> Date sent: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 07:19:55 -0800
> Send reply to: "CELTIC-L - The Celtic Culture List." <[log in to unmask]>
> From: Moira <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Re: Famine Documentary
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Dear Ray,
> I'll say it again: You need to watch WHEN IRELAND STARVED. You need to read
> PADDY'S LAMENT by Gallagher. You have one of the worst cases I have ever
> seen of Irish Holocaust Denial.
Excuse me, but how many famines have we seen in the last 10 years
around the globe? And what was the responce - a few wet pop songs and
the UN delivering grain to be hijacked by the local guerillas? At the
time of the Irish famine, Ireland was about as distant in peoples
minds as Rwanda is now, and as responsible for its own plight
Enough of this temporal parochialism!!
> Following is a discussion with Ray denying the Irish Starvation, and Tom W.
> courageously stating the truth about the Great Hunger. (Way to go, Tom! How
> can bigots deny the Green Death?)
> [The Great Hunger has been carefully pruned from public libraries in
> California, and censored from the public school curriculum. I found out
> about it from the American Ireland PEC, in New York.]
> At 02:35 PM 12/9/96 +0000, you wrote:
> >> Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 20:19:04 -0800
> >> From: Tom Willis <[log in to unmask]>
> >> > >+ From what facts do you deduct that they run the government
> >> > >+ bad?
> >> && How about persecuting and stealing from most of the inhabitants
> >> of the country ? Prohibiting their education. Trying to wipe out
> >> their culture and religion. Impoverishing them and setting up a
> >> situation which allowed for a famine. Absentee Landlords. Famous
> >> corruption in the courts. Severely limiting Irish commerce.
> >> Bribery. Eventually getting thrown out. That seems like an
> >> adequate list.
> >I agree that what you describe would be considered bad to our current
> >standards as to how a government should run a country. But that's
> >been exactly what I have been saying all the time: That you cannot
> >judge past actions by current standards. At the time these decisions
> >were made that way in Britain it still was considered the godgiven
> >right of the aristocracy that had been elected by god to run the
> >state to do such things. As it was, at that time, in most countries
> >on this planet. And I know of no way to decide if this wasn't god's
> >will. At least I know of no explicit statement in the bible or any
> >other christian religious statement that tells differently or could
> >not be interpreted in a way that fits that system.
> >Christianity does in no way talk about democracy and the equality of
> >all humans. At least not according to what I have learned in 20 years
> >in Catholic Church. On the contrary, christianity is talking about a
> >herd of sheep (stupid population) that has to be ruled by their
> >herdsmen, and HAS TO OBEY their decisions.
> >> ----------------------------------------------
> >> >+ From
> >> >+ what facts do you deduct that in the last century it was
> >> >+ considered to be the responsibility of the government to care
> >> >+ that its governed would not starve to death?
> >> && Well the whole medieval idea of nobility was that it had its
> >> privileges because it defended the people. This is not a modern
> >> idea. Morality was not invented in the 20th century. Rudyard
> >> Kipling even wrote "The White Man's Burden" during the 19th
> >> century.
> >Oh how nice. That's perhaps the early justification for that system,
> >but in no way was in place since the high medieval, since when it was
> >considered to be the GODGIVEN RIGHT of the nobility to do as they
> >like. This was even brought fourth as A RELIGIOUS DOGMA BY THE POPE!
> >> >+ From which knowledge do you deduct that it
> >> >+ is, in fact, the natural responsibility of the government to
> >> >+ care for its governed?
> >> && The alternative is that the natural role of the government is to
> >> exploit the governed. It's pretty obvious that isn't right.
> >Why? I mean, pretty obvious to our modern understanding, I agree, but
> >that this is an universal law is not obvious, at least not to me.
> >> && What you're missing is that whether or not to have a standing
> >> penal laws are models of oppression.
> >Once again you are heaving your private interpretation of what is
> >right and wrong to the level of universal correctness. These
> >persecutions, whatever my opinion is personally, can only be called
> >evil according to a special code of morale, but can be considered
> >completely OK under a lot of other codes of morale. I do not know if
> >my personal opinion is right, and I would not in the slightest dare
> >to claim universal correctness for my private opinion, as this would
> >be hybris.
> >> && The famine occured because 1) an unjust situation was set up in
> >> which Group A was desperately impoverished and marginally
> >> surviving;
> >According to what superior universal knowledge you have can you judge
> >that the situation was unjust. Justice is something which depend on
> >the system you are in, and is equally a system that has been made by
> >humans for humans, and as such is nothing universal. What is just in
> >one system may not be just in another.
> >> 2) there was a crop failure;
> >This is solid historical fact.
> >> 3) the government failed to
> >> take the actions necessary to feed the people.
> >Yes, but the question you are completely leaving out is: were they
> >able to do so at all? This as well depends upon actual resources as
> >on the beliefs and opinions held at that time. And those beliefs and
> >opinions, as far as we can say from the document sources, were that
> >it is better to let nature have its way.
> >> > > + Yes, I am refusing to take position wether this action was
> >> intended to make more living room for the Germans.
> >You almost got it. Yes, it is only a personal decision if you (or I)
> >consider if something is evil. Objectivly it cannot be decided if it
> >was or not. Every such statement is A SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION, and
> >as such CANNOT BE HISTORICAL FACT!. That is what I am saying, and
> >that is what is so crucially important in historical science: that
> >you do not mix historical facts with such subjective interpretations.
> >As such, I personally condemn the Nazi dictatorship and its use of
> >concentration camps as evil, but I do not claim that it is a
> >historical fact that it was evil. This exactly is the difference
> >between fact and interpretation, and this is what takes science above
> >the level of personal beliefs - that it keeps facts and
> >interpretations apart.
> >> && We have a clear evil of 1,000,000 innocent people starving, and
> >> definite evil.
> >Once again you are assigning universal superiority to your personal
> >beliefs. It is not morally correct to kill an innocent person
> >according to YOUR CODE OF MORALE. I, too, think that it is not
> >morally correct to kill an innocent person, but I cannot say if, in
> >the "plan of the universe", be it made by a god, multiple gods, or
> >whatever, this is ok or not.
> >Just as an example, take a look at Judas, the one who sold Jesus to
> >the Romans: He made it possible that the Romans kill the innocent
> >person Christ, and therefore he is condemned by Christianity. Have
> >you ever thought that if Judas had not decided to sell Christ, God's
> >plan to save us from original sin by sacrificing his own son would
> >not have worked? In fact, every Christian should thank Judas and
> >revere him much more than Christ, as while Christ returned to heaven
> >instantly Judas took eternal damnation on himself and thereby saved
> >us all! Christ took the easy way of suffering shortly and then
> >sitting to the right of god, while Judas decided to take the hard way
> >and sacrificed himself to eternal damnation and thereby saved us all.
> >I personally think that Judas decision is the harder one, and the
> >more important one. Now was it evil what he did? Or was it good? In
> >my eyes, if the greater plan for the universe was to save us from
> >damnation, his decision was good, not evil, as if he had decided
> >differntly, the greater plan for the universe would have failed. Well,
> >of course there still exists the option that god's greater plan for
> >the universe was to leave us condemned, then of course the decision
> >of Judas was evil as it spoiled HIS plans ...
> >I, to make my point, do not know what god's (if there is one) greater
> >plan for the universe does look like, so I am not able to judge if
> >something is against HIS plan or not. But only something against HIS
> >plan can be considered to be evil, don't you think?
> >> && OK, so you have some criteria about what is right and wrong.
> >> You're just not willing
> >> to be explicit about what they are. So we all get to guess.
> >My criteria are those which are currently accepted as human rights.
> >And for me the primary element of human rights is TOLERANCE. Or, so
> >to say, "Live and let live".
> >And, just as a sidenote, I think that's much more in the way of what
> >Christ wanted us to do when we follow him than your positions, which
> >are, as far as I can see, primarily aimed at pointing at wrongs done by
> >somebody else against you, your people or whatever you consider to
> >be the "right" way of doing something. I think I remember a statement
> >of him that is very often forgotten by many people that "fight" for
> >"justice" (sorry if my translation is not completely in line with
> >those you know, but for this my English is not good enough): If
> >somebody strikes you on one cheek, offer him the other as well.
> >> && The unnecessary death of 1,000,000 innocent people is a definite
> >> and universal evil. Every person of good will knows this.
> >Well, then probably I am not a person of good will. I do not know
> >this, as I know nothing that is definite and universal. And in fact,
> >I am very much fearing those who do, as nobody is a better killer
> >than the one who knows that he is rightful ...
> >> && OK part of this is a semantic issue. You're on the edge of
> >> describe the ethics of the action.
> >Ethics and Moral both are something subjective. It changes nothing
> >how you call it, there is no way of how to decide what is
> >"inherently, superior, naturally or universally" right or wrong, as
> >no human can ever accieve a level of knowledge or wisdom that can
> >make him know if something is universally right or wrong. This is
> >impossible, and be it only due to the fact that our brain has only a
> >limited calculating capacity.
> >> && What you've described is a philosophy which would justify Nazism
> >> benefit to your group.
> >So it is, in your opinion, a good decision if the leader of group A
> >decides that his people should starve, as it is not ok to take the
> >food from group B, or do I interpret you wrong here?
> >> && This is a popular game for professors to play. To come up with a
> >> like Maximilian Kolbe and give up your life for another.
> >Well, I know a lot of such example in life. For instance look at the
> >decision of the American government to intervene in Europe in WWII.
> >Had they decided not to do so, they would have risked that the Nazi
> >would kill millions of innocent people when they dominated Europe.
> >However, by deciding to do so they condemed themselves some millions
> >of innocent people to death, starting with American soldiers and
> >ending with the death of German children that were killed by the bombs
> >American airplanes threw on their houses. This is not a makebelieve
> >example, but as real as you can want: Now tell me: Was it a good or
> >an evil decision to join? Whatever they choose would possibly result
> >in the death of millions of innocent people. How would you have
> >For someone who is having no responsibilities but his own life it is
> >often easy to find another possibility, which can be later
> >interpreted as "the good decision". But once you only even have a
> >family for which you have taken up responsibilities, the decisions
> >become more complex, and often enough you can only decide for the
> >"lesser bad" then already. Now imagine how much complex these
> >decisions become, how much bigger the responsibilities are, when you
> >have to care for the fate of some millions.
> >All in all, I have to say that you are, in my opinion, much to fast
> >to condemn somebody in my eyes, all based on your little private view
> >of the world. Even more, if somebody steps up and says that maybe
> >your view isn't the only valid, or that you might have forgotten the
> >one or other point in your calculations, you accuse him of writing
> >"false history", of failing to accept "universal evil" as such, of
> >not falling into the category of "every human with good will". This
> >is deeply intolerant.
> >> && This is tangential, but we may as well deal with some more false
> >> were to reclaim Asia Minor.
> >You see, once again there is that "false history" issue. In fact, the
> >Crusades were only a rightful reconquista of territory illegaly
> >stolen from Christianity by the evil moslems. Man, this in no way
> >fell in the responsibility of the Roman pope. What the Moslems had
> >conquered was part of the Eastern Roman empire that had no connection
> >at all with English, French or German knights. And in fact, the
> >Moslems let anybody who wished to stay Christian, while the "brave
> >christian knights" who rightfully reconquered territory stolen
> >illegaly by the Moslems on direct papal order slaughtered not only
> >any Moslems and Jews that came in their way alike, stole their
> >property, raped their women, subjugated their land and sold their
> >children into slavery but as well killed the Arameian christians that
> >accidentially came in their way, beleaguered Constantinople and
> >attacked anything that came in their way.
> >This once again shows a biased view that what you think of as the
> >right way of living has a right to do any way he pleases. In fact,
> >the Muslim states of the medieval were much more tolerant than most
> >modern Christian states today, especially on the matter of religion,
> >and a million times more tolerant than any Pope in all Christian
> >What you do is defending every wrong commited by the side you believe
> >is doing right as necessary, rightful or as only a reaction for
> >something where somebody else is really responsible for. This is
> >apologistic historicism in it's most dangerous form!
> >> && This is not what the Catholic Church teaches. To quote the
> >> 97.6% effectiveness for a particular method.
> >Oh yes, and I am the king of China. The only natural method that has
> >an effectiveness of more than 50% is: No sex! and that is actually
> >what John Paul II. is preaching: If you don't want children, don't
> >have sex. If you have sex without wanting children, this is sin! Look
> >at his last apostolic letters on sex if you need any confirmation on that
> >> > And always remember: Christianity IS NOT the only valid system of
> >> > morality. It is one of many, and we have no way to know which is
> >> > the "correct" one.
> >> && There is a way to know which is the correct one. As Jesus said,
> >> "By their fruits you shall know them."
> >Then I can only deeply advise you to change your faith to Celtic
> >Paganism. I know of not a single war, murder, rape, theft or any
> >crime commited in the name of the ancient Celtic religion. Of course,
> >you also welcome to revert to Buddhism, which has a lot less wars,
> >crimes and murders to be proud of than Christianity. In fact, with
> >the exception of the modern interpretation of the Islam by some of
> >the fundamentalists I know of no religion that has been more brutal,
> >inhumane and intolerant than Christianity, especially Catholic
> >If those are their fruits, I know very well that this can't be the
> >religion that is the right one.