Register to Comment
Page 41 of 47 FirstFirst ... 313940414243 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 461
Like Tree362Likes
  1. #401
    blinding blinding is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    8,273

    Well we do get plenty of rain which is very good for growing crops....except when we get too much when harvesting and sowing and in between .

    Ireland is very green due to all that beautiful rain .
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #402
    Schuhart Schuhart is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    7,901

    Quote Originally Posted by blinding View Post
    except when we get too much when harvesting and sowing and in between
    Isn't that about the size of it? Its like trying to make sense of a statement from the IFA Grain Committee, simultaneously rehashing the stuff about our world leading yields, while at the same time maintaining our cereal production will continue to decline as apparently those same world leading yields are uneconomic.

    I think the sane view has to recognise that, even with the Compulsory Tillage Order in place, we didn't have enough wheat to feed three million people during WW2.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #403
    Fritzbox Fritzbox is online now
    Fritzbox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,804

    Quote Originally Posted by Schuhart View Post
    Indeed, that is a strong factor. As the article I linked (which explains we've been net food importers since 2000) says:If it was that well suited, we'd be doing it.
    Apologies on the long post, which I can't explain as I've lost faith in the capacity of fact to unseat the myths installed by primary school mantras about Ireland having the most fertile land in Europe.
    Irish land is certainly as fertile as any other land in Europe - and Irish land was certainly no less fertile in the 1840s as it is today. What primary school did you go to anyway?

    BTW, here in Germany every supermarket is full of Irish butter, Irish beef is quite popular here too.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #404
    Fritzbox Fritzbox is online now
    Fritzbox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,804

    Quote Originally Posted by Schuhart View Post
    Isn't that about the size of it? Its like trying to make sense of a statement from the IFA Grain Committee, simultaneously rehashing the stuff about our world leading yields, while at the same time maintaining our cereal production will continue to decline as apparently those same world leading yields are uneconomic.
    But that's not a comment on the quality and efficiency of Irish land perhaps, more a comment on the price of Irish labour?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #405
    Fritzbox Fritzbox is online now
    Fritzbox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,804

    Quote Originally Posted by Schuhart View Post
    Proof of the pudding is the eating. The population of the West of Ireland hasn't rebounded, despite decades of support.
    Oh yes it has, population of Connacht has at least grown substantially since the 1960s. You do realise that agriculture output in Connacht was able to support 1.4 million people in 1841 - imagine what it could support today with modern farm technology?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_...lysis#Connacht

    Even today, we're more dependant on food imports than the UK - despite us being a net food exporter.
    Where is the evidence for this?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #406
    Civic_critic2 Civic_critic2 is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,870

    Schuhart confuses the doings and non-doings of a counter-revolutionary neo-imperial elite with the capacity of the country. Such is his use of the word 'we' when he means 'they'.

    But more than the sh1ts and giggles of trolling about the unique unproductivity of 21 million acres of land is the manner of trolling itself, which is premised on a tradition of justifying the death and expulsion of Irish people from their own land and requiring the Irish to agree with its necessity. I know of no other people - and certainly not going into the 21st century - who are subjected to such vicious rationalisations about the inability of the land they live on to feed them. It is a tradition of suggesting that the Irish must be wiped out and Schuhart is fully on-board with going along with it.

    The Irish, it is implied, must justify why they shouldn't die and be cleared out and should accept why, regretfully, they should be.

    It is a tradition of rationalisation which, through a long colonialism, has devolved down to the individual level and into the bones of the people. Mutating and prolonged, this call to self-abnegation was seen again in the severe religious oppression targeting the life force of the Irish with endless demands for justification and apology which was taken over and used by the counter-revolutionary regime to control the people. And here it is again in typical form, in Schuhart's trolling which, while he thinks it's funny, actually participates in a deeply vicious impulse that we have been subjected to for centuries.
    Last edited by Civic_critic2; 15th October 2017 at 03:44 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #407
    Dasayev Dasayev is offline
    Dasayev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,868

    If we are to talk about myths, then the myth of the Famine is that it was about food.

    Every large country in the world imports food. They can do this because their peoples have jobs and money to spend, and so there is a market for food producers.

    Compare this with Ireland were millions of people were so poor they couldn't afford to buy food, but had to produce it themselves.

    So these people needed jobs. And there was plenty of scope to create such employment in Ireland with the building of a railway system, reclaimation of wastelands, fishing industry etc, etc.

    However there was never any intention on the part of the British government that this should happen. They had a poverty issue that the Famine took care of for them. Their media even gloated about it:

    London Times, 1851
    The abstraction of the Celtic race at the rate of a quarter of a million a year, a surer remedy for the inveterate Irish disease, than any human wit could have imagined.
    It wasn't as if Ireland was poor. But the wealth was being extracted from the country.

    Food exports jumped by staggering amounts from 1801 to 1838, without the poor gaining. Absentee landlords took millions per annum out of the country in rents, and the British government overtaxed Ireland for most of the years that the Union existed.

    During the Economic War our government demanded that the British repay 400 million back in overtaxation, for instance. In the 1890s, the British had admitted to a figure of, I think, 150 million. So even if the figure is somewhere in between, it's still a huge amount of money.

    So, there was wealth there to transform Ireland for the better. There was no need for this Pol Pot-style cultural revolution in Ireland that saw cattle replace people.

    Edward Blake MP in the House of Commons in 1897
    Ireland was in proportion to population the fourth meat-producing country in the world; she was the 16th meat consumer. [Cheers.] England was the 16th meat producer; she was the fourth meat consumer.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #408
    Telstar 62 Telstar 62 is offline

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    18,250

    In the case of absentee landlords, it was often prosperous Irish tenant farmers
    and Estate Managers that showed little mercy...

    Prices rocketed in 1846-7.
    Irish merchants made an absolute fortune in selling
    imported maize.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #409
    parentheses parentheses is offline
    parentheses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    11,955

    Quote Originally Posted by Schuhart View Post
    Indeed, that is a strong factor. As the article I linked (which explains we've been net food importers since 2000) says:If it was that well suited, we'd be doing it.

    What we can say is that during WW2, we were able to get by and even maintain food exports to the UK. That was when our national population was 3 million, over 600,000 of which were working in agriculture. We still needed food rationing - and the dependency of production on imports of fertiliser, fuel and feed was a big issue.Apologies on the long post, which I can't explain as I've lost faith in the capacity of fact to unseat the myths installed by primary school mantras about Ireland having the most fertile land in Europe.
    I think Ireland does not produce large amounts of grain because of profitability issues.

    Britain does produce huge amounts of grain but at low to no profit. james Dyson is one of the biggest and most efficient farmers in Britain but he has complained of losses on grain production.

    I think you have confused feasibility with profitability.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #410
    McTell McTell is offline
    McTell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3,667
    Twitter
    @

    Quote Originally Posted by Dasayev View Post
    If we are to talk about myths, then the myth of the Famine is that it was about food.//

    //
    Food exports jumped by staggering amounts from 1801 to 1838, without the poor gaining. Absentee landlords took millions per annum out of the country in rents, and the British government overtaxed Ireland for most of the years that the Union existed.

    During the Economic War our government demanded that the British repay 400 million back in overtaxation, for instance. In the 1890s, the British had admitted to a figure of, I think, 150 million. So even if the figure is somewhere in between, it's still a huge amount of money.

    So, there was wealth there to transform Ireland for the better. There was no need for this Pol Pot-style cultural revolution in Ireland that saw cattle replace people.

    Edward Blake MP in the House of Commons in 1897

    The problem was that the starving tatie-hokers didn't pay hardly any rent, and were looked down on by everyone. The benefit of the clearances went to the tenant farmers, who then took on the landlords in the 1880s.

    It's also obvious that the emigrants couldn't have walked to the seaports if they were already starving. Emigration was about a lightbulb moment when a million people realised there was no opportunity here. Their deaths arose from disease and bad sanitation.

    The population had grown from 5m in 1800 to 8m by the 1840s, which looks unsustainable if 90% of us were poor in the first place.

    The tax burden was higher after the famine, and fell on the poor because of tea and whiskey, but you need them in our damp climate. This was debated in the 1890s by a committee headed by Erskine Childers's cousin / uncle....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_C...ers_Commission
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 41 of 47 FirstFirst ... 313940414243 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment