4 ms·

Since the article only very lightly touches on it and some may be understandably confused about the "solidarity" between the Irish and Native Americans, the "Po

Since the article only very lightly touches on it and some may be understandably confused about the "solidarity" between the Irish and Native Americans, the "Potato Famine" was only so deadly in Ireland to the Irish due to years of colonial rule -- not because the only food in Ireland were rotten potatoes. Ireland had plenty of food at the time. They even continued to export food to England. It's just that due to systematic oppression, Irish natives couldn't afford anything that weren't (now blighted) potatoes. That's where the parallel comes from with the Native Americans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

patrickk 6y ago
The Whig party's laissez-faire economic ideology and the belief that Divine providence was punishing the lazy natives[1] were major factors explaining why the famine was so severe compared to previous blights. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.shtml#five http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.sh...
- bcoates 6y ago
  Eeeh, this kind of looks like a British apologetic that ignores the whole "hundreds of years of colonial occupation" thing they were doing at the time. Blaming the whigs for a technical agricultural policy point they were probably right about [1] while waving off the background of extractive colonialism that created the dependency on the potato crop is a little convenient [1] when there's famine due to economic shortfall in a country with an agricultural economy, agriculture policy interventions like food dumping and banning exports can make things worse by collapsing the economy. if you want to help, don't send rules send money
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
jajag 6y ago
A more accurate portrayal of the situation is to say that Ireland of the time was a state whose economy depended on the export of premium food products - cattle, dairy & grain - whilst the majority of the population were subsistence tenant farmers who grew that produce in order to pay for their farm tenancies, whilst growing a side crop of potatoes in order to sustain themselves. When the potato blight occurred, they were still expected to pay their farm rents using the produce they produced despite this leaving them without a food crop for their own sustenance. Despite what's believed from the common narrative, most of the landlords, middlemen and exporters facilitating the trade and export of food from Ireland at this time were Irish, and many were Catholics; and they were operating within an economic system were these actions made sense. As they would have seen it, stopping the export of food stuffs would have caused economic collapse. In a modern state with well developed central government, the state would have been able to step in and take appropriate actions. But governments of the 1840s simply didn't have the scope of action available to a modern government, or the necessary vision of their role to accompany that. The result was a tragedy of truly enormous proportions, and which certainly more could have been done to avoid; but to suggest that it was simply due to 'systematic oppression' is to greatly simplify the divisions that existed within Irish society at the time, or the motivations of those involved.
- danharaj 6y ago
  Those poor capitalists and their empire just didn't have the means to let the filthy unwashed poor of Ireland eat. It was done out of economic necessity.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- paublyrne 6y ago
  I agree that it's a simplification to blame the famine on 'British oppression', but to say `governments of the 1840s simply didn't have the scope of action available to a modern government` is something of a strawman. There were a number of interventions accessible by the government. As parent points out there was ideological resistance to employing them, and where employed they were done so weakly and without enthusiasm. Sir Charles Trevelyan used the same argument you do - that there was ample actions Irish landlords could take directly - as an excuse for the government not to take action. Given he described the famine as a Godly judgement on the Irish, that argument is not a reasonable explanation for his approach.
xenocyon 6y ago
A bit of a digression, but the same was true of famines in India under British rule. India (i.e. Britain) was exporting rice and wheat to England at the same time that a third of Bengal died from starvation.
- sudosteph 6y ago
  The famine/genocide in the Ukraine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor )had a similar dynamic too. Ukraine was exporting food to the USSR while ~4 million native Ukranians died and millions more experienced serious sickness or complications / birth defects. It's pretty sickening to consider how often man-made starvation has been used as a weapon against particular nations/ethnic groups. Especially since it so often gets hand-waved away as an "act of god" later.
  - chewz 6y ago
    Last but not least Great Chinese Famine - exporting food to finance rapid militarization. 15 milions dead - conservative estimate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao%27s_Great_Famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao%27s_Great_Famine

patrickk 6y ago

The Whig party's laissez-faire economic ideology and the belief that Divine providence was punishing the lazy natives[1] were major factors explaining why the famine was so severe compared to previous blights. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.shtml#five http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.sh...

bcoates 6y ago
Eeeh, this kind of looks like a British apologetic that ignores the whole "hundreds of years of colonial occupation" thing they were doing at the time. Blaming the whigs for a technical agricultural policy point they were probably right about [1] while waving off the background of extractive colonialism that created the dependency on the potato crop is a little convenient [1] when there's famine due to economic shortfall in a country with an agricultural economy, agriculture policy interventions like food dumping and banning exports can make things worse by collapsing the economy. if you want to help, don't send rules send money
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

jajag 6y ago

A more accurate portrayal of the situation is to say that Ireland of the time was a state whose economy depended on the export of premium food products - cattle, dairy & grain - whilst the majority of the population were subsistence tenant farmers who grew that produce in order to pay for their farm tenancies, whilst growing a side crop of potatoes in order to sustain themselves. When the potato blight occurred, they were still expected to pay their farm rents using the produce they produced despite this leaving them without a food crop for their own sustenance. Despite what's believed from the common narrative, most of the landlords, middlemen and exporters facilitating the trade and export of food from Ireland at this time were Irish, and many were Catholics; and they were operating within an economic system were these actions made sense. As they would have seen it, stopping the export of food stuffs would have caused economic collapse. In a modern state with well developed central government, the state would have been able to step in and take appropriate actions. But governments of the 1840s simply didn't have the scope of action available to a modern government, or the necessary vision of their role to accompany that. The result was a tragedy of truly enormous proportions, and which certainly more could have been done to avoid; but to suggest that it was simply due to 'systematic oppression' is to greatly simplify the divisions that existed within Irish society at the time, or the motivations of those involved.

danharaj 6y ago
Those poor capitalists and their empire just didn't have the means to let the filthy unwashed poor of Ireland eat. It was done out of economic necessity.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
paublyrne 6y ago
I agree that it's a simplification to blame the famine on 'British oppression', but to say `governments of the 1840s simply didn't have the scope of action available to a modern government` is something of a strawman. There were a number of interventions accessible by the government. As parent points out there was ideological resistance to employing them, and where employed they were done so weakly and without enthusiasm. Sir Charles Trevelyan used the same argument you do - that there was ample actions Irish landlords could take directly - as an excuse for the government not to take action. Given he described the famine as a Godly judgement on the Irish, that argument is not a reasonable explanation for his approach.

xenocyon 6y ago

A bit of a digression, but the same was true of famines in India under British rule. India (i.e. Britain) was exporting rice and wheat to England at the same time that a third of Bengal died from starvation.

sudosteph 6y ago
The famine/genocide in the Ukraine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor )had a similar dynamic too. Ukraine was exporting food to the USSR while ~4 million native Ukranians died and millions more experienced serious sickness or complications / birth defects. It's pretty sickening to consider how often man-made starvation has been used as a weapon against particular nations/ethnic groups. Especially since it so often gets hand-waved away as an "act of god" later.
- chewz 6y ago
  Last but not least Great Chinese Famine - exporting food to finance rapid militarization. 15 milions dead - conservative estimate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao%27s_Great_Famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao%27s_Great_Famine