Someone else wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 17:07:25 +1000, "FarmI" <ask@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
be given>
> wrote:
>
>> "Someone else" <republican_remove_spam_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> > On
>> Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" <ask@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
be given>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Way Back Jack" <retired@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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,
>
> In Ireland a whole culture had grown up around living amongst the
> trees and it was this culture that was effectively destroyed by the
> deforestation of Ireland wrought by the forces loyal to the English
> crown...in their desire to obtain materials to build a fleet large
> enough to beat/repel a fleet whose creation had likewise deforested
> Spain...which of course is a much larger country than
> Britain...Spain's total land area = 504,030 km² whereas Britain's is
> 244,820 km²...and Ireland's (the entire island of Ireland) is 84414
> km²
So, you would have enjoyed being beaten by the Spanish Armada and being
subjected to an Inquisition no doubt! - Such blether and rubbish you talk
Nik! See this:
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/S2003/jessiewhit/deforestation.html
The world was once covered in forests which were indeed depleted for ****p
building but also for Iron manufacture, and NOT mainly by the British, but
also by the Irish and every other advanced country that wished to build
****ps for trade and for war, not to mention the slave ****ps as well,
highly
specialised that those were, and for the manufacture of iron.
>
>>>> 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.
>
>>> 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.
>
>>> ...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.
>
>> 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...
By Raleigh, from a wooden ****p! Made in England out of British Oak.
>
>> 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?
You usually do.
>
> Nah.
>
>> 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/findingData/snDescription.asp?sn=3542
>
>> That increase did not come from grain.
>
> I think that you're going to have to revise what you've said above.
>
>> 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...
>
>>> Why do you neglect to mention the impact on farm owner****p 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 because the consequences of the laws pertaining
> to inheritance and the selling of land have had long lasting
> ramifications, consider:
>
> "English Statute 1 Ann c. 26 (1702):
> An Act for the Relief of the Protestant Purchasers of the forfeited
> Estates in Ireland
> Sec. 15. No papist, during the time of his professing the popish
> religion, shall be capable to inherit, take or enjoy any other
> forfeited estates or interest therein,"
>
> and, in particular, this one:
>
> 7.04
> 2 Ann c.6 (1703):
> An Act to prevent the further Growth of Popery
> Sec. 10. All lands owned by a papist, and not sold during his lifetime
> for valuable consideration, really and bona fide paid, shall descend
> in gavelkind, that is to all of his sons, share and share alike, and
> not to the eldest son only, and lacking sons, to all his daughters,
> and lacking issue, to all kin of the papist's father in equal degree,
>
> The consequence of this was that the lots that were actually owned by
> Irish people who chose to remain 'Papists' was that their farms became
> smaller and smaller because the farms owned by Irish Catholics *had*
> to be split up evenly among *all* their children as opposed to the
> eldest inheriting the farm with the younger ones either being married
> off, sent into the Clergy or the Military as was traditional prior to
> the imposition of the Penal Laws... until potatoes were the only crop
> that could sustain the family that lived upon the land...maybe I do
> have a chip on my shoulder, maybe I don't but the point remains.
>
>> 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 ****ps that fought the
> Spanish Armada in the name of the Elizabeth I the point is beside the
> point...the trees were already gone...
>
>> Or on the Burren or a bog or some of the other non arable land?
>
> Have you yourself ever actually been to the Burren?
>
>>> Also you neglect to mention that the English desire to build a fleet
>>> of war****ps 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...
>
>> And you appear to have reading difficulties
>
> The lecturers at my University disagree with you.
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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?
>
>> You know nothing about what I know about Ireland
>
> Why then did you not refer to the impact of the Penal laws regards
> inheritance?
>
>> 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. 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 **** to suit your prejudices eh?
>
> It was the Spanish Conquistadors in the 1530's in Peru that were the
> first Europeans to encounter potatoes.
>
> http://research.cip.cgiar.org/confluence/display/wpa/China
>
> The potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) was introduced to Europe from its
> geographic origin in the Andes of South America in the late sixteenth
> century, probably in the 1570s (Hawkes 1992)
>
> Hawkes, J. G. 1992. History of the Potato. In: P.M. Harris, Ed. The
> Potato Crop: The Scientific Basis for Improvement. Second Edition.
> Chapman and Hall. London. pp. 1-12.
>
> Some claim that potatoes washed up in Ireland in 1588 as a consequence
> of the Spanish Armada sinking off the west coast of Ireland...its
> possible but not a certainty that the introduction was that
> early...but...as I say above it is beside the point because the trees
> that were cut down in Ireland were already cut down at that point.
Bull****. Your opinion only. See
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/S2003/jessiewhit/deforestation.html
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
|
