Folklore/History: Irish Famine

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:28 PM

I believe this to be a truly remarkable ballad which, along with songs like Skibbereen, reflect a return to the spirit of rebelliousness following the degradation and horror of the Famine, evictions and forced emigrations.
They are an indication of a determination to obtain independence;

What origin do you have for Skibbereen Jim?
Is it pre 20C ?

That last sentence is a big leap in the dark, I think.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:19 PM

" Does that describe you also?"
Hi Susan.
What - do I wear a collarless jacket and hang out with Maharishis?
I certainly am 3rd or 4th generation Irish - not sure which.
I left Liverpool in the mid 1960s because I hated football and the Beatles bored me (and still do.
Another song from the period, based on a real-life incident.
Historically Michael Hayes was a Tipperary farmer and a bailiff with an iffy reputation for his behaviour at evictions.
Eventually he was dismissed from his work as a bailiff as being considered too old for the job, and in classic 'biter bit' style, in 1862, was evicted from his land.
He walked into the land agents office in Queenstown, Cork, shot him dead and took to his heels and embarked on a bid for freedom pursued by the police- Hayes was said to have died of .
On the basis that anybody who shot a landlord or his land agent could be forgiven all his former sins, the folk elevated him into the realms epic legend.
In reality the chase centered around Limerick and Tipperary and probably ended with Hayes dying of cold and hunger on the slopes of Slievnamon, but the folk have it as taking place from Tipperary to Wexford and around the coast to Castlebar in County Mayo - a total distance of 918 miles in straight lines between the towns mentioned.
Folklore has it that he embarked on board ship to America, but contacted TB there and returned to die in his native Tipperary.
I believe this to be a truly remarkable ballad which, along with songs like Skibbereen, reflect a return to the spirit of rebelliousness following the degradation and horror of the Famine, evictions and forced emigrations.
They are an indication of a determination to obtain independence; "Hayes" appeared five years before the 1867 rebellion, followed by the fight for Home Rule which eventually led to Easter week and the War of Independence.
We recorded it from Tom Lenihan of Miltown Malbay, who called it 'The Fox Chase' - he appears to be the sole traditional source, though we recorded a verse from Traveller Mikeen McCarthy, who remembered it fronm the singing of his father, who's family was from Tipperary.
Tom can be heard singing it on Tom Munnelly's selection of his songs songs, 'Mount Callan Garland' and it should be available for public access when our collection of Clare recordings goes on line on the Ennis Library website of traditional music, some time towards the end of the year.
Jim Carroll

Farmer Michael Hayes.

I am a bold and undaunted fox that never was before on tramp,
My rent, rates and taxes I was willing for to pay,
I lived as happy as king Saul and loved my neighbours great and small,
I had no animosity for either friend or foe,

I made my den in fine good land between Tipperary and Knocklong,
Where my forefathers lived for three hundred years or more,
But now of late I was betrayed by one who was a fool or knave,
He told me I should quit the place and show my face no more.

But as soon as he evicted me, I thought, 'twas time that I should flee,
I stole away his ducks and geese and murdered all his drakes,
I knew I could no longer stand because he had the hounds at hand,
I tightened up my garters and then I was away.

But soon there was a great look-out by land and sea to find me out,
From Dublin quay to Belfast Town along the raging sea,
By telegraph they did insert this great reward for my arrest,
My figure, size and form (forearm) and my name without a doubt.

They wore their brogues, a thousand pair, this great reward for to
But still there was no tidings of me or my retreat,                     
They searched Tipperary o'er and o'er, the cornfields round
But they si went on to Wexford, but there did not delay.

Through Ballyhale and Stranmore they searched the woods as they went on,
Till they got very hungry at the approach of day.
Now search the world both far and near, the likes before you did not
A fox to get away so clear as I did from the hounds.                              

They searched the rocks, the gulfs, the bays, the ships and liners at the quays,
The ferryboats and steamers as they were going to sea,
Around the coast they took a steer from Poolbeg lighthouse to Cape
Killarney Town and Sweet Tralee, and then crossed into Clare!

And when they landed on the shore they searched Kilrush from top to toe,
The bathing baths in Miltown, called otherwise Malbay,      
And Galway being a place of fame they thought it there I would
But still there journey was in vain for I gave them leg bail

They searched the train at Oranmore as she was leaving for Athlone,
And every waggon, coach and car as that went along the road,
And Connemara being remote, they thought it there I would resort,
Then when they got weary they resolved to try Mayo.

In Balinrobe they had to rest until the hounds were quite refreshed,
From thence they went to Westport and searched it high and low,
To Caslebar they took a trot, they heard I was in Castlerock,
But still they were delude, there I lodged the night before*,

At Swinford Town as I sat down I heard a dreadful cry of hounds.
I took another notion to retaliate the chase,
And I being weary from the road I took a glass at half past four,
Then I was renovated while the hounds were getting weak,

The night being dark in Castlebar, I knew not how to make my way,
I had neither den nor manger to shield me from the cold,
But when the moon began to shine I said I'd make for a foreign
I'm in the land of liberty and three cheers for Michael Hayes,

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:32 AM

Reminiscent of Arthur McBride.
Those emigrants were sturdy.
Not starvelings of the famine.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 07:05 AM

I like that. You said you were originally from Liverpool right? That's pretty ethnically mixed like most major seaports isn't it? I know that three of the Beatles have Irish in their backgrounds. Does that describe you also?

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 02:18 AM

"Britain put their own lower class through much suffering"
One of the direct results of the Famine on British workers was the exploitation of the famine refugees by unscrupulous employers who used them as scab labour to drive down wages and worsen conditions of their employees.
When MacColl, Seeger and Charles Parker were recording actuality in South Wales for the Radio Ballad, The Big Hewer, they found lingering anti-Irish resentment from a number of older miners dating back to the time when fleeing Famine victims were forced by their situation to take the jobs of striking miners who were fighting planned cuts in wages. Songs like 'Blackleg Miners' remain as reminders of these times.
One of my favourite novels of the period, 'North and South', by Mrs Gaskell, has "Irish starvelings" being used to break the strike at a cotton mill in Northern England.
Harrowing descriptions of the conditions of the Irish refugees can be found in a series of essays, 'The Irish in Victorian Britain', edited by Roger Swift and Sheridan Gillie (Four Courts Press, 1999)
"Dickens put what he saw was happening around him into a novel"
He also wrote a number of essays on the Irish in Britain and on his visits to Ireland in the 1850s, see 'Charles Dickens in Ireland - an Anthology' (Woodfield Press in association with RTE, 1999) .
The Famine produced numerous songs on emigrations, one of the finest, still in circulation being 'Seven of Our Irishmen' which describes a fight in New York between a group of Irish refugees who had been tricked into enlisting "to defend this counteree" and a recruiting party of a dozen soldiers.

SEVEN OF OUR IRISHMEN,
All you that love the shamrock green, attend both young and old,
I feel it is my duty these lines for to unfold
Concerning these young emigrants that lately sailed away
To seek a better livelyhood all in Americay,

On the fourteenth day of April our gallant ship set sail
With fifty-five young Irishmen, true sons of Granuale.
They landed safe all in New York on the fourteenth day of May
To meet their friends and relatives all in Americay,

Some of them made aquaintences as soon as they did land,
With flowing bumpers drank a health to poor old Paddy's land.
Though many of them they had no friends but their hearts were stout and bold,
And by these cursed Yankees they would not be controlled.

As seven of our Irish boys were going down Georges Street
One of these Yankee gentlemen they happened for to meet,
He promised them employment in a brickyard near the town,
To which they were conducted, their names for to put down.

He brought them to an alehouse were he called for drinks galore,
And sure, such entertainment they never got before,
For when he thought he had them drunk he this to them did say,
"You're enlisted now as soldiers to defend this countee,

They looked at one another and this to him did say,
"It's not to 'list that we did come in to Americay,
But to labour for a livelyhood as many have done before
That we have emigrated from that lovely shamrock shore,"

Twelve Yankees then in soldiers dress they came without delay
And said, "Me boys, you must prepare with us to come away,
For this is our Yankee officer who's enlisted you complete,
You need not strive for to resist, we will no longer wait."

Their Irish blood began to boil, one of these heroes said,
"We only have one life to lose, therefore we're not afraid,
Although we be from Ireland, today we'll let you see,
We'll die like sons of Granuale or keep our liberty,"

Our Irish boys got to their feet which made the Yankees frown.
As fast as they could strike a blow they knocked a soldier down,
The officer and all his men lay bleeding in their gore,
They proved themselves St. Patrick's men throughout Columbia's shore,

You'd think it was a slaughterhouse there where those Yankees lay,
The officer and all his men they all did run away,
With bloody heads and broken bones they minded evermore
That sprig of sweet shilleleigh that was brought from Erin's shore,

Now to conclude and finish' let irishmen unite,   
And together hand in hand, both morning noon and night
Let's hope they're free from danger when they are far away
And they will earn good living when they're in Americay.

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 02:56 PM

Can't distract you with Oliver Twist, eh?

To reiterate a point I made early on in this thread, Britain put their own lower class through much suffering and then you have historians like this one who calls anybody who says so "pessimistic."

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-industrial-revolution-working-class-po

"Writers such as Dickens, Engels, and the Hammonds have made the terms industrial revolution and capitalism synonymous with degradation of the working class. Pessimistic interpretations of the industrial revolution..."

So Dickens was "pessimistic"? What's this pessimistic? These things either happened or they didn't. Dickens put what he saw was happening around him into a novel. Many more people learned about what it was to be a poor orphan during that time than if he had merely written a history book. Oliver Twist changed a lot of minds and hearts.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 10:05 AM

There you go – now I'm done, wasted far too much time on this shit.
My thanks to Grumpy who introduced me to Christine Kenealy, a fine historian I had never heard of.
Jim Carroll

"Since that is the dominant view of historians and has been for over 80 years, that seemed a reasonable thing to do."

2Please explain clearly why the dominant views of historians should not be even considered, and why you want them suppressed."

"I just saw the thread dominated by the discredited and outmoded nationalist version of history and gave three very brief extracts that reflect the revisionist view that has been the dominant view of historians these last eighty years."

"The professional historians, who have dedicated their whole lives to the study of all the data and contemporary sources from the period, are quite clear that your old, outmoded nationalist propagandist stories are false."

"Jim, we have seen from the links provided by your supporters that the dominant view of professional historians is not one of blame.
That old discredited nationalist version was buried eighty years ago."

"His nationalist view we know, thanks to your supporters, has been rejected by actual historians for over eighty years now."

"Historians are clear that there is no-one to blame for the famine.
I think we should heed the real historians?
Coogan and the cult fraudster are not historians"


"We have seen that the dominant view among the real historians is that there is no blame and no cause for hatred.
Just sorrow."

"You need excuses and justification for your prejudice, and if eighty years of consensus is not enough for you, you are destined to die still loathing us."

"So Jim favours the "nationalist" version of the famine.
No surprise there Jim, but why should we ignore the views of modern historians who rufute it?"

"All historians agree it was catastrophic for Ireland.
The old "nationalist" historians regarded the English as being uniquely uncaring and the Irish as uniquely the victims.

"Revisionist" historians challenge the view that England was culpable"

"So Jim favours the "nationalist" version of the famine.
No surprise there Jim, but why should we ignore the views of modern historians who rufute it?
Again, what is your opinion as a historian worth?"

"For all I know, but it is hard to dismiss all the modern historians who have formed a different view."
"Were you not aware that "revisionist" historians do not accept the view that "nationalist" historians have for so long regarded as objective truth."

"I find there is an old traditional version of famine history, and a version that modern historians have put in its place.
It says little for your scholarship that you were not even aware of that dichotomy, never mind the accepted terms for the 2 sides of the rift."

"True I claim no specialist knowledge, but I have read some that are eminent and well respected historians who dispute your old nationalist history"

"That is the version of history that was exclusively given in this thread, apart from my 3 short extracts, even though historians have recognised for over eighty years now that it is false."

"You believe a lie, not according to me, but according to the profession of historians who have dedicated their whole lives to uncovering the truth of this.
You believe a lie pedalled by fanatical nationalists for their own political purposes."

"The professional historians who are, overwhelmingly do not agree with you and Coogan."

"The quotes produced on this thread indicated that most historians believe that the government was not responsible for the deaths."

AND LAST AND MOST DISGUSTING.
"It seems that generations of Irish schoolchildren have been brainwashed with false history presenting Britain as "villain."
Poisoning children's minds with hatred has cost many lives and much misery and it still goes on."

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 07:42 AM

and your flag-waving nationalism has been pointed out to you by several people.

Not true.
Mayomick said "patriotism" and that is all.

Neither of you can justify the accusation.
It is false.
If not produce a quote.
The most rabidly nationalistic and flag wagging quote you can find.

I say you can not.
Just more unfounded personal abuse in lieu of actual debate.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 04:10 AM


Far from adopting a neutral, 'Devil's advocate' stance you have rejected with contempt and accusation anybody who has put forward the established facts of the famine.

Not true.
All the contempt was from you.
Moron. Racist. Denier. Clown. Liar. Arsehole.....
I only quoted professional historians.

"Not all historians agree that Britain should be blamed."
Not true, otherwise produce one modern (or earlier) historian who has shown, or claims to have shown that:

I did.
You objected with a shit storm of personal abuse.
You do not want your preconceptions and prejudices challenged.

I will state my whole case again, and if you do not attack me again, I am done.

Many historians find that Britain should not be blamed.
Dr. Christine K stated, quoting others , that such historians were "dominant" and had been since 1930.

I make no claim myself.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 03:48 AM

"One more time, I am not debating history with you."
No you most certainly are not
"I just thought that both sides should be put."
Far from adopting a neutral, 'Devil's advocate' stance you have rejected with contempt and accusation anybody who has put forward the established facts of the famine.
You decided on a line at the outset and you stuck to it without producing a single scrap of evidence to back up your claims - your stance throughout has been to absolve Britain from blame, pure and simple - and your flag-waving nationalism has been pointed out to you by several people.
"Not all historians agree that Britain should be blamed."
Not true, otherwise produce one modern (or earlier) historian who has shown, or claims to have shown that:
Russell didn't reverse Peel's humane policy by locking up the food supplies in warehouses so as not to upset the markets.
That there wasn't enough food to feed the Irish population throughout the famine and that the greatest number of these were at the height of the suffering 'Black '47'
That thousands of ships carrying enough food to feed the starving didn't sail out of Ireland headed for British markets.
That the Home Secretary's introduction of a land tax didn't open the doors to the mass eviction of of over 300,000 families
That the homes of those evicted were not destroyed by the armed police and soldiers who were supplied by the British government to facilitate the evictions.
That those evictions were a major cause of the deaths and led to people dying without shelter and protection from the elements as well as from hunger.
That the man put in charge of food distribution didn't regard the Irish with contempt and declare openly that "the famine was God's punishment for the sins of the Irish.... or any other action or inaction by the British government that turned what started out as a natural disaster into a massive crime against humanity - probably the British Empire's greatest
None of these facts are in dispute, the only differences among historians is whether it was a deliberate act of genocide, ineptitude or cold, economically driven politicking.
You have not produced "another side of the argument" to "censor" or "suppress" - nobody disputes any of these facts, and you have ignored all but one of them which you put up a feeble defence for and have now reverted to your 'radio silence' on.
"Apart from defending myself from your abuse, my whole contribution would fit on one page."
Patently not true (want me to do a word count of our personal dispute here - happy to oblige?) - our inevitable arguments centre around accusations you have made against anybody who has opposed your - non-information - out--of-date, republican, revisionist, nationalist.
It is doubtful if your knowledge of the subject would fill a quarter of a page, but this hasn't stopped you from making over a hundred postings and dominating this thread with vaccuous nothings.`
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 11:18 PM

You can go,
But be back soon
You can go,
But while you're working.
This place,
I'm pacing round
Until you're home
Safe and sound

Fare thee well,
But be back soon
Who can tell
Where danger's lurking?
Do not forget this tune
Be back soon...

How could we forget
How could we let
Our dear old Fagin worry?
We love him so.
We'll come back home
In, oh, such a great big hurry

It's him that pays the piper.
It's us that pipes his tune
So long, fare thee well
Pip! Pip! Cheerio!
We'll be back soon...

You can go
But be back soon
You can go,
But bring back plenty
Of pocket handkerchiefs
And you should be clever thieves.
Whip it quick,
and be back soon
There's a sixpence here for twenty
Ain't that a lovely tune?
Be back soon...

Our pockets'll hold
A watch of gold
That chimes upon the hour
A wallet fat
An old man's hat
The crown jewels from the tower
We know the Bow Street Runners,
But they don't know this tune.

So long, fare thee well.
Pip! Pip! Cheerio!
We'll be back soon...

Cheerio, but be back soon.
I dunno, somehow I'll miss you
I love you, that why I
Say, "Cheerio"...
Not goodbye.

Don't be gone long but
Be back soon.
Give me one long,
Last look...
Bless you.
Remember our old tune...
Be back soon!

We must disappear,
We'll be back here,
Today, perhaps tomorrow.
We'll miss you too...

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 12:00 PM

One more time, I am not debating history with you.
I just thought that both sides should be put.
No fair minded person could object, but you did.

When I quoted just two sentences from a professional, academic historian, you objected with a shit storm of abuse.
His claims should be "taken elsewhere."
He was a "holocaust denier."
I was "an agenda driven moron"

Apart from defending myself from your abuse, my whole contribution would fit on one page.
Your word count far and away exceeds anyone else on the thread.

I will state my whole case again, and if you do not attack me again, I am done.

Not all historians agree that Britain should be blamed.
Dr. Christine K stated, quoting others , that such historians were "dominant" and had been since 1930.

I make no claim myself.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 10:42 AM

"You objected when I had only made one post."
"If you have any evidence whatever to disprove, or even challenge anything I have put up - feel free to do so.
Otherwise, take your claims elsewhere."
Nothing whatever to do with "other" historians", just your conntinual denial without proof
And you still have not explained your attacks on Mick - which is the posting wich started this argument.
And you have yet to respond to respond to my reply to your 'nothing could be done statement - which is my only gripe with you here - not "other points of view".
By the way - your postings now are around 100 - twice as many as any other single individual.
Now will you respond to my answer - or are you going to continue to evade the facts of this discussion with this smokescreen.
One more time-
Jim Carroll
"You have yet to acknowledge the fact that the Russell government locked up enough food set aside by Peel to feed four times the Irish population in order not to effect a commercial market hell bent on selling food to an entirely impoverished population.
Also, as Kinealy pointed out, "large amounts of food continued to be exported from Ireland. In 1847 – 'Black '47' (third year of the famine) – 4,000 ships left Ireland, each carrying large cargoes of food to Britain."
Plenty of food available - no desire to supply it to those who needed it.
Russell exacerbated the situation by facilitating the eviction of 300,000 families and destroying their homes so the starved at the side of the road - his Home Secretary Wood made these evictions possible (in some cases necessary) by introducing a tax that would bankrupt small landlords and force them to evict) - Coogan seems to have hit the mark square on - revisionist, republican, IRA supporter or not!
I don't suppose for one minute you will in any way respond to this in any way, but thanks for the opportunity for my putting it up again - I'm sure others care if you don't"

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 10:40 AM

I flipped a coin this morning to see which of you is more stubborn. Keith heads and Jim tails. Keith won.

I looked up buddleia Jim. Growing out of chimneys you say? Very pretty flower.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 09:21 AM

You are lying - show me where I have ever objected "to the mainstream historical view being put" - attempted censorship is your game with your constant whinge of "thread drift"
My only objection is that you have dominated thish thread with over 90 postings,

You objected when I had only made one post.
Two sentences from a professional historian.
You told me to take his claim elsewhere, so you DID object to it.

I have not dominated this thread.
You have posted MANY TIMES more stuff than I have, and most of mine has just been refuting your attacks on me.

My sole contribution has been to quote a couple of historians.
WAHT IS YOUR PROBLEM?

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 08:57 AM

For the interest of anbody in doubt as to Kinealy's position on who was to blame for the famine and revisionism
Now there's an end t' it! - or should be
Incidentally, do you know that one of Britain's leading historians, A.J.P Taylor referred to the Famine as "England's Belsen" - wonder if he supported the IRA!!
Jim Carroll

"At one level she assumes the role of the Roy Foster of Famine history and at another the mantle of a modern Cecil Woodham-Smith. She will not like the first description, for Foster is the arch-revisionist, not a species that finds favour with Dr Kinealy, since revisionists seek to remove blame from considerations of Ireland's past and Kinealy is very strong on blame."
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/43

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 08:42 AM

Quickie means a hurried posting from me - , it was addersed directly to your no-one else involved - soory no help there.
"For that you call me "holocaust denier" and "agenda driven moron."
Which you are and continue to be - you have refused to answer every question that has been put to you. you have maligned historians
"That refers to Christine K who stated, with evidence, that revisionism is dominant and had been since 1930."
She has made her position perfectly clear; you have been given her stance and others on revisionism - by your argument she is accusing herself of revisionism
"You can not deny objecting to the mainstream historical view being put."
You are lying - show me where I have ever objected "to the mainstream historical view being put" - attempted censorship is your game with your constant whinge of "thread drift"
My only objection is that you have dominated thish thread with over 90 postings, have misrepresented and openly lied about the contributions of others, and said nothing whatever yourself. That is not discussion, that is trollism, which you have often accused others of in the past - unjustifiably and in order to get rid of the opposition - want me to supply some examples - only have to search through your postings for "troll" - you can easily do it yourself if you like.
You even deliberately trolled yourself once by posting support under a false name - wan't me to dig that one up too, I know where it is.
And just to remind you - you also accused Mick of the same thing you did me.
Now respond to my reply to your "little they could do."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 08:19 AM

Can anyone tell me what "Quickie" posted, and/or explain why they were deleted.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 08:09 AM

Instead of argument you have given us labels and slogans, "republican", "nationalist", "revisionist", "80 years out-of-date"....
invented garbage which you continue you dishonestly offer up instead of even a pretence of argument.

"republican", "nationalist", "revisionist", are all well understood terms Jim.
We have both used them, and so do all the historians.

"80 years out-of-date"....
That refers to Christine K who stated, with evidence, that revisionism is dominant and had been since 1930.

Nothing invented by me.
You are becoming increasingly desperate to malign me.
Let's stop now.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 08:00 AM

Jim, I keep telling you I am not qualified to debate history.
The professional historians who are, overwhelmingly do not agree with you and Coogan.

After pages and pages of one side of the story only, I posted a two sentence quote and link without comment from me.

For that you call me "holocaust denier" and "agenda driven moron."
You tell me to "take your claims elsewhere."

You can not deny objecting to the mainstream historical view being put.
You did.
You wanted it suppressed, censored, and taken "elsewhere."

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 07:50 AM

Quickie before I'm accused of dodging your question the way you have dodged all mine
You have yet to acknowledge the fact that the Russell government locked up enough food set aside by Peel to feed four times the Irish population in order not to effect a commercial market hell bent on selling food to an entirely impoverished population.
Also, as Kinealy pointed out, "large amounts of food continued to be exported from Ireland. In 1847 – 'Black '47' (third year of the famine) – 4,000 ships left Ireland, each carrying large cargoes of food to Britain."
Plenty of food available - no desire to supply it to those who needed it.
Russell exacerbated the situation by facilitating the eviction of 300,000 families and destroying their homes so the starved at the side of the road - his Home Secretary Wood made these evictions possible (in some cases necessary) by introducing a tax that would bankrupt small landlords and force them to evict) - Coogan seems to have hit the mark square on - revisionist, republican, IRA supporter or not!
I don't suppose for one minute you will in any way respond to this in any way, but thanks for the opportunity for my putting it up again - I'm sure others care if you don't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 05:31 AM

You have refused to qualify, or even acknowledge your accusations and you continue to lie abut them - "No abuse and name calling from me.", which is what I expected.
They stand as what they are, unjustified, unqualified and totally ignored (by you) inventions on your part.
I have been though your 95 postings to this thread; nowhere have you attempted to address or even acknowledge the undisputed facts of this subject - the closure of food stores, the policy to evict 3000 + families by taxation and to protect the evictors and home destroyers with armed police and soldiers, the shipping of food out of Ireland while a million starved, the locking up of grain in warehouses, the open contempt shown for Irish people by British officials and politicians.....
These are not opinions, they are historically documented facts known to all, historians and politicians alike.
You know this is true, which is why you have totally failed to respond to them - not even to deny them.
Instead you have clung to two or three historians, one of the main ones you have now rejected because she didn't make your case for you.
You now appear to be clinging to another one like a drunk around a lamp post, even though what he has to say has nothing to do with the proven facts of the famine.
Instead of argument you have given us labels and slogans, "republican", "nationalist", "revisionist", "80 years out-of-date"....
invented garbage which you continue you dishonestly offer up instead of even a pretence of argument.
Where have you even referred to any of these facts or attempted to disprove them - nowhere?
I have little doubt that you will continue to dominate this thread and will continue to offer nothing - this is trollism at its crudest.
Defend you ideas (if you have any) or show us where you already have defended them - give us one single example of where you have attempted to deal with any of the salient points of this subject - and stop lying about the serious contributors to this thread who care about it's subject and are not here on an attention-seeking ego trip.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 05:16 AM

My first post in full except the link.

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 15 Jul 13 - 10:04 AM

Another historical perpective.
"How culpable were the British ministers of the 1840s? They are charged with having given inadequate, limited relief because of their commitment to a doctrine of laissez faire. However, given the scale of the problem and the acute nature of the crisis once the harvest had failed for a second time in 1846, there was little they could do."

Jim, you responded by calling me a "holocaust denier" and "Not bothering to argue established facts with you Keith - been there before and it's a waste of time arguing with agenda-driven morons.
If you have any evidence whatever to disprove, or even challenge anything I have put up - feel free to do so.
Otherwise, take your claims elsewhere."

I just briefly gave one historian's view, and you tell me to go away.
It sounds like you really objected to that historian being quoted.
Even just 2 sentences!

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 04:48 AM

You continue accuse us of accepting the "nationalist line" even though you have produced no evidence that this line, which is accepted by virtually all historians, is in any way "nationalist"

I did not create the terms for the 2 versions.
I use them because they are understood and accepted by historians.
The difference is the degree of blame given.
You make clear that you do blame.

Doc K told us, with evidence, that revisionism is the dominant view of historians.
Why should we not believe her Jim.

If you really did not mind my quoting 2 historians, what have we been arguing about since my first post?
That was my only contribution?

Please do not keep asking me about historical events.
I leave that to the experts.

SJL, amen to that.
I am sorry that this discussion became an argument.
I have tried to post with respect and serious points only.
No abuse and name calling from me.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 03:11 AM

In our part of the world on the West Coast (I'm not Irish, but a 'blow-in Brit) the soil is clayey, undrainable and full of rocks and the Atlantic gales which create 60 mph fog out of the sea mist (according to a late friend) means that we can grown very little - we have to travel 20 miles to our local county town before we encounter trees in any significant number.
Probably our last view of a good flower display was on a recent visit to Central Dublin, where we saw the ubiquitous Buddleia growing out of the chimneys of many of the houses there.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 02:53 AM

And I remember you telling me how difficult it is to till your soil. I could only figure you'd work that hard if you were growing food. Not me with my flowers. All the same, watching things grow is something. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. Here in Central New York, you should see the things I've planted. Things that started as twigs. Forsythias and honeysuckles grown so high they are in the windows of the second story!

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 02:11 AM

"Remember, you have the luxury of debating this and many other things"
Thank you for that reminder SJL - we shouldn't need it, but we all-too-often do.
To fail to learn, understand, discuss and accurately represent our history is to disrespect the people you describe, to misrepresent their experiences, deliberately or otherwise, is to show disregard, even contempt for their sufferings and achievements.
Our history is not just 'a thing of the past', it is who we are and where we've been, and understanding that history will, or should decide where we, as human beings, go from here - an opportunity to get it right next time.
In relative terms, much of the history we are discussing here is actually not that old - in the course of our interest in oral history we met several people who knew some of those who were alive during the famine. The father of our local newsagent met an old woman in the south of this county (one of the places hardest hit) who was aged 16 at the time and remembered vividly and described her experiences to him.
It still makes me shudder to recall that it was during my lifetime that the Nazis deliberately drove six million Jews - and millions more non-Jews, into gas chambers or used them as human guinea pigs and slaves.
Thanks you for sharing some of your family's history - much appreciated.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 12:10 AM

I had the opportunity to attend a requiem service held in memory of the victims of the Holodomor at St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC in November of 2011. Fr. Ivan drove a few of us there. The new patriarch of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, His Beatitude Sviatoslav presided over the liturgy and made some very memorable remarks. He called starvation "The cheapest weapon of mass destruction in the world." He also said this (which I cut and pasted from a transcript):

"One woman who survived the famine in childhood, and who later was a prisoner in Auschwitz, comparing these two tortures said hunger is something far more terrible than the concentration camp, because even in the camp they were given something to eat. All those who miraculously survived the Holodomor unanimously say that hunger is something more terrible than even war, because one still had a chance to escape war, but from such artificial destruction of salvation there was virtually no chance."

I'm sharing this to make the point that setting things up so that people will starve is a relatively passive way to do them in compared with gas chambers designed for that purpose. And as Sviatoslav said, it's cheap. In fact, you can make a profit. The Soviet Union did and so did Britain. The Germans have always loved their technology and they're so impatient. Starving takes a little while. Don't get me wrong. They were plenty hungry in the concentration camps. Here's how I know:

My grandfather had a brother who remained on the old country. In Halychyna which was occupied by the Nazis. My great uncle was drafted into service and became a guard in a concentration camp. Janowska, one of the lesser ones. Well, anyway, he got shot (stealing food from the commissary and smuggling it to Polish Jews).

My dad told me that story. I remember well that very serious look in his eye that he'd get when he told a story like that. And he had several others. My dad was a great story teller. That one was relatively short. If there was a story about something he had actually witnessed, then there'd be tons and tons of detail so vivid, you'd remember it like you had lived it yourself. So many stories he had. A real seanchaí Jim :-)

Jim, Keith, had enough to eat today? Good. Remember, you have the luxury of debating this and many other things. If all you could think about was finding something to eat, you could think of nothing but. Life could be a lot rougher for any of us. Plenty of people still starving in this world.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6zT4Y-QNdto

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 08:41 PM

I will deal with your points in nibble-sized bites so you can ignore them one by one and be seen to do so.
"Jim, if you did not object to my quoting the two historians, I am happy to be wrong but why the abuse"
You have accused both Mike and I of "objecting to your quoting from the two histories" - you owe both of us apologies for having done so and if it is not to hide the fact that you have ignored every single point put to you, an explanation of your continuing appallingly dishonest behavior here.
You have ignored every request to produce examples to back up your claims. and even now you leave your accusation open. "if you did not object to my quoting the two historian....."
Where is your evidence of my doing so - what are your grounds for making this suggestion - where at any time have either Mike and I ever "objected" to what anybody has written, where have either of us ever advocated "censorship" or "suppression of discussion" (you can take this entire forum for your examples)?
"but why the abuse?"
If there is any "abuse" it is based on the fact that you have persistently ignored the points that have been made, you have persistently misrepresented what others have said (please - please ask me to provide examples), and you have denied ever making any accusations (want me to cut-'n paste where you have done this?)
You have dismissed every single point in opposition to your 'line', you have ignored virtually every piece of evidence that doesn't back you up as being as being "republican", "nationalist, "revisionist", "going against what all modern historians believe" and "80 years out-of-date", and now you are claiming you are only "putting both sides of the debate".. You are the only one arguing the line you are peddling here and you have dismissed out of hand every other point of view that is not coincide with your own.
You continue accuse us of accepting the "nationalist line" even though you have produced no evidence that this line, which is accepted by virtually all historians, is in any way "nationalist"
I can't speak for others, but if you have any basis for your claims of "suppression" or "censorship" - both of which you have denied making, "I have not and do not accuse you of anything." please present them now or withdraw them with an apology.
You might add to my annoyance that you have just been presented with a whole posting of facts which you have ignored a number of fully accepted, documented facts ""the government supported eviction of 109,000 families......." (02 Aug 13 - 12:18 PM)
You refuse to respond to these facts and you will continue to refuse to respond to these facts - which is fine, that you continue to do so merely underlines your total lack of evidence - you have not made a case and you will continue not to make a case.
Now, my nationalism, revisionism, support for republicanism, my and Mike's advocating suppression and censorship....
and everything you have accused me/us of and denied having done so - or a withdrawal and apology - neither of which I expect, which, as I say, speaks for itself.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 03:36 PM

No surprise that The Republican loved Coogan's book.

Liam Kennedy, Professor Emeritus of Economic & Social History at Queens University Belfast thinks it is shite.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 03:31 PM

Jim, if you did not object to my quoting the two historians, I am happy to be wrong but why the abuse?

The 95 HI piece from Christine K was a gift to me because it agreed with my quotes and stated that revisionism had been dominant for 80 years.
You rubbished her and I pasted her biog from Irish American.
No praise from me.

I admit I was surprised that her book took the opposite view, but never "vilified" her for it.
You would have every right to abuse me if I did.

I am not going to argue points of history.
I do not have that knowledge.

It is the truth that my sole contribution was to allow the other side to be put.
Now that you have stated you do not object, we have nothing to argue about.
We can discuss it without you calling me insulting, abusive names any more.
Like grown ups.

Mick, I think Blair is a cynical politician and not any kind of historian.
What is your opinion of him?

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 03:14 PM

While Keith is deciding to reply – or not – a review of Coogan's book and 'The Graves are Walking' by John Kelly from the "Republican", no doubt Economist Dec 12th 2012 (80 years out-of-date!!)
Jim Carroll

OPENING OLD WOUNDS .
"The Graves are Walking" by John Kelly, a historian and popular science writer, is an engrossing narrative of the famine, vividly detailing Victorian society and the historical phenomena (natural and man-made) that converged to form the disaster. The decimation of the potato crop in the 1840s brought on the danger of mass starvation, but it was the British response that perpetuated the tragedy. The hand of nature, as illustrated in both books, caused only part of the problem."
"Both authors describe the folly and cruelty of Victorian British policy towards its near-forsaken neighbour in detail. The British government, led by Sir Charles Trevelyan, assistant secretary to the Treasury (dubbed the "Victorian Cromwell"), appeared far more concerned with modernising Ireland's economy and reforming its people's "aboriginal" nature than with saving lives. Ireland became the unfortunate test case for a new Victorian zeal for free market principles, self-help, and ideas about nation-building……"
" But wages were often not enough to match the high food prices enforced by Trevelyan as a measure to attract imports to Ireland, especially from America……"
"The belief that the famine was God's intention also guided much of Britain's policy. They viewed the crop failures as "a Visitation of Providence, an expression of divine displeasure" with Ireland and its mostly Catholic peasant population, writes Mr Kelly. Poverty was considered a moral failure. Within a few years Irish immigrants flooded the port cities of Liverpool in England, Montreal and Quebec in Canada and New York. The emigrant was considered an object of horror and contempt, as Mr Kelly writes: "pedestrians turned and walked the other way; storekeepers bolted the door or picked up a broom; street urchins mocked his shoeless feet, filthy clothing and Gaelic-accented English." Throughout the book, Mr Kelly bemoans the tragic effects of human folly, neglect and Victorian ideology in causing the famine and its aftermath. He rejects the charge of genocide. Tim Pat Coogan, however, takes a more radical view in "The Famine Plot"……"
"His most compelling argument for British negligence is in the final chapter, in which he recalls the xenophobic images and words commonly used to caricature the Irish in Victorian England. Trevelyan and other architects of the famine response had a direct hand in filling the newspapers with the "oft-repeated theme that the famine was the result of a flaw in the Irish character." And Punch, a satirical magazine, regularly portrayed "'Paddy' as a simian in a tailcoat and a derby, engaged in plotting murder, battening on the labour of the English workingman, and generally living a life of indolent treason," explains Mr Coogan. The result of such dehumanising propaganda was to make unreasonable policy seem more reasonable and just……"
"The question remains as to whether misguided ideology of a previous era can be found culpable of a greater evil. Mr Kelly's engrossing book lays out the evidence but stops short of calling it genocide. Mr Coogan's opinion that the famine was genocide is clear. But both books make a compelling case for why we should revisit our current understanding of it……"
http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/12/irish-famine
http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/12/irish-famine

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: mayomick
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 01:20 PM

"even the politicians have gone as far as to apologise for them."

There wasn't a single objection that I can recall from any political party in the UK to the wording of the apology - which would certainly have to have been approved in advance by the British monarch and the Privy Council.Perhaps the extreme right wing parties linked to Ulster loyalism said something nasty at the time, but nothing that I can remember . I don't recall any academic opposition to the apology.

Keith do you think that the apology was sincere ? If you think it was, then you should take up your points of disagreements with your own government . Or perhaps you think the apology wasn't sincere at all and that it was just made for the sake of political expediency. If that's the case it's a again matter to take up with the UK government.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 12:18 PM

"You are clearly an advocate of the nationalist school of thought then Jim."
" not distortions of positions (NOT GUILTY),"
"Is it wrong to air both sides of a debate It certainly made Jim angry, and Mayomick too.?"
Where?
"YOU DID NOT APPROVE OF CERTAIN HISTORIANS BEING QUOTED"
Where?
"no praising to the skies"
You have based the vast majority of your argument on Kinealy's findings until the production of her apportioning of the blame to the Russell Government's policy, when she suddenly "changed her mind" - she did not and you have failed to even attempt to show that she did.
Her statement is totally in line with those of every other historian writing on the famine.
"MY POSITION HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY CONSTANT AND UNCHANGING-2 SIDES TO THE DEBATE)"
Except your hot-cold relationship with Kinealy and your changing your dismissive and inaccurate rejection of opposing arguments as "revisionist", republican" and "80 years out-of-date" to "I'm only giving the other point of view.
You now appear to be saying, contrary to your former dismissal of "Republican" revisionism, that all modern historians are "revisionists" - now that's a turn-up for the book.
You have throughout, and continue to describe views condemning Russell's Government as "republican", "Revisionist" and "80 years out-of-date"
From your last posting - "You are clearly an advocate of the nationalist school of thought then Jim".
My stated views are those of the vast majority of historians writing on the subject - I deeply distrust nationalism and have pointed this out to you on numerous occasions (so in addition you are calling me a liar)
I leave nationalism to flag-waving apologists such as yourself.
"then vilifying of respected and skilful historians(NEVER DONE THAT EITHER"
You have accused a prominent historian (poor old Chrissie again) of writing four books on the famine and then changing her mind on one of its most fundamental features - vilification enough for me, or is that what good historians do?
You have been presented with a set of accurate, documented and fully established historical facts.
Rather than calling them "nationalist", "republican" and "revisionist", why not demolish them one-by-one - they are historical facts - if you would prefer, I am quite happy to put them up one by one so they are not "too long and boring" - a quote of yours from elsewhere.
Here's your starter for ten"
"the government supported eviction of 109,000 families carried out with military and police assistance, the deliberate destruction of homes so the people could not return to them"
To which I would only add that in some cases those evictions became necessary to small landlords because of a property tax deliberately imposed by the Home Secretary, Charles Wood, on all landlords when the famine was at its height so that "Ireland should stand on her own two feet and not rely on British support".
Please let me know if you have any problems understanding the statement here.
I don't expect an honest reply to this, nor to any other point I have made, which is a reply in itself
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 09:57 AM

You are clearly an advocate of the nationalist school of thought then Jim.
I do not feel qualified to judge, but I am impressed by the fact that revisionism has long been the dominant view of actual historians.

Now the personal stuff.
Everyone else can stop reading now.

" not distortions of positions (NOT GUILTY), no unqualified then ignored accusations of "censorship", or "suppression"(YOU DID NOT APPROVE OF CERTAIN HISTORIANS BEING QUOTED), no hidden agendas (I HAVE NONE), no screeching u-turns and changes-of-direction in midstream MY POSITION HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY CONSTANT AND UNCHANGING-2 SIDES TO THE DEBATE), no praising to the skies(NOT GUILTY) then vilifying of respected and skilful historians(NEVER DONE THAT EITHER)..... in fact, a discussion on which one can make up their own mind on what is said rather than what is claimed to have been said.(AMEN.)

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 09:20 AM

"How debate should be."
Indeed it should, not distortions of positions, no unqualified then ignored accusations of "censorship", or "suppression", no hidden agendas, no screeching u-turns and changes-of-direction in midstream, no praising to the skies then vilifying of respected and skilful historians..... in fact, a discussion on which one can make up their own mind on what is said rather than what is claimed to have been said.
The point Kennedy makes is a relevant one; "I can't think of a single historian who has researched the Famine in depth – and Tim Pat has not researched it in depth."
Strictly, this in not entirely accurate, Kinealy makes a fair job of having done so and she appears to have no particular agenda in doing, but a single extensive major work on the Famine has yet to be written; the subject, along with the continuing repercussions means it probably never shall be – it is very much a story still unfolding.
That Coogan distances himself from academic historians is an essential part of the history of historical research and goes back at least as far as the time what everybody believed the world was flat – Galileo was tortured for suggesting that the earth circled the sun, rather than the opposite way round, as was believed.
This debate is purely about whether the Famine can be described as a Holocaust, nothing more; as I've said, the jury is still out on that one.
Nowhere does Kennedy attempt, here or in any of his other writings, to deny the closing down of grain stores, the govern supported eviction of 109,000 families carried out with military and police assistance, the deliberate destruction of homes so the people could not return to them, the fact that, as Kinealy pointed out "large amounts of food continued to be exported from Ireland" and "In 1847 – 'Black '47' – 4,000 ships left Ireland, each carrying large cargoes of food to Britain", that while the million were dying there was enough food locked away in warehouses to deed the population four times over, that Tevelyan made it public knowledge in his own writings that he regarded the Irish as being "punished for their sins by God", making him the last person in the world to be given the job of distributing famine relief.
Nowhere else are any of these facts disputed, by "revisionist" or any other type of historian.
Deliberate intention aside, any one of these (unchallenged) facts makes the end result of the famine at least malicious neglect by the British authorities, leaving the possibility that it was ethnic cleansing and maybe genocide (certainly by today's definition of the term).
However many out-of-context cut-'n-pastes are supplied to score points, none of the facts of British actions at the time are in any way questioned by today's historians – even the politicians have gone as far as to apologise for them.
As far as I'm concerned it was a crime against humanity, it remains to be seen whether it was a deliberate act, - murder or just manslaughter.
Jim Carroll   
My copy of Coogan's 'The Famine Plot' has just landed on the doormat via The Book Depository, gawd bless them; (means I won't be watching 'River of No Return' tonight – damn! I was looking to it)
More later probably.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:48 AM

Accusations?
I have not and do not accuse you of anything.
You clearly do object to my contribution here, or why the abuse?
That contribution has been solely to quote a couple of historians, and to defend doing so.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:35 AM

How debate should be.
Coogan and Kennedy discuss Coogan's book.
Coogan distances himself from "academic historians."

http://www.drb.ie/blog/writers-and-artists/2013/02/25/was-the-famine-a-genocide-

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:32 AM

No explanation of your accusation then - didn't think so - it seems I underestimated your hidden depths.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 06:59 AM

I ended my post with your quote so you got "the last word" Jim.

Liam Kennedy.
But to narrow the focus simply to the role of the British government for a moment: for all the massive irresponsibility and buck-passing that characterised the five years of crisis, the state succeeded in organising public relief schemes that employed three-quarters of a million workers, and at one point was responsible for feeding three million people on a daily basis.

These are not the actions of a Government or a state bent on genocide.

http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/irishhistorylive/IrishHistoryResources/ArticlesandLectures/TheGreatIrishFamineandtheHolocaust/

(bear with me on this for a moment please)

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 05:30 AM

A thought.
It occurred to me earlier that you might, just might be twisting this into a claim that I am "objecting to your putting quotes from historians" - I dismissed the idea on the basis that not even you would go that far to distort what somebody said.
Your question was "Do you deny......"
My answer was, "Yes I bloody well do".
If this has been your purpose for consistently putting this up, please confirm, otherwise, be good enough explain your meaning.
Please read what people write - this includes reading your own postings I'm afraid.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 04:58 AM

""Do you deny objecting to my putting quotes from revisionist historians Jim."
Yes I bloody well do."
If any friendly passing soul understands the point being made here, I would be extremely grateful for an explanation - I certainly haven't a clue what it is
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 04:51 AM

I have nothing to qualify or withdraw.
I only quoted a couple historians.
For that I am called liar, clown, racist and arsehole.

"Do you deny objecting to my putting quotes from revisionist historians Jim."

Yes I bloody well do.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 03:50 AM

"It certainly made Jim angry, and Mayomick too."
I really think you have taken this as low as it can get Keith.
Anybody reading this is is well able to decide whether whether you have lied or not about the contributions of others, they are also more than capable to decide on the merits of all the arguments put forward, but to continue this farce really does take it beyond the pale. It seems to have become a game of winning or losing with you, rather than the exchange of opinions and information it should be.
Neither I, Mick or anybody else has objected to putting "both sides of the debate", "suppressing" or "censoring".
I contribute to this forum to exchange opinions of others and to give my own and I assume Mick does too.
I won't ask you either to qualify or withdraw what you have just written - you don't do that sort of thing, but I suggest you leave it there - you really have said enough.
I'll leave you to have your customary last word.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 02:34 AM

Thank you (I think?)

I have admitted my own ignorance, but the historians I quoted can not be called ignorant.
And that is all I have done here.

The version put forward by everyone else here is disputed.
Is it wrong to air both sides of a debate?

It certainly made Jim angry, and Mayomick too.
Why?

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: mg
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 09:25 PM

Oh for heavens sakes, he has not lied. He might be ignorant, wrong, pig-headed, whatever, but there is no need to question his or anyone's honesty.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 02:02 PM

I have not and would not malign Dr. K.
You did. I provided a biog of her, and very impressive it is.

That 95 piece you hated said the government could not be blamed.
Her book said it could.
It also said that revisionism was the dominant view and had been for 80 years.
I do not believe she has withdrawn that statement of fact.

I take it we are not going to get an explanation for your extraordinary behaviour regarding your accusations

I thought I had.
Just specify what you want.

you have lied and you have walked away from that lie

And you are a bore.
I don't lie.
Produce one or give it up.

I don't suppose you'd care to show us where and why she "changed her mind" so radically

In 95 HI.
". Moreover, both the landlords and the British government have been rehabilitated; the former frequently being shown as hapless victims themselves, and the latter, as being ignorant of the real state of affairs in Ireland, and lacking both the financial and administrative capability to alleviate the situation anyway.
The arguments regarding the role of the British government are not sustainable. In the summer of 1847, in the wake of the almost total second failure of the potato crop, the British government established soup kitchens throughout Ireland. At the peak of this scheme, over three million people, that is, forty per cent of the population, were receiving free rations of food daily from the soup kitchens (which, even by the standard of contemporary famines, is a tremendous logistical achievement). To make this possible, a comprehensive and nation-wide machinery was created within Ireland in the space of only a few months. As a consequence of this scheme, mortality began to fall as, for the first and only time during the Famine, the problem of hunger was confronted directly"

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 11:24 AM

I take it we are not going to get an explanation for your extraordinary behaviour regarding your accusations - nor am I going to get either a qualification nor an apology
Fine - you have lied and you have walked away from that lie - must check how many penalty points that constitutes.
And now you are going to tell us that you never lie - another lie.
"You told me there was no such person"
Bump - another one - I doubted that she was one of your "prominent historians" as I had never heard of her and asked you for a link.
"Not a historian then, so we can't add her to your elusive-enough to be non-existent list of "qualified historians"?"
I then immediately wrote, correcting my ignorance of her, "Don't bother with that link Keith - I found her and she seems to have taken a line that you have described as 80 years out-of-date - a republican revisionist maybe."
"She changed her view between writhing the HI piece and publishing her book."
That is a total fabrication - she had written four books on the Irish famine between the years 1994 and 2002 - her piece in History Ireland was written in 1995.
I don't suppose you'd care to show us where and why she "changed her mind" so radically - no - of course you wouln't; once more you are making up "facts" to cover your own idiocy.
She did not "change her mind" - everything you, I and everybody else here have produced of her statements are perfectly consistent
Her original statement, as has been pointed out, referred to the Peel Government's response to the famine - there's never been a dispute about that; as Alan Conn pointed out:
"The excess mortality in that period can, fairly and squarely, be laid at the door of the Lord John Russell's government"
She was right in her first statement and she continues to be right.
You are manipulating researched historical facts to disguise your total ignorance on this subject.
One minute you are extolling Kinealy's virtues, and then, when you find her findings don't fit your argument, she becomes a dithering moron.
It is despicable that you should malign your main source of information by accusing her of of having "changed her mind" and to lay the blame for your having used her name on another member of this forum.
You say you are not a historian, yet your attacks on Kinealy and other writers/historians seem to indicate that you are not even willing to learn from their researches.
Are there no lengths to which you will go to absolve yourself from being wrong?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 08:43 AM


You have, throughout this thread, attempted to absolve Britain from any blame whatever for the outcome of the Famine.

No. I just quoted some historians.

Your claims on Christine Kinealy's stance on this subject has totally fallen to pieces, so much so you appear to be arguing that her statement on Wike has been faked - "Do you know who wrote that Wiki page?"

No. In that HI piece she took a revisionist stance.
Her later book did not.
The Wiki quote from that book was genuine I am sure, but you can not rely on Wiki to be objective.
Anyone can and does put stuff on there.

You now appear to be blaming somebody else for putting something up that you have claimed to believe in - Grumpy in this case.

No. He provided the link to Doc K.
I had not even heard of her before, and neither had you.(You told me there was no such person!)

And now you are paying tribute to a magazine edited by Tommy Graham of all people!
No tribute.
It is a recognised historical journal.
It publishes stuff by proper historians is all I said.
Whoever the editor, it is neutral.

Your bafflement at what you perceive to be contradictory positions taken by Dr Kineally in regards to revisionism shows that you simply don't understand how the word "revisionism" is used in Irish historical studies.
No.
She changed her view between writhing the HI piece and publishing her book.
No bafflement.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 08:11 AM

You are attempting to deny the position you have taken here on both counts
I DENY I HAVE OBJECTED TO YOUR PUTTING ANY POINT OF VIEW
I DENY EVER HAVING OBJECTED TO ANYBODY PUTTING ANY POINT OF VIEW
I DENY EVER HAVING ATTEMPTED TO SUPPRESS OR CENSOR ANYTHING ON THIS FORUM AT ANY TIME OR ON ANY THREAD
HAVE YOU COMPLETELY FLIPPED - WHAT IS YOUR POINT - WHERE ARE YOU ATTEMPTING TO TAKE THIS?

You have, throughout this thread, attempted to absolve Britain from any blame whatever for the outcome of the Famine.
You have described those who disagree with you as "anti-British", "revisionsist", Irish Republican supporters, IRA supporters, 80 years out of date.... and a whole host of other things.
Your claims on Christine Kinealy's stance on this subject has totally fallen to pieces, so much so you appear to be arguing that her statement on Wike has been faked - "Do you know who wrote that Wiki page?"
You have been given another article by her saying the same thing, which you have totally failed to acknowledge
http://www.ballinagree.freeservers.com/knealy.html
You now appear to be blaming somebody else for putting something up that you have claimed to believe in - Grumpy in this case.
We appear to be back to Jack Straw and your claims of cultural implants.
You are a total mess, dishonest and self confessedly ignorant
What the hell is wrong with you.
If you can't argue on these subjects honestly, articulately and with some degree of genuine interest and knowledge - why bother attempting to dominate them the way you persist on doing?
You have insisted on having the last word on virtually every thread you have become involved in, you will no doubt do the same here.
If you know nothing of these subjects, find out about them - that is what debate should be about.
Jim Carroll