The Irish Famine

Flamed Diving · 12-04-2010 10:47PM

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......

No, journals don't leave out inconvenient information, unless they have some kind of agenda, which none of the good journals have. By the way, I don't appreciate you describing me as taking peer-reviewed papers as gospel, so cut it out. I just don't buy what strangers on websites say. At least with a good journal, you know there is a filter system, and the authors are professionals. Finally, most journals are not mouthpieces of the government. Maybe a few are, not that I know of them, but most are independent of the government.

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.

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.

Does that Irish Holocaust website have to go through the same process?

PPS: I know they published in an economic journal, but it is an economic history paper and it is the only review I have.

Truthrevolution · 12-04-2010 10:51PM

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;

Flamed Diving · 12-04-2010 11:06PM

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;

But they didn't. They largely refused to intervene in the market, thus allowing food to be exported. But this isn't a deliberate act of holding back food supplies, by any stretch.

Some snippets from a famous book:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pWELdyf54HQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&ots=2FGPnle7HT&sig=_EhxSbDlguZDauaWqxlojaMb5us#v=onepage&q=import&f=false

Denerick · 12-04-2010 11:06PM

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

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 · 12-04-2010 11:14PM

Another sample of a book, written by Cormac O'Grada, who is internationally renowned as an expert on the Irish Famine, and as an economic historian, in general.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=X0uf6t8VfAsC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=irish+famine+imports&ots=c1WDMBTrY6&sig=B55tL-gaN_dDF8TJm9Amr5iZ5x8#v=onepage&q=irish%20famine%20imports&f=false

Note the paragraph, at the end:

'While no academic historian takes seriously any more the claim of 'genocide', the issue of blame remains controversial.'

Note in the peer review I provided above, the author of the paper was recommended to read O'Grada's work. The author being Nathan Nunn of Harvard, one of the top economic historians. As far as the Irish Famine goes, he is the best. Now, I don't believe in arguments from authority, so I'm not saying it is 'gospel'. But it is stronger than a website.

Flamed Diving · 12-04-2010 11:15PM

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.

So what is the process for someone submitting a paper to, say, IHS?

Denerick · 12-04-2010 11:22PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So what is the process for someone submitting a paper to, say, IHS?

I PMed you.

Because its a conspiracy.

Sorry, had to make that lame joke.

GarlicBread · 13-04-2010 01:06AM

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.

Flamed Diving · 13-04-2010 08:59AM

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.

Note how the post is backed by little evidence, and only assumption and spurious interpretation. A little note for you, GB, just because the British government acknowledged that they messed up (which no one doubts), doesn't mean they admitted genocide. Only a mind which has already concluded this absurd result could believe that.

GB, unless you back up your nonsense "no more than a million will die statements" with historical evidence (not a blog), then I have no reason to assume that it has merit. You may as well say that a giant lizard ate the million. I know you said that you "couldn't be arsed", but that laziness does not imply that evidence is easy to find, as you so clearly assert. I have studied the topic for years now, at educational institutions, taught by some of the worlds experts in the field, and I have never come across that claim. I have studed the historiography of the Irish Famine, that means I have read through the Irish journal literature from the 1930s to the 1990s, and once again, I never came across any such accusation. The only person in Irish history who ever made genocide claims was John Mitchel, and his book has been thoroughly ripped to pieces by now.

So, produce the evidence. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.

Denerick · 13-04-2010 11:53AM

I see we're back to the 'of course it was a genocide, racist' argument. Throw in some contempt of research and somehow you get a thesis. If only university were so easy, we'd all be professors at this stage.

GarlicBread · 13-04-2010 03:29PM

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.

Flamed Diving · 13-04-2010 04:09PM

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.

Note how he begins with an admission of ignorance. A humble move. Then moves to state that since Joe Public is confused, there must be weight to the story. Then he attempts to give any conspiracy theory credibility by implying that since it challenges the established story (about a century of history writing, which has swayed back and forth on this issue, but not to genocide), there must be something to it. This leads to a baseless accusation against historical research, as somehow wanting to keep the record "clean". No evidence is offered for this claim. To summarise, he simply states that the famine happened because of racism (surprise, surprise), and to deny it is to cover up the truth, again, spitting in the face of every historian who has spent their lives researching the subject. An underhanded post of the highest order. Pretending to be humble, and then making bold, arrogant statements about a subject he knows nothing about.

Pathetic, GB. No other word for it. You could not sink any lower.

enno99 · 13-04-2010 04:14PM

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.

Denerick · 13-04-2010 04:19PM

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.

WIKIPEDIA!

I rest my case.

The difference is that I know what I'm talking about and have read widely in the scholarship. You post internet links and expect us all to grind to a halt.

Denerick · 13-04-2010 04:20PM

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.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, this is a hallmark of enlightenment philosophy. But please do not confuse this principle with the idea that everybodies opinion has equal validity. You are a breathing example of why this is not the case.

Flamed Diving · 13-04-2010 04:21PM

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.

Again, where does that even imply genocide?

Secondly, can you guess why Denerick's position doesn't matter to me?

enno99 · 13-04-2010 04:24PM

The link was to show that the quote dose not only appear in blogs
how you interpret it is entirely up to you

Denerick · 13-04-2010 04:26PM

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

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.

Flamed Diving · 13-04-2010 04:32PM

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."

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.

enno99 · 13-04-2010 05:06PM

I have read all your links and thank you. You have helped me understand many things I wont say I understand them fully but iI will revisit them again
the links to Malthuse /histography/ guns steeel and germs and the others

I knew when posting the link what your response would be I just wanted to show it was not made up by some blogger.

Flamed Diving · 13-04-2010 05:11PM

That's fine. You have to admit though, the quote is completely out of it's context. Who knows, maybe in the next paragraph he outlines how he intends to eat the children of the Irish or maybe he outlines how Ireland's problem with overpopulation will cause them to return to famine again and again, but when it is presented like that, it is clearly leading people on.

Anyway, I made a minor edit to it. I think I am being reasonable:

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Contemporary

enno99 · 13-04-2010 05:20PM

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

partyfeet · 13-04-2010 05:21PM

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.

Hi,,,I remember many years ago a teacher in school telling
us Britain was in a war in Europe somewhere at the time of
the potato blight , so most of the food we produced was
shipped there to feed their troops/soldiers . So sad

.

Flamed Diving · 13-04-2010 05:28PM

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

Maybe in a big country, but there isn't really that many historical journals in Ireland. And they haven't been ignoring the issue of genocide, like you all seem to think. During the troubles up the North in the late-60s/70s, you naturally saw an increase in less-than-favourable articles about the British, and that included the famine. It almost veered on the genocide end of things, but it never did. Just very angry, heavy-handed blame. But genocide isn't ignored in the literature. Far from it.

enno99 · 13-04-2010 05:43PM

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

enno99 · 13-04-2010 06:22PM

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.

I had no pre-conceived notions of anything relating to this until I came across it here a couple if days ago
Where I also found out cromwell sold Irish citizens into slavery
Thats the beauty of this site The truth will out
With regards to quote mining I just dont want to be pompous and think my opinion would be suffice

Flamed Diving · 13-04-2010 06:39PM

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

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 · 13-04-2010 06:59PM

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.

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 · 13-04-2010 07:07PM

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

I never said they all followed it, and that they applied it, at all times. In typical governmental fashion, they half-assed a rescue attempt, but then pulled out towards the end. Look, there were many reasons why they did this, all you have to do is read a book, I really recommend O'Grada's work, which I linked to above.

mysterious · 15-04-2010 12:27PM

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.

Covers my face with my hands and sings Oh almighty.

You do realise that graph HAS NOTHING to do with the problem of the Irish Famine. This kind of nonsense just really get's to me in this day and age.

The rescources and food suplly was not the problem. Over population was not the problem.

The problem was, it was a holocaust. I just don't care what sort of crap we learn in school cus its crap. I'm sick and tired of this brainwashing and false facts on this issue.

The English created a holocaust. They took our other crops, made us rent the land and over many years they made us TOTALLY dependant on the potato crop.They exported all other crops, and then sent the blight in and wiped out half the country.

It was genocide.

That graph HAS no relevance to this matter whatsoever. The Population of England was rising at the same rate of Ireland at the time.

The Irish Famine

Comments