>Live on an Island. >Island is surrounded with fish. >Still starve because your retarded monocrop

>Live on an Island
>Island is surrounded with fish
>Still starve because your moronic monocrop
>Don't just go fishing.

Why are the Irish like this?

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Looks like Ulsterchads can't stop winning.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ulster suffered massively during the famine, too. Ulster's population fell by approximately 16%. Fermanagh in particular was devastated. Even the "prosperous" areas suffered massively. Some of the most dire situations in workhouses and such were in the northeast.

      Most of this was covered up by Presbyterian religious leaders who wanted to portray the famine as a punishment against Catholics, but from Newtownards to Belfast hundreds of thousands starved. It is grim how much it was covered up.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, dead fenians
        Lol.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I am absolutely sure that the inhabitants of the coast ate fish, but fish is a perishable product, and refrigerators had not yet been invented at that time. In addition, it seems that the Irish did not have a tradition of creating dried/pickled fish, unlike the Scandinavians.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The English set up laws so that the Irish were banned from fishing with the threat of death. But the English settlers were exempt from this law so they fished.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Source?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      First off, not true.
      Second off, even if it was, why would you not risk it?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      fact check: in reality the British had to launch an investigation into why they weren't fishing. They discovered Irish fishermen were sabotaging peoples attempts to fish. The Investigators recommended deploying the British navy to stop this lunatic union thuggery

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Sauce?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Nta but it’s talked about in The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849 by Cecil Woodham-Smith. If I can find a more specific page number or source from elsewhere, I’ll post it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The English set up laws so that the Irish were banned from fishing with the threat of death.
      That sounds like bullshit tbhwy.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's an oversimplification. It isn't that the law was "if you steal, you die" but stealing was a surefire way to get evicted which was as good as a death sentence. Many were also transported to penal colonies for theft of food.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You forgot the part where the English personally burned all the food in Ireland with their 'famine ray' and started feeding Irish babies to crocodiles while doing a supervillain laugh.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        can confirm, seen that with my own eyes before English gouged them

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        pretty sure that was Cromwell. When he was on holiday.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I thought Cromwell raped all the puppies in Ireland? Or was that the Black and Tans?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Did you just make that part up? Also why does everyone say English settlers, the majority of British settlers were Scots

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That’s bollocks and you know it. The penal law banning hawking specifically exempts fisherman. That would not happen if there were no fisherman.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Had no idea it was a skill issue.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >how did you not think to build literally a million fishing boats and move your entire population to the coast and teach them all to fish in about 3 weeks being generous
    >lol you must be moronic
    We've been over this.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Well, why didn't they?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Because that was impossible and ridiculous. You should really check yourself for moronation before you go calling other things moronic.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Could have at least fekken tried. Bunch of quitters if you ask me.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >be on literally a fricking island
      >how the frick was I supposed to know I might need a bunch of boats
      sounds like a skill issue

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They did have a tonne of boats. It's just that by the 1800s, the only ones they could really afford to have were only capable of fishing in certain areas and couldn't hold a lot of fish.

        As noted earlier in the thread, Ireland didn't have things like curing stations like Scandinavian countries did-this is due a combination of the fact that they lacked the capital to build them and due to the fact that the Irish fishing industry was neglected at best and undermined at worst by British authorities.

        Without a way to preserve a perishable food like fish, and without the infastructure to capture it in large quantities and transport it in large quantities across the island, it really wouldn't have made a difference even if they *did* eat said fish instead of handing it over to be sold.

        thats not an age old saying it was a political slogan cooked up by a hate mongering Irish nazis.

        The Brits should take Ireland to court for slander and demand reparations.

        It is a quote from the 19th Century from a Pesbyterian in Ulster.

        Yeah, dead fenians
        Lol.

        No, dead Protestants. Approxiamtely 245,000 dead Protestants.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          i know where the quotes from
          John Mitchel, one of the leaders of the Young Ireland Movement, wrote in 1860:
          I have called it an artificial famine: that is to say, it was a famine which desolated a rich and fertile island that produced every year abundance and superabundance to sustain all her people and many more. The English, indeed, call the famine a "dispensation of Providence"; and ascribe it entirely to the blight on potatoes. But potatoes failed in like manner all over Europe, yet there was no famine save in Ireland. The British account of the matter, then, is first, a fraud; second, a blasphemy. The Almighty, indeed, sent the potato blight, but the English created the famine.[202]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Ireland
          >irish nazis

          Its a blatant attempt to stir hatred towards the British

          I never said one word about the israelites. The Nazis were based though.

          dribbling spastic antisemite

          What on earth are you on about moron

          Its not working moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Michels lying because there was a famine in europe and people died. Classic irish MOPE garbage where they ignore the suffering of others

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If bad economic policy causes a famine that kills thousands, let alone a million, where is the hate in holding the government to account?
            This is like when Russians say holodomor is some black legend myth and not the Soviets just fricking up in very typical dashing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Calling it a deliberate genocide is a lie. It was a natural disaster and the Irish were at fault.
            >holodomor
            not even comparable, that was a man made genocide. Where people literally prevented others eating.

            Hell the comparison could be made the Irish did this because Irish did actually prevent other Irish feeding themselves

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            When your economic policies railroad a specific subset of the country into relying on one crop to survive, and (predictably), that crop fails sooner or later, this is textbook economic mismanagement.
            For some reason it’s only when the famine is on the table that the idea that Brits fumbled the bag sometimes with dodgy economic ideas becomes so divisive, consider that even for the English their own ancestors were very often literal wage slaves entirely reliant on workhouses to not starve to death themselves. In all real terms the British empire was an absolute shithole for 90% of its population, not just in Ireland or in the colonies but in Britain also.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Irish preferred to eat potatos. They thought it was up market food.
            They also due to being catholic morons had too many kids and overpopulated the island.
            No one saw the blight coming.
            Trying to blame the English is pure Irish cope and racism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >For the majority of its population the 19th century British empire was actually a massive shithole in which even the English generally lived in miserable poverty
            >wtf why are you blaming the English you racist Irish nazi
            Okay, bro. Mercantilist moronation is actually good.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So your argument is now everyone equally suffered not the Irish?
            That life was generally hard and full of death for everyone on the planet.
            No fricking shit moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            My argument is that the government of the time caused tremendous amounts of suffering for the majority of the population everywhere it ruled and in this regard the British empire is no better than the Soviets. It was always run by a tiny clique of the British population and it was late in the 19th century that it started adopting sane economic policies that Adam Smith could have told them worked a century earlier. The comparison with the Soviets is more than fair.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Irish Nazi

            Do you even realise how much of homosexualy c**t you are?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They also due to being catholic morons had too many kids and overpopulated the island.
            Lol, are you implying they should've been using birth control in the early 1800s?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          the issue is everything you Irish say is lies. Before the famine irish fished, during the famine they did not.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why didn't people living in-land merely fished in lakes and rivers? They just needed a rod or at the very least, a basic spear.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The British should sue them for vilification with their lies about the Brits causing the famine.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Irish can't swim, they start drowning in two inches of water.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yawn and cringe.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's that age old saying; God sent the Blight, but the English created the famine.

    There are several pre-requisites to fishing;
    >Knowing "how to fish", aka what to use, where to go, and how to do so
    >Living near fishable water
    >Owning equipment required to fish
    >Being able to fish enough to sustain yourself or make enough money to do so
    Let's set these aside, pretending that every Irishman secretly fulfilled all of these.

    The Irish fishing industry in the 1800s was a shitshow before the famine even started. We know that Ireland has some of the best fishing waters in the world-not all of Ireland's coast is fishable, but the areas that were had vast quanitites of haddock or herring for example. Sources as close to the famine as 1812 suggest a general open knowledge of Ireland's genuinely brilliant fishing waters. All of Ireland's neighbours had flourishing industries; the Scottish did well, the English did, so did the Dutch. We also know that Ireland had talented fishermen; an 1848 source reports that there were no better fishermen in the world than those on the west coast of Ireland.

    So why wasn't fishing the solution? Well, the answer is simple; money. There was next to no investment in Irish fishing, so most of them used relatively primitive gear. In other countries, the Government funded fisheries since it was mutually beneficial-not so in Ireland. The Irish Fisheries Board and the subsidies that came with it only began in 1819, in an attempt to mirror Scotland's success. However by 1829, the "hands off" approach took root and stopped the support instantly. In 1836 they claimed that they would aid the construction of fishing infastructure, but they didn't do so.

    Thanks to all this turbulence, the Irish Fishing industry declined extremely rapidly. In 1830 there were around 13,000 fishing boats, by 1840 it had fallen to around 10,500. Fishing wasn't profitable, and there was no infastructure to do so.

    Then, the Blight arrived.

    (1/3)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So the Blight hits Ireland, and the staple crop is fricked. Everyone is panicking. Charles Trevelyan, in charge of relief, maintained that indirect support was best. He tackled (heh) the fishing industry to try and fix it.

      He set up some new curing infastructure at previously profitable fishing groups, intending for them to act as inspiration for other areas to be invested in. Work began at these areas (one of which was Killeybegs, for context) in 1846. He maintained that direct support in the form of grants or loans were a bad idea. By 1847, three curing stations had indeed been opened and were slow to succeed. The plans to open the rest were abandoned when the statins failed and were closed at most of the areas. Why?

      Well, by 1847, fishing had ground to a halt. Remember; Irish fisheries lacked the support that Scottish ones had enjoyed, and were extremely primitive. Remember also that fishermen didn't tend to live off fish; many of them also lived off the potato, and starved when it failed. Trevelyan himself lamented that the poverty was so dire that many fishermen who DID have fishing gear sold it to afford food. So by the time the *start* of Irish fishery reform, the famine was already underway and most fishermen were starving or had emigrated to the likes of Newfoundland.

      Britain refused to give direct support to the Irish fisheries as they didin Scotland; under Trevelyan Scottish fisheries spent close to £16,000 a year on Scottish fisheries, compared to approximately £1,000 in Ireland.
      So, to summarise:

      >The Irish fishing industry was incredibly under-developed and under funded, thanks to British policy
      >Support was promised, withdrawn, promised, and withdrawn again multiple times between 1800 and 1845 for Irish fishers
      >Irish fishers starved too, and stealing food made you liable to punishment via transportation to penal colonies
      >Support and reform for Irish fisheries began too late, and was abandoned

      But there's one final factor...

      (2/3)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So the Blight hits Ireland, and the staple crop is fricked. Everyone is panicking. Charles Trevelyan, in charge of relief, maintained that indirect support was best. He tackled (heh) the fishing industry to try and fix it.

      He set up some new curing infastructure at previously profitable fishing groups, intending for them to act as inspiration for other areas to be invested in. Work began at these areas (one of which was Killeybegs, for context) in 1846. He maintained that direct support in the form of grants or loans were a bad idea. By 1847, three curing stations had indeed been opened and were slow to succeed. The plans to open the rest were abandoned when the statins failed and were closed at most of the areas. Why?

      Well, by 1847, fishing had ground to a halt. Remember; Irish fisheries lacked the support that Scottish ones had enjoyed, and were extremely primitive. Remember also that fishermen didn't tend to live off fish; many of them also lived off the potato, and starved when it failed. Trevelyan himself lamented that the poverty was so dire that many fishermen who DID have fishing gear sold it to afford food. So by the time the *start* of Irish fishery reform, the famine was already underway and most fishermen were starving or had emigrated to the likes of Newfoundland.

      Britain refused to give direct support to the Irish fisheries as they didin Scotland; under Trevelyan Scottish fisheries spent close to £16,000 a year on Scottish fisheries, compared to approximately £1,000 in Ireland.
      So, to summarise:

      >The Irish fishing industry was incredibly under-developed and under funded, thanks to British policy
      >Support was promised, withdrawn, promised, and withdrawn again multiple times between 1800 and 1845 for Irish fishers
      >Irish fishers starved too, and stealing food made you liable to punishment via transportation to penal colonies
      >Support and reform for Irish fisheries began too late, and was abandoned

      But there's one final factor...

      (2/3)

      Many theories exist to suggest that Irish fisheries were deliberately sabotagued to benefit Scottish or English fisheries.

      When abolition came around, Scottish fisheries lost one of their biggest customers; slave owners in the Carribbean, who use herring as cheap food for slaves. So they look for a new customer-and they find one in Ireland.

      In 1844, the year before the Blight hit, Ireland was the main export destination of Scottish herring; close to half of all Scottish herring to Ireland. Even at the time this was pointed out by the likes of the Earl of Glengall. With all this said, we can finally conclude;

      >Fisheries in Ireland controlled by Britain from approximately 1700 onwards
      >Fish was considered a luxury food by the 1800s; many Irishmen ate potatoes
      >There were no means to preserve fish, due to a lack of curing infastructure and the high price of salt
      >The best fishing waters in Ireland were inaccessible via the small boats that Irish fishers used, and there was no support for better boats
      >There were no railways leading to/from the major fishing ports, making the widespread transportation of fish (especially uncured) difficult
      >Aid and reform to Irish Fisheries only began in any meaningful away about a year or two after the famine already started
      >The fishers who hadn't pawned their gear or become too weak from starvation to fish were still only able to fish enough to support their family
      >Britain refused to give direct support via grants, loans, or subsidies to Irish Fisheries like it did in Scotland
      >People did fish, but it didn't help

      There's your answer, not that it'll matter. This thread will be made 500 more times. But it gives me an excuse to post this I suppose!

      Quality posts. I did enjoy reading them

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So the Blight hits Ireland, and the staple crop is fricked. Everyone is panicking. Charles Trevelyan, in charge of relief, maintained that indirect support was best. He tackled (heh) the fishing industry to try and fix it.

      He set up some new curing infastructure at previously profitable fishing groups, intending for them to act as inspiration for other areas to be invested in. Work began at these areas (one of which was Killeybegs, for context) in 1846. He maintained that direct support in the form of grants or loans were a bad idea. By 1847, three curing stations had indeed been opened and were slow to succeed. The plans to open the rest were abandoned when the statins failed and were closed at most of the areas. Why?

      Well, by 1847, fishing had ground to a halt. Remember; Irish fisheries lacked the support that Scottish ones had enjoyed, and were extremely primitive. Remember also that fishermen didn't tend to live off fish; many of them also lived off the potato, and starved when it failed. Trevelyan himself lamented that the poverty was so dire that many fishermen who DID have fishing gear sold it to afford food. So by the time the *start* of Irish fishery reform, the famine was already underway and most fishermen were starving or had emigrated to the likes of Newfoundland.

      Britain refused to give direct support to the Irish fisheries as they didin Scotland; under Trevelyan Scottish fisheries spent close to £16,000 a year on Scottish fisheries, compared to approximately £1,000 in Ireland.
      So, to summarise:

      >The Irish fishing industry was incredibly under-developed and under funded, thanks to British policy
      >Support was promised, withdrawn, promised, and withdrawn again multiple times between 1800 and 1845 for Irish fishers
      >Irish fishers starved too, and stealing food made you liable to punishment via transportation to penal colonies
      >Support and reform for Irish fisheries began too late, and was abandoned

      But there's one final factor...

      (2/3)

      Many theories exist to suggest that Irish fisheries were deliberately sabotagued to benefit Scottish or English fisheries.

      When abolition came around, Scottish fisheries lost one of their biggest customers; slave owners in the Carribbean, who use herring as cheap food for slaves. So they look for a new customer-and they find one in Ireland.

      In 1844, the year before the Blight hit, Ireland was the main export destination of Scottish herring; close to half of all Scottish herring to Ireland. Even at the time this was pointed out by the likes of the Earl of Glengall. With all this said, we can finally conclude;

      >Fisheries in Ireland controlled by Britain from approximately 1700 onwards
      >Fish was considered a luxury food by the 1800s; many Irishmen ate potatoes
      >There were no means to preserve fish, due to a lack of curing infastructure and the high price of salt
      >The best fishing waters in Ireland were inaccessible via the small boats that Irish fishers used, and there was no support for better boats
      >There were no railways leading to/from the major fishing ports, making the widespread transportation of fish (especially uncured) difficult
      >Aid and reform to Irish Fisheries only began in any meaningful away about a year or two after the famine already started
      >The fishers who hadn't pawned their gear or become too weak from starvation to fish were still only able to fish enough to support their family
      >Britain refused to give direct support via grants, loans, or subsidies to Irish Fisheries like it did in Scotland
      >People did fish, but it didn't help

      There's your answer, not that it'll matter. This thread will be made 500 more times. But it gives me an excuse to post this I suppose!

      Great posts, much more intelligent and thought out than OP's brain damaged question deserves.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Best thing to do is Screencast them and just post everytime "le fish" Irish threads pop up

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      thats not an age old saying it was a political slogan cooked up by a hate mongering Irish nazis.

      The Brits should take Ireland to court for slander and demand reparations.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Calling people Nazis is homosexual as frick. You make my skin crawl with cringe. Everyone who is unfortunate enough to know you must think you're one right insufferable little homosexual.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          nazi

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            satan

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            isn't real

            Who are you quoting moron?

            you, you moronic antisemitic reprobate

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        We might do that, but we certainly aren't fricking doing it to appease your israeli feelings

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >da joos are attacking ireland
          moronic irish nazi histrionics

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Who are you quoting moron?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He's quoting the voices in his head.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >out of nowhere start screeching about israelites
            >get ridiculed for it
            >hurf durf i gaslight
            dumb irish nazi scum

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What on earth are you on about moron

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I never said one word about the israelites. The Nazis were based though.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Many theories exist to suggest that Irish fisheries were deliberately sabotagued to benefit Scottish or English fisheries.

    When abolition came around, Scottish fisheries lost one of their biggest customers; slave owners in the Carribbean, who use herring as cheap food for slaves. So they look for a new customer-and they find one in Ireland.

    In 1844, the year before the Blight hit, Ireland was the main export destination of Scottish herring; close to half of all Scottish herring to Ireland. Even at the time this was pointed out by the likes of the Earl of Glengall. With all this said, we can finally conclude;

    >Fisheries in Ireland controlled by Britain from approximately 1700 onwards
    >Fish was considered a luxury food by the 1800s; many Irishmen ate potatoes
    >There were no means to preserve fish, due to a lack of curing infastructure and the high price of salt
    >The best fishing waters in Ireland were inaccessible via the small boats that Irish fishers used, and there was no support for better boats
    >There were no railways leading to/from the major fishing ports, making the widespread transportation of fish (especially uncured) difficult
    >Aid and reform to Irish Fisheries only began in any meaningful away about a year or two after the famine already started
    >The fishers who hadn't pawned their gear or become too weak from starvation to fish were still only able to fish enough to support their family
    >Britain refused to give direct support via grants, loans, or subsidies to Irish Fisheries like it did in Scotland
    >People did fish, but it didn't help

    There's your answer, not that it'll matter. This thread will be made 500 more times. But it gives me an excuse to post this I suppose!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > high price of salt
      Huh? Can you elaborate on that? I haven't paid for salt in years I just collect sea water then boil it down and I'm about as moronic as an Irishman

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why didn’t they diversify their crops?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They didn't have a choice.

      Most farmers in Ireland were extremely impoverished tenant farmers; the vast majority of the land they worked went to their landlord, and they had a small patch of land to work themselves. The potato was shilled massively in Ireland as a cheap supplementary food that was fast and easy to grow even in shitty soil.

      So as the Irish tenant farmers got poorer and poorer, the potato became a staple food for them. In the 18th and 19th century people were even paid in food; the most impoverished people would work as agricultural labourers and be paid in food, often potatoes. But the only potato that was brought in was a single type, making it very vulnerable to blight.

      All sorts of food was grown or produced in Ireland; but as a dirt-poor tenant farmer you can't just steal it. That gets you evicted, which in most cases leads to starvation and death. In the worst cases, you'd be transported to a penal colony-that happened a lot.

      It isn't like these were people going to a market and saying "ah yes, potatoes again!" These were some of the most desperately poor people in western Europe, scratching out a shitty existence in under-developed and badly run aristocratic farms.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In case anyone wants a real answer to op's dumb bait, asking "why didn't they just fish" shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the famine. Ireland never ran out of food, crop failures just made the price of food much higher. Prior to this the desperately poor were essentially eating only potatoes because it was all they could afford. Those who were able bodied went into workhouses, but if you got sick and couldn't work or were disabled then you were shit out of luck. These were the people who starved to death during the famine. Not people who could have just gone out and caught some fish.

    The vast majority of the deaths during the famine were of people who were hungry but not starving, because food was too expensive to get enough of, so they became malnourished and died from disease. Malnourished people have weakened immune systems. This was also worsened by the fact that people were moving around a lot looking for work. Which meant they were not bathing or cleaning their clothes as much which helped foster sickness, and coming into contact with people from different areas which helped spread disease faster.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why are there daily seethe threads about such a tiny irrelevant island?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Assblasted people make threads complaining about the Irish. Sometimes people talk about Irish history in them. Then the assblasted people get even angrier.
      They do:
      >irish are all just brits
      >haha why not fish
      >no such thing as irish culture
      >frick the irish
      >I hate [anon]
      No point making actual Irish history threads anymore, there's always at least one person who wakes up seething about Ireland kek

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Assblasted people make threads complaining about the Irish.
        Pretty sure it's just for shits and giggles, not seethe.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Assblasted people make threads complaining about the Irish. Sometimes people talk about Irish history in them. Then the assblasted people get even angrier.
      They do:
      >irish are all just brits
      >haha why not fish
      >no such thing as irish culture
      >frick the irish
      >I hate [anon]
      No point making actual Irish history threads anymore, there's always at least one person who wakes up seething about Ireland kek

      >Assblasted people make threads complaining about the Irish.
      Pretty sure it's just for shits and giggles, not seethe.

      These threads are made by butthurt ulstermen, the most psychopathic people on earth
      >be the scum of england and scotland that nobody wanted, border reivers, thieves and criminals
      >get sent to ireland by king james
      >massacre the indigenous irish, engage in practises like scalping and headhunting on the native irish
      >go to america and do the same thing to the indigenous people there, be the main driving force behind native genocide and westward expansion
      >do the same to mexicans in texas
      >fly the flags of every evil psychopathic regime, from the confederate flag to the nazi flag to the israeli flag
      >celebrate a dutch king coming over and overthrowing the true king of britain
      >march in orange bands through catholic neighborhoods as a form of ethnic intimidation
      >celebrate british war crimes and genocide
      >celebrate the famine
      What caused them to be this way? It's no wonder the IRA formed when they had these literal psycopathic criminals living right next to them

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I was thinking OP was just an obsessed brit who got cucked by an Irishman or something, but him being a Unionist moron makes perfect sense.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >What caused them to be this way?
        they are crypto israelites

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I'm unionist Ulster Irish and my ears go below my eyeline the true sign of a israelite. I'm also a Fulton the most famous Irish there are

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There's like 4 big baz' from norn iron on this whole shifty site I doubt you can chalk it all up to them. Probably more Scottish loyalists than ulstermen

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This is not unlikely.
          Ulstermen, despite all their faults, do tend to be somewhat more knowledgable about Irish history that their counterparts in Scotland, who tend to only know what they learned from Rangers chants and random shit they heard from some fella.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the irish think they are the centre of the universe

      >The English set up laws so that the Irish were banned from fishing with the threat of death.
      That sounds like bullshit tbhwy.

      It is, paddy gays just make things up they are compulsive liars

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Pretty sure it’s you who thinks the Irish are the centre of the universe, bro.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          no, its an irrelevant backwater island with no culture.
          Could not pay me enough to go there.
          Not your bro either you lying paddy c**t

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >the irish think they are the centre of the universe

        They don't. You're just some weird little freak who gets triggered any time someone speaks good of the Irish or the Irish themselves show some ethnic pride.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          they literally do, they get upset almost to the point of tears when they notice people don't care about their "culture"

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >While Ireland remained under Briitish rule, any development of the Irish fishing industry was viewed as a potential threat to Britain's industry. Petitions to Parliament from England ~nd Scotland resulted in a law being enacted during the 17th century which prevented Irish fishermen leaving port while the English fleet was fishing. In the 18th century, the curing of fish was brought to a standstill by the imposition of a penal duty on imported salt.

    >In this period, many Irish fishermen were forced to emigrate to Newfounddland. Irish crews were brought to the Orkneys and Shetlands because of their dexterity and expertise in fishing.

    >By 1800, fisheries, as an organised ind ustry, had ceased to exist in Ireland although the number of fishermen remained high. In 1830 there were 56,000 fishermen in Ireland and this figure soared as high as 113,000 in 1845, at the beginning of the famine. If the fishing industry had been developped rather than suppressed, there is little doubt that thousands of lives could have been saved during the famine by substituting sea protein for the blighted protein of the land. From 1850 onwards there was a sharp decline in the numbers involved in the industry sinking .to 23,000 in 1880. This figure remained constant up to the outbreak of World War I.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The aim of British policy was to weaken the competitive base of Irish fishing through decentralisation. 900 small harbours and jetties were built at dispersed points around the country. Some of these were only two to six yards long. Grants were given to small fishermen, although no grant was available to buy a boat more than 46 feet long. This had the effect of sub sid ising the poor so that they could fish on a small scale, yet curtailed the potential growth of a Sizable inndustry. Despite all this, the export of Irish fish continued to threaten the big powers. Irish fish exports were mentioned in the American House of Representatives as late as 1910.

      >The British fishing industry, on the other hand, flourished from the inflow of capital from the City of London. Six large ports were built up (including Hull, Grirnsby and Aberrdeen), and these provided a good infraastructure for the building of a strong, centralised British fishing industry. Along with the usual private channels of capital, the British industry beneefitted from capital grants made by' the railway companies to fish retailers. In Ireland, the industry relied almost totally on the weak local capital of the fishermen themselves.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The aim of British policy was to weaken the competitive base of Irish fishing through decentralisation. 900 small harbours and jetties were built at dispersed points around the country. Some of these were only two to six yards long. Grants were given to small fishermen, although no grant was available to buy a boat more than 46 feet long. This had the effect of sub sid ising the poor so that they could fish on a small scale, yet curtailed the potential growth of a Sizable inndustry. Despite all this, the export of Irish fish continued to threaten the big powers. Irish fish exports were mentioned in the American House of Representatives as late as 1910.

      >The British fishing industry, on the other hand, flourished from the inflow of capital from the City of London. Six large ports were built up (including Hull, Grirnsby and Aberrdeen), and these provided a good infraastructure for the building of a strong, centralised British fishing industry. Along with the usual private channels of capital, the British industry beneefitted from capital grants made by' the railway companies to fish retailers. In Ireland, the industry relied almost totally on the weak local capital of the fishermen themselves.

      there was a fishing industry.
      Stop lying you fricking moron leprechaun

      Read this you fricking rat.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        kiss my ass you irish rat.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    fleet and army prevented it

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    reminder the europe was struck with the famine aswell.
    So why did the Irish get disproportionately affected? Because they exaggerated the numbers.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Well, for starters they were rather primitive, and making nets, hooks, boats, etc requires advaned infrastructure, second, they were enslaved and couldn't decide how to get their food and what to grow

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Irish were never enslaved in their own land.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Sure they were. Just not really by Britain.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Irish have never been slaves in their own land. Not by Brits or anyone else.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            they have been enslaved by Norse and other irish.
            There was an Irish slave trade

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            About 90 odd % of Ireland was never under Norse control but they did steal people to sell as slaves like they did in Britain too. The Norse of Dublin were still buying and selling Anglo Saxons in the 12th century until the Normans put an end to it. Irish enslaved Norse too and when the Irish took Limerick they killed all the men and enslaved their families.

            There was no slavery in Ireland other than that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Not all slaves accepted their condition. A few escaped; one, an Irish bishop held on Dalkey Island in 940, died in the attempt. The Icelandic Book of Settlements tells a story of a revolt by Irish slaves in the early days of the Scandinavian colony, but in this tale the escapees were all killed. It is possible that some of the wars fought between Irish and Vikings were fuelled by accusations that the enemy had made slaves of their people. In 980 the Southern Uí Néill king Maelechlainn stormed Dublin. He was credited with releasing all the Irish slaves in the port from captivity. This may have been a wise political move as well as an act of charity; it served as a rallying point for a king who sought supremacy across Ireland, and it imposed an economic disadvantage on his defeated enemies. In the late tenth century the fortunes of Viking rulers in Ireland were in decline. They suffered a series of defeats at the hands of powerful Irish kings. In these situations the tables were turned. Irish kings now seized human booty from the defeated Viking armies or towns. Their justification seems to have been that the inhabitants of Viking towns were foreigners bearing the sins of their ancestors.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Dublin was one of the biggest slave markets in Europe at one point. Slaves were all over Ireland at various stages in history.

            the issue is everything you Irish say is lies. Before the famine irish fished, during the famine they did not.

            They fished before, during, and after the famine. This is something Britain themselves noted.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I've read from Irish sources fish were unpopular during the famine because it was considered pauper food

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There are a myriad of reasons why fish wasn't consumed to the same degree as other foods, just like how fish wasn't a "solution" to the famine.

            It's that age old saying; God sent the Blight, but the English created the famine.

            There are several pre-requisites to fishing;
            >Knowing "how to fish", aka what to use, where to go, and how to do so
            >Living near fishable water
            >Owning equipment required to fish
            >Being able to fish enough to sustain yourself or make enough money to do so
            Let's set these aside, pretending that every Irishman secretly fulfilled all of these.

            The Irish fishing industry in the 1800s was a shitshow before the famine even started. We know that Ireland has some of the best fishing waters in the world-not all of Ireland's coast is fishable, but the areas that were had vast quanitites of haddock or herring for example. Sources as close to the famine as 1812 suggest a general open knowledge of Ireland's genuinely brilliant fishing waters. All of Ireland's neighbours had flourishing industries; the Scottish did well, the English did, so did the Dutch. We also know that Ireland had talented fishermen; an 1848 source reports that there were no better fishermen in the world than those on the west coast of Ireland.

            So why wasn't fishing the solution? Well, the answer is simple; money. There was next to no investment in Irish fishing, so most of them used relatively primitive gear. In other countries, the Government funded fisheries since it was mutually beneficial-not so in Ireland. The Irish Fisheries Board and the subsidies that came with it only began in 1819, in an attempt to mirror Scotland's success. However by 1829, the "hands off" approach took root and stopped the support instantly. In 1836 they claimed that they would aid the construction of fishing infastructure, but they didn't do so.

            Thanks to all this turbulence, the Irish Fishing industry declined extremely rapidly. In 1830 there were around 13,000 fishing boats, by 1840 it had fallen to around 10,500. Fishing wasn't profitable, and there was no infastructure to do so.

            Then, the Blight arrived.

            (1/3)

            So the Blight hits Ireland, and the staple crop is fricked. Everyone is panicking. Charles Trevelyan, in charge of relief, maintained that indirect support was best. He tackled (heh) the fishing industry to try and fix it.

            He set up some new curing infastructure at previously profitable fishing groups, intending for them to act as inspiration for other areas to be invested in. Work began at these areas (one of which was Killeybegs, for context) in 1846. He maintained that direct support in the form of grants or loans were a bad idea. By 1847, three curing stations had indeed been opened and were slow to succeed. The plans to open the rest were abandoned when the statins failed and were closed at most of the areas. Why?

            Well, by 1847, fishing had ground to a halt. Remember; Irish fisheries lacked the support that Scottish ones had enjoyed, and were extremely primitive. Remember also that fishermen didn't tend to live off fish; many of them also lived off the potato, and starved when it failed. Trevelyan himself lamented that the poverty was so dire that many fishermen who DID have fishing gear sold it to afford food. So by the time the *start* of Irish fishery reform, the famine was already underway and most fishermen were starving or had emigrated to the likes of Newfoundland.

            Britain refused to give direct support to the Irish fisheries as they didin Scotland; under Trevelyan Scottish fisheries spent close to £16,000 a year on Scottish fisheries, compared to approximately £1,000 in Ireland.
            So, to summarise:

            >The Irish fishing industry was incredibly under-developed and under funded, thanks to British policy
            >Support was promised, withdrawn, promised, and withdrawn again multiple times between 1800 and 1845 for Irish fishers
            >Irish fishers starved too, and stealing food made you liable to punishment via transportation to penal colonies
            >Support and reform for Irish fisheries began too late, and was abandoned

            But there's one final factor...

            (2/3)

            Many theories exist to suggest that Irish fisheries were deliberately sabotagued to benefit Scottish or English fisheries.

            When abolition came around, Scottish fisheries lost one of their biggest customers; slave owners in the Carribbean, who use herring as cheap food for slaves. So they look for a new customer-and they find one in Ireland.

            In 1844, the year before the Blight hit, Ireland was the main export destination of Scottish herring; close to half of all Scottish herring to Ireland. Even at the time this was pointed out by the likes of the Earl of Glengall. With all this said, we can finally conclude;

            >Fisheries in Ireland controlled by Britain from approximately 1700 onwards
            >Fish was considered a luxury food by the 1800s; many Irishmen ate potatoes
            >There were no means to preserve fish, due to a lack of curing infastructure and the high price of salt
            >The best fishing waters in Ireland were inaccessible via the small boats that Irish fishers used, and there was no support for better boats
            >There were no railways leading to/from the major fishing ports, making the widespread transportation of fish (especially uncured) difficult
            >Aid and reform to Irish Fisheries only began in any meaningful away about a year or two after the famine already started
            >The fishers who hadn't pawned their gear or become too weak from starvation to fish were still only able to fish enough to support their family
            >Britain refused to give direct support via grants, loans, or subsidies to Irish Fisheries like it did in Scotland
            >People did fish, but it didn't help

            There's your answer, not that it'll matter. This thread will be made 500 more times. But it gives me an excuse to post this I suppose!

            They didn't have a choice.

            Most farmers in Ireland were extremely impoverished tenant farmers; the vast majority of the land they worked went to their landlord, and they had a small patch of land to work themselves. The potato was shilled massively in Ireland as a cheap supplementary food that was fast and easy to grow even in shitty soil.

            So as the Irish tenant farmers got poorer and poorer, the potato became a staple food for them. In the 18th and 19th century people were even paid in food; the most impoverished people would work as agricultural labourers and be paid in food, often potatoes. But the only potato that was brought in was a single type, making it very vulnerable to blight.

            All sorts of food was grown or produced in Ireland; but as a dirt-poor tenant farmer you can't just steal it. That gets you evicted, which in most cases leads to starvation and death. In the worst cases, you'd be transported to a penal colony-that happened a lot.

            It isn't like these were people going to a market and saying "ah yes, potatoes again!" These were some of the most desperately poor people in western Europe, scratching out a shitty existence in under-developed and badly run aristocratic farms.

            These posts have information you need.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            fish was a solution to easing the famine, Irish claim no solution was given to them.
            They had one and refused to use it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It wasn't a solution at all, for the reasons outlined in the posts I linked to you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Consider the following: nothing could be done to save everyone from dying.
            The famine claimed many in Europe. The solutions are merely easing the pain.
            That is the fricking accusation you are making falsely to the British. That they didnt ease the pain.
            You are a pathological liar and a fool

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The argument is not that Britain should have waved a magic wand and saved everyone when the famine started, it's that the only reason that Ireland was uniquely devastated by the famine that-as you said-hit most of Europe, is because of the British colonial system in Ireland.

            This is the most entry-level, introductory, page 1 summation shit in the world and yet brainlets still do gold medal worthy mental gymnastics to still invent new ways to be wrong about it. Cope and seethe, see you next thread, etc

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ireland was not uniquely devastated, many countries in Europe were, it led to a series of revolutions in the continent.
            You are incapable of lying.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            not lying*

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What other countries in Europe lost over 20% of their population with a million dead, anon? Those revolutions happened in Ireland, too.

            The point is that it was uniquely hit because it was uniquely vulnerable. This isn't even an "Irish" interpretation but something agreed more or less universally by historians, including the more conservatively minded British ones.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Firstly, its well known that Irish exaggerate the numbers.
            Secondly its not really unexpected an overpopulated island with no food would have a lot of dead people

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            frick off you lying Irish c**t. Your side of the history is not textbook you mentally ill nazi pos.
            You fricking low iq lying pos stop acting like your fricking propaganda is history.
            you need to be punched

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Haha this schizo is seething hard. I hope you have a stroke.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There was no fishing industry. The industry hadn't been developed. There was no way millions could have been fed with fish. There was no Irish government to set it up. The government of Ireland was the government in London and there was Irish MPs too. There wouldn't even have been a famine if there was an Irish government and the people wouldn't have been reduced to such poverty that they had to rely on a single crop they grew in their own garden of the plots of land they rented. They weren't even growing potatoes in fields but on scraps of land. They weren't farmers either just peasants.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            there was a fishing industry.
            Stop lying you fricking moron leprechaun

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            frick off with your irish nazi propaganda posting

            If bad economic policy causes a famine that kills thousands, let alone a million, where is the hate in holding the government to account?
            This is like when Russians say holodomor is some black legend myth and not the Soviets just fricking up in very typical dashing.

            Holodomor was literally caused by the Soviets shooting people trying to feed themselves you fricking idiot. There was no natural disaster.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the funniest part to me is how mad paddies get in these threads.
    I know they are seething and their blood pressure is through the roof. You can tell by all their schizo posts trying to figure out who is doing it so they have a target to hate or maybe in their delusions doxx

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the paddy itt is such a fricking weasel its unreal

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the funniest thing is how the Irish cannot take responsibility for anything

    People tried to fish to feed themselves. What happened? the irish fishing industry attacked them and then refused to fish to help their fellows. The British found it maddening lunacy.

    British came to Ireland to give out soup to the starving.
    What did the Irish do? lynch the people that took the soup.
    Its not a joke the Irish have a saying called "taking the soup" to mean you are a traitor.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >People who converted for food were known as "soupers", "jumpers" and "cat breacs". In the words of their peers, they "took the soup". Although souperism did not occur frequently, the perception of it had a lasting effect on the popular memory of the Famine.

      Imagine making starving people convert to your religion just for a bowl of soup.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Souperism

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        yeah they believed that people who took the soup were converting thats why they murdered them.
        When in reality it was charity by the British helping people with no demands

        >They also due to being catholic morons had too many kids and overpopulated the island.
        Lol, are you implying they should've been using birth control in the early 1800s?

        you really have no idea whats being discussed do you

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They never murdered anyone.

          imagine defending lynching people trying to eat.
          You are defending the Holodomor essentially
          [...]
          No it didn't. You can provide any evidence of this
          .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unhappy_the_Land

          Its obvious to anyone that the reason you Irish do this is to slander the British.

          No one was lynched. Post sources if you any to back up your claims.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            people were lynched hence the accusation of traitor.
            The irish lie as the conversion part. They spread the rumour that people taking the soup were traitors.
            Then they killed them

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's not good enough your going to have to post some sources. I'm looking here myself for some that mention people being lynched for taking the soup and converting or those dishing it out and I've found none so far. There was a police force in Ireland at the time so such crimes would have been recorded. There was a lot of violence and murder during the famine and it was mainly starving people who'd gone mad killing others to steal their food.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            ill track some down. But it seems like one of you paddies removed the sources from the souperism wiki article

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >removed the sources from the souperism wiki article

            Bullshit and excuses.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There used to be examples on the page now they are gone.
            You people removed them because you are liars.

            That wasn't my post and that anon was quoting John Mitchell an Ulster Scot Presbyterian.

            Your entire argument you weasel is that the English deliberately mass murdered Irish. They somehow foresaw the blight and planned it out.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >le fenians stole my citations
            Now this is a new one. I chuckled.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Your entire argument you weasel is that the English deliberately mass murdered Irish. They somehow foresaw the blight and planned it out.

            I don't think I even mentioned the English in any of my posts and I definitely didn't say any of what you claim.

            >There used to be examples on the page now they are gone.
            You people removed them because you are liars.

            You are legit mentally ill and completely obsessed.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What the frick is with you mentally ill liars posting after proof has been given? dont ignore it

            Took me awhile to find something as apparently irish just spam propaganda articles on topic

            >The growing number of conversions among teachers, adult students, and even priests was met with strong opposition by the Catholic clergy, leading to increasingly violent ostracism of converts by local populations. Far from calming things down, some local missions set up “refuges” called “colonies” that offered accommodation and work to ostracized converts, first on Achill Island in 1834 and then in Dingle in 1839. There were virulent denunciations of “souperism”29 in chapels, in Parliament, and in the press, and cases of physical violence against “soupers” became increasingly frequent. Police reports show that this violence had already existed in the 1820s, with priests ordering their flocks “to scald with boiling water an Irish reader, if he went into their Houses”30 or to “excommunicate any person that would speak to [a convert]”31 (original emphasis)

            https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/26330024211004611#body-ref-bibr7-26330024211004611

            It makes you look REALLY bad. You irish trannies are idiots

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Took me awhile to find something as apparently irish just spam propaganda articles on topic

            >The growing number of conversions among teachers, adult students, and even priests was met with strong opposition by the Catholic clergy, leading to increasingly violent ostracism of converts by local populations. Far from calming things down, some local missions set up “refuges” called “colonies” that offered accommodation and work to ostracized converts, first on Achill Island in 1834 and then in Dingle in 1839. There were virulent denunciations of “souperism”29 in chapels, in Parliament, and in the press, and cases of physical violence against “soupers” became increasingly frequent. Police reports show that this violence had already existed in the 1820s, with priests ordering their flocks “to scald with boiling water an Irish reader, if he went into their Houses”30 or to “excommunicate any person that would speak to [a convert]”31 (original emphasis)

            https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/26330024211004611#body-ref-bibr7-26330024211004611

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nothing there about lynchings or murders. Ostracised and roughed up isn't lynched and murdered. No evidence of any one carrying out the Priests orders too.
            Not good enough.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            it does refer to extreme violence against "soupers"
            Which is a start over the biased wiki article simply omitting this.
            I'll continue to dig

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I've found a few good articles about soupers but not much about violence and nothing about Lynchings.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            most of the articles are Irish catholic biased and fixate on the idea that it was forced conversion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It wasn't forced. Wasn't even widespread either that alms were offered for conversion but it did happen. Some did convert for alms and were reviled for it and so were the people who enticed them to abandon their faith for food whilst they were starving instead of just giving it to them which would be the Christian thing to do.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I read that the conversion thing was a complete lie.
            Protestants came and gave out soup no strings attached.
            The accusation was gossip by people who witnessed them and accused them of treachery.
            I recall one account (I swear it was on wiki) that a person who took the soup was later beat to a death by a mob that witnessed it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            also bear in mind, violence to suspected converts existed before and after the famine.
            So its very suspicious this is omitted during the famine

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >violence to suspected converts existed before and after the famine.

            No evidence and no sources so likely bullshit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            it was given in the source i linked. That says violence actually increased to its peak after the famine. try again

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's not a complete lie it did happen and we know the areas it happened and even today people in some places know who the families were that took the soup and converted. As I said it wasn't wide spread throughout the country and there was plenty of good Protestants including clergy involved in the famine relief and they even condemned souperism.

            >recall one account (I swear it was on wiki) that a person who took the soup was later beat to a death by a mob that witnessed it

            Could have happened but wasn't like all people that took the soup and converted were murdered for it. Most were just ostracised and ridiculed and most would have went back to the Catholic faith.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        imagine defending lynching people trying to eat.
        You are defending the Holodomor essentially

        My argument is that the government of the time caused tremendous amounts of suffering for the majority of the population everywhere it ruled and in this regard the British empire is no better than the Soviets. It was always run by a tiny clique of the British population and it was late in the 19th century that it started adopting sane economic policies that Adam Smith could have told them worked a century earlier. The comparison with the Soviets is more than fair.

        No it didn't. You can provide any evidence of this
        .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unhappy_the_Land

        Its obvious to anyone that the reason you Irish do this is to slander the British.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That book is the opposite of relevant to an argument that the British Empire was a largely negative period for everyone, home and abroad.
          > You can provide any evidence of this
          You never even read Dickens? It’s not exactly controversial that life in 19th century Britain was grim as frick. There’s a good reason come the 20th century they were all becoming communists in the thousands.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The British Empire was the greatest empire in history and hugely benefitted the world.
            Your perspective is a completely biased racist one.
            The Irish really are the odd ones out and their seething stands as an aberration in what the Empire achieved.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If you criticise my tyrannical shithole run by a few thousand Etonians that killed millions all over the planet and made its own (English) people live in brutal deprivation it’s because you’re a bigot
            Just buy an Adidas tracksuit and move to Moscow already, you’ll fit right in.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You morons dont make sense. How come i can open a history book about the Empire. I can read the good i did all over the world.
            Then i talk to you paddies and its just bad. Obviously you have a biased perception.
            If i take the Irish's word the British Empire was all horrible. Then how do i explain the accounts elsewhere in the world when its not.

            Its absolutely absurd you would compare someone speaking positively about the BRITISH Empire as a Russian. You are implying things for political points that make no sense and sound like a deranged Irish nazi shitheel

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > How come i can open a history book about the Empire. I can read the good i did all over the world.
            But you don’t read books, Willy. It seems to be news to you that there’s a thousand and one British historians that have written about how grim the 19th century was, in no small part thanks to boneheaded economics.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If i go over to India, Florence Nightingale gave them sanitation. Was the founder of modern nursing
            >I can read about Mark Twain praising the British Empire for rooting out Indian murder cults
            >The elimination of Sati murders

            See you paddies do not read anything apparently but only huff your own farts

            >le fenians stole my citations
            Now this is a new one. I chuckled.

            too soon lol

            Took me awhile to find something as apparently irish just spam propaganda articles on topic

            >The growing number of conversions among teachers, adult students, and even priests was met with strong opposition by the Catholic clergy, leading to increasingly violent ostracism of converts by local populations. Far from calming things down, some local missions set up “refuges” called “colonies” that offered accommodation and work to ostracized converts, first on Achill Island in 1834 and then in Dingle in 1839. There were virulent denunciations of “souperism”29 in chapels, in Parliament, and in the press, and cases of physical violence against “soupers” became increasingly frequent. Police reports show that this violence had already existed in the 1820s, with priests ordering their flocks “to scald with boiling water an Irish reader, if he went into their Houses”30 or to “excommunicate any person that would speak to [a convert]”31 (original emphasis)

            https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/26330024211004611#body-ref-bibr7-26330024211004611

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >huff your own farts

            Says you that has a meltdown at any slight criticism of the British state or it's Empire.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            but im not? im criticising your bullshit claim it was all bad everywhere because of one little fricking irrelevant island of homosexuals who are notorious for lying and blaming others for their misfortunes

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Don't call us irrelevant when you're obsessed with us and we live in your head rent free.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Pure projection. Its i that live rent free in your head.
            And i know it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I wouldn't even know of you if you weren't an easily recognisable anti Irish seethe poster. Imagine claiming Irish don't live rent free in your head when you create threads to have a good seethe or are one of the main seethe posters in other anti Irish seethe posters threads.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >easily recognisable
            see rent free in your head forever.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >But muh Pajeets
            Damn, that would be really great if it wasn’t punctuated by killing millions of them and stealing their gear.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you mean anti-colonial leftists? yeah everyone knows you disingenuous irish c**t.
            Every white person is supposed to feel bad for colonialism. Except you fricking lily white irish c**ts who raceshift into poc when you feel like it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >irish c**t.

            You racist nazi prick. Get of our board you nazi c**t.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            frick off irish nazi you israelite hating homosexual. You dont get to play that card.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Almost like you guys should have listened to the Irish instead of independently coming to the conclusion that the British narrative makes no sense?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      no one should listen to the irish. He irish narrative makes no sense
      >The English did the blight!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The English did the blight!

        No one is saying that but you ya despicable little rat.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The British "narrative" is just a more conservative version of the Irish "narrative." No historian tends to disagree on much about the Famine. The only lines on which there are "debate" are:
          >does it count as genocide?
          Most say "no", but many say that criticism is still warranted due to the fact that the British colonial policy is the root cause.
          >How shit was the relief effort?
          Some debate around whether malice or incompetence drove the lackluster relief, aka the division between the "British people saw the famine as a means to reform" camp and the "they just really believed in the invisible hand of the market fixing everything" camp.

          It really isn't an Irish vs British thing, some people are just shizos about Ireland.
          [...]
          Actually the quote is that God brought the Blight, but the English created the famine.

          you cant stop lying. The insinuation you actual nazi rats keep making is that the famine was premeditated murder by the British.
          Which makes no sense.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Seethe all you want but I've never said in one post here what you claim.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            the insinuation is in the first post you made.

            "English created the famine"

            You are a liar its in your genes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That wasn't my post and that anon was quoting John Mitchell an Ulster Scot Presbyterian.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The British "narrative" is just a more conservative version of the Irish "narrative." No historian tends to disagree on much about the Famine. The only lines on which there are "debate" are:
      >does it count as genocide?
      Most say "no", but many say that criticism is still warranted due to the fact that the British colonial policy is the root cause.
      >How shit was the relief effort?
      Some debate around whether malice or incompetence drove the lackluster relief, aka the division between the "British people saw the famine as a means to reform" camp and the "they just really believed in the invisible hand of the market fixing everything" camp.

      It really isn't an Irish vs British thing, some people are just shizos about Ireland.

      no one should listen to the irish. He irish narrative makes no sense
      >The English did the blight!

      Actually the quote is that God brought the Blight, but the English created the famine.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Another chapter is focused on criticising analogies between the Great Famine and the Holocaust of European israelites. Kennedy argues that those who make this analogy are typically vague, as specific parallels do not exist. Instead, the genocide allegations were invented to support the Irish nationalist narrative.[1][4]
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unhappy_the_Land

      >The vast majority of historians reject the claim that the British government's response to the famine constituted a genocide. Their position is partially based on the fact that, with regard to famine related deaths, there was a lack of intent to commit genocide. For a mass-death atrocity to be defined as a genocide, it must include the intentional destruction of a people.[210][211]

      >Historian Donald Akenson, who has written 24 books on Ireland, stated that "When you see [the word Holocaust used with regard to the Great Famine], you know that you are encountering famine-porn. It is inevitably part of a presentation that is historically unbalanced and, like other kinds of pornography, is distinguished by a covert (and sometimes overt) appeal to misanthropy and almost always an incitement to hatred."[219]
      Irish historian Cormac Ó Gráda rejected the claim that the British government's response to the famine was a genocide and he also stated that "no academic historian continues to take the claim of 'genocide' seriously".[210] He argued that "genocide includes murderous intent, and it must be said that not even the most bigoted and racist commentators of the day sought the extermination of the Irish", and he also stated that most people in Whitehall "hoped for better times for Ireland". Additionally, he stated that the claim of genocide overlooks "the enormous challenge facing relief agencies, both central and local, public and private".[220]

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i find it hard to believe that Irish catholics weren't lynching "soupers" considering the infamous sectarian violence at the time.
    The omission of accounts of violence smells like a paddy cover up

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    souperism is very clearly a false accusation with an implied threat of violence.
    I mean the fact it means "traitor" strongly indicates this.
    Fricking absurd listening to paddy mental gymnastic and lying.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >irish nazi tries to pull the white people are bad everywhere schtick then the nazi card.
    They really are insufferable.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    stop lying irish nazi try it. You are not israeli, you are a lying irish nazi piece of shit antisemite.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    its unreal the irish nazis itt try to pull the nazi card and the woe is me MOPE card,
    When they are verbatim quoting Irish nationalist propaganda.
    To put in perspective its like being called a nazi by an actual German nazi who is crying about dresden.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >irish that sides with the nazis
    >complaining about the British that defeated the nazis
    Hearty kek, you paddies are the nazis, it's why your ugly flag is visible at nazi terrorist pride parades

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    cut it out you little nazi c**t before i bash you

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Don't threaten me you nazi.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]

    this is pathetic, why are you paddie nazis like this?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *