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

An "all-wise providence"

  • 07-09-2018 4:50pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭


    I came across this weasel phrase yesterday while engaged in some amateur research into the effects of the Great Famine. I was so incensed by it that I did a search on it on this website to see if it was in fact a well known phrase with which others might have been familiar and it seems that indeed it is.

    Many posters attribute it to Alexander Trevelyan, chief secretary for Ireland during the Great Famine, as his explanation for how the population came to be doubly decimated in the 1840s on his watch, as it were.

    I use the phrase doubly decimated in the literal sense: decimation is the killing of one in 10; double decimation is the killing or at least the removal of two in 10. And that is the fate that befell the Irish population in the 10 years between the censuses of 1841 and 1851.

    The total population of the island, as measured by the census of 1841 was 8,175,124; in 1851, the population had dropped to 6,552,385.

    Do the maths, as they say (6552385-8175124)/8175124 = -19.8%, or in round terms a drop of 20%. Double decimation.

    The report of the 1851 census is available online and two very interesting pages are this one and the subsequent page which contains the tabulated data.

    Spanning the two pages is this wonderful phrase, written presumably by the Commissioners to whom was delegated the task of collating and analysing the data.

    "The numerical decrease of the inhabitants between 1841 and 1851, amounted to 1,622,739 or 19.85%; but this.....conveys but very inadequately the effect of the visitation of famine and pestilence, with which it has pleased an all-wise Providence to visit Ireland."

    The author was probably William Donnelly, the Registrar-General of Marriages, who had been appointed to "superintend the enumeration of the population of Ireland" although he was assisted by an Assistant Commissioner, one William R Wilde of Westland Row and one Edward Singleton acting as secretary.

    Wilde? Westland Row? That rings a bell :)

    Never mind the Fag on the Crag; this guy was the **** at the Count.


«1

Comments

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


    I came across this weasel phrase yesterday ......
    Spanning the two pages is this wonderful phrase, written presumably by the Commissioners to whom was delegated the task of collating and analysing the data.

    " .......the effect of the visitation of famine and pestilence, with which it has pleased an all-wise Providence to visit Ireland."

    The author was probably William Donnelly, the Registrar-General of Marriages, who had been appointed to "superintend the enumeration of the population of Ireland" although he was assisted by an Assistant Commissioner, one William R Wilde of Westland Row and one Edward Singleton acting as secretary.

    Wilde? Westland Row? That rings a bell :)

    Never mind the Fag on the Crag; this guy was the **** at the Count.
    It’s no big ‘find’, it’s been common knowledge for a long time. Nor is it a ‘weasel phrase’ as you describe it, it is ‘civil service speak’ of the day and in that vernacular it meant ‘Providence allowed ….to visit Ireland.’ Like it or not, Providence was granted considerable respect, blame and deference in the 19th century.

    Apart from being a ‘seriously serial womaniser’, Wilde senior was a polymath, greatly respected internationally. He was a highly qualified / experienced / traveled ophthalmologist who also studied overseas after his training in Dublin with the likes of Colles, Graves (he of the Disease) and Stokes. Those men were leading practitioners at a European level. In Ireland he was appointed oculist to the Queen and was much admired by the labourers in the West where he performed many operations gratis and was known by them as ‘An Doctúir Mór’.
    Wilde was an advisor on the Census for several decades and it was for that service he received his knighthood ; his work on Irish antiquities gained him honours from several Continental universities.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,108 ✭✭✭Jellybaby1


    ......"The numerical decrease of the inhabitants between 1841 and 1851, amounted to 1,622,739 or 19.85%; but this.....conveys but very inadequately the effect of the visitation of famine and pestilence, with which it has pleased an all-wise Providence to visit Ireland."

    I merely enjoy reading history, but I'm no historian. Others here like pedroeibar1 can give you more educated and informed answers than me. The way I see it is quite simply....that's the way they spoke in those days. It doesn't necessary mean the famine actually gave pleasure to any person, any being, or any deity. If you and I travelled back in time they probably wouldn't be able to understand a word of either our Irish or English language!


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    It’s no big ‘find’, it’s been common knowledge for a long time.

    Well congratulations on being more familiar with a topic than others but I suspected the phrase was well known, as I said in the OP. Although a trawl on what people have said on this message board would suggest that it was a phrase normally attributed to Secretary Trevelyan. It was clearly also used by the Census Commissioners.
    Nor is it a ‘weasel phrase’ as you describe it, it is ‘civil service speak’ of the day and in that vernacular it meant ‘Providence allowed ….to visit Ireland.’ Like it or not, Providence was granted considerable respect, blame and deference in the 19th century.

    Of course it's a weasel phrase. (one definition of weasel as used in this context in my Concise OED is "get out of obligation"). It's blaming Providence, or God if you like, for the inevitable consequence of human actions. Or inactions.

    And why did you insert the word "allowed" into the quote provided? The original quote from the census report (link provided so you can check) says that "an all-wise Providence.....was pleased..to visit..pestilence and famine" on Ireland.

    Pleased?

    That clearly claims that God/Providence didn't just "allow" the catastrophe; he approved of it. It even suggests that interfering with His divine will might be inadvisable, if not downright sinful.

    "Nothing to do with us, mate. It's what God wants, innit?"

    How can you say these are NOT weasel words? :confused:

    The great Irish famine, like all famines, was caused by human actions. Sometimes these are deliberate, such as in siege situations when the intent is to starve an enemy into submission; more often, as was the case here, by economic mismanagement. I don't believe, as some do, that it was deliberately engineered as an agent of genocide by malevolent imperalists in London, but the disastrous land and food policies that were followed in Ireland led inexorably to the catastrophe. And causing a fifth of the population to disappear in 10 years, with further flight continuing for about a century, only to be partially reversed in the last 50 years or so was effectively, if not intentionally, a form of genocide.

    Still, as long as it was all God's fault......


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,108 ✭✭✭Jellybaby1


    I doubt any answer here will be what you are looking for. You are reading into what you want. I'm out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Jellybaby1 wrote: »
    I doubt any answer here will be what you are looking for. You are reading into what you want. I'm out.

    Er, I actually read, and posted, what was there. Sorry to have mentioned it. :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,108 ✭✭✭Jellybaby1


    Apologies if I misunderstood you. These words looked like your own:

    "The original quote from the census report (link provided so you can check) says that "an all-wise Providence.....was pleased..to visit..pestilence and famine" on Ireland.

    Pleased?

    That clearly claims that God/Providence didn't just "allow" the catastrophe; he approved of it. It even suggests that interfering with His divine will might be inadvisable, if not downright sinful.

    "Nothing to do with us, mate. It's what God wants, innit?"


    It looked to me like you had already made up your mind.


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


    Jellybaby1 wrote: »
    It looked to me like you had already made up your mind.
    The issue actually is the OP's agenda. Zone in on one ‘idiom’, then take its language out of its historic context and try to build a case to prove a point. Ignore and then deny the fact that the language of the day was couched in such phraseology. Be unaware that the Commissioners were supervisors of the project, like a board of directors at a distant remove, that there was a full-time Secretariat headed by Wilkie, who in all probability was the Report's author. Then overlook some of the most interesting findings of the Report . That says it all……...


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    The issue actually is the OP's agenda. Zone in on one ‘idiom’, then take its language out of its historic context and try to build a case to prove a point. Ignore and then deny the fact that the language of the day was couched in such phraseology. Be unaware that the Commissioners were supervisors of the project, like a board of directors at a distant remove, that there was a full-time Secretariat headed by Wilkie, who in all probability was the Report's author. Then overlook some of the most interesting findings of the Report . That says it all……...

    Oh FFS!

    Now you're guessing at my "agenda"? I, er, don't have one. It's not the idiom that disgusts me, it's the evasion.

    A 20th or 21st century bureaucrat might not have made such a specific allusion to an "all-wise providence"; they might have used another weasel phrase such as "factors beyond the government's control" or "adverse climactic conditions" or "aftershocks from an international monetary crisis". The intent is the same: not our fault.

    And they're all weasel phrases.

    Now you might quite reasonably say that it is the job of a Census Commission merely to count the numbers and present the data, not to apportion blame or responsibility for such a catastrophic drop in the population--20% decline in a decade, but then why put the phrase in at all?


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


    Oh FFS!

    Now you're guessing at my "agenda"? I, er, don't have one. It's not the idiom that disgusts me, it's the evasion.

    A 20th or 21st century bureaucrat might not have made such a specific allusion to an "all-wise providence"; they might have used another weasel phrase such as "factors beyond the government's control" or "adverse climactic conditions" or "aftershocks from an international monetary crisis". The intent is the same: not our fault.

    And they're all weasel phrases.

    Now you might quite reasonably say that it is the job of a Census Commission merely to count the numbers and present the data, not to apportion blame or responsibility for such a catastrophic drop in the population--20% decline in a decade, but then why put the phrase in at all?

    FFS indeed. Why do you refuse to accept that you are using a 21st century mind-set to judge the mid-19th C language, moral code, ethics, sensibilities and beliefs of educated Victorians?

    In that era God and Providence along with their favourite Church, the ‘Established Church’, to which the ruling class belonged, had a major role in daily life. This dated back to the Puritans and earlier. Even in death it had a financial input - until 1858 many wills had to be proved/probated by the Established Church’s Prerogative Courts. 'Providence' was regularly invoked, by parliamentarians, by the newspapers, in philosophy and even had a role in scientific debate. In the early 1800's Daniel O’Connell was no stranger to quoting Providence, saying it was watching over the American people when they were fighting for their independence. Even in Free State Ireland the Constitution had a bit about all lawful authority coming from God and thence to the people and an early High Court judgement said that anything coming from the Oireachtas had to conform to ‘this ultimate Source’ or be repugnant to Natural Law. Simply put, it was quite normal/acceptable to blame or credit Providence for all sorts of stuff until relatively recently.

    Google ‘Victorian Science and Providence’ or the ‘role of Providence in Victorian England’. That’ll keep you occupied and save me time.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Jellybaby1 wrote: »
    I merely enjoy reading history, but I'm no historian. Others here like pedroeibar1 can give you more educated and informed answers than me. The way I see it is quite simply....that's the way they spoke in those days. It doesn't necessary mean the famine actually gave pleasure to any person, any being, or any deity. If you and I travelled back in time they probably wouldn't be able to understand a word of either our Irish or English language!

    Of course it means that they thought it was a just retribution by a vengeful God on a backward people.

    If we can’t condemn attitudes in the past we can say nothing bad about slavery, imperialism or famine. Which I suspect is part of what is going here - a Niall Fergusson view of the benign nature of the Empire.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    If we can’t condemn attitudes in the past we can say nothing bad about slavery, imperialism or famine. Which I suspect is part of what is going here - a Niall Fergusson view of the benign nature of the Empire.
    It is perfectly normal to condemn slavery, imperialistic excess, etc. but in doing so it is a requirement that the outlook and social fabric of that era is used to assess and place in context the views of those who were participants.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Looking forward to watching this documentary on the Famine on RTE tonight.

    From the RTE blurb on its own website:
    "The Great Hunger was really a multifaceted disaster that could have been avoided under different circumstances. The famine wasn’t just about a food shortage, but the various social, economic and political factors at play also."

    Of course.

    Famines are always man-made phenomena, to some extent or another. They can be sparked by natural events, like potato blight, but whether the consequences are large-scale starvation or a mere change in dietary practices depends on human response.

    Let's see how RTE does.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    Can't wait to see their documentary on the Ukrainian Holodomir,the Swedish Famine or the Armenian genocide...


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Stovepipe wrote: »
    Can't wait to see their documentary on the Ukrainian Holodomir,the Swedish Famine or the Armenian genocide...

    Well I'm guessing the Ukrainians and Armenians have already made several documentaries about their own traumas. As for the Swedish Famine: I didn't think that sort of thing happened there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    It did. They also had crop failure and consequent wholesale emigration. We were on holidays there and got the story from locals we stayed with. The difference was that they were not dependent on Britain and Norway and Denmark and Finland were having their own troubles so a huge section of the population upped stakes and moved to the US and Canada,very early on in the crop failure. Some of the population moved into Europe or neighbouring countries but most crossed the Atlantic and it was very organised. Entire towns and villages left and went to relatives in the US, which is why you get strong Swedish enclaves in the US to this day.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,630 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    Stovepipe wrote: »
    Can't wait to see their documentary on the Ukrainian Holodomir,the Swedish Famine or the Armenian genocide...

    Your point is?
    Why would a team of Irish focused or Irish specialised historians produce these, I can only assume they are the "their" you refer to?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    Well, it's just to point out that other people had famines too and aren't still going on about it, over a hundred and fifty years later. There was a famine in Ukraine in 1932 and one in Bengal in 1944 and one in Ethopia in 1982. THEY are more relevant. My wife's family has had a family member who survived the 1847 famine four generations ago but we don't go on and on about it. OK, we get it. It was ****.Now, please move on.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,907 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Stovepipe wrote: »
    Can't wait to see their documentary on the Ukrainian Holodomir,the Swedish Famine or the Armenian genocide...
    If you're really interested in this, as opposed to just trying to be provocative, you don't have to wait; the presenter of this documentary, Cormac Ó Gráda, has written extensively on famine in general and on many particular famines, and you can read his stuff. Maybe start with this, which is an accessible introduction to the topic. Available in all good bookshops.
    Stovepipe wrote: »
    My wife's family has had a family member who survived the 1847 famine four generations ago but we don't go on and on about it. OK, we get it. It was ****.Now, please move on.
    Mate, practically everybody in Ireland is descended from people who survived the Famine. Think about it; it's the people who didn't survive who have no descendants today. And not thinking about it, just moving on, was a psychological defence menchanism the survivors used in order to avoid confronting what they did to survive. And that's why you have unthinkingly accepted the idea that your wife is somehow remarkable in being descended from a Famine survivor when, in truth, almost certainly this is not just her story; it is yours too.

    The Famine has profoundly marked this nation and has consequences that we are still living out today, many of them harmful. We can not think about it and just move on, or we can confront it and try to understand it and, therefore, ourselves a bit better.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,121 ✭✭✭mossie


    Stovepipe wrote: »
    Well, it's just to point out that other people had famines too and aren't still going on about it, over a hundred and fifty years later. There was a famine in Ukraine in 1932 and one in Bengal in 1944 and one in Ethopia in 1982. THEY are more relevant. My wife's family has had a family member who survived the 1847 famine four generations ago but we don't go on and on about it. OK, we get it. It was ****.Now, please move on.

    How far back are we allowed to remember? Is 1916 ok? The war of independence? Civil war? The famine is one of the defining moments in Irish history you don't "move on" from something like that. I would love to see a documentary on the Ukrainian famine but it's not the place of RTE or the historians involved in this series to make that. The famines your mentioned were terrible events but to suggest that they are somehow more relevant because they are more recent is ridiculous.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 47,975 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Stovepipe wrote: »
    There was a famine in Ukraine in 1932 and one in Bengal in 1944 and one in Ethopia in 1982. THEY are more relevant.
    relevant in what way? it's an irish documentary made by an irish crew for an irish audience.
    Stovepipe wrote: »
    My wife's family has had a family member who survived the 1847 famine four generations ago but we don't go on and on about it.
    yet here you are.
    how is a documentary about the famine 'going on and on about it'?
    i can't remember the last time i had a conversation with *anyone* about the famine. until this very post.

    anyway, what was it oscar wilde said, something like 'the problem with the english is they can't remember history, and with the irish, they can't forget'. i guess that's both a blessing and a curse.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,630 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    Stovepipe wrote: »
    Well, it's just to point out that other people had famines too and aren't still going on about it, over a hundred and fifty years later. There was a famine in Ukraine in 1932 and one in Bengal in 1944 and one in Ethopia in 1982. THEY are more relevant. My wife's family has had a family member who survived the 1847 famine four generations ago but we don't go on and on about it. OK, we get it. It was ****.Now, please move on.

    I can't recall the last time RTE did a famine documentary. For a major event it gets very little airtime.

    The only ones who go on about it are triggerred "not a famine" people who in the main bring little or nothing to any discussion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    @peregrinus, I'm perfectly aware that my wife's family experience is not unique. I understand why people want to remember/commemorate/research past events for many reasons, including learning from them. At least the documentary the other night made the point that the 1845/6/7 Famine was not unique to Ireland. Also, the Irish famine has been commemorated many times in many parts of the country, so it is not unfamiliar to the population at large. Every schoolkid in Ireland is taught about it and rightly so, but I feel that it should be only part of our national identity and not touted by some as the major defining point of being Irish. As for looking at more modern famines, I think that's relevant because they keep happening today in Africa and Irish aid workers are to the fore in dealing with them.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 47,975 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Stovepipe wrote: »
    I feel that it should ... not touted by some as the major defining point of being Irish.
    who does this? maybe some fringe voices, possibly. but that's it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Stovepipe wrote: »
    At least the documentary the other night made the point that the 1845/6/7 Famine was not unique to Ireland.

    Of course it wasn't, but the point also made was that other countries reacted much better and more quickly and the effects in other places were not so bad as here. Speaking of which, how many people died during the Swedish "famine" of the 1860s? I can't find that rather important piece of information from my albeit perfunctory researches, but I'm sure you'll know...?
    Stovepipe wrote: »
    I feel that it should be only part of our national identity and not touted by some as the major defining point of being Irish.

    Like the man said: who says that?

    Nonetheless, it was and is a crucial point in our history and its effects are still being felt today. It, or at least the conditions that caused it to become a catastrophic famine rather than a minor dietary inconvenience, was a major factor in the population of Ireland HALVING in the second half of the 19th century. They didn't all starve, but the country was so economically devastated (a ****-hole country, as the unlamented outgoing president of the US might have called it!) that people emigrated in droves.

    In the middle of the 19th century, the Irish accounted for by far the greatest number of foreign born residents of the US. (See video link below) We stayed in number one spot until German-born immigrants overtook us in numbers by 1876. By 1980, we'd fallen out of the top 15 of "mother countries" replaced by the likes of Mexico, India, Russia and the Philippines.

    The Irish impact on America was huge and remains so. A descendant of one of those immigrants has just been elected to the White House, and pro-Irish sentiment in American circles remains strong. I am not so naive as to think that it is the only factor in American foreign policy, or even the over-arching one, but when such disparate people as Nancy Pelosi and Bonnie Greer point out how an Irish lobby can influence the behaviour of the US Congress, especially with regard to Anglo-Irish relations, you have to presume that it is a factor that cannot be ignored.

    Britain's vengeful chickens are still coming home to roost from the 19th century, and that's got nothing to do with RTE's documentary schedules. It's useful for countries to take notice of that in their long-term planning.
    Stovepipe wrote: »
    As for looking at more modern famines, I think that's relevant because they keep happening today in Africa and Irish aid workers are to the fore in dealing with them.

    Well absolutely. The Irish Famine is and should be an important case study for people to examine as to how and why major famines take place. Two basic lessons I would suggest are:
    1) All famines are man-made to a greater or lesser extent. As the program showed: Ireland was devastated, Belgium only inconvenienced by the same blight on the same important foodstuff. Why did one country cope so much better than another? It was administrative response that made the difference. That and a more equitable society in the first place.

    2) Famines tend to take place in places of great agricultural potential: Ireland, Ukraine, Bengal, Ethiopia.

    Ireland's relatively benign climate is ideal for grain tillage, deciduous fruits, root vegetables and pasture.
    Ukraine's steppes are the bread basket of Eastern Europe.
    Bengal and the Ganges Delta is one of the most fertile regions of Asia (Why is Bangla Desh one of the most densely populated countries on earth? Because that's where the food is)
    Ethiopia is one of the cradles of civilisation. When did you last hear of a "famine" in the Australian outback or the Kalahari Desert?




  • Registered Users Posts: 643 ✭✭✭Mick Tator


    Of course it wasn't, but the point also made was that other countries reacted much better and more quickly and the effects in other places were not so bad as here. .......etc,etc.
    I didn’t see the programme so my comments are confined to the statements made in this thread. Possibly the biggest issues any commentator on the Famine has to face are the preconceived notions of those who are incapable of taking a broader view and who stick rigidly to the opinion that ‘It was the fault of the Brits’. (TP Coogan being a typical example.)

    Reading back over this thread Snickers you are again viewing the events of the Famine with a 21st century mindset and taking a superficial and exclusive view of events. Famines in other countries in the same era are just as relevant as they provide a backdrop for contrast. Trying to base your argument on “ Ireland being devastated, Belgium only inconvenienced” by the same blight is nonsense when it is (or should be) common knowledge that Irish dietary dependence on the potato was more than four times that of the Belgians. Factor in the location of the most dependent Irish population (our western seaboard) and that dependency can be increased probably to sixfold. Nor did Ireland have a decent railway network, necessary to develop an agricultural economy and for bringing fish and other fresh produce to markets. Nor did Ireland have fishing boats appropriate to offshore fishing or piers to tie them to. Ireland was an economic calamity waiting to happen, which is why Peregrinus’ comment to read O Grada is apt.

    Stating ‘all famines are man-made' is trite – just put global warming into your equation and it covers everything. So why not include the refusal today of some Third World governments to allow use of GM cereals that are both drought and disease resistant? Is that not a man-made cause of famine also? Similarly statements such as “Ireland's relatively benign climate is ideal for grain tillage, deciduous fruits, root vegetables and pasture” show an ignorance of agriculture and of farming methods in mid 1800’s Ireland. It shows an even greater ignorance of other famines such as the 1741 Irish famine (another being that of the 1890’s) caused by climatic conditions. It’s not as simple as shoving something in the ground, walking away and coming back six months later. In the mid 1800’s much of Ireland was unsuited to fruit and cereal crops which is why oats were grown. They are less susceptible to mildew and other fungal diseases, and in an era before effective chemicals could be depended on to produce rent-money. Yes fruit and cereal crops were successfully grown by some Irish farmers in parts of Ireland but they were sold, traded and exported by other Irish merchants during the 1840’s Famine..

    Your comments such as “Why is Bangla Desh one of the most densely populated countries on earth? Because that's where the food is” illustrates your misinterpretation of cause and effect. Bangladesh has an agriculturally rich environment that allows excellent food production which in turn allows the population to grow (increased fecundity and longer lifespans). Then a climatic event hits, destroys the food source and the population level is not sustainable. That too is similar to what happened in 1840’s Ireland, here the family size was not that much increased but the infant mortality rate was lower and general lifespan was longer than elsewhere in Europe. Simply put the Irish were living longer than others in Europe.

    The YouTube clip you include also is meaningless as it shows the birthplace of foreign born US population. What is more relevant in US politics is ‘claimed ancestry’, which puts the Irish Americans in third place after Germans and African Americans. Do not fool yourself, Biden is an American and he would screw Ireland if it threatened US interests. He will support the GFA because the US Democrats invested so much to make it/peace work. It does have a voter appeal, but the primary reason is the first one as it is one of the very few examples of US diplomacy working.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Mick Tator wrote: »

    Stating ‘all famines are man-made' is trite

    No it isn't; it's a simple statement of fact. Especially when qualified (as I did) with the phrase "to a greater or lesser extent".

    Let me cite in support of that statement, er, your good self!
    Mick Tator wrote: »

    it is (or should be) common knowledge that Irish dietary dependence on the potato was more than four times that of the Belgians. Factor in the location of the most dependent Irish population (our western seaboard) and that dependency can be increased probably to sixfold. Nor did Ireland have a decent railway network, necessary to develop an agricultural economy and for bringing fish and other fresh produce to markets. Nor did Ireland have fishing boats appropriate to offshore fishing or piers to tie them to. Ireland was an economic calamity waiting to happen,

    Every point you made there is an example of human factors affecting the situation:
    Irish dietary dependence on the potato was four to six times (or does "sixfold" in your sentence imply 24 times?) that of the Belgians -- True. Why?
    The bulk of the poorest peasantry was located in the West -- True. Why?
    Ireland did not have a decent railway network -- True. Why?
    The Irish didn't have fishing boats or an adequate port infrastructure -- True. Why?

    The specific answers to these questions are complex and intertwined but they all boil down to the socio-economic conditions in the country at the time. And these are all human-inspired. I don't know how you can deny this.
    Mick Tator wrote: »
    why not include the refusal today of some Third World governments to allow use of GM cereals that are both drought and disease resistant? Is that not a man-made cause of famine also?

    It probably is a factor. What point are you arguing here? That there are steps that mankind, as represented by its social leaders be they politicians, business leaders or administrators could take to alleviate famine based on the best possible knowledge available to them at any time and that they are remiss if they don't take them?
    That's kinda my point.:confused::confused:
    Mick Tator wrote: »
    Similarly statements such as “Ireland's relatively benign climate is ideal for grain tillage, deciduous fruits, root vegetables and pasture” show an ignorance of agriculture and of farming methods in mid 1800’s Ireland.

    No they don't. They show a junior cert knowledge of Irish geography, incorporating climate and physical landscape and point to the simple truth that an environment such as ours is perfectly capable of sustaining a large population so long as society is organised to function properly. And by "organised" I make no stipulation as to what the basic economic philosophy should be. Please don't jump to wrong conclusions (again).

    Such as that which conflates the terms "man-made" and "deliberate" and concludes that they mean the same. They don't. And I certainly didn't intend that they should.

    Are you familiar with the edict that one should never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity?

    Supplement "stupidity" with arrogance, heedlessness, remorselessness and irresponsibility and you have a fair description of the human elements that caused the natural phenomenon of a crop disease to metastasise into a genocidal famine in the case of Ireland. Or a misguided experimental policy to have a similar effect in 1930s Ukraine too.

    Throw in a willingness to blame factors beyond one's control-- "providence" in the case of 19th century Ireland or "Bourgeois saboteurs" in the case of Ukraine--and you have another human factor.

    I won't quote your section on Bangla Desh (ie Northern Bengal) just to save space but again you are essentially saying that geographical conditions create opportunities for human societies to grow to such an extent that careful husbanding of resources is necessary to sustain life.
    Quite.

    I believe the Indian government a few decades ago tried to bring in a policy of mass and compulsory sterilisation to limit population growth. Not sure whether they still do (I admit to a lack of omniscience) or whether it was a good idea to start with but it was certainly a human reaction to a resource problem.

    Mick Tator wrote: »
    Do not fool yourself, Biden is an American and he would screw Ireland if it threatened US interests.

    I thought I implied that. I said the Irish folk memory in the US is a factor "and not an over arching one" in the development of US policy and legislation. And the reason that is so is based on the hard fact (as illustrated by the infographic you dissed) of massive Irish emigration to the US in the latter part of the 19th century.

    The destruction of the Irish economy and society (unless you regard the population halving in 60 years as a good thing) was entirely the fault of those in charge of ruling the country and the precarious social and economic conditions they permitted to exist. The fact that the same crop malady did not result in anything like the catastrophe elsewhere than it did here is evidence of that.

    So yeah. The Brits were to blame. In a nutshell. :p


  • Registered Users Posts: 643 ✭✭✭Mick Tator


    I can comment only on what you write, not what you think you imply.
    They show a junior cert knowledge of Irish geography,
    If your assertions on climate, economics and 19th century farming are based on Junior Cert geography, I suggest you read a little more.
    The destruction of the Irish economy and society (unless you regard the population halving in 60 years as a good thing) was entirely the fault of those in charge of ruling the country …….
    That presumes that Ireland had a healthy economy in the first place. Also, Ireland’s population in 1911 was about 3 million and estimated at about the same in 1921 (no census that year). Under Irish governance it had fallen to 2.8 million by 1960. You cannot blame the Brits for that or our economic progress (lack of).
    It is futile to argue with a statement that ‘the Famine was manmade’ and it is equally futile to argue with one that says it was climate driven. Each famine is different and caused by a complex web of conditions and events, both social and economic. How they are managed, like any other calamity, is impacted by the role of the government.
    Supplement "stupidity" with arrogance, heedlessness, remorselessness and irresponsibility and you have a fair description of the human elements that caused the natural phenomenon of a crop disease to metastasise into a genocidal famine in the case of Ireland.
    An event cannot ‘metastasise into a genocidal famine’ – again, genocide is a deliberate act, mis-rule and bad governance are quite different. Westminster has not exemplified itself with its handling of the natural phenomenon of Covid. Is that genocide also?
    So yeah. The Brits were to blame. In a nutshell.
    So yeah, if you want to stick with that assertion and are not prepared to read people like O Grada and other economic historians I’m not going to change your mind. Bye now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Mick Tator wrote: »
    Also, Ireland’s population in 1911 was about 3 million and estimated at about the same in 1921 (no census that year). Under Irish governance it had fallen to 2.8 million by 1960. You cannot blame the Brits for that or our economic progress (lack of).

    Wow! Do you really want to go there?

    It is a simple matter for anyone with a PC, a web browser, and a rudimentary knowledge of any spreadsheet program (no history./economics degree necessary) to download and plot the trend of Irish population over the last 180 years. The CSO website has an excellent section on historical census records through which you can see quite clearly how the population was destroyed in the last 60 or so years of the British regime, stabilised, or stagnated if you prefer, in the first 30 years or so of independence, and then dipped suddenly in the second half of the 1950s, before accelerating ever since.

    In 1841, the population of the 26 counties making up today's state was 6.5million. In 1901 it was 3.2million. It had halved in 60 years.

    In 1926 it was 2.97 million; in 1951 2.96 million ie a 0.3% decline in 25 years - or stagnation if you like. Compared with what went before, that was progress.

    Between 1951 and 1961 it dropped suddenly by nearly 5%. I believe the reason for that dip was entirely economic and probably had to do with the basic economic policies of independent Irish Governments (building up local industry from a starting point of almost zero to the point of self sufficiency behind protective trade barriers) inevitably running out of steam.

    Simultaneously, the economy of our nearest neighbour was growing rapidly following the reconstruction of British industry after the war, fuelled by Marshall plan investments, so that the Prime Minister of the time, Harold McMillan, could tell his populace that they had "never had it so good".

    The symbiotic effect of stagnation at home and opportunity aplenty a short boat ride away, caused a spurt in emigration. To such an extent that the Irish census of 1961 recorded the lowest population since records began: a mere 2.8m people in the Republic.

    What happened next?

    1) Greater integration with first the British market (the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement of 1965) then with Western Europe (membership of the EEC in 1973) and ultimately the European Union stretching as far as the borders of Ukraine and Russia.

    2) A focus on universal education up to university level to produce a skilled, literate, technologically capable workforce

    3) The development of transport and communications technology which has transformed the economics and business environment of the entire planet.

    Successive Irish governments can take credit for the first two of those developments, if not the third, but the overall effect has been a general transformation of the Irish economy to such an extent that in my lifetime, its population has increased by 75%!!!

    Or at least it will if the census due in 2021(Covid Lockdown permitting) reveals a population in excess of 5 million which is almost certain. The Worldometers website puts Ireland's population today at 4.96 million.

    That growth, moreover, has taken place over a period when the Irish birth rate has plummeted. Although still the highest in the EU, it is now much closer to the European norm, an inevitable result of growing prosperity and the increasing emancipation of women. The only explanation is relative economic prosperity which has caused a great curtailment of emigration and, inevitably, incentivised immigration. Ireland is a much more multi-ethnic country than it was in my youth. And good thing too.

    And all without a famine in sight!!!! What on earth is the basic reason for that, I wonder? Climate hasn't changed THAT much.

    Mick Tator wrote: »
    It is futile to argue with a statement that ‘the Famine was manmade’ and it is equally futile to argue with one that says it was climate driven. Each famine is different and caused by a complex web of conditions and events, both social and economic. How they are managed, like any other calamity, is impacted by the role of the government.
    Well precisely. Why are we arguing?
    Mick Tator wrote: »
    An event cannot ‘metastasise into a genocidal famine’ – again, genocide is a deliberate act, mis-rule and bad governance are quite different. Westminster has not exemplified itself with its handling of the natural phenomenon of Covid. Is that genocide also?

    I checked the meaning of genocide in my dictionary. (Helps to be sure what words mean). The OED calls it "the deliberate extermination of a race, nation etc"

    So you are right, in the literal sense, to say that for a genocide to occur, the action has to be deliberate (which I do not contend was the case with the destruction of the Irish population). But then the definition also refers to "extermination" rather than "massive depletion" of the group. This would imply that the survival of an identifiable section of that group would mean that a genocide had NOT taken place.

    This is clearly not the case for most incidents recognised as genocide: the Tutsis of Rwanda still exist, as do the Rohinga of Burma and of course the Jews of Europe. But they all suffered a great drop in numbers. If you want to maintain that, literally speaking, the Nazi massacre of millions of Jews was not a genocide because some of them survived (which would appear to be semantically true going by the OED's definition) ....I wouldn't say it out loud!!!

    It's the scale of the Irish population depletion which led me to talk of an "effective genocide", if not a deliberate one but then a "deliberate genocide", I concede, is a tautology.

    And of course the ineptitude of BoJo with regard to the reaction to Covid 19 in Britain does not constitute genocide by ANY understanding of the term. 61,000 deaths so far out of a population in excess of 68 million is a fraction of a per cent. Hardly a blip in the overall population figures.

    A possible parallel with 1840s Ireland, however, could be a reluctance to stay the course especially if the impending arrival of a vaccine proves not to be a magic bullet.

    The RTE programme showed clearly that the initial reaction by Robert Peel's government in 1845 was effective and prevented ANY deaths by starvation in the first year.

    But when the Whigs took over, the size of the disaster became apparent, and the strain on the Exchequer proved to be bigger than originally estimated, they simply gave up. They closed the soup kitchens, curtailed the public works programmes and started blaming it all on "an all knowing Providence". To refer back to the OP of a few years ago.

    Look out for a similar reaction in Britain -- mutatis mutandis -- if Covid 19 proves more resilient than we all hope.
    Mick Tator wrote: »
    So yeah, if you want to stick with that assertion and are not prepared to read people like O Grada and other economic historians I’m not going to change your mind. Bye now.

    I'll check out O Grada certainly. An economic study of the circumstances of the famine, by definition, focuses on the behavioural issues. IE the human factors, including responsibility.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    Of course it wasn't, but the point also made was that other countries reacted much better and more quickly and the effects in other places were not so bad as here. Speaking of which, how many people died during the Swedish "famine" of the 1860s? I can't find that rather important piece of information from my albeit perfunctory researches, but I'm sure you'll know...?



    All of my information on the Swedish famine came from the people I stayed with, whose predecessors had emigrated to the US and Canada because of it. I've no idea how many died but the way they told it to me, the population of many towns and villages emigrated en masse, once the extent of the crop failure became known. That is, they didn't wait to be helped by other countries or their own agencies and they left as soon as they could.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 643 ✭✭✭Mick Tator


    Wow! Do you really want to go there?.............I'll check out O Grada certainly. An economic study of the circumstances of the famine, by definition, focuses on the behavioural issues. IE the human factors, including responsibility.

    No, and I’m not going to pick at your arguments even though I disagree with many):p but glad you will look at O Grada, I think you will enjoy reading him: much of his writing is freely available online, links via his academic site. My point has always been that action/reaction to historic events must be judged by the prevailing social climate, (living standards, beliefs, philosophy, etc.) and not by the norms that we hold today. It’s a question of perspective and ignoring many of the fables that were promoted by late 19thc nationalists.

    In examining the Famine it has to be recognized at the outset that ‘Religion’ played a huge part in people’s lives/outlook and that it cannot be underestimated. For example, Trevelyan held deep religious convictions – his views on Ireland and the Famine were completely shaped by his firm belief in Providentialism (the belief that all events on Earth are controlled by God). Add to that his (and general popularity) of the economic doctrine of laissez-faire and you have the makings of a disaster. Trevelyan said "the judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson" so what hope had the Irish poor, who were seen as monoglot illiterates, Pope-loving, disloyal to the Crown, etc. We see it as BS now, but at that time it was viewed as an accepted belief.

    Trevelyan was not alone as a Providentialist – there were other important religious sects too with powerful adherents in that era, e.g. one later known as the ‘Plymouth Brethren’. This was founded by John Nelson Darby. He was a Church of Ireland cleric in Co. Wicklow and a major bible-thumper. After a bad fall from a horse Darby spent his convalescence rigorously studying the Bible, during which time he became very fundamentalist in his views. His beliefs were founded in pre-millenarianism - a doctrine which suggests certain events are evidence of God's pre-determined plan to bring about the second coming of Christ. As part of this Darby believed that despite the Jews' rejection of Jesus, they had a dispensation from God and the countdown to the second coming could only begin when the Jews had returned to their homeland.(A sort of Providentialism v.2.0). Many believed the Famine was part of that scheme. The Society of Friends (Quakers) deeply Protestant and 'Loyal' had a different view and did untold good.

    Today we might scoff at what we regard as odd beliefs and fervour, but they and their link to the ‘second coming’ today remain popular and widespread in the US, where the Christian right, particularly the evangelical forms of Protestantism, are ardent believers/supporters. One hundred and fifty years from now historians will be wondering why the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem. Trump’s evangelical voter base support it as part of 'God's Plan'. And people like me in 150 years will be shouting about seeing it in perspective!:D
    (OK, Trump also wanted to garner the Jewish vote, and his son-in-law had to deliver a favour as he needed to win a breather from his Jewish bankers!)


Advertisement