Truthrevolution wrote: » I see where you are coming from FD.While the peer review system filters out the bull**** do you think it could be possible that they also filter out information because its inconvenient? The difference between you and me is that you will only take peer reviewed information as gospel and anything outside of this domain could not be even considered.Whereas with me i know that institutions and governments tell lies so that is why i dont dismiss alternative sources of information and dont believe everything that we are officially told......
Denerick wrote: » Who's the official? The Irish Historical Review is not run by the government. Unless you think it is? I'm really not sure I agree with FD whether the learned journals are indeed 'peer reviewed' in the scientific understanding of the term. Yes, unattributed statements will be held to scrutiny in the editing process but it isn't water-tight either. Historical monographs by individual historians will have footnotes, which attribute sources, and we also know about the past form of the individual historian. What do we know about the author of 'Irish Holocaust'? That is the key difference.
Truthrevolution wrote: » If the British military deliberately held back food supplies then under todays UN law it could definitely be defined as genocide....... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religeous group, such as.... (c)Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
I don't think you have read a historical peer review. Here is one for the Nunn & Qian paper I linked to above. See if you disagree. For those who don't know what this is, when they attempted to publish their paper in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, they were rejected on these grounds. Only after they made adjustments, were they allowed in
Denerick wrote: » As far as I can tell that is not a historical paper in the traditional sense. Its an economic paper. Any of the scholarship I've ever read cannot be strictly classified as having undergone 'peer review' processes. Thats a process which belongs to the scientific world, not the historical academic world. History is as much an art as it is a science.
Flamed Diving wrote: » So what is the process for someone submitting a paper to, say, IHS?
GarlicBread wrote: » In the 1990's Tony Blair did apologise on behalf of "those who ruled westminister at the time". Regardless of what exactly he was apologizing for, its pretty rare to have britain saying sorry for somthing that happened a very(VERY) long time ago. Unless they know damn well themselves that somthing seriously f**ked up occured and it merited an apology. There some royal strategist guy at the time quoted as saying "no more than a million will die" or somthing to that effect and theres more than enough evidence to show that they took advantage of the situation to cull the population. I cba digging stuff up its pretty easy for people to do it for themselves if they want. Im no intelectually advanced historical genius, but the norm seems to be that about 1m or over was the death toll. Then you have irishholocaust saying over 5m died. Im not putting my eggs in either basket but there is a massive difference between 1m and 5m. So much of a difference in fact that you could easily say by the laws of probabilty that the death toll must be, at least, somwhere in between. It would be way to retarded to just jump up the figure by 4m and expect to get away with it. Even if you were some sort of mega ultra irish supremicist porky pie baker, 4m is a bit too far. Either way, it was genocide. Irish people died in their millions because of racism, theres no disputing that. The only compelling thing that struck me about the irishholocaust claims is that the term 'famine' implies a self inflicted wound and that the irish have carried a self disrespect ever since because of this terminology. Its not unfair to suggest that it be looked at again to establish that it was in fact not a self inflicted wound. Can that be done without labeling it genocide? Or does it have to be one or the other? I think this is the problem because people are gonna fling **** at eachother mercilessly if the conclusion falls on either side of the argument. How to respect the dead(and ourselves) properly, but not point the finger of blame and cause pandemonium in the process? This was the issue being discussed on the newstalk show.
GarlicBread wrote: » Thats fair enough, im not on here attacking anyone im just pointing out that there does seem to be alot of uncertaincy about the nature and causes of the famine even in the mainstream as represented on that newstalk show i heard. Newstalk radio, coleman at large, go listen to it on the site its very interesting and its about as mainstream as you are going to get. This isnt a history thread, its a conspiracy thread. Perhaps it should be moved to the relevent forum so the experts on all sides can have a good go at it instead of people like me with my (uneducated)opinions getting thrashed around. Its not a conspiracy theory at all, its just precieved as one because its challenging the estabished story. But then again is that not what the whole idea of conspiracy theories are in the first place, to push away uncomfortable truths into the area of no mans land in order to discredit and destroy them and keep them as far away from the mainstream as possible, to keep the historical record clean and politically safe. You can site my lack of exact facts, links and even a degree, but its still a legitmate argument that anyone is entitled to regardless of bias or percieved intelectual inferiority. The famine did happen because of racism. To deny that is just an insult and a covering up of the truth, even if done unwittingly.
enno99 wrote: » Still other critics saw reflected in the government's response the government's attitude to the so-called "Irish Question." Nassau Senior, an economics professor at Oxford University, wrote that the Famine "would not kill more than one million people, and that would scarcely be enough to do any good."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29 I think you will find if you go through denerick,s posts you wont find any links either But that dont seem to matter.
The famine did happen because of racism. To deny that is just an insult and a covering up of the truth, even if done unwittingly.
enno99 wrote: » The link was to show that the quote dose not only appear in blogs how you interpret it is entirely up to you
Still other critics saw reflected in the government's response the government's attitude to the so-called "Irish Question." Nassau Senior, an economics professor at Oxford University, wrote that the Famine "would not kill more than one million people, and that would scarcely be enough to do any good."
Still other critics saw reflected in the government's response the government's attitude to the so-called "Irish Question." Nassau Senior, an economics professor at Oxford University, wrote that the Famine "would not kill more than one million people, and that would scarcely be enough to do any good."[128] It is not clear from this quote, however, whether Nassau Senior was speaking from a Malthusian context.
samson09 wrote: » The Irish Famine was a holocaust greater than that experienced by the Jews at the hands of nazi Germany. I remeber reading old records detailing the amount of food that was exported out of the country to Britain during the height of the famine (as Britain was also going through crop failures of its own). I cant for the life of me find the documents but I'll keep trying. Does anyone have any stories passed down from relatives about what happened back then. I feel the version we were taught as children isnt a true reflection of what actually happened.
enno99 wrote: » Yes you could say that About Historiography In the wiki page on historigraphy is says The term "historiography" can also refer to a specific body of historical writing that was written at a specific time concerning a specific subject. For instance, a statement about "medieval historiography" would refer to some issue in the academic discipline of Medieval History, and not to the actual history of the Middle Ages or to historical works written in that time Sorry for the copy paste thing but Im s*it at typing Can it not be argued that some important elements might be left out of the mix If they wree referencing journals of the period where the author was under some sort of threat
Denerick wrote: » Nobody disputes that the Irish Holocaust website does not cite relevant materials - ie, correspondence etc. What I dispute is the conclusions that it draws from the materials consulted. Though I suspect that, like you, the author engages in 'quote mining' - ie, digging up citations in order to prove a pre-conceived thesis, instead of allowing the evidence to form the argument.
enno99 wrote: » I understand your point in the social and economic climate of the period of not to interfere could the raising of taxes and stopping of ships carrying aid from the US The opposition to the corn laws repeal ( am i right in thiking these were exempt from Laissez-faire)not be seen as interference Therefore not be used as an excuse
Flamed Diving wrote: » I'm not using the laissez-faire argument, though. Maybe Denrick is. I am merely stating that economic professors of their day would likely have seen the famine as a Malthusian outcome, and they would be correct in thinking that. This would have lead them to the recourse that Ireland's population must decrease or it will face a never-ending string of famines and abject poverty. Too many people, on little plots of land, all growing the same crop, and unable to break the cycle. As harsh and cold as it may sound, they probably saw the famine as the only way this cycle could be broken, using Malthusian Theory as a tool of analysis. When I try to think as they might have, they could have easily arrived at the conclusion that providing aid would only worsen Ireland's lot, in the long-run. This, to me (and the professionals) seems to be the most likely explanation. They deserve to be held beneath contempt for their actions and reasoning, but there was a logic to it, and it had nothing to do with deliberate extermination.
enno99 wrote: » But if that was the reasoning why interfere at all with soup kitchens /work houses british relief funds etc I seems they justified it with the malthuse theory but did not adhere to it which makes it even worse because they prolonged the whole process Can this really be the case
Flamed Diving wrote: » I know exactly what he means by it. I already mentioned the prevailing economic theory of its time. I understand exactly what he meant by that statement, and you know what? He was correct. If you would like to know why, let me know. You know what, I really don't have the time to sit here and write pages of material that you won't even take in. I mean, if I haven't made my case by now, I never will. So, I will provide you with the tools to work this out. The economics professor above was speaking from a Malthusian perspective. It so blatantly obvious to anyone who has studied this, but when quotes are taken out of context like that and presented to those not in in the know, it is highly disingenuous. In fact, I am considering editing that section to include my point. Anyway, here is a chapter you should read, sums it all up:http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uHWj6wy36oEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&ots=cZf0Atkq9p&sig=B1qvbqoHlLeU2iK3lgK-X_rg8og#v=onepage&q&f=false A wiki for the lazy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe and some graphs: Do the work yourself, for a change.
