Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The British Empire Thread
Comments
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »You must surely be a west brit to have such strong views about Guinness:D
nope , Im a non drinker who used to drink quite a lot , a veritable beer connossieur and authority on the subject . And in my considered opinion Guinness is minging pish.the breweries and distillaries also provided jobs to people, as did the landlords who presumably employed people to harvest all these crops being exported.
In a country of almost 10 million starving people a few breweries werent going to provide much employment . Please be serious , thats a ridiculous suggestion . Its very unlikely a native Irish catholic would have found employment in a brewery in those days in any event .
Furthermore the landlords did not employ the Irish to harvest the grain . The grain crops were grown and harvested by the Irish themselves . not by the landlords . The Irish had to sell the grain to the landlord to pay the rent and remain on the land . After that they were supposed to survive on potatoes .
Despite this many who did manage to pay their rent were still evicted . Tens of thousands of troops were brought into the country to enforce this . A massive local militia was also recruited into the RIC to enforce the evictions . Large sums of public money were spent , the policy wasnt laissez faire but extermination .The theory behing the Laissez Faire policy was that by keeping free trade going, it would create employment, wealth and people could afford to feed their families.
No , most definitely not . The theory behind laisez faire was from a British point of view Ireland was overpopulated , sheep were more profitable and less politically and militarily dangerous than human beings , and the population had to be dramatically reduced to more managable numbers. The policy was mass extermination . The failure of the potato crop was viewed by them as divine providence , a heaven sent solution to the problem they faced of too many Irish people in Ireland for the British system to comfortably cope with . Lord Trevelyan , the man Britian put in charge of what they laughingly referred to as famine relief stated in 1847 at the height of the holocaust
``It is my opinion that too much has been done for the people. Under such treatment the people have grown worse instead of better, and we must now try what independent exertion, and the operation of natural causes, can do.... I shall rest after two years of such continuous hard work in public service, as I have never had in my life."
Afterwards as he holidayed in France, he added in his diaries " The problem of Irish overpopulation being altogether beyond the power of man, the cure had been supplied by the direct stroke of an all-wise Providence "
As Lord Clarendon, the British viceroy in Ireland during the 1840s, wrote to British Prime Minister Lord John Russell: "I don't think there is another legislature in Europe that would coldly persist in this policy of extermination."
The British viceroy was hardly some Fenian with a grudge . He saw the policy very clearly for what it was . Mass extermination .
That makes it very clear . It wasnt about laissez faire and the belief this would provide the cure to the welfare of the Irish people . It was about the British empire taking the view that the Irish population needed to be culled . Exterminated to a manageable degree . And it was .It obviously didn;t work, because like most theories, it depends on people playing fair which the Landlords obviously didn't do.
firstly lets be very clear this theory that it was done to help the Irish is unsurprisingly a theory youve just made up off the top of your head . Im not going to be dragged into a context where something youve just made up in your own head because it sounds more agreeable to you is actually the truth . Not going to happen .
For example , some managers of public works schemes wanted to use the schemes to provide irrigation and drainage , opening up bogland for agricultural use . This would have produced food and saved lives . British policy strictly forbade this and insisted upon totally pointless work being carried out with no purpose other than to work people to death breaking stones and making roads to nowhere . A human being needs a specific calorific intake in order to produce energy . If you dont give a human enough food he'll die . If you force a human to work digging roads to nowhere and dont feed him hell die . The policy in Ireland was the policy of auschwitz . Extermination . There was an Irish probelm and there was a jewish problem one hundred years apart .
The theory was one which the landlords , who were the rulers and the establishment , made up for themselves and insisted upon governemnt assistance in enforcing . They were given tens of thousands of troops and militia at the expense of the British exchequer to enforce their policies . It did not go wrong by any means , it went perfectly right . They were very happy with the outcome of their policies . They were even rewarded and decorated by Queen Victoria in 1948 for their Irish policies .
why you persist in claiming something went wrong somewhere isnt a mystery at all . Its just denial .It's one of the arguements with Africa at the moment, European farmers are being paid subsidies which allow european crops to be sold at a loss, this prevents cheap imports from Africa entering the european market, so African farmers can't sell their crops, can't feed their families and therefore end up receiving charity from the same europeans who are preventing them earning a living.
The difference is the europeans dont own the land on which the africans grow the crops and arent sending tens of thousands of troops to africa and evicting them in their millions from their homes as a matter of policy in the wish to see them die in their millions .0 -
So Laissez Faire was a policy of extermination, not a policy of allowing free trade. Do you have anything to suport this, all the documents I have read show that it was about free trade, something whihc Trevelyan had introduced into India with perceived succes, which was why he was given the job in Ireland.
why did you not quote the Trevelyan's entire documents, just sound bites. It would be interesting to read the whole thing, as every time the famine gets discussed, the same two line quotes are wheeled out and are quoted as documentary evidence of genocide.
If you can point me to the entire documents, i would very much like to read them.0 -
kreuzberger wrote: »nope , Im a non drinker who used to drink quite a lot , a veritable beer connossieur and authority on the subject . And in my considered opinion Guinness is minging pish.
Really, we'll have to go for a drink one night. I am a bit of a train spotter when it comes to beer myself.;)0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »Britian did not use Gas in Iraq, please find me something that says they did.
No they didn't. Just bombs.
A first hand account from the man in charge describes how it worked. It makes for interesting reading, especially when you consider that what is being described here refers to the 1920s. But it sounds oh-so-familiar to anybody who reads the papers today.
When I got to Irak (sic), or Mespot as we called it in those days, Sir John Salmond had just taken over the "air control" of the country and most of the very large army forces which the British tax payer refused any longer to support there had departed. A rebellion had broken out in 1920, because the Arabs had been led to expect complete independence and had got instead British Army occupation and a horde of Jack-in-Office officials; the British Army forces occupying the country .... (got) the rebellion under after some months of hard fighting with heavy casualties on both sides.
The military control of Irak was transferred from the army to the RAF entirely to save money. .........
The truculent and warlike tribes which occupied and still controlled, after the rebellion, large parts of Irak, had to be quelled, and in this our heavy bombers played a major part. We were hundreds of miles up river near Baghdad and in the very centre of thoroughly turbulent and wholly unpacified tribes on whom we were endeavouring to impose government of local Baghdad i Effendis whom the tribesmen have naturally held in utter contempt from time immemorial.
When a tribe started open revolt we gave warning to all its most important villages, by loud speaker from low flying aircraft and by dropping messages, that air action would be taken after 48 hours. Then, if the rebellion continued, we destroyed the villages and by air patrols kept the insurgents away from their homes for as long as necessary until they decided to give up, which they invariably did.
Sir Arthur Harris, Bomber Command, 1947
Ever get the feeling the British, and their successors the Americans, are not very good at this governing Iraq, or Irak, business? Nearly 100 years on and you're STILL at the same old same old and pretending that it's really working this time.Fratton Fred wrote:
You speak of the Britih Empire as if Ireland were not part, but they were. Ireland was not a colony, ireland was part of Britain and the Irish were very much part of Britains exploits overseas.
The British Empire was won by the Irish, Administered by the Scots and lost by the English.
Oh you are very right to bring up the fact that an Empire is largely ruled by its subject peoples. And it's something that we in Ireland MUST confront. But the point is that as an independent republic we can, if we wish, draw a line under that and insist that the nature of our new (ish) state is inherently anti imperialist and anti colonial. It requires that our actions in foreign policy reflect that and they don't always, but our clinging on to a notion of neutrality, even though it's something of a fig leaf, vis a vis flights out of Shannon, is an important part of that.
The British way of dealing with that history has to be subtly different. You have retained the monarchy, in whose name this exploitation was effected and you continue to involve yourselves in wars that have been going on for nearly a century while trying to dress each subsequent campaign up as something different. But I know that there is a huge body of opinion in Britain which prefers to see its own history in terms of an exploitative class struggle and is determined to link the liberation of its own people to the liberation of its former subjects.
These are the workign classes who dreamed of a welfare state and a just society and were prepared to fight their own countrymen and masters to achieve it. They are the people whose mettle and determination fought the Second World War for you, and contributed to its victory. How did they celebrate it? By kicking out the commander in chief (Churchill) and his Tory cohorts and voting in the most hardline socialist government ever seen in western Europe.
You should be proud of those people, not of the likes of those old murderous imperialists like Kitchener (Irish born) or Cecil Rhodes, or Stanford Raffles etc etc etc0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »No they didn't. Just bombs.
A first hand account from the man in charge describes how it worked. It makes for interesting reading, especially when you consider that what is being described here refers to the 1920s. But it sounds oh-so-familiar to anybody who reads the papers today.
When I got to Irak (sic), or Mespot as we called it in those days, Sir John Salmond had just taken over the "air control" of the country and most of the very large army forces which the British tax payer refused any longer to support there had departed. A rebellion had broken out in 1920, because the Arabs had been led to expect complete independence and had got instead British Army occupation and a horde of Jack-in-Office officials; the British Army forces occupying the country .... (got) the rebellion under after some months of hard fighting with heavy casualties on both sides.
The military control of Irak was transferred from the army to the RAF entirely to save money. .........
The truculent and warlike tribes which occupied and still controlled, after the rebellion, large parts of Irak, had to be quelled, and in this our heavy bombers played a major part. We were hundreds of miles up river near Baghdad and in the very centre of thoroughly turbulent and wholly unpacified tribes on whom we were endeavouring to impose government of local Baghdad i Effendis whom the tribesmen have naturally held in utter contempt from time immemorial.
When a tribe started open revolt we gave warning to all its most important villages, by loud speaker from low flying aircraft and by dropping messages, that air action would be taken after 48 hours. Then, if the rebellion continued, we destroyed the villages and by air patrols kept the insurgents away from their homes for as long as necessary until they decided to give up, which they invariably did.
Sir Arthur Harris, Bomber Command, 1947
Ever get the feeling the British, and their successors the Americans, are not very good at this governing Iraq, or Irak, business? Nearly 100 years on and you're STILL at the same old same old and pretending that it's really working this time.
Oh you are very right to bring up the fact that an Empire is largely ruled by its subject peoples. And it's something that we in Ireland MUST confront. But the point is that as an independent republic we can, if we wish, draw a line under that and insist that the nature of our new (ish) state is inherently anti imperialist and anti colonial. It requires that our actions in foreign policy reflect that and they don't always, but our clinging on to a notion of neutrality, even though it's something of a fig leaf, vis a vis flights out of Shannon, is an important part of that.
The British way of dealing with that history has to be subtly different. You have retained the monarchy, in whose name this exploitation was effected and you continue to involve yourselves in wars that have been going on for nearly a century while trying to dress each subsequent campaign up as something different. But I know that there is a huge body of opinion in Britain which prefers to see its own history in terms of an exploitative class struggle and is determined to link the liberation of its own people to the liberation of its former subjects.
These are the workign classes who dreamed of a welfare state and a just society and were prepared to fight their own countrymen and masters to achieve it. They are the people whose mettle and determination fought the Second World War for you, and contributed to its victory. How did they celebrate it? By kicking out the commander in chief (Churchill) and his Tory cohorts and voting in the most hardline socialist government ever seen in western Europe.
You should be proud of those people, not of the likes of those old murderous imperialists like Kitchener (Irish born) or Cecil Rhodes, or Stanford Raffles etc etc etc
Good post.
Churchsill had a slap in the face after WWII, which he saw coming. Churchill was the right man at the right time, but after the war, a new style of government was needed. WWII was a huge leveller in Britain as all classes suffered equally and pretty much the whole country was devestated. Rebuilding was needed from the ground up and a left wing government was seen as being needed at the time. It is worth adding that Churchill did get back in, but was never as successful as he was during the war. (Although he led the tories, he was also a member of the liberal party)
Social revolution in Britain has come a long way, starting with the Tolpuddle martyrs I suppose. I think that the social revolution going on in Britain may have played a lot in British policy towards the Empire, if the ruling classes could not control their lessers at home, at least they could overseas, out of sight of the British voters.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »If you don't care what i think, then don't quote me. If you don;t like the thread, ignore it. It's not difficult.
I apologise if i think i was rude.This thread was set up to allow the Brit bashers bash the British empire, but as usual it ends as a "Look what those nasty Brits did to us poor Irish" type thread.
But the British Empire's action in Ireland were horrible that is imperial contradictions again saying "Let's set up a thread to bash the brits empire but whne examples of that brutal empire are found in Ireland this is wrong to cite." Stupid reason for a thread anyway. I thought this was for historical discussion.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »Yes, this is complicated, but to say young Irishmen joined the army out of a need to feed their families is not true, that is my point. Young Irishmen would have, I am presuming, joined the British army for the same reason young men joined the army all over europe.
I would suggest it was because their families couldnot feed them that they joined the British Army not the other way round. Times were scarce jobs were scarce food was scarce. A (supposedly) regular wage and regular meals were a big factor in a country devastated by colonialism such as Ireland. Also british recruiters played to this fact.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
So you think only Marxists are allowed to believe that the working classes have historically got a raw deal? :rolleyes:
No I would expect a Marxist to have more analysis of the situation in Ireland like, indeed, Marx and Engels who had quite a bit to say on Ireland. On the other hand I would expect someone with empty rhetoric and no point to spout simplistic Marxist rhetoric in an effort at appearing clever.0 -
Of course such rhetoric is purely ironic I take it? and ultimately you have no point let alone any wish to debate anything that doesn't confirm to your own prejudiced cliche?
This is you speaking tongue in cheek I guess? Considering your posts above number 80, its hard to take you seriously complaining about someone elses rhethoric, given your own cack handed ways with it.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »This is you speaking tongue in cheek I guess? Considering your posts above number 80, its hard to take you seriously complaining about someone elses rhethoric, given your own cack handed ways with it.
Which part do you consider tongue-in-cheek, out of interest?0 -
No I would expect a Marxist to have more analysis of the situation in Ireland like, indeed, Marx and Engels who had quite a bit to say on Ireland. On the other hand I would expect someone with empty rhetoric and no point to spout simplistic Marxist rhetoric in an effort at appearing clever.
Maybe on the way in you forgot to look at the bit that says "History & Heritage"? You should have taken a left turn a bit earlier if you wanted the Politics forum.
I am interested in history and noting a trend or event in history does not need to have a political point. One of the reasons why it's so hard to have sensible discussions on this board is that some people are more driven by ideology than by a genuine interest in history. If you try to force events into your narrow little ideological perspective (be it republican, marxist, or pro-British) then all you do is distort history.
I couldn't give a toss if anyone thinks I'm clever or not - I grew out of that phase many years ago. I enjoy discussing history, and I believe it is a valid point that the landed gentry tend to crap all over the workers (irrespective of whether they are British, Irish or Chinese). If you can't tell the difference between a simple observation about human nature and spouting "simplistic Marxist rhetoric" then that's really no concern of mine. I can't stop you making a pratt of yourself.0 -
Maybe on the way in you forgot to look at the bit that says "History & Heritage"? You should have taken a left turn a bit earlier if you wanted the Politics forum.
I am well aware of what forum this is. I believe I noted before, back when I joined this board, the politicised nature of some comments on this forum. You are preaching to the choir, dude.I am interested in history and noting a trend or event in history does not need to have a political point. One of the reasons why it's so hard to have sensible discussions on this board is that some people are more driven by ideology than by a genuine interest in history. If you try to force events into your narrow little ideological perspective (be it republican, marxist, or pro-British) then all you do is distort history.
Again I agree, as I said I have highlighted this before. Who are these "some people", btw?
So what ideological perspective should we come at history from?I couldn't give a toss if anyone thinks I'm clever or not - I grew out of that phase many years ago. I enjoy discussing history, and I believe it is a valid point that the landed gentry tend to crap all over the workers (irrespective of whether they are British, Irish or Chinese). If you can't tell the difference between a simple observation about human nature and spouting "simplistic Marxist rhetoric" then that's really no concern of mine. I can't stop you making a pratt of yourself.
But your "simple observation about human nature" was just that simple. Tbh it goes without saying and hardly offers us anything we didn't know already.0 -
Again I agree, as I said I have highlighted this before. Who are these "some people", btw?
So what ideological perspective should we come at history from?
McMarmite would a prime example.
The perspective I approach history from is a desire to understand how events happened and what motivated people to behave the way they behaved. Hopefully we can learn enough to avoid repeating the same mistakes for ever and maybe we can emulate the occasions when people managed to do something really worthwhile.
For example, I spend about 1 month each year in Africa. You cannot understand the tribal conflicts there unless you understand how the colonial powers promoted tribalism as an administrative tool. Maybe we can't undo the damage at this stage - but we can avoid doing the same thing in other parts of the world.
So we are only supposed to post stuff that is completely new to everybody?But your "simple observation about human nature" was just that simple. Tbh it goes without saying and hardly offers us anything we didn't know already.
My observation was certainly simple, and hardly original, but it was evidently needed to correct the attitudes of others who, viewing the world through their one twisted eye, see the use of cannon fodder in World War I as nothing else but proof of how nasty the British are.0 -
McMarmite would a prime example.
Yes he is a troll and should have been banned ages ago. But you used the plural - who are these "people" that you are kicking up such a fuss about?The perspective I approach history from is a desire to understand how events happened and what motivated people to behave the way they behaved.
Except when you do not agree with others politically. Then you can dismiss perfectly valid arguments based on no more than superficial "simple" comments about human nature.Hopefully we can learn enough to avoid repeating the same mistakes for ever and maybe we can emulate the occasions when people managed to do something really worthwhile.
But that is inherently political not to mention wishy washy bull****.So we are only supposed to post stuff that is completely new to everybody?
My observation was certainly simple, and hardly original, but it was evidently needed to correct the attitudes of others who, viewing the world through their one twisted eye, see the use of cannon fodder in World War I as nothing else but proof of how nasty the British are.
No, but what you posted was the equivalent of saying the sky is blue. It was not necessary. It was simple and stupid.0 -
McMarmite would a prime example.
Yes he is a troll and should have been banned ages ago. But you used the plural - who are these "people" that you are kicking up such a fuss about?
I would hardly describe making a few comments as "kicking up a fuss". I could go over a list of names and we could argue with each one of them and have a series of personal fights. Is that you want? A bit of entertainment? An internet gladiatorial contest?
However, if you want another name to justify my use of the plural, Quis Separabit would be another example. Anyone who uses the UDA's slogan (ironically lifted from the Catholic Vulgate translation of the Bible - but loyalists tend not to be noted for their intellectual prowess) as a pen-name is unlikely to take an objective view on Irish history.
We're all free to do that, old chap, it goes with the territory. We may, of course, disagree over how 'valid' an argument is or how 'superficial' a comment may be. Horses for courses.Except when you do not agree with others politically. Then you can dismiss perfectly valid arguments based on no more than superficial "simple" comments about human nature.
You're entitled to your opinion. I answered a direct question and you don't like the answer you get.But that is inherently political not to mention wishy washy bull****.
If people insisted on arguing on the basis that the sky was green white and gold then it would be perfect valid to point out that the sky was blue.No, but what you posted was the equivalent of saying the sky is blue. It was not necessary. It was simple and stupid.0 -
Hello,
If anybody has a problem with anything or anyones posting, you can either report the post or PM me. If you have a problem with how I deal with things, you can bring it up in feedback.
What you can't do is use these threads to discuss whether or not some people are being trollish, because by you doing that, you yourself are being trolls.
Consider this a warning0 -
Advertisement
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »Good post.
Why thank you Fred.
BTW, somebody texted into Newstalk this morning and signed himself (or herself) the "world's biggest Portsmouth fan".
Could have been anybody, I suppose.
0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »Why thank you Fred.
BTW, somebody texted into Newstalk this morning and signed himself (or herself) the "world's biggest Portsmouth fan".
Could have been anybody, I suppose.
not me, I always use Fratton Fred
0 -
PDN wrote:I would hardly describe making a few comments as "kicking up a fuss". I could go over a list of names and we could argue with each one of them and have a series of personal fights. Is that you want? A bit of entertainment? An internet gladiatorial contest?
What I want was to ascertain the validity of your comments on people ruining discussion because of their politics in order to see if you had a point; which is why I wanted you to point who these people are, rather than just make vague comments about it.
But it seems indeed you are right and I was wrong. You are not kicking up a fuss about it. Instead, it turns out on investigation to have been an empty point. Just another simple observation about human nature, perhaps?You're entitled to your opinion. I answered a direct question and you don't like the answer you get.
What makes you think I did not like it? I actually quite enjoyed it tbh. Confirmed everything I needed to know about you and also reminded me of miss world contestants who bleat on about world peace. It sounds all wonderful but ultimately it’s empty rhetoric.
Tbh waffle does not equal objectivity. If you can’t see that or choose not to acknowledge it, it is not my problem.
If people insisted on arguing on the basis that the sky was green white and gold then it would be perfect valid to point out that the sky was blue.
But what if people were arguing from partisan positions the science behind the colour of the sky and then you came along and pointed out the sky was blue? That would be fairly simple which was, in your own words mind, the level of your interjection0 -
JACK300 wrote:I would suggest it was because their families couldnot feed them that they joined the British Army not the other way round. Times were scarce jobs were scarce food was scarce. A (supposedly) regular wage and regular meals were a big factor in a country devastated by colonialism such as Ireland. Also british recruiters played to this fact.
Actually Fratton Fred had a point in what he said which you did not acknowledge sufficiently. There are universal reasons men join armies adventure, an idea of manliness etc. They should not be ignored as they did play apart in Irish people joining the British Army. I would acknowledge, that as interesting as they may be however, they would not in and of themselves be enough to account for the numbers of people who joined the British Army.0 -
Actually Fratton Fred had a point in what he said which you did not acknowledge sufficiently. There are universal reasons men join armies adventure, an idea of manliness etc. They should not be ignored as they did play apart in Irish people joining the British Army. I would acknowledge, that as interesting as they may be however, they would not in and of themselves be enough to account for the numbers of people who joined the British Army.
no the wouldn't but they are interesting. however you ignore the fact that these unviersal reasons - if they indeed exist - would be bound by codes of representation and that these would be different from culture to culture and nation to nation.
what would make a British officer join the British Army would be different to what would make an Irish person join the British ARmy.0 -
I think most of the points made here about Irishmen joining the BA are invalid tbh. The reason being that there was a sort of tradition among Irishmen to join continental armies, going back at least as far as the 1600s (we all know about the flight of the earls). In addition many cromwellian soldiers were free to join continental armies who were not at war with Britain after the civil war. The point being that the army was seen as a career choice, not a question of loyalty to one nation or empire. It is perfectly feasible that after the 1800 act of union (and perhaps even before) there were a fairly large number of Irishmen who saw little difference between joining the British army and a continental one.0
-
Advertisement
-
What I want was to ascertain the validity of your comments on people ruining discussion because of their politics in order to see if you had a point; which is why I wanted you to point who these people are, rather than just make vague comments about it.
But it seems indeed you are right and I was wrong. You are not kicking up a fuss about it. Instead, it turns out on investigation to have been an empty point. Just another simple observation about human nature, perhaps?
By that kind of reasoning 99% of what is posted on these fora can be described as 'empty points'. You are on an internet discussion board where people discuss things, which involves making points and expressing opinions. If you are looking for the meaning of life then I suggest you read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy instead.
The idea that we can learn from history is a fairly common one, shared by many historians and philosophers. You may not share it, but we should be able to tolerate people holding different views without attempting to denigrate them with puerile comments.What makes you think I did not like it? I actually quite enjoyed it tbh. Confirmed everything I needed to know about you and also reminded me of miss world contestants who bleat on about world peace. It sounds all wonderful but ultimately it’s empty rhetoric.
So, if it's not your problem then why keep on arguing about it?Tbh waffle does not equal objectivity. If you can’t see that or choose not to acknowledge it, it is not my problem.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »So Laissez Faire was a policy of extermination, not a policy of allowing free trade. Do you have anything to suport this, all the documents I have read show that it was about free trade, something whihc Trevelyan had introduced into India with perceived succes, which was why he was given the job in Ireland.
why did you not quote the Trevelyan's entire documents, just sound bites. It would be interesting to read the whole thing, as every time the famine gets discussed, the same two line quotes are wheeled out and are quoted as documentary evidence of genocide.
If you can point me to the entire documents, i would very much like to read them.
not being mr trevelyans biographer i dont have a copy of the entire document handy . But I dont need to quote entire pages of mein kampf to prove Mr Hitler enaged in policies which saw the extermination of european jews . The fact he did it is proof enough . Had he won the war Im also sure that point would be disputed despite the disappearance of millions of people and existence of mass graves . A situation we have in this country .
However the fact so many people died , so many people were evicted which ensured death , the fact so much effort was put into actions in which the only conceivable outcome was death for a lot of our people and that Mr Trevelyan seemed very happy about it is proof enough for me .
Along with the mass graves .
And by the way Mr Trevelyan was not appointed to Ireland from the British east india company to rplicate its success . Mr Trevelyan was appointed to Ireland to ensure laws passed in the British parliament forbidding Irish commerce to compete in any manner with the trade of the British east india company were strictly enforced .
Id also point out that whilst the laissez faire policies of the British east india company were very good for the British east india company it does not mean they were good policies for the Indian people . Your definition of success and a colonised natives definition of success would appear to be two different things entirely . But thats down to mindset and the context in which you look at the world , from that of the colniser society and not that of the society on the receiving end .0 -
Charles Trevelyan :
Described it in 1848 as "a direct stroke of an all-wise and all-merciful Providence", which laid bare "the deep and inveterate root of social evil"; the Famine, he affirmed, was "the sharp but effectual remedy by which the cure is likely to be effected. God grant that the generation to which this opportunity has been offered may rightly perform its part..."
The ultimate question to ask is, whether or not a famine that great would have been allowed to happen in England? Everybody on this board knows the answer to that.0 -
it wasnt allowed happen . There was potato blight in england too . The working class population of england was just as dependent upon the potato as the Irish population before the blight. The population in england had swollen massively . But they didnt starve , especialy not with all that Irish food being removed from Ireland at the point of thousands of British bayonets to feed the British market .
Bad as conditions were for the english working class they had money to buy food with thanks to being employed in industry . Athur Griffiths analysis of the state of the Irish economy in that period pointed out
On the 12th of May, 1785, Pitt's new proposals were introduced in the English Parliament. They provided, among other things, that Ireland should not trade with any country where its trading might clash with the interests of England's mightiest corporation--the East India Company
Pitt after the 1801 act of union destroyed Ireland's new manufacturing industries , particularly linens, by dumping British goods there, and rapidly eliminated independent Irish shipping. Even worse, was the collapse in land use under Pitt and Shelburne's "free trade" policy. By the 1820s, 80 percent of all Ireland's land was owned by British and Scottish landlords, and 25 percent of all land was completely unused for any purpose except real estate speculation. Some 75 percent of what was used, was in grain or horse/cattle pasture, most of this for export by merchants under London's domination. On the remainder, the Irish grew their potatoes; on perhaps two acres of rented land for each large family.
All nineteenth-century accounts of those who saw both the Irish tenant farmers and African slaves in America and the Caribbean, agree that the Irish were far worse off. In 1845, a British government commission headed by the economist Nassau Senior counted up what free trade had done: Except during the brief potato harvest, there was no work at all for 2.4 million Irish adults; by today's calculations, 60 percent unemployment. Woolen, linen, poplin, furniture and glass manufacture had disappeared; fishing had nearly disappeared for lack of capital for boats, storage, etc. Even water-powered grain mills had disappeared, in the country which 1300 years earlier had been synonymous throughout medieval europe for the technology . There were only 39 hospitals serving 8 million people. The Duke of Wellington wrote in 1829 that "there never was a country in which poverty existed to the extent it exists in Ireland
British free trade and laissez fare was for Britian , not Ireland . Irelands manufacturing base and ability to engage in trade was deliberately curtailed to the point of its destruction . Instead it was deliberately forced into agriculture and the production of cash crops for British landlords . Virtually all the prfoits from those cash crops went directly to the city of london financing mortagges and commercial speculation . This left an Irish national population with no employment outside of harvesting the cash crops . A population which the system and its rulers viewed as an unnecessary hindrance and a political and military liability to the project of profit and exploitation which the British state was engaged with in Ireland . Profits that wer essential to the City of Londons yearly financial intake . Dean Johnathon Swift had pointed out that even decades earlier half of the revenue to the city of London emanating from within the UK came from Irish cash crops and property speculation
The potato blight brought an opportunity to the British state to put an end to that problem , the growing threat to their profit and domination , around 9 million starving unemployed people with absolutely nothing to lose but their chains . And they did get rid of that problem , very effectively . Their policies were directed towards exterminating that problem They ensured the problem starved to death and went into exile.0 -
Charles Trevelyan :
Described it in 1848 as "a direct stroke of an all-wise and all-merciful Providence", which laid bare "the deep and inveterate root of social evil"; the Famine, he affirmed, was "the sharp but effectual remedy by which the cure is likely to be effected. God grant that the generation to which this opportunity has been offered may rightly perform its part..."
The ultimate question to ask is, whether or not a famine that great would have been allowed to happen in England? Everybody on this board knows the answer to that.
Of course it wouldn't.
Dead and dieing people wandering around would have upset people. It was fine in another country, but not in your own front garden.
How badly affected was Dublin? were the poor in Dublin starving as well or was it just those that lived off the land?0 -
Advertisement
-
exactly, the British working classes had jobs and could afford to buy other food. I'm not sure about being that dependant on potatos though, I haven't heard that before.kreuzberger wrote: »it wasnt allowed happen . There was potato blight in england too . The working class population of england was just as dependent upon the potato as the Irish population before the blight. The population in england had swollen massively . But they didnt starve , especialy not with all that Irish food being removed from Ireland at the point of thousands of British bayonets to feed the British market .
Bad as conditions were for the english working class they had money to buy food with thanks to being employed in industry .
the same could be said about Scotland too, the Scots were not allowed to form their own trading companies as everything was expectred to come through the Union's trading company, the East India company.kreuzberger wrote: »Athur Griffiths analysis of the state of the Irish economy in that period pointed out
On the 12th of May, 1785, Pitt's new proposals were introduced in the English Parliament. They provided, among other things, that Ireland should not trade with any country where its trading might clash with the interests of England's mightiest corporation--the East India Company
Pitt after the 1801 act of union destroyed Ireland's new manufacturing industries , particularly linens, by dumping British goods there, and rapidly eliminated independent Irish shipping.kreuzberger wrote: »Even worse, was the collapse in land use under Pitt and Shelburne's "free trade" policy. By the 1820s, 80 percent of all Ireland's land was owned by British and Scottish landlords, and 25 percent of all land was completely unused for any purpose except real estate speculation. Some 75 percent of what was used, was in grain or horse/cattle pasture, most of this for export by merchants under London's domination. On the remainder, the Irish grew their potatoes; on perhaps two acres of rented land for each large family.
All nineteenth-century accounts of those who saw both the Irish tenant farmers and African slaves in America and the Caribbean, agree that the Irish were far worse off. In 1845, a British government commission headed by the economist Nassau Senior counted up what free trade had done: Except during the brief potato harvest, there was no work at all for 2.4 million Irish adults; by today's calculations, 60 percent unemployment. Woolen, linen, poplin, furniture and glass manufacture had disappeared; fishing had nearly disappeared for lack of capital for boats, storage, etc. Even water-powered grain mills had disappeared, in the country which 1300 years earlier had been synonymous throughout medieval europe for the technology . There were only 39 hospitals serving 8 million people. The Duke of Wellington wrote in 1829 that "there never was a country in which poverty existed to the extent it exists in Ireland
British free trade and laissez fare was for Britian , not Ireland . Irelands manufacturing base and ability to engage in trade was deliberately curtailed to the point of its destruction . Instead it was deliberately forced into agriculture and the production of cash crops for British landlords . Virtually all the prfoits from those cash crops went directly to the city of london financing mortagges and commercial speculation . This left an Irish national population with no employment outside of harvesting the cash crops . A population which the system and its rulers viewed as an unnecessary hindrance and a political and military liability to the project of profit and exploitation which the British state was engaged with in Ireland . Profits that wer essential to the City of Londons yearly financial intake . Dean Johnathon Swift had pointed out that even decades earlier half of the revenue to the city of London emanating from within the UK came from Irish cash crops and property speculation
The potato blight brought an opportunity to the British state to put an end to that problem , the growing threat to their profit and domination , around 9 million starving unemployed people with absolutely nothing to lose but their chains . And they did get rid of that problem , very effectively . Their policies were directed towards exterminating that problem They ensured the problem starved to death and went into exile.
The Victorian government of the time saw it, as PHB pointed out, as devine intervention, as many did the Black Death when that swept across europe. Many people see HIV as devine intervention today.
The mismanagement was appalling and the blatant disregard for people's lives is unbellieveable by todays standards. Does this make it Genocide?0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »exactly, the British working classes had jobs and could afford to buy other food. I'm not sure about being that dependant on potatos though, I haven't heard that before.
the population explosion in england was largely due to the potato , a very cheap , nutritious and widely available foodstuff . But in Ireland the population was reduced to a virtual potato culture and wholly dependent upon it . When the potato blight hit england its population had alternatives to turn to .the same could be said about Scotland too, the Scots were not allowed to form their own trading companies as everything was expectred to come through the Union's trading company, the East India company.
certainly the scots were at a disadvantage . But they had not been subject to penal laws and colonisation . They had not been dispossessed and subdued to the extent Ireland was over the centuries .The Victorian government of the time saw it, as PHB pointed out, as devine intervention, as many did the Black Death when that swept across europe. Many people see HIV as devine intervention today.
The mismanagement was appalling and the blatant disregard for people's lives is unbellieveable by todays standards. Does this make it Genocide?
what makes it genocide is if the policies and actions were intended to have the effect they did . Death and exile on a grand scale , the removal of a population deemed surplus to requirements . Evictions of hundreds of thousands of people from their homes, even of people paying their rent were policy . The effects of that policy was easily foreseen even in those days . That cannot be defined as disregard , it can only be defined as deliberate . The removal of the countrys food supply at the point of a gun , even in those days , was also forseeable in its effects upon the population . In previous decades during an earlier potato blight governemnt measures had been taken to prevent mass starvation , food exports were curtailed . In the run up to the holocaust senior governemnt advisors had warned them of impending catastrophe . And yet the measures introduced were calculated to exacerbate it , to take full advantage of it . The advantage was economic , in that sheep and cattle were more profitable , political and military . The population was reduced to a more managable number . Attempts to remedy the situation were repeatedly and actively blocked . The policymakers themselves stood to benefit from genocide as well as to secure their foothold politically and militarily
And far from it beiong viewed by the policy makers as a disaster or mismanagement they openly called it a success . They were even decorated and honoured for their work . So the only logical conclusion to draw is that their policies had the effect the people who made and enforced those policies had intended . Which is why they announced they were happy at the result of their policies .
So yes , I believe it most certainly qualifies as genocide .0 -
kreuzberger wrote: »
the population explosion in england was largely due to the potato , a very cheap , nutritious and widely available foodstuff . But in Ireland the population was reduced to a virtual potato culture and wholly dependent upon it . When the potato blight hit england its population had alternatives to turn to .
certainly the scots were at a disadvantage . But they had not been subject to penal laws and colonisation . They had not been dispossessed and subdued to the extent Ireland was over the centuries .
what makes it genocide is if the policies and actions were intended to have the effect they did . Death and exile on a grand scale , the removal of a population deemed surplus to requirements . Evictions of hundreds of thousands of people from their homes, even of people paying their rent were policy . The effects of that policy was easily foreseen even in those days . That cannot be defined as disregard , it can only be defined as deliberate . The removal of the countrys food supply at the point of a gun , even in those days , was also forseeable in its effects upon the population . In previous decades during an earlier potato blight governemnt measures had been taken to prevent mass starvation , food exports were curtailed . In the run up to the holocaust senior governemnt advisors had warned them of impending catastrophe . And yet the measures introduced were calculated to exacerbate it , to take full advantage of it . The advantage was economic , in that sheep and cattle were more profitable , political and military . The population was reduced to a more managable number . Attempts to remedy the situation were repeatedly and actively blocked . The policymakers themselves stood to benefit from genocide as well as to secure their foothold politically and militarily
And far from it beiong viewed by the policy makers as a disaster or mismanagement they openly called it a success . They were even decorated and honoured for their work . So the only logical conclusion to draw is that their policies had the effect the people who made and enforced those policies had intended . Which is why they announced they were happy at the result of their policies .
So yes , I believe it most certainly qualifies as genocide .
The difference with the Scots was not that they were subjected to different laws, they just accepted them and joined in, rather than constantly rebelling. I'm not saying that was right or wrong, but they chose to fight with and not against..
In terms of the rest of your post, can you post links to bak any of that up or is it more senationalist propaganda?0 -
kreuzberger wrote: »it wasnt allowed happen . There was potato blight in england too . The working class population of england was just as dependent upon the potato as the Irish population before the blight. The population in england had swollen massively . But they didnt starve , especialy not with all that Irish food being removed from Ireland at the point of thousands of British bayonets to feed the British market .
Bad as conditions were for the english working class they had money to buy food with thanks to being employed in industry . Athur Griffiths analysis of the state of the Irish economy in that period pointed out
I disagree, England had gone through the agricultural revolution, Ireland had not. Ten percent of usable land was planted with potatoes in Ireland, thats a huge dependence. It wouldn't have been anything like that in England.0 -
Going back to the original question.So you think that the British Empire spread democracy across the globe? Oh, you think that the Statute of Westminster was the greatest legislation ever passed? Well let's discuss that, in this thread.
Any off-topic posts in other threads which I don't think should be there will be moved into here, and the poster may well recieve a ban if he/she has been a repeat offender.
[Please note that using this thread as an excuse for personal abuse or racism (in the nationalist sense) will result in a ban.
----
One thing that the British Empire certainly did was; spread the English language around the globe. Many former colonies, USA, Canada, Australia & New Zeeland are principaly English speaking (granted Spanish is taking hold in the US now) Many African countries are undergoing a "language shift" to English even though the empire is no more.
And yes, many of these countries have adopted the British style of Government and legal systems "innocent until proven guilty" as well as many of the British common laws. Some former colonies have of course reverted to a style of government that is similar to what was prelevant in the region before colonisation. Instead of a Chief you now have a "one party state".0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Going back to the original question.
One thing that the British Empire certainly did was; spread the English language around the globe. Many former colonies, USA, Canada, Australia & New Zeeland are principaly English speaking (granted Spanish is taking hold in the US now) Many African countries are undergoing a "language shift" to English even though the empire is no more.
And yes, many of these countries have adopted the British style of Government and legal systems "innocent until proven guilty" as well as many of the British common laws. Some former colonies have of course reverted to a style of government that is similar to what was prelevant in the region before colonisation. Instead of a Chief you now have a "one party state".
Don't forget Britain's three most successful exports, Football, Rugby and Cricket:D0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »The difference with the Scots was not that they were subjected to different laws, they just accepted them and joined in, rather than constantly rebelling. I'm not saying that was right or wrong, but they chose to fight with and not against..
In terms of the rest of your post, can you post links to bak any of that up or is it more senationalist propaganda?
In the knowlege of mass graves , a decimated population , a campaign of mass eviction and an open hatred of the Irish population I think the onus is on you to provide links that show those who planned and implemented these policies neither foresaw nor welcomed the results of their policies . Rather than have me chasing my tail providing links only to have a mindset dismiss it regardless .0 -
kreuzberger wrote: »In the knowlege of mass graves , a decimated population , a campaign of mass eviction and an open hatred of the Irish population I think the onus is on you to provide links that show those who planned and implemented these policies neither foresaw nor welcomed the results of their policies . Rather than have me chasing my tail providing links only to have a mindset dismiss it regardless .
Hi Fredrick and unionist friends, did you miss me . That's it kreuzberger, no matter what logic/evidence you produce for our English unionist friend will present " a mindset dismiss it regardless ". That's when he knows his beaten 
. 0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »Don't forget Britain's three most successful exports, Football, Rugby and Cricket:D
All three of which are played in Ireland.0 -
kreuzberger wrote: »In the knowlege of mass graves , a decimated population , a campaign of mass eviction and an open hatred of the Irish population I think the onus is on you to provide links that show those who planned and implemented these policies neither foresaw nor welcomed the results of their policies . Rather than have me chasing my tail providing links only to have a mindset dismiss it regardless .
I'm not questioning the mass graves, or the evictions. I am questioning if it was blatant extermination as you seem to think. A few quotes do not make a government's policy.
In another thread, it was quoted that imports of food into Ireland exceeded exports, if that is the case then how can it be considered deliberate extermination. There was aid provided to Ireland from all over Britain, the Commonwealth and the US, if the British government was intent on killing people why did they allow this to proceed.
You also conveniently forget that there was a lot of people in England providing charity to those affected, why is it there is no recognotion of this, just constant rejection of everything Britain did?0 -
Advertisement
-
Fratton Fred, you've claimed that
A. It was just normal government policy
B. This would not have happened in Britain
How do you reconcile this claims?0 -
-
Fratton Fred wrote:Don't forget Britain's three most successful exports, Football, Rugby and CricketDeleted User wrote: »All three of which are played in Ireland.
None of them, alas, particularly well.0 -
-
'Cromwell - An Honourable Enemy'
by Tom Reilly
'This long overdue evaluation of Cromwell's campaign in Ireland, published on the 350th anniversary of that campaign, challenges all conventional interpretations.
Thousands of defenceless men, women and children are alleged to have lost their lives as a result of the 'scorched earth' policy of Oliver Cromwell, who has long been regarded as the most reviled figure in Irish history and who is still generally regarded there as a genocidal maniac and religious fanatic...
Yet, argues Tom, the traditional viewpoint lacks any solid evidence...
Using only contemporary sources, he examines eye-witness accounts; he also places Cromwell's conduct within the context of the seventeenth century and the rules of war then pertaining...
"With an impressive mastery of detail, he marshals the facts and concludes that Cromwell's appalling reputation appears to be undeserved; also as the first successful English military conqueror of Ireland, his emphatic success was a foregone conclusion so inadequate were the royalist forces in Ireland".
"During Cromwell's Irish mission he proved to be significantly more compassionate than many of his contempories, and he scrupulously adhered to the letter of the law of contemporary warfare while communicating with the various governors of the various garrisons throughout Ireland..!"
http://www.ely.org.uk/heros/lordcrom/CromBook.html
...............The reality is Cromwell's monster status is totally out of a proportion in Ireland, many of the things he is accused of were invented by the church and aristocrasy he fought against.
As an example in Drogheda it was mainly English royalists who were killed, not Irish at all, the same at Wexford. Cromwell came to Ireland to fight those who supported the English king.
Further, it was Catholic landowners who supported the Royalist cause who were banished not ordinary Catholics.
It was not just Irish sent off as indentured servants, another lie. English Royalists were also banished as indentured servants and subjected to the later penal laws.
On Monday 10th September Cromwell had a letter delivered to the governor, the English Royalist, Sir Arthur Aston which read:
Sir, having brought the army of the Parliament of England before this place, to reduce it to obedience, I thought fit to summon you to deliver the same into my hands to their use. If this be refused, you will have no cause to blame me. I expect your answer and remain your servant, O. Cromwell
The contemporary laws of war were clear that if surrender was refused and a garrison was taken by an assault, then the lives of its defenders would be forfeit, as Cromwell's letter strongly implies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Drogheda
After breaking into the town, the New Model soldiers pursued the defenders through the streets, killing them as they ran. A group of defenders had barricaded themselves in Millmount Fort, overlooking the town's eastern gate held out while the rest of the town was being sacked. They negotiated a surrender, but were then disarmed and killed. Another group of soldiers in St Peters church (at the northern end of Drogheda) were burned to death when the Parliamentarian soldiers set fire to the Church. Arthur Aston, the Royalist commander, was, reportedly, beaten to death with his own wooden leg, which the New Model Army soldiers thought had gold hidden in it. Richard Talbot, the future Jacobite Duke of Tyrconnell was one of the few members of the garrison to survive the sack. Only 150 Parliamentarians were killed in the attack. The few Royalists who survived were deported to Barbados. Cromwell wrote: "I do not think 30 of their whole number escaped with their lives. Those that did are in safe custody in the Barbados." Though Colonel John Hewson wrote "those in the towers being about 200, did yield to the Generals mercy, where most of them have their lives and be sent to Barbados.” The 200 taken prisoner tallies with Royalist estimates. It is alleged in some accounts that as few as 700 civilians died in the chaotic aftermath of the fall of Drogheda,
.......... Deporting some to the west Indies and sparing them was an act of mercy.
Rome has a had a vested intrest in playing up the Norman old English feudal Catholic rulers in Ireland and over stating the wrongs of the republican Cromwell, for obvious reasons.
Previous to indentured service captured prisoners were all executed.
Cromwells plantations were on lands taken from feudal Norman aristocrats and their Gaelic aristocratic quislings, not the rural Irish as the church has taught. The rural Irish were Norman serfs, the sad fact is they fought for their feudal masters, instead of Cromwells army, who were fighting for one man one vote.
At this time in history Catholicism meant support for monarchy, aristocracy and feudalism.
"The final official plantations took place under Oliver Cromwell’s English Commonwealth during the 1650s, when thousands of Parliamentarian soldiers were settled in Ireland".
"Having come under the influence of London radicals called the Levellers, the troops of the Army proposed a revolutionary new constitution named the Agreement of the People, which called for almost universal male suffrage, reform of electoral boundaries, power to rest with the Parliament which was to be elected every two years (by the people), religious freedom, and an end to imprisonment for debt."
Cromwell was an honorable enemy who's reputation has been historically lied about by the RC church and English landed classes.0 -
Pathfinder wrote: »'Cromwell - An Honourable Enemy'
by Tom Reilly
'This long overdue evaluation of Cromwell's campaign in Ireland, published on the 350th anniversary of that campaign, challenges all conventional interpretations.
Thousands of defenceless men, women and children are alleged to have lost their lives as a result of the 'scorched earth' policy of Oliver Cromwell, who has long been regarded as the most reviled figure in Irish history and who is still generally regarded there as a genocidal maniac and religious fanatic...
Yet, argues Tom, the traditional viewpoint lacks any solid evidence...
Using only contemporary sources, he examines eye-witness accounts; he also places Cromwell's conduct within the context of the seventeenth century and the rules of war then pertaining...
"With an impressive mastery of detail, he marshals the facts and concludes that Cromwell's appalling reputation appears to be undeserved; also as the first successful English military conqueror of Ireland, his emphatic success was a foregone conclusion so inadequate were the royalist forces in Ireland".
"During Cromwell's Irish mission he proved to be significantly more compassionate than many of his contempories, and he scrupulously adhered to the letter of the law of contemporary warfare while communicating with the various governors of the various garrisons throughout Ireland..!"
http://www.ely.org.uk/heros/lordcrom/CromBook.html
...............The reality is Cromwell's monster status is totally out of a proportion in Ireland, many of the things he is accused of were invented by the church and aristocrasy he fought against.
As an example in Drogheda it was mainly English royalists who were killed, not Irish at all, the same at Wexford. Cromwell came to Ireland to fight those who supported the English king.
Further, it was Catholic landowners who supported the Royalist cause who were banished not ordinary Catholics.
It was not just Irish sent off as indentured servants, another lie. English Royalists were also banished as indentured servants and subjected to the later penal laws.
On Monday 10th September Cromwell had a letter delivered to the governor, the English Royalist, Sir Arthur Aston which read:
Sir, having brought the army of the Parliament of England before this place, to reduce it to obedience, I thought fit to summon you to deliver the same into my hands to their use. If this be refused, you will have no cause to blame me. I expect your answer and remain your servant, O. Cromwell
The contemporary laws of war were clear that if surrender was refused and a garrison was taken by an assault, then the lives of its defenders would be forfeit, as Cromwell's letter strongly implies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Drogheda
After breaking into the town, the New Model soldiers pursued the defenders through the streets, killing them as they ran. A group of defenders had barricaded themselves in Millmount Fort, overlooking the town's eastern gate held out while the rest of the town was being sacked. They negotiated a surrender, but were then disarmed and killed. Another group of soldiers in St Peters church (at the northern end of Drogheda) were burned to death when the Parliamentarian soldiers set fire to the Church. Arthur Aston, the Royalist commander, was, reportedly, beaten to death with his own wooden leg, which the New Model Army soldiers thought had gold hidden in it. Richard Talbot, the future Jacobite Duke of Tyrconnell was one of the few members of the garrison to survive the sack. Only 150 Parliamentarians were killed in the attack. The few Royalists who survived were deported to Barbados. Cromwell wrote: "I do not think 30 of their whole number escaped with their lives. Those that did are in safe custody in the Barbados." Though Colonel John Hewson wrote "those in the towers being about 200, did yield to the Generals mercy, where most of them have their lives and be sent to Barbados.” The 200 taken prisoner tallies with Royalist estimates. It is alleged in some accounts that as few as 700 civilians died in the chaotic aftermath of the fall of Drogheda,
.......... Deporting some to the west Indies and sparing them was an act of mercy.
Rome has a had a vested intrest in playing up the Norman old English feudal Catholic rulers in Ireland and over stating the wrongs of the republican Cromwell, for obvious reasons.
Previous to indentured service captured prisoners were all executed.
Cromwells plantations were on lands taken from feudal Norman aristocrats and their Gaelic aristocratic quislings, not the rural Irish as the church has taught. The rural Irish were Norman serfs, the sad fact is they fought for their feudal masters, instead of Cromwells army, who were fighting for one man one vote.
At this time in history Catholicism meant support for monarchy, aristocracy and feudalism.
"The final official plantations took place under Oliver Cromwell’s English Commonwealth during the 1650s, when thousands of Parliamentarian soldiers were settled in Ireland".
"Having come under the influence of London radicals called the Levellers, the troops of the Army proposed a revolutionary new constitution named the Agreement of the People, which called for almost universal male suffrage, reform of electoral boundaries, power to rest with the Parliament which was to be elected every two years (by the people), religious freedom, and an end to imprisonment for debt."
Cromwell was an honorable enemy who's reputation has been historically lied about by the RC church and English landed classes.
You shouldn't have gone to the trouble of posting the above, but if you used the Search function you would see that Cromwell and Tom Reilly's version of him, has been more than covered many times in this forum :rolleyes:.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »I'm not questioning the mass graves, or the evictions. I am questioning if it was blatant extermination as you seem to think. A few quotes do not make a government's policy.
. The policy was implemented by the people who controlled Ireland on the ground , the landlords and the administrators . if you were evicted from your home you and your family either starved to death or died of exposure , whichever got you first . If your own relatives tried to shelter you , they were evicted also . This was British policy in Ireland in the midst of mass starvation . This ensured death or exile . Britain engaged in mass evictions from the land while simultaneously removing the food during mass starvation .That was genocide .
The man charged with administering relief wrote at the height of the crisis that the potato failure was a‘mechanism for reducing surplus population’.and that‘The judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated. …The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people’.In another thread, it was quoted that imports of food into Ireland exceeded exports,
i thought you preferred to ignore quotes , and youd be as well ignoring that one . Indian corn was brought to Ireland and sold at vastly inflated prices . Poor people couldnt afford to buy it . So they died , but not before the rich had made a serious profit from them after theyd sold what few belongings they had to pay for it . The corn soon ran out , but food exports from Ireland continued in abundance . The many thousands of troops protecting the landlords and the exports whilst also carrying out mass evictions were hoowever well provsioned . They didnt go hungry .
Eventually ships carrying supplies to Ireland were turned back on the orders of the man , Trevelyan , who viewed starvation as a means of reducing surplus populationif that is the case then how can it be considered deliberate extermination. There was aid provided to Ireland from all over Britain, the Commonwealth and the US, if the British government was intent on killing people why did they allow this to proceed.
Private charities , US and Canadian citizens were not the people responsible for policy in Ireland . Therefore dont try and credit the British regime in Ireland with their activities . The regime itself began refusing entry to ships carrying aid to Ireland , during the height of the holocaust in 1847 . .You also conveniently forget that there was a lot of people in England providing charity to those affected, why is it there is no recognotion of this, just constant rejection of everything Britain did?
you believe Irish people should actually be thankful to Britian for the 1840s and express some gratitude ?
my my , what an ungrateful lot we are . Must be our inveterate evil and perverse moral characters or something
The fact is many English people were appaled at what their country men were doing in Ireland . One such person was Benjamin Jowett, Master of Balliol college of Oxford . He once wrote "I have always felt a certain horror of political economists, since I heard one of them say that he feared that the famine of 1848 in Ireland would not kill more than one million people, and that would scarcely be enough to do much good." The person he was referring to was Nassau Senior , the senior British governemnt advisor during the potato blight0 -
kreuzberger wrote: »
you believe Irish people should actually be thankful to Britian for the 1840s and express some gratitude ?
He does, you know! Next thing he'll be proposing a statue of Queen Victoria be erected somewhere in Ireland to acknowledge the paltry few bob sent. The British propaganda machine is relentless on good old boards.
The Irish people are hugely indebted to the generosity of the Choctaw tribe during this period, a people who themselves suffered famine a few years previous who managed to give $710, a relatively huge amount for such poor people to offer. Anyone who suggests we are even remotely indebted to the British Empire at this time is a liar, a fraud and a fake.0 -
McArmalite wrote: »You shouldn't have gone to the trouble of posting the above, but if you used the Search function you would see that Cromwell and Tom Reilly's version of him, has been more than covered many times in this forum :rolleyes:.
Gotta be honest. It drives me mad when posters quote a massive post and then just add a few lines.
Making it harder for everyone to read :mad:0 -
Advertisement
-
So you think that the British Empire spread democracy across the globe? Oh, you think that the Statute of Westminster was the greatest legislation ever passed? Well let's discuss that, in this thread.
Any off-topic posts in other threads which I don't think should be there will be moved into here, and the poster may well recieve a ban if he/she has been a repeat offender.
[Please note that using this thread as an excuse for personal abuse or racism (in the nationalist sense) will result in a ban.
----Anyone who suggests we are even remotely indebted to the British Empire at this time is a liar, a fraud and a fake.
This thread is about the effect of the British Empire (Ireland WAS Part of Britain at the time) on former colonies around the world not Ireland.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement