Okay, Forgive me for going way out of my paticular expertise here, But i do wish to ask this Question.
What about the Móðuharðindin which followed the eruption of Lakagígar in 1783 in Iceland? As far as my limited knowledge of that Nation goes. At the Time of the eruption, two thirds of people were farmers while the other third were fishermen.
It's just something i heard about, a very long time ago. Did Iceland have the Rule of Law and De jure property rights prior to 1783? My limited knowledge suggests they might have had But i dont trust myself on that one. I just want to know. Nice vid by the way :)
@theyounghistorian77 Very interesting question. I suppose someone like Howtheworldworks would say the people of Iceland at the time didn't have de jure property rights, since they were under Danish rule, and Danish law denied them the freedom to trade their goods and services with whomsoever they would, but allowed them only to trade with Denmark. Whether having de jure property rights would have helped them much or not is another question.
"Theres never been a famine in a country with de jure property rights" is such a meaningless phrase anyway. De jure property rights precede modern capitalism, for one thing. Whats more interesting is whether or not markets are an efficient response to famine, and people much more scholarly than HTWW can't find concensus on that one.
great video! more people need to see this, as htww continues to make the claim that "no society with de jure property rights and rule of law has ever experienced a famine." you've done an excellent job of proving him wrong. hope you don't mind me mirroring this video. peace.
Interesting Video, although it pains me to agree with HTWW I think he is right.
if you read Wikipedia on causes of the Ireland famine it states in part.
"Laws against education of Irish Catholics and possession of land had made such a progress impossible until the penal laws were repealed only fifty years before the Famine, but the economical recovery was slow because the landlord families still kept their land.".
That's an interesting view, but I wouldn't say the landowners in Ireland constituted a monopoly. There were lots of them, after all. Regarding laws affecting Catholics, religious discrimination was the norm all over Europe when those laws were in force. It's interesting that so few Catholics converted in order to take advantage of the privileges of being Protestant. I suppose the priests must have convinced them that such apostasy would condemn them to hell.
I see you prefer myth to history. The Whigs did not harbour genocidal hatred towards Irish peasants, or they would have opposed Catholic emancipation, which instead they vigorously supported. Meanwhile, though most Tories had opposed emancipation, they favoured giving more aid. If you want a group that consistently showed contempt for the Irish peasantry, it is the Ascendancy: they opposed both Catholic emancipation *and* famine relief aid -- but the Ascendency were Irish.
Because of the wigs firm belief in the joy of capitalism they (the wigs) stood by eh?
Bull-fucking-shit.
They wanted us to die. They laughed about it. Like it or dont the potato famine was an adventageous manipulation of a situtation in the hopes of genocide.
But the Celts will NOT die. We will be here when sun falls down...
Interesting video. I have read about the potato famine, never in much detail, but your points are pretty accurate, as far as I can tell.
The current situation has made me ponder the reasons economic (and social-economic) systems can break down, and I should probably take a new look at the potato famine to see what can be learned from it.
Yes, it is ironic, after what he said to Thunderf00t, that he should turn out to be ignorant of the history he is using, and not to have bothered to check.
You would have to do better than that. The video you link does not answer the points I raised. Instead, it presents a distorted picture. (a) It claims the landowners were all, or nearly all, non-Irish, and that's false. (b) It implies that there was a deliberate intention to starve the Irish peasants, and that's false. (c) It does not address the fact that the landowners were exercising their property rights, protected under law, which is also the fact that you ignored.
The video also is very partial in the way it treats the events of the 17th century. It says Cromwell (whose title he gets wrong) had some Irish shipped off to the West Indies, but fails to say why (they lost a religious war). It misses the rise of the Ascendancy. Restrictions on Catholics allowed the Ascendancy (Irish protestants) to gain land, wealth, and political power, which they used to their advantage -- but all the anti-Catholic laws were repealed years before the famine.
Okay, Forgive me for going way out of my paticular expertise here, But i do wish to ask this Question.
What about the Móðuharðindin which followed the eruption of Lakagígar in 1783 in Iceland? As far as my limited knowledge of that Nation goes. At the Time of the eruption, two thirds of people were farmers while the other third were fishermen.
theyounghistorian77 1 year ago
It's just something i heard about, a very long time ago. Did Iceland have the Rule of Law and De jure property rights prior to 1783? My limited knowledge suggests they might have had But i dont trust myself on that one. I just want to know. Nice vid by the way :)
theyounghistorian77 1 year ago
@theyounghistorian77 Very interesting question. I suppose someone like Howtheworldworks would say the people of Iceland at the time didn't have de jure property rights, since they were under Danish rule, and Danish law denied them the freedom to trade their goods and services with whomsoever they would, but allowed them only to trade with Denmark. Whether having de jure property rights would have helped them much or not is another question.
73elephants 1 year ago
@73elephants P.S., I don't claim to be an expert, either.
73elephants 1 year ago
great video, and great schooling of a zealot ...
thumbs up.
symelian 2 years ago
nice and precise man
swinewarrior 2 years ago
Great video . And what you say is factualy correct.
All love from me Jasmine
Eopyk 2 years ago
"Theres never been a famine in a country with de jure property rights" is such a meaningless phrase anyway. De jure property rights precede modern capitalism, for one thing. Whats more interesting is whether or not markets are an efficient response to famine, and people much more scholarly than HTWW can't find concensus on that one.
eirefrance 2 years ago
great video! more people need to see this, as htww continues to make the claim that "no society with de jure property rights and rule of law has ever experienced a famine." you've done an excellent job of proving him wrong. hope you don't mind me mirroring this video. peace.
cristoballs 2 years ago
Interesting Video, although it pains me to agree with HTWW I think he is right.
if you read Wikipedia on causes of the Ireland famine it states in part.
"Laws against education of Irish Catholics and possession of land had made such a progress impossible until the penal laws were repealed only fifty years before the Famine, but the economical recovery was slow because the landlord families still kept their land.".
wizkid2000 2 years ago 2
One could argue that Ireland at the time of the famine was a state protected land monopoly resulting in a de facto feudal serfdom.
wizkid2000 2 years ago
That's an interesting view, but I wouldn't say the landowners in Ireland constituted a monopoly. There were lots of them, after all. Regarding laws affecting Catholics, religious discrimination was the norm all over Europe when those laws were in force. It's interesting that so few Catholics converted in order to take advantage of the privileges of being Protestant. I suppose the priests must have convinced them that such apostasy would condemn them to hell.
73elephants 2 years ago
good video
liesandtricks 2 years ago
thanks
73elephants 2 years ago
burning people out of their homes,was that the law?
peadair1 2 years ago
That was the landlords, most of whom were Irish.
73elephants 2 years ago
i think u will find many of the landlords were british
peadair1 2 years ago
I think you will find that most of them were Irish.
73elephants 2 years ago
I see you prefer myth to history. The Whigs did not harbour genocidal hatred towards Irish peasants, or they would have opposed Catholic emancipation, which instead they vigorously supported. Meanwhile, though most Tories had opposed emancipation, they favoured giving more aid. If you want a group that consistently showed contempt for the Irish peasantry, it is the Ascendancy: they opposed both Catholic emancipation *and* famine relief aid -- but the Ascendency were Irish.
73elephants 2 years ago
Because of the wigs firm belief in the joy of capitalism they (the wigs) stood by eh?
Bull-fucking-shit.
They wanted us to die. They laughed about it. Like it or dont the potato famine was an adventageous manipulation of a situtation in the hopes of genocide.
But the Celts will NOT die. We will be here when sun falls down...
HulkSmashPunyHumans 2 years ago
John McWhorter, you are one smart Yalie... if persons of color were admitted to Yale.
Now, as we have broken the ice with an awkward joke considering race let me say:
More professional rebuttal of HTWW than the good thunderf00t himself did.
I am over here from the pyrrho channel and am looking forward to more videos from you, e.g. on Howard Zinn. bye
RationalEmotive 2 years ago
Interesting video. I have read about the potato famine, never in much detail, but your points are pretty accurate, as far as I can tell.
The current situation has made me ponder the reasons economic (and social-economic) systems can break down, and I should probably take a new look at the potato famine to see what can be learned from it.
Cheers.
cmxcmx 2 years ago
Yes, economic history is interesting and important - especially in a time like this. I should read more of it myself.
73elephants 2 years ago
A very good response. Despiste his claims he is very ignorant of history.
morais691alexandre 2 years ago
Yes, it is ironic, after what he said to Thunderf00t, that he should turn out to be ignorant of the history he is using, and not to have bothered to check.
73elephants 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This guy is not a scholar, but if I were to make a video response to you....it would be something like him.
watch?v=oaKv-Wl-cAs
HowTheWorldWorks 2 years ago
You would have to do better than that. The video you link does not answer the points I raised. Instead, it presents a distorted picture. (a) It claims the landowners were all, or nearly all, non-Irish, and that's false. (b) It implies that there was a deliberate intention to starve the Irish peasants, and that's false. (c) It does not address the fact that the landowners were exercising their property rights, protected under law, which is also the fact that you ignored.
73elephants 2 years ago
The video also is very partial in the way it treats the events of the 17th century. It says Cromwell (whose title he gets wrong) had some Irish shipped off to the West Indies, but fails to say why (they lost a religious war). It misses the rise of the Ascendancy. Restrictions on Catholics allowed the Ascendancy (Irish protestants) to gain land, wealth, and political power, which they used to their advantage -- but all the anti-Catholic laws were repealed years before the famine.
73elephants 2 years ago
If there was one book that you would recommend I read about this time period....email me it please.
HowTheWorldWorks 2 years ago
You could try "Modern Ireland, 1670-1972", by Roy Foster.
73elephants 2 years ago
Haha, HTWW says someone is "not a scholar"? Oh, the preciousness of it all.
eirefrance 2 years ago
Good response
lolhowdoishotweblol 2 years ago
Thank you.
73elephants 2 years ago