Do you support Irish unification with Northern Ireland? Watch

Poll: Would you support democratic Irish unification with Northern Ireland?
Yes (58)
44.96%
No (52)
40.31%
Dont know (5)
3.88%
Dont care (14)
10.85%
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#161
Report 9 years ago
#161
(Original post by Asert)
Not mob rule, majority rule.
Without checks and balances on power, these are the same thing.

The British had experience with famines by the time the Great Indian famines came about. Superiors had actual proof from both Ireland and India that, y'know, giving starving people food kept them alive. Sir Richard Temple imported grain to feed his subjects, only 23 people died under his watch. He was chewed out by London for doing such a dastardly act. The British stood by and watched as millions starved. Call it evil, call it greed, call it whatever, they forcibly took grain from a country as its people died on the streets. Stop your apologism for such dastardly actions.
Again, 'countries' do not own their produce - private individuals do. This is not a communist state, and it never will be.

Charity was believed to create a cycle of dependency - something which we actually can observe today as a consequence of our benefits culture. Why that doesn't cause great problems today is that we have more charity to give and more abundant resources generally: in places like India, that simply was not the case.

Whilst you seem to favour some sort of nationalist primitivist socialism governing a state, it is clear to see that the British concern with economics and markets created the infrastructure that have allowed places like India to advance from the level of development seen in the worst parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. Frankly, your economic system works even worse than the 19th century British one.

It really isn't. It has nothing to do with nationalism. I wouldn't call it nationalism were a French farmer not to feed the Nazi occupiers of his country but instead his family. I wouldn't call it nationalism to expect the people of India to feed their starving families instead of their brutal colonial occupiers.
This was never the case. Do you think the preceding rulers of India did not charge rents? Gave farmers alms when their crops failed when they didn't produce exports? Of course not. Indian farmers, as in so many underdeveloped countries, worked chiefly for landowners and were able to farm for subsistence on the side - if they didn't do that, then they wouldn't have been given use of the land.

The food which they produced did not belong to them. It was not their choice who ate it - and frankly it being exported within India or outwith made absolutely no difference to them: it would still have been sold off for someone else's profit either way.

So famines happened, big deal? I have never contested the fact that famines happened, I have never accused the British of being some Gods of Rain that could dry up the land at will. Famines happened all the time, but never did so many deaths happen because a colonial entity removed by force record amounts of harvest during a famine.
Again, exports are irrelevant. When there were famines in Great Britain, did the landowners suddenly start feeding their tenant farmers on, say, the sheep they reared? No: the landowners still had to eat too.

Hypocrisy? How? All religions are equally inferior for believing in fairytales, I'm so sorry to break it.
If you really believe that, then you're simple-minded. I have no problem with anyone being agnostic or even atheist, but to take such a ludicrously arrogant view on matters which none of us can ever comprehend fully is just ridiculous.

Great, still doesn't change the fact that they had 95% of their land taken from them by force.
It does if they never had the land in the first place. Again, you seem to believe that before the British came along, your primitivist socialist nation-states existed. They didn't. The British replaced previous rulers, previous empires, previous landlords and, in general, were not only rather nicer to their people, but also brought with them the infrastructure and expertise that brought these communities out of poverty.

I think you have to call me an Irish Nationalist three times in front of a mirror for it to be true.
You are a nationalist, being that you are making nationalist arguments - and indeed, fairly extreme ones at that. Whether you are an Irish nationalist is completely immaterial to me: if a dog was attacking me, I wouldn't sit back and wonder what breed it was and whether it was registered with the Kennel Club.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#162
Report 9 years ago
#162
(Original post by technik)
Agreed...the mandatory coalition setup we have at Stormont is a disgrace. Go for a majority coalition setup and the DUP and UUP will get things done.
That would undermine the whole point of power-sharing and, to some extent, devolution in Northern Ireland.

Yes, the mandatory coalition thing is ridiculous and it hardly works. But equally, when the majority of people in a polity vote for parties which are at least seen to represent certain 'communities' rather than the place as a whole, then this sort of thing becomes quite practical.

If Northern Irish politics are normalised, and the constitutional question at least put on the back burner, then maybe it can be done away with.
0
reply
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#163
Report 9 years ago
#163
(Original post by L i b)
That would undermine the whole point of power-sharing and, to some extent, devolution in Northern Ireland.

Yes, the mandatory coalition thing is ridiculous and it hardly works. But equally, when the majority of people in a polity vote for parties which are at least seen to represent certain 'communities' rather than the place as a whole, then this sort of thing becomes quite practical.

If Northern Irish politics are normalised, and the constitutional question at least put on the back burner, then maybe it can be done away with.
Except it doesn't work and it gives veto power to individual parties regardless of who they profess to represent. In short it's about as undemocratic a system as you can get labelled as "democracy". No single party has more than 1/3 of the seats but some can instantly veto a plan even if everyone else agrees with it. Rather than creating a system that listens to all around the table it actually just reinforces a system where no listens and they get out the stick as soon as anyone dares disagree. The sooner it's radically reformed or completely closed down the better really.
0
reply
Rawss
Badges: 0
#164
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#164
(Original post by L i b)
Charity was believed to create a cycle of dependency - something which we actually can observe today as a consequence of our benefits culture. Why that doesn't cause great problems today is that we have more charity to give and more abundant resources generally: in places like India, that simply was not the case.
How dare you try to compare the charity given to starving families during the Irish famine to the benefits culture of today. We are talking about families who literally didnt even have bread and butter to live on, who had absolutely no say or control in the economic conditions that were ruining their lives, not chavvy benefit scroungers created by the very state that failed them.

This is another contradiction of yours I was alluding to earlier - again you are gravely distorting the context of two completely different scenarios - something you have denounced me of doing. I suppose you will try put this observation under the label of "revisionism" or whatever you like to call your post-colonial bias yourself.

The food which they produced did not belong to them. It was not their choice who ate it - and frankly it being exported within India or outwith made absolutely no difference to them: it would still have been sold off for someone else's profit either way.
Doesn't make thes practices right, morally or otherwise. I think any wholly rational person could come to the same conclusion.

You are a nationalist, being that you are making nationalist arguments - and indeed, fairly extreme ones at that. Whether you are an Irish nationalist is completely immaterial to me: if a dog was attacking me, I wouldn't sit back and wonder what breed it was and whether it was registered with the Kennel Club.
Comparing nationalists to dogs? Nice. You're a charmer. I think we can all now see the true colours emanating from your sorry attempts above at forming context, excuses and rationality.
0
reply
Keiran0
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#165
Report 9 years ago
#165
(Original post by technik)
I suspect if you really posed the question to southerners and presented them with a situation where cold hard facts need to be dealt with they'd dismiss the whole idea as readily as people in Northern Ireland would.

Why would Irish people, supposedly richer than their UK counterparts, want to take on the "drain" that is NI. You stated earlier you thought Ireland should reunify but one of the main reasons you cite for ditching NI is exactly the sort of reason why the ROI would tell you to wise up and come up with a better plan.

Then there are all the logistical type issues that would be required to alter and then integrate a region of the UK into a new Irish state which, despite what some nationalists like to think, is a totally different country with its own laws, government and public bodies, education system, welfare and health services etc etc. You don't just flick a switch and the next morning all is rosy. The ROI would likely face tremendous economic issues associated with increasing its territory by 20% and it's population by closer to 40%.

Even now with it being a basic "non issue" a not insignificant minority of Northern Protestants state that it would be almost impossible for them to accept a united Ireland even if it was voted for in a democratic election/referendum. One could hypothesise that such a minority would remain of a similar size or increase in size if the issue was visited in any serious manner. If I was sitting in Dublin running a government i'd be taking a long and hard look at that sort of variable coming into play before deciding to take on the potential economic nightmare and human bloodbath (because it's naive to think that all protestants would just sit back and let it happen) just for the opportunity of potentially uniting distinct regions, countries and communities.

The Irish people aren't stupid and understand these principles. That's why, even if many like the idea of a United Ireland, they're happy enough for it just to remain an idea. Ideas are easy and cheap.
The bit I highlighted, I don't understand what you're trying to say. I stated that there is no economical advantage for Westminster to hold on to Northern Ireland. However, peoples desire for unification comes from a totally uneconomical standpoint.

The rest of the post you seem to be saying it would be hard work and the 'Protestants wouldn't allow this to happen'. Well yes it would be hard work, like you said the Irish people aren't stupid and I'm sure have considered the hard work you refer to before making up their minds. As for the Protestants not allowing it? So the Protestants would mount some kind of IRA-style anti-establishment movement should power be transferred? Now wouldn't that be a turn up for the books. Anyway, I think a peaceful transfer of power is possible one day, after all most people don't want to live in violence. The thing is not to rush these things, and more importantly, letting the citizens feel that they have a voice, regardless of which side of the line they stand. I'd be surprised that if in 50 years there was a fair vote, whatever the result would be met in violence. Maybe I'm just hopeful.
0
reply
Keiran0
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#166
Report 9 years ago
#166
(Original post by L i b)
Events have knock-on effects for countless generations, as we were discussing in relation to the Reformation.



Rural depopulation is an issue across the whole British Isles, not because of famine, but because of prevailing economic circumstance.

So long as you are not - as your ideological companion seems to be - accusing the British government of deliberately killing off the Irish in the Famine, which is historically nonsensical and indeed nothing more than bigoted bile, then fair enough. The economic circumstances didn't help, and the government could have acted better.


I'm afraid you've lost me here. I'm not sure where you believe I've contradicted myself, but I'd be happy address any such concerns. I generally believe I'm fairly consistent.
I can say, based on all the research I have done, thats exactly what happened.

There is a difference between being slow to react to crisis, or being disorganised or otherwise incapacitated in response to it, and being criminally negligent.

The British knew the Irish were starving, they knew how they could significantly reduce the impact of the famine, they chose not to in order to maximise profits. That is stone cold murder.

As I've said before I was born in England and I love this country. However, its only right to hold your hands up and admit that some of the things done in the name of the country you may now call yourself a patriot of have been wrong. Dulling down the facts and trying to defend these horrific actions is kind of disrespectful not only to the people who suffered then, but also to the people who still feel sensitive about these things today.
0
reply
Keiran0
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#167
Report 9 years ago
#167
(Original post by L i b)
Without checks and balances on power, these are the same thing.

1. Again, 'countries' do not own their produce - private individuals do. This is not a communist state, and it never will be.

2. Charity was believed to create a cycle of dependency - something which we actually can observe today as a consequence of our benefits culture. Why that doesn't cause great problems today is that we have more charity to give and more abundant resources generally: in places like India, that simply was not the case.

Whilst you seem to favour some sort of nationalist primitivist socialism governing a state, it is clear to see that the British concern with economics and markets created the infrastructure that have allowed places like India to advance from the level of development seen in the worst parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. Frankly, your economic system works even worse than the 19th century British one.

3. This was never the case. Do you think the preceding rulers of India did not charge rents? Gave farmers alms when their crops failed when they didn't produce exports? Of course not. Indian farmers, as in so many underdeveloped countries, worked chiefly for landowners and were able to farm for subsistence on the side - if they didn't do that, then they wouldn't have been given use of the land.

The food which they produced did not belong to them. It was not their choice who ate it - and frankly it being exported within India or outwith made absolutely no difference to them: it would still have been sold off for someone else's profit either way.

Again, exports are irrelevant. When there were famines in Great Britain, did the landowners suddenly start feeding their tenant farmers on, say, the sheep they reared? No: the landowners still had to eat too.


4. If you really believe that, then you're simple-minded. I have no problem with anyone being agnostic or even atheist, but to take such a ludicrously arrogant view on matters which none of us can ever comprehend fully is just ridiculous.

5. It does if they never had the land in the first place. Again, you seem to believe that before the British came along, your primitivist socialist nation-states existed. They didn't. The British replaced previous rulers, previous empires, previous landlords and, in general, were not only rather nicer to their people, but also brought with them the infrastructure and expertise that brought these communities out of poverty.

6. You are a nationalist, being that you are making nationalist arguments - and indeed, fairly extreme ones at that. Whether you are an Irish nationalist is completely immaterial to me: if a dog was attacking me, I wouldn't sit back and wonder what breed it was and whether it was registered with the Kennel Club.
L i b you seem to have a habit of simplifying some aspects and charicaturing others in order to make your point. Unfortunately that ends up meaaning your point is slightly lost in the extreme analogies you are attempting.

1. Would you agree that the UK is a Capitalist country? Providing you accept that, and are also aware of social securities avaliable to the citizens of the UK, including the NHS and unemployment/disability benefits. Is it not clear to see that a country can operate fine as a Capitalist entity that flirts with Socialism when it sees fit? Seems that the UK has been doing so for decades and its worked out ok over here.

2. Here comes the extreme analogies, boarderline disrespectful again. Are you really claiming that the only difference between today's benefit culture and famines in which millions starved is the fact that there are more resources avaliable for distribution today? Seriously? The facts speak for themselves here, aid was not given during the Irish and Indian famines because, incorrectly, it was believed to be more profitable to carry on exporting and ignore what was going on. Thats a whole world apart from Heroin addicts and lazy teenagers ripping off the State. D'ya know what, I don't think this point is even worth arguing, you went overboard and I think you know it.

3. Ok you're saying that prior to British invasion, many farmers rented the land they worked on. Whats your point? They weren't starving. Therefore, common sense dictates that there must have been significant differences between pre and post-British harvesting. Like you said there were many famines in India before the British invasion, can you suggest why under British rule the death toll skyrocketed? There have been many, many times throughout history in which political theory has been put on hold for straightforward helping your neighbour. You seem to claim that society would collapse if you give one of your starving workers a meal? Come on. Because then he will never work again unless you give him free meals right? I don't agree with that at all, through almost all wartime in modern history, and through many other times of hardship, aid is handed out by the State, and more commonly from person to person. There are tons of stories of wartime Britain in which the rich and poor, employee and employer come together to help whoever should be less fortunate, once the war is over people return to their previous positions. There is none of the collapse you talk about. You say that in Great Britain, landowners didn't provide for their starving workers either. I agree, that is also wrong though. It is also true that a significant amount of people did try to feed their own workers and anyone else they could. However, in Ireland this was outlawed.

4. Lets keep this argument political. Religion is bound to come up, especially here, but it isn't relevant to the argument right now so theres no need.

5. That is so selective its unreal. So then everywhere else was already built on war, the British came along and moved in with their nice cups of tea and pretty red coats, treating everyone really nice and bringing them shiney new iPods? I see what you mean again, but your are undercutting your agrument by exaggeration. You are right, everywhere that Britain invaded had a long history of war and violence before the Brits got involved. However, it is also fair to say that the British were, at best, no better than the previous rulers, I mean surely they'd have to be pretty bad to get rid of the establishment currently there. Surely if the country the Brits were invading was a land of savage warriors and the Brits were all so nice, they would have been incapable of taking it over. The fact is every Empire was built in blood, and the British Empire was one of the biggest most powerful empires ever known. It goes without saying that in some corners of the world some people got a rough deal. The point is though, there is no Empire anymore, and the people of Ireland want their island back, I think its time to move on. You can look at this thing as many ways as you like, but all Northern Ireland is, is a relic of the British Empire, eventually Ireland will be unified, its just a matter of when are the British gonna let go.

6. Nationalist is being thrown around here like a bad word. Whats wrong with patriotism. I'm a nationalist, so what?
Also that comment about the dog nicely sums up what I've been meaning when I say you keep undercutting your arguments. Again I don't think you really meant to call anyone a dog, unless I misread, but the way you put it kind of distracts me from the point you're making.
0
reply
Asert
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#168
Report 9 years ago
#168
(Original post by L i b)
Without checks and balances on power, these are the same thing.
No doubt, for government. For a simple referendum? Please.

Again, 'countries' do not own their produce - private individuals do. This is not a communist state, and it never will be.
Why do you keep bringing up communism? Yes, the land and produce of India belonged to the private owners who owned them, not the colonial invaders who stole it from them.

Charity was believed to create a cycle of dependency - something which we actually can observe today as a consequence of our benefits culture. Why that doesn't cause great problems today is that we have more charity to give and more abundant resources generally: in places like India, that simply was not the case.
Lucky the British had such a high value of the human life that they would rather have a dead body than a dependent individual.

Whilst you seem to favour some sort of nationalist primitivist socialism governing a state,
Clearly, I mean that point was obvious after I said "I favour some sort of nationalist primitivist socialism."

it is clear to see that the British concern with economics and markets created the infrastructure that have allowed places like India to advance from the level of development seen in the worst parts of Sub-Saharan Africa.
It's funny because that infrastructure was only made to best remove stolen produce from the country and best keep the natives suppressed.

Frankly, your economic system works even worse than the 19th century British one.
My economic system? I haven't advocated one economic system in this thread, I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

This was never the case. Do you think the preceding rulers of India did not charge rents? Gave farmers alms when their crops failed when they didn't produce exports? Of course not. Indian farmers, as in so many underdeveloped countries, worked chiefly for landowners and were able to farm for subsistence on the side - if they didn't do that, then they wouldn't have been given use of the land.
Obviously, but they were never knowingly starved to death by their landowners.

The food which they produced did not belong to them. It was not their choice who ate it - and frankly it being exported within India or outwith made absolutely no difference to them: it would still have been sold off for someone else's profit either way.
No, it belonged to the landowners, not the British colonialists who took it from them.

Again, exports are irrelevant.
They really aren't when the very same exports could have fed the population many times over.

When there were famines in Great Britain, did the landowners suddenly start feeding their tenant farmers on, say, the sheep they reared? No: the landowners still had to eat too.
Nah they had things like Poor Laws which allowed people to [barely] survive. But at the same time the English were white and civilised so their lives were obviously valued over the brown natives.

If you really believe that, then you're simple-minded. I have no problem with anyone being agnostic or even atheist, but to take such a ludicrously arrogant view on matters which none of us can ever comprehend fully is just ridiculous.
As an atheist, what else can I assume religion is but a fairytale? Maybe if I had said 'fictional story' it wouldn't have upset your precious Judeo-Christian values?

It does if they never had the land in the first place.
So who owned the land if not for the landowners?

Again, you seem to believe that before the British came along, your primitivist socialist nation-states existed.
Forgot about all of those nation states of mine...

The British replaced previous rulers, previous empires, previous landlords
You say replaced, we both know it was either 'forced out' or 'murdered.' Let's not beat around the bush here.

and, in general, were not only rather nicer to their people,
"Prisoners were questioned with the help of "slicing off ears, boring holes in eardrums, flogging until death, pouring paraffin over suspects who were then set alight, and burning eardrums with lit cigarettes." The soldiers were told they could shoot anyone they liked "provided they were black."
Sometimes the black people were hunted for fun..sometimes they were raped in passing, or abducted as mistresses or as slaves. The sealers of Bass Islands established a slave society of their own with harems of women, employing the well tried discipline of slavery - clubbing, stringing up from trees, or flogging with kangaroo-gut whips. In one foray seventy aborigines were killed, the men shot, the women and children dragged from crevices in the rocks to have their brains dashed out.

You are a nationalist, being that you are making nationalist arguments - and indeed, fairly extreme ones at that. Whether you are an Irish nationalist is completely immaterial to me: if a dog was attacking me, I wouldn't sit back and wonder what breed it was and whether it was registered with the Kennel Club.
I mean that's like 6 or 7 times you've said it and it still isn't true... maybe you could like do a ritual next time??


You've clearly had the old god save the queen revisionism drilled into you far too many times. I had it at school too. These glorious chaps called the British were eventually kicked out of the countries they invaded for a reason - they weren't liked, they were never liked and they were horrible brutal oppressors who ruled with an iron fist. When you take your fingers out of your ears and finish singing Rule Britannia maybe we could have a new thread where we can discuss the good and bad things about the British Empire without completely hand waving away the bad things? PM me when that time comes.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#169
Report 9 years ago
#169
(Original post by Rawss)
How dare you try to compare the charity given to starving families during the Irish famine to the benefits culture of today. We are talking about families who literally didnt even have bread and butter to live on, who had absolutely no say or control in the economic conditions that were ruining their lives, not chavvy benefit scroungers created by the very state that failed them.

This is another contradiction of yours I was alluding to earlier - again you are gravely distorting the context of two completely different scenarios - something you have denounced me of doing. I suppose you will try put this observation under the label of "revisionism" or whatever you like to call your post-colonial bias yourself.
I think that's quite a horrible view of people on benefits. There are a record number of unemployed in this country, and they're certainly not all 'chavvy scum'. But the ingrained benefits culture is exactly what the politicians at the time of the Irish Famine sought to avoid.

Doesn't make thes practices right, morally or otherwise. I think any wholly rational person could come to the same conclusion.
Depends how you look at things really. I have strong views on private property rights. Ultimately, the central wrong in each case was the overwhelming power that the state held. In the Irish case, plenty private charity was given from Great Britain - it was the state that pursued this rather odd strict form of market capitalism.

Comparing nationalists to dogs? Nice. You're a charmer. I think we can all now see the true colours emanating from your sorry attempts above at forming context, excuses and rationality.
I like dogs. I don't like nationalists. Dogs don't spout horrible political opinions.

(Original post by Keiran0)
I can say, based on all the research I have done, thats exactly what happened.

There is a difference between being slow to react to crisis, or being disorganised or otherwise incapacitated in response to it, and being criminally negligent.
They were slow and disorganized, but you're right - that wasn't the only matter in play. The government of the time believed - as was the thinking at the time - that buggering about with free markets would cause catastrophic effects for economies. How about researching some of the output of the UK treasury at the time, and the policies on which the incumbent government stood? It is all perfectly consistent.

As I've said before I was born in England and I love this country. However, its only right to hold your hands up and admit that some of the things done in the name of the country you may now call yourself a patriot of have been wrong. Dulling down the facts and trying to defend these horrific actions is kind of disrespectful not only to the people who suffered then, but also to the people who still feel sensitive about these things today.
I am not a British patriot. I think Britain is a wonderful place to live, but I do not have some obscure attachment to its government. I am a Libertarian of sorts - I criticise the government at the drop of a hat. That doesn't mean I ignore historical context and fall into the silly good vs. evil-Lord-of-the-Rings approximation that passes for nationalist history.
0
reply
Rawss
Badges: 0
#170
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#170
(Original post by L i b)
I think that's quite a horrible view of people on benefits. There are a record number of unemployed in this country, and they're certainly not all 'chavvy scum'. But the ingrained benefits culture is exactly what the politicians at the time of the Irish Famine sought to avoid.
Again, what about your view of the millions of starving Irish of the 1840s?! Who had absolutely no choice in the matter?? Do you honestly believe that their fate should be accepted as merely the unfortunate result of a somehow well-thought-out economic policy?!

That is absolute BOLLOX. Ingrained benefits culture - don't make me laugh. We are talking about the systematic starvation of a whole nation.

That's slightly different to the benefits culture that the UK is so infamous for today.

What is your real agenda here? You are really showing yourself and your beloved country in a bad light by believing in such a warped view of history.

At least 1 million Irish people died as a result of the famine, and at least another 1 million emigrated.

We are talking about the death and destruction of a nation at near Holocaust levels (in terms of human conditions and number of fatalities). Let's remind ourselves, that the negative consequences of the famine were felt in Ireland over 100 years later (declining rural population, mass emigration, decline in native Irish speakers, declining economic conditions and standards of living).

How can you possibly excuse this?

Lets call a spade a spade here. You're a colonial sympathiser who is poorly disguising your British bias through a thin pathetic veil of 'historical context' that can be counteracted and contradicted again and again.

I like dogs. I don't like nationalists. Dogs don't spout horrible political opinions.
Again this is not 'horrible nationalism', this is fact!

I only see one form of horrible political opinion here, and that is from you sir. Again, you are excusing the starvation of at least 1 million Irish people as purely being the result of a rational economic policy.

You refuse to accept that the British government actively facilitated such deplorable conditions, yet you jump on the back of the hundreds of thousands of British people today who literally couldn't be bothered getting out of bed for a job.

Come on, give us a perfectly legitimate rationale for the Holocaust while you're at it...judging by your warped view of history and context, you must have one.

You are a pretty sick individual if you actually believe all of the above in relation to the Irish famine.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt, and the sooner you realise this, the better, for you and your country.
0
reply
UGeNe
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#171
Report 9 years ago
#171
(Original post by Rawss)
Again, what about your view of the millions of starving Irish of the 1840s?! Who had absolutely no choice in the matter?? Do you honestly believe that their fate should be accepted as merely the unfortunate result of a somehow well-thought-out economic policy?!

That is absolute BOLLOX. Ingrained benefits culture - don't make me laugh. We are talking about the systematic starvation of a whole nation.

That's slightly different to the benefits culture that the UK is so infamous for today.

What is your real agenda here? You are really showing yourself and your beloved country in a bad light by believing in such a warped view of history.

At least 1 million Irish people died as a result of the famine, and at least another 1 million emigrated.

We are talking about the death and destruction of a nation at near Holocaust levels (in terms of human conditions and number of fatalities). Let's remind ourselves, that the negative consequences of the famine were felt in Ireland over 100 years later (declining rural population, mass emigration, decline in native Irish speakers, declining economic conditions and standards of living).

How can you possibly excuse this?

Lets call a spade a spade here. You're a colonial sympathiser who is poorly disguising your British bias through a thin pathetic veil of 'historical context' that can be counteracted and contradicted again and again.



Again this is not 'horrible nationalism', this is fact!

I only see one form of horrible political opinion here, and that is from you sir. Again, you are excusing the starvation of at least 1 million Irish people as purely being the result of a rational economic policy.

You refuse to accept that the British government actively facilitated such deplorable conditions, yet you jump on the back of the hundreds of thousands of British people today who literally couldn't be bothered getting out of bed for a job.

Come on, give us a perfectly legitimate rationale for the Holocaust while you're at it...judging by your warped view of history and context, you must have one.

You are a pretty sick individual if you actually believe all of the above in relation to the Irish famine.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt, and the sooner you realise this, the better, for you and your country.
This again.

Didn't we all agree that the Irish who died from the famine were the poor farmers? Nothing anyone could have done about it.

Poor = No food = Death
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#172
Report 9 years ago
#172
(Original post by Rawss)
Lets call a spade a spade here. You're a colonial sympathiser who is poorly disguising your British bias through a thin pathetic veil of 'historical context' that can be counteracted and contradicted again and again.
I am not an imperialist - I believe the imperial model was deeply flawed, as indeed is every political system which has been actually implemented. I do not, however, have this Victorian view that you and Asert seem to hold of the noble savage living in an Commu-anarchistic utopian collective before the big, bad British came. It was simply replacing one illiberal regime with another - however at least the British Empire had the positive effect of introducing concepts like liberalism, parliamentary democracy and indeed bringing its colonies, kicking and screaming, into the modern world.

I wouldn't try to sap the British Empire out of history. People would be considerably worse-off across the world for its absence.

As for everything else, please don't accuse me of being a nationalist just because you are and I oppose you. I have spent years actively campaigning and arguing against nationalism - I am not most certainly not one.

Again this is not 'horrible nationalism', this is fact!

I only see one form of horrible political opinion here, and that is from you sir. Again, you are excusing the starvation of at least 1 million Irish people as purely being the result of a rational economic policy.
That's exactly what it was - and I don't see it as 'excusing' anything. Their economic policy of the time was rational - perhaps, indeed, too rational. They are not my politics - Lord John Russell was the PM who oversaw most of the potato famine; the measures taken by the Tory Robert Peel are considered comparatively more effective - I am, of course, a Tory. Indeed, the Irish Famine, and the associated issue surrounding the repeal of the Corn Laws, effectively created the modern Conservative Party.

It didn't work. Perhaps it was simply that the policy advocated was altogether too academic. Perhaps it was the continued underestimating of the problem. Perhaps it was simply translating the relief efforts that did occur to actual improvements on the ground. It was a disasterous act of political incompetence.

You are a pretty sick individual if you actually believe all of the above in relation to the Irish famine.
Nope, just a person who doesn't let ridiculous emotions cloud his historical judgement. It's worth noting that you've presented no credible argument in favour of your stance on the Potato Famine, but simply attacked me personally over my views on it.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#173
Report 9 years ago
#173
(Original post by Keiran0)
1. Would you agree that the UK is a Capitalist country? Providing you accept that, and are also aware of social securities avaliable to the citizens of the UK, including the NHS and unemployment/disability benefits. Is it not clear to see that a country can operate fine as a Capitalist entity that flirts with Socialism when it sees fit? Seems that the UK has been doing so for decades and its worked out ok over here.
It is. A few drops in the ocean do not change that.

2. Here comes the extreme analogies, boarderline disrespectful again. Are you really claiming that the only difference between today's benefit culture and famines in which millions starved is the fact that there are more resources avaliable for distribution today? Seriously? The facts speak for themselves here, aid was not given during the Irish and Indian famines because, incorrectly, it was believed to be more profitable to carry on exporting and ignore what was going on. Thats a whole world apart from Heroin addicts and lazy teenagers ripping off the State. D'ya know what, I don't think this point is even worth arguing, you went overboard and I think you know it.
Undoubtedly. If the world could be fed, I'm sure we'd all do it tomorrow.

Aid was not given, at least in the Irish scenario - I have no knowledge of the ins and outs of the Indian famines except to appreciate that famine was, at the time, a common occurrence in India and drawing the obviously conclusions from that fact - because it was believed that to do so on the scale you suggest would cause economic collapse. Whether this line would have been used if the government appreciated the full extent of the problem, I am not sure - they certainly wavered on it once extent began to become apparent.

As for your views on the benefits system - I think that's just Daily Express-esque nonsense.

3. Ok you're saying that prior to British invasion, many farmers rented the land they worked on. Whats your point? They weren't starving. Therefore, common sense dictates that there must have been significant differences between pre and post-British harvesting. Like you said there were many famines in India before the British invasion, can you suggest why under British rule the death toll skyrocketed? There have been many, many times throughout history in which political theory has been put on hold for straightforward helping your neighbour. You seem to claim that society would collapse if you give one of your starving workers a meal? Come on. Because then he will never work again unless you give him free meals right? I don't agree with that at all, through almost all wartime in modern history, and through many other times of hardship, aid is handed out by the State, and more commonly from person to person. There are tons of stories of wartime Britain in which the rich and poor, employee and employer come together to help whoever should be less fortunate, once the war is over people return to their previous positions. There is none of the collapse you talk about. You say that in Great Britain, landowners didn't provide for their starving workers either. I agree, that is also wrong though. It is also true that a significant amount of people did try to feed their own workers and anyone else they could. However, in Ireland this was outlawed.
The British invasion was a rise to prominence of British bands in the 1960s United States. If you mean the Norman Conquest of Ireland, say that.

Farmers never starved prior to the Norman Conquest in Ireland - ignoring the fact that the population increased dramatically in later years, I simply say: prove it. You can't. And indeed it is so incredible a claim that I'll simply dismiss it out of hand.

As for the Whig economic position, I do not support it - and indeed, the evidence that you suggest against it was not known at the time. They believed - quite rightly, in some ways - that dependency on the state is a difficult thing to wean people off of and, when people have to exchange labour, it puts the market at a disadvantage. It's really quite simply laissez faire capitalism. The fact that you don't understand it and the context of it does not concern me - the simple fact you need to comprehend is that people in the 19th century did believe it, and a lot of other rot too.

You are right, everywhere that Britain invaded had a long history of war and violence before the Brits got involved. However, it is also fair to say that the British were, at best, no better than the previous rulers
Infrastructure, outlawing practices like Sati, imposing the rule of law, having a functioning judiciary - the advantages are as pronounced as those that the Romans brought to Britain in their time.

The fact is every Empire was built in blood
Not just empires, every country. These nations which you seem to love, Ireland included, were built and founded on warfare.

6. Nationalist is being thrown around here like a bad word. Whats wrong with patriotism. I'm a nationalist, so what?
Also that comment about the dog nicely sums up what I've been meaning when I say you keep undercutting your arguments. Again I don't think you really meant to call anyone a dog, unless I misread, but the way you put it kind of distracts me from the point you're making.
Politicising identity, race, religion, culture etc is, by very definition, illiberal. Hence, I find it revolting. But it's worth noting the inevitable conflicts, the 'them vs us' mentalities and the ridiculous denial of logic that nationalism leads to.

Nationalism is one of the most unrelentingly negative ideologies I can think of. As far as I'm concerned, in many ways it is worse than other forms of identity politics like racism. Unfortunately it is still more acceptable in polite society; that is what will inevitably come to an end.

Your great-grandchildren looking back on the views you express will be filled with just as much bafflement as you have looking back on those of British imperialists and indeed those in government during the Irish famine.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#174
Report 9 years ago
#174
(Original post by Asert)
No doubt, for government. For a simple referendum? Please.

Why do you keep bringing up communism? Yes, the land and produce of India belonged to the private owners who owned them, not the colonial invaders who stole it from them.
Well, in practice being a vaguely feudal society land ownership was combined with political power. But yes, in most cases the British did not take land from Indian rulers: they simply opened up trade routes to them.

It's funny because that infrastructure was only made to best remove stolen produce from the country and best keep the natives suppressed.
Whilst the use of a railway line can be moral or immoral, the railway line itself is neutral in this regard. British government gave unprecedented freedoms to much of the world, and indeed a measure of prosperity which endures to this day.

My economic system? I haven't advocated one economic system in this thread, I literally have no idea what you are talking about.
Yes you have: collective, absolute nationalist ownership of resources.


Obviously, but they were never knowingly starved to death by their landowners.
Starving someone is not an overt and positive act. Denying them food might be. Either way, in tough economic times, I doubt many native landowners were quick to reduce their profits and the food on their own dinnertables for the sake of the peasants they controlled.

Nah they had things like Poor Laws which allowed people to [barely] survive. But at the same time the English were white and civilised so their lives were obviously valued over the brown natives.
Ireland had the poor laws too. Fat lot of good it did them. There are plenty of documentable food shortages and famines in Great Britain during this period.

You say replaced, we both know it was either 'forced out' or 'murdered.' Let's not beat around the bush here.
Well, the British 'takeover' of India is quite a complex situation. But in most cases, yes. I don't really see anything wrong with that. If a more liberal government invaded Britain and replaced the incumbent government, I'd be perfectly happy with that.

You've clearly had the old god save the queen revisionism drilled into you far too many times.
I'm not a nationalist; you are. You're simply confusing my refusal to accept your bias with having a bias of my own. It is simply not the case.
0
reply
CyclopsRock
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#175
Report 9 years ago
#175
Definitely. And Portugal should offer itself up as part of Spain, too. Afterall, they're all hispanics!
0
reply
yawn
Badges: 13
#176
Report 9 years ago
#176
(Original post by Batteries Not Included)

The glaring hypocrisy is that you genealogy is probably part German or some other nationality. I also wouldn't be surprised if your ancestors engaged in inbreeding, at some point.
There's a lot of Spanish and French in the Irish geneaology...not any German as far as I know. But if there was, I'm sure the Irish would be proud, as are the English of their monarch's geneaology.
reply
Rawss
Badges: 0
#177
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#177
(Original post by L i b)
I am not an imperialist - I believe the imperial model was deeply flawed, as indeed is every political system which has been actually implemented. I do not, however, have this Victorian view that you and Asert seem to hold of the noble savage living in an Commu-anarchistic utopian collective before the big, bad British came. It was simply replacing one illiberal regime with another - however at least the British Empire had the positive effect of introducing concepts like liberalism, parliamentary democracy and indeed bringing its colonies, kicking and screaming, into the modern world.
You say you are not an imperialist. Then you use the word 'savage' in reference to native Irish! Thus I still believe that you have displayed a deeply engrained bias towards justifying British motives throughout history.

I wouldn't try to sap the British Empire out of history. People would be considerably worse-off across the world for its absence.
I would imagine that there are millions of Africans and Asians today that would disagree.

Nope, just a person who doesn't let ridiculous emotions cloud his historical judgement. It's worth noting that you've presented no credible argument in favour of your stance on the Potato Famine, but simply attacked me personally over my views on it.
I am still of the contention that the facts speak for themselves. How have my emotions become ridiculous?


I view the term Tory liberal as an oxy-moron (well I would, wouldnt I). But would you not vote Lib Dems if you are truly liberal - i.e. act with a common sense approach rather than from the point of view of red vs blue sledging politics.

You view nationalism as a dirty word, and you even suggest in another post that it is potentially worse than an ideology of degrading people on the grounds of race. I fail to see how that is liberal. What is wrong with an ethnic group of people aspiring to have their own sovereignty?

I take it from your logic, the whole world would still be under British rule - because there would be no time for etnicity and nationalism in politics, yet somehow everyone would be treated equally and be happy??

I am having a punt here and would suggest you are looking at Canada as an example of your 'melting pot' philosophy - was never going to happen in the Irish case - far too much history involved.

Blindly denouncing nationalism is simplifying history beyond belief.
0
reply
Stettin
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#178
Report 9 years ago
#178
You view nationalism as a dirty word, and you even suggest in another post that it is potentially worse than an ideology of degrading people on the grounds of race. I fail to see how that is liberal. What is wrong with an ethnic group of people aspiring to have their own sovereignty?
It's one thing to be proud and have self-determined. It's an another thing to be nationalistic. Those kind of emotions cloud peoples judgement. It should be stamped out in all honesty.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#179
Report 9 years ago
#179
(Original post by Rawss)
You say you are not an imperialist. Then you use the word 'savage' in reference to native Irish! Thus I still believe that you have displayed a deeply engrained bias towards justifying British motives throughout history.
No I don't. The concept of the 'noble savage' is well-known. It is a term in common currency. Moreover, I was using the phrase to represent the views of another person.

Do try to keep up.

I would imagine that there are millions of Africans and Asians today that would disagree.
I imagine there are millions of people who would see their own children die in poverty or warfare than to put aside their petty nationalistic differences. I rather question their judgement, or indeed the judgement of anyone who thinks an appeal to populism is in any way a useful argument to make.

I am still of the contention that the facts speak for themselves.
No facts speak for themselves; and indeed, I believe you are presenting a lot of innuendo as supposed fact.

I view the term Tory liberal as an oxy-moron (well I would, wouldnt I). But would you not vote Lib Dems if you are truly liberal - i.e. act with a common sense approach rather than from the point of view of red vs blue sledging politics.
No. The Lib Dems are economically illiberal.

You view nationalism as a dirty word, and you even suggest in another post that it is potentially worse than an ideology of degrading people on the grounds of race. I fail to see how that is liberal. What is wrong with an ethnic group of people aspiring to have their own sovereignty?
It's funny, you criticise racism yet ask how nationalism is wrong - well, the same reasons apply. Why do you think a racial group should not be able to have its own sovereignty? Why do you think people objected to apartheid?

A number of reasons. The politicisation of identity and the bringing of the state into regulating culture, ethnicity, race, religion and so forth in an extreme way; the division of societies; the 'them and us' mentality it encourages; the political and social segregation of groups on the basis of generalisations.

The reason, incidentally, that I believe nationalism can be more insipid than racism is because, for better or worse, people cannot change their race. A racist must either accept them or reject them as part of 'their' group. Nationalism, on the other hand, has an unpleasant middle ground, where people may be treated oppressively in order to encourage them to conform: that they may be forced into membership of a nation, essentially at gunpoint.

It is actually a fairly obvious consequence: nationalism depends on an orthodox culture being identified in a defined geographical area. Those who do not conform to that will be grouped as 'others', but for the sake of trying to legitimise the political side of things, nationalists then feel to stamp out these unorthodoxies - for it is the generalisation of commonality which their 'rights' hinge upon: otherwise there is no nation.

Blindly denouncing nationalism is simplifying history beyond belief.
Nothing to do with history whatsoever; just morality.
0
reply
EnthusiasticEnthusiast
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#180
Report 9 years ago
#180
My great grand parents were both Irish, so I fully support the unification of Ireland as I believe the island of Ireland should be united as it once was for 800 years. However considering that I don't live there I can't cast a vote as such, I just wish the best to them whether they're united or not, at the end of the day they're all Irish, seperated by religion.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (44)
38.26%
No - but I will (4)
3.48%
No - I don't want to (5)
4.35%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (62)
53.91%

Watched Threads

View All