Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Irish famine?

1235»

Comments

  • #202
    Arsemageddon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Arsemageddon


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    I think that is a rather biased and inaccurate
    interpretation given the context of the era and events. You might like to read
    this on Jstor which gives an opposite interpretation
    of your claims.

    Funnily enough I've actually read this article before Pedro, and based my opinions of Victoria on it. Victoria's Civil list allowance (monies given to her by parliament) was significantly lower than her predecessors, but still amounted to a whopping £385,000 per year, £60,000 of which was allocated to the privy purse (i.e. Victoria's pocket money). Anything left over from the remaining £325,000 (used for all her other expenses) also went to the privy purse, this amounted to about £25,000 p/a. The income from her two private estates amounted to an approximate average of £35,000 p/a in the 1840's. That all amounts to an annual income of about £105-110,000 p/a during the 1840's,
    .
    These figures do not include the 'loot' she was presented with from colonial wars, little perks like the koo-i-noor diamond which she received from the British India company in 1850 which was conservatively valued at £100,000. In addition Albert had an annual allowance of £30,000.

    Bearing all that in mind, I still hold to my opinion that £2000 was not a lot of money (as claimed by Fred). Better than nothing, but little more than an average weeks income for Victoria.

    All that said I think the 'Famine Queen' label is grossly unfair to her, The government were responsible for what happened in Ireland, not the monarch.

    Prior to the Great Famine, Irish famines tended to be
    single-year events –
    it is easy today to criticise actions in 1845-9 with the benefit of hindsight
    and our knowledge that the Famine lasted for
    upwards of five years. Of course I agree that there was mismanagement, but it and other actions must be assessed in
    the light of the knowledge, mores and criteria of the era.

    Were just going to have to disagree on this point. I firmly believe that the governments response to the famine and the attitude of many in the administration, the media and other public figures and intellectuals was morally reprehensible. There can be no justification for the richest country in the world allowing a million of its citizens to die so they could slavishly adhere to an economic ideology.

    The 'that's the way things were at the time' argument doesn't cut it for me either. That kind of logic can be used to justify slavery, pogroms, genocide, etc


    A simple fact remains - Victoria was the largest single donor to famine
    relief, it was a substantial sum of money in itself, and led to a
    one-hundredfold amount (£200k) being raised. Compare that with the USA (which
    had huge ties to Ireland) - that same year, the US Senate tried to provide
    Famine relief, but failed to get it passed. The US President, James Polk, made a
    $50 donation, which had to be hammered out of him according to media reports.
    The following year (1848) the US under Polk tried – and failed - to buy Cuba
    from the Spanish for $100 million.

    I genuinely don't see the relevance of comparing what the US did to what the UK government did. The Irish weren't exactly the most popular ethnic group in America at the time. The Irish who reached the US during the famine were generally poor, unskilled, Irish speaking Catholics, as such they weren't made feel overly welcome.

    As for the proposed purchase of Cuba, a better comparison might be the £70m spent by Britain on the Crimean War compared with the £7m spent on famine relief.
    I like to see things in perspective.

    Sure, don't we all.


  • #203
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Arse, that has got to be the best post on this entire thread


  • #204
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Mods Mods! Someone's being insulting!!!!


    (Does that ring a bell Frederick???)

    Jesus, have you contributed anything to this thread other than petty name calling?


  • #205
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    Funnily enough I've actually read this article before Pedro, and based my opinions of Victoria on it. Victoria's Civil list allowance (monies given to her by parliament) was significantly lower than her predecessors, but still amounted to a whopping £385,000 per year, £60,000 of which was allocated to the privy purse (i.e. Victoria's pocket money). Anything left over from the remaining £325,000 (used for all her other expenses) also went to the privy purse, this amounted to about £25,000 p/a. The income from her two private estates amounted to an approximate average of £35,000 p/a in the 1840's. That all amounts to an annual income of about £105-110,000 p/a during the 1840's,
    .
    These figures do not include the 'loot' she was presented with from colonial wars, little perks like the koo-i-noor diamond which she received from the British India company in 1850 which was conservatively valued at £100,000. In addition Albert had an annual allowance of £30,000.

    Bearing all that in mind, I still hold to my opinion that £2000 was not a lot of money (as claimed by Fred). Better than nothing, but little more than an average weeks income for Victoria.

    All that said I think the 'Famine Queen' label is grossly unfair to her, The government were responsible for what happened in Ireland, not the monarch.

    Were just going to have to disagree on this point. I firmly believe that the governments response to the famine and the attitude of many in the administration, the media and other public figures and intellectuals was morally reprehensible. There can be no justification for the richest country in the world allowing a million of its citizens to die so they could slavishly adhere to an economic ideology.

    The 'that's the way things were at the time' argument doesn't cut it for me either. That kind of logic can be used to justify slavery, pogroms, genocide, etc





    I genuinely don't see the relevance of comparing what the US did to what the UK government did. The Irish weren't exactly the most popular ethnic group in America at the time. The Irish who reached the US during the famine were generally poor, unskilled, Irish speaking Catholics, as such they weren't made feel overly welcome.

    As for the proposed purchase of Cuba, a better comparison might be the £70m spent by Britain on the Crimean War compared with the £7m spent on famine relief.



    Sure, don't we all.

    Ok, you believe she could and should have contributed more, which is a fair point.

    What's your opinion on her supposedly preventing the Ottoman emperor contributing more and ordering the blockade of ports to prevent the aid ships arriving?


  • #206
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Jesus, have you contributed anything to this thread other than petty name calling?

    Frederick, my dear chap, you clearly still do not see the irony of you complaining about others calling you names when you engage in it yourself.

    Accept it. Your neo-colonial revisionism has been rejected out of hand. You've lost, Freddie. Just give it up mate.


  • #207
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Frederick, my dear chap, you clearly still do not see the irony of you complaining about others calling you names when you engage in it yourself.

    Accept it. Your neo-colonial revisionism has been rejected out of hand. You've lost, Freddie. Just give it up mate.

    and more petty name calling.


  • #208
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    and more petty name calling.

    Huh?

    Where?


  • #209
    Arsemageddon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Arsemageddon


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Ok, you believe she could and should have contributed more, which is a fair point.

    What's your opinion on her supposedly preventing the Ottoman emperor contributing more and ordering the blockade of ports to prevent the aid ships arriving?

    Its nonsense

    Heres a blog post on that very subject by the one and only Mike Dash....

    https://allkindsofhistory.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/queen-victorias-5-the-strange-tale-of-turkish-aid-to-ireland-during-the-great-famine/


  • #210
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    Funnily enough I've actually read this article before Pedro, and based my opinions of Victoria on it. Victoria's Civil list allowance (monies given to her by parliament) was significantly lower than her predecessors, but still amounted to a whopping £385,000 per year, £60,000 of which was allocated to the privy purse (i.e. Victoria's pocket money). Anything left over from the remaining £325,000 (used for all her other expenses) also went to the privy purse, this amounted to about £25,000 p/a. The income from her two private estates amounted to an approximate average of £35,000 p/a in the 1840's. That all amounts to an annual income of about £105-110,000 p/a during the 1840's,
    .
    These figures do not include the 'loot' she was presented with from colonial wars, little perks like the koo-i-noor diamond which she received from the British India company in 1850 which was conservatively valued at £100,000. In addition Albert had an annual allowance of £30,000.

    Bearing all that in mind, I still hold to my opinion that £2000 was not a lot of money (as claimed by Fred). Better than nothing, but little more than an average weeks income for Victoria.

    All that said I think the 'Famine Queen' label is grossly unfair to her, The government were responsible for what happened in Ireland, not the monarch.

    ..............Were just going to have to disagree on this point. I firmly believe that the governments response to the famine and the attitude of many in the administration, the media and other public figures and intellectuals was morally reprehensible. There can be no justification for the richest country in the world allowing a million of its citizens to die so they could slavishly adhere to an economic ideology.

    The 'that's the way things were at the time' argument doesn't cut it for me either. That kind of logic can be used to justify slavery, pogroms, genocide, etc
    I genuinely don't see the relevance of comparing what the US did to what the UK government did. The Irish weren't exactly the most popular ethnic group in America at the time. The Irish who reached the US during the famine were generally poor, unskilled, Irish speaking Catholics, as such they weren't made feel overly welcome.

    As for the proposed purchase of Cuba, a better comparison might be the £70m spent by Britain on the Crimean War compared with the £7m spent on famine relief.
    .
    Arse, we’re really just arguing about quantum.
    I’ve explained the real value of the £2k gift/money, pointed out that it led to another £200k being raised in England as a direct result, pointed out that the £2k was the biggest single donation (& QVic also gave a further £500 the following year). Was it enough? In hindsight, no. Was the Government responsible for mismanagement? Yes, but that also has to be viewed in the perspective of the day, taking into account for e.g. the religious belief of the day, that Britain was in recession, the views of the ruling class and masses concerning Ireland (a few decades after a couple of Irish rebellions,) etc., etc. Yes land tenure was wrong, yes the ‘power’ was stacked against the labourer, yes to a load of other things, but that does not detract from the fact that by the outbreak of the Famine, Ireland economically was a basket case, one with a totally unsustainable population of 8 million in 1841 most of which were in the bottom cohort of society and dependent on the monoculture of a single root variety. (That year Britain’s population was 16 million.) It is in a way bizarre that it was surviving a famine in Europe that led Parmentier to become the advocate of the potato and see it as a panacea.

    Many Irish people profited from the famine, typically middling farmers, shopkeepers and traders. The Anglo-Irish landlords largely were the losers. To the exclusion of this and everything else, Irish nationalists blame/d the Famine and everything surrounding it on Britain/Big Landlords as an excuse to draw people to ‘the cause’. I’m not trying to ‘justify’ anything, I’m simply saying that events/views need to be examined in the context of the time. The s#1te being posted by some on here clearly supports the view that many still believe propaganda such as Famine Queens, Turkish ships and the evil plot of genocide.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Andrew Purfield
    Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭Andrew Purfield


    eire4 wrote: »
    A zombie thread funny. If there are other threads that are so much better then this one nobody is forcing you to post here. Not sure why you would even bother making the statement if I had bothered to look at other Famine threads. If this thread is that beneath you do not bother posting here.


    The National Famine Memorial Day is a much more recent event having first only taken place in 2008. The main event has been rotated between the 4 provinces and this years event is due to be held somewhere in Ulster. In 2011 the main event was held in Clones. Given the official National Famine Memorial Day is only 6 years old it is an example that we as a countty are still only now fully dealing with the horrible trauma that was the Famine in an official capacity. I think given the sheer imensity of the Famine and its massive effect on our country not just at the time but for so long afterward I believe that it should be elevated to a full national public holiday status for us in an official capacity to properly honour it, show our respects and remember.


    Yourself and Fred seem very concerned with bashing and point scoring on this thread and certainly that is your right. I have no interest in your point scoring and bashing. I simply wish to see one of the seminal events in the history of our country properly honoured and remembered.




    I am confident I am on safe ground in saying the majority of Irish people want and firmly believe in peace in Ireland and have a desire to see the peace process be an unqualified success. If yourself and Fred and the "Uber nationalists" you seem so concerned with want to find a corner and keep up old hates thats your right. The rest of us will get on with looking forward and fully honouring respecting and remembering the Famine without any point scoring and bashing as part of that process.

    There are no Ueber nationalists on here. Just Irish people debating the Famine's causes and legacy and 2-3 Hibernophobe anti-Nordie Nutters who are calling the rest of us Blueshirts and Provos for reading the work of renowned scholars and researchers on the matter who are of course in the eyes of such people 'mere writers'.


  • #212
    Andrew Purfield
    Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭Andrew Purfield


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    ???:confused:
    That is one weird post! I am a supporter of the peace process; I also am a supporter of history when it is factual. I have an interest in genealogy and have researched the lives and roles of my direct ancestors and some collateral lines during the Famine period, which is why I have considerably more than a basic knowledge of the events. The nonsensical claims of people like Coogan and many posters here should be shown for what they are - that is not 'hatred', it is love of truth.

    Just because I do not agree with your call for a bank holiday does not suggest I do not honour or respect Famine victims and it is inappropriate for you to infer or state otherwise.

    Truth is a philosophical word. Facts are what counts. At least 1.95-2 million people died during the Famine. Not just 1 million as the TPC baiting historians would have you believe. Another fact is the population more than halved from 8 to less than 4 million which suggests an even greater death tally and much higher emigration rate than '1 million'!


  • #213
    Andrew Purfield
    Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭Andrew Purfield


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    It's not bashing, it is simply making the point that poetic stream of consciousness ramblings by a poet are not an acceptable source in a debate on history. And why do you consistently try to attribute "stuff" to me that I never either said or intimated? Many (not all) of those who emigrated spoke only Irish, a fact that hindered both their survival and integration in their new countries. The history books are full of examples.



    The decline of Irish had very little to do with colonization. The Irish language was in serious decline long before its final 'nail' of the Famine - Daniel O'Connell, for example, from the very early 1800's was encouraging Irish people to learn English to better themselves. Study after study has proven that Irish was in terminal decline before the Famine. Former Taoiseach Garrett Fitzgerald for e.g. wrote several interesting papers on the topic.

    Yes, I agree that Irish survived in the bogs and hill country; and yes the remote rural parts of Ireland were the hardest hit by the Famine. That is no big discovery, it's common knowledge. The language survived because those areas were the most economically unviable and had a relatively static population. There was prolonged agrarian depression after the Napoleonic Wars, there were no industrial jobs in the cities (unlike in England and Scotland) to soak up excess population, and even if there were, the 'young' from the 'sticks' would not have been employable because they did not speak English! So the young stayed at home, married, subdivided and subdivided plots to eke out a subsistence living, totally vulnerable to fluctuations in commodity prices or crop yields, pitiably vulnerable to being exploited by marginally bigger farmers to work as day labourers in an already overcrowded market. Or ousted off their one-acre "garden" by one of their very marginally better off neighbours. Read about the agrarian violence (particularly around Famine time), read about the 'grabbers', look at the crime rate statistics. (NUI Maynooth has some very good material on this).
    It must be a killer to the uber nationalist guys you mentioned earlier that it was a bunch of West Brits that were the saviours of the Irish language and cultural artifacts & heritage - Hyde, Stokes, Wilde, Synge, Lloyd, Petrie, Dunraven, etc. - not an O' or a Mc among them to shake a stick at!:D


    Lots of better sources available, Dudley-Edwards is not 'up there' with those that carry weight.

    And while we are on the decline of Irish, the various attempted 'revival(s)' of the language have been an absolute farce in this country - the present campaign, PEIG, has possibly the worst possible name of any advertising campaign, ever, anywhere in the world because that bloody woman (along with Liam na Giuise and Jimin Maire Thadhgh) did more to put people off the language than anyone or anything else!

    And why exactly do you think there was no industry and no work?

    The economy was dismantled systematically following the closure of the Protestant Parliament and the Act of Union.

    Formerly work-led towns and small towns like Balbriggan became market towns having been stripped of their production capabilities thanks to cheaper industry over the water as the industrial revolution began to kick off.

    This was a deliberate attempt to stifle competition and the development of any sort of pseudo democracy or Republican ideas about independence and independence of commerce and industry in the late 1700s in Ireland.

    Karl Marx did some good analysis on the disembowelment of the economy during the 1800s. Well worth a read for anybody who is not rabidly anti-scholar.

    The Famine was just the symptom. Economic and political colonialism was the cause.

    You are failing to see past the symptoms of this man-made disaster.


  • #214
    Andrew Purfield
    Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭Andrew Purfield


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Arse, we’re really just arguing about quantum.
    I’ve explained the real value of the £2k gift/money, pointed out that it led to another £200k being raised in England as a direct result, pointed out that the £2k was the biggest single donation (& QVic also gave a further £500 the following year). Was it enough? In hindsight, no. Was the Government responsible for mismanagement? Yes, but that also has to be viewed in the perspective of the day, taking into account for e.g. the religious belief of the day, that Britain was in recession, the views of the ruling class and masses concerning Ireland (a few decades after a couple of Irish rebellions,) etc., etc. Yes land tenure was wrong, yes the ‘power’ was stacked against the labourer, yes to a load of other things, but that does not detract from the fact that by the outbreak of the Famine, Ireland economically was a basket case, one with a totally unsustainable population of 8 million in 1841 most of which were in the bottom cohort of society and dependent on the monoculture of a single root variety. (That year Britain’s population was 16 million.) It is in a way bizarre that it was surviving a famine in Europe that led Parmentier to become the advocate of the potato and see it as a panacea.

    Many Irish people profited from the famine, typically middling farmers, shopkeepers and traders. The Anglo-Irish landlords largely were the losers. To the exclusion of this and everything else, Irish nationalists blame/d the Famine and everything surrounding it on Britain/Big Landlords as an excuse to draw people to ‘the cause’. I’m not trying to ‘justify’ anything, I’m simply saying that events/views need to be examined in the context of the time. The s#1te being posted by some on here clearly supports the view that many still believe propaganda such as Famine Queens, Turkish ships and the evil plot of genocide.

    The Landowners and their agents cleared the land to avoid Bankruptcy and maintain their estates. There were occasional examples of humanity with some of them but most of them were happy to shift people off in a boat at their own expense or else simply evict them to die on the roadside.

    Many of the then British Cabinet were ideological Poor Law Absentee Landlords indoctrined with bigoted free market ideas and who had a self interest in mass land clearences, which is the one fact I have not seen anybody else mention on here.


  • #215
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Andrew Purfield wrote: »
    Many of the then British Cabinet were ideological Poor Law Absentee Landlords indoctrined with bigoted free market ideas and who had a self interest in mass land clearences, which is the one fact I have not seen anybody else mention on here.

    I expect you will not see that mentioned because it is rubbish. The second Peel administration had one Irish landlord; the succeeding Russell ministry had 2, so out of about 50 Cabinet Ministers 3, or 6% were directly involved in Ireland. As for your continuous holding out TPC as a "historian" perhaps you might like to look back over the thread and see how many posters have rubbished him. Or look here


  • #216
    eire4
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,768 ✭✭✭eire4


    Andrew Purfield wrote: »
    There are no Ueber nationalists on here. Just Irish people debating the Famine's causes and legacy and 2-3 Hibernophobe anti-Nordie Nutters who are calling the rest of us Blueshirts and Provos for reading the work of renowned scholars and researchers on the matter who are of course in the eyes of such people 'mere writers'.



    Yes I believe your right there. Sadly a lot of hate seems to be behind Fred posts very often which really is unfortunate. The other lad with his argument:


    " The decline of Irish had very little to do with colonization"


    saw his credibility take a nose dive for me.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    eire4 wrote: »
    Yes I believe your right there. Sadly a lot of hate seems to be behind Fred posts very often which really is unfortunate. The other lad with his argumentt:


    " The decline of Irish had very little to do with colonization"


    saw his credibility take a nose dive for me.

    Luke 6:41 springs to mind.


  • #218
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Give up Fred, they are not worth it. My 'colonization ' quote was taken out of context, as I clarified immediately but that has been ignored because it suits the loonies. As [URL="ttps://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/was-the-irish-famine-genocide/"]Robert Nielsen[/URL] said after he shredded Coogan’s book in his blog :-
    (The comment section on this blog is a complete and utter mess. With over 800 comments it is the most commented post on my blog. Unfortunately, most of these comments come from fanatics ……... I’ve basically given up on it and let the crazies take over.)
    Rather like here, sadly.


  • #219
    eire4
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,768 ✭✭✭eire4


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Give up Fred, they are not worth it. My 'colonization ' quote was taken out of context, as I clarified immediately but that has been ignored because it suits the loonies. As [URL="ttps://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/was-the-irish-famine-genocide/"]Robert Nielsen[/URL] said after he shredded Coogan’s book in his blog :-
    (The comment section on this blog is a complete and utter mess. With over 800 comments it is the most commented post on my blog. Unfortunately, most of these comments come from fanatics ……... I’ve basically given up on it and let the crazies take over.)
    Rather like here, sadly.




    Sounds about right anyone who does not subscribe to your views which have a leaning towards revisionism is just a loonie or a fanatic.




    As for your quote being taken out of contect well your credibility took a nose dive when you wrote it but now with this I don't see any credibilty.




    I had written and your quoted me the following.....


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by eire4 viewpost.gif
    Irish was in decline due to colonization and at the time of the Famine was able to survive the best in the more remote rural parts of Ireland which also tended to be the areas hardest hit by the famine.


    Your response which saw your credibility take a nose dive was the following:


    "The decline of Irish had very little to do with colonization. "


    Nothing out of context there. It is very clear what you said and what you said it in response to.


  • #220
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    eire4 wrote: »
    Yes I believe your right there. Sadly a lot of hate seems to be behind Fred posts very often which really is unfortunate. The other lad with his argument: " The decline of Irish had very little to do with colonization" saw his credibility take a nose dive for me.

    Not as bad as his latest little nugget. The Anglo-Irish Landlords were the real losers in the Famine! The million wretches who perished weren't too bad off really!!

    As for the other lad, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Fred, okay he might have been born in England, is definitely from an Ulster Unionist background. I'm 100% certain of this point. I know this because I've never come across an Englishman with such extreme imperialist views before. They're just not like that. That kind of lunacy can only come from Protestant Ulster.


  • #221
    eire4
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,768 ✭✭✭eire4


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Not as bad as his latest little nugget. The Anglo-Irish Landlords were the real losers in the Famine! The million wretches who perished weren't too bad off really!!

    As for the other lad, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Fred, okay he might have been born in England, is definitely from an Ulster Unionist background. I'm 100% certain of this point. I know this because I've never come across an Englishman with such extreme imperialist views before. They're just not like that. That kind of lunacy can only come from Protestant Ulster.




    Good point there yes I would tend to think those who died who most definitely were the real losers and the couple of million forced to emigrate in abject conditions which saw many of them die during the trip or shortly thereafter were not exactly living it up either to put it mildly.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Andrew Purfield
    Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭Andrew Purfield


    Post of the thread Jesus, give or take.

    Poor Anglo Irish Landlords God bless them!!!!! The Lord have mercy on their souls!


  • #223
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Not as bad as his latest little nugget. The Anglo-Irish Landlords were the real losers in the Famine! The million wretches who perished weren't too bad off really!!

    That's not what he said at all.
    Jesus. wrote: »
    As for the other lad, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Fred, okay he might have been born in England, is definitely from an Ulster Unionist background. I'm 100% certain of this point. I know this because I've never come across an Englishman with such extreme imperialist views before. They're just not like that. That kind of lunacy can only come from Protestant Ulster.

    More petty name calling with no contribution to the debate.


  • #224
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    More petty name calling with no contribution to the debate.

    Would I be right in that assumption?


  • #225
    Andrew Purfield
    Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭Andrew Purfield


    Course you'd be right.

    Even English Tories are not as rabidly revisionist or anti historical or pro imperialist as the Orange brigade in that corner of the world.

    Nobody from England is this hell bent on making the Irish feel guilty about 'using the Famine for political purposes'.

    I have never met an English person who ever brought up Irish history in any context whatsoever without first being prompted or asked about it either, never mind one who felt obliged to 'correct the record' constantly and whose unhistorical agenda included directing their own revisionism at the history of Irish border towns.


  • #226
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    More petty name calling.

    Fwiw Andy, no one is slagging off Drogheda, just the little fantasy you posted earlier in the thread.

    You posted a load of bull****, got called out on it and now you're just trying to make people out as anti Irish, anti Drogheda or whatever when nothing has been written to suggest that is the case.

    Now, tell us more about the regular football matches between Drogheda and Trabzonspor...


  • #227
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Andrew Purfield wrote: »
    Course you'd be right.

    I don't know why he feels the need to deny or not acknowledge it. Is he ashamed of his background?

    Also, why does he keep saying people are calling him names when they aren't?


  • #228
    eire4
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,768 ✭✭✭eire4


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    More petty name calling.

    Fwiw Andy, no one is slagging off Drogheda, just the little fantasy you posted earlier in the thread.

    You posted a load of bull****, got called out on it and now you're just trying to make people out as anti Irish, anti Drogheda or whatever when nothing has been written to suggest that is the case.

    Now, tell us more about the regular football matches between Drogheda and Trabzonspor...



    To be fair the tone and tenor of your posts here suggests strong anti Irish leanings on your part. Certainly that is indeed your right. It is much easier to hate and much more difficult to forgive. Personally I prefer the forgive approach as the way forward for Ireland.


  • #229
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    eire4 wrote: »
    To be fair the tone and tenor of your posts here suggests strong anti Irish leanings on your part. Certainly that is indeed your right. It is much easier to hate and much more difficult to forgive. Personally I prefer the forgive approach as the way forward for Ireland.

    It's sad, but predictable.

    Any Irish person who disagrees with the narrative is a west brit suffering from post colonial Stockholm syndrome, but if they're not Irish then that label can't be applied so the old "anti Irish" mantra is bandied around.

    It seems as if you want peace (which already exists other than in the head of a few delusional people) but only on your terms.


  • #230
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Jesus. wrote: »
    I don't know why he feels the need to deny or not acknowledge it. Is he ashamed of his background?

    Also, why does he keep saying people are calling him names when they aren't?

    Mod

    Irrelevant to thread, discussions about individual posters are not for this forum. I don't want to see it from you again.


  • #231
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Mod

    Closing this thread, as it appears to have descended into name calling and trolling


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement