The Irish Potato Famine

[MsAmerica]

This would have been better in a history forum, but failing that, I'll try Politics. Interesting article - a book review, really.

What Made the Irish Famine So Deadly
The Great Hunger was a modern event, shaped by the belief that the poor are the authors of their own misery and that the market must be obeyed at all costs.
By Fintan O’Toole

There have been, in absolute terms, many deadlier famines, but as Amartya Sen, the eminent Indian scholar of the subject, concluded, in “no other famine in the world [was] the proportion of people killed . . . as large as in the Irish famines in the 1840s.” The pathogen that caused it was a fungus-like water mold called Phytophthora infestans. Its effect on the potato gives “Rot,” a vigorous and engaging new study of the Irish famine by the historian Padraic X. Scanlan, its title. The blight began to infect the crop across much of western and northern Europe in the summer of 1845. In the Netherlands, about sixty thousand people died in the consequent famine—a terrible loss, but a fraction of the mortality rate in Ireland. It is, oddly, easier to form a mental picture of what it might have been like to witness the Dutch tragedy than to truly convey the magnitude of the suffering in Ireland...

Even before the potato blight, there was a degree of hunger among the Irish rural underclass that seemed like an ugly remnant of a receding past. In 1837, two years after Alexis de Tocqueville published the first volume of “Democracy in America,” his lifelong collaborator, Gustave de Beaumont, went to Ireland, a country the two men had previously visited together. The book de Beaumont produced in 1839, “L’Irlande: Sociale, Politique et Religieuse,” was a grim companion piece to his friend’s largely optimistic vision of the future that was taking shape on the far side of the Atlantic. De Beaumont, a grandson by marriage of the Marquis de Lafayette, understood that, while the United States his ancestor had helped to create was a vigorous outgrowth of the British political traditions he and de Tocqueville so admired, Ireland was their poisoned fruit. America, he wrote, was “the land where destitution is the exception,” Ireland “the country where misery is the common rule.”

The problem was not that the land was barren: Scanlan records that, “in 1846, 3.3 million acres were planted with grain, and Irish farms raised more than 2.5 million cattle, 2.2 million sheep and 600,000 pigs.” But almost none of this food was available for consumption by the people who produced it. It was intended primarily for export to the burgeoning industrial cities of England. Thus, even Irish farmers who held ten or more acres and who would therefore have been regarded as well off, ate meat only at Christmas. “If an Irish family slaughtered their own pig, they would sell even the intestines and other offal,” Scanlan writes. He quotes the testimony of a farmer to a parliamentary commission, in 1836, that “he knew other leaseholders who had not eaten even an egg in six months. ‘We sell them now,’ he explained.”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/03/17/rot-padraic-x-scanlan-book-review

The question is, why does that fact appear to threaten your whole identity today in 2025?

This is a bizarre question which appears to be completely irrelevant to anything anyone has said on this thread.

But there is no dispute that aid was sent, and that the distribution was almost totally ineffective

Here we go again! You say aid was sent by Britain as if Britain was a separate country doing a nice thing for Ireland and that it was the fault of the Irish that it was not distributed and that anyone who does not acknowledge the sending of the aid is anti-British.

Both the sending and the distribution was the responsibility of the government of the day which was the British government in Westminster.

The Irish people were British citizens. If there was a famine in say Devon and the government failed spectacularly in ensuring the people of Devon were fed while simultaneously sending food from Devon to other counties, do you think that would be a British government failure? I cannot believe you are a teacher that does not know this basic fact.

It is because people don't know these basic facts that I keep posting......

It is because people don't know these basic facts that I keep posting......

As I thought, you're just a windup.

What I don't get is why so many people's whole identity seems to be tied up in anti British propaganda.
I can only speak for myself (and my family) - it is not anti-British and it is not propaganda. I was born in England although I am Irish, identify as Irish, and my entire family are Irish. I have nothing against the British per se. I have a lot against the wealthy and powerful, and being an equal opportunities critic, I do not care where they are from. In this specific case it is the British wealthy and powerful becaus ethey are the ones that controlled the agenda and continue to do so.

The question is, why does that fact appear to threaten your whole identity today in 2025?
It doesn't theaten it. You don't understand. It is part of who we are. It is part of our heritage. It is part of our power as a people. Who we are is not green dreeses and leprechauns. Who we are was built from out past. Our present is because of our past. How does that differ from anyone else?

A summary of the Gov Response.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
The question must be asked, however — why did such a devastating famine occur on an island that produced more than enough food to feed its population? The dependence of a very poor populace on a single staple crop would inevitably lead to some food shortages, hunger, and death among the poor if and when that staple crop failed. However, the dimensions of the disaster were not inevitable. Fundamentally, the impact of this profound crop failure was the consequence of political decisions taken by those who governed Ireland and reflected prevailing attitudes on the role of government. As John Mitchel, a contemporary Irish revolutionary, noted “The Almighty, indeed, sent the potato blight, but the English created the famine.”

In 1845, the initial response of Conservative British government, led by Sir Robert Peel, to the early less-severe phase of the famine was reasonably prompt and included importation of maize and cornmeal secretly from America, and the establishment of a program of public works. At that time, Britain maintained the so-called Corn Laws, which imposed heavy duties on imported grain to ensure that it could never be cheaper than home-grown produce. Peel recognized that the Corn Laws would need to be repealed to allow for public relief and the importation of cheap grain, especially from the Americas. However, this was vehemently opposed by Conservative land-owners, and repeal of the Corn Laws split the Conservative Party, leading to the fall of Peel's ministry. The prevailing political philosophy of the new Whig Government was laissez-faire — in other words, government had no place interfering with or regulating the economy. This approach held that markets would provide the food needed and they halted the previous government's food and relief works.

However, in addition to the economic argument, there was a fundamental, almost philosophical, approach to poor and socially “less-advanced” populations in general, and to Ireland in particular, among the English Ruling classes. This was not a socially enlightened time that assumed that a role of government should be to eliminate poverty and its consequences. Significant poverty and deprivation already existed in Britain and across its empire. Political classes in London debated as to whether feeding the starving Irish with free food might set up culture of dependency. This debate among the English governing class was tinged by racism and class superiority. The minster with significant authority for Ireland, Sir Charles Trevelyan, wrote that the Irish national character was “defective,” and that the Irish were “a selfish, perverse, and turbulent” people. He thought “the judgment of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson.” Indeed, it should be recalled that when Thomas Malthus set forward his thesis on the economic and social impact of natural catastrophes 50 years previously, he referred to Ireland as a prime example: “… the land in Ireland is infinitely more peopled than in England; and to give full effect to the natural resources of the country, a great part of the population should be swept from the soil.”

By January 1847, the effects of the famine were severe enough to cause the government to abandon its policy of noninterference, and they turned to a mixture of “indoor” and “outdoor” direct relief; the former administered in workhouses through Irish Poor Laws; the latter through soup kitchens. The costs of the Poor Law fell primarily on the local landlords, some of whom in turn attempted to reduce their liability by evicting their tenants. This was facilitated through the “Cheap Ejectment Acts.” Furthermore, the “Gregory clause” of the Poor Law prohibited anyone who held at least one-fourth of an acre from receiving relief. This clause forced many to abandon their homes to obtain food, increasing the internal migrations which contributed to contagion. Crowding starving people into workhouses also increased mortality as the workhouses became breeding grounds for infectious diseases, especially typhus and diarrheal illnesses.

By the fall of 1848, the potato harvest had recovered and, although there were continuing shortages and pockets of ongoing starvation, the direct effects of famine diminished over the ensuing years. Indirect effects were more sustained

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6735970/#:~:text=The%20human%20consequences%20of%20this,in%20this%20period%20(1).

What I don't get is why so many people's whole identity seems to be tied up in anti British propaganda.

This is not anti British propaganda. We are all friends now. But this does not change the fact that British rule left a lasting legacy. However we can and have moved on while remembering our past. Remembering that we came from people who were thought of as dirt , as not worthy of living.

For me, this memory, means that it is important to donate to those who are oppressed now or to volunteer to help others. Of course others will disagree. But anti British sentiment is of the main, something that has been laid to rest.

What @Elatha said! Most of my friends are British and I in no way associate them or blame them for what happened in Ireland in the 19th Century. But what happened to my family (my great grandparents) no doubt has shaped me in some way.

Thanks to this thread I have been reading more and more and I never knew that the British government were behaving as they did in part to try and control the landlords who they felt were managing the land badly. Also some of the landlords (in Donegal I think) did do a lot to help the people which was not what the British government were expecting. Thanks to OP for stimulating this conversation.

I completely agree with this. The famine left a traumatic legacy but the guilty and the victims are all dead and gone . The working class English were also victims of the capitalist landowning class ( albeit not in the same catastrophic way)

I do think some collective memory of the horror of being evicted (because of an inability to pay rent) remains in the Irish psyche. The desire to own your house and bit of land is very strong in my experience.

Ireland is an affluent and prosperous country now so I completely agree that the memory of the famine should be a spur to help countries who are in need now - and Ireland has traditionally been very generous in this respect .

The famine left a traumatic legacy but the guilty and the victims are all dead and gone

However the attitudes and treatment of the Irish which led to the policies that contributed to and caused starvation continued long after the famine.

Ireland’s policy of neutrality means it hasn’t really ever intervened at times it could’ve.

The excellent and well regarded Irish army has been involved in many peacekeeping missions.

Yes which is excellent but they’ve not effected change or defended in a meaningful sense.

The Irish Army has just over 7000 people. What large scale impact can they have if Ireland changes its stance in neutrality? Should Ireland pump more money into the army?

Ireland isn't part of nato, sure, but would that make a difference to its impact on a global scale?

I mean, I think the messages being given by the current Irish government to Isreal regarding Palestine is as strong as it can be from a small country. Ireland has stuck its neck out diplomatically a result of seeing the injustice - what would an end to its stance on neutrality achieve?

Ireland was a very poorand underpopulated country when it finally achieved independence. It’s neutrality was necessary as it needed to focus on domestic politics

I wonder why Ireland ( the Irish Government), France ( French government and the UK ( British government) while supporting Palestine, haven’t said this recognition would only happen if the 50 or so Hamas hostages were released ?

The Irish Passport podcast did a good episode on them.

I agree. That would seem to make a lot more sense

The population of the Republic of Ireland is just over 5 million.
The UK is 69 million.
Perhaps your expectations are unreasonable.

The past is another country.
Yes - Ireland has emerged from a traumatic legacy of famine , emigration and civil war but modern day Ireland is a success story.
Resilience rather than victimhood .

Just pointing out that while the direct victims of the famine might all be dead, people who suffered later poor treatment are still very much alive. The Good Friday Agreement was only in 1997!

I hate the way you can’t talk about the past without being accused of victimhood though. I know I’m not a victim but it’s okay to remember what happened in the past.

Yes I know . My mother was from the north. I still have family there.

Fair .. 👍🏼
I totally agree with remembering the past

place marking