The Great Irish Famine

charlemont

gbee wrote: »

12,000,000 pre famine, families of 12 to 24 per cottage from one married couple, a culture of dependency, rather than independence, you and me know this was unsustainable.

There was an attitude of relief and aluftness, but also a genuine underestimation of seriousness of the ten year event, a series of crop failures just bored the greater ruling class and government.

Well, I previously done some research about the population at the time of An Gorta Mór and its quiet possible the official census figures were off, Mainly due to inaccessible areas and transient workers etc, Officially for instance Cork City/County had 880,000 but its quiet likely the population was closer to the million, And if it hadn't been for continued British involvement in the previous century's the population would have even been higher.

charlemont

Doc Ruby wrote: »

More of a pig's ear than the useless pricks that managed to reduce the population so much it still hasn't recovered 150 years later?

Due to the colonisation of Ireland and the constant struggle against the British leading to death, emigration, and fragmenting the society, Its left a mess behind, Societies need stability so things can be learned and leaders can be born and the skill's passed on to the next generation and so forth...Our's was interrupted and still to this day has not been corrected, Our brightest and best emigrate thus depriving us of innovation and leadership.

gbee

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Awesome, you might tell Fratton Fred that.


Bullshit. The pogroms against the Irish language are well recorded.

Believe it or not, the Celts who did invade Ireland, killed off the native and possibly unique language, the language that remained is in fact younger, ie, later than English, that is, it emerged AFTER English evolved.

Cú Giobach

gbee wrote: »

Believe it or not, the Celts who did invade Ireland, killed off the native and possibly unique language, the language that remained is in fact younger, ie, later than English, that is, it emerged AFTER English evolved.

That's odd because Irish was spoken here for hundreds of years before the Anglo-Saxons arrived in Britain, even the oldest written Irish pre-dates (by a couple of hundred years) the arrival of the Saxons and the generally accepted 5th century start date for the use of what is called Old English. Though of course both languages could be said to be the same age since they both evolved from the same root.

The idea of a Celtic invasion is also no longer upheld, gradual migration of people over hundreds of years and trade are now accepted as the means of shift from the old language that existed here, there is no evidence whatsoever of a "Celtic invasion".

Fratton Fred

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Listen to me now son, and listen carefully. When a sovereign turns away aid because it would embarrass her own "donation", the problem isn't with the locals. The slobbering revisionism by the usual suspects in this thread is the real embarrassment.

And this is the usual sensationalist absolute blatant lie that sums up the populist perception of history.

I've seen proper historians, as in history lecturers, point out some if the truth about populist history and get shouted down and called west brits traitors etc etc by dribbling uber nationalists.

Still, you obviously aren't interested in the truth, you have your women to get back to you big stud.

MadsL

Leaving aside Irish invasions of Wales...


...for the genocide advocates -a few thorny facts from here
http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Famine#TheGreatFamine

By 1947 Ireland was a net importer of food.

British Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel who, however, declared that it was ‘wise not to be too liberal’ and that the ‘greatest dependence must of course be on the spontaneous charity of the landed proprietors and others’, knew well that the Government had to act. His main relief measures were those used in earlier Irish famines. He appointed a scientific commission to advise the farmers about the potato crop, but that was of no practical value. He set up food depots with secretly purchased Indian meal (the meal was known as ‘Peel’s brimstone’). Some £185,000 was spent on the Government’s schemes, of which £135,000 was recovered through sales of the food by local committees or private customers. Relief schemes were begun in March 1846, giving employment to about 140,000 in building roads, bridges, and piers to improve fishing. However, these schemes were badly run and often corrupt.

Founded in 1847, the The British Relief Association raised money throughout England, America and Australia; their funding drive benefited by a "Queen's Letter", a letter from Queen Victoria appealing for money to relieve the distress in Ireland.[71] With this initial letter the Association raised £171,533. A second, somewhat less successful "Queen's Letter" was issued in late 1847. In total, the British Relief Association raised approximately £200,000 (c. US$1,000,000 at the time).

English and Irish speculators were fuelling a corn 'bubble'. Sound familiar?

The commander of an American ship, the Isabella, [come] lately with a direct consignment from New York to a [merchant] house in this city, makes no scruple, in his trips in the public steamers up and down the river, to speak of the enormous profits the English and Irish [merchant] houses are making by their dealings with the States. One house in Cork alone, it is affirmed, will clear £40,000 by corn speculation; and the leading firm here will, I should say, go near to £80,000,

Not only the English landlords were involved in evictions...

It seems that many evicted small farmers and labourers had held sub-leases, not from Protestant landlords, but from Catholic head tenants and strong farmers who now turned them out.

However it is fair to say that Britain could have saved Ireland, yet through dissent about how to do so, and how to do so in the face of political motivations and resentments, they failed utterly.

As the American economist and historian, Joel Mokyr, writes:

Most serious of all, when the chips were down in the frightful summer of 1847, the British simply abandoned the Irish and let them perish. There is no doubt that Britain could have saved Ireland. The British treasury spent a total of about £9.5 million on famine relief. … Financed largely by advances from London, the soup kitchen program, despite its many inadequacies, saved many lives. When the last kitchen closed in October 1847, Lord Clarendon wrote in despair to the Prime Minister, Russell: “Ireland cannot be left to her own resources … we are not to let the people die of starvation”. The reply was: “The state of Ireland for the next few months must be one of great suffering. Unhappily, the agitation for Repeal has contrived to destroy nearly all sympathy in this country”. … A few years after the famine, the British government spent £69.3 million on an utterly futile adventure in the Crimea [the Crimean War,1853–5]. Half that sum spent in Ireland in the critical years 1846–9 would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. It is difficult to reconcile this lavishness with claims that British relief during the famine was inadequate because the problem “was too huge for the British state to overcome”. … The contribution of Westminster to the relief of this horror was a pittance. … It is not unreasonable to surmise that had anything like the famine occurred in England or Wales, the British government would have overcome its theoretical scruples and would have come to the rescue of the starving at a much larger scale. Ireland was not considered part of the British community.

Gross Incompetence perhaps, but concerted genocide?

fryup

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWVYePkfSdU

Wibbs

C&#250 wrote: »

That's odd because Irish was spoken here for hundreds of years before the Anglo-Saxons arrived in Britain, even the oldest written Irish pre-dates (by a couple of hundred years) the arrival of the Saxons and the generally accepted 5th century start date for the use of what is called Old English.

+1. Hell many of the earliest writers of Anglo Saxon likely learned their trade at the feet of Irish monks.

MadsL wrote: »

Leaving aside Irish invasions of Wales...;)

and Scotland and cultural "invasions" deep into Northern England..

Gross Incompetence perhaps, but concerted genocide?

Indeed. By god there was gross incompetence and among some a quasi religious and political animosity at play and no mistake. We can add in the corrupt, the speculators and the usual bystanders while we're at it(among our own too). However the concerted genocide that some claim is taking it too far. Comparing it to Nazi operations of WW2 is beyond daft. In that case there was a stated, followed through aim and mechanism built to exterminate "undesirables", to wipe them from the face of the earth.

Standing somewhere in the middle of the wide gap between zealots and revisionists lies the truth.

Duggys Housemate

Wibbs wrote: »

+1. Hell many of the earliest writers of Anglo Saxon likely learned their trade at the feet of Irish monks.

and Scotland and cultural "invasions" deep into Northern England..

The dark ages were a free for all, indeed. However the incursions were not that significant, really ( even Scotland - which when it was formed eventually was an alliance between Pict and Celt, not a takeover). The antecedents English people were the biggest dark age invaders of Britain, although the later vikings ran them close. Pity the Briton.

Standing somewhere in the middle of the wide gap between zealots and revisionists lies the truth.

Possibly, however I suggest negligent genocide.

conor.hogan.2

gbee wrote: »

Believe it or not, the Celts who did invade Ireland, killed off the native and possibly unique language, the language that remained is in fact younger, ie, later than English, that is, it emerged AFTER English evolved.

All genetic evidence would state otherwise. But of course you know better than DNA.

Irish is "younger" than English? Now you are just talking nonsense.

Primitive and old irish were written down before old english http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_first_written_accounts#First_millennium_BC

Others have given more (and better summaries) than I have above too.

conor.hogan.2

Wibbs wrote: »

Standing somewhere in the middle of the wide gap between zealots and revisionists lies the truth.

This is the view (obviously vastly simplified and shortened) of the majority of Historians too.

They stop short of Genocide and would never compare to the Holocaust (not only because of the time gap but the severity)

Wibbs

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

All genetic evidence would state otherwise. But of course you know better than DNA.

True though you have to take DNA evidence as part of a whole. Look at England itself. Many English people would think themselves Anglo Saxon and there were pretty large scale historical incursions of Saxons into the UK, but if you just went with the genetic evidence you'd think it was a tiny invasion. There's very little Anglo Saxon blood left. Even in the historical areas of most incursion the amounts are tiny and fade out as you go west. Of the Anglo Saxon female genetic lines there are none. So while I agree with you and it's unlikely there were any "Celts" invading Ireland to any sort of large scale, it might have been a bigger influx than the surviving DNA suggests. Of course they're unlikely to be Celts. In any event reading the ancient writers on the ground the Celts were in different places depending on who you read.

conor.hogan.2

Wibbs wrote: »

True though you have to take DNA evidence as part of a whole. Look at England itself. Many English people would think themselves Anglo Saxon and there were pretty large scale historical incursions of Saxons into the UK, but if you just went with the genetic evidence you'd think it was a tiny invasion. There's very little Anglo Saxon blood left. Even in the historical areas of most incursion the amounts are tiny and fade out as you go west. Of the Anglo Saxon female genetic lines there are none. So while I agree with you and it's unlikely there were any "Celts" invading Ireland to any sort of large scale, it might have been a bigger influx than the surviving DNA suggests. Of course they're unlikely to be Celts. In any event reading the ancient writers on the ground the Celts were in different places depending on who you read.

Large scale incursions yes, but on the whole (perception aside) the DNA does not really point to either of us being Celtic or Anglo-Saxon.

But yes perception wise and language wise and history wise, we are mainly this of course. (the historical period of these islands started after these two "peoples" came so of course they hold more popular weight than previous "peoples")

We are agreeing 100% here as far as I see. Even on the "arguably celtic" thing I pretty much agree. The Celts were not unified in any way, so they were a group but not a group so all very arguable. It is a Celtic language and that is all we can say for sure really about the people who brought the irish language to ireland.

The DNA impact was small but the cultural impact was huge.

Duggys Housemate

Its a funny thing to believe alright. A passing acquaintance with Pangur Ban, from school, from the 9th century is readable to modern Irish ears while English wasn't in existence.

Crooked Jack

Mardy Bum wrote: »

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.

Dublin being flattened by the Luftwaffe wouldn't have had any adverse economic or social effects? And to what end, would the involvement of Ireland's small and ill equipped army brought the end of the war one day closer?
Bottom line is the horrors of the holocaust had yet to be revealed so Ireland had a choice between joining imperial Germany or imperial Britain. They werent going to join with Hitler and enough Irish men had died for nothing in British uniforms.
There is a lot of bad shit can be said about Dev, but one thing he got right was saying "fuck the pair of ye," and letting Britain and Germany have at it.

Wibbs

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Its a funny thing to believe alright. A passing acquaintance with Pangur Ban, from school, from the 9th century is readable to modern Irish ears while English wasn't in existence.

I dunno DH. Chances are you were reading/listening to the more modern Irish version of it. Here it is in the original:

Messe ocus Pangur bán,
cechtar nathar fria saindán;
bíth a menma-sam fri seilgg,
mu menma céin im saincheirdd

Caraim-se fós, ferr cach clú,
oc mu lebrán léir ingnu;
ní foirmtech frimm Pangur bán,
caraid cesin a maccdán.

Ó ru-biam ­ scél cén scis ­
innar tegdias ar n-oéndis,
táithiunn ­ dichríchide clius ­
ní fris 'tarddam ar n-áthius.

Gnáth-huaraib ar greassaib gal
glenaid luch ina lín-sam;
os me, du-fuit im lín chéin
dliged ndoraid cu n-dronchéill.

Fúachaid-sem fri freaga fál
a rosc a nglése comlán;
fúachimm chéin fri fégi fis
mu rosc réil, cesu imdis.

Fáelid-sem cu n-déne dul,
hi nglen luch ina gérchrub;
hi-tucu cheist n-doraid n-dil,
os mé chene am fáelid.

Cia beimini amin nach ré
ní derban cách a chéle;
mait le cechtar nár a dán
subaigthiud a óenurán.

Hé fesin as choimsid dáu
in muid du-n-gní cach óenláu;
do thabairt doraid du glé
for mumud céin am messe.

Bit different to modern Irish. From looking at it kinda like today reading Chaucer in the original old English?




*as per the translation rules. One of the translations anyway.

I and Pangur Bán, my cat
'Tis a like task we are at;
Hunting mice is his delight
Hunting words I sit all night.

Better far than praise of men
'Tis to sit with book and pen;
Pangur bears me no ill will,
He too plies his simple skill.

'Tis a merry thing to see
At our tasks how glad are we,
When at home we sit and find
Entertainment to our mind.

Oftentimes a mouse will stray
In the hero Pangur's way:
Oftentimes my keen thought set
Takes a meaning in its net.

'Gainst the wall he sets his eye
Full and fierce and sharp and sly;
'Gainst the wall of knowledge I
All my little wisdom try.

When a mouse darts from its den,
O how glad is Pangur then!
O what gladness do I prove
When I solve the doubts I love!

So in peace our tasks we ply,
Pangur Bán, my cat, and I;
In our arts we find our bliss,
I have mine and he has his.

Practice every day has made
Pangur perfect in his trade;
I get wisdom day and night
Turning darkness into light.

conor.hogan.2

I can understand more of pangur Bán than http://fajardo-acosta.com/worldlit/language/english-samples.htm

old english 867 above and pangur bán was in the 9th century so relatively contemporaneous.

I don't understand a lot of pangur bán but I can certainly recognize several words which is not really possible with (early) middle english.

I have never studied pangur bán in modern irish btw.

bnt

Do people really not think that overpopulation was a cause of the Famine? * Between 1780 and 1840 the population of Ireland rose from about 4 million to 8 million, doubling in 60 years (source). It's "only" an average 1.16% increase per year, which doesn't sound like much, but over 60 years it compounded.

In modern times we talk about the concept of "food security": security of not only the food itself, but all the supporting infrastructure, political agreements, and so on which ensure that people get fed. Part of that is planning and the understanding that you can't keep on expanding your population indefinitely without famine. In that sense I'm only interested in the Irish Famine for what it tells us about our future. We may not have major food problems now, but the signs are pointing to problems in the future - and so, anyone who heeds those signs needs to think about population as well as the other things. (In my opinion, as is always the way on AH.)

* Note: I said a cause, not the cause. Down, boy.)

conor.hogan.2

Overpopulation did not help. Was it a cause, no. The blight was the cause. The exportation of food was the cause of the vast amount of deaths.

Enkidu

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

I can understand more of pangur Bán than http://fajardo-acosta.com/worldlit/language/english-samples.htm

old english 867 above and pangur bán was in the 9th century so relatively contemporaneous.

I don't understand a lot of pangur bán but I can certainly recognize several words which is not really possible with (early) middle english.

I have never studied pangur bán in modern irish btw.

The languages changed in different ways. You can possibly see a few words you might know (although some Old Irish words just happen to look like a modern Irish word that they have no relation to), however the poem could not be read even if somebody told you every word as the grammar is insanely difficult, some things you probably think are nouns are actually highly compressed verb forms.

Also Old English isn't too bad, from your link:
þ = th
East Englum = East Anglia
Norþhymbre = Northumbria
betweox = betwixt = between
him selfum = themselves

(Hope I remember my Anglo Saxon:o)

Although English is lexically quite different, if you were told what every word means you could easily read this piece of Anglo-Saxon, it even has the basic word order of Modern English. Pangar Bán, even if you know some words to begin with, would require some digging into the grammar and Pangar Bán is very easy Old Irish, for example it occurs only a few chapters into David Stifter's Sengoidelc textbook (58 chapters in total).

MadsL

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Overpopulation did not help. Was it a cause, no. The blight was the cause. The exportation of food was the cause of the vast amount of deaths.

The unsustainable size and practice of splitting land had nothing to do with that? There were many blights, but it seems that by 1845 families were unrealistically relying on ever smaller plots of land to support them. All very well saying food was exported, however could these families afford the food exported? (Ham, Corn, Beef etc) Poverty could also be said to be the 'cause'.

Crooked Jack wrote:

Bottom line is the horrors of the holocaust had yet to be revealed so Ireland had a choice between joining imperial Germany or imperial Britain. They werent going to join with Hitler and enough Irish men had died for nothing in British uniforms.

Really?

Information regarding the mass murder of Jews began to reach the free world soon after these actions began in the Soviet Union in late June 1941, and the volume of such reports increased with time. During 1942, reports of a Nazi plan to murder all the Jews--including details on methods, numbers, and locations--reached Allied and neutral leaders from many sources.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history/Modern_History/1914-1948/The_Holocaust/American_Response.shtml

This was so widely known by 1943 that Oliver J. Flanagan, FG TD urged in his maiden speech to the Dáil to "rout the Jews out of this country":

How is it that we do not see any of these [Emergency Powers] Acts directed against the Jews, who crucified Our Saviour nineteen hundred years ago, and who are crucifying us every day in the week? How is it that we do not see them directed against the Masonic Order? How is it that the I.R.A. is considered an illegal organisation while the Masonic Order is not considered an illegal organisation? [...] There is one thing that Germany did, and that was to rout the Jews out of their country. Until we rout the Jews out of this country it does not matter a hair's breadth what orders you make. Where the bees are there is the honey, and where the Jews are there is the money.”.

Oliver Flanagan, Dáil Éireann, 9 July 1943
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_J._Flanagan

conor.hogan.2

Enkidu wrote: »

The languages changed in different ways. You can possibly see a few words you might know (although some Old Irish words just happen to look like a modern Irish word that they have no relation to), however the poem could not be read even if somebody told you every word as the grammar is insanely difficult, some things you probably think are nouns are actually highly compressed verb forms.

Also Old English isn't too bad, from your link:
þ = th
East Englum = East Anglia
Norþhymbre = Northumbria
betweox = betwixt = between
him selfum = themselves

(Hope I remember my Anglo Saxon:o)

Although English is lexically quite different, if you were told what every word means you could easily read this piece of Anglo-Saxon, it even has the basic word order of Modern English. Pangar Bán, even if you know some words to begin with, would require some digging into the grammar and Pangar Bán is very easy Old Irish, for example it occurs only a few chapters into David Stifter's Sengoidelc textbook (58 chapters in total).

They of course changed in different ways. Different branches in different countries (if you don't get pedantic about imaginary borders)

Oh I know it could not be read. I said as much. I said I can sport several words* whereas there is not a chance any speaker of modern english would recognize pretty much anything from old english. * most of these words mean pretty much the same thing, I check against the modern irish and english translations.

Although if you gave them a glossary they would probably understand more of the early old english.

The same is true (but they switch) when you get into middle irish and english. They evolved at different stages in different ways as you said.

Mardy Bum

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Dublin being flattened by the Luftwaffe wouldn't have had any adverse economic or social effects? And to what end, would the involvement of Ireland's small and ill equipped army brought the end of the war one day closer?
Bottom line is the horrors of the holocaust had yet to be revealed so Ireland had a choice between joining imperial Germany or imperial Britain. They werent going to join with Hitler and enough Irish men had died for nothing in British uniforms.
There is a lot of bad shit can be said about Dev, but one thing he got right was saying "fuck the pair of ye," and letting Britain and Germany have at it.

It was common knowledge in 1942 at the latest what was going on. Jewish refugees were arriving from continental Europe to many countries from 1939 onwards. Ireland had undergone a near annihilation of a whole class of people during the famine which was largely due to negligence on behalf of England. Flash forward a hundred years and Dev decides not only to declare neutrality but also to offer condolences to the embassy over Hitler's death following his near annihilation of the Jewish race.

It is not about taking sides with Britain but about solidarity in the face of a mutual event between two groups of people which was right on our doorstep.

Crooked Jack

MadsL wrote: »

The unsustainable size and practice of splitting land had nothing to do with that? There were many blights, but it seems that by 1845 families were unrealistically relying on ever smaller plots of land to support them. All very well saying food was exported, however could these families afford the food exported? (Ham, Corn, Beef etc) Poverty could also be said to be the 'cause'.



Really?


http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history/Modern_History/1914-1948/The_Holocaust/American_Response.shtml

This was so widely known by 1943 that Oliver J. Flanagan, FG TD urged in his maiden speech to the Dáil to "rout the Jews out of this country":



Oliver Flanagan, Dáil Éireann, 9 July 1943
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_J._Flanagan

myjewishlearning.com? Nice neutral source there. You also left out this bit

"Notwithstanding this, it remains unclear to what extent Allied and neutral leaders understood the full import of their information. The utter shock of senior Allied commanders who liberated camps at the end of the war may indicate that this understanding was not complete."

conor.hogan.2

Mardy Bum wrote: »

It is not about taking sides with Britain but about solidarity in the face of a mutual event between two groups of people which was right on our doorstep.

We were not the only neutral european country. We also had a bitter split with England and had unresolved northern issues. We had also recently just properly become a country fully. Why would we then (on top of all of this) also jump into a war 3 years in?

You are revising history. The horrors of the camps and massacres was not really known till later than 1942. Reports started to come out but not the true extent of the horrors.

Did every able jewish male enlist in 1942 from Ireland? If not why not?

MadsL

Crooked Jack wrote: »

myjewishlearning.com? Nice neutral source there. You also left out this bit

Neutral? Are you seriously objecting to a Jewish sites chronology of the Holocaust? :eek: Perhaps we should limit quotes on the famine to German sites.

Which of the facts I quoted are you saying is inaccurate?

"Notwithstanding this, it remains unclear to what extent Allied and neutral leaders understood the full import of their information. The utter shock of senior Allied commanders who liberated camps at the end of the war may indicate that this understanding was not complete."

I'd suggest the scale was the shocking thing, not that the Holocaust was a systematic 'removal' of the Jews, that was well known by 1942/3.

conor.hogan.2

MadsL wrote: »

I'd suggest the scale was the shocking thing, not that the Holocaust was a systematic 'removal' of the Jews, that was well known by 1942/3.

So we should have jumped into a war we were unprepared for 2-3 years into it despite the fact it was not expected to last much longer.

You have to look at history from the time you are looking at, not from modern day.

Mardy Bum

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

So we should have jumped into a war we were unprepared for 2-3 years into it despite the fact it was not expected to last much longer.

You have to look at history from the time you are looking at, not from modern day.

We should have jumped in because Ireland also underwent a similar loss of life at the hands of a negligent parliament in the Great Famine.

MadsL

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

So we should have jumped into a war we were unprepared for 2-3 years into it despite the fact it was not expected to last much longer.

Where did I say Ireland should have jumped into the war? I'm just correcting your view that no-one knew about the mass murder of Jews until the Allies liberated the camps. That is simply untrue.

Again, which of the facts I quoted are you disputing or claim are biased as they are from a Jewish website?

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

You have to look at history from the time you are looking at, not from modern day.

That probably doesn't apply when talking about the famine though does it?

conor.hogan.2

MadsL wrote: »

Where did I say Ireland should have jumped into the war? I'm just correcting your view that no-one knew about the mass murder of Jews until the Allies liberated the camps. That is simply untrue.

That probably doesn't apply when talking about the famine though does it?

I never said no one knew. It was not widely known until 1942/3. Even then it was not known the horrible extent.

It does apply, it applied to all history. In fact it is inherent in the study of history.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78693555&postcount=327

What is your point here then? The quoted bit you said. Solidarity? We were not the only neutral european country and all the other reasons I mentioned is why we did not "stand in solidarity".

Mardy Bum

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

I never said no one knew. It was not widely known until 1942/3. Even then it was not known the horrible extent.

It does apply, it applied to all history. In fact it is inherent in the study of history.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78693555&postcount=327

What is your point here then? The quoted bit you said. Solidarity? We were not the only neutral european country and all the other reasons I mentioned is why we did not "stand in solidarity".

Solidarity in that we went through a systematic destruction of a class similar to how Hitler attempted to wipe out the Jews. If we want to feel sorry for ourselves about the famine and point fingers at the English the Irish government should have applied themselves in WW2 and not sat back and watched Hitler attempt something similar to what the English attempted.

Wibbs

Enkidu wrote: »

Although English is lexically quite different, if you were told what every word means you could easily read this piece of Anglo-Saxon, it even has the basic word order of Modern English.

Its easier to listen to than to read. For my ear anyway. I've heard scholar chappies in Saxon and the modern English language ear begins to get into it. Kinda sounds like the Swedish chef in the muppets mixed with a drunk Manchunian . Funny for me Chaucer English seems easier to read than listen to. I'm wired funny mind you.

Pangar Bán, even if you know some words to begin with, would require some digging into the grammar and Pangar Bán is very easy Old Irish, for example it occurs only a few chapters into David Stifter's Sengoidelc textbook (58 chapters in total).

The translations seem to differ a lot too. Even the first line. He doesn't seem to mention the word "cat", it's "me and Pangur Ban" Presumably Pangur = cat itself? Seems this monk bloke was not unlike an uninventive mate of mine when it came to naming his pets. He had a dog called "Dog" and a cat called "Cat". Remarkably both knew the diff between the noun and their name. At least the monk bloke added some spice with a colour. Amazing to think that this Irish bloke was so far from home in the middle of Germany(IIRC) at the time, writing about him and his pet moggy in the native language of his dreams. Plus the locals probably thought it was some deep theological musing in the margins of the text.

Aside, while you can youtube various types speaking Old English, Latin, ancient Greek et al, I've yet to find/hear Old Irish. I'd love to hear the diffs. Spoken Latin(modern Italian dialect) came as a surprise to me the first time I heard it(kinda reminded me of Portuguese, more than Italian/Spanish).

MadsL wrote: »

I'd suggest the scale was the shocking thing, not that the Holocaust was a systematic 'removal' of the Jews, that was well known by 1942/3.

+1. That seems to have been the take of rellies of mine who were in WW2. They certainly knew of systematic abuse of Jews and others beyond the Nazi pale, but the degree and industrialisation of it was the big shock. There was a real sense of disbelief, even after they liberated the camps. Hence the rush to get reporters and film crews in to record it all in case people later said it was all allied anti German propaganda/myth. Even so, some eejits believe it was.

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Solidarity in that we went through a systematic destruction of a class similar to how Hitler attempted to wipe out the Jews. If we want to feel sorry for ourselves about the famine and point fingers at the English the Irish government should have applied themselves in WW2 and not sat back and watched Hitler attempt something similar to what the English attempted.

And this is where I part company. When comparisons like that are made it's both hysterical and historically inaccurate. It might egg on the true believers but it's in no way "similar". a) there was not an official British government policy of either the extermination of the Irish, nor a policy of starving them to death. b) Quite a number of the same British government set up aid, which kinda goes against point a. Did they do enough? Hell no. They fcuked up massively. Where they to blame for many thousands of deaths due to this set of fcukups? Where more than a few feeling "meh it's just the Irish subhumans" Yes most certainly. However what the Nazis set out deliberately to do was very different.

TBH this argument for similarity reminds me of those who like to claim that things like Dresden was "just as bad". No. Bit of a diff. For a start when Germany surrendered and the war was over bombing stopped. If the allies had surrendered then the German state would have continued to exterminate Jews and other undesirables until there was nobody left to kill.

steddyeddy

lividduck wrote: »

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

Actually livid duck it probrably affects each and every one of us today in terms of health.

lividduck

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually livid duck it probrably affects each and every one of us today in terms of health.

Oh grow up!
If my da smoked it might affect my health, but the 1845-47 famine? get serious , it happened, we moved on, get a life and stop living a life based on hating the British of generations ago.

Fenian Army

Ireland was not overpopulated.

Corruptedmorals

A biography of the Mitford sisters, who all lived through the war and were extremely notorious at the time states that although the ongoing persecution was known, concentration camps etc. were not, only if you went looking for that information and it was generally information published by communist sources, and therefore dismissed as being unreliable and having an agenda. Other sources also describe that to an extent, people did know about it but it wasn't until after the war that the systematic nature of the holocaust was exposed, and it came as a huge shock. It can't be compared to the famine, neglect, indifference, dismissal as subhuman does NOT compare to deliberate murder on a huge scale.

I also don't think Ireland was overpopulated. Certain pockets of it were extremely densely populated, especially on the west coast, but on the whole, no.

steddyeddy

lividduck wrote: »

Oh grow up!
If my da smoked it might affect my health, but the 1845-47 famine? get serious , it happened, we moved on, get a life and stop living a life based on hating the British of generations ago.

Lividduck my post was not itended as a "Were still affected so f the British sort of thing". I meant it as an interesting fact. Theres a field of genetics called epigenetics which states that what happens to us in our life can be passed down to our kids and our grandkids.

Contrary to previous belief within science aquired traits can be passed on. The dutch winter famine and some of the swiss famines are the most studied. Among the other affects famine leaves the suvivors descendants with an enhanced likelyhood of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Both diseases can relate to food storage within the body so it makes sense if you think about it.