| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Irish Potato Famine 1846-1850
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Irish Potato Famine 1846-1850

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15239
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 13:40
Originally posted by theCelt theCelt wrote:

There has been a big push in recent years among grass roots circles to stop calling it a "famine" and start calling it a genocide. It was policy - not lack of food - that killed those people.


Well, that's nothing surprising. The British have a collection of genocides worldwide. One more won't change theirs reputation. Now I realize why Nazis admired Brits so much ... For them Brits were theirs masters and inspirators Confused
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 14:39
The consequences of the Potato Blight in Ireland can be laid squarely at the feet of the English rulers of the time.
 
It's true that some of the English aristocracy in Ireland did something to alleviate the situation, but in the main, food stocks were hoarded by the overlords for their own use.
 
Englands attitude towards Ireland at the time hadn't changed a great deal, and the many deaths and migration suited their purposes very well. It simply made it easier to control the remaining Irish and made land available for planting English settlers in Ireland.
 
This was just another flow on of the English attempt at genocide-to wipe out the Irish and their culture entirely, or if not, to dominate it fiercely.
 
ERIN GO BRAGH!
Back to Top
Kevinmeath View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 18 Jan 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kevinmeath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 23:39
You didn't answer the question if the British were trying to commit 'genocide' why did they have programmes to feed the poor?

How much food was imported into Ireland during the period?

Some historians suggest that it was greater than that exported.

Who exported this food? the British government? No it didn't believe in interfering with 'the market' so it was the Irish themselves who preferred to make a profit and sell it to the growing British market.

In answer to your question as to whether there weren't other crops available in Ireland anyone who has read about the Famines could tell you that no there wasn't in many parts of the country.

Do you think the 'Blight' was confined to Ireland? it hit all of Europe but other countries ,including Britain, the farmers either switched to other crops or emigrated to the growing industrial cities in search of work.

Mismanagement, a callous disregard for the poor, economic dogma perhaps. Overwhelmed by the scale as well but sorry not genocide.
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 23:58
Originally posted by Kevinmeath Kevinmeath wrote:

You didn't answer the question if the British were trying to commit 'genocide' why did they have programmes to feed the poor?

How much food was imported into Ireland during the period?

Some historians suggest that it was greater than that exported.

Who exported this food? the British government? No it didn't believe in interfering with 'the market' so it was the Irish themselves who preferred to make a profit and sell it to the growing British market.

In answer to your question as to whether there weren't other crops available in Ireland anyone who has read about the Famines could tell you that no there wasn't in many parts of the country.

Do you think the 'Blight' was confined to Ireland? it hit all of Europe but other countries ,including Britain, the farmers either switched to other crops or emigrated to the growing industrial cities in search of work.

Mismanagement, a callous disregard for the poor, economic dogma perhaps. Overwhelmed by the scale as well but sorry not genocide.
 
 
It would be helpful if you addressed your post to the person whom you're questioning.
 
 
Back to Top
Kevinmeath View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 18 Jan 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kevinmeath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2014 at 00:03
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by Kevinmeath Kevinmeath wrote:

You didn't answer the question if the British were trying to commit 'genocide' why did they have programmes to feed the poor?

How much food was imported into Ireland during the period?

Some historians suggest that it was greater than that exported.

Who exported this food? the British government? No it didn't believe in interfering with 'the market' so it was the Irish themselves who preferred to make a profit and sell it to the growing British market.

In answer to your question as to whether there weren't other crops available in Ireland anyone who has read about the Famines could tell you that no there wasn't in many parts of the country.

Do you think the 'Blight' was confined to Ireland? it hit all of Europe but other countries ,including Britain, the farmers either switched to other crops or emigrated to the growing industrial cities in search of work.

Mismanagement, a callous disregard for the poor, economic dogma perhaps. Overwhelmed by the scale as well but sorry not genocide.






 

 

It would be helpful if you addressed your post to the person whom you're questioning.

 

 


Very sorry I should have quoted The Celt

And despite what he or Tim Pat Coogan like to think accusations of 'genocide' are not new they occurred at the time eg Mitchell.

An interesting article

http://www.historyireland.com/the-famine/the-great-famine-and-its-interpreters-old-and-new/
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2014 at 00:30
Originally posted by Kevinmeath Kevinmeath wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by Kevinmeath Kevinmeath wrote:

You didn't answer the question if the British were trying to commit 'genocide' why did they have programmes to feed the poor?

How much food was imported into Ireland during the period?

Some historians suggest that it was greater than that exported.

Who exported this food? the British government? No it didn't believe in interfering with 'the market' so it was the Irish themselves who preferred to make a profit and sell it to the growing British market.

In answer to your question as to whether there weren't other crops available in Ireland anyone who has read about the Famines could tell you that no there wasn't in many parts of the country.

Do you think the 'Blight' was confined to Ireland? it hit all of Europe but other countries ,including Britain, the farmers either switched to other crops or emigrated to the growing industrial cities in search of work.

Mismanagement, a callous disregard for the poor, economic dogma perhaps. Overwhelmed by the scale as well but sorry not genocide.


It would be helpful if you addressed your post to the person whom you're questioning.

 


Very sorry I should have quoted The Celt

And despite what he or Tim Pat Coogan like to think accusations of 'genocide' are not new they occurred at the time eg Mitchell.

An interesting article

http://www.historyireland.com/the-famine/the-great-famine-and-its-interpreters-old-and-new/
 
The Penal Laws of 1698, while not mentioning genocide, was in fact the British way of eradicating the Irish entirely.
 
The Penal Laws made it a crime for:-
  • Own any property valued at Five pounds or more;
  • Own any land or house;
  • Practice the Catholic Religion;
  • Speak Gaelic;
  • Use their Gaelic Family Names; or
  • To congregate in groups of five or more.

This of course was not genocide in the strict definition, but it certainly was cultural genocide.

That food was imported into Ireland was of little assistance to the impoverished Irish community, as such foodstuffs were for the exclusive use of the "Aristocracy". Any food exported was to the financial benefit of the same people, not helping the Irish at all.
 
That about one third of the total Irish population died as the direct result of the Famine was of no consequence to the British overlords.
 
As an aside, Tim Pat Coogan is an authoritative and knowledgeable source for Irish History.
 
Quote

Timothy Patrick "Tim Pat" Coogan (born 22 April 1935) is an Irish historical writer, broadcaster and newspaper columnist. He served as editor of The Irish Press newspaper from 1968 to 1987. Today, he is best known for his popular and sometimes controversial books on aspects of modern Irish history, including The IRA, Ireland Since the Rising, On the Blanket, and biographies of Michael Collins and Éamon de Valera.

His biography of Éamon de Valera proved the most controversial, taking issue with the former Irish president's reputation and achievements, in favour of those of Collins, whom he regards as indispensable to the creation of the new State.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15239
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2014 at 01:13
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

This was just another flow on of the English attempt at genocide-to wipe out the Irish and their culture entirely, or if not, to dominate it fiercely.
 
ERIN GO BRAGH!


Attempt? English is the people that record most genocides in history: in Africa, Asia, Oceania, the Americas, you name it. In Europe they have the Irish genocide as well. Besides, English had contributed mankind with extraordinary innovations such as a word (corsair) to name pirates by other name, the international drug trade (Opium War) and the concentration camp (Boer war). It is unbelievable how hypocrites they are when they portrait themselves as the "victims" of the Blitz... and pretend Nazis were "worst" than them who defended "democracy"

Just recently I learn English plotted to attack Russia and defend the "West" with the defeated Germans troops, at the end of WWII. Fortunately, a smarter people like the Americans could control that bunch of idiots.

The only good thing about the English is that now they are a colony of the U.S.






Edited by pinguin - 15 Jun 2014 at 01:20
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
Kevinmeath View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 18 Jan 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kevinmeath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2014 at 03:00
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by Kevinmeath Kevinmeath wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by Kevinmeath Kevinmeath wrote:

You didn't answer the question if the British were trying to commit 'genocide' why did they have programmes to feed the poor?

How much food was imported into Ireland during the period?

Some historians suggest that it was greater than that exported.

Who exported this food? the British government? No it didn't believe in interfering with 'the market' so it was the Irish themselves who preferred to make a profit and sell it to the growing British market.

In answer to your question as to whether there weren't other crops available in Ireland anyone who has read about the Famines could tell you that no there wasn't in many parts of the country.

Do you think the 'Blight' was confined to Ireland? it hit all of Europe but other countries ,including Britain, the farmers either switched to other crops or emigrated to the growing industrial cities in search of work.

Mismanagement, a callous disregard for the poor, economic dogma perhaps. Overwhelmed by the scale as well but sorry not genocide.





It would be helpful if you addressed your post to the person whom you're questioning.


 



Very sorry I should have quoted The Celt

And despite what he or Tim Pat Coogan like to think accusations of 'genocide' are not new they occurred at the time eg Mitchell.

An interesting article

http://www.historyireland.com/the-famine/the-great-famine-and-its-interpreters-old-and-new/[/QUOTE">[/COLOR">
 

The Penal Laws of 1698, while not mentioning genocide, was in fact the British way of eradicating the Irish entirely.

 

The Penal Laws made it a crime for:-


  • Own any property valued at Five pounds or more;

  • Own any land or house;

  • Practice the Catholic Religion;

  • Speak Gaelic;

  • Use their Gaelic Family Names; or

  • To congregate in groups of five or more.

This of course was not genocide in the strict definition, but it certainly was cultural genocide.


That food was imported into Ireland was of little assistance to the impoverished Irish community, as such foodstuffs were for the exclusive use of the "Aristocracy". Any food exported was to the financial benefit of the same people, not helping the Irish at all.





 

That about one third of the total Irish population died as the direct result of the Famine was of no consequence to the British overlords.

 

As an aside, Tim Pat Coogan is an authoritative and knowledgeable source for Irish History.

 

[QUOTE>



Timothy Patrick "Tim Pat" Coogan (born 22 April 1935) is an Irish historical writer, broadcaster and newspaper columnist. He served as editor of The Irish Press newspaper from 1968 to 1987. Today, he is best known for his popular and sometimes controversial books on aspects of modern Irish history, including The IRA, Ireland Since the Rising, On the Blanket, and biographies of Michael Collins[/COLOR"> and Éamon de Valera[/COLOR">.


His biography of Éamon de Valera[/COLOR"> proved the most controversial, taking issue with the former Irish president[/COLOR">'s reputation and achievements, in favour of those of Collins, whom he regards as indispensable to the creation of the new State.





Well the Penal Laws were not genocide and have to be seen in the context of the period.

Even if they are an attempt at 'cultural genocide' (debateable to say the least) they couldn't have been enforced because Ireland stayed very much the same.

Anyway how many were in force by the mid 19th century? None?

If the ever so evil English wanted to commit genocide why didn't they use the opportunity of the famine of the mid 18th century? that may have killed as many as the 'Great Famine'.

As for the food imports only helping the Irish community that's simply complete and utter rubbish.

At the peak 3 million people were being fed --soup kitchens, cheap food, work schemes so called indoor and ou door relief were all tried to varying degrees.

Whether more should have been and more importantly what form any aid take is one of the questions about the famine. However it can not be said that no aid was given or that it was only for the rich.

The Famine didn't kill a third of the population but 'only' about a million the rest emigrated.

Tim Pat Coogan is an historian (a rather populist one) who has opinions but that many equally good historians who don't agree with him.

Back to Top
Kevinmeath View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 18 Jan 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kevinmeath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2014 at 03:02
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:





Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:


This was just another flow on of the English attempt at genocide-to wipe out the Irish and their culture entirely, or if not, to dominate it fiercely.

 

ERIN GO BRAGH!


Attempt? English is the people that record most genocides in history: in Africa, Asia, Oceania, the Americas, you name it. In Europe they have the Irish genocide as well. Besides, English had contributed mankind with extraordinary innovations such as a word (corsair) to name pirates by other name, the international drug trade (Opium War) and the concentration camp (Boer war). It is unbelievable how hypocrites they are when they portrait themselves as the "victims" of the Blitz... and pretend Nazis were "worst" than them who defended "democracy"

Just recently I learn English plotted to attack Russia and defend the "West" with the defeated Germans troops, at the end of WWII. Fortunately, a smarter people like the Americans could control that bunch of idiots.

The only good thing about the English is that now they are a colony of the U.S.









Got a source that the English caused more genocides in history?

Or is it just an Anti-English rant with little basis in historical fact.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15239
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2014 at 03:22
I just counted them. They caused genocides in North America and in the Caribbean colonies, in Africa, in China, in India (famine 6 millions), and all over the world. It would be interesting to make a serious study on how many people the English crown and the British Empire killed in its sad history.Perhaps, I will have to buy this book.




Edited by pinguin - 15 Jun 2014 at 03:25
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
Kevinmeath View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 18 Jan 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kevinmeath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2014 at 04:12
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


I just counted them. They caused genocides in North America and in the Caribbean colonies, in Africa, in China, in India (famine 6 millions), and all over the world. It would be interesting to make a serious study on how many people the English crown and the British Empire killed in its sad history.Perhaps, I will have to buy this book.

.................


You've just counted them but you also say you haven't studied it seriously, that is apparent.

By all means buy the book I have no doubt that it will fuel your biased opinions.

However you should be aware that historians don't have a very high opinion of it and I wouldn't recommend anyone using it as a reference source.
Back to Top
Kevinmeath View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 18 Jan 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kevinmeath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2014 at 04:22
An interesting review of that book

http:://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-439765/The-Empire-Strikes-Back.html

(sorry can not seem to get the hang of posting links)

Edited by Kevinmeath - 15 Jun 2014 at 04:30
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15239
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2014 at 04:56
Originally posted by Kevinmeath Kevinmeath wrote:


You've just counted them but you also say you haven't studied it seriously, that is apparent.

By all means buy the book I have no doubt that it will fuel your biased opinions.

However you should be aware that historians don't have a very high opinion of it and I wouldn't recommend anyone using it as a reference source.


Well, I think the only difference between historical Englishmen and Mongols is that the first had in place a more developed propaganda machinery. All the global world is directed by the American media which is quite loyal to the English past, for instance. But many people suffered thanks to the English and its piracy, slave trade, genocide of American Indians, invasion and starving of India, drug trade in China, the war against the Boer, the European wars always promoted by England, the Irish famine, the exploitation of the own English poor people that started communism and inspired Dickens masterpieces. etc. etc. etc.

And what about Irish and Scottish peoples that have always lived under the English boot?

Sure, England also had Shakespeare and Newton... but in other aspects had many things to think about.


A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
Kevinmeath View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 18 Jan 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kevinmeath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2014 at 05:08
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Originally posted by Kevinmeath Kevinmeath wrote:


You've just counted them but you also say you haven't studied it seriously, that is apparent.

By all means buy the book I have no doubt that it will fuel your biased opinions.

However you should be aware that historians don't have a very high opinion of it and I wouldn't recommend anyone using it as a reference source.


Well, I think the only difference between historical Englishmen and Mongols is that the first had in place a more developed propaganda machinery. All the global world is directed by the American media which is quite loyal to the English past, for instance. But many people suffered thanks to the English and its piracy, slave trade, genocide of American Indians, invasion and starving of India, drug trade in China, the war against the Boer, the European wars always promoted by England, the Irish famine, the exploitation of the own English poor people that started communism and inspired Dickens masterpieces. etc. etc. etc.

And what about Irish and Scottish peoples that have always lived under the English boot?

Sure, England also had Shakespeare and Newton... but in other aspects had many things to think about.




Simplistic sweeping assertions -- you will love that book.
Back to Top
Kevinmeath View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 18 Jan 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kevinmeath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2014 at 05:28
"WHO WAS TO BLAME?
How did contemporary public opinion react to the social disaster of the
famine years? Reactions varied considerably from one group to the next,
but it is possible to select the most common reactions for discussion
here. As we have seen in the beginning of this unit, the initial arrival of
the potato blight was greeted with a mixture of panic and disbelief,
depending on the social background of those involved and on the degree
of their dependence on the potato. As the blight and its attendant
hunger spread, however, most agreed that this was a really serious
situation - so serious, in fact, that long term explanations were sought
other than the immediate circumstance of the blight. Among these
explanations were:

􀂈 Divine retribution
􀂈 The role of the gentry and the merchants
􀂈 The British government

DIVINE RETRIBUTION?
One general belief at almost all levels, centred on the issue of divine
retribution - that is, that God must have sent the disaster in order to
punish people for their sins. This was brought to its most extreme in
some of the more fundamentalist sections of evangelical Protestantism,
particularly in Britain, where the idea of ‘providentialism’ came to be
seen by a small but vocal group as the punishment of Ireland for its
blind acceptance of popery. (Remind yourself of the sectarian
animosities of the time by looking back over Unit 3.) While this belief
seems almost obscene in its self-righteousness, it was not unique. Irish
commentators at all levels - clergy, landlords, relief workers, even the
peasantry themselves - considered divine anger to have had at least
some relevance in the famine situation.

The folklore collected in the 1930s again takes up this theme, and when
one considers the way in which popular ideas and piseogs blurred the
boundaries between the natural and supernatural worlds, this attitude is
hardly surprising.

THE ROLE OF THE GENTRY AND THE MERCHANTS
On the other hand, poor people did not inevitably look to divine wrath
for an explanation of what was, after all, an economic disaster. Maire Ní
Dhroma, a poet from Ring in County Waterford, made it very clear in her
poem ‘Na Prátaí Dubha’ (The Black Potatoes) that the causes of famine
were to be found elsewhere than in an angry deity:

‘Ni hé Dia riamh a rinne an obair seo
Daoine bochta a chur le fuacht is le fan,
Iad a chur sa Poorhouse go dubhach is glas orthu,
Leanúnacha pósta is iad scartha go bas’.
Mo thrua moruaisle a bhfuil móran coda acu,
Gan tabhairt sasaimh san obair seo do Rí na nGrás,
Ag feall ar bhochta Dé nach bhfuair riamh aon saibhreas
Ach ag siorobair doibh ó aois go bas.

(‘It was not God who did such a thing
As to send poor people out to wander in the cold,
To put them into the Poorhouse under lock and key,
Married couples separated until death.

Shame on those important people who have much wealth,
And are not rendering [their dues] to the King of Grace,
But are betraying God’s poor who never had any wealth
And are working for them from youth till death’.)

There was no doubt where Maire Ní Dhroma allotted blame. She saw it
lying squarely on the shoulders of the ‘moruaisle’ - the people of
importance whom she does not clearly define, but who seem, in the
context of her local area, to include landlords and big farmers.
Folklore, both urban and rural, perpetuated this view, attributing guilt in
equal shares to evicting landlords and to merchants (mostly Catholic,
incidentally) who had allegedly got rich quickly by exporting grain while
people starved around them.
What should we make of the accusations of merchants making good by
exporting grain while people starved? The prospect must have indeed
driven starving people to a combination of fury and despair. Indeed, the
number of attacks on bakers’ shops, relief depots and cars of grain
going towards the ports shows that until the apathy of total starvation
hit them, the famine-stricken poor did not suffer in silence.
At one level the export of grain under such conditions is totally immoral.
At another, however, it is less clear-cut.

􀂈 Firstly, the prevailing belief in laissez-faire stressed that unless free
trade continued, that the economy would suffer so drastically that
even more economic chaos would result.

􀂈 Secondly, if exports had been stopped and the grain requisitioned
for distribution or sale to the hungry, not only landlords but also
farmers selling grain would have faced bankruptcy.

􀂈 Thirdly, if the grain were offered for sale, even cheaply, the poorer
classes generally lacked any access to cash and would therefore
have been unable to buy.

􀂈 Finally, as modern research suggests, the total calorific value of all
the grain exported during the famine years would not have been
sufficient to replace that normally available in the form of potatoes.

None of this, of course, can justify the process of getting rich at the
expense of the starving - ‘ag feall ar Bhochta Dé’, as Maire Ní Dhroma
put it - but it does make judgements less clear-cut, as well as prompting
us to think about similar complicated questions in relation to famines in
our own day.

What about the evicting landlords? They certainly existed, though few
were as gratuitously offensive as Lord Lucan who combined sectarianism
with inhumanity by boasting as he cleared his Mayo estates that he
‘would not breed paupers to pay priests’. But many landlords wore
themselves out in their attempts to alleviate suffering in their areas.
Indeed, the presence of a landlord in an area was almost essential to
any form of effective relief, and it was the regions without a resident
gentry which fared the worst when it came to setting up public works
and distributing food.
Strangely enough, in view of the bitter sectarian hostilities of the time,
the recipe for even partial success in countering starvation lay in the
presence locally of the vital triumvirate of concerned landlord, and
dedicated priest and Protestant clergyman.


THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT?
Others placed the blame in a different quarter - on the British
government and politicians. Already before the famine had reached its
worst, a certain anti-English note was being heard in different localities
from poor relief officials frustrated by delays in the administration of
relief and particularly from clergy driven to despair by the sufferings of
their parishioners. But the anti-English note reached its highest pitch in
the work of the nationalist John Mitchel (whom we will meet again in
Unit 9) who, in his book The Last Conquest of Ireland, Perhaps? penned
the immortal claim that ‘God sent the blight but the English caused the
famine’.

As modern research shows, and as this unit outlines, such accusations,
while certainly not without some foundation, are much too simplistic. As
we have seen, governments at Westminster was not indifferent to
suffering in Ireland, though if you consult some of the works
recommended at the end of this unit, it will become apparent that some
statesmen were far less sympathetic than others.
The problem in government’s case was that Ireland - and particularly
the worst hit areas - were far too remote from Westminster for any real
understanding of the enormity of the calamity. Written reports and penand-
ink drawings from eye-witnesses might communicate some of the
horror, but in an age before camera it was almost impossible for either
politicians or public in Britain to fully comprehend the scale of the
disaster.

The British parliament and public, too, were limited in their
understanding by existing preconceptions of the nature of Irish society
whose perceived backwardness, violence, improvidence, and blind
acceptance of ‘popery’ were all seen as proof that drastic problems
called for drastic remedies.
Most important of all, perhaps, was that the duration of the famine - six
years in all - tended to dry up the genuinely charitable inclinations of
British society. No-one had expected the potato scarcity to last as long
as it did, and although the first years were marked by extremely
generous contributions from Britain and further afield, the apparently
unending calls of distress from Ireland had less and less effect as time
went by.

THE UNCOMFORTABLE LEGACY
History is always written by the survivors. Who survived the Irish
famine? The answer, facetious though it may seem, is ‘most of the
population’.
If something like a million people died, then (omitting the approximate
half-million who emigrated) between six and seven million survived.
These were of two main categories:

􀂈 Firstly, those above the ranks of the ‘potato-people’, those who were
higher in society than the cottiers and labourers.

􀂈 Secondly, those of the cottier and labourer class who, through good
luck, superior physique or determination to survive, came through
where others perished.

Within the first category we can include a wide range from the up and
coming merchant to the corner shopkeeper to the strong farmer. How
did they survive? By exporting grain? By refusing credit? By forestalling
food and selling it at a higher price? By availing of the eviction of their
less able neighbours in order to consolidate their own farms?

This is not meant to paint a black picture of the survivors: it was
merchants who gave some of the largest financial contributions to relief
funds; it was shopkeepers who joined the relief committees or the
charitable organisations like the Society of St. Vincent de Paul; it was
strong farmers (or, rather their wives) who are remembered in the
folklore as giving unstintingly to all those who came begging to their
doors. But survival was based on a mixture of self-preservation and
generosity, and if this is so, does it not bring with it a certain sense of
collective guilt? Was this one of the reasons why it became so attractive
to blame the outsider - the English - for the famine and its results?
On a less emotive note, there was one further legacy of the famine. This
was the realisation that if a catastrophe of such proportions could occur
in what was, after all, part of the most modernised economy of the day,
then something fundamental must be wrong. That something, to the
dismay of British statesmen and to the satisfaction of nationalists, was
the reality that the Union had failed."


DCU History notes 2010

Edited by Kevinmeath - 15 Jun 2014 at 05:31
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2014 at 10:45
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

This was just another flow on of the English attempt at genocide-to wipe out the Irish and their culture entirely, or if not, to dominate it fiercely.
 
ERIN GO BRAGH!


Attempt? English is the people that record most genocides in history: in Africa, Asia, Oceania, the Americas, you name it. In Europe they have the Irish genocide as well. Besides, English had contributed mankind with extraordinary innovations such as a word (corsair) to name pirates by other name, the international drug trade (Opium War) and the concentration camp (Boer war). It is unbelievable how hypocrites they are when they portrait themselves as the "victims" of the Blitz... and pretend Nazis were "worst" than them who defended "democracy"

Just recently I learn English plotted to attack Russia and defend the "West" with the defeated Germans troops, at the end of WWII. Fortunately, a smarter people like the Americans could control that bunch of idiots.

The only good thing about the English is that now they are a colony of the U.S.





Instead of writing sci-fi Penguin, you might want to turn your hand to a dissertation on hyperbole, a subject I believe you are thoroughly acquainted with.

1) A quick review of history will show you that murder and mayhem were popular pastimes in days gone by, and practiced by all, with only a very few saints sprinkled about. 

2) If you think the political and human rights situation was no different between Britain of the 1930s, and Nazi Germany of the same time, then you must go to the chalk board, and write 20 times, "I will read more history books, especially from the 20th century".

3) The incident about German troops you referred to is taken from a memoir of W Churchill. He mused that, depending on events at the end of WW2, perhaps not all German POWs should be dispersed and disarmed in a hurried fashion. If Stalin, then at the height of his power, should do something absolutely foolish, then as a last ditch, desperate measure, some Germans could be re-armed to help stem a massive Soviet invasion of W Europe. This was mentioned to the Americans, but clearly it was an extremely hypothetical case, speculated on during the most tumultuous time. It was in no way a plot to attack Russia, an impossibility at the time, given the strategic situation.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15239
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2014 at 12:23
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


Instead of writing sci-fi Penguin, you might want to turn your hand to a dissertation on hyperbole, a subject I believe you are thoroughly acquainted with.

1) A quick review of history will show you that murder and mayhem were popular pastimes in days gone by, and practiced by all, with only a very few saints sprinkled about.


An ancient Spanish proverb says "mal de muchos, consuelo de tontos" (it is a fool's consolation the think everyone is in the same boat). That there were other European powers as blindly abusive as England (Portugal, Spain, the Dutch, the Russian, etc.) is not an excuse for the historical abuses of the British. Particularly when Britain sales worldwide the image that it is the "source of democracy, freedom and equality" Confused

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


2) If you think the political and human rights situation was no different between Britain of the 1930s, and Nazi Germany of the same time, then you must go to the chalk board, and write 20 times, "I will read more history books, especially from the 20th century".


I think British racism of colonial times (read Darwin's for instance on inferior races) it was the source and inspiration of nazi expansionism.

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


3) The incident about German troops you referred to is taken from a memoir of W Churchill. He mused that, depending on events at the end of WW2, perhaps not all German POWs should be dispersed and disarmed in a hurried fashion. If Stalin, then at the height of his power, should do something absolutely foolish, then as a last ditch, desperate measure, some Germans could be re-armed to help stem a massive Soviet invasion of W Europe. This was mentioned to the Americans, but clearly it was an extremely hypothetical case, speculated on during the most tumultuous time. It was in no way a plot to attack Russia, an impossibility at the time, given the strategic situation.


It shows how treacherous it was Churchill on his own allies. While Russian was losing 20 million people, carrying the heaviest part of the war against Nazis, and as a secondary result helping Britain to remain free, the Primer Minister was plotting to stub an ally on the back! Confused



Edited by pinguin - 15 Jun 2014 at 12:24
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2014 at 16:15
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


Instead of writing sci-fi Penguin, you might want to turn your hand to a dissertation on hyperbole, a subject I believe you are thoroughly acquainted with.

1) A quick review of history will show you that murder and mayhem were popular pastimes in days gone by, and practiced by all, with only a very few saints sprinkled about.


An ancient Spanish proverb says "mal de muchos, consuelo de tontos" (it is a fool's consolation the think everyone is in the same boat). That there were other European powers as blindly abusive as England (Portugal, Spain, the Dutch, the Russian, etc.) is not an excuse for the historical abuses of the British. Particularly when Britain sales worldwide the image that it is the "source of democracy, freedom and equality" Confused

Hmmm...So today we see the perseverance of British culture and political forms, from Westminster style parliamentary democracy, to the English language, all the way down  to military traditions and tea time, in areas formerly under British influence, now free, but still wanting to hold on to these artifacts. On the other hand, areas formerly under other imperial rulers, as we have seen, could hardly wait to cast off the hated remnants of their purgatory. Eastern Europe has dumped Russian in favour of English as a second language. French is dead in Indochina and the Arab world. And what lovely comments we hear about the Spanish conquistadors in Mexico and Bolivia. How about dropping in on Jakarta, and seeing how Dutch language and customs are faring there? Curious, isn't it, that after so many outrages, people might still favour British historical links?


Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


2) If you think the political and human rights situation was no different between Britain of the 1930s, and Nazi Germany of the same time, then you must go to the chalk board, and write 20 times, "I will read more history books, especially from the 20th century".


I think British racism of colonial times (read Darwin's for instance on inferior races) it was the source and inspiration of nazi expansionism.


I think Nazi ideas came from the state of biological knowledge at the time, their own up tight and Teutonic past, coupled with the trauma of the carnage of WW1, and then finally the punitive outcome of the 1919 peace treaty. Darwin had nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


3) The incident about German troops you referred to is taken from a memoir of W Churchill. He mused that, depending on events at the end of WW2, perhaps not all German POWs should be dispersed and disarmed in a hurried fashion. If Stalin, then at the height of his power, should do something absolutely foolish, then as a last ditch, desperate measure, some Germans could be re-armed to help stem a massive Soviet invasion of W Europe. This was mentioned to the Americans, but clearly it was an extremely hypothetical case, speculated on during the most tumultuous time. It was in no way a plot to attack Russia, an impossibility at the time, given the strategic situation.


It shows how treacherous it was Churchill on his own allies. While Russian was losing 20 million people, carrying the heaviest part of the war against Nazis, and as a secondary result helping Britain to remain free, the Primer Minister was plotting to stub an ally on the back! Confused


I think you can do over the top raving with a certain sort of provincial charm penguin, not hard to take really, but naivety really doesn't suit you.

The Anglo/American alliance with the Soviet Union was never anything more than a marriage of convenience. The Soviets at the time were only about one and a half notches up from the Nazis, and no one had any illusions about this. Before 1941, they were not allies at all, but sided with the Germans. They were anti western, anti democratic, brutal with their  own people, and quite open to taking whatever spoils lay open to them in the prostrate body of Europe, 1945. There was nothing sentimental in the alliance with the west, it was simply survival at the time, and as soon as survival was assured, the Soviets began pushing the envelope. They had designs on Eastern Europe, and acted on them. They were more cautious with Western Europe, but nothing was certain in the Armageddon of late '45. The Soviets had much larger ground forces in Europe at that time, and a push through to Spain would have been hard to resist. That's why Churchill suggested that all cards be on the table, even the most unlikely and unsavory. The only stab in the back came from the Soviets, who started reneging on agreements for Eastern Europe and Germany.
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2014 at 17:30
Oh dear, how easily we gallop off topic, introducing extraneous facts which have absolutely nothing to do with the OP.
 
The facts are that the Potato Blight infected the potato crop, which was the staple diet of the impoverished Irish. People died, and no adequate action was implemented by the British invaders.
 
An interesting statistic would be the percentile of aristocracy who died during the famine years, against the percentile of impoverished, downtrodden Irish.
 
I reject suggestions that the British government tried its best to feed the Irish as preposterous. This type of information was introduced as the British attempted to mitigate their callousness.
 
There was, and is, an anti Irish sentiment within the English community, rooted so deep that I doubt it will ever vanish. (Anyone remember Bloody Sunday and the English attempt at, first cover up and then denial?)
 
Tiocfaidh ár lá
Back to Top
Kevinmeath View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 18 Jan 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kevinmeath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2014 at 23:50
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Oh dear, how easily we gallop off topic, introducing extraneous facts which have absolutely nothing to do with the OP.

 


Unfortunately some people have agendas



Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

The facts are that the Potato Blight infected the potato crop, which was the staple diet of the impoverished Irish. People died, and no adequate action was implemented by the British invaders.

 


Well 'adequate' action is open to debate but its generally accepted that the 'British' or 'Central government' could have and should have done more.

'British invaders'? the ruling elite in Ireland at the time had lived in Ireland for centuries, they were Irish.

But OK if we accept your definition.

You live in Australia, where are yo going to return to?

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

An interesting statistic would be the percentile of aristocracy who died during the famine years, against the percentile of impoverished, downtrodden Irish.

 


What an idiotic statement, since when in any time period anywhere did the aristocracy die in the same numbers as the poor?

What percentage of the 'Strong Farmers' (Irish Catholics) died in comparison to the labourers (Irish Catholics)?

Which social group came out of the Famine the stronger?

The famine did kill particular social groups mainly the very poor who had little land or money to buy food.


Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

I reject suggestions that the British government tried its best to feed the Irish as preposterous. This type of information was introduced as the British attempted to mitigate their callousness.


Well you can reject it all you want it still happened.

The history notes I posted above (which I guess you didn't read) come from an Irish University by the way.

 

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

There was, and is, an anti Irish sentiment within the English community, rooted so deep that I doubt it will ever vanish. (Anyone remember Bloody Sunday and the English attempt at, first cover up and then denial?)


Well you can say there is a deep seated Anti-English sentiment among the some Irish, not all it should be said.

There is certainly by those who claim Irish ancestry in the 'New World' usually fuelled by a general ignorance of Irish history.

Strangely the millions of Irish who migrate to England seem to settle well, why is that I wonder?
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15239
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2014 at 23:53
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


Hmmm...So today we see the perseverance of British culture and political forms, from Westminster style parliamentary democracy, to the English language, all the way down  to military traditions and tea time, in areas formerly under British influence, now free, but still wanting to hold on to these artifacts. On the other hand, areas formerly under other imperial rulers, as we have seen, could hardly wait to cast off the hated remnants of their purgatory. Eastern Europe has dumped Russian in favour of English as a second language. French is dead in Indochina and the Arab world. And what lovely comments we hear about the Spanish conquistadors in Mexico and Bolivia. How about dropping in on Jakarta, and seeing how Dutch language and customs are faring there? Curious, isn't it, that after so many outrages, people might still favour British historical links?

So, in your view, only the former colonies of Britain are proud of the Metropolis? Interesting argument, but I believe it apply only to a few and privileged former colonies and territories, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. I don't think it applies to Ireland, for instance, or to Jamaica, to Guyana or Suriname, or India or Kenya. But I certain it doesn't apply to the former British colonies in the Middle East, where I wouldn't say people there feel much love for Britain.

As for the rest of the world loving British traditions, I think is more a thing of curiosity for outdated customs and traditions like royalty. And most people worldwide drink coffee rather than tea.
 


Edited by pinguin - 16 Jun 2014 at 00:01
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15239
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2014 at 00:00
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Oh dear, how easily we gallop off topic, introducing extraneous facts which have absolutely nothing to do with the OP.
 
The facts are that the Potato Blight infected the potato crop, which was the staple diet of the impoverished Irish. People died, and no adequate action was implemented by the British invaders.
 
(...)
 
I reject suggestions that the British government tried its best to feed the Irish as preposterous. This type of information was introduced as the British attempted to mitigate their callousness.
 
There was, and is, an anti Irish sentiment within the English community, rooted so deep that I doubt it will ever vanish. (Anyone remember Bloody Sunday and the English attempt at, first cover up and then denial?)
 
Tiocfaidh ár lá


Indeed, I remember the Bloody Sunday. U2 made it famous worldwide. It is quite sad the English still want to hold on Ireland, no matter what.





A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
Kevinmeath View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 18 Jan 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kevinmeath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2014 at 00:11
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


[Indeed, I remember the Bloody Sunday. U2 made it famous worldwide. It is quite sad the English still want to hold on Ireland, no matter what.




Oh dear your knowledge of Irish history is really rather limited.

Which 'Bloody Sunday' are we talking about ?

And the 'English' don't hold onto Ireland for your information 26 counties in the 'South' are an independent republic.

6 counties in the 'North' are disputed and in those counties there are a large number of people who consider themselves Irish and British.

Irish and British governments have agreed that those 6 counties may join the South when and only when the majority of them wish to do so.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15239
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2014 at 00:19
Northern Ireland should joint the South. It is just logical. I hope that after Scotland secede Britain, England would start to think matters more seriously, and stop its imperialistic attitude.



A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2014 at 00:33
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Northern Ireland should joint the South. It is just logical. I hope that after Scotland secede Britain, England would start to think matters more seriously, and stop its imperialistic attitude.


About the last time Britain had an imperial notion was 1956, and since then it has been a retreat from  imperial ideas.

N Ireland joining the south may be "logical" for cartographers, but not for anyone interested in democracy.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15239
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2014 at 00:42
Nope. It was at least up to 1982 with the Malvinas' War. Britain still has circa 14 colonies spread all over the world, which it calls euphemistically "overseas territories". And it even want to rob most of the Antarctica for themselves without any permission of the countries located nearer. If that's not arrogant I don't know what it is.

Perhaps Britain forget today that country is not more than a colony of the U.S. Yes, the Brits believe they are "allies" of Americans, but is that what the U.S. military are doing in Britain? Protecting British interest? LOL Besides, Britain is a country whose population is been replaced by immigrants like Caribbeans, Africans and East Indians, and it may came the day the former imperialistics are extinct Confused. In any case, Britain has not wake up to the realities of today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7113062.stm


Edited by pinguin - 16 Jun 2014 at 00:51
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
Kevinmeath View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 18 Jan 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kevinmeath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2014 at 01:14
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Nope. It was at least up to 1982 with the Malvinas' War.



Was that when a fascist military junta invaded islands whose inhabitants had repeatedly said they had no wish to join that country?

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Britain still has circa 14 colonies spread all over the world, which it calls euphemistically "overseas territories".


And have any of these ,rather small, places expressed a wish to change the situation?

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


And it even want to rob most of the Antarctica for themselves without any permission of the countries located nearer.


Sorry I thought Britain was following international agreements an Antarctica, when did this change?

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


If that's not arrogant I don't know what it is.


I think you don't know a great deal.

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Perhaps Britain forget today that country is not more than a colony of the U.S.


A silly opinion, its a fully functioning democracy --with faults of course.
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Yes, the Brits believe they are "allies" of Americans,


That would be because they are.

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


but is that what the U.S. military are doing in Britain? Protecting British interest?


Well actually yes.

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


LOL Besides, Britain is a country whose population is been replaced by immigrants like Caribbeans, Africans and East Indians, and it may came the day the former imperialistics are extinct Confused.


Well you asked earlier what is arrogant and I'd say this statement is not to mention ignorant.

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


In any case, Britain has not wake up to the realities of today.




Really the words pot, kettle and black spring to mind.
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2014 at 01:30
Originally posted by Kevinmeath Kevinmeath wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Oh dear, how easily we gallop off topic, introducing extraneous facts which have absolutely nothing to do with the OP.

 


Unfortunately some people have agendas



Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

The facts are that the Potato Blight infected the potato crop, which was the staple diet of the impoverished Irish. People died, and no adequate action was implemented by the British invaders.

 


Well 'adequate' action is open to debate but its generally accepted that the 'British' or 'Central government' could have and should have done more.

'British invaders'? the ruling elite in Ireland at the time had lived in Ireland for centuries, they were Irish.

But OK if we accept your definition.

You live in Australia, where are yo going to return to?

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

An interesting statistic would be the percentile of aristocracy who died during the famine years, against the percentile of impoverished, downtrodden Irish.

 


What an idiotic statement, since when in any time period anywhere did the aristocracy die in the same numbers as the poor?

What percentage of the 'Strong Farmers' (Irish Catholics) died in comparison to the labourers (Irish Catholics)?

Which social group came out of the Famine the stronger?

The famine did kill particular social groups mainly the very poor who had little land or money to buy food.


Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

I reject suggestions that the British government tried its best to feed the Irish as preposterous. This type of information was introduced as the British attempted to mitigate their callousness.


Well you can reject it all you want it still happened.

The history notes I posted above (which I guess you didn't read) come from an Irish University by the way.

 

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

There was, and is, an anti Irish sentiment within the English community, rooted so deep that I doubt it will ever vanish. (Anyone remember Bloody Sunday and the English attempt at, first cover up and then denial?)


Well you can say there is a deep seated Anti-English sentiment among the some Irish, not all it should be said.

There is certainly by those who claim Irish ancestry in the 'New World' usually fuelled by a general ignorance of Irish history.

Strangely the millions of Irish who migrate to England seem to settle well, why is that I wonder?

Kevin Meath wrote:

Quote

'British invaders'? the ruling elite in Ireland at the time had lived in Ireland for centuries, they were Irish.

 No they weren't. The Flight of the Earls (The Wild Geese on 14 September 1607) deprived Ireland of it's true aristocracy, along with thousands of fighting men who eventually joined them in Europe. By the time of the famine, the aristocracy was the Norman/English, along with a handful of influential Irish politicians who had, in effect, sold out to the Crown.

Quote

You live in Australia, where are you going to return to?

I will remain living in Australia, but my deep seated ancestral sympathies remain with the true Irish.

Quote

What an idiotic statement, since when in any time period anywhere did the aristocracy die in the same numbers as the poor?

 
Read the post! I said quite clearly that I would be interested in comparative percentiles. But of course it was downtrodden, impoverished Irish who died by the thousands!

Quote

Which social group came out of the Famine the stronger?

Well it certainly wasn’t the working class Irish, that’s for sure.

Quote

Well you can reject it all you want it still happened.

Says you!

Quote

Well you can say there is a deep seated Anti-English sentiment among the some Irish, not all it should be said.

No, of course not. The descendants of the Irish Plantations remain as loyal citizens of the Crown. Well may they call themselves Irish, but it is in name only. Granted, there was a number of the Norman/Irish overlords who converted to Irishry, and, in the words of the King became, “More Irish than the Irish.” Read about "The Geraldines."

Quote

There is certainly by those who claim Irish ancestry in the 'New World' usually fuelled by a general ignorance of Irish history.

Many of the Irish diaspora, among which I proudly include myself,(from my maternal ancestors-all proven by existing records) have read everything there is to read about Ireland and it’s political history, and continue to read An Phlobacht on a regular basis. English propaganda has attempted to cover up the atrocity, as they have done repeatedly over the years-but not too successfully.

Quote The famine did kill particular social groups mainly the very poor who had little land or money to buy food.
I rest my case!
 
Quote Strangely the millions of Irish who migrate to England seem to settle well, why is that I wonder?
 
The majority of Irish immigrants to the UK fall into two categories:-
  1. Those desperate for work that could not be found in Ireland-including some of McAlpines men; and
  2. Northern Irish, of both religions, fleeing "The Troubles".

Tiocfaidh ár lá



Edited by toyomotor - 16 Jun 2014 at 01:56
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15239
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2014 at 01:54
Originally posted by Kevinmeath Kevinmeath wrote:


And have any of these ,rather small, places expressed a wish to change the situation?


So Britain will preserve its bases all over the world, as soon as a captive population vote for the Queen? Confused Absurd mock of democracy.

Originally posted by Kevinmeath Kevinmeath wrote:


Sorry I thought Britain was following international agreements an Antarctica, when did this change?


In the official post stamps, of course.


Originally posted by Kevinmeath Kevinmeath wrote:


Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Perhaps Britain forget today that country is not more than a colony of the U.S.


A silly opinion, its a fully functioning democracy --with faults of course.


Under the protectorate of the U.S., of course.

Originally posted by Kevinmeath Kevinmeath wrote:


Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Yes, the Brits believe they are "allies" of Americans,


That would be because they are.


That's what Brits wants to believe, though.

Originally posted by Kevinmeath Kevinmeath wrote:


Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


but is that what the U.S. military are doing in Britain? Protecting British interest?


Well actually yes.


LOL That's so funny. Americans only care about its own interest. Let's see what happens if ever Britain tries to get rid of the grip the U.S. had on the British islands, from where controls Western Europe.




Edited by pinguin - 16 Jun 2014 at 01:55
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2014 at 01:59
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Kevinmeath Kevinmeath wrote:


And have any of these ,rather small, places expressed a wish to change the situation?


So Britain will preserve its bases all over the world, as soon as a captive population vote for the Queen? Confused Absurd mock of democracy.

Originally posted by Kevinmeath Kevinmeath wrote:


Sorry I thought Britain was following international agreements an Antarctica, when did this change?


In the official post stamps, of course.


Originally posted by Kevinmeath Kevinmeath wrote:


Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Perhaps Britain forget today that country is not more than a colony of the U.S.


A silly opinion, its a fully functioning democracy --with faults of course.


Under the protectorate of the U.S., of course.

Originally posted by Kevinmeath Kevinmeath wrote:


Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Yes, the Brits believe they are "allies" of Americans,


That would be because they are.


That's what Brits wants to believe, though.

Originally posted by Kevinmeath Kevinmeath wrote:


Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


but is that what the U.S. military are doing in Britain? Protecting British interest?


Well actually yes.


LOL That's so funny. Americans only care about its own interest. Let's see what happens if ever Britain tries to get rid of the grip the U.S. had on the British islands, from where controls Western Europe.


 
Mate have you been on the Mescaline again, or chewing Coca leaves?
 
You've wandered way off mark with some of these comments.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.