Arguably, Cromwell committed the worst genocide against the Irish (600,000 Irish natives out of 1,400,000 died due to starvation and scorched earth tactics, or were directly killed through massacres). All in the name of religion. Yet normies will look at you weird if you say Protestants were violent and willing to massacre people over their interpretations of the Bible. People have it in their mind that the British Empire was somehow peaceful, when it really began what we call colonialism and imperialism. The Spanish Empire was a shell of what the British Empire would become, and the Spaniards were constantly in debt. Normies, just because they speak English and see the world-serpent of British Imperialism was defanged after the Second World War, think that the Brits were somehow tolerant and civil. They have it in their heads only the Dutch and Spanish cut off people's hands, or enslaved people. But indentured servitude was essentially slavery and the British Empire wasn't tolerant and didn't simply abolish slavery. The machinations of the British Empire were abhorrently violent.
>>18244321Always some fucking pajeet fuck pretending to be a fucking paddy fuck bitching about fucking Cromwell.
>>18244325I'm 1/4 English, 1/4 Scottish, 1/4 Filipino, and 1/4 Pontic Greek. I just know my history, filthy sassanach.
600,000?I think you mean 60000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
cromwell was evil purely because he invited jews back into england
>>18244327>1/4 FilipinoIt's over.
>>18244321>All in the name of religionWell yes, it's the mid 17th Century. Ireland was gripped with sectarian atrocities between Catholics and Protestants, and the nobility (which were loyal to the Stuarts, whom Cromwell's lot had just beheaded) were recieving direct military support from Rome in the form of the Archbishop of Fermo-who had arrived in Ireland in 1645.The Catholic Nobility of Ireland had founded the "Catholic Confederacy" and an alliance was born between the secessionist minded Gaelic Lords and the Royalists who supported the Stuarts; Ireland was now essentially a completely hostile entity recieving support from Rome. There was also a plot by returning nephews and sons of those who left during the "Flight of the Earls" to completely remove English influence from Ireland and create a sort of military state protectorate of Spain. It is not difficult to understand why Cromwell invaded.>GenocideMost Irish historians (In fact I'd go so far as to say "all") reject this label, just like they do for the Potato Famine. This isn't due to the very real anglophilic nature of Irish historiography, but instead simply due to the fact that while brutal (unusually so at times, in the view of English commanders present) it wasn't really that different to warfare elsewhere.Most in Ireland do have a very grim view of Cromwell because his name is tied to one of the more brutal conquests of Ireland. Most people are not historians and do not understand the nuance behind it, such as the fact that Cromwell wasn't even present for many of the worst atrocities. British Colonialism in Ireland was indeed horrendous but to call Cromwell's conquest a genocide is pushing the limits of that label.
>>18244581>horrendous By what standard? They were not living the high life but their conditions were comparatively decent. They had representation in a parliament, their own political parties, some basic social services, and their elites gleefully took part in empire building and imperial trade.
>>18244673>by what standardBy most of Europe's standard, anon. >conditions were comparatively decentFor example, the Grand Duke of Tuscany wrote extensively about the state of Ireland in the 17th Century and how misreable conditions were.As time went on and things continued to get worse, this only continued; people like Friedrich Ludwin von Raumer, James Redpath, Gustave de Baeumont, anyone who visited Ireland in particular between the 17th and 19th Century were shocked at how badly things were being run.>They had representation in a parliamentNo, they didn't. First of all, Poyning's Law (1494) meant that any and all legisilation in the Irish Parliament had to be approved by England; it was completely subservient. From the 1640s onwards Catholics (aka, the overwhelming majority of the island's population) were barred from voting or attending Parliament, and later barred outright from all public office.>their own political partiesFrom the mid 19th Century, sure. Except the main issue that the vast majority of Irish politicians campaigned for (Home Rule) had a clear majority in Ireland for nearly 40 years without it being granted.>basic social servicesAgain, you may be referring to very late-stage colonial island.>their elites took part in empire building and imperial tradeThis refers to only a very, very small minority. There were a handful of merchant families (in particular in the west) who did alright, and some families who got ahead thanks to military ties. Most of the elites were British or Anglo-Irish aristocrats, only some of whom even really considered themselves "Irish" beyond living there.Many historians today debate to what extent British Colonialism was bad for Ireland, I have only ever seen oddballs on the internet suggest it wasn't really bad at all.
>>18244720Compared to literally any other colonial power ireland's treatment was even handedAsk the Circassians, Old Prussians if you disagree. You can't.
>>18244720I am talking about the late 19th, yes. Because to apply liberal, modern standards to earlier periods wouldn't make sense. Which is what you're doing and what people who criticise Britain always do. They say Britain did this, Britain did that, without context. The context being a world where the average quality of life was very poor indeed. Once new liberal ideas took hold in Britain, Britain took to improving the lot of the Irish. They had 100 MPs and Britain bent over backwards to placate them. It was the dominant political issue for decades, to the massive detriment of our country. The political elite on London clearly cared deeply about Ireland. Just as today the British people do. Shame it is never ever reciprocated despite all we have in common
>>18244846>Compared to literally any other colonial power This metric does not mean things were good, anon. Nobody claims that the Irish were the only ones to ever suffer, nor that the Irish suffered worse than anyone throughout history. I didn't claim either of those things either.Just that things were very, very bad. Which they were.>>18244882>to apply liberal, modern standards to earlier periods wouldn't make senseI agree.>which is what you're doingNo, it isn't.I pointed very specifically to the fact that people who visited Ireland between the 17th and 19th Centuries were typically horrified at what Britain had done to the place; whether they were from Western Europe, the New World, the Middle East, Northern Europe, wherever. >They say Britain did this, Britain did that, without contextHistory books do not do this.>Once new liberal ideas took hold in Britain, Britain took to improving the lot of the IrishNo, they didn't. While there were some who sincerely wanted to fix things (I would generously class Gladstone as one of these people) many were simply finally copping on to the fact that ruling Ireland as a shitty colony with most of its population perpetually misreable and furious was retarded.The land reform efforts in the late 19th Century were a response to the skyrocketing popularity of the Home Rule movement and to widespread agrarian unrest in the aftermath of the terrible suffering during the Famine. >Shame it is never ever reciprocated despite all we have in commonThe idea that Ireland should have to thank Britain for fixing up the effects of centuries of dogshit, incompetent or openly malicious governance is very silly. Anglo-Irish relations have been very strong for a long time, despite there being many modern reasons that Ireland could take massive greivance with the UK.Are the Irish supposed to say thank you to Britain for deciding to stop fucking it over every 5 minutes? kekked
>>18244899>This metric does not mean things were good, anon. Nobody claims that the Irish were the only ones to ever suffer, nor that the Irish suffered worse than anyone throughout history. I didn't claim either of those things either.MOPES doThe average victorian worker in a factory city lived a worse off life than the irish irishman of the same era. The irish of the victorian period were extremely well fed and were described as tall and strong. Disproves your "le irish lived really bad lives" theisis
>>18244929>MOPEs doIs there where you take opinions of random retards and project them onto Irish academia?>Disproves your "le irish lived really bad lives" thesisThat people suffered elsewhere does not disprove that people suffered in Ireland, you brainlet.I could put my hand to a Cambridge History of Ireland from a century ago and I'd wager it would have a more empathetic view of Ireland than you do. I dunno why so many people get insecure about Irish historical greivances, there are a fuckload of modern and very independent failings in Ireland but people instead run down these retarded rabbit holes.
>>18244939Because we're sick and tired of you retards and your retarded narratives like LE IRISH WERE SLAVES (ignoring the fact that they were indentured servants and there were more english indentured servants than there were irish) or that le irish were starving (the irish were healthier than the english industrial classes)
>>18244969>we'reWho? >LE IRISH WERE SLAVES Nobody but retarded Americans thinks this. Could you name me any Irish historians/books or even journal pieces that suggest the Irish were slaves?If I'm not mistaken, Irish historians are largely behind debunking the American myth of Irish slavery.>le irish were starvingAnon, if you are going to start posting graphs about the nutritional makeup of the average Irish farmer I am going to save us both time by pointing out that if they weren't starving, then people wouldn't have been dying from starvation.A majority of Ireland's population did not starve to death nor emigrate during the famine. Many people's deaths were a result of an already grafile existence in poverty being exacerbated by eviction, for example. Have you ever read any books on the famine? You'd be hard pressed to find one that doesn't explain these incredibly entry-level points.
>>18244899You're applying the same standard as those people who strip history of its context to cast Britain as a villain. It's what brown people usually do, not whites. Please understand this.>Maybe we should stop ruling shittily?That's the realisation that rulers all over Europe came to. And they came to it in the late 19th century. There was nothing at all out of the ordinary with how Ireland was treated. Ireland doesn't have to thank Britain but the perpetual butthurt when the British people view Ireland so fondly, when Ireland is basically THE SAME as Britain to the point you'd have a hard time pointing out what's different besides Catholicism, it's absolutely retarded and pathetic and it's just annoying at this point.
>>18244969>Because we're sick and tired of you retards and your retarded narratives like LE IRISH WERE SLAVESThat comes from American right wing retards using Irish people as a prop in their gay and cringe culture wars and not from Irish people or Ireland.
>>18244994>THE SAME as Britain to the point you'd have a hard time pointing out what's different besidesPeople in Ireland don't get arrested and jailed for tweets. There's more differences that similarities. Everything about Ireland is different even the architecture. You could show me 100 random pics of UK and Ireland and tell me to pick the ones that show Ireland and I'd probably get it right with 100% accuracy.
>>18244994>to cast Britain as a villainI don't need to "strip history of its context" to do this, anon. It's relatively clear-cut that Britain fucked over Ireland again and again and again. The British Government to this day is doing extremely dire shit in relation to covering up things they did in Ireland.>There was nothing at all out of the ordinary with how Ireland was treatedAgain, British people a century ago would have disagreed with you. The notion that Ireland as "a nation" had been thus far failed entirely by successive British government emerged in the 18th Century and continued to be referenced to right up until independence. >Ireland doesn't have to thank Britain but the perpetual butthurt Ireland doesn't, but when the vast majority of Irish history for the past several centuries is overwhelmingly dominated by extremely negative interactions with Britain it isn't surprising that this is often the takeaway.Again, Anglo-Irish relations were incredibly strong and have been tested more by the likes of Brexit than any sort of Irish greivance with Britain. Irish historiography was so astoundingly soft-touch when it came to British colonialism in Ireland that there existed a culture in Irish Universities or media that suggested that being anti-British was seen as foolhardy/a waste of time. Successive Irish Governments have worked closely with the British Government to crack down on Irish Republicanism or Irish Nationalism that gets a bit too hostile. Irish museums are not monuments to the IRA and have enormous sections devoted to "England's history in Ireland."I think you have invented a phenomenon in your head to get angry about. The only Irish people who actively carry any grudge against Britain are mostly Republicans/Nationalists in Northern Ireland, who have extremely good reason to do so.
>>18244321>Yet normies will look at you weird if you say Protestants were violent and willing to massacre people over their interpretations of the BibleAnd rightly so because claiming this was "all in the name of religion" is an outright lie that willfully misrepresents the geopolitics of the time>People have it in their mind that the British Empire was somehow peaceful, when it really began what we call colonialism and imperialismMake up your mind if you're seething about Protestantism or Britain
>>18245005NTA, but don't be silly. Ireland and Britain are incredibly similar in many ways, architecture is one glaring way in which they are very similar since many of the oldest or most treasured buildings were built by architects who also built shit over in Britain.There are obvious differences, but to imply they're totally different is fucking barmy. Maybe in the minds of the most deluded Gaeltacht dwellers.
>>18245005>People in Ireland don't get arrested and jailed for tweets.Yes they do. Just as bad as britain.>Everything about Ireland is different even the architectureNot really. Most irish architecture is just georgian architecture that wasn't bombed out in ww2 like in britain.And yeah cottages are different in ireland than in britain. Cottages in devon are different to cottages in yorkshire. does this mean yorkshire and devon are different countries?
>>18244991Do you actually think the irish were starving 24/7? Are you retarded?Besides the famine irish people were exceedingly well fed. Why are you pretending a less than decade long period in the mid century represents an entire hundred year period?
>>18245009>architecture is one glaring way in which they are very similar since many of the oldest or most treasured buildings were built by architects99.9% of the buildings in Ireland weren't built by them. I'm talking about houses and old market town architecture and the likes. Looks different to what they have in Britain. Farms look different, schools, churches etc... Ireland does look very different to Britain.
>>18245011>Yes they do. Just as bad as britain.They don't. I've never heard tell of someone being jailed over a tweet here. We don't have hate speech laws. People in Ireland have more freedom. >>18245011>Most irish architecture is just georgian architectureMost of isn't Georgian and not the same as in Britain. >>18245011>does this mean yorkshire and devon are different countries?No but Ireland and Britain are different countries and have more differences than between the places you mentioned.
>>18245015>Do you actually think the irish were starving 24/7? I have absolutely no idea what gave you the impression that I think this. What the fuck are you on about?>Besides the famine irish people were exceedingly well fed>Besides the famineThere you go, anon.>Why are you pretending a less than decade long period in the mid century represents an entire hundred year period?It wasn't the only famine, ya dingus. Another famine in the late 18th Century due to extremely adverse weather exposed how fragile the society Britain had created in Ireland was. You are being outflanked by witnesses to Ireland in the 19th Century, anon. There are many primary sources of people (including Britons) visiting Ireland before the famine and remarking at how bad things were in general.>"The ruins of ancient castles were pointed out to me; but how could I take any pleasure in them while the desolate ruined huts surrounded me, and testified the distress of the present times more loudly than the others did the grandeur of the past? But then the lords were of the same race — of the same language; they were on the spot, and the people certainly not so wretched as since the confiscations of the English conquerors. Other huts were half fallen down, but the occupants crept into the remaining half, which was not larger than a coffin for the wretched family.>"The English boast of the good treatment of their countrymen, while the innocent Irish are obliged to live worse than their cattle."The words of Friedrich Ludwin von Raumer, written in the 1830s-a decade before the famine.
>>18245017>I'm talking about houses and old market town architecture and the likesYes, Britain has houses and Ireland does not.In all seriousness, it is very funny to try and imply that there's some distinctive "Irish" architecture that dominates Ireland. There fucking isn't. We don't use some sort of special plan or pattern or material for houses, the average high street in Ireland is often completely identical to that in other European cities.>farms look differentIn what way?What specifically is different about Irish architecture to British architecture? Except for the fact that in Britain houses tend to actually get built, at least.
>>18245022>They don't. I've never heard tell of someone being jailed over a tweet heresome taig got put in prison for hating troons like a week ago you spastic>We don't have hate speech laws. People in Ireland have more freedomBig copeAnd historically the irish hated freedom.>Most of isn't Georgian and not the same as in Britain.It literally is. Ireland's landscape and architecture is basically the same as britain's
Cromwell was perfectly fine and operated within rules of warfare at the time. The argument that he was somehow especially barbaric is faulty, and stems from the fact that Britain did not generally see wars as they were fought on the European continent.Yes, Cromwell was Puritan but he was quite tolerant of a broad spectrum of dissident groups (notably Quakers), basically abiding on the dictum that God alone truly knows his elect.AND he gave plenty of opportunities for his enemies to surrender and suffer lesser penalties, it is just that they never did.Look at what happened with Charles I. The roundheads never set out to kill him, he literally squirmed and balked every chance at compromise until that was the only measure remaining.
>>18245027Oliver Goldsmith journal in the 18th century didn't report the irish as living in particularly dire circumstances. They were just rural peasant people like any others.
>>18245041>some taig got put in prison for hating troons like a week ago you spasticEnoch Burke? No that wasn't for hating trannies it was for him getting sacked from the Protestant school he worked in and they got a court order to stop him coming to the school because he kept coming back and he was jailed for breaching the court order. He's a Protestant too. >>18245041>Big cope>And historically the irish hated freedom.You're the one coping. You could be jailed in a court in Lancashire where you're from just for some of the shit you say about Irish people on a daily basis here on Pol and his and you know it. We have none of that shit here and you have way less freedom than the Irish. >>18245041>literally is. Ireland's landscape and architecture is basically the same as britain'sYou've never been to Ireland or seen much of it on TV or online or anything if you think that. Ireland has its own vernacular architecture that you wouldn't see in Britain. Not every place has Georgian architecture too. Even the Georgian architecture isn't as fancy as what you'd see in England from the same time period.
>>18245052>You've never been to Ireland or seen much of it on TV or online or anything if you think that. Ireland has its own vernacular architecture that you wouldn't see in Britain. Not every place has Georgian architecture too. Even the Georgian architecture isn't as fancy as what you'd see in England from the same time period.I've been to ireland. Multiple times. It's just like a more rural, backward britain. All of this is just you coping for the fact that you're discount pound shop englishmen. The only thing seperating ireland from britain was it's catholicism and now you've abandoned that so there's even less seperating you.
>>18245055Theres lots seperating the two countries and Britain is as different to Ireland as Germany is to France. The only similarities is the language. The people are very different too in almost every way as well.
>>18245050>They were just rural peasant people like any others.Because some were. A book I'd recommend (70 Years of Irish Life by William Richard Le Fanu) is similar, it contains many pleasant stories of his time in rural Ireland. Like I said, most of Ireland did not starve nor emigrate during the famine; but 2,000,000 did. Not everyone in Ireland was living in utter misery and poverty-but enough were that it was seen as remarkable by many people who visited, but of course not everyone everywhere was seen this way.If 18th Century is what we're on, we can look at WH Lecky's (protestant Unionist) writings are a good example.>"the poor people in Ireland are used worse than negroes by their lords and masters."Again, some people have this strange obsession with the idea not that>"maybe the horror of British colonialism in Ireland is somewhat exaggerated by those with an agenda"but instead that>"things are so exagerrated that there was actually no cause for greivance whatsoever, as the Irish were just treated normally."We know this isn't true. We know that even if we exclude the famines and poverty, the Irish were subject to insane levels of land confiscation and violent oppression, with the vast majority of Ireland's population were barred from much of society in Ireland with no real social, economic or political mobility due to their faith, which naturally creates a point of greivance that lasts beyond the point when these issues were "solved". These are things that British people a century ago had no issue grasping. That some cannot is a reflection on their own lack of research, in my view. It isn't some retarded plot by some blue haired screaming sinn féin activist that Ireland got fucked over, it's basic history.
>>18245052>>18245041/pol/fags please go instead of ruining yet another thread
>>18245064>Theres lots seperating the two countries and Britain is as different to Ireland as Germany is to FranceAHAHAHAHBiggest cope i've ever seen.There's incredibly little that divides britain and ireland besides tiny differences like accents and different forms of government. The people aren't different at all.
this thread is already going in a retarded direction and I am a little bored babysitting anti-irish spergs but I will ask any cromwell/17th century england enjoyers ITT regardlessI am looking for good books on specifically the New Model Army, or more broadly on the history of the Commonwealth Era in general. Not necessarily focusing on Cromwell, but on the Army and the state itself. I find it all very interesting but have no idea which books to try out
>>18245072The people are extremely different. British people love rules and regulations and will inform on their own if they break those rules and regulations and Irish people are the complete opposite. There's so many differences. British people are control freaks and Irish aren't. Irish people are more clanish and parochial which Brits aren't. Irish people aren't snobby or stuck up even if very wealthy. There's so much more. You're the one coping and you think that claiming British and Irish are the same is an attack on us too and think we'd be livid hearing what you're saying but you know deep down that there's huge differences.
>>18245068This thread has been posted a million times before and it's never to discuss anything historical just a shit flinging match. Nearly every single thread about Ireland is for the same purpose and hardly any are serious.
>>18245178It's actually the opposite you absolute melt.The english were historically known for their freedom and love of liberty and hatred towards rules while the irish were known for being hierarchichal and obessed with monarchies and having a strict caste system. The irish love rules and, contrary to retarded stereotypes invented by americans, are peaceful. ireland in the 80s and 90s was one of the most lawful, peaceful societies on earth. meanwhile england, even prior to mass immigration was violent and lower class englishmen were known for being criminals.Foreign visistors to england in the 15th and 16th centuries noted how the english hated rules and regulations and were lazy and despised industry and working.
>>18245178>>18245197>The myth of national rebelliousness stems from centuries of dominance by England; but the Irish were never natural rebels and lawbreakers, they just never accepted rule by a foreign race. Under their own leaders they have proved to be docile, first towards Éamon de Valera’s conservative Catholic state, and now to the revolutionary order which replaced it (and which despises its inheritance).>The common English criticism, that their neighbours were unquestioning in their obedience to a clergy, has seamlessly continued with secularisation and the replacement caste of journalists, politicians and NGOs, painfully conformist in their thinking and obsessed with signalling moral value and maturity; this is a wider European problem but especially prevalent in Ireland.>Although banterous, the Irish are also quite reticent in many ways, more so than the English, less likely to complain about bad service or minor mistreatment, and have a ‘mustn’t grumble’ mentality. This was visible during the pandemic, when the country endured the longest and most stringent lockdown in Europe. >When Ireland embraced Christianity sixteen centuries ago, it was unusual in how quickly it converted. Most countries saw decades of conflict, a culture war between the old faith and the new, but the Irish seemed to accept St Patrick’s religion within a generation, without a fight. The same thing has happened with the new religion, Ireland’s elites embracing progressivism with rapid speed – perhaps only Canada has gone further down the road so quickly.
>>18245197>The english were historically known for their freedom and love of liberty and hatred towards rulesAnd look at the state of you now...Ireland didn't have a caste system and they weren't obsessed with monarchies either and only supported the Stuarts because they thought they were more tolerant towards the Irish and Catholicism.
>>18245205And what's that from?
>>18245212>And look at the state of you now...You're in the same position as we are. You have no room to talk.>Ireland didn't have a caste systemYes you did lmao. The irish had a stringent caste system. England post 1300 didn't even have feudalism and english society was relatively free in that working men could ascend to the nobility pretty easily. Ireland had travellers (which existed before the 16th century and cromwellian conquests) while england never had such thing.>and only supported the Stuarts because they thought they were more tolerant towards the Irish and Catholicism.Extremely untrue. The irish were writting poems celebrating the stuarts even into the late 18th century, far after the stuarts chances had failed.
>>18245217There was no caste system in Ireland and social mobility went up and down. There was different classes of nobility and non nobles could become noble too. Most people lived and died in the class they were born in just like England at the time.Travellers probably descend from the creaghts who were a class of people before the Cromwellian conquest.
>>18245277>There was no caste system in Ireland and social mobility went up and down. There was different classes of nobility and non nobles could become noble too. Most people lived and died in the class they were born in just like England at the time.There literally was. Ireland has specific classes for people that were bound to them by blood. England had no such thing.Travellers have been around in ireland well before the english came along, they were a specific caste of people.
>>18245282>There literally was. Ireland has specific classes for people that were bound to them by blood. England had no such thing.You had nobles and commoners. People in Ireland could rise or fall through the ranks of society too. I don't know if you're getting mixed up with that there was certain families who had hereditary positions in the households of the higher nobles like doctors and brehon lawyers and such. That's not really a caste system. >Travellers have been around in ireland well before the english came along, they were a specific caste of people.They were called Creaghts and not a caste either.
>>18245301>You had nobles and commoners. People in Ireland could rise or fall through the ranks of society too. I don't know if you're getting mixed up with that there was certain families who had hereditary positions in the households of the higher nobles like doctors and brehon lawyers and such. That's not really a caste system.Ireland's caste system was highly complex and stratified. Far more than anything in england
>>18245304Ireland didn't have a caste system though. No historian would agree that there was a caste system in Ireland.
>>18244327>I'm 1/4 English, 1/4 Scottish, 1/4 Filipino, and 1/4 Pontic Greekel monstro....
>>18245079Also Alison Weir's Cromwell bio
>>18245369Antonia Faser, not Weir kek
>>18245064Lol. Fucking ridiculous. The culture is incredibly similar. Take a snapshot of Ireland and it could by anywhere in Britain. Same food, same drinks, same language.
I am sometimes surprised by the defences of British policy in Ireland before the late 19th century. What point is there in defending a backwards and overly repressive system that intentionally held back a substantial part of your country? Why would anyone interested in the national strength of the United Kingdom seek to alienate and oppress the Irish rather than integrate them into a true and proper union of equals? Would it not make sense for a supporter of religious liberty to lament that Catholic emancipation did not accompany the union as it was supposed to?The Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland was at best a parasitical class of landlords who held back the advancement of both Britain and Ireland. They did little or nothing to advance Protestantism in Ireland and used religion as a mask to hide the fact that their real goal was to exploit the poor of Ireland, Protestant and Catholic alike, as workers and farmers and to reap the rewards of their labour. In doing so they ensured that the land their poor and destitute tenants occupied was never used to its fullest potential. Even if you are inclined to follow a colonialist outlook where Ireland is best suited to be a market for British manufactured goods and a source of raw material for Britain rather than a part of a truly integrated cross-island market then you should at least recognise that by intentionally keeping the Irish poor and destitute you curtail the prosperity of England as well by reducing the amount of goods which they can buy from Britain. The same arguments about how slaves make bad customers can be used here to attack the policies engineered to keep Ireland poor, docile, and destitute. I am not surprised in the least that the Whigs handled the Irish famine as they did. They were the same group which engineered the New Poor Laws in England to be as intentionally terrible and demeaning for the poor as possible after all, in order to discourage reliance on government poor relief.
>>18245451who does
