You must log in or # to comment.
It wasnt the british stealing their food.
It was the british stealing their land. Growing food on it, using them as indentured labour. Then forcing them to live, effectively, on the only crop that could supoort a family on a small plot. That crop just happened to fail.
Interestingly, the reason they had such small plots was that irish inheritance split all the parents possessions equally, dividing the wealth, making smaller plots. The british system, it goes to the eldest, leading to wealth hoarding.
So it was the British stealing their food with extra steps.
Let’s not sugarcoat things just because someone in charge made it perfectly legal.
It was more than syealing food. It was oppression ans slavery with extra killong and suppression of culture.
Good info but one clarification about the inheritance - the division of the plots was part of the penal laws to erode catholic influence in the country. It was called the popery act and it meant that land was to be divided equally amongst all sons in the family unless one converted to protestantism in which case they were to inherit the lot. It was one of the many cruel ways the British colonial empire oppressed and attempted to erase the culture of the countries they occupied (in this case, Ireland) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popery_Act?wprov=sfla1
Brehaon law, before the popery act already had that division system. The popery act allowed someone to convert to protestantism and claim it all instead. Its a prisoners dilemma type situation.
Just replying to let you know you kinda fat-fingered a few keys here and there :3
Yes, the touchscreen on my phone is terrible and spellcheck makes it even worse. Trying out a few foss keyboards bht doesnt seem to help. Im wondering if a swipe type might work better. Thanks for heads up, ill edit.
Yeah, and then because they were fully reliant on a single crop to provide their food, when the potato blight reached Europe, the Irish were extra fucked.
Yes, the same blight affected france, belgium and others. It wasnt their main food source, so it led to scarcety but not famine.
I learned from a podcast that famine is almost always caused by government, so this one is not an exception.
Post-industrial revolution this seems to be true. Things like droughts and blights and floods and such were real problems in deeper historical times.
Whatever the reason, it was a famine, a wide spread scarcity of food.
Look the definition up.
I mean it was a famine but only because of an overreliance on one specific crop, due to sociopolitical reasons
Normally if one crop fails due to a disease, it won’t result in a full-scale famine. Most historical famines are caused by wider climate and weather patterns
So to call it a famine is a little disingenuous, even if its technically accurate
So how about Holodomor?
Yeah that’s fair. Perhaps my objection is really that the word ‘famine’ spanning both environmental and man-made food shortages can blur the issue generally.
Like, aside from a few relatively brief famines exacerbated by war, the Irish Famine is pretty much the first ‘artifical’ famine historically. It’s not until the 20th Century that these become common
So you’re right, but the term ‘famine’ definitely gets used to imply something natural and unavoidable, particularly in the 19th Century
Yes. People tend to use it as if it was some natural or biblical born disaster.
But no.
Famine is descriptive word for outcome of mechanics in play to produce scarcity of food.
It literally means hunger.
You can call a genocide a depopulation, which is true, but omits important context.
