The Famine, was Shameful Treatment of WWII Vets.

ocoonassa

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
6,124
I'm leaving this reply here for Cael to save sidetracking the other thread any further.

What has that got to do with anything?
In 1849 masses of Irish people died painful deaths from it. Even now it is understood, when it takes hold, even though there is now medicine for it, it still sweeps thousands of souls away. Understand.

What the disease was called is of no interest.
Epidemiology, vectors and mechanisms of transmission, they're the things that go with the name. Maybe of no interest to closed minds but anybody wanting to understand what happens/happened needs it.

The British state created the poverty which led to the conditions for disease.
Sure, you really believe that Cael and in your overarching assumption, once you forgive and forget the criminally shíte leadership, the backwards feudal religion, and the factional infighting and the fact there was no British State until 1707 then yes you're right.

However for the specifics of the Great Famine the population of Ireland went from around 4.5m to 8.5 in 40 years, fastest ever population increase in the whole history of the island, since 1900 it's not yet done the same in 110 years. The way it did that was on the back of the virtually free food that was the pratie.



You can see from this map exactly where the faultline lay between rich and poor and appreciate that it was the poor who were the largest increase in population. Millions of extra poor for who there was no work. A disaster waiting to happen if the food supply ran out.



See the faultlines on those maps? That development faultline interests me. Who owned a fair skelp of the crappy land that left hand side Cael? Who were the landlords and the landlords' agents? Who were the tenant farmers, the makers and exporters of produce on the right hand side? Why did Irish leaders let people persist with the doomed monoculture of lumpers when over the water this practice was discouraged and derided? Why were the public works deliberately kept limited and by whom, when the money was there to provide for more? I've got a whole load of questions for Irish Catholic Whigs and Conservatives and their voters and Bishops. O'Connells class you know, and the Catholic clergy, the 'quality' that the poor people looked up to for guidance, followed. When the Protestants from Young Ireland stepped forward to be radical what all went on there Cael? Do you ever ask these questions?


The precise quote about the Red Skins was made in the editorial of the London Times. All you had to do was google it.
Yeah you see the reason I garbled it imprecisely was because I've googled it before looking for its veracity and it comes up wanting. The earliest citation I can find is some Irish-American nutbar. If you trust it, why do you trust it? It doesn't show up in Times archive at all. You swallow propaganda Cael but only from one side I think.

You are obviously a very uneducated person.
There's a big difference between being educated and swallowing propaganda wholesale.

I'm a Gael you silly little prat.
lol Cael the Gael, yeah right bro', you're like Daniel Day Lewis in The Last of The Mohicans or something. More like fracturing Irishmen into factions with womantic nonsense worn as a nationalist badge.

If we want to go pretending things, if we want to allow ourselves as men to indulge in the preening vanity of it, then I'm a sovereign independent huntergatherer here from the stoneage and sure enough, clear as clear, that's what it says in my genes.

I'm here from before and ever since the farmers enslaved me and trying to get the egalitarian life back. Kept for most of the last 6,000 years as a brutalised chattel I take precedence over any slave keeping feudal aristocrats and their continual warfare. You Gaels, Christians, Vikings, Normans, Anglos, Scots are all inferior to my roots. All these murderers and slave keepers are the Empire. You think that you can disentangle them from each other and favour one over the other but they're all tyrants. You might as well claim to be any one of the invaders.
 


controller

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
3,149
I'm confused about the title
 

supermonkey

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
614
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Potato_Failure"]European Potato Failure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:phytophtora_infestans-effects.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Phytophtora_infestans-effects.jpg/200px-Phytophtora_infestans-effects.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/9/92/Phytophtora_infestans-effects.jpg/200px-Phytophtora_infestans-effects.jpg[/ame]
 

supermonkey

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
614
I suppose Ocoonassa doesn't believe there was a famine in the Ukraine in the 1930s. Thank God for our brave Irish deserters who took the Emperor of India's shilling (that's why there was no money for famine relief in Bengal) to save the world for Stalinism.
 

ocoonassa

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
6,124
I suppose Ocoonassa doesn't believe there was a famine in the Ukraine in the 1930s.
You suppose wrong. The Holodomor happened just as surely as An Gorta Mor, what we're arguing about is the genocide aspect and who wanted to kill the poor.
 

Ifor Bach

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
10,072
Website
golang.pl
ocoonassa is simply making the rather stupid assumption that Cael is a retional person, capable of being influenced by argument.

Cael understands nothing of the world bar a few trite slogans. You are wasting your time.
 

Green eyed monster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,429
In 1849 masses of Irish people died painful deaths from it. Even now it is understood, when it takes hold, even though there is now medicine for it, it still sweeps thousands of souls away. Understand.
So your position is that disease just happens, what is your theory of the deaths from disease, bad luck, coincidence? Disease just happens to come along and kill hundreds of thousands at that time?

Epidemiology, vectors and mechanisms of transmission, they're the things that go with the name. Maybe of no interest to closed minds but anybody wanting to understand what happens/happened needs it.
All related to starvation, homelessness and the appalling conditions of the workhouses.

Sure, you really believe that Cael and in your overarching assumption, once you forgive and forget the criminally shíte leadership, the backwards feudal religion, and the factional infighting and the fact there was no British State until 1707 then yes you're right.
The factorial infighting would have been sorted if Britain hadn't gotten involved. The factorial infighting is a mark of colonialism, you sow division and in a stroke you reduce the overall maximum oppositional forces that you might ever have to deal with. The British seduced various parties in Ireland throughout history to maximise division, the plantations and the Reformation added to the division, penal laws ascendancy added to it (but when Protestant united with Catholics for once (1798) in a panic the British established closer relations with the Catholic hierarchy and founded the Orange Order - divisions). The British state is the successor state to the English and Scottish ones that went before.

However for the specifics of the Great Famine the population of Ireland went from around 4.5m to 8.5 in 40 years, fastest ever population increase in the whole history of the island, since 1900 it's not yet done the same in 110 years. The way it did that was on the back of the virtually free food that was the pratie.
Under British rule it did, poverty actually causes a rapid increase in population... the Congo for example has one of the highest birth rates on Earth. You are not going to argue there wasn't enough food available to feed everybody now are you? Don't forget all those yummy shiploads of rich foods leaving, bound for England. The British administrators had no complaints anyway about population or management of resources etc, they could always (regiments of food guarding troops out too of course) vacate the country and wash their hands of it at any time. They didn't because they wanted the free food that was leaving the country.

You can see from this map exactly where the faultline lay between rich and poor and appreciate that it was the poor who were the largest increase in population. Millions of extra poor for who there was no work. A disaster waiting to happen if the food supply ran out.
Which it didn't. Although the British authorities of the time may have viewed the Irish as another species they were not so misinformed or deluded to imagine we lacked an enzyme to digest the (again) massive shiploads of guarded foodstuffs being sent out of the country.

Who owned a fair skelp of the crappy land that left hand side Cael? Who were the landlords and the landlords' agents? Who were the tenant farmers, the makers and exporters of produce on the right hand side?
The land on the left hand side was mostly poor quality land, the Gaels mostly resided there for historical reasons of banishment, the rich centre and in Leinster was owned by the absentee landlords. Of course the land was not divided at all anyway, it was all Ireland, technically speaking (as some of you are so fond of pointing out) it was in Union with Britain actually.

Why did Irish leaders let people persist with the doomed monoculture of lumpers when over the water this practice was discouraged and derided?
You show much ignorance here, did you think they were growing potatoes because they liked the taste? On the tiny plots of land they had - in the poor conditions of the West, that is all that you could grow if you wanted to feed your familly, the potatoe is nutritious per unit area and grows on poor soil. What are you suggesting that a struggling tiny plot holder should have been raising fat dairy instead? I swear you sound just like a Victorian nobleman with your updated 'let them eat 'something other than the most basic, last resort staple diet available'.

Why were the public works deliberately kept limited and by whom, when the money was there to provide for more?
The Irish version of the poor law (written of course a few years earlier in London - don't let the name fool you) was deliberately made different to the British version, there was no requirement for such works to do anything to cater for people's basic needs as there was in Britain.

I've got a whole load of questions for Irish Catholic Whigs and Conservatives and their voters and Bishops. O'Connells class you know, and the Catholic clergy, the 'quality' that the poor people looked up to for guidance, followed. When the Protestants from Young Ireland stepped forward to be radical what all went on there Cael? Do you ever ask these questions?
Young Ireland didn't do much of anything (although there are some great speeches), in truth nobody could have forced the food exporters to feed the people while British policy ruled over Ireland and British guns were on the ground to defend the interests of their major landowners (in absentia in Britain). Not sure they would have wanted to anyway since they were all well off.

Yeah you see the reason I garbled it imprecisely was because I've googled it before looking for its veracity and it comes up wanting. The earliest citation I can find is some Irish-American nutbar. If you trust it, why do you trust it? It doesn't show up in Times archive at all. You swallow propaganda Cael but only from one side I think.
The British media's hostility towards the Irish is now regarded as one of the central planks which created the kind of indifference that watched as a million people died, descriptions of the Irish as lazy, ungrateful, drunken, improvident went side by side with cartoonish depictions of chimpanzees. This book deals with the media side of the British reaction...

Daniel O'Connell, the British press ... - Google Books

I cannot find a mention of the Times quote but i did see this on a quick perusal...

The owners of The Times, John Walter II and John Walter III, and their young editor, John Thadeus Delane, were generally hostile to Ireland's Catholics.
The Irish were deemed to be violent drunkards, impractical dreamers and ungrateful beggars, volatile untrustworthy, lazym and improvident
The Victorian British were not... how you say... PC? They made their opinions known. The media always play a major role in laying the ground for holocausts (even the revisionist Historian Roy Foster calls it a holocaust), the book is an interesting read in the practice of true propaganda which paved the way to answering how millions starved and died of disease in what was (technically) supposed to be a part of the richest country in the world at that time.

I'm here from before and ever since the farmers enslaved me and trying to get the egalitarian life back. Kept for most of the last 6,000 years as a brutalised chattel I take precedence over any slave keeping feudal aristocrats and their continual warfare. You Gaels, Christians, Vikings, Normans, Anglos, Scots are all inferior to my roots. All these murderers and slave keepers are the Empire. You think that you can disentangle them from each other and favour one over the other but they're all tyrants. You might as well claim to be any one of the invaders.
First you will have to show how the Gaels invaded and imposed themselves on those who (if this model is true) where here before.. For all we know they picked up the language from traders from Iberia. What happened before Christ is all unknown. Feel free to feel that you are a hunter gatherer but first give us one word in their language, tell us what they called themselves and name one of their people (or we will think you are just fantasising).
 

ocoonassa

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
6,124
So your position is that disease just happens, what is your theory of the deaths from disease, bad luck, coincidence? Disease just happens to come along and kill hundreds of thousands at that time?
My point was just that the disease was a mystery to everybody involved at the time, if it hadn't been a mystery it could never have killed so many. At this period of history there was the Second Cholera Pandemic, a global event that swept away millions, between about 1830-1849. Do you really think it unusual or the fault of the 'English' that it came to Ireland?

The British seduced various parties in Ireland throughout history
There's the rub. What you call "seduced parties" I call a treacherous self interested leadership belonging to ourselves alone. You blame them on the British, but look the British are gone and still these people are here.

Under British rule it did, poverty actually causes a rapid increase in population... the Congo for example has one of the highest birth rates on Earth.
So according to you the spuds had feck all to do with the population increase. I know what you're saying but to suppose that British rule was the cause overlooks the previous lack of rapid population growth under their rule. What changed was the adoption of the spud as the staple.

You are not going to argue there wasn't enough food available to feed everybody now are you? Don't forget all those yummy shiploads of rich foods leaving, bound for England.
Oh believe me, I don't forget them. I'm well aware there was more than enough food being produced. It just wasn't food for poor people. Let me ask you, when there is Kerrygold and Wexford Cheddar in all the British supermarkets, who is to blame for that? Them for buying or us for selling?

Which it didn't. Although the British authorities of the time may have viewed the Irish as another species they were not so misinformed or deluded to imagine we lacked an enzyme to digest the (again) massive shiploads of guarded foodstuffs being sent out of the country.
I don't think they viewed the Irish as another species. They viewed the Irish poor as another species. However, and this is crucial, so did the Irish who set guard over the Irish farmers and Irish tenant farmers produce.

You show much ignorance here, did you think they were growing potatoes because they liked the taste?
No, actually because of the incredibly high yield for minimal effort.

The Irish version of the poor law (written of course a few years earlier in London - don't let the name fool you) was deliberately made different to the British version, there was no requirement for such works to do anything to cater for people's basic needs as there was in Britain.
The 1838 act was amended to make relief a right by 1847.

Here's a very good article explaining all the many shades of gray surrounding the Poor Law that your black and white vision denies.

Young Ireland didn't do much of anything
It wasn't for want of trying. What was the general Irish response to them hot on the heels of such an outrage as famine?

This book deals with the media side of the British reaction...

I cannot find a mention of the Times quote but i did see this on a quick perusal...

The Victorian British were not... how you say... PC? They made their opinions known. The media always play a major role in laying the ground for holocausts (even the revisionist Historian Roy Foster calls it a holocaust), the book is an interesting read in the practice of true propaganda which paved the way to answering how millions starved and died of disease in what was (technically) supposed to be a part of the richest country in the world at that time.
Your analysis contradicts the source you cite.

"This books subtitle, Killing Remarks, is not, of course, to be taken literally. The British regardless of their biases did not intend for the Irish [poor] to suffer, much less to die."
 

ocoonassa

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
6,124
First you will have to show how the Gaels invaded and imposed themselves on those who (if this model is true) where here before.. For all we know they picked up the language from traders from Iberia. What happened before Christ is all unknown. Feel free to feel that you are a hunter gatherer but first give us one word in their language, tell us what they called themselves and name one of their people (or we will think you are just fantasising).
Look there is no doubt about the model it's all there in the archaeology as conclusive as can be. We were Mesolithic hunter gatherers. We stuck to the rivers, the sea shores and forest edges. We speared fish boar and deer and the women collected roots and berries. Material possessions were shared. This form of society we practiced even before we became human. It is our ecological niche. Such hunter gatherer bands are characterised by their egalitarian nature. Such men have the run of themselves.

The invasion came in neolithic times and is also attested to in the archaeological record. If these invaders were the ancestors of the Gaels or if the Gaels came later with even better ways of dominating is unclear. It really doesn't matter. All that matters is the switch from being egalitarian and free to being slaves. Farming took hold of the planet from three or four epicientres. It was not at any point or time in history popular with the hunter gatherers it has displaced and enslaved. It spread by causing population growth on the back of its created surplus, leading to a grab for more land. And so they came. Why you claim descent from them is beyond me, you were their slave class too.
 

Halo

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
774
So your position is that disease just happens, what is your theory of the deaths from disease, bad luck, coincidence? Disease just happens to come along and kill hundreds of thousands at that time?



All related to starvation, homelessness and the appalling conditions of the workhouses.



The factorial infighting would have been sorted if Britain hadn't gotten involved. The factorial infighting is a mark of colonialism, you sow division and in a stroke you reduce the overall maximum oppositional forces that you might ever have to deal with. The British seduced various parties in Ireland throughout history to maximise division, the plantations and the Reformation added to the division, penal laws ascendancy added to it (but when Protestant united with Catholics for once (1798) in a panic the British established closer relations with the Catholic hierarchy and founded the Orange Order - divisions). The British state is the successor state to the English and Scottish ones that went before.



Under British rule it did, poverty actually causes a rapid increase in population... the Congo for example has one of the highest birth rates on Earth. You are not going to argue there wasn't enough food available to feed everybody now are you? Don't forget all those yummy shiploads of rich foods leaving, bound for England. The British administrators had no complaints anyway about population or management of resources etc, they could always (regiments of food guarding troops out too of course) vacate the country and wash their hands of it at any time. They didn't because they wanted the free food that was leaving the country.



Which it didn't. Although the British authorities of the time may have viewed the Irish as another species they were not so misinformed or deluded to imagine we lacked an enzyme to digest the (again) massive shiploads of guarded foodstuffs being sent out of the country.



The land on the left hand side was mostly poor quality land, the Gaels mostly resided there for historical reasons of banishment, the rich centre and in Leinster was owned by the absentee landlords. Of course the land was not divided at all anyway, it was all Ireland, technically speaking (as some of you are so fond of pointing out) it was in Union with Britain actually.



You show much ignorance here, did you think they were growing potatoes because they liked the taste? On the tiny plots of land they had - in the poor conditions of the West, that is all that you could grow if you wanted to feed your familly, the potatoe is nutritious per unit area and grows on poor soil. What are you suggesting that a struggling tiny plot holder should have been raising fat dairy instead? I swear you sound just like a Victorian nobleman with your updated 'let them eat 'something other than the most basic, last resort staple diet available'.



The Irish version of the poor law (written of course a few years earlier in London - don't let the name fool you) was deliberately made different to the British version, there was no requirement for such works to do anything to cater for people's basic needs as there was in Britain.



Young Ireland didn't do much of anything (although there are some great speeches), in truth nobody could have forced the food exporters to feed the people while British policy ruled over Ireland and British guns were on the ground to defend the interests of their major landowners (in absentia in Britain). Not sure they would have wanted to anyway since they were all well off.



The British media's hostility towards the Irish is now regarded as one of the central planks which created the kind of indifference that watched as a million people died, descriptions of the Irish as lazy, ungrateful, drunken, improvident went side by side with cartoonish depictions of chimpanzees. This book deals with the media side of the British reaction...

Daniel O'Connell, the British press ... - Google Books

I cannot find a mention of the Times quote but i did see this on a quick perusal...





The Victorian British were not... how you say... PC? They made their opinions known. The media always play a major role in laying the ground for holocausts (even the revisionist Historian Roy Foster calls it a holocaust), the book is an interesting read in the practice of true propaganda which paved the way to answering how millions starved and died of disease in what was (technically) supposed to be a part of the richest country in the world at that time.



First you will have to show how the Gaels invaded and imposed themselves on those who (if this model is true) where here before.. For all we know they picked up the language from traders from Iberia. What happened before Christ is all unknown. Feel free to feel that you are a hunter gatherer but first give us one word in their language, tell us what they called themselves and name one of their people (or we will think you are just fantasising).

No need to read on from this. Great post. With ease it refutes all the original posters claims and opinion s.
 

Green eyed monster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,429
Former Wesleyan said:
Your characterisation of "the Irish " is flawed. When Trevelyan and his ilk spoke of "the Irish " he spoke of the landlord and merchant classes - both Anglo-Irish and Catholic Irish. The broad bulk of the Irish people passed by unseen to this class. The same mistake is when people mistake Tones remark about "men of no property " to mean the mass of people when it was in fact a reference to the requirement that property was neccessary to vote; in other words the large middle class was disenfranchised by this requirement.
With the amount of food that we were shipping out at that time to persons of his social class i don't think he was complaining about this, had the Irish seized those ships carrying the food to be sold for the benefit of the Predominately Protestant British landlords his Government would have shed blood to stop it.... As the following quote shows, the concerns of the landlords and the 'merchant' class were very close to the heart of the British Government at the time...

http://www.helsinki.fi/iehc2006/papers3/Gray.pdf

Lord John Russell. Senior’s principal concern was, like Graham’s, that the poor law offered a
temptation to radical and nationalist opinion (in both countries) to transfer the fiscal
responsibility for relief onto those deemed ‘guilty’ of its causation – the Irish landlord
class. Not only was this (generally ‘improving’) entity not collectively at fault, he
asserted, the wages fund at their command was inadequate for the expectations of
simultaneous relief and reconstruction now being placed upon it.
You cannot have control over Ireland and then pretend to complain saying Ireland is not doing the thing it cannot do (that lies outside in England's control) to remedy itself. Neither Ireland nor it's wealthy classes were independent actors in this, control resided in England, Britain legislated for Ireland. You will never be able to erase the British from this equation, you can throw in a minority of greedy Catholics, you can blame it on the absentee landlords (and pretend they had free power to engage) but at the end of the day you still have a country governed by Britain which had been carefully and deliberately brought to this state of beggardom - by Britain, acting over centuries.

Ocoonassa said:
My point was just that the disease was a mystery to everybody involved at the time, if it hadn't been a mystery it could never have killed so many. At this period of history there was the Second Cholera Pandemic, a global event that swept away millions, between about 1830-1849.
It killed maybe ten-30 thousand in Britain. In Ireland balancing by population that would mean around 10,000 would be due to the individual contribution of this pandemic alone (leaving aside other factors), which is nothing when compared to the death rates in Ireland.

Ocoonassa said:
So according to you the spuds had feck all to do with the population increase. I know what you're saying but to suppose that British rule was the cause overlooks the previous lack of rapid population growth under their rule. What changed was the adoption of the spud as the staple.
Irish Population density at the time was comparable to England's, potatoes do not increase fertility. Rather it (being a superior crop) allowed more people to live per unit land - but if not for the potatoe where would the excess population have gone anyway (if they couldn't - in the absence of the potatoe - get sustenance to live on)? Who would have taken them in?

Ocoonassa said:
Oh believe me, I don't forget them. I'm well aware there was more than enough food being produced. It just wasn't food for poor people. Let me ask you, when there is Kerrygold and Wexford Cheddar in all the British supermarkets, who is to blame for that? Them for buying or us for selling?
Yes we trade food today - but if there was a shortage of food in Ireland in the future which was serious - we should seize all food supplies.

Ocoonassa said:
I don't think they viewed the Irish as another species. They viewed the Irish poor as another species. However, and this is crucial, so did the Irish who set guard over the Irish farmers and Irish tenant farmers produce.
To an extent i will accept that, O'Connell did attack the poor as indigent, drunken etc and not deserving of any assistance in some of his speeches (and was even attacked for it sometimes by the British media - who portrayed him (appropriately as a great big rotund lump surrounded by stick men).

However when speaking to the Irish at his meetings he was won't to highlight the racist anti-Irish articles in such periodicals as The Times... which he accused (pg 44 in my original link) of calling the Irish, 'cannibals, a lazy race, a dirty race, brutes, savages, demon priesthood' etc...

Though he may have been anti-poor in some instances he obviously didn't relinquish his Irishness the way some of the Anglo-Irish peers did and wouldn't join in on the racist epithet hurling (probably partially because many were aimed at him!) against the Irish, you don't - normally - when you are Irish. So no i don't accept your claim (not without anything to back it up anyway).

Ocoonassa said:
The 1838 act was amended to make relief a right by 1847.

Here's a very good article explaining all the many shades of gray surrounding the Poor Law that your black and white vision denies.
In about 46 it was amended but the amendment was not put into force - relief was kept separate from the activation of the law, as the article says quoting John Russell....

Article said:
‘[T]he claim of the ablebodied
for relief from the poor rate, when once admitted in Ireland, the locust will
devour the land, and the concession once made can never be withdrawn’.
Only around 47 was the poor law used.

It's interesting what that article says about the attitudes of the Catholic Church at the time...

Article said:
The Irish Catholic case,
paralleling that of French liberal Catholicism, was principally for public welfare relief
as a social entitlement, a moral bonding agent which would create equitable
relationships in a fractured society by imposing fiscal responsibilities on the
propertied, while offering the destitute poor an alternative to self-defeating agrarian or
trade-unionist violence. Although Doyle himself called only for state relief for the
‘helpless’, aged and young, it seems clear that he regarded this as an initial rather than
final step to a fully equitable welfare system.
Ocoonassa said:
It wasn't for want of trying. What was the general Irish response to them hot on the heels of such an outrage as famine?
Didn't the extent of their revolutionary activites extend to some botched attempt to shoot a cop in a cabbage field? ;) Ah well fair dues for trying but all these guys (though many of them had their hearts in the right places) were fairly well off and probably found it hard to make a connection with the people with this act (if they even heard about it)... Those who pushed the boat and made speeches deemed bordering on seditious were locked up and you can't organise a revolution if nobody knows what you are doing. Good for them to try it anyway.

Ocoonassa said:
Your analysis contradicts the source you cite.


Quote:
"This books subtitle, Killing Remarks, is not, of course, to be taken literally. The British regardless of their biases did not intend for the Irish [poor] to suffer, much less to die."
According to Cecil Woodham Smith (1962) the economist of Victoria wrote that the Great Hunger...

"will kill only one million Irish and that will scarcely be enough to do much good" Seems like he wanted people to die, in 47 in the newspapers, in parliament, in the streets of English cities there was so much ill feeling towards the Irish and a sense of blame upon them (whipped up by the media) that probably a great number echoed his sentiments.
 

sgtharper

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
10,750
According to Cecil Woodham Smith (1962) the economist of Victoria wrote that the Great Hunger...

"will kill only one million Irish and that will scarcely be enough to do much good" Seems like he wanted people to die, in 47 in the newspapers, in parliament, in the streets of English cities there was so much ill feeling towards the Irish and a sense of blame upon them (whipped up by the media) that probably a great number echoed his sentiments.
Poor old Nassau Senior, he must surely be one of the most misquoted men ever to have lived, misquoted in Ireland that is! A cursory search on Wikipedia reveals this:

"This is a classic example of words, if they were ever said (the words were apparently said in a conversation, they were not written as claimed above - see Costigan, Giovanni 'A History of Modern Ireland', Pegasus, New York, p. 185) in that exact form, being taken out of context and twisted to suit someone's personal agenda; that context being Senior's attempts over many years to improve the lot of the Irish people, even at considerable personal cost (in 1832 he was removed, after one year in office, from his position as Professor of Political Economy at King's College, London, for supporting the Catholic Church in Ireland). If Senior ever said those words he undoubtedly meant that even a reduction in the population of Ireland by a million could not solve that country's problems, which were caused largely by lack of capital. Not surprisingly he took an economist's view of the overall situation. His moral stance is easy to ascertain from his letter of 8 January 1836 to Lord Howick (S. Leon Levy, Nassau W. Senior 1790-1864,p. 268), in which he wrote:

"With respect to the ejected tenantry, the stories that are told make one's blood boil. I must own that I differ from most persons as to the meaning of the words 'legitimate influence of property'. I think that the only legitimate influence is example and advice, and that a landlord who requires a tenant to vote in opposition to the tenant's feeling of duty is the suborner of a criminal act."

A man whose blood boils at the ejection of Irish tenantry by landlords (his apparent co-conspirators in the 'genocide'), is not a man who approves of 'killing a million' of those very same Irish tenantry. The idea is palpable nonsense. Senior was a man of iron morals."
Indeed, and he was not Queen Victoria's Economist, I doubt that such a position ever existed and even if it did, Senior never occupied it.
 

Green eyed monster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,429
Poor old Nassau Senior, he must surely be one of the most misquoted men ever to have lived, misquoted in Ireland that is! A cursory search on Wikipedia reveals this:



Indeed, and he was not Queen Victoria's Economist, I doubt that such a position ever existed and even if it did, Senior never occupied it.
It doesn't deny the words, it simply puts some spin upon them, i see ' as in he may have meant this or that'. The other quote from the letter is hardly evidence of anything, written as it was about a decade before the Great Hunger began... And what is he talking about in it anyway, it doesn't seem like he is addressing Irish population levels or whether they should be shown sypathy or callousness, but as i said, a lot can change in 10 years. The quote about how unfortunate that only a million Irish might die was made in 1845.

Taken with all the other racist polemics of the period from politician and journalist and cartoonist it paints a well rounded picture from which we can deduce Nassau's most probable meaning from his quote... And it doesn't look good.

Oh and expressing some support for the Catholic Church in Ireland is what many of the British elites did in the 30's, there is nothing 'special' about that. It was regarded as a system with potential for control, kept on a short lease (with an overhanging threat of reversing emancipation), innately hostile to Republicanism and revolution, it could prove an asset for Britain in Ireland.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top