Won't Somebody Please Think of the Imperialists!

Recommended Videos

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,583
2,293
118
Country
Ireland

The Irish Times has published an article taking a... weird stance on the British invasion of Ireland.

A few standout points are:

Using the argument that the state is inherently a form of violent coercion, not to justify abolishing the state, but to justify the weirdly nihilistic stance that you might as well do a genocide.

The idea that the president of ireland's view in British imperialism is "one-sided" should just be on the surface a thing anyone would feel makes them sound like an idiot to say.

But the best argument is definitely "it was actually during British rule that their was a resurgence in the Irish language" completely ignoring what exactly it was that the language was resurging from.

The really weird thing is that this is like the 3rd article in a week or so that the IT have published urging people not to be so hard on the empire that literally tried to wipe out all traces of our culture and steal our land. It is currently, Seachtain na Gaeilge, a celebration of Irish language and culture. It is the Centennial of independence for the 26 counties and also the 40th anniversary of the hunger strike is literally going on right now. Like this article would be a weapons grade bad take on the British Empire any day of the week but now of all times is genuinely hilarious.
 
Last edited:

Agema

Overhead a rainbow appears... in black and white
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,917
7,080
118
The Irish Times has published an article taking a... weird stance on the British invasion of Ireland.
England didn't steal Ireland's land, it was given to England by the Pope.

* * *

Actually, there is at core a pragmatic argument in there. Nations are dominating. Outside a theory of some state-free utopia, places have to work with the world as it is. The old days were dog eat dog (and they still are now, albeit with a broader veneer of "civilisation"), and they did as everywhere did. It is arguably a form of anachronism to judge them from modern standards. If England, later UK, had not been strong, at some point it would have been conquered by Spain, or France (so, likely too, would Ireland have been as well). For weaker states, instead of control by one empire, it would just be another. There is therefore a simple logic that a government should protect its people - which might mean by grasping any little bit of territory they can eke resources out of. Some of the negative narrative of empire omits that conquered states, before their takeover, warred with each other as constantly as their imperial masters: and sacked cities, oppressed peasants, destroyed their culture, religion, etc.

I am definitely no fan of a simplistic narrative of the glories of empire, people dreaming of the days their country ruled lands near and far populated by resentful subjects, not least because it inspires idiots and tyrants to moral atrocity. But on the other hand, nor do I think a simplistic narrative that empires were all bad really an improvement, in the sense they rely on utopian morals which have never survived contact with real-world application.
 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,583
2,293
118
Country
Ireland
England didn't steal Ireland's land, it was given to England by the Pope.

* * *

Actually, there is at core a pragmatic argument in there. Nations are dominating. Outside a theory of some state-free utopia, places have to work with the world as it is. The old days were dog eat dog (and they still are now, albeit with a broader veneer of "civilisation"), and they did as everywhere did. It is arguably a form of anachronism to judge them from modern standards. If England, later UK, had not been strong, at some point it would have been conquered by Spain, or France (so, likely too, would Ireland have been as well). For weaker states, instead of control by one empire, it would just be another. There is therefore a simple logic that a government should protect its people - which might mean by grasping any little bit of territory they can eke resources out of. Some of the negative narrative of empire omits that conquered states, before their takeover, warred with each other as constantly as their imperial masters: and sacked cities, oppressed peasants, destroyed their culture, religion, etc.

I am definitely no fan of a simplistic narrative of the glories of empire, people dreaming of the days their country ruled lands near and far populated by resentful subjects, not least because it inspires idiots and tyrants to moral atrocity. But on the other hand, nor do I think a simplistic narrative that empires were all bad really an improvement, in the sense they rely on utopian morals which have never survived contact with real-world application.
Coool... But they did also murder people for speaking Irish, ban natives from owning property and outlaw schools in an attempt to scrub out all traces of Irish culture. And then there was the whole "famine" thing. Seems pretty cut and dry.
 

XsjadoBlayde

~ just another dread messenger & artisanal kunt ~
Apr 29, 2020
3,702
3,824
118
That is a concerning type of groveling reminiscent of an abused person desperately trying to curry favour with their abuser thinking it will make their life easier in the immediate future.
 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,583
2,293
118
Country
Ireland
That is a concerning type of groveling reminiscent of an abused person desperately trying to curry favour with their abuser thinking it will make their life easier in the immediate future.
To be fair that particular article was written by an Oxford professor named Nigel. Which shouldn't make it make more sense but it kinda really does.

But yeah the IT (and Fine Gael) have a really weird history of taking the Imperialist/loyalist side of things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlayde

Agema

Overhead a rainbow appears... in black and white
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,917
7,080
118
Coool... But they did also murder people for speaking Irish, ban natives from owning property and outlaw schools in an attempt to scrub out all traces of Irish culture. And then there was the whole "famine" thing. Seems pretty cut and dry.
I don't think the famine was as intentional as you do. But I'm not going to deny the British rule of Ireland was more than a little oppressive, and I don't see why the Irish shouldn't have a lingering sense of grievance.

I don't think the English treatment of Ireland was necessarily that anti-Irish (although at the same time, the English were of course very racist against the Irish). What the English did to Ireland was in ways not dissimilar to what it did with England itself: the carving up of the land was not dissimilar in concept to, for instance, the land enclosure movement of the 1600-1700s in England that effectively dispossessed masses of English commoners for the benefit of landed aristocracy. The old Irish aristocracy were largely unseated due to rebellion (as would also occur to rebels in England) and replaced with loyalists (naturally, mostly English), and many of the restrictive property laws and so on were technically anti-Catholic rather than anti-Irish: those Irish who converted to Protestantism were fine. It's not that I mean to victim-blamingly argue "If only the Irish had just accepted English rule and converted to Protestantism, they'd have been fine", just that the English had little agenda to oppress the Irish for being Irish. They oppressed the Irish because they were paranoid about Catholic plots to destroy England and because all too many idiots in those days thought the way to orderly society was repression rather than fair and decent governance.

Latterly, there surely was a desire to Anglicise Ireland, because everyone saw the trend of nationalism sweeping Europe and the realisation that with such movements growing, the way to secure territory populated by people with a different character was to culturally convert them. Similarly in France, a minority of Frenchmen spoke French in their daily life in 1800: but most of the local languages like Occitan, Basque and Breton were vigorously squashed in the 1800s. As far as I'm aware, this was also the point where, perhaps ironically, the English had - far too late - finally realised Ireland needed to be ruled both well and justly. Before then, I'm not sure the English had enough administrative presence to meaningfully dictate what went on outside maybe The Pale and a few larger cities, like shutting down schools.
 
Last edited:

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,583
2,293
118
Country
Ireland
I don't think the famine was as intentional as you do. But I'm not going to deny the British rule of Ireland was more than a little oppressive, and I don't see why the Irish shouldn't have a lingering sense of grievance.
and I think if a modern government adopted policies of eviction and forcing a country to export it's food during a famine you would call it out for exactly what it is. The stated goal may not have been to kill the Irish, just like the stated goal of voter ID laws might not be suppressing minority votes but if everyone knows that's the end result then doing it makes you culpable. The English forced the Irish to export the healthy crops and practiced wide spread evictions. Turns out taking away folk's food and homes might kill a million or so people. Anybody who tries to say "oops" about that is lying about how happy they are a million people just died.

many of the restrictive property laws and so on were technically anti-Catholic rather than anti-Irish: those Irish who converted to Protestantism were fine. It's not that I mean to victim-blamingly argue "If only the Irish had just accepted English rule and converted to Protestantism, they'd have been fine", just that the English had little agenda to oppress the Irish for being Irish.
Only to oppress the Irish for not submitting to British culture. Just like the troubles "Catholic" and "protestant" was a convenient line to draw but not wholly accurate. There were Catholic loyalists and, contrary to Leo Varadkar's thinking, protestant Republicans. If it was not about oppressing the Irish then why suppress the Irish language so violently? At best you're arguing "it wasn't because they were Irish, it was because they were not British."

They oppressed the Irish because they were paranoid about Catholic plots to destroy England and because all too many idiots in those days thought the way to orderly society was repression rather than fair and decent governance.
" No, no no. They only oppressed Catholics because they were afraid if they didn't then they might try and take back their country. See it's all good.

Latterly, there surely was a desire to Anglicise Ireland, because everyone saw the trend of nationalism sweeping Europe and the realisation that with such movements growing, the way to secure territory populated by people with a different character was to culturally convert them. Similarly in France, a minority of Frenchmen spoke French in their daily life in 1800: but most of the local languages like Occitan, Basque and Breton were vigorously squashed in the 1800s. As far as I'm aware, this was also the point where, perhaps ironically, the English had - far too late - finally realised Ireland needed to be ruled both well and justly. Before then, I'm not sure the English had enough administrative presence to meaningfully dictate what went on outside maybe The Pale and a few larger cities, like shutting down schools.
literally none of that is an excuse for slaughtering people.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
and I think if a modern government adopted policies of eviction and forcing a country to export it's food during a famine you would call it out for exactly what it is. The stated goal may not have been to kill the Irish, just like the stated goal of voter ID laws might not be suppressing minority votes but if everyone knows that's the end result then doing it makes you culpable. The English forced the Irish to export the healthy crops and practiced wide spread evictions. Turns out taking away folk's food and homes might kill a million or so people. Anybody who tries to say "oops" about that is lying about how happy they are a million people just died.
Erm, might disagree a bit there. Most certainly, the English rulers were responsible for what happened, but that doesn't mean that that was the intent. Profits rather than people is hardly unheard of. Nor creating a terrible system which utterly fails when there's a crisis.

Interestingly, Earl Grey (I think it was him) was trying to pass Poor Laws to benefit the poor in England for some time without success, and because of the famine was able to get them passed (again, for the benefit of the poor in England). There were people genuinely concerned with the problem. Again, not defending the way Ireland was managed by the English, it was too little, too late.
 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,583
2,293
118
Country
Ireland
Erm, might disagree a bit there. Most certainly, the English rulers were responsible for what happened, but that doesn't mean that that was the intent. Profits rather than people is hardly unheard of. Nor creating a terrible system which utterly fails when there's a crisis.
Yup. And we do blame the Republicans for choosing profits over people during covid so I'm going to blame the English for choosing it during the famine. "I only let this people die because I wanted money" is actually a bad thing.

Interestingly, Earl Grey (I think it was him) was trying to pass Poor Laws to benefit the poor in England for some time without success, and because of the famine was able to get them passed (again, for the benefit of the poor in England). There were people genuinely concerned with the problem. Again, not defending the way Ireland was managed by the English, it was too little, too late.
Yeah yeah, "not all English".
 

XsjadoBlayde

~ just another dread messenger & artisanal kunt ~
Apr 29, 2020
3,702
3,824
118
Also it's not like exploiting everything outside for profit was new ground for the British. The portfolio is quite hefty.


The British had a ruthless economic agenda when it came to operating in India and that did not include empathy for native citizens. Under the British Raj, India suffered countless famines. But the worst hit was Bengal. The first of these was in 1770, followed by severe ones in 1783, 1866, 1873, 1892, 1897 and lastly 1943-44. Previously, when famines had hit the country, indigenous rulers were quick with useful responses to avert major disasters. After the advent of British rule, most of the famines were a consequence of monsoonal delays along with the exploitation of the country’s natural resources by the British for their own financial gain.
Yet they did little to acknowledge the havoc these actions wrought. If anything, they were irritated at the inconveniences in taxation the famines brought about.

The first of these famines was in 1770 and was ghastly brutal.The first signs indicating the coming of such a huge famine manifested in 1769 and the famine itself went on till 1773. It killed approximately 10 million people, millions more than the Jews incarcerated during the Second World War. It wiped out one-third the population of Bengal.

John Fiske, in his book “The Unseen World”, wrote that the famine of 1770 in Bengal was far deadlier than the Black Plague that terrorised Europe in the fourteenth century. Under the Mughal rule, peasants were required to pay a tribute of 10-15 percent of their cash harvest. This ensured a comfortable treasury for the rulers and a wide net of safety for the peasants in case the weather did not hold for future harvests. In 1765, the Treaty of Allahabad was signed and the East India Company took over the task of collecting the tributes from the then Mughal emperor Shah Alam II. Overnight the tributes, the British insisted on calling them tributes and not taxes for reasons of suppressing rebellion, increased to 50 percent. The peasants were not even aware that the money had changed hands. They paid, still believing that it went to the Emperor.

Partial failure of crops was quite a regular occurrence in the Indian peasant’s life. That is why the surplus stock, which remained after paying the tributes, was so important to their livelihood. But with the increased taxation, this surplus deteriorated rapidly. When partial failure of crops came in 1768, this safety net was no longer in place. The rains of 1769 were dismal and herein the first signs of the terrible drought began to appear. The famine occurred mainly in the modern states of West Bengal and Bihar but also hit Orissa, Jharkhand and Bangladesh. Bengal was the worst hit. Among the worst affected areas were Birbum and Murshidabad in Bengal. Thousands migrated from the area in hopes of finding sustenance elsewhere, only to die of starvation later on. Those who stayed on perished nonetheless. Huge tracts of farmland were abandoned. Wilderness started to thrive here, resulting in deep and inhabitable jungle areas. Tirhut, Champaran and Bettiah in Bihar were similarly affected.

Prior to this, whenever the possibility of a famine had emerged, the Indian rulers would waive their taxes and see compensatory measures, such as irrigation, instituted to provide as much relief as possible to the stricken farmers. The colonial rulers continued to ignore any warnings that came their way regarding the famine, although starvation had set in from early 1770. Then the deaths started in 1771. That year, the Company raised the land tax to 60 percent in order to recompense themselves for the lost lives of so many peasants. Fewer peasants resulted in fewer crops, which in turn meant less revenue. Hence the ones who had not yet succumbed to the famine had to pay even greater taxes so as to ensure that the British treasury did not suffer any losses during this travesty.

After taking over from the Mughal rulers, the British had issued widespread orders for cash crops to be cultivated. These were intended to be exported. Thus, farmers who were used to growing paddy and vegetables were now being forced to cultivate indigo, poppy and other such items that yielded a high market value for them but could be of no relief to a population starved of food. There was no backup of edible crops in case of a famine. The natural causes that had contributed to the drought were commonplace. It was the single-minded motive for profit that wrought such devastating consequences. No relief measure was provided for those affected. Rather, as mentioned above, taxation was increased to make up for any shortfall in revenue. What is even more ironic is that the East India Company generated higher profits in 1771 than they did in 1768.

Although the starved populace of Bengal did not know it yet, this was just the first of umpteen famines, caused solely by the motive for profit, that were to scourge the country side. Although all these massacres were deadly in their own right, the deadliest one to occur after 1771 was in 1943, when three million people died and others resorted to eating grass and human flesh in order to survive.

Winston Churchill, the hallowed British War prime minister who saved Europe from a monster like Hitler was disturbingly callous about the roaring famine that was swallowing Bengal’s population. He casually diverted the supplies of medical aid and food that was being dispatched to the starving victims to the already well supplied soldiers of Europe. When entreated upon, he said, “Famine or no famine, Indians will breed like rabbits.” The Delhi Government sent a telegram to him painting a picture of the horrible devastation and the number of people who had died. His only response was, “Then why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?"
Can always count on an inspirational Churchill quote to drive a point home, cheers Winston.
 
Last edited: