[Stovepipe]

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

[whisky_galore]

Originally Posted by Stovepipe

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

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

[Stovepipe]

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

[Peregrinus]

Originally Posted by Stovepipe

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

If you're really interested in this, as opposed to just trying to be provocative, you don't have to wait; the presenter of this documentary, Cormac Ó Gráda, has written extensively on famine in general and on many particular famines, and you can read his stuff. Maybe start with this, which is an accessible introduction to the topic. Available in all good bookshops.

Originally Posted by Stovepipe

My wife's family has had a family member who survived the 1847 famine four generations ago but we don't go on and on about it. OK, we get it. It was ****.Now, please move on.

Mate, practically everybody in Ireland is descended from people who survived the Famine. Think about it; it's the people who didn't survive who have no descendants today. And not thinking about it, just moving on, was a psychological defence menchanism the survivors used in order to avoid confronting what they did to survive. And that's why you have unthinkingly accepted the idea that your wife is somehow remarkable in being descended from a Famine survivor when, in truth, almost certainly this is not just her story; it is yours too.

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

[mossie]

Originally Posted by Stovepipe

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

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

[magicbastarder]

Originally Posted by Stovepipe

There was a famine in Ukraine in 1932 and one in Bengal in 1944 and one in Ethopia in 1982. THEY are more relevant.

relevant in what way? it's an irish documentary made by an irish crew for an irish audience.

Originally Posted by Stovepipe

My wife's family has had a family member who survived the 1847 famine four generations ago but we don't go on and on about it.

yet here you are.
how is a documentary about the famine 'going on and on about it'?
i can't remember the last time i had a conversation with *anyone* about the famine. until this very post.

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

[whisky_galore]

Originally Posted by Stovepipe

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

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

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

[Stovepipe]

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

[magicbastarder]

Originally Posted by Stovepipe

I feel that it should ... not touted by some as the major defining point of being Irish.

who does this? maybe some fringe voices, possibly. but that's it.

[Snickers Man]

Originally Posted by Stovepipe

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

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

Originally Posted by Stovepipe

I feel that it should be only part of our national identity and not touted by some as the major defining point of being Irish.

Like the man said: who says that?

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

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

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

Britain's vengeful chickens are still coming home to roost from the 19th century, and that's got nothing to do with RTE's documentary schedules. It's useful for countries to take notice of that in their long-term planning.

Originally Posted by Stovepipe

As for looking at more modern famines, I think that's relevant because they keep happening today in Africa and Irish aid workers are to the fore in dealing with them.

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

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

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

[Mick Tator]

Originally Posted by Snickers Man

Of course it wasn't, but the point also made was that other countries reacted much better and more quickly and the effects in other places were not so bad as here. .......etc,etc.

I didn’t see the programme so my comments are confined to the statements made in this thread. Possibly the biggest issues any commentator on the Famine has to face are the preconceived notions of those who are incapable of taking a broader view and who stick rigidly to the opinion that ‘It was the fault of the Brits’. (TP Coogan being a typical example.)

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

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

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

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

[Snickers Man]

Originally Posted by Mick Tator

Stating ‘all famines are man-made' is trite

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

Let me cite in support of that statement, er, your good self!

Originally Posted by Mick Tator

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

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

The specific answers to these questions are complex and intertwined but they all boil down to the socio-economic conditions in the country at the time. And these are all human-inspired. I don't know how you can deny this.

Originally Posted by Mick Tator

why not include the refusal today of some Third World governments to allow use of GM cereals that are both drought and disease resistant? Is that not a man-made cause of famine also?

It probably is a factor. What point are you arguing here? That there are steps that mankind, as represented by its social leaders be they politicians, business leaders or administrators could take to alleviate famine based on the best possible knowledge available to them at any time and that they are remiss if they don't take them?
That's kinda my point.

Originally Posted by Mick Tator

Similarly statements such as “Ireland's relatively benign climate is ideal for grain tillage, deciduous fruits, root vegetables and pasture” show an ignorance of agriculture and of farming methods in mid 1800’s Ireland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Mick Tator

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

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

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

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

[Mick Tator]

I can comment only on what you write, not what you think you imply.

Originally Posted by Snickers Man

They show a junior cert knowledge of Irish geography,

If your assertions on climate, economics and 19th century farming are based on Junior Cert geography, I suggest you read a little more.

Originally Posted by Snickers Man

The destruction of the Irish economy and society (unless you regard the population halving in 60 years as a good thing) was entirely the fault of those in charge of ruling the country …….

That presumes that Ireland had a healthy economy in the first place. Also, Ireland’s population in 1911 was about 3 million and estimated at about the same in 1921 (no census that year). Under Irish governance it had fallen to 2.8 million by 1960. You cannot blame the Brits for that or our economic progress (lack of).
It is futile to argue with a statement that ‘the Famine was manmade’ and it is equally futile to argue with one that says it was climate driven. Each famine is different and caused by a complex web of conditions and events, both social and economic. How they are managed, like any other calamity, is impacted by the role of the government.

Originally Posted by Snickers Man

Supplement "stupidity" with arrogance, heedlessness, remorselessness and irresponsibility and you have a fair description of the human elements that caused the natural phenomenon of a crop disease to metastasise into a genocidal famine in the case of Ireland.

An event cannot ‘metastasise into a genocidal famine’ – again, genocide is a deliberate act, mis-rule and bad governance are quite different. Westminster has not exemplified itself with its handling of the natural phenomenon of Covid. Is that genocide also?

Originally Posted by Snickers Man

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

So yeah, if you want to stick with that assertion and are not prepared to read people like O Grada and other economic historians I’m not going to change your mind. Bye now.

[Snickers Man]

Originally Posted by Mick Tator

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

Wow! Do you really want to go there?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happened next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Mick Tator

It is futile to argue with a statement that ‘the Famine was manmade’ and it is equally futile to argue with one that says it was climate driven. Each famine is different and caused by a complex web of conditions and events, both social and economic. How they are managed, like any other calamity, is impacted by the role of the government.

Well precisely. Why are we arguing?

Originally Posted by Mick Tator

An event cannot ‘metastasise into a genocidal famine’ – again, genocide is a deliberate act, mis-rule and bad governance are quite different. Westminster has not exemplified itself with its handling of the natural phenomenon of Covid. Is that genocide also?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look out for a similar reaction in Britain -- mutatis mutandis -- if Covid 19 proves more resilient than we all hope.

Originally Posted by Mick Tator

So yeah, if you want to stick with that assertion and are not prepared to read people like O Grada and other economic historians I’m not going to change your mind. Bye now.

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

[Stovepipe]

[QUOTE=Snickers Man;115490834]Of course it wasn't, but the point also made was that other countries reacted much better and more quickly and the effects in other places were not so bad as here. Speaking of which, how many people died during the Swedish "famine" of the 1860s? I can't find that rather important piece of information from my albeit perfunctory researches, but I'm sure you'll know...?



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