Surviving the Famine

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

His opinion doesn't prove genocide.

What constitutes genocide is clearly laid out in the Genocide convention for all to see!

we can all see what constitutes genocide.

What most of us cannot see, is how you can prove that is what the British government were doing.

you have your opinion, Prof Boyle has his. opinions are not proof.

I'm surprised at you.

Fratton Fred

Tchocky wrote:

I suppose the blight was coincidental then?

victorian biological warfare?

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote:

victorian biological warfare?

Via America and Belgium of course. EGB your quotes have proven nothing other than it is possible to find another person who agrees with you. What constitutes proof would be a parliamentary paper from the time which states that the British government consciously set about trying to starve the Irish people. You will not find such a paper.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote:

we can all see what constitutes genocide.

What most of us cannot see, is how you can prove that is what the British government were doing.

you have your opinion, Prof Boyle has his. opinions are not proof.

I'm surprised at you.

I refer you to a previous post by CrazyPJ

CrazyPJ wrote:

Nassau Senior

"will not kill more than one million Irish in 1848 and that will scarcely be enough to do much good."

LORD CLARENDON

"I do not think there is another legislature in Europe that would disregard such suffering as now exists in the west of Ireland, or coldly persist in a policy of extermination."

Twisleton:

"the destitution here is so horrible, and the indifference of the House of Commons is so manifest, that it is an unfit agent for a policy that must be one of extermination."

Trevelyan

"We must not complain of what we really want to obtain.

Thomas Carlyle; influential British essayist, wrote;

"Ireland is like a half-starved rat that crosses the path of an elephant. What must the elephant do? Squelch it - by heavens - squelch it."

These quotes from important people at the time certainly suggest sinister actions by the ruling British Government. I say an act of genocide, as defined by the Genocide Convention you imply it wasn't an act of genocide.

Prove to me that it wasn't an act of genocide?

brianthebard

Erin Go Brath wrote:

I refer you to a previous post by CrazyPJ


These quotes from important people at the time certainly suggest sinister actions by the ruling British Government. I say an act of genocide, as defined by the Genocide Convention you imply it wasn't an act of genocide.

Prove to me that it wasn't an act of genocide?

Well the massive amounts of aid sent by the British government after they realised how bad the famine was would be one indicator. Another would be that small tenant farmers refused to modernise, which had left the country outmoded and overdependent on the potato-10% of the country was planted with potatoes in 1845. And the fact that the potato blight is what caused the famine, not the British government, that would be a big indicator. The fact of the matter is that if the famine happened in the twentieth-century then there is a chance that the government would have responded better (although perhaps not-see Ethiopia). The prevailing philosophy of the time was that giving out handouts encouraged people to be lazy and not try to better themselves. This was an unsuitable way to deal with a NATURAL DISASTER and the government of the time can rightly be criticized for this. However, there is no evidence that you can show me that shows that the British government willingly tried to kill off the Irish people in the famine. Relying on out of context quotes will not convince me of your "argument".

csk

brianthebard wrote:

Well the massive amounts of aid sent by the British government after they realised how bad the famine was would be one indicator.

Of course the British Government should not have had to send food for two reasons:
1) Because they had no right to legislate for Ireland, the people themselves being more than capable of self-governance.
2) And they should in no way have become so dependant on the potato. This was a direct result of British Policy. Policy which did actually want to destroy the Irish People.

Another would be that small tenant farmers refused to modernise, which had left the country outmoded and overdependent on the potato-10% of the country was planted with potatoes in 1845.

That was also the excuse used by the British, that the pig ignorant Irish couldn’t look after themselves therefore they deserved to die. Actually the plantations, Penal Laws etc. contributed just as much if not more so to overdependence on the Potato.

And the fact that the potato blight is what caused the famine, not the British government, that would be a big indicator.

Yes and what actually killed the Jews was Zyklon–B Gas not the Nazis. Did Ireland not have turnips or cabbages or indeed cows or sheep on which to feed itself?

The fact of the matter is that if the famine happened in the twentieth-century then there is a chance that the government would have responded better (although perhaps not-see Ethiopia).

Yes but it didn’t so that is irrelevant. By the same token there is also a good chance that had there been a native government the Irish Holocaust* would not have happened. Or indeed if there hadn't have been an aggressive and vicious attempts to subjugate the people of Ireland.

The prevailing philosophy of the time was that giving out handouts encouraged people to be lazy and not try to better themselves.

Ah so that makes it okay then.

This was an unsuitable way to deal with a NATURAL DISASTER and the government of the time can rightly be criticized for this.

Since when did ongoing colonisation and the policy of subdivision become natural disasters?

However, there is no evidence that you can show me that shows that the British government willingly tried to kill off the Irish people in the famine. Relying on out of context quotes will not convince me of your "argument".

No, An Gorta Mór was not genocide but do you honestly think your wholly disingenuous take on things is in anyway less negationist than someone claiming it was purely genocide?


*I can almost see you slavering away at my use of the word holocaust but rest assured, I use it here merely in reference to the scale of the disaster and the fact that it was completely humanly avoidable, not that it was a genocide.

CrazyPJ

The jews had their capos.
the blacks have their uncle toms
and the Irish have the west brits.
Those are the irish who out of fear bowed their heads and accepted english rule in ireland. Their political and cultural focus was on London. For them all truth, justice and cultural sophistication emerged, immaculate, from the collective bejewelled arseholes of the british monarchy and their followers. They collabarated with the enemy to save their own skins. Apologists for british rule in ireland, their descendents are all around. "Oh yes massa, god made you do it. praaaaise de lawd.

pj

mountainyman

CrazyPJ wrote:

Sixty years after the end of the war, time has come to reopen the case and institute a fresh Nuremberg trial - this time against one of the prosecuting nations -- Great Britain -- for systematic and intentional murder of millions of people.

Germany was not on trial at Nuremberg individual Germans were.
Indians were complicit at every stage in the exploitation of their countrymen by the British.

India needs a new Holocaust: an Endloesung to the Brahmin problem.

MM

Tchocky

CrazyPJ wrote:

The jews had their capos.
the blacks have their uncle toms
and the Irish have the west brits.
Those are the irish who out of fear bowed their heads and accepted english rule in ireland. Their political and cultural focus was on London. For them all truth, justice and cultural sophistication emerged, immaculate, from the collective bejewelled arseholes of the british monarchy and their followers. They collabarated with the enemy to save their own skins. Apologists for british rule in ireland, their descendents are all around. "Oh yes massa, god made you do it. praaaaise de lawd.

pj

You're right, the Famine was a genocide!

csk

brianthebard wrote:

I feel no need to provide a source since it is common knowledge that more food was imported into the country than exported. Your tone is unwelcome and I don't feel I need to prove myself to you so you can find the truth yourself when you move away from denial...

Since you have yet to provide a source for that, would you like to retract it? Or will my tone be unwelcome too?

csk

Frattonfred wrote:

Also, I am not an expert on Voctorian vocabulary.

Care to elaborate as to what exactly you mean?

I cannot help but feel it is gibberish though because the Victorians spoke English, like us. Now yes the language may have evolved since the time but it has not evolved enough to cast doubt on the meaning of the words as such. The quotes provided earlier seem to be straightforward enough.

By the way how is your Elzabethan English:

Sir Arthur Chicester, the most powerful man in Ireland at the time as Viceroy:

"I have often said, and written, it is Famine which must consume them; our swords and other endeavours work not that speedy effect which is expected for their overthrow."

Now granted he was writing that in 1601, it seems straightforward enough to me what that means.

csk

This is an excellent article regarding An Gorta Mór.

Provides a balanced view as opposed to some on here. :rolleyes:

A slightly different but nonetheless interesting piece that raises some pertinent questions:

We have to ask whether these events were acts of God, the stupidity of the majority of the Irish population in being solely dependent on the potato as a staple diet, or were they due to English colonial mismanagement or, indeed, was there some more sinister motive? The word gorta can imply a deliberate starvation.

Now personally I don't think it was the stupidity of the Irish people that led to an Gorta Mór, of course its clear that some do :rolleyes:. You would have to wonder at that kind of thinking.

brianthebard

csk wrote:

Since you have yet to provide a source for that, would you like to retract it? Or will my tone be unwelcome too?

From Nineteenth century Ireland, by D.George Boyce;

"Quantities of food began to arrive from February 1847 onwards; from 1 September 1846 until 1 July 1847 wheat imports were five times as great as the exports, and the import of Indian corn and meal was three times as large as the total export of cereals." (p.125)

csk

brianthebard wrote:

From Nineteenth century Ireland, by D.George Boyce;

"Quantities of food began to arrive from February 1847 onwards; from 1 September 1846 until 1 July 1847 wheat imports were five times as great as the exports, and the import of Indian corn and meal was three times as large as the total export of cereals." (p.125)

Right...but you said there was more food imported than exported. All that shows is that more grain was imported between September 1846 and July 1847. 1847 and 1848 were the only years in which grain imported exceeded that exported, I believe 889,000 tones were imported compared with 146,000 exported in 1847.

brianthebard

What a way to twist words. My point still stands, and I didn't have to link to a dubious website with a banner of the Irish flag and a balaclava wearing face to do so. You recognize that three times as much food was imported as exported (yes Indian corn and meal is actually food!) so what's your problem with my point?

brianthebard

Oh btw, question for the people who think a famine caused by blight was genocide, do you believe that the cholera epidemic of 1832-1834 was genocide as well? A British plot in the same way you seem to think the famine was?

csk

brianthebard wrote:

What a way to twist words. My point still stands, and I didn't have to link to a dubious website with a banner of the Irish flag and a balaclava wearing face to do so. You recognize that three times as much food was imported as exported (yes Indian corn and meal is actually food!) so what's your problem with my point?

That's pathetic, grow up.

As I said it was an excellent and balanced article. It seems all you can do is cast aspersions on sources rather than debate?

My problem with your point is quite clear, you said that (and I quote) "I feel no need to provide a source since it is common knowledge that more food was imported into the country than exported" you then (of course) threw in a little hissy fit, just for good measure I suppose?

I asked you to provide your source for the above and you tell me more grain was imported in 1847, something which I already knew, but you omitted to show whether there was morefood imported.

You have also failed to specify
1) whether you were just talking about one year or the entire famine when you made your claim.
2) what exactly you meant by food. I mean 9,992 cows would also be classed as food!
3) specifically why another poster, who posted some pertinent facts, was wrong except, of course (you could almost say it was a habit), to cast aspersions on his sources, sources which by the way were all taken from reputable historians despite the website in question being slightly one sided.

Of course all the above were done in all likelyhood on purpose, were they brianthebard?

csk

brianthebard wrote:

Oh btw, question for the people who think a famine caused by blight was genocide, do you believe that the cholera epidemic of 1832-1834 was genocide as well? A British plot in the same way you seem to think the famine was?

It gets even more pathetic, for shame Brianthebard.

brianthebard

csk wrote:

It gets even more pathetic, for shame Brianthebard.

Care to expand on that, or are you happier to just throw around insults? I feel its a legitimate question, if the blight was genocide then by your and others logic here, the cholera must have been attempted genocide at any rate. Or do you realise how silly your point is?

brianthebard

csk wrote:

That's pathetic, grow up.

As I said it was an excellent and balanced article. It seems all you can do is cast aspersions on sources rather than debate?

Do you even understand how important sources are to historians? That Ireland's own website could not be used as a legitimate source by any historian. I am not casting aspersions, I am clearly saying it is not a good source and very obviously biased. Furthermore when I googled the name of the author I could find no biography on him. This does not inspire confidence in your source either.

My problem with your point is quite clear, you said that (and I quote) "I feel no need to provide a source since it is common knowledge that more food was imported into the country than exported" you then (of course) threw in a little hissy fit, just for good measure I suppose?

I asked you to provide your source for the above and you tell me more grain was imported in 1847, something which I already knew, but you omitted to show whether there was morefood imported.

You have also failed to specify
1) whether you were just talking about one year or the entire famine when you made your claim.
2) what exactly you meant by food. I mean 9,992 cows would also be classed as food!
3) specifically why another poster, who posted some pertinent facts, was wrong except, of course (you could almost say it was a habit), to cast aspersions on his sources, sources which by the way were all taken from reputable historians despite the website in question being slightly one sided.

Because I referred to grains as food I'm wrong? Show me the figures then. I shall cast no aspersions on any legitimate source, surely its not too much to ask you to use one?

csk

brianthebard wrote:

Care to expand on that, or are you happier to just throw around insults? I feel its a legitimate question, if the blight was genocide then by your and others logic here, the cholera must have been attempted genocide at any rate. Or do you realise how silly your point is?

Look it's just getting ridiculous at this stage. I didn't throw out any insult, I said that your post was pathetic, and it was I stand by that, it's just another attempt to obfuscate.

Do you even understand how important sources are to historians?

Don't try and make this a p!ssing contest. :rolleyes: GROW UP.

That Ireland's own website could not be used as a legitimate source by any historian.

Again GROW UP. This is an internet message board not the Conference for anal retentive Historians.

As I said the Article is balanced and for that reason alone I posted it.

I am not casting aspersions, I am clearly saying it is not a good source and very obviously biased.

Yes you are. I posted the article you are saying it is not trustworthy therefore by extension I am not trustworthy. Nothing else. Trying to bring in what is or isn't valid sources to the Historian is just you being pretentious.

Should everyone posting in the History and Heritage forum have acess to the primary sources before they are allowed post. Maybe we should have a rule whereby you have to have a certain credential before you post, say a PhD or something. :rolleyes:

Furthermore when I googled the name of the author I could find no biography on him. This does not inspire confidence in your source either.

That's a fair point. However for it invalidate my use of the article I would have to have said "I'm posting this article because of the author so and so." I didn't I merely said that it was balanced.

Because I referred to grains as food I'm wrong?

Did I say you were wrong?

You have also failed to specify
1) whether you were just talking about one year or the entire famine when you made your claim.
2) what exactly you meant by food. I mean 9,992 cows would also be classed as food!
3) specifically why another poster, who posted some pertinent facts, was wrong except, of course (you could almost say it was a habit), to cast aspersions on his sources, sources which by the way were all taken from reputable historians despite the website in question being slightly one sided.

Is your failure to specify those above deliberate?

The burden of proof is on YOU! I don't know what the answer is, I am merely curious because I feel you are being disingenuous.

PHB

While nobody has technically broken the rules yet, let's try to keep it civil lads, it makes for better discussion.

brianthebard

csk wrote:

Look it's just getting ridiculous at this stage. I didn't throw out any insult, I said that your post was pathetic, and it was I stand by that, it's just another attempt to obfuscate.

Telling me what I'm saying is pathetic and to grow up is insulting imo. I feel it is a real question, what is the difference between the famine and the cholera epidemic if one is genocide, why isn't the other?

Don't try and make this a p!ssing contest. :rolleyes: GROW UP.



Again GROW UP. This is an internet message board not the Conference for anal retentive Historians.

As I said the Article is balanced and for that reason alone I posted it.

This is what I would class as obfuscating and thinly veiled insults, why are you doing it if I shouldn't?

Should everyone posting in the History and Heritage forum have acess to the primary sources before they are allowed post. Maybe we should have a rule whereby you have to have a certain credential before you post, say a PhD or something. :rolleyes:

There's no need for credentials from the posters, only the sources. Its very easy to google and find plenty of archived primary sources. Or check out the national archive website, a lot of their files are online. Also notice I haven't tried to post Jstor articles that I may have access to on the college network, cause I know others won't have access to them. I'm not trying to make things awkward, just looking for some legitimacy from sources. Its not a big ask, and it will mean I won't have to cast aspersions on your sources :rolleyes:

csk

brianthebard wrote:

Telling me what I'm saying is pathetic and to grow up is insulting imo. I feel it is a real question, what is the difference between the famine and the cholera epidemic if one is genocide, why isn't the other?

Fine go ahead and feel insulted, you still ahve not answered the meat of ANY of my posts. That's what I call obfuscating.

This is what I would class as obfuscating and thinly veiled insults, why are you doing it if I shouldn't?

Fine again feel insulted. What I was actually doing is answering your attempts to cast aspersions as to what I know or don't know as it is, firstly irrelevant, and secondly just another attempt to avoid answering any questions.

I'm not trying to make things awkward, just looking for some legitimacy from sources. Its not a big ask, and it will mean I won't have to cast aspersions on your sources :rolleyes:

Quite clearly you are being awkward. Actually I would go as far as to say, you are being pretentious. As I'm sure you are aware the range of primary sources needed is huge, far more than is available on the internet. Again if we were at some kind of specialised Historians forum I would agree, but come on this is only an internet forum for people to debate their opinions. The idea is to get them to see your point of view by arguing the relevant facts not sitting up in some Ivory Tower telling all and sundry that they are wrong because well, like, YOU say so.

Do you want a situation where no one bothers posting in the History and Heritage Forum because YOU don't accept ANYTHING but primary source material?

Anyway I'll repost this for the third time and maybe you'll stop obfuscating and answer

You have also failed to specify
1) whether you were just talking about one year or the entire famine when you made your claim.
2) what exactly you meant by food. I mean 9,992 cows would also be classed as food!
3) specifically why another poster, who posted some pertinent facts, was wrong except, of course (you could almost say it was a habit), to cast aspersions on his sources, sources which by the way were all taken from reputable historians despite the website in question being slightly one sided

.

Is your failure to specify the above deliberate?

brianthebard

Ok in an effort to de-obfuscate, I'm going to lay out my thoughts on the question I posed to csk which he is reluctant to answer.

firstly, a definition of genocide, from dictionary.com ;"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group". This will be important later on.

The cholera outbreak of 1832-34 shares a great deal of the traits of the 1845-47 famine. Firstly it arrived here by ship, having originated in India. The Blight arrived by ship from Belgium via America.
The British government were not prepared for the cholera. There had been health boards set up in the months leading up to the epidemic, but they were a new idea and overstretched. Similarly many of the workhouses had just been established when the famine hit, and were immediately swamped.
There was no known cure for cholera at the time. This contributed to the high mortality rate.
There was no known way of stopping the blight.
The British government sent aid to deal with cholera, and they also had some first hand information from doctors who had travelled to the continent to observe cholera.
The British government sent aid to help with the famine.
The amount of aid, though generous was not enough, obviously so to us now.
Cholera cannot be considered genocide because it is a disease which spread from India through Europe and Ireland, and eventually Canada via emigrant ships from Ireland.
The Famine cannot be considered genocide because the blight was a disease which spread from America through Europe and Ireland. In neither case was the disease systematically spread by the British government. In both cases the government gave aid. In both cases the government was overwhelmed. In both cases all classes and cultural groups of Ireland were affected, but as would be expected, the richer people in Ireland suffered much less than the poorer people. In neither case can it be said that a deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, cultural, racial or political group was enacted. It is quite clear that both cases severely inconvenienced the British government, which would not have wanted to set up health boards and new hospitals, or have trade and industry come to a standstill for months at a time. They would much rather have not exported grain to Ireland and much rather have not sent several million pounds in aid or fed three million people a day from the soup kitchens in the summer of 1847. But the British government still did all this.

What the cholera and the famine teaches us is that the laissez-faire system of government was wholly inadequate to deal with disasters such as these. But we cannot conclude from these two events that the British government enacted genocide.

So there it is, as plain as I can do it, reasons why neither the cholera nor the famine were genocide.

brianthebard

csk wrote:

Fine go ahead and feel insulted, you still ahve not answered the meat of ANY of my posts. That's what I call obfuscating.



Fine again feel insulted. What I was actually doing is answering your attempts to cast aspersions as to what I know or don't know as it is, firstly irrelevant, and secondly just another attempt to avoid answering any questions.

The only real question you asked me was for a source. When I provided it you questioned the validity of it, twisting my words, putting contingencies on what I said. When I do this to your source I'm obfuscating. Lose the double standards.

Quite clearly you are being awkward. Actually I would go as far as to say, you are being pretentious. As I'm sure you are aware the range of primary sources needed is huge, far more than is available on the internet. Again if we were at some kind of specialised Historians forum I would agree, but come on this is only an internet forum for people to debate their opinions. The idea is to get them to see your point of view by arguing the relevant facts not sitting up in some Ivory Tower telling all and sundry that they are wrong because well, like, YOU say so.

Do you want a situation where no one bothers posting in the History and Heritage Forum because YOU don't accept ANYTHING but primary source material?

I have not asked for primary source material exclusively, but you are at pains to point to any source that actually proves me wrong. You have yet to provide a source that says that I'm wrong. the burden of proof on my part was alleviated when I provided a source that proved my point. You are obfuscating by claiming that I have nothing better to do than ask for primary sources. I've no reason to be awkward but you persist in avoiding a real answer to my questions. I've answered your ones below, now you do the same to the one's I've posted several times, instead of calling me pathetic.

Anyway I'll repost this for the third time and maybe you'll stop obfuscating and answer

You have also failed to specify
1) whether you were just talking about one year or the entire famine when you made your claim.
2) what exactly you meant by food. I mean 9,992 cows would also be classed as food!
3) specifically why another poster, who posted some pertinent facts, was wrong except, of course (you could almost say it was a habit), to cast aspersions on his sources, sources which by the way were all taken from reputable historians despite the website in question being slightly one sided

1 I have obviously answered this from my quote.
2. Cattle were a valuable commodity which the majority of the population could never hope to own or taste. If you feel some tiny victory because I excluded it from my quote then go ahead, but it changes none of the historical facts.
3 what pertinent facts where these? What reputable historians were these? The site was certainly more than slightly one sided, it was hideously biased.

csk

edit I see you have begun to address the point I shall come back tomorrow when I have more time.

csk

brianthebard wrote:

The only real question you asked me was for a source. When I provided it you questioned the validity of it, twisting my words, putting contingencies on what I said. When I do this to your source I'm obfuscating. Lose the double standards.

Yes I asked for a source which you had refused to give the previous two times you were asked. I never questioned the validity of your source. Actually all I did was try to ascertain exactly what you were claiming.

You were being deliberately vague. You cannot be serious, if after your pretentious little rant about sources that you don’t know that a historian should be careful to avoid being vague so as not to mislead or confuse, like you were doing.

I have not asked for primary source material exclusively, but you are at pains to point to any source that actually proves me wrong.

No, but if we were to follow through on your questioning of every source then eventually we would end up with the ridiculous scenario where primary source material is the only legitimate source. What you were attempting to do though, was sit in some kind of ivory tower telling all in sundry what is and isn’t acceptable according to nothing but your own prejudice.

You have an awfully inflated sense of your own importance, if you think you are some kind of superior authority to me or anyone else or that I am “at pains to point to any source that proves you wrong”. I am attempting to engage in rational debate. It’s quite simple really. I suggest you do the same.

You have yet to provide a source that says that I'm wrong. the burden of proof on my part was alleviated when I provided a source that proved my point.

No the burden was not alleviated which, I explained in my post no.105 and again in more detail in post no. 108. It says a lot that you are only finally addressing the point now at post no. 117.

You are obfuscating by claiming that I have nothing better to do than ask for primary sources.

Actually at post no. 106 instead of answering my reasonable question you insisted on trying to discredit an article I provided. This was an obvious attempt at avoiding giving an answer. If it was not, then please explain EXACTLY how bringing in the article was relevant in any way to what I asked?

I've no reason to be awkward but you persist in avoiding a real answer to my questions.

Yes you have you were attempting to be disingenuous. You responded by trying to throw up smoke and mirrors and spinning off into some irrelevant points. Furthermore you are trying (and failing!) to portray yourself as some kind of superior authority who gets to decide what is or isn’t valid. It’s all quite obvious.

What questions and I don’t mean your pie in the sky irrelevant ones.

I've answered your ones below, now you do the same to the one's I've posted several times, instead of calling me pathetic.

Again point out what questions that is actually relevant to me and I will answer them.

1 I have obviously answered this from my quote.

So I was right, what you were referring to was just one year - 1847 - where more grain was imported than exported.

2. Cattle were a valuable commodity which the majority of the population could never hope to own or taste. If you feel some tiny victory because I excluded it from my quote then go ahead, but it changes none of the historical facts.

If only I could see this in such simple win/loss terms but alas…

The fact that you did fail to mention it, does kinda prove me right when I said you were being disingenuous, now whether that was on purpose or just an honest mistake is another thing. Of course you didn’t give an answer…

The reason, I suspect, you left it out of “your quote” is because Boyce doesn’t make mention of it. And if I recall correctly, neither do either of his two sources.

3 what pertinent facts where these? What reputable historians were these? The site was certainly more than slightly one sided, it was hideously biased.

Cormac Ó Gráda and Christine Kineally.

Hideously biased? And you are…not so?

csk

brianthebard wrote:

Ok in an effort to de-obfuscate, I'm going to lay out my thoughts on the question I posed to csk which he is reluctant to answer.

Firstly you didn’t initially pose the question to me, get your facts straight. You posed it to “people who think a famine caused by blight was genocide”. Secondly I am not reluctant to answer it and the reason I have avoided doing so is because it is completely irrelevant.

Comparing An Gorta Mór with a cholera epidemic is wholly disingenuous and is in actual fact a false analogy.

Just another of the Straw Man tactics you have been indulging in. As I said, it’s pathetic that you still persist in using them.

There are two very simple reasons it is a false analogy:

1) cholera is a disease that kills people, potato blight is a disease that attacks potatoes. NOT ONE SINGLE person was killed by potato blight, they died from lack of food or from other diseases that actually affect humans, like TB.
2) I never said An Gorta Mór was deliberate genocide. In fact in a post that you have yet to address I said quite clearly (and I quote):

“No, An Gorta Mór was not a genocide but do you think your wholly disingenuous take on things is in any way less negationist than those claiming it was genocide?”

Attempting to spin it that I claimed it was genocide is straw man tactic No.1 ( Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted)

As I have said all along your Straw man tactics are PATHETIC.

Tchocky

Gah, this has turned out bleedin' horribly.

"deliberate genocide" - get rid of the first word, genocide is always deliberate