A Comm for Historymemes

Under the British rule, the Irish were not allowed to own land and had to rent it from a British landlord; more important still, the Irish were not allowed to rent more than a half-acre.

That's a pretty dire misunderstanding of the situation. The Irish were allowed to own land. The problem was that some 60%+ was in the hands of absentee British landlords, and another ~30% in the hands of Anglo-Irish magnates. Irish were absolutely allowed to rent more than a half-acre - a half-acre wouldn't feed a single person, much less pay rent besides. A fourth-acre was the limit for those seeking relief at the poorhouses.

The potato blight hit the entirety of Europe, not just Ireland. Only Ireland suffered a famine. Because the British rule had reduced the options for the Irish to potatoes or starvation.

I mean, other areas in Europe suffered famine conditions in the same period because of the potato failure - Ireland was just hardest hit.

How is that liberalism? Sounds like colonialism to me.

Feudal systems express and store power in different ways than mercantilist and early capitalist systems. Maintaining local loyalties and manpower are important to each feudal landholder, so the intention is generally to ensure that everyone else's lands starve, and, if your own lands starve anyway, ensuring that you and your most loyal men do not starve with them. The kind of absentee landlords that dominated Ireland at the time were not wholly unknown under feudal systems, but would not have made up such an overwhelming proportion of a nation's land, for inability to maintain the necessary loyalties, if nothing else.

This is not to say that the behavior of feudal lords is better than capitalist magnates - only emphasizing that it is different.

Truly, landlordism runs deep in the blood of all sons and daughters of Perfidious Albion; not a soul can escape the grip of their ancestors' deeds, like Lovecraft finding out his pure Anglo bloodline was tainted with the W*lsh and being consumed with an urge to speak evil tongues with too many consonants😔

You know, I almost addressed that insinuation of yours in my previous comment, but (perhaps naively) let it pass in hopes that you'd actually engage my point in good faith instead of doubling down on your rhetoric. So much for that.

Just FYI, criticizing the policies of the 17th century English government not is "racism." Your attempt to conflate it with bigotry against the English people is a lie, and your pearl-clutching over your false victimhood is uncivil.

Let me guess: you think criticism of Israel is "antisemitism" too, don't you?

I think people would be better able to see your point if you actually took the time to lay it out, rather than just screaming "racism" into the abyss fifty times.

With which parts of this post in particular do you take exception?

From my perspective, it seems to me that you are conflating hatred of the objectively cruel and callous British imperialist government (and the rich landlords who were rewarded by it) and the policies thereof (which, along with similar policies from other countries toward those they deemed lesser than themselves, led to most of the modern geopolitical problems of this godforsaken world) with hatred of people of Anglo-saxon descent.

Frankly, I can't tell if you're trying to make a genuine complaint poorly, just screaming out in bad faith, or if you are truly so incapable of divesting your identity from the governance of England from hundreds of years ago that you're defending imperialist spoils systems.

I personally am leaning towards the second interpretation, because the one thing you've repeated in every one of these comments is that, if anti-british "racism" is allowed, then ALL types of racism must be allowed. It sounds like you're really itching to say something really racist, but need to hype yourself up with an excuse to do so.