BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Musket
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 12:14 PM

People don't have a rational reply to irrational bollocks.

Fuckwit

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 11:57 AM

Do you three sillies get it yet?

In the context of the famine, nationalist historians blame the government, and revisionists do not.

Kinealy is a nationalist, but concedes that is a minority view and long has been.

Blame is disputed.
That FACT can not be disputed.

You ARE dishonest if you claim otherwise Jim.

Stating that true fact does not make me a "fuckwit" or any of the other nasty things you people call me when you have no rational reply.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 11:44 AM

Kinealy,
"Thirdly, the issue of culpability has been consistently avoided or denied in revisionist accounts."

She uses Revisionist in the same way that I do.
That is the usage in this context.

"How culpable were the British ministers of the 1840s? They are charged with having given inadequate, limited relief because of their commitment to a doctrine of laissez faire. However, given the scale of the problem and the acute nature of the crisis once the harvest had failed for a second time in 1846, there was little they could do."

Read more: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/lessons-of-history-the-great-irish-famine#ixzz2Z7fhxnXV

Robert Nielson.
The most controversial issue in Anglo-Irish affairs is the allegation that food was exported during the Famine. This was first claimed by Irish nationalists as a reason to end British rule and the Famine certainly put an end to the idea that Ireland would be a part of the United Kingdom for good. However, it is extraordinarily difficult to prove the claim true or false, and to my knowledge no one has. Records of exports simply weren't kept or have since been lost. It is certainly true that some food was exported, but there is no way of knowing how much or if it would have prevented the Famine. Food was also imported, though again, it is unknown where this outweighed the food that was exported. The starving Irish had little money so merchants naturally (in their mind) sold it abroad where they could get a better price. Had a ban on exports been put in place, lives would have been saved, but how many is unknown.
http://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/was-the-irish-famine-genocide/

Human limitations and timidity dominate
the story of the Great Famine, but of great and
deliberately imposed evil in high positions of
responsibility there is little evidence. The really great
evil lay in the totality of that social order which made
such a famine possible and which could tolerate, to the
extent it did, the sufferings and hardship caused by the failure of the potato crop.

http://www.iisresource.org/Documents/KS3_Famine_Interpretations.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 10:54 AM

"Now, piss off back to fuckwit land, like a good lad."
Now why o I doubt that - he'll be haunting this thread till his keepers find him and take him back to the asylum
Jim Cattoll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 10:36 AM

She is not a Revisionist, but she says most historians are, and have been for nearly ninety years!

Keith, you know fuck-all what she is or what she says, never having read any of her works.

Now, piss off back to fuckwit land, like a good lad.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 09:56 AM

By the way - your deliberate misuse of the term "revisionism" was pointed out to you right at the beginning of this discussion, so you are not in the position to claim it was accidental.
You are in fact a "revisionist" as far as the English language is concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 09:40 AM

"Jim, she is attacking Revisionism."
She is indeed - not your distorted interpretation of "revisionism"
You have consistently and quite deliberately misused the term 'revisionism' to avoid addressing the facts of British culpability.
You are still doing so.
One more time:
TREVELYAN'S LETTER EXPRESSED CLEARLY GOVERNMENT POLICY - ACT OF GOD - CLOSE WORKHOUSES AND GRAIN STORES - ENFORCED EMIGRATION - CULL THE POPULATION - UNQUOTE!!
I will continue to put this statement up and I have no doubt you will continue to ignore it - which is fine by me; every time you do so will be a further exposé of your lying dishonesty and yet another hole in your already well-riddled credibility.
"Your are dishonest and wrong to claim there is no dispute."
Don't you dare call me a liar - if you have any evidence what exactly that dispute is and how it contradicts anything I have said, tell us what it is; so far you have only alluded to it.
Jim Carroll
This from the Dictionary of Irish History Studies.
Revisionism
"For others, professional historians born in an independent Ireland and former students of the Institute of Historical Research in London, the British relationship is not paramount. For them, the Famine was a historical problem to be coolly dissected and demythologized. Anxious to wean the Irish public away from myths of the past, the revisionists tended to play down the importance of the Famine, or suggested that it was somehow inevitable and not the fault of the British government"

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 08:57 AM

Jim, she is attacking Revisionism.
She is not a Revisionist, but she says most historians are, and have been for nearly ninety years!
Your are dishonest and wrong to claim there is no dispute.
There is, and I did not deserve to be attacked and abused merely for pointing out that truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 07:46 AM

From the Independant
God and England made the Famine
"Charles E. Trevelyan, who served under both Peel and Russell at the Treasury, and had prime responsibility for famine relief in Ireland, was clear about God's role: "The judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated".
John Mitchel, the Young Ireland leader, transported in 1848 to Van Diemens Land, had a different view, calling the famine "an artificial famine. Potatoes failed in like manner all over Europe; yet there was no famine save in Ireland. The Almighty, indeed, sent the potato blight, but the English created the famine".
A Trevelyan letter to Edward Twisleton, Chief Poor Law Commissioner in Ireland, contains the censorious, "We must not complain of what we really want to obtain. If small farmers go, and their landlords are reduced to sell portions of their estates to persons who will invest capital we shall at last arrive at something like a satisfactory settlement of the country"."

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 07:37 AM

Now that really is doctoring texts to suit your agenda
This is the rest of the section you have carefully selected
The "revisionists" she is referring you, as she makes quite plain, are those who present only the effects of the Famine and not the culpability.
Are you really so stupid as to present selective quotes when the whole article is there to see
TREVELYAN'S LETTER EXPRESSED CLEARLY GOVERNMENT POLICY - ACT OF GOD - CLOSE WORKHOUSES AND GRAIN STORES - ENFORCED EMIGRATION - CULL THE POPULATION - UNQUOTE!!
You really are an abomination Keith
Jim Carroll

Full quote:
" But the soup kitchens were only ever intended to be a short-term measure, and after the government closed them in the autumn of 1847, mortality again rose sharply. This brief episode, however, in which free food was provided on a nation-wide basis, demonstrated that the administrative capability to provide relief existed. Unfortunately for the poor of Ireland, the political and ideological will to continue the scheme did not exist (see Peter Gray, 'The triumph of dogma: ideology and Famine relief' in HI Summer 1995).
The financial commitment to alleviate Irish suffering was also inadequate. In the course of the Famine, (over a seven year period) the British government spent approximately £9.5 million on various relief schemes. The greatest portion (over £4.5 million) was expended on the ill-conceived public works schemes in the winter of 1846-7 which coincided with the period of highest Famine mortality, as a result of weak and hungry people being forced to undertake hard, physical labour as a 'test' of destitution. Furthermore, much of the money provided for relief was given as a loan to the Irish administration, which was both interest and principal bearing and had to be paid back immediately. Overall, the contribution of the British government over seven years, represented only about 0.2 per cent of the British GNP. Less than ten years later, in the course of the Crimean war (over a three year period), the British government spent £69 million on military expenditure.""

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 06:18 AM

What do I mean by intervene?
Jim and another posted as if blame was undisputed.
It is, so I pointed that fact out.

Not a tiny handful of historians Jim.
Kinealy states that the views is dominant and has been for nearly ninety years.
She says she thinks the balance might change in the future, but the issue is not clear cut and you are being dishonest about it.

From your 12th March 3.59 pm quote,
"Revisionism has dominated Irish historiography since the 1930s, and more intensely since the 1960s"

And,"
Thirdly, the issue of culpability has been consistently avoided or denied in revisionist accounts. Moreover, both the landlords and the British government have been rehabilitated; the former frequently being shown as hapless victims themselves, and the latter, as being ignorant of the real state of affairs in Ireland, and lacking both the financial and administrative capability to alleviate the situation anyway.
The arguments regarding the role of the British government are not sustainable. In the summer of 1847, in the wake of the almost total second failure of the potato crop, the British government established soup kitchens throughout Ireland. At the peak of this scheme, over three million people, that is, forty per cent of the population, were receiving free rations of food daily from the soup kitchens (which, even by the standard of contemporary famines, is a tremendous logistical achievement). To make this possible, a comprehensive and nation-wide machinery was created within Ireland in the space of only a few months. As a consequence of this scheme, mortality began to fall as, for the first and only time during the Famine, the problem of hunger was confronted directly."

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 04:01 AM

We tend to debate whilst Keith claims to intervene.

You know, despite all his dogmatism in pursuit of the wrong bone, it wasn't till I read that word a few posts up that I realised. He must be so far up his own arse.

What do you mean by intervene Keith? Are you saying that when something is said you disagree with, you have to put us right?

That would be most invaluable if it came from someone who didn't spout bollocks on any and possibly every subject.

Wow. Just when you wonder if you are being unkind on a person, they always seem to justify your suspicions.

Any chance of intervening where your friend gets his arse round his fascination with arses?

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 04:00 AM

"Historians dispute the question of blame Greg."
No they don't - a tiny handful of your fellow Empire Loyalists attempt to defend British policy by saying (as Mrs Pinochet did) that there was no alternative to giving priority to the Imperial economy rather than feeding the starving Irish.
Not one single historian has ever challenged the facts of the Famine - the shipping of food out of starving Ireland, the closure of food stores and workhouses, the enforced emigration, the suggestion that the Famine was "God's punishment on the lazy Irish" and at the same time a convenient solution to "The Irish Question'.
That policy was made clear by Britain'r representative in Ireland, Sir Charles Trevelyan' in a letter - it is indisputable British policy.
Your breathtaking cowardice in even acknowledging this statement, let alone trying to explain away the genocidal implications of it (which you would no doubt attempt to do if you had the balls) sums up your totally dishonest tactic of hiding behind historians whose opinions you have totally distorted.
If you have one single shred of evidence of any historian denying these facts (not opinions - stated Government policy) then produce it.
The million who died and the countless millions who were subsequently forced to emigrate (and continue to do so) were little more than 'collateral damage' in defence of the British Empire.
Now - you proof that this is not the case is.............?
And once again, a reminder - Kinealy contradicts ever line you have attempted to peddle here. (12 Mar 14 - 03:59 PM)
Yours in growing amusement
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 02:54 AM

I thought you had some respect for Kinealy.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 06:26 PM

Different day, Keith - same old ignorant bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 06:16 PM

I have read no books about the famine Greg.
I have no opinion on it Greg.
Historians dispute the question of blame Greg.
Kinealy says so, and says the revisionists (who say Britain can not be blamed) are dominant and have been for nearly NINETY YEARS Greg!

My case is just that, and I am right and you are wrong Greg.
It is dishonest to deny the disputed History.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 06:05 PM

Nyah nyah! Nah nyah!

Best to revise Keith's mental age downwards from four to two, methinks, if I understand Piaget correctly.

By the way, Terrible Two - which of Kinealy's books have you actually read?

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 04:29 PM

it is about stopping idiots from re-writing history

Err, that is what historians do Jim.
Right?

Historians dispute that Britain can be blamed.
That is all I have ever said, and it is true.
Anyone deny that?

You have attacked and abused me for saying the simple, plain truth.
Once again, I was right and Jim, Greg and Musket all wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 04:17 PM

"I have been in bands with Irish people"
You miss the point Bubbly - this is not about blame, it is about stopping idiots from re-writing history
Nobody here- has blamed "the English people in general" for anything, rather, they, like all people, would like to understand their history and set the record straight.
I am a Brit living in the West of Ireland and have had associations with this place since the early 1970s.
My people were Famine refugees who, like millions since the Famine, have been forced to leave their country and live elsewhere.
Far from being 'blamed;' for anything, my wife and I have been welcomed by the Irish people we live among - but that doesn't stop our neighbours from wanting to understand why their families are scattered all over the globe.
One of the problems with history is it never goes away - many Brits I know still fight World War Two every time a German spreads his towel out too far on a Greek or Spanish beach - not to mention the Nazi salutes at English/German football matches.
Please try to keep up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 04:08 PM

You have claimed Britain to be innocent of all wrongdoing

Completely untrue.
I have never even expressed an opinion about it.

Much of the trouble between us results from you imagining I have said things I never have or would!

Musket, the Revisionists on this do NOT blame Britain.
Kinealy is NOT Revisionist but she concedes that they are dominant and have been for over eighty years.

The issue is disputed, and it is dishonest to state it as an undisputed fact.
That is why I intervened.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: bubblyrat
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 02:53 PM

Dear Oh Dear !! Calm down now !!

I have been in bands with Irish people ;I have served in the Armed Forces with Irish People ; I have been put on a charge and disciplined by an Irishman ( Master-At-Arms Paddy Calnan ) ;I have played with numerous Irish people in Tom King's pub "The Herschel Arms" in Slough .
NONE of thes people have never even MENTIONED the Potato Famine , or blamed me or the English in general for it .
I personally have no issues with the Vikings,Danes,Saxons, Romans,French or members of other ethnic groups who have invaded England and raped,pillaged,burned ,or inflicted any other indignities upon us .Life's too short , so GET ONE !!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 02:06 PM

"I have peddled no line."
Yes you bloody well have
You have claimed Britain to be innocent of all wrongdoing and you have gathered out-of-of context quotes from a few sources in order to prove your point.
Blame has never been attributed, so why should any historian deny anything?
The first major work on famine blame appeared last year written by Tim Pat Coogan - historians have not debated it it before this, only to discuss whether the actions taken my the Government to protect the Imperial economy was justified - the British Government have now decided it wasn't and have apologised - you know better of course - don't you always?
You still refuse to acknowledge your incredible foot-in-mouth in choosing Kinealy as your star witness - I suppose you now disagree with her now she has been proved to have cut the legs from under you?
Whatever Kinealy did say - she now has apportioned blame so she must be a revisionist - your deliberate misuse of the term as got me quite confused!
You have had the facts of the Famine, you continue to ignore Trevelyan's statement outlining Government policy - he seems to be the only one you do agree with.
Again, as with World War One - your whole case has been of your own invention.
Somewhat insane, don't you think?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Musket
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 01:55 PM

If it came from your keyboard, I'd lay odds on being satisfied in denying it without even bothering to read it.

Track record?

You know, the word "revisionist" means altering an original perception. Why is Keith so cock sure that anything that challenges a view he is comfortable is therefore revisionist?

It is a relative term. Blame was disputed at the time, never mind when comfortable people wrote about it in the abstract in order to get their own place in history.

"Relating history is a self serving exercise." A J P Taylor.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 01:12 PM

I have peddled no line.
I have not argued any History, and have no opinion on it.

I just said that blame is disputed by some historians, which is true.
ANYONE DENY THAT?????

Kinealy said that the revisionists (no blame) have been dominant since 1930.
ANYONE DENY THAT?????

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 08:38 AM

And by the way - please stop deliberately mis-quoting Christine Kenealy- her atatement - above- indicates that her directly in opposition to your own and her "such historians" refer to thosewho have been peddling your line
Read the ******* article
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 08:34 AM

"Jim, how can I "back down" from claiming that blame is disputed, "
It is certainly not disputed by your historian Christine Kenealy, and the basic facts of the Famine are not disputed by any historian.
The only thing under dispute if dealt with clearly in Kinealy's statement - that few historians have dealt with the apportioning of blame, leaving a handful of pro-Imperialist revisionists to say it wasn't Britain's fault - this is your line - go and read her statement   
All historians agree that the Peel Government tried its best to alleviate the suffering of the Famine victims.
The following Russell Government dismantled Peel's policies, closed the warehouses and contiued shipping essential food out of starving Ireland.
They clearly stated that famine relief was totally the responsibility of the Irish farmers and they deliberately created a situation in which emigration was the only solution - that is the inescapable opinion of all historians to one degree or another.
You still refuse to even acknowledge the fact that he Russell Government's view of the situation was set out quite clearly in Trevelyan's statement - the the economy of the Empire took precedence over feeding the Famine victims, the Famine was a God-administered punishment for the sins of the Irish people and the Famine was a convenient was of solving 'The Irish Question' was the attitude of the Russell's administration- anybody making such a statement would have been dismissed on the spot if it had in any way contradicted Government policy.
There is no dispute whatever over any of these points - how could there be, they are documented facts?
But then again, if you can give a historian who does contradict a single point of history - feel free to do so - Christine Lenealy certainly doesn't
What is in dispute is whether allowing the interests of Empire over the well-being of the Irish people was justified.
The British Government gave its decision on that at the time of the present Queen's visit by apologising for the way the Famine was handled.
There is no dispute whatever - this has been another of your one-man campaigns to justify the behaviour of the British Empire's treatment of its subjects.
So once again you stand alone in your arguments - against everyone of of us "pearlless swine" wh have contributed to this discussion (except Colonel Chinstrap, who offered his bar-room two pennyworth)
Your disgusting accusation that the Irish historians and educationalists have "brainwashed" Irish children (witch-hunting Massachusetts was your comparison) is also your invention, on par with your "All Pakistanis" statement and very much a part of your contempt for the Irish people.
No historian or educationalist has ever taught children to hate Britain - on the contrary, historiand, educationalists and politicians have deliberately omitted to apportion blame, as Christine Kinealy points out.
Your continuing reliance on unread (by you) historians to make your non-existent case is both dishonest and incredibly stupid – I would have thought Christine Kenealy blowing up I your face (yet unacknowledged by you) would have taught you a lesson – obviously not.
Carry on squirming
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 06:00 AM

Does anyone challenge my original statement and my only claim?


In the last couple of posts to the just closed Skibbereen thread, two people state that Britain was culpable as if there was no dispute.
For the record many historians find that Britain can not be blamed.

Renowned historian Dr. Christine Kenealy stated, quoting others, that such historians were "dominant" and had been since 1930.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Allan C.
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:38 AM

The use of corn was mentioned earlier. This may be of interest. It was found here.   

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Peel came up with his own solution to the food problem. Without informing his own Conservative (Tory) government, he secretly purchased two shipments of inexpensive Indian corn (maize) directly from America to be distributed to the Irish. But problems arose as soon as the maize arrived in Ireland. It needed to be ground into digestible corn meal and there weren't enough mills available amid a nation of potato farmers. Mills that did process the maize discovered the pebble-like grain had to be ground twice.
To distribute the corn meal, a practical, business-like plan was developed in which the Relief Commission sold the meal at cost to local relief committees which in turn sold it at cost to the Irish at just one penny per pound. But peasants soon ran out of money and most landowners failed to contribute any money to maintain the relief effort.
The corn meal itself also caused problems. Normally, the Irish ate enormous meals of boiled potatoes three times a day. A working man might eat up to fourteen pounds each day. They found Indian corn to be an unsatisfying substitute. Peasants nicknamed the bright yellow substance 'Peel's brimstone.' It was difficult to cook, hard to digest and caused diarrhea. Most of all, it lacked the belly-filling bulk of the potato. It also lacked Vitamin C and resulted in scurvy, a condition previously unknown in Ireland due to the normal consumption of potatoes rich in Vitamin C.
Out of necessity, the Irish grew accustomed to the corn meal. But by June 1846 supplies were exhausted.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 07:53 AM

Jim, how can I "back down" from claiming that blame is disputed, WHEN IT PATENTLY IS AND YOU DO NOT EVEN DENY IT!????

Musket, here is the quote you requested that shows you have completely failed to grasp the issues under discussion.

"Keith's misty eyed jingoistic drivel represents the revision, surely? Even if the Empire loving fools were right, then by challenging the accepted norm, they are being revisionist?"

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 07:17 AM

Where is the link to your claim I don't know what we are talking about?

Show us the evidence.

You can't, can you? Liar etc etc where's my strait jacket?

(Sounds familiar Keith?)

Revision - the art of changing your mind in the light of consideration of present or subsequent evidence.

I doubt therefore I could call Keith a revisionist. He makes his mind up then tries to find evidence to support it. All detractors being liars of course.

I may be the only one who doesn't understand it, although I think I am not alone all the same... But I note I am the only one who has pointed out the UK government fascination with not interfering with Adam Smith principles at that time, as much a factor as the callous disregard of the Irish that such economic outlooks helped formulate.

But there again, I'm not on a list of Keith kite marked historians.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 06:52 AM

You really are wasting your time Muskett - this moron hasn't got an honest bone in his body and the chance of getting him to back down even when he has been totally humiliated is non existent
However - enjoy the circus
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 04:50 AM

Musket, you have no idea what we are even discussing.
Some historians are described as Nationalist.
Put very simply for you to understand, they blame Britain.
The Revisionists do not.

I am neither, and have no "pet historian."

I am just pointing out the obvious fact that there is a dispute.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 04:45 AM

If the "revisionist" view is dominant, then by pure definition and logic, Keith's misty eyed jingoistic drivel represents the revision, surely? Even if the Empire loving fools were right, then by challenging the accepted norm, they are being revisionist? You can't use it as an insulting word when technically the term applies to the other view, prat.

I love the bit where Keith said his pet historian took historical data into account when forming a view. On the gay bashing threads, he asserts that data is definitive and you can't form a view, because data is data full stop.

Why should anyone take anything he says seriously? Granted, I never have done but I can sniff the buggers out a mile off. Goes with the territory.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 04:42 AM

You are being dishonest Jim.
I KNOW KINEALY IS A NATIONALIST HISTORIAN!!!

All I am saying is that blame is disputed, and it is dishonest to deny that dispute.

Kinealy is clear that it is disputed, and also that Revisionism (no blame) is actually dominant and has been for a very long time.

Can we agree on that?

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 04:34 AM

Keith
Last word on this
You have been advocating Christine Kinealy as your star historian and have distorted her view to suggest they support your own
Her statement above is diametrically opposite to everything you have been arguing
You have refused to respond to every singly salient point of how the Famine was handled - you have refused to acknowledge that the government appointee openly stated that the famine was God's punishment of the Irish and that it was a way of 'culling' them - coming from a man in his position, that can only be construed as Government policy, in which case, The Famine was used as an exercise in ethnic cleansing.
Christine Kinealy (your star witness) says exactly what needed to be said on the famine.
You re-opened this thread to continue an argument you had already been humiliated on - in doing so you have humiliated yourself further.
You will now attempt to salvage something from the ashes of your own making - you will do so on your own
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 03:58 AM

There were active contributions from five Mudcat members just yesterday on this thread.
The number of BS threads has just dwindled into single figures.
Why are people so negative about a live and interesting debate?

Jim I know Dr Kinealy is of the old Nationalist school and not a revisionist.
I said that yesterday, 12 Mar 14 - 04:44 AM .

She acknowledges that the revisionist view is now "dominant" and has been since before any of us were born.

That is why I say you are wrong to put forward one version as an undisputed fact.
It IS disputed and you know it because I have been telling you for hundreds of posts.

Others will have to ask Jim why he needed telling so many times something that is an obvious fact and that he refuses to deny anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 03:16 AM

"Oh, well--what can ya do?"
Maybe take some interest in human rights abuses and learn from them?
Ah wll , what can ya do?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 07:28 PM

Fascinating, actually, the thread subject itself. Love biology.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Mr Red
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 05:20 PM

principle cause of the famine was mono-culture.

some large (say 80%) of potatoes were one type. The fungus spread because it had a big target. It was also susceptible to light - it grew faster in the light. Farmers covered the potatoes to slow (or prevent as they thought) the blight.

History repeats itself, it has to nobody is listening.

viz I give you Microsoft Windows and Cavendish bananas

both are subject to viruses (or fungii in the case of bananas) which spread easily due to mono-culture. Bananas are a special case as they effectively only propagate vegitatively, with human intervention. They don't generate seeds (or so rarely as to be effectively sterile). Making all bananas clones, how easy is that as a target?

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 04:51 PM

Throw potatoes at them?

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jeri
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 04:36 PM

The more of this I read, the more I think we've got a pair of compulsives who aren't capable of stopping. I wish they'd infested some site other than Mudcat, though. Oh, well--what can ya do?

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 04:17 PM

Round and round it goes and where it stops no one knows.

ZZZZZZZZZZ

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 03:59 PM

And just in case that wasn't enough to shut you up;
You were given this in the early years of the last discussion.
You've borrowed selectively from it.
When it was quoted at you later you dsaid you didn't understand how she could have said such a thing.
Despite it having been pointed out to you, you have deliberately misinterpreted the meaning of the word 'revisionism' for your own purposes.
Jim Carroll

Ms Kinealy - the floor is all yours - da-rah!
"Moreover, much of this death from the Famine need not have taken place. The Irish Famine was not just caused by food shortages, it was also due to political and economic choices. As a consequence, ideology triumphed over humanity.
In the face of food shortages, relief provided by the government was inadequate. Imports of food were too small to meet the scale of the problem. At the same time, large amounts of food continued to be exported from Ireland. In 1847 – 'Black '47' – 4,000 ships left Ireland, each carrying large cargoes of food to Britain."

BEYOND REVISIONISM: reassessing the Great Irish Famine
Published in 18th-19th Century Social Perspectives, 18th–19th - Century History, Features, Issue 4 (Winter 1995),The Famine, Volume 3
'The day after the Ejectment', Illustrated London News, 16 December 1848.
1995 marks the 150th anniversary of the first appearance of a new and deadly strain of potato blight in Ireland; a blight that reappeared in varying degrees over the next six years. As a consequence of the resultant food shortage and the more general disruption to economic life, by 1852 at least one million Irish people had died and a further one million had emigrated from Ireland. Thus, in the space of six years, Ireland lost twenty-five per cent of her population. The demographic decline continued and by 1901, the population of Ireland had fallen to four million. This population decline made Ireland unique within Europe as all other European countries experienced rapid population growth during the nineteenth century. Using the demographic criterion alone, the Famine was a human tragedy of immense proportions and one which was clearly a defining moment in the course of modern Irish history.

Self-censorship
So far, the anniversary of the appearance of the potato blight and subsequent Famine has attracted a lot of public and media attention in Ireland and, to a lesser extent, in Britain, America, Australia and Europe. The coincidence of the Northern Ireland peace process has increased international interest in Irish affairs, and a number of articles, TV and radio reports have seen the two events as being inextricably linked. A number of Irish academics have even stated that the current political climate has facilitated a new freedom in the discussion of past events. An underlying question is whether historians, social scientists, ethnographers, and even some government ministers and journalists, have allowed contemporary concerns to restrict historical debate. If this is the case, what are the implications of this self-censorship on interpretations and reinterpretations of the Irish Famine?

Nationalist paradigm
To a large extent, the popular understanding of the Famine in Ireland still follows a traditional, nationalist paradigm. Within this model, 'blame' is generally attributed to key groupings, either within the British government or within the landlord class. To some extent, these beliefs were fostered by the state school system south of the border, which itself arose out of particular historical circumstances. In 1922, for example, the Free State government instructed history teachers that pupils should be 'imbued with the ideals and aspirations of such men as Thomas Davis and Patrick Pearse' and that they should emphasise 'the continuity of the separatist idea from Tone to Pearse' (see Francis T. Holohan, 'History teaching in the Irish Free State 1922-35' in HI Winter 1994). In Protestant schools in Northern Ireland, Irish history was rarely part of the curriculum (see Peter Collins, 'History teaching in Northern Ireland' in HI Spring 1995). Accordingly, in many Irish schools, a heroic but simplistic view of Irish history emerged, a morality story replete with heroes and villains. This approach, however, was subsequently challenged by the Irish academic establishment. In the 1930s, a number of leading Irish academics—following the lead of British historians earlier in the century—set an agenda for the study of Irish history, which placed it on a more professional and scientific basis in terms of research methods and source materials. At the same time this approach also demanded the systematic revision and challenging of received wisdoms or unquestioned assumptions. What was specific to Ireland, however, was the declared mission to challenge received nationalist myths, and by implication, although less centrally, loyalist myths. Thus, at the launch of the influential Irish Historical Studies journal in 1938, the editors stated their commitment to replace 'interpretive distortions' with 'value-free history'. To a large extent, however, this debate took place within the rarefied atmosphere of academia and failed to percolate down into the schoolrooms either north or south of the border.

Revisionism
In the 1960s, the study of history in many European countries was transformed as historians increasingly began to employ the methodologies of other disciplines and to develop new theoretical approaches. In Ireland, however, the dominant approach continued to be based on revising and destroying the traditional nationalist view of history. This approach became known as 'revisionism'. As the IRA campaign intensified, revisionism gained a new prominence, in the battle for Irish hearts and minds, and challenging nationalist mythology became an important ideological preoccupation of a new generation of historians. A number of leading academics justified this construction on the grounds that IRA violence was linked directly with nationalist myths, although empirical evidence has been less forthcoming.
But did this new representation of Irish history really represent a new reality about Ireland's past, particularly in relation to the Famine? The revisionist approach contained a number of inherent contradictions and limitations. From its origins, although revisionist history claimed to be value-free and objective, it had its own agenda or set of values, which varied over time and
in degrees of intensity. A key objective of Irish revisionism was to exorcise the ghost of nationalism from historical discourse and to replace it with historical narratives that persistently played down the separateness and the trauma, and derided the heroes and villains of Irish history. However, this declared determination of revisionism to destroy the 'myths and untruths' of populist historical consciousness has also limited the ability of revisionists to construct an alternative view of Irish history. Also, as Seamus Deane, the literary critic and poet has observed, in Ireland, there exists 'the felt need for mythologies, heroic lineages and dreams of continuity'. Such myths and dreams need to be explained and deconstructed, not denied, destroyed or omitted, to suit a present
convenience.

Symbiotic relationship with nationalism
From the outset revisionism has depended for its existence on a symbiotic relationship with nationalism. Overall, this has limited the terms of reference of Irish history, and, as a consequence, Irish historiography– particularly Famine historiography– has been polarised within the confines of a concentric and narrow historical discourse. A false–but emotionally powerful–dichotomy has been created between traditional, reactionary nationalism and secular, modern revisionism. Irish historiography has, therefore, been constrained rather than extended as a result of revisionism.
How has Irish revisionism presented or represented historical narratives on the Famine? This has been achieved in a number of ways, but predominantly by rejecting popular perceptions, by deriding traditional accounts, and by destroying selectively the myths of the Famine years. A number of key issues relating to the Famine, however, have been particularly subjected to revisionist re-presentation.

Impact minimised and marginalised
Firstly, in revisionist interpretations the impact of the Famine on the development of modern Ireland has been minimised and marginalised. This is most apparent in the area of demography, particularly in revisionist accounts of excess mortality. In the influential but flawed book edited by Edwards and Williams and first published in 1956, both the editors and the contributors chose to avoid the unpalatable question of excess mortality, admitting only that 'many, many people died' (see James S. Donnelly, Jr., 'The Great Famine: its interpreters, old and new' in HI Autumn 1993). Other accounts have argued that the Famine merely accelerated demographic trends already under way before 1845.
How many people did die during the Famine? Although precise mortality figures are not available, estimates based on contemporary government returns and statistical analyses undertaken by econometric historians have computed excess mortality to have been at least one million people. This figure also coincides with accounts provided by contemporary government officials, including both the Irish constabulary and census commissioners. What is significant about this area of debate is the determination of revisionist historians to understate the impact, in particular the degree of mortality, resulting from the Famine. The death-toll resulting from the Irish Famine makes it unique in modern European and, indeed, world history. Other national famines since 1800 (e.g. Somalia in the 1990s or Ethiopia in the 1980s) have, in comparison, been far less demographically lethal than the Great Famine in Ireland.

Inevitable?
Secondly, there has been a tendency by revisionist historians to view the Famine and the consequent mortality as inevitable, the food shortage representing a long overdue Malthusian subsistence crisis. Furthermore, according to this interpretation, economic backwardness, over-population and administrative inefficiency, made Ireland unable to respond effectively to the sustained crisis of the Famine. But how backward was pre-Famine Ireland?
On the eve of the Famine, Ireland had one of the tallest, sturdiest, best fed and most fertile populations in Europe. The ubiquitous, and highly nutritious potato, was largely responsible for this. But Irish agriculture was not monolithic. By the 1840s, apart from growing sufficient potatoes to feed over five million people, and large numbers of farm animals and fowl, Ireland was also growing large quantities of grain, and by the 1840s was exporting sufficient grain to Britain to feed approximately two million people. Population density was highest in the north-east of Ireland which was also the most industrially advanced part of the country. Furthermore, Ireland at the time of the Famine had a highly developed administrative infra-structure including, since 1838, a national system of poor relief.
Issue of culpability avoided
Thirdly, the issue of culpability has been consistently avoided or denied in revisionist accounts. Moreover, both the landlords and the British government have been rehabilitated; the former frequently being shown as hapless victims themselves, and the latter, as being ignorant of the real state of affairs in Ireland, and lacking both the financial and administrative capability to alleviate the situation anyway.
The arguments regarding the role of the British government are not sustainable. In the summer of 1847, in the wake of the almost total second failure of the potato crop, the British government established soup kitchens throughout Ireland. At the peak of this scheme, over three million people, that is, forty per cent of the population, were receiving free rations of food daily from the soup kitchens (which, even by the standard of contemporary famines, is a tremendous logistical achievement). To make this possible, a comprehensive and nation-wide machinery was created within Ireland in the space of only a few months. As a consequence of this scheme, mortality began to fall as, for the first and only time during the Famine, the problem of hunger was confronted directly. But the soup kitchens were only ever intended to be a short-term measure, and after the government closed them in the autumn of 1847, mortality again rose sharply. This brief episode, however, in which free food was provided on a nation-wide basis, demonstrated that the administrative capability to provide relief existed. Unfortunately for the poor of Ireland, the political and ideological will to continue the scheme did not exist (see Peter Gray, 'The triumph of dogma: ideology and Famine relief' in HI Summer 1995).
The financial commitment to alleviate Irish suffering was also inadequate. In the course of the Famine, (over a seven year period) the British government spent approximately £9.5 million on various relief schemes. The greatest portion (over £4.5 million) was expended on the ill-conceived public works schemes in the winter of 1846-7 which coincided with the period of highest Famine mortality, as a result of weak and hungry people being forced to undertake hard, physical labour as a 'test' of destitution. Furthermore, much of the money provided for relief was given as a loan to the Irish administration, which was both interest and principal bearing and had to be paid back immediately. Overall, the contribution of the British government over seven years, represented only about 0.2 per cent of the British GNP. Less than ten years later, in the course of the Crimean war (over a three year period), the British government spent £69 million on military expenditure.

Collective guilt?
Fourthly, and as an extension of the above, suffering, emotion and the sense of catastrophe, have been removed from revisionist interpretations of the Famine with clinical precision. The obscenity and degradation of starvation and Famine have been marginalised. Popular books on the Famine, notably those by Cecil Woodham-Smith and Robert Kee, which have placed suffering at the heart of the Famine, have been derided or dismissed by many within the academic establishment, although not, it has to be said, by the general reading public. The Great Hunger by Woodham Smith has sold almost sixty thousand hard back copies, making it the best-selling Irish history book of all time. Irish academics, with the honourable exception of Cormac Ó Gráda, have been less enthusiastic. Roy Foster, an influential revisionist, in an article optimistically entitled 'We are all revisionists now', pejoratively described Woodham Smith as 'a zealous convert', whilst, in 1964, a question in an undergraduate history examination paper in University College Dublin stated 'The Great Hunger is a great novel. Discuss'.
A more invidious variation of this theme is that the population of Ireland today is descended from the survivors—sometimes even described as the 'winners'—of the Famine period, thus implying a collective guilt amongst Irish people. Moreover, it has been suggested, that because a number of interest groups may have benefited from the economic dislocation of the Famine years, it is unfair to blame any other group for responding inadequately to the Famine. Survival and success, however, do not negate the suffering and starvation—either directly or indirectly—of the vast majority of the population.
No practical impediment to government intervention
Fifthly, there is a persistent claim that the British government in the 1840s possessed neither the practical nor the political means to either close the ports or import additional foodstuffs to Ireland. This is nonsense. Throughout the eighteenth century, and in 1817, 1822 and indeed, in 1845, the Irish and British governments imported food for resale in Ireland. In the subsistence crisis of 1782, an embargo was placed on the export of grain from Ireland, despite the opposition of Irish grain merchants. Furthermore, in the subsistence crisis of 1845 to 1847, which occurred throughout Europe, governments throughout the continent responded by temporarily closing their ports to exports (Portugal, Turkey, Russia, amongst others). This was, in fact, a traditional response to Famine conditions. Also, as the Corn Law crisis proved, there was no practical or ideological impediment to government intervention in the market place when it suited the purposes of the government.

Removed from centre stage
Sixthly, the Famine has been removed from the centre stage of nineteenth century Irish history. Instead, continuity is emphasised and it is argued that trends such as the decline of the Irish language, the change to pasture farming, and the demographic decline, would have occurred without the Famine, which was merely an accelerator in these processes. These views have resulted in curious assertions. For example, Raymond Crotty has argued that 1815 was far more important in the economic development of modern Ireland than the Famine years. Econometric historians such as O'Rourke, Ó Gráda and Mokyr have exposed the absurdity of this assertion by combining statistical interpretation with common sense.

Ideological minefield
Finally, revisionism has created an ideological minefield in Irish history, in which those historians who attempted to write traditional Irish history, based on a recognition that reality involves conflict as well as consensus, and cataclysm as well as continuity, were regarded as promoters of a backward nationalist ideology. In regard to the Famine, interpretations which hinted at the issue of culpability of the British government were pigeon-holed as being apologists and perpetrators of the nationalist struggle. Perhaps this accounts for the dearth of serious scholarly research on the Famine, most notably by historians within Ireland. Interestingly, the sesquicentenary commemoration has created a new interest and appears to be creating a new generation of what are becoming known in Ireland as 'faminists'.
For many decades, the tragedy and significance of the Famine have been minimised, sanitised and marginalised by leading revisionist historians (and their supporters in the media). A declared purpose of Irish revisionism has been to 'demythologise' all Irish history, but in relation to the Famine, its target has been almost exclusively Irish nationalist history, and occasionally a mere caricature of it. Furthermore, revisionism has replaced nationalist historiography with a new orthodoxy based, at times, on equally facile myths and shibboleths. The process of challenging and revising should be an integral part of all historical writing. Irish revisionism, however, has stifled rather than stimulated historical debate on the Famine.
Although revisionism claims to be objective and value-free (a philosophical impossibility), in reality it has had a covert political agenda. As republican violence intensified, so did the determination of revisionists historians to destroy nationalist interpretations of Irish history. This has sometimes resulted in an equally unbalanced view emerging which, in the case of the Famine, has thrown the starving baby out with the purified bath-water.

Conclusion
Revisionism has polarised historical debate in Ireland and has stifled the more theoretical and philosophical approach to history which has developed elsewhere. Revisionism has dominated Irish historiography since the 1930s, and more intensely since the 1960s. However, as a new generation of historians emerges and more research is undertaken, it is unlikely that this domination will continue. This is not to say that revisionism in its various guises will disappear. As the American economist J.K. Galbraith has observed:
Faced with a choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets busy on the proof.
Christine Kinealy is a Fellow of the University of Liverpool.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 03:34 PM

"Christine Kinealy."
Lastworditis again Keith - so be it
ow will you feck off?
Jim Carroll

"Dr. Christine Kinealy, in responding to the words of the Ambassador, introduced her book as follows: -
"In the autumn of 1846, the potato crop failed for the second consecutive year in Ireland. Daniel O'Connell wrote to the British government and warned them that unless they intervened quickly to provide relief, there would be a 'death-dealing famine' in the country. Sadly, O'Connell's prediction proved to be true.
The Great Irish Famine was a turning point in the development of modern Ireland. In the space of six years, Ireland lost 25 per cent of her population through death and disease. This statistic alone marked the Irish Famine as one of the greatest human tragedies in modern European history.
Yet it is not only the number of people who died which makes the Famine such a tragedy. It is also the way in which they lost their lives. Death from famine or famine-related diseases is slow, painful and obscene.
Moreover, much of this death from the Famine need not have taken place. The Irish Famine was not just caused by food shortages, it was also due to political and economic choices. As a consequence, ideology triumphed over humanity.
In the face of food shortages, relief provided by the government was inadequate. Imports of food were too small to meet the scale of the problem. At the same time, large amounts of food continued to be exported from Ireland. In 1847 – 'Black '47' – 4,000 ships left Ireland, each carrying large cargoes of food to Britain.
This year marked the 150th anniversary of 'Black '47' – the single year when disease, suffering and mortality were at their highest. But the Famine did not end in 1847. In 1849, the level of mortality was almost as great as it had been in 1847.
Today – even though famine still exists in the world – it is hard to imagine the suffering, the sense of loss and the trauma of Irish people during those years. The recollections of a survivor of the Famine years convey some of this loss:"

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 03:18 PM

Christine Kinealy.
"Revisionism has polarised historical debate in Ireland and has stifled the more theoretical and philosophical approach to history which has developed elsewhere. Revisionism has dominated Irish historiography since the 1930s, and more intensely since the 1960s."
http://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/beyond-revisionism-reassessing-the-great-irish-famine/

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 12:50 PM

""You wanna ignore" historians' conclusions on contemporary accounts?"
Only the ones you have deliberately misquoted
You wanna go and read something and put the contemporary statements right - no - I thought not.
Christine Kinealy says that the policy towards Famine victims was inhuman - maybe you can start be putting her right!
Tosser!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 12:20 PM

"You wanna ignore" historians' conclusions on contemporary accounts?

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 11:43 AM

You wanna ignore the contemporary accounts too Terrytoon -now there's a surprise!!!
That was attributed directly to Trevelyan's statement in 1848 go get someone to read you a book (though you might start with getting them to read you the messages posted on this thread
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 11:11 AM

"A huge amount of the land and houses were owned by British businessmen and some of higher rank. Rents were often, if not generally paid in potatoes and turnips. In many instances these were brought directly to the docks where they were weighed and then credit was issued by the ship owners who, in turn, paid the landlords from the profits gained when the produce was sold to British markets. In some places the landlords became so greedy that they created what I would call reverse quotas. A family was allowed to retain only a specified amount of potatoes. As few as two per day were allotted per adult and per pig, if pigs were kept. Children were allotted one potato per day. All else was considered as rent."

Love to know where this fairy tale came from. It certainly raises some interesting questions if it were true, so I presume Allan C would know the answers to them.

Ownership of the land. If the major part of the land was owned by "British Businessmen" how was it transferred to Irish ownership and when? The nobility and landed gentry of the "ascendancy" were for the most part "Anglo-Irish" (Not British Businessmen). To simplify matters they leased land to agents who then rented out the land to maximise the agent's profit.

Rents were not paid in potatoes and turnips, for a small parcel of land which the tenant used to cultivate to feed his family, the rent was paid by the tenant working on the land owners land. Now if what you said was true how did the the poor impoverished tenant get his crops down to the docks to be weighed? Must have taken one hell of a long time to load a cargo under this totally ridiculous system don't you think, no shipping company would stand for it logically if you think about it, it would cost them a fortune in time and lost cargoes.

No mention of the real culprits - The Gombeen Men - look them up, you probably won't because they weren't English. They didn't exist in Scotland so in the highlands and western isles right the way through the famine the men fished to suppliment the diet. In Ireland particularly on the west coast the Gombeen Men forced the fishermen to sell their gear and boats to pay their extortionate interest.

Suggest you read Cecile Woodham-Smith's book "The Great Hunger", she's hard enough on the British Government but fairly so and does give credit where and when it is due. She's very scathing in her coverage of the supposed "help" that was received from America and the treatment of Irish immigrants on landing in America (Modern Day St.Patrick's Day derives from it - a PR exercise, a street party thrown to make the Irish more popular among the other immigrant communities in American cities)

The reason most Irish emigrated to the New World via Canada was because they sailed for free. To board a ship bound directly for the USA you had to prove yourself to be of good character and health and be financially sound to the tune of £10, you were then subject to quarantine on arrival. If the ship carried any sick onboard it was held off the coast until all was clear, sometimes that took weeks. Most Irish entered the USA via Chicago from Canada having travelled across the Great Lakes.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 10:44 AM

2I am not going to argue history with you Jim."
Whewre have you ever -
You are not arguing with me or anybody - you have been given statements on the British policy towards the Famine - you choose to ignore them - why on earth should it be any different from any other of your claims - leopards, spots and all that
"And Jim and Greg."
and everybody else you have ever argued with on this forum - stop distorting the views of contributors to this discussion - you little liar you!!
Byee
Jim Carroll