The Great Irish Famine

Fratton Fred

cbyrd wrote: »

Because it wasn't just the effect of the potato failure for 5 years that caused it. Irish Catholics (80% of the population) were starving, living in hovels unable to work or better themselves because penal law said they couldn't. The Famine became official in 1845. Catholic Emancipation was granted in 1829, however British Absentee Landlords, Anglo Irish landowners had limitless power over their tenants, the revenue was sent to England as were the crops and livestock harvested by the tenant, who lived on the easy to produce potato, until the blight. The hardship started way before there was no potatoes

Ever heard of Daniel O'Connell? or Lord Kenmare, Lord Trimlestown and Charles O'Conor?

All Irish, all Catholics, all wealthy Landlords.

Crooked Jack

Cú Giobach wrote: »

How is calling a famine a famine "simplistic".
A famine implies one thing, masses of people dying of starvation itself or illness and diseases brought on by or enhanced by malnutrition.
The causes and reasons for the famine (so called because it was a fucking famine) are irrelevant to whether it was or wasn't a famine, as is the fact that there was food around, if you can't avail of that food it has the same result as it not being there, famine.

We're really getting into semantics here and I have no desire to do so. The definition of a famine is a general shortage of food. But there was no shortage of food, people were denied the food that was there, that to me sounds like enforced starvation, as such i think attempted genocide is a more accurate term than famine.
I dont know why you're getting so wound up, I'm not belittling the effect of the starvation or those who suffered it, if anything I think famine is too soft a term as it ignores the deliberate and targeted nature of what happened.

Fratton Fred

My name is URL wrote: »

- Charles Trevelyan, Administrator of famine relief

I've already covered this. profiteering and hoarding was the biggest reason prices went up. even the poor committees complained about it.

making obscene profits whilst your fellow countrymen starve is pretty selfish and perverse.

My name is URL

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I've already covered this. profiteering and hoarding was the biggest reason prices went up. even the poor committees complained about it.

making obscene profits whilst your fellow countrymen starve is pretty selfish and perverse.

He described the famine conditions in Ireland as a "mechanism for reducing surplus population" ffs. If that doesn't signal a hint of genocidal tendency then I don't know what does. Sure is perverse!

Dr.Strange

My name is URL wrote: »

It wasn't really a famine.. was it? =/

It wasn't really 'Great' either now that I think about it.

Duggys Housemate

The real question for people who deny this was not a famine is questioning whether it would be allowed to happen in the Island of Britain, or whether a system of rationing would have been brought in if the "mainland" had been in deficit. Which, it might well have been.

profiteering and hoarding was the biggest reason prices went up. even the poor committees complained about it.

Thats blaming the victim. Most Irish farmers were tenant famers, the land was owned by about 1% of the population, who survived on rent, the rent meant selling food crops, or having the food crops seized from you.

Ever heard of Daniel O'Connell? or Lord Kenmare, Lord Trimlestown and Charles O'Conor?

All Irish, all Catholics, all wealthy Landlords.

All wealthy Catholics make about 10% of the landowners of Ireland.

cbyrd

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide

Reduction of a population by half whether you drop bombs on them or stand by while they starve as you strip them of the food they have smacks of genocide o me.. its deliberate. Very little effort was put forward to save life or ease suffering. Of course we judge by today's standards ..genocide was not a word used in the 1800's.

They set up a Royal Commission, chaired by the Earl of Devon, to inquire into the laws with regard to the occupation of land in Ireland. Daniel O'Connell described this commission as perfectly one-sided, being made up of landlords and no tenants. so it was put down as bad relations between the two and it was allowed to continue. It's estimated that over 6 million was sent to England in 1842 from Irish rents and it was the view that Ireland was a hostile place to live so Absentee Landlords were the norm. Ireland was their cash cow that they didn't even have to milk..

Precious flower

Famine? I don't think so when you read the definition - a scarcity of food, there certainly was food. But I don't think someone can term The Great Famine as a genocide either which is defined as the deliberate killing of a large group of people, nation or ethic group. After all the English did send relief to Ireland regardless how small. As well as that you have to consider the thinking at that time. You cannot impose your own modern values onto a different time. A lot of people thought that such a famine was God's will. The island was overcrowded and this was God's solution, however messed up we might think that is today.

It was amazing though when I found out my great, great grandfather was only eleven in 1847, at the height of the famine, and yet he managed to survive. I can't even begin to comprehend the horrific scenes he must have witnessed. And he was living in Connemara. It must have been desperate there.

Cú Giobach

Crooked Jack wrote: »

We're really getting into semantics here and I have no desire to do so. The definition of a famine is a general shortage of food

.
From here. http://www.ucc.ie/famine/About/abfamine.htm

Famine may be seen as "the regional failure of food production or distribution systems, leading to sharply increased mortality due to starvation and associated disease"..........Moreover, famine entails more than a severe shortage of food and grotesque distortions of normal food prices. Famine features a deepening recession in the entire rural economy, one affecting production and exchange, employment, and income of farm and nonfarm households alike.
Landless laborers, artisans, and traders are among those most vulnerable to famine because of shrinking demand for their labor, goods, and services.
Pastoralists and fishermen are also vulnerable because they rely on the exchange of meat and marine products to obtain the cheaper grain calories they require and because, in the dynamic leading to famine, the terms of trade turn sharply against what they sell relative to the grain they seek to buy.

There is nothing "simplistic" about famine.

But there was no shortage of food, people were denied the food that was there, that to me sounds like enforced starvation, as such i think attempted genocide is a more accurate term than famine.

In what you say here famine was the tool for the genocide.

I dont know why you're getting so wound up, I'm not belittling the effect of the starvation or those who suffered it, if anything I think famine is too soft a term as it ignores the deliberate and targeted nature of what happened.

There is nothing "soft" about the word Famine, it is a horrendous human tragedy that involves horrible suffering, often for huge numbers of people.

steddyeddy

A thread like his will always get peoples backs up on both sides of the arguement. Regarding the english response what I will say is that it was criminally negligence at best. I dont doubt that some of those higher up in the colonial power were frankly happy with the way things were working out. The penal laws were largely reformed at this time but the bulk of catholics still lived in similar conditions.

The British response has been up for debate here but my major problem is with colonialisim in general. Its a relict of the past I know but any country that has colonial interests abroad hasnt got the welfare of those countries people as their primary concern. Seeing a land that you want and thinking you have some rights over it is evidence that you see that lands people as less. The irish were thought of as inferior to the english bt the colonial powers, the rwanadans were thought of as inferior by the belgium colonial powers and the boers thought the natives inferior to their needs. It wouldnt be scientific to call an gorta mor a famine as there was food in the country. It was a symptom of colonialisim at best.

steddyeddy

Precious flower wrote: »

Famine? I don't think so when you read the definition - a scarcity of food, there certainly was food. But I don't think someone can term The Great Famine as a genocide either which is defined as the deliberate killing of a large group of people, nation or ethic group. After all the English did send relief to Ireland regardless how small. As well as that you have to consider the thinking at that time. You cannot impose your own modern values onto a different time. A lot of people thought that such a famine was God's will. The island was overcrowded and this was God's solution, however messed up we might think that is today.

It was amazing though when I found out my great, great grandfather was only eleven in 1847, at the height of the famine, and yet he managed to survive. I can't even begin to comprehend the horrific scenes he must have witnessed. And he was living in Connemara. It must have been desperate there.

I know my ancestors had it hard during the famine but I dont know the exact details. What we do know from studies on the dutch winter famine and various swiss famines that through epigenetic changes descendents of the famine survivors are also more prone to diabetes and cardiovascular diseases for example.

Cú Giobach

steddyeddy wrote: »

It wouldnt be scientific to call an gorta mor a famine as there was food in the country. It was a symptom of colonialisim at best.

Famine is not about where food is, but where it isn't, if whole populations cannot avail of it the result is a famine, where food is kept is irrelevant.

steddyeddy

fryup wrote: »

wasn't being flippant, the above crops mentioned hardly ever fail

and while i'm at it.. the rivers and lakes were full of fish...why not fish?? (not flippant)

Most of the tenants did not own the land and seeds to the above crops were a lot more expensive than they are today. Once the first crops failed the growers hadnt the money to invest in a lot of different crops. The knowledge of the potato blight is a lot more extensive today than it was years ago. Most people were hoping it was a once off.

A lot of the rivers which containted and abundance of fish were on landlords lands and people were shot at or deported for poaching if they were caught fishing.

If I were around though I would like to think I would fish regardless and just not get caught.

Jimoslimos

My name is URL wrote: »

"The judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated... The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people."

- Charles Trevelyan, Administrator of famine relief

Someone stole his corn, he was understandably a little pissed off.

steddyeddy

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Famine is not about where food is, but where it isn't, if whole populations cannot avail of it the result is a famine, where food is kept is irrelevant.

A famine is not aggod description in todays terms despite the exact meaning of the word. Calling it famine alone does not give a clear picture of what happened. If you were to call it a famine it could be described as an imposed one.

Precious flower

steddyeddy wrote: »

I know my ancestors had it hard during the famine but I dont know the exact details. What we do know from studies on the dutch winter famine and various swiss famines that through epigenetic changes descendents of the famine survivors are also more prone to diabetes and cardiovascular diseases for example.

That's interesting most read up more on that. It's amazing to find out that future generation can still carry the 'scars' as it were of famine even if they themselves never experienced it.

steddyeddy

Precious flower wrote: »

That's interesting most read up more on that. It's amazing to find out that future generation can still carry the 'scars' as it were of famine even if they themselves never experienced it.

Well its only new research but the findings seem to suggest we definatly have some scars as a result.

Cú Giobach

steddyeddy wrote: »

A famine is not aggod description in todays terms despite the exact meaning of the word. Calling it famine alone does not give a clear picture of what happened. If you were to call it a famine it could be described as an imposed one.

What do you mean by "today's terms"? Does that involve people who don't understand the actual meaning of the word?
Each famine has different root causes and unless you look into each case you won't get a clear picture of what happened in any of them. The word is not to describe what happened to cause or propagate famine, but to describe a circumstance.

Shryke

Cú Giobach wrote: »

What do you mean by "today's terms"? Does that involve people who don't understand the actual meaning of the word?
Each famine has different root causes and unless you look into each case you won't get a clear picture of what happened in any of them. The word is not to describe what happened to cause or propagate famine, but to describe a circumstance.

I believe what is being said is that it is negligent not to call a genocide a genocide.
It's the difference between acknowledging death and murder if you will. Naming effect without addressing cause does a disservice to history and to our own people.

steddyeddy

Cú Giobach wrote: »

What do you mean by "today's terms"? Does that involve people who don't understand the actual meaning of the word?
Each famine has different root causes and unless you look into each case you won't get a clear picture of what happened in any of them. The word is not to describe what happened to cause or propagate famine, but to describe a circumstance.

I would call it a democide.

Mardy Bum

The famine was the single most influential event to affect the Irish psyche, it devastated the lowest classes in Irish society so much so that the class in itself disappeared either through enforced emigration to barren wastelands in Nova Scotia which ultimately led to death for many or death in Ireland. At the hands of the English millions died or emigrated.

Roll along WW2 and the Irish government decide to take a neutral stance and watch millions of Jews go to their death at the hands of another tyrannical government. Ireland's greatest shame bar none.

If the expression "ethnic cleansing" had existed in the 1840's then that perhaps would have been a better description of the tragedy history (mistakenly in my opinion) refers to as a famine. One crop failed, which happened to be the one crop the masters left for the peasants. Everything else flourished, but if you were one of the many and not one of the few then that was your tough luck.

A real famine, as in the Horn of Africa for instance, is when everything fails due to drought, usually, and often accompanied by war. No such thing ever happened in Ireland. There was an abundance of food, it just got stolen.

conor.hogan.2

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Roll along WW2 and the Irish government decide to take a neutral stance and watch millions of Jews go to their death at the hands of another tyrannical government. Ireland's greatest shame bar none.

It was not widely known at the time what was being done to the jews. Certainly not at the start and we were one of several neutral countries and sent quite a lot of volunteers to the war.

Crooked Jack

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The famine was the single most influential event to affect the Irish psyche, it devastated the lowest classes in Irish society so much so that the class in itself disappeared either through enforced emigration to barren wastelands in Nova Scotia which ultimately led to death for many or death in Ireland. At the hands of the English millions died or emigrated.

Roll along WW2 and the Irish government decide to take a neutral stance and watch millions of Jews go to their death at the hands of another tyrannical government. Ireland's greatest shame bar none.

Woah. Two totally different things altogether. Firstly, Ireland was in no position to officially take part in WW2 (thousands did however fight in British uniforms.)
Secondly, the Nazi's atrocities against the Jewish people didnt even become public knowledge until well into the war so to say that Ireland stood by as it happened is wrong.
So when you take out knowledge of the holocaust what you have is Ireland, a small country, remaining neutral as Europe's oldest and Europe's newest colonial empires duked it out.
After the Irish went to bat for the brits in WW1 and got the square root of fuck all in return I think that was a fairly legitimate position to take.

The two shouldnt even be mentioned in t he same thread, totally unconnected

Mardy Bum

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

It was not widely known at the time what was being done to the jews. Certainly not at the start and we were one of several neutral countries and sent quite a lot of volunteers to the war.

The country had the opportunity to take an open political stance against genocide and tyranny. The government was given plenty of opportunities to enter the war officially. It choose neutrality allowing our own ethnic cleansing to appear trivial and forgotten.

Ironically Ireland's economy following WW2 was one of the slowest growing economies up until the 60s and Irish neutrality ended up having no economic benefits whatsoever

cbyrd

Deleted User wrote: »

A real famine, as in the Horn of Africa for instance, is when everything fails due to drought, usually, and often accompanied by war. No such thing ever happened in Ireland. There was an abundance of food, it just got stolen.

It happened in Ireland in 1739-41, the worst winter in ages, actually termed a mini ice age. Europe got it too but because the ports froze nothing could get into the country. Coal food or aid, couple that with a drought in the spring dairy herds decimated fish in the rivers had been killed and grain and other food sources gone, when the frost returned again in the autumn of 1740 there was almost nothing left in the country, then more blizzards and flooding across the winter left many dead and starving.. grain was being horaded and rioting was rife..eventually they got their act together enough to sort it but it was over 50 years before the health of the nation started to improve only to be hit again 100 years later.. I suppose its the forgotten famine in Ireland.

Mardy Bum

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Woah. Two totally different things altogether. Firstly, Ireland was in no position to officially take part in WW2 (thousands did however fight in British uniforms.)
Secondly, the Nazi's atrocities against the Jewish people didnt even become public knowledge until well into the war so to say that Ireland stood by as it happened is wrong.
So when you take out knowledge of the holocaust what you have is Ireland, a small country, remaining neutral as Europe's oldest and Europe's newest colonial empires duked it out.
After the Irish went to bat for the brits in WW1 and got the square root of fuck all in return I think that was a fairly legitimate position to take.

The two shouldnt even be mentioned in t he same thread, totally unconnected

Most people are of the opinion that the Great Famine was partly a result of gross criminal negligence on behalf of the British Government. The next largest genocide is the holocaust which occurred one hundred years later. Plenty of posts have made reference to the holocaust.

Ireland was in a position to officially take part it would not have made any difference to the economic or social situation. As you said plenty Irish volunteered and rightly so. The Irish economy was going through a terrible time before and after mainly as a result of terrible protectionist economic policies.

Also those who fought in WW1 were treated with the greatest indifference when they arrived home by their own people and soon to be government.

Cú Giobach

Shryke wrote: »

I believe what is being said is that it is negligent not to call a genocide a genocide.
It's the difference between acknowledging death and murder if you will. Naming effect without addressing cause does a disservice to history and to our own people.

Whether or not The Famine was a genocide has no bearing on whether or not it was a famine.

Total bollocks, not acknowledging the death and murder would be not blaming, or excusing those ultimately responsible.
Even calling it a "genocide" breaks your rule above, by naming effect without addressing cause, so again, total bollocks.
If the tool used for genocide is famine that does not stop it being a famine.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I would call it a democide.

As I said earlier regarding "genocide", famine was the tool.
Basically what some people are saying is, "It wasn't a shooting, it was a homicide" seeming to ignore that the shooting was the method by which the homicide occurred.

mikemac1

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The country had the opportunity to take an open political stance against genocide and tyranny. The government was given plenty of opportunities to enter the war officially.

Several million people died in the Bengal famine 1943

Churchill was aware of the crises but failed to do anything about it.
It was a colony, it was his governments responsibility

You talk about Ireland joining the Allies to fight genocide and tyranny but meanwhile millions and millions were dying in one of their colonies.
So was any side free of genocide and tyranny?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

. In response to an urgent request by the Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery, and Viceroy of India Archibald Wavell, to release food stocks for India, Winston Churchill the Prime Minister of that time responded with a telegram to Wavell asking, if food was so scarce, "why Gandhi hadn’t died yet."

Nice :rolleyes:

Cú Giobach

Deleted User wrote: »

A real famine, as in the Horn of Africa for instance, is when everything fails due to drought, usually, and often accompanied by war.

Famine can be caused by among others, drought, flood, locusts, blight, cold, war, earthquakes, volcanoes, over population, or government policy, basically anything that screws up the availability, supply or distribution of food.

Shryke

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Whether or not The Famine was a genocide has no bearing on whether or not it was a famine.

Total bollocks, not acknowledging the death and murder would be not blaming, or excusing those ultimately responsible.
Even calling it a "genocide" breaks your rule above, by naming effect without addressing cause, so again, total bollocks.
If the tool used for genocide is famine that does not stop it being a famine.


As I said earlier regarding "genocide", famine was the tool.
Basically what some people are saying is, "It wasn't a shooting, it was a homicide" seeming to ignore that the shooting was the method by which the homicide occurred.

I'll be honest with you, you're ranting and shouting bollocks about splitting hairs as to base definitions. You're barely making sense to me and I don't see any relevance in what you're saying.
I've said my bit earlier on in this thread and I think I'll leave it that.

Fratton Fred

cbyrd wrote: »

It happened in Ireland in 1739-41, the worst winter in ages, actually termed a mini ice age. Europe got it too but because the ports froze nothing could get into the country. Coal food or aid, couple that with a drought in the spring dairy herds decimated fish in the rivers had been killed and grain and other food sources gone, when the frost returned again in the autumn of 1740 there was almost nothing left in the country, then more blizzards and flooding across the winter left many dead and starving.. grain was being horaded and rioting was rife..eventually they got their act together enough to sort it but it was over 50 years before the health of the nation started to improve only to be hit again 100 years later.. I suppose its the forgotten famine in Ireland.

Forgotten because the British can't be blamed for it.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Forgotten because the British can't be blamed for it.

I knew you couldn't help yourself in the long run.

Cú Giobach

Shryke wrote: »

I'll be honest with you, you're ranting and shouting bollocks about splitting hairs as to base definitions.

I'm splitting hairs?....I'm not the one claiming that a quite serious famine was not actually a famine.

You're barely making sense to me and I don't see any relevance in what you're saying.

So you think whether or not The Famine was actually a famine has no relevance in a thread titled The Great Irish Famine and opened with the line, "It wasn't really a famine.. was it? =/".

I've said my bit earlier on in this thread and I think I'll leave it that.

Bye.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

I knew you couldn't help yourself in the long run.

I actually pinched that statement from an Irish historian.

It is obviously tongue in cheek. Isn't it??

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I actually pinched that statement from an Irish historian.

It is obviously tongue in cheek. Isn't it??

....I'm one of those sad feckers with no psychic powers to alert me.

Wompa1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I actually pinched that statement from an Irish historian.

It is obviously tongue in cheek. Isn't it??

Must have been exceptional bad to kill the crops for 7 years!! It may have started the ball rolling but I find it hard to believe it accounted for 1 million deaths.

Shryke

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I'm splitting hairs?....I'm not the one claiming that a quite serious famine was not actually a famine.

So you think whether or not The Famine was actually a famine has no relevance in a thread titled The Great Irish Famine and opened with the line, "It wasn't really a famine.. was it? =/".

Bye.

I think I'll have to come back to explain to you something. I never said it wasn't a famine. Famine was the mechanism of genocide used. Famine falls under the remit of genocide.

The issue the thread raised is as to whether the famine was something that was avoidable, and to ask questions and seek answers as to the nature of the plight of the people of this country at that time.

It was indeed a quite serious famine. And now I think I understand that you're freaking out over the literal interpretation of the word famine without regards to anything else and completely ignoring anything that is actually relevant.
A warrior of the Oxford English Dictionary?

Anyway, BYE!

Sound of Silence

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Forgotten because the British can't be blamed for it.

Sure the British can't be blamed for anything. :pac:

I heard their rule in Ireland came fleetingly close to the Utopian ideal. That is, until the Republicans had to go and ruin it!

Paparazzo

I hope these Famine facts are all true, because I'm taking them all as gospel. Almost looking forward to getting into a famine argument now.

Fratton Fred

Sound of Silence wrote: »

Sure the British can't be blamed for anything. :pac:

I heard their rule in Ireland came fleetingly close to the Utopian ideal. That is, until the Republicans had to go and ruin it!

Blame should be apportioned fairly.

Cú Giobach

Shryke wrote: »

I think I'll have to come back to explain to you something. I never said it wasn't a famine. Famine was the mechanism of genocide used. Famine falls under the remit of genocide.

Some people are saying it was not a famine, I am arguing that it was, that should be quite easy to understand.

The issue the thread raised is as to whether the famine was something that was avoidable, and to ask questions and seek answers as to the nature of the plight of the people of this country at that time.

The "issue" of the OP was "It wasn't really a famine.. was it? =/".

It was indeed a quite serious famine. And now I think I understand that you're freaking out over the literal interpretation of the word famine without regards to anything else and completely ignoring anything that is actually relevant.
A warrior of the Oxford English Dictionary?

WTF are you on about? A famine is a famine, there is nothing pedantic about arguing that what happened here was a famine, but something very odd in arguing the opposite.

Anyway, BYE!

Slán.

conor.hogan.2

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I actually pinched that statement from an Irish historian.

Which historian? R Edwards?

Where To

Paparazzo wrote: »

I hope these Famine facts are all true, because I'm taking them all as gospel. Almost looking forward to getting into a famine argument now.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good history lesson.:pac:

As with most of Irish history, the actuality of the famine is a lot more complex than some would have you believe.

Take my local area for example:
http://www.movilleinishowen.com/history/moville_heritage/donegal_making_of_a_northern_county/social_class_impact_of_donegal_famine.htm

http://www.movilleinishowen.com/history/moville_heritage/donegal_making_of_a_northern_county/social_class_impact_of_donegal_famine2.htm

Sound of Silence

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Blame should be apportioned fairly.

laissez-faire governance doesn't lend itself to responsibility.

lividduck

FFS it was 160+ years ago, build a bridge!

Where To

lividduck wrote: »

FFS it was 160+ years ago, build a bridge!

Like this?

http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Europe/Ireland/South/Kerry/Ring_of_Kerry/photo968637.htm

cbyrd

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Forgotten because the British can't be blamed for it.

Nope.. just merely pointing out that this wasn't Ireland's only Famine.. that the differences were there. . In this instance famine was caused by the weather and circumstance, in 1845 it was caused by the British Government systematically stripping the country of it's food and livestock. . .

conor.hogan.2

lividduck wrote: »

FFS it was 160+ years ago, build a bridge!

Like the Boyne bridge? (322 years, anyway if you forget history you are doomed to repeat it)

Nodin

lividduck wrote: »

FFS it was 160+ years ago, build a bridge!

A Famine Bridge!