Perhaps it's worth explaining exactly what Kineally's position was on education, and then perhaps we can put an end to this misinterpretation.
Her basic criticism was of the 'revisionist' approach taken by many historians and taken up by the schools, particularly on The Famine.
She argues that what was taught was the effects of the Famine, not the reason for it – all those poor dead people – without explaining exactly why they were dead – the question of actual blame was never questioned, it was never under any doubt.
The British were responsible for the administration of Ireland (- no question), there was enough food being produced to feed the entire population (- no question), the warehouses were full and were locked and guarded by armed soldiers (- no question), the landlords evicted tenants who failed to pay rents and destroyed their former homes, - no question, the workhouses and relief schemes put into motion by the Peel Government, were all closed and financial support for relief was withdrawn (- no question.
In addition to this, The Russell Government, on the advice of the man in charge, Sir Charles Trevelyan, adopted a laissez faire policy of selling food at current market prices so as not to upset the economy - no question.
The famine victims were given the choice – emigrate or die – no question.
Kinealy argues that the effects were explained graphically without attempting to understand the causes or apportion blame; if hatred was generated then it was the causes that generated that hatred, not an attempt to implant it into children.
History was, as is all revisionist history, in England as well as Ireland, all about heroes and events rather than causes and consequences.
The reason this approach was adopted, as Kineally and other progressive historians have pointed out is that after the Famine Britain became the most attractive destination for Irish emigrants – no long journey and the opportunity to return home in relative ease if the opportunity arose.
Up to the 150th anniversary of the Famine in 1995, there was only one major work on the famine, 'The Great Hunger', written by Englishwoman, Mrs Cecil Woodham Smith, that was in general, revisionist, touching only briefly on the laissez faire, policy but never attempting to explain it in depth .
The Irish establishment did not wish to strangle the Golden Goose by drawing attention to Britain's culpability over the outcome of the Famine so the subject was avoided – for two centuries.
Kineally says that, prior to her own studies of the Famine she didn't realise the depth of blame due to Britain for the outcome of the famine – pretty well the case all round – now, she says, she is convinced that not only was Britain to blame, but that it was possibley used as a cynical attempt to solve 'The Irish Question' .
1995, Coogan's reproduction of Trevelyan's letter and all the other information that has been unearthed since has turned things around.
Exactly the same thing is now happening to the information we now have on Easter Week.
It is the facts of history that have generated any hatred that might have been, not the misinterpretation of that history or the avoidance of pointing fingers (revisionism)
If I have misunderstood Kineally's objective then I will be happy to be corrected by somebody who hs read her books – not by somebody who opportunistically uses soundbites to win arguments.
If anybody wishes to claim that Irish kids have been brainwashed to hate Britain, then they have to explain how that hatred manifests itself otherwise they are obviously telling lies – whoever they misquote.
Jim Carroll