The Great Irish Famine

maiden

Fenian Army wrote: »

No, because so much food was taken out of the country under armed guard. There was no shortage of food. The circumstances around the "famine" were created by great injustice, the penal laws, being cast off the best land and forced to live off a miserly patch of dirt, evictions, the list of things is a long one. But one thing is certain, the "famine" was a direct cumulative result of brutal and barbaric British colonialism and the racist attitudes that went along with it.

100% agree there was no famine.

My uncle from Tullamore was instrumental in creating what is now the Irish Hunger Memorial in Battery Park NY, when it came to naming the memorial The famine he firmly stood his ground literally and refused to let it happen as it was NOT a famine, it was man made,

Thanks to him it is known as The Irish Hunger Memorial (An Gorta Mor)

there is a FB page which is fantastic and even gone as far as getting the history books in some states in the US to change from using the word famine and telling the facts as they are!!!!!!!!!!

Shryke

Where To wrote: »

I'm from a farming background too. Even with modern farming methods the land all along the west coast isn't all that great today, as I'm sure someone from west Donegal, Connemara or wes Clare would agree. If there had been no potato, then the next most easily grown and cheap-to-produce crop would have been the staple diet, and the population would have grown. When that crop would fail, whether due to climate or disease or both, what would you have?

That's pure conjecture based on your opinion that our forebears had an obsession with land, and that this obsession somehow would culminate in a population boom that would end in the country collapsing and millions displaced and dead.

The coast is sparse enough in places but the people didn't all die there. Much of the population of those areas traveled toward larger cities. Populations in cities swelled with an influx of the starving.

You're ignoring certain things with regards to exports and you don't seem to want to acknowledge that the British played a massive part in what we're terming a famine but I may be picking you up from the wrong angle there. Simply saying it would have happened anyway is very irreverent and not exactly on topic.

Even with a high population and a failed crop the island had enough produce to spare to prevent such devastation. The famine was man made.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make at this stage by implying that a famine simply was destined to happen? Maybe you could clarify your stance.

IM0

Domo230 wrote: »

This will end well.

like the boat for them to america/aus!

Wild Bill

whirlpool wrote: »

It's AH. I think as a general rule, one can safely assume that roughly 50% of the comments are sarcasm, and take it from there.

:pac:

Yeah....but which ones?!

It's not as if you can't get accused of "trolling" on AH....which, reading the threads, I'd have thought was a requirement

Anyway...we veer off-topic........

whirlpool

Wild Bill wrote: »

Yeah....but which ones?!

It's not as if you can't get accused of "trolling" on AH....which, reading the threads, I'd have thought was a requirement

Anyway...we veer off-topic........

For example: When somebody says that if a famine victim could afford to emigrate then they should have been able to pay for a meal in a restaurant..... Lets just say that anybody who takes this comment as a serious one is a pretty ridiculous person and leave it at that.

Fratton Fred

Corruptedmorals wrote: »

How is your childhood diet relevant? Those who survived the famine were either lucky, managed to escape disease (disease was really the major killer, not outright starvation), or those who had the means to buy other foods. Some people, such as the Quakers, were appalled at the conditions and set up soup-kitchens. Others, some select Protestants, offerred food in return for conversion to the Protestant faith. This was called 'Souperism' and was particularly rife in one of the worst affected areas, West Cork. My own relatives marriage 40 odd years ago was frowned upon by the bride's mother because his family were soupers! Those who 'turned' were despised after the famine.

It wasn't a case of not having meat and two veg dinner. They had nothing. Thousands died along the roadsides with grass-stained mouths.

If you could afford food, you survived, if you couldn't, you starved. Faith, nationality, political leaning etc had nothing to do with it. As has always happened throughout the history if the human race, the poor for crapped in the wealthy.

Nodin

whirlpool wrote: »

People who don't recognise facetiousness or intended sarcasm, who take people's posts at face value, get offended and write angry responses.

However, we must remember poe's law.

Monty Burnz

dlofnep wrote: »

Eat once sure, and then what? The famine wasn't something that lasted a week. It went on for over 7 years and saw the deaths of a million people on the Island. If that happened today - it would echo around the world for decades.

I'm always amazed at how cynical people can be about mass death, of which no doubt - many of your relatives died horrific deaths in. Stop trying to be 'that guy' and show a bit of respect.

Aha! Serious lack of Partridge knowledge here.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If you could afford food, you survived, if you couldn't, you starved. Faith, nationality, political leaning etc had nothing to do with it. As has always happened throughout the history if the human race, the poor for crapped in the wealthy.

Things are going to go down the shit hole now.

Wild Bill

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If you could afford food, you survived, if you couldn't, you starved. Faith, nationality, political leaning etc had nothing to do with it. As has always happened throughout the history if the human race, the poor for crapped in the wealthy.

Which ignores the point that there was no food shortage! It was being exported under armed guard :mad:

Fratton Fred

Wild Bill wrote: »

Which ignores the point that there was no food shortage! It was being exported under armed guard :mad:

By who?

Nodin

Wild Bill wrote: »

Which ignores the point that there was no food shortage! It was being exported under armed guard :mad:

....and the attitudes alluded to in a number of well referenced posts earlier on.

gbee

It was a lesson in the abject obedience of the Irish People that they would starve to death whilst paying off the debtors of the day.

It was great al-right, it was a series of climate events and the good old Irish did exactly as they were told to do.

Now, vote yes to ensure it happens again.

Nodin

gbee wrote: »

It was a lesson in the abject obedience of the Irish People that they would starve to death whilst paying off the debtors of the day.
..............

I'm fairly sure that's the most ill-informed post of the thread so far. Well done you.

gbee

Nodin wrote: »

I'm fairly sure that's the most ill-informed post of the thread so far. Well done you.

OK so, vote no, you can vote, can't you?

Wild Bill

Nodin wrote: »

I'm fairly sure that's the most ill-informed post of the thread so far. Well done you.

Nah.

There is a certain continuity there even if it trivializes the famine.

Remember it took a million Uncle Toms and/or fearful cowards to help starve a million people. :cool:

TeddyTedson

Inventive User Name wrote: »

I suppose this lad will be let take the piss out of the famine, but if I make some Holocaust or 9/11 jokes, I'll probably get banned. :rolleyes:

Who am I actually taking the piss out of here though?
Let's get that brain of yours working.

Nodin

Wild Bill wrote: »

Nah.

There is a certain continuity there even if it trivializes the famine.

Remember it took a million Uncle Toms and/or fearful cowards to help starve a million people. :cool:

Simplistic nonsense, to be blunt.

TeddyTedson

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Aha! Serious lack of Partridge knowledge here.

Terrible isn't it. The ignorance of some boardsies, I thought we were ahead of the curve here...

gbee

Nodin wrote: »

Simplistic nonsense, to be blunt.

So you can't vote then.

Pushtrak

Wild Bill wrote: »

Actually I agree that criminalizing the Holocaust is daft.

But reading the famine/genocide deniers here I can see why many European countries have succumbed to the temptation.

Which is not to justify criminalizing opinions, be they Nazi, insane or whatever.

The reason why countries brought in holocaust denial laws was out of a fear of a recurrence of the types of thinking that led to WW2. In short, thought crimes. Stupid thinking crimes, to put it another way.

Or non thinking. Irrationalists. I don't have any respect for the position be it in relation to the holocaust or the famine, but in relation to your last line, I don't think anything can really justify it.

The premise of thought crimes is what someone is thinking is likely to end up manifesting in something criminal, so better to put 'em in jail. But, I'd say one should be locked up on grounds of what they do, rather than what they think. And I can't really think of a good counter to that.

Wild Bill

Surely you can't get banned for joking about the 9/11 comeuppance?

I'm fairly confidant the authorities here can distinguish between the oh-so precious hypocritical "Western" sensitivity to retaliation and the harsh reality of the immeasurably greater crimes committed by Euro-American Imperialism - right up to the present day?

The famine was only a footnote in the greater catalogue of relentless mass murder and genocide. :cool:

Wild Bill

Nodin wrote: »

Simplistic nonsense, to be blunt.

You call me simplistic; I'll call you naive :cool:

Shryke

With regards to Holocaust denial laws: it's not Orwellian thought crime though is it? It's espousing belief as far as I know which is a different kettle of fish. Rhetoric and propoganda and the like are what the law is there to prevent, and I have to say I don't see anything wrong with it when the law is only defending the existence of a horrible atrocity that occured in history.

Nodin

Wild Bill wrote: »

You call me simplistic; I'll call you naive :cool:

.....regardless of anything else, the Famine took place a scant 50 years after the 1798 rebellion, when memories of the subsequent massacre and repression were still strong. Add to that the debased situation most of the populace naturally sympathetic to any rising found themselves in, and its hardly a suitable background for rebellion.

Where To

Shryke wrote: »

That's pure conjecture based on your opinion that our forebears had an obsession with land, and that this obsession somehow would culminate in a population boom that would end in the country collapsing and millions displaced and dead.

The coast is sparse enough in places but the people didn't all die there. Much of the population of those areas traveled toward larger cities. Populations in cities swelled with an influx of the starving.

You're ignoring certain things with regards to exports and you don't seem to want to acknowledge that the British played a massive part in what we're terming a famine but I may be picking you up from the wrong angle there. Simply saying it would have happened anyway is very irreverent and not exactly on topic.

Even with a high population and a failed crop the island had enough produce to spare to prevent such devastation. The famine was man made.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make at this stage by implying that a famine simply was destined to happen? Maybe you could clarify your stance.

My stance is that the famine was unavoidable due to natural and cultural conditions.

Yes, British policy exacerbated the devastation, there's no doubt about that.
Yes, many (both British and Irish, Protestant and Catholic) exploited the famine for their own gain.

But I still believe the famine would have happened sooner or later regardless.

Jimoslimos

Inventive User Name wrote: »

I suppose this lad will be let take the piss out of the famine, but if I make some Holocaust or 9/11 jokes, I'll probably get banned. :rolleyes:

Too soon for Holocaust jokes, give it another month or so.

Shryke

Where To wrote: »

My stance is that the famine was unavoidable due to natural and cultural conditions.

Yes, British policy exacerbated the devastation, there's no doubt about that.
Yes, many (both British and Irish, Protestant and Catholic) exploited the famine for their own gain.

But I still believe the famine would have happened sooner or later regardless.

I firmly disagree with your measure of responsibility. You say cultural conditions but in reality they were occupational conditions.
British occupation, policy and export are what caused such starvation. There is no saying what could have been if things were different and it's a poor argument to try to.
All the same if that's your opinion then fair enough, I won't argue through the night over it.

bwatson

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

should be called the Irish holocaust, the brits should be treated the same way nazi germany was

Why would you use a hebrew word to describe an event which took place in Ireland?

As for treated the Brits like the nazis, how do you decide who you wish to hang?

Jimoslimos

bwatson wrote: »

Why would you use a hebrew word to describe an event which took place in Ireland

That's how language evolves, y'know borrowing from others. Same with the use of ghetto to describe an area of poverty where one particular ethnic minority lives.

LH Pathe

Theres more potato atop my fish pie ere then em poor souls probably saw in a lifetime - but would you rather be the blighted, or the blighters..

tbh I experience a personal famine every waking day, right up til about this time. if I ever breach ten stone, pin me up

true

LH Pathe wrote: »

tbh I experience a personal famine every waking day, right up til about this time.

and if you ever have 14 childeren in your 'ouse an' each of 'em has 14 childeren, oie reakon you'll be blamin' your neighbour for the famine in your ouse then too.

golden lane

true wrote: »

and if you ever have 14 childeren in your 'ouse an' each of 'em has 14 childeren, oie reakon you'll be blamin' your neighbour for the famine in your ouse then too.

not if you have dna tests and they are yours.......
ps, i like the accent.......are you icelandic......

LH Pathe

true wrote: »

and if you ever have 14 childeren in your 'ouse an' each of 'em has 14 childeren, oie reakon you'll be blamin' your neighbour for the famine in your ouse then too.

yoie be reakon havoc with my abilitea to try n interpret just wtf. I'll never have beibidas anyhauw

Getoffmytrain

bwatson wrote: »

Why would you use a hebrew word to describe an event which took place in Ireland?

As for treated the Brits like the nazis, how do you decide who you wish to hang?

Holocaust is not a Hebrew word.

conor.hogan.2

Holocaust is Greek, like a surprising amount of words.

bwatson

Getoffmytrain wrote: »

Holocaust is not a Hebrew word.

Yes, my mistake.

That is Shoah.

In that case I don't know the origin of holocaust. I know however it
translates as "great inferno" in which case it is still inappropriate.

I thought it strange you would reply so bluntly without offering the correction though.

Any ideas on who to hang yet?

golden lane

bwatson wrote: »

Yes, my mistake.

That is Shoah.

In that case I don't know the origin of holocaust. I know however it
translates as "great inferno" in which case it is still inappropriate.

I thought it strange you would reply so bluntly without offering the correction though.

Any ideas on who to hang yet?

yes, but i want to surprise them...

IrishAm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

By who?

Crown forces.

Have a gander here; http://irishholocaust.org/

fasttalkerchat

You wouldn't see people on an Israeli forum saying the holocaust wasn't really a holocaust; just people who were too lazy to run away.

Fratton Fred

IrishAm wrote: »

Crown forces.

Have a gander here; http://irishholocaust.org/

Aah, that looks like a good, unbiased website.

golden lane

IrishAm wrote: »

Crown forces.

Have a gander here; http://irishholocaust.org/[/QUOTE]


the food that was exported from ireland during the potatoe blight......was used to feed people.........unfortunately the people who could pay the most got the food.........as there was a shortage of the basic food for the poor, due to the blight, there was famine......

and the usual people were there to take advantage of the situation......sheep on the land instead of people....that happened in england too....

the gentry were not noted for their kindness in those days............

Winston Payne

"We Irish are very good at using humour to get over our tragedies."



Ten pages on the famine in AH. A link to a website titled "Irishholocaust".



...



It's taking a great deal of effort for my eyes not to roll out of my head.

Temptamperu

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

You wouldn't see people on an Israeli forum saying the holocaust wasn't really a holocaust; just people who were too lazy to run away.

No just treating the Palestinians in a similar way they themselves where. History is fun all the same.

IrishAm

golden lane wrote: »

the food that was exported from ireland during the potatoe blight......was used to feed people.........

Yes, indeed. The people of England. England's poor were facing their own famine. The Times reported that "In England the two main meals of a working man's day now consists of potatoes." England's potato-dependence was excessive; reckless." A minimum of 40 shiploads of food was shipped, by point of gun, to England.

1ZRed

Weren't they all on athkins and just went overboard cutting out the carbs?
Size 0's everywhere, who said the Irish weren't chic?

fasttalkerchat

Temptamperu wrote: »

No just treating the Palestinians in a similar way they themselves where. History is fun all the same.

That's true. My point is that we go to extreme lengths to put ourselves down and even self-hate. Boards is at the far end of the spectrum but its a problem in the real world too.

Guill

There is a story about a field in Kilbeggan called 'Guilfoyle's Field'. It was quite a bit ouside of town and during the famine nobody had seen any of the family for a few weeks, it was decided that someone should go out and check up on them. When they got there they found both adults dead. There was on three year old baby lying on the ground eating moss off of a rock.

The family were buried beside their house, under a tree, the graves marked with two standing stones. The child was brought to town but died shorty after.

The ruins of the house and the grave markers are still there. It's just horrific to think about.

Cú Giobach

maiden wrote: »

100% agree there was no famine.

My uncle from Tullamore was instrumental in creating what is now the Irish Hunger Memorial in Battery Park NY, when it came to naming the memorial The famine he firmly stood his ground literally and refused to let it happen as it was NOT a famine, it was man made,

Thanks to him it is known as The Irish Hunger Memorial (An Gorta Mor)

there is a FB page which is fantastic and even gone as far as getting the history books in some states in the US to change from using the word famine and telling the facts as they are!!!!!!!!!!

Care to explain how a man made famine is not a famine?

Wild Bill

Nodin wrote: »

.....regardless of anything else, the Famine took place a scant 50 years after the 1798 rebellion, when memories of the subsequent massacre and repression were still strong. Add to that the debased situation most of the populace naturally sympathetic to any rising found themselves in, and its hardly a suitable background for rebellion.

Ah! I think we misunderstand.....I wasn't criticizing the victims for not rebelling; the "million" I referred to were the Irish who formed the armed guards for the exports, populated the British Forces, the Dublin middle classes and all the rest who make any Imperial occupation possible.

No Empire in history could have survived past the initial conquest without the local Quislings - it is by no means just an Irish thing.

It's the same sort of criminal self-interest and/or craven cowardice that will lead to a "yes" vote on May 31st. That's what I think the poster was saying and I was agreeing with that