BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 08:34 AM

Your previously quoted statement says that your last post is not a representation of your belief.


Keith states that HISTORIAN differ on who is to blame for the Famine.

There has been a case that that Great Britain made every effort that was possible AT THE TIME to deal with the famine as best as they could.

You have attempted to say they could have done more.

Please state what else could have done, and LISTEN to what others present about why that may or may not have been possible. You may not agree, but you should listen and PRESENT THE REASONS YOU THINK OTHERWISE. Otherwise, stop posting how horrible the famine was- WE ALL AGREE it was bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 08:25 AM

"Why, when you have no interest in other's opinions "
Yes I do - if I wanted Daleks I'll watch Dr Who
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 07:58 AM

Why, when you have no interest in other's opinions or any evidence that they MAY provide if it conflicts with what you want to believe, and force the rest of us to believe?

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 07:56 AM

"The truth is out!!"
Feel free to take part Bruceie, otherwise, mind your own business
You may have started this thread, for which I am grateful, but unless you have anything further to add on the subject, please allow those of us who have to get on with it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 07:16 AM

The truth is out!!


"From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 06:09 AM
…
I don't give a monkey's **** what your case is, neither does anybody else "






Sure is nice to see an open-minded, fair discussion of the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 07:12 AM

Nobody cares anymore Keith
If you continue with this I'll report you for stalking
Get help
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 07:10 AM

Jim,
By the way - just been revisiting the old thread you kindly linked us to and am checking out and making a list of your statements there tpoo compare them with your claim of what you have "only been interested in - which is not defending Britain"

How is it going?
Nothing so far?

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 06:52 AM

Jim, do you deny that revisionist historians exist, or that they "deny culpability" and "rehabilitate" the British Government (Kinealy)?

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 06:49 AM

There - you've got your 500 - now piss off
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 06:15 AM

FACT, revisionism is a large school of famine historians.
The largest in fact.
Deny that fact Jim?


Jim, do you deny that revisionist historians exist, or that they "deny culpability" and "rehabilitate" the British Government (Kinealy)?

Answer please.
If you do not deny it, and do not lie about it again, I will indeed stop posting on this subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 06:09 AM

"Jim, my only case is that culpability"
The Facts man - the facts.
I don't give a monkey's **** what your case is, neither does anybody else
You are a Trollie little turd
Piss off, as you promised and stao cyberstalking
You too, have a good day
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 06:09 AM

"Jim, my only case is that culpability"
The Facts man - the facts.
I don't give a monkey's **** what your case is, neither does anybody else
You are a Trollie little turd
Piss off, as you promised and stao cyberstalking
You too, have a good day
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 06:06 AM

STARVATION AMONG PLENTY
Although the potato crop failed, the country was still producing and exporting more than enough grain crops to feed the population. Records show during the period Ireland was exporting approximately thirty to fifty shiploads per day of food produce. As a consequence of these exports and a number of other factors such as land acquisition, absentee landlords and the effect of the 1690 penal laws, the Great Famine today is viewed by a number of historical academics as a form of either direct or indirect genocide.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 06:02 AM

Jim, my only case is that culpability is disputed by historians.
I only need one example for that but there are many more out there.
You just never read them.
Neither do I, but Kinealy affirms that they are the majority.

Jim, do you deny that revisionist historians exist, or that they "deny" culpability and "rehabilitate" the British Government (Kinealy)?

(NOT rhetorical questions Jim. Answer please.)

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 05:51 AM

SOUPERISM was a phenomenon of the Irish Potato Famine. Protestant Bible societies set up schools in which starving children were fed, on the condition of receiving Protestant based religious instruction at the same time. Its practitioners were reviled by the Catholic families who had to choose between their faith and starvation. People who converted for food were known as soupers, a derogatory epithet that continued to be applied and featured in the press well into the 1870s. In the words of their peers: they "took the soup".
One example of souperism was the Reverend Edward Nagle, who instituted 34 schools where religious instruction and meals were provided. However, souperism was rarely that simple, and not all non-Catholics made being subject to proselytisation a condition of food aid. Several Anglicans, including the Anglican Archbishop of Dublin, Richard Whately, decried the practice; many Anglicans set up soup kitchens that did no proselytising; and the Quakers, whose soup kitchens were concerned solely with charitable work, were never associated with the practice (which causes them to be held in high regard in Ireland even today, with many Irish remembering the Quakers with the remark "They fed us in the famine.").
Soupers were frequently ostracised by their own community, and were strongly denounced from the pulpit by the Catholic priesthood. On occasion, soupers had to be protected by British soldiers from other Catholics.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 05:39 AM

Those are the documented facts - all available from those masses f information you have been given and full accepted by all, from your "definitive" Mrs Woodham Smith to Christine Kenealy and Robert Neilson - and everone in between.
Denial and evasion just doesn't hack it any more.
Deal with them all or shuffle back to your cave, you thuggish moron - oh, and have a good day.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 05:39 AM

Those are the documented facts - all available from those masses f information you have been given and full accepted by all, from your "definitive" Mrs Woodham Smith to Christine Kenealy and Robert Neilson - and everone in between.
Denial and evasion just doesn't hack it any more.
Deal with them all or shuffle back to your cave, you thuggish moron - oh, and have a good day.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 05:09 AM

Awwww Christmas!!!

"answer the points or shamble your way into the sunset dragging your knuckles along the ground as you go"

What were your objections to the depictions in those "Punch Cartoons" again? What were descriptions in the Times articles that you were so shocked and horrified at? Aye Carroll you are a true disciple of supremacist, racist and pro-slavery John Mitchel from head to toe.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 05:04 AM

1: " Ireland's rural economy was developed from the beginning of the 19th century to serve the British Empire."

Complete and utter balderdash, the problem with Ireland that jumped up and bit it on the arse in the 19th Century was that it had not developed at all: no agricultural revolution, no agrarian reformers and apart from a few exceptions in the North no industrial revolution or development. But just to tag along with this idiotic premise pray tell who it was that orchestrated the development of this rural economy and what changes were introduced. Precisely how did it "serve" the British Empire?

2: The change over from Peel's Tory Government to Russell's Whig one took place on the 30th June 1846. You say that as part and parcel of this changeover Peel's relief scheme was dismantled. Taking into account the date of the changeover, could you then explain the following anomaly?

The figures for grain exports from and imports into Ireland between 1844 and 1848 (Expressed in thousands of tons) – Cormac Ó Gráda:

1844 Peel's Government - Exported 424 - Imported 30 - Non-famine year Corn Laws in place
1845 Peel's Government - Exported 513 - Imported 28 - Famine struck late in year, Corn Laws in place
1846 50% Peel/ 50% Russell - Exported 284 - Imported 197 - First full year of the famine Corn Laws repealed
1847 Russell's Government - Exported 146 - Imported 889 - Black '47 Out of a population of some 7 million people Russell's Government is feeding 3 million.
1848 Russell's Government - Exported 314 - Imported 439

3: Any substantive proof that Trevelyan was a religious maniac – or is that just something that you have made up?

4: Question in the application of commonsense for you Christmas:
You are starving, your wife is starving and your children are starving – Somebody comes up to you and says, "Change your religion and we'll give you a bowl of soup". Assuming that your own life and the lives of your wife and children are important to you what is to stop you from changing your religion, keeping the family alive then when circumstances change renounce your new religion and revert to the old one?

5: " Throughout all this, enough food is being shipped out of Ireland to feed the population several times over."
MYTH of course you could try proving it, but Cormac Ó Gráda's figures contradict your statement. But again to go along with what you claim how do you get that food to those who need it before it rots? How is it paid for? Where does next seasons crop come from?

6: " The evictions continued for another half century, passing the arable Irish lands into the hands of absentee landlords"
So who actually owned the land at the time Christmas, the Cottiers or the Landlords? Rhetorical question the land belonged to the Landlord so there was no question of transferring ("passing") land into anybody's hands. By the way Christmas between 1845 and 1851 as people left the land allowing it to be farmed more efficiently did the numbers dying because of the famine increase or decrease? Did Ireland subsequently ever suffer another Famine? (I know there were periods of food shortages but was there ever another Famine?).

7: Ireland has been an independent country now for about 90 years, throughout that time Ireland and Ireland alone has been responsible for its own economic, commercial, industrial and agrarian development. If successive Irish Governments could not and cannot provide sufficient employment opportunities for its citizens how on earth can that be the fault of the British Government – you PRAT.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 04:17 AM

That goes for you Terpsichore - done watching you waltz your thuggish way around the facts - answer the points or shamble your way into the sunset dragging your knuckles along the ground as you go
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 04:13 AM

Right - here it is
Your "majority of historians" amounts to one single quote from an obscure journal (Freeman) by an obscure historian - that is all you have managed to come up with - that's that put to bed.
This is the Famine I understand it
Ireland's rural economy was developed from the beginning of the 19th century to serve the British Empire.
Along comes the potato blight to upset the potato cart.
The Peel Government, in a mixture of compassion and a recognition of duty to its subjects, sets up an inadequate scheme to offset some of the effects of the developing Famine.
The feeble scheme has hardly had time to take effect when Peel is replaced by Lord Russell.
Sir Charles Trevelyan, a religious maniac put in charge of Famine relief, who believes the the blight is God's punishment for Irish slothfulness and misdeeds, and that it provides Britain with an opportunity to solve 'The Irish problem', tells the Famine Relief Commissioners that "the landlords and other ratepayers are the parties who are both legally and morally answerable for affording due relief to the destitute poor", and sets about dismantling Peel's relief scheme.
He locks the grain warehouses and places them under armed guard, instructing that "relief should not be given but should be sold to the starving Irish - "Famine relief should not be allowed to interfere in any way with the free market".
At the height of the worst year of the Famine. 'Black '47', Trevelyan closes the overworked, understaffed, full to the gunnels workhouses, leaving a few in the worst hit areas to survive under charities run by Charity organisations such as the Quakers.
Some of these, run by Protestants adopt a policy of 'soupism' - simple put, "change your religion and we'll give you a bowl of soup".
Throughout all this, enough food is being shipped out of Ireland to feed the population several times over.
Famine relief ships, now in the hands of 'the free market', are subjected to deliberate delays in order to raise the market price of Charity bought grain; some ships crossed and re-crossed The Irish Sea up to four times before they were unloaded.
Nothing whatever was done to prevent this, presumably in line with Trevelyan's instructions that "nothing should be allowed to interfere in any way with the free market"
The Russell Government propose sending cargoes of food to offset the worst effects of the accelerating Famine; Trevelyan objects and the proposal is abandoned.   
In 'Black '47', evictions of bankrupt farmers begin in earnest; the evictions are backed by armed military force and teams of workmen whose job it is to demolish the former homes of those evicted; in some of the worst hit areas, like Skibbereen, West Cork, the technique was to set the thatched roofs ablaze and then demolish the smouldering shells with battering rams.
The starving poor are left to die on the side of the roads, some of the luck ones manage to dig holes in the earth like animals in attempts to survive the elements.
In 1846 a number of seagoing vessels were hastily assembled in order to ship out Famine refugees who had been given only two alternatives, 'emigrate or die', some of these vessels had previously used to ship slaves - in one year alone, 1847, 125,000 died en-rout to there 'chosen' new homes.
The evictions continued for another half century, passing the arable Irish lands into the hands of absentee landlords, which caused long-term agrarian unrest, land wars, and attempted revolution.
Emigration has become a permanent feature of Irish life right up to the present day; in the forty years of my association with Ireland I do not recall having met a single individual whose family has not been touched by Emigration - Britain's great legacy to Ireland.
There Keith - you want to be taken seriously, how about them apples, or should I say potatoes?
No more "historian" cobblers, your cover has been blown on that one - you have the unchallenged facts on the Famine - challenge them or go away, as promiAsed.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 03:48 AM

pdq, thanks for pointing out those differences for me, greatly appreciated.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 03:39 AM

Nielsen Christmas? Could that be this Robert Nielsen, the historian? The same Robert Nielsen who stated the following:

1: " Some people claim that the Great Famine was an act of genocide committed by the British Empire against the Irish people. This theory is most popular among Irish-Americans (who strangely enough are more nationalist than people from Ireland) and on the internet, though it has little if any credence in Ireland."

2: " 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."

Cormac Ó Gráda's book "The Great Irish Famine" gives figures covering 1844 to 1848. Which demonstrates the effects that the repeal of the Corn Laws early in 1846 on the import of food into Ireland in 1846, 1847 and 1848 (The worst years of the famine).

Canon John O'Rourke reached the following conclusion in his book on the Famine:

"It is no doubt premature to proclaim the end of the "revisionist/anti-revisionist" conflict on the Famine, though it remains doubtful whether it can serve any useful future purpose. Many key facts are clear: the Irish Famine was real, not artificial, food was extremely scarce; it could not have been solved by closing the ports; charges of genocide cannot be sustained. However it is undoubtedly the case that the British response was inadequate and was unduly influenced both by domestic political concerns such as repeal of the corn laws and by Providentialism. On the other hand, it is equally clear that the Irish political response was also dictated by matters such as Repeal of the Union and the power struggle between O'Connell and Young Ireland. Mitchel's subsequent savage indictment of British government Famine policy conceals the fact that he and his colleagues offered no workable alternative at the time. ALL, including the radical land theorist James Fintan Lalor looked to the Irish landlord class to solve the Famine crisis; AT LEAST THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT WAS LESS NAÏVE."


3: " The crucial question in whether or not it is genocide comes down to intent. Did the English government intend to destroy the Irish people? The answer is no. They were heartlessly negligent, but neglect is not the same as murder. There was never any plan to wipe out the Irish NOR ANY ACTIONS THAT COULD BE VIEWED AS SUCH. The government didn't directly kill anyone nor did they deliberatively destroy any food. In fact the relief aid, pathetic as it was, does damage the genocide argument. After all, why would the government set up soup kitchens if it wanted the Irish to die?"

4: " There never was intent to destroy the Irish. Had the government really wanted to exterminate the Irish, they would have done more than let natural disasters run their course. The claims by Coogan and others, while passionate, simply do not have enough evidence to support themselves."

On Tim Pat Coogan's Book "The Famine Plot" he says this:

" It is worth pointing out that historians have criticised Coogan's book. Having read it, I must agree that it lacks thoroughness and fails to back up its claim that the Famine was genocide. LITTLE EVIDENCE IS GIVEN AND THERE ARE SURPRISINGLY FEW SOURCES USED."

Liked this as an example of warped logic that totally misrepresents:

" Nationalists have avoided the question altogether"

So John Mitchel did not state that the Famine was Britain's fault? Give me one single writer on the subject of the Famine writing from a "Nationalist" viewpoint who does not state exactly the same thing (Incidentally normally using and quoting Mitchel as their "definitive" source {Like Tim Pat Coogan}).

The problem of those who espouse the "nationalist" cause from across the pond is that they could not give a stuff about whether or not their writings would "give comfort to dissident republicans". Irish-Americans after all had no qualms at all about donating money for guns and explosives, until of course they felt what being on the receiving end of indiscriminate terrorist attacks felt like, only then did they want international co-operation and action taken to prevent countries acting as state sponsors of terrorism (Afghanistan was attacked on that premise).

Viewing Cartoons and articles of the time through 21st century eyes and applying our mores and political correctness to them is idiotic. Those views of racial supremacy were prevalent at the time in many countries around the world and across a whole raft of issues and they were not the sole preserve of the British establishment, John Mitchel (A self-declared believer in his racial superiority) fully approved of slavery irrespective of colour, the British establishment had at least been committed to stamping out the practice of slavery and the slave trade for 50 years when Mitchel opened up "The Southern Citizen" in 1857. John Mitchel is the man who gave birth to the myth that Britain "caused" the Famine, he stated that for political reasons to further his own political agenda and just because he said it does not necessarily make it true, or make it a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 03:21 AM

Greg, you call me "fuckwit" yet again for saying culpability is disputed.

Does that mean you also do not believe there is any such thing as revisionist historians who "deny" culpability and "rehabilitate" the British Government (kinealy)

Really?
Even when the glaring truth of it is held in front of your silly nose, all you can do is close your eyes and say "fuckwit fuckwit fuckwit fuckwit.................................


What doe that make you Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 02:19 AM

Kinealy is not a revisionist herself, but acknowledges they are the majority view.
Why do you disbelieve her.
My case is just that culpability is disputed, and it is.

Greg, I said I would go when the fact of the dispute was accepted.
Jim pretended to accept it to shut me up.

"You can't seriously believe that my posting agreeing with you was anything more than an obviously ironic effort to shut you up?"

I took him at his word, hoping he was being honest for once.
He said that made me a "simpleton."
An honest simpleton at least.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 04:49 PM

By the way - just been revisiting the old thread you kindly linked us to and am checking out and making a list of your statements there tpoo compare them with your claim of what you have "only been interested in - which is not defending Britain"
Perhaps you would care to do the same in preparation.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 04:14 PM

Silly - wot me!
Though I do admit you have a huge support of one here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 04:11 PM

"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."
an out-of context selection - missing out the bits of closed warehouses, closed workhouses, continuance of exporting foods, closure of Famine relief schemes - all covered in her writings - summed up thus:
"The workhouse study for her doctorate led to an interest in the Famine. Even while working as an administrator for an American firm in Dublin and later for an organization based in the public records office in Belfast, she continued to dig into Famine records in her spare time. In the late 1980s when "tourists were not really going to Belfast, and there was high unemployment," she says, "I consciously included the city and the
Praised – and vilified – for her writing on the Famine, Kinealy says much of the criticism leveled at her was ideologically based and did not focus on the actual research. What she said about the Famine shook up some accepted interpretations. In her award-winning This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-52 (1994), in A Death-Dealing Famine: The Great Hunger in Ireland (1997), and in many other publications, she offered concrete evidence that the British government was fully aware of the gravity of the tragedy unfolding in Ireland during the potato blight, but, for reasons of economic and social philosophy, deliberately chose to limit its response.
"My conclusions were not what I expected," she says. "I never imagined I would find that the British knew what was going on. But my interpretation is what my sources have led me to." "
TRUTH AT LAST - KINEALY SAYS "IT WOS BRITAIN WOT DUNNIT"
There you go - horses mouth - now will you piss off, as promised?
Enough of this - you say you will not debate history
You refuse to respond to facts and continue to hide behind invented historical 'facts'
You will not debate the facts of the Famine.
I suggest you go away and come back when you are prepared to debate history on a thread on a historical subject.
Out
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 03:13 PM

By the way, fuckwit, you've said you were gone half a dozen times, yet here you are again.

And now, a musical interlude!

Pirates of Penzance, Gilbert & Sullivan:

GENERAL. Away! away! . .
POLICE. (Without moving.) Yes, yes, we go!
GENERAL. These pirates slay.
POLICE. Yes, yes, we go.
GENERAL. Then do not stay.
POLICE. We go, we go.
GENERAL. Then why all this delay?
POLICE. All right! We go, we go;
Yes, forward on the foe! Ho! ho! ho! ho!
We go, we go, we go! _ Tarantara-ra-ra !
GENERAL. Then forward on the foe!
ALL. Yes! forward !
POLICE. Yes! forward!
GENERAL. Yes! but you don't go!
POLICE. We go, we go, we go !
ALL. At last they really go ! Tarantara-ra-ra!

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 02:51 PM

The ones you have quoted have specifically blamed Te British policy for the effects of Famine

Not true.
"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."

Kinealy says that most historians do not ascribe blame even though she does.

There is a dispute, she is part of it, and that is my whole case.

You are wrong to deny it, and you have made yourself look silly over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 02:34 PM

"Teribus is an amazing historian and he does a great service to Mudcat by persisting, against vile attacks, to post Truth, not propaganda,"
Teribus is a loutish thug who attacks dead people
Whenever his arguments are dismantled, he pisses of for a few days to find some more ; then he brings them back to be torn to pieces once more
Then, thinking we've all forgotten, he brings the same ones back again, as he has just done here - absolutely brilliant!
He's an ill-brought-up lout who hasn't grasped his position at the lower end of the food-chain - no more
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: pdq
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 02:01 PM

Teribus is an amazing historian and he does a great service to Mudcat by persisting, against vile attacks, to post Truth, not propaganda,

I must, however, take issue with one of his points.

Thanks to my one course in epidemiology, I can say with certainty that typhus, cholera and typhoid fever are all quite distinct diseases.


cholera - Vibrio cholerae

typhus - part of a group of similar diseases caused by Rickettsia

typhoid fever - sometimes called typhoid — Salmonella enterica


All are bacterial and all are considederd filth diseases, often from poor sewage treatement, unclean living conditions or poor personal hygiene.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 01:28 PM

More good news from the Famine front
Jim Carroll

On May 15 there was much less, and on the 13th Coffin had written urging that opening should be postponed until further supplies had come in.14
Nevertheless, the opening took place. Routh directed Coffin to restrict issues as far as possible, to make no 'regular supply daily or monthly', to consider each issue as 'single in itself and dependent on the merits and truth of each separate representation', and to instruct all officers to 'distinguish between the usual scarcity of the season and the present extraordinary dearth'.
A rush followed; at about id. a pound the Government Indian corn was by far the cheapest food available, and depots everywhere were besieged. At Limerick, Coffin was writing two or three letters a day to relief committees to explain why demands could not be met; 'I am instructed not to promise any specific supply'; 'the aim of the depots is to maintain an equilibrium of prices, they are not intended to feed the whole population and are not adequate to do so'; 'Meal is not sold as the sole or even the principal resource for the period of want. . . .' These and similar letters were received by the com¬mittees throughout Ireland with angry indignation. 'They univer¬sally thought,' Coffin told Trevelyan, on June 4, 'all their demands would be filled and they had only to send a carter to the depot with money in his hand as to an ordinary shop.'15
Trevelyan's intentions were very different. Irish relief was to be restricted to a single operation; the government Indian corn, pur-chased at the orders of Sir Robert Peel, was to be placed in depots by the Commissariat, sold to the people—and that was the end. There was to be no replenishment, even if there was a sum of money in hand from sales; once supplies had been disposed of relief was over. In several letters, written with unusual boldness, Routh begged Trevelyan to allow further purchases. The demand on the depots was 'immense', far heavier than anything that had been anticipated, and it was increasing every day; surely the depots should remain open until September. The new potato crop would not provide any food whatsoever for the people before the middle of September at the earliest, while 'lumpers', the huge, coarse potato called the 'horse' potato, on which the people mainly depended,
would not be ready until the end of that month. Trevelyan refused; relief was to be brought to a close; possibly some depots might shut down a little later than others, but issues must shortly cease. By the end of June, 1846, government supplies were all but exhausted; on the 24th of that month, 5,000 bushels of Indian corn were all that remained in Cork and, at that, were unground,16 while in remote districts the people were starving. The revenue cutter, Eliza, making a visit of inspection, on June 22, to the Killeries, a wild district of mountain and deep ocean inlets in the far west, was implored for food by a boat-load of skeletons. The Commissariat officer at West-port, supply centre for the Killeries, had been instructed to send no more meal to the region because the depot was becoming empty.
One man, stated the officer in command, was lying on the bottom of the boat, unable to stand and already half dead, the others, with emaciated faces and prominent, staring eyeballs, were evidently in an advanced state of starvation. The officer reported to Sir James Dombrain, Inspector-General of the Coastguard Service, who had served on relief during the famine of 1839, and Sir James Dombrain, 'very inconveniently', wrote Routh, 'interfered'. He 'prevailed' on an officer at the Westport depot to issue meal, which he gave away free; he also 'prevailed' on the captain of the Government steam¬ship, Rhadamanthus, to take 100 tons of meal, intended for West-port, to the Coastguard Station at the Killeries. 'The Coast Guard with all their zeal and activity are too lavish,' wrote Routh to Trevelyan.17
Almost on the same date Coffin at Limerick wrote Trevelyan an urgent letter. He could not answer for the consequence if the depots were closed. 'Only issues of food,' he declared, 'keep the country peaceful . . . Only for the Government meal thousands would be now dying by the road side.' In a private letter to Routh, Coffin confessed himself bewildered and depressed. Intelligent, well-intentioned and widely experienced though he was, the state of Ireland baffled him. 'I sincerely hope August will see us out of our troubles,' he wrote; '. . . the most anxious and unsatisfactory task I ever undertook, working in the dark... I have often felt I could not go on any longer.'18
Nevertheless, on June 25, Routh received directions to carry out 'the closing measures of our present service'; supplies were to be transferred from less destitute to more destitute districts, demand cut down by raising prices, and the relief scheme wound up.
In a private letter to Routh, Trevelyan attributed the enormous demand on the depots to the low price at which the meal was sold; above all, to the fact that it was sold to persons suffering from distress, normal at the time of year, and not solely to persons whose distress was caused by the potato failure. Indiscriminate sales had 'brought the whole country on the depots, and without denying the existence of real and extensive distress', the numbers were beyond the power of the depots to cope with; they must therefore be closed down as soon as possible.19
Meanwhile, across the Channel, in London, dramatic events were taking place, and a change of Government was imminent.
Repeal of the Corn Laws was proving Peel's downfall. He was regarded with detestation by the Protectionists, who formed a large part of his own Party, and the Whigs, forced into the mortifying position of supporting their chief enemy, who had, they considered, stolen their principal measure, were consumed with vindictive fury. The ingenious mind of Benjamin Disraeli devised a way to bring Peel down. Whigs and Protectionist Tories must combine. Nothing could be done, as far as the Bill to repeal the Corn Laws was con¬cerned, since the Whigs could hardly vote against a measure with which they had been identified; but if the second reading of the Irish Coercion Bill, introduced by Peel in February, was opposed by a combination of Whigs and Protectionist Tories, the defeat of Peel was assured. There were difficulties, since both Lord George Ben-tinck, leader of the Protectionists, and Lord John Russell, the leader of the Whigs, had previously voted in favour of the Irish Coercion Bill; but scruples were overcome 'with boldness and dexterity'.
The momentous night was June 25, and by a curious coincidence, as the debate on Irish Coercion was in progress, messengers entered the House of Commons, returning with the Bill repealing the Corn Laws, which had just received the assent of the Lords. The debate was interrupted while 'Mr. Speaker, amidst profound silence, announced that the Lords had agreed to the . . . Bill... without any amendment'.
A few hours later the House divided on Irish Coercion; Disraeli's scheme succeeded, and Sir Robert Peel fell, defeated by a majority of 73 votes. His resignation was officially announced on June 29, 1846.
The majority which defeated Peel had no connection whatsoever with the real situation in Ireland. Indeed, the apathy of the House
of Commons with regard to Irish affairs was seldom more marked than during the discussions on the Coercion Bill. During the debate on the first reading Mr. Fitzgerald, Member for Tipperary, noted there were 'not half a dozen gentlemen on the benches opposite'; and when the Bill was debated for the second time there were not twenty-five Members present, and the number never rose to more than forty. As was said at the time, the majority which defeated Peel had 'as much to do with Ireland as Kamschatka'.20
The new Whig Government, under Lord John Russell, was more to Trevelyan's taste than Peel's administration. As a government servant he had no politics, but in private life he was a Whig, and his relations with Sir Robert Peel had not been happy. On July 6 he wrote in a private letter to Routh, 'The members of the new Govern¬ment began to come today to the Treasury. I think we shall have much reason to be satisfied with our new masters,' and he added, on the 13th, 'Nothing can be more gratifying to our feelings than the manner in which the new Chancellor of the Exchequer has appre¬ciated our exertions.'21
The new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Charles Wood, who succeeded as Sir Charles Wood, Bt., in December 1846 and was later created first Viscount Halifax, was congenial to Trevelyan. To a solid mind, he united a fixed dislike both of new expenditure and new taxes, and was a firm believer in laissez faire, preferring to let matters take their course and allow problems to be solved by 'natural means'. Head of an ancient Yorkshire family, he united love of liberty with reverence for property, a strong sense of public duty, lack of imagination and stubborn conservatism. Humanitarianism was not among his undoubted virtues. Charles Wood remained in office, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, for six years, and came increasingly under Trevelyan's influence. The two men were alike in outlook, conscientiousness and industry, and Charles Wood brought Trevelyan a further access of power in the administration of Irish relief.
Winding up relief was now pushed on vigorously, and on July 8 Trevelyan rejected a shipload of Indian corn. 'The cargo of the Sorciere is not wanted,' he wrote to Mr. Thomas Baring; 'her owners must dispose of it as they think proper. Mr. Baring sent congratulations 'on the termination of your feeding operations'. But Routh, in Ireland, was depressed. He sincerely hoped that con-gratulations might not prove premature; the pressure on the depots
was still increasing. 'This is a worse month than June,' he wrote.22
Trevelyan, however, had an urgent reason for wishing to get Sir Robert Peel's relief scheme for the 1845 failure cleared up and out of the way. He disagreed with it in several important respects, and during the last few weeks a new and alarming probability had become evident—there were unmistakable signs that the potato was about to fail again.
As early as February 16, 1846, new potatoes had been shown at meetings of the Horticultural Society in London 'in which the disease had manifested itself in a manner not to be mistaken', and on February 20, a question had been asked in the House of Commons. In reply Sir Robert Peel admitted that the potatoes 'exhibited the disease of last autumn', but added that they had been grown from sets of potatoes which were themselves slightly diseased.
Whether blight reappeared or not, however, the outlook for the potato crop was poor. Distributing seed potatoes had proved im-practicable. Immense quantities would have been needed, 'nearly a ton an acre', wrote Trevelyan, and there was neither an organization to buy such huge amounts nor means of conveying and distributing them.23
In April, Mr. E. B. Roche, Member for Cork, had warned the House of Commons that thousands of people were eating seed potatoes as a result of the refusal of the Government to open the depots; and on July 10 Routh reminded Trevelyan, 'You must remember we kept back all issues during the winter making the people consume their potatoes.' Routh estimated that the acreage of potatoes planted in 1846 was about one-third less than in 1845, and since the quantity of potatoes grown was never sufficient, except in a very good year, scarcity in the coming season was inevitable, unless the crop was overwhelmingly good.24
An overwhelmingly good crop, however, was what the people of Ireland persisted in expecting. There was a belief that plenty followed scarcity; the Irish temperament is naturally optimistic, and hope ran high. During May and June the weather was warm and the plants grew strong; on June 10 the Commissariat officer at Clonmel reported that the crop of early potatoes 'looks most abundant. It is generally supposed here that the crops have never looked better at this season'. On the 26th the Freeman's Journal
'most luxuriant'. In the spring there had been 'icy continuous drenching rain', but now the weather was 'most pro¬pitious for growing crops'.
True, on July 3 the Freeman's Journal noted reports of 'a few cases of potato disease', but 'not enough to cause any excitement' and, later, 'exaggeration' was rebuked: 'Every spot and blemish' was being 'magnified' into incipient disease.
Routh, however, who was receiving daily reports from every part of the country, could not be optimistic, and on July 14 he told Trevelyan, 'Disease is reappearing'. Three days later he wrote a letter of solemn warning: 'The reports of the new potato crop are very unfavourable. All letters and sources of information declare disease to be more prevalent this year than last in the early crop.' It was too soon to speak of the main crop, the 'people's crop', but he judged that most of the early crop had already been lost.25
Trevelyan considered these ominous facts as the strongest possible argument for winding up the present relief scheme with all possible haste. If Government relief was still available when the people became aware that another failure had occurred they would expect to be fed. 'The only way to prevent the people from becoming habitually dependent on Government,' he told Routh, on July 17, 'is to bring the operations to a close. The uncertainty about the new crop only makes it more necessary.' In a second letter he wrote, 'Whatever may be done hereafter, these things should be stopped now, or you run the risk of paralysing all private enterprise and having this country on you for an indefinite number of years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer supports this strongly.' Routh received instructions to close the Commissariat depots on August 15.
Had the decision rested with Routh he would not have closed the depots in the face of a second failure. However, he shrank from opposing Trevelyan; the training of a lifetime forbade it, and his admiration for Trevelyan's capacities was great. He tried therefore to convince himself that Trevelyan's policy was just and wise. 'The apprehensions for the new crop make it all the more necessary that we should close our present labours on August 15,' he wrote to some of his senior officers on July 20,'. . . so as to allow the Government time to make up their opinion as to the future, for if we were to remain at our stations and depots until the end of September when the fate of the late crop will be determined, it might be difficult to relieve us, and the authorities might be forced into a continuance of the same measures without a fair opportunity of consideration.'26
Trevelyan next turned his attention to the Board of Works. Of the bodies concerned with relief, the Board of Works had been the least satisfactory; not only Trevelyan, but Routh, declared 'the Board of Works has been a failure'; and on July 20, Trevelyan wrote, privately and peremptorily, to the chairman of the Board, Colonel Jones, telling him that the Board was to be reorganized. The reconstruction had been already drafted in a Treasury minute, and was, wrote Trevelyan firmly, 'as good as settled'.
The minute, dated July 21,1846, directed the closing of all public works, save in exceptional circumstances, on August 15, and also directed the reconstruction of the Board and the augmentation of its staff 'to meet the increased magnitude of the coming exigency'. Proper plans and estimates for works under the recent Acts were to be prepared now, in anticipation of the new emergency, in order that the confusion of the previous season might be avoided.
The Board of Works received the Treasury minute with indig¬nation. It was not possible or reasonable to stop works, without warning, at only three weeks' notice. How could works be left in their present state? Many roads were actually dangerous to the public; was this to be ignored? Local distress was already more urgent than ever, and immense new destitution was known to be impending.27
The Government gave way. An attempt was made to limit ex¬penditure, but in fact what amounted to a general renewal of relief works took place. Trevelyan became exasperated, and so much annoyance was evident in his letters that Routh ventured to remon-strate. The Board of Works, admittedly, had been a failure, but he was not sure, he wrote, on August 3, that the relief committees had been unsatisfactory: 'Pray if you put forth any public documents on the subject speak carefully of the Committees whose assistance you will certainly require next year. Praise if you like, but do not find fault, at least publicly; they are very sensitive and so are all the Irish.' Whatever their shortcomings, the relief committees had collected £98,003 by July 31, 1846, the largest sum ever raised in Ireland for the relief of distress; to this, £65,914 ioj. od. was added by the Lord-Lieutenant out of public funds, as the Government contribution.28
The Government had now accepted the fact that a second failure of the potato was about to occur, and Trevelyan was preparing plans. He was determined to pursue a new policy, a policy which all but reversed that of Peel.
Trevelyan and Charles Wood, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had decided that, in the second failure, there was to be no Govern-ment importation of food from abroad and no interference whatso¬ever with the laws of supply and demand; whatever might be done by starting public works and paying wages, the provision of food for Ireland was to be left entirely to private enterprise and private traders.29
The new policy was received by officials in Ireland with dismay, and on August 4 Routh pressed Trevelyan to import food, now and at once. 'You cannot answer the cry of want by a quotation from political economy. You ought to have 16,000 tons of Indian corn . .. you ought to have half of the supply which you require in the country before Christmas.' How great a quantity would be needed, wrote Routh, would be determined this month, when the main crop began to be dug.30
No preparations, however, even if preparations had been made on double the scale urged, could, in fact, have saved the Irish people from the fate which lay before them. Before the depots could be closed or the public works shut down, almost in a night, every potato in Ireland was lost. 'On the 27th of last month,' wrote Father Mathew to Trevelyan, on August 7, 'I passed from Cork to Dublin and this doomed plant bloomed in all the luxuriance of an abundant harvest. Returning on the third instant I beheld with sorrow one wide waste of putrefying vegetation. In many places the wretched people were seated on the fences of their decaying gardens, wringing their hands and wailing bitterly the destruction that had left them foodless.'
'I shall never forget,' wrote Captain Mann, a Coastguard officer employed in relief service, 'the change in one week in August. On the first occasion, on an official visit of inspection, I had passed over thirty-two miles thickly studded with potato fields in full bloom. The next time the face of the whole country was changed, the stalk remained bright green, but the leaves were all scorched black. It was the work of a night.'31
Sir James Dombrain reported that, in a tour of eight hundred miles during the first week in August, 'all is lost and gone'; the horrible stench from the diseased potatoes was 'perceptible as you travel along the road'; in Cork, on August 3, the stench from rotting potatoes was 'intolerable'. On August 7 Colonel Knox Gore, Lieutenant of County Sligo, found 'from Mullingar to May-nooth every field was black', and on August 8 the steward of the Ventry estates wrote that 'the fields in Kerry look as if fire had passed over them'. Failure was 'universal' in Ulster by August 7, and in Longford, Galway, King's County, Westmeath and Co. Dublin every potato was completely blighted.32
Disaster was universal. The failure of 1845 had, to some degree, been partial; the loss, though serious, had been unequally distri-buted, and the blighted areas 'isolated and detached'. The country, in Routh's words, had been 'like a checker board, black and white next door', and Trevelyan, summing up the first failure, was able to describe it as 'a probationary season of distress'.33
The difficulties experienced in administering Sir Robert Peel's relief scheme were due to the state of Ireland, the poverty, the unemployment, the annual semi-starvation which millions custom¬arily endured. It was these unfortunate wretches, 'the old habitual mass of want in Ireland', the 'fixed tide of distress which never ebbs' who, besieging the relief committee rooms and surging on to the public works in tens of thousands, had broken down the administrative machinery.
In the first failure, with the exception of the potatoes, the harvest had been above the average, and though distress was greatly intensi¬fied, yet thanks to the relief scheme the people in many districts had been better off than usual. Trevelyan, with whom John Ball agreed, wrote, 'In the first failure the people suffered less than in ordinary years, owing to the pains taken to prevent them from feeling want.'34
In the summer of 1846 the situation was very different. The harvest, generally, was poor, and the people were at the end of their resources. Every rag had been already pawned to buy food, every edible scrap had gone. The people were weakened and despairing. 'A stranger,' wrote a sub-inspector of police from County Cork, on August 4, 'would wonder how these wretched beings find food . . . Clothes being in pawn there is nothing to change. They sleep in their rags and have pawned their bedding.'35
The whole face of the country was changed. 'From the Giants Causeway to Cape Clear, from Limerick to Dublin, not a green field is to be seen.'Violent thunderstorms occurred: 'electricity'—lightning—was seen playing over the blackened fields, torrential rain fell, the country round Dublin was flooded, and an 'extra¬ordinary dense fog' was seen by Routh on August 6 to descend over blighted areas, 'cold and damp and close without any wind'.36
It is, declared a leader-writer in The Times on September 2, 'total annihilation'.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 01:06 PM

"Most historians do not blame anyone."
The ones you have quoted have specifically blamed Te British policy for the effects of Famine
You have had Kinealy's quote that it was the policy of closing down warehouses and workhouses and continuing to import food - they were her specific accusations - you refuse to acknowledge that, claiming that bore no blame.
Neilson said the same - you ignored that to.
You claim that Irish and Irish Americans have been brainwashed by Nationalist and Republican historians to make them hate Britain, using the Famine as an excuse -this is a total invention from your own twisted racist mind.
Kinealy points out that since the 1930s the question of blame has never been a feature of either education or history - Nationalists have avoided the question altogether because of Ireland's continuing reliance on Britain as a source for trade and as a bolt hole for continuing Irish Emigration
Historians have avoided the question because, again as you have had pointed out to you and have chosen to ignore, to raise the question of blame could "give comfort to dissident republicans" - no doubt you will ignore this in order to continue with your racist propaganda.
In the last dozen years historians have begun to debate blame; no-one has attempted to absolve Britain of er the facts you have had pointed out to you, but continue to ignore in order to continue with your "Rule Britannia" bit.
Some claim it was deliberate, the rest say it was cynical indifference based on anti- Irish racism - all, without exception, say the casualty figures were unnecessary and blame Britain totally for them - you have had all this but you ignore it because it doesn't suit your racist/nationalist agenda, and you will no doubt continue to do so.
You will also continue to ignore the facts of the famine that have been put before you, because they don't support your racist/nationalist agenda either.
Doesn't matter anyway - I'll continue to put them up just to see if your desperate searches finally do turn up a historian who doesn't blame Britain or in any way conradicts the facts.
The cynical attempts of you neanderthal mate to twist what few facts he is prepared to respond to is stomach-heaving - thou shall not kill semantics, the mark of a true historian.

He appears to be denying that the workhouses weren't closed now - even after there is documented evidence of Trevelyan announcing their closure and rejecting appeals from Government ministers to leave them open
As he has already pointed out - the Quakers and the county Guardians managed to keep a few open, despite receiving insufficient, and in most cases, no assistance whatever from Britain - he knows this as he has pointed it out himself.
The area Carlyle visited was among the worst hit, as can be seen from the description Carlyle gave.
The Government first cut, then abandoned altogether the famine relief programme and left it a responsibility of Charities.
He also issued orders that, with the exception of a few most desperate cases, relief should be sold at market prices.
He's had all this and both he any you have chosen to ignore it
His disgusting comparison with Ethiopia beats the lot.
Ireland was the direct responsibility of Britain - it washed its hands of that responsibility - the massive death toll was a direct consequence of British policy - intended or otherwise.
What makes the Irish Famine unique is that the British Government abandoned the Irish people with its 'Emigrate or die' policy - this has been stated by Irish historians as the major cause of the holocaust which took place, deliberately or though totally racist inspired indifference
Pair of moronic holocaust deniers
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 09:05 AM

Jim,
The historians you have quoted point out that they have not discussed blame - your own links contain that fact.
The "revisionists" you refer to are precisely those who have avoided blaming anyone -

You are finally getting it Jim.
Most historians do not blame anyone.
We agree at last.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 08:56 AM

More pointless, massive, self-contradictory, unattributed, cut'n'pastes then Christmas? Pity that you couldn't master the art of presenting them just a little bit better.

No such commandment by the way as - "Thou shalt not kill". The correct translation of that commandment is - "Thou shalt not do murder" - The former would prohibit and deny all, the essential and basic right of every living creature on this earth that of self-defence.

1666 eh funny that after that extended, and hardly harmonious, period of Cromwell's rule throughout the British Isles all the farmers and land-owners in Ireland suddenly have to be viewed as being Irish because of aid they sent to London (All those fat cattle). Yet when it comes to the Famine all the evil land owners and farmers in Ireland are English. By the bye Christmas there is a very good reason why aid was sent from Ireland to London in 1666, but I doubt that you would ever discover it, or ever own up to the reason for it.

"Carlyle first visited Ireland for four days in 1846, …………… [then again] ……….. made a comprehensive tour of Ireland in 1849 during which he visited a Westport workhouse [Along with its subsidiary workhouses and outdoor relief].

I thought you said that these had all been closed down Christmas??

Soup kitchens?? They'd been shut down too hadn't they? Yet during Black '47 and onwards until the famine was over they kept 3 million alive, hardly the deliberate act of genocide eh?

"The Poor Law Extension Act (1847) was the spawn of two conflicting ideological parents: one maintained that Irish property should pay for Irish poverty; die other that, for both ideological and economic reasons, relief should not be given outside the workhouse walls."

You say that Trevelyan pushed this through and strictly adhered to it yet as Carlyle found in 1849 those receiving aid amounted to 200,000 inside workhouses and "outdoor relief" was being given to a further 800,000 - so much for relief not being given outside workhouse walls.

Article 2 of the UN Convention on Genocide 1948 - has what relevance in discussing the events of one hundred years before? - Rhetorical question Christmas - IT HAS NONE.

Shorter Oxford Dictionary definition of Genocide = "The (attempted) deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group".

The policies adopted by the two British Governments in power between 1845 and 1851 could be described in many ways - "deliberate" and "systematic" - would not top the list of adjectives used to describe them.

Neither Government did anything to prevent extra food from being imported to Ireland. The 1815 Corn Laws were repealed to specifically allow this. Here by the way are the figures for grain exports from and imports into Ireland between 1844 and 1848 (Expressed in thousands of tons):

1844 - Exported 424 - Imported 30 - Non-famine year Corn Laws in place
1845 - Exported 513 - Imported 28 - Famine struck late in year, Corn Laws in place
1846 - Exported 284 - Imported 197 - First full year of the famine Corn Laws repealed
1847 - Exported 146 - Imported 889 - Black '47 Corn Laws repealed
1848 - Exported 314 - Imported 439

In the Highlands and Western isles of Scotland where the Famine struck just as hard as it did in the West of Ireland and lasted for a longer period (Until 1857), Scotland received only one-sixth of the relief given to Ireland.

The cause and nature of the blight was not understood at the time and an effective fungicide capable of combating the blight was not discovered until 1882. At the time in question there were no cures for common relapsing fevers, typhus or cholera, if Victoria's husband Prince Albert and the King and the heir to the throne of Portugal could die from contracting typhoid then what chance did anyone else have?

Purely a matter of perception in the Irish mind, particularly in the mind of Irish Americans, but what Keith states is true the point with regard to British Policy amounting to deliberate Genocide IS DISPUTED among historians of all shades who have studied the subject. Studies and works by modern historians have resulted in great doubt being cast on the conclusions reached in earlier works such as Cecil Woodham-Smith's "The Great Hunger" (Which Christmas I still think is a very good book).

The two Governments in power in Great Britain in the period 1845 to 1851 did more in terms of relief efforts and aid programmes than any other Government of any other country affected in Europe, yet you do not hear accusations of genocide leveled in any of the German States, in Russia, the Netherlands, France, Denmark or Norway. Within the British Isles themselves there have been no accusations of genocide voiced by the Scots who suffered a famine no less severe and more prolonged than the Irish. Odd isn't it that those historians asked to study the period were asked to do so just prior to the 150 anniversary of Black '47 and they were all Americans (Couldn't possibly have anything to do with marketing could it?).

In 1984 famine struck in Ethiopia it affected 8 million people, forcibly displaced millions and killed ~1 million (Any parallels in terms of scale?). In 1845 not a single Government in the world could have coped with what happened in Ireland. In 1985 not even a well co-ordinated effort by a combination of the richest countries in the world aided by every modern means of communication, transport, distribution, and with unlimited medical and financial resources managed to cope with what was unfolding in Ethiopia - was that a case of genocide on their part? The austerity measures recently forced upon the Irish Government by the IMF and the EU Commissioners that caused widespread unemployment particularly among the youth of Ireland prompting them to move abroad in an effort to find work - was that "ethnic cleansing" was that "genocide"?

Anyone studying the period and the subject objectively will view all the data and not just the bits that suit any preconceived ideas. They will not witter on about workhouse closures and ignore the fact that there were 30% more workhouses in Ireland in 1851 than there were in 1845. They will not parrot complete and utter crap about food exports and ignore the food imports that kept over 3 million Irish men, women and children alive in the worst year of the famine. They will not blithely dismiss as irrelevant and unimportant the complexities of the situation as it constantly evolved or difficulties that had to be overcome in terms of communications, planning and logistics.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 08:26 AM

"The nationalists have always blamed Britain."
The historians you have quoted point out that they have not discussed blame - your own links contain that fact.
The "revisionists" you refer to are precisely those who have avoided blaming anyone - see Kinealy's lecture on "Revisionism" - you have had it for long enough - her whole case has been this fact and yur case has been a total distortion of hers - which is, in fact, that the question of blame has been deliberately avoided so as not to "give comfort to the current nationalists".
You have built your entire case on a deliberate distortion of what she has to say.
This is how Kinealy describes Revisionism:
" 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"
Teribus is a Neanderthal thug who appears to have shuffled back to his cave; he, like you, has refused to address any of the points of Government policy on The Famine - please cite him as an authoritative historian - that really will make my day.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 07:51 AM

Discussion on blame for the famine has only taken place in the last dozen years,

Not true Jim.
The nationalists have always blamed Britain.
That is why "revisionists" are called "revisionists."

The revisionists challenged the old myths and their view has been dominant for almost ninety years.

All your pages of text are just a minority view, and a little balance was needed.

If you want to argue History, Teribus is your man and I hope you have learnt from him.
I just point out that culpability is disputed, and it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 07:24 AM

Neilson, who you also produced as a character witness for British behavior during the Famine, has said exactly the same thing, btw.
It seems your claimed "majority" has not just disappeared, but has imploded - gone in a puff of smoke - just like you wised Mokyr would Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 06:26 AM

"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;"
" Revisionism has dominated Irish historiography since the 1930s, and more intensely since the 1960s."
Precisely
Discussion on blame for the famine has only taken place in the last dozen years, virtually since the 150th centenary.
That is the bit of Kinealy's statement you have deliberately(?) left out.
Kinealy and all modern historians are now debating the causes of the famine; Kinealy and others you have quoted have all drawn attention to the fact that the issue of blame has not been discussed since the 1960s (hence here referring to that date has been because revisionists have been afraid to do so because of the developing situation in the North - she specifically makes the point that they have not wished to hand the dissident Republicans ammunition at a dangerous point in history - it's all there if you care to read it - if you haven't already and deliberately ignored it.
I think that just about wraps up your case for "majority historians" - don't you?
Now will you go away - fall on your sword like a good Samurai should
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 05:56 AM

I have consistently claimed that many historians do not find Britain culpable, and that you were not presenting a balanced view.
Kinealy revealed that they are the dominant view.

"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;"

" Revisionism has dominated Irish historiography since the 1930s, and more intensely since the 1960s."

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 05:39 AM

Your consistent claim of majority historians is based on a quote from Kinealy - that is the sole basis for your claim
"It was Kinealy who stated that they are a majority."
Kinealy said that the majority of historians have avoided the causes and the culprits of the Famine, not that they don't blame Britain - she herself blames Britain's refusal to act to assist Ireland, as does every other historian you have quoted - she goes further to say that what Britain did do was exactly the opposite of assisting - you have the quote of her making this statement.
Your case of "majority" is based on your having deliberately twisted the writings of a historian who is saying exactly the opposite.
If you can show that she is claiming that the majority "don't blame Britain" - please produce it.
If you can show that any historian has made such a claim - please produce it.
I am producing documented facts based on documentation contemporary to the Famine, so far from half a dozen hsirtorians (plenty more to come) - if you can show that it is not true, invented, made up, revisionist - whatever nonsense you choose to hise behine, please produce it - otherwise, go away as you promised and don't make yourself more of a lying idiot than you have so far.
Now - MAJORITY HISTORIANS PLEASE should be fairly simple.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 05:23 AM

No you haven't - how could you if you haven't read any of them.

But I have Jim.
Just not their books.
I am sure Kinealy is very widely read and she states, quite unequivocally, that revisionist historians (who do not find Britain culpable) are dominant and have been for nearly ninety years.

You are posting your view, in vast swathes of pasted text, as if it was widely believed.
It is just a minority view.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 05:17 AM

"I have produced quotes by historians disputing culpability."
No you haven't - how could you if you haven't read any of them.
But not the point anyway.
You have been presented with facts on Britain's behavior in Ireland - nobody has disputed them - or if they have, you have not even attempted to deny them - they are facts.
I know you have no opinion about history, nor have you any knowledge
The Irish Famine is a historical topic - if you are not interested, go away and stop trolling a subject you have admitted having no interest in
Some more facts from yest again more historians.
Jim Carroll

Episode 183
'GIVE US FOOD, OR WE PERISH'
When the potato blight struck for a second time in 1846, every part of Ireland was affected. Father Theobald Mathew, after travelling from Dublin to Cork, wrote to Charles Trevelyan, head of the Treasury, on 7 August:
I beheld with sorrow one wide waste of putrefying vegetation. In many places the wretched people were seated on the fences of their decaying gardens, wringing their hands and wailing bitterly the destruction.... The food of a whole nation has perished.
What should the government do? Trevelyan devised a new system of public works in August. To fit in with Trevelyan's free market philosophy, warmly shared by the Whig government, the works were not to compete with capital¬ist enterprise, and they were confined to building walls, roads, bridges, cause¬ways and fences. The new relief works were to be financed entirely out of rates—Irish property was to pay for Irish poverty. It was not until October that this cumbersome bureaucracy (eventually numbering 12,000 officials) could issue tickets giving employment to those considered sufficiently destitute.
Commissary-General Sir Randolph Routh suggested that the Irish ports should be closed to stop the further export of corn. This proposal was firmly rejected by Trevelyan, who told Routh on 3 September: 'Do not encourage the idea of prohibiting exports, perfect Free Trade is the right course.' For once, Routh dared to disagree with his superior. By the end of the harvest 60,000 tons of oats alone would have left the country, he explained. But Trevelyan, fully supported by Prime Minister Lord John Russell, vehemently opposed such a radical step: 'We beg of you not to countenance in any way the idea of prohibiting exportation.... There cannot be a doubt that it would inflict a permanent injury on the country.'
All this time the depots providing subsidised Indian corn, set up by Peel's Tory government in the previous year, were being closed down. Too late in the day Trevelyan decided to attempt to buy com abroad. The harvest across Europe in 1846 had been very poor, and there was no surplus for sale. The American maize harvest had already mostly been bought up. Even if corn could be purchased, it would not be ready for transportation until December, a month when American rivers were mostly frozen over. And yet oats, wheat and barley, grown and harvested in Ireland, continued to be shipped out of the country across the Irish Sea.
On 3 October 1846 the Repeal journal, the Vindicator, made a simple appeal:
'Give us food, or we perish,' is now the loudest cry that is heard in this unfortunate country. It is heard in every corner of the island—it breaks in like some awful spectre on the festive revelry of the rich—it startles and appals the merchant at his desk, the landlord in his office, the scholar in his study, the minister in his council-room, and the priest at the altar. 'Give us food, or we perish.' It is a strange popular cry to be heard within the limits of the powerful and wealthy British empire.... Russia wants liberty, Prussia wants a constitution, Switzerland wants religion, Spain wants a king, Ireland alone wants food.
Lord John Russell's government opposed such a simple solution: the starving must buy food with money earned on public works. But there were agonising delays before many of the relief schemes opened. The relief works were hampered by a shortage of handcarts and wheelbarrows, a lack of engineers to direct operations, and heavy falls of snow. The longest and most severe winter in living memory had begun.
During the first weeks of 1847 the weather deteriorated even further. From the north-east blew 'perfect hurricanes of snow, hail and sleet' which caused the famished labourers on the relief works to collapse from exposure.
On 17 January George Dawson, wrote from Castledawson, Co. Londonderry, to Sir Thomas Fremantle, a former Irish Chief Secretary:
My dear Fremantle,
... I can think of nothing else than the wretched condition of this wretched people.... I do not exaggerate when I tell you that from the moment I open my hall door in the morning until dark, I have a crowd of women and children crying out for something to save them from starving. The men, except the old and infirm, stay away and show the greatest patience and resignation. I have been obliged to turn my kitchen into a bakery and soup shop to enable me to feed the miserable children and mothers that cannot be sent away empty. So great is their distress that they actually faint on getting food into their stomachs.... Death is dealing severely and consigning many to an untimely tomb.... I see enough to make the heart sick.... Hundreds will die of starvation.
And, as we shall see, during that terrible winter of 1846-7 conditions were even worse in the west and the south.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 04:41 AM

I have produced quotes by historians disputing culpability.

The quotes were given with links so they could be seen in context.

I have produced actual historians disputing culpability, and Kinealy refers to others and confirms they are dominant.

I have no opinion about the History, but you are giving a minority view as if it is the only one.

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 04:14 AM

"How about some balance?"
Put your balanced argument - you haven't so far, you've just hidden behind historians you haven't read
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 03:51 AM

"Jim, you are still posting at great length a version of events that you conceded is not endorsed by most historians!"
By the way - where on earth have I ever conceded that my view is not endorsed by most historians
You can't seriously believe that my posting agreeing with you was anything more than an obviously ironic effort to shut you up?
Are you really that much of a simpleton?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 03:22 AM

Meant to say that none of these postings are for you - nobody on this forum (except the thug) takes you seriously any more, if they ever did.
Your eccentrically dishonest behaviour lately has made sure of that.
Anyway - you said you were going - you've gone (unless you lied about that as well)
There you go - more to come
Jim Carroll

There is no historical evidence implicating the British govern¬ment in a conspiracy to exterminate the population of Ireland, but many government officials, as well as those advising them, looked upon the famine as a God-sent solution to the so-called Irish question. One such was Nassau Senior, professor of polit¬ical economy at Oxford and a staunch supporter of the views of the British treasury. Senior did not hesitate to express him¬self on the Irish question, and after doing so to an Oxford colleague named Benjamin Jowett, the latter remarked: "I have always felt a certain horror of political economists, since I heard one of them say that he feared the famine ... in Ireland would not kill more than a million people, and that would scarcely be enough to do any good."22
This cool regret that the famine would do away with only a million (instead of the earlier estimated two million, which turned out to be closer to the mark) was shared by those in gov¬ernment as well, who spoke publicly of the Irish as though they were unfit to be included in the human race. Poulett Scrope, a member of Parliament, said that traveling from En¬gland to Ireland was like going back through history "from an age of civilization and science to one of ignorance and bar¬barism." Even Thomas Macaulay, who criticized England for not "elevating" the Irish, called Ireland a perverse and ob¬stinate exception to the progress shared by her European neighbors—"a marsh saturated with the vapours of the At¬lantic."23
Sir Charles Trevelyan remarked in 1846 that "the great evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people." He then turned not to "popery" or to the "idolatry" of the Roman Catholic Church but to God Himself, that Great Disposer of Events, whose intentions were as unfathomable as they were holy and unas¬sailable, and attributed the famine to Him. Since the Almighty had willed it, the English government would be presumptuous indeed to attempt any rash or precipitous solution. The Irish problem and overpopulation were, in his eyes, one and the same, and "being altogether beyond the power of man, the cure had been applied by the direct stroke of an all-wise Prov¬idence in a manner as unexpected and as unthought of as it is likely to be effectual."21
Later, in 1848, he admitted that the matter was "awfully serious," but added, "we are in the hands of Providence, with¬out a possibility of averting the catastrophe if it is to happen." By then, though another half-million Irish had died, what Trevelyan perceived as catastrophe had still not happened. Obviously prepared to see the entire population wiped out, he said, "We can only wait the result." He even went so far as to pity the Irish for not appreciating the hopelessness of their situation: "It is hard upon the poor people that they should be deprived of knowing that they are suffering from an affliction of God's providence."25
The idea that the famine in Ireland was the work of Prov¬idence gained more and more adherents among Anglican churchmen and government officials as the crisis deepened and the deaths from starvation and disease increased. God was blamed for the British government's sins of omission, its own dismal failure to act in time with a power and purse com¬mensurate with a disaster that was soon to be ten times greater then the Great Plague of London in 1665, when the Black Death killed off between sixty thousand and a hundred thou¬sand people. Four hundred thousand had already died in Ire¬land, the deaths were on the increase, and the government was still calling it a "local distress." Nor was it forgotten by the Irish that after the Great Fire of London, in 1666, when a blaze lasting five days virtually destroyed the city, including St. Paul's, the Irish contributed for the relief of distressed Lon¬doners twenty thousand fat cattle, whose value in 1846-47, when the Irish were starving, far exceeded the relief sent to Ireland from England and Europe.26
Trevelyan's "affliction of God's providence" remark was made during 1847, the very year that a government statistical commissioner, Captain Larcom, found the total value of the agricultural produce of Ireland for that year to be £44,958,120, enough to feed, at least during the desperate famine months, not only the eight million people living in Ireland but another eight million besides. Trevelyan could not have been unaware of what happened to this produce. In every harbor in Ireland during this period, a ship sailing in with Indian maize from America passed half a dozen British ships sailing out with Irish wheat, oats, and cattle. But in Trevelyan's eyes, and in the eyes of most members of Parliament, England was exoner¬ated from any guilt because all agreed "that there must be no interference with the natural course of trade."
"They call it God's famine!" cried a distraught Bishop Hughes from a pulpit in New York City. "No!—-No! God's famine is known by the general scarcity of food which is its consequence. There is no general scarcity. . . . But political economy, finding Ireland too poor to buy the produce of its own labor, exported that harvest to a better market, and left the people to die of famine, or to live by alms."27
France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, and Russia all suffered a potato blight in 1846-47. But unlike British-ruled Ire-land, they stopped all other food exports to make up for the loss. With virtually its whole population starving, Ireland under self-rule would have done the same thing. Indeed, the Irish Parliament of the eighteenth century, before the union with Britain in 1800, had more than once in times of distress prohibited the export of grain. But Ireland under British rule was powerless to counter the blight as other countries did. The potato had become the crucial food because all other food produced in Ireland was destined under Britain's economic scheme to be eaten elsewhere. It was the scheme, rather than the lives the Irish were losing, that British government officials held sacred.
Trevelyan had not even taken the trouble to visit Ireland and see with his own eyes the degradation he discussed with such glib simplicity and lofty detachment. Another English¬man who did take the trouble, William Bennett, vehemently contradicted Trevelyan's attempt to exonerate England by at¬tributing the havoc to God's will. The west of Ireland, he said, "exhibited a people not in the center of Africa, the steppes of Asia, the backwoods of America,—not some newly-discovered tribe of South Australia, or among the Polynesian Islands,—not Hottentots, Bushmen, or Esquimaux,-—neither Mohomedans nor Pagans,—but some millions of our own Christian nation at home . . . living in a state and condition low and degraded to a degree unheard of before in any civilized community; driven periodically to the borders of starvation; and now re¬duced by a national calamity to an exigency which all the efforts of benevolence can only mitigate, not control; and under which thousands are not merely pining away in misery and wretchedness, but are dying like cattle off the face of the earth, from want and its kindred horrors! Is this to be regarded in the light of a Divine dispensation and punishment? Before we can safely arrive at such a conclusion, we must be satisfied that human agency and legislation, individual oppressions, and social relationships, have had no hand in it."28
Even English writers and poets were among the critics of the Irish, and if they refrained from rejoicing in the famine's decimation of the people, they did not hesitate to wish that the troublesome island would somehow go away. When Alfred Nobel invented dynamite in Sweden, England's poet laureate, Alfred Tennyson, calling the Irish "furious fools" who "live in a horrible island and have no history of their own worth the least notice," hit upon what he apparently considered a splendid idea: "Could not anyone blow up that horrible island with dynamite and carry it off in pieces—a long way off?"29
These harsh expressions of suppressed English guilt in¬creased as the situation in Ireland became more desperate. Instead of wishing Ireland blown up and carried off in pieces, the English could have given the horrible island back to the Irish. Had they done so, there would have been no starvation, at least not in Ireland, where the produce earmarked for con¬sumption in England would have been beyond the capacity of the Irish to consume themselves.
But Ireland was too close and, after suffering seven cen¬turies of oppression, too hostile to be set free. She was at once a vital and gangrenous member of the British Empire, a back¬yard dominion whose people under any other flag would be a constant threat. Besides, England continued to profit from the arrangement, while Ireland continued to display the same deep and hideous wounds. The wheat, barley, oats, and live cattle, sheep, and pigs continued to flow in only one direction —from Ireland to England. In the other direction flowed the manufactured goods from England, the clothing, saddles, har¬nesses, soap, and machinery that only 10 percent of the Irish population could afford to buy. From 1800, when the union was formed, to the time of this terrible famine, manufacturing of all kinds, and especially of cloth (an Irish specialty), was systematically discouraged until Ireland became an agricul¬tural country dependent upon the manufactured goods of En¬gland. Irish farmers continued to use and mend their old farm¬ing tools and equipment; their wives still wove cloth and made coats for their children, but manufactured goods came mostly from England, at the expense of Ireland's economy and to the advantage of England's.30
As one old, foresighted Irishman put it during these awful years of the famine: "Ah, the answer is in the tea leaves, if only you will wait for them to settle."31

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 03:03 AM

You have no idea what most historians deny as you haven't read any of them - so to say that "most historians believe" anything is a blatant fabrication - an invention on your part.
What you are being presented with here are a list of facts from three historians - so far - there will be more
The last item came with opinions which are directly related to facts.
All the facts are linked to footnotes which are traceable so the idea that they are invented is out of the question - they can be checked because they can be followed up by any anybody who reads the books - all documented and annotated.
You are not in a position to challenge the facts (not until you read a book) so you hide behind your cut-'n-pastes - all of which have fallen apart on you - every single one.
Another big one coming up I'm afraid.
It doesn't matter that you have not responded to any ogf the facts - you are out of this - you've never been in, just a pest who has trolled your way into a discussion to prove "Britain didn't do nuffin'" as usual.
Facts man - facts, that what will make a point - not the selective politicking you constantly indulge in
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 02:24 AM

Yes, but as you agreed, most historians deny culpability.

You are posting vast acreages of a minority opinion.
How about some balance?