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

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)

kkumk

Reekwind wrote: »

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.

It may be 'necessary' from a sociological point of view, and while it is certainly an interesting way of looking at the past, this cannot be deemed history. The primary responsibility of the historian is to provide an objective(or as close to objective as possible) account of the past. Using terms like genocide cloud perspective and pointing the finger at people of the past is essentially meaningless. Instead we should be trying to account for why certain decisions were made, or how they affected specific people, rather than attributing blame and trying to pretend we knew how people felt 150 years ago.

Reekwind

And why assume that it's impossible to 'objectively' weigh up the balance of evidence before reaching a conclusion or judgement?

For example, RW Davies painstakingly traced the course of Soviet decision-making and the resultant 1930s famine in his magisterial Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture 1931-33, a work that is notable as an example of 'objective' history in an otherwise controversy strewn field. This work is a detailed reconstruction of Soviet agricultural policies, in the frame of Stalinist industrialisation, that avoids hysterics and moralising. Yet the conclusions are damning, the inescapable truth being being that the policies pursued by the Soviet state were largely to blame for the crisis and deaths of millions*, and Davies is suitably critical

Now what should Davies have done instead? Avoided reaching conclusions? Accepted the Stalinist view that the deaths were an acceptable price to pay? This is the trap of putting 'objectivity' first and foremost

Historians are not just fact-finders; we rely on them to interpret, not record, past events. The judgement of the historian in this is key. The Famine in Ireland was a tragedy but if an historian cannot bring himself/herself to condemn the prejudice and failed policies that lay behind British agricultural policies in Ireland then I have absolutely no faith in their judgement. If they go down the route of accepting the validity of their subject's philosophies (whether Stalinism or laissez faire economics) then they're no better than apologists

*Incidentally, given the topic, this was not genocide

pedroeibar1

Reekwind wrote: »

And why assume that it's impossible to 'objectively' weigh up the balance of evidence before reaching a conclusion or judgement?

It’s not, nobody has claimed that. A viewpoint can be proposed if it is based on an open mind and the basis on which the view is founded is detailed, with FACTS. Coogan has not done this; several of the 'facts' he gives are wrong and he gives no factual basis for his claims.

The views and comments of Hitler and Stalin are on record detailing their mass-murdering policies on the extirpation of various classes, peoples, religions, etc. That is not the case with the 1840’s British governments. Only a bigot with an ill-informed agenda could suggest that the British deliberately set out to ‘cull’ the Irish peasant class. Many historians (if not all) have pointed out both the mismanagement and ineptitude of the governing classes in Britain and Ireland. That is not an indicator of genocide, and it is why so many have taken issue with Coogan.

Reekwind wrote: »

Historians are not just fact-finders; we rely on them to interpret, not record, past events. The judgement of the historian in this is key. The Famine in Ireland was a tragedy but if an historian cannot bring himself/herself to condemn the prejudice and failed policies that lay behind British agricultural policies in Ireland then I have absolutely no faith in their judgement. If they go down the route of accepting the validity of their subject's philosophies (whether Stalinism or laissez faire economics) then they're no better than apologists

I have no issue with anyone interpreting an ‘event' if their view is supported with FACT. That is not the case with TPC, who has been caught out on his claims as being both sloppy and plain wrong.
TPC has chosen to use the emotive term of genocide as a tool ‘to bash the Brits’ because it suits a political viewpoint; it has no basis in any historical facts detailed to date.

Most Famine victims died of disease, not hunger. Look at what was happening in Britain at about the same time. In 1831 cholera broke out in England, at Durham. Moving north into Scotland and south to London it within a couple of years claimed 52,000 lives. A few years later, measles and "hooping cough" accounted for fifty thousand deaths in England and Wales between 1838 and 1840. In the same period about 25% of all deaths have been attributed to tuberculosis or consumption.

In his Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of Gt. Britain, Edwin Chadwick included figures to show that in 1839 for every person who died of old age or violence, eight died of specific diseases. This helps explain why during the second and third decades of the nineteenth century nearly one infant in three in England failed to reach the age of five.
Is that genocide also? :rolleyes:

Reekwind

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

A viewpoint can be proposed if it is based on an open mind and the basis on which the view is founded is detailed, with FACTS. Coogan has not done this; several of the 'facts' he gives are wrong and he gives no factual basis for his claims

And I never suggested that Coogan was correct; certainly, as I noted, I don't think that the Famine was genocide

What I took issue with is this notion that, as you put it, historians should "not be measuring 19th century beliefs & practices against 20th century UN definitions and criteria". The Famine may not have been genocide but there are no shortage of pre-20th C ethnic cleansings that comply with the 1948 UN definition and should be condemned as such

Edit: In short, you can criticise Coogan for his methodology and facts but not for having the temerity to make a judgement

pedroeibar1

Reekwind wrote: »

Edit: In short, you can criticise Coogan for his methodology and facts but not for having the temerity to make a judgement

Poor methodology and a disdain for facts by Coogan when coupled with his unsubstantiated opinions cannot lead a reader to accept his subsequent judgement. That does not show Coogan’s temerity, but illustrates his poor judgement, unprofessionalism, presumption and a lack of respect for the topic and his readership.

P. Breathnach

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Poor methodology and a disdain for facts by Coogan when coupled with his unsubstantiated opinions cannot lead a reader to accept his subsequent judgement. That does not show Coogan’s temerity, but illustrates his poor judgement, unprofessionalism, presumption and a lack of respect for the topic and his readership.

You forgot to mention his use of emotive language.

I don't, however, agree that he shows a lack of respect for his readership: he is aiming for a certain type of reader who are unlikely to be troubled by what you or I or many others might see as faults in his work.

MakeEmLaugh

For a far more academic treatise on the Famine you should watch this 'Big Ideas' lecture given by Prof. Liam Kennedy on 03 February 2005 at the University of Toronto. Kennedy contrasts the Irish Famine with the Jewish Holocaust.

Alternatively, you could download the lecture as a podcast here.

One of Kennedy's closing remarks perfectly encapsulates the self-pitying, victimhood mentality of Coogan et al:

"Is it the case that the urge to associate the Great Famine and the Jewish Holocaust springs from a spirit ethnic competitiveness on the part of some, perhaps a minority, of Irish-Americans?

'Those Jews have the Holocaust, but by God we've got the Great Famine as a veritable myth of origin and as an ethnic marker!'"

jonniebgood1

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

One of Kennedy's closing remarks perfectly encapsulates the self-pitying, victimhood mentality of Coogan et al:

"Is it the case that the urge to associate the Great Famine and the Jewish Holocaust springs from a spirit ethnic competitiveness on the part of some, perhaps a minority, of Irish-Americans?

'Those Jews have the Holocaust, but by God we've got the Great Famine as a veritable myth of origin and as an ethnic marker!'"

I would take issue with any premise that uses one tragedy (the holocaust) to denegrate the suffering in another tragedy (the Irish famine).

Just to clarify one point in relation to the quoted post, has Coogan associated the famine with the Holocaust as implied in the post???

MakeEmLaugh

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I would take issue with any premise that uses one tragedy (the holocaust) to denegrate the suffering in another tragedy (the Irish famine).

Just to clarify one point in relation to the quoted post, has Coogan associated the famine with the Holocaust as implied in the post???

I haven't read The Famine Plot, so I do not know if Coogan makes the association in his book.

However, I do know of some American organisations who make that association, including one called Friends of Irish Freedom, the Chicago-born chairman of which appeared on public access television a few years back spouting the following unsubstantiated nonsense:

"Five-and-a-quarter million people died, and that's a great number of Irish who died in five-and-a-half years than were Jews murdered by the Nazis some ninety years later, according to Jewish historians, those who have credible backgrounds, who claim it was 5.1 million. That's the highest of two figures that is generally accepted."

kabakuyu

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I haven't read The Famine Plot, so I do not know if Coogan makes the association in his book.

However, I do know of some American organisations who make that association, including one called Friends of Irish Freedom, the Chicago-born chairman of which appeared on public access television a few years back spouting the following unsubstantiated nonsense:

"Five-and-a-quarter million people died, and that's a great number of Irish who died in five-and-a-half years than were Jews murdered by the Nazis some ninety years later, according to Jewish historians, those who have credible backgrounds, who claim it was 5.1 million. That's the highest of two figures that is generally accepted."

Is there a source for that and how long ago did this allegedly happen.