Log in

View Full Version : Irish 'famines':acts of god, colonial



PRC-UTE
14th November 2005, 06:31
Irish 'famines': acts of god, colonial mismanagement or genocide? (http://www.irishdemocrat.co.uk/anonn-is-anall/irish-famines/)

Peter Berresford Ellis asks whether the spate of 'famines' which afflicted Ireland during the 18th and 19th centuries were caused by acts of God, over- reliance on the potato, or were due to English colonial mismanagement

WHAT MOST British histories call 'The Irish Potato Famine' occurred during 1845-1848. There is usually no disagreement about the results. One million Irishmen, women and children died from malnutrition and attendant diseases while a further one and a half million fled the country, of which up to 400,000 are estimated to have died on what became known as the 'coffin ships'. The famine resulted in a decrease in the Irish population, a devastation so severe that even today it has not recovered its 1841 level.

Was this catastrophe merely because of a potato blight? Are we seriously being asked to believe that, in a country producing wheat, corn, dairy produce, with great herds of cattle, pigs, goats and poultry - enough food to feed three times its 1841 population - that a blight affecting only the potato crop could eliminate 25 per cent of the population in the space of three years?

The people of Ireland call the period An Ghorta Mhór - 'The Great Hunger'.

While we have had numerous studies on 'The Great Hunger', not one historian has so far, to my knowledge, has put it into its real context. It was James Connolly who first noticed that context but never had time to develop it as a theme. 'The Great Hunger' was no isolated incidence but part of a continuing theme through the 18th and 19th Centuries.

In fact, between 1722 and 1879 there were no less than twenty-nine 'famines' and the feature of each one of these great mortalities to the Irish nation was that the great estates of Ireland were producing and exporting to England sufficient produce to feed three times the Irish population.

We have to ask whether these events were acts of God, the stupidity of the majority of the Irish population in being solely dependent on the potato as a staple diet, or were they due to English colonial mismanagement or, indeed, was there some more sinister motive? The word gorta can imply a deliberate starvation.

John Mitchel, in his The Last Conquest of Ireland (perhaps), Dublin, 1861, was the first to argue the case for genocide. He wrote:

"A million and a half men, women and children were carefully and peacefully slain by the English Government. They died of hunger in the midst of abundance, which their own hands created…"
There can be no argument that genocide, the eradication of the Irish nation, was the official policy of the English conquests from the end of the 16th and through the 17th Century, through the implementation of the transplantation schemes.

An idea proposed by the English Viceroy, Sir Arthur Chichester, writing on 22 November 1601, to Lord Burghly. Elizabeth's chief adviser, was specific:

"I have often said, and written, it is Famine which must consume them; our swords and other endeavours work not that speedy effect which is expected for their overthrow."
It was during this period, these devastating conquests that the Irish became reliant on potatoes as a staple diet.

The potato found its way into Ireland in the 1590s. Two decades previously, it had been brought into Spain from the New World and by 1600 was regarded as a popular vegetable in many parts of Europe. As the English conquering armies fought back and fro across Ireland, driving people from the land, and, of course, with the notorious transplantation schemes first approved of by the Catholic Queen Mary Tudor, the Irish became a society on the run. There was no time to grow wheat and corn, to herd cattle, pigs and other livestock that could be captured, driven off or destroyed by the English.

The discovery of the potato was a godsend. It yielded more food per acre than other crops, was highly nutritious, and introduced security for the people. It grew underground and was thus hidden from the rampaging soldiers so that when they left the area, the people could return and dig it up. It was the perfect food for a country with an army of occupation, persecuting and despoiling the natives.

By the 18th Century over half of the Irish population was solely dependent on the potato. But the life saving tuber was also a means of destruction.

With the Williamite Conquest and the introduction of the Penal Laws, 95 per cent of Irish land was in the lands of the conquerors. The Penal Laws applied not only to Irish Catholics but also to all Irish Dissenting Protestants. Only Anglicans had rights in Ireland.

During the 18th Century, some 1,500 absentee landlords owned 3.25 million acres of Irish land, and they lived in London. A further 4.25 million acres of Irish land was in the lands of another 4,500 absentee landlords who chose Dublin as their home. It was after the 1801 Union of the colonial parliament with London, that Georgian Dublin was reduced from a 'capital' to a provincial city and these landlords made for London where, by the 1840s, 6,000 were living and their average income from their Irish estates was between £25,000 and £30,000 per year.

The Irish were reduced to a serf population, working on the great estates, usually for middlemen who managed the estates for the landlords. Initially, they let out to tenant farmers - these were usually Anglican farmers because Catholics and Dissenting Protestants could not take out leases on land.

It was not until 1771 that an Act was passed allowing Catholic Irish to lease up to 50 acres of unprofitable bogland, at a distance of not less than a mile from any major habitation, and for no more the 21 years. The condition was that they had to reclaim the land from the bog, if they did not they were immediately evicted without compensation.

Descriptions of what life was like in rural Ireland for the native Irish during the 18th Century are numerous. Arthur Young in 1776 is often quoted but as an English traveller he had no axe to grind in over emphasising conditions. He was describing a vicious medieval feudalism.

The landlord and his agent were feudal seigneurs. The people had to obey their every whim and order, otherwise they could be punished from merely a beating with a cane or horsewhip to being hanged on the spot. The landlords and agents could summon the wife or daughter of one of their workers to their beds and if refused could punish the worker physically, breaking their bones or worse.

Landlords, driving down roads, could have their servants push peasants' carts into ditches to make a passage for their coaches. Reading such accounts as Young's one is remind of the scenes of Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities (1859) as the Marquis of Evrémonde rides over the peasants in the streets in his carriage and summons a servant girl to his bed. This was the reality of life in Ireland.

The first significant 'famine' began in 1722. Blight attacked the potato crop. Rural workers could not afford to buy food from the landlords at the commercial prices and so began to starve to death. Bishop William Nicolson of Derry describes how a horse hauling a wagon dropped dead and fifty people fell on the carcass and began to eat the meat there and there. At the same time three wagons of rich farm produce, guarded by a dozen soldiers with sabres drawn passed by on their way to the docks enroute for England.

Deaths from the famines of 1722, 1726, 1728 and 1738 were measured in the tens of thousands. But in 1741 half a million people died from malnutrition and related disease.

That year of 1741 became known as Bliadhan an Áir - the Year of the Slaughter. The author of a pamphlet The Groans of Ireland, records:

"Want and misery is in every face, the rich unwilling to relieve the poor, the roads spread with dead and dying bodies. Many, the colour of the docks and nettles which they feed on…'
Other famines followed in 1765, 1770, 1774 and 1783. Again the deaths were counted in the tens of thousands and figures barely recorded. More famines followed in 1800, 1807 and 1822.

It was the same old story. As William Cobbett wrote in his Political Register, July, 1822:

"Money, it seems, is wanted in Ireland. Now people do not eat money. No, but the money will buy them something to eat. What? The food is there, then. Pray, observe this: and let the parties get out of the concern if they can. The food is there; but those who have it in their possession will not give it without money. And we know that the food is there; for since this famine has been declared in Parliament, thousands of quarters of corn have been imported every week from Ireland to England."
If people thought that Catholic emancipation and the likes of the right-wing, monarchy loving, Daniel O'Connell, would save them, the attitude was succinctly summed up by John O'Connell MP, the son of the so-called 'Liberator': "I thank God I live among a people who would rather die of hunger than defraud their landlords of rent!"

So yet another death-dealing 'famine' occurred in 1830 more or less lasting through to 1834 and then another in 1836 before the 'Great Hunger' of 1845-48.

It was the London Times of June 26, 1845, that pointed out:

They are suffering a real though artificial famine. Nature does her duty; the land is fruitful enough, nor can it be fairly said that man is wanting. The Irishman is disposed to work; in fact, man and nature together do produce abundantly. The island is full and overflowing with human food. But something ever intervenes between the hungry mouth and the ample banquet.'
That 'something' was the colonial landlord who used the army and also armed police to protect the ample produce from the starving people. Read through the newspapers of the time and you will find harrowing tales. A cold November in 1849, a starving woman was crossing one of the fields of Sir George Colthurst of Ardrum, Co Cork. She saw a single turnip overlooked on the soil and picked it up. She was spotted, arrested and brought before the magistrates at Blarney. Found guilty, she was fined twenty shillings. She had probably never seen so large a sum in her life. Unable to pay, she was transported to the penal colonies.

And between 1845 and 1853 alone records show that landlords evicted 87,123 families because they could not afford to pay their rents.

Even after this terrible devastation, the colonial landlords became ever more severe in their dealing with the rural workers. And, of course, the artificial 'famines' continued. The next one of significance was in 1879 but that was the spark that produced the Land War.

The Land War came in three phrases. Between 1879-82 it was an often violent struggle between the landlords and tenants. The 1886-91 period, known as the Plan of Campaign, was a struggle to secure reduction of rents to a more reasonable level, recognising the depression in world markets. Then came the 1891-1903 phrase that aimed to transfer the great feudal estates by allowing tenants to purchase the land through a series of Land Acts.

The 1903 Land Act allowed some nine million acres of Irish land to be sold to tenants between 1903 and 1920. But the English ruling class had to have its pound of flesh for the land was not only sold at artificially inflated prices but compensation had to be paid to the landowners.

Upon the majority of Ireland securing independence in 1922, a Treaty clause forced the Irish government to pay twice yearly for this at 1922 exchange levels of £5 million per year. In 1932 the Irish government of Eamon de Valéra refused to continue to pay. The United Kingdom retaliated with an economic war against the Irish state lasting six years. The land annuities dispute almost crippled the already weak Irish economy, suffering the effects of the world 1930s depression. It was resolved in 1937 when Dublin finally agreed to pay a capital sum of £10 million to London.

There is a sad irony in a country, having been invaded, having the conquerors steal the land by armed force, and when the people are finally able to get their independence, then having to pay compensation to their former conquerors for recovering the land that had been stolen from them.

Yet again, on a subject we think has been analysed to the point where nothing more need be said, we find that there are questions that have been ignored much less answered.

This article is the substance of a talk 'Starvation and Emigration: colonial landlordism in Ireland in the 18th and 19th centuries', which Peter Berresford Ellis gave at the Marx Memorial Library, London, November 22, 2004.

RevolverNo9
14th November 2005, 14:40
This is a very good article. It put forward very cogently the effects of a colonial, feudal ruling classes in what was essentially a modern century.

TheComrade
19th November 2005, 10:23
I did the Potato Famine in history (part of the 'Irish Question' coursework piece) I knew about it (father's from Ireland) but the details of it make me ashamed to be 'British.' The government of the time refused to help - they said it was punishment for the 'serfs' and those who resisted occupation. You can't say it was genocide (the British didn't kill anyone) but they did something which could be considered worse which is to stand, watch, enjoy and do nothing! They did send grain but the Irish had to BUY it at extortionate prices!

It's just another chapter of British history which is quite happily forgotten (along with many many other cases...)

RedAnarchist
19th November 2005, 10:28
And these chapters that we so conviniently sweep under the carpet should be dragged out into the open. The British people need to be told what was done in their foreparent's names for hundreds of years. Not just the oppression of the Irish, but also Britain's involvement in the slave trade, Britain's use of concentration camps in the Boer War of 1901, Britain's forced conversion of Africans to an alien religion and so on. Britain, like many other countries, has a lot of blood on it's hands, and the people must know whose blood it is.

Janus
19th November 2005, 22:58
Very interesting. I had always believed that the Potato Famine was caused by the potato blight and the Irish dependence on the potato. However, the refusal of the British to help would've contributed to it as well.

ComradeOm
20th November 2005, 02:36
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 19 2005, 11:03 PM
Very interesting. I had always believed that the Potato Famine was caused by the potato blight and the Irish dependence on the potato. However, the refusal of the British to help would've contributed to it as well.
The question is just why the people were dependent on the potato. This piece answers that quite well.

Entrails Konfetti
20th November 2005, 21:44
What were these Transplantation Schemes, spoils of conquest by the British Lords?

Also, what I find interesting about this article is that in the 18th century, after Johnathan Swift takes off his ironic veil in "A Modest Proposal", one of the serious measures that Swift calls for to improve the state of Ireland is to end the taxing of absenties. I don't understand why he demanded that, these absenties were British landowner right? These were the people who were leeching off the workers and peasents, if anything they should be taxed heavily to promote even a tiny bit of sustainance for the poor.

PRC-UTE
21st November 2005, 00:10
Are you sure he was serious?

Maybe he thought that they paid their taxes by exploiting peasants and by abolishing taxes it would make life easier for them ... not that I agree with it, but maybe that&#39;s what he meant. I dunno. I never read Swift, I really should. Wasn&#39;t taught in school cos he was Protestant. <_< How stupid is that.

Entrails Konfetti
21st November 2005, 00:25
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

That link will lead you to "A Modest Proposal" its one of the best satires of the 18th century, if not ever.

gilhyle
22nd November 2005, 20:34
Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 12:15 AM
Are you sure he was serious?

Maybe he thought that they paid their taxes by exploiting peasants and by abolishing taxes it would make life easier for them ... not that I agree with it, but maybe that&#39;s what he meant. I dunno. I never read Swift, I really should. Wasn&#39;t taught in school cos he was Protestant. <_< How stupid is that.
WHere did you go to school ? I never heard such a claim in my life. I guess that is why they don&#39;t teach Berkely&#39;s philosophy in Irish Universities. (They do) I guess that is why WB Yeats isn&#39;t on the Irish school syllabus. (He is) People aren&#39;t banned from being taught in Ireland because they are protestant &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Read Swift....then you will know why he is not on the syllabus.

As to the article. Some excellant research has been done on the famine - Christine Keneally&#39;s book is well worth a read.

But it is essential to disentangle at least four different things:

- famine was endemic in the argiculatural systems of Europe until the mid-nineteenth century;

- Ireland had an imperialist land-ownership structure, characterised by extensive land ownership by English aristorcrats;

- Ireland experienced a massive land-based population boom characteristic of pre-industrial periods of development in the late 18 and early 19th centures;

- the famine had an immanent cause (the blight) and a long term basis - the combination of an imperialist land ownership structure and a pre-industrial population density in Ireland;

- the effect of the famine in Ireland was regional and you will find that the areas from which crops were exported were not hit hard by the famine;

- those suffering from the famine couldn&#39;t afford the commercial crops that were exported and this idea of food being exported while people died was a great nationalist image, but it had little purchase on the economic reality;

- the British attitude at the time of the famine was one of benign neglect which changed as the famine developed into one of very substantial state efforts to minimise the effects of the famine.


As a general comment, Ireland is littered with the remnants of hackneyed nationalist historiography, available for socialists to pick up, dust off and swallow with all the gusto of a famine victim. It remains, for the most part, ineffective, cliched historiography and any socialist really interested in the topic would do better to read the real historiography. The politicial lessons are there. Beresford Ellis, from your account, is not adding anything worthwhile to this. More is the pity.

gilhyle
22nd November 2005, 20:35
Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 12:15 AM
Are you sure he was serious?

Maybe he thought that they paid their taxes by exploiting peasants and by abolishing taxes it would make life easier for them ... not that I agree with it, but maybe that&#39;s what he meant. I dunno. I never read Swift, I really should. Wasn&#39;t taught in school cos he was Protestant. <_< How stupid is that.
WHere did you go to school ? I never heard such a claim in my life. I guess that is why they don&#39;t teach Berkely&#39;s philosophy in Irish Universities. (They do) I guess that is why WB Yeats isn&#39;t on the Irish school syllabus. (He is) People aren&#39;t banned from being taught in Ireland because they are protestant &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Read Swift....then you will know why he is not on the syllabus.

As to the article. Some excellant research has been done on the famine - Christine Keneally&#39;s book is well worth a read.

But it is essential to disentangle at least four different things:

- famine was endemic in the argiculatural systems of Europe until the mid-nineteenth century;

- Ireland had an imperialist land-ownership structure, characterised by extensive land ownership by English aristorcrats;

- Ireland experienced a massive land-based population boom characteristic of pre-industrial periods of development in the late 18 and early 19th centures;

- the famine had an immanent cause (the blight) and a long term basis - the combination of an imperialist land ownership structure and a pre-industrial population density in Ireland;

- the effect of the famine in Ireland was regional and you will find that the areas from which crops were exported were not hit hard by the famine;

- those suffering from the famine couldn&#39;t afford the commercial crops that were exported and this idea of food being exported while people died was a great nationalist image, but it had little purchase on the economic reality;

- the British attitude at the time of the famine was one of benign neglect which changed as the famine developed into one of very substantial state efforts to minimise the effects of the famine.


As a general comment, Ireland is littered with the remnants of hackneyed nationalist historiography, available for socialists to pick up, dust off and swallow with all the gusto of a famine victim. It remains, for the most part, ineffective, cliched historiography and any socialist really interested in the topic would do better to read the real historiography. The politicial lessons are there. Beresford Ellis, from your account, is not adding anything worthwhile to this. More is the pity.

Seven Stars
22nd November 2005, 20:45
http://www.irishholocaust.org/

our_mutual_friend
22nd November 2005, 20:48
From what I know of the Potato Famine it was a fungus brought over from America, no less. Ireland being under the control of the grasping English government (all of Ireland, that is, as partition had not taken place) meant that the Irish people (apart from those that were Bristish and living there) suffered as their main crop was potatoes (apart from bad grain that wouldnt grow there and the grasping Lords there wouldnt share with their &#39;peasants&#39; (hate that term)).
Then when the Irish are dying of malnutrition the British eventually send in grain, but at crazy prices as they only wanted Ireland for its protection against invasion from the rest of Europe.
So if the British government at the time hadnt been so grasping more people would hvae survived and less Irish people would have found it necessary to emigrate.
Also class divide of Protestants and Catholics involved.
You might say it was an act of God, but the British didnt exactly protect or help their &#39;colony&#39;.

gilhyle
23rd November 2005, 20:09
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 08:53 PM
From what I know of the Potato Famine it was a fungus brought over from America, no less.
You are correct. It hit Germany in the 1830s and had hit somewhere else (can&#39;t remember where) in the 1820s. It was very little understood, which partially explains the 1846 State reaction. But it was clearly understood thereafter. The Lumper potatoe widely used in Ireland (low quality/high yield) was particularly vulnerable. There is a useful &#39;History of the Potatoe (possibly by a man called &#39;Salmon&#39;, if I remember correctly.

The Grey Blur
23rd November 2005, 21:22
WHere did you go to school ? I never heard such a claim in my life. I guess that is why they don&#39;t teach Berkely&#39;s philosophy in Irish Universities. (They do) I guess that is why WB Yeats isn&#39;t on the Irish school syllabus. (He is) People aren&#39;t banned from being taught in Ireland because they are protestant &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Read Swift....then you will know why he is not on the syllabus.
Are you a complete and utter idiot?


I never heard such a claim in my life
Then you must be either very young or very isolated or, more likely, you have no idea about what life was like in the Six Counties during the Troubles


I guess that is why they don&#39;t teach Berkely&#39;s philosophy in Irish Universities. (They do) I guess that is why WB Yeats isn&#39;t on the Irish school syllabus. (He is)
God, how patronizing...Óglach most likely went to a Catholic secondary school ie. St Mary&#39;s or St Pat&#39;s; this is why he didn&#39;t read Swift - the Catholic Church was afraid that Protestant literature wuld turn the kids into blasphemers (or perhaps just out of petty-minded sectarianism; who knows?)

Also, Óglach said
How stupid is that. Can&#39;t you read?


People aren&#39;t banned from being taught in Ireland because they are protestant &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
Yes they were at the time Óglach attended Secondary School (early 80&#39;s/late 70&#39;s?) - show a little respect and actually read people&#39;s posts.


famine was endemic in the argiculatural systems of Europe until the mid-nineteenth century;
Wrong, The first area in Europe to eliminate famine was the Netherlands, which saw its last peacetime famines in the early 17th century as it became a major economic power and established a complex political organization. The rest of Western European nations followed.


- Ireland had an imperialist land-ownership structure, characterised by extensive land ownership by English aristorcrats;
Illegal, unfair ownership.


- Ireland experienced a massive land-based population boom characteristic of pre-industrial periods of development in the late 18 and early 19th centures;
I&#39;m not saying I doubt this but do you have any sources for these claims?


- the effect of the famine in Ireland was regional and you will find that the areas from which crops were exported were not hit hard by the famine;
WHAT IS THIS BULLSHIT? People, more than 1 million, almost a quarter of the population, died because of the Great Hunger and he&#39;s trying to say "oh, but it was all regional, no need to worry" - the bottom line is people, all over Ireland, died in vile conditions due to the negligence of the British Empire.


- those suffering from the famine couldn&#39;t afford the commercial crops that were exported and this idea of food being exported while people died was a great nationalist image, but it had little purchase on the economic reality;
I thought I was done with the idiotic anti-nationalists after BOZG...Let me repeat myself...WHAT IS THIS BULLSHIT? - The idea of food being exported while people starved is a fact, nothing to do with a nationalist or whatever viewpoint:

0n 30 June 1846 Peel&#39;s Tories were replaced by a Liberal government led by Lord John Russell. The government was obsessed with laissez faire economics, trusting all to free trade and market forces. Trevelyan sat much happier with such policies, and in close cooperation with Chancellor of the Exchequer Sir Charles Wood, later the first Lord Halifax, he set about introducing this free market lunacy into the situation in Ireland. Within a month of taking office it became clear to the government that the Irish potato crop was going to fail for a second year. The prospect could only be one of unmitigated disaster. What was Trevelyan&#39;s response to this? He said:

&#39;The only way to prevent the people from becoming habitually dependent on government is to bring the operation to a close. The uncertainty about the new crop only makes it more necessary. Whatever may be done hereafter these things should be stopped now or we run the risk of paralysing all private enterprise and having this country on you for an indefinite number of years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer strongly supports this policy.&#39;

In other words we&#39;re going to leave things as they are to market forces and even cut the limited amount that was done by the Peel government. And therefore they promptly announced that the following would happen--all government food depots which had become crucial in 1845 to feeding sections of the population would now be closed, apart for some special cases in the west of Ireland. Public works should continue, but would now have to be entirely paid from the local rate in Ireland--that&#39;s the uncollectable rate. Meanwhile the export of food from Ireland was not to be hampered in any way, shape or form. And so food was being exported whilst people were starving.


the British attitude at the time of the famine was one of benign neglect which changed as the famine developed into one of very substantial state efforts to minimise the effects of the famine.
BULLSHIT:

Trevelyan&#39;s (Trevelyan was the head treasurer for the British in Ireland) response to this grotesque tragedy was the following: &#39;If the Irish once find out there are any circumstances in which they can get free government grants, we shall have a system of mendacity such as the world has never seen.&#39;

In 1848, however, there was a complete failure of the crop once again and with it came complete and final ruin. In response the government decided that nothing could be done. With people facing absolute starvation, they decided to close the soup kitchens they had opened two years earlier.

One of the cases made by &#39;revisionist&#39; historians today is that the British government did as much as it could, or at least it did as much as any major European government would have done. This was not a view held by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the British government&#39;s man in Ireland, Lord Clarendon. He was so horrified by what was taking place that he felt compelled to write to Lord John Russell:

&#39;Surely this is a state of things to justify you asking the House of Commons for an advance. For I don&#39;t think there is another legislature in Europe that would disregard such suffering as now exists in the West of Ireland, or coldly persist in such a policy of extermination.&#39;

To add to the misery, there were two other great disasters both as a result of the famine. The first was typhus. The poverty, the dirt and the starvation meant that it spread to kill hundreds of thousands of people. It was carried through head lice and, in the main, was incurable. There were insufficient hospitals to deal with it. People were dying in the streets in their thousands. Again little or nothing was done by the government.


As a general comment, Ireland is littered with the remnants of hackneyed nationalist historiography, available for socialists to pick up, dust off and swallow with all the gusto of a famine victim
Yeah OK - the Great Hunger didn&#39;t occur, thanks for that brilliant comment mate. Anyway, again you make this a nationalist vs. Socialist issue when, in fact it is neither; it is a simple case of recognizing the facts of history, a case of recognizing the negligence and inhumanity of the British Empire which brought so much misery to so many countries.


It remains, for the most part, ineffective, cliched historiography and any socialist really interested in the topic would do better to read the real historiography
Or check out Wikipedia :D ...asshole


The politicial lessons are there
The lesson being - the Great Hunger was a case of British negligence combined with an active policy of disenfranchising the poor Irish combined with the catalyst of the potato blight which inevitably lead to the millions of deaths and emigration that was the result...the article says it better than I ever could...

The Grey Blur
23rd November 2005, 21:30
Also class divide of Protestants and Catholics involved.
There was no religious class divide (although religion played a part in whether or not you were allowed a certain amount of land), it was a divide between the rich, Anglo-Irish landowners and their poor tenants.


From what I know of the Potato Famine it was a fungus brought over from America, no less
The origins of the blight are still unclear, but I sincerely doubt it came from North America; if so, why was there no potato blight in the U.S.A? (I could be wrong here)


You might say it was an act of God, but the British didnt exactly protect or help their &#39;colony&#39;.
Did you even read the article?

"The calamity was essentially man-made, a poison of blind politics, scientific ignorance, rural suppression, and enforced poverty." - Joseph Judge, "The Travail of Ireland." National Geographic vol. 159 no. 4

PRC-UTE
24th November 2005, 00:57
Originally posted by gilhyle+Nov 22 2005, 08:40 PM--> (gilhyle &#064; Nov 22 2005, 08:40 PM)
[email protected] 21 2005, 12:15 AM
Are you sure he was serious?

Maybe he thought that they paid their taxes by exploiting peasants and by abolishing taxes it would make life easier for them ... not that I agree with it, but maybe that&#39;s what he meant. I dunno. I never read Swift, I really should. Wasn&#39;t taught in school cos he was Protestant. <_< How stupid is that.
WHere did you go to school ? I never heard such a claim in my life. I guess that is why they don&#39;t teach Berkely&#39;s philosophy in Irish Universities. (They do) I guess that is why WB Yeats isn&#39;t on the Irish school syllabus. (He is) People aren&#39;t banned from being taught in Ireland because they are protestant &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Read Swift....then you will know why he is not on the syllabus.[/b]
You&#39;ve never heard of that sort of thing?

I went to a Catholic school; I wouldn&#39;t say it was rabidly anti-protestant but some of the teachers were. One was a convert to Catholicism and was a true fanatic. To avoid doing work, someone would bring up a topic he hated to let him rant, be it Protestants, Marx, etc. :lol: I didn&#39;t want to go there but was made to.


- famine was endemic in the argiculatural systems of Europe until the mid-nineteenth century;

Can you tell us then why the famine was uniquely horrible - why it has been widely considered the worst "natural" disaster of the nineteenth century?


- Ireland had an imperialist land-ownership structure, characterised by extensive land ownership by English aristorcrats;

If you admit these facts right from the start, why do you try to dismiss it by saying &#39;Ireland is littered with the remnants of hackneyed nationalist historiography,&#39; like an arrogant wank?

If the &#39;imperialist land-ownership structure&#39; (or as Lenin put it more succintly, serfdom) is such a valid explanation, why act so superior? Just to show off your anti-nationalist middle class intellectual snobbery?


- the famine had an immanent cause (the blight) and a long term basis - the combination of an imperialist land ownership structure and a pre-industrial population density in Ireland;

You conveniently left out a crucial part of the story. The Brits used the massive amount of food Ireland had to feed its own population and starve and kill as many Irish as possible. In any other country, the potato blight would&#39;ve been a minor issue - but the Irish were not allowed the produce of their own labour. The British governement said it didn&#39;t have enough money to feed the Irish people, but it always had enough in the treasury to pay troops to guard food shipments leaving the island.


- the effect of the famine in Ireland was regional and you will find that the areas from which crops were exported were not hit hard by the famine;

Exactly the kind of detail that confirms what you call the &#39;hackneyed nationalist historiography&#39;. Loyal Ulster was spared the famine, while Nationalist areas suffered one of the worst disasters in modern history.


- those suffering from the famine couldn&#39;t afford the commercial crops that were exported and this idea of food being exported while people died was a great nationalist image, but it had little purchase on the economic reality;

I&#39;ve seen republican sympathising historians point out the fact that the Irish had no money. Can you explain how the &#39;nationalist image&#39; was not in touch with reality?


- the British attitude at the time of the famine was one of benign neglect which changed as the famine developed into one of very substantial state efforts to minimise the effects of the famine.

I don&#39;t see how it could be considered &#39;benign&#39;. :blink: Your contention that its effects were minimised by state efforts is just laughable. Nothing of the sort occured. Most relief efforts for starters were by religious charity groups who regarded the famine as a result of the Irish &#39;moral wickedness&#39; and tried to convert them to the Protestant religion.


As a general comment, Ireland is littered with the remnants of hackneyed nationalist historiography, available for socialists to pick up, dust off and swallow with all the gusto of a famine victim. It remains, for the most part, ineffective, cliched historiography and any socialist really interested in the topic would do better to read the real historiography. The politicial lessons are there. Beresford Ellis, from your account, is not adding anything worthwhile to this. More is the pity.

What a revolting metaphor and what an immature person you are. You dismissing Ellis is rather odd - I guess it&#39;s your assumption that everyone knows what he writes about and it&#39;s not worth showing others. What an odd sort of elitism.

gilhyle
24th November 2005, 20:45
1. I went to school in Ireland in the same period. In any case, it doesn&#39;t matter when you or I went to school, just look at the textbooks; the facts are a matter of record. Protestants were not banned from the syllabus. You are just wrong. You ignore the fact that Swift is not an appropriate writer to put in any scale on the secondary school syllabus.

2. I gave references to Kenneally and Salmon for what I said. There are plenty more. The best book analysing Irish population growth is a fascinating report written written by a Norwegian academic and published by the NESC in 1991....if I remember the name I&#39;ll post it (maybe Mjoset?).

3. One million was one eight of the then population, not a quarter.

4. The regional nature of the famine is well documented. There was no plot to save Ulster - like all the areas of the country that did not suffer as badly from the blight, the regional dispersion of the famine was a reflection of the regional variation in the structure of the agricultural economy.

5. I&#39;m not trying to say the British State was as effective as an independent State would have been. I think the difference in State structure did create a difference in the quality of response - the response made would not have been politically viable for an Irish state. But that is a long way from the kind of conspiracy theory stuff some nationalists still, apparently, produce. Name a 19th century state anywhere that carried out an effective anti-famine relief programme. (Seriously, I am interested in this if you&#39;ve got a good reference.)

6. I&#39;ve never seen anyone deny that North America was the ultimate source of the blight - it didn&#39;t affect them so much because they didn&#39;t have the kind of reliance on the potatoe that developed in Ireland.

7. Sure, the Netherlands got rid of famines early, why ? because of the extraordinary commercial development of Holland in the 17th century. Famines persisted elsewhere well into the 18th century. Now, you would prove an interesting point if you could show that famines persisted in the area of the &#39;Low Countries&#39; still subject to foreign rule in that period and if you could show why by comparing State policies. Any takers ?

8. My careless phrasing confuses my simple point: the famine was the product of the distorted economic development of Ireland in the late 18th and early 19th century rather than being the result of any land clearing conspiracy. The evidence for a land clearing conspiracy just isnt there.

9. Yes I am anti-nationalist......ever since the peace process started, nationalism has become almost politically worthless in Ireland.

PRC-UTE
25th November 2005, 16:21
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 08:50 PM
1. I went to school in Ireland in the same period. In any case, it doesn&#39;t matter when you or I went to school, just look at the textbooks; the facts are a matter of record. Protestants were not banned from the syllabus. You are just wrong. You ignore the fact that Swift is not an appropriate writer to put in any scale on the secondary school syllabus.
I already addressed this.


2. I gave references to Kenneally and Salmon for what I said. There are plenty more. The best book analysing Irish population growth is a fascinating report written written by a Norwegian academic and published by the NESC in 1991....if I remember the name I&#39;ll post it (maybe Mjoset?).


Good for you. There are plenty of scholarly works backing up our side, including many studies that relied on primary source evidence, not "nationalist historagraphy".


4. The regional nature of the famine is well documented. There was no plot to save Ulster - like all the areas of the country that did not suffer as badly from the blight, the regional dispersion of the famine was a reflection of the regional variation in the structure of the agricultural economy.

I never claimed there was a "plot". It&#39;s very weak to misrepresent your opponent&#39;s argument to point score. The fact is that through the "Ulster custom", peasant farmers were able to reinvest in the land and diversify crops, something that was unattainable for catholic peasants, most especially the Irish speaking communities. The claim that the Gaelic/Catholic peasantry suffered far more is not out of conspiratorial theories but structural observations.


5. I&#39;m not trying to say the British State was as effective as an independent State would have been. I think the difference in State structure did create a difference in the quality of response - the response made would not have been politically viable for an Irish state. But that is a long way from the kind of conspiracy theory stuff some nationalists still, apparently, produce. Name a 19th century state anywhere that carried out an effective anti-famine relief programme. (Seriously, I am interested in this if you&#39;ve got a good reference.)

Maybe you should first explain why the famine was on a far greater magnitude than any other in the ninteenth century that I&#39;m aware of - it&#39;s been referred to many times as the greatest &#39;natural&#39; disaster of that century.



6. I&#39;ve never seen anyone deny that North America was the ultimate source of the blight - it didn&#39;t affect them so much because they didn&#39;t have the kind of reliance on the potatoe that developed in Ireland.

That&#39;s exactly the point many historians who agree with our pov have said&#33; That&#39;s never been denied. Yes, the entire point is that the Irish peasantry had no choice in their dependence on the potatoe, and this dependence is what made the blight so deadly. In the same period, Ireland was producing enough other crops and livestock to feed the entire population. Hmm, wonder where all the food went...



7. Sure, the Netherlands got rid of famines early, why ? because of the extraordinary commercial development of Holland in the 17th century. Famines persisted elsewhere well into the 18th century. Now, you would prove an interesting point if you could show that famines persisted in the area of the &#39;Low Countries&#39; still subject to foreign rule in that period and if you could show why by comparing State policies. Any takers ?

If those areas experienced development and accumulation of capital, then that&#39;s still a great example of why Ireland suffered. Food stuffs were continually exported to feed England and no capital was reinvested in Gaelic Ireland, which is what led to such suffering. No amount of spin can change that fact.



8. My careless phrasing confuses my simple point: the famine was the product of the distorted economic development of Ireland in the late 18th and early 19th century rather than being the result of any land clearing conspiracy. The evidence for a land clearing conspiracy just isnt there.

I&#39;ve never heard of it being a conspiracy before. It was completely out in the open, no secrets about it, no plots necessary. It was a natural extension of British policy for some time.



9. Yes I am anti-nationalist......ever since the peace process started, nationalism has become almost politically worthless in Ireland.

I&#39;m not a nationalist to begin with, and I find fault with your insistence that the view Ellis has of the famine is inherently nationalist.

The Grey Blur
25th November 2005, 17:42
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 04:26 PM
I&#39;m not a nationalist to begin with, and I find fault with your insistence that the view Ellis has of the famine is inherently nationalist.
Since Óglach basically did all the arguing for me I just wish to concur with this point; although I am proud of my heritage and culture it is not to the detriment of my socialist leanings, in other words - I&#39;m an Irish Republican

gilhyle
25th November 2005, 20:25
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 04:26 PM
I never claimed there was a "plot". It&#39;s very weak to misrepresent your opponent&#39;s argument to point score. .... The claim that the Gaelic/Catholic peasantry suffered far more is not out of conspiratorial theories but structural observations.

.....

I&#39;ve never heard of it being a conspiracy before. It was completely out in the open, no secrets about it, no plots necessary. It was a natural extension of British policy for some time.


I&#39;m not a nationalist to begin with, and I find fault with your insistence that the view Ellis has of the famine is inherently nationalist.
I would gain nothing by misrepresenting you. So I happily accept your point. Apologies for any misrepresentation.

I do not, however, understand your distinction between a &#39;plot&#39; (which you say you are not claiming) and an &#39;open policy&#39;.

The point is this: was there an intention on the part of the British State to clear the land by allowing the peasantry to die and did this lead to a conscious decision to neglect or avoid courses of action which would otherwise have been taken to reduce loss of life.

Nationalist historiography has long since claimed this was so. Ellis repeats the accusation. It is not substantiated.

As to Ulster, both catholics and protestants in Ulster benefitted from the low impact of the famine there - as did significant parts of Leinster. The &#39;Ulster Custom&#39; did not lead, structurally to a different outcome.

WHy was it such a big event ? Here we may agree. My argument would be that it was such a big event because the consequences of British rule in Ireland were such as to abort a nascent industrial revolution, leaving a primed population base with no viable means of prosperity, thus making them vulnerable to the famine. Thus it was structural

This kind of structural argument is very different from the argument which claims that the deaths were avoidable if the State had not adopted an unusual policy of malign neglect. THat is a nationalist argument which isolates the policies of the imperialist ruling clique as the critical problem.

BTW you may think you have answered me on Swift, but I think not. Soudings by Augustine Martin was the poetry text book in Ireland (south of the border) throughout the 1970s. Every poet in the main section (except GM Hopkins) was protestant. Catholics only get a look in in the &#39;Irish Poets&#39; appendix.