The British Empire Thread

brianthebard

wiki says 1.7 million people left Scotland as a result of it, although it doesn't give a figure for deaths caused by the famine. (here) The Irish population was not "decimated" by famine either, the majority of deaths were caused by disease. The penal laws were repealed in the 1820s.

ApGriffith wrote: »

No, you're wrong. First about the troll thing, but also about the other. England was conquered in 1066 by a foreign people, and no subsequent English government represented the English people. Rather, it exploited them. You are blaming the English but in fact they are victims too - of the Normans.

You are going back on your points now, first you were referring to the British, now it is the English and Normans. You also seem to be flitting from one time period to the other. If were are talking about the sixteenth century on, which I believe we are, then you will find that the Normans and English and many other people had coalesced into a newer English/British identity, even if that British identity only included the English and Welsh.

ApGriffith

According to Wikipedia, about a million died and another million emigrated, and Ireland's population was reduced by about 20 to 25%. Terrible, certainly, but not quite as bad as the Black Death, which reduced the population of the whole British Isles by about 30 to 40%, all of whom died (rather than half surviving by emigration). How come the Black Death isn't regarded as genocide? Basically, the government was incompetent and negligent, and individual landowners were greedy, but was it genocide? No. Indeed, to call it genocide rather insults the victims of true genocide, by belittling their experience.

ApGriffith

brianthebard wrote: »

wiki says 1.7 million people left Scotland as a result of it, although it doesn't give a figure for deaths caused by the famine. (here) The Irish population was not "decimated" by famine either, the majority of deaths were caused by disease. The penal laws were repealed in the 1820s.



You are going back on your points now, first you were referring to the British, now it is the English and Normans. You also seem to be flitting from one time period to the other. If were are talking about the sixteenth century on, which I believe we are, then you will find that the Normans and English and many other people had coalesced into a newer English/British identity, even if that British identity only included the English and Welsh.

I'm using English until 1707, and British thereafter. As to whether the English and Normans ever coalesced, that is extremely debatable. The descendants of the Normans remained the ruling class and still do today.

brianthebard

Who said it was genocide?

ApGriffith

brianthebard wrote: »

Who said it was genocide?

Lots of people.

Shinji Ikari

brianthebard wrote: »

wiki says 1.7 million people left as a result of it, although it doesn't give a figure for deaths caused by the famine. (here) The Irish population was not "decimated" by famine either, the majority of deaths were caused by disease. The penal laws were repealed in the 1820s.

I used decimated as loose phrase. I most say, I was unaware of the Scottish potatoe famine. Its certainly not as well "publicised" as its Irish equivalent. Still, the Irish population certainly seems to have suffered more due to its respective famine. If the British government did give more aid to the Scots it just further illustrates how they ineffectively cared for their Celtic subjects. In regards to the penal laws and Catholici emancipation; the point I'm making is that it was an incremental emancipation. Irish familys were denied education and had so many career avenues denied for so long that it would take at least a generation for the average Irish family to rejuvenate their fortunes.i.e. Afford a quality education, set up a business ect. Also there is the psychological aspect. I dare say many families became dysfunctional during the penal law era, alcoholism, low self esteem. So all in all. Also even when the Catholic middle case to arise in the late 19th Dublin was still one of the poorest cities in Europe. The Irish who joined the British army in W.W.I was arguably the largest volunteer army in modern times. I doubt they were inspired for a love of King and country. It seems more likely that the wished to escape the poverty which, ultimately, had its roots in the penal laws and the inadequate handling of the potatoe plight by the respective British Governments.

Shinji Ikari

ApGriffith wrote: »

Lots of people.

Not by any respectable Irish historian I know off. Lots of people is pretty vague.

ApGriffith

Shinji Ikari wrote: »

Not by any respectable Irish historian I know off. Lots of people is pretty vague.

It's apparently officially taught as genocide in New York State schools.

Shinji Ikari

Do you have a link?

dresden8

ApGriffith wrote: »

It's interesting how the dividing line betweem Brit and Irish is so wafer thin that one can become the other just by saying a few words.

That's how most, if not all changes of citizenship are affected. They don't use gene therapy. Your point being?

ApGriffith

Shinji Ikari wrote: »

Do you have a link?

It was New Jersey, not New York http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_potato_famine#Suggestions_of_genocide

ApGriffith

dresden8 wrote: »

That's how most, if not all changes of citizenship are affected. They don't use gene therapy. Your point being?

My point is that there are vast numbers of Irish people who are also British - and unlike many genuine foreigners, are accepted as such by their fellow Britons.

Shinji Ikari

ApGriffith wrote: »

My point is that there are vast numbers of Irish people who are also British - and unlike many genuine foreigners, are accepted as such by their fellow Britons.

The fact that they are white and speak English as their first language is a major influence.

brianthebard

ApGriffith wrote: »

Lots of people.

Very clever.

Shinji Ikari wrote: »

I used decimated as loose phrase. I most say, I was unaware of the Scottish potatoe famine. Its certainly not as well "publicised" as its Irish equivalent. Still, the Irish population certainly seems to have suffered more due to its respective famine. If the British government did give more aid to the Scots it just further illustrates how they ineffectively cared for their Celtic subjects. In regards to the penal laws and Catholici emancipation; the point I'm making is that it was an incremental emancipation. Irish familys were denied education and had so many career avenues denied for so long that it would take at least a generation for the average Irish family to rejuvenate their fortunes.i.e. Afford a quality education, set up a business ect. Also there is the psychological aspect. I dare say many families became dysfunctional during the penal law era, alcoholism, low self esteem. So all in all. Also even when the Catholic middle case to arise in the late 19th Dublin was still one of the poorest cities in Europe. The Irish who joined the British army in W.W.I was arguably the largest volunteer army in modern times. I doubt they were inspired for a love of King and country. It seems more likely that the wished to escape the poverty which, ultimately, had its roots in the penal laws and the inadequate handling of the potatoe plight by the respective British Governments.

You misread me; Ireland received more aid and money than Scotland. Also, even if that was reversed, the Scottish people would still have been seen as "celtic" so either way you are incorrect. You shouldn't use terms like decimated loosely imo. Also, how much Scottish history do you know in general? Irish history is the main topic taught in our schools, the Highlands famine is plenty publicised if you look for it. I have no idea what sort of point you are making about the Catholic middle class and Dublin city. However its worth noting that the majority of the middles classes moved to suburbs such as Rathmines, and technically did not live within Dublin city as we know it now. Alcoholism was a problem certainly, and there were many government papers on it, hardly that different to modern Ireland. We get a lot of our licensing laws, such as restricted sunday hours from this period. I think you are overreaching trying to blame psychological problems on laws. Also its too simplistic to say the Irish in the British army were not motivated by the empire, Irish history within the empire is much more complex than that. For instance a large number of landlords in the Caribbean were Irish, of various creeds.

brianthebard

ApGriffith wrote: »

It was New Jersey, not New York http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_potato_famine#Suggestions_of_genocide

There are many more historians in that link who do not support the genocide claim than the one who does. You are just stirring.

Shinji Ikari

ApGriffith wrote: »

It was New Jersey, not New York http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_potato_famine#Suggestions_of_genocide

From what I read here they are not teaching it as an actual genocide, rather they encourage the student to examine the historiographical debates pertaining to the famine and encourage the student to come to their own conclusions.

http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/irish/unit_6.html

Shinji Ikari

brianthebard wrote: »

You misread me; Ireland received more aid and money than Scotland. Also, even if that was reversed, the Scottish people would still have been seen as "celtic" so either way you are incorrect. You shouldn't use terms like decimated loosely imo. Also, how much Scottish history do you know in general? Irish history is the main topic taught in our schools, the Highlands famine is plenty publicised if you look for it. I have no idea what sort of point you are making about the Catholic middle class and Dublin city. However its worth noting that the majority of the middles classes moved to suburbs such as Rathmines, and technically did not live within Dublin city as we know it now. Alcoholism was a problem certainly, and there were many government papers on it, hardly that different to modern Ireland. We get a lot of our licensing laws, such as restricted sunday hours from this period. I think you are overreaching trying to blame psychological problems on laws. Also its too simplistic to say the Irish in the British army were not motivated by the empire, Irish history within the empire is much more complex than that. For instance a large number of landlords in the Caribbean were Irish, of various creeds.

I actually think we may have misread each other! To be fair, I did'nt verbalise my points very well, I had just woken up from an unintentional nap! Anyway, I am aware that the Irish received more aid than the Scots. The point I'm making is that there were many European countries which had potatoe plights but their respective governments did enough to ensure it did not develope into an actual famine. Britain was the greatest empire in the world at the time. She should have done more. Also I can't help but wonder if the circumstances which befell the Irish and Scots occured in England that enough aid would have been given to ensure it did'nt develope into a famine. There was alot of pseudo science going around at the time which claimed the Celts were genetically inferior. In fact I believe there was a book which claimed that the Celts were descended from the Africans and of course they were considered to be most closely related to neanderthals at the time by Victorian upper class society. Its no coincidence that the Irish were depicted in cartoons with ape like features.

As for the Scottish Famine being less publicised. I would be confident that more people in the U.S. Europe and Oceania would know of the Irish famine rather than the Scottish famine.



As for the problem of alcoholism. Well, I would definitely say that poverty and psychologicl problems are related to alcoholism. Nobody really drinks alcohol for the taste of it. People drink to alter their mind states, like any drug. If one is treated like a second class citizen,penal laws, and impoverised one is more likely to resort to alcoholism as a means of escape.

I feel that even when Catholic emancipation had begun many families were so impoverished and dysfunctional it would have taken perhaps another geneneration for them to avail of their new civil liberties.

Dublin city had appaling poverty and I feel this is the reason why so many Irishmen joined the British army during WWI. Incidently yes I have heard of the Irish plantations in the Carribean. Many were more cruel than there English and Anglo-Irish counter-parts.

brianthebard

Well no the situation as it happened in Ireland and Scotland could not have happened in England since they had gone through the agricultural revolution,something that didn't happen in Ireland. There was actually much debate about how to create an agricultural revolution in Ireland, and the government of the time (and preceding decades) felt it was only a matter of time before such an event as the famine/blight occured, but enforcing a revolution of that sort was pretty much impossible. Perhaps this is why it was sometimes felt the famine was god's will.
I'm not a fan of social darwinism by any means but I don't think it relates to this topic at all.
Also I don't see why alcoholism is such a big topic, but let me just say that I drink it for the taste. So that's all that needs to be said atm.

I would very much like to see a class breakdown of Irishmen who joined the British army in WWI. What points do you feel I misread you on? I don't think this is the case.

Fratton Fred

Shinji Ikari wrote: »

As for the Scottish Famine being less publicised. I would be confident that more people in the U.S. Europe and Oceania would know of the Irish famine rather than the Scottish famine.

I would tend to agree. More telling I believe, is that there are probably more people in Britain that know about the Irish one as well.

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would tend to agree. More telling I believe, is that there are probably more people in Britain that know about the Irish one as well.

I would go one step further and say that the Irish famine is so well known, that other European famines which occurred at a similar time are so overshadowed that most people are simply unaware that they ever happened.

brianthebard

I think ye have gone off topic and over to the nature of the history curriculum in Ireland, which would be better suited to a new thread if ye wanted.

Fratton Fred

Deleted User wrote: »

I would go one step further and say that the Irish famine is so well known, that other European famines which occurred at a similar time are so overshadowed that most people are simply unaware that they ever happened.

For two reasons i would suggest.

The forst being that they were all a lot less destructive to the populations and secondly, no one has ever tried to turn them into a political issue.

LordSutch

I dont mean to be flippant, but why didnt the Irish take to fishing if there were no potatoes ? - surely they could have been pioneers of the Atkins diet (seriously) which is a very healthy 'if boring diet', instead of starving to death. Fish is a very high protein, very high vitamin enriched food.

Was a fish diet on the cards in the mid 1800s ? or was that not feasible ?

And as for the 'Genocide' claims - what next, maybe the "English" created the potato blight

RSF Cill Dara

Camelot wrote: »

I dont mean to be flippant, but why didnt the Irish take to fishing if there were no potatoes ? - surely they could have been pioneers of the Atkins diet (seriously) which is a very healthy 'if boring diet', instead of starving to death. Fish is a very high protein, very high vitamin enriched food.

Was a fish diet on the cards in the mid 1800s ? or was that not feasible ?

And as for the 'Genocide' claims - what next, maybe the "English" created the potato blight

are you trying to be funny? or are u just that ignorant?

LordSutch

Yes - I am ignorant as to whether it was feasible to live on a diet of fish in the mid 1800s.
(its not unheard of) albeit with some carbs thrown in.

It is a serious question though.

pablomakaveli

Camelot wrote: »

Yes - I am ignorant as to whether it was feasible to live on a diet of fish in the mid 1800s.
(its not unheard of) albeit with some carbs thrown in.

It is a serious question though.

I seriously doubt fish was an option. it wouldnt have been available to people inland.

as for people on the coast, well if they were victims of the famine they probably would have been too poor too afford decent fishing equipment or to make boats.

some people probably would have fished but probably wouldnt have been able to catch enough to feed a large family let alone themselves on a daily basis.

brianthebard

Camelot wrote: »

I dont mean to be flippant, but why didnt the Irish take to fishing if there were no potatoes ? - surely they could have been pioneers of the Atkins diet (seriously) which is a very healthy 'if boring diet', instead of starving to death. Fish is a very high protein, very high vitamin enriched food.

Was a fish diet on the cards in the mid 1800s ? or was that not feasible ?

And as for the 'Genocide' claims - what next, maybe the "English" created the potato blight

The brits broke all the irish fishing rods obviously.

All a bit OT as this is about the British Empire not the famine, but I once read somewhere that the fishermen had to pawn their boats to buy food.

LordSutch

Getting back on track - I dont think the Bitish Empire would have been half so successful & powerful had it not been for the massive contribution of Ireland & the many tens of thousands of Irish men who helped to create the British Empire, indeed if the Empire was to be re-created 'today' it might be called the "British & Irish Empire", such was the contribution of Irish men to the cause.

This is not to belittle the contribution made by the English Scots & Welsh, but I doubt that they could have done it alone.

Fratton Fred

Camelot wrote: »

Getting back on track - I dont think the Bitish Empire would have been half so successful & powerful had it not been for the massive contribution of Ireland & the many tens of thousands of Irish men who helped to create the British Empire, indeed if the Empire was to be re-created 'today' it might be called the "British & Irish Empire", such was the contribution of Irish men to the cause.

This is not to belittle the contribution made by the English Scots & Welsh, but I doubt that they could have done it alone.

Not sure if i've quoted this in this thread or not.

There is a saying that the Irish won the empire, The Scots administered it and the English lost it.

Not sure what the Welsh did, but I'm sure it was something.