- This topic has 7 voices and 24 replies.
-
Posts
-
Food was being exported out of Ireland to make money
Yeah, to make money for the British, not the Irish. The Irish were basically British serfs. Their farms were no longer their own, Britain claimed ownership and stole them.
The production of the Irish farmers was rent on the small area they got to live and grow potatoes for their own use. If they had consumed what they grew for the landlord they would have been evicted….
But, in reality, the operations and the motives in both cases were, and are, something quite different ? namely, the persecution and terrorism of the unarmed population, and the attempt by economic destruction, famine, and violence, to `make an appropriate hell' in Ireland, in the hope of breaking up the organised National Government and undermining the loyalty of the people.
Michael Collins, A Path to Freedom, pg. 15LinkNow this could be taken with a grain of salt because it did come from the Irish Revolutionary leader himself who wrote these words trying to stir up Irish nationalism, but I seriously doubt Collins would make false accusations like this.
The Great Famine is worth the read and difinitive on the subject (IMHO).
Yeah, to make money for the British, not the Irish. The Irish were basically British serfs. Their farms were no longer their own, Britain claimed ownership and stole them.
No farms were owned by 'Britain' obviously, but by individual landlords or – sometimes – peasant proprietors. This was the case all over the UK, and some farmers still made money, as some clearly did in Ireland too, and the Irish had the vote, on the same basis as others in the UK. Certainly the landlords' claims depended ultimately on the idea that the King of England was also King of Ireland, but that had been a Papal decision, hadn't it? It's important not to make a caricature out of the past, I think. Political conditions were different in Ireland in the 1840s from what they had been in the penal years, but it was desperately overpopulated and dependent on a single crop, and when that failed some very dim and not-at-all sympathetic English aristocrats didn't have much idea of what to do.It seems to me that the quotation from Collins comes from a different period again
Yeah, to make money for the British, not the Irish. The Irish were basically British serfs. Their farms were no longer their own, Britain claimed ownership and stole them.
No farms were owned by 'Britain' obviously, but by individual landlords or – sometimes – peasant proprietors. This was the case all over the UK, and some farmers still made money, as some clearly did in Ireland too, and the Irish had the vote, on the same basis as others in the UK. Certainly the landlords' claims depended ultimately on the idea that the King of England was also King of Ireland, but that had been a Papal decision, hadn't it? It's important not to make a caricature out of the past, I think. Political conditions were different in Ireland in the 1840s from what they had been in the penal years, but it was desperately overpopulated and dependent on a single crop, and when that failed some very dim and not-at-all sympathetic English aristocrats didn't have much idea of what to do.It seems to me that the quotation from Collins comes from a different period again
No, Collins was speaking of the plight of Irish culture and civilization that was wrought by the British over the past centuries. The British thought it was Gaelic tradition that was the cause of poverty and the British did everything possible to erase that tradition, including even the Irish language. Protestants, by the beginning of the 18th century, owned over 90% of the farms. There was no choice or vote by the people..the Act of Union and Poor Law Act of 1838 made sure of that. The British wanted Ireland to remain in a weakened state in order to assure no further uprisings. The British underestimated the Irish spirit of independence. Those natives who owned any substantial amount of land were only those who renounced Catholicism. The native Irish Catholics were treated as second-class (or worse) citizens. This is why many of them left and came to America. This is not caricature, this is fact. Most of those who were poor in Ireland prior to the Famine were the native Catholics, and that was due to poor British policies. The poverty levels were quite severe. Pro-British historians try to ignore or sugar coat all this, but they cannot any longer.
Yeah, to make money for the British, not the Irish. The Irish were basically British serfs. Their farms were no longer their own, Britain claimed ownership and stole them.
No farms were owned by 'Britain' obviously, but by individual landlords or – sometimes – peasant proprietors. This was the case all over the UK, and some farmers still made money, as some clearly did in Ireland too, and the Irish had the vote, on the same basis as others in the UK. Certainly the landlords' claims depended ultimately on the idea that the King of England was also King of Ireland, but that had been a Papal decision, hadn't it? It's important not to make a caricature out of the past, I think. Political conditions were different in Ireland in the 1840s from what they had been in the penal years, but it was desperately overpopulated and dependent on a single crop, and when that failed some very dim and not-at-all sympathetic English aristocrats didn't have much idea of what to do.It seems to me that the quotation from Collins comes from a different period again
No, Collins was speaking of the plight of Irish culture and civilization that was wrought by the British over the past centuries. The British thought it was Gaelic tradition that was the cause of poverty and the British did everything possible to erase that tradition, including even the Irish language. Protestants, by the beginning of the 18th century, owned over 90% of the farms. There was no choice or vote by the people..the Act of Union and Poor Law Act of 1838 made sure of that. The British wanted Ireland to remain in a weakened state in order to assure no further uprisings. The British underestimated the Irish spirit of independence. Those natives who owned any substantial amount of land were only those who renounced Catholicism. The native Irish Catholics were treated as second-class (or worse) citizens. This is why many of them left and came to America. This is not caricature, this is fact. Most of those who were poor in Ireland prior to the Famine were the native Catholics, and that was due to poor British policies. The poverty levels were quite severe. Pro-British historians try to ignore or sugar coat all this, but they cannot any longer.
Yes, Roman Catholics were discriminated against, very heavily, largely because they were seen as disloyal to the Monarchy as were Roman Catholics and Nonconformists in Britain. It is a pity the Papacy had supported Henry 11 claim to be king of Ireland, unfortunately, just as it supported William of Orange – it didn't do much for its Church members in Ireland. The Irish Parliament prior to the Act of Union was, like the British, a Protestant body. The treatment of RCs was equivalent to the way Communists were to be treated in the United States, clearly, but Catholic Emancipation was a fact by the famine time, surely? If you regard the Roman Catholic Religion as equivalent to being Irish, you can see why this problem came about, and why there were such troubles in the North. The usual trick was for the head of the family to become Church of Ireland and for the rest of the family to remain RCs. As in my own country and in Scotland, English was the official language, and anything else was certainly seen as inferior. This is the imperialist view everywhere. I note how keen the US is on having Spanish schools, for instance. The people who suffered in the famine were the very poor, particularly in the West, where the language was very strong. Those in the Midlands and the North-East did a great deal better. The problem was very large families dependent on a single crop, with no big industry close at hand. We were lucky in that the coal mines opened up in time to save us from a similar situation, which was developing in our West at the time of the campaign against the toll gates.Nobody could see the past relationship between the UK Parliament and Ireland as other than disastrous, but I don't think it helps to imagine vast plots or pretend the people of the past could have been other than they were. I think, on the whole, they did what they thought was right: it should serve to make us less self-righteously certain of our own views, I reckon.
The Irish Parliament prior to the Act of Union was, like the British, a Protestant body.
I think it goes beyond that. The Irish Parliament prior to Act of Union was legislated by British parliament and even after that, the Parliament of the United Kingdom had complete sovereignty until the Irish Free State was formed in 1922. The British wanted control of Ireland, but the Irish nationalists kept fighting back until they finally won independence.I don't know why you would say
but I don't think it helps to imagine vast plots
. It's not really imagining anything to say the British wanted to maintain full authority over Ireland. And it's not really off the wall, conspiracy stuff to say the British did whatever they thought was necessary to keep it that way. History shows that the British had some human rights issues during their days of imperialism.
It's not really imagining anything to say the British wanted to maintain full authority over Ireland. And it's not really off the wall, conspiracy stuff to say the British did whatever they thought was necessary to keep it that way. History shows that the British had some human rights issues during their days of imperialism.
What I had in mind was:
But, in reality, the operations and the motives in both cases were, and are, something quite different ? namely, the persecution and terrorism of the unarmed population, and the attempt by economic destruction, famine, and violence, to `make an appropriate hell' in Ireland, in the hope of breaking up the organised National Government and undermining the loyalty of the people.
As you say, this comes from someone deeply involved in the political struggle. Collins was an excellent guerrilla leader and a great patriot: historian, however, he was not. what he says there is, at almost any time, simply not true. When I look at our own history, I find it all too easy to hate 'the English' for what happened. To imagine distributing individual guilt in court, so to speak, is, on the other hand, rather another matter.
Agree Collins was not a historian, but he was a very educated man…educated in London as a matter of fact.However, Peter Gray is a historian and here's his take:
While some small public or quasipubliccharitable funds were available to transfer top-up resources from the centre tothe peripheral, famine-devastated, poor-law unions in the west (officially designatedas ?distressed?), these were used to compel compliance in self-assessment by the localboards, and were mostly exhausted by mid 1848. No further transfers wereforthcoming until the Irish ?rate-in-aid? was approved in spring 1849 and a smallgovernment advance made in lieu of its revenues. The consequence, especially in thewinter of 1848-9, was extremely high crisis mortality in the west and south-west ofIreland (at a time of relatively low market prices following a massive influx ofimported foodstuffs), and the collapse of many unions into bankruptcy and thesuspension of their uncooperative boards in preference to appointed vice-guardians.Not surprisingly, many historians have considered the British government more faultfor mass mortality in this rather than the earlier famine phase (1846-7) of countrywidefailure of the subsistence potato crop, international food shortages and extremelyhigh prices.
11Gray, Peter, “The Irish Poor Law and the Great Famine”. Queen's University Belfast (guest lecturer, Boston College School of Irish Studies)
For instance: shipping in Indian Corn… something that was totally foreign to the Irish, to solve the problem. They couldn't even mill it due to the kernel size (far different than anything they were using at the time).
Don't mean to hijack the thread, but this is too funny to pass up.Group of Irish businessmen buy 'England'
A group of Irish investors have purchased the island in Dubai to the consternation of a number of potential English buyers.They plan to market the island as 'Greater Britain' and plan to put it on the market as a holiday investment. Mr O'Dolan is also involved in the development of the island named 'Ireland' in the artificial archipelago. “We've been asked if we're going to join the two islands together,” joked Mr O'Dolan.
For instance: shipping in Indian Corn… something that was totally foreign to the Irish, to solve the problem. They couldn't even mill it due to the kernel size (far different than anything they were using at the time).
No, but the logic was impeccable: since no-one ate it, it couldn't interfere with 'market forces'.
At fault undoubtedly. Willing this mass mortality, no. They believed in good capitalist things like the reduction of State interference and keeping the rates down, just like worthy American Republicans! They were also insensitive idiots of course, but Free Trade and the like were rather the flavour of the month back then, after all.
