Folklore/History: Irish Famine

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 12:16 PM

"The Park Royal Brewery closed in 2005 Jim."
I know - I worked there for a time and wouldn't even drink the freebies - awful stuff.
I'm not sure how it works, but even up to five years ago I still never found a decent pint in London - marginally better than Irish bitter (still miss a pint of Young's desperately) and Polish Ouzo.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 12:16 PM

More weather!
I wonder whether (no pun intended) anyone has read the Australian historian Robin Haynes on Trevelyan.
Her view contradicts Jim damning opinion of him.

Irish historian Ciara Boylan describes it here.
http://www.historyireland.com/the-famine/charles-trevelyan-and-the-great-irish-famine/

Extract,
"Haines is concerned here with 'revising' the received view of Trevelyan, a result of the 'half-truth, innuendo and careless repetition' that has found its way into the secondary literature. Over some 600 pages Haines attempts to undermine the prevalent view of Trevelyan as a dictatorial civil servant (he was permanent head of the Treasury during the Famine) with undue influence over Famine policy who was imbued with the doctrines of classical political economy (particularly the doctrine of laissez-faire), racial prejudice against the Irish, and a providential view of the catastrophe as an 'act of God', all of which combined to convince him that the Famine must be allowed to 'run its course'."

"Haines is correct to stress the sloppiness of much research relating to Trevelyan, and to expose the shockingly lazy way in which historians have simply borrowed 'facts' from seminal articles without ever taking the time to consult original source material. Her own scholarship is impressive: the work is built up almost entirely from Trevelyan's letters, supplemented with the correspondence of the other main protagonists involved in Famine relief. The research provided here undermines the view that Trevelyan was the key influence on the government's Famine relief policy."

Jim?

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST,Triplane
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 12:04 PM

Greg F ... is that the current forecast

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 12:03 PM

And rain, too.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 12:00 PM

The day here started out bright but its clouding over. Predicting rasin tomorrow.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 11:51 AM

Any beer in this sunshine, but in a thread about the famine, is it reasonable to try and exclude mention of all but Jim's view of it?

Why do you people encourage him?
You know that his is far from the only view, but here you are helping to shut down discussion of the alternatives.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 11:27 AM

The Park Royal Brewery closed in 2005 Jim.
Guinness sold in the Uk is now brewed at St James's Gate Brewery.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 11:17 AM

" then down for a pint of Guinness me thinks"
English Guinness - yeuk!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 10:05 AM

Just mowed the grass, time for quick shower then down for a pint of Guinness me thinks

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 09:38 AM

Lovely Rag, but do you agree with Jim that no historians dispute blame for the famine?
Are you aware that the historians themselves say that there is dispute?

How can Jim's view be reconciled with historians actually expressing the opposite view?

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 09:01 AM

There was a beautiful tall ship in the harbour overnight, the Stad Amsterdam, it's now sitting out in the bay at anchor.

Stad Amsterdam

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 08:54 AM

Thanks for the weather reports, but this is a serious thread on a serious subject.
If you have nothing to contribute, there are weather threads that could be used.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 07:40 AM

Due to start pissing with rain here any minute (what's new?)- off to Dublin for a cultureglut (6 films in 3 days) - wheeee!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 07:35 AM

Clouding over here now but had a lovely walk in Skipton Woods this morning. Or possibly not depending on whether any historians challenge that viewpoint...

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 07:15 AM

Beautiful and sunny here today

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 07:13 AM

When Jim said that there are two versions, that should have been the end of our discussion.
We were in agreement
That was and is the only issue.

But now Jim has reverted to, "Not one single historian has ever challenged the facts of the Famine"

I say of course facts are disputed.
You all know that they are, and that Jim is wrong, so what exactly are you objecting to?

My whole and only case is that many, probably most, historians disagree with Jim's version.
I am not saying that his version is wrong or that theirs is right.
I have no opinion on famine history except that the facts are disputed.
And they are.

I have backed that with quotes from historian.
No-one has been able to find anything that contradicts my stated view.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 06:37 AM

"This is beyond a joke."
Yes it is
This thread should never have been re-opened - anything new on the subject was adequately aired on the 'Stalin' thread, and it was an act of gross vindictive stupidity to reopen an old thread on the same topic here with nothing else to add.
Nothing new has been added and it has become an disturbingly obsessive attempt to score points.
I want nothing more to do with this and I want nothing more to do with this type of argument from people who admit they know nothing of the subject and nor do they want to know.
We are all at fault - we should never have continued this once this admission had been made - stupid - stupid - stupid!
I'm out, and I suggest that the rest of you do the same and leave him to it.
'Disturbing' is the word that springs to mind - to say the least.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 04:42 AM

Yes and you've said it hundreds of time Professor. A lot of people on here are not interested in anything you say. In fact some people may even take the opposite view just because you've said something.

You are boring, repetitive and tedious.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: MartinRyan
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 04:37 AM

This is beyond a joke.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 04:34 AM

Yes Greg,and he actually admits he is pretty much wholly ignorent on the subject, claiming he has never read a book on the topic and has no opinion on it. mega troll

Can any of you experts challenge any single thing that I have said?
NO!
How could you?
All I have said is that many and probably most historians disagree with Jim, and quote a few of them.
What possible objection can any reasonable person have?

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 04:29 AM

Jim, revisionist historians know everything you know, and yet remain revisionists.
It is an alternative view to yours, it is legitimate, and it is held by many and probably most historians.
Do you deny that fact?

My crime was just putting that alternative view without even endorsing it.
Jim was outraged.
Why?

Here is my first post in full.

"Another historical perpective.
"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
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/lessons-of-history-the-great-irish-famine#axzz2Z7f2StzS"

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST,Andrew
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 07:51 PM

Yes Greg,and he actually admits he is pretty much wholly ignorent on the subject, claiming he has never read a book on the topic and has no opinion on it. mega troll....so anyone have anything on folklore / history of the famine?
btw just listened to the song kilkelly, very sad

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 05:36 PM

on a subject in which they are mostly ignorant.

What about those subjects upon which they are - or rather he is- completely, totally and utterly ignorant?

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 03:56 PM

"Now another U turn and he is back to denial."
For fucks sake Keith
These are the facts that no historian disputes
"Didn't Trevelyan make his statements (about both the Irish and the Scots?
Wasn't he the British appointed as advisor on the Famine?
Didn't the Government lock full warehouses and put armed guards on them?
Didn't the Russell's Tory Government dismantle all the relief measures put into place by Peel's administration
Didn't they adopt a laisse faire policy of selling famine relief to impoverished Irish peasants at market prices?
Wasn't the suggestion made by Trevelyan that the Famine was a possible solution to the Irish Question?
Weren't the Irish people given the alternatives, emigrate or starve?
Ignoring those facts or playing them down IN ORDER TO PLACATE BRITAIN is revisionism - IF YOU CAN'T BE BOTHERED READING BOOKS - AT LEAST READ YOUR OWN LINKS.
>no historian disputes them - they are facts - they were explained to you by me back in March
No U turn STOP LYING or are you deliberately trying to get this thread closed?
You are going to make yourself ill - if you haven't already
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 03:06 PM

Make your cocoa and get your biscuits it's time you went to bed, little man.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 02:39 PM

Derrick,
Jim's original view,
"No they(historians) don't(dispute blame) - 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"

Two days ago, a U turn,
"There are two views of the Irish Famine - one that it was a natural disaster in which nothing could be done and no blame can be attached - the "revisionist...."

Now another U turn and he is back to denial.
Ask him if he accepts that there are revisionist historians who dispute blame.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST,Andrew
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 02:09 PM

I'm reminded of of an argument i had with a friend who read a few snippets on the internet of how darwin was wrong. Having studied biology and evolution and having interest in the subject but still you can't convnce some people they are wrong when they have a few quotes on a subject in which they are mostly ignorent.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 02:00 PM

PLEASE, Derrick - don't encourage him!

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 01:56 PM

From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 12:49 PM

Jim acknowledges the revisionists differ from him.

He says he does not, or rather he does not recognise them as historians.
He did briefly, but then went back on it.
Ask him.

What are you saying here Keith?
One if not all of us has lost the plot.
Are you saying Jim agrees with the revisionists? or are you saying he does not believe they are historians?

What has your answer got to do with Jim recognising the existence of said revisionists?

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 01:48 PM

Or:
How many historians does it take to change a light bulb?
Answer:
Three - one to change the bulb, two to discuss how much brighter the old one was.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 01:18 PM

Question:
How many historians can dance on the head of a pin?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 01:11 PM

For crying out loud - is anybody interested in discussion the Famine and not this self-obsessed areshole?
Leave him to his historians - perhaps they and the World War One "real historians", and all the other "experts" who sell their books in "real bookshops" he has dreamed up down the years, can form a political party and ask us to vote for them - that should sort things out!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 01:03 PM

"I feel like a hitchhiker caught in a hailstorm on a Texas highway. I can't run. I can't hide. And I can't make it stop."

                -Lyndon Johnson.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 12:49 PM

Jim acknowledges the revisionists differ from him.

He says he does not, or rather he does not recognise them as historians.
He did briefly, but then went back on it.
Ask him.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 12:01 PM

Keith,
I think everyone agrees that there are two opposing views on the famine,nobody has given a head count on the supporters of either view.

You say "I do not have the knowledge to choose between them.
I just acknowledge that many and probably most historians do not agree with Jim on culpability"

Jim acknowledges the revisionists differ from him.

Neither of you can claim more historians agree with one or other view,
the best you can come up with is "many and probably most".

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 11:45 AM

No Guest.
Those are my quotes.
What is lying, deceitful or dishonest about any of them?

Do you acknowledge the existence of revisionist historians?
What is your opinion of someone who denies it?
Lying, deceitful or dishonest?

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 11:40 AM

Once again this pathetic little man is shown clearly as a liar. He has been pulled up on the change is use of these words in the last few days. He doesn't even has the nous to realise that he is well known for being lying, deceitful and dishonest, and he claims to be a Christian. Three direct quotes from the little man himself.


"dave,Was that he interchanged the words 'some' and 'most'. Not me then. What about the man who said there are none, when there are obviously many, and probably most?"
"

"You now acknowledge that many and probably most historians do not agree with you on culpability"

"Jim has been raging about that ever since, but he can not deny that some historians disagree.I have quoted them"

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 11:35 AM

"The was a man who's proud main boast"
Well done Dave, but read the notice:
BEWARE OF THE DOGGEREL
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 11:11 AM

dave,
Was that he interchanged the words 'some' and 'most'.

Not me then.
What about the man who said there are none, when there are obviously many, and probably most?

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 11:03 AM

You run from the question.

You will not admit that many and probably most historians dispute culpability, but you can not deny it either.

That is the trouble with holding views that can not be supported.
You end up looking silly.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 10:56 AM

The was a man who's proud main boast
Was that he interchanged the words 'some' and 'most'.
When talking numbers we never knew
What he meant by many and what he meant by few.
We puzzled at was was meant by 'all'
Finding out was like talking to a wall
You see, he always changed the rules
To try to make others seem like fools
The more he tried, the more folk ranted
But it was no use, no quarter was granted
One brave lad tried a final stunt
...

And I can't think of anything that rhymes with that last none. Sorry.

:D tG

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 10:32 AM

Piss off - finished with you - the wedding's off1
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 10:20 AM

Jim, two days ago you said,

"There are two views of the Irish Famine - one that it was a natural disaster in which nothing could be done and no blame can be attached - the "revisionist view......"

Have you recanted?
Do you now again deny that there are any revisionist historians?

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 10:02 AM

Jim,
"So Jim, do you acknowledge that many historians dispute culpability,"
No idea, neither do you

NO IDEA??
I have named and quoted historians who dispute culpability.
How can you have no idea when you have had the quotes put in front of you!?

Derrick,
thus giving the impression that you tend to agree with them.

How does it give that impression?
Twenty years ago Kinealy stated that revisionists dominate.
Jim claimed it has changed since then, but was unable to substantiate that with anything at all.

Recent quotes from Coogan and Kennedy ("no reputable historian believes") suggest it is still true.

That is why I just said, "many and probably most historians do not agree with you on culpability."

I do not have the knowledge to choose between them.
I just acknowledge that many and probably most historians do not agree with Jim on culpability.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 09:39 AM

"I do not pass any judgement Derrick.
I just acknowledge that culpability is disputed by historians, which it is."
True Keith, but you do also claim that most or a majority (seems to vary from post to post) favour the revisionist viewpoint,thus giving the impression that you tend to agree with them.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 09:38 AM

"So Jim, do you acknowledge that many historians dispute culpability,"
No idea, neither do you
I do know that the Revisionist approach has been turned on its head and is no longer in the majority, obverwhelming or otherwise, as you have been claiming
Look Keith, personally I'm not prepared to argue 'my historian is bigger than your historian' with somebody who doesn't read and is not interested - left that behing me in infants' school.
If you want to challenge the facts as facts - do so - otherwise, find somebody else who isn't interested and talk to them.
Your manic bad behaviour here has really blown it with me, and, suspect, everybody else.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 09:25 AM

Guest,
I see we're back to many and most. An upgrade from yesterdays some.

Let me clarify.
Twenty years ago Kinealy stated that revisionists dominate.
Jim claimed it has changed since then, but was unable to substantiate that with anything at all.

Recent quotes from Coogan and Kennedy ("no reputable historian believes") suggest it is still true.

That is why I just said, "many and probably most historians do not agree with you on culpability."

OK?

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 09:16 AM

So Jim, do you acknowledge that many historians dispute culpability, or are you denying it again?

Derrick,
Keith by his own admission knows little or nothing about the subject and is not qualified to pass judgement,

I do not pass any judgement Derrick.
I just acknowledge that culpability is disputed by historians, which it is.
Right Jim?

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 07:31 AM

If you want a modern comparison to what happened during the Famine - try Thatcherism
Both were based on Adam Smith Economics and the results, though not as extreme, were not unsimilar
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 07:00 AM

As far as I can judge, there really is no argument as to the facts surrounding the Famine
How the two British Governments reacted to what was a natural disaster is fully recorded and a matter of record.
One Government, under Robert Peel, put into place limited assistance to for the victims, the Russell Government dismantled those measures and sold famine relief to the victims.
None of this is questioned anywhere, though it is played down among certain reasons by pragmatic politicians who see the relationship between Britain and Ireland more important than pointing fingers (clearly outlined in Kineally's analysis on revisionism.)
What is in question is the reason that Russell's Government behaved the way they did and whether there was a political motive behind it.
That is what is disputed and much revolves around the new evidence presented in Coogan's 'The Famine Plot'
It really doesn't get more complicated than that, as far as I can judge.
Jim Carroll