The Irish Famine Was Genocide

[Andropov]

Irish Echo/February 26-March 4, 1997

Some controversy has surrounded the use of the word “genocide” with regard to the Great Irish. Famine of 150 years ago. But this controversy
has its source in an apparent misunderstanding of the meaning of genocide. No, the British government did not inflict on the Irish the
abject horrors of the Nazi Holocaust. But the definition of “genocide” reaches beyond such ghastly behavior to encompass other reprehensible
acts designed to destroy a people.

As demonstrated by the following legal analysis, the Famine was genocide within the meaning of both United States and International law.

The United States Government is party to the 1948 Convention On The Prevention And Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (“Genocide
Convention”). As a Treaty of the United States, the Genocide Convention is therefore “the Supreme Law of the land” under Article VI of the U.S.
Constitution. The U.S. Government has also passed implementing legislation which substantially adopts the Genocide Convention and
makes any violation of the Convention punishable under federal law. 18 U.S.C. § 1901.

Article II of the Genocide Convention provides:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

(emphasis supplied)

From 1845-50, The British government pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland with the intent to destroy in substantial part the national, ethnical and racial group known as the Irish People. This British policy caused serious bodily and mental harm to the Irish People within the meaning of Genocide Convention Article II(b). This British policy also deliberately inflicted on the Irish People conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction within the meaning of Article II(c) of the Convention. Therefore, from 1845-50 the British government knowingly pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland which constituted acts of Genocide against the Irish People within the meaning of Article II(b) and
(c) of the 1948 Genocide Convention.

While there are many legitimate subjects of debate surrounding the Famine, there is no doubt that the British Government committed
genocide against the Irish People. This particular “debate” should therefore come to an end.

[Pogue]

Yes this was genocide. The policy of restricting the supply and right to grow to Irish farmers in favour of the British (largely the rich) led to a situation where the Irish were set to starve. The famines were caused by the British ruling class by shite management ad oce it began they did nothig to prevent it. Its hardly suprising give the the attitudes of the British ruling class towards the Irish, especially poor Irish people (peasants at this time I suppose). Its a legacy of absolute contempt towards Ireland I have never understood but then again when does racism ever make sense. You see it manifested today in the legacy of 'thick paddy' jokes. Ireland was the most advanced western country in the world for a long time in literature and culture, cut short by Cromwell - but then fo course there was also Oscar Wilde, Behan etc dispelling the 'thick paddy' myth. Theres this image I want to scan onto revleft of that fat racist english comedia guy, forgot his name, doing a 'thick paddy' routine and in the backgrounf of the pic are the names of all these irish writers. good pic.

i dunno how true this is as a theory but someone once told me the whole 'thick paddy' myth has its historical routes in how the racist british ruling class deprived the irish people of education as part of their racist policies leading to alot of under-educated people in ireland during the occupation of the whole of ireland (i.e. before the republic was formed), dunno how true that is.

[Andropov]

i dunno how true this is as a theory but someone once told me the whole 'thick paddy' myth has its historical routes in how the racist british ruling class deprived the irish people of education as part of their racist policies leading to alot of under-educated people in ireland during the occupation of the whole of ireland (i.e. before the republic was formed), dunno how true that is.
Interesting point, one I havent heard before.
But it could have a grounding in reality.
Since the Brits refused to admit Catholics into Universities that were left as Protestant only zones, this is where Trinity College in Dublin has its foundations.

[Pogue]

Interesting point, one I havent heard before.
But it could have a grounding in reality.
Since the Brits refused to admit Catholics into Universities that were left as Protestant only zones, this is where Trinity College in Dublin has its foundations.

Yeh I didn't know if it was true but I thought it was a theory, but I think the general idea of 'thick paddies' is quite simply non exisant, especially if my Irish relatives are anything to go by.

[Andropov]

Yeh I didn't know if it was true but I thought it was a theory, but I think the general idea of 'thick paddies' is quite simply non exisant, especially if my Irish relatives are anything to go by.
Its interesting to look back over the old cartoons in British papers from years ago.
How such images caracatured the Irish as drunken idiots with a pig under their arm.
But racist and bigoted stereotypes are needed in Imeprialism as it is a way of dehumanising a people and making them almost sub-human or beneadth them so therefore such rampant injustices against a people can be acceptable.

[Pogue]

Its interesting to look back over the old cartoons in British papers from years ago.
How such images caracatured the Irish as drunken idiots with a pig under their arm.
But racist and bigoted stereotypes are needed in Imeprialism as it is a way of dehumanising a people and making them almost sub-human or beneadth them so therefore such rampant injustices against a people can be acceptable.

Yeh. The thig that makes me laugh about the Irish stereotype jokes is the stupidity of the people saying them.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

The fact that the Irish have only being recently viewed as white shows how flimsy racial politics are.

[Black_Flag]

The fact that the Irish have only being recently viewed as white shows how flimsy racial politics are.

True, you simply have to look at the work of American politicl cartoonists such as Thomas Nast to see this. Where the Irish immigrants to America are portrayed as siminian and almost subhuman, much in the same way as black people were portrayed at the time.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/exploring/images/harpers.jpg



http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/omalley/120/alien/shanty.jpg

This ones called "The King of A-Shanty", a play on words as Ashantee was a well known African tribe.
I've an essay written on how the Irish became white, if anyones interested in the sort of thing give me a shout.

[Dr Mindbender]

Yeh I didn't know if it was true but I thought it was a theory, but I think the general idea of 'thick paddies' is quite simply non exisant, especially if my Irish relatives are anything to go by.

The 'thick paddy' myth was a lie perpetrated by the English particularly to justify the plantations. Nothing else.

I say English, because celtophobia is often still used to caricature the scottish as kilt-wearing drunken thugs. In Scotland, anti-irish racism is non-existant.

As someone else said, the ones who resort to using the image clearly arent MENSA material either, from my experience.

[Dóchas]

http://www.genocidewatch.org/eightstages.htm

i suppose you could make a case for some of the stages of genocide but the definition of genocide is



systematic killing of a racial or cultural group


they didnt really do this they just left the irish people at the time to die instaed of helping

[scarletghoul]

where are you quoting that from?
the definition in the OP I think is the generally accepted one, and it makes the most sense too. Irish famine was genocide

[brigadista]

http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/irish/unit_2.html

some interesting stuff here ^^^^-

[Dóchas]

where are you quoting that from?
the definition in the OP I think is the generally accepted one, and it makes the most sense too. Irish famine was genocide

its just the standard definition of genocide but ye i think the OP goes into it in more detail. im in two minds about whether it is genocide or not but im going to keep looking at this thread and see what comes out of it

[Andropov]

its just the standard definition of genocide but ye i think the OP goes into it in more detail. im in two minds about whether it is genocide or not but im going to keep looking at this thread and see what comes out of it
The man who wrote that is a lecturer on Genocide.
His article and definition puts it in black and white, it was a genocide.

[Bitter Ashes]

Of course it's negligence on a collosal scale. Represenative democracy at its worst. i.e. where the representatives continue to stand back and do nothing while lives are lost. The British Goverment claimed to hold responsibility for all of Ireland and it would have happily collected taxes, but would they have ever shelled out those same taxes for those who needed them? No.

Do I see it as some kind of malicous burning hatred? No I dont. What it is just as bad, although in a different way. There was a cold disregard to suffering and a clear double standard. Ignoring when you're able to help is nothing short of condoning and even applauding the situation.

[PRC-UTE]

the British had a stated policy of destroying the Irish language and culture and this can't be seriously disputed. It started as official policy with the statues of Kilkenny in 1366, were re-inforced by the Penal Laws and terrible application of "free trade" which actually retarded Ireland's economic devleopment.


In 1849 Edward Twisleton, the Irish poor Law Commissioner, resigned to protest lack of aid from Britain. The Earl of Clarendon, acting as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, told British Prime Minister Lord John Russel the same day, that "He (Twisleton) thinks that the destitution here [in Ireland] is so horrible, and the indifference of the House of Commons is so manifest, that he is an unfit agent for a policy that must be one of extermination."


source: Woodham-Smith, Cecil, The Great Hunaer; Ireland 1845-1849 Penguin Books, London, England, 1991. p.380

Numerous quotes can be found from Britain's leading statesmen saying that the famine was creating the results they wanted for Ireland. Since Britain's applications of racial laws and discrimination with the intent of destroying Irish speakers led to the famine, and they did nothing to avert it (indeed it's widely accepted that their pathetic efforts to help may have made the disaster worse) we can accurately call it a genocide, or ethnic clensing if that term is preferred.

[Bitter Ashes]

You mentioned the attempts to help, although I'm sure they were scarce, what were those and how should the English goverment have responded?

[PRC-UTE]

You mentioned the attempts to help, although I'm sure they were scarce, what were those and how should the English goverment have responded?

There were workhouses which were appalling conditions. Due to overcrowding and poor sanitary conditions, these workhouses caused cholera and other illnesses to spread through a population already weakened by hunger, hard labour, an unusually cold winter. The victims of the workhouses had to do hard manual labour for thin soup, typically.

More fundamentally, the workhouses were set up terribly. They were a charity scheme, whereas they should have been a state run scheme to increase Ireland's food production. They could have used them to construct fisheries, a more efficient agricultural system, cooperative dairies, and so on instead of roads to nowhere or security walls for the estates of the gentry.

That's just off the top of my head without looking it up, I'm sure there were many other examples of how British "charity" harmed more than it helped.

[rednordman]

@blackflag. If those illistrations are genuine, then thats well shocking. Why is this still totally denied? Infact, i even think that recently the BBC referred to the famine as not a result of the British government, but of natural phenomena. Then a month later or even sooner they where having kittens about the Ukranian famine during Stalins rule. Strange British logic if you ask me.

[Black_Flag]

@blackflag. If those illistrations are genuine, then thats well shocking.

Yes they're genuine. Both are from the 1800s i think, when mass Irish emmigration to America was occuring. And these publications, such as Harpers Weekly, were not extremist or fringe publications but actually quite mainstream.

[Invader Zim]

Are you going also to deal with Invader's slander of Red Revolutionary?
As shown, I put forth no slander. RR is sectarian and is willing to employ known bullshit in order to provide basis for his/her anti-British/English sectarian ideology.
Until he/she retracts his/her bullshit line I will continue to say it how it is.


What a pathetic dodge.

On the contrary, the only dodge here is yours. We are discussing what RR has said on this board, not the politics of the party he purports to support. And on this board he has proclaimed that the Great Famine of the 1840s was a genocide, which is an extreme and erronious (as I have shown) sectarian charge employed to add legitimacy to an anti-British/English ideology. That is the issue here, not the policies that the IRSP may, or may not, have towards loyalists.

When you are willing to address the issue come back to me, until then we don't have more to discuss in this thread.

[brigadista]

i have just looked through all the posts on this thread and cannot see one comment from Red Revolutionary that can be remotely called sectarian so please can you quote the offending comment?

[Invader Zim]

i have just looked through all the posts on this thread and cannot see one comment from Red Revolutionary that can be remotely called sectarian so please can you quote the offending comment?

What, you see nothing sectarian in dredging up patently false, and discredited, charges of genocide (and proclaiming them to be akin to the holocaust) in order to compliment and justify an anti-British attitude?

[brigadista]

What, you see nothing sectarian in dredging up patently false, and discredited, charges of genocide (and proclaiming them to be akin to the holocaust) in order to compliment and justify an anti-British attitude?


did you read my post? the one further up giving an overview

there is a lot of international academic disagreement on this if that is where you are coming from

and Red Revolutionary actually said :

And I always felt that such petty arguements like, "my holocaust was worse than your holocaust" automatically trivialises genocide.
Genocide is genocide no matter who pumps the zyklon B, who wields the machete, who pulls the trigger or who deports tons of food at the barrel of a gun and the point of a bayonet out of a country where people are reduced to eating grass


with respect i think you are being disingenuous here

[Invader Zim]

there is a lot of international academic disagreement on this if that is where you are coming fromNo there isn't, do some reading on the topic.



and Red Revolutionary actually saidThat ludicrous comment isn't the heart of the issue, the heart of the issue is he is purporting that the Famine was a genocide, directly contradicting historical fact. The only reason to do that is gain historical weight to his take on a fundermentally sectarian issue.

And attempting to put the famine in even the same bracket as the holocaust, in order to add weight to a political agenda, is fucking disgusting.

[brigadista]

you read my post which give authorities to the contrary so YOU do some reading-and of course your posts do not further a political agenda?

for me to comment any further would be pointless

[Invader Zim]

you read my post which give authorities to the contrary so YOU do some reading- for me to comment any further would be pointless

Did you even read the article you posted? I will post the relevent statement: -

"Most historians find it impossible to sustain the charge of deliberate genocide, since there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the famine was planned or deliberately prolonged by the British with the intent of destroying the Irish population."



for me to comment any further would be pointlessAs you didn't read the article you posted properly, I agree, it certainly doesn't seem like you have anything of value to contribute to this discussion.

[brigadista]

maybe i was not being clear - in your orignal post you relied on revisionist authrities - primarily edwards

the post was to show that academics are divided - there is not a definitive academic historical view as you state


http://www.marxist.com/irish-potato-famine10122007.htm

by the way i stand by my defence of Red Revolutionary
and if you want to debate you dont have to be quite so shrill and patronising

[Invader Zim]

maybe i was not being clear - in your orignal post you relied on revisionist authritiesWrong, re-read my post. As it happens I quoted Cecil Woodham-Smith (who wrote the key anti-revisonist text) in equal measure with Edwards and Williams, whom the article you posted bizarrely suggests was on the 'genocide' bandwaggon. She was not, what she actually said was (to provide a slightly longer quote from her book): -

"These misfortunes were not part of a plan to destroy the Irish nation; they fell on the people because the government of Lord John Russell was afflicted with an extraordinary inability to foresee consequences. It has been frequently declared that the parsimony of the British Government during the famine was the main cause of the sufferings of the people, and parsimony was certainly carried to remarkable lengths; but obtuseness, short-sightedness and ignorance probably contributed more."

p. 410 of the work I cited earlier in the thread.

What I wrote: -


"Even the staunchest of anti-revisionist works, who see revisionism on the topic as being reductive, dismiss the charge of genocide. For example Woodham-Smith's work The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-49, (London, 1962), p. 410, which a widely employed anti-revisionist text, states, "These misfortunes were not part of a plan to destroy the Irish nation".

Which is in bang line with the polar opposite text, often accused of being apologism for the British government, R.W. Edwards, T.D. Williams (eds.), The Great Famine: Studies in Irish History 1845-52 (Dublin, 1956), p. XI which states,"There was no conspiricy to destroy the Irish nation"."

So how, precisely, do you figure that I favoured revisionist historians?

Do you have any more blatent bullshit to add to this thread or are you done?

[brigadista]

Professor James S. Donnelly Jr., a historian at the University of Wisconsin, wrote the following in Landlord and Tenant in Nineteenth-Century Ireland:

"I would draw the following broad conclusion: at a fairly early stage of the Great Famine the government's abject failure to stop or even slow down the clearnaces (evictions) contributed in a major way to enshrining the idea of English state-sponsored genocide in Irish popular mind. Or perhaps one should say in the Irish mind, for this was a notion that appealed to many educated and discriminating men and women, and not only to the revolutionary minority..." Donnelly, James S., Jr., "Mass Eviction and the Irish Famine: The Clearances Revisited", from The Great Irish Famine, edited by Cathal Poirteir. Mercier Press, Dublin, Ireland. 1995. p. 170-

i am not going to respond to your insults

read this Marxist http://www.marxist.com/irish-potato-famine10122007.htm

[Invader Zim]

Donnelly isn't suggesting that the famine was a genocide, rather that it has popularly been thought of as one by Irish nationalists. In actual fact Donnelly like pretty much all professional historians of the topic (as the website you posted confirmed) rejects the 'genocide' thesis, and complained in his book on the topic that,

"so strong are popular feelings on these matters in Ireland and especially in Irish-America that a scholar who seeks to rebut or heavily qualify the nationalist charge of genocide is often capable of stirring furious controversy or runs the risk of being labelled an apologist for the British government's horribly misguided policies during the famine". Donnelly, The Great Irish Potato Famine, (Sutton, 2001), p. 209.

In other words what nationalists may choose to believe, because it sits well with their sectarian ideology, and what historians, who are interested in the past rather than propaganda, have to say are contradictory.

And to quote further the website that you decontextualised when you copied and pasted from it just now (I can use google too),

"But Donnelly concludes otherwise: "And it is also my contention that while genocide was not in fact committed, what happened during and as a result of the clearances had the look of genocide to a great many Irish..." (6.)"

You should give it up, I will be amazed if you come across a reputable historian who buys into the genocide charge, and there is only one reason or that: there is no evidence of genocide, as the websites and historians you have provided (revisionist or otherwise) have shown.

[Invader Zim]

From the afore quoted anti-revisionist historian:

"These misfortunes were not part of a plan to destroy the Irish nation; they fell on the people because the government of Lord John Russell was afflicted with an extraordinary inability to foresee consequences. It has been frequently declared that the parsimony of the British Government during the famine was the main cause of the sufferings of the people, and parsimony was certainly carried to remarkable lengths; but obtuseness, short-sightedness and ignorance probably contributed more."

Cecil Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-49, (London, 1962), p. 410

Any question?

[Bitter Ashes]

Did any other countries in Europe attempt to help the Irish through the famine? Or were they also colaberators in the "genocide"? I do recognise that the British goverment was making claims that they were responsible for Ireland's intrests, but were there any supporters futher affield who helped out?

[Dr Mindbender]

Did any other countries in Europe attempt to help the Irish through the famine? Or were they also colaberators in the "genocide"? I do recognise that the British goverment was making claims that they were responsible for Ireland's intrests, but were there any supporters futher affield who helped out?

I think the point is the british were the ones responsible for the economic and political mandate within ireland at the time, britain being an enormously powerful empire. I dont think they would have taken kindly to being made fools of by the europeans.

Dont forget Ireland was then a british satellite, so this would be akin to letting the people of Wales or Scotland starve to death.

[Bitter Ashes]

I think the point is the british were the ones responsible for the economic and political mandate within ireland at the time, britain being an enormously powerful empire. I dont think they would have taken kindly to being made fools of by the europeans.

Dont forget Ireland was then a british satellite, so this would be akin to letting the people of Wales or Scotland starve to death.
I'm just confused why places that may have not shared Westminister's ideas about borders wouldnt have helped out when parliment failed to deliver thier promises. Like the Netherlands for example. I was under the impression that they were very close to the Irish at this point in history and I'm sure most of the Catholic states would have also felt some kind of responsibility for protecting what they saw as thier own.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

I was under the impression that they were very close to the Irish at this point in history and I'm sure most of the Catholic states would have also felt some kind of responsibility for protecting what they saw as thier own.

It was the British State that built Maynooth college for the Vatitcan in order to stop Irish priests being educated in France where they would have been educated by Gallican and Jansenist leaning teachers. The Vatitican saw Ireland's seperation from England as totally opposed to its own interests and tried everything that it could to stop it aswell as to appease the English establishment which it desparately wanted to win back to fold. Also the Vatitican gained from the famine in that through it it was able to fully implement the Council of Tallaght (which was about bringing the Church in Ireland into line with Counter Reformation Roman Catholicism). From a real politic point of view the famine was a very good thing as far as the Vatitican was concerned.

[Invader Zim]

so this would be akin to letting the people of Wales or Scotland starve to death.

You do realise that 1.7 million people fled Scotland in the wake of the same Potato blight? Not that I am arguing that the loss of the potato crop in Scotland had an impact anything like that of Ireland, but the notion that the English, state, aristocrats and industrialists would sweap to the rescue, except when it came to Ireland (whom according to the less well-read members of this board they wanted to destroy), is patently false. To quote the late revisionist historian E. R. R. Green's contribution ('The Great Famine 1845-50') to T. W. Moody and F.X. Martin's The Course of Irish History: Revised and Enlarged Edition (Dublin, 1984), "The ministers of the crown who had to accept responsibility once the disaster occured were callous, pasimonious, and self-righteous. Yet these are the very qualities which Charles Dickens, for instance, found so distasteful in men of their class, and they were exhibited as much to the English as to the Irish poor." pp. 273-274.

[Bitter Ashes]

You do realise that 1.7 million people fled Scotland in the wake of the same Potato blight? Not that I am arguing that the loss of the potato crop in Scotland had an impact anything like that of Ireland, but the notion that the English, state, aristocrats and industrialists would sweap to the rescue, except when it came to Ireland (whom according to the less well-read members of this board they wanted to destroy), is patently false. To quote the late revisionist historian E. R. R. Green's contribution ('The Great Famine 1845-50') to T. W. Moody and F.X. Martin's The Course of Irish History: Revised and Enlarged Edition (Dublin, 1984), "The ministers of the crown who had to accept responsibility once the disaster occured were callous, pasimonious, and self-righteous. Yet these are the very qualities which Charles Dickens, for instance, found so distasteful in men of their class, and they were exhibited as much to the English as to the Irish poor." pp. 273-274.
And now a Scottsman is Prime Minister of the whole of the UK. (I know he's hardly a role model, but still goes to show that predjudices have broken down over the centuries)

[Andropov]

Invader provide me a link to any sectarian or xenophobic comments I have made.
Frankly im sick of your bullshit, so provide the evidence or retract the slur.

[Andropov]

And now a Scottsman is Prime Minister of the whole of the UK. (I know he's hardly a role model, but still goes to show that predjudices have broken down over the centuries)
Ohh yes and Barrack Obama is an indiction of the break down of racism in America society?

[Module]

Yes, I certainly think so.

[Bitter Ashes]

Ohh yes and Barrack Obama is an indiction of the break down of racism in America society?
Well, yes. :confused:
If Barrack Obama had stood for either party 50 years ago you can gauruntee that regardless of what policies he had in mind he wouldnt have been elected.


"The [candidate] is a n-" *bong*
"Oh good. The [candidate] is a near!"
*everyone spots the [candidate]*
*tumbleweed drifts by*

[pastradamus]

The 'thick paddy' myth was a lie perpetrated by the English particularly to justify the plantations. Nothing else.

I say English, because celtophobia is often still used to caricature the scottish as kilt-wearing drunken thugs. In Scotland, anti-irish racism is non-existant.

As someone else said, the ones who resort to using the image clearly arent MENSA material either, from my experience.

Im glad you touched on this. Its reassuring to see the good people of Scotland have taken the orange order and their promotion of Sectarianism with a pinch of salt.

[brigadista]

the gorbals - some of the men in suits look a bit pissed..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANx6v4fAIbw&feature=related

[pastradamus]

There were workhouses which were appalling conditions. Due to overcrowding and poor sanitary conditions, these workhouses caused cholera and other illnesses to spread through a population already weakened by hunger, hard labour, an unusually cold winter. The victims of the workhouses had to do hard manual labour for thin soup, typically.

More fundamentally, the workhouses were set up terribly. They were a charity scheme, whereas they should have been a state run scheme to increase Ireland's food production. They could have used them to construct fisheries, a more efficient agricultural system, cooperative dairies, and so on instead of roads to nowhere or security walls for the estates of the gentry.

That's just off the top of my head without looking it up, I'm sure there were many other examples of how British "charity" harmed more than it helped.

The workhouses! Now thats an issue which people often fail to mention and is something deeply disturbing for the working/peasent class memory.

In Cork city there is an old hospital called St.Finbarrs which used to be a Workhouse. I recall hearing a friends grandmother Lament and say "im not going to be put in a workhouse!!!" when her son wanted to bring her for a dental appointment there.
Initially I found it a humourous story and laughed at it. But where upon thinking of it, I nevertheless was urped and disturbed by the imprint on this old womans memory that those institutions had.
Now she had grown up in a working class background and never been inside a workhouse but her mother would try to discipline her when she was being unruly as a child by saying such things as "be good or i'll send you to the workhouse".

So basically this was the same line cited by the British government to instill fear in the Irish Populance.

Though the concept of Workhouses didnt last up to the 1970's the Institutions certainly did. They changed only in Name and were used by the Catholic church as a means of Indoctrinating, Abusing and physically and psycologically damaging young children. As the latest Irish government reports have stated. This is something that deeply irritates me as i've seen strong and proud elderly people break down in tears when recalling the nightmarish occurances in these institutions.

I think a real connotation between the Workhouse and the Catholic run institutions of the mid 1900's is the way in which the labour from these internment camps was used to benefit the wealthy (as PRC did well to mention). As mentioned, the workhouse labour benefitted the Wealthy but the catholic institutions child labour was used to aid local rich farmers and used to build facilities for the Church such as grotto's, Walls and fences. Whereupon the children awards were poor foodstuffs and even death.

[PRC-UTE]

Did any other countries in Europe attempt to help the Irish through the famine? Or were they also colaberators in the "genocide"? I do recognise that the British goverment was making claims that they were responsible for Ireland's intrests, but were there any supporters futher affield who helped out?

Yes, the Turks sent quite a bit, actually. The Sultan sent far more money than the Queen, and ships of food as well.

EDIT: I don't know about Europe.

[pastradamus]

Yes, the Turks sent quite a bit, actually. The Sultan sent far more money than the Queen, and ships of food as well.

EDIT: I don't know about Europe.
Yeah, The ottoman Empires Leader wanted to send 10,000 pounds sterling to aid famine victims but Queen Victoria would only allow him to send 1000 as she only gave 2000 pounds her self. Also Large donations came from France and the Native Americans.

[PRC-UTE]

Yeah, The ottoman Empires Leader wanted to send 10,000 pounds sterling to aid famine victims but Queen Victoria would only allow him to send 1000 as she only gave 2000 pounds her self. Also Large donations came from France and the Native Americans.

Thanks for mentioning the Indians. This was not long after the March of Tears wasn't it.

[Invader Zim]

Yeah, The ottoman Empires Leader wanted to send 10,000 pounds sterling to aid famine victims but Queen Victoria would only allow him to send 1000 as she only gave 2000 pounds her self. Also Large donations came from France and the Native Americans.

While not questioning the awfulness of the decision to stop the contribution. 10,000 was not a lot of money. As a private investment it doubtless would have been substancial, but not in terms of the coffers of the Ottoman empire nor in the grand scheme of generosity. For example the Quakers supplied £160,000 of aid in just three months in 1848, and a total of £8,000,000 in the first two years of the famine.

However by that stage charity was quickly being replaced by parsimoniousness, as the famine had lasted far longer than had been anticipated and the onset of a Europe wide economic depression began to really set in. English philanthropist's coffers were beginning to run dry and an unwarrented exasperation with the Irish poor was beginning to take hold. This exasperation was the result of the seeming failure of aid to have any impact, as well as the prevelent and disasterous economic views of the day. These views were grounded in the erronious theory that attempting to address the issue of poverty through donations would make the poor reliant upon charity and encourage laziness.

These views were given further weight in the public mindset when the press, who also subscribed to these views, began to cast the Irish poor as living off the backs of the, already poverty stricken, English labourers. The impact was that charitable donations in relief of the Irish poor's plight plummetted. The aformentioned Quakers, after donating considerable sums in 1848 soon reduced their aid to £500,000 over the following two years.

John Percival, The Great Famine 1845-51 (London, 1995), p. 164.

[redarmyfaction38]

@blackflag. If those illistrations are genuine, then thats well shocking. Why is this still totally denied? Infact, i even think that recently the BBC referred to the famine as not a result of the British government, but of natural phenomena. Then a month later or even sooner they where having kittens about the Ukranian famine during Stalins rule. Strange British logic if you ask me.
not strange british logic,but the logic of capitalism all around the world.
btw, i've had loads of irish friends, thick? stupid? not words i'd use to describe them...hard working, great mates, loyal to the point of stupidity, yes, and you ain't been drinking till you drink with irish, geordies and janners.:D

[FreeFocus]

Thanks for mentioning the Indians. This was not long after the March of Tears wasn't it.

Yeah, it wasn't long after. I believe the Choctaw Nation was the one that sent aid.

[Mindtoaster]

Ohh yes and Barrack Obama is an indiction of the break down of racism in America society?

Uh.... Yes :confused:

Clearly racism has not completely left American culture but it certainly has broken down quite a bit from what it previously was if a black man is now able to become president.

[Mindtoaster]

As shown, I put forth no slander. RR is sectarian and is willing to employ known bullshit in order to provide basis for his/her anti-British/English sectarian ideology.
Until he/she retracts his/her bullshit line I will continue to say it how it is.



Wow.

An Irish person talking about whether or not a genocide occurred in their own country in a history forum. Surely there must be some dark, ulterior, racist motive.
:rolleyes:

[Andropov]

Uh.... Yes :confused:
Clearly racism has not completely left American culture but it certainly has broken down quite a bit from what it previously was if a black man is now able to become president.
TBH I merely see it as window dressing.
But im open to debate on the issue.

[The Deepest Red]

What, you see nothing sectarian in dredging up patently false, and discredited, charges of genocide (and proclaiming them to be akin to the holocaust) in order to compliment and justify an anti-British attitude?

Anyone who isn't "anti-British" is a reactionary. "Britishness" is the reactionary nationalism of the British empire and should be opposed by every socialist. What is it exactly that separates the Holocaust from all other genocides or campaigns of 'ethnic cleansing'? The systematic nature of the mass murder? I'm curious to know as British imperialism has been responsible for more carnage than any other power in history.

[Invader Zim]

Anyone who isn't "anti-British" is a reactionary. "Britishness" is the reactionary nationalism of the British empire and should be opposed by every socialist. What is it exactly that separates the Holocaust from all other genocides or campaigns of 'ethnic cleansing'? The systematic nature of the mass murder? I'm curious to know as British imperialism has been responsible for more carnage than any other power in history.

Anyone who gives a shit about social constructions such as the idea of nationality is not only holds a reactionary position but, even worse, is naive. It is an utterly unnecessary and harmful division of people that serves no good purpose.

As for what seperates the holocaust from other acts of genocide, we've been over this.

And the various attrocities committed in the name of British imperialism are not in despute. Though I would suggest, while not wanting to associate myself with the argumes of the likes of Correli Barnett or Niall Ferguson (who argued that the British empire was a positive force), that describing the British empire as by far the worst of the bad bunch is to greviously underestimate the criminality of other imperial powers.

[Random Precision]

Anyone who gives a shit about social constructions such as the idea of nationality is not only holds a reactionary position but, even worse, is naive. It is an utterly unnecessary and harmful division of people that serves no good purpose.

Class and states are "social constructions" as well as nationalities. I suppose those divisions are arbitrary and "serve no good purpose" as well. :rolleyes:


As for what seperates the holocaust from other acts of genocide, we've been over this.

Well, how do we understand the Holocaust except by comparing it to other acts of genocide?


And the various attrocities committed in the name of British imperialism are not in despute. Though I would suggest, while not wanting to associate myself with the argumes of the likes of Correli Barnett or Niall Ferguson (who argued that the British empire was a positive force), that describing the British empire as by far the worst of the bad bunch is to greviously underestimate the criminality of other imperial powers.

Sure. You don't want to associate yourself with their arguments, but nevertheless feel the need to drop their names. Whatever.

[The Deepest Red]

Anyone who gives a shit about social constructions such as the idea of nationality is not only holds a reactionary position but, even worse, is naive. It is an utterly unnecessary and harmful division of people that serves no good purpose.

I'm not advocating any kind of nationalism.

You claimed that "anti-British" (i.e. anti-imperialist) sentiment was a sectarian position to hold. I disagree.


As for what seperates the holocaust from other acts of genocide, we've been over this.We have?


Though I would suggest, while not wanting to associate myself with the argumes of the likes of Correli Barnett or Niall Ferguson (who argued that the British empire was a positive force), that describing the British empire as by far the worst of the bad bunch is to greviously underestimate the criminality of other imperial powers.Such as?

The yoke of the British empire extended far beyond that of any other European colonial power.

Trying to pick out the best or worst imperialist power is probably a waste of time anyway. They're all bad.

[Invader Zim]

Class and states are "social constructions" as well as nationalities. I suppose those divisions are arbitrary and "serve no good purpose" as well.Of course. I want to see the end of class division and the end of borders. Surely on this board that should be a given.




Well, how do we understand the Holocaust except by comparing it to other acts of genocide?Analysing contrast and parallels is not the same as arguing that there is no criteria that seperates one specific historical event from another.


You don't want to associate yourself with their arguments, but nevertheless feel the need to drop their names.You can read into it however you like RP, thats your problem not mine.


Such as?
If you are arguing that British imperialism is the most destructive form in history then you should be the one building an argument to prove it. The onus does not lie on my shoulders to disprove your, as yet, unsubstanciated assertions.


Trying to pick out the best or worst imperialist power is probably a waste of time anyway. They're all bad.On that at least we are complete agreement.

[PRC-UTE]

Wow.

An Irish person talking about whether or not a genocide occurred in their own country in a history forum. Surely there must be some dark, ulterior, racist motive.
:rolleyes:

It's bizarre, but it's the standard line of the British capitalists and ruling class. They think for example that The Wind That Shakes The Barley was an anti-British film; they're so chauvinist and insular they can't conceive that a film could be about the struggles and lives of Irish people, it must really be about Britain.

[Random Precision]

Considering the level of discussion here and the amount of evidence that's been provided for the OP's claim, I'm moving this to Learning.

[JimmyJazz]

Yes this was genocide. The policy of restricting the supply and right to grow to Irish farmers in favour of the British (largely the rich) led to a situation where the Irish were set to starve. The famines were caused by the British ruling class by shite management ad oce it began they did nothig to prevent it. Its hardly suprising give the the attitudes of the British ruling class towards the Irish, especially poor Irish people (peasants at this time I suppose).

It's a pattern:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=15108
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/jan/20/historybooks.famine


I'm not advocating any kind of nationalism.

Why not? Nationalism can be an extremely progressive force in an imperialist world system.

[Random Precision]

Why not? Nationalism can be an extremely progressive force in an imperialist world system.

I disagree. At its best, bourgeois nationalism can partially break away a country from the imperialist system for a brief period of time, perhaps a few decades at the most, before succeeding governments re-integrate. We've seen this in Mexico, Argentina, Algeria, Egypt, Vietnam, etc. etc. Progressive, sure, but the kind of progress that will almost certainly be rolled back or overcome by re-integration in a matter of time.

This only happens with its most radical forms however. Most self-proclaimed nationalist governments are collaborators with imperialism from day one. You can look at India as the most obvious example, but there are scores of others.

The only complete, lasting freedom from imperialism will come from the action of the working class.

[PRC-UTE]

RP nailed it. The bourgeoisie of oppressed nations are tied by a thousand strings to the imperialist bourgeoisie. Bourgeois anti-imperialists will eventually accommodate themselves to the imperialists, only proletarian led anti-imperialism can really break with imperialism and establish true self-determination.

[Invader Zim]

and the amount of evidence that's been provided for the OP's claim, I'm moving this to Learning.
What evidence? The newspaper inches of a law professor who just happens to disagree with the body of expertese on this topic?

[Random Precision]

What evidence? The newspaper inches of a law professor who just happens to disagree with the body of expertese on this topic?

Yes. There is not much evidence to back up RR's claim of it being a genocide. That is why I've moved it to Learning.

[Invader Zim]

Yes. There is not much evidence to back up RR's claim of it being a genocide. That is why I've moved it to Learning.

Ok, but I fail to see why that means it should be in learning. But I don't mind, its your call.

[Random Precision]

Ok, but I fail to see why that means it should be in learning.=

It's both because of the lack of evidence for the OP's claim and the level of discussion in the thread. Just as much time being spent in actual debate on the famine as accusations of the other side being "sectarian", "nationalist" or "imperialist" depending on the poster's viewpoint. If people can focus on the famine, I will move it back.

[pastradamus]

Thanks for mentioning the Indians. This was not long after the March of Tears wasn't it.

Yeah as said it was the choctaw Indians. The Amount of money they donated was todays equivalent of about 1million dollars. Its simply an amazing gesture which was in solidarity with the Irish Poor at the time.

[pastradamus]

While not questioning the awfulness of the decision to stop the contribution. 10,000 was not a lot of money. As a private investment it doubtless would have been substancial, but not in terms of the coffers of the Ottoman empire nor in the grand scheme of generosity. For example the Quakers supplied £160,000 of aid in just three months in 1848, and a total of £8,000,000 in the first two years of the famine.


I must say in reply to this post, that the good work of the Quaker's saved countless amounts of lives and the Irish people are eternally grateful to them for this. Soup kitchens were commonplace for feeding the masses and the Quakers performed tirelessly in working and organizing these kitchens. Not only that but they also provided accommodation for the poor who had just lost their homes. Simply for the benefit of their fellow man and worked hand and bone to save lives - albeit unconditionally. They largely never made anyone speak English or Change religion which stands to their humanity.

It disgusts me still that State-sponsored Presbyterian and Anglican organizations bribed over Irish people with food in order to convert them to their churches, change their vernacular name and language using food as a weapon of control. Alfred Webb of the Quakers was an outspoken critic of this throughout. This served as a great victory for the British in Destroying Irish Religious beliefs and Culture as they had failed to do on numerous occasions throughout the past, ie penal laws.

On the issue of the Ottomans, They still sent 3 ships full of food against the English wishes. These boats greatly reduced suffering in the Town of Drogheda. Also 10,000 steling would go a long way to helping people who were starving. A nation such as the Ottoman Empire far away in the middle east sent more money and food than the Government responsible for the well being of the Island of Ireland speaks for itself.

Moreover on the subject of Charity, Its interesting to note that the British Government profiteered on charitable requests for famine relief from other countries.There are numerous records proving this. Such as aid from the vatican which never reached Ireland as Pius had to send the aid stright to Queen Victoria. Mitchel wrote in his The Last Conquest of Ireland (Perhaps), on the same subject, that no one from Ireland ever asked for charity during this period, and that it was England who sought charity on Ireland's behalf, and, having received it, was also responsible for administering it. He suggested that it has been carefully inculcated by the British Press, "that the moment Ireland fell into distress, she became an abject beggar at England's gate, and that she even craved alms from all mankind." He affirmed that in Ireland no one ever asked alms or favours of any kind from England or any other nation, but that it was England herself that begged for us. He suggests that it was England that "sent 'round the hat over all the globe, asking a penny for the love of God to relieve the poor Irish," and constituting herself the agent of all that charity, took all the profit of it.


However by that stage charity was quickly being replaced by parsimoniousness, as the famine had lasted far longer than had been anticipated and the onset of a Europe wide economic depression began to really set in. English philanthropist's coffers were beginning to run dry and an unwarrented exasperation with the Irish poor was beginning to take hold. This exasperation was the result of the seeming failure of aid to have any impact, as well as the prevelent and disasterous economic views of the day. These views were grounded in the erronious theory that attempting to address the issue of poverty through donations would make the poor reliant upon charity and encourage laziness.

The said idea's of the day are clear and blunt signs of bitter English govermental Nationalist racism towards the Irish Populance. the years previous to the famine show numerous Newspaper charicatures of the "lazy Irishman".


These views were given further weight in the public mindset when the press, who also subscribed to these views, began to cast the Irish poor as living off the backs of the, already poverty stricken, English labourers.

John Percival, The Great Famine 1845-51 (London, 1995), p. 164.

True, even today we still hear the same shit propaganda coming from Bourgeois sources in opposition to social welfare and trade Unions.

[Andropov]

What evidence? The newspaper inches of a law professor who just happens to disagree with the body of expertese on this topic?
Quite ironic how you contradict yourself.

most of the relevent historiography was written pre-Rome Statute
If you want I can copy and paste my arguements and evidence from the thread we were engaged in this debate and we can debate again until you tuck tail and run once more?

[Invader Zim]

Quite ironic how you contradict yourself.

Quite plaining the ideas of both 'irony' and 'contradiction' are among the ever growing catalogue of concepts that are lost on you.

And stating that the Rome Statutes, which are only commonly understood concepts regarding genocide articulated into law, render historians dismissal of the genocide charge as either redundant or wrong shows just how far your failure to grasp the issue at hand goes. As we have seen accoriding to the Rome Statutes destructive intent is an essencial element in genocide. You have yet to provide any real evidence that any such intent existed, and as I have shown the opinion of those who have actually researched this topic is that no such intent existed. What more is there to discuss? Either you, an anonymous entity on the internet, are going to provide some concrete evidence that will utterly shatter existing historical discourse on Ireland or you aren't.


If you want I can copy and paste my arguements and evidence from the thread we were engaged in this debate and we can debate again until you tuck tail and run once more?

You didn't provide any evidence. You provided assertions. They are not the same thing.

[Andropov]

And stating that the Rome Statutes, which are only commonly understood concepts regarding genocide articulated into law, render historians dismissal of the genocide charge as either redundant or wrong shows just how far your failure to grasp the issue at hand goes.
Thats an outrageous comment.
So your dismissal of the Rome Statutes as the only legitimate definition of Genocide so you can bend your arguement to the subjective interpretations of Genocide by Historians is just absurd.
The Rome Statutes are set in stone, so are their legal definitions of intent.
Now your failure to accept that really demonstrates YOUR failure to grasp the issue at hand.

As we have seen accoriding to the Rome Statutes destructive intent is an essencial element in genocide.
Absolutely.

You have yet to provide any real evidence that any such intent existed,
Absurd.
The very fact that any food at all was being forcibly deported from Ireland at gun point in the grips of a famine demonstrates intent.
Intent in the Rome Statutes is set down as knowing that, in the ordinary course of events, carrying out an action will lead to a given consequence.
Given that there were nine major famines in Ireland between 1720 and 1860, half of all the famines in Europe, it was clear to the British government that, in the ordinary course of events, their policy was causing famine, but they still continued with this policy.
That is a clear breach of Article II(c) of the Convention.
And as you even concluded they continued to export large amounts of food, all be it less in volume, at gun point.
This I demonstrated with the deployment of 75 British Regiments across Ireland to continue to safe gaurd the exporting of food and an example of County Kerry where the 1st and 8th Dragoons were deployed so as to secure the livestock of County Kerry for export.
This is all a breach of the convention and thus a genocidal act.
Also Sir Charles Trevelyan insisted that all reports of famine were actually grossly exaggerated until 1847.
As im sure you know he was placed in charge of administration of Government relief to the victims.
And this is very man appointed to help the crisis described the famine as a "mechanism for reducing surplus population".
Thats not even the best bit invader, he went on to say.
"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".

and as I have shown the opinion of those who have actually researched this topic is that no such intent existed.
No, you have shown their definition of intent does not comply with the Rome Statutes.

What more is there to discuss? Either you, an anonymous entity on the internet, are going to provide some concrete evidence that will utterly shatter existing historical discourse on Ireland or you aren't.
No, what I provided was long standing historical evidence that was thus analysed by a Professor in human rights and analysed in the legal frame work of the Rome Statutes.
Professor Boyles conclusion, and mine with the benefit of the Rome Statutes legal definition of Genocide and their legal definition of intent brings us to the conclusion that the Great Famine was indeed an act of Genocide on behalf of the British Empire.

You didn't provide any evidence. You provided assertions. They are not the same thing.
Look at the evidence above.
Let the posters come to their own conclusions.

[Invader Zim]

Thats an outrageous comment.

On the contrary, it is accurate as every post you have made on the topic proves.



So your dismissal of the Rome Statutes as the only legitimate definition of Genocide so you can bend your arguement to the subjective interpretations of Genocide by Historians is just absurd.I have not dismissed the Rome Statutes, rather noted that historians like the authors of those statutes understand that the issue of intent is key. Historians did not need the Rome Statutes to understand that before they were penned, and they don't now.


The very fact that any food at all was being forcibly deported from Ireland at gun point in the grips of a famine demonstrates intent.

Non-sequitur. Firstly you assume that this indicates broad policy as opposed to the individual actions of landowners, secondly as proved food export reduced and import increased. Thirdly even if this did indicate policy, that policy does not suggest intent to destroy rather to protect upper/middle class interests.


Given that there were nine major famines in Ireland between 1720 and 1860, half of all the famines in Europe, it was clear to the British government that, in the ordinary course of events, their policy was causing famine, but they still continued with this policy.

Another non-sequitur. As I have stated there was no major famine anywhere near akin to that in the 1840s for a hundred years. The British government policies when dealing with famine were based on the experience of previous famines that had failed to cause mass death. The extent of the famine of the 1840s took them completely by supprise as it was nothing like previous famines they had seen. All you do here is highlight the fact that the British government was unprepared. Your assertion that this shows intent remains just that, an assertion. When are you going to provide the evidence that you claim has 'conclusively proven' that the famine was a 'holocaust'?



And as you even concluded they continued to export large amounts of food, all be it less in volume, at gun point.I stated that they continued to export food, at substancially lower levels than before the famine, and imported food at substancially higher levels which disproves intent. If they had intent to destroy they would have increased export of food and prevented import. They would also have prevented migration and relief efforts, and torn down the workhouses. The historical record proves that wasn't the case.


This I demonstrated with the deployment of 75 British Regiments across Ireland to continue to safe gaurd the exporting of food and an example of County Kerry where the 1st and 8th Dragoons were deployed so as to secure the livestock of County Kerry for export.

Another assertion left without proof. You assert that the troops where there specifically to export all the food produced in Ireland. A little research would show you that one of the major reasons for troops in Ireland during the period was to ward off potential revolution. Secondly troops weren't simply used to protect landowners' "rights" but also to protect food imports. Food transfer was the target, unsupprisingly, of robbery and hoarding. That includes imported food and the internal tranfer of food as well as the limited amount of food destined for export.





Also Sir Charles Trevelyan insisted that all reports of famine were actually grossly exaggerated until 1847.

Which suggests ignorance long before intent to destroy.


And this is very man appointed to help the crisis described the famine as a "mechanism for reducing surplus population".
Thats not even the best bit invader, he went on to say.
"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".

This is amateurish in the extreme, you are attempting to argue based on couple of decontextualised, and unsourced, quotes from a lone individual an entire national policy. Indeed had you bothered to do any real research you would soon have discovered that Trevelyan also wrote of Government policy in Ireland, whatever his own views on the moral failings of the irish people, "The government establishments are strained to the utmost to alleviate this great calamity and avert this danger".



No, you have shown their definition of intent does not comply with the Rome Statutes.Nonsense.


No, what I provided was long standing historical evidence that was thus analysed by a Professor in human rights and analysed in the legal frame work of the Rome Statutes.The "Professor in human rights" shows no sign at all in the article you quoted as having analysed the evidence, and neither have you.


Look at the evidence above.You haven't provided any "evidence", as stated you have provided assertions which just don't stand upto investigation and contradict the existing historiography.


Let the posters come to their own conclusions.I couldn't care less what people think, I'll leave that fallacy to you; the issue, and my interest, is what the historical record says not the consensus of an internet message board.

[Invader Zim]

The said idea's of the day are clear and blunt signs of bitter English govermental Nationalist racism towards the Irish Populance. the years previous to the famine show numerous Newspaper charicatures of the "lazy Irishman".

To a degree, but it wasn't as much an issue of nationality as it was class. It is a mistake to believe that these views were restricted to the Irish poor, and the Irish poor alone. I certainly would be willing to accept that these views were expressed with a rare degree of venomous hostility towards the Irish poor, but the Irish poor were certainly not unique in being the subject of that kind of scorn and caricature. Far from it.

[pastradamus]

To a degree, but it wasn't as much an issue of nationality as it was class. It is a mistake to believe that these views were restricted to the Irish poor, and the Irish poor alone. I certainly would be willing to accept that these views were expressed with a rare degree of venomous hostility towards the Irish poor, but the Irish poor were certainly not unique in being the subject of that kind of scorn and caricature. Far from it.

I can see where your coming from. Theres a good point to be made for the the class concept both In Ireland and Great Brittan. In Ireland we see throughout this era an uprising of Landless and disenfranchised peasents which resulted in Davitt and Parnells Land League which were hugely popular agrarian reform concepts which created "monster meetings " of Peasents demanding agrarianist concepts such as Fair Rent, free sale and fixity of tenure for workers. Likewise, In Britain we see frequent backlashes against the system of landlords especially in the north of England and the government was also forced to deal with huge overcrowing issues in the major cities of the north west such as liverpool as a result of the Irish Disporia. Class struggle was extremely evident in Both Nations. Britains system of Lord's and land classes were made take a step backwards in a sense in order to avoid civil uprisings which were commonplace in every major European Country in this era.

So yes, I agree with you in the sense that in both states, class systems were heavily rife in relation to prolitarien exploitation by bourgeois sources. Your absolutely correct.

However, I would say that despite the fact that both groups of workers were treated irrespectibly by the status quo, the Irish workers were seen as being wholly incapible, lazy and were far worse off than even the poorest workers in Britain at the time. Now in Britain you had a working class whereas in Ireland you had an agrarian peasent and farming class with a then miniscule working class. This can be attributed to Irelands poor Industrial developement at the time. Evident is this more so in simply the size of Irelands cities. Belfast, Dublin and Cork were relitively small cities for their time. So because Ireland is such a problem economically we see Westminister backlashing at the poorest people in Ireland as they are unrepresented and easy targets to take out economic grief at.

Gladstones liberal Reforms were a major changing force in Ireland at this time. Though revisionistic, they did indicate change but not the kind of change required. As Lenin Wrote:

"And the Liberals have for half a century been dragging out Ireland’s liberation, which has not been completed to this day! It was not until the twentieth century that the Irish peasant began to turn from a tenant farmer into a free holder; but the Liberals have imposed upon him a system of land purchase at a “fair” price! He has paid, and will continue to pay for many years, millions upon millions to the British landlords as a reward for their having robbed him for centuries and reduced him to a state of chronic starvation. The British liberal bourgeois has made the Irish peasant thank the landlord for this in hard cash.... "

I very much Believe that the situation of the Irish Peasent was far,far worse than anything else going on in the UK at the time, speaking class-wise of course. But as luck would have it, We eventually see the British Working class in solidarity with Irish workers later on during the Irish Trade Union Struggle's period.

I know many of the Irish republicans here will disagree but despite the fact rebellions were occuring throughout the 800 year occupation of Ireland, the Irish after time did see themselves largely as British before the famine period. After this period we see a backlash and a struggle for Independance. Britains failure to deal with the Famine cost it dearly and the Irish people began to revolt in the form of the fenians, United Irishmen, Home Rule movement (which was done by people who still wanted to remain in the Union) and eventually the Irish Citizens army and the IRA/IRB.

Marx recalls this watershed in a letter to Engels:

Karl Marx, who had been living in London for over fifteen years, followed the struggle of the Irish with great interest and sympathy. He wrote to Frederick Engels on November 2, 1867: “I have done my best to bring about this demonstration of the English workers in favour of Fenianism.... I used to think the separation of Ireland from England impossible. I now think it inevitable, although after the separation there may come federation....” Reverting to the same subject in a letter dated November 30th of the same year, Marx wrote: “The question now is, what shall we advise the English workers? In my opinion they must make the repeal of the Union [the abolition of the union with Ireland] (in short, the affair of 1783, only democratised and adapted to the conditions of the time) an article of their pronunziamento. This is the only legal and therefore only possible form of Irish emancipation which can be admitted in the programme of an English [workers’] party.” And Marx went on to show that what the Irish needed was Home Rule and independence from Britain, an agrarian revolution and tariffs against Britain.

[Andropov]

On the contrary, it is accurate as every post you have made on the topic proves.
This is beyond childish now Invader.
It is clear from this your failures to grasp the fundamentals of the Rome Statutes, including the Rome Statutes definition and interpretation of intent as I will show in this post.
Your whole arguement is based on Historiographs that by your own admission....

most of the relevent historiography was written pre-Rome Statutes
Now with this fact that you base your claims on historians who have not even read the Rome Statutes as their works were completed pre Rome Statutes it is just a falacy to claim that they understood the definition of Genocide and intent as laid down by the Rome Statutes.

I have not dismissed the Rome Statutes, rather noted that historians like the authors of those statutes understand that the issue of intent is key. Historians did not need the Rome Statutes to understand that before they were penned, and they don't now.
This part is key to my arguement.
You have preveasly stated that most of the relevent historiography was written pre-Rome Statutes.

most of the relevent historiography was written pre-Rome Statutes
And now for you to claim that these historians had a full understanding of intent laid down in the Rome Statutes is absurd.
Intent as laid down by the Rome Statutes will naturally be different to historians own subjective interpretation of the word.
Your failure to recognise this puts a glaring hole in your arguement.

Firstly you assume that this indicates broad policy as opposed to the individual actions of landowners,
Of course, the very fact that 75 British Regiments were deployed across Ireland to secure the continued export of Livestock and Crops from Ireland is indicitive of this state supported policy.

secondly as proved food export reduced and import increased.
Wrong again Invader.
You refused to discuss the full context of these imports.
These imports included the Indian corn farce which was totally inadequate food and was demonstrated by the famine continuing unabated.
This token gesture was merely used by Imperial cheer leaders like yourself for the British Empire to wash its hands of a genocide they helped create.
When substantial quality produce was being exported from Ireland at gun point while the British Empire imports Indian Corn that is literally unnedable then you still have the makings of a genocidal act as laid down by Article II(c) of the Convention.

Thirdly even if this did indicate policy, that policy does not suggest intent to destroy rather to protect upper/middle class interests.
Another key point in my arguement.
You falling back on "they were protecting their commercial interests" arguement does in no way clear the British Empire of its genocidal act. Your arguement shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the Rome Statutes, as intent as set down by the Rome Statutes includes knowing that, in the ordinary course of events, carrying out an action will lead to a given consequence.
So even if that were indeed true that Britain was merely protecting its commercial interests at the expense of the native Irish it is still an act of genocide.

Another non-sequitur. As I have stated there was no major famine anywhere near akin to that in the 1840s for a hundred years. The British government policies when dealing with famine were based on the experience of previous famines that had failed to cause mass death. The extent of the famine of the 1840s took them completely by supprise as it was nothing like previous famines they had seen. All you do here is highlight the fact that the British government was unprepared. Your assertion that this shows intent remains just that, an assertion. When are you going to provide the evidence that you claim has 'conclusively proven' that the famine was a 'holocaust'?
The 1740 famine wiped out 10% of the Irish population.
Does that not constitute mass death in your book?
Because to me that is indeed a significant death rate but I suppose when one is white washing the Imperial past its not that big of a deal.
Now that we have established that one of the nine famines in Ireland between 1720 and 1840 did cause mass death then the British Empires continued policys were showing a gross negligence and their refusal to address the vulnerablitity of the Irish Population to the risk off famine is a breach of Article II(c) of the Convention.

I stated that they continued to export food, at substancially lower levels than before the famine,
Irrelevant.
The exporting of food at all when there is such a mass shortage people are eating grass constitutes a gross negligence which is in breach of Article II(c) of the Convention.

and imported food at substancially higher levels which disproves intent.
Wrong again.
This includes the worthless Indian Corn which did nothing to elliviate the mass death as witnessed by the progression of the famine.

If they had intent to destroy they would have increased export of food and prevented import.
I do not need to prove intent to destroy.
As laid down by the Rome Statutes intent can consist of knowing that, in the ordinary course of events, carrying out an action will lead to a given consequence.
So removing food at all during the midst of a famine while then importing inadequate Indian grain constitutes a breach of Article II(c) of the Convention.

They would also have prevented migration and relief efforts, and torn down the workhouses.
Ohh you mean when Trevelyan refused entry to the American food relief ship Sorciére?
Anyways I do not have to prove such actions were conducted by the British, the very fact they showed a complete neglect to the vulnerability of Ireland to famine and their actions of forcibly removing food from Ireland constitute a breach of Article II(c) of the Convention.

Another assertion left without proof. You assert that the troops where there specifically to export all the food produced in Ireland. A little research would show you that one of the major reasons for troops in Ireland during the period was to ward off potential revolution.
Come now Invader.
The reason for such a worry of Revolution was the very fact that Britain was starving the Irish and continuing to export food out of Ireland.
The troops were their to protect the status quo and the very status quo was what was starving the populace when their was still food being exported out of Ireland.
So that point you made can be dismissed out of hand.

Secondly troops weren't simply used to protect landowners' "rights" but also to protect food imports.
Another slightly irrelevant point in the wider context.
Their very actions of protecting food exports out of Ireland demonstrates intent in the Rome Statutes.

Food transfer was the target, unsupprisingly, of robbery and hoarding. That includes imported food and the internal tranfer of food as well as the limited amount of food destined for export.
So the troops were their for the Irish peoples well being?
Thank god they so successfully transfered that food, or else the great famine could have been a disaster.
You do realise how ridiculous that point was dont you Invader?

Which suggests ignorance long before intent to destroy.
It shows a willing negligence that conforms to intent in the Rome Statutes.

This is amateurish in the extreme, you are attempting to argue based on couple of decontextualised, and unsourced, quotes from a lone individual an entire national policy.
Not at all Invader.
I am merely attempting to demonstrate the sheer wanton neglect and contempt of the Man tasked with "releaving" the situation in Ireland. Such an attitude is indicitive of the wider British Empires own cullpability in the whole matter that would verify a famine.

Indeed had you bothered to do any real research you would soon have discovered that Trevelyan also wrote of Government policy in Ireland, whatever his own views on the moral failings of the irish people, "The government establishments are strained to the utmost to alleviate this great calamity and avert this danger.
Absurd.
Is this the same Government establishment that turned away money and aid from the Ottoman Empire because the Sultans aid was in excess of the Queens.
Preposterous quote invader and yet your continual white washing of Imperial genocide continues unabated.

The "Professor in human rights" shows no sign at all in the article you quoted as having analysed the evidence, and neither have you.
The evidence is there for all to see Invader.
It is your own historians grasp of Human Rights law that I question and yet you continually fail to provide any of their own subjective definitions of Genocide or intent.

You haven't provided any "evidence", as stated you have provided assertions which just don't stand upto investigation and contradict the existing historiography.
Not at all.
Much of the evidence I have used you do not even dispute as it is historical fact.
What I do then is translate that into a a legal definition of Genocide as set down by the Rome Statutes.

I couldn't care less what people think, I'll leave that fallacy to you; the issue, and my interest, is what the historical record says not the consensus of an internet message board.
Yet again retreating to historians you have stated that........

most of the relevent historiography was written pre-Rome Statutes
This demonstrates the weakness of your position.
I can understand your position Invader but this debate boils down to something more than simple historiography, it also contains the complex workings of Humanitarian Law and that is why I feel vindicated in my position as Professor Boyle accepts your historical hisoriography and is able to analyse it in a legal frame work in which he concludes that the British Empires gross negligence and mis conduct during the famine constitutes a genocidal act under Article II(c) of the Convention.

[Invader Zim]

You have preveasly stated that most of the relevent historiography was written pre-Rome Statutes.

Which is utterly irrlevent. You don't seem to grasp that the Rome Statutes are not holy tablets dictating the 'true word', they are the summary of widely understood concepts on human rights which have been transcribed into law. Their creation in no way invalidates the position levelled by historians of the Great Famine because the Statutes do not contradict what has been written on the topic. As stated historians, like the authors of the Rome Statutes, were fully aware that intent is a key characteristic of a genocide. Their argument is utterly unaltered by the creation of a set of laws articulating what was widely understood.


And now for you to claim that these historians had a full understanding of intent laid down in the Rome Statutes is absurd.Not at all, the Rome Statutes did not say anything regarding intent that wasn't already commonly understood as proven by the fact that historians, who I have quoted, clearly understood that intent is a key issue.


Of course, the very fact that 75 British Regiments were deployed across Ireland to secure the continued export of Livestock and Crops from Ireland is indicitive of this state supported policy.

I have already demolished this uneducated argument.



These imports included the Indian corn farce which was totally inadequate food and was demonstrated by the famine continuing unabated.

For a start the corn imported into Ireland did not only come from India. Indeed large quantities of corn were imported from across the empire and, in particular, from the Americas. Secondly 'Peel's brimstone', despite its fame for causing bowel complaints and need for re-grinding and cooking was not only designed to feed, which despite your claims to the contrary, which it did but also to prevent the price of food sky-rocketing.


When substantial quality produce was being exported from Ireland at gun point while the British Empire imports Indian Corn that is literally unnedable then you still have the makings of a genocidal act as laid down by Article II(c) of the Convention.

But as shown (and you refuse to address), food export actually dropped massively, and it has been proven that the food produced in Ireland alone was utterly incapable of sustaining the Irish people following the failure of the potato crop, and was soon vastly out stripped each year of the famine by food imports.

When, if ever, are you going to get to grips with these facts?


Irrelevant.The fact that concerted efforts were made to keep a majority of food produced in Ireland in Ireland is entirely relevent. The fact that food imports were massively increased, so that food import vast outstripped export, is entirely relevent. The fact that attempts were made to artifically keep food prices low is also entirely relevent.



This includes the worthless Indian Corn which did nothing to elliviate the mass death as witnessed by the progression of the famine.Again, the 'Peel's brimstone' was an early phenomenon, and does not have any bearing on the fact that throughout the famine, not just the beginning, food imports stayed far higher than before the famine and exports far lower than before the famine.


You falling back on "they were protecting their commercial interests" arguement does in no way clear the British Empire of its genocidal act. Your arguement shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the Rome Statutes, as intent as set down by the Rome Statutes includes knowing that, in the ordinary course of events, carrying out an action will lead to a given consequence.
So even if that were indeed true that Britain was merely protecting its commercial interests at the expense of the native Irish it is still an act of genocide.

On the contrary, the only person who fails to understand the Rome Statutes here is you, as proven by your utter unwillingness to accept that intent to destroy is fundermentally necessary in the creation of a genocide. It doesn't matter if the British exported every last ounce of food from Ireland, and sank every incoming grain ship, unless you can prove that they had intent to destroy. The fact that they did export every ounce of food and massively increased food shipping only goes to prove that they didn't wish to destroy.




I do not need to prove intent to destroy.Yes, you do. The statutes state, and I quote, "For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, [...]"

Without proof of intent there is no justification for a charge of genocide.



The 1740 famine wiped out 10% of the Irish population.
Does that not constitute mass death in your book?

Me: - "As I have stated there was no major famine anywhere near akin to that in the 1840s for a hundred years."


Now that we have established that one of the nine famines in Ireland between 1720 and 1840 did cause mass death then the British Empires continued policys were showing a gross negligence and their refusal to address the vulnerablitity of the Irish Population to the risk off famine is a breach of Article II(c) of the Convention.

if you think that citing a famine that had occured a full hundred years + before, under completely different circumstances, and from a completely different cause, indcates intent then you are sorely mistaken. The fact that you would even suggest it shows how desperately you are grabbing at straws.



The exporting of food at all when there is such a mass shortage people are eating grass constitutes a gross negligence which is in breach of Article II(c) of the Convention.No, with out intent to destroy, it does not. What part of the simple statement "with intent to destroy" do you not grasp?


So the troops were their for the Irish peoples well being?[/'QUOTE]

Where did i say that? They werer there to prevent revolution and to protect the transfer of food. That the transfer of food may have benefited the Irish people is hardly relevent to their purpose in Ireland.

[QUOTE]You do realise how ridiculous that point was dont you Invader?Well as it is a strawman you have contructed rather than my actual point, you're right, it does sound ridiculous.



It shows a willing negligence that conforms to intent in the Rome Statutes.No, it doesn't.



Not at all Invader.

That is exactly what you have done.



I am merely attempting to demonstrate the sheer wanton neglect and contempt of the Man tasked with "releaving" the situation in Ireland.

That should be the least of your tasks, you have set yourself the task of proving a government policy with the specific 'intent to destroy' the Irish people, in whole or in in part. The contradictory, uncontextualised and unsourced, statements of a lone individual, whatever his position within the government, do not achieve that aim.



Absurd.

What is absurd? My statement of the fact that you haven't done anywhere near enough research to put forth a convinsing argument?



Is this the same Government establishment that turned away money and aid from the Ottoman Empire because the Sultans aid was in excess of the Queens.

It is also a government(s) that spent millions annualy during the famine in providing relief, its effectiveness is another matter, to the Irish poor.


Preposterous quote invader and yet your continual white washing of Imperial genocide continues unabated.

Don't insult me because you haven't done enough research and are naive enough to think that a single uncontextualised quote actually proves something.


The evidence is there for all to see Invader.Its just a pity that the worlds experts on the topic disagree with you. What the fuck do they know, right?


This demonstrates the weakness of your position.No, it further demonstrates, as if we needed any more evidence that you utterly fail to understand what is in the Rome Statutes.



But this became tedious a long time ago, are you going to prove 'intent to destroy' or are we going to continue to go round in circles?

[Conquer or Die]

Imperialist British Fabian Krakerism? What else is new!?

The Irish famine is not only useful in providing information on the chauvinism of the comprador British imperialist pig (A tragic history second only, maybe, to Hitler and comparable to Spain) it is also useful in helping to pin neo-liberal policies and "individualist" doctrinaire their own set of failures and mismanagement.

Meanwhile, imperialist lackey labor aristocrats complain about being portrayed negatively by the victims of their parasitism. The labor aristocracy favors trendy fabianism for reasons that can be best described as "National Socialism: A Left Wing Movement."

These are enemies, comrades.

[Manifesto]

Thread bumper. Dude this thread was basically finished.