The Famine Plot - Tim Pat Coogan "Famine was genocide"

GRMA · 14-12-2012 1:35pm #1

Anyone else read this yet?

I have and I found it an excellent read, and the evidence and argument he puts forward to show that the "famine" was genocide is overwhelming

He reasserts what John Mitchel said at the time but uses much more documentary evidence which JM obviously didn't have available at the time.

The role of the media in the genocide is very interesting, especially that of "The Times" which was the most influential at the time.

His correct treatment and description of revisionists as colonial cringers and cowardly cap tippers with an anti Irish mindset is timely and welcome.

Any thoughts on the book?

ejmaztec · 14-12-2012 2:24pm

GRMA wrote: »

Anyone else read this yet?

I have and I found it an excellent read, and the evidence and argument he puts forward to show that the "famine" was genocide is overwhelming

He reasserts what John Mitchel said at the time but uses much more documentary evidence which JM obviously didn't have available at the time.

The role of the media in the genocide is very interesting, especially that of "The Times" which was the most influential at the time.

His correct treatment and description of revisionists as colonial cringers and cowardly cap tippers with an anti Irish mindset is timely and welcome.

Any thoughts on the book?

Haven't read the book.

If it were genocide I don't think that anyone would have been allowed to leave the country, particularly the hundreds of thousands who landed in the UK. I think the population of Liverpool, for example, quadrupled as a result of the influx of famine victims.

I think the main problem was that the wrong man was made responsible for dealing with it, and I've no doubt that Trevelyan hated the Irish with a vengeance, and he was probably a sociopath.

GRMA · 14-12-2012 2:32pm

They wanted the land cleared to allow "high farming" whether the people died or emigrated, they didn't care. Many of the British cabinet were absentee landlords, and "knew the craic" as it were.

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide. "

UN definition... TPC has this at the start of chapter three and explains the "famine" constitutes such.

He also shatters the myth that it was just Trevelyan. Who was a right prick to say the least. I suggest reading the book.

TPC also goes to great length to point out the people who emerge from this time with credit.

666irishguy · 14-12-2012 2:39pm

I'd say it wasn't a planned genocide, but once it got rolling I think they just took the opportunity to let it run wild for a while to thin out our numbers.

drquirky · 14-12-2012 2:40pm

Tim Pat Coogan= not a historian but a journalist w/ a clear republican agenda- think I'll give it a miss....

Manach · 14-12-2012 2:53pm

I've not read this yet but usually find Mr Coogan an interesting author.
Offhand I don't think, from my reading of the era, it was a deliberate act of genocide planed by the UK authorities based on how their social norms were at the time. However, a good case could be made that due to the policies in place before and during the famine that they were extremely negligent and that there was culpability on their behalf in this matter.

GRMA · 14-12-2012 2:57pm

drquirky wrote: »

Tim Pat Coogan= not a historian but a journalist w/ a clear republican agenda- think I'll give it a miss....

Nonsense. TPC is a well respected and influential historian.

He has written some excellent books.

Only a ..... would dismiss his work offhand

gobnaitolunacy · 14-12-2012 3:01pm

Heard an interview with TPC on radio the other day, he did give credit where credit was due. Not a foaming at the mouth republican which some seem to think.

P. Breathnach · 14-12-2012 3:02pm

GRMA wrote: »

... He also shatters the myth that it was just Trevelyan....

What myth is that? Anybody who has read any half-decent work on the famine accepts that it wasn't "just Trevelyan".

GRMA · 14-12-2012 3:08pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What myth is that? Anybody who has read any half-decent work on the famine accepts that it wasn't "just Trevelyan".

I know.

But there is a school of thought among the ignorant that it was just him, or one or two "bad apples". (thats what it looked like the previous poster was claiming) They put it all on his shoulders rather than Russels govt of the day... and Peels too

Fratton Fred · 14-12-2012 3:14pm

GRMA wrote: »

Anyone else read this yet?

I have and I found it an excellent read, and the evidence and argument he puts forward to show that the "famine" was genocide is overwhelming

He reasserts what John Mitchel said at the time but uses much more documentary evidence which JM obviously didn't have available at the time.

The role of the media in the genocide is very interesting, especially that of "The Times" which was the most influential at the time.

His correct treatment and description of revisionists as colonial cringers and cowardly cap tippers with an anti Irish mindset is timely and welcome.

Any thoughts on the book?

it is a book written for a specific audience, that's all. Nicely timed for christmas and, of course, the filming of the oh so true story of the Turkish aid to Drogheda http://www.drogheda-independent.ie/news/hollywood-stars-for-famine-film-3070886.html

cynical? just a bit.:rolleyes:

gobnaitolunacy · 14-12-2012 3:18pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it is a book written for a specific audience, that's all. Nicely timed for christmas and, of course, the filming of the oh so true story of the Turkish aid to Drogheda http://www.drogheda-independent.ie/news/hollywood-stars-for-famine-film-3070886.html

cynical? just a bit.:rolleyes:

So you've read it then?
I suppose the Atlas of the Great Irish Famine is a similarly cynically timed release?

GRMA · 14-12-2012 3:21pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it is a book written for a specific audience, that's all. Nicely timed for christmas and, of course, the filming of the oh so true story of the Turkish aid to Drogheda http://www.drogheda-independent.ie/news/hollywood-stars-for-famine-film-3070886.html

cynical? just a bit.:rolleyes:

Yes, its a history book, hardly aimed at the 40 shades of gray audience.

You do realize the publishing company does all the marketing etc? Rather desperate stuff if that's your criticism of the book.

Of course you can't criticise the mans arguments unless you read them which was the reason I asked if anyone had read it, then asked for their thoughts.

Fratton Fred · 14-12-2012 3:24pm

GRMA wrote: »

Yes, its a history book, hardly aimed at the 40 shades of gray audience.

You do realize the publishing company does all the marketing etc? Rather desperate stuff if that's your criticism of the book.

Of course you can't criticise the mans arguments unless you read them which was the reason I asked if anyone had read it, then asked for their thoughts.

the "Was it or wasn't it genocide" argument has been done a thousand times on here.

If you want to believe it was genocide, no one is going to change your mind.

Jawgap · 14-12-2012 4:02pm

GRMA wrote: »

They wanted the land cleared to allow "high farming" whether the people died or emigrated, they didn't care. Many of the British cabinet were absentee landlords, and "knew the craic" as it were.

UN definition... TPC has this at the start of chapter three and explains the "famine" constitutes such.

He also shatters the myth that it was just Trevelyan. Who was a right prick to say the least. I suggest reading the book.

TPC also goes to great length to point out the people who emerge from this time with credit.

I haven't read it, but how does he prove intent?

Genocide, as the legislation makes clear, is a crime of commission not omission.

Craptacular · 14-12-2012 4:04pm

As will become clear I've not read this but it makes 3 famine books recently released.

Any recommendations on which to pick up? I'd lean toward TPC's because I've read and enjoyed his books but it's subtitle suggests a close focus on the English role rather than the broad picture.

GRMA · 14-12-2012 4:18pm

Craptacular wrote: »

As will become clear I've not read this but it makes 3 famine books recently released.

Any recommendations on which to pick up? I'd lean toward TPC's because I've read and enjoyed his books but it's subtitle suggests a close focus on the English role rather than the broad picture.

He deals with the famine in general too, the conditions of the people etc

Jawgap · 14-12-2012 4:22pm

Craptacular wrote: »

As will become clear I've not read this but it makes 3 famine books recently released.

Any recommendations on which to pick up? I'd lean toward TPC's because I've read and enjoyed his books but it's subtitle suggests a close focus on the English role rather than the broad picture.

I haven't read much about the Famine, but I'd recommend "The Great Shame: And the Triumph of the Irish in the English-Speaking World" by Thomas Keneally. I found it very readable and it did a good job of placing the event in a much broader context.

johnny_doyle · 14-12-2012 4:28pm

haven't read it but will do. I do not accept the genocide idea but happy to see what TPC says on the subject.

GRMA · 14-12-2012 4:30pm

Jawgap wrote: »

I haven't read it, but how does he prove intent?

Genocide, as the legislation makes clear, is a crime of commission not omission.

Well one way there was intent is that they wanted to clear the land in any way possible and the govt facilitated/encouraged, made it policy, this when the inevitable result was death for the peasants

They advocated "natural causes" as the way to deal with the overpopulation

nice1franko · 14-12-2012 4:35pm

Heard him on the radio with Matt Cooper a few weeks ago and made a mental note to get the book but haven't done so yet.

He sounded knowledgeable and reasonable. I'm looking forward to reading it.

Fratton Fred · 14-12-2012 4:44pm

GRMA wrote: »

Well one way there was intent is that they wanted to clear the land in any way possible and the govt facilitated/encouraged, made it policy, this when the inevitable result was death for the peasants

They advocated "natural causes" as the way to deal with the overpopulation

I'm sure some did, but some also did not. Some landlords who evicted tennants were Irish Catholic, some who bankrupted themselves trying to help were Anglo-Irish protestants.

Who advocated natural causes to reduce the population?

Jawgap · 14-12-2012 4:54pm

GRMA wrote: »

Well one way there was intent is that they wanted to clear the land in any way possible and the govt facilitated/encouraged, made it policy, this when the inevitable result was death for the peasants

They advocated "natural causes" as the way to deal with the overpopulation

that being the case I'd say his argument fails miserably - the intent has to relate to at least one of the five actions that follow....

".......intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

They (the Government / landowning establishment) may have had a policy of clearing the land, a foreseeable consequence of which was that large portions of the population would die, but that doesn't mean they set out to wilfully kill off the population by conducting these clearances - association is not causation.

In intent (but not in scale) was it not the equivalent of the Highland Clearances? I've never seen them referred to as genocide.

Also, the reference to 'natural causes' needs to be viewed in the context of the mid-19th C - this was the era of Darwin (his essays began to circulate in the early 1840s) and clerical naturalists in the Established Church of England who saw in science evidence of divine providence.

It was also the era of Malthus and his ideas on population which although discredited now were cutting edge for their time. Ideas around political economy which we take for granted were barely emerging then.

What of our ideas today will be regarded as barbaric, silly or even downright ignorant in 150 years?

GRMA · 14-12-2012 4:59pm

TPC explains it better than I can guys, over the course of approx 300 pages. I can't condense this down into a post or two to bring people up to speed with his arguments. I suggest reading the book.

This thread was intended to discuss what he says with others who have read the book and not for me to act as a proxy for TPC and (no doubt) badly recount his points.

P. Breathnach · 14-12-2012 5:13pm

GRMA wrote: »

... This thread was intended to discuss what he says with others who have read the book ...

I have no intention of reading the book for the very reason why you think I should: Coogan's contention that the Famine was genocide. I won't spend good money on claptrap.

That should not preclude my posting here to tell you (plural: not targeting any particular individual) why I think the Famine was not an act of genocide.

GRMA · 14-12-2012 5:30pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have no intention of reading the book for the very reason why you think I should: Coogan's contention that the Famine was genocide. I won't spend good money on claptrap.

That should not preclude my posting here to tell you (plural: not targeting any particular individual) why I think the Famine was not an act of genocide.

Go to a library then.

When you have not read his well researched and articulated argument I don't see how you can be so arrogant as to dismiss it as "claptrap"

I'm not saying people should read it because he says it's genocide but because it is a very good, interesting, book. I'd also recommend Cecil Woodham Smiths book, the Great Hunger. You can even get it as an audiobook on itunes
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id401763111?mt=8&ign-mpt=uo%3D4

I don't agree with everything either author says in either work, TPC for example is much to kind to Robert "Orange" Peel in my opinion.

P. Breathnach · 14-12-2012 5:41pm

GRMA wrote: »

...When you have not read his well researched and articulated argument I don't see how you can be so arrogant as to dismiss it as "claptrap"

Some things are very simple. When somebody claims that the Famine was genocide, I can recognise claptrap.

I'm not saying people should read it because he says it's genocide but because it is a very good, interesting, book.

Have you read your own header, or your opening post?

I'd also recommend Cecil Woodham Smiths book, the Great Hunger. You can even get it as an audiobook on itunes
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id401763111?mt=8&ign-mpt=uo%3D4

Please do not presume that I have read nothing about the Famine.

GRMA · 14-12-2012 5:51pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Some things are very simple. When somebody claims that the Famine was genocide, I can recognise claptrap.

Have you read your own header, or your opening post?

Please do not presume that I have read nothing about the Famine.

But you refuse to read something as it may challenge your viewpoint... if someone who thought it were genocide refused to read things which challenged that view I think we all know what would be said

The point I was making is that she doesn't say it was genocide yet I'd still recommend the book because it is very interesting.

P. Breathnach · 14-12-2012 6:08pm

GRMA wrote: »

But you refuse to read something as it may challenge your viewpoint... if someone who thought it were genocide refused to read things which challenged that view I think we all know what would be said

I would consider reading anything that challenged my viewpoint within the bounds of reasonableness; I would also consider reading something that is so far off-beam as to be entertaining. I have no interest in wasting my time on propaganda masquerading as history.

The point I was making is that she doesn't say it was genocide yet I'd still recommend the book because it is very interesting.

Why assume that I have not read Woodham-Smith? I don't dismiss Coogan on a basis of ignorance, but rather on the basis of having read scholarly treatments of the Famine.

GRMA · 14-12-2012 6:22pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I would consider reading anything that challenged my viewpoint within the bounds of reasonableness; I would also consider reading something that is so far off-beam as to be entertaining. I have no interest in wasting my time on propaganda masquerading as history.

Why assume that I have not read Woodham-Smith? I don't dismiss Coogan on a basis of ignorance, but rather on the basis of having read scholarly treatments of the Famine.

Who are you to dismiss TPC as a propagandist? Propaganda for what?

Ah forget it, its pointless arguing the toss about a book and its content with someone who won't even entertain the notion of reading it. Why bother posting on a thread about the book if you have no interest in what he has to say? Did you dismiss what he said about the IRA, the H-blocks/hungerstrikes, De Valera and Michael Collins before even reading his books about it? Because he might have said something about them you disagreed with? I didnt agree with some of what he wrote about the IRA and knew I wouldnt yet read it anyway. Same with Ed Mloneys book on the same topic - disagreed with loads of that yet read it anyway so I could make an informed criticism of it.

P. Breathnach · 14-12-2012 6:28pm

GRMA wrote: »

... Ah forget it, its pointless arguing the toss about a book and its content with someone who won't even entertain the notion of reading it. Why bother posting on a thread about the book if you have no interest in what he has to say? ...

You might see it as pointless, because you are recommending the book. I see my comments as relevant, because I am recommending that the book not be taken as good history writing.

The Famine Plot - Tim Pat Coogan "Famine was genocide"

Comments