embodiment of peasant class?
In some ways, I've believed that.

Maybe like out regions of some dump baltic states like romania, place where Borat was filmed etc.

So, to surmise what you seem to be saying is, crap rolls down hill?

My beef is, how can peasant classes ever evolve without support from the more fortunate...

Borat was filmed in a Roma village which is not typical Romanian, it would be like filming in an Irish Traveller halting site here and thinking it is how Irish people live. I think you meant Balkans instead of Baltic.

Boredstiff666

Paulina Fat Manganese wrote: »

Not sure I understand your point here exactly.

Your contention is this was a case of class vs class as oppose to culture vs culture?

I've historically viewed the majority of Irish culture, especially the old school areas out in the sticks like Gaeltacht areas, as really hanging on by their nails to some old school values.

Ireland rode the coattails of the EU all the way to modern standards of living but historically?
Is Ireland the embodiment of peasant class?
In some ways, I've believed that.

Maybe like out regions of some dump baltic states like romania, place where Borat was filmed etc.

So, to surmise what you seem to be saying is, crap rolls down hill?

My beef is, how can peasant classes ever evolve without support from the more fortunate...

It's quite simple in those days prior to WW1 you had 2 classes ....them and us.

Us.....was peasants/working class. English Irish Scots Welsh and Euro.

Them......was the Aristocracy and hangers on who just happened to own all the major businesses, land, wealth etc.

Ireland never had any natural assets to invade for. They were invaded to keep the others from invading and threatening the Britain.

If they were able too then Ireland would have been invaded by the French, Dutch and especially the Spanish to wage war on Britain or really England. So Britain had no choice but to invade Ireland and control it to keep its enemies away.

Them.....took rent from all peasants all over Britain and Ireland until they could make more money from sheep and the land clearances began all over Britain.

The Europeans did exactly the same. The potato blight was a blessing in disguise and so was the 'New World' for the Aristocracy across Europe.

It wasn't that the English hated the Irish. It was the Aristocracy just didnt think anything of peasants. Peasants were only any good when they were any good. When not they weren't worth the ****e on their boots.

You dont give good food to peasants when you can sell it. Starving to death was ok when they didnt have to see it. So stick it in a boat and forget about it or if its far enough away then thats ok.

Ipso

RobertKK wrote: »

It could all have been avoided if the powers that be had wanted it to avoided. .

Indifference more than genocide.

Boredstiff666

Ipso wrote: »

Indifference more than genocide.

Also ignorance. It wasn't the upper classes problem if a bunch of scum couldnt feed themselves so they most probably werent interested in any problems of the lower classes or bothered to learn of such.

In those days skinny dirty people dressed in rags lying on the roadside were common around most towns and cities. That is where the poorest folk lived. On the side of the road. They never had houses. Under a bush if you were lucky.

If there was too many of you or Lady snooty knickers objected to the sight of you, then you would be moved on. But then rotting corpses would have been a bit too much.

One of the most hilarious things is the point that people make regards Irish immigrants and how they were accepted so now Irish people must make exceptions and welcome immigrants into Ireland en mass.

Nobody wanted Irish immigrants. The nearest place for any homeless starving Irish would have been the UK. But the answer to that was no. So the 'New World' was the place for them.

But the Americans already there despised the new wave of Irish (and other) poor landing there and treated them as bad as what the Aristocracy had done back in Ireland.

When you got off that boat in America you did get offered work straight away if you were fit.........The Cavalry. You were needed as peace keepers and Indian fighters for peanuts and a very hard life.

The young and the women were most likely slaves or prostitutes........or you starved.

bob mcbob

Just thought I'd drop this into the thread. This is about the impact of the famine on Scotland when there was also a famine going on in the highlands.

https://journals.openedition.org/mimmoc/1763

Graces7

No as you will see if you read behind the obvious scenario.

Look at where the majority of deaths happened? Not the well off, but the poor folk who lived in mud huts etc and were in the way of the rich Irish and English landowners. Look who got evicted, their houses pulled down... Look who starved?

When there was more than enough food in Ireland to feed everyone, they sent it abroad. Quite wilfully and intentionally

This was totally planned and deliberate. Look at who would benefit from the removal of the "bog-dwellers".

Three agencies; the English . the richer Irish and the Catholic Church combined to eradicate the poorer folk. The Church had plans for Ireland and the multitude of very poor were in the way.

Genocide against their own, well researched by historians including myself, and shockingly well documented.. Greed for land and status.

Ipso wrote: »

Indifference more than genocide.

Boredstiff666

Graces7 wrote: »

No as you will see if you read behind the obvious scenario.

Look at where the majority of deaths happened? Not the well off, but the poor folk who lived in mud huts etc and were in the way of the rich Irish and English landowners. Look who got evicted, their houses pulled down... Look who starved?

When there was more than enough food in Ireland to feed everyone, they sent it abroad. Quite wilfully and intentionally

This was totally planned and deliberate. Look at who would benefit from the removal of the "bog-dwellers".

Three agencies; the English . the richer Irish and the Catholic Church combined to eradicate the poorer folk. The Church had plans for Ireland and the multitude of very poor were in the way.

Genocide against their own, well researched by historians including myself, and shockingly well documented.. Greed for land and status.

Exactly but they always blame the English.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Graces7 wrote: »

No as you will see if you read behind the obvious scenario.

Look at where the majority of deaths happened? Not the well off, but the poor folk who lived in mud huts etc and were in the way of the rich Irish and English landowners. Look who got evicted, their houses pulled down... Look who starved?

When there was more than enough food in Ireland to feed everyone, they sent it abroad. Quite wilfully and intentionally

This was totally planned and deliberate. Look at who would benefit from the removal of the "bog-dwellers".

Three agencies; the English . the richer Irish and the Catholic Church combined to eradicate the poorer folk. The Church had plans for Ireland and the multitude of very poor were in the way.

Genocide against their own, well researched by historians including myself, and shockingly well documented.. Greed for land and status.

This is posted with more clarity than boredstiff - whose posts seem informed but come off as a rant.

I'm trying to determine the emotional complex of the time - the human relationships.
The juxtaposition of one person to another.
The form.
And the content.

:pac::pac::pac:

I guess land = status, so basically, status?

What you're saying is, this was a calculated move on behalf of the power owners?
The actual potato virus just facilitated their means, basically?

Boredstiff666

Paulina Fat Manganese wrote: »

This is posted with more clarity than boredstiff - whose posts seem informed but come off as a rant.

I'm trying to determine the emotional complex of the time - the human relationships.
The juxtaposition of one person to another.
The form.
And the content.

:pac::pac::pac:

I guess land = status, so basically, status?

What you're saying is, this was a calculated move on behalf of the power owners?
The actual potato virus just facilitated their means, basically?

It's not a rant.

Look the Aristocracy and their hangers on were in one class and the rest were seen as vermin unless they had a use for them.

The poor were there to suit the Aristocracy and thats it.

When WW1 came everything was supposed to change and a lot of things did.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

It's not a rant.

Look the Aristocracy and their hangers on were in one class and the rest were seen as vermin unless they had a use for them.

The poor were there to suit the Aristocracy and thats it.

There's no way you can dress this up.

When WW1 came everything was supposed to change and a lot of things did.

How, and why?

I slept through history at school cause its delivery was abominable.

It changed how people thought is the core concept but, how - and why?

Boredstiff666

When WW1 came the people were told that they would be given more rights etc if they basically went to war and fought for their country.

Remember in the UK women had only just got the right to vote.

Ireland was promised something like home rule as well and I think in excess of 200,000 Irish people went off to fight for Britain but also whatever had been promised to them.

The Germans saw the dodgyness of the Irish fighting with the rest of the British forces and tried to undermine it by promising Irish rebels I think it was 50,000 guns to stage an uprising.

They could never keep this promise as they had no access for their ships to to sail and do this. So in one respect it was a trick to stage an uprising and split the unity. The uprising came anyway and you know the rest.

For UK peasant/working class people there were lots of changes after the war. Ireland of course went off in a different direction.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Paulina Fat Manganese wrote: »

This is posted with more clarity than boredstiff - whose posts seem informed but come off as a rant.

I'm trying to determine the emotional complex of the time - the human relationships.
The juxtaposition of one person to another.
The form.
And the content.

:pac::pac::pac:

I guess land = status, so basically, status?

What you're saying is, this was a calculated move on behalf of the power owners?
The actual potato virus just facilitated their means, basically?

No, the famine didn't facilitate some grand plan. For centuries the ruling classes deprived the Irish poor of their land, language, trade, education, and vote. The British government had long upheld the absolute right of landlords to evict Irish families. They did not need the famine to rid themselves of tenants and they were most certainly not making a grab for land, as they already owned it.
There are two distinct elements of the famine: the cause and the reaction to it.
The cause lies firmly at the feet of the English landlords who forced the population into a state of near starvation and a reliance in the potato for survival while exporting the ample fruits of their labours.
The response of the British government was abysmal and is well documented.
Any action, or lack of same, by the Catholic Church was of little consequence as they were, to all intents and purposes, powerless in most civil matters at the time.
The reasons for the inaction or insufficient action by landlords and the authorities stems from the doctrine of laissez-faire from the whig government who believed that the market would provide the food needed, and they refused to intervene against food exports to England while halting the previous government's food and relief works, leaving many hundreds of thousands of people without any work, money, or food.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

When WW1 came the people were told that they would be given more rights etc if they basically went to war and fought for their country.

Remember in the UK women had only just got the right to vote.

Ireland was promised something like home rule as well and I think in excess of 200,000 Irish people went off to fight for Britain but also whatever had been promised to them.

The Germans saw the dodgyness of the Irish fighting with the rest of the British forces and tried to undermine it by promising Irish rebels I think it was 50,000 guns to stage an uprising.

They could never keep this promise as they had no access for their ships to to sail and do this. So in one respect it was a trick to stage an uprising and split the unity. The uprising came anyway and you know the rest.

For UK peasant/working class people there were lots of changes after the war. Ireland of course went off in a different direction.

A lot of the changes in attitudes brought about were caused by the women having to get jobs to support the war effort and taking on a lot of jobs previously undertaken by men. The women found themselves well able to carry out much of the required work and were resentful when the men returned from the war and walked back into their previous work while the women were told to return home.

It was, in many ways, a watershed moment in Womens Lib.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

A lot of the changes in attitudes brought about were caused by the women having to get jobs to support the war effort and taking on a lot of jobs previously undertaken by men. The women found themselves well able to carry out much of the required work and were resentful when the men returned from the war and walked back into their previous work while the women were told to return home.

It was, in many ways, a watershed moment in Womens Lib.

Hmph.

Change in attitudes you feel are most relevant to womenz societal position?

It's just funny you should say that cause, the oppressive mentality I mean, clearly to me - it's inter-gender first and foremost, and then extends to every other aspect of society.

Your allusion suggests, that inter-gender disparity begins to come into balance and we get this kind of cascade element of attitude modification as to other societal imbalances.

But man versus bitch woman is the overarching premise;

Am I taking too much away from your post?

Buford T. Justice XIX

Paulina Fat Manganese wrote: »

Hmph.

Change in attitudes you feel are most relevant to womenz societal position?

It's just funny you should say that cause, the oppressive mentality I mean, clearly to me - it's inter-gender first and foremost, and then extends to every other aspect of society.

Your allusion suggests, that inter-gender disparity begins to come into balance and we get this kind of cascade element of attitude modification as to other societal imbalances.

But man versus bitch woman is the overarching premise;

Am I taking too much away from your post?

Way too much.

Many women would have followed societal norms of staying at home and having children and not looked at having a career because it would be outside the normal course for the majority of women.

All of a sudden, they found they were in jobs, getting well paid and able to manage all the responsibility of work and living independent lives without the world falling apart.

Anything outside that is all yours.

The Rape of Lucretia

Graces7 wrote: »

No as you will see if you read behind the obvious scenario.

Look at where the majority of deaths happened? Not the well off, but the poor folk who lived in mud huts etc and were in the way of the rich Irish and English landowners. Look who got evicted, their houses pulled down... Look who starved?

When there was more than enough food in Ireland to feed everyone, they sent it abroad. Quite wilfully and intentionally

This was totally planned and deliberate. Look at who would benefit from the removal of the "bog-dwellers".

Three agencies; the English . the richer Irish and the Catholic Church combined to eradicate the poorer folk. The Church had plans for Ireland and the multitude of very poor were in the way.

Genocide against their own, well researched by historians including myself, and shockingly well documented.. Greed for land and status.

In addition to being ill informed, this type of post is uncalled for, and unhelpful.

bo0li5eumx12kp

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

In addition to being ill informed, this type of post is uncalled for, and unhelpful.

Ill informed how?

archer22

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Exactly but they always blame the English.

Yep the ones producing and exporting the food were the strong Irish catholic farmers and merchants not the landlords.
The ones who starved were the Cottiers, who were tenants of the strong Irish farmers who were subletting them small plots and using them as slave labour.

Also the strong Irish farmers and merchants made a killing selling food to the poor houses at exorbitant rip off prices

Look at the aftermath of the famine....the strong Irish Farmers and merchants were the new rich, and most of the Anglo landlords were bust and trying to sell their lands, and there was a ready pool of buyers in the new rich class.

You could also take a look at all the fine Catholic churches built in the two decades after the famine with donations from Catholic farmers and merchants..seems a lot of those chaps may have had a guilty conscience and were trying to buy their way into heaven,