The latter is not correct - the food in question was taken from the tenant farmers. And it is the height of illogicality to take food fron Ireland and then bring in Indian Meal from America.
Exactly. Why give them food imported at some cost whilst taking away what they have? Yet we know the food imports from the US and elsewhere did take place so the claims of food being taken from tenant farmers (who were the one's whose crops had failed anyway) cannot be correct.
The latter is not correct - the food in question was taken from the tenant farmers. And it is the height of illogicality to take food fron Ireland and then bring in Indian Meal from America.
Exactly. Why give them food imported at some cost whilst taking away what they have? Yet we know the food imports from the US and elsewhere did take place so the claims of food being taken from tenant farmers (who were the one's whose crops had failed anyway) cannot be correct.
Unfortunatly I didn't watch the show mr. Sharma presented. Which probably was a good job as his agenda's stink or his references were up his arse. I sure he got paid enough money to do a descent job on research. Maybe he should concentrate on less controversal tit bits of History, like the holocost. Then he can go and annoy somebody else and leave Irish History alone.
The latter is not correct - the food in question was taken from the tenant farmers. And it is the height of illogicality to take food fron Ireland and then bring in Indian Meal from America.
Exactly. Why give them food imported at some cost whilst taking away what they have? Yet we know the food imports from the US and elsewhere did take place so the claims of food being taken from tenant farmers (who were the one's whose crops had failed anyway) cannot be correct.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
What you say does not necessarily follow: they only started importing food when the death toll was so great that international concern was being being expressed, so they imported the cheapest food they could, Maize from America. The Irish tenant farmers grew a mixture of crops - cereals, pigs, etc.. Indeed, when thousands were dying, ships laden with food were leaving Irish ports.
I suppose it would be too much for you to support this with some reliable references?
Peel's government realised the blight was going to be serious in October of 1845 and the first relief supplies, £102,000 worth from the US and £46,000 from Britain, (hardly insignicant amounts at the time) were bought in November although few people were in danger at the time. Supplies were hard to come by because the blight had affected other countries who had responded by banning exports.
quote:Originally posted by warlord: If the Brits had intended to wipe out the Irish, they would have done it properly and there would be nobody left to complain about it.
That they wished to destroy Irish society I have no doubt at all - the Irish were despised as an inferior race - and, in fact, they partly succeeded in their aim: the Gaelic world was virtually destroyed. Why didn't they wipe the Irish out? Two reasons, I think: international pressure and the need for the cheap labour the Irish provided.
Its a pity that their race theory has not been borne out in subsequent times: where the Irish have been given a chance they have excelled, excelled in every field, indeed. Thomas Carlyle must be spinning in his grave.
So jack doe, are you saying they were destroying Irish society or is it genecide. Are you back tracking or contradicting yourself, I'm confused? As warlord has already stated if the Brits had intended to wipe us out they would have done so. I put it down to British incompetence at ruling their empire, not genecide. You've stated they needed us as a workforce, make up your mind.
quote:Originally posted by gt: So jack doe, are you saying they were destroying Irish society or is it genecide. Are you back tracking or contradicting yourself, I'm confused? As warlord has already stated if the Brits had intended to wipe us out they would have done so. I put it down to British incompetence at ruling their empire, not genecide. You've stated they needed us as a workforce, make up your mind.
In the first part of your question, destroying a society and genocide are NOT mutually exclusive.
In the second part, wiping out a people would have presented a problem to what was, nominally at least, a christian country. Britain cared about its appearance to the world - and, anyway, it would have cost money. Plus, they DID need the labour - aquiescent labour.
More than a million people die, a matter a few hundred miles from the centre of an Empire that ruled half the world - and you put it down to incompetence! If you believe that you'd believe anything.
And it destroys all arguements in favour of Empires.
Never said I believed in Empire but I do think you keep contradicting yourself, thats all.
So if they needed the Labour it was hardly genecide then was it? You cannot have it both ways. That is unless your are a historical sczhophreic. However I know i am a bad speller.
P.S. Go buy a bag of chips incase the brits do it again i.e. " planned a potatoe Blight according to you".
quote:More than a million people die, a matter a few hundred miles from the centre of an Empire that ruled half the world - and you put it down to incompetence! If you believe that you'd believe anything
Before reliable contraceptives were invented, there was a perennial tendency for human population to increase until it was cut back by famine or disease. In some Middle Eastern countries, the population is currently rising at 4% a year; such is the breeding ability of humans. In 19th Century Europe, the "lower classes" lived on the breadline, and when the weather resulted in a poor harvest, starvation was commonplace. 19th century England, Wales and Scotland were not exempt from this problem, which is why Britain had militant trade unions and socialism became popular. What happened in Ireland was an extreme example of a normal process in any society where contraception is not available. The reason it was such an extreme example is that Ireland was unusually dependent on a single crop - the potato - which was very badly hit by a fungus imported accidentally from America. Allegations of genocide or an attempt to "destroy Irish society" never make any attempt to provide a motive. After the failure of the 1798 rebellion, Ireland appeared to accept British rule and the Catholics had been given the vote by the Duke of Wellington and Robert Peel. In the late 1830s, most people on the mainland thought that Ireland would enjoy "ever closer union" with the rest of the United Kingdom.
quote:More than a million people die, a matter a few hundred miles from the centre of an Empire that ruled half the world - and you put it down to incompetence! If you believe that you'd believe anything
Before reliable contraceptives were invented, there was a perennial tendency for human population to increase until it was cut back by famine or disease. In some Middle Eastern countries, the population is currently rising at 4% a year; such is the breeding ability of humans. In 19th Century Europe, the "lower classes" lived on the breadline, and when the weather resulted in a poor harvest, starvation was commonplace. 19th century England, Wales and Scotland were not exempt from this problem, which is why Britain had militant trade unions and socialism became popular. What happened in Ireland was an extreme example of a normal process in any society where contraception is not available. The reason it was such an extreme example is that Ireland was unusually dependent on a single crop - the potato - which was very badly hit by a fungus imported accidentally from America. Allegations of genocide or an attempt to "destroy Irish society" never make any attempt to provide a motive. After the failure of the 1798 rebellion, Ireland appeared to accept British rule and the Catholics had been given the vote by the Duke of Wellington and Robert Peel. In the late 1830s, most people on the mainland thought that Ireland would enjoy "ever closer union" with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Ireland was NOT dependent on the potato - there was more than enough food. If you care to read what I wrote, I gave more than enough motives. If Britain wanted closer union, it should have treated the Irish halfway decently. Talk of the "mainland" with reference to Ireland (itself a mainland) illustrates the problems the Irish still face.
That they wished to destroy Irish society I have no doubt at all - the Irish were despised as an inferior race - and, in fact, they partly succeeded in their aim: the Gaelic world was virtually destroyed. Why didn't they wipe the Irish out? Two reasons, I think: international pressure and the need for the cheap labour the Irish provided.
So the Brits wanted to wipe out the Irish because they considered them inferior but didn't because they needed the cheap labour?
quote:Originally posted by Fil2: You just contradicted yourself, remember?
quote:Originally posted by jack doe:
That they wished to destroy Irish society I have no doubt at all - the Irish were despised as an inferior race - and, in fact, they partly succeeded in their aim: the Gaelic world was virtually destroyed. Why didn't they wipe the Irish out? Two reasons, I think: international pressure and the need for the cheap labour the Irish provided.
So the Brits wanted to wipe out the Irish because they considered them inferior but didn't because they needed the cheap labour?
Yes, that makes a lot of sense.
Still waiting for those references.
This was in answer to the nice gentlemen, that had suggested they would have wiped out the whole of the Irish people if they had desired to do so (its as I thought - but perhaps its more of a reflection on him than the British people}. I was pointing out that they needed the labour to work the land. The Irish had recently won their freedom from the Penal Laws (Daniel O'Connell) and the British probably felt threatened that the Irish might demand more rights. So a limited cull would have suited them. I think the British should join the Germans and admit their past - and pay reperations.
Speaking as an Irishman I personally think its time to move on, not mull in the past. I certainly wont be forgeting History, but to ask a whole nation to pay reparations from that period in History...I think that is a "little" odd.
I think we can ask the Irish tribes such as the O'Niells for one, going back in History for stabbing their neighbouring tribes in the back betraying them to the British . Treachery and corruption cuts both ways and then so should compensation.
The Billions invested the other way I think certainly shows some nations have changed and moved on. Alot of my fellow countrymen are living in the past, thankfully many are starting to look forward, take some ownership yerself and look forward.
If you are so passionate about the nation then how about helping build its future (perhaps you are?) than perpetuating a victim culture. Keep yer head high and proud and stop acting like a "whinging pomey"
Since working with both communities in North Belfast Mr. Jack Doe you may be even more disgusted to know that there are Irishmen with even less knowledge of Irish History than myself. However I continue to study as best I can. Your goud at me maybe down more to the fact that you can't bait me and I fail to see myself as a victim.
However, I wish you many more revelations in your Historical pursuits, but hope you are not teaching children this one sided persective.
quote: Ireland was NOT dependent on the potato - there was more than enough food.
This is the most bizarre claim yet. A sympathetic Welsh historian (Jan Morris) says: "The Irish peasantry lived almost entirely on the potato, eating in ordinary times the average of 14 lb per head per day and this vegetable...gave them all the calories and vitamins they needed, so...that they were among the biggest people in Europe. So dependent were the Irish on the potato...that they scarcely tried any other food. Such grain as they grew, they used to pay the rent". The same writer quotes an Irish population of 8 million in 1841. The population of England and Wales increased from 8 million in 1800 to 16 million in 1850; hence the population of Ireland was nearly half that of England and Wales. When the potato blight struck, an effective relief operation would require every two mainland families to feed one Irish family; but as I pointed out before, the bulk of the English and Welsh were living in poverty themselves.
