This page expresses the ideas of Conrad Jay Bladey; it does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the webmaster. Spelling and punctuation are those of Mr Bladey.
What is Culture? How does it sometimes work to kill as efficiently as it works to protect. I respond that causality is much more important than a simple assignment of blanket blame to an entire nation.
writings err too far to exonerate the British and blame the Irish, to
No further than the bulk of writing on the topic has done in the opposite direction. In fact I do not exonerate the British- I do not deal with blame at all I deal with causality-your account removes the Irish from the causal equation and this is not appropriate nor helpful in the search for explanation.
First, to claim the Penal Laws were lightly enforced is untrue. Flat out. By no definition of "lightly enforced"
You will find many references to the uneven and at times very light enforcement of the penal laws starting from the very beginning of such legislation in the 17th century even prior to the gunpowder plot. The penal laws were on the books but enforcement was rarely carried out.
to those times. The transfer of property from Catholic to Protestant, the elimination of Gaelic as a language, the loss of educated native Irish class were all direct results of these laws.
There are many factors which brought about these changes. I do not believe that Gaelic civilization was in any better hands with the "Gaelic" warlords the "earls"- who fled only to go to Europe where they did not preserve the culture in exile!
It did not propel Irish into business (as you explicitly state in your first document)
Wrong here- many Catholics found business opportunities as merchants-some the owners of the very warehouses where grain was stored. Wealthy Catholics by paying the required fees could not only continue but they could still maintain elevated positions within politics-see the court of James I on down... Many Irish were also landlords.
that these laws were normal reactions justly provoked by the Irish is false. Burning down a church full of women and children as did Oliver Cromwell, justified by the statement that "Nits make Lice", was seen as horror by some of the very soldiers that carried it out.
I would chalenge you to find a war in Europe of the time which was any more humane!- The scorched earth tactics and the inhumane treatment of the victims of war was at its peak during the wars of the time- (17th Century)---one can not expect war in Ireland to be more humane.
If you would read your history you would find that Cromwell was absolutely provoked by violence and murder which if it had not occured would have at least delayed his arrival (not only that but England also suffered Cromwell- why should the Irish be spared?)
It was at this time that the penal laws were instituted; the uprisings and rebellions were a reaction to them, not the cause.
The penal laws date from at least the reign of Elizabeth I and were in direct response to Organized Catholic Uprisings, and Assination attempts sanctioned by the pope and funded by foreign powers. Had the Catholics not been assessed as a real danger I doubt that the government would have wasted the time and energy on them.
Second, your claim that the trade in wheat and other food products enriched the Irish. It did not. Over 70% of the Irish at that time were subsistence farmers. They did buy or sell wheat, they paid wheat as taxes and rents. Your talk of employment and prosperity applies primarly to the landlords and English in Ireland, not the Irish.
Not true! the boom which came to Ireland as a result of the demand for grain brought about by the need of England to field and feed massive armies helped all concerned. Granted that the lot of the peasants did not improve as much as that of landlords but, even their lot improved greatly. Inflation was low and they could better afford food in the marketplace and additionally there was more work available that is more opportunities for subsistance -as a result the boom contributed to the potato's effect of increassing population.
growing economy. The Irish did not "fail to adapt" to the industrial revolution due to a cultural failure, they missed it because it required capitol, which they had none of (not even the land they farmed). It could not "trickle down" because the rents and taxes were going to the British government and landlords living overseas, not remaining in Ireland.
Study here the quaker response through their encouragement of cooperation rather than competition in the fishing industry and in encouragement of home industry in reaction to the famine. The capital which was present was not pooled. Additionally the Irish landlords in England did not re-circulate the capital. Additionally networks for mutual protection and welfare were not constructed across family and local lines. A Catholic church (acting through Catholic rulers) which had provided foreign aid for war in the past did not do the same for the starving. You cannot hold the Irish culture exempt from scrutiny-It has free will within its environment- its actions were input into the entire complex equation.
Third, you question why the Irish embraced the potato; "was their taste pleasant?" This comment can only be taken as insulting, because to assume otherwise would require assigning you an ignorace at odds with the research you have shown elsewhere.
Sorry! tis a fact that cultures cause their members not to ea nation of everything English which runs through such accounts. Even during the period the relief was considered massive. The large size of the relief caused the change of government and adoption of the strategy of placing the burden of relief upon the landlords who were both Irish and English.
The tragedy of the famine was not that over a million died because a fungus destroyed potatoes, but that the British govenment and the landlords in Ireland (predominantly English) allowed over a million people to starve in the midst of plenty.
You leave out centuries of interaction between the Irish and English culture which informed the nature of the relationship in the 19th century. You also neglect the important role of the culture of the Irish in structuring their actions and reactions no matter how small. Essentially you hold the Irish up as saints lacking in any form of free will. You also abstract the events from the times in which they occur. One cannot judge 19th century reactions from the high ground of American 20th century humanitarianism. Many infact trace the origins of modern humanitarian relief to the reaction to the famine.
While I agree that there were many factors you seem to eliminate the Irish from the equation. Your view of the Irish should be tempered by a study of their direct role in the conquest of North America and their treatment of Native Americans and their land rights. Additionally you should appreciate the threat of the then catholic empire which wished to bring down, as the current pope assisted in bringing down (see the recent book) the soviet empire, the government of the majority of the people of England.
Had the Irish not attempted to calm the English bull by using the Red cape of Irish Catholicism without a doubt their ride might have been a bit easier. Yet it was their choice to do so and it was a choice informed in part at least by their culture.
The famine is a complex tragedy and it will not be explained by holding one group above analysis.
Conrad Jay Bladey
| Potatoes and Fungus | Potato Miscellany page. | Fungus
Research |
Late Blight Simulation Software | Potato
Facts |
Science Update | Potato Recipes | |
| The Irish Potato Famine
An Gorta Mor- |
History
of
the Famine |
Famine
Stories |
Famine
Songs |
Ideas
for
Commemoration |
Current
Events |
Researchers
Needing Assistance |
Famine Links |