AHC: Large scale British relief during Irish Famine

[Morty Vicar]

I like the above poem!

And to me, it does a very good job of answering the question, What is the depth of feeling on the part of the Irish toward the English for letting them down? Now, dry academic sources may also address this question. And I'd prefer to have both. But if I was pressed to choose between the two of them, I'll take the poetry.

Ok, but you have to bear in mind it is not an unbiased historical account. It is written from an Irish nationalist perspective, by it's very nature it will martyrise the Irish and demonise the English. When you take this paradigm of 'good and evil' it will inevitably twist historical events into a narrative, which often results in a skewed and inaccurate version of historical events.

My sincere apologies to whoever was offended and raised the issue with Calbear, but it's actually a folksong, written in the 1970s, by Pete St. John (a Dubliner, as in the Republic) and recorded by everyone from Danny Doyle to Sir James Galway, Order of the British Empire.

I wasn't offended, I reported the post because this thread has become political, if indeed it wasn't intended as such from the start, so I thought it should be moved to political chat.

IMOAAVHO, it's about as much a "rebel song" as Waltzing Matilda or Un Canadien Errant or Over the Hills and Far Away or even We Shall Overcome ... not exactly My Little Armalite, but be that as it may...

Even these lines?

Against the famine and the Crown,
I rebelled, they cut me down.
Now you must raise our child with dignity.

In a modern context the song is used almost exclusively by Irish nationalists, as part of a political agenda. It's one of the favourite songs of Celtic FC fans, as part of the sectarian culture in Glasgow. Whilst it may have some historical interest, it is not an historic document as such, it is a piece of political propaganda essentially. That is why I thought it best be moved to the political discussion. I'm sure you'd feel the same way if I posted the lyrics of Fields of Ulster, Father's Advice, or the Famine Song for that matter.

Best

 

[AussieHawker]

Couldn't there be a POD before the Irish famine where there is large scale clearing of Irish peasants for large scale farming and pasturing. The Irish would then be sent off to the colonies to build up their population. While sure the forced clearing of the Irish would still be bad it could help stop the famine from being as bad.

 

[Thande]

2) the government of the day in Britain was "Free trade", non-interventionist. Producing THAT scale of aid would require a rather different political philosophy. Since push for free trade had been under way for a generation or more, you need a PoD at least 20 years beforehand.

Just to further expand on this point, a modern equivalent might be something like...a crisis happens in Texas and President Obama is keen to help, but for some reason helping effectively would require repealing all the healthcare legislation passed since 2008.

Or perhaps even a crisis happens in Germany in 1993 and the only way to solve it is to reverse German reunification.

British politicians had been trying for decades to destroy the Corn Laws and bring in free trade to help hungry people in England rather than the wealthy agricultural producers. And they had just barely succeeded when the Irish famine hit. It's tragic, but the idea of violating the hard-won free trade at that point was anathema. I honestly think they'd have remained just as loyal to free trade even if it was the English who were starving, it was just an article of faith to them.

 

[Morty Vicar]

Just to further expand on this point, a modern equivalent might be something like...a crisis happens in Texas and President Obama is keen to help, but for some reason helping effectively would require repealing all the healthcare legislation passed since 2008.

Or perhaps even a crisis happens in Germany in 1993 and the only way to solve it is to reverse German reunification.

British politicians had been trying for decades to destroy the Corn Laws and bring in free trade to help hungry people in England rather than the wealthy agricultural producers. And they had just barely succeeded when the Irish famine hit. It's tragic, but the idea of violating the hard-won free trade at that point was anathema. I honestly think they'd have remained just as loyal to free trade even if it was the English who were starving, it was just an article of faith to them.

Agreed. The blight also severely affected the Highlands of Scotland, and they had almost the exact same situation and response. This is one of the reasons I don't accept this as a purposeful attack on Ireland, or more specifically Irish Catholics. The other is that many of the victims of the famine were Protestant British subjects, and that in the context of the time large scale relief work was virtually unheard of. If you look at the other areas of Europe affected by the blight you will probably find the same exact lack of support from the relevant governments, 100,000 people died in Europe for example, 40-50,000 in Belgium, 42,000 in Prussia, 10,000 in France, all of which I am sure are easier to provide relief for than Ireland.

 

[TFSmith121]

Fair enough -- but do you really feel the victims of the Famine

Ok, but you have to bear in mind it is not an unbiased historical account. It is written from an Irish nationalist perspective, by it's very nature it will martyrise the Irish and demonise the English.

Fair enough -- but do you really feel the victims of the Famine are inappropriately "martyrised"? They don't just count as being martyrs, period? Three to four million dead and/or refugees from hunger in the middle of plenty don't count as martyrs, just on general principles?

Along the lines of historical documents, would A Nation Once Again by Thomas O. Davis count? It was written in the Nineteenth Century (before the Famine, however) but is certainly "biased"...

But then, so is Jerusalem ... and Rule, Brittania, for that matter. Most anthems and ballads are, after all. So are the Blues...

Actually, I wouldn't really care one way or the other what you posted, in terms of Unionist "anthems" - it's really not my fight. I wish all the people(s) of Ireland the best; God knows they deserve it after umpteen centuries of being bludgeoned by various and sundry. I simply posted the song as an example of how deeply the Famine resonates to this day - at least for some people. Perhaps not the Lord Palmerston fan club, but I digress...

Plus, the Dropkick Murphys do a hell of a punk version ... which I first heard in a pub in Southie during my younger days, with a cold one in my hand and a fine colleen at my side.

Best,

 

[Morty Vicar]

Fair enough -- but do you really feel the victims of the Famine are inappropriately "martyrised"? They don't just count as being martyrs, period? Three to four million dead and/or refugees from hunger in the middle of plenty don't count as martyrs, just on general principles?

No, like I said the blight was a tragedy, not just for Ireland but for many nations. I used the word martyr because it seems to me that the tragedy is used for political ends, which I personally feel is rather cynical.

Along the lines of historical documents, would A Nation Once Again by Thomas O. Davis count? It was written in the Nineteenth Century (before the Famine, however) but is certainly "biased"...

Yes, history will always suffer from national, religious or even racial biases, the point is to avoid ones that are very obviously biased from one perspective or another. Or if referenced, they should be understood in their context as POV.

But then, so is Jerusalem ... and Rule, Brittania, for that matter. Most anthems and ballads are, after all. So are the Blues...

Yes.

Actually, I wouldn't really care one way or the other what you posted, in terms of Unionist "anthems" - it's really not my fight. I wish all the people(s) of Ireland the best; God knows they deserve it after umpteen centuries of being bludgeoned by various and sundry. I simply posted the song as an example of how deeply the Famine resonates to this day - at least for some people. Perhaps not the Lord Palmerston fan club, but I digress...

I would question whether the Famine resonates, or it's memory is kept alive largely for political purposes. Either way I don't dispute the tragic nature of it, or the extent to which Britain is culpable.

It's like a certain modern politician (who will remain nameless) using the execution of William Wallace for political traction. I have to wonder if they really care about this as a historic event, or they are simply engaging in political pointscoring or propagandisation. And further to this to what extent will they distort facts to suit this agenda or narrative?

Plus, the Dropkick Murphys do a hell of a punk version ... which I first heard in a pub in Southie during my younger days, with a cold one in my hand and a fine colleen at my side.

The Dropkick Murphys are a bad example if you are asserting the Fields of Athenry to be non-political..

 

[Thande]

Agreed. The blight also severely affected the Highlands of Scotland, and they had almost the exact same situation and response. This is one of the reasons I don't accept this as a purposeful attack on Ireland, or more specifically Irish Catholics. The other is that many of the victims of the famine were Protestant British subjects, and that in the context of the time large scale relief work was virtually unheard of. If you look at the other areas of Europe affected by the blight you will probably find the same exact lack of support from the relevant governments, 100,000 people died in Europe for example, 40-50,000 in Belgium, 42,000 in Prussia, 10,000 in France, all of which I am sure are easier to provide relief for than Ireland.

I understand it was particularly bad in Prussia (including a large swathe of modern Poland of course at the time) which was heavily reliant on potatoes.

It is fitting that the decade was known as the Hungry Forties in England--not only in reference to the Irish famine, but also the hunger that had been the norm in England before the introduction of free trade. Nowhere near as severe as the Irish famine of course, but the complaints of the failure of the political classes to act were there too; their attitude was satirised in Punch:

THE CRIMES OF EATING.

Sir Robert Peel and her Majesty’s Ministers have, we learn, taken a hint in criminal jurisprudence from his Worship the Mayor of Reading, and are now preparing a bill for Parliament, which they trust will be the means of checking the alarming desire for food which has begun to spread amongst the poorer classes of society. The crime of eating has latterly been indulged in to such an immoderate extent by the operatives of Yorkshire and the other manufacturing districts, that we do not wonder at our sagacious Premier adopting strong measures to suppress the unnatural and increasing appetites of the people.

Taking up the sound judicial views of the great functionary above alluded to, who committed Bernard Cavanagh, the fasting man, to prison for smelling at a saveloy and a slice of ham, Sir Robert has laid down a graduated—we mean a sliding—scale of penalties for the crime of eating, proportioning, with the most delicate skill, the exact amount of the punishment to the enormity of the offence. By his profound wisdom he has discovered that the great increase of crime in these countries is entirely attributable to over-feeding the multitude. Like the worthy Mr. Bumble, in “Oliver Twist,” he protests “it is meat and not madness” that ails the people. He can even trace the origin of every felony to the particular kind of food in which the felon has indulged. He detects incipient incendiarism in eggs and fried bacon—homicide in an Irish stew—robbery and house-breaking in a basin of mutton-broth—and an aggravated assault in a pork sausage. Upon this noble and statesmanlike theory Sir Robert has based a bill which, when it becomes the law of the land, will, we feel assured, tend effectually to keep the rebellious stomachs of the people in a state of wholesome depletion. And as we now punish those offenders who break the Queen’s peace, we shall, in like manner, then inflict the law upon the hungry scoundrels who dare to break the Queen’s Fast.

We have been enabled, through a private source, to obtain the following authentic copy of Sir Robert’s scale of the offences under the intended Act, with the penalty attached to each, viz.:

For penny rolls or busters Imprisonment not exceeding a week.
For bread of any kind, with cheese or butter Imprisonment for a month.
For saveloys, German sausages, and Black puddings One month's imprisonment, with hard labour.
For a slice of ham, bacon, or meat of any kind Imprisonment for three months, and exercise on the treadmill.
For a hearty dinner on beef and pudding Transportation for seven years.
For do. with a pot of home-brewed ale. Transportation for life.

As these offences apply only to those who have no right to eat, the wealthy and respectable portion of society need be under no apprehension that they will be exposed to any inconvenience by the operation of the new law.

Note that this is from 1841, before the potato famine.

 

[TFSmith121]

The thing for me is, however, Ireland had a population of

I would question whether the Famine resonates, or it's memory is kept alive largely for political purposes. Either way I don't dispute the tragic nature of it, or the extent to which Britain is culpable.

The Dropkick Murphys are a bad example if you are asserting the Fields of Athenry to be non-political..

The thing for me is, however, Ireland had a population of 8 million in the middle of the Eighteenth Century; it dropped by 50 percent in little more than a decade and hasn't recovered since.

That has to be close to unique in terms of Western European nations (certainly is for the British Isles), and suggests there is something unique about Ireland...wonder what it could have been?

The Dropkick Murphys are never a bad example of anything; certainly not in a neck of the woods I hold near and dear. You had to have been there ... but she was (and remains) a fine colleen.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Doesn't say much for the ruling classes, does it?

It is fitting that the decade was known as the Hungry Forties in England--not only in reference to the Irish famine, but also the hunger that had been the norm in England before the introduction of free trade. Nowhere near as severe as the Irish famine of course, but the complaints of the failure of the political classes to act were there too; their attitude was satirised in Punch:



Note that this is from 1841, before the potato famine.

Makes one wonder how they managed to avoid a version of the '48, doesn't it?

Best,

 

[Morty Vicar]

The thing for me is, however, Ireland had a population of 8 million in the middle of the Eighteenth Century; it dropped by 50 percent in little more than a decade and hasn't recovered since.

That has to be close to unique in terms of Western European nations (certainly is for the British Isles), and suggests there is something unique about Ireland...wonder what it could have been?

The fact that they relied almost entirely upon one crop?

Makes one wonder how they managed to avoid a version of the '48, doesn't it?

Best,

Well firstly because, as you noted, their population declined rapidly due to emigration and starvation, and secondly because at the time the priority was getting food, and their best hope there was Britain. They would literally be biting the hand that fed them. Lastly at the time people probably didn't blame the English as much as they do in retrospect, like I said there was very little notion of aid or charity at the time, so it wasn't just expected that England is going to send all available foodstocks it has (and that is probably scarce enough considering starvation is rife in England too). And besides people were aware that the potato blight was a natural phenomenon, even if they didn't understand it scientifically, not something that is immediately going to be blamed on the English, except perhaps by a few political opportunists.

 

[sparky42]

Even these lines?
In a modern context the song is used almost exclusively by Irish nationalists, as part of a political agenda. It's one of the favourite songs of Celtic FC fans, as part of the sectarian culture in Glasgow. Whilst it may have some historical interest, it is not an historic document as such, it is a piece of political propaganda essentially. That is why I thought it best be moved to the political discussion. I'm sure you'd feel the same way if I posted the lyrics of Fields of Ulster, Father's Advice, or the Famine Song for that matter.

Best

No it isn't, the Fields is sung in virtually any Irish team competition, just because elements of Celtic use it in that way doesn't make it part of the nationalist agenda or Sectarian. I've never heard any of the Ulster contingent of the Irish Rugby squad complain about it being sung in virtually every Rugby match played by any Irish team. Nor has England or any of the other Home Nations complained about it being sectarian when it's sung in the same matches either in Ireland or in their Home Grounds. Is it sectarian when it's sung against the All Blacks? The Springboks? The Wallabies?

Same question regarding any ROI football match either against Home Nations or against anyone else (which is more often). Hell I went to a Protestant Bordering School in Ireland that played Rugby against all the other Protestant Schools, and that was still heard at matches.

What's next should I claim that "Swing Low Sweet Chariot" is somehow offensive?

 

[Morty Vicar]

No it isn't, the Fields is sung in virtually any Irish team competition, just because elements of Celtic use it in that way doesn't make it part of the nationalist agenda or Sectarian. I've never heard any of the Ulster contingent of the Irish Rugby squad complain about it being sung in virtually every Rugby match played by any Irish team. Nor has England or any of the other Home Nations complained about it being sectarian when it's sung in the same matches either in Ireland or in their Home Grounds. Is it sectarian when it's sung against the All Blacks? The Springboks? The Wallabies?

Same question regarding any ROI football match either against Home Nations or against anyone else (which is more often). Hell I went to a Protestant Bordering School in Ireland that played Rugby against all the other Protestant Schools, and that was still heard at matches.

What's next should I claim that "Swing Low Sweet Chariot" is somehow offensive?

Swing low isn't in any way comparable. There's no exact equivalent, but I suspect you'd object to Fields of Ulster or Father's advice for example as being political or offensive. Not that I ever at any point said fields of athenry was offensive or sectarian btw, maybe you misread my post. What I said was that it's a political song, thus belongs in political chat, as does this particular avenue of debate if we're going that way.

 

[sparky42]

Swing low isn't in any way comparable. There's no exact equivalent, but I suspect you'd object to Fields of Ulster or Father's advice for example as being political or offensive. Not that I ever at any point said fields of athenry was offensive or sectarian btw, maybe you misread my post. What I said was that it's a political song, thus belongs in political chat, as does this particular avenue of debate if we're going that way.

Not worth arguing about, though I would say that you are wildly over reacting and incorrect with this

used almost exclusively by Irish nationalists, as part of a political agenda

Besides, that's what the ignore list if for.

 

[DValdron]

I think that the most generous thing that even the most pro-British historians have managed to say about the Irish Famine is that it was incompetently handled from start to finish, that British rule and British policies and laws had a great hand in creating and worsening the situation, and that British relief efforts were late, half-hearted and consistently substandard. It is generally admitted that had the famine occurred in England or Scotland, the response would have been more diligent.

In short, the defense theory of the Irish Famine is that negligence and incompetence played a major role, not malice.

This occurring on the doorstep of what I've pointed out as the largest empire the world had ever seen, and at the time by far the most technologically advanced, the most heavily industrialized, and the most highly organized society on the planet.

I dunno. See the thing is, apologists excuse Stalin from the Holodomor on the grounds that it was just a matter of bungling, not genocidal intent. And Maoist apologists like to claim that his famines were a matter of incompetence and ideology, not genocidal intent.

But somehow, I find myself unable to excuse either Stalin or Mao from culpability for their millions of famine deaths. Despite the unsettled conditions and radical social upheavals under which they ruled, I still hold them responsible for the horrific deaths of millions of people, and I still consider the Holodomor a black stain on human history attributable to Stalin and the USSR.

So why should I excuse the British Empire and its rulers?

Whatever crisis and problems afflicted the Irish, English rule certainly was not a benefit but a hindrance, and regardless of how inevitable the famine was, English policy and negligence exacerbated it.

I would suggest that it was available to the British to handle things differently in such a way that a difference would have been significant.

 

[Morty Vicar]

Not worth arguing about,

Agreed

though I would say that you are wildly over reacting and incorrect with this

Disagree. I'm really not the type to get snarky about what section a post should be in, or if a post breaks rules etc, but I come here for altHistory, not political discussion, which is why I avoid the chat subforum usually.

Besides, that's what the ignore list if for.

Ignoring is a last resort, I ignore individual posts sometimes but generally I prefer to be in the loop.

 

[Morty Vicar]

I think that the most generous thing that even the most pro-British historians have managed to say about the Irish Famine is that it was incompetently handled from start to finish, that British rule and British policies and laws had a great hand in creating and worsening the situation, and that British relief efforts were late, half-hearted and consistently substandard. It is generally admitted that had the famine occurred in England or Scotland, the response would have been more diligent.

It did happen in Scotland, mainly in the Highlands, and the response was the same. Meanwhile it happened in France, Belgium and Prussia too, and their responses were also similar. Population growth slowed in the UK as well, so though I can't be sure that probably means there were deaths in England and Wales too. They went from 1.2% in 1840 to 0.7% in 1846, compared to Ireland's 0.4% to -4%.

In short, the defense theory of the Irish Famine is that negligence and incompetence played a major role, not malice.

Negligence by modern standards, certainly. At the time there was very little notion of distaster relief, aid or humanitarianism. That doesn't make it right, but I don't think we should judge Britain unfairly without also mentioning other nations at the time and later who did as much or less in their own situations of famine.

This occurring on the doorstep of what I've pointed out as the largest empire the world had ever seen, and at the time by far the most technologically advanced, the most heavily industrialized, and the most highly organized society on the planet.

We still need to consider the time period. Within that century Spain, Portugal, France, Finland and Sweden all experienced famines, with a huge mortality rate. Britain doesn't stand out as being any more negligent than those other european nations.

I dunno. See the thing is, apologists excuse Stalin from the Holodomor on the grounds that it was just a matter of bungling, not genocidal intent. And Maoist apologists like to claim that his famines were a matter of incompetence and ideology, not genocidal intent.

But somehow, I find myself unable to excuse either Stalin or Mao from culpability for their millions of famine deaths. Despite the unsettled conditions and radical social upheavals under which they ruled, I still hold them responsible for the horrific deaths of millions of people, and I still consider the Holodomor a black stain on human history attributable to Stalin and the USSR.

So why should I excuse the British Empire and its rulers?

The Holodomor was a different era, one where communications, transport and agriculture were far better. And also one where the notions of humanitarian aid were well understood and accepted, not least in a supposedly socialist nation. I don't suggest you excuse the British Empire, and we should never forget history. But I don't think the Irish situation stands out much differently than that of France, Belgium, Sweden etc, the only difference was the scale. And arguably the scale of the problem made it that much more difficult to remedy than that of the European mainland.

Whatever crisis and problems afflicted the Irish, English rule certainly was not a benefit but a hindrance, and regardless of how inevitable the famine was, English policy and negligence exacerbated it.

I would suggest that it was available to the British to handle things differently in such a way that a difference would have been significant.

Without a doubt, but all this is said with the benefit of hindsight, and it has to be said with the modern perspective of humanitarianism. Some day people will look back on current nations and individuals and ask why we didn't help the poor of Africa, Asia and South America, or even in our own nations?

 

[BELFAST]

I never heard of that poem before, but I find it rather moving.

I know this will sound naïve at best, but I always wondered why more Irish didn't leave their farms, and walk to the coast to catch fish? Coming from an island nation like I do, this would be a natural impulse for me, but I realize the average Irish peasant had a totally different mindset. I just wouldn't have hung around and starved, would have eaten any edible organic matter I could get my hands on.

The Irish who lived near the coast eat sea weed and shell fish and many miles of coast were picked clean of all shell fish and sea weed.

The small boats the Irish had were limited in how far they could go to sea and the west coast of Ireland the sea is very dangerous.

 

[gochisox]

I was always under the impression that the Irish were forced to continue exporting food by the British at the worst time of the famine

"In History Ireland magazine (1997, issue 5, pp. 32–36), Christine Kinealy, a Great Hunger scholar, lecturer, and Drew University professor, relates her findings: Almost 4,000 vessels carried food from Ireland to the ports of Bristol, Glasgow, Liverpool and London during 1847, when 400,000 Irish men, women and children died of starvation and related diseases. She also writes that Irish exports of calves, livestock (except pigs), bacon and ham actually increased during the Famine. "
Im not an expert on this but to me just simply ignoring the laissez faire opinion at the time and allowing the Irish to keep their food would be a significant help for them and lower the casualties, though a smaller potato famine would have a huge effect on America if the Irish decided to stay

Also first time poster, long time stalker.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . "In History Ireland magazine (1997, issue 5, pp. 32–36), Christine Kinealy, a Great Hunger scholar, lecturer, and Drew University professor, relates her findings: Almost 4,000 vessels carried food from Ireland to the ports of Bristol, Glasgow, Liverpool and London during 1847, . . . "

gochisox, thank you for being a first-time poster. :>) And an excellent relevant post, including some very good searchable terms.

I'm personally working on a different idea, namely that if the "sweet spot" of religious toleration and liberty had come at a different time that may have made a difference.

 

[frlmerrin]

I do like a good Irish Famine thread especially one that gets to cursing Vickie and the PM so quickly. I hope it descends even further into an entertaining farce but before it does I have a couple of questions.

Yeah, but then there's this....

Let's recap. The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, a muslim country on the far side of Europe was so moved by the plight of the starving Irish that he promised to send 10,000 sterling.

A move which the Queen of England objected to, because as the Wealthiest Human Being on the Planet, and ruler of the Greatest Empire the Planet Had Ever Seen, because such a display of generosity made her look like a cheapskate.

<snip>

I have heard and read this anecdote many times I have never seen a copy of Queen Viccie's letter or the Sultan's response. I am begining to suspect it is not true. Does anyone have a copy?

If there is a hell, then Queen Victoria and her Prime Minister deserve to dine in it for these actions.

I believe it is traditional at this point to post a link to Black 47 singing 'Black 47' Larry needs all the publicity he can get.