No Irish Famine
- Thread starter Redem
- Start date
Thande
Donor
I don't think the Irish potato famine was avoidable in the long run, considering the reason why it was so devastating: virtually the entire potato "population" of Ireland was descended from just a few potatoes planted there by Raleigh (according to legend, anyway) in the 1500s. Unless you change this origin, you're still going to have a very genetically un-diverse population of potatoes that's very vulnerable to mass death upon infection by the right, or rather wrong, pathogen.
An interesting WI might be WI the Irish potato famine happened earlier - say at the turn of the C19?
An interesting WI might be WI the Irish potato famine happened earlier - say at the turn of the C19?
Give the Irish, especially the Catholics in Ireland a wider ranging diet.
The famine hurt the Catholics in Ireland more than anyone else since the Catholics were at the bottom of Irish society. The poorest are always hurt the most with things like famines.
The Catholics were pretty much reduced to a diet based on only a few staples, primarily a potato based diet. Any time you have a diet based on just one or two staples you have the danger of something happening to that staple or to those staples. When it does you're out of luck and have a famine, and as I said famines hurt those at the bottom of society most of all.
Had there been no potato famine there would have been a smaller exodus of Catholics from Ireland, but there would still have been a lot of Catholics leave because the potato famine was only part of the story.
The Catholic population in Ireland had been reduced to extreme poverty and had almost no legal or political rights at all in their own country. Even if they could afford it, they were denied an education, were legally prevented from practicing any profession, in many cases were not allowed to own or inherit land, all because of their religion. Many left not only because of the potato famine, but also to find freedom. There was a large influx of Irish Catholics to The United States in the 1890's and early 1900's some 50 to 60 years after the potato famine, and they came seeking freedom.
So even if there had been no Irish potato famine, there would still have been a large migration of Catholics out of Ireland, maybe not quite as large, but still a large migration of them out of Ireland.
The famine hurt the Catholics in Ireland more than anyone else since the Catholics were at the bottom of Irish society. The poorest are always hurt the most with things like famines.
The Catholics were pretty much reduced to a diet based on only a few staples, primarily a potato based diet. Any time you have a diet based on just one or two staples you have the danger of something happening to that staple or to those staples. When it does you're out of luck and have a famine, and as I said famines hurt those at the bottom of society most of all.
Had there been no potato famine there would have been a smaller exodus of Catholics from Ireland, but there would still have been a lot of Catholics leave because the potato famine was only part of the story.
The Catholic population in Ireland had been reduced to extreme poverty and had almost no legal or political rights at all in their own country. Even if they could afford it, they were denied an education, were legally prevented from practicing any profession, in many cases were not allowed to own or inherit land, all because of their religion. Many left not only because of the potato famine, but also to find freedom. There was a large influx of Irish Catholics to The United States in the 1890's and early 1900's some 50 to 60 years after the potato famine, and they came seeking freedom.
So even if there had been no Irish potato famine, there would still have been a large migration of Catholics out of Ireland, maybe not quite as large, but still a large migration of them out of Ireland.
Thande said:
The Irish potatoes were introduced by the Spanish armada.
The English didn't really get into using potatoes as a regular food stuff for some time.
The thing about potatoes and Ireland is the potato is what let Ireland get so well populated, its the only food stuff capable of growing in the west. You can't really give them a more varied diet without totally altering the face of Britain and making western Ireland a main industrial area which imports a lot of food- something verging on ASB.
Sorry if I'm getting a bit worked up but I absolutely detest this whole Irish nationalist/Irish-American idea that the evil British opressed the previously free and succesful Irish and all that. I'm a hell of a lot more Irish then many Irish-Americans and Ireland's assosiation with Britain was a good thing (tm).
Prior to British involvment there most of Ireland had more in common with the Americas or Africa then mainland Europe, really primitive tribal land.
With Britain sure it was the arse end of the UK but if you consider today's world you will find that the poorest parts of the US are many times better off then most of latin America.
The catholic population in Ireland was not reduced to extreme poverty, their assosiation with England mostly lifted them out of poverty from their rough tribal states into the equals of any other European.
The Irish did not go to the US seeking freedom at all, not by a long shot. The entire reason the potato famine ended up being so bad was that the UK was such a free country.
Also just as many Irish moved to mainland Britain as to the US, they just went wherever they could really- it just made sense for them to go to the two English speaking places which seemed to offer the most to them as poor uneducated farmers- America for the chance of being farmers again and Britain for work.
Anyway to the topic at hand....The liberals remain popular for longer I guess which could have dire consequences for the progressives.
Also I guess the Irish independance movement (if it comes at all...) has less of the stupid elements of OTL and is all done via democracy.
Last edited:
I often discuss this with an Irish friend and he turned out to be unaware of how many English people died because of the Corn Laws-maybe not as many as in Ireland, but still a shiteload.
I remember reading something once saying that Manchester once had its own dialect word meaning "to starve to death"-and that went on in every industrial city in Britain.
I remember reading something once saying that Manchester once had its own dialect word meaning "to starve to death"-and that went on in every industrial city in Britain.
SteveW said:
I think some sort of disaster was inevitable from the situation as mentioned above. The potato had enabled the development of a high density population dependent on a single crop which, as Thande said, is a very unstable situation.
What probably made it worse at the time was that the government philosophy was lassire faire, at least after the fall of Peel's government. This meant that, once the country realised something was wrong it was dependant on private charity and occasional public works to provide relief. Without this you might have seen more government spending on famine alleviation and also preventing of hoarding, possibly markedly decreasing the number of fatalities. If so there would still have been the danger of a disaster at a later time because the country would still have been heavily overpopulated for its economic situation. As you say a lot of people suffered and died because the dominant philosophy for much of the period was very much a hands off one. It was in large part responsible for the decline of Britain's position in the 19thC and early 20thC I believe.
Steve
The effect of laws, especially relating to Catholics, tended to result in land being split up on inheritance. The potato was perhaps the only crop on which the Irish peasantry could survive on, given the tiny holdings.
To prevent the Famine you would need to have had different kinds of development. One might have been more industrialization so that the Irish could afford to buy food, etc from abroad.
Alternatively (but this is practiclaly ASB) A British government might have adopted a Welfare State.
I guess a factor might have been the narrowness of the basis of British Government. It is notable that India, flawed democracy though it is, does not have famines.
I guess if there had been a wider franchise things might have been different,#
I also wonder what might have happened had the Irish Parliament survived and reformed itself on a radical basis. There were moves in that direction in the pre 1800 basically Protestant Irish Parliament.
To prevent the Famine you would need to have had different kinds of development. One might have been more industrialization so that the Irish could afford to buy food, etc from abroad.
Alternatively (but this is practiclaly ASB) A British government might have adopted a Welfare State.
I guess a factor might have been the narrowness of the basis of British Government. It is notable that India, flawed democracy though it is, does not have famines.
I guess if there had been a wider franchise things might have been different,#
I also wonder what might have happened had the Irish Parliament survived and reformed itself on a radical basis. There were moves in that direction in the pre 1800 basically Protestant Irish Parliament.
SteveW said:
Steve W
I would have to disagree there. I think it was in part we dropped the protectionist economics. Had read that in the 1st year of the famine Peel's government helped a lot by simply buying relatively limited food stocks and making clear they would intervene if prices went too high. This is supposed to have prevented hoarding and hence made it possible to avoid famine. Not sure this would have been enough in the longer run but often people starve in famines not because there is insufficient food but because they can't afford the prices.
Steve
Derek Jackson said:
Derek
I don't think there was much chance for reform of the Dublin Parliament. While some of the leaders of the 1797 revolt were Protestants the bulk of the Protestant majority were bitterly mistrustful of the Catholics, especially after the uprisings that year. That's the reason Britain disbanded the Dublin Parliament, to provide some protection for the Catholics.
The Irish policy of dividing land plots probably contributed to the overpopulation. This is despite the sizeable numbers of Catholics who emigrated in previous years or who joined the army.
I doubt if industrialisation would have been practical at this stage in Ireland. The island lacked the resources and raw materials to provide a basis and its low income meant it had limited potential as a market.
Not sure if India is without famine but definitely a more democratic system tends to greatly reduce the degree of suffering in crisis such as famines.
A welfare state type solution might have been possible given the previous poor law rules for relief prior to the 'reforms' of the early 19thC. How maintainable this would have been given the sheer size of the problem in Ireland once the disease took out the potatoes is difficult to say. Also it would have been unpopular elsewhere in Britain, even given our tolerance for high taxes.
Steve
Derek Jackson said:
India does not have famines because agrotechnology has created strains that are so productive they can feed themselves every year. That used to be different - before and after independence. And it's not like India's food supply system is out of the woods yet.
However, while an Irish famine was inevitable when the potato crop failed, the scale of it was massively exacerbated by government mismanagement. If you simply allowed the Tory paternalist impulse or Christian charity to trump theory, the suffering would be massively less. Contemporary economic theory dictated that demand creates supply, but neglected the twin aspects of money dearth and infrastructure needs, and it gave everyone a great excuse not to do anything. Same mechanism as later in Gujarat.
I'm not sure democracy would do the trick completely. While prevailing theory dictates that starvation is good for you (in an abnstract, societal sense), it would take brave politicians to go against that.
Famines are social and political phenomena - they are *not* natural, biological phenomena, or to be precise, they cannot be reduced to simple natural biological causes. Even when the harvest failed in the Ethiopian province of Wollo in 1973, there was still enough food in Ethiopia to food those at risk of starvation - but the regime of Haile Selassie didn't give a damn about a few starving peasants.
I am not one of those Irish people who think the famine was some deliberate act of genocide by Westminster. I think it was worse than that. If it was genocide it could have been put down to the work of this or that evil politician. But if it was not the work of this or that politician acting with deliberate, evil intent, the causes have to be sought elsewhere. And I think the cause lies in the system itself. What the famine revealed is that the Act of Union of 1801 was not a pact between equal partners, but one in which one 'partner' was to be a permanent inferior.
The famine thus had dramatic long-term political consequences, fuelling the land war (where the term 'boycott' originated) and inspiring both constitutional and physical force nationalism.
There would still have been nationalism in Ireland, but its unclear how far it would have developed without the impetus of the famine. There might, at least, have been less bitterness.
I am not one of those Irish people who think the famine was some deliberate act of genocide by Westminster. I think it was worse than that. If it was genocide it could have been put down to the work of this or that evil politician. But if it was not the work of this or that politician acting with deliberate, evil intent, the causes have to be sought elsewhere. And I think the cause lies in the system itself. What the famine revealed is that the Act of Union of 1801 was not a pact between equal partners, but one in which one 'partner' was to be a permanent inferior.
The famine thus had dramatic long-term political consequences, fuelling the land war (where the term 'boycott' originated) and inspiring both constitutional and physical force nationalism.
There would still have been nationalism in Ireland, but its unclear how far it would have developed without the impetus of the famine. There might, at least, have been less bitterness.
Leej said:
I'm sorry, but that sounds a bit like a argument made by someone attempting to justify American slavery because the blacks were "better off in America than they were in Africa."
If British rule was so good for the Irish, then why do the Irish hate you so much, then? Just curious...
robertp6165 said:
They mainly don't, if you meet them. The only time I've ever been on the receiving end of racial hatred was, oddly, in Scotland-not when I've been in Ireland. The Irish don't mind the English, as a general statement. The proportion who hate English are probably as high as that in England who hate Ireland. And I've never met an Irishman who wasn't friendly, and that includes the ones who live in South Armagh, real IRA country.
SteveW said:
I think you confuse good manners with friendliness. The Irish are a notoriously hospitable and friendly people in general. But that doesn't mean that, inside where it counts, they don't hate you. Bear in mind I have only the experience of Irish-Americans to guide me, never having been to Ireland myself (more's the pity). But my family is predominently Scots and Irish, and I can tell you, my grandparents...who were by that time fifth and sixth generation Americans...regularly cursed the "bloody English." The hatred had been passed down that many generations.
But that did not make them impolite people when they actually met an Englishman in person.
robertp6165 said:
Just because someone hates doesn't mean that hate is justified. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Ireland didn't suffer under Norman, English and British rule. However the presentation by some elements that presents it as a period of almost unparalleled oppression is obviously wrong. I can think of several examples of hatred that are generally considered unjustified.
Part of the problem is that Britain was the colonial power and a core section of the Irish identity is their 'struggle for independence'. Also it is much easier to hate and blame an external source for your own problems.
Steve