Tory Mp Irish famine

[Barill22]

Andrew Griffith is al over the news for appearing to make a derogoratory remark about the Irish famine.

Any thoughts? I cant seem to link an article, but if you google his name youll see it

Especially as many of the landowners were Scottish. Seems conveniently forgotten.

It’s just semantics though.
Ive seen a few of these threads on Irish history go the same way.
Constant minimising, accusing Irish people of playing the victim, saying they should get over it. I saw one on another thread saying they doubt any Irish person alive today has been through anything remotely traumatic. My jaw dropped at that one

UN definition of genocide: "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".

There was no intention. Yes, it was an abomination, but it cannot be understood as a genocide.

So did the Scots?

You left out the part where the British stole their land before that.
Which led to them becoming extremely poor.

Taking the only available food out of the country -is murder.

Look up the definititon of genocide. It is one

And I would also add that your description of events is a very simplistic one

My grandmother was born in the 19th century and I am a similar age to you. Just because your family have children fairly young, it doesn't mean that everyone does. Most children in my family have been born when the mother was late 30s. Plus the PP might easily be 20 or 30 years older than us.

Down a paternal line there might be a much larger gap even with some dying young. I had friends at school with fathers who were much older than their mothers. Great grandmother 1820, grandfather 1860, father 1895, PP 1960.

Yes and considering the policy for centuries was essentially trying to outnumber the indigenous RC population with Protestants, I wouldn’t be surprised if a million Irish dead and a million Irish emigrating was more ‘convenient’ for the ruling classes

A history degree. As if that means anything.

Where from - a UK university?

As UK posters have said on here, the UK education system barely looks at Irish history.

So how is your degree relevant in any way?

It does not meet the definition of genocide. And "stealing their land" is a very simplistic view of centuries' worth of history.

The snobbery!

At least ive shared my opinion. You haven't written anything except 'it wasn't a genocide'.

Fair enough, maybe that was including a transition year, I'm not that motivated to find out every detail how to do my job in Ireland instead, but even so, 200 hours for two years per subject does represent a significant reduction in learning time.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to announce that you had a History degree. Its a bit immature. Studying history for three years at uni (if you did) doesnt mean that you all of a sudden have a better knowledge of history than anyone else.

Go over to Northern Ireland, and tell them that you know more than they do about Northern Ireland, because you have a History degree!

I have a degree in another subject. I don't think that I know everything about that subject. Three years at Uni is quite a short time.

Have a read about Charles Trevelyan's role in the famine and his desire to reduce Ireland's population.

I'm Irish and come from a part of Ireland where people died like flies in the Famine (which wasn't a genocide, sorry), and honestly can't get worked up about this, at all. I suppose its very mildly offensive if I was inclined to be offended about a passing reference to things which happened to my gt gt gt grandparents 160 years ago. The Irish Republic has been independent for a century and is more affluent than the UK these days. Surely we're past the point of being Professionally Offended about Tory backbenchers?

Probably also worth pointing out that I've never come across a single Irish academic historian who thought the Famine was a 'genocide'. And I waded through a lot of academic literature on the subject back in the day!

Trevelyan was a terrible person but it was not British government policy to starve the entire population of Ireland to death.

You'd like to think so but seemingly not.

Im irish, i have to say i disagree that ireland is wealthier than the UK.

Salries are higher in ireland. But rent is also hugely higher in ireland than it is in the UK. Healthcare is much much cheaper in the UK.

I work for a company that has offices in ireland and the uk
In the last two years, i worked one year in ireland and one year in the UK, as my company asked me to.
My salary was a bit higher in ireland, but i was left with much less money at the end of the month, as my rent was so high.

I said I had a history degree purely because you told me that I was completely wrong and needed to learn my history. It seemed like a relevant response but apologies if you think it's immature. I also would not claim to be an expert at all and I haven't done so

I also haven't mentioned Northern Ireland at all.

Maybe that's because many Irish people at relevant times in history, were not given the chance to attend Umiversity to become Academic historians?

These Irish men in history said this:

• John Mitchel:
• Mitchel's work, "The Last Conquest of Ireland (Perhaps)," directly questioned the British government's policies during the famine, arguing that they were not merely inadequate but intended to cause widespread death and displacement.
• Arthur Griffith:
• As the founder of Sinn Féin, Griffith viewed the Famine as a deliberate attempt by the British to eliminate the Irish, a perspective that influenced the nationalist movement.
• P.S. O'Hegarty:
• In his 1952 history of the Union, O'Hegarty echoed this view, arguing that the government's policies were a "deliberate policy of extermination".

Ireland has an awful housing crisis (government policy on housing has been an absolute car crash for years), so far point on rent. But I also see a comparable standard of living and a government which somehow manages to have money for things. And as someone who travels back and forth between Ireland and Britain regularly, I think Britain just looks poorer now, more run down, more worn. Whereas I'm old enough to remember when Ireland was visibly poorer. Obviously it varies - Henley's going to look better than Longford Town - but overall Britain outside the south east just looks increasingly Eastern Bloc circa 1993.

Erm you know Ireland had universities prior to 1922? Your perception of Irish history is very odd! We weren't all wondering around wearing potatoes for shoes till 1922 or something. Ireland had a substantial Catholic middle class and a growing Catholic landowning class by the late 19thc, who went to university in comparable numbers to the rest of their class. Anyway, all three people referred to were nationalists, who had a prior ideological commitments, as did their unionist compatriots. No one thinks Griffith or Mitchell were impartial observers. Or impartial opponents of Empire and oppression (both were ferociously racist for example - Mitchell actually supported the Confederates in the US Civil War).

I believe the Friends were the only ones to stick it out to the end. Some Irish landlords bankrupted themselves trying to help their tenants ( Lord Longford's family eg) but the overwhelming nature of the disaster disheartened most.

At least one English MP spoke in the Commons , saying it was God's way of punishing the Irish for their ill ways and it was therefore their own fault and they shouldn't be helped. It would rid us of the 'Irish Problem'.

A decision was made by the UK parliament that the only help the Irish should receive was from a tax on the Irish landlords who by then had few if any resources either because they had had no rent, income from their tenants for years. Many destitute land owners abandoned their land and moved to England etc.

This^

I think the term tragedy kind of minimises what actually happened.