"His job is professor of history."
For ****'* sake Keith - haven't you taken enough of a battering on this?
There are two views of the Irish Famine - one that it was a natural disaster in which nothing could be done and no blame can be attached - the "revisionist view you have been expounding since day one.
The other is that the outcome of The Famine was due to deliberate neglect and mismanagement -
Kinealy's point in her attack on revisionism gave the reasons for the first as the need to placate Britain - she specifically mentions immigration and The Northern Ireland peace process having been given as an excuse for not apportioning blame, and she urged that a proper examination of the causes of the outcome of the famine needs to be carried out if it is to be fully understood.
Britain has always dismissed claims that its actions led to one million deaths and one million people leaving the country.
As Kinealy points out, the revisionist have always avoided apportioning blame.
For Christ's sake - I don't need to reiterate this - you've been claiming that the revisionist view has been the "majority" one since this started YOU KNOW BLOODY WELL THERE ARE TWO VIEWS OF THE HISTORY OF THE FAMINE - YOU'VE BEEN BASING ALL YOUR CLAIMS ON THAT THE REVISIONIST VIEW IS THE MAJORITY ONE
Since the 150th anniversary of the Famine, the tables have been turned and a mass of fresh study has taken place on the famine -- prior to that, the literature on the subject was incredibly sparse, the most respected one being by an Englishwoman, Mrs Cecil Woodham Smith.
What on earth do you think a review of Coogan's book by an English historian based in Belfast University proves? - England is still very much in the revisionist camp - now the minority.
Lie down - you're dead
Jim Carroll