Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

The Irish famine?

123457

Comments

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


    Pedro's a good lad though. Cheers for that Tim Pat Coogan vs the Queens University chap link, Pedro. It was good listening. I have to say that I think the Queens lad defeated Coogan quite comfortably.

    Coogan was talking some sh*te to be fair


  • Registered Users Posts: 372 ✭✭ ChicagoJoe


    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.
    Citing that buffoon Fitzgerald as a credible source of history - are you joking :D Who next, Conor Cruise O'Brien, Kevin Meyers, Eoghan Harris :D
    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
    " Unfactual, unresearched nonsensical OT claims have been posted by some others, typically this " ;)

    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!
    Yes such as Diarmaid Ferriter, Gerard MacAtasney, Meda Ryan, you certainly could do with having a good read of them. I would have thought it couldn't be more obvious that various British education acts from the 1700's (Maynooth been among the first) done more damage to Irish than poor old Peig could in a thousand years. And of course since the majority of Irish speakers tended to be poorer so more likely to die or emigrate due to the economic and social conditions imposed by the British laws.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 Fratton Fred


    eire4 wrote: »
    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.

    Tell me, when you read Andrew Purfield's posts, what are your thoughts?

    Do you believe that Drogheda took the Sultans symbol as their crest out of gratitude?

    Do you believe Queen Victoria's donation of £2000 (around £120,000 in today's money) was pathetic?

    Do you believe that she instructed the sultan not to contribute more and then ordered the navy to block his ships from entering port?

    What is your opinion?


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


    Do you believe Queen Victoria's donation of £2000 (around £120,000 in today's money) was pathetic?

    Do you Fred?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,983 ✭✭✭ eire4


    Fred I am glad you copied the quote from me you did. As I said in it I have no interest in your point scoring and bashing. I am simply interested in one of the seminal events in our history being remembered and honoured.

    In short my opinion is that the National Famine Memorial Day should be declared a national public holiday. We current have a few national public holidays that are called bank holidays. I certainly think honouring the National Famine Memorial Day at the same status as the bank holidays as a national public holiday would be a very positive move.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 Fratton Fred


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Do you Fred?

    £120,000 sounds like a lot to me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 Fratton Fred


    eire4 wrote: »
    Fred I am glad you copied the quote from me you did. As I said in it I have no interest in your point scoring and bashing. I am simply interested in one of the seminal events in our history being remembered and honoured.

    In short my opinion is that the National Famine Memorial Day should be declared a national public holiday. We current have a few national public holidays that are called bank holidays. I certainly think honouring the National Famine Memorial Day at the same status as the bank holidays as a national public holiday would be a very positive move.

    Nicely avoided.

    Do you think the points I raised are point scoring?

    If you want those that died to be properly honoured, surely exploiting their death for political means should be stopped, no?


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


    £120,000 sounds like a lot to me.

    Victoria donated £2000, thats £0.002 for each of her approx. 1,000,000 subjects who died of starvation.

    Does that still seem like a lot?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,983 ✭✭✭ eire4


    Nicely avoided.

    Do you think the points I raised are point scoring?

    If you want those that died to be properly honoured, surely exploiting their death for political means should be stopped, no?



    To answer your first question, Yes.


    To answer your second question the majority of Irish people are very much in favour of the peace process so if you and as you call them the "uber nationalists" whoever they are, want to continue trading pot shots and point scoring in the corner go ahead to your hearts content. There will always be contrary naysayers.The rest of us will continue to pursue a peaceful Ireland that also honours and remembers our past.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 Fratton Fred


    eire4 wrote: »
    To answer your first question, Yes.


    To answer your second question the majority of Irish people are very much in favour of the peace process so if you and as you call them the "uber nationalists" whoever they are, want to continue trading pot shots and point scoring in the corner go ahead to your hearts content. There will always be contrary naysayers.The rest of us will continue to pursue a peaceful Ireland that also honours and remembers our past.

    So you'd agree then, that a suitable part of this imaginary "peace process", the actual truth of the famine should be discussed and the myths created to suit agendas should be dispelled?


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


    £120,000 sounds like a lot to me.

    Please tell me you just did not say that :o


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 pedroeibar1


    Victoria donated £2000, thats £0.002 for each of her approx. 1,000,000 subjects who died of starvation.

    Does that still seem like a lot?

    Yes it does if you look at the figure in an unbiased and informed perspective.

    Firstly, the Queen gave £2,000 as a personal donation, not one from government coffers and it was a very indicative ‘statement’, being an an open invitation, encouragement/enticement for others to contribute. It worked, as others contributed considerable amounts, as mentioned earlier by Fred.

    Secondly, Fred is not correct in giving the present day value of £120k for her donation, as his figure appears to be based on the Retail Price Index, which IMO is not a good comparison indicator. Using the “Economic Power” comparison, the value would be about £5.5 million. A more appropriate comparison would be with the “Average Earnings” so in today’s values her gift would be about £1.4 to £1.5 million

    Thirdly, the daily rate for a labourer in the early 1840’s was 9d per day, so the Queen’s £2k amounted to paid work for 53,333 man-days – nearly the equivalent of hiring 180 men for a year. Today’s cost of doing that at minimum wage is about €5 million.

    Finally, I’m glad that you are using the more realistic death figure of about 1 million.


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


    Tweedledee and Tweedledum...


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


    Yes it does if you look at the figure in an unbiased and informed perspective.

    Firstly, the Queen gave £2,000 as a personal donation, not one from government coffers and it was a very indicative ‘statement’, being an an open invitation, encouragement/enticement for others to contribute. It worked, as others contributed considerable amounts, as mentioned earlier by Fred.

    Secondly, Fred is not correct in giving the present day value of £120k for her donation, as his figure appears to be based on the Retail Price Index, which IMO is not a good comparison indicator. Using the “Economic Power” comparison, the value would be about £5.5 million. A more appropriate comparison would be with the “Average Earnings” so in today’s values her gift would be about £1.4 to £1.5 million

    Thirdly, the daily rate for a labourer in the early 1840’s was 9d per day, so the Queen’s £2k amounted to paid work for 53,333 man-days – nearly the equivalent of hiring 180 men for a year. Today’s cost of doing that at minimum wage is about €5 million.

    Finally, I’m glad that you are using the more realistic death figure of about 1 million.

    I accept that her donation of £2,000 was better than nothing and that it acted as a stimulus for private citizens to donate to famine relief.

    However, the notion that her donation amonted to 'a lot of money' is ridiculous when viewed in the context of her overall wealth. For example, herself and Albert agreed to purchase the Balmoral estate in 1848 for £32,000. This transaction was completed in 1852 and does not include the cost of demolishing the existing house and construction of Balmoral Castle.

    Furthermore Victoria's personal greed is well recorded. She frequently received loot from colonial campaigns and squirelled away money from her civil list allowance to add to her personal fortune. After the death of Albert she became something of a recluse, refusing to carry out here official functions. A notable exception to this was when she opened parliament in 1871 (one of only four times she did so in the following 32 years), her primary motive being that parliament was imminently due to vote on royal allowances.

    The comtemporary radical popular pamphlet 'what does she do with it?' regarding Victoria's avarice has subsequently been proven by Historical research to have been very accurate.


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


    ^^
    Freddy's not going to like that :P


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,983 ✭✭✭ eire4


    So you'd agree then, that a suitable part of this imaginary "peace process", the actual truth of the famine should be discussed and the myths created to suit agendas should be dispelled?



    As I said if you and the "uber nationalists" whoever they are, as you call them want to continue bashing each other and point scoring in the corner go for it. The majority of Irish people are very much in support of the peace process.


    I must say as well it is very sad that you cannot even acknowledge the peace process. Very sad but as I said there will always be naysayers.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 pedroeibar1


    I accept that her donation of £2,000 was better than nothing and that it acted as a stimulus for private citizens to donate to famine relief.

    However, the notion that her donation amonted to 'a lot of money' is ridiculous when viewed in the context of her overall wealth. For example, herself and Albert agreed to purchase the Balmoral estate in 1848 for £32,000. This transaction was completed in 1852 and does not include the cost of demolishing the existing house and construction of Balmoral Castle.

    Furthermore Victoria's personal greed is well recorded. She frequently received loot from colonial campaigns and squirelled away money from her civil list allowance to add to her personal fortune. After the death of Albert she became something of a recluse, refusing to carry out here official functions. A notable exception to this was when she opened parliament in 1871 (one of only four times she did so in the following 32 years), her primary motive being that parliament was imminently due to vote on royal allowances.

    The comtemporary radical popular pamphlet 'what does she do with it?' regarding Victoria's avarice has subsequently been proven by Historical research to have been very accurate.

    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.

    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.

    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 like to see things in perspective.


  • Registered Users Posts: 372 ✭✭ ChicagoJoe


    Tell me, when you read Andrew Purfield's posts, what are your thoughts?

    Do you believe that Drogheda took the Sultans symbol as their crest out of gratitude?

    Do you believe Queen Victoria's donation of £2000 (around £120,000 in today's money) was pathetic?

    Do you believe that she instructed the sultan not to contribute more and then ordered the navy to block his ships from entering port?

    What is your opinion?
    Why would someone be bothered answering any of your questions as your form on the thread shows your ready to reject any answers given no matter what facts presented and then you'll ask more questions only to reject any answers to them as well ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 Fratton Fred


    ChicagoJoe wrote: »
    Why would someone be bothered answering any of your questions as your form on the thread shows your ready to reject any answers given no matter what facts presented and then you'll ask more questions only to reject any answers to them as well ?

    Be quiet Joe, the adults are talking.


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


    Be quiet Joe, the adults are talking.

    Mods Mods! Someone's being insulting!!!!


    (Does that ring a bell Frederick???)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭ Arsemageddon


    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.


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


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


  • 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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 Fratton Fred


    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?


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


    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.


  • 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.


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


    and more petty name calling.

    Huh?

    Where?


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


    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/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 pedroeibar1


    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
  • 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'.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement