Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Tim Pat Coogan on Ulster unionists
Options
-
30-11-2012 3:51pm#1What 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.0
Comments
-
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.
tac0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.
I have read some of Coogans work and I think he presents all the evidence for consideration.(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.pdf0 -
Advertisement
-
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'.0 -
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?0 -
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!0 -
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.0 -
"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).0 -
Advertisement
-
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 London0 -
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.0 -
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
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.0 -
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?
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'.0 -
ThisMakeEmLaugh 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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Ulster has 9 counties. End of.0
-
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?0 -
I don't undestand why you keep posting statements by other historians and asking posters to agree or disagree with them.
Well...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?0 -
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 thread0 -
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.0 -
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.jonniebgood1 wrote: »Coogan speaking on the topic is quite compelling.
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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!0
Advertisement