View Full Version : Highland Clearances Memorial
I noticed a news piece on the Highland Clearances Memorial. It was the first time I have seen the monument and must admit to being a wee bit confused, perhaps some of the historically gifted can asist. The male characters depicted appear to be wearing Kilts - would this have been the case?? I have just finished reading The Silver Darlings and Consider the Lillies, which although fiction are based around the time in history, but neither make any mention of people wearing kilts, and in fact suggest that trousers were indeed the attire of the time.
Is the Memorial then protraying a romantic image? If so do you think that this in anyway diminishes, demeans or devalues its message?
http://www.blackislebronze.co.uk/news/clearances.jpg
Boozeburglar
15-Apr-08, 13:09
I suppose it might not be 100% accurate historically, but it is a symbol, and the kilt is now the universal symbol of the Scot.
The plaque of the new statue reads:
“The Emigrants Commemorates the people of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland who, in the face of great adversity, sought freedom, hope and justice beyond these shores. They and their descendants went forth and explored continents, built great countries and cities and gave their enterprise and culture to the world. This is their legacy. Their voices will echo forever through the empty straths and glens of their homeland”
I think it is beautiful and the Ben Bhraggie eyesore should be blow up.
The "epitaph" is wonderful. I don't agree that the Ben Bhraggie statue should be blown up - I think it better to leave it there as a reminder of those despicable acts.
Scotsboy, it was the wearing of Tartan that was banned up until 1822, When King George iv visited Scotland in 1822, he came wearing a kilt.
the Clearances happened around 1840's, so maybe the kilts depicted, were a bit of poetic license
http://www.tartankilts.com/The_Tartan_Ban.asp
At Lassagie
15-Apr-08, 13:18
I too think 'is is well ower due - 'e clearances were horrid by any stretch of 'e imagination (similar to whit is happenin in foreign countries today)and 'e way 'e weemen were treated wis diabolic. Hevin read many books and articles on 'e clearances, we are a nation to be proud of whit our ancestors did afore us. Ben Brhaggie monument should be spat on and 'e kirk at Ardgay wi 'e etchings in 'e gless should be protected forever till remind us.
The statue of the Duke of Sutherland, should go the same way as that statue of Saddam Hussein in Bahgdad. Can we get a Challenger 2 up ben Bhraggie?
rob murray
15-Apr-08, 16:04
Scotsboy, it was the wearing of Tartan that was banned up until 1822, When King George iv visited Scotland in 1822, he came wearing a kilt.
the Clearances happened around 1840's, so maybe the kilts depicted, were a bit of poetic license
http://www.tartankilts.com/The_Tartan_Ban.asp
Wearing the kilt was a criminal offence from 1747 - 1783 when the act prohibiting it was lifted. When George IV came to Scotland in 1822, Sir Walter Scott ( the novelist ) was what we would nowadays call the event manager, in that he arranged the Kings itinery, complete with suggested highland dress for him to wear. This was an early example of Scottish culture being used / usurped by the English aristrocracy, the most blatant example being Albert / Queen Victoria / associatted English court and the Balmoral Castle royal holiday home...which led to the term Balmoralisation ( corruption of scottish / highland culture by the land owning / newly rich industrial classes!! The Highland clearances ( there were lowland clearances as well ) kicked of early 1790's ( in Reay Caithness ) but what people recognise as the cruelest of the Highland clearances is associated with the Sutherland Clearances, which, at its height initially occurred from around 1809 - 1815 with sporodic clearances happening ( but not with the scale of intensity of 18 09 - 1815 ) during the 1840's.
I think the Ben Bhraggie monument and the Helmsdale statue should be swapped over. Something tells me he wouldnt last long down among his obedient subjects!! :mad::lol:
Rob, Sir Walter Scott - Scotland's Walt Disney was a genius showman.
But it is not the English at which all this tartan nonsense was directed.
The real target was Scottish Lowlanders.
Up until this point there was violent Lowland prejudice against Highland people because Highlanders spoke the wrong language, wore weird clothes, were probably Roman Catholic and were likely to steal your cows and ravage the members of your family.
Scott realized that all this was in the distant past - although 1746 wasn't that far away in 1822! So what better way to refurbish the Scottish identity question than by turning it into a tourist industry?
And we have been stuck there in Brigadoon ever since.
The Pepsi Challenge
15-Apr-08, 18:24
I noticed a news piece on the Highland Clearances Memorial. It was the first time I have seen the monument and must admit to being a wee bit confused, perhaps some of the historically gifted can asist. The male characters depicted appear to be wearing Kilts - would this have been the case?? I have just finished reading The Silver Darlings and Consider the Lillies, which although fiction are based around the time in history, but neither make any mention of people wearing kilts, and in fact suggest that trousers were indeed the attire of the time.
Is the Memorial then protraying a romantic image? If so do you think that this in anyway diminishes, demeans or devalues its message?
http://www.blackislebronze.co.uk/news/clearances.jpg
I saw the Silver Darlings on DVD just recently. Was nice to see motion picture images of the Turnpike and St. Peter's Kirk. Highly recommended.
rob murray
16-Apr-08, 14:36
Rob, Sir Walter Scott - Scotland's Walt Disney was a genius showman.
But it is not the English at which all this tartan nonsense was directed.
The real target was Scottish Lowlanders.
Up until this point there was violent Lowland prejudice against Highland people because Highlanders spoke the wrong language, wore weird clothes, were probably Roman Catholic and were likely to steal your cows and ravage the members of your family.
Scott realized that all this was in the distant past - although 1746 wasn't that far away in 1822! So what better way to refurbish the Scottish identity question than by turning it into a tourist industry?
And we have been stuck there in Brigadoon ever since.
Aye well put !
The "epitaph" is wonderful. I don't agree that the Ben Bhraggie statue should be blown up - I think it better to leave it there as a reminder of those despicable acts.
As I once posted before the Scots who went to the new world and down under committed acts equal if not worse than the so called despicable acts of the clearances. Some of those cleared and some who went of their own accord were responsible for the ethnic cleansing of huge numbers of the native populations on Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Let us not be holier than thou in those matters.
As a Cattach born and brought up in Golspie The Ben is our pride of hills as a local we were more likely to use the monument as a weather Vane rather than a monument to the 1st Duke ie there is snow on the mannie or mist over the mannie
My father worked on Dunrobin Estate in the Castle Gardens but earlier than that came down from Banniskirk to work on the estate with attached housing
Had Sellar as factor of Sutherland Estate not got a lot to do with the clearances
I also learnt what happened to our people from listening to stories from my grandad he took me to Croick and showed me the etchings on the church and told me the stories of emmigrants and Badbea
I like the monument at Helmsdale and if they wish to erect one in Australia and Canada well done to them
Browsing around the Org I came across a number of entries or links leading to Brora, the electric village!<br> Here's what the Duke of Sutherland and his ducal descendents did for Brora.<br> They created 1) a brewery, 2) a distillery, 3)a brickworks, 4)a quarrying industry. 5) a coal mine. 6) a salt pan industry 7) an extremely useful harbour 8)a weaving industry and, in the 1840s the then Duke and his business partners were building railway engines
Now, I've never met a Duke but I don't like them on principle and I am historically conditioned not to give the artistocratic classes any benefit of the doubt.
However:
This thriving economic activity around Brora and Golspie and Dunrobin puts the clearances into context. The clearances in Sutherlandshire were a failed utopian scheme whereby the inner areas of the county would be turned into sheep ranches and the denizens of the interior would find economic sustenance fishing.
Of course the unique awfulness of Paticik Sellars coupled with the idieological blinkers worn by the Duke's factor, Loch resulted in a disaster.
But let us not forget there was a herring fishing boom. Let us not forget that the area was overpopulated and the inland population were going over to the same kind of potatoe culture that led to the Irish famine. And let us not forget either that the Sutherland estates provided significant jobs and ecomomic sustenance. (ALthough working in the saltpans must have been fairly horrid. But come on, folks, this was the 19th century!)
And as Eric Richards points out in the Leviathan of Wealth the population of Caithness and Sutherland actually increased until 1918. (I hope I'm right on that - I am relying on memory!)
So there ends my Ducal defence.
With a footnote:
The Sutherland clearances were unique. They were unique because they were a kind of Utopian notion that was not uncommon in the 19th century - think of Robert Owen and his planned communities!
The evictions in the Hebrides and on theWest Coast and even in the Scottish lowlands were far worse and had no coherent justification other than creating a college fund for male heirs bound for Oxford and Cambridge and careers as perfect little English gentlemen.
rob murray
17-Apr-08, 10:44
Browsing around the Org I came across a number of entries or links leading to Brora, the electric village!<br> Here's what the Duke of Sutherland and his ducal descendents did for Brora.<br> They created 1) a brewery, 2) a distillery, 3)a brickworks, 4)a quarrying industry. 5) a coal mine. 6) a salt pan industry 7) an extremely useful harbour 8)a weaving industry and, in the 1840s the then Duke and his business partners were building railway engines
Now, I've never met a Duke but I don't like them on principle and I am historically conditioned not to give the artistocratic classes any benefit of the doubt.
However:
This thriving economic activity around Brora and Golspie and Dunrobin puts the clearances into context. The clearances in Sutherlandshire were a failed utopian scheme whereby the inner areas of the county would be turned into sheep ranches and the denizens of the interior would find economic sustenance fishing.
Of course the unique awfulness of Paticik Sellars coupled with the idieological blinkers worn by the Duke's factor, Loch resulted in a disaster.
But let us not forget there was a herring fishing boom. Let us not forget that the area was overpopulated and the inland population were going over to the same kind of potatoe culture that led to the Irish famine. And let us not forget either that the Sutherland estates provided significant jobs and ecomomic sustenance. (ALthough working in the saltpans must have been fairly horrid. But come on, folks, this was the 19th century!)
And as Eric Richards points out in the Leviathan of Wealth the population of Caithness and Sutherland actually increased until 1918. (I hope I'm right on that - I am relying on memory!)
So there ends my Ducal defence.
With a footnote:
The Sutherland clearances were unique. They were unique because they were a kind of Utopian notion that was not uncommon in the 19th century - think of Robert Owen and his planned communities!
The evictions in the Hebrides and on theWest Coast and even in the Scottish lowlands were far worse and had no coherent justification other than creating a college fund for male heirs bound for Oxford and Cambridge and careers as perfect little English gentlemen.
Rich : Some point that you might want to re consider
1 Interior over population ? ( relative to what, what exactly is the arguement, ie the terrain couldnt sustain the population at the time...it certainly sustained communities at almost static populations for 600 plus years )
2 Switch to potatoes / link to 1840's Irish Famine ? Dont you know that the famine like all famines could have been prevented.. no one had to die. In any case your arguement is based on hind sight
3 Brewerys etc....were they built and ready to offer to offer employment to the dis possed in 1809 - 1814 ? .
4 Fishing boom...yes..was any help offered to the evicted to engage in fishing.. none ( apart from stationing armed guards on fore shores to prevent the starving eating the Dukes seaweed ) Their are no academic sources of evidence that prove this was the intention...move crowded starvation based crofers into fishing jobs
5 Population increase...yes but what point are you trying to prove...Wick s population and most of the sea faring villages always increased during the fishing season with people travelling from all over for work this boosting the population. Are you quoting an aggregate population here..Parts of Caithness gained considerably in terms of population growth..
6 Your last paragraph is startling wide of the mark.
Sorry, but this reads like what an apologists post card of the period would read like if written by a Sun Journalist !!! Try getting a better balance of supporting facts before you make your claims
Rob, for heaven's sake the mannie is entitled to some sort of defence.
From my reading on Brora, the brewery and distillery preceded the clearances.
Population stats?
Frankly we dont have any prior to the first population census which took place in the 19th century. So there wasn't much to compare it with.
At this stage though I can envision the bewigged coucil for the defence slapping a massive, calf-hide bound, book and entering it for the defence. The book would of course be Malthus on population. (The fear of overpopulation in the 19th century aroused even more anxiety than today's global warming panic!)
And by the 1840s all mainstream political and economic forecasters were predicting global famine. The potatoe was a new fangled crop that kept millions of people alive in Ireand and Wales and the remote areas north of the Tweed - and the potatoe was prone to blight. The Irish famine was just one of many in the period, Poland being a classic example.
As for hindsight - well it's not as useful as foresight and evicting Highlanders could be justified as a piece of enlightened speculative foresight.
One final word of expultation on the Duke's behalf and this is adressed to the folk who want to blow up the mannie.
WHy dont you start small scale demolitions first and explode Sir John SInclair's statue in Thurso town square? For he too was an agricultural improver who evicted tenants.
rob murray
17-Apr-08, 16:59
Rob, for heaven's sake the mannie is entitled to some sort of defence.
From my reading on Brora, the brewery and distillery preceded the clearances.
Population stats?
Frankly we dont have any prior to the first population census which took place in the 19th century. So there wasn't much to compare it with.
At this stage though I can envision the bewigged coucil for the defence slapping a massive, calf-hide bound, book and entering it for the defence. The book would of course be Malthus on population. (The fear of overpopulation in the 19th century aroused even more anxiety than today's global warming panic!)
And by the 1840s all mainstream political and economic forecasters were predicting global famine. The potatoe was a new fangled crop that kept millions of people alive in Ireand and Wales and the remote areas north of the Tweed - and the potatoe was prone to blight. The Irish famine was just one of many in the period, Poland being a classic example.
As for hindsight - well it's not as useful as foresight and evicting Highlanders could be justified as a piece of enlightened speculative foresight.
One final word of expultation on the Duke's behalf and this is adressed to the folk who want to blow up the mannie.
WHy dont you start small scale demolitions first and explode Sir John SInclair's statue in Thurso town square? For he too was an agricultural improver who evicted tenants.
Well well, entitled to a defence ? Sure, but your case doesnt help him. Economic diversification as you put it, was not prepared to give work to the evicted, thats an accepted historical fact. Secondly you mentioned the population issue ( incorrectly ) and inferred the Malthusian arguement. If you want I can get a full area ( Sutherland )census ( c1790 ) to you, then you can enter all the parishes in Sutherland into a spreadsheet and put the populations beside them then, fast forward to 1890 and get the records and make a comparison. records do exist...church records and I have
the full census at hand. Oh by the way c1790 Strathnaver was populated c1890 it wasnt..surely you can see this without the need for stats.
The population in question was not affacted by the potatoe famine...the main population by 1840 was gone. Who is to say that even if they were still in situ they wouldve been dependant upon the potatoe crop ?
Sir John Sinclair exercised his right to do what he wanted with his land just the same as the Duke of Sutherland know one argues this point, where they differ is in the means used, hence no real hatred for Sinclair, no one was burned out or evicted in mid winter with no where to go,. One last point though, Caithnessians are not Gaels, the Sutherland people are Gaels and have a differnt historical view point on the clearances, seeing them from a Gael perspective. Try researching the history of the Gael dis possed and then you will see the difference.
By the way, I dont want to blow up any statues, let it stand there, the
house of sutherland is defunct and long gone anyway...I prefer to look to the future, but we have to see the past ( correctly ) as it was...and move on. Thats why it is important that people understand what really happened. By the way why dont you go to Wick Library and access the parliamentry enquiry leading up to the Crofters Act of 1886, the records and all evidence in them were accpeted as fact and the law was changed.....now surely know one can argue with this....go and read them then come back on here and tell us what you think
George Brims
17-Apr-08, 17:55
The statue of the Duke of Sutherland, should go the same way as that statue of Saddam Hussein in Bahgdad.
Agreed
Can we get a Challenger 2 up Ben Bhraggie?
No need. Just park it in a field near the A9 with a clear view of that ugly thing, and it could nail it no problem.
Rob!
I did not intend to infer any agreement with Malthus. He has been proven conclusively wrong. But you can't deny he was a major influence on policy makers in the 19th century.
Now to the stats. What does the discovery that Strath Naver, after the evictions, contained a greatly reduced population prove? Surely we are both in agreement that the evictions took place otherwise we wouldn't be having this delightful discussion.
Now to stats and censuses.
Obviously censuses of one type or another have been occurring since the Domesday Book or the times of the Men of Alba (whoever they were!). Or go look in parish records. But it is generally agreed that the first statistically detailed and reliable census of the population of England and Wales happened in 1841 (largely under the influence of Malthusian anxieties). Things were slightly different in Scotland where the first comprehensive census took place in the 1860s sometime.
May I conclude with a few words about the spud, along with syphilis, the most influential input from the Americas.
The potatoe - with the addition of a little bit of butter - provides all of the nutrtion the human being needs. So if you had a wee plot of land you could grow potatoes, get married and have kids. Lots of them in Ireland where the Catholic Church preached fecundity!
Unfortunately potatoes in the 19th century were prone to blight.
When the potatoes withered there was a famine in Ireland but no famine in Scotland as a whole or the Highland because relief was provided in a timely and sensible fashion by the Church of Scotland.
Here is the URL for my stastical data
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/cb_8.asp
Just a wee clarification. The potato famine in the Highlands was an event of 1846-47 and indeed the church did play a major role in reducing the deadly side effects. However, for the north of Scotland it was the Free Church that led the charge. The Free Church had come into being in 1843 and most of the Highlands joined the Free Church movement. Okay, it did unite with the Church of Scotland eventually and brought its history into that ever evolving entity. Back to 1847, there were collections taken and support sent from the Church of Scotland in Edinburgh to Highland Relief.
...I defer to your recent scholarship!
What relief was given - maize (corn)?
...I defer to your recent scholarship!
What relief was given - maize (corn)?
Good question. I don't know the answer. And all of the books have gone back to the library.
As to corn, the modern super corn of incredible nutrient value was developed by agricultural scientists at the University of Manitoba in the middle of the twentieth century. These clever people were the descendants of the Sutherlanders and Caithnessians who immigrated to Canada as a result of the Highland Clearances.
rob murray
18-Apr-08, 16:19
Rob!
I did not intend to infer any agreement with Malthus. He has been proven conclusively wrong. But you can't deny he was a major influence on policy makers in the 19th century.
Now to the stats. What does the discovery that Strath Naver, after the evictions, contained a greatly reduced population prove? Surely we are both in agreement that the evictions took place otherwise we wouldn't be having this delightful discussion.
Now to stats and censuses.
Obviously censuses of one type or another have been occurring since the Domesday Book or the times of the Men of Alba (whoever they were!). Or go look in parish records. But it is generally agreed that the first statistically detailed and reliable census of the population of England and Wales happened in 1841 (largely under the influence of Malthusian anxieties). Things were slightly different in Scotland where the first comprehensive census took place in the 1860s sometime.
May I conclude with a few words about the spud, along with syphilis, the most influential input from the Americas.
The potatoe - with the addition of a little bit of butter - provides all of the nutrtion the human being needs. So if you had a wee plot of land you could grow potatoes, get married and have kids. Lots of them in Ireland where the Catholic Church preached fecundity!
Unfortunately potatoes in the 19th century were prone to blight.
When the potatoes withered there was a famine in Ireland but no famine in Scotland as a whole or the Highland because relief was provided in a timely and sensible fashion by the Church of Scotland.
Here is the URL for my stastical data
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/cb_8.asp
I really dont know where you are comming from here, I was replying to points you made in your postings where you made some clear inferences..I dont see the point you are making on the validity of Sutherland Parish population "census" c1790..they are church records which contain the names, addresses, occupations, ages of all within a particular locality a great source of information. For once and for all can you present the case that population increased in Caithness / Sutherland within the period 1800 - 1850...( what would it prove anyway ?? )could you segment the data if you can as some parts may have had rapid population growth..* eg Wick / Pultneytown..others not...but where did the people come from..you could have the situation that population in some areas grew and others obviously fall...within the context of the Sutherland clearances..what does this prove ?I dont see the point on harping on about this. What am I supposed to do with the link by the way ??
Just one aside to this fascinating debate. "Corn" is still used in the Highlands as the term for oats which of course we all know courtesy of Dr. Johnston was a staple of the diet at that time. Barley or "Bere" and wheat were not called corn when I was valueing farms and crofts 30 years ago. Maize or "Indian Corn" was to the best of my knowledge only grown in America in the early 19th. century although some may have been imported. Poor relief was more likely to have come from the local grain.
Rob, maybe I should have phrased things differently.
The papers of Loch and the Duke show that they were operating under the most advanced economic theory of their time. Like economists today they were forecasting.
What they forecast was a famine disaster based on the rise of the potatoe as a sort of all purpose miracle nutrient. It was an axiom of enlightened estate management in the early 19th century that over dependency on one crop - the potato - left the people at the bottom of the economic heap at risk of starvation.
The terrible example, cited by everyone, was Ireland. But Europe was in the same situation.
I am sorry I cannot give you statistics on potato-derived famines in the Highands prior to the 1840s.
However the prophets of economic doom were spot- on in their prognosis. The 1840s saw a super blight that went on for four years and it certainly affected the Highlands.
One reason that relief was available was the excellent system of roads in Scotland - financed at least in part by big landowners like the Duke. Also there was a vibrant religious network which ran relief. These conditions did not apply in Ireland.
A fact that I find interesting is the docility of the Highland people. They did not shoot landlords, they did not kill or maim cattle, they were not riven with religious strife - all of these things applied in Ireland.
The result was that Irish landlords retreated to their estates in the UK and left the whole system to run down. As a result there was terrible mortality.
It seems to me highly probable that had the Highlanders fought back in the early 1800s they might have been (unwittingly) dooming their desendants.
Finally you said somewhere that it was easy to relieve a famine.
The whole history of the 20th century shows this not to be the case and it is naive to claim otherwise.
In Ireland, maize was the crop used for relief in 1846. Unfortunately, few people knew how to cook it.
rob murray
21-Apr-08, 13:12
Rob, maybe I should have phrased things differently.
The papers of Loch and the Duke show that they were operating under the most advanced economic theory of their time. Like economists today they were forecasting.
What they forecast was a famine disaster based on the rise of the potatoe as a sort of all purpose miracle nutrient. It was an axiom of enlightened estate management in the early 19th century that over dependency on one crop - the potato - left the people at the bottom of the economic heap at risk of starvation.
The terrible example, cited by everyone, was Ireland. But Europe was in the same situation.
I am sorry I cannot give you statistics on potato-derived famines in the Highands prior to the 1840s.
However the prophets of economic doom were spot- on in their prognosis. The 1840s saw a super blight that went on for four years and it certainly affected the Highlands.
One reason that relief was available was the excellent system of roads in Scotland - financed at least in part by big landowners like the Duke. Also there was a vibrant religious network which ran relief. These conditions did not apply in Ireland.
A fact that I find interesting is the docility of the Highland people. They did not shoot landlords, they did not kill or maim cattle, they were not riven with religious strife - all of these things applied in Ireland.
The result was that Irish landlords retreated to their estates in the UK and left the whole system to run down. As a result there was terrible mortality.
It seems to me highly probable that had the Highlanders fought back in the early 1800s they might have been (unwittingly) dooming their desendants.
Finally you said somewhere that it was easy to relieve a famine.
The whole history of the 20th century shows this not to be the case and it is naive to claim otherwise.
Rich, sorry I dont buy the " enlightened economic arguement"...too much evidence is in existence that counters this arguement. To a small degree of course there was planning...ie how to achieve higher economic returns from the land, but to say that planners wished to counter any future famines ( hence evicitions to save the peasantry from themselves ) is way of the mark. As you are interested in the subject why dont you do some research on Sir John MacNeil of Barra c 1845 - 1852 ( who headed up the Highland Famine Relief Administration ) what you will find should shock you. Also do some research on Highland resistance towards landlordism....particulary in Strathcarron, Skye and Sutherland c 1850 - 1880's. Organised agitation abounds. One last point, Highland landlords were latterly running scared because they feared "Irish influenced highland agitation". The red flag flew in the highlands that is a recorded fact.
PS : The book yet unwritten on the clearances should focus on the role of women in organising resistance and fighting back to preserve their communities and save their families from " utopian based planning"...that is an absolute fact
Rob, there is much in your last post that I thoughly agree with.
My original point, in defence of the Duke, was that the Sutherland Clearances were not typical. They were highly unusual in the background of economic theory that was applied to this ultimately disastrous social experiment.
Remember, the Duke was the richest man in England. He didn't need the money.
Characters like Clanranald or the MacKenzies or any of the benighted crew on the west coast really did the money so they could keep up with the style of living to which they would have liked to become accustomed.
There is another point that has always interested me in this and that is the connection - or contrast - between the relatively prosperous and modern east coast and north coast communities, Ross, Cromarty, Sutherlandshire, Caithness and the dire state of affairs on the west.
As for the red Flag in caithness didn't a doctor chum of Karl Marx become MP for Caithness in - I think - 1866?
On the subject of women resisting evicting landlords let me float the following idea. What if the "women" were in fact men in women's clothing?
Sounds crazy?
Maybe not.
In the mining camps of the US Pacific North West there was a primitive form of trade unionism run by the "Molly Maguires." These guys really did get dressed up in women's clothing to attack the bosses.
A form of camouflage by cross-dressing!
I will leave you to contemplate that one while I pop down to the Spring Sales - I haven't a thing to wear....
rob murray
21-Apr-08, 16:43
Rob, there is much in your last post that I thoughly agree with.
My original point, in defence of the Duke, was that the Sutherland Clearances were not typical. They were highly unusual in the background of economic theory that was applied to this ultimately disastrous social experiment.
Remember, the Duke was the richest man in England. He didn't need the money.
Characters like Clanranald or the MacKenzies or any of the benighted crew on the west coast really did the money so they could keep up with the style of living to which they would have liked to become accustomed.
There is another point that has always interested me in this and that is the connection - or contrast - between the relatively prosperous and modern east coast and north coast communities, Ross, Cromarty, Sutherlandshire, Caithness and the dire state of affairs on the west.
As for the red Flag in caithness didn't a doctor chum of Karl Marx become MP for Caithness in - I think - 1866?
On the subject of women resisting evicting landlords let me float the following idea. What if the "women" were in fact men in women's clothing?
Sounds crazy?
Maybe not.
In the mining camps of the US Pacific North West there was a primitive form of trade unionism run by the "Molly Maguires." These guys really did get dressed up in women's clothing to attack the bosses.
A form of camouflage by cross-dressing!
I will leave you to contemplate that one while I pop down to the Spring Sales - I haven't a thing to wear....
Really good stuff, you may have raised a point here, though there were reported instances of women actually fighting police and sheriff officers who knows !
There is some good stuff here, Rob.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Maguires
Just thought I'd throw this in. The original intent was for the sculpture to be about 30 feet high which would have made a spectacular sight but it was scaled down due to lack of finance.
Rob an Rich--more please!
rob murray
22-Apr-08, 10:01
Rob an Rich--more please!
Thanks, the clearances are a very interesting historic topic, basically,to cut to the quick, across the highlands, the motivations behind the various landlords and the severity of the clearances differed across the three periods involved 1790 - 1820 mid 1840's and post 1850 - 1880's. Landlords across the Highlands ( along with central authorities ) were largely fearful that subsistence based small tenures were in constant danger of collapse thus potentially causing famine..distress and hence causing a need for the state to intervene and provide help. ( this being the value system at the time ) ie the agricultural system used could not sustain a static population never mind a growing one...allegedly !! Of course accepting this ( very challengable position ) means that people were evicted for their own good ( why should the state be forced to alleviate a famine ? ) so if landlords were looking out for their charges this should mean that some sort of planned interventions took place..ie re locating populations to places where they had a better chance of preventing hunger and could engage in economic activities that could support them. This is the much vaunted "utopian experiment arguement" Where this is challengable is to examine how much planning really went on..this is the crux of the sutherland clearance arguement and maybe where Rich and I differ.
When the population was hit by a crop ( potatoe failure in the 1840's ) a Highland Famine Relief system was put in place administered and over seen by Sir John McNeil Barra ( his track record as a clearnace landlord in Barra, is possible the worst in terms of violence used and brute cunning ). However following the values of the day, relief was only provided to people who showed a willing ness to work for it ! McNeil is on record with his own opionions of the distressed Highland areas..basically he thought that the people were work shy, and lazy who had brought the situation on themselves. This despite the fact that many areas concerned involved settlements of evicted people who were struggling at the margins to support themselves crofting on very poor land, struggling to cope with the demands of a new life. Many gathered Kelp for a living for example ( ie the notion that the evicted could "go to sea as fishermen without the capital to buy boats equipment and the skills needed" is very challengable" ) when the Kelp market collapsed they were left absolutely destitute.
One last point, the Sutherland clearances focused on clearing the interior of the county so as to make large, profitable, ( there was a war on at the time ie c 1809 ) sheep farms, which didnt need a lot of labour, but needed large tracts of ground. This made perfect economic sense at the time, but by the 1860's / 1870's ( and heres the irony ) they couldnt compete with the colonies of Australia / New Zealand so all across the highlands, estates moved across to an aforestration process where the landlords converted across to deer and game estates......thereafter in the run up to the First world war the monied classes had their fun, but taxes and estate duties largely killed this off by c 1920...hence the decline of the Sutherland Dukedom.
Rob, the factor that brought the old landlord system crashing down was refrigeration which made New Zealand lamb widely available.
In the Irish contex,t after the famine the big grazers did remarkably well up until that point.
It is ironic that the real force behind Irish nationalism from 1866 onwards was a class of successful agricultural entrepreneur who hitched their political campaign to famine memories etc. The exploitation and mining of the famine as an emotional lever for irish politicians is, in my opinion, verging on the obscene.
Because what Irish farmers were after in the late 19th century was the prevention of rent increases. (A perfect petit bourgeoise goal)
The result - the only possible result given the election of Parnell's party - was the buying out of the landed classes by the British government and leasing it back so eventually farmers could buy their land . And in 1903 that's what happened.
But in Scotland, crofters were satisfied with the provisions of the 1886 land act which established the 3 Fs.
The three Fs were - as I cudgel my brain -
Fair Rent: A rent that was lower and easier to pay and took account of good and bad times.
Fixity of Tenure: this meant that as long as a tenant paid his rent he could not be evicted.
Free Sale: A tenant would be compensated for any improvements he made to his farm if it changed hands or if he was evicted. This was also known as the “Ulster Custom” as it was practiced in parts of Ulster.
I found this on an excellent web site:
http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/ireland/1870.htm
And on that note, Rob,I have to go and do some gainful work otherwise my fixity of tenure will be seriously threatened!
Fair rent, Fair compensation for any improvements made to the property during tenure and Free
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.