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

GRMA

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

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

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

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

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

Manach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

GRMA

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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.

Considering you have not read it, and thus cannot properly judge it, your recommendation is hardly worth much.

Would you pay much heed to a film review written by someone who says they have not seen it, and never will?

P. Breathnach

GRMA wrote: »

Considering you have not read it, and thus cannot properly judge it, your recommendation is hardly worth much.

Would you pay much heed to a film review written by someone who says they have not seen it, and never will?

Well, I'm hardly going to dissuade you from reading it.

I have heard Coogan speak about his work; I have read a good deal of scholarly work about the Famine; I am quite happy to stand over a claim that describing the Famine as genocide is bad history writing.

One does not have to buy and use snake oil as a basis on which to condemn a snake oil salesman as a charlatan.

GRMA

I have done likewise, and believe it was genocide.

I however, do not baulk at reading something which threatens my opinions, rather I welcome that.

Coles

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have read a good deal of scholarly work about the Famine; I am quite happy to stand over a claim that describing the Famine as genocide is bad history writing.

So then provide some links to this 'scholarly work' so it can be judged on it's merits.

It's not really sufficient to attack the contents of a book that you haven't read simply because you think you know what the author has written.

P. Breathnach

Coles wrote: »

So then provide some links to this 'scholarly work' so it can be judged on it's merits.

Woodham-Smith; Ó Gráda; Poirtéir; several others.

It's not really sufficient to attack the contents of a book that you haven't read simply because you think you know what the author has written.

Coogan says that the Famine was genocide. I think I know that because of the original post here, and because of what I heard Coogan himself say on radio. I have no time for that sort of populist nonsense.

jonniebgood1

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Woodham-Smith; Ó Gráda; Poirtéir; several others.

Coogan says that the Famine was genocide. I think I know that because of the original post here, and because of what I heard Coogan himself say on radio. I have no time for that sort of populist nonsense.

Ó Gráda believes the case for genocide to be flawed but also says it is a case that needs to be answered (on pg 10 of 'Black 47 and Beyond'). I have mentioned on another thread a book from last year 'The great famine: Irelands agony 1845-1852' by Ciarán Ó Murchadha. I have noted in both Ó Gráda's and Ó Murchadha's books that they too refer constantly to England in terms of notional or real 'blame' which is interesting in that Coogan has also done so.

pedroeibar1

Whether or not TPC is a writer or an historian is not very material to the debate. In his Famine book TPC is holding himself out to be the latter, so as such he is duty bound to present facts. If he disagrees with historic fact he should provide documentary evidence in support of his case. Listening to him promoting his book on radio, he did not do any of this and made several erroneous claims, one being that during the Famine Lord Lansdowne's Kenmare Estate forcefully ‘expatriated tenants to Canada in coffin ships, with inadequate clothing and in poor health, and that the local PP spoke against the practice.’ This is incorrect and totally unrepresentative of what happened. If TPC bothered to read ‘The Lansdowne Estate in Kerry’ by Gerard Lyne he would learn the ignorance of his remarks.

His claims are wrong, because Kenmare emigrants went to Canada AFTER the Famine, starting in 1851, with a 1851/2 total of 1300 landing at Quebec . (see below). The first phase of emigration from the Kenmare Estate was when a small number of emigrants went to the USA in 1843/44, followed by some more in 1845 (many of whom went to grasp the opportunity of a paid passage with cash for seed capital) and the third, the biggest phase went in 1849, when the Famine was over. Many of the last wave were well-to-do, seeking a better life, and had sold their cattle & furniture to have extra cash for when they landed.

Although TPC did not name the Kenmare PP he most likely referred to Archdeacon John O’Sullivan, PP of Kenmare from 1839 to 1874. TPC also is very wrong on his comments about O’Sullivan. Historians (local and academic) generally agree O’Sullivan was content to sacrifice the rights of his flock to the advantage of the Catholic Church. Also, he was very close to Lord Lansdowne during the Famine, intervened on behalf of several parishioners to help them obtain passage and did not disagree with Lansdowne unless it was about religion and what he, O’Sullivan, saw as the ‘rights’ of the Catholic Church. Lansdowne was a supporter of Catholic Emancipation, gave O’S £100 to improve his own house and was a generous patron of local schools. O’Sullivan was a Loyalist, and for example, used his lordly connections to obtain a Stipendary Magistrate role for his brother on the island of Granada. (The Nun of Kenmare, Sr. Cusack, the noted contemporary historian, pointedly said of O’Sullivan ‘he dearly loves a lord.’)

Much later, O’Sullivan ‘turned’ on Lansdowne’s Agent, Trench (reasons not relevant here) and made some outlandish claims while providing no evidence to support the claim that close on 2,000 Kenmare emigrants died on arrival in the New World. There is a hard statistical fact that mortality among emigrants (during the voyage & immediately after landing) in the 1850’s averaged about 1% (Donnelly, ‘Excess mortality and Emigration’, in New Hist., V, 356.) Elsewhere, (Buchanan, ‘Report on emigration to Canada during 1851’) the mortality of Irish emigrants going to Quebec in 1851 was 187 out of a total of 26,521 or a mere 0.7%. That alone shows TPC to be talking through his nether regions and more than sloppy on checking his comments.

From a cold economic perspective many Irish Estates (including Kenmare’s Lansdowne Estate) were very badly managed in the years up to the Famine, uneconomic and totally unviable for both landlord and tenant. Trench, the Lansdowne agent was no angel, but he was a businessman, understood commercial reality and initially gained his unpopularity by stopping the practice of sub-division of small uneconomic holdings. What had been happening was totally unsustainable viewed from any perspective, (other than an unhistorical and bigoted nationalistic one.)

The radio interview with TPC confirmed my opinion of him as having an agenda, loose with facts and no historian. On the basis of the language and errors used in his interview I believe I would be entitled to be more unkind.

I won’t bother to buy the book, even when it is remaindered.

jonniebgood1

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Listening to him promoting his book on radio, he did not do any of this and made several erroneous claims, one being that during the Famine Lord Lansdowne's Kenmare Estate forcefully ‘expatriated tenants to Canada in coffin ships, with inadequate clothing and in poor health, and that the local PP spoke against the practice.’ This is incorrect and totally unrepresentative of what happened. If TPC bothered to read ‘The Lansdowne Estate in Kerry’ by Gerard Lyne he would learn the ignorance of his remarks.

Which radio station pedro?

P. Breathnach

http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A20112033%3A133%3A19%2D11%2D2012%3A
Does that sound like a serious historian?

GRMA

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Whether or not TPC is a writer or an historian is not very material to the debate. In his Famine book TPC is holding himself out to be the latter, so as such he is duty bound to present facts. If he disagrees with historic fact he should provide documentary evidence in support of his case. Listening to him promoting his book on radio, he did not do any of this and made several erroneous claims, one being that during the Famine Lord Lansdowne's Kenmare Estate forcefully ‘expatriated tenants to Canada in coffin ships, with inadequate clothing and in poor health, and that the local PP spoke against the practice.’ This is incorrect and totally unrepresentative of what happened. If TPC bothered to read ‘The Lansdowne Estate in Kerry’ by Gerard Lyne he would learn the ignorance of his remarks.

His claims are wrong, because Kenmare emigrants went to Canada AFTER the Famine, starting in 1851, with a 1851/2 total of 1300 landing at Quebec . (see below). The first phase of emigration from the Kenmare Estate was when a small number of emigrants went to the USA in 1843/44, followed by some more in 1845 (many of whom went to grasp the opportunity of a paid passage with cash for seed capital) and the third, the biggest phase went in 1849, when the Famine was over. Many of the last wave were well-to-do, seeking a better life, and had sold their cattle & furniture to have extra cash for when they landed.

Although TPC did not name the Kenmare PP he most likely referred to Archdeacon John O’Sullivan, PP of Kenmare from 1839 to 1874. TPC also is very wrong on his comments about O’Sullivan. Historians (local and academic) generally agree O’Sullivan was content to sacrifice the rights of his flock to the advantage of the Catholic Church. Also, he was very close to Lord Lansdowne during the Famine, intervened on behalf of several parishioners to help them obtain passage and did not disagree with Lansdowne unless it was about religion and what he, O’Sullivan, saw as the ‘rights’ of the Catholic Church. Lansdowne was a supporter of Catholic Emancipation, gave O’S £100 to improve his own house and was a generous patron of local schools. O’Sullivan was a Loyalist, and for example, used his lordly connections to obtain a Stipendary Magistrate role for his brother on the island of Granada. (The Nun of Kenmare, Sr. Cusack, the noted contemporary historian, pointedly said of O’Sullivan ‘he dearly loves a lord.’)

Much later, O’Sullivan ‘turned’ on Lansdowne’s Agent, Trench (reasons not relevant here) and made some outlandish claims while providing no evidence to support the claim that close on 2,000 Kenmare emigrants died on arrival in the New World. There is a hard statistical fact that mortality among emigrants (during the voyage & immediately after landing) in the 1850’s averaged about 1% (Donnelly, ‘Excess mortality and Emigration’, in New Hist., V, 356.) Elsewhere, (Buchanan, ‘Report on emigration to Canada during 1851’) the mortality of Irish emigrants going to Quebec in 1851 was 187 out of a total of 26,521 or a mere 0.7%. That alone shows TPC to be talking through his nether regions and more than sloppy on checking his comments.

From a cold economic perspective many Irish Estates (including Kenmare’s Lansdowne Estate) were very badly managed in the years up to the Famine, uneconomic and totally unviable for both landlord and tenant. Trench, the Lansdowne agent was no angel, but he was a businessman, understood commercial reality and initially gained his unpopularity by stopping the practice of sub-division of small uneconomic holdings. What had been happening was totally unsustainable viewed from any perspective, (other than an unhistorical and bigoted nationalistic one.)

The radio interview with TPC confirmed my opinion of him as having an agenda, loose with facts and no historian. On the basis of the language and errors used in his interview I believe I would be entitled to be more unkind.

I won’t bother to buy the book, even when it is remaindered.

I don't know what TPC was on about, he must have gotten confused, as he doesn't say what he said on the radio in the book. He thoroughly recommends Lyne's book. He devotes a few paragraphs to praise it in fact.

He talks about assisted emigration, not forceful emigration from Landsdown's estates. And at the dates you mention.

pedroeibar1

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Which radio station pedro?

It was last Sunday (9th Dec.) and alluded to in my post # 27 http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82167542&postcount=27 but on reading another post above it might have been Matt Cooper rather than Anton Savage.

In any event, listening to TPC on Pat Kenny on P Breathnach’s link above,

P. Breathnach wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9:20112033:133:19-11-2012:
Does that sound like a serious historian?

at about minute 11.15 onwards he again is grossly incorrect in his sweeping statements and he is specious in suggesting the Kenmare emigration was a Famine event because it actually did not commence in numbers until 1851.

Secondly, in referring to Lansdowne he wrongly states (with a populist reference to the Gangs of New York) that the Five Points district was composed of ‘mainly his tenants’. In fact, by 1855 the native Irish population of the Five Points area was about 7,000 or half that area’s pop. of 14,000; of these only about 1,000 or about 15% of the total were from the Lansdowne estate. (Figures from Lyne, The Lansdowne Estate in Kerry, page 101.) TPC compounds this blatant error by naming the culprits as Lords Lansdowne, Palmerstown and Clanrickard. That also is misleading, as the biggest segment of the Five Points' Irish population came from Sligo- the Lord Palmerston and Gore-Booth estates. Interesting info here http://www.sligoheritage.com/archpomano.htm

TPC also makes a throw-away comment that ‘many’ of the assisted emigrants never got their ‘landing money’ – that is partly true, but it was a rare occurrence for the Lansdowne emigrants (it happened to 12 families/57 people) Even those 12 eventually got a payment. Actually, Lansdowne paid his tenants about 20% above the norm in landing money. If TCP actually thought about it, he would find that it was not in any landlords interest to withhold the landing money as word would get out quickly and it would discourage others at home from departing.

Historians (such as Prof. Tyler Anbinder* who has published a book on the Five Points) have based their opinions on studies of the extensive contemporary banking records from the Emigrant Savings Bank and the local Catholic church. Most infer that the growth of the Kenmare population in the Five Points is a result of letters sent home, encouraging emigration. A room with a stove, wooden floor, plaster ceiling and walls, was – even in a tenement - luxurious when compared to a semi-mud hut with a beaten earthen floor and a thatch/sod roof. America held a bright future, Ireland had nothing.

GRMA wrote: »

I don't know what TPC was on about, he must have gotten confused, as he doesn't say what he said on the radio in the book. He thoroughly recommends Lyne's book. He devotes a few paragraphs to praise it in fact.
He talks about assisted emigration, not forceful emigration from Landsdown's estates. And at the dates you mention.

Confused? a man who has worked in media all his life and is a regular on TV & radio? On two separate radio interviews he made the same error, so IMO he was not confused, he was deliberately misleading. He spoke as if ‘the emigrants’ were forced overseas and made several ambiguous comments. That is prostituting history to sell a book. TPC’s views are to earn him a few quid from gullible yanks who want to moan about their tragic heritage and the despotic landlords.

You would be better advised to read Woodham-Smith, Lyne, or O’Grada, Poirtear is a readable book but it is snippets culled from the Folklore Commission and more fiction than fact, the separation of which he admits is difficult if not impossible. O’Murchada I have not read.



*http://departments.columbian.gwu.edu/history/people/91

MakeEmLaugh

Did anyone hear the debate between Liam Kennedy and Tim Pat Coogan and BBC Radio Ulster? It was excellent. You can listen to it here. Here's a quote from Kennedy to give you an idea of the tone:

“The issue of intentionality is central to the whole discussion of genocide. In this book you have failed utterly to establish that there was intentionality and indeed the facts fly in the face of that. Misguided policy, certainly, but having three-quarters of a million people on public work schemes, having three million people seeking or receiving food rations - that is not consistent with a policy of genocide. And as an Irish revolutionary once put it, Ernie O'Malley, it's easy to travel on another man's wound. And that is what you are doing. You are providing junk-food for the wilder reaches of Irish-America. What we need is real scholarship, not this outdated, outmoded and frankly misleading commentary.”

kabakuyu

Nothing new in that debate, two extremists locking horns, with neither of them being very persuasive (IMO), and then indulging in personal insults.

Have to say this is a new one for me,from the Times during the famine according to TPC.

WE CAN LOOK FORWARD TO A DAY WHEN A CELT IS AS RARE ON THE BANKS OF THE SHANNON AS A REDMAN IS ON THE BANKS OF THE HUDSON.

pedroeibar1

kabakuyu wrote: »

Nothing new in that debate, two extremists locking horns, with neither of them being very persuasive (IMO), and then indulging in personal insults.

In my view that comment is neither fair nor representative. TPC was downright rude, interrupting regularly with supercilious and flippant comments (e.g. ‘a version of the Scarsdale Diet’). Kennedy was not extreme, he was measured in manner, tone and content. He asked TPC for sources on several occasions, (without receiving a valid response) and he was not insulting, unless you call truth an insult.

kabakuyu wrote: »

Have to say this is a new one for me,from the Times during the famine according to TPC.

WE CAN LOOK FORWARD TO A DAY WHEN A CELT IS AS RARE ON THE BANKS OF THE SHANNON AS A REDMAN IS ON THE BANKS OF THE HUDSON.

I’d like to read that in context – TPC says it is from a ‘Times’ of London editorial. I’ve heard it before but (from memory) it was originally said in a parliamentary debate ‘Unless more aid is provided we can look forward.....etc, and then picked up by 'The Times' and worked into the editorial quote above. The search function on the new Hansard site is not working so I've no way of checking..

Were Coogan a historian or even informed or balanced he would not be measuring 19th century beliefs & practices against 20th century UN definitions and criteria.

JustinDee

He has a market to pander to and books to sell.

kabakuyu

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

In my view that comment is neither fair nor representative. TPC was downright rude, interrupting regularly with supercilious and flippant comments (e.g. ‘a version of the Scarsdale Diet’). Kennedy was not extreme, he was measured in manner, tone and content. He asked TPC for sources on several occasions, (without receiving a valid response) and he was not insulting, unless you call truth an insult.



Like I said I did not find either of them convincing, Kennedy I found to be just as flippant as Coogan and I quote"You are providing junk-food for the wilder reaches of Irish-America"
I also found Kennedy's tone quite patronising but that is just my opinion just like your evaluation of Coogan's performance is your opinion.

"We should not be measuring 19th century beliefs & practices against 20th century UN definitions and criteria"
The amended statement above I would agree with but "historians" from from both Ireland and the UK have recently been guilty of this practice.
I hope you do find the relevant hansard reference as I would like to see the"Celt" quote in its full context.In the meantime I will have a look at the Times.

Farmer Pudsey

If you look at the famine with the hsitory of the Highland Clearances in mind you have to ask was it a deliberate policy by the elements of the british government to remove a large portion of the Irish population.
http://cranntara.org.uk/clear.htm

Yes what was happening in prefamine Ireland was unsustainable subdivision/letting was an issue as it was possible to feed a family on an acre of potatoes. The humble spud is amazing it can produce more energy(in Ireland) that humans can consume/live on per acre than any other crop ( worldwide). The clearances were mainly carried out by Scotish chiefs against there own clansmen who were a liability in the modern system.

The questions you have to ask are

If the same famine happened in England would it have been handled different
Was it to the landlords advantage to clear the land
Could the effect of the famine been reduced
Did the change of government in Londan change the establishment's handling of it.

Yes the value's of the 1800's were different to today but the loss due to the famine in Ireland was between 15-25% of the population died and another 15% emigrated. How would this compare with European famines of the period.

The dependance of the Irish people on the spud also made the Irish look lazy. The early summer in Ireland was a time of shortage as the old crop was exhausted and people lay in there cabins(mudhuts) conserving energy awaiting the new crop.

It is hard to believe that the yield of potato's/acre pre famine was only again reached in the 1990's with modern cultivation/growing technique's.

Was it genocide, mismanagement, a natural disaster, manmade disaster, who was to blame?????

P. Breathnach

RTÉ are broadcasting a four-part series on the Famine this week. Tonight's programme, the second in the series, had Coogan as a participant in company with Prof. Peter Grey (QUB), Prof. Mary Daly (UCD), and John Kelly, author of The Graves Are Walking.

The programme was interesting in itself, but Coogan's intemperate remarks cut no ice with the serious and scholarly historians, and added no value to the broadcast.

Judge for yourself: http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A20132595%3A12930%3A02%2D01%2D2013%3A.

kkumk

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Were Coogan a historian or even informed or balanced he would not be measuring 19th century beliefs & practices against 20th century UN definitions and criteria.

I'd have to agree with you there. It's completely unprofessional to attempt to apply modern day legal definitions retrospectively. While I would perhaps agree that some British people may have thought the Famine was Gods way of getting rid of the surplus Irish population (which many Poor Law Commissioners commented on before the Famine, this also ties into the Malthusian theories) ultimately I don't think there was any intent to get rid of the entire Irish race.

The British policymakers had no way of knowing how long the Famine was going to last and their early attempts to combat it would probably have worked if it had only lasted one or two years, as expected. However, when it became apparent that it was worsening, the expansion of the workhouse system as a means of indoor relief seemed appropriate given society at the time; the workhouse system worked relatively well in Britain since they had a far lower level of poverty than Ireland.

With regards to emigration, yes they did offer assisted emigration schemes to some and many politicians supported the idea, which <i>could</i> be termed as genocide under the UN's definition of it. However, if they really just wanted the land to be cleared of the Irish, it stands to reason that they would have put a lot more effort into the assisted emigration scheme, especially in the years after the Famine when it became apparent that their 'genocide' was a failure. :rolleyes:

Reekwind

kkumk wrote:

I'd have to agree with you there. It's completely unprofessional to attempt to apply modern day legal definitions retrospectively

I disagree. There is nothing wrong or unprofessional with pointing out failed and harmful policies and damning the prejudices that drove them

The UN may only have defined genocide as the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" in 1948 but there were clearly examples of such policies being applied before this date. Condemning these acts as genocides, and the forces that drove them, is entirely possible, and arguably necessary, from a 21st C perspective

The alternative is apologism. Upholding Trevelyan as a concious civil servant who worked Christmas should not for a second obscure the fact that he, and the London government, pursued policies that were dogmatic, bigoted, wrong and ultimately massively damaging to Ireland. No matter what Victorian standards were, this fundamental truth should not be obscured

(None of which is to suggest that the Famine actually was genocide. The key issue of intention is clearly not been settled satisfactorily)