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
Was the Irish famine a famine or genocide
Options
-
07-02-2012 1:24am#1We have all had the "irish leaving" history version . Other countries had the abridged version ( or none at all ) . . I never thought much about it until I was told the other day about the famine graves near where I live . Found this link . Good bibliography makes me think how much our history can be glossed over . It's sad . http://www.irishholocaust.org0
Comments
-
We have all had the "irish leaving" history version . Other countries had the abridged version ( or none at all ) . . I never thought much about it until I was told the other day about the famine graves near where I live . Found this link . Good bibliography makes me think how much our history can be glossed over . It's sad . http://www.irishholocaust.org
To answer the question in the title of the thread the Famine was not a genocide in terms of culpability.
So if not genocide then what was it? Personally I find David Nally's (Human Encumbrances 2011) arguments persuasive: Basically there are certain behaviours governments can engage in which can have a role in famines
(1) wilful genocide
(2) recklessly engage in policies which create and maintain famine
(3) As an authoritarian government they don't care
(4) through incompetence or corruption government cannot deal with a food shortage
He argues that the Irish Famine was not genocide as there was no plan to wipe the Irish out (type 1), equally he suggests that revisionists have minimised the Governments role (type 4) so that he places it between types two and three.0 -
I never thought much about it until I was told the other day about the famine graves near where I live .
Do you have any links to the famine graves where you live.
It might be interesting to look at it as a local area thing, the lore, the landlords , the relief or non relief effort etc.0 -
Further to Nitochris comment above on David Nally's work, I haven't read the book mentioned but have read some of Nally's articles and he brings a refreshing view to the subject of the Famine - and a challenge to the revisionists attempt to downplay the entire event or discount it merely as an act of nature. Nally has also written a number of times on the Huffington Post site:
Fewer than 170 years ago, a devastating famine occurred within the British Isles, then the most economically advanced region in the world. In Ireland, at that time part of the United Kingdom as a result of the Act of Union in 1801, 1 million people perished in what became known as An Gorta Mór or The Great Hunger. The rural Irish poor, many of whom were subsistence farmers renting barely viable plots of ground, were reliant on the potato for their staple diet. When a mysterious blight, later identified as Phytophthora infestans, ruined the potato harvest huge numbers faced starvation. The poorest - who suffered dreadfully even in 'ordinary' years - were soon reduced to digging the ground for seedlings so small 'that only hunger could see them.' Others fed on diseased carrion, noxious weeds, and other indigestible 'famine foods'. When the hunger became intolerable, thousands turned to the government's Public Works schemes or to the Poor Law workhouses where a combination of communicable diseases and punitive labour carried off already weakened frames. Millions more people fled the country with the population of Ireland dwindling from around 9 million in 1845 to 6.1 million in 1851.
When judged in terms of the mortality rate, the Irish Famine was one of the worst demographic tragedies of the 19th century and possibly the worst famine in recorded history.Well, firstly, the Irish Famine offers some important lessons about how famines are caused and about the vulnerability of certain social groups. In my book, Human Encumbrances, I quote from a public lecture delivered in New York in 1847 by the Catholic Archbishop John Hughes (1797-1864). In his speech Hughes remarked on the importance of distinguishing between the 'antecedent circumstances' and the 'primary' or 'original' causes of the Famine. Hughes was, in other words, insisting on a difference between immediate 'shocks' and long-term 'trends'. While droughts, floods and other climatic events might 'trigger' a food crisis, the real cause of famine, he believed, was the colonial system that produced and maintained poverty by the denying the Irish poor ownership of the land.
For full link:Finally history teaches us that 'food is power' and that aid can be used as a political weapon. In Human Encumbrances I discuss how the government used food aid to force political and economic change in Ireland. After 1847, for example, the poor who owned more than a quarter acre of ground were required by law to give up their land in return for food aid, which at the time was in the form of workhouse relief. The mechanism for delivering aid, in other words, was a charter for eviction and land clearance - a goal that some thought necessary for the depopulation and long term modernization of Ireland. It was thought that the poor had neither the fortitude nor the intelligence to better themselves, and Irish smallholders in particular were considered to be backward and immoral. Even the very diets that the people relied on were viewed in moral terms: the feckless and slothful Irish were potato-fed, whereas the thrifty and hard-working English were wheat-fed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-nally/between-the-stomach_b_907350.html0 -
There are multiple definitions of what constitutes genocide. A good summary of which can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions
Most of the definitions concur that for for an act of genocide to have been commited it must have been deliberate. As an act of genocide is a criminal act, it must meet the legal definition of a crime.
In criminal law the Mens Rea and Actus Rea must be proven.The guilty act (actus rea) must be accompanied by a guilty mind (mens rea).
The best example I can think to illustrate this is the difference between murder and manslaughter. For murder to occur the perpetrator has to have set out with the intent of killing their victim (e.g. often proven by the guilty arming themselves beforehand). With manslaughter, even though the result is the same (i.e. victim dies) there is a lack of intent on the part of the perpetrator to kill the victim (e.g. drunken brawl outside a chipper, victim falls after a punch, cracks their head off the kerb and dies).
Legal Opinon
I don't believe the Great Famine can be classed as an act of genocide. The indifference and subsequent ineffective response by the Government, in my opinion, are not sufficent to prove the neccessary Mens Rea.
Honest Opinion
Morally, the indifference shown to those suffering in Ireland constitutes genocide.
Late Victorian Holocausts by Mike Davis gives a good overrview of the popular attitudes that pertained in government circles in the latter half of the 19th century. (Doesn't cover Ireland though).
I'd like to get a copy of Human Encumberances, never heard of it before.0 -
I found a good link if ye are interested http://www.corkpastandpresent.ie/history/historyofcorkcity/1700-1900/corkinthe19thcentury/. Thanks for all ye're information so far .0
-
Advertisement
-
In criminal law the Mens Rea and Actus Rea must be proven.The guilty act (actus rea) must be accompanied by a guilty mind (mens rea).
The best example I can think to illustrate this is the difference between murder and manslaughter. For murder to occur the perpetrator has to have set out with the intent of killing their victim (e.g. often proven by the guilty arming themselves beforehand). With manslaughter, even though the result is the same (i.e. victim dies) there is a lack of intent on the part of the perpetrator to kill the victim (e.g. drunken brawl outside a chipper, victim falls after a punch, cracks their head off the kerb and dies).
Legal Opinon
I don't believe the Great Famine can be classed as an act of genocide. The indifference and subsequent ineffective response by the Government, in my opinion, are not sufficent to prove the neccessary Mens Rea.
I always like the Wellesley family observations.Comments of the Duke of Wellington (1830)
Politicians were well aware of the underlying causes though they did nothing to tackle them. For example, on 7 July 1830 the Duke of Wellington wrote:I confess that the annually recurring starvation in Ireland, for a period differing, according to the goodness or badness of the season, from one week to three months, gives me more uneasiness than any other evil existing in the United Kingdom.
It is starvation, because it is the fact that, although there is an abundance of provisions in the country of a superior kind, and at a cheaper rate than the same can be bought in any other part of Her Majesty’s dominions, those who want in the midst of plenty cannot get, because they do not possess even the small sum of money necessary to buy a supply of food.
It occurs every year, for that period of time that elapses between the final consumption of one year’s crop of potatoes, and the coming of the crop of the following year, and it is long or short, according as the previous season has been bad or good.
Now when this misfortune occurs, there is no relief or mitigation, excepting a recourse to public money. The proprietors of the country, those who ought to think for the people, to foresee this misfortune, and to provide beforehand a remedy for it, are amusing themselves in the Clubs in London, in Cheltenham, or Bath, or on the Continent, and the Government are made responsible for the evil, and they must find the remedy for it where they can—anywhere excepting in the pockets of Irish Gentlemen.
Then, if they give public money to provide a remedy for this distress, it is applied to all purposes excepting the one for which it is given; and more particularly to that one, viz. the payment of arrears of an exorbitant rent.
However, we must expect that this evil will continue, and will increase as the population will increase, and the chances of a serious evil, such as the loss of a large number of persons by famine, will be greater in proportion to the numbers existing in Ireland in the state in which we know that the great body of the people are living at this moment. [Wellington to Northumberland, 7 July 1830, in Despatches, vii 111–2; repr. in P. S. O’Hegarty, A history of Ireland under the Union (London 1952) 291–2]
http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Famine#FamineinIreland
So you use this assessment.
Late Victorian Holocausts by Mike Davis gives a good overrview of the popular attitudes that pertained in government circles in the latter half of the 19th century. (Doesn't cover Ireland though).
The Duke would probably have classed his family as Irish Gentlemen and he and one of his brothers were on opposite sides of Catholic Emancipation.
So how did he assess it - as an Army officer his experience in his Spanish & Portugeese campaigns allowed him to take an overview.
A major difference between him and Napoleon is that the French lived of the "land" and Wellington supplied his own troops.
So there was a mindset.0 -
A lecturer always called it criminal negligience on a huge scale. Agreed with some sentiments calling it a genocide but refused to label it as such due to the lack od direct murderous intent. I'd have to agree with this.0
-
Corruptedmorals wrote: »A lecturer always called it criminal negligience on a huge scale. Agreed with some sentiments calling it a genocide but refused to label it as such due to the lack od direct murderous intent. I'd have to agree with this.
How land was held , landlord, agent, tenant , sub tenant etc does not get discusssed.
All landlords were not absentees, you had native Irish too.
The questions are challenging.0 -
I think the main issue with refering to it as genocide is the 'intent' factor.
Did the British (also Irish at the time remember) intend and plan to murder Irish peasants? The answer is no, there is no written record of this.
Did the government not care with a few notable exceptions? Yes.
Therefore it was a gross act of criminal negligence but was not a genocide as is commonly understood.0 -
Why was Ireland so poor even by standards of the time being on the doorstep of the richest nation on Earth at the time?
German traveller Kohl, from the early 1840’s;
“No mode of life could seem pitiable after one had seen Ireland. I used to pity the poor Letts in Livonia. Well, Heaven pardon my ignorance! Now I have seen Ireland, it seems to me that the poorest among the Letts, the Estonians and the Finlanders, lead a life of comparative comfort.”
Duke of Wellington, native of County Meath;
“ There never was a country in which poverty existed to the extent it exists in Ireland”0 -
Advertisement
-
Well if you look at who benefited from the famine you would be surprised.It was not the Landlords or the British but the Irish Catholic strong farmers and merchants.Many Landlords went bust and their land was bought up by the Catholic strong farmers.The people who starved the cottiers and labourers in most cases had no connection to the landlords.They were the tenants of the Irish farmers and were very much exploited by them.Also it was the farmers who were exporting food during the famine and selling some to poorhouses at exorbitant prices.Now lets say the British had banned food exports...would that have solved the problem?..well only if they had seized it from the farmers because they sure as hell were not going to give it away..and if it was seized one year they were not going to produce it the following year,which would lead to even more chaos and disaster.There was no Genocide just a combination of natural disaster, laissez faire economics and downright greed.The latter two we have seen again recently but at least thankfully there is a social welfare system now.This Genocide myth came later from the Fenians who had their own political agenda which this myth fitted nicely into.0
-
Well if you look at who benefited from the famine you would be surprised.It was not the Landlords or the British but the Irish Catholic strong farmers and merchants.Many Landlords went bust and their land was bought up by the Catholic strong farmers.The people who starved the cottiers and labourers in most cases had no connection to the landlords.They were the tenants of the Irish farmers and were very much exploited by them.Also it was the farmers who were exporting food during the famine and selling some to poorhouses at exorbitant prices.Now lets say the British had banned food exports...would that have solved the problem?..well only if they had seized it from the farmers because they sure as hell were not going to give it away..and if it was seized one year they were not going to produce it the following year,which would lead to even more chaos and disaster.There was no Genocide just a combination of natural disaster, laissez faire economics and downright greed.The latter two we have seen again recently but at least thankfully there is a social welfare system now.This Genocide myth came later from the Fenians who had their own political agenda which this myth fitted nicely into.
The much more interesting question is why the famine was so devestating in Ireland.
Blight hit most of Europe but only Ireland was devastated.
European Potato Failure
The effect of the crisis on Ireland is incomparable to all other places for the devastation it wrought, causing 1 million dead and another million refugees and spurring a century-long population decline. Excluding Ireland, the death toll from the crisis is estimated to be in the region of 100,000 people. Of this, Belgium and Prussia account for most of the deaths, with 40,000–50,000 estimated to have died in Belgium.0 -
I think the huge population growth in Ireland in the decades prior to the famine is the reason.If I remember correctly Irelands population doubled in a few decades.It grew too fast to be absorbed and left millions in a precarious position.But then there is the question what caused this sudden massive population growth?.enfant terrible wrote: »The much more interesting question is why the famine was so devestating in Ireland.
Blight hit most of Europe but only Ireland was devastated.
European Potato Failure
The effect of the crisis on Ireland is incomparable to all other places for the devastation it wrought, causing 1 million dead and another million refugees and spurring a century-long population decline. Excluding Ireland, the death toll from the crisis is estimated to be in the region of 100,000 people. Of this, Belgium and Prussia account for most of the deaths, with 40,000–50,000 estimated to have died in Belgium.0 -
But then there is the question what caused this sudden massive population growth?.
The potato as a food source is excellent. Easy to grow and doesn't need much land or cultivation. Subdivision of land meant the population could expand as long as the potato was available. All this continued while the potato supply existed.
Simply put, the population expanded to fit the available nutritional source supplied by potatoes.0 -
if the intent was genocide,then the same would have to been said about the famine in scotland,the highlands ect were also hard hit,scotlands population dropped by 20%,over 1.7 million left, troops were sent in to stop the riots as food was shipped out of the country, the only difference between the scots and irish was that the scots could walk south to the more wealthy areas of britain,and also that many of the larger scottish land owners shipped starving families to canada/america at their own expense.HavingCrack wrote: »I think the main issue with refering to it as genocide is the 'intent' factor.
Did the British (also Irish at the time remember) intend and plan to murder Irish peasants? The answer is no, there is no written record of this.
Did the government not care with a few notable exceptions? Yes.
Therefore it was a gross act of criminal negligence but was not a genocide as is commonly understood.0 -
If it was genocide, then who was the target?
As has already been said, many Irish landlords and farmers did ok out of the famine and I would expect that plenty of "British" planters died as well.
There was also massive relief campaigns organised by private charities. If the intention was to kill as many as possible, would these not have been banned?
There is also the question of the thousands who came to England. If you are trying to kill off millions of people, the last thing you want is them setting up camp in your own back yard.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »If it was genocide, then who was the target?
As has already been said, many Irish landlords and farmers did ok out of the famine and I would expect that plenty of "British" planters died as well.
What was the bodycount on mainland UK ?0 -
if the intent was genocide,then the same would have to been said about the famine in scotland,the highlands ect were also hard hit,scotlands population dropped by 20%,over 1.7 million left, troops were sent in to stop the riots as food was shipped out of the country, the only difference between the scots and irish was that the scots could walk south to the more wealthy areas of britain,and also that many of the larger scottish land owners shipped starving families to canada/america at their own expense.
Don't forget that the Scots-Irish in Northern Ireland had already been driven from Scotland and will have had first hand knowledge of this attitude.
I often think that it is not useful to include what happened in Scotland as a comparison but as part of the same ethos & event.
And, the Irish landowners shipped the Irish overseas too and it was a wheeze to avoid the Poor Law obligations.
Wellington refered to the landlords as the "proprietors" of the country and they went about clearing the people out.
I often wonder what obligations the owners of serfs had for the welfare of their serfs or slaveowners in the US had for the welfare of their slaves as the Irish seemed to have no rights at all.
Local histories such as Tim O'Sullivans History of Gweedore give some insight
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~donegal/chapter_one.htm
Hill was related to Jane Austen by marriage and was one of the good guys. Still his tenants were subsistence farmers and also ate seaweed to get by. Lucky them.
Compare O'Sullivan with this Victorian piece on Gweedore
http://www.libraryireland.com/Jaunting-Car/Gweedore-Glenties.php
These were not benevolent good people that we were talking about. Their tenants lived in mud-huts and ate seaweed.0 -
the ruling class in britain did not care about the dirty unwashed,it would be even worse for those who were catholic as well,when doing research on the bronte family in haworth yorkshire,i found that patrick bronte who was a great campainer and writer to parliament for the poor,said in haworth one in three children died of disease before the age of five ,and the average life spanfor a adult was 28 years, remember he lost five girls and one son,only charlotte lived into her thirties, now that was supposed to be a healthy country village,just what was it like in the cities0
-
Here we go again with the Famine. Once again into the breach of denial.
How many times do we get here and have to once again hear, yet again, it wasn't so bad, heck, other people starved in other countries [don't get this one at all, so more starvation abroad means less suffering for the Irish? I'm sure the news in Skibereen that people were starving in Scotland must have been a great consolation] Oh and Landlords were making money, their DNA reveals they were not all Brits [I'm so surprised], damn it all why didn't they just eat cake?
A look at the record of the British government's attitude and non-involvement in relief reveals neglect on a grand scale. The definition of genocide - a word only coined in the 1940s - is unimportant IMO. The Poor Law Extension Act of 1847 alone spelled the death knell for many as public works were closed and landlords went bankrupt because of the burden of taxation the law placed on them. It clearly stated that there was to be "no further government aid for any form of relief in Ireland".
Over a million innocent, hard working people starved in this country in the 1840s - why do we have such a problem addressing this and accepting it without apology as the ultimate in national tragedy?0 -
Advertisement
-
The difference between the Bronte's and the Irish is that they died of TB/consumption and the Irish peasants starved.
This could have been a TB infected household in 1930's or 40's Ireland pre-antibiotics. TB & typhoid etc became public health issues.
There is a big difference between a contagious disease that existed at ordinary times and the effects of the famine .
You are not comparing like with like.
Patrick Bronte was quite a guy and there is no doubt he cared for his congregation. An issue with Ireland is that the rich & poor were largely of different religions.
In NI you had Presbyterians and Methodists in the Scots Irish and Catholics in the general population too.
Too compare you would need famine in England.0 -
-
Here we go again with the Famine. Once again into the breach of denial.
How many times do we get here and have to once again hear, yet again, it wasn't so bad, heck, other people starved in other countries [don't get this one at all, so more starvation abroad means less suffering for the Irish? I'm sure the news in Skibereen that people were starving in Scotland must have been a great consolation] Oh and Landlords were making money, their DNA reveals they were not all Brits [I'm so surprised], damn it all why didn't they just eat cake?
A look at the record of the British government's attitude and non-involvement in relief reveals neglect on a grand scale. The definition of genocide - a word only coined in the 1940s - is unimportant IMO. The Poor Law Extension Act of 1847 alone spelled the death knell for many as public works were closed and landlords went bankrupt because of the burden of taxation the law placed on them. It clearly stated that there was to be "no further government aid for any form of relief in Ireland".
Over a million innocent, hard working people starved in this country in the 1840s - why do we have such a problem addressing this and accepting it without apology as the ultimate in national tragedy?
So what is your point exactly????
Nobody posting denies the Famine occured or a million people died. I don't see the post's relevance. Unless you're arguing that the Famine was genocide or a deliberate attempt by the government of the day to kill Irish people en masse if the term 'genocide' isn't to your liking.0 -
HavingCrack wrote: »So what is your point exactly????
Nobody posting denies the Famine occured or a million people died. I don't see the post's relevance. Unless you're arguing that the Famine was genocide or a deliberate attempt by the government of the day to kill Irish people en masse if the term 'genocide' isn't to your liking.
If you read over the Forum and the many Famine threads you ought to see the point being made.
Otherwise if you can't understand what I wrote or see the relevance - then frankly I can't help you there.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »I don't see the relevance.
Its George Orwell's Animal Farm. If you take the original ideals behind the United Kingdom, then things were to improve for Ireland.
Here is the relevant chapter.
http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/9.html
"Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better!"
and
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
The Duke of Wellington predicted the famine a good 15 years before it happened. His brother , Marquess Wellesley (great great great grandfather of Queen Elizabeth II) who had more experience with colonial administration wanted wider reform & full Catholic Emancipation & he had been a cabinet member and Chief Secretary for Ireland too.
So if those two could see it ......
I can't help wondering if the rights in England and Wales were somehow different to those in Scotland & Ireland. If so, how come ?0 -
-
It should also be remembered that the majority of the people who died during the famine did not die from starvation but from the Typhoid epidemic that broke out,and food was not going to save them.Also remember this was the 1840s when everthing moved at a snails pace,sailing ships took months to transport food across the Atlantic and then a slow and inefficent Horse drawn distribution service in Ireland meant that even with the best will in the world it was impossible to get aid to all the needy.Remember even in China in the 1960s famine and disease killed at least 50 million.I wonder would the people who talk about "Genocide " tell us what they think realisticaly could have been done to avert the disaster once it had begun.As far as I can see it was so overwhelming that there could be only one outcome.And lets not forget that a lot of people were actually saved..something that is usually overlooked0
-
I can appreciate that Archer but the typhoid epidemic was as a result of the famine and the conditions that existed because of it.
In fact, Irish nuns took over fever hospitals in the Crimea during the Crimean War for the British Army and pioneered the treatment of typhus.HavingCrack wrote: »What point? Please answer.
I suppose that if you don't feel that something like the Derryveagh Evictions were morally wrong and they followed the famine, then, you won't get the whole famine thing.
That would put you at loggerheads with the views of the Ist Duke of Wellington and his brother.
The failure to take title to the land and obtain "Sporting Rights" triggered an incident that might have been a contributing factor in Adair's decision to clear out the Derryveagh tenants a few year later and in so doing to wipe out the hopes, dreams and fond memories of 244 human beings. It so happened that a year after he purchased the right to the rents of the Derryveagh tenants, he decided one day to indulge in his favourite sport of fowling on "his" Derryveagh property. About a dozen or so tenants resented and resisted what they regarded as a trespass on "their" land. They proceeded to beat the bushes to spoil his sport and finally created a ring of persons at 50 paces around him and maintained that ring when he would move. This action infuriated Adair and he threatened them with his fowling gun. As he left the scene, he informed the tenants that "They would pay dearly". Eventually, that prediction came true, not just for the 12 present but for the entire Derryveagh population of 47 families. In 1859, Adair acquired title to all of Derryveagh and was in a position, if he so desired, to carry out his threat.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~donegal/gartan/derryveagh.htm
So this was the mindset - eviction meant starvation , death or emigration.
Of course, that may not do it for you. That's up to you.
There is not really an english equivalent and sad and all as the Tolpuddle Martyrs story is, it is fairly small compared with Ireland.
http://www.tolpuddlemartyrs.org.uk/index.php?page=martyr-s-story
Those guys tried to organise for better money, the Irish rural economy did not know the meaning of money.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
The famine is still obviously an emotional topic for many and rightly so. I think sometimes that is why the word genocide gets thrown around today as so many were wiped out in such a short time.
I think if genocide is taken as a deliberate, planned and calculated attempt to wipe out a group of people then the Irish famine was not a genoicide. However there is no question that the English ruling class held the Irish in contempt. They looked upon the Irish as at best savages if not subhuman. They certainly went on a campaign of cultural genocide after Kinsale when they were fully in control of the whole island. They reduced the Irish to such a low level of subsistence that when the blight struck it unleashed debastating consequences on the Irish population. The English response to the famine once it was in full force was beyond contempt. As such I would say the famine was an atrocity brought about by English actions without being a direct and deliberate act of genocide.0
Advertisement