Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Real Irish American Story Not Taught in Schools
"Wear green on St. Patrick's Day or get pinched." That pretty much sums up the Irish American "curriculum" that I learned when I was in school. Yes, I recall a nod to the so-called Potato Famine, but it was mentioned only in passing.
What is not often taught in schools or known by the many who routinely celebrate St. Patrick's Day, is that throughout the Irish 'Potato famine' there was an abundance of food produced in Ireland, yet the landlords exported it to markets abroad.
Sadly, today's high school textbooks continue to largely ignore the famine, despite the fact that it was responsible for unimaginable suffering and the deaths of more than a million Irish peasants, and that it triggered the greatest wave of Irish immigration in U.S. history. Nor do textbooks make any attempt to help students link famines past and present.
Yet there is no shortage of material that can bring these dramatic events to life in the classroom. In my own high school social studies classes, I begin with Sinead O'Connor's haunting rendition of "Skibbereen," which includes the verse:
... Oh it's well I do remember, that bleak
December day,
The landlord and the sheriff came, to drive
Us all away
They set my roof on fire, with their cursed
English spleen
And that's another reason why I left old
Skibbereen.
By contrast, Holt McDougal's U.S. history textbook The Americans, devotes a flat two sentences to "The Great Potato Famine." Prentice Hall's America: Pathways to the Present fails to offer a single quote from the time. The text calls the famine a "horrible disaster," as if it were a natural calamity like an earthquake. And in an awful single paragraph, Houghton Mifflin's The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People blames the "ravages of famine" simply on "a blight," and the only contemporaneous quote comes, inappropriately, from a landlord, who describes the surviving tenants as "famished and ghastly skeletons." Uniformly, social studies textbooks fail to allow the Irish to speak for themselves, to narrate their own horror.
These timid slivers of knowledge not only deprive students of rich lessons in Irish-American history -- they exemplify much of what is wrong with today's curricular reliance on corporate-produced textbooks.
First, does anyone really think that students will remember anything from the books' dull and lifeless paragraphs? Today's textbooks contain no stories of actual people. We meet no one, learn nothing of anyone's life, encounter no injustice, no resistance. This is a curriculum bound for boredom. As someone who spent almost 30 years teaching high school social studies, I can testify that students will be unlikely to seek to learn more about events so emptied of drama, emotion, and humanity.
Nor do these texts raise any critical questions for students to consider. For example, it's important for students to learn that the crop failure in Ireland affected only the potato -- during the worst famine years, other food production was robust. Michael Pollan notes in The Botany of Desire, "Ireland's was surely the biggest experiment in monoculture ever attempted and surely the most convincing proof of its folly." But if only this one variety of potato, the Lumper, failed, and other crops thrived, why did people starve?
Thomas Gallagher points out in Paddy's Lament, that during the first winter of famine, 1846-47, as perhaps 400,000 Irish peasants starved, landlords exported 17 million pounds sterling worth of grain, cattle, pigs, flour, eggs, and poultry -- food that could have prevented those deaths. Throughout the famine, as Gallagher notes, there was an abundance of food produced in Ireland, yet the landlords exported it to markets abroad.
The school curriculum could and should ask students to reflect on the contradiction of starvation amidst plenty, on the ethics of food exports amidst famine. And it should ask why these patterns persist into our own time.
More than a century and a half after the "Great Famine," we live with similar, perhaps even more glaring contradictions. Raj Patel opens his book, Stuffed and Starved: Markets, Power and the Hidden Battle for the World's Food System: "Today, when we produce more food than ever before, more than one in ten people on Earth are hungry. The hunger of 800 million happens at the same time as another historical first: that they are outnumbered by the one billion people on this planet who are overweight."
Patel's book sets out to account for "the rot at the core of the modern food system." This is a curricular journey that our students should also be on -- reflecting on patterns of poverty, power, and inequality that stretch from 19th-century Ireland to 21st-century Africa, India, Appalachia, and Oakland -- that explore what happens when food and land are regarded purely as commodities in a global system of profit.
But today's corporate textbook-producers are no more interested in feeding student curiosity about this inequality than were British landlords interested in feeding Irish peasants. Take Pearson, the global publishing giant. At its website, the corporation announces (redundantly) that "we measure our progress against three key measures: earnings, cash and return on invested capital." The Pearson empire had 2011 worldwide sales of more than $9 billion -- that's nine thousand million dollars, as I might tell my students. Multinationals like Pearson have no interest in promoting critical thinking about an economic system whose profit-first premises they embrace with gusto.
As mentioned, there is no absence of teaching materials on the Irish famine that can touch head and heart. In a role play, "Hunger on Trial," that I wrote and taught to my own students in Portland, Ore. -- included at the Zinn Education Project website -- students investigate who or what was responsible for the famine. The British landlords, who demanded rent from the starving poor and exported other food crops? The British government, which allowed these food exports and offered scant aid to Irish peasants? The Anglican Church, which failed to denounce selfish landlords or to act on behalf of the poor? A system of distribution, which sacrificed Irish peasants to the logic of colonialism and the capitalist market?
These are rich and troubling ethical questions. They are exactly the kind of issues that fire students to life and allow them to see that history is not simply a chronology of dead facts stretching through time.
So go ahead: Have a Guinness, wear a bit of green, and put on the Chieftains. But let's honor the Irish with our curiosity. Let's make sure that our schools show some respect, by studying the social forces that starved and uprooted over a million Irish -- and that are starving and uprooting people today.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...




107 Comments so far
Show AllFrom the book "Punishment and political order" by Keally D. McBride:
***>>>
Roger Ekrich’s research provides a sketch of the practice. In the years between 1749 and 1771, 40 percent of those convicted of crimes at Old Bailey were transported into the American colonies.Other research takes a longer period of focus and finds that between 1729 and 1770, 70 percent of convicts from Old Bailey were transported to the colonies. Clearly, the practice fundamentally changed criminal punishment in England as well as immigration into the colonies. Most notoriously, James Oglethorpe arranged for 16,000 debtors to be released from prison to go and settle in the newly founded colony of Georgia.
In the eighteenth century, one-quarter of all immigrants from England and Ireland into the American colonies were convicts.
The practice was wildly profitable, almost as much as the slave trade. Jonathan Forward was the London merchant who had a virtual monopoly on transport from 1718 until 1738. The criminal justice system handed convicts over to Forward, who then loaded them into boats and shipped them to the American colonies. Upon arrival in North America, he sold the convicts to plantation owners, or any other masters, who would be able to use their labor for either seven or fourteen years depending upon their crime.
Plantation owners liked to buy convicts, because they cost much less than a slave. The average cost of a slave was 50 pounds for an adult, while it was a mere 12 to 15 pounds for a convict. Because of procreation and permanent enslavement, the long-term economy of slaves may have been better. But because they were a short-term investment, convicts did not have to be treated as well. Fifty percent of convict laborers died within seven years, suggesting that they were worked to death.
The reason convict labor was relatively inexpensive was that the transporters did not have to pay for their cargo as did slave traders, and they capitalized grandly upon the voyage back home as well. The government handed convicts over to the merchants for free, happy to be rid of the expense of execution or detainment. Balak and Lave closely examined the political economy of convict transportation and found that the profitability was also due to the “return cargo” such as sugar, tobacco, and cotton that they brought back to London.
This was a crucial factor in perpetuating the practice: transportation to the colonies of Canada failed when the War of Independence made transport impossible into the United States. Because there weren’t as many products available in Canada to make the return trip profitable, the transportation of convict labor across the Atlantic ceased to be a venture that attracted London businessmen.
Hence, the transport of convicts was a lucrative business that intersected well with the development of colonial products. The English criminal system soon found that transportation was an ideal solution to the overcrowding of jails. Between 1720 and 1765 Parliament passed sixteen different laws making transportation the required punishment for different crimes. This historical case study suggests that the practice of punishment at the time was developed according to economic principles, as Rusche and Kirschheimer argue throughout their classic book Punishment and Social Structure. From the galley slave system to transportation, one can see how England used the penal code as a way to promote imperial ambitions.
The transportation system allowed merchants to profit from the crime wave that accompanied industrialization in England, helped people the colonies, provided labor for tasks that even indentured servants were loath to take on, and provided an inexpensive way for England to rid itself of the “criminal classes” without having to kill them off one by one. Presented with a choice of execution or exile, convicts found little to resent in transportation. ...
Intransigent in many things, England continued to try to ship convicts to the United States even after independence. In 1787, the Continental Congress passed a resolution urging all states to ban the transport of convicts from Britain as soon as possible.
In Britain, the sudden closing of their primary release valve for the criminal justice system caused crisis and soul-searching. In 1779, Britain passed a resolution calling for transportation to resume elsewhere. When transport to Canada proved to be unfeasible for economic reasons, Lord Beauchamp was appointed to prepare reports examining the possibility of transport to other regions.
In a report to Parliament in 1785 entitled “Recommendations for the Disposal of Convicts,” Beauchamp noted the overcrowding of jails, which were bursting with prisoners who had been sentenced to transportation many years earlier but had
not been able to be transported due to the American Revolution. Beauchamp suggests that transportation has the disadvantage of not providing the example to discourage future crime, since “his Sufferings are unseen. . . . His Chasm is soon filled up, and, being as soon forgotten, it strikes no Terror into the Minds of those for whose Correction it was intended to operate, though the Public may gain very importantly by his Removal.”
Nonetheless, the Lord recommends a coast of Africa (present day Namibia), which has a favorable climate and “A vein of Copper Ore which contains one third of pure metal,” and furthermore would be an excellent stopping place for those returning to England from India. To establish the colony, the Lord suggests they land convicts in November as “they will have the whole Summer to raise Habitations, and make other preparations for their future Subsistence and Security.”
Happily, the administration of these convicts can be accomplished by loyalists from America who “are desirous of settling in any healthy Part of the Globe where they can rely upon the protection of the British Government.” Ideally, the colony would flourish and become the destination for all transportation and emigrants from England. They hoped to provide ample economic opportunities for British subjects to remain under the protection of the Crown, rather than being tempted to go to the United States.
New South Wales, Australia, became the location of choice instead, due to the fact that Namibia was considered “sandy and barren, and from other causes unfit for settlement,” but the logic behind the argument for Namibia is revealing nonetheless. One can see the colonial administration at work, trying to gain “The greatest national Advantages” from the system of criminal justice.
<<<***
Fascinating. While I was aware of the Indentured Servant system in the Colonies, I did not know that the pecentage of these discarded criminals from the UK was SO high.... it actually makes some sense when one tries to figure out just HOW things have been, and still are, SO screwed up in USAn society.
Apparently, the further back one has to go to find "the immigrant" establishing the family line in the British North American Colonies, the less prestigious it is. Ha! Penis Cheney and the bush Gang are just (2) that have the audacity to claim deep roots and just look at their criminality.....
I'm sorry, sLiMsHaDy, the point of my post was not THAT! At all! :)
My point was to draw attention to the brutal mindset of the British elite that thought nothing of shipping off HUMAN BEINGS to far away lands, because of whatever "crimes" they might have committed -- "crimes" that would have been less likely to have occurred if the elite had not pushed these people off of their lands in the first place!
And to draw attention to their ruthless use of their "famed" legal system where the laws themselves were drawn up and updated to suit the elite agenda, to pursue their imperial and colonial objectives by shipping off convicts to other lands, putting them to work there to colonize those lands.
And to point to the calculations that went into selecting such places for their penal colony, and how quick they were to "adapt" when it became suddenly impossible to send people to the USA after 1776.
And the machine-like ruthless calculation and implementation of a policy when they tried to "balance" the male-female ratio in Australia by sending more young women during a particular period.
And how all this shipping off of people came to a stop when it was felt that they had enough people in Australia.
In other words, I wanted to take a peek at the minds of the British elite -- sort of like analyzing a criminal's mind. Except, the bigger criminals here were convicting **others** for minor crimes, while managing to appear "civilized" and enjoying their "beautiful British countryside".
Alcyon; no apology necessary, I think that it works out right BOTH ways.
There is no doubt that the British elites of that time worked their evil machinations in the manner described. There is also quite a good chance that many of the "convicts" were products of their experience and treatment, and that unfortunate brew is what the early populace consisted of. It helps explain alot of the bad behavior exhibited by the colonials and how the worst of them came to dominate.
Perhaps I am just peeking into the mindset of the colonial and forward USAn elite whereas you are examining the Brit set that sent them over here!
One thing that just struck me is the parallel between the profitable nature of transporting the convicts (for the transporters and for the buyers) and today's for-profit private prison industry in the USA, and how the "justice" system went along / goes along with it. And the way the elite found to maintain "order" in the society: by locking people up or by getting rid of those judged to be "criminals", instead of trying to do something about the underlying causes for the "crimes".
Yes, rather sick isn't it. That whole concept of private prisons is really disgraceful and psycho.