The Famine Plot - Tim Pat Coogan "Famine was genocide"

pedroeibar1 · 14-05-2013 12:21pm

Members of Dublin City University's BCL in Law and Society .............alongside students from the hosting Fordham Law School, the facts were debated and a legal case was made for both sides. The judges recruited by the mock tribunal included Adrian Hardiman from the Supreme Court of Ireland, John Ingram of the New York Supreme Court, and William Schabas, a Professor of Law at Middlesex University, London..........................
Unfortunately, we'll have to wait a little longer for the result: in true legal fashion, judgement on the case was frustatingly reserved for 60 days. That means we should find out what the legal experts made of Ireland's biggest tragedy around June 20.

From http://www.worldirish.com/story/35831-irish-famine-tribunal-in-new-york-reserves-judgement-on-britains-responsibility-for-the-great-famine

fryup · 15-05-2013 5:24pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Most Famine victims died of disease, not hunger. Look at what was happening in Britain at about the same time. In 1831 cholera broke out in England, at Durham. Moving north into Scotland and south to London it within a couple of years claimed 52,000 lives. A few years later, measles and "hooping cough" accounted for fifty thousand deaths in England and Wales between 1838 and 1840. In the same period about 25% of all deaths have been attributed to tuberculosis or consumption.

good point,

the famine itself spread from the south of ireland to ulster to scotland and to the north of england, it wasn't just the irish that were affected

wolfpawnat · 20-05-2013 8:20pm

Not a fan of Tim Pat Coogan. He allows his bias show in his writings, especially concerning two particular political figures of the 20th century.

Was it a genocide. I would say yes. When a third of a population are dependent on one crop and it fails, when the government in charge (Britain) continues to ship all other crops and animals out of the country and not look after the starving then you are most certainly guilty of it.

Yes the vast majority of deaths appear to have been disease (we have no accurate records) Many died in their homes/the side of the road so we are assuming since disease was the most common form of death, but having food to keep the body going would have helped these individuals too. As would shelter, many people lost their homes during the famine due to extortionate rents. It was a horrific thing to happen under the power of a supposedly "civilized" state such as Britain!

Fratton Fred · 21-05-2013 8:47am

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Not a fan of Tim Pat Coogan. He allows his bias show in his writings, especially concerning two particular political figures of the 20th century.

Was it a genocide. I would say yes. When a third of a population are dependent on one crop and it fails, when the government in charge (Britain) continues to ship all other crops and animals out of the country and not look after the starving then you are most certainly guilty of it.

Yes the vast majority of deaths appear to have been disease (we have no accurate records) Many died in their homes/the side of the road so we are assuming since disease was the most common form of death, but having food to keep the body going would have helped these individuals too. As would shelter, many people lost their homes during the famine due to extortionate rents. It was a horrific thing to happen under the power of a supposedly "civilized" state such as Britain!

Who actually shipped food out of Ireland? The government should have stopped it, sure, but who were the producers and merchants exporting Food?

wolfpawnat · 21-05-2013 11:14am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Who actually shipped food out of Ireland? The government should have stopped it, sure, but who were the producers and merchants exporting Food?

It was government ordered, but yes, those who actually did the work were agents and the like. I am sure there are a few who wanted to help people, but was fearful for their own families but many were as heartless as they come and did not care about those starving and dying around them.

It was a mixture of powers that be, individuals and government that led to what could easily be argued as a genocide.

Fratton Fred · 21-05-2013 11:40am

wolfpawnat wrote: »

It was government ordered, but yes, those who actually did the work were agents and the like. I am sure there are a few who wanted to help people, but was fearful for their own families but many were as heartless as they come and did not care about those starving and dying around them.

It was a mixture of powers that be, individuals and government that led to what could easily be argued as a genocide.

wasn't government ordered, the government's policy was to not interfere with trade at all. That policy was exploited and the government should have acted, but it was not the government exporting food.

Kosseegan · 22-05-2013 5:10pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

wasn't government ordered, the government's policy was to not interfere with trade at all. That policy was exploited and the government should have acted, but it was not the government exporting food.

Food was exported under armed escort. During previous potato shortages the export of food had been banned. Deliberate policy choices were made regarding the level of support for poor law districts and the advancing of funds for public works.

pedroeibar1 · 22-05-2013 6:59pm

Kosseegan wrote: »

Food was exported under armed escort. During previous potato shortages the export of food had been banned. Deliberate policy choices were made regarding the level of support for poor law districts and the advancing of funds for public works.

Like most of Coogan’s statements yours is equally overly simplistic, bordering on myth and inaccurate.

A substantial amount of all food distribution had to be carried out under armed guard to prevent riot and robbery. Your statement also assumes that a ban on grain exports would have averted famine, which is not the case. Firstly, total grain exports actually fell during the famine years and Ireland became a net importer of grain. Secondly, the government of the day had an ideology committed to Free Trade (just as today’s government is committed to repaying German Banks) so it was not going to change its policy to suit suffering citizens. Thirdly, even if the ‘exported’ grain was retained for local distribution the peasantry had no money with which to buy it. In autumn 1845 Peel’s government imported £100k s worth of Indian corn which was sold at a penny a pound. Private traders were excluded from buying it. However, Peel was out of office in 1846 and by 1847 these private merchants (i.e. local Irish shopkeepers) had cornered the trade and the price more than doubled – but even at that price it was still cheaper than oatmeal.

P. Solar* has done considerable research on the economics, dietary impact and Famine nutrition. The massive dependence on the potato was such that its departure from the Irish diet for the years 1845-49 meant that the calorific intake dropped on average by almost a quarter. Furthermore, even if all the exported grain had been retained and even allowing for the Indian Meal imported, there remained a net calorific deficit of about 12%.

The economics of public works schemes are a different topic and need to be viewed against the policies of the government in power - which varied considerably.

*just to take one example of his writings - Solar, Peter M. "The Great Famine Was No Ordinary Subsistence Crisis." In ‘Famine: The Irish Experience, 900-1900’, edited by E.M. Crawford. Edinburgh: John Donald, 1989.

Ó Gráda is another whose writings cover the same ground in a very similar fashion.

Coles · 23-05-2013 8:06am

Wrong again! Sweet Jesus...

In Ireland Before and After the Famine Cormac O’Grada documents that in 1845, a famine year in Ireland, 3,251,907 quarters (8 bushels = 1 quarter)) of corn were exported from Ireland to Britain. That same year 257,257 sheep were exported to Britain. In 1846, another famine year, 480,827 swine and 186,483 oxen were exported to Britain.

Cecil Woodham-Smith, considered the preeminent authority on the Irish Famine, wrote in The Great Hunger; Ireland 1845-1849 that, "...no issue has provoked so much anger or so embittered relations between the two countries (England and Ireland) as the indisputable fact that huge quantities of food were exported from Ireland to England throughout the period when the people of Ireland were dying of starvation."

"Although the potato crop failed, the country was still producing and exporting more than enough grain crops to feed the population. But that was a 'money crop' and not a 'food crop' and could not be interfered with."

According to John Mitchel, quoted by Woodham-Smith, "Ireland was actually producing sufficient food, wool and flax, to feed and clothe not nine but eighteen millions of people," yet a ship sailing into an Irish port during the famine years with a cargo of grain was "sure to meet six ships sailing out with a similar cargo."

One of the most remarkable facts about the famine period is that there was an average monthly export of food from Ireland worth 100,000 Pound Sterling. Almost throughout the five-year famine, Ireland remained a net exporter of food.

Link

Coles · 23-05-2013 8:14am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

wasn't government ordered, the government's policy was to not interfere with trade at all. That policy was exploited and the government should have acted, but it was not the government exporting food.

That's complete nonsense. Governments are supposed to govern, not to stand back and allow millions of people to die so that one class can profit.

You seem to think that not intervening to prevent the famine was an error of omission? It was, but implementing the policies that created the famine, intensified it and prolonged it was an error of commission.

pedroeibar1 · 23-05-2013 11:41am

Coles wrote: »

Wrong again! Sweet Jesus...

Link

What a delusional, badly expressed and inaccurate response.

For starters, your ‘source’ - an extract from a family website cannot be taken as authoritative. The bias of that source is reinforced by that site’s own admission - Readers should note that the above is mostly extracted from educational websites produced by countries bound by law to teach "genocide studies". ............... While most historians agree that between 1845 and 1850, one million Irish starved to death, the question of whether Ireland was a net exporter of food is contested. Ed. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!:D:D

Factually, until the Famine the export of grain was seen as ‘a good thing’ for example The Kerry Evening Post of June 1834 reported "It is interesting to view the great number of corn stores now in Tralee, full every year of grain for exportation and to think back to the time thirty years ago when not a single corn store was to be seen in the town. In comparison to today Tralee was a miserable hamlet with little in the way of maritime trade, and the poor farmer had no other mode of making up his rent than by the produce of his half-starved cow and the labour of his wife."

While Woodham-Smith is generally a good source, she is not always correct, notably for example her writings about the use of Indian corn. Mitchell had a political agenda to achieve and even his admirers accept that much of what he wrote contained a strong element of propaganda.

You have made your anti-British views known elsewhere several times already – I’m not going to change them but if you expect to be taken seriously you might try to post comment that is historically accurate.

wolfpawnat · 23-05-2013 1:13pm

Of course the export of food was seen as good before the famine, people were not starving and dying before the famine. Also it is not anti-British agenda to condemn the acts of its government at the time of crisis. There are times in history were you have to accept, Britain were involved in acts that do not shine them in a great light, and the decision to continue to export food and ignore the plight of starving people is most certainly a time that people will attack a government/landlords and their decisions.

Kosseegan · 23-05-2013 2:04pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Secondly, the government of the day had an ideology committed to Free Trade (just as today’s government is committed to repaying German Banks) so it was not going to change its policy to suit suffering citizens. .

So because the government had a policy which involved allowing people to stare to death its alright. If they hadn't a policy and just decided to starve people it would have been different?
Indian meal was no substitute for the staple diet of the Irish in any case.

Coles · 23-05-2013 2:48pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

You have made your anti-British views known elsewhere several times already.

:rolleyes: Is that supposed to be a slur? If anyone presents evidence that presents your precious Britain in a bad light you go hysterical and call them 'Anti British'. Let's just stick to the facts, eh?

pedroeibar1 · 23-05-2013 10:28pm

Coles wrote: »

:rolleyes: Is that supposed to be a slur? If anyone presents evidence that presents your precious Britain in a bad light you go hysterical and call them 'Anti British'. Let's just stick to the facts, eh?

Stick to facts? I do, and have quoted authors and publications, but the problem is that your posts have clearly shown that you do not recognize anything that does not support your biased outlook. Despite ample opportunity you have failed yet again to provide factual evidence to back-up your argument and have resorted to the ad hominem statement above in response. Not surprising really, given the so-called ‘sources’

:D you have earlier put forward.

As for any suggested ‘slur’ I never had any intention of that; I simply pointed out that many of your earlier posts are historically inaccurate, highly politicised and show an anti-British bias. Evidence of which - if any more is needed after your stupid source quote above- that can be seen by all for what it is and you are.

pedroeibar1 · 24-05-2013 12:29am

Kosseegan wrote: »

So because the government had a policy which involved allowing people to stare to death its alright. If they hadn't a policy and just decided to starve people it would have been different? .

No, that is not what I said or suggested. What I said was that ‘Laissez-faire’ was the political dictum of a ruling party of that era. Alongside that sat its opponents’ equally uncomfortable Malthusian view. One cannot judge what happened 150 years ago using today’s criteria, particularly with the benefit of event hindsight. The simple historical fact is that there were policies, but none of them were particularly effective principally because of successive changes in governments. Nor were they designed to starve people. The Brit Govt’s treatment of Irish famines later in the 1800’s showed that they had learned from the 1845-49 fiasco and handled those crises quite differently. Balfour’s role is a case in point.

Kosseegan wrote: »

Indian meal was no substitute for the staple diet of the Irish in any case.

No, and I never suggested that it was, but it is sustenance. Your comment is a non-sequitor. Eating about 10 pounds of spuds a day was the typical sustenance of an adult. So that makes about 40 lbs per family or 6.5 tons per family per year. You must realize that potatoes cannot be stored for a year, they also have a short harvest season (because only one variety was grown) , they do not transport well and also there was blight elsewhere in potato growing areas so they just were not available. Even if they were try to visualize the logistics that would be involved. Not deigning to eat Indian Meal in the Famine era is the modern day equivalent of the ‘socially deprived’ being unwilling to accept social housing because it is ‘not near my mammy’ or because ‘it is built on a hlll’ (as seen in Cork recently.)

Coles · 24-05-2013 9:48am

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

No, and I never suggested that it was, but it is sustenance.

£100,000 of Indian Meal is sustenance? Here's the Bank of England Inflation calculator. Have a look at how much that is worth today. Less than £9 million. That wouldn't feed the people of Ireland now for a single week on the most basic survival rations.

And obviously if it was 'sustenance' then 1'000'000 people would not have died, no? Can you see the logic there?

Here's a thought. More money was spent at the time maintaining the grounds in a single royal park in London.

Coles · 24-05-2013 9:53am

Is that me being anti-British again?

Coles · 24-05-2013 9:56am

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Not deigning to eat Indian Meal in the Famine era is the modern day equivalent of the ‘socially deprived’ being unwilling to accept social housing because it is ‘not near my mammy’ or because ‘it is built on a hlll’

So the Irish people preferred to die of starvation than to eat Maize? Too snobby, eh?

You're contributions on this subject are deliberately offensive. Why bother?

I would call you 'anti-Irish' but you'd would wear that as a badge of honour, right?

pedroeibar1 · 24-05-2013 10:27am

Coles wrote: »

£100,000 of Indian Meal is sustenance? Here's the Bank of England Inflation calculator. Have a look at how much that is worth today. Less than £9 million. That wouldn't feed the people of Ireland now for a single week on the most basic survival rations.

And obviously if it was 'sustenance' then 1'000'000 people would not have died, no? Can you see the logic there?

Here's a thought. More money was spent at the time maintaining the grounds in a single royal park in London.

You have incorrectly used a system of measurement because you clearly do not understand its inherent flaws (the BoE site you used actually highlights them but it obviously eluded you or did not suit your hypothesis.) If you want to compare the value of a £100,000 commodity (corn) in 1845 there are three choices. In 2011 the relative real price of that commodity is about £8 million. That tells us nothing as the measure used is not appropriate. A more accurate measure is to examine both the labour value and the comparative income values of that commodity. They are £71 million and £115 million respectively.

Those figures (£71m & £115m) actually are flawed because they are based on the British statistical data I used (Irish stats are not readily available.) Irish incomes were a fraction of those in Britain, so those figures need to be increased considerably. Puts a different complexion on things, no?
You might find this instructive - "Better Measurements of Worth", in Challenge: The Magazine of Economic Affairs, Vol. 49, No. 4 (July/August 2006), pp. 86-110.

Coles · 24-05-2013 10:33am

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

You have incorrectly used a system of measurement because you clearly do not understand its inherent flaws (the BoE site you used actually highlights them but it obviously eluded you or did not suit your hypothesis.) If you want to compare the value of a £100,000 commodity (corn) in 1845 there are three choices. In 2011 the relative real price of that commodity is about £8 million. That tells us nothing as the measure used is not appropriate. A more accurate measure is to examine both the labour value and the comparative income values of that commodity. They are £71 million and £115 million respectively.

Those figures (£71m & £115m) actually are flawed because they are based on the British statistical data I used (Irish stats are not readily available.) Irish incomes were a fraction of those in Britain, so those figures need to be increased considerably. Puts a different complexion on things, no?
You might find this instructive - "Better Measurements of Worth", in Challenge: The Magazine of Economic Affairs, Vol. 49, No. 4 (July/August 2006), pp. 86-110.

Wrong again! And posting up your 'flawed' figures and trying to deflect from the issue doesn't change the point.

The amount of 'aid' was insufficient to prevent the death of a million people from starvation. It wasn't sustenance. It did not make up for the massive quantities of food that was being taken from the country. If it did then people wouldn't have starved, right?

So what about your claim that the Irish people starved because they were too snobby to eat Maize? That was fairly obnoxious. Still stand by that?

Coles · 24-05-2013 10:34am

Blaming the victims is a new low. Even for you.

pedroeibar1 · 24-05-2013 10:45am

Coles - uneducated childish posts, beneath me to continue.

Coles · 24-05-2013 10:58am

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Coles - uneducated childish posts, beneath me to continue.

You've run out of rope.

Here's an interesting thought.

Let's have a look at the 'aid' that was supposed to provide sustenance while the food was taken from Ireland.

£105,000 of maize from the US and another £45,000 of maize from Britain. This maize was sold at 'a penny a pound'. So this wasn't actually aid at all. The price was set so as not to impact on the local economy, but even if we are generous and assume that there was no profit margin, no transport costs, no distribution costs, no wastage, no spoilage etc. the total amount of 'aid' can't have exceeded 16,000 metric tons and is actually likely to have been half that amount. Now compare this to the 485,000 tons of wheat that was taken from the country in 1845 alone. Now consider how much was being taken from the country in all the other years of the Famine. Now consider all the meat and butter being taken.

And this 'aid' wasn't given to people. It was sold to them.

There was no 'aid'.

Coles · 24-05-2013 11:02am

And pedroeibar1 claims that the Irish people starved because they were to snobby to eat maize?

Fratton Fred · 24-05-2013 11:50am

Coles wrote: »

And pedroeibar1 claims that the Irish people starved because they were to snobby to eat maize?

Four million Irish people didn't starve.

Kosseegan · 24-05-2013 1:17pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

No, and I never suggested that it was, but it is sustenance. )

People couldn't digest it. You cannot get sustenance from a substance running down your legs after eating it. You are trying to suggest that people were turning up their noses st it. That is nonsense. People had grass juice running down their mouths so they were no way going to refuse maize even if it was useless.
Laissez faire is nonsense. they had set up poor law unions. If they were following laissez faire they would not have set up poor law unions. they would have left the "market" to solve all problems.

Fratton Fred · 24-05-2013 2:04pm

Kosseegan wrote: »

People couldn't digest it. You cannot get sustenance from a substance running down your legs after eating it. You are trying to suggest that people were turning up their noses st it. That is nonsense. People had grass juice running down their mouths so they were no way going to refuse maize even if it was useless.
Laissez faire is nonsense. they had set up poor law unions. If they were following laissez faire they would not have set up poor law unions. they would have left the "market" to solve all problems.

The theory was, if people had money they could buy food, but speculators were buying up stocks and manipulating the market. There are plenty of references apparently to work houses complaining about the high cost of staples due to profiteering.

Coles · 24-05-2013 6:45pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Four million Irish people didn't starve.

Nobody said 4 million Irish people starved.

pedroeibar1 · 25-05-2013 12:14am

Kosseegan wrote: »

People couldn't digest it. You cannot get sustenance from a substance running down your legs after eating it. You are trying to suggest that people were turning up their noses st it. That is nonsense. People had grass juice running down their mouths so they were no way going to refuse maize even if it was useless.
Laissez faire is nonsense. they had set up poor law unions. If they were following laissez faire they would not have set up poor law unions. they would have left the "market" to solve all problems.

Like most of your views there often is a grain of truth behind the huge amount of folklore and myth you express. People actually did ‘turn up their noses' at yellow meal, that is documented - they called it ‘brimstone’. Eating ‘grass’ did happen but it is generally accepted as not widespread – however, it is documented that in times of hardship/earlier famines people had for centuries been eating ‘weeds’ – notably charlock (a member of the cabbage family) and nettle soup, both of which actually are highly nutritious.

Your comment on the PLU’s is overly simplistic, misleading and shows a lack of understanding of the events surrounding their establishment. The Poor Law Act (main one for Ireland) was 1838 based on the English Act of 1834; so it predates the Great Famine by about 10 years, (thereby making your comment look foolish.) However, nobody expected (or could foresee) the overwhelming consequences of the ’47 famine numbers on the PL system.

To bring the comments back on topic, I have yet to see any articulate sourced comment giving proof of ‘genocide’ or any comment contradicting the point that it was not the British authorities but the Irish Catholic merchants were the ones regularly profiteering on the sale of foodstuffs. That, of course, would not suit the agendas of the gombeen Brit-bashing republicans.:rolleyes:

Coles · 25-05-2013 2:12pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

To bring the comments back on topic, I have yet to see any articulate sourced comment giving proof of ‘genocide’ or any comment contradicting the point that it was not the British authorities but the Irish Catholic merchants were the ones regularly profiteering on the sale of foodstuffs. That, of course, would not suit the agendas of the gombeen Brit-bashing republicans.:rolleyes:

Why do you wish to frame the discussion in sectarian terms? The religious faith of individuals members of the society is not an a factor in judging the policies of the government. The British government ruled all of Ireland at the time, Catholics and Protestant.

The most ignorant anti-Republicans always try to stoke the sectarian divide. A bit pathetic in this day and age. A Republic by it's very definition can not be sectarian.

But anyway, we've established that the amount of Maize imported and sold to the starving Irish people was about 3% of the wheat that was being taken from the country in a single year. It's important to remember that this was not charity.

But you're still trying to claim that the thick Paddies starved themsleves to death because they 'turned their noses up at eating Maize'? You claim it's well documented. Present you link. Show me a single person who chose to die of starvation rather than to eat Maize. Just one.

It is clearly documented that the Maize was not available for free. It was sold. The price was set so as not to impact on the price of other foodstuffs. So, if someone found the Maize to be inedible and priced similar to other products, surely they would have spent their precious money on other food?

That's quite different from your pig ignorant claim that a million Irish people turned their nose up at the stuff and chose to die of starvation instead.

wandatowell · 25-05-2013 2:21pm

Really enjoyed reading this thread

P. Breathnach · 25-05-2013 3:46pm

Coles wrote: »

... But anyway, we've established that the amount of Maize imported and sold to the starving Irish people was about 3% of the wheat that was being taken from the country in a single year....

Have we?

Jawgap · 25-05-2013 4:08pm

Coles wrote: »

Why do you wish to frame the discussion in sectarian terms? The religious faith of individuals members of the society is not an a factor in judging the policies of the government. The British government ruled all of Ireland at the time, Catholics and Protestant.

It is. This was the era when science and religion were very mixed up, and the prevailing view of the established church was very much in evidence in the scientific and the then emerging field of political economy.

Coles wrote: »

But anyway, we've established that the amount of Maize imported and sold to the starving Irish people was about 3% of the wheat that was being taken from the country in a single year. It's important to remember that this was not charity.

I've added some emphasis above just to illustrate the words you choose to use which suggests a latent bias - maize was imported, but wheat was 'taken'? (from whom, is the question?)

Coles wrote: »

But you're still trying to claim that the thick Paddies starved themsleves to death because they 'turned their noses up at eating Maize'? You claim it's well documented. Present you link. Show me a single person who chose to die of starvation rather than to eat Maize. Just one.

It is clearly documented that the Maize was not available for free. It was sold. The price was set so as not to impact on the price of other foodstuffs. So, if someone found the Maize to be inedible and priced similar to other products, surely they would have spent their precious money on other food?

That would assume that people behave rationally and make choices logically, which they don't in many cases. For a start many people would have been concerned with 'stigma' - I wonder how many died because they wouldn't buy corn or submit to the workhouse because of the stigma attached? Equally why would those with sufficient, albeit modest, means choose to emigrate at this time time when - as long as you had enough not to starve- you could avoid the risk of a sea voyage and an uncertain future?

Coles · 25-05-2013 4:55pm

Jawgap wrote: »

It is. This was the era when science and religion were very mixed up, and the prevailing view of the established church was very much in evidence in the scientific and the then emerging field of political economy.

That doesn't have any thing to do with the point that I made. The British government were governing everyone, not just protestants. The policies and laws had to be followed by all, regardless of faith.

I've added some emphasis above just to illustrate the words you choose to use which suggests a latent bias - maize was imported, but wheat was 'taken'? (from whom, is the question?)

Taken from Ireland to Britain. Taken on ships. Ireland was not an independent state and was governed from London as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Wheat that was 'taken' from Ireland to England was not exported because the two islands were part of an open trading unit. The United States of America was outside this trading unit so it is correct to describe food that was brought into Ireland from America as 'imported'.

That would assume that people behave rationally and make choices logically, which they don't in many cases. For a start many people would have been concerned with 'stigma' - I wonder how many died because they wouldn't buy corn or submit to the workhouse because of the stigma attached? Equally why would those with sufficient, albeit modest, means choose to emigrate at this time time when - as long as you had enough not to starve- you could avoid the risk of a sea voyage and an uncertain future?

This bullsh*t that people starved to death because they were too snobby to eat food needs to be put to rest. It's so unbelievably ignorant that it's just ridiculous. If you have any doubts about it I would suggest that you read up on the absolute horror of Famine anywhere around the world. And we've already established that the Maize was sold as a product, it wasn't given out widely as charity.

Coles · 25-05-2013 4:58pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Have we?

It involves fairly simple maths. Have a go at it.

P. Breathnach · 25-05-2013 7:18pm

Coles wrote: »

It involves fairly simple maths. Have a go at it.

You made the claim. Furnish the data.

Coles · 25-05-2013 7:40pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You made the claim. Furnish the data.

£105k Maize from US, £45k Maize from England. Sold 'for a penny a pound'.

240 pennies in £1.

240lbs x £150k = 36,000,000 lbs of Maize
36,000,000 / 2240 = 16,071 long tons of Maize, or 16,363 metric tonnes.

485,000 tons of Wheat were taken from the country in 1845.

The quantity of Maize imported was at most 3.3% of the quantity of wheat that was taken from the country. (16071/485000*100%=3.3%) Of course it was far less than that because much of the cost of the maize went on shipping/distribution and an amount of the maize was lost due to spoilage.

P. Breathnach · 25-05-2013 10:17pm

Coles wrote: »

£105k Maize from US, £45k Maize from England. Sold 'for a penny a pound'.

240 pennies in £1.

240lbs x £150k = 36,000,000 lbs of Maize
36,000,000 / 2240 = 16,071 long tons of Maize, or 16,363 metric tonnes.

485,000 tons of Wheat were taken from the country in 1845.

The quantity of Maize imported was at most 3.3% of the quantity of wheat that was taken from the country. (16071/485000*100%=3.3%) Of course it was far less than that because much of the cost of the maize went on shipping/distribution and an amount of the maize was lost due to spoilage.

I'd prefer to take the word of real historians. E. Margaret Crawford, in Food and Famine [in The Great Irish Famine, Ed. Cathal Póirtéir] says that during the Famine, Ireland became a net importer of grain (p. 64). Cormac Ó Gráda, who has probably done more substantial research in this area than anybody else, arrives at the same conclusion [there is a useful paper online here http://www.ucd.ie/economics/research/papers/2004/WP04.25.pdf - note the table on p.19.].

Food that was exported to Britain during the famine years was sold by those who owned the food. It was not expropriated by the government and shipped out. If there is a complaint to be made, it is that it was not expropriated by the government and given to the starving peasantry. That's what laissez-faire was about: if a wealthy tenant farmer in Kilkenny sold his cereal crop to a merchant for profit, or an impoverished tenant in Sligo sold his crop in order to pay his rent, the government did not believe that it had a right to interfere with those transactions.

There is no way in which I would defend the government's behaviour during the Famine. But neither do I see advantage in distorting the facts.

pedroeibar1 · 26-05-2013 12:04am

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Food that was exported to Britain during the famine years was sold by those who owned the food. It was not expropriated by the government and shipped out. ...........There is no way in which I would defend the government's behaviour during the Famine. But neither do I see advantage in distorting the facts.

Sadly P.B. that point cannot be accepted by some as their ignorance is so deeply imbedded it cannot be ameliorated. Nor are they open to fact, or to polite discussion. Coles figures are - as one would expect - totally incorrect, off by a factor of six with a spurious claim that 485k tons of wheat were 'taken' from the country in 1845. The actual figure for wheat exported was 78k tons. If wishing to be kind to that daft claim, and to stretch the point, a further 89 tons of wheatmeal & flour were exported. Additionally, that year 17k tons of barley, 95k of oatmeal and 235k of oats were exported to England giving the yearly total of 514 k for all corn, meal & flour.

But for those who are interested in fact, not ranted myth a la Cole and Tim Pat and their ilk, here are the factual export figures which show almost a 50% year-on-year decline of corn exports during the Famine period.

Exports of Corn in the period 1843 – 49 (thousands of tons)
1843 ........................478
1844 ........................424
1845 ........................514
1846 ........................285
1847 ........................147
1848 ........................293
1849 ........................215

Figures from ‘The Great Irish Potato Famine’ James Donnelly page 61 - sourced from the Ledgers of Imports, England.

What is interesting about this is that the corn production did not drop by that much (e.g. the 1846 figures of 514k to 285k), but that the corn crop was being diverted to animal feed (obviosly some for human consumption also) by Irish farmers. Something had to replace the staple diet (potato) of animals. They (animals) accounted for about one third of the annual potato crop consumption on the lead-up to the Famine. Huge profits were made by Irish farmers who has surplus corn. The knock-on effect of the potato failure was also shown in the impact on animal breeding and numbers in post-Famine years.

Coles · 26-05-2013 9:23am

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'd prefer to take the word of real historians. E. Margaret Crawford, in Food and Famine [in The Great Irish Famine, Ed. Cathal Póirtéir] says that during the Famine, Ireland became a net importer of grain (p. 64). Cormac Ó Gráda, who has probably done more substantial research in this area than anybody else, arrives at the same conclusion [there is a useful paper online here http://www.ucd.ie/economics/research/papers/2004/WP04.25.pdf - note the table on p.19.].

Food that was exported to Britain during the famine years was sold by those who owned the food. It was not expropriated by the government and shipped out. If there is a complaint to be made, it is that it was not expropriated by the government and given to the starving peasantry. That's what laissez-faire was about: if a wealthy tenant farmer in Kilkenny sold his cereal crop to a merchant for profit, or an impoverished tenant in Sligo sold his crop in order to pay his rent, the government did not believe that it had a right to interfere with those transactions.

There is no way in which I would defend the government's behaviour during the Famine. But neither do I see advantage in distorting the facts.

You can't hide behind Laissez Faire when you try to absolve the government of their sins. It was not the 'policy of the time'. It was the policy of the government.

And your rejection of the figures I have presented shows how completely myopic you are on this issue. Why is that?

And what facts have I distorted? Withdraw that please.

P. Breathnach · 26-05-2013 9:57am

Coles wrote: »

You can't hide behind Laissez Faire when you try to absolve the government of their sins. It was not the 'policy of the time'. It was the policy of the government.

I'm not hiding behind anything, and I wonder how you can construe "There is no way in which I would defend the government's behaviour during the Famine" as at attempt to absolve the government.

And your rejection of the figures I have presented shows how completely myopic you are on this issue. Why is that?

Because I trust the work of substantial scholars such as Ó Gráda rather than dodgy back-of-the-envelope jottings.

And what facts have I distorted? Withdraw that please.

The simple facts that cereal imports exceeded cereal exports during the Famine (as reported by Crawford) and that food imports exceeded food exports in the period 1846-50 (as reported by Ó Gráda).

Coles · 26-05-2013 11:25am

@PBreathnach. The level of imports has no bearing no this discussion. People who could afford food bought food. Farmers who could afford crops for their animals bought it. The fact remains that nothing effective was done to prevent the starving to death of one million Irish people over 5 years. You can wring your hands about this issue all you like but the facts remain. 16k tons of maize was made available for sale to starving people. While millions of tons of food was taken from the country.

Here's an interesting thought. The British Government spent less than 0.1% of it's GNP on Famine relief over the period 1845-1850. And that money wasn't granted. It was loaned and expected to be paid back. And meanwhile 1 million people died of starvation.

P. Breathnach · 26-05-2013 12:10pm

Coles wrote: »

@PBreathnach. The level of imports has no bearing no this discussion....

But the level of exports has?

Coles · 26-05-2013 12:28pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But the level of exports has?

During every other serious food crisis up to that point the 'export' of food was restricted to ensure that famine was either limited or completely avoided. Why was the policy changed for the 1845-1850 Famine? Why was it not reintroduced when it was patently clear how many people were dying? The Famine dragged on for more than 5 years!!

Perhaps it might be instructive for you to look at what other policies were put in place with regards to the Poor Law, the qualification for relief, and indeed the Highland clearances in Scotland where the Gaels there were also obliterated from their land.

The policy was to consolidate the land in to larger holdings and the result was the starvation to death of 1 million Irish people.

P. Breathnach · 26-05-2013 1:17pm

Coles wrote: »

During every other serious food crisis up to that point the 'export' of food was restricted to ensure that famine was either limited or completely avoided. Why was the policy changed for the 1845-1850 Famine?

Change in government; change in economic philosophy. The free-marketeers had won the political argument.

Why was it not reintroduced when it was patently clear how many people were dying?

Because of the deeply-held political and social beliefs of the Russell government.

The Famine dragged on for more than 5 years!!

I think that is fairly well known. It was a food deficiency on a scale unknown in Western Europe. It seems evident to me that the scale of the catastrophe was such that people in London (and to a lesser extent, in Dublin) were unable to comprehend it.

Perhaps it might be instructive for you to look at what other policies were put in place with regards to the Poor Law, the qualification for relief, and indeed the Highland clearances in Scotland where the Gaels there were also obliterated from their land.

It might be instructive for you to read this thread: we have been over this ground before, and I have already indicated that I have done my reading.

The policy was to consolidate the land in to larger holdings and the result was the starvation to death of 1 million Irish people.

Oh. The successive failures of the potato crop had nothing to do with it?

Whose policy was it to consolidate land holdings? Perhaps you might recognise that from the point of view of the landowner it made economic sense to clear the land of an impoverished tenantry. Laissez faire in action.

pedroeibar1 · 26-05-2013 1:30pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Because I trust the work of substantial scholars such as Ó Gráda rather than dodgy back-of-the-envelope jottings.

Sorry P.B, I do not fully agree with you on 'jottings'. Coles' figures are not jottings, they are ravings, as jottings – even those on the back of an envelope - at least have a semblance of accuracy.

The past figures quoted by Coles are so grossly inaccurate I suggest Coles is a troll because when challenged the retort is personal abuse instead of debate or valid argument or even – heaven help up – a source or two. That is why I could no longer be ar$sed responding, as Coles' figures have always shown a total ignorance of statistical understanding, economics, history and an absurd level of bias.

The inflow of grain from abroad during the Famine hugely exceeded the outflow, particularly from 1846 onwards. So, in 1847 and 1848

the total exports amounted to 432 tons, whereas

the total imports amounted to 1,328,000 tons.

Even a ‘jotting‘ would show that exports were about one third of imports. (Figures from PMA Bourke, ‘The Visitation of God?: the potato and the great Irish famine. Ed. Jacqueline Hill and Cormac O’Grada (Dublin 1993)

The food gap created by the failure of the potato was so huge that even if the ports were closed to exports the shortfall in the country’s requirement would not have been made up. Some of Peter Solar’s work goes into this in detail, and he has extrapolated the grain/corn import/export figures into calorific values – his work is regularly referred to by O’Grada and other experts.

Coles · 26-05-2013 2:29pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Sorry P.B, I do not fully agree with you on 'jottings'. Coles' figures are not jottings, they are ravings, as jottings – even those on the back of an envelope - at least have a semblance of accuracy.

The past figures quoted by Coles are so grossly inaccurate I suggest Coles is a troll because when challenged the retort is personal abuse instead of debate or valid argument or even – heaven help up – a source or two. That is why I could no longer be ar$sed responding, as Coles' figures have always shown a total ignorance of statistical understanding, economics, history and an absurd level of bias.

Let's leave out the ad hominems, eh? They just make you look like an arse*ole, and none of us want that.

So, in 1847 and 1848

the total exports amounted to 432 tons, whereas

Oh sweet Jesus!

Not even wrong.

Coles · 26-05-2013 3:46pm

@PBreathnach, Pedroeibar1, Do you guys still stand over your claim that 1 million people starved themselves to death decause they were 'too snobby' to eat maize?

I've been waiting for a response to this question for quite a while now.

And you now accept that the £150,000 of Indian Meal/Maize amounted to no more than 16,000 tons? That's good. And that it wasn't given to starving people? It was sold to them at the market rate.

You have accepted that there was no shortage of food during the Famine too, right? It was sent to England. That's all very well documented.

You can accept that the Famine didn't impact on the whole society, can't you? Certain classes of people did very well. Merchants, Large Farmers, Landowners? They didn't starve to death, did they? So who did die? Exclusively the racial group who died of starvation were the Gael. The native Irish. Why is that? Perhaps one of you guys would like to present your views on it. Perhaps you could make reference to the history of Ireland up to that point in time and the relationship between the Ireland and Britain? Who owned the land? Who had power? Who governed who? Perhaps it might be worth looking at what happened in Scotland?

With so many people dying and emigrating of course agriculture was disrupted. Hence the imports of food. It wasn't for the starving native Irish, was it?

I'm starting to think that I'm the only one of us who actually studied Economic History...

P. Breathnach · 26-05-2013 4:07pm

Coles wrote: »

@PBreathnach, Pedroeibar1, Do you guys still stand over your claim that 1 million people starved themselves to death decause they were 'too snobby' to eat maize?

Where did I say or imply such a thing? Or is truth just an inconvenience to be discarded when it doesn't suit your prejudices?

... I'm starting to think that I'm the only one of us who actually studied Economic History...

Not very attentively, it seems.

The Famine Plot - Tim Pat Coogan "Famine was genocide"

Comments