Tim Pat Coogan on Ulster unionists

MakeEmLaugh

What are people's thoughts on Tim Pat Coogan as an historian? While I certainly admire his prolificacy, and find him a thoroughly entertaining orator, his obvious bias regarding Ulster unionism can rear its head in petty, vindictive ways.

Take, for instance, the prologue to his epic tome The IRA, in which he writes:

"The average Englishman wants nothing to do with 'Ulster' as they mistakenly call the Six Counties."

I find this passage both spiteful and unintentionally funny. 'Ulster' may not be the official name for Northern Ireland, but it certainly has more validity than 'the Six Counties'. BBC Radio Ulster, the University of Ulster, the Ulster Museum and the Ulster Orchestra just four examples of its official use.

If we cannot use 'Ulster' to refer to a state which does covers most, but not all, of Ulster, why do we use 'Ireland' to refer to a state that comprises most, but not all, of Ireland?

Coogan goes on to describe Terence O'Neill in his book, laughably, as 'the Six County Prime Minister'. Would Coogan object to the terms Ulstermen and Ulsterwomen, preferring the term 'Six Countian'?

Both Coogan and John Laird of the Ulster Unionist Party appeared on The Late Late Show in 3 March 2006 to discuss the commemoration of the 1916 Rising. Whenever Laird made reference to 'Ulster-Scots' at any point in the discussion, Coogan would make it a point to then refer to them as 'Scotch-Irish'. When Laird made reference to the 'million unionists in the North of Ireland', Coogan interrupted by saying '850,000', to a rapturous applause from the studio audience.

tac foley

Mr Coogan has an agenda to stick to. He can't help his natural bias, in spite of his claim to the title of 'historian'.

As for his comment about the 'average Englishman', I think it's fair to say, bearing in mind that I actually live here, that the 'average Englishman' doesn't give a rat's arse about the northern part of Ireland, call it what you will, so long as its disaffected inhabitants don't come over here shooting or blowing things - and innocent people - to bits like they used to.

It really needs somebody from Iceland or Peru to write or to speak about Ireland in an unbiased fashion - it certainly can't be done by anybody born on the island, that much has long been obvious.

tac

Rebelheart

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

his obvious bias regarding Ulster unionism can rear its head in petty, vindictive ways.

How could one not be biased against a community which is the remnant of the British settler-colonial community in Ireland and has a well-researched herrenvolk siege mentality towards the native Irish community, who in rural parts of British-occupied Ireland remain up in the mountains, looking down on the lands their people were removed from after 1609?

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

'Ulster' may not be the official name for Northern Ireland, but it certainly has more validity than 'the Six Counties'.

How did you arrive at that? Quoting British loyalist institutions - have you read any history about the founding of the University of Ulster in Coleraine, for example? -which use 'Ulster' is not exactly "support" for this "more validity" claim. The Six Counties, in contrast, is precise. Actually, the illegitimate, gerrymandered Occupied Six Counties would be more accurate, but most politically-informed Irish people understand that meaning by the shorthand 'Six Counties'.

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

If we cannot use 'Ulster' to refer to a state which does covers most, but not all, of Ulster, why do we use 'Ireland' to refer to a state that comprises most, but not all, of Ireland?

This is plainly stupid reasoning. 'Ireland' is the name, in Irish law and international law, of the independent sovereign state of, well, Ireland. In sharp contrast, "Ulster" as used by British nationalists and their remnants in the small remainder of the British state in Ireland, is an attempt to bestow a historical legitimacy on the gerrymandered Six County statelet, which came into being by the British overthrowing democracy in Ireland on 23 December 1920 when it partitioned our country against the wishes of the vast majority of the population of Ireland. "Ulster", unlike "Ireland", has no legitimacy in international law.

It's not "Ulster"; it's the remnants of the British settler-community in Ireland on the run when democracy ran into the British ascendency in Ireland in 1918. Even in 1920, only four of the 9 Ulster counties had British unionist majorities, but they robbed six. Now you think that these people who had a majority in 4 of Ulster's 9 counties should claim a monopoly over the name "Ulster". Now, who's prejudiced?

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Coogan goes on to describe Terence O'Neill in his book, laughably, as 'the Six County Prime Minister'.

That's "laughable"? It is, in fact, historically accurate. This "Northern Ireland" business that excludes the most northern part of Ireland (that's Donegal, in case you haven't noticed) - now, that's laughable.

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Both Coogan and John Laird of the Ulster Unionist Party appeared on The Late Late Show in 3 March 2006 to discuss the commemoration of the 1916 Rising. Whenever Laird made reference to 'Ulster-Scots' at any point in the discussion, Coogan would make it a point to then refer to them as 'Scotch-Irish'.

Coogan is incorrect there.

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

When Laird made reference to the 'million unionists in the North of Ireland', Coogan interrupted by saying '850,000', to a rapturous applause from the studio audience.

Coogan is correct there. 1,000,000 French-Algerian settler-colonialists returned to France in the 1960s when France decolonised from Algeria. There's no reason why the self-professed "British" settler-colonialists in Ireland shouldn't be given the same right to return to their "motherland", rather than be subsidised by billions of euro per annum for their existence in this remnant of Britain's Irish colony.

R.Dub.Fusilier

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

What are people's thoughts on Tim Pat Coogan as an historian? While I certainly admire his prolificacy, and find him a thoroughly entertaining orator, his obvious bias regarding Ulster unionism can rear its head in petty, vindictive ways.

Take, for instance, the prologue to his epic tome The IRA, in which he writes:

"The average Englishman wants nothing to do with 'Ulster' as they mistakenly call the Six Counties."

I find this passage both spiteful and unintentionally funny. 'Ulster' may not be the official name for Northern Ireland, but it certainly has more validity than 'the Six Counties'. BBC Radio Ulster, the University of Ulster, the Ulster Museum and the Ulster Orchestra just four examples of its official use.

If we cannot use 'Ulster' to refer to a state which does covers most, but not all, of Ulster, why do we use 'Ireland' to refer to a state that comprises most, but not all, of Ireland?

Coogan goes on to describe Terence O'Neill in his book, laughably, as 'the Six County Prime Minister'. Would Coogan object to the terms Ulstermen and Ulsterwomen, preferring the term 'Six Countian'?

Both Coogan and John Laird of the Ulster Unionist Party appeared on The Late Late Show in 3 March 2006 to discuss the commemoration of the 1916 Rising. Whenever Laird made reference to 'Ulster-Scots' at any point in the discussion, Coogan would make it a point to then refer to them as 'Scotch-Irish'. When Laird made reference to the 'million unionists in the North of Ireland', Coogan interrupted by saying '850,000', to a rapturous applause from the studio audience.

You seem easily amused there.

It is my understanding that its only six counties of Ulster that is claimed as part of the UK. I myself never refer to that part of Ireland as Ulster. I usualy say Six Counties or the North.

IMO the use of the term Ulster-Scots is just a way that Unionist/Loyalists can get away with being openly sectarian.

jonniebgood1

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

What are people's thoughts on Tim Pat Coogan as an historian? While I certainly admire his prolificacy, and find him a thoroughly entertaining orator, his obvious bias regarding Ulster unionism can rear its head in petty, vindictive ways.

Take, for instance, the prologue to his epic tome The IRA, in which he writes:

"The average Englishman wants nothing to do with 'Ulster' as they mistakenly call the Six Counties."

I find this passage both spiteful and unintentionally funny. 'Ulster' may not be the official name for Northern Ireland, but it certainly has more validity than 'the Six Counties'. BBC Radio Ulster, the University of Ulster, the Ulster Museum and the Ulster Orchestra just four examples of its official use.

If we cannot use 'Ulster' to refer to a state which does covers most, but not all, of Ulster, why do we use 'Ireland' to refer to a state that comprises most, but not all, of Ireland?

I dont see anything vindictive about this observation. I know from many English friends that they dont have any graw for the north so I would suspect the observation is for the most part accurate although it may be unpalatable to some.

jonniebgood1

tac foley wrote: »

Mr Coogan has an agenda to stick to. He can't help his natural bias, in spite of his claim to the title of 'historian'.

....

It really needs somebody from Iceland or Peru to write or to speak about Ireland in an unbiased fashion - it certainly can't be done by anybody born on the island, that much has long been obvious.

A natural bias does not mean someone is not entitled to be called a historian. It is an interesting consideration though and it is well covered in this paper by Wendie Ellen Schneider in a summary of the judgement in David Irvings libel trial. She summarises what qualities an objective historian should portray.

(1) She must treat sources with appropriate reservations;22 (2) she must not
dismiss counterevidence without scholarly consideration;23 (3) she must be
even-handed in her treatment of evidence and eschew “ cherry-picking” ;24
(4) she must clearly indicate any speculation;25 (5) she must not
mistranslate documents or mislead by omitting parts of documents;26 (6) she
must weigh the authenticity of all accounts, not merely those that contradict
her favored view;27 and (7) she must take the motives of historical actors
into consideration.28 http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/110-8/schneider.pdf

I have read some of Coogans work and I think he presents all the evidence for consideration.

MakeEmLaugh

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I dont see anything vindictive about this observation. I know from many English friends that they dont have any graw for the north so I would suspect the observation is for the most part accurate although it may be unpalatable to some.

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

You seem easily amused there.

It is my understanding that its only six counties of Ulster that is claimed as part of the UK. I myself never refer to that part of Ireland as Ulster. I usualy say Six Counties or the North.

What I found amusing is that Coogan professes to be an historian, dispelling popularly held misconceptions about Northern Ireland. The fact is, the term 'the Six Counties' (deliberate capitalisation by Coogan, as well) has absolutely no more validity than 'Ulster'.

In fact, you'll find Ulster has a great deal more validity. The Ulster Unionist Party, the University of Ulster, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Museum, BBC Radio Ulster. What are the institutions within Northern Ireland which use the term 'Six Counties'? Where are the official census forms which offer 'Six Countian' as demonym alongside 'Ulsterman' and 'Ulsterwoman'?

Had Coogan written, "'Ulster' as they mistakenly call Northern Ireland", that would have been a perfectly accurate statement.

But to refer to Northern Ireland patronisingly as 'the Six Counties' is laughably biased, as is the reference to Terence O'Neill as 'the Six County Prime Minister'.

jonniebgood1

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

What I found amusing is that Coogan professes to be an historian, dispelling popularly held misconceptions about Northern Ireland. The fact is, the term 'the Six Counties' (deliberate capitalisation by Coogan, as well) has absolutely no more validity than 'Ulster'.

Can you clarify why you might think Coogan should not be considered as a historian or indeed as an 'objective historian' as outlined by Schneider in the link I gave previously?

MakeEmLaugh

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Can you clarify why you might think Coogan should not be considered as a historian or indeed as an 'objective historian' as outlined by Schneider in the link I gave previously?

I regard Coogan as an historian, but he is far from an objective historian. Take this other passage from The IRA:

"The 1916 Rebellion by the Irish Volunteers was in fact an armed gesture by a body which came into being only in reply to an earlier gesture by the Protestants of Northern Ireland - the formation of the Ulster Volunteer Force to frustrate the British Liberal government's plans to introduce Home Rule to all Ireland. Had the Protestants of the North not acted thus Home Rule would have been passed, and it is difficult to see what force would have have existed to stage the 1916. It seems certain however that there would have been no Irish Republican Army; no IRA (emphasis mine)."

If you're writing an 864 page tome to the IRA, why make such a broad generalisation? The IRA were not Home Rulers; they were separatists. So, too, were their precursors in the Irish Republican Brotherhood.

Coogan is an intelligent man, he knows this, so why else would he make such a sweeping statement, except to demonise those nasty Ulster Protestants, and lay the blame for all that has happened in the last hundred years at their door!

kabakuyu

Six counties or Ulster? if I was a pedant it would be the former but a good compromise might be Rump Ulster.
I dont agree with Coogans assertion that there would have been no IRA, there was always a very small seperatist movement but they had no real influence and were ignored by the vast majority of the population who would have been happy with Home rule.But the Unionists do have to take responsibility for intoducing the gun into the Home Rule crisis, their intransigence and their threats of violence against the democratic wishes of the Irish people radicalised a vast number of otherwise moderate nationalists.The British Goverment and establishment (which was ridden with Unionist sympathisers) were afraid to react to Unionist threats (The Curragh Mutiny is a prime example).Moderate Nationalists saw the way the wind was blowing when the Unionists imported their arms from Germany un hindered with the knowledge of British intelligence,and the tacit approval of the British establishment and then compared it with the reaction of the Crown Forces at the Howth gun running and the Batchelors Walk shootings.As we now know the 1916 executions did radicalise another large swathe of the Irish population but they were easy targets for conversion to a more militant path.Unionist obstinancy,threats of armed conflict and the duplicitous actions of the British establishment ensured their conversion.Coogan does not need to demonise Unionists,their hands are not clean when it comes to the whole sorry period.

jonniebgood1

"The 1916 Rebellion by the Irish Volunteers was in fact an armed gesture by a body which came into being only in reply to an earlier gesture by the Protestants of Northern Ireland - the formation of the Ulster Volunteer Force to frustrate the British Liberal government's plans to introduce Home Rule to all Ireland. Had the Protestants of the North not acted thus Home Rule would have been passed, and it is difficult to see what force would have have existed to stage the 1916. It seems certain however that there would have been no Irish Republican Army; no IRA (emphasis mine)."

I see the assertion as being utterly plausible. It is also a point that is made in similar terms by other historians (more generally being the link between the forming of the UVF and arms importing by both sides).

Luca Brasi

There would have been no Irish Volunteers and instead we would have anyone militarily inclined heading for the Western Front to fight for King and Country. Seeing the way that the Irish people have shown themselves to be incapable of self governance we would have been better off to stay with the Britsh Empire. We would still be sending MPs to Westminster and because the Irish Party would be often holding the balance of power we could continue our gombeenism style of politics which we seem to love for the benefit of the lads back home. And instead of blaming that "shower in Dblin" we would be able to blame the "shower in London".
The Healy Raes would love London

kabakuyu

Luca Brasi wrote: »

There would have been no Irish Volunteers and instead we would have anyone militarily inclined heading for the Western Front to fight for King and Country. Seeing the way that the Irish people have shown themselves to be incapable of self governance we would have been better off to stay with the Britsh Empire. We would still be sending MPs to Westminster and because the Irish Party would be often holding the balance of power we could continue our gombeenism style of politics which we seem to love for the benefit of the lads back home. And instead of blaming that "shower in Dblin" we would be able to blame the "shower in London".
The Healy Raes would love London

Approx 230,000 Irishmen did take part in the war with about 25,000 of them Irish Volunteers( a similar number were UVF members) so that left 180000 militarily inclined, but if we were to be tied to the Empire and London as you advocate,conscription would have been introduced and Irish casualties and participation would have been considerably higher, British sources in 1918 quote an untapped number of 100000 men of military age in Ireland who could have been conscripted.
I dont see how the Irish party could hold the balance of power for very long,they advocated Home rule and a parliament in Dublin,if they did not deliver home rule they would have went into decline and would have been most likely sidelined at Westminster,Home rule/self governance of some type and a Dail/parliament were inevitable.

Gee Bag

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

What are people's thoughts on Tim Pat Coogan as an historian? While I certainly admire his prolificacy, and find him a thoroughly entertaining orator, his obvious bias regarding Ulster unionism can rear its head in petty, vindictive ways.

Take, for instance, the prologue to his epic tome The IRA, in which he writes:

"The average Englishman wants nothing to do with 'Ulster' as they mistakenly call the Six Counties."

I find this passage both spiteful and unintentionally funny. 'Ulster' may not be the official name for Northern Ireland, but it certainly has more validity than 'the Six Counties'. BBC Radio Ulster, the University of Ulster, the Ulster Museum and the Ulster Orchestra just four examples of its official use.

If we cannot use 'Ulster' to refer to a state which does covers most, but not all, of Ulster, why do we use 'Ireland' to refer to a state that comprises most, but not all, of Ireland?

Coogan goes on to describe Terence O'Neill in his book, laughably, as 'the Six County Prime Minister'. Would Coogan object to the terms Ulstermen and Ulsterwomen, preferring the term 'Six Countian'?

Both Coogan and John Laird of the Ulster Unionist Party appeared on The Late Late Show in 3 March 2006 to discuss the commemoration of the 1916 Rising. Whenever Laird made reference to 'Ulster-Scots' at any point in the discussion, Coogan would make it a point to then refer to them as 'Scotch-Irish'. When Laird made reference to the 'million unionists in the North of Ireland', Coogan interrupted by saying '850,000', to a rapturous applause from the studio audience.

My opinion of Tim Pat Coogan - He is a damn fine writer and historian.

Your criticism of him seems to be entirley focued on a few short passages where he uses terms which for most people are readily interchangeable.

• Northern Ireland and the six counties are the same thing.
• Ulster means the nine counties for nationalists/southerners or the six counties for unionists

TBH I nEver understand why people get so upset about stuff like this. We could have a technically exact name along the lines of that which the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has had to adopt to keep the Greeks happy, but what would be the point? If you want to read a good overview of the difficulties caused by geographical names in the Britain and Ireland you could read the introduction to 'The Isles' by Norman Davies.

I didn't see the Late Late show debate you refer to, but going off both of your comments I'd say he was spot on. Blithley giving a figure of 1 million unionists is inaccurate, it implies that there is 2 to 1 majority in favour of the union. Going by cencus returns its about 55%-45% and changing fast. The point about Ulster-scot is also relevant, Laird's comment implies that Scottish interaction with Ireland was unique to Ulster (6 or 9 counties, take your pick) rather than with the whole of Ireland.

I regard Coogan as an historian, but he is far from an objective historian. Take this other passage from The IRA:

"The 1916 Rebellion by the Irish Volunteers was in fact an armed gesture by a body which came into being only in reply to an earlier gesture by the Protestants of Northern Ireland - the formation of the Ulster Volunteer Force to frustrate the British Liberal government's plans to introduce Home Rule to all Ireland. Had the Protestants of the North not acted thus Home Rule would have been passed, and it is difficult to see what force would have have existed to stage the 1916. It seems certain however that there would have been no Irish Republican Army; no IRA (emphasis mine)."

If you're writing an 864 page tome to the IRA, why make such a broad generalisation? The IRA were not Home Rulers; they were separatists. So, too, were their precursors in the Irish Republican Brotherhood.

Coogan is an intelligent man, he knows this, so why else would he make such a sweeping statement, except to demonise those nasty Ulster Protestants, and lay the blame for all that has happened in the last hundred years at their door!

There is nothing factually inaccurate in that statement. The Irish Volunteers were founded in response to the Ulster Volunteers. The IRA evolved from the Irish Volunteers. I don't think that statement demonises anyone. What you seem to be suggesting is that we should not mention some parts of our history in case it might cause offence. Thats revisionism plain and simple.

MakeEmLaugh

I could quote another Irish historian on Ulster unionists. Why don't I see if you agree or disagree with the following statements?

'When my father said that “the Orangemen brought the gun back into Irish politics,” he was omitting the nationalist contribution. It was the nationalist insistence on including the Orangemen in a united Ireland against their known and fervently declared wishes that made the Orangemen “bring back the gun.”

Agree or disagree?

'I don't think it ever occurred to any nationalist that the determination of a million Ulster Protestants to stay in the United Kingdom represented any kind of moral force whatever'.

Agree or disagree?

jonniebgood1

This

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I could quote another Irish historian on Ulster unionists. Why don't I see if you agree or disagree with the following statements?

'When my father said that “the Orangemen brought the gun back into Irish politics,” he was omitting the nationalist contribution. It was the nationalist insistence on including the Orangemen in a united Ireland against their known and fervently declared wishes that made the Orangemen “bring back the gun.”

Agree or disagree?

and this:

this other passage from The IRA:

"The 1916 Rebellion by the Irish Volunteers was in fact an armed gesture by a body which came into being only in reply to an earlier gesture by the Protestants of Northern Ireland - the formation of the Ulster Volunteer Force to frustrate the British Liberal government's plans to introduce Home Rule to all Ireland. Had the Protestants of the North not acted thus Home Rule would have been passed, and it is difficult to see what force would have have existed to stage the 1916. It seems certain however that there would have been no Irish Republican Army; no IRA (emphasis mine)."

These are not mutually exclusive of one another. Therefore I fail to see what point you are making? O'Brien's perspective seeks to find the cause of what Coogan identified.

MakeEmLaugh

Coogan says

"Had the Protestants of the North not acted thus Home Rule would have been passed, and it is difficult to see what force would have have existed to stage the 1916 Rebellion. It seems certain however that there would have been no Irish Republican Army; no IRA."

O'Brien says

"When my father said that 'the Orangemen brought the gun back into Irish politics,' he was omitting the nationalist contribution. It was the nationalist insistence on including the Orangemen in a united Ireland against their known and fervently declared wishes that made the Orangemen 'bring back the gun.'

Do you think Coogan would agree with O'Brien that nationalists' insistence on Home Rule for the whole of Ireland made Orangmen 'bring back the gun'?

Maybe he would, but I've never read or heard Coogan say this.

jonniebgood1

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Do you think Coogan would agree with O'Brien that nationalists' insistence on Home Rule for the whole of Ireland made Orangmen 'bring back the gun'?

Maybe he would, but I've never read or heard Coogan say this.

I see no reason why he would not but obviously cannot say definitively. What is certain is that things happen for a reason. I agree with Coogan that the extremist view of armed republicanism could not have been so strong without the arming of the UVF. The Larne gun running led quite directly to the Howth gun running. Before these events guns had not been involved to any significant effect in say the home rule movement. O'Briens point that you quote is simply that the Unionists had a reason to resist home rule. A debate could be had as to whether they could have carried out their resistance without the use of guns. After all they were functioning in a democracy where their views were well represented throughout politics.

MakeEmLaugh

What about O'Brien's quote that

'I don't think it ever occurred to any nationalist that the determination of a million Ulster Protestants to stay in the United Kingdom represented any kind of moral force whatever'.

Would you agree?

Gee Bag

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

What about O'Brien's quote that


Would you agree?

Eh, would it be too much to ask you to put up a statement or two of your own to agree or disagree with?

MakeEmLaugh

Gee Bag wrote: »

Eh, would it be too much to ask you to put up a statement or two of your own to agree or disagree with?

I've already put up several. I started the thread.

Rodin

Ulster has 9 counties. End of.

Gee Bag

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I've already put up several. I started the thread.

I don't undestand why you keep posting statements by other historians and asking posters to agree or disagree with them.

What relevance has whether or not I agree or disagree with some statement from Conor Cruise O'Brien to whether or not TP Coogan is a good historian?

MakeEmLaugh

Gee Bag wrote: »

I don't undestand why you keep posting statements by other historians and asking posters to agree or disagree with them.

Well...

Gee Bag wrote: »

My opinion of Tim Pat Coogan - He is a damn fine writer and historian.

and...

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

A natural bias does not mean someone is not entitled to be called a historian.

If Coogan's skills as an historian are robust, they should withstand comparison with other historians writing on the same period in Irish history, who do not correspond entirely with Coogan.

O'Brien openly says that he believes 'the determination of a million Ulster Protestants to stay in the United Kingdom represented... [a] moral force', whereas Coogan writes in a way which implies he does not believe that.

If you are an admirer of Coogan, do you agree with him with regards to Ulster unionists' desire to stay within the United Kingdom?

Gee Bag

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Well...


and...


If Coogan's skills as an historian are robust, they should withstand comparison with other historians writing on the same period in Irish history, who do not correspond entirely with Coogan.

O'Brien openly says that he believes 'the determination of a million Ulster Protestants to stay in the United Kingdom represented... [a] moral force', whereas Coogan writes in a way which implies he does not believe that.

If you are an admirer of Coogan, do you agree with him with regards to Ulster unionists' desire to stay within the United Kingdom?

I wouldn't say I am an admirer of Tim Pat Coogan (sounds a bit too much like a Justin Bieber fan with a crush to me), but I think he is a fine speaker and author with a genuine passion for his subject matter. Just because you don't like the man's politics it doesn't mean he is a bad historian.

I don't know where your getting the notion that one historian's opinions have to be tested against anothers in order to become valid. All that is required for validity is that an opinion be reasonably objective and supported by facts. If you could post something written by TPC that is demonstrably untrue then you might convince me that he is a bad historian.

He (Coogan) might inject his opinion into what he writes, I don't have a problem with that at all. Same way I don't have a problem with the likes of Michael Burleigh or Niall Ferguson injecting their opinion into what they write even though I disagree with a lot of it. I would never consider them bad historians for pinning their colours to the mast.


My opinions on Ulster Unionists have nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread

jonniebgood1

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I did an article on it recently based on The Atlas of the Great Irish Famine that was just released and it really gives that impression. havent read tim pat coogans book on it yet though.

Coogan speaking on the topic is quite compelling. 'The great famine: Irelands agony' by Ciaran O Murchadha seems to also have evidence of this although the author presents the evidence without being outspoken in conclusion.

pedroeibar1

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Coogan speaking on the topic is quite compelling.

I have not got Coogan's book and would buy the 'Atlas' before it. He was on radio a week ago, interviewed about the book / Famine (by Anton Savage?) and was less than fair about Lord Lansdowne's role and quite wrong in his statements about the role of the local PP in Kenmare.

Personally I believe that TPC is trying to prove a point, that he has a book to sell and needs a 'new' angle on which to hitch a marketing program, hence the 'genocide' tag.

Crooked Jack

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I have not got Coogan's book and would buy the 'Atlas' before it. He was on radio a week ago, interviewed about the book / Famine (by Anton Savage?) and was less than fair about Lord Lansdowne's role and quite wrong in his statements about the role of the local PP in Kenmare.

Personally I believe that TPC is trying to prove a point, that he has a book to sell and needs a 'new' angle on which to hitch a marketing program, hence the 'genocide' tag.

Haven't read it yet so I couldnt comment, but coogan is a highly respected historian, Id be shocked if he put his reputation on the line for something so crass.
Plus, the genocide tag is hardly a new angle.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Haven't read it yet so I couldnt comment, but coogan is a highly respected historian, Id be shocked if he put his reputation on the line for something so crass.
Plus, the genocide tag is hardly a new angle.

Coogan is a historical writer, not a Historian.

Ultimately, his main objective is selling books.

Thomas_I

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Coogan is a historical writer, not a Historian.

Ultimately, his main objective is selling books.

So if anybody hasn´t studdied History at an University it doesn´t makes him an Historian, even if he is according to his writings reckognised as an "Historian" beyond Ireland. I wonder how academic historians earn a living if not by either writing books or becoming a teacher. Otherwise one would had to seek another occupation to earn a living. Therefore one has to have his main objective and selling books sounds more natural to this kind of profession. Coogan is as well a "historical writer" as an "Historian", that´s my humble opinion.

Jawgap

Coogan is a reporter by training and an editor by profession. He makes his living by writing (very well it has to be said) about history and generating controversy - imo, he is the Eamon Dunphy / George Hook of history writing.

He is knowledgeable but he knows what sells books and builds his profile. I find his books are definitely worth a read as long as you accept he's writing from a particular angle.

Contrast him with someone like Diarmaid Ferriter - his books are much heavier going but more interesting in their analysis. He is Conor O'Shea to Coogan's George Hook!

jonniebgood1

Better to judge the man on what he has done rather than some distinct definition or interpretation of a title.

I would say that there are many who have earned the title historian (by historical studies and qualification in the field) who write inferior work to others who gain unqualified education. In terms of reading history I would prefer a well sourced book than a book by someone entitled historian.

Fratton Fred

any idiot can write a book about the Famine, conclude that it was genocide and sell lots of copies.

There are sufficient numbers of people who are convinced it was genocide, they are looking to prove their own views.

It would be interesting to see a proper historian examine his theories.

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

any idiot can write a book about the Famine, conclude that it was genocide and sell lots of copies.

There are sufficient numbers of people who are convinced it was genocide, they are looking to prove their own views.

It would be interesting to see a proper historian examine his theories.

These theories are not new and have been examined many times particularly around the 150th anniversary of the famine.

I have already referenced above 'The great famine: Irelands agony' by Ciaran O Murchadha which goes into detailed examination of how the famine was treated by the British ruling governments of the time. The author is a lecturer in NUI Galways history department so you should find his work interesting Fred. Its an excellent book with constant references to records of the time both in a local sense and political records. He also makes many references to the many other books on the famine giving reasons for and against many of the arguments previously made.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Famine-Irelands-Agony-1845-1852/dp/1847252176/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355254344&sr=1-1

Thomas_I

Jawgap wrote: »

Coogan is a reporter by training and an editor by profession. He makes his living by writing (very well it has to be said) about history and generating controversy - imo, he is the Eamon Dunphy / George Hook of history writing.

He is knowledgeable but he knows what sells books and builds his profile. I find his books are definitely worth a read as long as you accept he's writing from a particular angle.

Contrast him with someone like Diarmaid Ferriter - his books are much heavier going but more interesting in their analysis. He is Conor O'Shea to Coogan's George Hook!

I haven´t read any book by Diarmaid Ferriter yet. I know him just from some TV documentaries about the Easter Rising 1916 and a couple of other documentaries dealing with Irish history in the 20th Century.

It´s a good point you´ve made in your comparision between Coogan and Ferriter re analysis and their different stile in writing. Aside from historical facts, in writing history books there is as well some room for interpretation by the author when it comes to analyse some events and their effect on developments of current and following circumstances.

It´s also a matter of how one defines the meaning of being an Historian. IMO one doesn´t have to get an academic degree to be an Historian, but one should know what he´s writing about and this demands studies in historical matters as well.

Resently I searched for Ferriters book "Judging Dev" and when I found a page on the internet listing the titles of the chapters in that book I rather thought that this book might be writtten in a rather - as you said - heavier style of writing.

Besides some books by Coogan, I´ve read some by T. Ryle Dwyer. He´s also a historian and journalist. http://www.mercierpress.ie/tryledwyer/

MakeEmLaugh

Fratton Fred wrote: »

any idiot can write a book about the Famine, conclude that it was genocide and sell lots of copies.

There are sufficient numbers of people who are convinced it was genocide, they are looking to prove their own views.

It would be interesting to see a proper historian examine his theories.

There is an organisation in the United States, which I will not name as I do not want to promote them (if you don't know and are interested, you can PM me).

They have been pushing the 'Famine was genocide' notion for years. They also claim five million people died ('murdered' is the word they use), and that more people died in the Famine than the World War II Holocaust.

I haven't read Coogan's book, though I am very interested to do so. I may pick it up to read over Christmas. But being on the same side as groups like the aforementioned one does no one's argument any favours.

This group also claim that

(1) Children of Protestants born in Northern Ireland are automatically 'British', while children of Catholics are automatically 'Irish', without any room for distinction or nuance.

(2) The Omagh bomb was planted by M15 and the RUC.

(3) Gerry Adams and the Provisional IRA are sell-outs, and the 'Real' IRA are the only group that should be referred to as the IRA.

Bear in mind, their Chairman was born in American, and has spent most of his life there.

Crooked Jack

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

What are people's thoughts on Tim Pat Coogan as an historian? While I certainly admire his prolificacy, and find him a thoroughly entertaining orator, his obvious bias regarding Ulster unionism can rear its head in petty, vindictive ways.

Take, for instance, the prologue to his epic tome The IRA, in which he writes:

"The average Englishman wants nothing to do with 'Ulster' as they mistakenly call the Six Counties."

I find this passage both spiteful and unintentionally funny. 'Ulster' may not be the official name for Northern Ireland, but it certainly has more validity than 'the Six Counties'. BBC Radio Ulster, the University of Ulster, the Ulster Museum and the Ulster Orchestra just four examples of its official use.

If we cannot use 'Ulster' to refer to a state which does covers most, but not all, of Ulster, why do we use 'Ireland' to refer to a state that comprises most, but not all, of Ireland?

Coogan goes on to describe Terence O'Neill in his book, laughably, as 'the Six County Prime Minister'. Would Coogan object to the terms Ulstermen and Ulsterwomen, preferring the term 'Six Countian'?

Both Coogan and John Laird of the Ulster Unionist Party appeared on The Late Late Show in 3 March 2006 to discuss the commemoration of the 1916 Rising. Whenever Laird made reference to 'Ulster-Scots' at any point in the discussion, Coogan would make it a point to then refer to them as 'Scotch-Irish'. When Laird made reference to the 'million unionists in the North of Ireland', Coogan interrupted by saying '850,000', to a rapturous applause from the studio audience.

Everything he said here is factual. You're annoyed because a historian (or historical writer as somebody pointed out) is concerned with the facts. Lord help us.

Crooked Jack

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

What I found amusing is that Coogan professes to be an historian, dispelling popularly held misconceptions about Northern Ireland. The fact is, the term 'the Six Counties' (deliberate capitalisation by Coogan, as well) has absolutely no more validity than 'Ulster'.

In fact, you'll find Ulster has a great deal more validity. The Ulster Unionist Party, the University of Ulster, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Museum, BBC Radio Ulster. What are the institutions within Northern Ireland which use the term 'Six Counties'? Where are the official census forms which offer 'Six Countian' as demonym alongside 'Ulsterman' and 'Ulsterwoman'?

Had Coogan written, "'Ulster' as they mistakenly call Northern Ireland", that would have been a perfectly accurate statement.

But to refer to Northern Ireland patronisingly as 'the Six Counties' is laughably biased, as is the reference to Terence O'Neill as 'the Six County Prime Minister'.

Six counties is far more accurate a description than either Ulster or northern Ireland, regardless of how many organisations mistakenly use it. A popular misconception is still a misconception. I'd say your annoyance over this just comes more from the fact that it's a term republicans and nationalists use, which really says more about you than TPC

Thomas_I

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

There is an organisation in the United States, which I will not name as I do not want to promote them (if you don't know and are interested, you can PM me).

They have been pushing the 'Famine was genocide' notion for years. They also claim five million people died ('murdered' is the word they use), and that more people died in the Famine than the World War II Holocaust.

I haven't read Coogan's book, though I am very interested to do so. I may pick it up to read over Christmas. But being on the same side as groups like the aforementioned one does no one's argument any favours.

This group also claim that

(1) Children of Protestants born in Northern Ireland are automatically 'British', while children of Catholics are automatically 'Irish', without any room for distinction or nuance.

(2) The Omagh bomb was planted by M15 and the RUC.

(3) Gerry Adams and the Provisional IRA are sell-outs, and the 'Real' IRA are the only group that should be referred to as the IRA.

Bear in mind, their Chairman was born in American, and has spent most of his life there.

If you´re going to take all that as serious, than it´s your choice. I wouldn´t take it that way because some Americans have a very special view on history and these are sometimes very strange.

Crooked Jack

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I regard Coogan as an historian, but he is far from an objective historian. Take this other passage from The IRA:

"The 1916 Rebellion by the Irish Volunteers was in fact an armed gesture by a body which came into being only in reply to an earlier gesture by the Protestants of Northern Ireland - the formation of the Ulster Volunteer Force to frustrate the British Liberal government's plans to introduce Home Rule to all Ireland. Had the Protestants of the North not acted thus Home Rule would have been passed, and it is difficult to see what force would have have existed to stage the 1916. It seems certain however that there would have been no Irish Republican Army; no IRA (emphasis mine)."

If you're writing an 864 page tome to the IRA, why make such a broad generalisation? The IRA were not Home Rulers; they were separatists. So, too, were their precursors in the Irish Republican Brotherhood.

Coogan is an intelligent man, he knows this, so why else would he make such a sweeping statement, except to demonise those nasty Ulster Protestants, and lay the blame for all that has happened in the last hundred years at their door!

Again, this seems a perfectly logical conclusion to make based on the period leading up to the rising

Jawgap

Being a historian is a bit like being a Catholic - there are some immersed in the dogma of the whole thing and others who are inclined to engage in the equivalent of showing up just for funerals and weddings and even then, they leave at communion.

I like TPC's books and I think as long as you appreciate that he has a certain perspective on matters they're even more enjoyable.

I think the subtitle to his current book is revealing "England's Role in Ireland's Greatest Tragedy" - why single out "England" when England was only part of the UK and a contributor to the Parliament and Government whose decisions exacerbated (if not caused) the Famine. England was not the state, it was - and is - a glorified region of a sate.

Of course, a more accurate subtitling probably wouldn't be as eyecatching.

Crooked Jack

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I could quote another Irish historian on Ulster unionists. Why don't I see if you agree or disagree with the following statements?

'When my father said that “the Orangemen brought the gun back into Irish politics,” he was omitting the nationalist contribution. It was the nationalist insistence on including the Orangemen in a united Ireland against their known and fervently declared wishes that made the Orangemen “bring back the gun.”

Agree or disagree?

Quote:
'I don't think it ever occurred to any nationalist that the determination of a million Ulster Protestants to stay in the United Kingdom represented any kind of moral force whatever'.

Agree or disagree?

This is just ridiculous. You start a thread alleging bias on the part of TPC then when that doesn't go your way you start dragging other historians into a completely different argument.

As for the quotes themselves they portray a warped sense of morality and democracy. The first for example needs a lot more context than just those few lines. Since he says United Ireland I'll take it this is post partition. It's well documented that the northern statelet was a sectarian cesspit at the time and a cold house for nationalists yet this quote seems to be indicating the opposite, that nationalists were forcing poor oppressed orangemen into an UI. The writer then seems to use nationalists having their own opinion on the constitutional question as justification for orangemen resorting to violence ie - if nationalists werent nationalists we wouldnt have to kill them. This quote is extremely disturbing.

The second one is a little more tempered but still daft. Firstly, as TPC pointed out himself, it's not a million. Secondly, certainly 850,000 unionists represent a moral force but it is still a minority moral force compared to what the people of Ireland desired (again this quote needs more context.)
This is a perverse view of democracy. Does the determination of six million Irish nationalists for a free Ireland not represent any kind of moral force?

Crooked Jack

Jawgap wrote: »

Being a historian is a bit like being a Catholic - there are some immersed in the dogma of the whole thing and others who are inclined to engage in the equivalent of showing up just for funerals and weddings and even when they do they leave at communion.

I like TPC's books and I think as long as you appreciate that he has a certain perspective on matters they're even more enjoyable.

I think the subtitle to his current book is revealing "England's Role in Ireland's Greatest Tragedy" - why single out "England" when England was only part of the UK and a contributor to the Parliament and Government whose decisions exacerbated (if not caused) the Famine. England was not the state, it was - and is - a glorified region of a sate.

Of course, a more accurate subtitling probably wouldn't be as eyecatching.

Have you read the book yet? Perhaps he explains it.

Thomas_I

Jawgap wrote: »

Being a historian is a bit like being a Catholic - there are some immersed in the dogma of the whole thing and others who are inclined to engage in the equivalent of showing up just for funerals and weddings and even then, they leave at communion.

I like TPC's books and I think as long as you appreciate that he has a certain perspective on matters they're even more enjoyable.

I think the subtitle to his current book is revealing "England's Role in Ireland's Greatest Tragedy" - why single out "England" when England was only part of the UK and a contributor to the Parliament and Government whose decisions exacerbated (if not caused) the Famine. England was not the state, it was - and is - a glorified region of a sate.

Of course, a more accurate subtitling probably wouldn't be as eyecatching.

England was and is the leading Nation within the UK. It created and dominated the UK and therefore it´s right to single it out as such. There hasn´t been the slightest attempt neither by the Scottish, Welsh nor Irish to have a United Kingdom. If they were to choose their own way, neither of the aforesaid had joined any union with England. They came on different ways into that union. The Welsh absorbed within the English Kingdom by the Tudors, Ireland conquered by them and Scotland joined just because they were financially ruined. Without the English, there hadn´t been a British Empire as well.

I see no glorification in this, rather referring to facts.

Jawgap

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Have you read the book yet? Perhaps he explains it.

Not yet - I'm anticipating someone buying it for me for Christmas....:)

Thomas_I wrote: »

England was and is the leading Nation within the UK. It created and dominated the UK and therefore it´s right to single it out as such. There hasn´t been the slightest attempt neither by the Scottish, Welsh nor Irish to have a United Kingdom. If they were to choose their own way, neither of the aforesaid had joined any union with England. They came on different ways into that union. The Welsh absorbed within the English Kingdom by the Tudors, Ireland conquered by them and Scotland joined just because they were financially ruined. Without the English, there hadn´t been a British Empire as well.

I see no glorification in this, rather referring to facts.

that's the equivalent of holding the state of New York responsible for actions of the US Government or Bavaria responsible for German atrocities committed during WWII - England is not a sovereign state, has no executive government and is incapable of playing a role as a state actor.

I'd argue the use of the word is pejorative and included as device to sell books and calculated to appeal to a certain constituency.

Thomas_I

Jawgap wrote: »

Not yet - I'm anticipating someone buying it for me for Christmas....:)




that's the equivalent of holding the state of New York responsible for actions of the US Government or Bavaria responsible for German atrocities committed during WWII - England is not a sovereign state, has no executive government and is incapable of playing a role as a state actor.

I'd argue the use of the word is pejorative and included as device to sell books and calculated to appeal to a certain constituency.

It is not, because what you´re referring to is the meaning of England as an state on constitutional basics. England is the leading centre of the UK and to demand that it had to be an sovereign state with executive government and capability to act as a state would mean that the UK has a federal system which she hasn´t (constitutionally) or that England wouldn´t be part of the UK at all. I was referring to the historical development of the UK and where the power was concentrated not on constitutional matters. In your example, every part of an political unity shares the glory and responsibility of the state. So it´d be with NY within the USA and Bavaria within Germany.

Fratton Fred

Thomas_I wrote: »

It is not, because what you´re referring to is the meaning of England as an state on constitutional basics. England is the leading centre of the UK and to demand that it had to be an sovereign state with executive government and capability to act as a state would mean that the UK has a federal system which she hasn´t (constitutionally) or that England wouldn´t be part of the UK at all. I was referring to the historical development of the UK and where the power was concentrated not on constitutional matters. In your example, every part of an political unity shares the glory and responsibility of the state. So it´d be with NY within the USA and Bavaria within Germany.

Irish republicanism has always centred on the English. The Celtic nations apparently can do no wrong. Hence the reason why it was acceptable to murder English children but not Scottish and Welsh ones.

Of course, the truth is vastly different to this. The Scots were a driving force behind colonialism, which is why you will find so many Scottish name places abroad. The Scots also played a significant role in Ireland as well, the name "Ulster Scot" may have slipped your attention, but of course, the biggest enemy was theat nasty Englishmand David Lloyd George, who lead the British negotiating team. (Maybe that's why Churchill gets all the blame for the negotiations, being an English hero would make him an obvious choice).

The good thing about blaming the English, rather than "Da Brits" is that you can maybe flog a few copies to the Scots, Welsh and British Irish as well.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Irish republicanism has always centred on the English. The Celtic nations apparently can do no wrong. Hence the reason why it was acceptable to murder English children but not Scottish and Welsh ones.

Of course, the truth is vastly different to this. The Scots were a driving force behind colonialism, which is why you will find so many Scottish name places abroad. The Scots also played a significant role in Ireland as well, the name "Ulster Scot" may have slipped your attention, but of course, the biggest enemy was theat nasty Englishmand David Lloyd George, who lead the British negotiating team. (Maybe that's why Churchill gets all the blame for the negotiations, being an English hero would make him an obvious choice).

The good thing about blaming the English, rather than "Da Brits" is that you can maybe flog a few copies to the Scots, Welsh and British Irish as well.

Have ANY of the people on here making these sort of assumptions and ludicrous statements actually read the book because until you do your opinion on what he means by "English" is devoid of any merit.

Thomas_I

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Irish republicanism has always centred on the English. The Celtic nations apparently can do no wrong. Hence the reason why it was acceptable to murder English children but not Scottish and Welsh ones.

Of course, the truth is vastly different to this. The Scots were a driving force behind colonialism, which is why you will find so many Scottish name places abroad. The Scots also played a significant role in Ireland as well, the name "Ulster Scot" may have slipped your attention, but of course, the biggest enemy was theat nasty Englishmand David Lloyd George, who lead the British negotiating team. (Maybe that's why Churchill gets all the blame for the negotiations, being an English hero would make him an obvious choice).

The good thing about blaming the English, rather than "Da Brits" is that you can maybe flog a few copies to the Scots, Welsh and British Irish as well.

I´m aware of the existence of the "Ulster-Scots" although I know just a little about them. It hasn´t slipped my attention but I´ve had no reason to mention them in the context of my reply.

Lloyd George wasn´t an Englishman, he was Welsh and although he´s been depicted as an arguable politician, I´ve got the impression that without the Unionist Leader Craig, things had could be solved for Ireland in a more moderate way. Winston Churchill had to abide by the policy of the government he was in, but it is clear that his main interest was to keep the British Empire.

I know that the Scottish played their part in the building of the British Empire, but I´m conviced that they hadn´t been able to achieve it as it was in its largest extend without their union with England. As for the Welsh, they seem to have stayed all the times in he shadow of the English, as if Wales had always been an English province. That´s the perception I´ve got from the history of Britain.

No, I neither put the blame on Lloyd George nor on Winston Churchill, because the die-hard in these negotiations was the "Ulsterman" Craig. He even didn´t take part in the negotiations by personal appearance. He was merely coresponding with Lloyd George via dispatches. Therefore he was the one with the utterly refusal to reach an solution for the whole of Ireland. The "Ulster-Regime" was the compromise to achieve the Anglo-Irish-Treaty.

When it comes to the mistreatment of the Irish by the English, I prefer to refer by "the English" to the "English aristocracy". Another matter are the "Anglo-Irish", sometimes described as being worst than the English themselves.

Thomas_I

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Have ANY of the people on here making these sort of assumptions and ludicrous statements actually read the book because until you do your opinion on what he means by "English" is devoid of any merit.

I don´t think that this discussion about the "English" makes it necessary to read the book by TPC in the first place to keep the debate running. It has become more generalised already.

Maybe next year I´d consider to buy that book and read it, but I´m still occupied with reading TPC´s biography about Michael Collins.

Crooked Jack

Thomas_I wrote: »

I don´t think that this discussion about the "English" makes it necessary to read the book by TPC in the first place to keep the debate running. It has become more generalised already.

Maybe next year I´d consider to buy that book and read it, but I´m still occupied with reading TPC´s biography about Michael Collins.

I was just pointing out that this may very well be something he addresses in the book.