File: meds.png (1.01 MB, 831x667)

1.01 MB PNG

>>16880720
>myth

Irish nationalist extremists invented it for propaganda purposes, prior to the Easter uprising and the subsequent surge in Irish support for independence after the poor British response, there wasn’t widespread belief that the famine was Britains fault in Ireland let alone that it was a genocide.

Once the nationalists took power naturally they propagated the idea that anything bad that happened was some deliberate British plot to justify why independence was 100% needed as opposed to what the Irish people previously wanted and were campaigning for, which was just its own parliament with devolved powers while remaining within the UK.

I do wonder, if WW1 were slightly delayed and thus British did manage to create the devolved Irish parliament, would this have been enough to keep them in the Union long term?

I’d give it 60/40, 60 for yes they’d remain, 40 for no at some point they’d demand a referendum for independence (probably around the 70’s or 80’s) and would possibly win.

Similarly thought if Ireland remained part of the UK, got a devolved parliament etc. I have no doubt IRA terrorism would still occur. But I don’t really know who it would target. The devolved Irish parliament for being “British occupiers and collaborators”? Hard to imagine that eliciting much sympathy and support from average Irish people

They kept exporting produce, apparently much of the grain couldn't have been consumed as there weren't mills, or something like that. The British government did make some attempts to reduce the suffering but weren't successful. There doesn't seem to be a lot to suggest that starvation was the intention, rather than landlords exporting things for profit and not caring what happened to others. But this is a very serious part of Irish nationalism so the genocide talk probably has some arguments.

File: Francis_Wheatley_-_The_Du(...).jpg (177 KB, 1280x716)

177 KB JPG

Doing this again, are we?
>most irish historians don't agree that it was a genocide
>most of the genocide debate comes from Americans
>most of these Americans are descended from Irish immigrants

The general and correct consensus is that the widespread starvation, death, and emigration were due to British colonial policies-but over a longer term than the administratio in power when the blight hit.

>inb4 why not fish
https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/16688734/#q16689841

>>16880755
Do you have a list of refutations for most arguments of genocide?

File: 74f8b6d20ab74f8444f097bad(...).jpg (36 KB, 400x564)

36 KB JPG

>>16880755
>Irish nationalist extremists invented it
No, they didn't. Some espoused it, and people outside of historical circles will see a massive sudden population drop due to starvation/displacement and will say "genocide." I don't think they can be blamed for that. The accusation of genocide is popular within Republicanism, but as everyone knows, almost no Irish historian

The rest of your post is completely random rubbish. Why are you talking about a post-GFA border poll in a thread about the famine? why are you talking about the IRA?

Literally what the fuck are you on about, anon?
>>16880776
The Irish Potato Famine falls short of a genocide in the eyes of most, but the devastation can still be placed squarely at the hands of British colonial policy.

The most popular "definition of genocide" has 10 stages:
The "genocide" label is only really seriously debate over one period, the mid 19th Century, and when I say "seriously debated" I mean some call it genocide, most don't. Genocide is generally classed as having 10 stages:
>Classification
>Symbolizatiom
>Discrimination
>Dehumanization
>Organisation
>Polarization
>Preparation
>Persecution
All of these were deliberately carried out as British policy against the Irish.

>Extermination
>Denial
These two weren't, hence why most historians (including Irish ones) fall short of ever calling it genocide.

However, when you have a million dead and a million forced into emigration as a result of a colonial system that was set up with exploitation in mind, it really isn't hard to see why many people see it as a "genocide."

>>16880770
>damn, I'm starving. better sell my gear that catches food
You know I'm beginning to see why the Irish were seen as retarded

>>16880785
I know you're being deliberately dense, but this is a retard site for retards so good excuse to explain that!

As noted in the thread linked below:
>https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/16688734/#q16689841
the Irish Fishing Industry was incredibly neglected by Britain. In order to fish, you needed a ship-fishing gear along isn't much use if you can't get out to where the fish are. Some would argue that you could use it in local rivers and lakes, except you ran the risk of being accused of trespassing or stealing, which would get you arrested or evicted, both of which left you as good as dead.

Some sold their fishing gear, bought food, and survived.

>>16880783
Any similar famines or other events that happened to English people? Like how the highland clearances came after they did it to the English first.

>>16880796
I can't really think of an English equivilant.

Most of Ireland's population were large families scratching out a misreable existence as tenant farmers, typically on shitty land with a landlord who didn't really care about them or the land, just the rent. While lots of food was grown in Ireland, the Irish were shilled a single strain of potato as a cheap crop, and it became a staple part of their diet. Some even took potatoes as payment, so dire were their situations.

English farmers just weren't as vulnerable as Irish farmers. The blight hit much of Europe, but only Ireland was devastated to such a degree.
>highland clearances
I'm not an expert on the topic but another anon that used to post here was. He suggested that the Highland clearances were similar; exploit a famine to implement political reform.

I suppose the Irish famine is similar as it did give England an opportunity to try reform things, but as I said I'm not incredibly well read on the subject.

>>16880756
That’s just it though, the worst accusations ultimately only support the idea that the government was not good at its job. Not that they were trying to kill Irish people.

Frankly, if they wanted to genocide the Irish they would have been a lot more successful. There isn’t really much Irish nationalist explanation for why the British government supposedly wanted to wipe out the Irish but somehow failed. Or why the British government would let these people they supposedly wanted to destroy immigrate into England en masse for better paying jobs.

That’s pretty much the opposite of what a government trying to genocide an ethnic group would do

>>16880795
Honestly it's just hard to believe that even the fishermen were starving. In our times, it's the homeless who fish to sustain themselves no matter how bad things get.
Were the subsidies to Scottish fisheries so great that people would cure the fish there, transport it to Ireland, and out-compete local fishers?
A primitive fishing pole isn't exactly rocket science and should catch enough food to sustain yourself. Even orangutans have figured out how to fish with tools, so the Irish should have figured it out after a few years.

I guess I'm also curious to why the British let the situation get so bad. Pretty much all the explanations for the crisis are that Parliament slept-walked into millions of deaths. You'd think if literally a million people died, they would suspend some property restrictions.

>>16880770
>Irish blaming Americans for accusations of genocide

The picture in OP is in fucking Belfast. It literally accuses the British of committing a Holocaust and genocide via famine.

Did the Americans take a trip to Belfast to paint it and then leave or is it in fact just a smoothbrain popular belief by Irish nationalists?

>>16880816
You Anglo bigots really expect the Irish to fish for food? That’s impossible. Nobody could transport fish inland until the invention of the barrel. Something that wouldn’t come to Ireland until the late nineties

>>16880811
You could argue that they just wanted to kill some to make space for agriculture and displace others for labour in Britain. But they could have just evicted them and massacred them in a more professional way.

>>16880816
>it's just hard to believe
I don't really know what to tell you, anon. These aren't just individual fishermen, they are typically men with families. They also have to spend most of their time working to pay rent. No rent, you get evicted, and you're fucked.

If this was a situation where it was just every man for himself, use what you have, then yes, one could argue that those with the equipment to catch food could do so. But it wasn't; people had to work, and were still tossed out of their home if they missed rent, if they tried to take food without permission, etc.

Also, remember, that many fishermen *did* eat fish and were fine. The famine killed or displaced two million, not 8 million. The majority didn't starve.
>I guess I'm also curious to why the British let the situation get so bad.
Most of British colonial history in Ireland can be split between incompetence and malice, in my view. The administration during the famine did indeed try relief efforts, but they were hindered by:
>incompetence, aka, bad decisions or too much trust that the "market would fix it"
>malice, with those treating the famine as an excuse to reform Ireland

People fill the famine with hyperbole a lot so sometimes perception of it can balloon out of control. It was horrible, devastating, probably one of the darkest periods in Irish history if not the darkest. But again-2 million, not 3 or 4 or 6 million.
>>16880825
>make space for agriculture
Land reform was a beast that Britain tried and failed many times to solve. The aftermath of British policy to implement land reform in Ireland were still being felt years after Ireland became independent, kek

>>16880805
They wanted more land for better agriculture industry instead of peasants using traditional methods. They displaces English people with the inclosure acts and then did the same thing with the lowland clearances then the highland clearances. People's traditional lifestyles were affected in all cases, and the English were targeted first. There were famines in English history, but unfortunately there aren't good death toll estimates or folklore about genocide to properly refute the idea that the Irish were the only victims of this sort of thing.

>>16880842
As I recall the whole highland clearances thing was a Scottish policy anyway. As in literally something the Scottish Parliament did via an act of legislation. Sure this was after the act of Union brought Scotland into the UK, but it still had massive legal independence and a strong parliament.

There’s a bizarre tendency for people to conflate the lowland Scot’s, who were by far the majority of Scottish people, with the English. So when the lowland Scot’s decided to enact the highland clearances this becomes something those evil English did. Rather than something the Scottish did to themselves for logical reasons even if it’s not “nice”.

A lot of it probably comes down to the weird romanticisation of “Celtic” and “Gaelic” culture. Where people love the idea of being part of auld clans and whatever.

Meanwhile the lowland Scot’s were very similar to the English for a long time, had a similar culture and spoke English, and were major cultural forces in the field of economics and trading.

Highland scots meanwhile were living like primitives from five hundred years earlier and for some reason this should have kept going.

>>16880842
>properly refute the idea that the Irish were the only victims of this sort of thing.
That seems like a weirdly hostile position to research from, anon. The hyperbole around the famine is entirely *outside* academic circles; almost all Irish historians share the view that the famine was not a genocide.

The scale of death/displacement at the result of the blight was a phenomenon at the time, too, and many nations were rife with discussion about it. Donations to Ireland flowed in from France, from Russia, from Spain, from numerous British colonies, from Italy, from all over the place.

I don't know why you would seek to search out some English equivilant as a "gotcha." England was never ruled as a colony in the way that Ireland was. The vast majority of England's population were never subject to religious persecution or penal laws. This isn't a sympathy parade for Ireland, just pointing out the glaringly obvious fact that they were two very differently run places.

>>16880863
>There’s a bizarre tendency for people to conflate the lowland Scot’s, who were by far the majority of Scottish people, with the English.
But you should know full well that in the context of Scottish nationalism that that's just standard nonsense. They'll distort events to whatever they have to in order to justify a unified Scottish identity that is opposed and oppressed by the English.

>>16880833
Why didn't they just plant a different crop after the potato blight hit? Maybe people starve initially, but after a year or two they should adjust.

>>16880864
Irish nationalism bases itself around this idea that all people from English are responsible for whatever hardships the "celtic" peoples have suffered throughout history. It deserves an aggressive response. The reason to seek an English equivalent has been explained, it's to refute the assertion that only Irish are the victims of the English ruling class.

>>16880881
Yeah, I know. I just find it bizarre so many easily buy it. Especially given the extremely friendly history between Scotland and England compared to say, England and wales or England and Ireland.

Wales was literally conquered by England, was considered part of England for most of history after this, and only made its own “country” again fairly recently.

Yet there is nowhere near the level of Welsh political animosity towards England that Scotland has

>>16880884
>why didn't they just plant a different crop
If you're a heavily impoverished family who have just discovered that your entire harvest of potatoes is inedible, simply "switching to another crop" isn't as easy as it sounds.

These weren't farmers with rolling fields of fertile soil, most tenant farmers worked a tiny and undeveloped plot that was difficult to grow anything substantial in. The entire reason the potato crop was used was because it had enough nutrition and could be grown easily and in enough abundance to survive on.

Many were forced to alter their diets and did eke out an existence. Others couldn't, or they lost their homes/jobs (one often followed the other) before they could.
>>16880889
I don't think you know anything about Irish Nationalism, anon. The fact you use the word "Celtic" in a statement about it betrays the fact that you appear to have an internet fuelled understanding of it.

England controlled all Irish political, economic, and military and cultural institutions from approximately the late 17th Century onwards. The vast majority of military invasions of Ireland from the 12th Century onward were from England. It was England who broke up Gaelic society, who confiscated the land, who suppressed the religion and set up the systems which collapsed when the blight hit.

It isn't some great secret conspiracy as to why the historical animosity exists. It sounds to me like you just want some sort of "gotcha" against an Irish Internet Boogeyman that you'e made up to be angry about.

>>16880902
Welsh people are closer in proximity to England so are forced to speak to English tourists more, that's the reason they're less aggressive about it.

>>16880864
>England was never ruled as a colony in the way that Ireland was.

I’d agree that traditional colonial rule as we understand it never happened. But England was literally conquered by both the romans and the Normans. The romans having used it as a resource extraction region (sound familiar to any colonial ideas to you?) while also enslaving numerous natives.

The Norman conquest replaced all native leaders with foreign leaders,

>The vast majority of England's population were never subject to religious persecution or penal laws.

This is just untrue, England bounced back between Catholic rule and Protestant rule for years. With whoever in power attempting to persecute the opposite side. Catholics were burned alive. Protestants were executed. People had to convert on the fly to just get by

When england finally settled on a definitive Protestant ruler and position. Catholic europe attempted to destroy it and replace its leader with a Catholic one, hence the Spanish armadas

>>16880910
No you don't know about Irish nationalists, go and speak to Irish people and this is the sort of thing they come out with. Especially talks about celts.
>England controlled all Irish political, economic, and military and cultural institutions
The English ruling class did that.
> It was England who broke up Gaelic society
The English ruling class you mean, that also did it to the English peasants

>>16880919
>But England was conquered by both the romans and the Normans
Right, except by the time England invaded Ireland they'd been in charge for a hundred years, and by the time Ireland was entirely conquered England was several centuries into its streak of not being conquered or colonised.

Plus, I think it's a little anachronistic to compare the two.
>England bounced back between Catholic rule and Protestant rule for years
Yes but the difference is that in Ireland, the land was all confiscated and quite literally given to colonists. The vast majority of Ireland's population were subject to Penal Laws consistently, regardless of who was on the throne, because they were mostly Catholic or dissenter Protestants. Anglicans in Ireland weren't persecuted, sure, but the rest were. All of this combined with the other governance issues.

You clearly have at least a decent grasp on English history so I don't know why you're presenting it in such a dense way, anon.

>>16880919
The Normans also massacred tens of thousands in the harrying of the north but the celtic nationalists don't want you to know that.

File: hgorhg.png (330 KB, 780x766)

330 KB PNG

>>16880934
>go and speak to Irish people and this is the sort of thing they come out with
Every single country on the planet as historially illiterate retards babbling about it. If you draw serious historical conclusions based on the opinions of people who don't know much about history, it's your own fault.
>The English ruling class did that.
And that's who is blamed? What?
>>16880943
Yes, and the High King of Ireland was close friends with Harold Godwinson, and tried to help his sons retake their home. What are you on about, anon?

These threads are getting weirder and weirder.

>>16880940
>the land was all confiscated
Like it happened to the English from the inclosure acts and Norman invasion. Every nation had lots of terrible things happen to them. Why didn't catholics just become anglican? Why even convert to some irrelevant dissenter sect?

>>16880940
>Right, except by the time England invaded Ireland they'd been in charge for a hundred years

If they were already in charge then how could they invade it

>>16880950
>And that's who is blamed? What?
The nationalists intentionally just say that England did it so then people will start to get the idea that all English are too blame. You know what propaganda trick you're doing.
>What are you on about, anon?
The fact that English people had bad things happen to them by their ruling class.

>>16880943
This is true. The harrying of the north would be considered an atrocity at best, genocide at worst. Nobody gives a fuck because history is literallt history.

The Irish have to hype up themselves as the ultimate victim, they’re the Jews of WW2, and the Palestinians today, their entire existence relies on the idea that if Ireland wasn’t independent they’d be destroyed by the evil heckin british

>>16880950
>pictures from years ago

Also if you google “British genocide Irish” this is the most popular picture by far. Think you’re falling into conspiratorial thinking

>>16880951
>Every nation had lots of terrible things happen to them
This is a bizarre argument.

I don't really know how to explain to you that 11th Century Norman invasions are not the same as 17th Century plantations or 18th Century religious conflicts. I think your perception of history is very weird.
>why didn't Catholics just become Anglican?
Real life is not video games, anon. Changing your religion was an enormous decision and many would rather die than do it.
>Why even convert to some irrelevant dissenter sect?
See above, real life is not video games. Why do the Protestant reformation at all? Religious views were important to people.
>>16880952
In charge of England, anon. They invaded England, then a hundred years later Norman England invaded Ireland.
>>16880957
>The nationalists intentionally just say that England did it so then people will start to get the idea that all English are too blame.

Sorry anon, that's retarded. Britain says "the war with Germany" not the war with the Nazis. Do you raise your finger and cry out at this dehumanising of innocent non-Nazi government Germans? Come on now.
>The fact that English people had bad things happen to them by their ruling class.
Yes, life sucked in medieval european societies for most people. If you are this sincerely vexed about it, why don't you start a movement about it, or write a book? Instead of crying about Ireland?
>>16880964
There are multiple years long obsessed anons on this board. My point is that these weird ass "erm, it WASN'T A GENOCDE" threads have been going for fucking ages and they have always been dogshit.

>>16880940
>You clearly have at least a decent grasp on English history so I don't know why you're presenting it in such a dense way, anon.

There’s no need to be rude. I’ve been polite to you. I’m sure there’s things you know more about than I do, and I’m sure there’s things I know more about than you do. I just disagree on this topic. That’s the point of discussing it.

And like the guy above said, the harrowing of the north is pretty underlooked when it comes to the Norman conquest. In reality how was the harrowing of the north any different to an event like Cromwell when he defeated the Irish royalists and punished their supporters? An event which is also used as some major staple of Irish grievances against the English?

>>16880969
Of course you don't know how to explain that, you can't. English people have been victims of lots of things through history like the Irish.
>Changing your religion was an enormous decision and many would rather die than do it.
Are you serious, so there's no reason why they couldn't have just become anglican and not become oppressed other than zealotry? How come English people usually switched whenever they had to?
> Why do the Protestant reformation at all?
Because some zealots and some revolutionaries got together and decided to change things

> Britain says "the war with Germany" not the war with the Nazis.
They're not trying to push their politics and nazis are always stated to be the reason. But with "celtic" nationalism they always intentionally just say England.

>>16880969
>Sorry anon, that's retarded. Britain says "the war with Germany" not the war with the Nazis}

Actually, no. Western countries generally do distinctly separate it as a war with the Nazis than a war with Germans.

For example. They do not refer to the German airforce when referencing the battle of Britain. Even though clearly it is the German airforce bombing British apfities.

Instead it is called the Luftwaffe

Same with the German navy being called the Kriegsmarine

The German military being the Wehrmacht and the SS

Nazi germany had its Nazi ruled past distinctly separated intentionally by western historians because it was important to emphasise Germany was a good boy really and our ally now post WW2 once the Cold War began and west Germany was the main bulwark should conflict begin. Same reason so many Nazis were pardoned because they needed the experienced workers ASAP regardless of whether they were party members and committed Nazis previously.

>>16880979
>there's no need to be rude, I just disagree on this topic
Because the way it's presented and has been presented is from a strange angle in that the aim doesn't seem to be actual study of a topic to broaden understanding but to find some needle in a haystack "gotcha." I apologise if I came off as rude, but as you can imagine there are a lot of bad faith actors ITT and in many others.

I'm not an expert on English history, but I can only assume that there's an answer somewhere in the gradual shift of English society from an Anglo-Saxon one to a Norman one.

But you forget that Irish historians also tend to split the whole "England vs Ireland" thing into two distinct histories; pre colonial, and post colonial. The former is generally considered to have ended with the Flight of the Earls, and the latter with the Irish War of Independence.
>>16880992
>But with "celtic" nationalism they always intentionally just say England.
Nobody of consequence calls it Celtic nationalism, or uses that term at all. No historian, no political parties, even the IRA would say Gaelic instead. I don't think you are engaging sincerely.

>>16880998
>No one ever says celt
Why are you making things up?

>>16880959
How about the prayer book rebellion, in the aftermath where many English catholics were persecuted. But that was in the famous celtic nation of Cornwall so perhaps it doesn't count.

>>16880863
>As I recall the whole highland clearances thing was a Scottish policy anyway. As in literally something the Scottish Parliament did via an act of legislation. Sure this was after the act of Union brought Scotland into the UK, but it still had massive legal independence and a strong parliament.

It wasn't a "Scottish policy". The Scottish Parliament was dissolved upon the Acts of Union, 1707. Scotland didn't "still have a strong parliament", it had no parliament at all. Do you people just come to /his/ and make shit up?

>>16881029
Maybe he just got it wrong. This still doesn't change the fact that the English aristocrats did it to the English before they did it to the Scottish.

>>16881029
My mistake. You are correct that there was no Scottish parliament at this point, After looking it up further though, it was supported politically by the lowland Scottish lords and MPs in the Westminster parliament.

>>16881037
> the English aristocrats did it to the English before they did it to the Scottish.

Yeah and you're wrong about that too. The Highland Clearances were perpetrated by Scottish aristocrats, there was hardly any English involvement.

I've never met a single Scot who claimed that the Clearances were the result of the evil English. Nationalist or otherwise. This is /pol/-tier argumentation.

>>16881075
Because you haven't spoken to Scots like the other poster hasn't spoken to Irish people and didn't know about all the celt talk. They just blame is on the English. So if it weren't English aristocrats then that's even better to know.

Britishers murdered millions of irish but it was just test for the hundreds millions of Indians genocided by Britishers

I’m Irish born in Boston. Anglo lies are exposed here. We know the truth about the great famine, almost as evil as when the redcoats burned the Americans in their homes

>>16880755
>I do wonder, if WW1 were slightly delayed and thus British did manage to create the devolved Irish parliament, would this have been enough to keep them in the Union long term?
My answer to this is no.
Read any book about the Irish revolution (E.G. The Squad 2005) and one thing that will shock you is how many of the British government, both in the mainland UK and Ireland, were either defectors, traitors, informants or completely demoralised when it came to the future prospects of Ireland remaining within the UK, and thus were uninterested in actually fighting the Irish nationalists.
The will for Ireland (Not counting the North) to remain simply didn't exist in a strong enough form. Ultimately Westminster and British government in general never really cared that much for Ireland and it showed.

>>16881885
Why though? I get the political expediency of dumping the colonies since they were a money sink and required funding a massive navy that was no longer relevant for the new era of a Cold War between the US and Soviets.

But keeping the island right next door where you can at minimum have lots of agriculture and land to use for cheap housing seems stupid to give up

>>16881735
Dear plastic Irishman, racist occupier of American Indian lands: your nation has blasted into pieces and incinerated literally millions on Asian men, women and children. So kindly go and die in a fire.

>>16880720
In my head canon, the Irish are just purer form of natives of the isles and so the mixed anglos try to kill and diminish them for the sin of mixing they carry, they can't accept their mixed origin so they blame the purer Irish

>>16882310
Your head canon needs to be "blown from a cannon."

>>16880720
the reality

>>16882339
How did the Irish resist this genocide exactly?

>>16880755
>would this have been enough to keep them in the Union long term?
>I’d give it 60/40, 60 for yes they’d remain, 40 for no at some point they’d demand a referendum for independence (probably around the 70’s or 80’s) and would possibly win.
As you say, longish-term perhaps but, it seems like a situation where they could give an inch and that ultimately allows a mile to be taken. Look at devolution in Scotland, within 3 elections of the Scottish Parliament the Scottish nationalists have been the largest party within that body. In the case of Scotland devolution has ultimately just strengthened the independence movement, for it allows a platform for those that want independence and feeds into creating a us (Scotland) vs them (the rest of the UK - or more so England) mentality.

>>16882487
>Look at devolution in Scotland, within 3 elections of the Scottish Parliament the Scottish nationalists have been the largest party within that body. In the case of Scotland devolution has ultimately just strengthened the independence movement

It got destroyed once they lost the referendum desu. The last election showing just how pointless the snp is seen as now

>>16880720
The Irish population STILL hasn't recovered from the fucking famine and its resulting exodus. A famine that could have been mitigated if the British had given even the slightest shit about the welfare of their subjects, instead of just taking all the crop produce as if it was business as usual. The entire reason why the potato blight hit the Irish so bad is because all their subsistence farming was based on potatoes, as they grow quickly, are energy dense, and can be grown in small plots, while the majority of available agricultural land was dedicated to export crop fields that their own farmers weren't allowed to eat from.

>>16882620
>The Irish population STILL hasn't recovered from the fucking famine and its resulting exodus

Almost like Ireland was massively overpopulated because they had a cultural inclination to have 10 kids per couple and thus had to migrate elsewhere for actual work

Hardly like there’s anything actually stopping ireland from reproducing to that same level now except the cultural change

>>16882623
That’s LITERALLY genocide. The British should have given the Irish whatever they wanted who cares if they had ten children in each family? The state exists to give people everything

>>16882634
No one is saying this, over a million died there's no need to be a twat about it

File: 1529891220835.png (88 KB, 489x423)

88 KB PNG

>>16880783
What is that thing in the picture? It doesn't look like a rifle/musket or whatever...what is it?

>>16882960
It's an axe.

>>16882018
>But keeping the island right next door where you can at minimum have lots of agriculture and land to use for cheap housing seems stupid to give up
I mean, NI already exists and it's the most neglected, most irrelevant and least cared about part of the UK by a significant margin.
If the UK can't even manage to extract value out of the part of the Ireland that DID want to stay, how would they have ever done it in the part that didn't?
Which isn't to say there wasn't value from the island itself, see current day ROI being about 10x more productive and economically viable than NI, but the UK could have never tapped into it.

>>16882669
Exactly. I don’t care if they died because they failed to understand they couldn’t feed 10 kids on a small plot of land. The British should have given them welfare

>>16883350
>see current day ROI being about 10x more productive and economically viable than NI, but the UK could have never tapped into it.

I mean, it’s isn’t really. Yeah on paper it’s good. But the average Irish struggle with cost of living and housing and immigration somehow. The corporate tax incentives just make the government happy.

So yeah the British couldn’t benefit from it that way but given how the city of London works they’d make less money overall focusing on that

>>16883429
>The corporate tax incentives just make the government happy.
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/irl
Even if you ignored the tech companies (who do actually employ a significant percent of the population), Irelands pharmaceutical exports are, proportional to the size of the country, ridiculously high.
The swap over time from NI being the industrial powerhouse of the Island to the Republic being that much more productive says a lot about how mismanaged the entire island was (and parts of it continue to be)
Although the same can be said for parts of the mainland UK itself, the UK in general mishandedled de-industrialization in many parts, see Glasgow as an example.
Ultimately both the UK and Ireland are similar in that they're extremely capital centric and so everything is focused on London or Dublin respectively, but luckily for ROI Dublin is on its own like 40% of the population.

>>16883350
The poorest parts of the UK are mostly in England actually, in particular highly white British areas or areas ruined by wealthy tourists.

>>16883455
The Republic was a shithole up until the 80s at the earliest, we're really not pretending it's just coincidence something like a quarter of Irelands citizens live permanently overseas and London is the second largest city by Irish population on Earth lol

>>16883455
Yeah, that’s fair enough.

But wouldn’t that also mean it’s thanks to the British they can even have this economic strategy? If they didn’t have so many people die and leave the country, then 40% of the population wouldn’t be concentrated in Dublin

>>16883595
Yeah. The stats are so skewed by London. So many people really have no idea just how impoverished areas of England are. Particularly seaside towns that relied on tourism. People generally know at least that the areas that got deindustrialised in the north during the 70’s and 80’s are poor shitholes

Makes the SNP “England are stealing muh wealth” rhetoric laughable. Scottish people literally get more money per head than English people. Hence why Scotland and wales have extra NHS schemes and free university

>>16883619
The worst part is that a lot of the poor people in these previously industrial northern towns are probably descended from Scottish diaspora. The SNP and their Welsh equivalent are purely civic nationalists and do not care for Welsh and Scottish people in England, if they even care about them in their own countries anyway.

>>16883714
The "Welsh", the "Scottish", and even the "Irish" diasporas in England are today English in every meaningful way.

>>16883749
That's very true but the muslim the SNP had as its leader is not Scottish in any meaningful way either, and nor are any ethnic minorities over there. There's not a whole lot of difference between anglophones in different parts of Britain culture wise regardless.

It definitely wasn’t intentional and is mainly used as psychological manipulation tool by pragmatic people however it was a chernobyl tier fuck up for the british gouvernment that could have been avoided. Also many people ignore the beliefs of society at that time and if the government had intervened strongly in the crisis most of the population and parties would have been pissed and it could have triggered a political crisis. Also britian wasnt doing very well in the 1840s politically or economically…

>>16883773
The SNP is a fucking joke, I know, but they would be even more of a joke if they cared about a completely assimilated diaspora.

>>16883924
They'd be even more of a joke if they cared about the descendants of the people who built Scotland, or at least recognized their poverty?

File: r45yye4trdfa1.jpg (46 KB, 640x568)

46 KB JPG

>>16883605
>The Republic was a shithole up until the 80s at the earliest
But that's incredible? Such a change within 60-70 years either means the Irish government and politicians are some of the greatest economical geniuses that ever lived (unlikely) or that the potential always existed but was wasted by the previous rulers (The British)
Or if you want you can just say the EU did it, I would agree with the assertion that of all the countries in the EU, Ireland is the one that benefits in the most obvious ways from both how it works politically and economically.