How much could the brits be blamed for causing Irish Faminne?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
How much could the brits be blamed for causing Irish Faminne?
How much could the brits be blamed for causing Irish Faminne?
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
100%
Oh wow, an Irish-related bait thread. That's something I've never seen on IQfy before.
it was a mismanaged famine made worse by a few overseers who didn't mind that a few irish people were dying, but anybody calling it a "genocide" is delusional
>Traditional explanations of Britain’s inadequate response to the famine fail to answer certain critical questions. Why the inordinate concern for the work ethic of the Irish peasant and, more important, why after 1847 was the so-called Gregory Clause of the Poor Relief Bill instituted? This clause stipulated that tenants holding more than a quarter-acre of land were not eligible for public assistance. Becoming law in June 1847, the worst of the famine years, it became the basis for mass evictions of hundreds of thousands that yielded not only death by starvation, but also by epidemic diseases of many sorts, made possible by the weakened constitutions of the malnourished. Why were the rapid population increase, underdevelopment, and potential, though not actual dissidence of poor Irish Catholics so threatening to Britain? An answer is to be found in the earlier invasion of Ireland by the French and the attempted coalition of an external great power enemy and native rebels that earlier had proven so devastating to the British in the American Revolution. Even the external great power was the same in both cases – France. And while France was an ally of Britain during the Entente Cordiale of the 1830s and early 1840s, that condition would change radically precisely during the early stages of the famine.
Manus I. Midlarsky, The Killing Trap: Genocide in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge, 2005), 119.
>The effort to ‘‘solve’’ the Irish Question through draconian measures can be fully understood only within the geopolitical security context of the period. Russell himself actually opposed ejecting the Irish tenants but came up against two of his cabinet members with Irish landholdings who opposed leniency. One of these, Lord Palmerston, the foreign secretary, was especially adamant. He also was the single most well-known and widely influential member of the cabinet. Some of his statements are revealing. On March 31, 1848, Palmerston recorded to the cabinet that ‘‘it was useless to disguise the truth that any great improvement in the social system of Ireland must be founded upon an extensive change in the present state of agrarian occupation, and that this change necessarily implies a long continued and systematic ejectment of small-holders and of squatting cottiers.’’ The cabinet exhibited a ‘‘general shudder’’ when Lord Clanricarde (another landholder in Ireland) made similar pronouncements with an equal degree of ruthlessness.
Midlarsky, Killing Trap, pages 119-120.
>Russell himself actually opposed ejecting the Irish tenants but came up against two of his cabinet members with Irish landholdings who opposed leniency. One of these, Lord Palmerston, the foreign secretary, was especially adamant
when did conflicts of interest become illegal in britain?
cool, don't care, it was a famine
if the brits wanted to genocide the irish they could have done it at any time they wanted but they didn't
Ireland's population now (North and South together) is still lower than it was before the Great Famine, even using the lowest figure for the population of that time, that of the 1841 census, 8 million, which was almost certainly a massive undercount. Can you give another instance of a country with a lower population now than in 1841? The British famine policy wasn't a failure, it was a success.
If the brits wanted to genocide the irish why couldn't they have sent in their huge military and done it by hand instead of the convoluted method of using a natural famine?
They were expecting it would come to that but in the end they took let natural means do the work for them. See this from a French observer a few years earlier. War was in the air:
>The Orange party, of which Ulster is the focus, manifests every day a greater desire to use violence than it displayed before. Formerly, the threats of physical force came rather from the Catholic and Radical party, from the popular masses, to which leaders and chiefs were alone wanting for an insurrection. For a long time the Irish nation believed that its deliverance and regeneration could only be obtained by a political revolution, which, bestowing on the government the disposal of rights and properties, would restore power and estates to the original possessors, or their heirs. These traditions, formerly familiar to the national party, were first weakened by long and useless efforts, and afterwards the success obtained by exertion and free institutions have completely dissipated the dreams of sudden and violent prosperity. But it seems that, at the moment the principle of force was abandoned by the Catholic party, it was adopted by the Orangemen. Nothing is more common than to hear members of that party express their ardent desire for actual civil war. “No union,” they say, “is possible between Papists and Protestants: it is a mere chimera to wish that they should dwell in the same land; one must absolutely expel the other, as truth drives away falsehood; it is a quarrel of life or death. Let a decisive engagement, let a war of extermination, settle the debate.” This language is not openly avowed by the Tory party, but many Tories use it. In fact, they think that, eventually, matters must come to this issue, and that it is better to have the fight at once; they feel power slipping from their hands every day, and they deem it wiser to commence the battle while they are still strong.
Gustave de Beaumont, Ireland: Social, Political, and Religious, vol. 2 (1839).
De Beaumont wasn't the only person to hear this by the way.
>He is a furious Orangeman: it was to be expected that such a character as his would range itself on the side of injustice, and delight in party rage. But on what principles! As this is a specimen of the height to which the spirit of party has reached, and the shamelessness with which it dares to avow itself, I will give you the quintessence of his conversation.
>‘I have served my king for nearly thirty years in almost every part of the world, and want rest. Nevertheless, it is my most ardent wish, which I daily pray God to grant, that I may live to see a ‘good sound rebellion’ in Ireland. If I were called out to serve again, or if I were to lay down my life the very day it broke out, I should make the sacrifice willingly, could I but be sure that the blood of five millions of Catholics would flow at the same time with my own. Rebellion!—that's the point at which I want to see them, at which I wait for them, and to which they must be led on, that we may make an end of them at once; for there can be no peace in Ireland till the whole race is exterminated, and nothing but an open rebellion, and an English army to put it down, can effect this!’
Hermann Fürst von Pückler-Muskau, Tour in England, Ireland, and France, in the years 1826, 1827, 1828, and 1829.
>Could Philip II have conceived a more mortifying disgrace for his great opponent, than that which he now experiences in Ireland — that the Protestant union, which has adopted the intolerant principles of that tyrant, is called the Orange Association? ... A Protestant lately argued with me on the necessity and advantage of a civil war, with as much composure as if he were speaking of having his coat brushed; and the extirpation of the heretics is the natural counter-cry of the Catholics.
Friedrich von Raumer, Letters from Ireland, 19 August 1835.
you can post these excerpts all you want but if the british actually wanted a genocide they would have sent their troops in and put all catholics to the sword
they didn't
the famine was not a genocide
cope spicoid
At the time of the Great Famine there were 100,000 British soldiers (roughly the number of American troops in Afghanistan 2010-2012) and almost 12,000 armed policemen in addition to a large militia in a 84,421 km2 country of 8 million (going by the census, but in fact probably more) people during a time of peace. They didn't need to fight. They contented themselves with guarding food for export, quelling food riots and demolishing the cabins of people too calorifically-deficient to fight for their own survival as they were made homeless by acts of British legislation designed to funnel them into the workhouse and then the mass grave.
I can respond quickly to you because I've wasted so much time on this site arguing with morons about Irish history that I literally have a readymade response to copypaste from the archive to almost every trite argument and misrepresentation you can spit out. Assuming you're not all one person, you all think similarly.
It literally wasn't a genocide seeing as the irish still exist in ireland to this day
keep coping about it
Other people who still exist to this day
>Jews
>Gypsies
>Armenians
>Assyrians
>Circassians
>Assyrians
This is up for dispute as the Syrians are all dead, so the Assyrians that currently exist cannot pinpoint their roots as they were second class Syrians.
Of course they can pinpoint their roots. They’re Mesopotamian.
Armenians, Circassians, Native Americans and israelites still exist too. Anglo-Saxons aren't always as thorough with the rest of us as they were with the Tasmanians. They needed someone left on the island to their west to herd cattle for their roast beef on Sundays and to supply their armies with soldiers and prostitutes, you see. Besides, it looks a bit suspicious if literally everyone starves to death. Not good PR you understand.
Did you know Anglo-Saxons used to proudly boast about their exterminating tendencies?
>The Anglo-Saxon is the only extirpating race on earth. Up to the commencement of the now inevitable destruction of the Red Indians of Central North America, of the Maories, and of the Australians by the English colonists, no numerous race had ever been blotted out by an invader. The Danes and Saxons amalgamated with the Britons, the Normans with the English, the Tartars with the Chinese, the Goths and Burgundians with the Gauls: the Spaniards not only never annihilated a people, but have themselves been all but completely expelled by the Indians, in Mexico and South America. The Portuguese in Ceylon, the Dutch in Java, the French in Canada and Algeria, have conquered but not killed off the native peoples. Hitherto it has been nature‘s rule, that the race that peopled a country in the earliest historic days should people it to the end of time. The American problem is this: does the law, in a modified shape, hold good, in spite of the destruction of the native population? Is it true that the Black folks, now that they are free, are commencing slowly to die out? that the New Englanders are dying fast, and their places being supplied by immigrants? Can the English in America, in the long run, survive the common fate of all migrating races? Is it true that, if the American settlers continue to exist, it will be at the price of being no longer English, but Red Indian?
Charles Wentworth Dilke, Greater Britain (London, 1869).
>They needed someone left on the island to their west to herd cattle for their roast beef on Sundays and to supply their armies with soldiers and prostitutes, you see. Besides, it looks a bit suspicious if literally everyone starves to death. Not good PR you understand.
Except they could have just got ulster scots to do it or just resettled the land that the irish used to own
They didn't
>that quote
yeah at least we are upfront about our genocide and unlike the irish and israelites (both "genocides" never happened") we don't infiltrate cultures and take them over with interest groups and secret societies
>no numerous race had ever been blotted out by an invader
>The Danes and Saxons amalgamated with the Britons, the Normans with the English, the Tartars with the Chinese, the Goths and Burgundians with the Gauls: the Spaniards not only never annihilated a people, but have themselves been all but completely expelled by the Indians, in Mexico and South America
hilarious, was this written before genetic studies proved Europe's history is one of endless Y-chromosomal genocide?
>(London, 1869)
that's a yes.
He's right though, there's no indication of any sort of military build up in Ireland prior to the Great Famine that supports your claim that the British government was on the verge of annihilating the Irish but "just happened" to be favored by providence in that the potato famine wiped out the crops before they had to get their hands dirty.
There's no evidence of any sort of buildup because Ireland was already militarily saturated on the understanding that it could only be held onto with force. What were those 100,000 soldiers, 12000 armed policemen and innumerable militiamen and members of secret Loyalist societies there for? To help old ladies whose cats were stuck up trees (Ireland was deforested)? A decade after the height of the Famine Engels was immediately struck by how Ireland was still saturated with police and soldiers:
>The ‘iron hand’ is visible in every nook and cranny; the government meddles in everything, not a trace of so-called self-government. Ireland may he regarded as the earliest English colony and one which, by reason of her proximity, is still governed in exactly the same old way; here one cannot fail to notice that the English citizen’s so-called freedom is based on the oppression of the colonies. In no other country have I seen so many gendarmes, and it is in the constabulary, which is armed with carbine, bayonet and handcuffs, that the bibulous expression of your Prussian gendarme reaches its ultimate state of perfection.
Engels to Marx in London, Manchester, 23 May 1856, MECW Volume 40, p. 49.
>What were those 100,000 soldiers, 12000 armed policemen and innumerable militiamen and members of secret Loyalist societies there for?
I'm assuming the same reason there were British soldiers and native soldiers stationed in India? Or was there some secret scheme to genocide the Indians as well that I haven't heard of?
Soldiers are there for the security of the state which has stationed them there. The greatest threat to the security of Ireland as a British possession was its increasing population, as Midlarsky (
) recognises. Hence why English political economists were adamant that Ireland was 'overpopulated'. As we saw earlier (
), de Beaumont well before the Famine recognised rhetoric from British statesmen calling for something urgent to be done before the Irish Catholics had the demographic advantage:
>Nothing is more common than to hear members of that party express their ardent desire for actual civil war. “No union,” they say, “is possible between Papists and Protestants: it is a mere chimera to wish that they should dwell in the same land; one must absolutely expel the other, as truth drives away falsehood; it is a quarrel of life or death. Let a decisive engagement, let a war of extermination, settle the debate.” This language is not openly avowed by the Tory party, but many Tories use it. In fact, they think that, eventually, matters must come to this issue, and that it is better to have the fight at once; they feel power slipping from their hands every day, and they deem it wiser to commence the battle while they are still strong.
And this is what de Beaumont says on the following page:
>The English government in Ireland never takes the position it ought to take, until the two parties, arms in hand, are ready to cut each others throats, when it places between them its police and soldiers. The government is allowed to suppose that without it the two parties would commence civil war; and this is sufficient to sweeten the task, otherwise so difficult, which it has to execute in this country; but with the exception, it exercises in truth no individual or spontaneous action over the parties, from which it receives impulse, instead of taking, as it ought, the initiative
Doesn't quite seem like he was implying there was some genocidal plot being hatched between the British government in Ireland and the Orangemen now does it
>Doesn't quite seem like he was implying there was some genocidal plot being hatched between the British government in Ireland and the Orangemen now does it
Because he shirked back from following out the implications of his own observations, a phenomenon John Mitchel noted generally among foreign observers on Ireland:
>Here the Abbé Perraud also seems to misapprehend, or else shrinks from uttering the horrible fact — that the object of all British policy in Ireland is now, and ever has been, to make it impossible for the Irish to live at home. In the writings of foreigners, even the most acute, and most friendly to Ireland, there is a steady — almost stolid - persistence in assuming that British Statesmen, if they only knew how, would hasten to redress the ills of Ireland. For this reason, and for this alone, has the real history of Ireland remained a puzzle and a secret to even the most intelligent inquirers from other countries. They may as well understand at once, that the key of the whole mystery is this one fundamental truth - the single policy of England towards Ireland is, as it always has been, to extirpate the Irish nation. This maxim, well borne in mind, everything becomes simple enough.
John Mitchel, The History of Ireland, From the Treaty of Limerick to the Present Time, Vol. II (Dublin, 1869), 463.
Well, which is it? You've argued before that these foreign observers are not blinded by the kind of parochical self-delusions that plague British observers of Ireland at the time, which is why they have these penetrating insights into "what the Brits are really up to in Ireland", yet now those foreign observers are also in willful denial as to the plainly genocidal nature of British policy in Ireland?
Both. They could see the reality of Irish conditions for themselves, but were naive to the extent to which those conditions were deliberately created. British writers by the way weren't in denial of Irish misery, they just tended to blame the Irish for it (
"the condition of the Irish poor is immeasurably worse than that of the West Indian slave."). De Beaumont was wrong about the Orangemen because he did not understand the extent to which they were controlled from the top-down as a 'deep state' Operation Gladio-esque agency. He thought they were an independent party.
>The organization of the Orangemen was similar to that of the Freemasons. The entire society consisted of a number of lodges, in which the common people — the operatives and farmers were the members, and “masters," whilst the clergy of the Episcopal Church, the landlords, the high nobility of Ireland, up even to a Prince of the Blood Royal, were the office bearers and high dignitaries. These lodges were intimately connected with the yeomanry institution; for the great majority of all the yeomanry corps consisted of Orangemen, and thus was this — a freemasonry institution — an armed power in the state - organised in darkness, and ready to act on the secret orders of its unknown superiors.
Jacob Venedey, Ireland and the Irish during the Repeal Year, 1843, translated William McCabe (Dublin, 1844), 313.
Fun fact: Venedey wrote that two years before the Orangemen had their ban lifted - just in time for the Great Famine!
I'm not sure if you follow Irish events but the Orangies are back in the news these last few days for behaving in their typical fashion.
Pic is from W. H. Cleary, The Orange Society.
>the Orangies
LOL! DUTCH israeliteS
If the Orange Society was simply an extension of the British state, why was it even banned in the first place?
Because it conspired to alter the succession and place its Grand Master Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland on the throne. Look up the Cumberland conspiracy. Deep states are not monoliths. They have factions which jostle and plot. Dogs can get locked up the kennel when they bite their masters (bet let out of the kennel when it suits to have someone else bitten).
Your question seems to be 'if Operation Gladio was real, why was terrorism illegal at the time?'
>the Orange Society was simply an extension of the British state
It was a society of brits and Dutch arguing over israelites.
>the plainly genocidal nature of British policy in Ireland?
Otherwise stated,
>wait until they are starving and sick to evict them!
Well, it must be the most incompetent genocide in history if the island still ended up 80% Irish Catholic anyway
>it must be the most incompetent genocide in history
What do genetics have to do with language and religion?
Oh, right, sorry, I forgot that British landlords were seething because there were too many R1Bs in Ireland
>The greatest threat to the security of Ireland as a British possession was its increasing population
The brits wanted control of the land and the language. They actually took quite a few Irish girls because they are pretty.
"Increasing population" you are thinking of Moses and Egyptians.
>scheme to genocide the Indians
The brits wanted resources from India. Ghandi was a fool to claim they were oppressed.
>The ‘iron hand’ is visible in every nook and cranny
>so-called freedom is based on the oppression
>Engels to Marx in London
Is this what passes for evidence here? Lmao
I quote heavily from Engels and Marx because British historiography is keen to give the impression that the only people who have ever believed the Great Famine was an act of willful mass murder are bartenders in Boston with Celtic cross and Aryan Brotherhood tattoos. If you'd like I could quote more John Mitchel. Some of the arguments he makes are very sound indeed.
>Engels and Marx
>the eternal anglo-israeli alliance
Can we just stop with the ethnic hate and call communism evil ffs?
This damn drug war
Gustave de Beaumont on the condition of the Irish people before the Great Famine, corroborated by others.
>I have seen the Indian in his forests, and the Black in his chains, and thought, as I contemplated their pitiable condition, that I saw the very extreme of human wretchedness; but I did not then know the condition of unfortunate Ireland...In all countries, more or less, paupers may be discovered; but an entire nation of paupers is what was never seen until it was shown in Ireland.
Gustave de Beaumont, Ireland: Social, Political, and Religious, Vol. I (1839).
>It is undeniable," said Inglis, after his visit to Ireland in 1834, "that the condition of the Irish poor is immeasurably worse than that of the West Indian slave." Barrow, after a tour in Ireland in 1835, writes: "No picture drawn by the pencil, none by the pen, can possibly convey an idea of the sad reality. . . . There is no other country on the face of the earth where such extreme misery prevails as in Ireland." [...] The Abbe Perrand, afterwards Bishop of Autun, visited the island in 1860, and wrote : "How great was my astonishment, more than twenty years after the second journey of De Beaumont, to come upon the very destitution so eloquently described by him in 1839!" Mr. Farrer says of him: "After living long in a department considered as one of the poorest and most backward in France, Perrand undertook to say..." that the lot of the poorest peasant in France could not compare with the misery of a large part of Ireland."
D. P. Conyngham, Ireland, Past and Present: Embracing a Complete History of the Land Question from the Earliest Period to the Present Time (New York, 1887), 140-141.
Because anglos are snakes.
>Because anglos are snakes.
kek
>Among the legends associated with St. Patrick is that he stood atop an Irish hillside and banished snakes from Ireland
Paddies btfo'd
btfo by snakes slithering back?
Snakes who slithered back and took all their tatos away so they starved
>anglos are snakes
You've never met an egyptian, friendo
>britain
>huge military
ah yes, the massive british army of the victorian and edwardian era that showed up to WW1 with less divisions than the Belgians...
Ah yes, the Great Irish Famine of the Edwardian era.
Why didn't the Nazis gun down every israelite in the middle of the road? Just because a genocide isn't total and done inefficiently doesn't make it any less genocidal.
>Why didn't the Nazis gun down every israelite in the middle of the road
They didn't because the holocaust never happened
Fine, why didn't the Turks gun down every Armenian? Surely the trail of tears wasn't in anyway genocidal, after all, they could've just shot all of them.
You're an idiot.
>Fine, why didn't the Turks gun down every Armenian
Why are you such a moron?
If the british wanted to they could have given guns to all the british protestants living in ireland and brought in a few regiments and cleared the island almost completely of the irish.
they didn't
instead, according to irish nationalists they resorted to a potato famine which did a shitty job of "genociding" the irish seeing as it didn't even kill half
>hey, we only killed half the population of the island we were occupying, we're basically humanitarians
>wtf why don't they like us
And if the Turks wanted to they could've armed anyone willing to kill an Armenian and let them loose, instead of resorting to this absurd idea of marching them across the place.
As we saw earlier (
), the Orange Order did in fact have its ban lifted just in time for the Famine, and Lord Clarendon did at least *entertain* the idea of arming them during the Famine, which modern historians acknowledge. Mitchel says he actually did. You don't have to believe him but I do:
>Lord Clarendon, who attended in his place in the House of Peers upon this occasion, defended his proceedings as he best could; and in particular, he most emphatically denied that in 1848 he had furnished arms to Orange Lodges. He said that, in fact, a certain Captain Kennedy (at the time of the debate serving in India), had given money out of his own pocket to provide arms for Lodges; but he, Lord Clarendon, was quite innocent of any such proceedings. It is scarcely necessary to say that nobody believed his lordship. What had been charged was, that not money, but arms , had been sent from Dublin Castle to Belfast for distribution amongst Orangemen; and, besides, if the money given by Captain Kennedy came, in fact, out of the Secret Service Fund, Lord Clarendon, as the distributor of that fund in Ireland, would have felt it his right and his duty to deny the fact when charged. It is an official necessity; because, otherwise, there would be nothing secret nor sacred in Secret Service Money.
Mitchel, History of Ireland, 472.
The episode he is referring to is the 'Battle' of Dolly's Brae in 1849, in which Orangemen murdered up to thirty Catholics, including an old woman, for throwing stones at them while marching. Orange folksongs still 'commemorate' this 'battle'.
The sheer gruesomeness of Orange culture is hard to believe. Reminder that Orangeism only exists because the British State sees some strategic value in its continued existence.
Pic from Donald Akenson's God's Peoples: Covenant and Land in South Africa, Israel, and Ulster (London, 1992), 142.
The Orange Order is in the news in Ireland for singing vile songs now
why do you seethe so much over orangemen?
why is it fine for the irish to brag about killing their enemies but it's bad when ulster scots do it?
Because it's cringe to kill women and children and based to brag about killing people who brag about killing women and children.
>the irish burning down protestant settlers is ok
>but it's bad when protestants do it back
LOL
The difference is that atrocities committed by Irish Nationalists (such as the Scullabogue massacre, which by the way was committed in part by Protestant Nationalists, and of which some of the victims were Catholic Loyalists, and which was committed by rogues and deserters without authorisation from their commanders and in retaliation against government atrocities of a similar kind) are regarded with shame in the Nationalist tradition whereas there is a tendency in the Loyalist tradition to glorify atrocities such as those of Islandmagee and Dolly's Brae.
Bear in mind that Ulster Scot is not synonymous with Orangman. Ulster Scots have a place in Ireland, Orangeism doesn't.
Bear in mind also that I'm not claiming Irish Catholics have never committed any atrocities in the 800 year long conflict between the Irish and the English/British, only that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in Catholic/Nationalist/Republican Irish culture which bears any comparison with the Orange Order in terms of glorifying massacre and atrocity. Orangeism is first and foremost a crime perpetrated against Ulster Scots by the British state by corrupting their morality, spirituality, intelligence and sanity. Ulster Scots Protestants are themselves the greatest victims of Orangeism, which is an essence an attack on their human souls.
>Orangeism is first and foremost a crime perpetrated against Ulster Scots by the British state by corrupting their morality, spirituality, intelligence and sanity. Ulster Scots Protestants are themselves the greatest victims of Orangeism, which is an essence an attack on their human souls.
why do you spout so much bullshit?
if irish catholics get an organisational group to coordinate with themselves then why the frick shouldnt protestants?
?????
Which group (on the part of the Catholics) are you referring to?
the catholic church itself
lmao
Protestants had access to that 'organisational group to coordinate with themselves' once too y'know, and in fact still do. You can return to what you've rejected.
>still hasn't recovered
This indicates the pre-famine population had grown well beyond carrying capacity.
Now what could have caused that? British charity?
>This indicates the pre-famine population had grown well beyond carrying capacity. Now what could have caused that? British charity?
Is the Netherlands due a famine by your reckoning? How about the UK, which has over 66 million people as of now? If Britain can safely handle 66 million, I reckon Ireland can handle returning (or goodness gracious, even surpassing!) its peak of 8-12 million. The smaller island isn't that much smaller.
>is the Netherlands due a famine by your reckoning?
yes, except their farms are literally on land reclaimed from the ocean. are the irish too stupid to build earthworks or just too lazy?
>How about the UK, which has over 66 million people as of now? If Britain can safely handle 66 million, I reckon Ireland can handle returning (or goodness gracious, even surpassing!) its peak of 8-12 million.
instead of assuming ireland's population has been conspiratorially suppressed by a factor of 87%, a rational observer can deduce that ireland's carrying capacity is much smaller than the UK and the Netherlands.
perhaps there's less arable land. maybe the people are scared of tractors, like mennonites. who knows? but as a starting point, "all countries have a base carrying capacity of 60-80 million" is the worst thesis on demography since the georgia guidestones.
A rational observer can deduce that Ireland's population was deliberately reduced from the Great Famine to independence by a quarter-century of concerted British policy.
>The source of all evil lies in the race, the Celtic race of Ireland. There is no getting over historical facts ... The race must be forced from the soil; by fair means, if possible; still they must leave. England's safety requires it. I speak not of the justice of the cause; nations must ever act as Machiavelli advised: look to yourself. The Orange [Order] of Ireland is a Saxon confederation for the clearing the land of all papists and Jacobites; this means Celts. If left to themselves, they would clear them out, as Cromwell proposed, by the sword; it would not require six weeks to accomplish the work. But the Encumbered Estates Relief Bill will do it better.
Robert Knox, The Races of Men, pp. 253-54, 1850.
The English Field Marshal Lord French, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at the time of the War of Independence, describing the demographic background of the circumstance:
>The history of Ireland has never changed; trouble, repression, a period of apparent calm; when the circle is finished it begins again. The present disorders? That comes of having 100,000 surplus young men. For five years, because of the row, emigration has been suspended: hence all the trouble.
Pic related is from Sylvain Briollay's Ireland in Rebellion (1922).
While the Great Famine occurred in 1846-52, the British government kept up the depopulation policy (albeit in a more humane form from the 1890s on taking the approach of deliberate economic underdevelopment to force emigration rather than mass evictions) sustainedly until independence. There were minor famines throughout 19th c. Ireland, such as in 1861, 1879 and 1898, which were mostly confined to the west, amidst the bogs and rocks in which the people who had been cleared off to make way for sheep and cattle were huddled, and which displaced rather than killing people, as the Great Famine had done, but displaced them nonetheless, and kept the population thin and manageable.
>The change which has taken place in the population and condition of Ireland is inadequately expressed in the fact, prodigious as it is, that during the ten years ending with 1850, about 1,600,000 have emigrated from that island...The change is inadequately expressed in the figures at foot of the census return, putting the decennial decrease at 1,659,300. . . . As for Ireland herself, we resign ourselves without reserve, though not entirely without misgiving, to her continued depopulation until only a half or a third of the 9,000,000 claimed for her by O'Connell remains. We may possibly live to see the day when her chief produce will be cattle, and English and Scotch the majority in her population.
>The nine or ten millions who by that time will have settled in the United States cannot well be much less friendly, and will certainly be much better customers than they now are. When the Celt has crossed the Atlantic, he begins, for the first time in his life, to consume the manufactures of this country, and indirectly contribute to its customs. Unquestionably, there is much that is consolatory, and even comforting, in the extraordinary turn that we witness in Irish affairs.
Editor of the Times Newspaper, 2nd January 1852.
Pic related is from Henry George's 'Social Problems', 1883.
>>The source of all evil lies in the race, the Celtic race of Ireland. There is no getting over historical facts ... The race must be forced from the soil; by fair means, if possible; still they must leave. England's safety requires it. I speak not of the justice of the cause; nations must ever act as Machiavelli advised: look to yourself. The Orange [Order] of Ireland is a Saxon confederation for the clearing the land of all papists and Jacobites; this means Celts. If left to themselves, they would clear them out, as Cromwell proposed, by the sword; it would not require six weeks to accomplish the work. But the Encumbered Estates Relief Bill will do it better.
BASED
Glad you're admitting it! I can respect (in a very limited way) the might-makes-right morality of the British state, but what spoils it for me is the moral pretension of the whole thing. Britain moralises, condemns, pontificates. It is the most sanctimonious and yet unscrupulous of all states.
>the might-makes-right morality of the British state, but what spoils it for me is the moral pretension of the whole thing. Britain moralises, condemns, pontificates. It is the most sanctimonious and yet unscrupulous of all states.
better than the victim morality of the irish who pretend to be an oppressed native people who destroy and oppress others, just like the israelites do
Jews are just the strongest people on Earth.
If the Irish can copy the Learned Protocols of the Elders of Zion for our own ends than the Irish would be even stronger than the israelites, this is what Anglos fear in their nightmares.
>victim morality of the irish
You have an blight of the brain, to think this
>it turns out that introducing the most basic civil administration turns you guys from hungry tribals into a seething mass of millions and millions of...still hungry tribals
>you refuse to adopt northern europe's typical answer to out of control birth-rates, protestantism
What exactly is the non-evil answer to this in your eyes? Larp as Catholic so the contrarian Irish adopt protestantism to spite you?
Either that, or the entire Empire must redirect its effort to feeding 20 millions, then 40 millions, the 80 million Irish who refuse to stop fricking?
Rob the Bangladeshis to feed the Irish, perhaps?
There is nothing heinous about refusing to turn into your neighbors' grain slave. It was laughable when Marx and Engles suggested it to attract more stupid Irish-American simps and it's laughable now.
*three quarters of a century of concerted British policy
>A rational observer can deduce that Ireland's population was deliberately reduced from the Great Famine to independence by a quarter-century of concerted British policy.
You ignored the question entirely.
If it was a mere 25 years of intentional policy, rather than the natural carrying capacity of the island, why has the population still not recovered many generations later? This is rhetorical. There is no answer, because the only British interference was in inflating the population before the famine through charity and good management. The famine was a regression to mean. The same thing would happen in China, Africa, and India today if Western assistance ended.
Are you the anon who said
>I've wasted so much time on this site arguing with morons about Irish history that I literally have a readymade response to copypaste from the archive to almost every trite argument and misrepresentation you can spit out
Yes? Evidently this causes you to misunderstand questions and leave them unanswered. ignoring valid objections is bound to leave you with gaping holes in your understanding of the subject.
try thinking like a historian instead of a propagandist.
>If it was a mere 25 years of intentional policy
I corrected that typo to 'three-quarters of a century of British policy'. I'm sick of dealing with you disingenuous morons.
then repeat the question with 75 years and don't ignore the half dozen other cogent objections I brought up.
I'm sick of dealing with you disingenuous morons.
that's true though.
withdrawing welfare and letting a population return to its natural carrying capacity is only genocide in the minds of bartenders in Boston with Celtic cross and Aryan Brotherhood tattoos.
if you want to live in northern europe without facing a malthusian catastrophe every once in a while, stop being a contrarian for two seconds and figure out why all of your most industrious and well-fed neighbors are protestants
>if you want to live in northern europe without facing a malthusian catastrophe every once in a while, stop being a contrarian for two seconds and figure out why all of your most industrious and well-fed neighbors are protestants
What kind of Macaulayite 19th century Whig nationalist LARP are you trying to do? Nobody in England talks or thinks like this anymore. The only place this kind of rhetoric has any purchase anymore is in Northern Ireland and parts of the West of Scotland. You're either a very fringe eccentric roleplaying as a statesman from the glory days of your country's history or else you're a Scottish or Ulster Scots Loyalist, and I can't think of which of the two possibilities is more pitiful.
as much as I love the idea of a forum where posters larp as 19th century whig nationalists, you sound completely insane.
no part of your post concerns the simple fact that religion is a cultural technology. catholicism works around the mediterranean but leads to famines if you take it too far north. if you want a fortress built you call an italian, if you want a swamp drained for farmland, you call a dutchman. if you want an old man to yell at you about not having more kids then you can afford, if it turns out that's the technology your society really needs this century, you call a protestant. or an atheist. hey, where do we find astonishing proportions of atheists these days? the tropics, or scandinavia?
Why do you insist on seeing the Irish peasant in isolation from the British state and the social conditions it created and maintained through military force? Why do you hone in on the one area of agency available to the Irish Catholic peasant - fertility - and make it the crux of responsibility for the catastrophe? Could you perhaps consider that the decision to have a lot of kids was undertaken by the Irish Catholics itself as an assertion of agency, because it was the only agency the condition of their slavery allowed? You blame the Irish for their near-extinction because of their fertility, when in fact, as McNeill said (
) their fertility was the only thing which saved them from extinction at the hands of English and Scottish colonists in earlier centuries, and was providing them gradually with the manpower to break free, as Malthus fretted (
). Is it your position that Irish Catholics from the 16th-19th centuries were morally obliged to wither and die to make way for British Protestants? That's what I understand to be the subtext of your argument. You deny the British government's actions in Ireland in the 1840s were genocidal because your ethic (and it is the genocidal one) is the same as theirs: that in the struggle of life some peoples must make way for others.
>Why do you insist on seeing the Irish peasant in isolation from the British state and the social conditions it created and maintained through military force?
I've done no such thing. I could accuse you of asserting the opposite extreme, that if a nun farts in Cork it's the King's fault. The conditions of serfdom weren't unique to the Irish.
>Why do you hone in on the one area of agency available to the Irish Catholic peasant - fertility - and make it the crux of responsibility for the catastrophe?
Because we're talking about a famine. If there was an Irish flood or a Mongol invasion of Ireland we'd be saying oh, if only they had built dikes etc. But what actually happened was a population surge that had become tragically obvious long before the famine.
>Could you perhaps consider that the decision to have a lot of kids was undertaken by the Irish Catholics itself as an assertion of agency, because it was the only agency the condition of their slavery allowed?
Are you suggesting they knew what they were doing? Streets filled with overwhelming displays of want made them go home and say yeah frick the anglos let's have another one!
No, sorry, I can't take this assertion seriously, "the only agency the condition of their slavery allowed." Servitude is a universal human condition.
Very English post you've written there laddie.
>The conditions of serfdom weren't unique to the Irish.
>Servitude is a universal human condition.
Irish servitude however was in fact recognised as being unique. It was a very frequent comment by people familiar with both that the lot of the Irish peasant was worse than that of the southern American or West Indian slave, and in fact that there are some such examples in this thread. Those from Redpath and Locke came from well-known abolitionists and anti-slavery activists, meaning they can't be dismissed as a white racist effort to minimise black grievances.
>Ireland flourished under British rule.
In the 19th century Ireland lost its language and millions of its people, its population dropping by at least half from 1841-1900, and to this day it has not returned to its peak. When Ireland (some of it least, and partially) clawed its way to independence it was still poor, not even having material wealth to compensate the loss of its indigenous culture and millions of its people. And the 19th century was arguably less oppressive than the previous three centuries had been.
>its indigenous culture
if the ulster scots are not indigenous to ireland then the irish aren't
>You blame the Irish for their near-extinction because of their fertility, when in fact, as McNeill said (
Ireland's dependence on the potato was itself unnatural, and a consequence of very brutal system of colonial exploitation.
>The colonization of Ireland by Cromwell and his predecessors entirely failed to extend English society across St. George's Channel. The wild Irish, driven to subsist on the potato, could work more cheaply for the new landowners of the country than English or even Scottish settlers were willing to do, hence they prevailed demographically, at the expense of a miserable economic bondage to a culturally alien aristocracy. Although legal forms differed, the social patterns of eighteenth-century Ireland resembled those of eastern Europe and the southern colonies of North America in being sharply polarized between a privileged body of landowners who shared in European civilization, and a culturally deprived, psychologically alienated mass of agricultural laborers.
William H. McNeill, The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community (Chicago, 1992), 664.) their fertility was the only thing which saved them from extinction at the hands of English and Scottish colonists in earlier centuries,
Then stop taking McNeil seriously. Mary had 8 children instead of 6 and that's why the Irish didn't go extinct? Nobody ever went extinct from basic family planning. A million black babies are aborted every year, when are they going to go extinct?
>and was providing them gradually with the manpower to break free, as Malthus fretted (
It is true that Malthus wrote:
>The Land in Ireland is infinitely more peopled than in England; and to give full effect to the natural resources of the country, a great part of the population should be swept from the soil into large manufacturing and commercial Towns.
Thomas Malthus (writing anonymously), 'Newenham and others on the State of Ireland', Edinburgh Review, 1808.
His pupils, however, who included Charles Trevelyan, followed this recommendation, but for the fact they felt sweeping the Irish into the grave and coffin ship was just as well. When the Irish were swept into industrial and manufacturing cities instead of a workhouse mass grave they ensured they were not Irish cities but Boston, New York and Liverpool, where they could 'consume the manufactures of this country, and indirectly contribute to its customs.' [...]
If you read between the lines here (from the same article by Malthus) you can see why Ireland's growing population caused such anxiety to British statesmen and why the 'relief effort' of the Whigs to the potato blight which struck in the 1840s resulted in Ireland being maybe the only country in the world with a smaller population now than then:
>The consequences of such a rapid rate of increase deserve our most serious attention. Either the increase will continue at its present rate or it will not. If the rate continue, Ireland will contain twenty millions of people in the course of the present century, and we need not insist upon the result. With such physical force, it is quite impossible that it should remain united to Great Britain without sharing, in every respect, the full benefits of its constitution.).
It's unreasonable to tie this observation to genocidal mens rea. It diminishes actual genocide. The French and Germans eyed each others population numbers nervously but they never got genocidal about it, it's a valid tactical concern for bored people to muse on.
>Is it your position that Irish Catholics from the 16th-19th centuries were morally obliged to wither and die to make way for British Protestants?
See: "Mary had 8 children instead of 6..."
>That's what I understand to be the subtext of your argument. You deny the British government's actions in Ireland in the 1840s were genocidal
No, I called those actions charitable, leading to vast expansion in population. Ireland flourished under British rule.
>because your ethic (and it is the genocidal one) is the same as theirs: that in the struggle of life some peoples must make way for others.
I haven't brought my personal view into it.
My only mention of demographic replacement has been to decry the fact that it is actually happening now under Continental purview. I'm shocked that British writers spoke of replacing the Celts with other ethnicities because I imagine this idea would have been popular in 18th century Britain. Why, then, did they practice excellent administration and cause Ireland to prosper, and fill with millions of native Irish, if these clever notions of expanding their own footprint were known to them so long ago? I can only conclude they valued a certain degree of diversity and abhorred the notion of genocide or intentional demographic replacement.
How you come away with the opposite, ahistorical conclusion about the 18th century British writers and about me personally is a mystery.
>the only British interference was in inflating the population before the famine through charity and good management
> instead of administering and subsidizing the population into the millions
>withdrawing welfare and letting a population return to its natural carrying capacity
Britain took from Ireland, a lucrative breadbasket (see
), it did not give. The Poor Law it belatedly did implement was soon afterwards modified to have a deliberately exterminating effect (see
'the Poor-law, said to be for the relief of the people and the means of their salvation, was the instrument of their destruction'). To imply that Ireland was a welfair parasite of a nation when it was being robbed from every pore is textbook British gaslighting.
The radical Irish nationalist John Mitchel was infuriated by the fact the British government was calling for aid from all over the world when it had no intention of actually putting it to effective use. The suggestion that it was the Irish themselves who were 'begging' and not the British government defrauding the nations of the world to pocket their alms infuriated him.
PIc is from Mitchel, History of Ireland, 414-415.
>radical Irish nationalist
well then he was biased, he was lying, all your sources are just hearsay and speculation in any case
there was no genocide, at best it was the usual human flaws, laziness, incompetence, irresponsibility, Britain had measures to deal with famine but were unprepared for famine on such a scale, the Irish population had blown up on monocropping potatoes in their peat bogs, such an event had never happened before
>well then he was biased, he was lying, all your sources are just hearsay and speculation in any case
In this thread alone I've quoted from a 21st century Oxford professor, two 19th German socialists, two 19th century German liberals, a 19th century German conservative aristocrat, two 19th century French liberals, two 19th century American liberal abolitionists, one 19th century American agrarian radical, one 19th century English conservative, one 20th century French journalist, two 19th century English racial theorists, the 19th century English press, the 19th century Irish press, a 17th century Italian aristocrat, a 19th century Protestant Anglo-Irish Unionist historian, a 19th century British famine relief administrator, and probably more I am forgetting. Are all these sources biased in the same way as Mitchel?
>Britain had measures to deal with famine but were unprepared for famine on such a scale
Why did they pass legislation designed to encourage mass evictions in the height of a famine? Why did they engineer for what happened over decades in the Highland clearances to happen within a few short years during a terrible famine in Ireland?
To give the British government in Ireland a pass on grounds of incompetence necessitates believing that it was the most consistently incompetent government in human history over the centuries. The truth is that it was not incompetent, but effectively and competently malicious.
I'm the anon you're replying to
but god damn if this anon's chart isn't revealing
england was in a golden age of agricultural science and they were eager to experiment in increasing yields.
they didn't understand malthusian catastrophe. when they reached the tipping point they were just as horrified at the sudden specter of hunger in their own country as they were at seeing it in the colonies, and they scrambled for solutions like sticking 200,000 excess english stomachs into the royal navy, and transporting at least a quarter million convicts to the colonies, sometimes for trivial offenses.
your view is anachronistic at best. you have scholarship on the replacement of the nobility. ok? the normans replaced the anglish lords. the tudors replaced rebellious lords. the catholics and the protestants in england purged each other several times. replacing the irish lords was a political decision and it evidently caused Ireland (and the irish people) to flourish and prosper for generations.
and then scholarship on the efforts to curtail the famine. ingratiously reframing all attempts to curtail it as actually responsible for causing it. but there's no sound argument for this so far, just naked assertions. commenting on the fact that "the peasant population of ireland just keeps getting bigger, doesn't it, fellow interested scholars?" there's nothing sinister about that, it's true.
>Jacobites! More 19th century Whig nationalist LARPing from you. Macaulay Victorian Williamites Dutch homosexual nationalist
I'm jealous of your deep understanding of who would have made what arguments 200 years ago, but man, I'm really just interested in the arguments themselves. I don't have the framework to even know what point you're making here. It's ironic how the population of Ireland is only being verifiably replaced now, after finally shaking off English dominion and ushering in the continental dominion the Jacobites yearned for for centuries. Right?
>Ireland's population now (North and South together) is still lower than it was before the Great Famine
it actually isn't anymore. not for a few months now. Ireland has reached pre-famine levels again.
Source? 8 million is the lowest possible number for the population at the time of the Famine ftr. It must have been higher but most sources refrain from speculating on its actual number, but Jack Lane puts it at 12 million.
>but Jack Lane puts it at 12 million.
It was 50 gorillions and they all died in 1 year.
The israelites at least don't need to elevate their pre-Holocaust numbers.
>It wasn't a genocide because if they wanted to commit genocide they would've but they didn't
Gotta love the levels of intelligence found on IQfy
I strongly maintain that this is the worst board.
Thinking about it the famine didn't even have a high casualty rates in the grand scheme of things, the issue is the Irish kept emigrating and had seemingly low birth rates after the famine, but I guess that's the fault of the English as well.
You didn't actually properly respond, that's a completely valid take given some people here actually think there was some sort of conspiracy to kill the Irish which somehow didn't go through for some unspecified reason.
Charles Trevelyan, the administrator of famine relief in Ireland, who famously said 'the real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people', received a knighthood for his work in 1848, showing that he was considered to have done his job well. He subsequently became involved in the Highland and Island Emigration Society where he continued his depopulation policy as part of the last phase of the Highland Clearances:
>Eventually the two most senior officials involved in relief efforts, Charles Trevelyan and Sir John McNeill became instrumental in supporting emigration to Australia, Trevelyan, in clearly racial terms, describing it as ‘the final settlement’ of the Highland problem, part of a ‘national effort to rid Britain of ‘swarming Irish and Scotch Celts’.
Neil Bruce, 'The Paupers, the Gallant Colonel and the Fourth Estate: Press Reporting of the Arrival of Barra Highlanders on the Scottish Mainland', Northern Scotland, Vol. 13, (May 2022), 18-44.
He happily contemplated 'the prospects of flights of Germans settling here in increasing numbers – an orderly, moral, industrious and frugal people, less foreign to us than the Irish or Scotch Celt, a congenial element which will readily assimilate with our body politic.' (Catherine Hall, Macaulay and Son, 2012, 189).
He later ended up becoming involved in setting up famine relief policy in India, another British colony with a famously satisfactory history of famine relief by the British.
>The final settlement’ of the Highland problem, part of a ‘national effort to rid Britain of ‘swarming Irish and Scotch Celts’.... The prospects of flights of Germans settling here in increasing numbers – an orderly, moral, industrious and frugal people, less foreign to us than the Irish or Scotch Celt, a congenial element which will readily assimilate with our body politic.
Compare that with this:
>There was little mention of the possibility of profit while the war was raging in Munster but by 1584 Wallop had assumed the position, with Sir Valentine Browne and others, as surveyor of the lands of the rebels in Munster. He was then impressed by the heavy mortality that had fallen on the province through war and famine, and he pointed to the consequent need ‘to repeople it again with a better race and kind of people than the former were’. Wallop again had clear ideas on who would be fitted ‘to draw thither of their friends and followers out of England to inhabit and manure the same’.
Nicholas Canny, Making Ireland British, 1580-1650 (Oxford, 2001), 109.
The continuity of British policy in Ireland over the centuries is remarkable and horrifying.
Brendan Clifford on the moral character of the British state:
>The great Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, William King— by far the greatest there has ever been—gave Evil a secular meaning even though he was writing during the high tide of Protestant Ascendancy. He said that Evil was what obstructs the will—what obstructs the will is Evil. God is wilful. His will knows no superior authority. What he wills is good, and whatever obstructs it is evil. And, since man is made in the image of God, the same is the case with him. Man is a little God. He is intolerant of anything that obstructs his will, and he calls it Evil. We can understand that. It is perfectly clear. And it is entirely in accordance with the conduct of the interest served by Archbishop King—the interest of the British State which he played an active part in constructing.
Brendan Clifford, 'On Democratic War', Church and State, No, 129, Third Quarter 2017, 2.
>Making Ireland British, 1580-1650
>he pointed to the consequent need ‘to repeople it again with a better race and kind of people
You would think in 400 years they'd pull it off, instead of administering and subsidizing the population into the millions.
Ironic how the population of Ireland is only being verifiably replaced now, after finally shaking off English dominion and ushering in the continental dominion the Jacobites yearned for for centuries.
>You would think in 400 years they'd pull it off
It's often forgotten that there was an effort to do something like what you're suggesting, namely the Encumbered Estates Court, whose purpose was to have the estates of bankrupt Anglo-Irish landlords bought up by English speculators who would accelerate clearances and bring in new English and Scottish Protestant tenants. What happened is that nobody was keen to buy land in a country where landlords had a reputation for being assassinated by their tenants (for good reasons), hence why most of these estates were bought up by other Anglo-Irish landlords in better straits to those who had gone bankrupt. The notorious John 'Black Jack' Adair made his fortune this way. In the end so long as the Irish population was kept manageably low the British didn't care so much about its ethnic composition in the second half of the 19th century.
The truth is that the British government didn't want a populous Ireland full of Protestants either. Their experience in America showed them that a colony with the means and incentive to go its own way will do so, and the Catholic and Protestant Irish had in recent history united in defense of their interests, and even before the Catholics had means to politically unite with the Protestants those Protestants had developed a constitutional settler-colonial nationalism as far back as the late seventeenth century (Molyneux, Swift etc). A depopulated Ireland was the way to go.
>ushering in the continental dominion the Jacobites yearned for for centuries.
Jacobites! More 19th century Whig nationalist LARPing from you. Did you read Macaulay's History of England or a collection of his essays once and decide take up residence in those musty Victorian sentiments in perpetuity? I've never understood why Williamites regard replacing an English king with with a Dutch homosexual as a nationalist triumph.
>In Ireland, at present, the real value of a property consists in the paucity of its tenants; a property without any tenants at all affords some hope of ultimate improvement by the allocation of a different class of men, on very different terms, or by the personal occupation of the proprietor. At present, the latter expedient is the most suitable. The number of petty tenants is one of the curses of Ireland, and many of these having the usual leases of thirty-one years, or three lives, the remedy can be but slow. These men subdivide their little farms into the minutest allotments that can be supposed to subsist a human being, and the poor wretched undertenants are thus ground down to the very verge of starvation; nay more, they die in numbers, of famine, on these wretched holdings... Better that Ireland should become one vast sheepwalk, than that it should continue as it now is. And this feeling more and more establishes itself in my mind, as I travel and observe more closely the condition and habits of the people... The effect of the policy of the government, therefore, appears to be, say they, to drive out the present race and create new interests. The lever is applied to the present system, and it must and will fall to pieces. I myself presume to offer no opinion . The only question, perhaps, for enlightened politicians to decide is, Whether the breaking up of the present state of things could have been less rudely and cruelly accomplished .
John Hervey Ashworth, The Saxon in Ireland: Or, The Rambles of an Englishman in Search of a Settlement in the West of Ireland; with Frontispiece and Map (London, 1851), 182-184.
Frickin Normans
>An equally unusual but highly interesting scheme, written by an anonymous individual, arrived in England in 1598. This suggested that the best means to plant Ulster and end the war was by granting large tracts of land in the north to settlers of Dutch origin. The author argued that their seafaring abilities and mercantile prowess would be conducive towards establishing a number of trading towns on the north coast at Lough Foyle and the River Bann. Others incorporated such ideas into more elaborate schemes. One, for instance, argued that Flemish colonists should be placed in Ulster along with some 200,000 settlers from England and Wales.
From Heffernan's article.
It seems even Trevelyan's weird idea of replacing Irish and Scottish Gaels with Germans has a sixteenth-century parallel. The Anglo-Saxon fixation on replacing Celts with fellow Germanics seems to have predated 19th century ethnographic autism by many centuries.
Reminder that modern mass immigration into Ireland comes largely from Commonwealth countries, is promoted by NGOs with British connections, and is low-key a successor to this policy.
>Nigerian refugees, Filipino nurses, and Indian engineers are part of a nefarious Angloid plot to return Ireland to the Crown
Wew lad
Unironically possibly yes.
refugees, Filipino nurses, and Indian engineers are part of a nefarious Angloid plot to return Ireland to the Crown
>Wew lad
Angloids aren't interested in increasing the power of their fake and gay "crown" worn by germoid lizards. Their only loyalty is to money and globohomo.
The why did Gaelic almost die out?
The language was declining even before the famine, though
>The language was declining even before the famine, though
Yeah a famine does that when the food people speak another language
Brits are still so butthurt that get got utterly BTFO in the irish independence war kek
ANd they would have got the entirity of Ireland, if Michael Collin wasn't a gay and signed teh treaty.
A couple fo years more of war, and teh bristih woudl have given it all to the rightful owners.
Based Ireland. Frick the english.
At any time the brits could have crushed the indepdence war, but they didn't, and restrained their military power
>but they didn't
Why not? Was it in their best interest that Ireland became independent?
ireland had become a drain and the brits wanted to let it go
>ireland had become a drain and the brits wanted to let it go
ahahahah Gibraltar si also nothing but a drain on the british tax payer, but they will never let it go.
Anglos are as obsessed for clay and map painting as Russians are.
They would have never given up Ireland. Never!
Hmmm, funny that if they were so keen to let it go they went to the trouble of fighting and losing over it. Was this an empty formality, a strange form of British court ceremonial?
Midlarsky (whom I quoted earlier) says the only reason the British didn't engage in genocide against the Irish in the first quarter of the 20th century was due to fear of the Irish lobby in the US.
yet you deny that the irish mafia exists
hmmmm...bit of a contradiction there laddie
Man, america just by existing prevents genocides.
Now if this isn't the greatest country in the world...
>Brits are still so butthurt that get got utterly BTFO in the irish independence war kek
nah we don't give a frick about Ireland lel
The British obviously didn't cause the blight, but the way they had set up the Irish economy was the reason that Ireland was so dependant on the potato as a staple food. Though obviously they didn't do that as part of a centuries long plan to starve them
At least 12
>not a genocide.
Riddle me this, britoids. Was holodomor a genocide?
GOOD QUESTION!
No. There's a reason only like 14 countries out of 200+ recognise the holodomor as a genocide. Even the West doesn't, even though it would have been very convenient to during the Cold War
>the KKK, a self defence group created by southern anglos in order to protect their society from Black criminals, yankees, catholics and degenerates is demonised, villified and hated in the media
>irish gangs who stole and killed and tortured are lionised and shown as the good guys in the media
why are they like this?
>lord Russel had no control over the blight, it was a natural occurrence
>the reactionary Irish purposely sabotaged themselves in protest of the British government
>the Brits had only improved the quality-of-life in Ireland beforehand, why would they all of the sudden tried to have to genocided them?
>several cases of revisionism had actually raised the amount of people who had reportedly died.
>the economy was pretty bad everywhere, not just Ireland.
>not a single large famine happened after 1850.
The brits were the tankies of the 19th century
>How the famine and its consequences have been deliberately made the most of, both by the individual landlords and by the English legislature, to forcibly carry out the agricultural revolution and to thin the population of Ireland down to the proportion satisfactory to the landlords, I shall show more fully in Vol. III. of this work, in the section on landed property. There also I return to the condition of the small farmers and the agricultural labourers. At present, only one quotation. Nassau W. Senior says, with other things, in his posthumous work, “Journals, Conversations and Essays relating to Ireland.” 2 vols. London, 1868; Vol. II., p. 282. “Well,” said Dr. G., “we have got our Poor Law and it is a great instrument for giving the victory to the landlords. Another, and a still more powerful instrument is emigration.... No friend to Ireland can wish the war to be prolonged [between the landlords and the small Celtic farmers] - still less, that it should end by the victory of the tenants. The sooner it is over — the sooner Ireland becomes a grazing country, with the comparatively thin population which a grazing country requires, the better for all classes.” The English Corn Laws of 1815 secured Ireland the monopoly of the free importation of corn into Great Britain. They favoured artificially, therefore, the cultivation of corn. With the abolition of the Corn Laws in 1846, this monopoly was suddenly removed. Apart from all other circumstances, this event alone was sufficient to give a great impulse to the turning of Irish arable into pasture land, to the concentration of farms, and to the eviction of small cultivators. After the fruitfulness of the Irish soil had been praised from 1815 to 1846, and proclaimed loudly as by Nature herself destined for the cultivation of wheat, English agronomists, economists, politicians, discover suddenly that it is good for nothing but to produce forage.
Karl Marx, Capital (1867/1887), 505.
Big Man Karl and his friend Engels wrote about the Great Famine in a way that British historiography implies is peculiar to rabid Irish nationalists.
>The melancholy dominating most of these songs is still the expression of the national. disposition today. How could it be otherwise amongst a people whose conquerors are always inventing new, up-to-date methods of oppression? The latest method, which was introduced forty years ago and pushed to the extreme in the last twenty years, consists in the mass eviction of Irishmen from their homes and farms — which, in Ireland, is the same as eviction from the country. Since 1841 the population has dropped by two and a half million, and over three million Irishmen have emigrated. All this has been done for the profit of the big landowners of English descent, and on their instigation. If it goes on like this for another thirty years, there will be Irishmen only in America.
Friedrich Engels, Notes for the Preface to a Collection of Irish Songs.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/history-ireland/irish-songs.htm
On the slim chance that this isn't ironic (this board is so dumb it's hard to tell), the Irish (whom Marx and Engels considered a revolutionary, not a reactionary people) did not sabotage themselves, except to the extent that they allowed their own crops to be taken from them and their food exported from the country; quality of life was consistently terrible in Ireland throughout every period of effective British rule (see
) and by many accounts was getting even worse in the years leading up to the Famine; all historiography with few exceptions uses the 1841 census figures to determine population and death-toll for want of anything better even though they're acknowledged to be a massive underestimate, meaning the death toll is necessarily higher than what is suggested; Ireland was by western European standards famine-struck for the rest of the 19th century, with a minor famine occurring in Kerry as late as 1898.
Pic is from David Ross Locke's Nasby in Exile (1882).
>As there is little aristocracy in Dublin there are few lordly dwellings besides the Vice-regal castle. This is very striking in this country of lords and serfs. The masters of the land, mostly of English origin, do not care at all to live in the capital of Ireland; all the time that they do not spend on their property they prefer to beguile away in London, Paris, Naples or elsewhere... The clearest of the nett product of the country's one industry — agricultural industry, — is poured outside it every year, without having circulated in Ireland, without having strengthened the local commerce or even invigorated agriculture itself, without having contributed to the well-being of a single Irishman. Let us set down this nett product, the Irish aggregate rental, at its lowest estimate, £8,000,000 per annum, a sum much inferior to the nominal one, and admit that one-half of it is sent abroad to absentee landlords. There we have £4,000,000 leaving the island every year without conferring the slightest benefit to any one of its inhabitants. In ten years' time that represents 40 millions sterling; in fifty years, 200 millions sterling, or five milliards francs, that Ireland has, so to speak, thrown into the sea, for that is to her the precise equivalent of such a continuous deperdition of capital. . . . And this has lasted for three centuries ! . . .
Paschal Grousset, Ireland's Disease: Notes and Impressions, translated by Philip Darryl (Paris/New York 1888), 17-18.
Pic is from a Lecture on Ireland by James Redpath (1881)
This situation existed over a long, long time.
>The Catholics of Kinsale, who are also scattered over the surrounding territory, are estimated at about two hundred; many of them live miserably in the country, in mud cabins, badly thatched with straw, sleeping on the ground on short mats, and subsisting chiefly on fish and wienerles, which are much smaller than the oyster, and are found in these seas, adhering to the rocks; they have seldom an opportunity of eating bread. Since the insurrection of this kingdom, they have been considered almost as the people of a conquered country, and are treated as slaves, being obliged to cultivate the ground, and to account to the owner even for their scanty profits. [...] The revenue which Ireland contributes to the royal treasury is estimated at three hundred thousand pounds sterling a year, arising from what are called the tributes of the crown, which every county in the kingdom pays to the exchequer from the revenues of the property of the rebels; from the annual loans, the right of which the same exchequer reserves to itself; from enfeoffments made of property confiscated in consequence of the pretended rebellion; and, lastly, from duties connected with commerce: which are exacted from the inhabitants, and with more especial rigour from the natives of the kingdom, towards whom the antipathy of the English is so great, that they not only do not allow them to speak in their native tongue, but oblige them to use the English idiom, forbidding them, under the severest penalties, the use of the liturgy in any other language than English, even in the prayers of their own communion.
Conte Lorenzo Magalotti, The Travels of Cosmo the Third, Grand Duke of Tuscany (1669).
Everyday IQfy convinces me more and more that anglos are a blight on humanity.
There are a handful of very prolific (and very stupid) Anglo posters obsessed with Ireland on this board. They're not representative.
Their combination of sadism and sanctimoniousness is indeed very noxious.
says the fenian
the irishman cries out as he strikes you
>the irishman cries out as he strikes you
LIES
HE LAUGHS
>sanctimoniousness
Only the aristos, and only in public. Otherwise, Englishmen are as gleefully malicious, amoral and nihilistic as the lowest /b/tard. They didn't ruin the world for profit, they did so because it was fun.
What bothers me in particular is how they combine this Nietzschean ethic with pseudo-Christian moral pretensions. For them might not does not make right, might just always happens, coincidentally enough, always to have been in the right. If they destroy a people it's because that people was evil and deserved to be destroyed, and they treat recognition of their own evil deeds as themselves an evil. Hence why acknowledging what actually happened in the Great Famine and decades following is treated as ultranationalist raving morally equivalent to Holocaust denial.
Because, again, the moral pretensions are entirely false. The appearance of having them, on the other hand, serves two purposes; one, to fool the gullible and uninformed, and two, to hurt the knowing and the victimised. To be a devil and assume the mantle of an angel, to have the world only ever see the halo and not the horns, to have those you torture be comprehending of this and be further tormented by the inability to change anything - what perversity could be more delightful, more orgiastic than that? And, really, it's not as if any of this is the product of any philosophical or ideological stance anyway. Anglos like all Germanics are the end product of millenia of invasion, extirpation and wholesale slaughter, tribe devouring tribe devouring tribe until all the spilled blood commingled into something with the body of a human but the soul of a Dalek. They can no more refuse violence than they can refuse breath or water.
I feel like I could have written this! We see eye to eye friend.
>England has been left in possession not only of the Soil of Ireland, with all that grows and lives thereon, to her own use, but in possession of the world's ear also. She may pour into it what tale she will: and all mankind will believe her. Success confers every right in this enlightened age; wherein, for the first time, it has come to be admitted and proclaimed in set terms, that Success is Right, and Defeat is Wrong. If I profess myself a disbeliever in that gospel, the enlightened age will only smile, and say, “the defeated always are." Britain being in possession of the floor, any hostile comment upon her way of telling our story is an unmannerly interruption; nay, is nothing short of an Irish howl. [...] It will farther help to explain the contumacy and inveterately rebellious spirit evident enough in the pages of the “Journal;" and, moreover, will suggest some of those considerations which lead the present writer to differ from the vast majority of mankind, and to assert that his native country has not been, even this time, finally subdued; that this earth was not created, to be civilized, ameliorated and devoured by the Anglo-Saxons; that Defeat is not necessarily Wrong; that the British Providence is not Divine; and that his dispensations are not to be submitted to as the inscrutable decrees of God.
John Mitchel, Jail Journal; or, Five Years in British prisons (New York, 1854), Introduction, 1; 24.
sounds based to me
would rather be a conquering violent barbarian than an irish cuckold who feels shame for one of his countrymen killing a bunch of pajeets a hundred years ago
I think even you have some awareness of how boring you are. You'll grow out of it, don't worry.
i can go to a pagan historical site of my race in the middle of the countryside and hear nothing but the trees, the wind, the birds tweeting
you can go to any site in ireland and you'll be inundated with a thousand shamrock tattooed socks and sandals wearing tourists (your diaspora) pining about how connected they feel to it and how the memories of the emerald isle are coming back to them
this is the future you chose. there is no coming back. irish folklore and mythology is commercialised and americanised while my nations mythology and folklore is free of virtually all foreign influence, aside from a few odious examples like american remakes of robin hood
>can go to a pagan historical site of my race in the middle of the countryside and hear nothing but the trees, the wind, the birds tweeting
Cringe and gay. All you anti Irish weirdos in these threads are the cringiest frickers on 4 Chan. Look in the mirror and unless there's a fine physical specimen of a man staring back then you are nothing and nobody and your "muh Anglo" genes mean frick all. If you start threads to shit on the Irish just to make yourself feel superior even though you're an inferior man with no achievements yourself then you're even worse again.
Wtf are you even on about? Everyone of you spastics are cancer.
This board is full of some of the worst posters on the site.
>Cringe and gay.
LOL
Keep seething
every summer your country is filled with hordes of fat irish american tourists with shamrock and celtic cross tattoos shambling all over your wretched island. you literally get fat mutts trespassing on buildings, stealing boats and vandalising structures because they think they're getting a genuine connection to the emerald isle
Lol, says the dude living a country more than half filled with foreigners. Enjoy your 'nation' while it lasts, if you can afford to that is.
Jews died from typhus. They smell and never shower. It was actually the British who fricked over the camps through the bombings making it hard to sanitize. israelites just took advantage after the war.
Famines used to happen naturally all the time. This just commie propaganda they use to cope with famines their regimes created
If these are solely natural occurrences why did Ireland have the two (1740–41 and 1846-52) of the most proportionately devastating famines in modern history?
>"Why did the country that saw rapid population growth due to its dependence on a single new crop introduced from the New World also see rapid population decline when a disease wiped out that same crop"
Better get the boys at Mensa onto this braintwister
The British population was exploding too at the same time but I don't hear much speculation from British commentators about why they weren't hit by a devastating famine. It seems 'natural limits' apply only to Ireland within the theodicy of British political economy.
Ireland's dependence on the potato was itself unnatural, and a consequence of very brutal system of colonial exploitation.
>The colonization of Ireland by Cromwell and his predecessors entirely failed to extend English society across St. George's Channel. The wild Irish, driven to subsist on the potato, could work more cheaply for the new landowners of the country than English or even Scottish settlers were willing to do, hence they prevailed demographically, at the expense of a miserable economic bondage to a culturally alien aristocracy. Although legal forms differed, the social patterns of eighteenth-century Ireland resembled those of eastern Europe and the southern colonies of North America in being sharply polarized between a privileged body of landowners who shared in European civilization, and a culturally deprived, psychologically alienated mass of agricultural laborers.
William H. McNeill, The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community (Chicago, 1992), 664.
>It seems 'natural limits' apply only to Ireland within the theodicy of British political economy.
The British government had been actively encouraging emigration from Britain for a century by that point, which was an easier task than in Ireland because the general living standard in the UK was somewhat higher.
The British government's response to most social/economic issues after the opening of the New World was always "just let the poorgays frick off to [America/Canada/Australia/New Zealand], and maybe give them some shillings to help them along"
>Each day brings with it its own horrors. The mind recoils from the contemplation of the scenes we are compelled to witness every hour. Ten inquests in Bantry– there should have been at least two hundred inquests. Each day– each hour produces its own victims– Holocausts offered at the shrine of political economy. Famine and pestilence are sweeping away hundreds– but they have now no terrors for the poor people. Their only regret seems to be that they are not relieved from their suffering and misery, by some process more speedy and less painful.
Cork Examiner, January 22, 1847.
>The letter gives a plain and simple narrative of an act of extermination– by which 53 heads of families, comprising 269 souls, were cast forth from their holdings, and flung as an additional burden on the fearfully-taxed industry of the country. We look upon all comment as superfluous, as such facts are a thousand times more convincing in their eloquence than any words we could use, and impress on the mind of every man who reads them the paramount necessity which there exists for effecting a radical change in the present laws governing the tenure of land in Ireland. What language could convey even the remotest idea of the misery of the 269 wretches who have been thus deprived of all means of supporting existence by their industry, and banished from the humble homes endeared to them by associations of the strongest and most holy? — Their only hope of keeping body and soul together is in the workhouse relief, which they are now legally qualified– by utter destitution– to receive. Had these people Tenant Right, they could sell the possession of the land to a solvent tenant, together with the improvements they had made, and thus not only pay the landlord his arrears of rent, but preserve themselves from beggary. . .
Cork Examiner, October 27, 1847.
>It appears that from the 27th of December 1846, to the end of the last week, a period of less than four months, 2,130 human creatures have perished in the Workhouse of this union. Had the workhouse, instead of being an asylum for distress, been a machine for depopulating the country, it scarcely could have answered its object with more terrible effect. So great a waste of life in this single establishment, may give some idea of the multitudes whom death is cutting off in detail all over the country.
Cork Examiner, April 30, 1847.
The fate of those forced into the workhouse. The writer is saying what is going on as upfront as he can.
In the North Dublin Union Workhouse, even before the Famine, the child death rate from May 1840 to May 1841 was 63%. In Kerry, 11% of the population was institutionalised in 1851, after the food crisis had more or less ended.
>With regard to the class of Visitors, it is to be observed that the inmates of public institutions have been placed under that head in Tables for 1851, whilst in 1841 they were included in the general population. These institutions have greatly increased in number since 1841, by the erection of Union Workhouses, Prisons, Lunatic Asylums, etc., it has been considered necessary to enumerate their inmates separately; and in order to prevent any error in comparing the proportionate number of visitors in 1841 with that class in 1851, the inmates of public establishments have been excluded from the calculations. The number and proportion per cent, to the population of their inmates are given in Table XI., page xxi, from which it will be seen that, in all Ireland, 4.8 per cent of the population were maintained in them in 1851. In the provinces, Munster had 7.8 per cent, Connaught 4.3 per cent, Leinster 3.8 per cent, and Ulster 1.4 per cent of their inhabitants in these institutions. In the city of Kilkenny and town of Galway the proportion per cent was unduly large, owing to the Workhouses and other public establishments being built within the boundaries of these towns. The county of Kerry showed the largest proportion of inmates of these institutions, so many as 11.6 per cent of the population being within them when the enumeration was made in March, 1851. In Clare there was 9.4 per cent, in Limerick city 8.7 per cent, and in Tipperary 8.0 per cent. The county of Down had the least proportion of any of the counties, being only equal to 0.6 per cent. Antrim had but 1, and Donegal 1.1 per cent.
Census of Ireland 1851, General Report, Part VI, (1856), page xxii.
>We feel it will be gratifying to your excellency to find that although the population has been diminished in so remarkable a manner by famine, disease and emigration between 1841 and 1851, and has been since decreasing, the results of the Irish census of 1851 are, on the whole, satisfactory, demonstrating as they do the general advancement of the country.
On page lviii of the same report.
Gratifying and satisfactory indeed. There's a reason why A. J. P. Taylor (the English historian) said "all of Ireland was a Belsen" in the mid 19th century. Taylor recalled being told by Benjamin Jowett that ‘I have always felt a certain horror of political economists since I heard one of them say that the famine in Ireland would not kill more than a million people, and that would scarcely be enough to do much good’. The political economist he is referring to is believed to have been Nassau Senior, mentioned by Marx above:
.
>Lunatic Asylums
Luna : moon
Tic : like
Asylum: housing
Where we put the men that are like girls
Which became
Where we put the men that get fricked
>Our second Sketch represents what is called a Scalpeen. There is also something called a scalp, or hole dug in the earth, some two or three feet deep. In such a place was the abode of Brian Connor. He has three in family, and had lived in this hole several months before it was discovered. It was roofed over with sticks and pieces of turf, laid in the shape of an inverted saucer. It resembles, though not quite so large, one of the ant-hills of the African forests. Many of the people whose houses have been levelled take up their abodes in such places; and even in them there is a distinction of wretchedness. A Scalpeen is a hole, too, but the roof above it is rather loftier and grander in its dimensions. It is often erected within the walls when any are left standing, of the unroofed houses, and all that is above the surface is built out of the old materials. It possesses, too, some pieces of furniture, and the Scalpeen is altogether superior to the Scalp. In such, or still more wretched abodes, burrowing as they can, the remnant of the population is hastening to an end, and after a few years will be as scarce nearly as the exterminated Indians, except the specimens that are carefully preserved in the workhouse. Those whom starvation spares, disease cuts off.
>Even from the Scalps the poor are hunted. “None of the houseless class,” says Captain Kennedy, the poor-law inspector, “can now find admittance into some over-crowded cabin, whose inmates seldom survive a month.” A month’s agonies– the result of hunger, dirt, and fever– after being expelled from a home, suffices to destroy life. It is a sort of Majendie experiment made on human beings– not on cats in an air-pump, or on rabbits with prussic acid. Yet the instinctive love of life is so great, so strong is the sentiment by which Nature ensures the continuance of the race, that Brian Connor dreads nothing so much as that he shall not be allowed, now that his hut has been discovered, to burrow longer in security; and like a fox, or some other vermin, he expects to be unearthed, and left even without the shelter of what may be called a preparatory grave. The mud cabins and turf huts that the peasantry lived in before 1846 were denounced by every traveller as the scandal of civilised Europe; and it was supposed that worse habitations were not on the earth; but the Irish have proved that in their lowest deep there is still a lower deep– that a Scalpeen is worse than a mud-hut, and a Scalp worse than a Scalpeen.
>The present condition of the Irish, we have no hesitation in saying, has been mainly brought on by ignorant and vicious legislation. The destruction of the potato for one season, though a great calamity, would not have doomed them, fed as they were by the taxes of the state and the charity of the world, to immediate decay; but a false theory, assuming the name of political economy, with which it has no more to do than with the slaughter of the Hungarians by General Haynau, led the landlords and the legislature to believe that it was a favourable opportunity for changing the occupation of the land and the cultivation of the soil from potatoes to corn. When more food, more cultivation, more employment, were the requisites for maintaining the Irish in existence, the Legislature and the landlords wet about introducing a species of cultivation that could only be successful by requiring fewer hands, and turning potato gardens, that nourished the maximum of human beings, into pasture grounds for bullocks, that nourished only the minimum. The Poor-law, said to be for the relief of the people and the means of their salvation, was the instrument of their destruction. In their terrible distress, from that temporary calamity with which they were visited, they were to have no relief unless they gave up their holdings. That law, too, laid down a form for evicting the people, and thus gave the sanction and encouragement of legislation to exterminate them. Calmly and quietly, but very ignorantly– though we cheerfully exonerate the parties from any malevolence; they only committed a great mistake, a terrible blunder, which in legislation is worse than a crime– but calmly and quietly from Westminster itself, which is the centre of civilization, did the decree go forth which has made the temporary but terrible visitation of a potato rot the means of exterminating, through the slow process of disease and houseless starvation, nearly the half of the Irish.
>There is about Kilrush, and in Clare, and throughout Ireland, the doubly melancholy spectacle of a strong man asking for work as the means of getting food; and of the fertile earth wooing his labours, in order to yield up to him its rich but latent stores: yet it lies idle and unfruitful. Why is not this doubly melancholy spectacle destroyed by their union, and converted into life and happiness, as oxygen and hydrogen, each in itself destructive, become, when united as water, the pabulum of existence? We shall fully consider that question before we quit the subject, but we shall now only say that the whole of this land, cultivated and uncultivated, is owned by a few proprietors– that many of them are absentees– that almost all are in embarrassed circumstances– and that, from ignorance, or false theory, or indolence, they prefer seeing the land covered with such misery as we have described, to either bringing the land under cultivation themselves, or allowing the people to cultivate it. Their greatest ambition, apparently, is to get rid of the people.
The Illustrated London News, December 15, 1849.
>english people are forced off their communal lands and made to live in packed hellish industrial cities
>crickets
>scottish people are forced off their communal lands and forced to live in packed hellish industrial cities
>crickets
>irish people are forced off their communal land and forced to live on tiny plots
>NOOO THIS IS THE WORST GENOCIDE EVER HOW COULD THE BRITISH BE SO EVIL TO THE IRISH
By how many millions are the English and Scottish populations smaller than they were in 1841?
It is true that Malthus wrote:
>The Land in Ireland is infinitely more peopled than in England; and to give full effect to the natural resources of the country, a great part of the population should be swept from the soil into large manufacturing and commercial Towns.
Thomas Malthus (writing anonymously), 'Newenham and others on the State of Ireland', Edinburgh Review, 1808.
His pupils, however, who included Charles Trevelyan, followed this recommendation, but for the fact they felt sweeping the Irish into the grave and coffin ship was just as well. When the Irish were swept into industrial and manufacturing cities instead of a workhouse mass grave they ensured they were not Irish cities but Boston, New York and Liverpool, where they could 'consume the manufactures of this country, and indirectly contribute to its customs.'
If you read between the lines here (from the same article by Malthus) you can see why Ireland's growing population caused such anxiety to British statesmen and why the 'relief effort' of the Whigs to the potato blight which struck in the 1840s resulted in Ireland being maybe the only country in the world with a smaller population now than then:
>The consequences of such a rapid rate of increase deserve our most serious attention. Either the increase will continue at its present rate or it will not. If the rate continue, Ireland will contain twenty millions of people in the course of the present century, and we need not insist upon the result. With such physical force, it is quite impossible that it should remain united to Great Britain without sharing, in every respect, the full benefits of its constitution.
As I said in
(not the anon you're responding to) there was no corresponding population loss because the "excess" were easily absorbed into the growing industry of Britain
A fact not unrelated to the deliberate underdevelopment of industry in Ireland, as Briollay (
) observed. This was the most humane face of the depopulation policy, but an effective one nonetheless:
>These chaps are kicking up a row; they are energetic; they might become dangerous; if they were to rid the country of their presence, it would be pure gain for the "mother" country. And doubtless, by encouraging or creating economic conditions which leave them workless, for example, by handicapping industry, as has been so often done in the past, one might obtain without fail, and without scandal, the desired result. Then one might see return those happy times when Ireland, peopled principally by children and old men, troubled not England's sleep...
Don't forget 100,000 men in the army and 200,000 in the royal navy.
They would raid their own towns and kidnap men off the streets as the bars closed.
Not to mention Britain simply has a much greater carrying capacity for humans, as evidenced by the fact that Ireland's population failed to recover a dozen generations later. The Marxist copy/paster isn't interested in this fact for some reason.
>By how many millions are the English and Scottish populations smaller than they were in 1841?
yeah because the irish immigrated away you mong
>scottish people are forced off their communal lands and forced to live in packed hellish industrial cities
BULLSHIT
THE SCOTS FOUGHT TO THE LAST WOMAN AND CHILD
>english people are forced off their communal lands and made to live in packed hellish industrial cities
Differentiating the britons and the normans is difficult. The terror came from the south, is all the native britons would have wrote.
That's because Anglos and Scots deserve to be treated like shit. It's why nobody cares about the abuses of medieval serfdom as opposed to the slave trade, because the former is just a case of c**ts hurting other c**ts.
Alright settle down Eamon
>Anglos and Scots deserve to be treated like shit.
Howdy, fellow whitey
>Oh hey these people are starving?
>Lets forcibly export what little food they do have
They also passed legislation designed to result in mass evictions and leave the most vulnerable (also the most politicised and radical, coincidentally or uncoincidentally enough) section of society homeless (the 'Gregory Clause' of the 1847 Poor Law Amendment Act) at the very height of the crisis, while also passing a Vagrancy Act the same year worded vaguely enough to allow for arresting homeless wanderers simply on the suspicion they might be begging, so that they might be placed in a crowded cell at the same time as various famine-related diseases are epidemic. Great timing! Very humane people, the English.
, having during the last twenty years reduced its population by nearly one-half, is at this moment undergoing the process of still further reducing the number of its inhabitants to a level which will correspond exactly with the requirments of its landlords and the English woollen manufacturers (Marx, Capital Vol. I, p. 572)
>The famine and its consequences have been deliberately exploited both by the individual landlords and by the English Parilament through legislation so as to accomplish the agricultural revolution by force (p. 869)
has from 1851 to 1861 mainy destroyed farms of the first three catogories under 1 and not over 15 acres (p. 869)
>>[Ireland's] depopulation must still go further, in order that she may fufil her true destiny, to be an English sheep-walk and cattle pasture (p. 869)
cont.
>the rents and the profits of the farmers increased along with the fall in the population, through not so steadily as the latter. The reason for this will easily be understood. On the one hand, with the throwing together of smallholdings and the change from arable to pasture land, a larger part of the total product was transformed into surplus product. The surplus product increased although there was a decrease in the total product of which the surplus product formed a fraction. On the other hand, the monetary value of this surplus product increased still more rapidly than its actual quantity, owing to the rise in the price of meat, wool, etc. on the English market during the last twenty years, and especially the last ten (Marx, Capital Vol 1, p. 860)
They can both take the complete blame. Anglo-Scottish landowners gradually accumilated more and more capital, which decreased the amount of available land for small scale farmers. This process was a historical process, and took time to manifest in the famine. Potatos were not the only ediable crop grown on Ireland during the time, and there was a great abundance of alternative crops. However, that got sent to the Britian in order to feed it's population rather than providing amnesty for the irish. Ireland was pretty much as police state, with high levels of police and army personal to control the local population. It was also profitable to get rid of the native irish small landowners, as it meant it would be easier to rear cattle and sheep. It's why the Ireland's GDP went up during that time. It was less premeditated by the British, but they were commited to prolonging the famine due to finacial and economic intrests.
>both
Well I feel like a fricking idiot.
That's one part of it, certainly, but there was also a geostrategic aspect to it as well. See the earlier posts in the thread.
famines happen naturally, (oppressive) governments make them worse
Why didn't they just fish?
They didn't have freedom of movement. An 1847 Vagrancy Act was introduced to limit population movement (
) and the rivers and lakes were privately owned anyway, meaning it was poaching to fish in them. Imagine a 'nanny state', like Australia during lockdown, except an exceptionally malicious and willfully murderous one which combined police state authoritarianism with the most exploitative and untrammeled form of capitalism imaginable, add on to that intense ethnoreligious hostility from the state to the ethnoreligious majority and you have mid-19th century Ireland.
Beats me why they didn't invent a means of compressing aerial molecules into a nutritious energy drink 2 b quite honest with u famalam.
Why didn't they use vertical farming?
Ok irishman, please give the quick prompts on the Ulster scots being created by the english to mantain control of ireland, I cannot be bothered with reading the sea of quotes and adjuncted photos you have provided.
This sounds ethnographically interesting.
How can you expect someone to answer your question while telling them you won't bother to read what they have written? Anyway, Ulster Scots are descendants of 17th and 18th century colonists, settlers, immigrants and famine refugees to the north of Ireland who mostly came from the west of Scotland. The beginning of the Ulster Scots in the proper sense was the Ulster Plantation, a land redistribution to Protestant settlers from Scotland and England after the suppression of the Nine Years' War, a revolt led by Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone.
Ulster Scots have been here 400 years and have a right to remain. They have a place in Ireland. Orangeism however does not. Orangeism is a very shady piece of social engineering based around the principle of divide and rule. See these posts:
The British state 'Orangeized' Protestant Ireland just as their Anglo-Saxon progeny the CIA Nazified Ukraine over the last decades for their own cynical geopolitical purposes.
ok, sorry I was tired last night I'll read up now, thanks for taking the time bro. much apprecciated.
>please give the quick prompts on the Ulster scots being created by the english to mantain control of ireland
The Ulsters were "enemy of my enemy is my friend" people. The Ulster-Scotts were not enemies of the Gauls.
It didin't happen but it should have happened and we will do it for real this time.
Honest question: did anybody's views on this topic change from reading through the thread?
I've never been called a whig before, that was interesting
i was more educated into both sides of the argument 🙂
100% and we were right to do it.
I appreciate this honesty of sentiment! It's a return to English tradition.
>the anglo irish landlords are evil bastards who starved our people and took our lands
>however if you rightly refer to them not as irish and refer to their writing and achievements as british works and not irish works then you are an anti irish racist trying to downplay irish art and literature
Why are these quotes superior to anon's graph?
I'll go further and say they're objectively wrong, either through ignorance or through intent to misinform.
If Ireland was destined to lose its population for Malthusian reasons, why was the British state so insistent on pushing the process along? I repeat, why did it pass legislation designed to encourage mass evictions in the height of a famine? Why did it pass a Vagrancy Act the same year worded vaguely enough to allow for arresting homeless wanderers simply on the suspicion they might be begging? Why is its relief system based around funnelling paupers into disease-ridden death-camp like workhouses whose implicit logistical basis was the presumption that mortality would be the basis for turnover? Why did it engineer for what happened over decades in the Highland clearances to happen within a few short years during a terrible famine in Ireland? Why did the whole crisis carry on for six whole years under the auspices of what may have been the most advanced and effective state in the world?
I don’t think the British caused it but they guilty of humanitarian aid neglect
It's a little more complex than that. The British state took actively destructive measures that can only reasonably be inferred to have been intended to increase mortality.
No offense but I wish more people would read through a given thread before responding to OP with their own takes, especially over contentious issues in which most of the discussion involves clarifying common misunderstandings.
Don't care
stop claiming anglo figures as your own and maybe i will read all your shitty copied walls of texts
As I've explained to you before, insofar as Anglo-Irish writers who didn't identify with Ireland are claimed as Irish, it's because the modern Anglo-Irish minority would claim discrimination otherwise on account of not being perceived as Irish by their fellow countrymen. When a group of amateur local historians included the work of Elizabeth Bowen in their anthology of local literature with a preface saying they didn't really consider her an Irish writer (in fact she did espionage work for the British government in Ireland and identified as English) they were denounced as sectarian bigots and anti-English racists. An early 20th century cultural nationalist called D. P. Moran is held up as Ireland's Hitler because he held that Anglo-Irish culture is not really Irish. The likes of Roy Foster and other Anglo-Irish intellectuals in Ireland would like us to believe that the only worthwhile Irish culture is Anglo-Irish.When a completely brainless Anglo-Irish octogenerian called Hubert Butler finally published a book of silly essays in his eighties the cultural classes here treated the fact that his 'talents' hadn't been 'rightly' celebrated until then as a consequence of Philistine Catholic ethnosectarian bigotry against the enlightened Protestants. I suspect that they would only feel wholly free of discrimination if we were forced to bow to them or be horsewhipped (
) as it was in 'the good old days'. You're blaming us for being inclusive and magnanimous towards a minority directly involved in the historic oppression of the majority.
>the anglo irish are the most evil people who ever lived and starved us and pushed us off our lands
>but the were also completely irish and deserve to be called irish
LMAO
imagine if the indians claimed rudyard kipling as an indian author because he lived in bombay
keep on claiming oscar wilde, charles maturin and jonathan swift as irish you cultural appropriator
Yes, but remember the Indians don't get blamed for Kipling's racism, whereas we do get blamed for things the Anglo-'Irish' did in other British colonies. A lot of people lump Ireland in vaguely with Britain and perceive its historical experience as roughly equivalent to that of Scotland.
>the irish are innocent of any crimes commited by the british army
>also the brave irish volunteers are the reason why the british army won their battles
cognitive dissonance
the irish did bad things in history, stop coping about it. they raided the coasts of britain, they killed the picts, they were fine with killing pajeets in india. the difference between the brits and the irish is that they're proud of being warlike conquerors, you irish on the other hand try to blame it on others or make excuses like "muh ireland wasn't a state back then so gaels enslaving people wasn't the fault of the irish"
Are the Irish completely innocent? Of course not. One particularly notorious figure in Indian history, Michael O'Dwyer, responsible for the Amritsar massacre, was in fact a Gaelic Irish Catholic. He was not a typical case, and in fact was the son of a father so widely hated in his hometown that he was nearly shot by nationalists growing up, but an Irishman he was nonetheless. My response as an Irishman when I think about O'Dwyer is shame, which I think is the appropriate one. Have you ever felt shame? You should try it. It's instructive.
imagine feeling shame over the actions of your own people
mongols don't care that genghis khan killed millions, in fact they celebrate it
Those may be Mongol and British values but they're not Irish values.
i doubt your gaelic ancestors who ravaged the coasts of britain cared about apologising to those they caused harm and feeling shame so why the frick are you doing it?
They were pagans.
wrong. only in the earliest years were they pagans. they christianised quickly and still continued to raid the british coast
>in fact they celebrate it
Frick no. They just know he existed and that Mongolia is basically a non-state at this point.
>Frick no
they literally have a hundred foot metal statue of genghis khan in the capital
But they don't worship him, know he wasn't good just like how most Chinese don't worship Mao and his policies.
Most foreigners don't quite understand the distinction between native Catholic Irish and Protestant Anglo-Irish, or appreciate how stark and significant a distinction it was.
>The Protestant religion is a sign both of fortune and of power. Not only is the Catholic poor and the Protestant rich, but each seems to think that such is the natural condition of both; the Catholic accepts his humble destiny, and the Protestant places implicit confidence in his pride of place. The latter, in his relations with the Catholics, displays some of that superiority which Europeans in the colonies exhibit to persons of colour who retain traces of their African descent. The Protestant is not only a descendant of conquerors, the inheritor of their glory and of their power, established by seven centuries of domination, he believes himself of a race superior to that of the Irish; and as in Ireland religion marks the race, Protestantism is regarded as a species of nobility.
Gustave de Beaumont, Ireland, Vol I.
Pic related is from Javed Majeed, Colonialism and Knowledge in Grierson’s Linguistic Survey of India (2019). Grierson and the people he was writing to all considered themselves 'Irish', but of a very different kind to the natives. Majeed's books is one those where the chapters seem to be written in chronological order. At the beginning he talks about Ireland was both coloniser and colonised blah blah blah. It's only around when he gets to this bit that you can tell he finally 'gets it'.
>I suspect that [ethnic minority] would only feel wholly free of discrimination if we were forced to bow to them or be horsewhipped
Many such cases
100%
Jack Lane of the Aubane Historical Society makes a very stimulating argument in this lecture that Ireland's population at the time of the Great Famine was more likely to have been 12 million than 8 million and accordingly many more millions died than is believed. The style of his writing is not particularly attractive and the general presentation looks unpromising at first but the arguments appear to me to be very substantial indeed. Tl,dr: all historians make some cursory acknowledgement that the 1821 and 1841 Irish censuses are probably massive undercounts (in the case of the 1821 census whole chunks of the country were excluded for arbitrary reasons, and both censuses required a mostly illiterate and largely Irish-speaking population which was hostile to the census takers to fill out their forms themselves in English) but use their figures anyway for lack of anything better, and then go on to make arguments using them as though they were perfectly accurate. Three economists and statisticians in the early nineteenth century - William Blacker, César Moreau and Thomas Reid - inferring from local data, independently of each other, made estimates that would have put the Irish population at 12 million in 1845, which agrees with the figures of population growth one would expect from earlier population figures.
https://aubanehistoricalsociety.com/irish-history/famine-or-holocaust/
the irish are beginning to overtake the israelites in how much they can exaggerate and make money off their fake genocide
Fragile as frick lmao
The general belief in the English speaking world (including in Ireland) is that the Great Famine was not a genocide, and this is because the British state has exercised a great deal of soft power in ensuring this is so, to the point of exercising pressure on university departments and even American Catholic bishops who contradict their official line. Midlarsky was an outlier in allowing himself the liberty of putting two and two together, presumably because his career wasn't dependent on British state patronage. When you mention the Irish Famine to anyone in the English-speaking world who has heard of it (including in Ireland, at least outside of the areas in which folk memory is still strong) the general train of thought goes 'it was very tragic, and while ultranationalist Republicans in Belfast and Plastic Paddies in America are deluded to think it was a genocide, to be fair it's true the British government didn't do enough to help the Irish'. Even this is the form of a gaslighting by suggesting, Britain's charity and generosity, while not enough to help the Irish out of the mess they had gotten themselves into, was indeed shown. Very few people seem to be aware of how objectively malicious and clearly deliberate the government's depopulation policy was, and for how long it was maintained afterwards.
For every instance of Irish 'butthurt' and 'seething' on the internet there are a hundred instances of British and Anglophile posters talking about the fact that the Irish are supposedly constantly butthurt at the English. For centuries Britain's propaganda policy with regard to Ireland has been to make the world respond to all Irish claims with 'lol delusional Paddy seething.' As Roger Casement said, 'to represent the island as a poverty stricken land inhabited by a turbulent and ignorant race whom she has with unrewarded solicitude sought to civilise, uplift and educate has been a staple of England's diplomatic trade since modern diplomacy began.'
Midlarsky's interpretation of the geopolitical dimension of the British famine policy is consonant with the interpretation of the great Irish patriot Roger Casement:
>The relation of Ireland to Great Britain has been in no wise understood on the continent. The policy of England has been for centuries to conceal the true source of her supplies and to prevent an audit of transactions with the remoter island. As long ago as the reign of Elizabeth Tudor this shutting off of Ireland from contact with Europe was a settled point of English policy. The three "German Earls" with letters from the Queen who visited Dublin in 1572 were prevented by the Lord Deputy from seeing for themselves anything beyond the walls of the city. To represent the island as a poverty stricken land inhabited by a turbulent and ignorant race whom she has with unrewarded solicitude sought to civilise, uplift and educate has been a staple of England's diplomatic trade since modern diplomacy began. To compel the trade of Ireland to be with herself alone; to cut off all direct communication between Europe and this second of European islands until no channel remained save through Britain; to enforce the most abject political and economic servitude one people ever imposed upon another; to exploit all Irish resources, lands, ports, people, wealth, even her religion, everything in fine that Ireland held, to the sole profit and advancement of England, and to keep all the books and rigorously refuse an audit of the transaction has been the secret but determined policy of England.
Roger Casement, The Crime Against Europe, 1914.
>The British Empire is founded not upon the British Bible or the British dreadnought but upon Ireland. The empire that began upon an island, ravaged, sacked and plundered shall end on an island, "which whether it proceed from the very genius of the soil, or the influence of the stars, or that Almighty God hath not yet appointed the time of her reformation, or that He reserveth her in this unquiet state still for some secret scourge which shall by her come unto England, it is hard to be known but yet much to be feared." Thus Edmund Spenser 340 years ago, whose muse drew profit from an Irish estate (one of the first fruits of empire) and who being a poet had imagination to perceive that a day of payment must some day be called and that the first robbed might be the first to repay. The Empire founded on Ireland by Henry and Elizabeth Tudor has expanded into mighty things. England deprived of Ireland resumes her natural proportions, those of a powerful kingdom. Still possessing Ireland she is always an empire. For just as Great Britain bars the gateways of northern and west central Europe, to hold up at will the trade and block the ports of every coast from the Baltic to the Bay of Biscay, so Ireland stands between Britain and the greater seas of the west and blocks for her the highways of the ocean. An Ireland strong, independent and self-contained, a member of the European family of nations, restored to her kindred, would be the surest guarantee for the healthy development of European interests in those regions whence they are to-day excluded by the anti-European policy of England.
>We have read lately something of Mexican peonage, of how a people can be reduced to a lawless slavery, their land expropriated, their bodies enslaved, their labour appropriated, and how the nexus of this fraudulent connection lies in a falsified account. The hacenade holds the peon by a debt bondage. His palace in Mexico City, or on the sisal plains of Yucatan is reared on the stolen labour of a people whose bondage is based on a lie. The hacenade keeps the books and debits the slave with the cost of the lash that scourges him into the fields. Ireland is the English peon, the great peon of the British Empire. The books and the palaces are in London but the work and the wealth have come from peons on the Irish Estate. The armies that overthrew Napoleon; the fleets that swept the navies of France and Spain from the seas were recruited from this slave pen of English civilisation. During the last 100 years probably 2,000,000 Irishmen have been drafted into the English fleets and armies from a land purposely drained of its food. Fully the same number, driven by executive-controlled famines have given cheap labour to England and have built up her great industries, manned her shipping, dug her mines, and built her ports and railways while Irish harbours silted up and Irish factories closed down. While England grew fat on the crops and beef of Ireland, Ireland starved in her own green fields and Irishmen grew lean in the strife of Europe. While a million Irishmen died of hunger on the most fertile plains of Europe, English Imperialism drew over one thousand million pounds sterling for investment in a world policy from an island that was represented to that world as too poor to even bury its dead. The profit to England from Irish peonage cannot be assessed in terms of trade, or finance, or taxation. It far transcends Lord MacDonnell's recent estimate at Belfast of £320,000,000—"an Empire's ransom," as he bluntly put it.
>The vital importance of Ireland to Europe is not and has not been understood by any European statesman. To them it has not been a European island, a vital and necessary element of European development, but an appanage of England, an island beyond an island, a mere geographical expression in the titles of the conqueror. Louis XIV, came nearest, perhaps, of European rulers to realizing its importance in the conflict of European interests when he sought to establish James II on its throne as rival to the monarch of Great Britain and counterpoise to the British sovereignty in the western seas. Montesquieu alone of French writers grasped the importance of Ireland in the international affairs of his time, and he blames the vacillation of Louis, who failed to put forth his strength, to establish James upon the throne of Ireland and thus by a successful act of perpetual separation to affaiblir le voisin. Napoleon, too late, in St. Helena, realized his error: "Had I gone to Ireland instead of to Egypt the Empire of England was at an end."
>With these two utterances of the French writer and of the French ruler we begin and end the reference of Ireland to European affairs which continental statecraft has up to now emitted, and so far has failed to apply. Today there is probably no European thinker (although Germany produced one in recent times) who when he faces the over-powering supremacy of Great Britain's influence in world affairs and the relative subordination of European rights to the asserted interests of that small island, gives a thought to the other and smaller island beyond its shores. And yet the key to British supremacy lies there. Perhaps the one latter day European who perceived the true relation of Ireland to Great Britain was Neibuhr. Should England, he said, not change her conduct, Ireland may still for a long period belong to her, but not always; and the loss of that country is the death day, not only to her greatness, but of her very existence.
The same amount as the Indian famine during WW2.
Peacetime extermination-famines in Ireland need to be seen within an English tradition of scorched-earth tactics in Ireland whose purpose was as sociopolitical as it was military. If you wonder at the relevance of these, remember that Edmund Spenser's 16th century famine-advocating Irish tracts were still read and admired by British statesmen at the time of the Great Famine.
>As a result, the garrison strategy, with scorched earth tactics being used as a corollary, amounted to a war of attrition whereby it was assumed the rebels could be defeated by inducing famine conditions. Devastation of the country had been argued for by English commentators in Ireland as far back as the 1530s, and indeed had been practised there in times of serious rebellions. Despite the harshness of such an approach, it is clear that the damage inflicted was often significant in quelling rebellions. As a result, by the time the conflict erupted in Ulster in the 1590s, many viewed devastation of the countryside as an essential weapon of war in Ireland. John Dowdall, a staunch supporter of such measures, defended their use in 1600 by citing the effect to which they had been used during the Desmond rebellion in the early 1580s. So too did Spenser. Similarly, the efficacy of scorched earth was noted in other treatises of the 1590s, for instance, by the cartographer Francis Jobson. In effect, then, devastation of the country became self-perpetuating, as recourse to it spread awareness of its efficacy and consequently led to its frequent application. The most extreme proponents of scorched earth were a cadre of hardliners who were, by and large, military professionals and among whom Spenser is somewhat anomalous as an undertaker and minor official. William Mostyn was perhaps the most vocal and persistent advocate of its use.
David Heffernan, 'Political discourse and the Nine Years’ War in late Elizabethan Ireland, c.1593–1603', Historical Research, Vol. 94, Iss. 264, May 2021, pp 282–302.
>There was some minimal disparity of this nature among advocates of scorched earth concerning how it was to be put into practice. [...] However, the sharpest divergence of opinion concerned what the ultimate objective of laying the countryside waste was. For many, devastation of the country, inducing famine and indiscriminate killing were all favourable as the first step towards establishing a new society in Ireland, one free of the vestiges of the Irish order. A kingdom whose Irish population had been decimated by these practices, mused Dowdall, Mostyn and Spenser, was one that would be ripe at last for successful reform, simply because there would be no Gaelic polity left to be reformed. This point was succinctly expressed by Spenser through Irenaeus, noting ‘all these evills must first be cut away by a strong hand, before any good can bee planted … and the foule mosse cleansed and scraped away, before the tree can bring forth any good fruite’. Equally, ‘The supplication of the blood’ argued that the Irish should be prosecuted with extreme severity before a new society could be forged.
I really can't wrap my head around what goes through the mind of an Englander to act smuggly superior to an Irishman because Paddy's country has a tourist industry that caters to white people who are at worst Paddy's moronic cousins, while large areas of Anglo-Land are dominated by inbred brown subcontinental subhumans who can freely groom English girls.
still coping are we
i can go to any sacred area of my land and see no tourists, maybe the odd english person but thats it
you cannot
>maybe the odd english person but thats it
>you cannot
I'm Scottish, unfortunately it's very hard for me to find places that aren't full of English people escaping the shithole they made of England
>I'm Scottish
so youre an englishman or an irishman in denial
Ulster was a people.
Good answer
mossad and the cia funded the ira in the 70s
the ira literally copied israeli terrorist tactics used in british palestine
>the ira literally copied israeli terrorist tactics used in british palestine
The Israelis copied the blue shirts. You are confused.
the ira were funded by mossad and the cia
>the ira were funded by mossad
moronic alert.
This thread was pretty high quality until the last few pages.
They didn't cause the soil to fail those years, so, about 0%, with a 1% margin of error.
Read the thread bro, starting at the beginning. You can't make a substantial contribution to a thread you haven't read.
Stop gatekeeping, moron
friendly reminder that CRACK or CRAK (not """craic""") is an english word that the irish stole and have gaelicised and pretend it's some authentic gaelic word and make millions of "craic" posters and "craic" t shirts
is there anything these people won't steal?
Why do you insist on equating Irish culture with its most vulgarised (i.e. Anglicised) varities? Seeing 'crack' spelt in the faux-Gaelic way as 'craic' annoys me and many other Irish people too. Brassy as well to accuse people of stealing a word from a language your own people has imposed on them.
For the sake of the reputation of your countrymen if no one else, please save the good English posters on this board further embarrassment and stop posting.
>Why do you insist on equating Irish culture with its most vulgarised (i.e. Anglicised) varities? Seeing 'crack' spelt in the faux-Gaelic way as 'craic' annoys me and many other Irish people too. Brassy as well to accuse people of stealing a word from a language your own people has imposed on them.
i don't care if you use our language, stop claiming it as your own and making cringey posters with "craic" on it in faux irish script you culture stealing subhuman
you steal english folk music, english mythology and english cultural figures
I'm glad to see anons posting this history. It's often forgotten.
The facts are not so much forgotten as misremembered, distorted and dismissed, and statement of the actual facts is even held up as an example of the dangers of nationalist delusion and grievance-based historiography. The official interpretation is pervasive, even in Ireland, despite the gaslighting stereotype of the Irish being fixated on the memory of the Famine which is propagated heavily on the internet and elsewhere.
The main reason I'm passionate about this issue is because I myself believed the official interpretation until a few years ago.
If you say that it is unreasonable for to be agitated about something that happened back in the 19th century I'll say it's equally unreasonable for the modern British state to be involved in gatekeeping the debate about something that happened in the 19th century.
Getting butthurt at some other language having a loam word from your language would come off a lot less silly if you typed it in a language that wasn't made up of French loan words
not an argument taig
Argument is a French word and I'm a jock
>b-but the british considered the irish subhuman
then why the FRICK were ACTUAL irish authors like Arthur Conan Doyle and Bram Stoker beloved in victorian britian and immensely popular and read by everyone?
if the irish were so hated then why were two irish authors beloved in victorian britain?
Just let me post a block of text that perfectly explains this within my schizoid worldview
Arthur Conan Doyle was a Scot of Irish Catholic descent who repudiated his Irishness, as shown by the fact that the villains of Sherlock Holmes (Professor Moriarty and Captain Moran) have Irish surnames. In all honesty, given the size of the Irish diaspora in England and their later predominance in literature and popular music the question is why there weren't more eminent Britons of Irish Catholic background like him in 19th century Britain. The answer to the question is of course obvious.
Bram Stoker was an Irish Protestant of English descent, though one of humble origins (the term 'Anglo-Irish' is generally reserved for the wealthy land-owning class). He gradually became a moderate Irish nationalist though and some read Dracula as a parable about cross-confessional collaboration in building a new Ireland (Van Helsing is a Catholic, the other characters are Protestant, but together they team up and kill Dracula).
Your examples aren't good.
Cope
Please explain how the incredibly irish conan doyle who had explicit irish characters in his stories (like the main character in the incredibly popular book the lost world) was popular in the victorian era if the irish were hated worse than the blackest of Black folk
you can't
the irish had ribbing and banter towards them but your persecution complex is completely unfounded seeing as a literal irish catholic was the most popular author of his day
Because it's very difficult for normal people to be racist with the autistic Prussian thoroughness and consistency of the Nazis. Why would the English public refuse to read Anglocentric detective stories written by a Scotsman simply because he had an Irish Catholic background not perceptible (or at least prominent) in the text? The Irish-Scottish Doyle was able to be successful in the same time as his Scottish countryman could describe the Irish Quarter of Edinburgh in the following terms because human nature is complex and varied, and because most people's racism phasers are not fully charged for every occasion:
>The daylight shines garishly on the back windows of the Irish quarter; on broken shutters, wry gables, old palsied houses on the brink of ruin, a crumbling human pigsty fit for human pigs. There are few signs of life, besides a scanty washing or a face at a window: the dwellers are abroad, but they will return at night and stagger to their pallets.
Robert Louis Stevenson, Edinburgh: Picturesque notes (London, 1889), 57-58.
the lost world literally had an irish protagonist you moron
>"Upon my word, sir," I cried, angrily, "you take very great liberties! I have never been so insulted in my life."
>He seemed more interested than annoyed at my outbreak.
>"Round-headed," he muttered. "Brachycephalic, gray-eyed, black-haired, with suggestion of the Black. Celtic, I presume?"
>"I am an Irishman, sir."
>"Irish Irish?"
>"Yes, sir."
>"That, of course, explains it. Let me see; you have given me your promise that my confidence will be respected? That confidence, I may say, will be far from complete.
Yet the lost world was extremely popular in its day and remains popular. if the british people in the victorian era were incredibly anti irish then why did they buy a book with an irish protagonist in droves?
>muh irish quarter
the english literally lived just as bad in cities like london but when it's englishmen or scots suffering it's completely fine to you fenians
Your posts are so dumb I honestly suspect you're intending to make your own position look ridiculous. You've been btfo so many times that if I were not me I would actually suspect we were the same poster samegayging.
The point you silly goose is not that the Irish Quarter was poor, it's that he called it 'a crumbling human pigsty fit for human pigs', the implication being that the Irish were human pigs.
Many 19th century Anglo-Saxon authors, including many of the greats of Anglophone literature, shared the same autism towards the Irish.
>Crowds of miserable Irish darken all our towns. The wild Milesian features, looking false ingenuity, restlessness, unreason, misery and mockery, salute you on all highways and byways. The English coachman, as he whirls past, lashes the Milesian with his whip, curses him with his tongue; the Milesian is holding out his hat to beg. He is the sorest evil this country has to strive with. In his rags and laughing savagery, he is there to undertake all work that can be done by mere strength of hand and back; for wages that will purchase him potatoes. He needs only salt for condiment; he lodges to his mind in any pighutch or dog hutch, roosts in outhouses; and wears a suit of tatters, the getting off and on of which is said to be a difficult operation, transacted only in festivals and the hightides of the calendar.
Thomas Carlyle, Chartism (London, 1840), 28.
>In Ireland, are the same climate and soil as in England, but less food, no right relation to the land, political dependence, small tenantry, and an inferior or misplaced race.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, English Traits (Boston, 1856), 59.
Even Engels, who as we know later became a firm supporter of Irish nationalism, originally shared Carlyle's opinion, his attitude to the Irish being coloured by English propaganda:
>These Irishmen who migrate for fourpence to England, on the deck of a steamship on which they are often packed like cattle, insinuate themselves everywhere. The worst dwellings are good enough for them; their clothing causes them little trouble, so long as it holds together by a single thread; shoes they know not; their food consists of potatoes and potatoes only; whatever they earn beyond these needs they spend upon drink. What does such a race want with high wages? The worst quarters of all the large towns are inhabited by Irishmen. Whenever a district is distinguished for especial filth and especial ruinousness, the explorer may safely count upon meeting chiefly those Celtic faces which one recognises at the first glance as different from the Saxon physiognomy of the native, and the singing, aspirate brogue which the true Irishman never loses. I have occasionally heard the Irish-Celtic language spoken in the most thickly populated parts of Manchester. The majority of the families who live in cellars are almost everywhere of Irish origin. In short, the Irish have, as Dr. Kay says, discovered the minimum of the necessities of life, and are now making the English workers acquainted with it. Filth and drunkenness, too, they have brought with them. The lack of cleanliness, which is not so injurious in the country, where population is scattered, and which is the Irishman's second nature, becomes terrifying and gravely dangerous through its concentration here in the great cities. The Milesian deposits all garbage and filth before his house door here, as he was accustomed to do at home, and so accumulates the pools and dirt-heaps which disfigure the working-people's quarters and poison the air.
Friedrich Engels, Condition of the Working Class in England (NY, 1887).
>dude the english sometimes joke about the french being frog eating subhumans, that means all english people hate and want to genocide the french
LOL
you still haven't answered as to why Conan doyle, an irishman, was one of the most popular authors in victorian britain with his novel the lost world being a bestseller despite it having an irish protagonist
Doyle was Hiberno-Scottish. You consistently deny that deny Anglo-Irish authors are in any way Irish (and in certain cases I agree with you) yet you treat Doyle and the Irish diaspora in general as Irishmen by jus sanguinis. The only reason I'm not certain you're somebody trolling to make the English look silly is because the mere mention of Ireland makes a lot of English people silly in general in a way that is hard to parody.
Also, there was a popular mixed-race black composer in France at the time of Haitian slavery (Joseph Bologne, Chevalier de Saint-Georges), and that doesn't mean there was no racism against blacks in France at the time.
>Doyle was born on 22 May 1859 at 11 Picardy Place, Edinburgh, Scotland.[5][6] His father, Charles Altamont Doyle, was born in England, of Irish Catholic descent, and his mother, Mary (née Foley), was Irish Catholic. His parents married in 1855.[7] In 1864 the family scattered because of Charles's growing alcoholism, and the children were temporarily housed across Edinburgh. Arthur lodged with Mary Burton, the aunt of a friend, at Liberton Bank House on Gilmerton Road, while studying at Newington Academy.[8]
He wasn't anglo irish, he was a pure catholic irishman who was completely celebrated and accepted amongst the victorian society of the day
I didn't say he was Anglo-Irish, I said he was Hiberno-Scottish. You repeatedly claimed that the Irish 'steal' Anglo-Irish cultural figures (and I agree with you that many of these figures were not meaningfully Irish) because you have an eccentric jus sanguinis interpretation of nationality and think blood descent counts for everything but that's not how most people see or saw it. The Victorian public would have seen Doyle as a Scot, as he would have seen himself.
I've wasted enough time with you already. I struggle to believe how much time I have wasted on this thread, this board, this site.
no, they would have seen him as an irishman (as he is reffered to as irish in victorian writings about doyle) and they would have seen the irish characters he wrote about
Howard actually had irish blood along with a smattering of danish, norman and english ancestry
If lovecraft was such a rabid anti irish bigot then why was he best friends with a man who larped as a gael and wrote every one of his stories as an irish self insert?
>Son of a woman of the O'Briens and a renegade Norman knight, Geoffrey the Bastard, in whose veins, it is said, coursed the blood of William the Conqueror, Cormac had seldom known an hour of peace or ease in all his thirty years of violent life. He was born in a feud-torn and blood-drenched land, and raised in a heritage of hate and savagery. The ancient culture of Erin had long crumbled before the repeated onslaughts of Norsemen and Danes. Harried on all sides by cruel foes, the rising civilization of the Celts had faded before the fierce necessity of incessant conflict, and the merciless struggle for survival had made the Gaels as savage as the heathens who assailed them.
>Now, in Cormac's time, war upon red war swept the crimson isle, where clan fought clan, and the Norman adventurers tore at one another's throats, or resisted the attacks of the Irish, playing tribe against tribe, while from Norway and the Orkneys the still half-pagan Vikings ravaged all impartially.
Why have you spent the entire thread talking about writers?
A few more examples:
>Couldn't they blow up that horrible island with dynamite and carry it off in pieces—a long way off?
Lord Alfred Tenyson, quoted in Tennyson: Interviews and Recollections, ed. Norman Page (London, 1983), 137.
>I see no greatness, nor any kind of superiority in them, & they [the Irish] seem to me an inferior & 3rd rate race, whose virtues are of the cheapest & shallowest order, while their vices are particularly cowardly & ferocious.
Henry James, as quoted in Fred Kaplan, Henry James: The Imagination of Genius, A Biography (London, 1992), 193.
> I cannot remember quarrelling with any Irishman whatsoever I usually enjoy their conversation, until they become aged and glue their eyes resolutely upon some single date in the past. But I simply cannot accept the evidence that they have any worth as a nation, or that they have any function in modern civilisation, save perhaps to decline and perish if that can be called a function.
Ezra Pound, 'The Non-Existence of Ireland', The New Age, Vol. 16, No. 17 (1915), 451-3, at 452.
>A great many speeches have been made and books written on the subject of what England has done to Ireland... I should be interested to hear a speech and read a book or two on the subject of what Ireland has done to England... if we do have an Irish Republic as our neighbour, and it is found possible to return her exiled citizens, what a grand clearance there will be in all the western ports, from the Clyde to Cardiff, what a fine exit of ignorance and dirt and drunkenness and disease.
J. B. Priestley, English Journey (London, 1934), 248-9.
Note: Irish Catholics are now actually at the top (or close) of white gentile demographic groups in terms of educational attainment and income in both the UK and USA.
I'll throw in H. P. Lovecraft just for fun even though he was a turbo-autistic proto-IQfy poster from whom one would expect this kind of thing:
>Concerning Ireland, I would ask Gahal-Bah what he means by ‘rights’. What ‘right’ exists on earth, save that of strength? If the Irish had the ‘right’ to independence they would possess it. If they ever gain it, they will possess it – until they lose it again. England has the right to rule because she does. When she ceases to rule it will be time to talk of “rights” of others. It is not chance, but racial superiority, which has made the Briton supreme. Why have not the Irish conquered and colonised the earth if they are so deserving of regard? They are brainless canaille.
Providence, R.I., October.
H.P. Lovecraft: Letters to Alfred Galpin (New York, 2003), 112.
What struck me on the other hand about the other literary figures I've quoted is how much they sound like typical autistic anti-Irish morons from IQfy or /misc/ when they talk about Ireland, even though they include some of the major names of modern English literature. There's actually a good chance that the people who post anti-Irish bait threads here are otherwise intelligent and successful, just afflicted with an autistic hate of Ireland which seems to lie deep in the Anglo genes.
Apart from the fact that Lovecraft was satirical and he was best friends with robert e howard, an actual american of irish descent and whose characters in his stories were almost all gaelic
Robert E. Howard was literally a living walking breathing "1/36th Irish" Plastic Paddy meme though. He decided to larp as a Celt out of contrarianism against the Nordicist larping of the day. He was really a fellow Anglo-Saxon.
Anglo-Saxons said the Irish were a congenitally inferior race incompatible with British civilisation for centuries but soon after Ireland became independent they began to insist that the Irish are just silly Catholic Anglos larping as Celts. There is no contradiction so egregious they (not all of them of course, or even most) won't stoop to just to retain their traditional contempt.
do you love japan
From the purely administrative perspective it was a complete disaster. The equivalent of letting an entire sector of your inner empire perish because you are shit at economics and disaster relief. It's no wonder the British lost their empire in the intervening years.
The more you read the worse the mismanagement gets. I don't believe they intended to kill off the Irish but they were so shit at managing their own subjects it certainly looks like it.
UK = terrorist state.
>It was one of the most proportionately lethal famines in modern history
No, this is simply not true, the Holodomor was at least close to this(10-15%), so was the Finnish famine.
There were certainly worse famines all over Asia in the last 2 centuries.
>We have evidence from the upper echelons of the British government that they were following a policy of depopulation
No, this is just propaganda. Show me actual policies that made Irish women have fewer children, not random quotes.
>were one and the same: eviction and clearance.
Again give actual figures.
>No, this is just propaganda. Show me actual policies that made Irish women have fewer children, not random quotes.
The landless poor were cleared out (deliberate British policy, look up the Gregory Clause, and Lord Palmerston's justification for evicting thousands of 'squatting cottiers' from his Irish estate) in the Famine and aftermath by the landlords in order to consolidate the land under the tenant farmers whose marriage pattern was dictated by different pressures to the conacre farmers and encouraged late reproduction. The stereotypical modern Irish Catholic sexual morality (until the recent collapse of Catholicism as a social force) was 'Big Farmer' morality, marrying late once one's economic position was secure. Emigration was massive and was more or less coerced by what 19th century observers recognised as a system of enforced poverty. Without this massive and anomalous (and designed) emigration, which had much to do with a continuing policy of clearance, Ireland wouldn't have had the unusual demographic situation it had.
When peasants decided to have children has nothing to do with the government, so it's not the British' fault that the Irish population didn't rebound.
>Emigration was massive and was more or less coerced by what 19th century observers recognised as a system of enforced poverty.
Give modern scholarly proof.
>evicting
As seen here
the number of evictions was smaller than you imply here.
The source you cite as evidence that the number of evictions was smaller than I imply (
- I do not know if you are the same poster as wrote this post) explicitly says that it is impossible to know how many had been evicted but that it was at least half a million. Irish famine historians are extremely conservative with figures and cautious about avoiding exaggeration, to the point of using figures they know to be underestimates. I strongly suspect Donnelly is erring on the side of undercounting. Are the figures he is inferring from based on individuals or heads of families? Many Irish statistics from this period concerning evictions etc tend to focus on the latter, and as we know Irish families at this time were big.
>It is impossible to be certain about how many people were evicted during the years of the Famine and its immediate aftermath. The police began to keep an official tally only in 1849, and they recorded a total of nearly 250,000 persons as formally and permanently evicted from their holdings between 1849 and 1854. Necessarily under the circumstances, this figure must be an underestimate of the harsh reality. If we were to guess at the equivalent number for 1846-8 and to include the countless thousands pressured into involuntary surrenders during the whole period (1846-54), the resulting figure would almost certainly exceed half a million persons.
>Irish famine historians are extremely conservative with figures and cautious about avoiding exaggeration, to the point of using figures they know to be underestimates.
You are not a historian so you are not an authority on what's an exaggeration or what's an undercount, now you shut up.
Also that's the literal source I just quoted genius.
You quoted Donnelly, and if I'm not mistaken Ó Gráda cites from the same source.
Manus Midlarsky (
,
) is also an historian and he says the Great Famine was a geopolitically-motivated willful act of mass culling. Since you are a mandarin credentialist worshiping at the altar of doctorates why not worship at the altar of his? Notice how Midlarsky and the Anglo-sympathetic Irish historians you favour don't even disagree on the actual facts - that Britain passed legislation incentivising the displacement of at least 500,000 people - they just disagree on the British government's motive, because Irish historians for various reasons adopt a position of willful naivety with regard to the character of the British state in Ireland. Irish historians refuse to put 2 + 2 together, as Mislarsky noted when he said 'traditional explanations of Britain’s inadequate response to the famine fail to answer certain critical questions' (by 'traditional explanations', he was referring to the work of Ó Gráda, Kinealy and Donnelly).
Even if those 500,000+ displaced people don't explain the mortality figure, what does it say about the character of British rule in Ireland that 500,000+ people could be deliberately displaced by legislation introduced by the British state which was understood to have that effect?
becoming personally abusive is never a good sign of winning the argument
Ó Gráda says the number of evictions was probably about 70,000, displacing 500,000, but I strongly suspect this is an underestimate.
When considering the evictions and the death toll of the Famine, it's important to bear in mind how many died in the workhouses after the Famine was considered over and are unlikely to included within the mortality statistics of the Famine itself. Going into a workhouse during the Great Famine was like going on a ventilator in 2020. See:
.
Oh yes because British mines, factories and cities were much better
>t-they where!
First provide the fricking proof.
*upper echelons of British society
Robert Knox and John Thadeus Delane (the editor of the Times) were known to each other and well-connected figures in British society, not marginal or fringe cranks. The Times was always known to be the establishment paper par excellence, always toeing the party line of the day's consensus.
Palmerston, whom Midlarsky describes as the architect of the genocidal British famine policy (
) was a close friend and ally of Delane and used the Times essentially as his own mouthpiece. In the extract I quoted from the editor of the Times we are essentially hearing Palmerston's voice.
http://sarkoups.free.fr/poirteir1995.pdf
>If we were to guess at the equivalent number for 1846-8 and to include the countless thousands pressured into involuntary surrenders during the whole period (1846-54), the resulting figure would almost certainly exceed half a million persons.
So I guess 0.5-1 million people were evicted during the 1846-1854 period, but at least twice as many died or emigrated in the same period, although the likely figure is that 2.5 million emigrated and 1 million died, so the rate of evicted to deaths/emigrants is 1 to 7 or 1 to 3.5
From what I know the number of evictions was fairly lower afterwards.
I don't have figures to hand right now but I do know that Donnelly from whom you cite those figures has moved towards a more what you might call 'nationalist' interpretation of the Famine since he wrote that in 1995 and I'd be interested in seeing if he has revised his figures or modified his opinion on the basis of revised figures.
Bear in mind than in 1851 almost 5% of the population was still interned in death camps (sorry, I meant to say workhouses). See: (
). These people were unlikely to live long once inside and on the off-chance they got out they were destitute unemployable paupers with broken health and nowhere to go but back to the workhouse, or if they miraculously happened upon enough cash, on the boat to America, but most likely into the grave. Most of these people can be presumed to have died of disease and overwork within the workhouse in the early 1850s. Prison was actually preferred to the workhouse during the Famine on account of the better rations, hence a rise in petty theft designed to result in getting caught.
The real purpose of the workhouses was recognised and obliquely referred to at the time:
.
>280 posts
>not ONE single piece of evidence that points to the british actually ordering a genocide of the irish people
just like the holocaust, there is no proof for the potato famine being a "genocide"
Honest question, thought experiment if you will: which post makes the strongest argument in favour of the Irish nationalist thesis, and which post makes the strongest argument against it?
Anon never made a claim that there was some sort of single genocide order given by the British government. Rather what he did show was that British government and administration in ireland pursued a policy which was intentionally aimed towards reducing the Irish population through death/emigration, which is genocidal in nature.
Thank you. It's gratifying that you feel I've shown it. If I've convinced at least one reasonable person I'll feel the time I've spent arguing in this thread hasn't been wasted.
>It is, however, on the second clause—the renowned quarter-acre-clause—that Mr. Gregory's enduring fame, as an Irish legislator, may be said to rest. It is well entitled to be transcribed here in full: "And be it further enacted, that no person who shall be in the occupation, whether under lease or agreement, or as tenant at will, or from year to year, or in any other manner whatever, of any land of greater extent than the quarter of a statute acre, shall be deemed and taken to be a destitute poor person under the provisions of this Act, or of any former Act of Parliament. Nor shall it be lawful for any Board of Guardians to grant any relief whatever, in or out of the Workhouse, to any such occupier, his wife or children. And if any person, having been such occupier as aforesaid, shall apply to any Board of Guardians for relief as a destitute poor person, it shall not be lawful for such Guardians to grant such relief, until they shall be satisfied that such person has, bona fide, and without collusion, absolutely parted with and surrendered any right or title which he may have had to the occupation of any land over and above such extent as aforesaid, of one quarter of a statute acre." So that by this carefully prepared clause, the head of a family who happened to hold a single foot of ground over one rood, was put outside the pale of relief, with his whole family.
John O'Rourke, The History of the Great Irish Famine of 1847 (Dublin, 1874).
>A more complete engine for the slaughter and expatriation of a people was never designed. The previous clause offered facilities for emigrating to those who would give up their land—the quarter-acre-clause compelled them to give it up, or die of hunger. In the fulness of his generosity Mr. Gregory had, he said, originally intended to insert "half an acre" in the clause, but, like many well-intentioned men, he was over-ruled: he had, he said, been lately in Ireland, and people there who had more knowledge of the subject than he could lay claim to, told him half an acre was too extensive, so he made it a quarter of an acre. It is not hard to conjecture who his advisers were on this occasion. [...] Mr. Curteis, the member for Rye, said the clause was meant for the benefit of Irish landlords—a class that deserved little sympathy from the House or the country. Sir George Grey, one of the Secretaries of State, supported the clause, because he had always understood that small holdings were the bane of Ireland; from which observation it is clear he accepted it as an exterminating clause. Now, suppose it is admitted that small holdings were the bane of Ireland, who, we may be permitted to ask, created them? The very landlords who now sought to abolish them, at the expense of millions of lives. Again, if small holdings were the bane of Ireland, was the midst of an unparalleled famine the proper time to remove the bane? Ought not such a bane be the subject of legislation, when society was in its normal state? Sir George thought not, and hence he virtually says to the landlords, "Now is your time to get rid of the people; they have served your purpose; they are useful to you no longer; why should they cumber the ground?"
>The more insightful question I'd like to see discussed would be:
How much worse did the British ruling classes mistreat poor Irish folk than poor British folk?
Poor Brits were still being executed for poaching in the early 1800s, and conditions for the lower-class Brits was abysmal (children in factories, massive infant death rate, workhouses, etc.).
See:
.
Sorry meant to tag this post instead of the first two:
the orange order are cringe but their actual goal is noble; to protect the anglo race against the machinations of the irish race, which if left unchecked leads to irish nepotism and tyranny and the pushing out and extinction of the anglo race itself
This William Poole (PBUH) did admirably but was killed for after his irish opponent got mad after poole beat him in a fight and then proceeded to assasinate him
The 'mother country' is the only reason there are Irishmen in the US. It dumped them on your shores and said 'your problem now'. See:
.
>defending ethnic cleansing
why the FRICK are the irish like this?
100% mostly