From: "Patrick O'Sullivan"

It is 5.30 here, and I have a car full of children waiting downstairs - we
are going to be away for the weekend...

People who want to write or email to the Guardian should go right ahead. I
guess it does no harm to rub their noses in it.

I am in two minds - I am not sure that it is always a good idea to do
precisely what your opponent wants you to do.

In haste, more later. People are complaining...

Paddy


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

Email Patrick O'Sullivan
Email Patrick O'Sullivan
Personal Fax 0044 (0) 709 236 9050

Irish-Diaspora list
Irish Diaspora Studies http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/diaspora/
Irish Diaspora Net Archive http://www.irishdiaspora.net

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

From: P.Bracken[at]Bradford.ac.uk
To: irish-diaspora[at]Bradford.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Ir-D Burchill article, Guardian, 13
Paddy

Please put my name to the letter from Piaras.

Pat

Quoting irish-diaspora[at]Bradford.ac.uk:

>
> From: "MacEinri, Piaras"
> To: "'irish-diaspora[at]Bradford.ac.uk'"
> Subject: Birchill article
>
> Herewith a slightly amended version of my draft (taking Patrick
> Maume's
> point into account and toning down the text a little).
>
> Piaras
>
> Dear Sir/Madam
>
> We wish to protest at Julie Birchill's anti-Irish rant (Sat 29), which
> would
> not have been out of place in certain newspapers well to your right.
> Apart
> from being racist and sectarian it is laughably inaccurate.
>
> There is no 'national church' in Ireland. There is one in England
> (surely an
> anachronism in this day and age) and the head of it is the Queen. The
> clause
> in the Irish constitution which recognised the 'special position' of
> the
> Roman Catholic Church as that representing the majority of Irish people
> was
> removed from the constitution many years ago. All of the evidence now
> points
> to very rapid secularisation in Ireland.
>
> The Church of Ireland had women priests before the Church of England,
> and
> those Irish Protestants who are members of that congregation are every
> bit
> as Irish as the Irish Catholics who are presumably Ms Burchill's
> intended
> target. In any event the present Pope, not the Roman Catholics of
> Ireland,
> forbade women priests in the Catholic Church. Surveys have
> consistently
> shown that substantial numbers of ordinary Catholics favour women
> priests.
>
> Ireland introduced divorce several years ago. The sky hasn't fallen.
>
> Ms Birchill brings up the old charge about Ireland 'aiding and
> abetting
> Hitler in his hour of need'. It has been well established that
> Ireland's
> 'neutrality' was very definitely neutral on the side of the Allies -
> weather
> reports, policy towards POWs, intelligence information and the simple
> fact
> that neutral Ireland supplied tens of thousands of men to the British
> armed
> forces as well as tens of thousands of women, many of whom worked in
> the
> munitions factories of Britain during the war.
>
> Was there fascism in Ireland? There was a Blueshirt movement, which
> was
> inspired more by Irish civil war politics than by continental fascism.
> It
> was led by Eoin O'Duffy, who eventually so discredited himself that
> the
> politicians had supported him very quickly abandoned him. He led some of
> his
> supporters to Spain, most of them young men or boys from rural Ireland
> who
> thought they were fighting godless communism. Most would not even have
> seen
> themselves as 'fascist'. Their only action in the Civil War was an
> incident
> involving other troops on Franco's side. By contrast an admittedly
> smaller
> number of trade unionists, communists and republicans played a very
> distinguished role in a number of Spanish Republican units, notably
> the
> International Brigades, fighting alongside British, American and other
> anti-fascist soldiers.
>
> The serious issue of child molestation is now the subject of public
> debates,
> public enquiries and vigorous legal action in Ireland. Is Ms Birchill
> suggesting it never happened in England?
>
> For shame.
>
> Yours faithfully
>
>



Dr. Pat Bracken
Bradford Home Treatment Service
Tel : 01274 414007

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: webmail.brad.ac.uk

From: "James O'Keeffe"
Subject: Burchill article, Guardian,


Patrick

The response over Burchill's distasteful, distorting and
disgusting article appears to have touched a raw nerve with
fellow diasporians. I have not read the article but it
appears to be same old same old! I have long suspected the
Guardian's credentials as a truly left of centre paper and
indeed the limited extent of it's Republican (in the
English sense) leanings.

Could I suggest that some form of response be hammered out,
agreed by all, signed, electronically, and sent to the
Guardian as a protest over Burchill's diatribe.

Could I also suggest that any possible response be based on
Piaras Mac Einri's detailed email.

What do you think.



----------------------
James O'Keeffe
School Administrator
School of Education
j.okeeffe[at]unl.ac.uk
tel: 0207 753 5104
x 2661

From: "Richard Jensen"
To:
Subject: Re: Ir-D Burchill article, Guardian, 13

Speaking from an American perspective, I suggest the "reply" does more
damage than good.

The refusal of Ireland to help the United States in WW2 is a sore
spot; picking that scab is a bad idea. Boasting of giving weather
reports at a time the world was in life and death throes is
ridiculous.

Efforts to marginalize the role of the Catholic Church in Irish
history
and Irish life surely are wrong-headed.

"Explaining away" history is usually rhetorically
self-defeating--nowhere more so than in downplaying the Blueshirts as
misguided fools in the Spanish Civil War while praising the Stalinist
volunteers as far-sighted heroes.

Richard Jensen rjensen[at]uic.edu

From: Cymru66[at]aol.com
Subject: Re: Ir-D Burchill article, Guardian, 13

Dear Paddy,
I am cofident in my Irish heritage to the point of arrogance and regard
the
effusions of publicity- seeking journalists to be beneath notice and beyond
contempt. So, obviously I would not be in favour of dignifying this rubbish
with a response.
I gave up reading The Guardian years ago; its self righteousness and
narrow
mindedness kept reminding me of a particularly unpleasant 'religious
instruction' teacher I once had. I only prolonged my purchase of it because
there was some quality in the paper itself which made it ideal for lighting
the coal fire in our living -room - a serious consideration on cold mornings
in those days.
But now we have central heating.........
Best,
John Hickey,
Dominican University,
Illinois.

From:
To: irish-diaspora[at]Bradford.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Ir-D Burchill article, Guardian, 13

Well stated, Piaras. If signatures are being taken, please include me.

William H. Mulligan, Jr.

From: "Padraic"
To:
Subject: Re: Ir-D Burchill article, Guardian, 8

A lot of the comment on Julie Burchill's Guardian article wants to rebut her
criticisms of the "Catholic" Irish but exemplifies some of her stereotyping.
Exiles are particularly prone to seeing attacks on Irish Catholicism as
attacks on them and the defence sounds just like the illiberal rants of
Burchill and her like. As a paid up atheist of long standing, I couldn't
care less about what Burchill says about Catholics, Irish or otherwise. It
seem to me that the Catholic Church in Ireland is, at long last, getting its
just deserts for the brutality and hypocrisy of its activities from at least
the mid 19th. Century. And don't give me the liberal defence of how many
nice priests or nuns you know - I know several myself but that doesn't alter
the point. And what about abortion - the issue that dare not be spoken?

It amuses me to see so many liberals, feminists and socialists spring to its
defence in response to attacks from the "liberal/left" Guardian or to
proclaim crititicisms of the Catholic Church as anti-Irish. Conflation of
"Catholic" and "Irish" is exactly the problem with Burchill's article and it
is therefore bigoted and sectarian, but you can't fight Burchill's prejudice
by making the same mistake in reply.

I am aware of Burchill's anti republican stance and have in the past written
to her about this.While she would describe herself as a republican - she has
no time for the Windsors and their clan - she identifies Irish Republicanism
as a kind of dangerous romantic throwback, a view shared by many who would
attack her on other grounds. In the end, her article comes down to a kind of
yaa boo English versus Irish squabble, which of course sits oddly with her
avowed socialism.

But in the reply let's please have a plural, dare I say "inclusive"
definition of what Irishness means - not one premised on the notions of the
patriarchs of Maynooth or Rome.

Padraic Finn

- ----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 6:00 AM
Subject: Ir-D Burchill article, Guardian, 8


>
> From: "Sarah Morgan"
> To:
> Subject: Re: Ir-D Burchill article, Guardian, 7
>
> I would agree with Peter, but perhaps qualify this. Yes, Burchill is known
> for ranting and has been a long-time hater of Irish Catholics - she has
> expressed support for loyalism because it's British, and is a long-time
> rabid condemner of the IRA who sees all Irish Catholics as fellow
> travellers. She specialises in being outrageous, so - all in all - nothing
> new.
>
> More importantly, it's another example of acceptable racism/sectarianism -
> can we really imagine the liberal, left of centre Guardian publishing a
rant
> against either a 'recognised' (meaning, in the British context, 'visible')
> ethnic group or a non-Christian faith? And it is important that she
focuses
> on Irish Catholics in the article, although other groups are mentioned,
> because the twinning is what makes it OK - all Catholics could be
> problematic for the paper which has spearheaded the campaign to delete
> legislation debarring Catholics from certain posts (and especially being
the
> monarch). Part of her desire in the article is to demonstrate how superior
> English Protestantism is to Irish Catholicsm.
>
> I should add that unusually on the following Monday (or maybe the Monday
a
> week later - I forget) there was a special complaints column dealing with
> Burchill's article. The column is usually only printed on a Saturday -
> although there was no comment about it appearing on the wrong day.
However,
> I didn't find this column very satisfactory as it really failed to deal
with
> the issue of racism/sectarianism. It was really a comment on the large
> number of complaints received - apparently this was a surprise.
>
> Finally, as a regular reader of the Guardian, I'm not at all surprised
that
> it's 'Irish blind'.
>
> Sarah Morgan.
>

From: "Brian McGinn"
To:
Subject: Re: Ir-D Irish Stockings

Ruth-Ann,

You might want to check Edward MacLysaght, Irish Life in the Seventeenth
Century (Dublin, 1979). I don't have a copy on hand, but recall that he
covers daily life, including diet and dress, in some detail. Whatever they
were, Irish stockings were also considered a necessity for emigrants to
colonial Virginia. "Three paire of Irish stockins" (along with Foure paire
of shooes" and "One paire of garters") are included in a "List of
Requisites" published in 1622 by Felix Kyngston, London. My sense, subject
to correction, is that they were long woolen socks designed to complement
knee-length breeches. The manifest of the ship "Supply" which left Bristol
for Virginia in September 1620 includes 105 of Irish stockings. These
references from The Records of the Virginia Company of London, ed. Susan
Myra Kingsbury (Washington, D.C., 1933), Volume III, pp. 577, 387.

Brian McGinn
Alexandria, Virginia

From: "MacEinri, Piaras"
To: "'irish-diaspora[at]Bradford.ac.uk'"
Subject: RE: Ir-D Burchill article, Guardian, 16

I am astonished by the intemperate nature of Professor Richard Jensen's
remarks. He should have read the texts with a little more care. No-one
'boasted' about weather reports - it was simply a matter of setting the
record straight on the inference in the Burchill article that Irish policy
was in any way pro-German - it wasn't. I think that on balance we should
have joined the Allies but it's easy to have 20/20 hindsight.

His statement about Ireland's alleged 'refusal to help the United States' is
curious, for a number of reasons. On the 5th September 1939, following the
outbreak of war in Europe, President Roosevelt declared the neutrality of
the United States in accordance with the 1937 Neutrality Act, including a
ban on the sale of arms and munitions to all belligerents.The USA did not
itself enter the war until its own interests were directly affected with the
attack on Pearl Harbour. Why criticise Irish neutrality when the USA
followed its own self-interest? And if Ireland _had_ entered WW2, it would
surely have been to defend its European neighbours and democracy - not to
'help the United States'.

No-one has tried to marginalise the role of the Catholic Church in Irish
history - those of us who grew up in this country in the middle to latter
part of the 20th century are only too well aware of the often pernicious and
pervasive influence of the _institutional_ Catholic Church. That doesn't
entitle Julie Birchill or anyone else to make sectarian remarks, to get her
facts wrong or to stereotype all Irish people as particular kinds of
Catholics (and not all Catholics are child-molesters or women haters). I am
an agnostic of long standing and no defender of the Catholic Church.

Not all of those who fought for the Spanish Republic were Stalinists and I
didn't call them 'far-sighted heroes' anyway - Professor Jensen is using the
old tactic of attacking something I never said. The disgraceful part played
by Moscow in the Spanish Civil War is well-documented - one has only to
think of George Orwell's account in Homage to Catalonia. But there were
others (even some communists) who fought on the right side for the right
reasons - and whatever about the internal aspects of the Spanish situation
it was the first war against fascism and on balance the wrong side won,
leading to decades of murder and repression just as surely as the
USA-inspired coup against a democratically elected Chilean leader in 1973
produced comparably atrocious results in that country. Incidentally the USA
itself had no problem, just a few years after the Spanish Civil War, in
cooperating with the aforementioned Stalinists.

The Blueshirts as misguided fools; two points.

Patrick Maume was right in his comment on the size of the Blueshirts as a
volunteer organisation. These numbers had little enough to do with fascism
and a lot to do with the aftermath of Civil War politics. The flirtation
with fascism was a misguided but ultimately superficial one for many
Blueshirts. I merely make this point for the sake of historical accuracy. My
own politics lean to the left and I find the alliance between elements of
right-wing Catholic Church doctrine, corporatism of a certain kind, the
willingness to use military force (but so did people on the left - remember
Frank Ryan and 'no free speech for fascists') the emphasis of the
subjugation of the individual within an ordered, militaristic, paternalistic
society, and the subjugation of women and their role in society, to be a
loathsome creed.

Secondly, it is a fact that many of those who went out with Eoin O'Duffy to
Spain were young and impressionable. The media reporting of the Spanish
Civil War in Ireland, especially by Independent Newspapers, was rabidly
anti-Republic and presented the war as a crusade against communism. There
were many stories about nuns being raped, convents sacked etc., with no
background, for instance, on the dominant role of the Church in Spain and
the absolute misery of the Spanish working and agricultural classes. It is
to De Valera's eternal credit that he resisted all attempts - and there were
many - to have Ireland support Franco's side. But popular opinion (except
for the Irish Times, which in those days was seen as a Protestant newspaper)
supported Franco to a great extent, because of the religious dimension (the
Government of the Republic did send over a Basque priest to put the other
side but he received limited coverage). Given that those who went with
O'Duffy can have known little about the true situation in Spain, and were so
extremely young themselves for the most part, I don't think it is wrong to
describe them (although, again, I didn't use the term) as misguided fools.
As a fighting force they were a greater risk to their own side than the
opposition; Franco appears to have thought they were a nuisance. Nor did
their excessive consumption of wine, in some cases, endear them either to
their allies.

While I am happy to debate points of fact and opinion with Professor Jensen
or anyone else, it would surely be helpful if each of us confined
her/himself to what had actually been said.

Piaras Mac Einri

From: "Patrick O'Sullivan"

I think that these exchanges about the Burchill Guardian article have
delighted us for long enough...

I have now started to reject messages that seemed to me to go over old
ground, or which might be seen as breaching our guidelines - I quote:
"Avoid polemics, ad hominem attacks or language likely to cause offence or
distress - remember that ?the ethos of the list is scholarly?."

P.O'S.


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

Email Patrick O'Sullivan
Email Patrick O'Sullivan
Personal Fax 0044 (0) 709 236 9050

Irish-Diaspora list
Irish Diaspora Studies http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/diaspora/
Irish Diaspora Net Archive http://www.irishdiaspora.net

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

From: Marion Casey
To: irish-diaspora[at]Bradford.ac.uk
Subject: Ireland and WWII


Given the recent clash of perspectives on Ireland during World War II,
I thought it might be helpful to post the results of the 22 February
1942 Gallup poll that specifically asked Americans about Ireland.

"Do you happen to know whether the Irish Free State (Eire) has gone to
war against Germany?"
Americans: Yes, has (incorrect) 50%, No, has not (correct) 50%
Irish Americans Only: Yes 82%, No 18%

Now, what do you suppose we should make of that?!

The following questions were then asked of those who were correct about
Eire?s neutral status:

"Would you like to see Eire let the Allies use war bases along the
Irish coast?"
Americans: Yes 90%, No 5%, No opinion 5%
Irish Americans Only: Yes 72%, No 21%, No opinion 7%

"Should Eire join the Allies in declaring war against Germany?"
Americans: Yes 71%, No 16%, No Opinion 13%
Irish Americans Only: Yes 56%, No 32%, No Opinion 12%

Source: Survey #260-K, 22 February 1942. The Gallup Poll (NY: Random
House, 1972), p. 323

Best wishes,
Marion Casey
Department of History
New York University

From: "Ruth-Ann M. Harris"
Subject: Re: Irish Stockings

Does anyone know what "Irish stockings" would have been in the 17th
century? Before sailing to Massachusetts in the 17th century, the
Pilgrims issued a list of suggested supplies. My query relates to one of
the items -- "Irish stockings" -- which is on the list. Does anyone know
what they would have been? Were they a style of stocking -- footless
perhaps? Or does it suggest trade with Ireland? Thanks,
Ruth-Ann Harris

Sender: P.Maume[at]Queens-Belfast.AC.UK
To: irish-diaspora[at]Bradford.ac.uk
Subject: Ir-D Road to Perdition
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

From: Patrick Maume
To take everyone's mind off Julie Burchill...
The Los Angeles Times has an article about the new Sam
Mendes/Tom Hanks movie THE ROAD TO PERDITION (about
Irish-American gangsters in rural Illinois during the 1930s)
which contains some debate about whether the Irish were more
prominent in American organised crime than you'd think from the
movies' focus on Italians.

http://www.calendarlive.com/top/1,1419,L-LATimes-Search-X!ArticleDetail-6496
3,00.html

Sunday, July 7, 2002

MOVIES
The Sins of Irish Fathers
Just as "Perdition's" gangsters can't ignore Catholicism, real-life towns
can't escape the mobsters' shadow.
By SEAN MITCHELL

Best Wishes,
Patrick
----------------------
patrick maume

[NOTE: Your own email line breaks might fracture that long web address.
Reconstruct it carefull - or go to the LA Times web site and search for
Rosad to Perdition.
P.O'S.]

From: "Richard Jensen"
To:
Subject: Re: Ir-D Burchill article, Guardian, 20

The problem with responses is that they reveal too much about the
complainer.
Piaras MacEinri as a case study. The original Burchill article never
mentioned the Blueshirts or the Spanish Civil War--merely a passing
crack regarding Ireland's condolences to the German ambassador when
Hitler died, which is a famous and embarrassing incident. Yet MacEinri
goes on and on about the Spanish case, then stretches too far to
justify Dublin's inaction during 1941-45. As for wartime neutrality,
Ireland kept to that policy for four-years-too-many, over vehement
American protest. Diplomacy is a matter of timing and the timing was
handled very badly and will be censured for many more years to come.

MacEinri has no problem attacking himself the "often pernicious and
pervasive influence of the _institutional_ Catholic Church" and to
pooh-pooh the atrocities against the nuns and priests in Spain. But
let the Guardian ridicule the Church and he's a devout Catholic up in
arms.

So it's not a matter of facts and opinions--it's a matter of judgment
here.

I rather suspect that it was not the *falsity* of Burchill's essay
that stings so much, as the ability of a hated outsider to cut so
close to home.

Richard Jensen
rjensen[at]uic.edu

From: "MacEinri, Piaras"
To: "'irish-diaspora[at]Bradford.ac.uk'"
Subject: RE: Ir-D Burchill article, Guardian, 21

At the risk of boring other readers may I respond briefly to Prof. Jensen's
latest missive. As before, it's a pity he doesn't read the texts before
sounding off. Let's attend to the facts; statements like 'the problem with
responses is that they reveal too much about the
complainer' are in my opinion patronising, ad hominem and irrelevant.

If Professor Jensen had read the original Burchill with any care, he would
have seen that it did not just contain 'merely a passing
crack regarding Ireland's condolences to the German ambassador when Hitler
died' (in fact this incident is not explicity referred to at all, although I
think she did have it in mind ('aiding and abetting Herr Hitler in his hour
of need'). The article also contains a more general phrase in which Ireland,
inter alia, is referred to as a country that 'really did support fascism
when it was a threat'. So in responding to her it's entirely legitimate, in
my view anyway, to consider the best-known Irish encounter with fascism viz.
the Blueshirt movement.

Prof. Jensen says diplomacy is a matter of timing. Perhaps, but maybe a bit
of luck comes into it as well. If Britain had been defeated in early 1940 I
don't think later Europeans would have taken the kindest view of American
neutrality. My point was that the US policy of neutrality reflected its
perception of its own self-interest and was only abandoned when the US
itself was directly attacked. What Ireland did was no different, nor do I
see what 'vehement American protest' should have had to do with it one way
or another. If we had changed our policy (and I've already said I thought we
should have) it would have been in solidarity with other Europeans, starting
with our neighbours the British. I didn't seek to 'justify Dublin's
inaction during 1941-45' at all, but why does he pick the years 1941-45
anyway - is it to cover the embarrassing fact of American neutrality from
1939-41?

> MacEinri has no problem attacking himself the "often pernicious and
> pervasive influence of the _institutional_ Catholic Church" and to
> pooh-pooh the atrocities against the nuns and priests in Spain. But
> let the Guardian ridicule the Church and he's a devout Catholic up in
> arms.

There is a difference between justifiable criticism, however harsh and
irrespective of who makes it (or of the ethnicity of that individual or the
newspaper in which it is published), and stereotyping of an entire category
of people. Not all the Irish are Catholic. Not all Catholics are child
molesters. Burchill refers to 'almost compulsory child molestation by the
national (sic) church'. One doesn't have to be a 'devout Catholic' to find
this kind of nonsense grossly offensive. One might compare her vapourings,
for instance, with a recent excellent British documentary on child abuse in
one Irish Roman Catholic diocese (Ferns) which said things with a brutality
and directness that was entirely appropriate, extremely critical and based
on clearly substantiated facts.

Finally, I didn't pooh-pooh the atrocities about nuns and priests in Spain;
such incidents did occur. My point was about the context (or lack of it) in
which the Spanish Civil War was presented in Ireland.


> I rather suspect that it was not the *falsity* of Burchill's essay
> that stings so much, as the ability of a hated outsider to cut so
> close to home.

See above. This is another personalised comment. I assure Professor Jensen
that there are plenty of Irish people who are well able to take intelligent
criticism from any quarter, although we have our share of xenophobic and
paranoid people like anyone else. In this case the criticism was
unintelligent, ill-informed and very far from home.

Piaras Mac Einri

From: "Johanne.Trew"
Subject: FW: Ir-D Irish Stockings 3



I came across an interesting reference to Irish stockings some years ago.
Apparently, the French settlers of New France in the 17th - 18th centuries
sometimes referred to the Irish as "les bas de soie" (the silk stockings).
This was apparently used in a derogatory fashion obviously ridiculing the
Irish male costume of knee britches. As I recall the reference also
mentioned that the Irish frequently lacked any stockings at all, perhaps the
main reason for the ridicule. Alas my photocopy of this reference is with my
files in Canada, but I believe it is found somewhere in the 6 volume:
Histoire du Canada français / by François Xavier Garneau, first published in
1845, reprinted by F. Beauval in 1969.


Johanne Devlin Trew
University of Limerick
Ireland
johanne.trew[at]ul.ie

From: patrick maume
Subject: Ir-D Francesco Burdett O'Connor

From: Patrick Maume
A book by James Dunkerley WARRIORS AND SCRIBES - ESSAYS ON THE
HISTORY AND POLITICS OF LATIN AMERICA includes an essay on
Francesco Burdett O'Connor, brother of Feargus the Chartist, who
became a national hero in Bolivia.
See review on the REVIEWS IN HISTORY website

Best wishes,
Patrick

----------------------
patrick maume

From:
To: irish-diaspora[at]Bradford.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Ir-D Burchill article, Guardian, 16


Also from an "American perspective" I must disagree with Prof. Jensen.
While it hard to express complicated eras of history in leters to a
newspaper, I don't think Piaras did any of things Prof. Jensen mentions.

Irish neutrality during WWII was NOT about helping or not helping the
US. We were not the only ones in the War and de Valera's decison was made
while the US stood by neutral as well. The war did not begin when the US
entered. The level of Irish assistance to the allies, far more than weather
reports, is significant because it balances the picture -- just as Americans
like to point to Lend/Lease and other things we did while neutral. As far
as Irish neutrality being a sore point, I have never heard it brought up as
such in the US -- and I am part of the early baby boom and remember many
discussion of the "War."

Suggesting, as Piaras did, that Ireland includes non-Catholics is
hardly seeking to minimalize the role of the church, but, in this case, to
bring the issue of bigotry into focus.

Bill Mulligan

From: "Patrick O'Sullivan"

I have come across these references to 'Irish stockings' in the records of
C17th English North America. The historical garments folk have discussed
them over the years.

I am still not clear if we are discussing something Irish, from Ireland - or
a garment perceived to be Irish - or is this one of the standard English
uses of the word 'Irish' to mean something strange, odd, unexpected,
uncouth.

Then there are different uses of the word 'stocking' - eg James Fenimore
Cooper, Leather Stocking Tales. So, the word stocking could be used for
leggings.

I was struck by this quote...

'good Irish stockings, which if they be good, are much more serviceable than
knit ones...'
What Provision is made for a Journey at Sea and what to carry with us for
our use at Land
by William Wood
from New-England's Prospect, being a true, lively and experimental
Description of that part of America commonly called New-England, London 1639
from the Pilgrim Hall web site

Which would suggest that 'Irish stockings' were not knitted - which would
mean they could be made of fabric or leather.

Thomas Morton: Manners and Customs of the Indians (of New England), 1637 has
this
'Every male [male Indian, that is], after he attains unto age which they
call Puberty, wears a belt about his middle, and a broad peace of leather
that goes between his legs and is tucked up both before and behind under
that belt; those garments they always put on, when they go a hunting, to
keep their skins from the brush of the shrubs, and when they have their
apparel on they look like Irish in their trousers, the stockings join so to
their breeches...'
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1637morton.html

That is to say you would look 'Irish' if you connected up your stockings to
your breeches...

Reference is often made to the Carnamoyle Stockings - which are in the
National Museum of Ireland...
http://www.reconstructinghistory.com/fenians/stocai.html
These are knitted stockings in Ireland and clearly not what the C17th
English mean by 'Irish stockings'.

P.O'S.


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

Email Patrick O'Sullivan
Email Patrick O'Sullivan
Personal Fax 0044 (0) 709 236 9050

Irish-Diaspora list
Irish Diaspora Studies http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/diaspora/
Irish Diaspora Net Archive http://www.irishdiaspora.net

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

From: "Brian McGinn"
To:
Subject: Re: Ir-D Irish stockings

Stockings, by way of their absence, also feature in a widely-quoted
anonymous commentary on 17th century Barbados, which suggests that stockings
of some sort were part of the usual and expected dress of white indentured
servants:

"I have for my particular satisfaction inspected many of theire Plantations,
and have seene 30: sometimes 40, Christians, English, Scotch and Irish at
worke in the parching sun w.th out shirt, shoe or stockin....." ("Some
Observations on the Island of Barbados", Calendar of State Papers, America
and West Indies, 1667).

Richard S. Dunn thinks the author was an adventurer named John Scott, and
casts some doubts on the accuracy and veracity of Scott's claims (_Sugar and
Slaves: The Rise of the Planter Class in the English West Indies,
1624-1713_NY, 1972).

Be that as it may, the observation has been used to show that working
conditions of white servants in Barbados were worse than those of black
slaves ("their Negroes have bin at worke, at their respective trades, in a
good Condition"), and also as an explanation for the origin of the term
"Redleg" to describe poor whites inhabiting the "Scotland District" of
eastern Barbados. It may also show that C17th servants were simply more
sensible about tropical comfort than their status-conscious masters.

Brian McGinn
Alexandria, Virginia