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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Was the Irish famine a famine or genocide
Comments
-
Your post reads like a note scribbled by a teacher on a returned history essay, the only thing missing being the nought out of ten marks awarded. It even had the obligatory “Smart remark” i.e. The quip about my possibly not knowing that the Quakers are Christians.This is a huge claim and simply not true. Soup kitchens were organised by Quakers - or are they not Christian in your eyes?
Your statements are sweeping and general and without reference ....you ought to consult the record on the reaction of other governments throughout Europe and beyond to the same blight. Governments in Belgium, Russia and the city state of Alexandria closed their ports to food exports in order to relieve the suffering of their citizens caught in the same situation as the Irish.
My apologies for not specifying majority religions. I stand by by comment re Christianity and the treatment of the underclass (unless my lecturers in 19th century economic and social history were telling me a pack of lies).
Your saying that "it was simply not true" isn't enough to convince me that you're correct.
It was unfortunate that the Quakers didn't have the monopoly on religion in Ireland at the time, as I'm certain that they would have achieved an awful lot more than they did. The Quakers are a completely different breed to the mainstream religions, in that they did and do regard everyone as equals.
I note that you didn't mention the number of Quaker soup-kitchens in operation. I would have been expected to produce links to the relevant statistics.
I've no time to research the entire European blight, so I'll just mention Belgium at this point.
Belgium was a comparatively new country at the time of the blight, having only fought for independence from the Netherlands in 1830. The rulers of the newly independent state would have had every incentive to pre-empt any possible trouble arising from failed potato crops. The rising up of the Belgians against Dutch rule was obviously still fresh in their minds, and the hierachy would not have wanted a re-run of the 1830 events with them as the target.0 -
Very few democracies allow famines - and this "famine" needed to be allowed. An Irish Catholic parliament would have started to changed the nature of ownership of lands, as it did ( and to be fair previously Gladstone did) allowing people to own more of their land. It would have shut borders, and appealed to the States.
This is empirically the case, the last famine in India, in 1943, killed 3 million people a few years before Independence, and nobody has died since.
“this famine needed to be allowed”? This seems a ridiculous comment to me.
I think that you're theorising again that Ireland was going to be an agricultural labourers' paradise, and I completely disagree with that, but as Ireland wasn't independent at the time, we'll never know what would have happened. People may well have been given more land, which would probably have meant that they could have grown more potatoes.
I don't see the connection with the Indian famine, as the situation there was unique, in that there was a war going on, and food imports from Burma stopped after the Japanese took control. We can surmise what would have happened with no war and no halt to imports, but we can never be certain.
And no-one has died since? I assume that you mean famine deaths, and not that the entire Indian population suddenly achieved immortality during 1944. I think that you'll find a few here (not as bad as the 1943 famine, but famine deaths none the less).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India
We should also include Bangladesh, which after all, was once part of the British Empire in the region. 1.5 million deaths in 1974.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_famine_of_1974
I don't know why you got thanked for your post, because it doesn't seem to fall within the criteria (as pointed out to me, in no uncertain terms) of the forum, not to mention that it doesn't contain accurate information.0 -
-
Your post reads like a note scribbled by a teacher on a returned history essay, the only thing missing being the nought out of ten marks awarded. It even had the obligatory “Smart remark” i.e. The quip about my possibly not knowing that the Quakers are Christians.
My apologies for not specifying majority religions. I stand by by comment re Christianity and the treatment of the underclass (unless my lecturers in 19th century economic and social history were telling me a pack of lies).
Your saying that "it was simply not true" isn't enough to convince me that you're correct.
It was unfortunate that the Quakers didn't have the monopoly on religion in Ireland at the time, as I'm certain that they would have achieved an awful lot more than they did. The Quakers are a completely different breed to the mainstream religions, in that they did and do regard everyone as equals.
I note that you didn't mention the number of Quaker soup-kitchens in operation. I would have been expected to produce links to the relevant statistics.
I've no time to research the entire European blight, so I'll just mention Belgium at this point.
Belgium was a comparatively new country at the time of the blight, having only fought for independence from the Netherlands in 1830. The rulers of the newly independent state would have had every incentive to pre-empt any possible trouble arising from failed potato crops. The rising up of the Belgians against Dutch rule was obviously still fresh in their minds, and the hierachy would not have wanted a re-run of the 1830 events with them as the target.
So personal insults are your only way of responding to what you don't like or doesn't fit your world view?
Well Looks like your lecturers did an insufficient job. So the Belgium revolution was the reason why Belgium was better treated? Pathetic answer - again. Fail.0 -
Your post reads like a note scribbled by a teacher on a returned history essay, the only thing missing being the nought out of ten marks awarded. It even had the obligatory “Smart remark” i.e. The quip about my possibly not knowing that the Quakers are Christians.
Folks take it to pm, it's not relevant tbh also it's coming close to a "breach of the peace" in my opinion in which case I will have to hand out infractions.0 -
Advertisement
-
My apologies for not specifying majority religions. I stand by by comment re Christianity and the treatment of the underclass (unless my lecturers in 19th century economic and social history were telling me a pack of lies).
Your saying that "it was simply not true" isn't enough to convince me that you're correct.
It was unfortunate that the Quakers didn't have the monopoly on religion in Ireland at the time, as I'm certain that they would have achieved an awful lot more than they did. The Quakers are a completely different breed to the mainstream religions, in that they did and do regard everyone as equals.
I note that you didn't mention the number of Quaker soup-kitchens in operation. I would have been expected to produce links to the relevant statistics.
I think the issue here is that you need to provide a source to back up the point (underlined no. 01). I think from your post that you understand this requirement (underlined no. 02). So in the interest of keeping the thread on track it is not enough to simply 'stand by' your comment re Christianity, it should be backed up with a source. My own opinion is that it would be interesting to look at the roles that different religions played in any relief efforts. We often focus on government efforts but religon would have had capital availiable to help also during this time and they should have used it. Apart form that please all keep the discussion on the topic at hand.
Thanks
Moderator.
EDIT> Apologies for double jobbing on this but please heed requests in this and dubhthachs post above.0 -
“this famine needed to be allowed”? This seems a ridiculous comment to me.
Why? Closing the borders, and ordering more grain would have solved it. Ireland was probably in food surplus.I think that you're theorising again that Ireland was going to be an agricultural labourers' paradise,
No. I didn't. I merely am saying that the famine would not have happened.I don't see the connection with the Indian famine, as the situation there was unique, in that there was a war going on, and food imports from Burma stopped after the Japanese took control. We can surmise what would have happened with no war and no halt to imports, but we can never be certain.
Food was exported from India to feed British soldiers in Greece. Its generally considered in India this famine was man made. The man being Churchill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India
We should also include Bangladesh, which after all, was once part of the British Empire in the region. 1.5 million deaths in 1974.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_famine_of_1974
I don't know why you got thanked for your post, because it doesn't seem to fall within the criteria (as pointed out to me, in no uncertain terms) of the forum, not to mention that it doesn't contain accurate information.
People can thank posts as they wish. You are mis-representing me.I said that there are very few famines in democracies, not there are very few famines on the sub-continent, the Bangldesh famine happened just after the war and just before a coup.
After its independence, Bangladesh became a parliamentary democracy, with Mujib as the Prime Minister. In the 1973 parliamentary elections, the Awami League gained an absolute majority. A nationwide famine occurred during 1973 and 1974,[20] and in early 1975, Mujib initiated a one-party socialist rule with his newly formed BAKSAL. On 15 August 1975, Mujib and most of his family members were assassinated by mid-level military officers.[32] A series of bloody coups and counter-coups in the following three months culminated in the ascent to power of General Ziaur Rahman, who reinstated multi-party politics, and founded the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). Zia's rule ended when he was assassinated by elements of the military in 1981.
You can see why democracies don't have famines, they get overthrown. ( And this democracy was not established, just after a war).
Back to Bengal in 1943. Lets compare two countries, both part of the British Empire at the time.
1) India
2) The United Kingom
One starved, and the other didn't. Food was scarce in the Island of Britain, and became scarce during the war in India. It is the reaction of the (same) authorities to potential starvation which is telling. And how food was distributed, and how farmland prioritised. And so on. There is no way of looking at Bengal than it was man made. I would say the same for Ireland.
Heres a quote from an Article, behind the TImes firewall ( I subscribe), in a review of Churchill's Secret War, Max Hastings says:
To put the matter brutally, millions of Indians were allowed to starve so that available shipping - including vessels normally based in India - could be used to further British purposes elsewhere. When Churchill's nation was engaged in a desperate struggle, perhaps this reflected strategic logic. But it made nonsense of his post-war claims about upholding the interests of the Indian people, and indeed of the whole paternalistic ethic by which the empire sought to justify itself.
Heres the book itself.
Thats a conservative paper. I will try and find it re-published somewhere and link.0 -
-
P. Breathnach wrote: »That's a considerable departure from the current consensus.
But it's an OK comment.
If you go back to the politicians at the time they were asserting that. It will have appeared in newspapers at the time too - so surely there are some sources to test the theory.
It does not need to be 100% correct either as any export of food under the laissez faire principles was a diverted food resourse.
I am rusty on the sources for this.0 -
The information here may clarify some of the issues relating to Religious organisations of various descriptions.jonniebgood1 wrote: »I think the issue here is that you need to provide a source to back up the point (underlined no. 01). I think from your post that you understand this requirement (underlined no. 02). So in the interest of keeping the thread on track it is not enough to simply 'stand by' your comment re Christianity, it should be backed up with a source. My own opinion is that it would be interesting to look at the roles that different religions played in any relief efforts. We often focus on government efforts but religon would have had capital availiable to help also during this time and they should have used it. Apart form that please all keep the discussion on the topic at hand.
Thanks
Moderator.
http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Private_Responses_to_the_Famine3344361812
From my own research I would agree with the general thrust of this assesssment.
By the way - can people stop posting links to wikipedia - it is not regarded as a reliable source and is not accepted in any historical forum that I know of.
You seem to lack even a basic understanding of the economic policies prevalent during the famine - i.e. mercantilism - and the attitude of the native Irish professional, merchant and tenant farming classes of the time. Your comments are based simply on a regurgitation of nationalistic propaganda that has little basis in actual fact.Why? Closing the borders, and ordering more grain would have solved it. Ireland was probably in food surplus.
There is absolutely zero evidence that a native Irish government in the middle of the nineteenth century would have implemented any different policies than those implemented by the British - the professional, merchant and tenant farming classes were all benefitting significantly from the famine in financial terms and would have engaged in policies that would have ensured the same result irrespective of who was in government (in just the same way that the present government is protecting the banks and the speculators and screwing the working people and the poor)0 -
Advertisement
-
In what way is a falsehood - even one that is widely propagated - an OK comment? It is part of the mythology that Ireland would have been able to feed itself during the famine years if the "English" (many of whom were in reality Irish) had not exported cereals under armed protection. The seminal study is probably that of Ó Gráda, but my copy seems to have gone astray. From memory, I give you two key points: 1. there was a large food production deficit in Ireland during 1845-50; 2. more food was imported in those years than exported (much of the imports being food aid). Perhaps somebody with a copy of the work can corroborate.But it's an OK comment.
If you go back to the politicians at the time they were asserting that. It will have appeared in newspapers at the time too - so surely there are some sources to test the theory.
In doing a search for an online source to confirm my recollection, I came upon this, which is well worth a few minutes of the time of anybody interested in the famine: http://irserver.ucd.ie/dspace/bitstream/10197/475/3/ogradac_workpap_025.pdf0 -
I am hazy on it but this link here says John Mitchell was the politician in question and AFAIR he exaggerated the food production.
http://www.usbornefamilytree.com/irishfoodexports.htm
Does the link seem right to you ?0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »By the way - can people stop posting links to wikipedia - it is not regarded as a reliable source and is not accepted in any historical forum that I know of.
Nonsense, it is accepted everywhere else. Wikipedia writers have to source materials, or be edited out.You seem to lack even a basic understanding of the economic policies prevalent during the famine - i.e. mercantilism - and the attitude of the native Irish professional, merchant and tenant farming classes of the time. Your comments are based simply on a regurgitation of nationalistic propaganda that has little basis in actual fact.
I would claim your comments are based on a massively apologism for the British Empire. The System in Ireland in 1842 was feudalistic, we had few or no merchant classes. You are blaming a victim class for its own destruction based on selected quotes from non-linkable academic sources which happen to agree with you. Revisionism is fashionable in the Irish academic community ( but not elsewhere), and fashions change.There is absolutely zero evidence that a native Irish government in the middle of the nineteenth century would have implemented any different policies than those implemented by the British - the professional, merchant and tenant farming classes were all benefitting significantly from the famine in financial terms and would have engaged in policies that would have ensured the same result irrespective of who was in government (in just the same way that the present government is protecting the banks and the speculators and screwing the working people and the poor)
This sudden "support" for the working poor is interesting since you are blaming the 15 acre tenant poor but not the top 1% ( the landlords) in one case ; but blaming the top 1% ( banks) in the other, but not the guy who bought to let.
The Landlords in Ireland owned all the land, Irish catholic farmers had no political rights, the decisions made to not block exports were made based on sectarian, racist and colonial beliefs about the Irish people. It wouldn't have happened in the UK, and it fact it didn't. This is all macro-economic and political.
As I said, and I linked to, there are clear indications that democracies tend not to have famines, but there are plenty in the British Empire - mostly in India. This is a bit too co-incidental.
You are completely ignoring the macro-economic policies, the actual governance of the land, the political realities of who and what ethno-sectarian group is in power; and scurrying through the cesspool of revisionist history to blame the victims because of minor class differences from one set of poor, the tenant farmer on 15 acres, and the tenant farmer on 2, or the cottier.
And revisionism isn't accepted everywhere. From the wikipedia link on Famine ( in general)
In certain cases, such as the Great Leap Forward in China (which produced the largest famine in absolute numbers), North Korea in the mid-1990s, or Zimbabwe in the early-2000s, famine can occur because of government policy. Few historians have argued that the Great Irish Famine was not caused by the shortage of food, given that Ireland was producing enough food to feed its eight million people, but by the British government's choice to leave open the ports, as they are normally close during Irish crop blights. Records show that in past famines, ports were closed to keep Irish-grown food in Ireland to feed the Irish. However, this did not occur in the 1840s, and Ireland continued to export food during the Famine. Law professor Charles E. Rice of Notre Dame as well as International Law professor at the University of Illinois Francis A. Boyle have argued that the British government committed genocide by pursuing a policy of starvation in Ireland.
0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »In what way is a falsehood - even one that is widely propagated - an OK comment? It is part of the mythology that Ireland would have been able to feed itself during the famine years if the "English" (many of whom were in reality Irish) had not exported cereals under armed protection. The seminal study is probably that of Ó Gráda, but my copy seems to have gone astray. From memory, I give you two key points: 1. there was a large food production deficit in Ireland during 1845-50; 2. more food was imported in those years than exported (much of the imports being food aid). Perhaps somebody with a copy of the work can corroborate.
In doing a search for an online source to confirm my recollection, I came upon this, which is well worth a few minutes of the time of anybody interested in the famine: http://irserver.ucd.ie/dspace/bitstream/10197/475/3/ogradac_workpap_025.pdf
Please qualify this response as nothing more label-worthy than a desire for clarity (no specific 'ism')!
Kinealy's This Great Calamity (citing O' Grada) describes Ireland as a net exporter between 1815-1845 under protectionism. The eventual deficit appears (according again to O' Grada) in 1846 due to diminished purchasing power.
I think the problem is that in this unique case it is difficult to resort to market conditions or balance of trade to assess the local implications of net import-export (i.e. it reveals nothing about how the requirements commodity production for rent, and local conditions of enclosure / fragmentation resulting in greater proportions of land devoted to monocrop subsistence may have conferred different forms of local resilience).0 -
Given that the only 'source' you ever link to is wikipedia, I am not surprised by this comment. Wikipedia isn't even allowed as a source for second-level history.Nonsense, it is accepted everywhere else. Wikipedia writers have to source materials, or be edited out.
Take some time out and actually do some research of your own.
My comments are based on years of personal research using practically every source that exists on the nineteenth century.I would claim your comments are based on a massively apologism for the British Empire.
Again - this shows that you lack a basic understanding of what feudalism was. First year secondary students would do a better job than you.The System in Ireland in 1842 was feudalistic,
Really - evidence? - I can produce primary sources to demonstrate that they did.we had few or no merchant classes.
The Irish tenant farmer was not as victim - very few died and those that did were mostly from cholera or typhoid, not famine.You are blaming a victim class for its own destruction based on selected quotes from non-linkable academic sources which happen to agree with you.
I have provided detailed references for every quote - if you are really interested go to a library and actually check it out - this is what historians have to do - they simply can't say 'I'm too lazy to check your references so I am just going to dismiss them'.
Again - try reading what I posted - you can read I presume - I stated that the primary cause of the famine was the policies of the British government, the secondary cause was the actions of the landlord class in backing the British government and that the Irish merchant class and the Irish tenant farmer exploited the shortage of food by pumping up prices to make a quick buck at the expense of the urban and rural poor.This sudden "support" for the working poor is interesting since you are blaming the 15 acre tenant poor but not the top 1% ( the landlords) in one case ; but blaming the top 1% ( banks) in the other, but not the guy who bought to let.
The Irish tenant farmer hoarded food supplies to drive up demand and prices and then sold to the highest bidder who was usually a forestaller working for the Irish merchants.The Landlords in Ireland owned all the land, Irish catholic farmers had no political rights, the decisions made to not block exports were made based on sectarian, racist and colonial beliefs about the Irish people. It wouldn't have happened in the UK, and it fact it didn't. This is all macro-economic and political.
Others have dealt with this one - and I have also linked to scholarly articles that refute this assertion.As I said, and I linked to, there are clear indications that democracies tend not to have famines, but there are plenty in the British Empire - mostly in India. This is a bit too co-incidental.
No I am not - the difference is that I have actually spent a considerable amount of time researching the subject - you have not.You are completely ignoring the macro-economic policies, the actual governance of the land, the political realities of who and what ethno-sectarian group is in power; and scurrying through the cesspool of revisionist history to blame the victims because of minor class differences from one set of poor, the tenant farmer on 15 acres, and the tenant farmer on 2, or the cottier.
wikipedia againAnd revisionism isn't accepted everywhere. From the wikipedia link on Famine ( in general)
And please note that there is no reference to this paragraph of the article - not one - nada - nothing - it is merely the comments of the author backed up with nothing but hot air.
0 -
Yahew and JollyRedGiant. Stop with the personal insults. Noone wants to see that. If yous have a problem with each other you can PM each other about it. Any more here will bring about infractions which noone needs.
With regard to Wikipedia it can be useful at times to summarise events but it is preferable to use the sources linked at the bottom of a Wiki page as opposed to the page itself, or use other sources altogether. There is lots of information about sources on one of the stickies on the main page.
Moderator.0 -
I have been nothing but diplomatic on this thread - but it does get a little frustrating when someone refuses to use links for their own arguments, dismisses authentic links that I post and then makes (wrong) accusations about my motivations in the most derogatory terms.jonniebgood1 wrote: »Yahew and JollyRedGiant. Stop with the personal insults. Noone wants to see that. If yous have a problem with each other you can PM each other about it. Any more here will bring about infractions which noone needs.
The only comment I made in my last post that could be remotely considered as personal abuse was the comment where I stated I presumed Yahew could read - despite the fact that Yahew for the fourth time has selectively misquoted the same comment.
Outside of that - all I have done is suggest that Yahew actually do some reading and research and engage with the subject matter in an honest and historical fashion with appropriate references for statements.0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »Given that the only 'source' you ever link to is wikipedia, I am not surprised by this comment. Wikipedia isn't even allowed as a source for second-level history.
Take some time out and actually do some research of your own.
As I said, wikipedia is accepted as a source here, and everywhere else. I am a Physics and Mathemathical grad, and I have yet yo find it lacking when it comes to either subject. Its as trustworthy as the Encylopedia Britanica in most cases.
And this isn't your class, I am not in danger of failing my degree if I fail to give you back the tainted ideological history you expect me to.
However....My comments are based on years of personal research using practically every source that exists on the nineteenth century.
.....your own unpublished research is of little interest to anybody but you. Publish and see if Wikipedia references it, and fight your corner in the discussion page with other historians.Again - this shows that you lack a basic understanding of what feudalism was. First year secondary students would do a better job than you.
Really - evidence? - I can produce primary sources to demonstrate that they did.
I feel I am banned from using the internet to prove that Ireland was largely a peasant society ruled by a Protestant landlord elite who had representatives in Parliament, while the Catholic merchant classes by and large did not, so I will leave that as an exercise to the reader.The Irish tenant farmer was not as victim - very few died and those that did were mostly from cholera or typhoid, not famine.
Oh, thats fair enough then. I was going to link to a wikipedia article about the expulsion of 20% of the tenant farmers of Mayo, but thats apparently banned.I have provided detailed references for every quote - if you are really interested go to a library and actually check it out - this is what historians have to do - they simply can't say 'I'm too lazy to check your references so I am just going to dismiss them'.
Link to published articles on the internet. A 1952 tract by the orange order now out of print is not going to be easy to refute if we cant find it, is it?Again - try reading what I posted - you can read I presume - I stated that the primary cause of the famine was the policies of the British government, the secondary cause was the actions of the landlord class in backing the British government and that the Irish merchant class and the Irish tenant farmer exploited the shortage of food by pumping up prices to make a quick buck at the expense of the urban and rural poor.
I can read, and you never blamed landlord's and the British Government until this actual statement ( and you then - in the next paragraph - go on to blame the Irish tenant farmer, without equivocation) .
I, on the other hand, in my original statement in this thread- which was more or less a logical attempt to describe the idea of what a famine is, or whether the Irish famine was one or was human caused and genocidal - never even mentioned the Landlords; my entire beef is with Government decision making.The Irish tenant farmer hoarded food supplies to drive up demand and prices and then sold to the highest bidder who was usually a forestaller working for the Irish merchants.
You actually haven't proved this, but it seems to be your major claim. It's ideologically loaded. You say Irish tenant farmer ( not some), hoarded food ( but food would rot in those days), to drive up demand. I would think that prices would rise because of a natural increase due to the collapse in some of the food supple, so that would be the cause of the price rise.. In any case these tenant farmers might have been individually bad apples but they were not the Sytem, and had no political power, a point you routinely ignore while pointing to your own biased studies. And this paragraph puts the blame squarely on the tenants, and - apparently - all of them.Others have dealt with this one - and I have also linked to scholarly articles that refute this assertion.
I then linked to the most recent book on the subject of the Bengal famine, and to Amertyha Sen's thesis, which is still the generally accepted thesis on democracies and famine. Here it is again.
Are you - by the way - claiming that the Bengal famine was a fault of the Indian population?No I am not - the difference is that I have actually spent a considerable amount of time researching the subject - you have not.
Yeah you are. Your research has a clear bias in my view.wikipedia again
And please note that there is no reference to this paragraph of the article - not one - nada - nothing - it is merely the comments of the author backed up with nothing but hot air.
Here's the deal, in future I will not link to the wikipedia page but the page the wikipedia links to - there are lots of links at the bottom, where wiki says source.
Libraries are so 1952, anyways.0 -
and I have a postgraduate qualification in History - and it is not acceptable for historical referencing.As I said, wikipedia is accepted as a source here, and everywhere else. I am a Physics and Mathemathical grad, and I have yet yo find it lacking when it comes to either subject. Its as trustworthy as the Encylopedia Britanica in most cases.
You are assuming that I do not have any published academic works - you are wrong......your own unpublished research is of little interest to anybody but you. Publish and see if Wikipedia references it, and fight your corner in the discussion page with other historians.
Who is banning you from quoting authentic and accepted references - research your arguments and quote your references.I feel I am banned from using the internet to prove that Ireland was largely a peasant society ruled by a Protestant landlord elite who had representatives in Parliament, while the Catholic merchant classes by and large did not, so I will leave that as an exercise to the reader.
Find an academic article that backs up your claim and quote it.Oh, thats fair enough then. I was going to link to a wikipedia article about the expulsion of 20% of the tenant farmers of Mayo, but thats apparently banned.
Who referenced such an article.Link to published articles on the internet. A 1952 tract by the orange order now out of print is not going to be easy to refute if we cant find it, is it?
Go back and read how many times I said it.I can read, and you never blamed landlord's and the British Government until this actual statement ( and you then - in the next paragraph - go on to blame the Irish tenant farmer, without equivocation) .
It was a rant - and had no sources to back it upI, on the other hand, in my original statement in this thread- which was more or less a logical attempt to describe the idea of what a famine is, or whether the Irish famine was one or was human caused and genocidal - never even mentioned the Landlords; my entire beef is with Government decision making.
Outrage Papers in the National Archive and Poor law Commission that I linked to.You actually haven't proved this, but it seems to be your major claim. It's ideologically loaded. You say Irish tenant farmer ( not some), hoarded food ( but food would rot in those days), to drive up demand.
And I linked to several academic articles refuting these claims - you simply ignored them rather than dealing with themI then linked to the most recent book on the subject of the Bengal famine, and to Amertyha Sen's thesis, which is still the generally accepted thesis on democracies and famine. Here it is again.
Never made any such claim - I have not researched the topic so i know very little about it - I do not make claims about anything I cannot back up with evidence and I have not engaged in any discussion about India.Are you - by the way - claiming that the Bengal famine was a fault of the Indian population?
Prove it - produce the evidence that refutes my claims - that is what historical debate is all about.Yeah you are. Your research has a clear bias in my view.
And if the sources are authentic and accepted in historical terms then go for it - but I would suggest that you actually read the alternative source first - simply using the info on wikipedia and providing an alternative link is not enough - the wikipedia author could have distorted or mis-represented the source.Here's the deal, in future I will not link to the wikipedia page but the page the wikipedia links to - there are lots of links at the bottom, where wiki says source.
So are books - yet if you want to debate on a history forum them you have to get your fingers dirty and do a bit of research thumbing through the pages - the amount of accessable historical material on the internet is miniscule compared to what you find in an academic library or an archive.Libraries are so 1952, anyways.0 -
Off topic I know, I think its great when history academics post with us as they bring something too the party.
I have wider interests than just history and stopped reading history before because the bull**** that passed for it just was not true.
And they i.e. historians will be biased too.
I know where the academics are coming from and we have 4 or 5 very able professional historians posting here from time to time. Wikipedia is not acceptable for leaving cert history projects.
Anyone who wants to read up on a history debates could try this link by Aubane Historical Society on Peter Hart's book.
http://aubanehistoricalsociety.org/troubled_history.pdf
It is not on the famine but you will get the general gist that academic debates on history are classed as serious and the tools in debate are facts.
In the WWII Derserters Thread - Diarmuid Ferriter is quoted giving a critique of Alan Shatter's reading of Irish History and he has also taken on two other professors in other universities in the process. This is taking place in the Irish Times. Ferriter has probably already won the academic argument.
So in history facts get disputed and wikipedia is to history as the Sun Newspaper is to journalism. I read the Sun and its a great paper but I wouldn't use it as a source though it might prod me to check something out elsewhere.
And in history an opinion without a proper source is just an opinion and is not history.
Getting historians riled up about Wikipedia is anti-academic and in history wikipedia has not been a reliable source when it is judged as spurious even in secondary schools.
I once got really snotty here in H & H about someine quoting Ruth Dudley Edwards on Patrick Pearse as even though it was published it was makey upey. I ranted for days......if ever a book needed burning...... but put it together factually in a thread. Even MD was pleased.
That's history.0 -
Advertisement
-
Off topic I know, I think its great when history academics post with us as they bring something too the party.
I have wider interests than just history and stopped reading history before because the bull**** that passed for it just was not true.
And they i.e. historians will be biased too.
I know where the academics are coming from and we have 4 or 5 very able professional historians posting here from time to time. Wikipedia is not acceptable for leaving cert history projects.
Anyone who wants to read up on a history debates could try this link by Aubane Historical Society on Peter Hart's book.
http://aubanehistoricalsociety.org/troubled_history.pdf
It is not on the famine but you will get the general gist that academic debates on history are classed as serious and the tools in debate are facts.
In the WWII Derserters Thread - Diarmuid Ferriter is quoted giving a critique of Alan Shatter's reading of Irish History and he has also taken on two other professors in other universities in the process. This is taking place in the Irish Times. Ferriter has probably already won the academic argument.
So in history facts get disputed and wikipedia is to history as the Sun Newspaper is to journalism. I read the Sun and its a great paper but I wouldn't use it as a source though it might prod me to check something out elsewhere.
And in history an opinion without a proper source is just an opinion and is not history.
Getting historians riled up about Wikipedia is anti-academic and in history wikipedia has not been a reliable source when it is judged as spurious even in secondary schools.
I once got really snotty here in H & H about someine quoting Ruth Dudley Edwards on Patrick Pearse as even though it was published it was makey upey. I ranted for days......if ever a book needed burning...... but put it together factually in a thread. Even MD was pleased.
That's history.
Absolutely love history, having pursued it in college. And I hate Ruth Dudley Edward's arguments. I found her completely anti Irish. But thats off topic.
Regarding the Famine. You can't really call it genocidal. In college we were given a title that asked to discuss whether you could compare it to the Holocaust ect........I couldn't and I researched it heavily.
Genocide is a deliberate action to kill people.
I think there were a serious amount of factors on why the famine occured and both sides the poor and gentry were to blame. There was a serious amount of neglect involved in helping people. The government could have done more, that is for sure. The landlords both catholic and protestant hold serious blame too. Though it has to be acknowledged, there were landlords who did a lot for their tenants. However they dont tend to get any mention as much as the "baddies" do. Also it has to be considered that not having crop rotation in place also made them dependent on the potato crop, its just one of the reasons and factors that led to the disaster.
The word genocide is harsh and untrue I think. But I think it stems from past anger and bitterness over the event. The famine completely changed the social and cultural structure of ireland, emmigration which shaped Britain, and Americas future too. Politically I think it was a huge move in also bringing Ireland back to an independent status again, and it marked the exodus of many of the gentry too after localised riots and murders took place against landlords who had been cruel.
Neglect is the word I would concentrate on. And delayed reaction. Genocide no. I dont think the world cared enough at the time. Thats the sad part.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »In doing a search for an online source to confirm my recollection, I came upon this, which is well worth a few minutes of the time of anybody interested in the famine: http://irserver.ucd.ie/dspace/bitstream/10197/475/3/ogradac_workpap_025.pdf
Thanks for that link, very interesting content. O’Grada mentions the mid 19th century French per capita daily consumption of potato as a mere 165 grams, compared to Ireland’s figure of more than 2 kilos, twelve times as much. There are historic reasons for that - initially potatoes had very bad press on mainland Europe, justifiably perhaps as all but the tuber is poisonous.
Parmentier, the French botanist (and he of Pommes Parmentier) was rewarded late 1700’s for his work on proposing the potato as a preventative for famine - he learned its merits in Prussia when a POW - but the populace had no regard for it as a food other than for animals and the gastronome Brillat-Savarin dismissed it.*
To increase its distribution Parmentier got Louis XVI to plant an enclosed field and keep it under heavily armed guard. When backs were turned (supposedly deliberately), the farmers believing potatoes were highly valuable raided the crop and planted them for personal use. The potato became only marginally more popular thereafter.
Even today in France the potato is seen like any other vegetable, not as a staple or something you eat every day. The Swede turnip (rutabaga) is disdained there as it is regarded as ‘famine food’ from memories as recent as WW2.
*"None for me. I appreciate the potato only as a protection against famine; except for that, I know of nothing more eminently tasteless."0 -
I remember a woman from West Kerry (who, were she still living, would be about 100 years old) who disdained corn on the cob, describing it as "yella male", and "famine food".pedroeibar1 wrote: »... Even today in France the potato is seen like any other vegetable, not as a staple or something you eat every day. The Swede turnip (rutabaga) is disdained there as it is regarded as ‘famine food’ from memories as recent as WW2.0 -
From all i have read about the famine in my own opinion is that the british controlled food in Ireland for their own gain. Irish couldnt even fish their own waters or own land or have education.
Irish tenants worked on irish lands owned by british land lords just to acquire a patch of ground to grow potatoes.
So they were forced to live on potatoes, when the blight came they had very little other options.
The british law enforced on the Irish, the PENAL LAW restricted the Irish from doing many things that are necessary in order to succeed and prosper in life.
Irish exports of livestock actually increased during the famine. The food was shipped under guard.
Who ever thinks Ireland was covered in nothing but potatoes and nothing else grew here is a complete and utter moron and deluded.
The potato famine is just a way for the british to hide the real facts of the famine. It was part of the cause in one way, but if the brits didnt have control of the Irish lands, the Irish would never starve........ I laugh when I see them (british) write about the poor Irish, why didnt we help them and give them food, they dont realise that it was them who took our food.0 -
stopping power wrote: »From all i have read about the famine in my own opinion is that the british controlled food in Ireland for their own gain. Irish couldnt even fish their own waters or own land or have education.
Irish tenants worked on irish lands owned by british land lords just to acquire a patch of ground to grow potatoes.
So they were forced to live on potatoes, when the blight came they had very little other options.
The british law enforced on the Irish, the PENAL LAW restricted the Irish from doing many things that are necessary in order to succeed and prosper in life.
Irish exports of livestock actually increased during the famine. The food was shipped under guard.
Who ever thinks Ireland was covered in nothing but potatoes and nothing else grew here is a complete and utter moron and deluded.
The potato famine is just a way for the british to hide the real facts of the famine. It was part of the cause in one way, but if the brits didnt have control of the Irish lands, the Irish would never starve........ I laugh when I see them (british) write about the poor Irish, why didnt we help them and give them food, they dont realise that it was them who took our food.
I think you have just provided the best example of populist, ill informed Irish history we have seen for a while.
Please, please, please go back over this thread and read every post.
Btw, no one stopped the Irish from being educated, owning land or fishing.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »Btw, no one stopped the Irish from being educated, owning land or fishing.
EU quotas?0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »Btw, no one stopped the Irish from being educated, owning land or fishing.
Ever hear of the Penal Laws? Until the very late 1700s in Ireland Catholics couldn't buy a freehold of land. Until the national schools of Lord Derby were set up a huge majority of the catholic population had basic literacy. Even when schools were available the Catholics could not afford to have their children attend them. Even Catholics attending universities such as Trinity werent allowed until late 1700s. Don't even get me started on the Issue of Emancipation!
But this doesn't mean I believe that the famine was genocide true the British government could have done much more, but one has to remember they did make relief efforts etc. The Queen sent over thousands of pounds I Believe. One however certainly cannot blame the deaths of thousands on the catholic farmers. Some landlords helped alleviate the problems of Famine, but some just made a quick buck instead. AS pointed out before, the British did not set out to kill the entire native Irish population. A combination of factors and lack of planning and provision spiralled into disaster. It would be foolish to say the Irish could simply have chosen to changed their lifestyle, however this has posed the question of a change of religion possibly fixing said problems.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »I think you have just provided the best example of populist, ill informed Irish history we have seen for a while.
Please, please, please go back over this thread and read every post.
Btw, no one stopped the Irish from being educated, owning land or fishing.
The irony of you of all people accusing Irish people of not knowing Irish history, when you come out with this supremely ignorant rubbish. Typical of your posting style, yet incredible just the same. Are you trolling or something? You could only be. Because nobody with a scintilla of awareness of Irish history would say somebody as utterly stupid, particularly with regard to education and land ownership.
Go away, and take your rabidly and consistently anti-Irish, ignorant British nationalist views from this, and every other Irish forum.0 -
Ever hear of the Penal Laws? Until the very late 1700s in Ireland Catholics couldn't buy a freehold of land. Until the national schools of Lord Derby were set up a huge majority of the catholic population had basic literacy. Even when schools were available the Catholics could not afford to have their children attend them. Even Catholics attending universities such as Trinity werent allowed until late 1700s. Don't even get me started on the Issue of Emancipation!
But this doesn't mean I believe that the famine was genocide true the British government could have done much more, but one has to remember they did make relief efforts etc. The Queen sent over thousands of pounds I Believe. One however certainly cannot blame the deaths of thousands on the catholic farmers. Some landlords helped alleviate the problems of Famine, but some just made a quick buck instead. AS pointed out before, the British did not set out to kill the entire native Irish population. A combination of factors and lack of planning and provision spiralled into disaster. It would be foolish to say the Irish could simply have chosen to changed their lifestyle, however this has posed the question of a change of religion possibly fixing said problems.
the penal laws applied to Catholics and applied to all Catholics, it didn't matter if they were Irish, English or Mongolian.
Also, Catholics were forbidden to teach, not to be taught. But if you were poor it didn't matter if you were catholic, presbytarian or Muslim, you had no ability to teach, be taught, vote or any other rights we have today.0 -
Advertisement
-
Rebelheart wrote: »The irony of you of all people accusing Irish people of not knowing Irish history, when you come out with this supremely ignorant rubbish. Typical of your posting style, yet incredible just the same. Are you trolling or something? You could only be. Because nobody with a scintilla of awareness of Irish history would say somebody as utterly stupid, particularly with regard to education and land ownership.
Go away, and take your rabidly and consistently anti-Irish, ignorant British nationalist views from this, and every other Irish forum.
As regards the post Fred was responding to I agree with him 100%. It was the kind of simplistic, knee-jerk, nationalist pseudo-history I - as an Irish person who knows a great deal about history- am working to change.
Just one fact for now- the Penal Laws were enacted in the UK and Ireland and were aimed at all non-Anglican's - so Scottish Presbyterians in the Highlands, Welsh Methodists in the Valleys and English Quakers in Kent were as discriminated against as Catholics in Ireland.
Funny how a fact can put things in whole different light isn't it.
BTW - reported for this: 'Go away, and take your rabidly and consistently anti-Irish, ignorant British nationalist views from this, and every other Irish forum.'0
Advertisement