Can I just be totally honest here? I'm not entirely sure what people mean when they say "luck of the Irish." No offense or anything, but these are the same people who had the Irish Potato Famine to deal with. These are the same people who had to deal with English economic stances that caused lots of potential growth to benefit England, not Ireland. Under these circumstances, I'd be more supportive of "resilience of the Irish" because historically those guys are really good at surviving no matter what it takes. Unless, of course, it involves eating babies.
I'm actually a big fan of Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. I think that his ability to indirectly bash the rich with humor while acting totally deadpan is great. And I think the stance he took in the paper was perfect, too. He got his audience to take his claim (which no sane person would take seriously) seriously, at least for a while. Why was his topic perfect? Because not only does he "advocate" cannibalism of humans, he advocates the cannibalism of human babies, implying that not only should you eat the poor because that's all they're good for, you should eat the next generation of poor people, too, because that's all they're good for, too.
Throughout the piece, Swift discusses the poor population of Ireland the same way a herder or farmer would discuss a normal food commodity. The women are referred to as "breeders," and he suggests a ratio of poor to be kept alive (4:1 in terms of women to men). He then goes on to act like he's being generous on behalf of the children in terms of this ratio. This act of mock concern for the poor is... rather insulting. But of course, that's the point.
Swift even pretends to have statistics on his side. He mentions costs of growing the children and the profits and resources that could be made in the process. And in that regard, he's kind of right. Statistically, that was the most effective way to utilize Ireland's poor. But because he chooses a stance that no one can morally support, the fact that the reader has already gotten to the point where he or she is considering the potential benefits of allowing cannibalism highlights the absurdity of the situation.
Not surprisingly, cannibalism is regarded as either not a food choice in a no food scenario, or a last resort choice. There's evidence that the settlers of Jamestown resorted to cannibalism in the "starving time" after Captain John Smith left. There's also evidence that humans may have eaten the last of the Neanderthals (a sort of genetic cousin to the modern human) as the Neanderthal population died off (I wonder if the cannibalism had anything to do with that). By choosing to support cannibalism, Swift sends the message clearly: Ireland is starving to death, and if people are not already resorting to cannibalism like the most primitive of beasts, they will soon.
Video on possible consumption of Neanderthal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH8UdtqSlpM
Really interesting perspective Nick. As always, your succinct appraisal is always on the mark. You interwove the history of Ireland and Neanderthal's effortlessly, and it was just plain impressive.
ReplyDelete