The Irish Famine in American School Curricula

Eire-Ireland:Journal of Irish Studies, Spring-Summer, 2002 by Thomas J. Archdeacon

Kerr expressed concern that "[t]his battle over history has echoes in today's political argument over the future of an island of conflicting loyalties." "Surely what matters now," he added, "is not to re-open the wounds of the Famine, not to try to ascribe more clear-cut responsibility than the historians allow, but rather to work together for a better future in Northern Ireland, in which the 20th century tragedy of bombs and guns will also become a subject of discussion only among historians." Advising Pataki that the governments of England and Ireland were seeking reconciliation, Kerr concluded, "I hope New York schools will teach that too." (41)

Concern over Northern Ireland remains high on the British agenda regarding what Americans learn about the famine. A cordial conversation turned testy when I asked spokespersons at the British Consulate in New York if Her Majesty's government was concerned that the inclusion of the famine in school curricula could have policy implications regarding the North. Construing my comment in a way other than I intended, they sternly responded that nothing--presumably nothing emanating from the United States--would change British policy. When I clarified what I meant, they conceded that the United Kingdom was naturally concerned that "Brit bashing" by Irish Americans could create "misperceptions" in the United States. (42)

Not surprisingly, persons involved in the curriculum movement and in other initiatives to call attention to the dark side of British policy during the famine era rarely are Unionists. James Mullin describes himself as a "nationalist" but an opponent of violence. Jack Worrall believes that self-defense is sometimes a necessity and accepts the label "republican." (43) They deny, however, that their efforts regarding the curriculum in New Jersey reflect any direct agenda regarding the North. Governor Pataki would likewise make it clear in his eventual response to Ambassador Kerr that his administration viewed inclusion of the famine in the curriculum as a matter separate from Northern Ireland. New York's always lively Daily News moved to Pataki's defense, with the suggestion that Kerr was having a "hissy fit." England's inadequate response to the crisis was at best "monumentally stupid," and its historic mistreatment of Ireland made it "no mystery as to why the word 'genocide' creeps into discussions of the famine." The editors advised the ambassador, "With all due respect, Excellency: Put a sock in it." (44)

Other news organizations were not as supportive of Pataki. The issues raised followed lines of argument cited earlier in connection with the New Jersey initiative. The Trenton Times claimed that the Holocaust was "an event unique in world history" and that "arbitrarily resurrecting an ancient group grievance" such as the Irish Famine reflected a "current fascination with group grievances" that would "dilute" the New Jersey curriculum's effectiveness. (45) Rupert Murdoch's New York Post editorially condemned the New York legislation as an "Irish-American quest for victimhood." The Post urged that the Irish instead "hold themselves up as an example to others" of overcoming the obstacles faced by one's ancestors. (46) The Times of London lumped Pataki among those politicians "who play on people's ignorance to grub ethnic votes." (47)