On Sun, 11 May 2008 11:50:38 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:
"Someone else" wrote in message On
Sat, 10 May 2008, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Someone else" wrote in message
Thu, , "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Way Back Jack" wrote in message
TV documentaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in those
countrysides but a relative scarcity of trees. Is it climate? Too
windy in Ireland? Sheep and/or other livestock?
(snip) Ireland suffered from
ice coverage during the Ice Ages so any trees there had to come back as
pioneer species.
Large numbers of people, 'modern farming' and trees don't go together.
As the population grew the trees would have had to go,
or in some instances,
'modern farming' methods were the cause of clearance too. Ireland's
population exploded after the introduction of the potato and you can't
grow spuds in forests so even if there had been a desire to grow more
trees, there would have been a strong disincentive to do so.
That is true.
I know and therefore wonder why you can now read what I wrote originally and
have no trouble with it, but couldn't do so the first time you read it.
Ireland had extensive forest cover well prior to the arrival of
potatoes in Europe...
Yes it did have more trees but even today Ireland has only 16.8% of land
that is arable. I don't know what the figure is for Ulster, but think it
would be higher.
There is a reason why Cromwell's men gave the inhabitants of Ulster
the choice "To hell or Connaught" that being that the land of Ulster
was preferable to the land of Connaught for farming...and underlies
the essentially economic reasons rather than theological ones for the
Irish conflict.
Indeed.
...so you're telling me that in the roughly 150 years between the arrival
of the potato in
western Europe, including Ireland, from South America, and the Potato
Famine of the 1840s that Ireland's population grew so much that it had
also become deforested?
Do read for comprehension. You clearly did not understand what I wrote.
I've addressed this elsewhere in this post.
You didn't.
In addition, some of your facts are simply wrong. The potato was
introduced
into Ireland by about 1600
Right...after the 1588 Battle with the Spanish Armada...
so by the time the first cases of potato blight
were seen in 1816, so 200 years had passed not 150. The famine of
1845-1851
was the worst but not the only famine.
Did I claim it was?
Nah.
Indeed you didn't claim that, but attempting to shift the goal posts doesn't
invalidate my point. You claimed that it was 150 years between the arrival
of the potato and the 1840s famine. That is not correct.
Ireland population doubled at the end of the 18th century in about a 40-50
year period till it hit 8 million.
So you're telling me that the population of Ireland in 1750 was 4
million people despite the fact that there were no censuses of the
entire population of Ireland until 1821?
http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/help/history.html
http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/findin...on.asp?sn=3542
Do try rereading what I wrote and do try to understand what the words mean
when linked together. I try to be quite precise in what I write and your
interpretation of what I wrote is not what I wrote.
Also the existence of a census is not the only way that population growth is
assessed. If you do not know about the growth of the Irish population in
the latter half of the 18th century then I suggest you use google.
The onus of proof is on the claimant, i.e. you, now, if you please
demonstrate your source of knowledge regarding the Irish population
prior to 1821.
That increase did not come from grain.
I think that you're going to have to revise what you've said above.
Not on the basis of anything you have written.
You've neglected to include your reference regarding the population of
Ireland prior to 1821.
Ireland's population today is now just over 4 million.
No, Ireland's population is more like 6 million...remember to compare
apples with apples and include the population of what is now known as
'Northern Ireland' in your figures because the figures for the census
of 1821 included all 32 counties...
Fair point and I stand corrected.
Phew.
Why do you neglect to mention the impact on farm ownership patterns
incurred by the Penal Laws?
http://local.law.umn.edu/irishlaw/land.html
You're right I didn't mention them and that was quite deliberate.
Really you should have
No, really I shouldn't have.
No, really you should have because not doing so is ignorant.
I was aware that some Irish Nationalist would
come out of the woodwork at some stage and rave on about irrelevancies.
They always do. And you did.
Oh my God...explain then, why it was that the blight hit Ireland
hardest when the blight was also in other countries in
Perhaps you could knock that chip off your shoulder and explain how to
grow potatoes in a forest to feed a rapidly growing population?
Admittedly difficult but given that the naval battle between the
English and the Spanish occurred in 1588 was before the potato was
introduced to Ireland, as you claim above, 1600 and the trees had
already been largely cut down to build the ships that fought the
Spanish Armada in the name of the Elizabeth I the point is beside the
point...the trees were already gone...
If you have managed to get to this conclusion, you must finally begin to see
my original point. I will remind you that my original point and which
seemed to result in your posting of irrelevancies. My point was: "you can't
grow spuds in forests so even if there had been a desire to grow more trees,
there would have been a strong disincentive to do so."
Fair comment.
Or on the Burren or a bog or some of the other non arable land?
Have you yourself ever actually been to the Burren?
Another irrelevancy?
You already make the point above...its not arable land.
Also you neglect to mention that the English desire to build a fleet
of warships to fight the Spanish Armada and where they obtained the
timber to do so...
You may (or may not) know a lot about Botany but you don't know much
about the natural and human history of Ireland.
Perhaps I should say, don't seem to know much, in particular about the
impact of the penal laws and their long reaching historical
consequences...some of which are still in place right now...in the
form of inherited privilege...
You shouldn't say that because to do so based on a total lack of evidence
based on anything I have so far posted in this thread
You deny the significance of the Penal Laws ergo my point stands.
makes you sound even less logical
Fortunately the Professor of Logic at my University disagrees with you
on this point.
and unable to read for comprehension than you have to this
point.
And you appear to have reading difficulties
The lecturers at my University disagree with you.
Well given the paucity of skills I've seen amongst recent graduates, that
doesn't surprise me. It saddens me that Lecturers and Tutors seem prepared
to accept intellecual sloth and sloppy thinking from their students, but it
doesn't surprise me.
so I will forgive your inability to draw a logical conclusion
Please indicate, using formal logic where it is that I make an invalid
inference.
No. We will do the reverse.
Ah come on now...you're claiming, implicitly to have strong logical
skills, you should already appreciate the Onus of proof lies upon the
claimant, i.e. you.
If you need to read more on this, please see he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onus_of...and_other_uses
"Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone
suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to
support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this."
Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone
else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the
responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it.
In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven"
YOU indicate using formal logic how you reached
the conclusion that:
"You may (or may not) know a lot about Botany but you don't know much
about the natural and human history of Ireland."
You deny the importance of the penal laws to the historical period we
are discussing...
based on your misunderstanding of what I wrote
or didn't write.
Of course a logically valid inference can be drawn from an incorrect
assumption/belief but it remains for you to demonstrate that I have
done this. I await with interest.
And you can continue to wait. You drew a conclusion based on an incorrect
understanding of what I wrote therefore it is up to you to do the work. Not
me. I am not your mother or one of your lecturers.
Up to you but if you want to be taken seriously then you ought to live
up to your epistemological responsibilities.
I know when my ancestors left Ireland, I also know why they left.
Ok, fair enough but does that have anything at all directly to do with
the deforestation of Ireland? Or the introduction and subsequent
dependence of the Irish Catholic population on the potato?
No it doesn't but then I never claimed that it did. I wrote that comment in
response to your conclusion that I knew nothing about the natural or human
history of Ireland.
I didn't say "nothing" I said, "not much"...there's a difference but
this supports my claims regarding your prejudice(s)....I just checked
again and I note that you've even quoted me saying "not much" as
opposed to your made up "know nothing" bullshit.
You could not logically reach such a conclusion based on the scarce
information I presented in my initial post in this thread.
True but I'm asking for the relevance.
You know nothing about what I know about Ireland
Why then did you not refer to the impact of the Penal laws regards
inheritance?
Because I KNOW how it brings rabid, raving nutters out of the woodwork. And
you did come.
Ad hominem...deal with the point please.
nor it seems about the impact of the
potato on population growth of Ireland or indeed when the famines occurred
Claiming to know the extent of my knowledge is just silly...especially
considering that you've underestimated it.
LOL. And I'll bet you don't appreciate the irony of that statement! A nice
case of pot, kettle, black.
laughter
The infestations of the fungus Phytophthora infestans occurred several times in the 1840's
with the consequences being particularly dire in 1848-49 given that
there had already been several years of crop failure...
or how long the Irish had been growing potatoes.
Do feel free to make up shit to suit your prejudices eh?
So far the prejudices in this thread have been displayed by you in truck
loads.
Ah yes...which ones please?
I was not the one to introduce them and very deliberately avoided doing so.
YOU were the one to introduce them and you have continued to do so.
You say that like its a bad thing.
I'm sure you'll stop sounding like an undergraduate at some stage.
In your opinion. As it happens I have a Post Graduate Diploma as well
as a B.Sc.
Perhaps when you become an adult.
Ad hominem.
I'm 40, my house is almost freehold, I've been married for 6 years...
Nik
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----