|
|
Post by Blue Angel on May 19, 2008 19:25:48 GMT
I've heard a wide variety of figures claimed AFD from half a million to 2 million dead. I'd tend to believe nearer the latter number myself, my great grandmother was actually in Sligo during An Gorta Mor and while of course it's purely anecodtal evidence and therefore not academic history my father can recall his father mentioning that on the few occassions that on the few occassions An Gorta Mor was mentioned she said that no-one but those who lived it through it could ever really understand it or the full horror of it and how it destroyed the dignity and self-worth of the people left behind as well as killing others. I'd say around about 1 million plus emigrated as well but maybe over a slightly longer period than 3 years but your point about the destruction of figures in the Four Courts making all figures educated guesses is well taken.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on May 19, 2008 20:19:18 GMT
I've heard a wide variety of figures claimed AFD from half a million to 2 million dead. I'd tend to believe nearer the latter number myself, my great grandmother was actually in Sligo during An Gorta Mor and while of course it's purely anecodtal evidence and therefore not academic history my father can recall his father mentioning that on the few occassions that on the few occassions An Gorta Mor was mentioned she said that no-one but those who lived it through it could ever really understand it or the full horror of it and how it destroyed the dignity and self-worth of the people left behind as well as killing others. I'd say around about 1 million plus emigrated as well but maybe over a slightly longer period than 3 years but your point about the destruction of figures in the Four Courts making all figures educated guesses is well taken. I am sure your great grandmother was quite right, I can believe every word of that. I can only imagine how it must've been to live through that. I would never try to belittle the famine. I am sure the feelings of the English peasants who suffered the black plague and the great fire of London were exactly the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on May 19, 2008 21:07:22 GMT
Indeed - but I for one along with AFD do not call it a famine, as all those who starved - whether Protestant or Catholic starved in a land replete with food to feed the population which was been shipped out to feed other parts of the UK and elsewhere, not of course that it was been shipped out to those other parts of the UK out of any generosity to the inhabitants there. Merely that it was needed to feed them so they could do a bit more toiling in foul and miserable conditions in many cases themselves.
The wonderful policy of laissez faire economics was in it's own way as cruel and evil as many a deliberately genocidial regime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on May 19, 2008 22:25:54 GMT
Indeed - but I for one along with AFD do not call it a famine, as all those who starved - whether Protestant or Catholic starved in a land replete with food to feed the population which was been shipped out to feed other parts of the UK and elsewhere, not of course that it was been shipped out to those other parts of the UK out of any generosity to the inhabitants there. Merely that it was needed to feed them so they could do a bit more toiling in foul and miserable conditions in many cases themselves. The wonderful policy of laissez faire economics was in it's own way as cruel and evil as many a deliberately genocidial regime. I don't know enough about the history of "an gorta mor" as you call it. In my ignorance I don't know the difference between that and the famine. Call it what you will, it is no different than say the goverment of some African countries lining their own pockets, or spending the countries wealth on weapons, instead of feeding their citezens. What I could never understand from that, and it brings us right back to the beginning, is why republicans would use it to say the Irish should not be British because of it. Anymore than an African should not be African because of what I outlined above. I don't hear africans squealing to be some other nationality. They would like rid of their goverment sure, who wouldn't? They would like to have another goverment yes, but another Nationality, I don't think so. So my question remains, why do republicans link the famine/an gorta nor to nationalism. After all if what you say is true then it was Irish landlords who were selling their food elsewhere, why blame the British? |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on May 19, 2008 22:45:21 GMT
This was not an artificial famine as the traditional Irish nationalist interpretation has long maintained - not at any rate at the start. The original gross deficiency of food was real. In 1846 and successive years blight destroyed the crop that had previously provided approximately 60 per cent of the nation's food needs. The food gap created by the loss of the potato in the late 1840s was so enormous that it could not have been filled, even if all the Irish grain exported in those years had been retained in the country. In fact, far more grain entered Ireland from abroad in the late 1840s than was exported-probably almost three times as much grain and meal came in as went out.
Thus there was an artificial famine in Ireland for a good portion of the late 1840s as grain imports steeply increased. There existed - after 1847, at least - an absolute sufficiency of food that could have prevented mass starvation, if it had been properly distributed so as to reach the smallholders and labourers of the west and the south of Ireland.
Why, then, was an artificial famine permitted to occur after 1847, and why didn't the British government do much more to mitigate the effects of the enormous initial food gap of 1846-47? In many contemporary famines a variety of adverse conditions make it difficult or impossible to deliver adequate supplies of food to those in greatest need. Such conditions include warfare and brigandage, remoteness from centres of wealth and relief, poor communications, and weak or corrupt administrative structures. Ireland, however, was not generally afflicted with such adversities.
Though it had a rich history of agrarian violence, the country was at peace. In addition, its system of communications (roads and canals) had vastly improved in the previous half-century, the Victorian state had a substantial and growing bureaucracy (it generated an army of 12,000 officials in Ireland for a short time in 1847), and Ireland lay at the doorstep of what was then the world's wealthiest nation. Why, then, was it not better able to deal with the problems caused by the failure of its potato crop?
Laissez-faire, the reigning economic orthodoxy of the day, held that there should be as little government interference with the economy as possible. Under this doctrine, stopping the export of Irish grain was an unacceptable policy alternative, and it was therefore firmly rejected in London, though there were some British relief officials in Ireland who gave contrary advice.
The influence of the doctrine of laissez-faire may also be seen in two other decisions. The first was the decision to terminate the soup-kitchen scheme in September 1847 after only six months of operation. The idea of feeding directly a large proportion of the Irish population violated all of the Whigs' cherished notions of how government and society should function. The other decision was the refusal of the government to undertake any large scheme of assisted emigration. The Irish viceroy actually proposed in this fashion to sweep the western province of Connacht clean of as many as 400,000 pauper smallholders too poor to emigrate on their own. But the majority of Whig cabinet ministers saw little need to spend public money accelerating a process that was already going on 'privately' at a great rate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 20, 2008 0:37:05 GMT
Indeed - but I for one along with AFD do not call it a famine, as all those who starved - whether Protestant or Catholic starved in a land replete with food to feed the population which was been shipped out to feed other parts of the UK and elsewhere, not of course that it was been shipped out to those other parts of the UK out of any generosity to the inhabitants there. Merely that it was needed to feed them so they could do a bit more toiling in foul and miserable conditions in many cases themselves. The wonderful policy of laissez faire economics was in it's own way as cruel and evil as many a deliberately genocidial regime. I don't know enough about the history of "an gorta mor" as you call it. In my ignorance I don't know the difference between that and the famine. Call it what you will, it is no different than say the goverment of some African countries lining their own pockets, or spending the countries wealth on weapons, instead of feeding their citezens. What I could never understand from that, and it brings us right back to the beginning, is why republicans would use it to say the Irish should not be British because of it. Anymore than an African should not be African because of what I outlined above. I don't hear africans squealing to be some other nationality. They would like rid of their goverment sure, who wouldn't? They would like to have another goverment yes, but another Nationality, I don't think so. So my question remains, why do republicans link the famine/an gorta nor to nationalism. After all if what you say is true then it was Irish landlords who were selling their food elsewhere, why blame the British? As occupiers and the power in Ireland at the time the British had an obligation to the people it was governing and calling British to put an end to harsh landlords and begin to ensure food was adequately provided. That didn't happen, police backed up landlords in getting families off their land for all sorts of reasons, thats why people blame the British. |
|
|
|
Post by earl on May 20, 2008 9:04:19 GMT
What I could never understand from that, and it brings us right back to the beginning, is why republicans would use it to say the Irish should not be British because of it. Eh? It wasn't because of it. The Irish were as British as Algerians were French. Just because the invader insisted that you were their nationality, didn't make it so. (The French considered Algeria technically as part of France rather than another colonial country. Sound familiar?) Eh? Some other nationality? Even if we were British, wasn't our Irish identity (in theory) meant to be a part of that? It's not like they decided to become Danish! And an African is no more a nationality than a European is. Africa is a bad example anyway. The borders of most of it's countries were drawn up by their ex-colonial masters and has led to one of the reasons that their is constant civil war in some places between differing tribes between artificial borders. An gorta mor was the acculmination of decades of political abuse in this country. The penal laws and made sure that no Catholic was in a position of power, and that 5-10% of all the land was owned by a tiny minority of Protestants. Most of these land owners were absentee landlords, so they didn't even live here. At the time of the famine, it had become more profitable to work the land for cash crops and livestock, rather than have tenants on the land paying rent. The penal laws also force land of Catholic owners to be subdivided evenly amoungst all heirs, so you imagine by law, a stoney 10 acre farm getting subdivided amoungst 7 brothers or so. There wouldn't be enough land to feed yourself, nevermind earn a living to pay the rent. These landlords saw an gorta mor as their chance to clear the unprofitable tenants off their land, either through starvation, emigration or eviction. To Irish nationalism, this period in time is clear demonstration that we were a colonised people, used as nothing more than cheap labour. The British system not only allowed these landlords to do what they did, it was the law. Around the same time as an gorta mor was occurring in Ireland, India was also going through a famine for the same reasons. The Indians had originally their own system of agriculture, where they stored some food away in preparation for leaner, dryer times. When the British took over, they forced all farmers to grow cash crops for export, instead of the traditional foods that they grew for their own consumption and for storage. There was a dry spell, and the normal crops failed. Between 1875-1902, 26 million people died. |
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on May 20, 2008 9:48:12 GMT
I don't know enough about the history of "an gorta mor" as you call it. In my ignorance I don't know the difference between that and the famine. Call it what you will, it is no different than say the goverment of some African countries lining their own pockets, or spending the countries wealth on weapons, instead of feeding their citezens. What I could never understand from that, and it brings us right back to the beginning, is why republicans would use it to say the Irish should not be British because of it. Anymore than an African should not be African because of what I outlined above. I don't hear africans squealing to be some other nationality. They would like rid of their goverment sure, who wouldn't? They would like to have another goverment yes, but another Nationality, I don't think so. So my question remains, why do republicans link the famine/an gorta nor to nationalism. After all if what you say is true then it was Irish landlords who were selling their food elsewhere, why blame the British? As occupiers and the power in Ireland at the time the British had an obligation to the people it was governing and calling British to put an end to harsh landlords and begin to ensure food was adequately provided. That didn't happen, police backed up landlords in getting families off their land for all sorts of reasons, thats why people blame the British. Jim much the same happened in Scotland. the Duke of Sutherland for instance threw crofters off their land. They were left to live on a cliif edge where many children fell to their death. This on top of the starvation, and the living on top of a highland mountain in winter they also died from cold. Mothers had to tie their children to trees to try to stop them falling over the cliff. I visit this area of the highlands on a regular basis. It is remembered too, just as the famine in Ireland is remembered by the Irish. There is a statue of the duke of Sutherland that overlooks the whole area of Sutherland from on top of a mountain there. Only recently there has been a call to have it brought down and replaced with the statue of a mother and child. I have seen that statue, it is in the garden of the man who sculpted it. It is waiting to replace the Duke of Sutherland and will do when someone gets their finger out. People in Scotland, and in particular the highlands, were starving, and daily dying of malnutrition, while the rich landowners exported food, grown on the land they had thrown these peasant farmers off. The people of that area hate the then Duke of Sutherland, they don't allow what happened there to fill them with paranoia about being British. My point here is, as has been the case all along, no one in the SNP for instance, were using that story, as terrible as it is, to incite people to murder their neighbours in the 20th century as did SF/IRA. Of course the Scots too hated the then British government, as did the English who were being treated in much the same manner. It wasn't their Britishness that made these bastards do what they did, it was their greed. It is maddness to blame a nationality for mans inhumanity to his fellow man. Which is what republicans have been doing for centuries. Using this terrible tragedy for their own political ends. |
|
|
|
Post by earl on May 20, 2008 10:34:15 GMT
Bilk, what you are saying here is borderline sectarian. You make the base assumption that all Irish used to consider themselves British in someway and after a bad experience, got paranoid, decided to make up a nationality and off they went. You are assuming that the Irish as a whole are a fickle bunch, who will get paranoid and have hissy fits, unlike any other part of the would-be UK.
You don't even consider once that the Irish people are/were like any other 'home nation', where if they were attacked, they'd resist. It wasn't paranoia that somehow changed the majority of an islands minds. It was the simple fact that none of them considered themselves British in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on May 20, 2008 12:21:34 GMT
Bilk, what you are saying here is borderline sectarian. You make the base assumption that all Irish used to consider themselves British in someway and after a bad experience, got paranoid, decided to make up a nationality and off they went. You are assuming that the Irish as a whole are a fickle bunch, who will get paranoid and have hissy fits, unlike any other part of the would-be UK. You don't even consider once that the Irish people are/were like any other 'home nation', where if they were attacked, they'd resist. It wasn't paranoia that somehow changed the majority of an islands minds. It was the simple fact that none of them considered themselves British in the first place. I'm not getting into the numbers game, because we have been there before. In the days of the famine and the example I gave about Scotland there was no democracy. So how do you know there was a majority. I am not talking about history here, I am talking about the use of a terrible situation (as in the famine) to stir up hatred today, and in the recent past. Where in that am I being sectarian, it is what I belive SF and their predecessors did. As regaurds whether or not the people of the time considered themselves "British", I doubt that, any more than the Scots did in their time. Today there is a Scottish Nationalist Party, they even head the Scottish Government, much the same as SF in Northern Ireland, but they are not ramming their Scottishness down the throats of the populace against the will of the majority. They are not in a hissy fit as you call it calling for the removal of all things British so the whole community can fel more Scottish. They are considering a referendum on the issue, but all the socalled experts believe they will be trounced in that referendum. The Scottish people suffered every bit as much under the old British system as did the Irish. By pointing out the difference in the attitude of the Scottish nationalists and the Irish, just how am I being sectarian? |
|
|
|
Post by earl on May 20, 2008 13:39:11 GMT
IF you look at a situation involving a group of people and assume the reasons they acted a certain way or did a certain thing was for a negative, then that's borderline sectarian. For example, assuming that if you were to fight with a certain group of people, that they would simply capitulate, is sectarian. You have to ask yourself, "What would I do in that situation", or"Why would I react in that way" first. So if your reaction to a fight is to defend, but you assume others would fold, that's sectarian.
In relation to this topic, you haven't even considered how you would have felt in their shoes (or you have and you would have felt paranoid and hissy). If the ROI invaded NI in the morning and told you that you are now a Gael, how would you feel? Paranoid and hissy, or determined to undermine any attempt to coerce you into their way? Imagine being told that you are another nationality, and yet knowing that you are not being treated like others who are meant to be your new nationality? Would you feel paranoid and hissy, or would you feel like trying to preserve your own identity by any means necessary?
Irish nationalism was not started by a small bunch of emotional ingrates who just decided one day, "You know what, I'm not British anymore, I'm Irish". There were genuine historic and political reasons for Irish nationalism existing.
Now I'm not saying that you are sectarian, just what you've said here is borderline. Everyone here is guilty of saying some borderline sectarian stuff at some point on here. I know that I would be a big offender on that one!
The famine to an Irish person would generate the same feelings that an American would have in relation to 9/11. Millions of your ancestors dying of hunger or having to leave home will do that and considering this country only got on it's feet in the last 20 years from all those years of abuse, needless to say the nerve is while not raw, very tender.
The Scottish are different. At least Scotland was someway involved in the union. I mean, there's been Scottish, English and Welsh heads of state and PM's. When's the last time a member of the union on this side of the water was in a position of power? Was there ever an Irish Prime minister of the UK, being that we were all equal members of one big happy family? If not, from a unionist perspective, could you explain why not, and why after partition, NI wasn't wholly integrated with the rest of the UK, but cast aside and let do their own thing until the 70's?
The answer is very simple from a nationalist point of view, we were never really a part of the UK, and were always kept at (sword) arms length. WE were nothing more than Englands first and last colony.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on May 20, 2008 15:36:42 GMT
I think blame the big bad Brits for all Irelands ills and every nationalist here will be happy. You are all talking as though all this happened yesterday, the world is a very different place than it is today. Irieland was importing more grain than it exported and perhaps the Irish couldn't fend enough for themselves without having to be helped too much too often. The political thinking back then was along the lines of people fending for themselves and the Irish didn't seem to be able to do that. Would I be wrong in suggesting that back then many Irish were viewed as being lazy?
Apart from that the famine was a terrible thing, but to blame the British is all too easy without looking at the bigger picture. The famine is being used as a big stick to beat the British with and to plant the seeds of hatred the way it is taught.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on May 20, 2008 16:17:33 GMT
Yes WASP. The Irish were and are lazy. We sat back and let the Brits kindly do everything for us. The Brits kindly made laws that banned practicing our religion, owning land, voting, standing in parliament and most importantly, education as they felt sorry for our inherently lazy nature and wanted to make sure that the laws reflected the peoples aspirations. All we had to do was sit back, drink and grow potatoes. They had to lift the ban on education, as people were going abroad to be educated and some were returning with crazy ideas like liberty and freedom!
The Irish were incapable of helping themselves because we are genetically incapable of doing it. This genetic trait can be physically viewed, due to the ape-like nature of our facial features. The fact that all authority rested with the Brits, from council level all the way up and the military was also exclusively run by the Brit's is just a coincidence. A fella in Whitehall knows exactly what the people of Kildare needs. They don't need anything silly like emancipation or education. They need a soup kitchen, where if they convert to Protestantism, we'll feed them and a lovely warm workhouse, where dad's can permanently get a break from the wives and wives from their children as they are segregated into different rooms to die in peace.
No, you wouldn't be wrong in suggesting that back then many Irish were viewed as being lazy by the Brits, just as they viewed Africans as sub-humans.
WASP, please enlighten me as to the bigger picture, and I was not aware that you went to school south of the border. What school did you go to, as it mustn't of been a very good one, teaching hatred instead of history.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on May 20, 2008 17:13:46 GMT
Well the hatred coming through from mostr posts concerning the British is there for all to see. Take your posts for example so that clearly shows what you were taught and how it affected your current thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on May 20, 2008 17:30:56 GMT
Today, wealthier countries and international organisations provide disaster assistance (though, alas, often not nearly enough) as a matter of humanitarian conviction and perceived self-interest. But in Britain in the late 1840s, prevailing ideologies among the political élite and the middle classes strongly militated against heavy and sustained relief.
All sorts of obstacles were placed in the way, or allowed to stand in the way, of generous relief to those in need of food. This was done in a horribly misguided effort to keep expenses down and to promote greater self-reliance and self-exertion among the Irish poor.
The Irish system of agriculture was perceived in Britain to be riddled with inefficiency and abuse. According to British policy-makers at the time, the workings of divine Providence were disclosed in the unfettered operations of the market economy, and therefore it was positively evil to interfere with its proper functioning.
Educated Britons of this era saw serious defects in the Irish 'national character'-disorder or violence, filth, laziness, and worst of all, a lack of self-reliance. This amounted to a kind of racial or cultural stereotyping. The Irish had to be taught to stand on their own feet and to unlearn their dependence on government.
'Moralism' was strikingly evident in the various tests of destitution that were associated with the administration of the poor law. Thus labourers on the public works were widely required to perform task labour, with their wages measured by the amount of their work, rather than being paid a fixed daily wage. Similarly, there was the requirement that in order to be eligible for public assistance, those in distress must be willing to enter a workhouse and to submit to its harsh disciplines-such as endless eight-hour days of breaking stones or performing some other equally disagreeable labour. Such work was motivated by the notion that the perceived Irish national characteristic of sloth could be eradicated or at least reduced.
|
|
