Who Murdered The Irish?
So far as I know, AJP Taylor‘s essay on the Irish Famine is not online anywhere in its whole form. I think it’s his finest; it speaks to my brain and my bones, but beyond any tribalist or ideological way, it speaks to my sense of outrage. So I’ll copy it out in my two-fingered manner, from this source.*
It’s more relevant today than one may suspect. Read it, relish it. And if you can, think of whom nowadays the villains in Taylor’s essay resemble. Lord John Russell and Sir Charles Trevelyan have been dead as fried chicken for many years, yet their type persists and indeed has flourished in our ugly age.
Sorry, boyos, there’s no such thing as a free lunch!
Genocide
New Statesman. A review of The Great Hunger by Cecil Woodham-Smith (1962)When British forces entered the so-called ‘convalescent camp’ at Belsen in 1945, they found a scene of indescribable horror; the wasted bodies of 50,000 human beings who had died from starvation and disease. Kramer, ‘the beast of Belsen’, and his assistants were hanged for this atrocious crime. Only a century before, all Ireland was a Belsen. Nearly two million Irish people died of starvation and fever within five years; another million fled, carrying disease to Liverpool and the New World.
The story can be told in general terms, presenting the famine as a natural catastrophe like an earthquake. The population of Ireland had greatly increased in the preceding years — why, no one knows. Most of the people depended almost exclusively on the potato. In 1845 potato blight arrived, apparently from America. It was a fungus that rotted first the plants and then the potatos in the clamps. A run of wet summers helped the spread of the blight. The potato harvest failed four years running. The Irish peasants had no reserves to fall back on. Many of their landlords were harsh; some almost as impoverished as their peasants — though it is not recorded that any landlord died of starvation. It all happened because it had to happen.
This is how historians usually treat the past. We explain, and with that our duty is finished. The dead are dead. They have become so many figures in a notebook. But they were once human beings, and other human beings sent them to their death. The blight was ‘natural’; the failure of the potato crop was ‘natural’. After that, men played a part. There was food available to save the Irish people from starvation. It was denied them. Nor did Ireland stand alone. Ireland was at that time part of the United Kingdom, the wealthiest country in the world. The British Government had insisted on undertaking reponsibility for Ireland. When crisis arose, they ran away from it. The men in Whitehall were usually of humane disposition and the bearers of honoured names: Lord John Russell; Sir Charles Wood, later first Viscount Halifax; Sir Charles Trevelyan. These men, too, were in a sense victims. They were gripped by the most horrible, and perhaps the most universal, of human maladies: the belief that principles and doctrines are more important than lives. They imagined that rules, invented by economists, were as ‘natural’ as the potato blight. Trevelyan, who did most to determine events, always wanted to leave Ireland to ‘the operation of natural causes’. He refused to recognize that only the gigantic operation of an artificial cause — the exertion of British power — prevented the Irish people from adopting the natural remedy and eating the food which was available for them. Like most members of the comfortable classes of all times, he regarded the police and the law courts as natural phenomena.
Mrs Woodham-Smith in her nost admirable and thorough book writes: ‘The 1840s must not be judged by the standards of today.’ Of course she is right, even though she goes on to judge, and to condemn, the British Government. Russell, Wood and Trevelyan were highly conscientious men, and their consciences never reproached them. Nor are the standards of today much to rely on. The British rulers of the 1840s were no worse than those who later sent millions of men to their deaths in two world wars; no worse than those who now plan to blow all mankind to pieces for the sake of some principle or other. But they were also no better. Though they killed only two million Irish people, this was not for want of trying. Jowett once said:
I have always felt a certain horror of political economists since I heard one of them say that the famine in Ireland would not kill more than a million people, and that would scarcely be enough to do much good.
The successors of these economists are the same in spirit. They preach the virtue of a little healthy unemployment, and do not rely on the whip of starvation only because it has been taken from their hands. If the particular crime committed in Ireland a century ago could not happen now, it is not because present-day statesmen are an improvement on their predecessors. It is because the common conscience of mankind no longer allows statesmen to live up to their principles.
Here was the peculiar tragedy of the Irish famine. The common conscience failed to work, or at least did not work effectively. It is easy to understand how Trevelyan and the rest thought that they were doing their duty. They were handling human beings as ciphers on a bit of paper. They looked up the answers in a textbook of economics without ever once setting eyes on the living skeletons of the Irish people. They invented a distinction between those who were starving because of potato blight and those starving from normal distress. They excused the Irish for being hit with the blight once. They condemned them for persisting in planting potatoes after blight appeared — as though the Irish could do anything else. Most of all, these enlightened men feared the whole social structure would topple down if men and women were once given food which they could not pay for.
Not all Englishmen were enlightened in this way. This was already the England of good works, the England which emancipated the slaves and ended child labour, the England that repealed the Corn Laws and brought sanitation to the towns. The public conscience was in many ways more sensitive, quicker to respond, than it is now. It responded over Ireland, though not enough. The British Government did much when it was in the hands of Sir Robert Peel. They contributed the stupendous sum of 8 million [pounds] to meet the first disaster of 1845, set up relief organizations and provided public works on a scale never attempted before. Peel’s fall from office in 1846 was an additional disaster for Ireland. He was never one to confess impotence, and he might have been powerful enough to override even the principle of Sir Charles Trevelyan.
Official and private individuals in Ireland did all that men could do. Doctors died of fever. Administrators drove themselves to death and often provided relief out of their own pockets. Trevelyan complained that his Commissariat officers could ‘bear anything but the ceaseless misery of the children’. The British Relief Association raised large sums, including 2,000 [pounds] from Queen Victoria. The Society of Friends had a record of spotless honour, as it often does, when men are suffering. Quakers contributed money, ran their own system of relief, sacrificed their lives. All these efforts touched only the edge of the famine. Everything combined against the Irish people. Ignorance played a large part. Even capable Irish administrators did not grasp that there were no harbours on the west coast which could discharge the cargoes of food. No enterprising newspaper correspondent described the horrors in Ireland for the English press as Russell was to describe the lesser horrors in the Crimea nine years later. Nearly all Englishmen regarded Ireland as an inferior version of England, inhabited by lazier and less efficient people. The Irish administrators themselves were bewildered that the problems of Ireland could not be somehow solved by the well-tried methods of the poor rate, boards of guardians and the workhouse test. In many districts there was no one to pay the poor rate or to sit on the board of guardians: most of the Irish would have regarded an English workhouse as a haven of luxury.
The ignorance was often wilful. Men make out that a problem does not exist when they do not know how to solve it. So it has been in all English dealings with Ireland. Again, the famine went on so long. English people, and even the British Government, were ready to do something for one hard season. They were exasperated out of their pity when the blight appeared year after year. How were they to understand that the blight, hitherto unknown, would settle permanently in the soil and flourish every wet summer? It was easy to slip into the belief that the blight was the fault of the Irish themselves. They were a feckless people; the blight was worse in Ireland than in England; the self-righteous conclusion was obvious. English antagonism was not turned only against the Irish poor. Though the landlords are often supposed to have represented a common Anglo-Irish interest, Englishmen and their Government were as hostile to Irish landlords as to Irish peasants. At the height of the famine the full system of the English poor law was extended to Ireland. This was quite as much to make life unpleasant for the landlords as to benefit the starving. The Irish landlords were ‘very much like slave holders with white slaves…they had done nothing but sit down and howl for English money.’ Lord John Russell doubted whether ‘taken as a whole the exertions of property for the relief of distress have been what they ought to have been.’ The starving tenants could not pay their rent. Yet landlords were told to relieve them out of their rents which they could not pay. Some landlords were still prosperous. A few contributed honourably. Most did their duty by keeping up a sumptuous estate, which is what landlords are for.
The Irish people were driven off their land. They were starved, degraded, treated worse than animals. They lamented, they suffered, they died. Yet they made hardly an attempt at resistance. This is perhaps the most dreadful part of the story — a people allowing themselves to be murdered. Mrs Woodham-Smith suggests that the Irish were physically too weak to resist, that famine only gave a final push to their perpetual course of misery and want. Surely it was more than that. Centuries of English tyranny had destroyed Irish will and Irish confidence. O’Connell told the House of Commons in his last speech: ‘Ireland is in your hands, in your power. If you do not save her, she cannot save herself’. The few political leaders in Ireland themselves accepted the econonmic doctrines of their conquerers. They demanded Repeal of the Union, not a reform of the landed system, and Repeal was the cause which brought Smith O’Brien to the widow McCormack’s cabbage patch in his attempt at rebellion in 1848. This provided a farcical note at the end of the tragic story.
Yet not quite the end, which was more farcical still. The English governing class ran true to form. They had killed two million Irish people. They abused the Irish for disliking this. Lord John Russell said in 1848:
We have subscribed, worked, visited, clothed, for the Irish, millions of money, years of debate, etc., etc., etc. The only return is rebellion and calumny.
Lastly, as a gesture of forgiveness no doubt by the British Government for the crimes which they had committed in Ireland, royalty was trundled out. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert visited Ireland. They were recieved everywhere with great enthusiasm.
The famine did not end in Ireland. It was repeated year after year, sometimes in milder form. Natural causes did their work. The Society of Friends alone saw the condition of Ireland in its true light. In 1849 they refused to act any longer as a relief agency. Only the Government, they wrote, ‘could carry out the measures necessary in many districts to save the lievs of the people’. ‘The condition of our country has not improved in spite of the great exertions made by charitable bodies.’ It could not be improved until the land system of Ireland was reformed, which was a matter for legislation, not philanthropy. The British Government ignored the Quakers’ advice. Nothing was done for Ireland until an embittered and more resolute generation of Irishmen acted for themselves.
[All italics mine.]
Who or what is to blame? I think Taylor is genius for giving the hard answer before the easy one. The easy answer is racism, which has the virtue of being true: the tribal disregard of Anglo for Celt always played a part. Also, the typical Imperialist evasion of responsibility is to blame. But these easy answers were the least pernicious causes, as it happened. The real blame goes not to the racist attitudes of run of the mill Englishmen of the day, nor to the irresponsible actions of an Empire, but to the economic dogmatists of the British Government who, like their modern counterparts in the Anglosphere, are far too refined to let mere racism inspire their depravities.
What modern counterparts do I have in mind? What is their ideology? Ahhhh. I’ll let you answer that one. But I’ll leave you with two more observations:
It’s really too bad that Daniel Bell not only started a very longwinded fad of “The End of…” treatises (mostly noxious at that, Fukuyama’s being the only respectable one, if also overrated and stinking with hubris), but also that he ruined the phrase “The End of Ideology”, which is what one can only wish for after absorbing Taylor’s essay — yet wish for in exactly the opposite way as what Bell meant. Some genius should write a final “End of..” tome: The End of Economic Dogma.
Is it not a decent rule of thumb to say that responsibility for a genocide permanently discredits a political system or ideology? The purges and the Ukrainian famine discredit Soviet communism, the Shoah discredits Naziism (as if Naziism wasn’t born discredited), the Cultural Revolution discredits Maoism, the genocide of the Plains Indians discredits capitalist kleptocracy, the genocide of the Filipinos discredits American Imperialism (a verdict that the Vietnam War reinforced). What ideology or dogma does the genocide of the Irish discredit? Try not to be cute or worse, vacant, and say “British Imperialism”. Duh. We already knew that, and other examples do the job more nicely. No, there is something else it discredits conclusively and forever. Take a stab at what it is — who it is.
*I think the copyright is expired, but if not, then Fair Use, blah blah blah.
um…adam smith?
Joe Lieberman?
No, not poor Adam smith, who is no more responsible for his perverted followers than Marx is for those who followed him.
grampaw is in closer proximity to the truth, though not because of his answer. I suggest a mirror is in order.
At any rate, the right answer isn’t any individual (well, it could be, but that’s not what i’m looking for). By “who,” I’m alluding to a group. And as a futher hint, let me say that it’s not wingnuts, though plenty of individual wingnuts qualify.
A mirror? You mean I killed the irish?
Or perhaps I and the group your angry little mind has assigned me to?
Are you serious? You dragged out that whole AJP Taylor essay just because you got mad at a commenter on your blog, and couldn’t articulate your fury on your own?
Of course you didn’t kill the Irish and of course I didn’t copy this out because of you, but your assumption, megalomaniacal that it is, does amuse me.
I copied some of this out several years ago on my old blog, but my post on it was more than ordinarily shitty and was also incomplete. I always meant to redo it and update it, and had time today off and on to do the copying.
I will admit to one thing. I think the zeitgeist, at least in America, is more ready now for an attack on neoliberalism-libertarianism-classical liberalism, and so that feeling contributed to the timing of this effort.
neolibera… what now?
wait, let me cut and paste:
“neoliberalism-libertarianism-classical liberalism”
Are you saying that that, whatever hell it is, is what killed the Irish?
I love the affected density you take on an off like a cheap Halloween mask.
I’m saying that what we identify nowadays as libertarianism killed the Irish. Or, rather, that is what Taylor describes, though Briton that he was, the terminology is not the same. Russell and Trevelyan were “classical liberals” in how we think of the phrase. Well, those classical liberals have two heirs: neoliberals and libertarians.
Moreover the real point is that the Irish were murdered because of economic dogma, the variety of which is not really important. Economic dogmatists, with their precious principles and consistencies and rules are easily identifiable nowadays. Though the effects are far less drastic, what happened to Ireland happened recently to Argentina and to Russia, and to Latin America and to the USA: a cost in humanity, a huge cost was paid for the sake of goddamned economic dogma.
Less fealty to precious principle and more pragmatism would have saved the Irish, but then just as civility does not equal decency so too does “intellectual” consistency not equal intelligence. Pseudo-scientific “laws” are terrible things, no matter what school of pseudo-science they come from.
And in case you keep up with the pretend density, I’ll be more blunt: Trevelyan and Russell thought of “laissez-faire” in the same way that you think of “Free markets”, which figures, because it’s basically the same thing.
Retardo, I wasn’t affecting density, I was trying to make sense of a rather weird hyphenated term you tossed out. You suggested a mirror, but if you’ve read my comments, then you know I’m not a libertarian, so my confusion should be understandable.
I’m with you on the whole “rigid dogmatism sucks” tip, but it’s really hard to put together a system of laws (let alone a society) with “no dogmas allowed” as a starting point. In fact, the blanket proscription you propose seems a bit, well, dogmatic.
The most influential foreign policy pragmatist in living memory is Henry Kissenger. Genocide can be, and has been, an entirely pragmatic matter. Pragmatism unchecked by principle can be monstrous.
Clearly, you do have humanist principles flavoring your advocacy of pragmatism— in fact, if you took the time to articulate those principles, I think you’d find that you believe in them strongly enough to leave yourself open to charges of dogmatism.
With all that said, I am honestly curious as to the specifics of your proposed pragmatic approach to international trade; I assume there’s more to it than the idea that nations should continually adjust their trade policies to suit their interests and circumstances.
OK, the neoliberalism I can see, and certainly the libertarianism… but, classical liberalism?!? Like, oh, I dunno, FDR? Or am I misunderstanding the nomenclature here? ‘Cause, it seems to me that the Great Depression could have resulted in a helluva lot more death and starvation than it did (not that the body count was all that meager). And what, if any, “lib” sub-classification have you left out of that list? It sure seems to cover most of the sub-idologies that I’m aware of, unless one allows for a generic, centrist “liberal.” I’m certainly not suggesting that liberals can do no wrong, far from it, but you’re skating awfully close to Liebermanesque/Rethuglican talking points there, and I’m not sure that’s helpful right at the moment.
Marq — no no no. You won’t catch me ever critiquing FDR’s economic policies.
I mean “classical liberal” in the same way that, well, Jeff Goldstien means it. I mean 19th Century British liberalism, as illustrated by the Whigs and then the Liberal Party until Labour supplanted it.
What ideology or dogma does the genocide of the Irish discredit? Try not to be cute or worse, vacant, and say “British Imperialism�.
Malthusian Economics: The theory that periodic famine was necessary to keep the population in check. The one flaw in this theory is that it never seems necessary to purge the population of the useless, lazy-ass scions of the wealthy.
So is there a prize?
I have stated repeatedly that when I say free markets are a good thing, I do not mean unregulated markets. So no, not “basically the same thing” as laissez-faire. Not even close. I believe markets need to be regulated to prevent monopolistic and cartel behaviors*, and to protect shared resources, and to prevent public health problems, and so on.
I do realize that there are people who, when they say “free market,” mean “completely unregulated market,” but I am not one of those people, and I do wish you would stop lumping me in with them.
* In international trade, I would consider imposing tarriffs or other penalties, at the behest of business interests and with the aim of disadvantaging foreign firms, to be cartel behavior.
Is this a private fight or can anybody join?
An often overlooked consequence of having the Wingnuts claim (over and over, for 30 years) that everyone to the left of Mussolini is a commiepinkofag is that a lot of socally liberal, fiscally faissez-faire Yupsters (read: 50s Republicans) now think they’re Teh Extreme Left. As if writing blog posts to save the hollowed-out vestiges of last century’s moderate social stability programs makes them modern-day Wobblies, or something. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
kingubu:
50s Republicans were definitely not socially liberal. Nowhere near it, in fact. There was that whole race thing, for starters, and then there’s the role of women, the suburban conformity, the pre-Roe abortion debate, and lots of other stuff in addition to the the commiefag one-two of the red scare and the furtive life of the pre-Stonewall homo.
If your beef is with free trade or capitalism, then just say so.
Retardo: Great essay. What it made me think of was William Langeweisch’s Atlantic article of November 2004, “Welcome to the Green Zone,” where he was describing the efforts of the neocons, some of whom were quite wet behind the ears, to establish a new nation based on their ideology. Here’s the URL:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200411/langewiesche
but you have to be a subscriber to read the whole thing. Here’s a quote:
“Those were heady times. People in the Green Zone talked about democracy, and they believed in it in the long run, but for many of them the more immediate operative belief was that the potential for personal wealth and comfort could be made to prevail over all other forces in Iraqi society. The handouts would end, and business opportunity would win the peace: Iraq would be remade into the American ideal of a free-market state. Because Iraq had had a socialist economy for generations, dominated by large state-owned enterprises, this was a radical goal—and certainly far beyond the mandate of the U.S.-led invasion…. Moreover, there would be no need to negotiate with stubborn constituencies like those that fetter business back home. In Iraq things were going to get done, simply because no one would say no. Of course, the Iraqis then turned out to be the most stubborn constituents of all.”
On the Irish famine: My mother was born in Ireland in 1934, and to people of her generation spoke of the famine as if it had happened to them. I think this may be less true of younger people, but my mother was from a small village where her father’s family had lived for centuries, and memories are long. And when she was young, people would still say of a family “they took soup,” meaning they had taken soup from the Quakers, and there was still a whiff of disgrace to that. “It’s asif they took welfare,” she explained to me. Nothing in real life is quite as cut-and-dried as it is in a history book.
Right, there never were any liberal Republicans. To be fair, I should’ve said “Rockefeller Republicans” to begin with– as that’s more precisesly what I meant, and is the closest comparison to today’s “Sensible Liberals”.
My beef, if I have one, is that such Sensible Liberals(tm) provide politcal cover for the far right’s economic cruelties by slapping on them a thin coat of technocratic utopianism and passing them off as progressive.
My first exposure to libertarianism was Ayn Rand’s piece “The Virtue of Selfishness” in which she argues that if you see a drowning person you shouldn’t help them because it will infringe on their right of self-determination (I’m paraphrasing). After I read that I thought “no one could possibly believe this horse s**t, right?” Sadly, no.
You hit yet another one out of the park Retardo.
I’m with you on the whole “rigid dogmatism sucks� tip, but it’s really hard to put together a system of laws (let alone a society) with “no dogmas allowed� as a starting point. In fact, the blanket proscription you propose seems a bit, well, dogmatic.
I have one dogma, if you wish to call it that: democracy. This is a political dogma, not an ideology. If you really think that this is equal in any meaningful way to whackjob “Free Trade” or “Free Markets” economic dogma, you almost have my sympathy, but really all I can manage is contempt.
Again, when political principles, which at their best are humanist principles, collide with bullshit economic principles that are often at once proved and disproved by the same sort of math, I have no doubt which should trump which. I also have no doubt, because I have seen and experienced, what libertarians and neoliberals think is the more important dogma.
A quotation:
Tolstoy – War & Peace
After I read that I thought “no one could possibly believe this horse s**t, right?� Sadly, no.
I sympathize. Notice in the first italicized passage the huge middle finger Taylor gives to the minarchist strain of libertarianism: hucksterism, making money, never giving a sucker an even break, fucking people over — these things are “natural” phenomena to such people, and part of survival of the fittest mentality. But a real “natural” response is the poor starving man filling his belly by TAKING food from the rich bastard, by force. Minarchists are social darwinists, but cowards about it, demanding a police force to protect them from the people they abuse, which is why I hate them more than even wingnuts: I’m talking Wrath of Khan, eye-gouging, ‘I hope you get face cancer and die horribly and burn in hell’ hate.
Lovely quote, Ian
Encyclopedia Brown: nice name. Also, that piece sounds great, like that “Year Zero” piece in Harper’s.
As a proud Eurofag elitist I should point out that the horrors of Rand’s ‘philosophy’ pale when set against the horrors of her various attempts at literature.
RE: Who murdered the Irish. Cromwell? Seriously, if we’re having a contest for who can be the most pretentious, pedantic, and boring, then RM WINS!!!!
Well it’s hard to disagree with that, since for at least five years now we’ve had a presidential administration leading said attack and getting reelected in the process.
My favorite Trevelyan quote, from 1846: “We attach the highest public importance to the strict observance of our pledge not to send orders [for food] abroad, which would come into competition with our merchants and upset all their calculations”. It could have been written by Retardo himself.
And for anyone complaining about Retardo’s posts being “pedantic”, I have a reading recommendation for you.
Oh, wait, I forgot – you don’t like to read.
On a more serious note, getting Americans to figure out that liberals aren’t leftists is only going to help everybody at this point. Liberal Democrats will find it easier to get elected if people come to understand that “Liberal” does not mean “Communist”, actual Republicans – you know, people who favor reduced taxes, conserative fiscal policies, tariffs, and a minimalist government – might be able to take their party back from the fascists who have taken it over, and actual Lefties will find it easier to articulate their views in public once people come to realize that liberals represent the middle of the economic/political spectrum, not the fringe.
Seriously, if we’re having a contest for who can be the most pretentious, pedantic, and boring, then RM WINS!!!!
No historical analysis, please. We’re American.
There is indeed the argument that the famine was exacerbated (or created) not so much by the British authorities’ commitment to [i]laissez faire[/i] but by deliberate policies divergent from it. Of course, the government still gave lip service to the principle which leads us to the most obvious criticism we can make of the “free market”: t’aint no such thing.
Welcome to the Green Zone – the whole thing
Well it’s hard to disagree with that, since for at least five years now we’ve had a presidential administration leading said attack and getting reelected in the process.
This is the silliest thing you’ve ever said in a long line of silly.
Bush actually agrees with said libertarians, neoliberals, et al., he just does it for different reasons, and a tad less consistently.
Or, Bush cynically gets to where you guys get via principle. You’re both a bunch of fucking whores, except some whores actually know they are sinning, and feel a twinge of remorse. Not so libertarians, who are of the special variety that thinks that through degradation of yourself and others, you’re living up to a beautiful ideal.
. . . brought up in our fine public school system by our benevolent comrads in the NEA.
RM please read John Stuart Mill’s essay “On Liberty” it will open your eyes. I’m outraged that to spin this beautiful idea as though “all libertarians want to degrad themselves and others”. I’m apalled and demand an apology.
-Outraged Libertarian
. . . just kidding. I was trying to throw on a victim mentality but I can’t pull it off. Game on!
I’m apalled and demand an apology.
You’re not gonna get it. However, since I’m feeling generous in a libertarian way, I’ll offer this.
Is this John Stuart Mill the libertarian philosopher or John Stuart Mill the multinational trading company officer complicit in the oppression of third world peoples?
Oh, wait, my bad, they’re the same guy. Plus ca change, eh?
Yes, despite the various higher degrees held by the readership here, we’re still just dumb Americans in need of enlightenment by the self-named “Retardo”. Because if “Sadly No” is about anything, its educating the masses. In fact, most of my knowledge of post-renaissance europe was picked up right here. Pehaps we could change the name of the blog to “Get a brain! morans” . I’m sure it will be very popular.
Dude back in 1840 EVERYBODY in England worked for the british east india trading company. If you had a job in england likely as not they did business with the EITC. Hell I bet even you did for a while, think about that before you draw horns on his portrait and write “Little Brown Native Opressor” under his fangs.
P.S. I like to call him J-dizzle, and I think you should too.
Yes, despite the various higher degrees held by the readership here, we’re still just dumb Americans in need of enlightenment by the self-named “Retardo�.
Because clearly everyone here already knows everything, and, as everyone knows, knowledge is advanced not by conversation but simply by attaining it, once and for all, and then sitting on it forever. Also, learning something means learning everything, including getting a one-size-fits-all hermeneutic for all catastrophes.
Jeezus.
You want to know about 13th-c. carrion law, I’m your man, by the way.
Yes….remember, peasant farmers and brown people aren’t even really “people”, so the above statement is objectively true.
“. . . brought up in our fine public school system by our benevolent comrads in the NEA. ”
Go homeschool yourself.
Yes, despite the various higher degrees held by the readership here
Every school at every university has a dumbest student to receive the degree. Every year.
A couple of points about the Irish famine:
1. Potatoes weren’t the only crop grown in Ireland, just the only one that failed. Ireland was exporting food throughout the famine years. It never occurred to the people in charge that there was anything illogical about this.
2. If you’ve ever wondered where today’s wingnuts got that “culture of dependency” stuff from, they got it from the 1840s British. They were hesitant to provide relief due to the fear that those lazy slugs would get used to it.
To add to Thlayli’s point:
The starving peasant farmers of Ireland subsisted mainly on potatoes because they were *prohibited frome consuming the grain that they grew*. It was an export crop, and had already been purchased by London and Liverpool speculators. You can see the same thing happening today in places like Guatemala, by the way, wherein peasant farmers grow crops that they’ll be punished for consuming (and punishment in rural Guatemala doesn’t mean fines, kids).
Narc–
Even the British East India Company wasn’t that big. No employer in England at that time could claim to have that broad a reach–and Mill didn’t work for a company that did business with the East India Company, he worked directly for the East India Company. To say otherwise is like saying Ken Lay did some business with Enron.
DiGamma–
There’s a word for an individual who believes that serving his own needs is the highest and best use of resourses. The word is “sociopath”. If you’re trying to claim that the Bush Administration has been acting against the interests of the propertied, sell it to Fox News.
1. Potatoes weren’t the only crop grown in Ireland, just the only one that failed. Ireland was exporting food throughout the famine years. It never occurred to the people in charge that there was anything illogical about this.
Beef was exported as well; for some landlords evicting peasants was a way of clearing land for grazing.
Thanks for the transcription, Retardo. Nice to have that essay online…
Yes, despite the various higher degrees held by the readership here, we’re still just dumb Americans in need of enlightenment by the self-named “Retardo�.
Wait, Retardo is “self-named”? I… didn’t know that. That changes everything!
RM-You simply cannot underestimate the degree of racism against the Irish (and others) in those times. The politcal cartoons of the era depict the Irish lterally as chimpanzees – they were considered to be sub-human. Your comment above accurately reflects the feelings of many people of the time – that a million dead Irish weren’t enough to make a difference. The British Government knew that men, women and children had been reduced to trying to eat grass to survive, and turned a blind eye to the situation. They couldn’t be bothered to care because they weren’t really human in the eyes of the ruling class.
And that is the purest form of racism.
No, not poor Adam smith, who is no more responsible for his perverted followers than Marx is for those who followed him.
I dunno. Another of Taylor’s excellent essays precedes The Communist Manifesto in the Penguin edition. He points to the religious nature of the text, and surely the bombast and preening of Marx’s style of writing contributed to the crimes of later maniacs, not to mention the general failure of Marx’s model (as outlined in the Manifesto) to manifest itself in reality despite the urgency of the message. He was possessed of immense self-confidence reflected in his writing, and many of his adherents can often be jerks of a similar nature, working towards a fantastic and fanatical reality that will never be.
Mind you, things like free education, progressive taxation aren’t to be sniffed at. It’s much like chiropractic: the guy who came up with that was a nut, but it turns out to be a reasonable option to take care of back pain, and every now and then some chiropractic nut claims that back adjustments can still cure cancer.
Righteous Bubba–
The Communist Manifesto was a commissioned work, and was meant as a recruiting tool. To see what Marx was talking about, you have to read Capital (or Das Kapital, as red-baiters persist in calling it). The language is still overblown, but Christ, the guy was writing in the mid-19th century–that was the state of prose back then. Hell, you hang out in the British Museum for a few days and see how you srite.
Adam Smith? We don’ need no steenking Adam Smith! We got David Retardo!
“write”
sorry
If you’re trying to claim that the Bush Administration has been acting against the interests of the propertied, sell it to Fox News.
I think the Bush Administration has been acting against the interests of just about everybody. There are plenty of people with a lot more property than me who agree.
grampaw claims to “believe markets need to be regulated to prevent monopolistic and cartel behaviors.”
1) The people he allies with believe markets are god. Ever heard the term “useful idiot”? It’s what the current day “sensible liberals” are.
2) Maybe it would be a good idea to believe that markets need to be regulated to, you know, help people?
“Even the British East India Company wasn’t that big. No employer in England at that time could claim to have that broad a reach–and Mill didn’t work for a company that did business with the East India Company, he worked directly for the East India Company. To say otherwise is like saying Ken Lay did some business with Enron.”
Well what you’re saying is that, Joe Blow who worked as a receptionist in Enron should spend some time in a cell with Ken Lay? Guilt by association is an ugly thing. John S. M. wrote very eloquently for things like, government protection poor, and universal suffrage before 1850. But you’re willing to discount everything he said because he spent a few years working with his Dad in a company which was MUCH bigger and more influential than Enron, or Haliburton, or even (gasp) Wal Mart will ever be in our time.
Give us a break.
Actually, no, not bigger than Halliburton. Like that corporation, it toppled governments and leeched off of the public for a very ling time.
Mill’s work with British East India wasn’t just counting screws, Narc (such an appropriate handle!), and his Benthamite roots just weren’t deep enough to convince him that liberty was something that dusky foreigners in distant lands were entitled to, as well. He wrote some nice stuff, but that doesn’t alter what he did for a living. Quite a shame about Mill: very smart guy, cracked under the pressure of studying, turned to Wordsworth for solace (should have read Byron instead), kept focussing on abstractions so as not to see what his employer was busy doing.
I’ll try to find a volume of Jeff Skilling’s philosophy. I’m sure it’s very liberating.
P.S.:
Time spent with Ken Lay right now would not be in a cell…
With regard to free trade:
I have yet to see anyone suggest an alternate framework for the exchange of goods and services between nations. Come on, we’re all smart people here, if there’s a better system than the sort of free trade I’ve outlined, then what is it? If I’m just being a “useful idiot” for the robber barons, then what’s the counterproposal?
And in the absence of a counterproposal, well, then wouldn’t it be more pragmatic to try to adjust the existing implementation of free trade to make it fairer, rather than bitch and moan about how unfair it is now without offering any suggestions at all as to how to make things better?
Retardo, with regard to democracy:
Great Britain was a democracy in 1845 (well, not for girls, but still). Democracy is a nice system for governing people who disagree with each other, but despite what one might assume given the blaring megaphones of the Bush foreign policy apologists, democracy, being merely a system, is amoral. Democracy can and does produce policy that is repugnant from the standpoint of human rights— tyranny of the majority still has to be mitigated (as with, say, a constitution) even when you do have that “universal sufferage” thing going.
The moral principle you’re after is probably something like “self rule” or “representative government;” democracy is a tool that can be used to realize such principles, but it does not by itself guarantee them.
Also, a word about foreign aid, including famine relief: Such assistance is entirely compatible with free trade policies. In fact, most democracies today pursue free trade policies under normal circumstances while at the same time providing foreign aid in crisis situations. In fact, one might even call this approach pragmatic.
Thlayi,
Much like the late 19th century famine in India, when the British increased the export figures on rice at the same time the crops were beginning to fail. Then they exploited the starving Indians by using them for labor in exchange for food, but they only gave food in exchange for work, never to those too sick or exhausted to work (which, in the famine, accounted for a great many). And then the average caloric intake was worse than the daily diet in Buchenwald.
But of course, the market was doing just fine, and that’s all that really matters.
This reminds me of a fun little dance with this we had in Texas a few years back. Our date was named Ross Perot, and some around here still have the tear-stained hanky from prom night when he went all kooky mental meltdown on us.
As if to prove the point, Texas moved from last to 49th place in the percentage of uninsured children last year!
The dogma is laissez faire. But other economic dogmas have killed as well, as you say. While it is well and good to say that we need more pragmatism, that does not give anyone an assurance of what precisely you are for, if any rules at all or no rules whatsoever.
Underlying all of these failed systems is something that is least considered but most considerable at length. Land tenure which gives to an owner an independent power from the possessor, the ability to be a lord of land and have vassals that work it for you or pay you some tribute for the pleasure of their existence.
The Communist Manifesto was a commissioned work, and was meant as a recruiting tool. To see what Marx was talking about, you have to read Capital (or Das Kapital, as red-baiters persist in calling it).
Sure, but that doesn’t alter my point.
As Taylor concludes:
Retardo’s giving Marx a pass for the perversions of his followers, but Marx himself was the “dogmatic optimist” that Retardo and Atrios are wisely warning us against. I naturally prefer a dogmatist who’s interested in a good measure of economic justice to the Randian sort, just as I prefer a leftist Christian to a rightist Christian, but all are suspect.
I have yet to see anyone suggest an alternate framework for the exchange of goods and services between nations.
Having the nations themselves decide tariffs. Injustice inevitably results, but that’s democracy for you.
Grampaw:
Great Britain was a democracy in 1845 (well, not for girls, but still). Democracy is a nice system for governing people who disagree with each other, but despite what one might assume given the blaring megaphones of the Bush foreign policy apologists, democracy, being merely a system, is amoral. Democracy can and does produce policy that is repugnant from the standpoint of human rights— tyranny of the majority still has to be mitigated (as with, say, a constitution) even when you do have that “universal sufferage� thing going.
Great Britain was most certainly NOT a “democracy” in 1845. Britain didn’t let working class men vote until 1867, and even then there were different rules for rural and urban voters, which weren’t cleared up until 1884. Property restrictions weren’t abolished until 1918.
Hey, Retardo, today’s the 71st anniversary of the death of Huey Long. I typed out a lengthy section of his autobiography myself for my annual post:
http://www.darrelplant.com/blog_item.php?ItemRef=553
stickler:
I didn’t say Great Britain had universal sufferage in 1845, I said it was a democracy in 1845, as in fact it was.
The fact that you are unable to see the distinction underscores the point I was trying to make— ie, that lots of people, including Retardo, seem to have bought the Bush trumpeter’s idea that democracy is itself somehow a moral principle, rather than simply an administrative system.
The fact is the Democrat Party caused the Irish Famine.
True story.
grampaw:
The idea that people collectively decide on the rules they live by (as opposed to having those rules dictated to them) is not a moral principle? Since when?
James Cape:
That is indeed a moral principle, but it is not democracy.
Note that, for instance, voting is not a necessary requirement for the principle you have stated. Quaker meetings and several sorts of tribal council system meet the moral requirement you have specified, without being democracies.
Note too that a democracy need not have universal sufferage, or one vote for each voter; in other words, a democracy need not serve (and at many points in history, has not served) the moral principle you have stated.
Weren’t any of you young un’s taught civics as children? I’m frankly embarrassed to be spelling out things that any thirteen-year-old should understand.
Grampaw–
I was indeed taught civics. We learned about democracy. We learned that Athens only allowed landowning males over a certain age to participate in the political process. We learned that that was about as democratic as the antebellum American South. Equally democratic was Britain in 1845–hell, Mussolini’s Italy and Nazi Germany were more democratic than 19th-c. Britain.
You do have a point, right? You’re not just making meaningless comparisons between “democracies” that fail to extend the franchise to most of their citizens, right? You’re not just dodging the idea that “one person, one vote” is morally preferable to the Libertarian/capitalist notion of “one dollar, one vote”?
The fact is the Democrat Party caused the Irish Famine.
ABC’s famine documentary was pure gold.
Doc:
You are using the word “democratic” in a way that does not mean “of or pertaining to a democracy,” but instead in a way that includes unstated moral principles.
The problem with that is that the unstated principles that you bundle into the term “democratic” are not the same unstated principles that people on the right have in mind when they use that adjective; as a consequence, the Bush Foreign Policy Apologists are able to bulldoze you with your own assumptions when they use the word “democracy” in lieu of any actual moral principle or policy goal when talking about, e.g., Iraq.
Think about it a bit. You do seem to understand that democracy, in and of itself, is merely an adminstrative system, so I do think you might eventually start to see the point that I am trying, with some degree of patience, to make.
Grampaw–
Your patience with us poor benighted kids is indeed admirable.
So your point is–what? that “democracy” in and of itself is a term that means “rule by whatever people (demos) we deem proper” and not “rule by an actual majority”. Great. The Three-Fifths Compromise is safe. We can re-impose a property requirement for voting–that always warms the hearts of Libertarians. Everybody knows that the freedom to accumulate wealth is far more important than silly things like political representation, freedom of speech, or freedom from arbitrary imprisonment.
Doc:
My point is that substituting the word “democracy” for actual moral principles, like “political representation, freedom of speech, or freedom from arbitrary imprisonment” (none of which, incidentally, require the administrative system known as democracy— only the first is even addressed by it), while it makes for good propaganda, is sloppy thinking, and in Retardo’s case, might constitute evasive rhetoric, as any moral precept is potentially an article of the demon Dogma that he professes to eschew entirely.
Keep in mind that when the right hears “democracy,” the word does not conjure the things on the list of ideals you have supplied (apart from the first, perhaps), but does summon notions along the lines of personal property rights, freedom from onerous burdens imposed by the state, the right to protect oneself using force if necessary, and the opportunity earn one’s place in the world as a self-made man (or, possibly, woman).
My point is that when you hear the word “democracy” used in a moral sense, you should not blithely assume that you understand what the speaker is advocating, you should wonder whether the speaker has bothered to think through the values he or she invests the word with personally, and finally, if you are so inclined, you are free to suspect that the person using the word “democracy” is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, using your own moral investment in the word against you.
Right. You done yet?
Seems to me that the phrase “the free market” is similarly used in a moral sense to pull the wool over the eyes of the gullible. When I hear the phrase “the free market”, I’m more than suspicious that the person using the phrase is up to no good–I’m downright convinced.
Goodnight, Grampaw.
Doc:
I applaud your suspicion, and suggest that It’s a good thing then, isn’t it, that I’ve outlined some of the moral precepts I have in mind when I use the term “free market?”
And I was so hoping that goading you might finally yield a summary of a not-free-trade trade system. Instead, it seems I’ve called your bluff.
Good night, Doc.
I love this fallacy:
You can’t attack the bullshit in anythign without offering a replacement system. Nice way to keep bullshit intact.
Who but an ideologue would demand that before you attack his ideology, you MUST replace it with another?
Incidentally, this fallacy is a favorite among the humorless of history. I have some experience with people who still insist that Voltaire sucks because, why, Candide did not offer any alternative philosphy to those he trashed, except that cryptic bit about tilling one’s garden at the end.
If Grampaw’s tactic were made law, all parady and satire (not to mention much healthy criticism) would be banned. But then ideology and dogma would be safe, object of the exercise.
What does a cat like to read in the morning?
The mewspaper.
Thanks very much.
Retardo, the kind of people who say you can’t attack a thing without having a thing to replace it with are the kind of people who opposed the Iraq war.
Read it again and let it sink in.
We’re not talking about an ethereal academic construct here, or a goddamned garden plot that you can just let lie fallow until somebody comes along with something else to plant there.
International trade is a real thing happening in the real world, and if you want to tear it down and replace it with nothing at all, then you’d damned well better be prepared to eat the very real consequences.
Who suggested abolishing international trade?
Ireland was exporting food throughout the famine years. It never occurred to the people in charge that there was anything illogical about this.
Well, I’m glad we Americans are smarter than that!
On an unrelated note, I sure wish I could find a job. Oh well, I’m off to vote for people who move American jobs to other countries.
PAT:
It was me who suggested abolishing international trade, though I didn’t advocate it. I’ve also suggested, and advocated, improving international trade to make it more “free,” according to principles that I grow weary of repeating. There is also the possibility of deregulating international trade from its present state to make it more “free” according to libertarian ideology, though neither I nor anyone else here seems to favor that option. And then there is the option, which one commenter brought up briefly, of returning international trade to where it stood before anyone started suggesting any sort of “free trade” policies at all, that is, to a system of every nation for itself, with all the tarriff wars and colonial shenanigans and general abuse of resource-poor and non-industrialized nations that that non-policy allowed.
The reason I suggested abolishing international trade entirely is that a) it is the policy one must logically assume when people like Retardo say “abolish this horrible system, and no I don’t have any ideas about what to replace it with,” and b) I hoped it could be an interesting starting point for thought-experiments, in that rather than starting with the present trade situation, or with a hypothetical completely unregulated international trade system, and then arguing against such an assumption, one might start with no trade at all, and then build up morally acceptable forms of international trade from there.
Sadly, no-one here opposed to “free trade” has taken up the latter challenge, and to date none have produced so much as a summary of any alternate system of exchange proposed elsewhere, either.
I feel a (regrettably long-winded) summary is in order.
From what I have read in the comments here, it appears that those opposed to free trade:
1. Reject a system of trade that is “free” in a right-leaning sense, i.e., in a sense that gives maximum freedom to business interests, possibly at the expense of human beings;
2. Reject trade that is “free” in a libertarian sense, i.e. free of regulation or taxation;
3. Reject trade that is “free” in the manner that I personally advocate, i.e., in a left-leaning sense that places the freedom of human beings above the freedom of business interests by regulating international trade to curb monopoly and cartel behaviors, to ensure public health, to protect shared resources, to allow human beings entry into competitive markets on an egalitarian basis, and so on;
4. Reject trade that is not free, but rather conducted at the mercy of tarriffs and other policies imposed by individual nations to further their own interests;
5. Reject the complete cessation of international trade; and
6. Reject the label “command economy commies,” and in so doing reject one system of international exchange that is arguably free, but not trade at all.
Right, then. Lots of things there the anti-free-trade crowd don’t want. But what options remain? The choices seem pretty slim:
1. There may be some system of trade that is “free” in a sense that has not yet been advanced, though a lot of ground has been covered.
2. There may be some system of trade that fulfills the moral requirements of the anti-free-trade brigade without being free. I’m all ears if you’ve got a solid outline of such a system for me.
3. There may be some plausible, non-communist system of free international exchange that is not trade at all. An international gift economy, perhaps? OK, no, not plausible. But that’s not to say that some such animal can’t exist. Again, I’m all ears if you’ve got something, but I’m more dubious here.
And that’s it. I’ve gone over all the permutations of free/unfree, trade/untrade, and null (well, apart from unfree untrade, the most obvious example of which would be outright slavery). Of course, there’s an awful lot of room for permuting still available within that little word “free,” but from what I’ve seen so far, the word itself is rejected, regardless of any particular moral outlook behind it.
Ah, wait. That suggests another possibility:
4. There might be some new label one could cook up to stick on the sort of policy I personally happen to favor, thereby ridding it of the only aspect that anyone has actually objected to— that is, the hated name “free trade.”
What a joy this place is.
Minarchists are social darwinists, but cowards about it, demanding a police force to protect them from the people they abuse, which is why I hate them more than even wingnuts
Because clearly everyone here already knows everything, and, as everyone knows, knowledge is advanced not by conversation but simply by attaining it, once and for all, and then sitting on it forever.
Profound, eloquent, sarcastic. What more could one ask for?
Grampaw–
Aside from being repetitive and tiresome, you’re lazy.
At great personal effort and expense, I (drumroll please)…looked up “Fair Trade” on Wikipedia.
I invite you to do the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade
If you have further questions, leave a message. I’ll be with patients all day.
“The fact is the Democrat Party caused the Irish Famine.”
Nah, make it simpler…it WAS THE CLENIS!!1!
Doc:
No, no further questions, just the initial one.
Can you summarize a not-free-trade trade system for us?
The problem with tossing out the term “fair trade,” as I’m sure you’ve discovered, is that the people who use the term have a lot to say about how the current system of exchange is wrong, but when it comes to a concrete alternative, they’ve got nothing but vaporous platitudes. Christ, Doc, they make the ravers’ PLUR credo look like detailed logistics. If you disagree, then read your wikipedia article, isolate a concrete alternative trade system therein, and summarize it for us.
I’m sorry if you’re finding it tiresome, Doc, but when I keep repeating the question, it’s because you keep failing to cough up an answer.
they’ve got nothing but vaporous platitudes
Then how do you explain companies like Equal Exchange who are actually negotiating fair-trade prices as part of their business model to help get the producers of their stuff a livable wage?
That is the concrete alternative. Negotiating the prices for goods based on the most effective way of providing a livable wage to the workers producing those goods.
Of course, it involves consideration of the well-being of people besides oneself, so I can see how the libertarian-minded would have difficulties grappling with the concept.
But even arguing with you gives too much credence to your premise. Not having an alternative solution does not mean you can’t criticize a flawed system. You can directly observe the results of “free trade” practices and see that they are bad because they result in people suffering.
Grampaw–
Not my job to hold your hand.
Wikipedia’s a start.
Lots of people putting the concept into practice.
I can understand why rape-and-run capitalists might take exception, though.
Zenmasterw, thank you for joining us.
I do agree that one may freely criticise Free Trade without an alternative plan, but I would suggest that when one does not have such a plan, one must instead work on coming up with ideas to make international trade more free, according to one’s moral precepts.
You suggest that supply-side price-fixing in vertically integrated international industries is the answer.
Thank you.
You are the first person to suggest any alternative system at all in this debate, and I’m so damned happy to have it that I’m not even bothered by the fact that paying a “living wage” in a poor country and then charging market prices for the resultant goods in a wealthy country sounds like kinder, gentler colonialism.
Absent the unfortunate label, though, I suppose it could work— it’s just like the conglomorates&unions system, except with the collective bargaining for the raw materials producers, rather than the laborers. Such a system would put raw materials prices at a point where the cost of developing manufacturing and industry in poor producing nations would be onorous, if not prohibitive, but then a thriving manufacturing sector in every nation may not be a prerequisite for economic justice, either.
Shorter grampaw:
Thank you for taking the bait that was so smelly I had to go begging for bites. Now I may continue my rigorous defense of the status quo.
Shorter GoatBoy:
I don’t have any ideas, either.
You’re clearly unfamiliar with the format.
I have a good idea you’re an insufferable asshole, for example. I have an idea that suggesting you should die in a fire might be talking things too far, for another.
See? There’s two right there.
Shorter GoatBoy:
Nope, still no constructive ideas here. Plenty of leftover bile, though: want some?
Where are your ideas, Mr. Reactionary? How would you prevent another Russia or Argentina, to name two examples?
Wasn’t it Santayana who said that the definition of insanity is redoubling your efforts when you’ve forgotten your aims? What’s the cure for the various disasters neoliberalism and free trade has wrought: Grampaw says, most originally: more neoliberalism and more free trade!
You really are an heir of Trevelyan.
EITHER one must have a suitable replacement for an extant institution OR there are no flaws in that institution.
And my bile is farm fresh, sunshine.
Retardo:
I have said, over and over again, that I think there are problems with Free Trade as currently implemented. I have outlined, over and over again, ways to improve it, ways that are not currently being pursued by the WTO or the IMF or other questionable institutions, ways that are not “more of the same,” but rather are as yet untried ways to make trade freer and less damaging for all people.
My post over in the other thread was snarky, but you really are showing every indication that you are not reading my posts carefully enough to comprehend them. It’s as if you see the words “free trade” and a mist of fury falls over your eyes, and you stop taking in information entirely.
Reactionary? Only in response to people who offer nothing but empty bile and self-righteous rage. On the actual issues, I’m anything but, as you would know if you were reading my comments for information, rather than fuel for your ongoing tantrum.
“Only in response to people who offer nothing but empty bile and self-righteous rage.”
Not for exasperating people who egregiously overuse stale modifiers?
GoatBoy:
No. Them I like.
And I do realize I’ve been overly persistent here, but another essential component of exasperation is the realization that you don’t have any tricks left.
Retardo, the kind of people who say you can’t attack a thing without having a thing to replace it with are the kind of people who opposed the Iraq war.
Read it again and let it sink in.
Grampaw: the kind of people who say you can’t attack a thing without having something to replace it with are also the kind of people who supported the Iraq War.
Or have you never heard anyone declared pro-Ba’athist because they could not come up with a quick, easy way to end Hussein’s rule aside from the current bloodbath?
So, help us out here: what exactly was your point? If you’re not quite sure, why, just read it again and I’m sure it’ll sink into you as well as us.
(And don’t forget to use quotes when explaining it!)
Shorter Karl Rove:
“The Irish starved themselves to make the English look bad.”
Dear Retardo,
Thank you SO much for bringing up Cecil Woodham-Smith’s “The Great Hunger”.
A magisterial literary work of the 20th century, IMHO.
Just had a nice discussion with my parents, both Irish-born, about your bringing it up. And how cool it is that we can comment…
Great book- I guess it took a privileged Englishwoman to tell the story, but she did it magnificently. Bless her.
I do believe that you are alluding to New Orleans- “They should have known how disastrous it would be!”, coupled with- “Isn’t it great just to get rid of all those poor people”. I def. see parallels there.
Thanks for bringing up that GREAT book by Cecil Woodham-Smith. I hope you read this comment, Retardo,- def. food for thought. Slainche.
Not to snark about this guy Taylor, but IIRC, he wrote an extremely silly book about World War II that just about absolved Hitler of any responsibility for it. His comments on Ireland seem to make sense, though.
Bitter Scribe, that’s untrue. The Origins of the Sceond World War pointedly doesn’t absolve Hitler of responsibility for war, he just maintains that:
a) Hitler was not unique in his wishes to make Germany the largest power in Europe, compared to other German leaders.
b) he was a grasping opportunist with no driving forces other than “make Germany great” and “let’s kill some Jews”, rather than the devious mastermind he has been portrayed to be.
c) the Second World War was not merely the result of a small group of power-mad Nazis, but the the result of the settlement of WWI, as well as various foreign policy mistakes.
It’s certainly a controversial viewpoint, and debateable (especially around the notorious Hossbach Memorandum), but he does not “absolve” Hitler. He puts Hitler’s actions in their context with the relations of other nations and the previous events in Germany.
Retardo —
Precisely the same free-market fundamentalist thinking determined British policy in response to famine, on an even larger scale, in India in last quarter of the 19th century. The British learned nothing whatever from the Irish catastrophe. If you want the details, read Mike Davis’s “Late Victorian Holocausts,” a harrowing, hearbreaking book about an almost entirely forgotten tragedy. In fact, just read it.
I’ll never forget when I went to Ireland, I went on a day train trip to the west. The countryside was gorgeous, but we were puzzled by the sight of low-slung, crumbling stone walls that ran up the sides of hills, pointlessly, diminishing into nothing. We finally asked our guide what the story was with them.
The guide said that when the English finally got around to distributing food aid in the west, being morally righteous Victorians, they wouldn’t just hand out food for nothing. They made people earn it, and if there was no real work to be done, they set them to work building these useless fences.
If that’s not the ultimate f.u….
And Cynic, as regards Taylor’s book, if you say so. It’s been a looooong time since I had my hands on the thing, and I only read a few chapters.
[…] engineering — which is of course informed by a morality which they hope to impose on others. This is what a society it looks like, they know it, and that’s why they want it. I guess […]
[…] type of elitism is something rather new. The Irish Famine — or, I should say, the non-response to the Irish Famine — was the fault of ideologues; Trevelyan and Russell were proto-technocrats, ideologues whose […]
[…] a genocide excused as the result of some faceless mechanism, of “natural” causes? Oh, yeah: The men in Whitehall were usually of humane disposition and the bearers of honoured names: Lord […]
[…] of Jeffersonian libertarianism. Now this sort of political belief can be disastrous — even genocidal — but even at its worst it is still preferable to the “conservatism” and […]