From Email Patrick O'Sullivan

Ir-D list members might find useful this update information, which is now
being distributed...

More information about H-Catholic's sponsoring organizations,
the Canadian Catholic Historical Association (CCHA)and the American
Catholic Historical Association (ACHA) is now available.

The ACHA has developed and posted a web site of its own at
.

The CCHA's web site is available at:
.

H-Catholic's web site may be found at:
.

Information on this week-end's joint meeting between the CCHA and the ACHA
may be found on the CCHA's site.

From Email Patrick O'Sullivan

Congratulations to the University of Huddersfield, England, on having the
good sense to appoint to a new post, the Professorship of Political
Sociology and Irish Studies, our own James White McAuley.

And best wishes to Jim McAuley, as he develops his new role.

Counting up on my fingers, I think this might bring our planet's number of
professorships with 'Irish Studies' in the job title very nearly into double
figures. If we count the planned Professorship at the University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia - 400,000 dollars subscribed so far. My
gossips tell me that the plan in Sydney seems to be to bring out three Irish
literature specialists in turn, for each of the next three years, as part of
the exploratory process - beginning with Terence Brown. Is this a
'pre-emptive takeover bid' by the English literature specialists? - if so,
it may be that 'Irish Studies' in Sydney will very much focus on the
literature.

P.O'S.



- --
Patrick O'Sullivan
Head of the Irish Diaspora Research Unit

Email Patrick O'Sullivan
Email Patrick O'Sullivan

Irish-Diaspora list
Irish Diaspora Studies http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/diaspora/

Personal Fax National 0870 284 1580
Fax International +44 870 284 1580

Irish Diaspora Research Unit
Department of Interdisciplinary Human Studies
University of Bradford
Bradford BD7 1DP
Yorkshire
England

From Email Patrick O'Sullivan

Our attention has been drawn to an article by Kevin Myers, Sunday Telegraph,
18 March 2001 - looking at the 'Irish' category in the coming UK Census.
Our usual ways of sharing this text with the Ir-D list have not worked - the
typeface will not scan, and the article cannot be found on Web sites.

Briefly it is a sometimes wrongheaded attack on 'professional anti-racism'.
But makes the valid point that this specific UK Census Irish question poses
a quandary for people like Paul McGrath, the Irish footballer, and Patrick
Cruise O'Brien, the Irish property developer - 'both those gentlemen are
black - or sort of, the race relations industry dictating that mixed race
equals one race, to wit, black...'

The Census UK page does not seem to be dramatically more informative now
than it was a month ago...
http://census.ac.uk/

Certainly of interest is the latest Newsletter of the Irish 2 project, which
reports on the research, and makes some of the fine detail of quandaries
clear. Bronwen Walter has kindly made the text of that Newsletter available
to us, and I will distribute it as a separate email.

P.O'S.

- --
Patrick O'Sullivan
Head of the Irish Diaspora Research Unit

Email Patrick O'Sullivan
Email Patrick O'Sullivan

Irish-Diaspora list
Irish Diaspora Studies http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/diaspora/

Personal Fax National 0870 284 1580
Fax International +44 870 284 1580

Irish Diaspora Research Unit
Department of Interdisciplinary Human Studies
University of Bradford
Bradford BD7 1DP
Yorkshire
England

From Email Patrick O'Sullivan

Ir-D list members might wish to know that Alan Ford, whose work on the
history of religion we have discussed in the past, has moved to the
Departtment of Theology at the University of Nottingham, England.

He gives his Inaugural Lecture as Professor on Tuesday 8 May 2001, 7 pm,
Arts Centre Lecture Theatre, University Park - followed by a Reception at
the University Arts Centre.

His subject is
'From Patrick to Paisley: Irish Histories, Protestant and Catholic.'

Contact the Secretary, Department of Theology, University of Nottingham
mary.elmer[at]nottinghan,ac.uk
0115 951 5852

Our best wishes to Alan Ford, in his new post.

P.O'S.

- --
Patrick O'Sullivan
Head of the Irish Diaspora Research Unit

Email Patrick O'Sullivan
Email Patrick O'Sullivan

Irish-Diaspora list
Irish Diaspora Studies http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/diaspora/

Personal Fax National 0870 284 1580
Fax International +44 870 284 1580

Irish Diaspora Research Unit
Department of Interdisciplinary Human Studies
University of Bradford
Bradford BD7 1DP
Yorkshire
England

From: "Michael McManus"
Subject: Calling the boys from the Somme

Ir-D List members may be interested to know that today the Rededication
Service
for The King's Colour 27th. (Service) Battalion, Northumberland Fusiliers
(Tyneside Irish) takes place in St. Mary's Cathedral, Newcastle Upon Tyne,
England. For an interesting, and emotional, story on the Regiment in the
First World War, and the coming together today of descendants of the
Regiment from both sides of the Atlantic, go to:
http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/the_north_east/features/FEATURES0.html

Mick.

From Email Patrick O'Sullivan

Forwarded through the courtesy of Bronwen Walter...

NEWSLETTER 2

April 2001
_____________________________________________________________________
ESRC-funded: The second-generation Irish: a hidden population in
multi-ethnic Britain. £ 172,000 over two years.
_____________________________________________________________________


We can now report back on the first stages of the research. This is an
important time for the population of Irish descent in Britain as the 2001
Census will give the first ever opportunity to identify as Irish by ticking
a box in the Ethnic Group Question. Our preliminary findings show that there
may be confusion and undercounting of the second generation.

Completion of focus groups

Twelve focus group discussions in five locations ? London (3), Glasgow (3),
Manchester (2), Coventry (2) and Banbury (2) - have now been completed and
transcribed. We have brought together people from a wide range of
backgrounds ? professional and manual workers, people with one and two
Irish-born parents, those with Irish backgrounds in North and South, a
balance of women and men and with a broad age range.

We advertised extensively for participants ? in local newspapers, radio
programmes, libraries, Irish community workers and centres, doctors?
surgeries, newsagents? windows and by snowballing. Important sections of the
population, including people from a Protestant backgrounds and those who do
not identify themselves as Irish, still need

to be contacted in greater numbers for individual interviews.

Our discussions have been exploratory to ensure that we pick up on
unforeseen issues. They have centred around feelings of identity and factors
in people?s lives which explain their present socio-economic position,
including education, family experiences, societal expectations and local
economic opportunities. Already it is clear that location is a very
important influence on both these aspects of people?s lives.

Analysis of the findings has so far concentrated on their implications for
responses to the 2001 Census question. We are very concerned that this
should be completed as accurately as possible, both to provide reliable
statistics for research and to meet the prime function of the Census, more
precise targeting of resources.


Serious concern about undercounting the Irish on Census Day 2001

It is very important that all those who feel they have an Irish cultural
background tick the ?Irish? box. This is the only way that any note will be
taken of the full size of the Irish population in the allocation of
resources.

But preliminary findings from the Irish 2 Project show that people of Irish
parentage and descent, for whom the question is designed (since birthplace
is asked in the previous question), may not tick the ?Irish? box because
they misread it or are confused.

In England and Wales the options under ?White? are ?British?, ?Irish? and
?Any other White background?. In Scotland people are offered ?Scottish?,
?Other British? (instead of the single ?British? category) and ?Irish?.

However in our focus groups

· A large number failed to read the instruction asking them to ?indicate
your cultural background?. When this was pointed out, people often changed
their minds and said they had had an Irish upbringing and the Irish box
would be more appropriate for them.

In England

· Many said ?Well, I would have to tick ?British? because I was born here?,
assuming this is a nationality question rather than one about ethnic
origins.

And in Scotland

· About half the participants would tick ?Scottish?. However some of those
choosing ?Scottish? said they were apprehensive about revealing their
Irishness.

Some participants would prefer to write in their own self-descriptions under
?Any other White background? or ?Any other Mixed background?. However,
whilst these may be more accurate, they will not be counted as ?Irish? in
the published tables, which will be used by service providers such as local
authorities, housing associations or education services.

It seems likely, therefore, that the ?Irish? box will not be fully used by
those who feel they have an Irish cultural background. The confusions for
Irish people must be combated by a last-minute publicity campaign drawing
attention to ?cultural background? and pointing out that you do not have to
be born in Ireland to be Irish.

If there is a serious undercounting of the Irish it will mean that the Irish
population remains under-recognised, statistics will be wrongly interpreted
by service providers and the option may be removed in 2011 because it
appears not to have been taken up.

A particularly important issue is that of health. There is growing evidence
both in England and Wales and in Scotland that on average people of Irish
descent have significantly poorer health. Fuller Census data would allow
this to be monitored and analysed more effectively.


Quotes from focus groups:

Definitely tick Irish
?I feel really great about it ? I have never been able to make that
distinction all my life, I have always come under white British or white UK?
.

Tick British
?I would pick the British I think, although I feel very Irish. If you were
categorising me, you would say, you are not Irish, you were not born there?.
?I?d have picked the thing up, thought British, ticked it and left it at
that.?

Tick Scottish
?I personally think a lot of people in Scotland of Irish descent are ashamed
to be considered Irish. They feel it is
something they want to hide all the time?.

Unfamiliar concepts
?It needs more explanation ? the difference between nationality and
ethnicity. That?s a new thing for people, that is new to me recently?.

Prefer a mixed option
?It?s annoying you can?t be more than one thing?.

Did not read the question carefully ?Now I see cultural background I would
tick Irish, but I wouldn?t necessarily have noticed that.?

The concerns raised by the Project team have have been publicised to the
press and radio, national and local, and to Census administrators.

They have already been discussed in the Irish Times and on BBC Radio Ulster.
Journalists on the Independent and the Guardian have been briefed.

In Scotland, of course, there will be an additional source of data from the
questions on religion. Unlike England and Wales where there is a single
?Christian? box, in Scotland two questions are being asked: ?What religious
denomination or body do you belong to?? and ?What religion, religious
denomination or body were you brought up in? ? In both cases the options
include ?Roman Catholic?.



Consultative Committee

The second meeting was held on March 15, 2001, at the University of North
London. In addition to the Census issue, agenda items included advice on the
design and content of the family trees and the forms in which health data
could be collected.

A new member of the Committee is Tom Clarke Labour MP for Coatbridge and
Chryston.


Research programme for summer 2001

Data collection and analysis will include

· Carrying out and coding 110 individual interviews with second-generation
Irish people in the five locations. Samples will be selected by quotas based
on gender, socio-economic group, number of Irish-born parents, religion and
degree of Irish identification.

· Completing 100 family trees with these respondents, giving data on
occupations, education, health.


June 2001 Publication of Dion report: The second-generation Irish: a
demographic, socio-economic and health profile

The report brings together for the first time available statistical data
from large published datasets. Sources include the ONS Longitudinal Study,
the General Household Survey, 1983 Labour Force Survey and 1970 British
Cohort Study, as well as existing secondary analyses.

Publication date is June 22, 2001. Copies will be available after that date
from the Irish Studies Centre, University of North London Tel: 020 7753 5018

Conference and workshop papers

Members of the research team are disseminating background and preliminary
findings from the Project to a variety of audiences.

These include:

Race, Ethnicity and Migration Conference, University of Minnesota, November
2000 (Professor M.J.Hickman and Dr B. Walter)

National Irish Studies Conference, Manchester, March 2001 (Professor
M.J.Hickman)

Annual Conference of Irish Geographers, May, 2001 (Dr B. Walter)

American Conference of Irish Studies, New York, June 2001 (Professor
M.J.Hickman)

McGlinchey Summer School, Donegal, June 2001 (Dr J. Bradley)


New writings on second-generation Irish experience

Two memoirs about second-generation Irish lives in different parts of
Britain have received critical acclaim recently and are in best-seller
lists. They provide rich personal detail to illuminate and add complexity
to the Project?s findings.

John Walsh?s The falling angels: an Irish romance, published by Flamingo at
£6.99, describes home life in London in the 1950s and the passionate
rediscovery of Ireland at the age of 17.

Galloway Street: growing up Irish in Scotland by John Boyle is the
autobiographical story of a childhood in Paisley shot through with links to
Achill. Published by Transworld at £9.99 this book joins a flowering of
novels and short stories from authors such as Des Dillon and Andrew O?Hagan
who bring into view for the first time Irish Catholic experience in the West
of Scotland.

Research team

Please contact us for further information.

Dr Bronwen Walter, Project Director,
Reader in Social and Cultural Geography,
Anglia Polytechnic University,
East Road,
Cambridge CB1 1PT
Tel: 01223-363271 x2179
b.walter[at]anglia.ac.uk

Professor Mary J. Hickman,
Director, Irish Studies Centre,
University of North London,
166-220 Holloway Road,
London N7 8DB
Tel: 0207-607-2789 x2912

Dr Joseph Bradley,
Lecturer, Department of Sports Studies,
University of Stirling,
Stirling FK9 4LA
Tel: 01786-473-171 x6493
j.m.bradley[at]stir.ac.uk

Dr Sarah Morgan,
Deputy Director, Irish Studies Centre,
University of North London,
166-220 Holloway Road,
London N7 8DB
Tel: 0207-607-2789 x2914
s.morgan[at]unl.ac.uk

From: Alexander Peach
Subject: RE: Ir-D UK Census

Hello all,

I recently pointed out the problems of identity (and the census) on this
list and if you read it you will remember that after some thought I
describe myself ethnically as "Anglo-Manx-Irish". This sounds the best but
in hierarchical identity allegiance terms "working
class-masculine-Anglo-Irish-Manx" makes more sense to me. My Irishness is
linked to my mother's ethnicity (although she is actually British in nation
state terms being a Catholic born in Derry) which raises interesting
questions about gender and the maintenance of ethnicity (why did I not get
more of an idea of being Manx from my Dad?). I am culturally and
politically English having been raised here. I like the Manx bit because it
is true and adds a little romance to my identity. The thing about identity
is that as a social construction if you want (i.e. if you are aware that
you can and are able to pass) you can be most things. Skin colour and to
some extent genders are problematic to change but everything else is pretty
open to negotiation. The critics of ethnic monitoring would point this out
I guess but they have a tendentious agenda to obscure power relations
between ethnic minorities and ethnic majorities.

Anyway, putting Irish on the census for me will be a political act as the
Irish in Britain are discriminated against and need all the help they can
get.

PS

I am still waiting for the universities to catch up so I can stop being
"other" on their ethnic monitoring forms.

Best wishes,

Dr. Alex Peach.
(intellectual identity = Punk Historian)

- -----Original Message-----
From: irish-diaspora[at]Bradford.ac.uk [SMTP:irish-diaspora[at]Bradford.ac.uk]
Sent: 07 April 2001 07:30
To: irish-diaspora[at]Bradford.ac.uk
Subject: Ir-D UK Census


>From Email Patrick O'Sullivan

Our attention has been drawn to an article by Kevin Myers, Sunday
Telegraph,
18 March 2001 - looking at the 'Irish' category in the coming UK Census.
Our usual ways of sharing this text with the Ir-D list have not worked -
the
typeface will not scan, and the article cannot be found on Web sites.

Briefly it is a sometimes wrongheaded attack on 'professional anti-racism'.
But makes the valid point that this specific UK Census Irish question poses
a quandary for people like Paul McGrath, the Irish footballer, and Patrick
Cruise O'Brien, the Irish property developer - 'both those gentlemen are
black - or sort of, the race relations industry dictating that mixed race
equals one race, to wit, black...'

The Census UK page does not seem to be dramatically more informative now
than it was a month ago...
http://census.ac.uk/

Certainly of interest is the latest Newsletter of the Irish 2 project,
which
reports on the research, and makes some of the fine detail of quandaries
clear. Bronwen Walter has kindly made the text of that Newsletter
available
to us, and I will distribute it as a separate email.

P.O'S.

From: "Michael McManus"
Subject: Re: Ir-D Tyneside Irish

If you did not get to this address quick enough you will now find the text
at:
http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/the_north_east/archive/2000/07/01/A450jg
.re.html
under a 'No Headpine' - meaning 'No Headline'.

Mick

[Note: your own email line breaks might fracture that long Wed address...]


- ----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 07:30
Subject: Ir-D Tyneside Irish


>
> From: "Michael McManus"
> Subject: Calling the boys from the Somme
>
> Ir-D List members may be interested to know that today the Rededication
> Service
> for The King's Colour 27th. (Service) Battalion, Northumberland Fusiliers
> (Tyneside Irish) takes place in St. Mary's Cathedral, Newcastle Upon Tyne,
> England. For an interesting, and emotional, story on the Regiment in the
> First World War, and the coming together today of descendants of the
> Regiment from both sides of the Atlantic, go to:
> http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/the_north_east/features/FEATURES0.html
>
> Mick.
>

From: "Paddy Walls"
Subject: Re: Ir-D Irish 2, Newsletter 2

Dear Patrick,

In response to comments, in Bronwen Walter's Newsletter, on the Irish ethnic
group and the Census, I thought it might be useful to briefly
outline some of the findings of my research on Irish identification
beyond the first generation and to raise some doubts about the
usefulness of the Census for information on the Irish. (I am on
Bronwen=92s ESRC 2nd generation consultative committee also
and have discussed some of these findings in that forum).

I interviewed 98 people of Irish and non-Irish descent in
Glasgow. 72 of these people (main formal sample) were
randomly sampled on the basis of where their
parents/grandparents were born and because of the sampling
technique and the crucial fact that the project was not presented
as one focused on identity, but rather family histories and health,
then the responses to discussion of identity are likely to be
reliable and representative of the wider Irish-descended
population.

My analysis has focused on these 72 people as representative,
rather than the 26 who were sampled through
Irish/Catholic/Protestant organisations (informal sample), who in
comparison with the others, could not be argued to be
representative of the wider Irish-descended populations. Third
and fourth generation Irish did not identify as Irish. A very small
minority of second generation Irish chose labels such as Celtic or
Scots/Irish. I discussed with interviewees at great length why
they would not identify as Irish, and this had to do with place of
birth (in Scotland), not being accepted as Irish by the Irish-born,
never having been to Ireland as children, etc. It was clear that
coming from an Irish background was important to these people,
relevant to their way of seeing the world, etc., but not enough to
make them see 'Irish' as a valid Census label for them. I
interviewed Protestants in equal number to Catholics. Irish-
descended Protestants also felt proud of their Irish roots but
were even less likely than the Catholics to regard calling
themselves as Irish, having been born in Scotland. What people
were united on was that they were Scottish, and definitely not
English/British.

Although Bronwen strongly suggests that the number of Irish not
born in Ireland will be underestimated at the next Census, and
that this may be to do with misreading and confusion, I would
take an even more pessimistic view and feel that very few
second generation Irish people will tick the box. I would suggest
that this has less to do with 'confusion', and more to do with the
reality that few people identify as Irish, not because of a
confusion that can be put right by researchers, but rather
because identity and what it means is multi-faceted, contextual
and beyond capturing through strictly survey methods. What
identity means to people can only be captured through in-depth
qualitative methods, and the complexity thus revealed does not
easily translate or correlate with survey findings.

I spent a helluva lot of time trying to get the Census office in
Scotland to include an Irish category included (which of course
meant arguing in this context for a Scottish category too - the
SNP must love me), and also getting Catholic and Protestant
religions separately categorised in the Census, because of clear
differences derived from research here in the MRC, of health
and social status between Catholics and non-Catholics in
Scotland. However, I am aware that it is the Catholic category
here, not the Irish one, which is likely to be the most useful in the
long run as Catholic in the west of Scotland is a clear marker of
Irish (Catholic) descent (and disadvantage). In England and
Wales, Christian religion is not being disaggregated in the
Census, so the situation there is different, and unfortunately will
not be comparable with Scotland.

On the issue of health, which I've been working on for ages, it
was in fact the question asked in the Census of 1971 on where
parents were born that led to quantitative research findings on
the health of the second generation being produced during the
1990s, which in turn gave added impetus to the argument for an
Irish ethnic category, particularly with regard to the need for
services to target not only a disadvantaged first, but now, an as
disadvantaged second generation. In the next Census a question
on Irish ethnicity will never obviously be able to access those
with Irish parents as the 1971 question did, so it is unlikely to
help in unravelling the situation of the second generation Irish,
etc., and unlikely therefore to help with clarifying issues linked to
poorer health. As the Census can only record those who identity
as Irish, and not the vast majority who don't, then any
conclusions drawn from this unusual group will not represent
wider Irish-descended. So whilst supporting and working with
the recognised Irish community for Irish ethnic group inclusion in
the Census, I think that the only value in the short term will be
some wider recognition of Irish identity as a valid ethnic identity,
and a querying of =91whiteness=92 as a homogeneous, meaningful
construct. If for example the Census showed that those
identifying as Irish were twice as likely as the rest of the
population to suffer longstanding limiting illness, this might help to
argue a case for more health service money being targeted at the
Irish population, which I would welcome. However, what we
would never know is whether the rest of the population who
might have, but didn't identify as Irish, fare in terms of this health
measure. They may be as unhealthy as the self-identified group.
They may be healthier than the general population.
Contentiously, Irish identification itself may be linked to poorer
health. The Census is likely to raise more questions than
answers. Specifically on the issue of why Irish second, third,
fourth generation, etc., have poorer relative health, the Census is
likely to be entirely unhelpful. Any seeming differences between
those who tick =91Irish=92 and the rest who don=92t, could lead to
spurious cases being built for targeting resources, based on poor
evidence (and likely not to succeed).

To complicate matters further, I have found that there are clear
gender and age differences (I interviewed two cohorts, aged 46
and 66 years) in whether people identify as Irish reflecting the
importance of other social identities and the impact of time on
perception of identity. In the Glasgow context, describing
oneself as Irish has much to do with being male. I found that
religious/ethnic identity could EMERGE as a reason for conflict
among men, although not necessarily the initial reason for
conflict. The emergent nature of identity obviously will escape
the Census-takers.

On a more positive note =96 if the Census this time round achieves
a greater awareness that the Irish-born and some Irish-
descended wish to be recognised as an ethnic group in Britain,
then more people over time may wish to be thus enumerated. In
turn, is there is a recognition in policy circles that this ethnic
group (which the Census can=92t show) has particular and/or
greater service needs, then bargaining and resources should
hopefully follow.


What can researchers and those otherwise involved with the
Irish community in Britain do?

Recognise that there are real tensions between doing
OBJECTIVE research and the necessarily political agendas
of Irish community groups

Research which has been done on the community needs to
be interpreted accurately, not just in a selective way, the sole
aim of which is to target resources at the Irish community

More research needs to be done which targets those who
do not identify as Irish, and research methodologies need to
be tightened up which would produce better work than we
have already seen, so that not only those who identify as
Irish are studied. This is particularly relevant to the study of
health.

It needs to be pointed out that some Irish within the broader
picture of overall relatively poorer health, have very good
health indeed. It therefore is important that these
subpopulations be studied. It is only through work
comparing different Irish populations, AND comparing the
Irish with the non-Irish, that explanation of how the
experience of being Irish in Britain may be linked to health
can be produced.

Anyway, I=92ve rambled well off the track by now =96 mainly I=92m
worried about a subtext of coercing people to identify as Irish
when they don=92t, concern about resources not reaching the most
needy unless research makes clear the obvious differences of
age, gender, place, class, time etc., affecting identifications, and
the possibility that being Irish may be being inadvertently
pathologised as the power of the Census to alleviate Irish ills is
being mythologised.


Cheers,


PaddyW

Patricia Walls, Research Scientist, MRC Social and Public Health Sciences =
Unit, 6 Lilybank Gardens,
Glasgow, Scotland, G12 8RZ (0141-357-7530)

From Email Patrick O'Sullivan

Professor Mary Hickman
School of Area and Language Studies,
University of North London
will give her inaugural professorial lecture

'Ethnicity, Empire and the Multinational State: "Locating" the Irish in
Britain'

Wednesday 9 May 2001
6 pm
Reception to follow

Henry Thomas Room, New Tower
University of North London
166-120 Holloway Road, London N7 8DB

Contact Sui-Mee Chan, Research and Graduate School Office
020 7753 5110
m.chan[at]unl.ac.uk

Our best wishes to Mary Hickman, as this important day approaches.

Patrick O'Sullivan



- --
Patrick O'Sullivan
Head of the Irish Diaspora Research Unit

Email Patrick O'Sullivan
Email Patrick O'Sullivan

Irish-Diaspora list
Irish Diaspora Studies http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/diaspora/

Personal Fax National 0870 284 1580
Fax International +44 870 284 1580

Irish Diaspora Research Unit
Department of Interdisciplinary Human Studies
University of Bradford
Bradford BD7 1DP
Yorkshire
England

From Email Patrick O'Sullivan

This item has been brought to our attention, and might be of interest to
someone in PA...

P.O'S.

Subject: Irish History Position


Modern Irish History, Villanova University, Villanova, Pa. Part-time
instructor needed to teach one undergraduate course in 19th and 20th century
Irish history, Fall 2001. Ph.D. or ABD, some prior teaching experience
preferred. Please send a letter and cv to Dr. Adele Lindenmeyr,
Chairperson,
Dept. of History, Villanova
University, Villanova, PA 19085.

[Forwarded for information...
Panikos Panayi seems to be getting hammered by reviewers. Yet Panikos
himself does seem to have influence - either directly, as at the Bochum
conference, or indirectly, as in Paul O'Leary's study of the Irish in Wales,
Immigration and Integration, Cardiff, 2000.
P.O'S.]


H-NET BOOK REVIEW
Published by H-Ethnic[at]h-net.msu.edu (March, 2001)

Panikos Panayi. _An Ethnic History of Europe Since 1945:
Nations, States and Minorities_. Harlow, England, New York:
Longman, 2000. xiii + 274 pp. Maps, bibliographic references,
index. $79.95 (cloth), 0-582-38135-5; $28.40 (paper),
0-582-38134-7.

Reviewed for H-Ethnic by Rainer Ohliger
, Humboldt-Universitaet Berlin

An Essential Contribution to the Study of Ethnic Minorities in
Europe?

Ethnicity, the rise of nationalism, the formation of new
nation-states in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet
Union, Yugoslavia and the peaceful split of Czechoslovakia have
become central topics for politics and scholarship in the 1990s.
Studies on ethnic conflict, nation building, and particular
ethnic and minority groups in Europe abounded throughout the
last decade. However, a cohesive book that provides a
systematic and general picture of minority existence so far has
been missing. Panikos Panayi's _An Ethnic History of Europe
since 1945_ tries to fill this gap for the post-war period. As
the author correctly states, so far: "no single author has
attempted to examine the European ethnic mosaic since the end of
the Second World War. The present volume is therefore the first
attempt by an individual author to rectify this situation" (p.
3). Thus the author sets a high goal for himself in making a
general and definite contribution to the field. He assumes an
interesting starting point by not limiting his focus only to
indigenous, autochthonous or settled minorities, but also
including immigrant minorities.

The author structures his book into four sections, the first one
dealing with a general introduction to European minority history
with a special focus on the time since 1945; the second one
locating this particular history within the wider framework of
European social and economic history; the third one discussing
ethnicity as the key issue of European minority history, and
finally the fourth one describing the interrelation of
majorities and minorities within a system of nation-states.
Section one briefly discusses the typology of minorities and
gives the reader a short explanation of the concept underlying
the author's notion of minorities. The second section focuses
on demographic, geographical, economical and social conditions
of minority existence, providing the reader with detailed
information about spatial distribution, housing, social
cleavages and the incorporation (or exclusion) of minorities
into or from mainstream European societies. The third section
centering on the author's definition of ethnicity discusses the
politicization of cultural differences underlying his definition
of ethnicity. The last section is dedicated to the role of the
state in recognition of minority existence or marginalization of
minorities, and briefly describes the role of modern media in
their inclusion or exclusion.

The author's approach, including indigenous as well as migrant
minorities, provides for a challenging intellectual comparison
leaving the reader with the question of what the merits, but
also the limits, of comparison are. The binding element offered
by Panayi is ethnicity that sets dispersed, localized, or
immigrant minorities (the three categories he uses) apart from
majorities in a world of nation-states. Thus, at the outset of
the book one expects to learn where the author places himself
within the camps of scholars who have passionately argued from
the mid-1980s on about the essence of ethnicity and nationhood.
The reader is surprised from the outset that Panayi does not
bother with contextualizing his concept of ethnic groups and
nations within these debates. Instead we learn that "ethnicity,
nation, nationalism, nation state and minority each [...] have a
precise meaning which have become confused by [...] over-use in
the media and social science discourse" (p. 3-4). However, the
author does not hesitate to attempt to enlighten his readers as
to the precise meanings which have been lost.

As we learn, since ethnicity stems from the Greek word ethnos
and just means nation, "no difference exists between an ethnic
group and a nation" (p. 4 and p. 101). Key to the concept of an
ethnic group/nation are appearance (dress, customs etc.),
language and religion and the politicization that revolves
around these three factors. Within this triangular relationship
the miracles of ethnicity and nationhood are easily resolved. So
why bother about all the debates on whether nations and
nationalities have a long lasting historical ethnic kernel? Or
why worry whether these categories are just a product of
modernity or mere constructs, and what role elites might have
played within this process? Why discuss how ethnicity and
nationhood came to be widely applied and accepted concepts or
what the relationship of ethnicity, nationhood and nationalism
might be? (The latter as we learn on page five is "usually
regarded as the ideology of a growing bourgeoisie").

For Panayi the world is simple and theory just conflates simple
truths that are evident for an unbiased scholar with a view for
empirical realities and linear, not to say mechanistic, concepts
in which reality can be framed and described. No surprise, then,
to read that also the very concept of minority is easy and
clear. "Perfect minorities," we read with astonishment, are
"smaller than majorities, concentrate in particular locations,
look outwardly different and lack power vis-a-vis the dominant
population" (p. 9). Perhaps one should not be too critical of
the author here for not going into theoretical depth when mainly
having an undergraduate audience in mind and wanting to provide
a textbook with a clear narrative and a factual basis to build
upon.

Thus, let's address the empirical parts of the book which make
up sections three to four of the book as well as the initial
table 1 (p. xii and xiii) that tries to give a systematic
overview on postwar European minorities from A (Albania) to Y
(Yugoslavia) and from Azerbaijanis [sic] to Vlachs within the
author's framework of description. Taking a closer look at the
table and its three key categories (dispersed, localized and
immigrant minorities/refugees), one wonders if the proposed
framework makes sense and has a high degree of explanatory
power. The reviewer has certain doubts about the coherence of
the categories and the way the author applies them.

To give a few examples: in handling the cases of multiethnic
Switzerland and Belgium, citing Flemings and Walloons or
Swiss-Germans, Swiss-French, Swiss-Italians and Romansh [not
"Romantschians" as the author has it] all as minorities is not
plausible. Why Romanian-Germans are listed as a dispersed
minority whereas Romanian-Hungarians are localized is also not
intelligible. The same is true for Bulgaria's Muslim population,
which should be a localized minority in Panayi's terms, not a
dispersed one. Moreover, Bulgarian Muslims ought properly be
listed as Turks and Pomaks, not only as Turks. In the Moldavian
case, Russians, Ukrainians, and Gagauz are completely absent
whereas Poles figure as a minority. Why Rusyns, whom the author
lists with their outdated name as "Ruthenians," figure as a
minority in Slovakia, but not in Ukraine remains an open
question. If Armenians show up as localized minorities in the
cases of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey, they should also be
mentioned as immigrant minorities in the case of France. The
reader might also wonder what the difference between the
"Croatians" [sic] in Germany and the Croats in Yugoslavia might
be. And the "Azerbaijanis" should correctly be called Azeri in a
monograph about ethnic minorities. On it goes, with too little
space to list all the flaws and inconsistencies in this review.

The doubts raised by the table at the beginning of the book are
confirmed by its content: a structure and a convincing
analytical framework are missing; instead the reader is
bombarded with facts, anecdotes and haphazardly collected
statistical data making the texts into mere evidence of the
author's skill in locating bibliographical references and
fabricating them into an often barely readable text. Some tools
of good old social history 70s style would have helped to
circumvent these pitfalls: tables documenting quantitative
processes over time and not only at an arbitrarily chosen point
in time, graphs demonstrating development and putting things
into a comparative perspective.

Except for two minor tables (pp. 31-32), coherent
systematization of the data which is provided for the reader is
lacking. Instead one is overwhelmed by a huge amount of data and
eclectic numbers incorporated into the text or even constituting
a considerable proportion of it. What help is it for the reader
to be told about minorities in four or five different countries
on two pages jumping from the late 1940s through the 1960s to
the present? This, however, would all be negligible if one
could discover an argument in the book and if the narrative got
the facts straight. But the author does not seem to have any
argument, probably also the reason why he does not bother
appending a conclusion for the reader, instead just ending the
book abruptly.

One would be skeptical assigning the book to students and
advising them to rely on the facts the author provides or on the
logic of the text. Assuming, for instance, that the author is
correct in asserting that ethnicity is determined by appearance,
language, and religion, and following him that ethnos equals
nation, what can one make of the statement that "in essence,
culture is a product of modernity, building upon appearance,
language and religion" (p. 139)? Does ethnos then equal nation
and nation culture? Or is it the other way around? And what
might finally be the differences between such highly
controversial concepts as ethnos, nation and culture? Or are we
operating here along tautological lines? Would there remain any
space for nations not being based on ethnocultural idioms, given
that this definition has any validity? One might say that at
night all theoretical cats are grey once an effort to
differentiate and define properly is given up. Or what should
one make out of a sentence such as "All parties which
participate in the political processes of nation states are
nationalist because they work within the parameters of the
existing boundaries" (p. 225). What a relief for political
scientists to read this; a detailed analysis of party programs
and politics is no longer needed as long as one is aware of the
geographical boundaries in which parties articulate their
opinions. By analogy, one should assume that labor
representatives and trade unions operating within the framework
of companies are capitalist if one follows this logic.

The book also shows deficiencies at the basic factual level.
When going into the details of international organizations and
the impact of international institutions on minority existence
in Europe after 1945 (p. 185), the failure to mention either the
Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
of the Council of Europe or the European Charter for Regional or
Minority Languages is unpardonable. It leaves the reader with
the impression that the author either is not familiar with
the topic he is writing about or finished this piece of
scholarship in an all too great haste. The latter finds support
as one stumbles from one spelling mistake to the other.
Proofreading the text and verifying some simple facts would also
have helped in this respect to prevent things like "ius solis"
(p. 208) instead of ius soli,, "Widergeburt" (p. 147) instead of
Wiedergeburt, "Nordiska Riksparteit" (p. 226) instead of Nordiska
Rikspartiet, "Juerg Haider" (p. 236) instead of Joerg Haider,
"Vatra Rumaneasca" (p. 248) instead of Vatra Romaneasca,
"Securitatea" (p. 182) and "Securitatae" (p. 248) instead of
Securitate, three different incorrect versions (pp. 90, 92, 248)
of the late Romanian dictator's name before arriving at the
correct spelling Ceausescu [with diacritical "s" after the "u"]
on p. 249, or telling the reader that the 1989 head-scarf affair
in France took place under the Jospin government (Rocard was in
office in 1989)--to name just a few of the mistakes.

In summary: the hopeful promise of the author finally to provide
the first authoritative monograph on ethnic minorities in
post-war Europe remains unfulfilled. Panayi's book is not an
essential contribution to the field.

Copyright (c) 2001 by H-Net, all rights reserved. This work
may be copied for non-profit educational use if proper credit
is given to the author and the list. For other permission,
please contact H-Net[at]h-net.msu.edu.

From: Alexander Peach
Subject: RE: Ir-D Panayi, Ethnic History, Review


Dear all,
I am not surprised that some reviewers have a problem with Professor
Panayi's work as the gulf between empiricists and theoreticians is endemic
and seemingly generates its own form of institutional prejudice. I have not
had time to digest this latest attack but here is my reply to the earlier
one that I was about to send. No doubt the next reply will follow shortly.


Dear all,

I have taken some time to reply to a review of professor Panikos Panayi's
monograph on ethnic minorities in Germany (see below) posted on the Ir-D
recently. This was to give me time to become conversant with the book and
the criticisms made by Dr. Tobias Brinkman. I will have to say that as
professor Panayi was my former undergraduate tutor and primary Ph.D.
supervisor I am familiar with most of his prolific work and thought. This
knowledge has been enriched by many formal and informal discussions with
him upon issues of migration, race and ethnicity and their relationship to
the formation and maintenance of nation states. So, imagine my surprise to
read such a seemingly detailed rubbishing of his work and arguably his
academic reputation. After a close read of the aforementioned monograph I
find Brinkman's assertions regarding Professor Panayi's theoretical,
literary and research skills as rather hard to square with my knowledge of
him and this book. I did compose a response myself to this disparaging
review. However, Professor Panayi has written his own reply that covers all
the issues far better than I could and this is presented [as a separate
email]. Professor
Panayi points to a number of statements made in the review that he
disagrees with. For my own part I find Dr. Brinkman's suggestion that the
concept
of ethnic minorities is American, and therefore not applicable to the
German case, as....well, rather puzzling shall we say.
Best wishes,
Dr. Alex Peach

From: Alexander Peach

Forwarded to the Irish-Diaspora list by Alex Peach...

From Panikos Panayi,

Reply to Tobias Brinkmann's Review

Seeing the Whole Picture

Panikos Panayi, De Montfort University, Leicester, England.

Having worked on the history of ethnic minorities for over fifteen years I
was surprised to read the review of my recently published book on Ethnic
Minorities in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Germany: Jews, Gypsies,
Poles, Turks and Others (London: Longman, 2000), by Tobias Brinkmann on
H-Net. His attempted demolition of the research for my study, as well as
the tone of his review, struck me particularly. Anyone reading the opinions
put forward by Brinkmann would have the impression that the book had been
written by a complete amateur in the field of ethnic history who had
cobbled a few sources together over the course of a couple of months,
rather than somebody who had carried out research on the position of ethnic
minorities in Germany over a period of eight years. My knowledge of
ethnicity stretches back to my Ph.D thesis on 'Germans in Britain during
the First World War', written between 1985 and 1988, and is grounded on my
experiences as a Greek Cypriot growing up in London during the 1960s which
forced me to think about difference along ethnic lines.
I will tackle the criticisms made by Tobias under a number of headings. In
fact, his review is rather badly structured. It makes three points. The
first takes up two paragraphs, the second three lines and the final one
four pages.
1. The Failure of Dr Brinkmann to Engage with the Aim the Book.
The central objective of a book review is to deal with the argument of the
author, which Brinkmann does not do. My book is about the position of
ethnic minorities in nineteenth and twentieth century Germany. I argue that
all systems of state control which have existed in Germany during the last
two centuries have created and excluded ethnic minorities. The core
ideology has been nationalism. 'Germany', as a whole, has experienced every
system of state control, which has existed in Europe since 1800 in the form
of empire, monarchy, fascism, communism and liberal democracy. While the
methodology of ethnic exclusion has varied greatly, all German states, in
common with states throughout Europe, have practiced ethnic exclusion.
Brinkmann simply does not tackle this core argument.
Instead, he focuses upon what he sees as a series of weaknesses, which can
be tackled under two headings in particular:
2. The Use of Terminology. The title of Brinkmann's review is 'Clearing
Up the Jargon', taken from a statement on p.2 of my book. There then
follows a 25 page introductory chapter (rather than a 7 page section as
claimed by Brinkmann), which proceeds to do this. This chapter was
specifically written in anticipation of the fact that 'theorists' would ask
for definitions. What, however, is the point of writing such a chapter, if
it is ignored? I will provide a few illustrations of what I mean:
a) Nationalism is defined from pp.2-4. A close reading of the text would
illustrate this. I have not provided a one sentence dictionary definition
because such a concept in an academic book is somewhat more complex. Simply
extracting individual sentences and quotes from pp.2-4 of the book and then
criticising them does not help anybody. On p.4 I write that nationalism
'springs from a favoured group called the nation, bound together by one or
more of the factors of similar appearance and a shared language and/or
religion. From these raw materials evolve cultures and state structures'.
b) My use of the term ethnic minorities particularly vexed Brinkmann, who
asks whether this really is 'a useful concept for groups as diverse as
"Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Turks and Others?"' It seems that Brinkman is
essentially suggesting that there was no point in writing the book because
the minorities have nothing in common. Of course their background and
individual experiences are quite particular and different, but what
essentially links them is the fact that within themselves they have shared
ethnic characteristics, geographical concentration, smaller numbers than
the Germans, and limited political power vis a vis the dominant group. This
is explained on pp. 12-13, which Brinkmann missed, claiming that there is a
'complete absence of a discussion of the validity of the concept of "ethnic
minority" for each of the groups treated in the book' (but see pp. 13-20,
which does exactly this). At one point Brinkmann actually claims that
'Germany is officially not an immigration country', repeating the old
CDU/CSU line. If this is the case what word would we use to describe the
7,319,00 non-Germans living in the Federal Republic in 1998. If they are
neither ethnic minorities nor immigrants, what exactly are they? They are
certainly not Germans, according to either themselves or the German state.
3. Research. Brinkmann claims that: 'the author in many cases appears to
use the first book he could find and put it into the footnotes'. The
research for this volume began in 1991 and was completed in 1999. During
that time I spent five months in Germany, when I visited the biggest
libraries in the country in Frankfurt, Berlin, Munich and Gottingen, as
well as more specialized ones in Stuttgart (Institut fur
Auslandsbeziehungen), Berlin (Institut fur Antisemitismus Forschung) and
Osnabruck (Institut fur Migrationsforschung und Interkulturelle Studien).
In addition, I also used libraries in Leicester and London, including that
of the German Historical Institute. I gathered eighteen box files of
information and purchased countless books, many of which I do not cite. The
book is ultimately not a definitive history and nor does it ever claim to
be. It is a history of millions of people over two hundred years in 288
pages. The sources I cited are those which I found most pertinent to the
issue under discussion.
Brinkmann suggests that I should have used some books, which I have not,
while ignoring those which I have. He claims, referring to Jews, that I
have relied 'in many instances...on a number of outdated works from the
1960s'. A look at the bibliographical section on Jews, pp. 272-5, indicates
that I have used sources published over many decades. If I have used an old
source it was because I still found it useful. Brinkmann also states that I
do not devote enough attention to Rogers Brubaker on German nationality
law, but neglects to say that I have made more use, instead, of an article
by Andreas Fahrmeier, which is more up to date. In any case, I find
Brubaker's version of nationality law problematic. In my view all nation
states need nationality laws, which, ultimately, have the same consequences
of excluding those with the wrong ethnic credentials. Exclusion on the
grounds of jus sanguinis may be worse than exclusion on the grounds of jus
solis, but all nationality laws have the same aim.
The above are the central issues where I have been misrepresented.
Brinkmann also criticizes my language. In the chapter on Nazism he claims
that I do not have enough detail on some issues, but also accuses me of
heaping 'facts upon facts'. This takes us back to the problem of the nature
and objectives of such a book: it is a general survey. Brinkman further
accuses me of 'readily' agreeing with Goldhagen '(p. 165, fn. 129)' (he
actually means footnote 29), whereas, if he looked at the whole picture, he
would have seen that I put forward a series of arguments. I quote Robert
Gellately who points to the small numbers of Gestapo employees needed to
control the population of Dusseldorf. The same paragraph as the one in
which I 'readily' agree with Goldhagen then proceeds to state that many
people involved in the Nazi bureaucracy believed that 'they were just doing
their jobs'. I then proceed to deal with the consequences of war for the
readiness of people to kill other human beings. One of the most bizarre
points that the review makes is that, on reading one particular sentence:
'Uninformed readers might assume that Germany did not start the Second
World War'. I am not sure that I need to respond to this accusation, but
reading the whole chapter in which this sentence originates, would clearly
leave no doubt in the reader's mind.
The book was written as an introduction to the position of ethnic
minorities in nineteenth and twentieth century Germany, not as the
definitive history of them, which would require an army of scholars,
working over decades. Neither is it a volume about ethnic theory as applied
to Germany. I consciously decided to take neither approach. The book is a
narrative introduction to the history of ethnic minorities (which are
clearly defined) in Germany since 1800. In order for a reviewer to fully
appreciate the work, he needs to look at the broader picture, rather than
focusing on the minor details, which, in any case, were carefully thought
about through several drafts. The 'jargon' is explained for those prepared
to read the book and the book is based upon eight years of research. I have
clearly argued that 'Germany' offers a perfect case study for the ways in
which ethnic minorities have faced exclusion during the past two centuries
because it has experienced every system of government which has existed in
Europe during this time. The book is focused, well argued and well
researched.

Here is Dr. Brinkmans's original review.

H-NET BOOK REVIEW
Published by H-Ethnic[at]h-net.msu.edu (March, 2001)
Panikos Panayi. _Ethnic Minorities in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century
Germany: Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Turks and Others_. Themes in Modern German
History. Harlow, England: Longman, 2000. xvi + 288pp. Tables, maps, notes,
bibliographical essay, and index. UK pounds 14.99 (paper), ISBN
0-582-26760-9; UK pounds 55.00 (cloth), ISBN 0-582-26771-4.
Reviewed for H-Ethnic by Tobias Brinkmann
, Center for Advanced Studies,
University of Leipzig, Germany
Clearing up the Jargon
The publication of Panikos Panayi's book appears well timed. Even the most
superficial observer of Germany cannot overlook the steep rise in racist
and lately even antisemitic attacks. At the same time a debate about an
immigration law is slowly beginning to take shape. The declining
birth-rate and thus the need to prevent the German state-pension system
from collapse requires immigration. Even conservative sceptics have called
for (limited and controlled) immigration. In 2000 the federal government
adopted a Green Card program to bring several thousand young
IT-professionals from Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia to Germany.
A survey of minorities and immigrants in Germany which provides a
historical background should therefore be welcome. But even before opening
the book, readers familiar with German history and ethnic studies may
wonder about the implications of the title. Is the term "ethnic
minorities" in the German context between 1800 and 2000 really a useful
concept for groups as diverse as "Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Turks and Others"?
Panayi has indeed drawn together some hitherto scattered facts on a wide
range of groups in one volume, ranging from Turks in contemporary Germany
to the Sorbs in East Germany, and to various other groups throughout modern
German history. The volume is designed as a textbook written for
undergraduate students and beginners in the field. It is organized in
seven chapters: In the first chapter entitled "Majorities and Minorities in
German History," Panayi tries to define some terms, as he puts it "to clear
up the jargon" (p. 2), also providing a superficial sketch of premodern
German history. The six following chapters on the status of ethnic
minorities follow modern German history in the traditional chronological
order, beginning with the period before 1871, followed by Imperial Germany,
the Weimar Republic, The Third Reich, and the two German states between
1949 and 1989. The last chapter deals with Germany after 1989. Panayi's
argument is not surprising. He detects a continuity in German history of
the state refusing to accept "ethnic minorities" and, for that matter,
immigration as such.
The challenge in writing such a book is to understand and weave together
two rather complex processes, modern German history and the history of
minorities in Germany. Panikos Panayi should be praised for his effort,
and he claims at least three times that he is indeed the first scholar to
have done so (pp. x, 1, 272). But unfortunately the book has a number of
serious flaws, especially on the conceptual level, which undermine the
project from the outset.
1. The refusal of the author to discuss the validity and applicability of
complex terms such as "ethnic minority," ethnicity, assimilation etc. He
brushes aside what he calls "jargon" (p. 2) in a few pages (p. 2-9) in his
introductory chapter. Page 2-8 are devoted to the terms nationalism and
racism. But here Panayi never really defines nationalism. The reader
learns that it "may" have existed in medieval Europe, that the Reformation
"made a difference" (p. 2), that nationalism is related to a sovereign
populace and that it really started with the French Revolution. From there
it moved east: "Nationalism infected German-speaking Europe almost
instantly and, like a disease, the whole continent had caught it by the end
of the nineteenth century." (p. 3) After 1815 the "educated middle classes"
used nationalism to "eliminate their rulers" (p. 3). But an undergraduate
reader may still wonder what nationalism as such was, let alone why its
definition was and is controversial. And Panayi repeats this
unsatisfactory approach for the term racism: The philosopher Immanuel Kant
used the term "race," "there emerged the concept of Social Darwinism" (but
from where?), and the Pan-Germans used the concept etc.
The concept of "Begriffsgeschichte" (history of concepts) is completely
absent from the whole book, i.e. the Enlightment concept of "race" is not
identical with that of the Pan-German League more than one hundred years
later. The term ethnicity receives less than two pages of attention but
not really a definition, in a book that is primarily devoted to ethnic
groups. Panayi stresses "that no difference exists between an ethnic group
and a nation" in the German case, and that members of an ethnic group share
appearance, language and religion (p. 8). After page nine, the author
never returns to the subject of terms and their validity. Other crucial
terms that are used but not explained include "minority," "diaspora,"
"identity," and "antisemitism";
2. The author takes a simplistic approach to complex topics such as
National Socialism, highlighted by short and superficial sentences and
paragraphs which were not carefully edited (examples below);
3. The author relies on a very diffuse mix of secondary literature which
includes standard references, rather obscure works, outdated studies, and
popular histories. Rather than carefully researching the history of a
group or a period, the author in many cases appears to use the first book
he could find and put it into the footnotes.
In the German case Panayi differentiates between three kinds of "ethnic
minorities": Jews and Gypsies as long settled but dispersed minorities;
Poles, Danes and other groups as localized minorities; and immigrants. In
many works on Imperial Germany, Poles and Danes are referred to as
"national" minorities, but this term is not discussed. And there are
groups which clearly do not fit into Panayi's tripartite system: Jewish and
Gypsy immigrants and Polish immigrants in particular. Panayi also does not
explain what he exactly means by "dispersed" as opposed to "localised."
Robin Cohen's recent and easily accessible works on this particular subject
are not mentioned.[1]
A central problem, however, is the complete absence of a discussion of the
validity of the concept "ethnic minority" for each of the groups treated in
the book. Especially in the German context this is quite unfortunate. On
a theoretical level the concepts ethnicity, ethnic group and assimilation
are derived primarily from the American context. But Germany, in
particular, does not easily compare with the United States. To this day
Germany is officially not an immigration country, Germany has no
immigration law, and German citizenship is still largely based on the "ius
sanguinis" (law of the blood) rather than "ius solis" (law of the
territory) as in the US, and, to a limited degree, in Great Britain and
France. In Germany the interrelated processes of ethnicization and
assimilation (as in the United States and other declared immigration
societies) did not take place, or only to a very limited degree.
The citizenship issue has already been studied in detail by Rogers
Brubaker, a book that Panayi mentions in a footnote on the Citizenship Law
of 1913 (p. 74, fn. 18). Brubaker's comparative approach would have
provided Panayi with a carefully thought out approach and well defined
terms. It remains unclear why Panayi does not even discuss (or question)
Brubaker's findings in his introductory chapter.[2] It is certainly open to
discussion whether or not the term "ethnic" is a useful concept for certain
minorities in Germany, especially after 1960, and even more so after 1990.
And it would have been interesting to learn if, when, why, and how Jews,
Gypsies, and the other groups mentioned became ethnic and/or when they were
treated as ethnic by the state or by other Germans. The difference between
self-ascribed identities, identities ascribed by "ethnic leaders" or by the
"ethnic group," and identities which are ascribed from outside, for
instance by the state, is not an issue for Panayi.
This leads to serious problems, especially against the background of racist
ideologies and laws. The definition of "Jewish" in the notorious Nuremberg
laws of 1935 applied also to persons who regarded themselves not as Jewish
but who were defined and persecuted as "Jews" by the German state. The
same applies to other victimized groups, in particular to Gypsies. But
these crucial differences do not concern the author.
Jews are a case in point: For Panayi Jews were an "ethnic minority" in
medieval Germany, and from the premodern period throughout 1933. For each
of these periods, but in particular for the premodern period, and even more
so for the nineteenth century, it is rather problematic to use the term
"ethnic minority" without any discussion of what "ethnic" and
"ethnicization," and "minority" mean in the context of modern Jewish
history. Although Panayi mentions David Sorkin's influential book on
German-Jewish history, he does not discuss Sorkin's concept of a Jewish
subculture.[3] Few, if any specialists of German-Jewish history would agree
with Panayi's uncritical approach in this case.
The terms ethnicity and ethnic are notably absent from the standard works
on German-Jewish history, some of which Panayi refers to in his footnotes.
There is a broad agreement among historians of modern Jewish history that
around 1900 a process of Jewish "dissimilation" began in Imperial Germany.
For this period the term "ethnic" could certainly be discussed. But again,
the use of that term is far from being an accepted mainstream viewpoint and
would require a careful explanation and discussion. The authors of the
four volume "German-Jewish History in the Modern Period," edited by Michael
A. Meyer, which is regarded as the standard reference on German-Jewish
history in the modern period, do not describe German-Jewish history in the
period 1780-1933 in ethnic terms, nor does Shulamit Volkov in her
standard-textbook on this subject .[4] But Panayi does not mention these
important studies; instead he relies in many instances on Ruth Gay's "The
Jews of Germany," a richly illustrated popular history of German Jewry, and
on a number of outdated works from the 1960s.The term subculture, which
allows for shifting boundaries and a certain degree of permeability, might
have been a more useful concept than "ethnic minority" to tackle the
problem of describing the experience of rather diverse "minorities" and
other marginalized groups within the modern German context, not all of whom
were strictly "ethnic."
The book contains countless not carefully thought out sections, paragraphs
and terms. Panayi uses, for instance, the term "Ostjuden" for Jewish
immigrants from Eastern Europe in Imperial Germany (p. 89) without
explaining that this term was highly charged and reflects rather
stereotypical images and imaginations of "Jews" than actual Jewish
immigrants. Interestingly, Steven Aschheim's important book on this
subject shows up in a footnote, but its thesis is not discussed.[5] A
typical paragraph may illustrate the problems of Panayi's approach. In a
section on the rise of scientific racism in Imperial Germany Panayi writes
just after discussing the ideas of German nationalists: "By the outbreak of
the First World War the scientific racism which would lead to Nazi eugenics
had established itself in Germany. The First International Hygiene
Exhibition in Dresden in 1911 opened the German Hygiene Museum. The Racial
Hygiene Society, founded in Berlin in 1905, represented an organization
which unified 'Pan-German Aryan ideologues' and social hygienists." (p. 88)
The Dresden Hygiene Museum was actually opened in 1930. Admittedly the
First Hygiene Exhibition in 1911 helped to popularize scientific "racism"
(it attracted 5 million visitors), but to reduce its concept and
organization to proto-Nazi eugenics in one sentence is an extremely
one-sided view. Some readers might assume from this sentence that the
Hygiene Museum was a museum of scientific racism run by extremist
proto-Nazis (it was not). Apart from this literally thrown in piece of
information this section points to two other problems. Throughout the book
Panayi heaps facts upon facts, often without putting in a paragraph with
some comment or explanation. And throughout chapters 1-4, i.e. the
chapters covering the periods before 1933, Panayi makes numerous remarks
referring to the Nazi period. At times, he is aware of problems of
hindsight, but often the uninformed reader is led to believe that Germany
was firmly on the track to Nazi rule many decades before 1933.
The often unclear sentences create profound problems in the chapter on the
Nazi era. Here Panayi states: "Once the Second World War broke out, the
Nazis quickly defeated Poland ..." (p. 166). Or he claims: "Holland
deported 110,000 of its Jews to the Nazi extermination camps in Poland,
..." (p. 174). Uninformed readers might assume that Germany did not start
the Second World War and that Dutch Jews and Jewish refugees living in the
Netherlands were deported by the Dutch state rather than the Germans
occupying the Netherlands. Another passage describes the so called
_Kristallnacht_ or night of broken glass: "The Nazis publicized the
assassination of an official at the German embassy in Paris, Ernst von
Rath, by a Polish Jew, on 7 November [1938] and, in fact, turned him into
something of a martyr. This led to the nationwide explosion of antisemitic
violence on the night of 9-10 November, which resulted in the destruction
of 7.500 shops and more than 250 synagogues, as well as 236 deaths" (p.
170). Panayi never tells the reader that the pogrom was carefully
organized and orchestrated by Goebbels, Heydrich and other leading party
officials and executed by SA and SS-members. While some bystanders did
join the SA and SS and almost no "ordinary German" defended Jews, it was
not a spontaneous popular revolt as the Goebbels propaganda machine claimed
and as Panayi suggests here.
Countless sentences and paragraphs begin with "the Nazis ...," but with the
sole exception of the notorious Robert Ritter, a scientist who specialized
on the Gypsies, and Hitler himself, leading figures of Nazi Germany such as
Himmler, Heydrich, Eichmann, Rosenberg, Goebbels and others whose role was
crucial in terms of persecuting minoritiesare completely absent; so are
(with very few exceptions) functional elites, the SS, the "Einsatzgruppen"
(mobile-killing units), the German army, professionals, and ordinary
Germans. Instead Panayi opts for the umbrella-term "the Nazis." In this
light, it comes as a surprise that Panayi readily agrees with Daniel J.
Goldhagen's controversial argument that ordinary Germans, not all of whom
were Nazis, harbored "eliminationist" antisemitic views (p. 165, fn. 129).
Suffice to say that important works such as Saul Friedlander's "Nazi
Germany and the Jews" are not cited.[6] Even the paragraphs on the
extermination of the Jews contain factual errors, for instance when Panayi
claims that Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, and Chelmno were concentration
camps which "would eventually develop" into extermination camps, when in
fact these were extermination camps from the start (p. 179).
The main reason for the thorough lack of methodological clarity is Panayi's
refusal to draw the reader into what he regards as fruitless theoretical
debates. But Panayi's evasive way of "clearing up the jargon" belies his
effort of writing history for an academic audience. A textbook requires
clear definitions of crucial terms and concepts and a clear and
understandable style, but not simplistic, at times even crude language and
superficial "research" by the author.
Notes
[1]. Robin Cohen, _Global Diasporas_, London 1997.
[2]. Rogers Brubaker, _Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany_,
Cambridge, Mass 1992.
[3]. David Sorkin, _Transformation of German Jewry, 1780-1940_, New York
1987.
[4]. Shulamit Volkov, _Die Juden in Deutschland 1780-1914_, Munich 1997.
Michael A. Meyer (ed.), _German-Jewish History in the Modern Period_, 4
Volumes, New York 1997.
[5]. Steven Aschheim, _Brothers and Strangers: The East European Jew in
German and German-Jewish Consciousness_, Madison 1982.
[6]. Saul Friedlander, _Nazi Germany and the Jews_, New York 1997.
Copyright (c) 2001 by H-Net, all rights reserved. This work may be copied
for non-profit educational use if proper credit is given to the author and
the list. For other permission, please contact H-Net[at]h-net.msu.edu.

Subject: Re: Ir-D Irish in UK Census
From: Eileen A Sullivan

Alex,

So glad to have been spared the ethnic mix. All Irish and only Irish for
3 generations on both sides. If that isn't enough, my mother an O'Sullivan
married a Sullivan; her mother, a Sullivan married an O'Sullivan. Some of
the family in Ireland and America use the O' in front of Sullivan; some do
not. My mother's brothers when they emigrated here, added the O. Their
father in Ireland did not use an O.

Finally got to the Isle of Man a few years ago; really enjoyed the island
culture
and its attachment to old ways.

Glad you are one of us, too.

Cheers,
Eileen

Dr. Eileen A. Sullivan, Director
The Irish Educational Association, Inc. Tel # (352) 332
3690
6412 NW 128th Street E-Mail :
eolas1[at]juno.com
Gainesville, FL 32653

Forwarded for information...

This item appeared on the H-Ethnic list...


Subject: H-ETHNIC: Reply to Rainer Ohliger's review of An Ethnic History of
Europe Since 1945: Nations, States and Minorities from Panikos Panayi

By Panikos Panayi
Reply to Rainer Ohliger.

I was surprised by the attack on my book, An Ethnic History of Europe Since
1945: Nations, States and Minorities (Harlow: Longman, 2000), by Rainer
Ohliger recently issued by H-Net . I would like to respond to his points.
Essentially, he seems to believe that I should not have written the volume
and makes specific criticisms, which I would like to tackle. He does not
appreciate the complexities of writing such a book and neither does he
fully engage with what I actually do achieve, preferring, instead, to
suggest ways in which the text could have been produced in a different way.

Dr Ohlinger firstly asserts that I have no theoretical basis for my work
and that I do not explain the meaning of the terms that I use. In fact, a
reading of pp. 3-10 provides both theory and definitions of the terms
'nations', 'states' and minorities. I have not placed myself within 'the
camps of scholars who have passionately argued from the mid-1980s on about
the essence of ethnicity and nationhood', as I was not aware that academic
life consisted of armies of scholars at war with each other. I believed
that reading as much as possible was one of the central aims of academics,
who could then produce balanced works. The footnotes on pp. 3-10 of my
book clearly indicate that I have referred to many of the leading scholars
in the field of nationalism and ethnicity including Anthony D Smith, Gerard
Chaliand, Walker Connor, Ernest Gellner, Elie Kedourie, Eric Hobsbawm,
Benedict Anderson and Klaus Bade. There are numerous others and one could
write a volume about ethnic definitions, which would be a different project
altogether. My book is not a work of theory and it was never intended to
be.

The way in which Ohliger takes phrases out of context is unfair. To give
one example, he claims that I speak of 'perfect minorities', as if they
exist everywhere. The book, if read in its entirety, points to the fact
that they certainly do not. What I actually say on p. 9 is that: 'A perfect
minority for the sake of argument' (a crucial phrase) 'is smaller than the
majority grouping, concentrates on particular locations, looks outwardly
different and lacks power'. This may not be the only definition, but it
provides the basis for the argumentation within my book.

Ohliger does not like my categorization of minorities. This categorization
was never intended to be perfect. However, minorities in post-War Europe
can be placed into three groups: dispersed ones which have been found
throughout much of the continent (Jews, Gypsies, Muslims and Germans) due
to migration (and imperial expansion in the case of Muslims and Germans)
before 1945; localised ones which have evolved due to migration (before
1945) and state formation since the medieval period; and immigrants who
have arrived since 1945. To answer some of Ohliger's specific questions
about my categorization, Rumanian Germans are dispersed according to the
above division, because Germans have historically lived throughout Eastern
Europe while Rumanian Hungarians are localised because Hungarians
essentially live within Hungary or neighbouring states. Croatians in
Germany are immigrants while those in Yugoslavia are not, because they were
there before state formation. Nevertheless, Ohliger is perfectly entitled
to disagree with my divisions as I have not provided perfect ones. I am
sure that one could divide ethnic minorities in Europe in other ways.
However, the categorization I have provided holds together well for the
purpose of driving the narrative forward.

The book does not have a single argument because the relationship between
ethnic minorities and majorities in post-War Europe is complex,
particularly if one attempts to tackle all of them. Some are more excluded
than others in economic, geographic, political and ethnic terms. There is
no over-reaching explanation that would illustrate the relationship between
all ethnic minorities in Europe with all majorities, other than the fact
that they exist because of nation state formation since the end of the
eighteenth century. However, even this statement needs clarification
because Jews and Gypsies evolved as distinct minorities in Europe from
their first arrival. The narrative, which holds together well, illustrates
the differences among the vast varieties of ethnic groups in Europe. What
argument or theory would link the demographic and geographic
characteristics of Scots who have remained in their homeland, with the
characteristics of Gypsies in Bulgaria, for instance? The demographic and
geographic characteristics of the two groups are vastly different and I
explain the reasons for such matters. I have provided an introductory
narrative, which is useful for those who are prepared to use it as such. It
was not aimed at theoretical political scientists but at those interested
in the general history of ethnic minorities in Europe since 1945, for whom
it will prove of worth. Dr Ohliger may decide not to recommend the book to
his students, but numerous academics have already done so.

If one finds faults with others, one should not make the same mistakes as
those one is criticising. Dr Ohliger concludes his review by pointing to
proof reading errors, but has at least two mistakes in his own final
paragraph, i.e. 'ius soli' followed by two commas and the beginning of a
sentence with a small letter: 'instead of Securitate'. I am not really
sure of the aim of pointing out proofreading errors, particularly if one
makes mistakes while listing them! I thank Dr Ohliger for drawing my
attention to those that I have made and trust that he will be equally
grateful for my observations in this matter.

In conclusion, I think that I have provided a useful introduction to the
history ethnic minorities in Europe since the end of the Second World War.
I have written neither a theoretical work nor one which was aimed at
specialists on individual groups within the continent. There are many ways
of writing history books, and several British publishers exist solely for
the purpose of publishing volumes which summarise large complex subjects in
a few hundred pages. My book represents the first attempt by a historian a
to write an ethnic history of Europe since 1945. It provides a useful
starting point for those interested in looking at the topics I cover and I
am sure that it will be used by countless individuals with such a purpose
in mind in the future. To write the perfect book, which Dr Ohliger asks
for, would be impossible in a few hundred pages. Such a task would require
hundreds of scholars working under a central editor, who would also have
sub-editors under him focusing upon individual nation states and their own
minorities. An Ethnic History of Europe since 1945 will prove, and has
already proved, extremely useful for those wishing to read and engage with
it, rather than for those who simply dismiss it out of hand because it does
not take a standard formulaic approach so loved by some academics. Thus, as
the author, I would like to recommend the book and hope that readers find
it a useful introduction to the ethnic history of Europe since the end of
the Second World War.

From Email Patrick O'Sullivan

Meanwhile, in another part of the Diaspora...

We have been asking for sightings of No Irish Need Apply in Australia...

Today a fax - from Professor Patrick O'Farrell, University of New South
Wales, autor of The Irish in Australia, etc. - of page 232 from The
Australian Journal, 5 December 1868, a song with music and words by F. R.
Phillips, 'No Irish Need Apply'. Patrick O'Farrell describes it as 'a
suitably loyalist colonial version'.

The song lyric would seem to refer to the John F. Poole 1862/63 version,
quoted by Richard Jensen - I have not had a chance, as yet, to compare the
music. But it keeps that interesting 6 line verse structure, with the
repetition of 'no Irish need apply' on lines 4 and 6. But, as we will see,
it wants to re-write the slogan.

The Phillips lyric begins in the usual way, with Irishisms and a search for
work, following a newspaper advertisement. But its defence of the Irish is
based on their contribution to the British Empire's forces.

Verse 3 reads...

At Balaclava, Inkermann, and through the Russian War,
Did not the Irish bravely fight, as they've oft done before,
And since that time in India, they made the rebels fly,
Our Generals never hinted then, 'No Irish need apply;'
If you want a second Wellington, I say it's all my eye,
You'll never get one while you write, 'No Irish need apply.'

Verse 4 lists Irish lawyers, poets, statesmen, mentioning Moore, Sheridan
and Grattan.

Verse 5...

When our good Queen went to Ireland, the boys they did not alter,
But greeted her with joyous shouts, welcome, 'Cead Mille Failte,'
And to defend her royal self sure each one of them would die,
Her Majesty would never say, 'No Irish need apply;'
Then let us join both heart and hand, nor ask the reason why
Good fellowship should not exist, where 'Irish may apply.'

The last verse, Verse 6, wants us to cling together, 'man to man as
brothers', and sees the Shamrock, Rose and Thistle united.

Comparing the Poole lyric with this Phillips version... Both mention the
usefulness of the Irish against 'rebels' - Poole has 'Meagher's men, and
Corcoran's brigade' in the US Civil War, Phillips mentions India. We have
had discussions about Irish 'maleness' on the Ir-D list before. The key
quote is Renan on 'the Celts' as an 'essentially feminine race...' - which
becomes a chapter title in Cairns and Richards, Writing Ireland (1988). Who
suggest, p. 49, that 'the implications of linking feminity as a racial trait
with subservience...' led to an ...emphasizing of the manly and masculine
aspects of the Irish character...'

So, yes, there is an appeal to male, military prowess - the willingness to
fight and kill. What has always struck me about this discussion - and often
with extremists from one (ethnic and/or political) group or another - is the
implication that it is willingness to DIE for a cause that legitimates the
cause, and then legitimates the death. An appeal to the legitimacy
conferred by sacrifice - it is, I suppose, the argument from
Fredericksburg... I have to say that it is not an argument that much
appeals to me.

P.O'S.

- --
Patrick O'Sullivan
Head of the Irish Diaspora Research Unit

Email Patrick O'Sullivan
Email Patrick O'Sullivan

Irish-Diaspora list
Irish Diaspora Studies http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/diaspora/

Personal Fax National 0870 284 1580
Fax International +44 870 284 1580

Irish Diaspora Research Unit
Department of Interdisciplinary Human Studies
University of Bradford
Bradford BD7 1DP
Yorkshire
England

The following book review, which appeared on the H-Urban list, has been
forwarded to us...

> Kevin Kenny. _The American Irish: A History_. Studies in Modern
> History. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 2000. xix + 263
> pp. Illustrations, maps, notes, bibliography, and index. $ 24.00
> (Paper), ISBN 0-582-27817-1.
>
> Reviewed for H-Urban by Maureen Murphy, catmom[at]hofstra.edu, Department
> of Curriculum and Teaching, Hofstra University.
>
> A New History of the Irish in America
>
> This new history of the Irish in America, the first from a new
> generation of historians of the Irish diaspora, is a valuable survey
> of Irish immigration to North America, primarily to the United States,
> from the earliest settlers in the first decades of the eighteenth
> century to the present. There are chapters devoted to six periods:
> The Eighteenth Century; Before the Famine; The Famine Generation;
> After the Famine; Irish America, 1900-1940; and Irish America since
> the Second World War. Drawing on the pioneering work of Irish
> immigration historians like Dennis Clark, Hasia Diner, Lawrence
> J. McCaffrey, Kerby Miller, and Janet Nolan, on the work of current
> immigration historians like Mary Corcoran and Timothy Guinnane, and on
> the work of specialists like Francis Carroll (Irish-American
> politics), David Noel Doyle (the Irish-American labor movement) and
> Charles Fannning (Irish-American literature), Kenny has produced a
> history that is an engaging introduction to the American Irish for the
> general reader, a clear and highly readable (and teachable) text for a
> course in the history of the Irish in America, and a reliable
> reference for the specialist.
>
> Kenny calls his book a synthesis; however, his book is much more. He
> had made a number of original contributions to the study of the Irish
> in America. He places each of his chapters on the Irish in America in
> the context of events in Ireland during the same period so that the
> reader understands the forces that shaped Irish emigration in a
> particular era. (This approach provided the "making sense" in Kenny's
> first book _Making Sense of the Molly Maguires_ (1998) where he traced
> the relationship between traditional forms of agrarian protest in
> Ireland and the beginning of trade unionism in the 1870s among Irish
> immigrant miners in the hard coal country of Pennsylvania.) Kenny
> introduces his readers to contemporary conditions in Ireland before he
> discusses the major themes that characterized those Irish immigrants'
> experiences in the United States: nationalism, labor, politics,
> religion.
>
> Kenny's book identifies and discusses the current issues in the
> historiography of the American Irish: the "Celtic Thesis" developed
> about ethnic origins and the first federal census, the "whiteness" of
> the Irish in pre-Civil War America, the various interpretations of the
> Great Irish Famine, Irish-American nationalism, and the nature of
> Irish-American urban politics. In such discussions, Kenny often
> suggests new areas of research or questions about the experience of
> the Irish in America that need to be investigated or revisited. One
> could add to Kenny's list the work on the American Irish and religious
> orders done by scholars like Suellen Hoy and the attention given to
> local history by researchers like Ellen Skerritt who has studied
> Chicago parishes.
>
> The language of Kenny's _The American Irish: A History_ is one of
> inclusion. He moves beyond the old distinction between the
> "Scotch-Irish" (Ulster Presbyterian Irish in America) and the Irish
> Americans (traditionally identified as Catholic) and uses the term
> American Irish to embrace all those have come to America from
> Ireland. Kenny's inclusion is about more than terminology; he pays
> generous attention to the story of the American Irish from Protestant
> (mainly Ulster Presbyterian) tradition. He argues that land was a
> defining force in their pattern of migration: from Scotland to Ulster,
> from Ulster to North America, and from the eastern shores west to the
> frontier, a frontier they shared with German immigrants. Their
> "shallow roots" in Ulster meant that the American Irish of Ulster
> Presbyterian tradition chose to migrate to North America where they
> would have increased economic opportunity (land) and religious
> independence; they generally did not share the sense of involuntary
> exile that Kerby Miller has identified as characteristic of later
> American Irish of Roman Catholic tradition. Kenny argues that the
> assimilation of the Ulster Presbyterians was linked to the matter of
> race and slavery. "The greater the stake of the Scotch-Irish in
> slavery, the more they came to be regarded as the equals of other
> white Americans in the South" (p. 39).
>
> Access to land -- as tenants, not as owners -- was the central issue
> for most of the population of Ireland in the nineteenth
> century. 900,000 families lived on less than two acres or were
> landless (p.49). Enclosure legislation further limited available land,
> which resulted in the Irish who were pressed for land reacting with
> secret agrarian society and with emigration. Kenny demonstrates that
> Irish violence in America over access to employment was based on the
> use of agrarian violence as a form of protest about access to land. In
> his chapter "Before the Famine," Kenny also considers the debate about
> Irish "whiteness" and cautions that the charge of Irish racism runs
> the risk of blaming the Irish for the misfortunes of the African
> Americans rather than an employment system that created antagonism
> over access to employment between two disadvantaged groups (p. 67).
>
> Kenny's chapter "The Famine Generation" outlines the debate among
> historians over the causes of the Great Irish Famine and the matter of
> the British government's responsibility for their failure to take
> timely and appropriate action. Here again, Kenny discusses the
> complexity of historical questions. Was Ireland a colony or a partner
> in the United Kingdom? To what degree did British government, press,
> and public opinion regard the famine as divine intervention that
> provided an opportunity to transform social and moral conditions?
>
> What is clear is that the Great Irish Famine transformed the structure
> of rural Ireland. The number of those living on 0-5 acres declined
> from 44.9 to 15.5 percent while the number of those farming 50 or more
> acres increased from 7 to 26.1 percent. The Great Irish Famine also
> changed the profile of the Irish emigrant to North America. The
> majority were "rural dwellers, Catholics, lacking in capital beyond
> their passage money, usually English-speaking and able to read or
> write to some extent, and whenever possible they left Ireland in
> family groups rather than alone." (p. 99) This generation of Irish
> immigrants were the least successful and most exploited. A high
> percentage of Irish immigrant women were single heads of household;
> there was a significant number of Irish immigrant women engaged in
> prostitution (1/3 of 2,000 interviewed in 1855). Competition for
> employment with African-Americans continued and the Irish opposed the
> emancipation of slavery because they feared that more cheap labor
> would arrive from the south. Tension erupted in the Draft Riots of
> 1863.
>
> Kenny's final theme for the Famine period is the beginning of an
> Irish-American nationalism that embraced the physical force
> nationalism of the Young Irelanders rather than the constitutional
> nationalism of Daniel O'Connell. Irish nationalism in the United
> States reached a crossroads in the post-famine period. The competing
> interests of constitutional, physical force and social reform
> converged; the winner was Home Rule.
>
> Irish-born migrants to the United States reached their peak in 1890
> (1,871,509); that year there were 2,924,172 second-generation Irish
> living in the United States. (p. 131) The continued high emigration
> from Ireland was a feature of a demographic profile of post-famine
> Ireland that included: low and late marriage rates and high rates of
> celibacy (p. 133), "Strong farmers" (30 plus acres), and the Catholic
> Church and Irish nationalism as the dominant forces in Irish
> society. Emigration and religious vocations were ways to accommodate
> non-inheriting or non-dowered children, so that this period saw more
> young, single emigrants. Single females frequently outnumbered
> males. Kenny considers the heavy concentration of Irish women who went
> into domestic service and questions the degree to which current
> historians have underestimated the social oppression of those women.
>
> Kenny's last two chapters consider Irish America, 1900-1940, and Irish
> America since the Second World War. By the turn of the century, the
> Irish had moved into mainstream America, and immigrants from southern
> and eastern Europe were the "other." Irish emigration had changed too.
> More restrictive American immigration laws resulted in three times as
> many Irish migrating to Great Britain as migrated to North
> America. Irish independence dominated the first two decades of the
> twentieth century, and the influence of the American Irish brought the
> Irish question into the mainstream of American politics. The Irish
> continued to dominate the labor movement and American urban politics,
> and Kenny traces the development of the distinctive style of Irish
> machine politics up to the time of the New Deal.
>
> Kenny's last chapter, "Irish America Since the Second World War," is
> less a survey of Irish immigration than a discussion of the identity
> of Americans of Irish descent and its shift from urban to suburban
> centers. The 1980s saw two new waves of Irish immigrants: skilled and
> highly educated immigrants with work visas and a larger number of
> undocumented Irish (40,000-200,000) who were living in urban centers
> and working off the books in the building trades, in bars and
> restaurants, and in child care or domestic service. The efforts of the
> grass roots Irish Immigration Reform Movement (IIRM) and other
> organizations in the American Irish community to lobby congress
> successfully for visa programs for the Irish was one of the great
> success stories of the last twenty years. The period also saw Ireland
> return to the American political agenda as the United States,
> particularly during the Clinton administration, played an active role
> in the peace process in Northern Ireland.
>
> Kenny's study of the American Irish comes at a moment when the Irish
> are enjoying the benefits of the Celtic Tiger economy, and its culture
> has the world's attention. Irish Studies is enjoying a higher
> Profile, not only in American colleges and universities but also in
> Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and South America. States are
> requiring that students learn about the Great Irish Famine. New York
> State will introduce its Great Irish Famine Curriculum for grades 4-12
> later this year. The study of the Irish in America is essential to any
> Irish Studies program. Kevin Kenny has given us an essential text for
> the story of the American Irish.
>
> Copyright (c) 2001 by H-Net, all rights reserved. This work may be
> copied for non-profit educational use if proper credit is given to the
> author and the list. For other permission, please contact
> H-Net[at]H-Net.Msu.Edu.
>
>

From: Alexander Peach
Subject: RE: Ir-D An aside on Sullivans/O'Sullivans

My thanks to Eileen. Her observations on previous generations stimulated me
to talk to my parents about this issue which has thrown up even more
confusion. Apparently, my maternal Manx grandmother's parents were both
Welsh. Her father was a skilled miner who migrated to Ramsey to work in the
lead mines there. To mix up the ethnic stew even more, it seems there are
Scottish antecedents on my mother's side. That leaves only a Cornish and
Breton forebear to hunt down to be a full Celt! Mind you, Peach is
apparently a French name originally so it might be just a Cornish link to
look for. Or could it all just be a meaningless construction based on a
modern preoccupation with nationalism and birthplace?
Phew!

Best wishes,

Alex Peach

- -----Original Message-----
From: irish-diaspora[at]Bradford.ac.uk [SMTP:irish-diaspora[at]Bradford.ac.uk]
Sent: 09 April 2001 20:30
To: irish-diaspora[at]Bradford.ac.uk
Subject: Ir-D An aside on Sullivans/O'Sullivans


Subject: Re: Ir-D Irish in UK Census
From: Eileen A Sullivan

Alex,

So glad to have been spared the ethnic mix. All Irish and only Irish for
3 generations on both sides. If that isn't enough, my mother an O'Sullivan
married a Sullivan; her mother, a Sullivan married an O'Sullivan. Some of
the family in Ireland and America use the O' in front of Sullivan; some do
not. My mother's brothers when they emigrated here, added the O. Their
father in Ireland did not use an O.

Finally got to the Isle of Man a few years ago; really enjoyed the island
culture
and its attachment to old ways.

Glad you are one of us, too.

Cheers,
Eileen

Dr. Eileen A. Sullivan, Director
The Irish Educational Association, Inc. Tel # (352) 332
3690
6412 NW 128th Street E-Mail :
eolas1[at]juno.com
Gainesville, FL 32653

From Email Patrick O'Sullivan

I have pasted in, below, the contents list and the full list of reviews in
the latest issue of Irish Studies Review, 9, 1, April 2001 - contact point
at
www.bathspa.ac.uk/hum/isr1.html

As usual, an interesting read - especially strong in book reviews.

And the usual nightmares... Mary King's essay on Wilde begins with a
distorted version of the quote usually assigned to Sir Henry Wotton: 'An
ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country'.
With the pun on 'lie abroad', meaning to dwell abroad. Here this has become
'sent abroad to lie...' Anyone who has tried to get anything the least bit
odd or unusual past the copyeditors will sympathise with Mary...
(Remembering an earlier Ir-D discussion, a friend once had a book about
Irish buildings returned from an editor with the words 'manor with a bawn'
changed to 'manor with a lawn' throughout...)

The essay which I co-wrote with Pat Bracken appears here at last. We had
given it a rather grand title, using a remark from Luke Gibbons,
Transformations in Irish Cultures, about British perceptions of the Irish,
'Not taken at a glance...' But the journal has settled for something much
more prosaic. The essay is generally more prosaic than the one we had
originally submitted - we had tried to show how an analysis of British
Health Research would lead to specific research questions, questions which
we are now trying to answer in a current research project. The journal
deleted all the research question material, saying it did not publish
research proposals. So, a prosaic analysis of British health statistics...

I have recently been doing some work with Irish Traveller communities here,
so I read Paul Delaney on 'representations' with interest. If we are
searching for the country in which Irish Travellers have experienced most
hostility it is surely Ireland...

Jim Doan's study of the Blasket Island Memoirs is very timely, and raises
important questions - eg the influence of Pierre Loti or Maxim Gorky on
O'Crohan, or Robin Flower's extraordinary use of the word 'neolithic' to
describe Blasket culture. (It also brought back sad memories - for I once
lent out my Blasket Island collection to an enthusiast, and never saw the
books again...)

Amongst the book reviews of special interest to Irish-Diaspora Studies are
the O'Loughlin review of Mapping the Famine; the review of Starr on the
Irish Convict System; the review by Judd of McCracken on MacBride's Brigade
(reminding us that it should have been called Blake's Brigade, after its
Irish-American commander - but the demands of Irish politics decided
otherwise); a (well deserved) rapturous review by Liam Kennedy of Patrick
Maume's edition of Mullin's Toiler's Life...

P.O'S.

Irish Studies Review
Volume 9 Number 1 April 2001

Margaret Kelleher, Writing Irish Women's Literary History

Mary C. King, Typing Dorian Gray: Wilde and the Interpellated Text

John McAuliffe, Taking the Sting out of the Traveller's Tale: Thackeray's
Irish Sketchbook

Patrick J. Bracken and Patrick O'Sullivan, The Invisibility of Irish
Migrants in British Health Research

Paul Delaney, Representations of the Travellers in the 1880s and 1900s

Lisa Napkins, The Irish and the Germans in the Fiction of John Buchan and
Erskine Childers

REVIEW ARTICLE James E. Doan, Revisiting the Blasket Island Memoirs Island
Cross-Talk: Pages from a Blasket Island Diary by Tomas O'Crohan; The
Islandman by Tomas O'Crohan; The Western Island or The Great Blasket by
Robin Flower; Twenty Years A-Growing by Maurice O'Sullivan; An Old Woman's
Reflections by Peig Sayers; A Pity Youth Does Not Last: Reminiscences of the
Last of the Great Blasket Island's Poets and Storytellers by Micheal
O'Griiheen; and A Day in Our Life by Sean O'Crohan

REVIEWS

FOLKLORE, MYTHOLOGY AND MEMOIR
Locating Irish Folklore: Tradition, Modernity, Identity by Diarmuid 6
Giollain; reviewed by Jose Lanters
Speaking Volumes: A Dublin Childhood by Edith Newman Devlin; reviewed by
Sarah Ferris

HISTORY AND POLITICS
Medieval Dublin I edited by Sean Duffy; reviewed by Terry Barry
Sir Arthur Chichester: Lord Deputy of Ireland 1605-16 by John McCavin;
reviewed by Nicholas Canny
Confederate Ireland, 1642-1649: A Constitutional and Political Analysis by
Micheal O Siochru; reviewed by Robert Armstrong
Political Ideas in Eighteenth-century Ireland edited by S. J. Connolly;
reviewed by Tom Bartlett
The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke: Volume 1: The Early Writings
edited by James T. Boulton & T. 0. McLoughlin; and Edmund Burke's
Reflections on the Revolution in France: New Interdisciplinary Essays edited
by John Whale; reviewed by Jefferson Holdridge
Prince of Swindlers: John Sadlier MP, 1813-1856 by James O'Shea; and
Clonmel, 1840-1900: Anatomy of an Irish Town by Sean O'Donnell; reviewed by
Gerard Moran
Mapping the Great Irish Famine by L. Kennedy, P. S. Ell, E. M. Crawford & L.
A. Clarkson; reviewed by Thomas O'Loughlin
Ireland and Empire: Colonial Legacies in Irish History and Culture by
Stephen Howe; reviewed by Richard Kirkland
Colonial Discipline: the Making of the Irish Convict System by Patrick
Carroll-Burke; reviewed by Joseph P Starr
MacBride's Brigade: Irish Commandos in the Anglo-Boer War by Donal P.
McCracken; reviewed by Denis Judd
Before the Revolution: Nationalism, Social Change and Ireland's Catholic
Elite, 1879-1922 by Senia Paseta; reviewed by Peter Hart
Grace Gifford Plunkett and Irish Freedom: Tragic Bride of 1916 by Marie
O'Neill; and The Sinn Fein Rebellion 'as They Saw It' edited by Keith
Jeffery; reviewed by Mary E Daly
A Nation of Extremes: the Pioneers in Twentieth-century Ireland by Diannaid
Ferriter; and Oracles of God: The Roman Catholic Church and Irish Politics,
1922-1937 by Patrick Murray; reviewed by Mary Harris
Paths to a Settlement in Northern Ireland by Sean Farren & Robert Fo
Mulvihill; reviewed by Robert Mahony
Alfred Webb: the Autobiography of a Quaker Nationalist edited by Marie
Louise Legg; reviewed by John Benjamin Levitas
Unfinished Business: State Killings and the Quest for Truth by Bill Rolston
with Mairead Gilmartin; reviewed by Mary S Corcoran

LITERATURE
Drama, Performance, and Polity in Pre-Cromwellian Ireland by Alan Jo
Fletcher; reviewed by Dermot Cavanagh
The Gothic Family Romance: Heterosexuality, Child Sacrifice and the
Anglo-Irish Colonial Order by Margot Gayle Backus; reviewed by David Glover
Scholars and Rebels in Nineteenth Century Ireland by Terry Eagleton;
reviewed by Matthew Campbell
The Story of a Toiler's Life by James Mullin, edited by Patrick Maume;
reviewed by Liam Kennedy
George Moore, 1852-1933 by Alan Frazier; and The Untilled Field by George
Moore (1903), introduced by Richard Allen Cave; reviewed by Brendan Fleming
Wilde Style: The Plays and Prose of Oscar Wilde by Neil Sammells; reviewed
by Maureen O'Connor
Yeats's Poetry, Drama and Prose edited by James Pethica; reviewed by Robert
Tracy
Those Mingled Seas: the Poetry of W B Yeats, the Beautiful and the Sublime
by Jefferson Holdridge; reviewed by Richard Greaves
States of Desire: Wilde, Yeats, Joyce and the Irish Experiment by Vicki
Mahaffey; and The Cast of Characters: A Reading of 'Ulysses' by Paul
Schwaber; reviewed by Ronan MacDonald
Contemporary Irish Fiction: Themes, Tropes, Theories edited by Liam Harte &
Michael Parker; reviewed by Roberta Gefter Wondrich
The Supreme Fictions of John Banville by Joseph McMinn; reviewed by Peter
Dempsey
The Politics of Irish Drama: Plays in Context from Boucicault to Friel by
Nicholas Grene; reviewed by Christina Hunt Mahony
Brian Friel's (post)Colonial Drama: Language, musion, and Politics by F. C.
McGrath; reviewed by Aidan Arrowsmith
Other People's Houses by Vona Groarke; and Seatown by Conor O'Callaghan;
reviewed by Gregory Castle
Toccata and Fugue by John Fo Deane; and Music by Desmond Egan; reviewed by
Neil Reeves

MEDIA AND CULTURAL STUDIES
Dialogues in the Margin: A Study of the 'Dublin University Magazine' by
Wayne Eo Hall; reviewed by James H. Murphy
Samuel Beckett and the Arts: Music, Visual Arts and Non-print Media edited
by Lois Oppenheim; reviewed by James Knowlson


- --
Patrick O'Sullivan
Head of the Irish Diaspora Research Unit

Email Patrick O'Sullivan
Email Patrick O'Sullivan

Irish-Diaspora list
Irish Diaspora Studies http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/diaspora/

Personal Fax National 0870 284 1580
Fax International +44 870 284 1580

Irish Diaspora Research Unit
Department of Interdisciplinary Human Studies
University of Bradford
Bradford BD7 1DP
Yorkshire
England