The Great Irish Famine in Irish and UK history textbooks, 2010–2020

Coverage of the Famine in Irish and UK textbooks, 2010–20

In 2002, Doyle registered her surprise at the ‘paucity of coverage’ concerning the Famine in English history textbooks published between the 1920s and the early 2000s (Doyle, 2002: 327). As Table 1 and Table 2 show, generally speaking, recent Irish textbooks reserve more space for the Famine than do their UK counterparts. Most Irish textbooks include a chapter on the Famine, except for Brockie and Walsh (2016, 2020) and Twomey (2016), books which are for the senior level. In textbooks geared to the UK, almost the reverse is the case: only Rees (2018), Adelman and Byrne (2016) and Kidson (2016) devote equally substantial textual space to the topic. These titles are also geared to advanced levels, and they cover Ireland or British–Irish relations specifically.

Lengthier discussions of the Famine in Irish junior-level and UK senior-level textbooks can be explained by the curricular placement of the Famine. In Ireland, it forms part of the national history strand of the National Curriculum for the junior level (Government of Ireland et al., 2017). At this level, history is still a mandatory subject, so here the inclusion of the Famine will have a larger societal impact. For the Welsh GCSE, it is a small part of the optional breadth study topic ‘Changes in patterns of migration, c. 1500 to the present day’ (WJEC, 2016: 27–9). The Famine is not included in the Northern Irish GCSE specification in history (CCEA, 2017), but it does feature in the senior-level GCE specification (CCEA, 2019). The National Curriculum in England includes the non-statutory example of ‘Ireland and Home Rule’, but it does not explicitly mention the Famine (DfE, 2014a: 96). For the Scottish higher levels, ‘Immigration to Scotland 1830s–1939’ includes Irish immigration, but the Famine is not explicitly mentioned (SQA, 2019, 2021).

The general narrative outline of the Famine is largely similar in the textbooks analysed for this research, aligning with the brief historical sketch provided in the introduction to this article. More specifically, in the Irish context, the Famine is placed within several of the following larger narratives: repeated famines, colonial subjugation, transformations in agriculture, emigration and the Irish diaspora, language decline, the Industrial Revolution, the post-Famine devotional revolution, and/or the struggles for independence and land ownership rights. In the UK context, it is furthermore placed in a colonial narrative, but considered from the opposite perspective; it is also included in the context of immigration to Great Britain and the repeal of the Corn Laws.

Imports and exports, laissez-faire and providentialism

The British government’s ideology and concomitant decision making during the Famine are notoriously hard to understand from a present-day perspective, as they were strongly influenced by the since discredited principles of laissez-faire and providentialism. (See Gray [1995, 2013, for example] on political, economic and religious government ideology during the Famine.) While the latter ‘lay at the heart of indifference for some Evangelicals’ and government officials during the Famine (McGowan, 2017: 97), it is only infrequently included in textbooks. Two Irish and two UK textbooks mention providentialism, which also demonstrates that geographic orientation does not influence the inclusion or exclusion of this religious dimension. Only Rees (2018) uses the term ‘providentialism’ explicitly; Kidson (2016), Sheedy (2018) and McCaughey (2018) provide implicit discussion of the concept. The latter includes the point that Charles Trevelyan, a key figure in his role as Assistant Secretary to the Treasury during the Famine, considered the Famine to be God’s judgement (McCaughey, 2018: 321).

McCaughey (2018: 317) rightly explains continued food exports during the Famine through their placement within laissez-faire economics, and also provides a definition of the term (2018: 306, 316). More broadly, the belief that food exports from Ireland outweighed imports has been a feature of (popular) Famine history ever since Mitchel (1854: 12, 16) included it in his argument that starvation was part of a wilful policy to remove the Irish from Ireland (McGovern, 2009: 36). This, in turn, has fed into the thesis that the Famine was a ‘calculated genocide’, to which scholarship has provided a corrective (Nally, 2008: 733). McCaughey (2018) and Sheedy (2018) include the genocide debate. During 1846 and 1847, at the height of the Famine, grain continued to be exported. While exporting food from a starving country is in itself a morally questionable act, it is the case that during the Famine these exports were significantly reduced compared to previous years, and imports actually exceeded exports after 1846. Furthermore, the grain exported during 1846 and 1847 would not have counterbalanced the amount of potatoes destroyed by the blight. As Ó Gráda (1999: 124) notes, the exported grain would only have compensated for ‘about one-seventh’ of the total amount of potatoes lost.

Several textbooks offer nuanced representations of this topic. As Figure 1 shows, 10 out of 27 books include both imports and exports, equally divided between UK senior-level books and Irish junior-level books. Lucey (2018: 193) allows the possibility of engaging with the complexities of the subject by including a table of wheat imports/exports for the years 1844–8, in which imports outweigh exports for the years 1847 and 1848. While reflecting in text on the indignation and violence sparked by continued food exports, McCaughey (2018: 317) similarly includes a table of imports and exports.

Figure 1

Inclusion of imports and exports in textbooks (Source: Author, 2023) 

Incomplete renderings of the food imports and exports are also found. De Buitléir et al. (2014) mention imports and exports, but on different pages, without any figures and without establishing a relation. Todd and Bottaro (2015: 209) include both imports and exports, but offer a relatively vague rendering: ‘To make things worse, the winter of 1846–7 was very harsh. Although some grain was held back from export, and some was imported, the amount exported was still large.’ Conversely, Adelman and Byrne (2016: 70) acknowledge that ‘grain flooded into the country and offset the food exports that had continued since the early days of the famine’, but that the poor were not able to ‘afford the rocketing prices of the imported wheat and flour’. While this is certainly a valid interpretation, it leaves out the crucial fact that exports did not counterbalance the potatoes lost.

Five (two UK, three Irish) books do not discuss food imports or exports at all, and three (two UK, one Irish) books only discuss exports. Sheedy (2018: 85), for example, only includes that ‘In 1845, Ireland exported 485,000 tons of grain to England, while many people in Ireland starved to death.’ Whether or not textbooks include exports does not align with geographic orientation. By contrast, nine books only discuss imports, and the UK sample tends more often to include only imports (six textbooks, versus three Irish textbooks). This implies a stronger emphasis on British government relief than in the Irish sample.

While some UK textbooks could be more exhaustive, five Irish textbooks do reflect corrective scholarship by providing a balanced account of imports and exports. This suggests that any unbalanced treatment of the topic of imports and exports cannot be considered a remnant of traditional Irish nationalist rhetoric in educational sources. Textbooks that only offer a partial discussion concerning the topic of imports and exports simplify this aspect of Famine history, and do not sufficiently contextualise imports and exports in relation to contemporary tensions between economic ideology and humanitarian aid. Therefore, they run the risk of extending long-standing misinterpretations. It would be worthwhile to explore the complexities of the import/export issue in full detail, especially in textbooks which also ask learners to consider government culpability.

Over two-thirds of the corpus (19 textbooks) engage with laissez-faire, although not all authors use the term, and Fortune (2016), Clare et al. (2015), Wells and Dicken (2015) and Byrne and Shepley (2015) do not explicitly apply the concept to the Famine. The two-thirds consists of both Irish and UK textbooks; as Figure 2 shows, laissez-faire tends to be included more often on the junior level in Ireland, and on the senior level in the UK.

Figure 2

Laissez-faire in textbooks (Source: Author, 2023) 

Several books give clear definitions of the concept. Adelman and Byrne (2016: 70; emphasis in original) write:

A greater impediment to vigorous action by the British government was its increasing commitment to the economic principle of laissez-faire . This idea argued that governments must not interfere with market forces and the price mechanism . It stood at the heart of Peel’s policy to reduce taxes on imports and exports, which he followed from 1842 and was then accepted by subsequent governments. Thus, in order not to undermine the interests of traders and retailers, food must not be provided freely or below market prices.

By using the plural ‘governments’, starting from the general principle, rather than from the individual (Prime Minister Robert Peel) or the individual government, and by explicating the connected interests of economic subgroups, this explanation takes into account the broader societal dimension of the term. O’Neill and Jenkinson (2018: 220, emphasis in original) equally include a useful and straightforward definition to explain insufficient governmental aid to the stricken: ‘Help for those affected by the Famine was slow to arrive. The British government took a laissez-faire (“let it be”) attitude to events, believing that a government should not interfere in the economy as it would correct itself eventually.’

In its assignments, this book then offers the potential to work on historical empathy through perspective taking. First, students are prompted to explain laissez-faire, and to consider its relation to government policy; then, they are asked to collaborate and imagine being a politician during the Famine and ‘write down … how you would have helped people. Debate the different ideas with your group’ (O’Neill and Jenkinson, 2018: 221). As a final assignment, the book stimulates students to consider culpability: ‘Do you agree or disagree with the belief at the time that the British government was to blame for the Great Famine?’ (O’Neill and Jenkinson, 2018: 228). Through this sequence, O’Neill and Jenkinson (2018) ask students first to understand the concept, and then to explore different interpretations through imaginative investment, before providing a judgement.

Crucially, while laissez-faire is a complicated concept, its inclusion in the majority of the textbooks discussed above shows that it can be introduced at secondary, and even at junior, level. As Figure 2 shows, while 8 books are geared to advanced levels, 11 books which include laissez-faire are suitable for junior-level students. These 11 are Irish books, while the advanced books are for a UK audience. This does not suggest an overall higher level for junior-level Irish books as compared to UK books; rather, extent of treatment at an earlier level can be linked to the Famine’s place in the Irish junior curriculum.

Laissez-faire ideology was widely supported. Adelman and Byrne (2016: 70) provide a useful discussion of the broader sociopolitical support for laissez-faire principles; Todd and Bottaro (2015: 209; emphasis in original) write that ‘The Whigs were also strong believers in laissez-faire.’ In some books, this more complex societal dimension is not made sufficiently clear, as laissez-faire ideas are linked to individual historical actors. Delap and McCormack (2018: 59, emphasis in original), for example, do not explicitly include the term ‘laissez-faire’, but related features are mentioned in direct connection to Trevelyan: ‘The British Prime Ministers during the 1840s’ both

left the management of the Irish Crisis to a man called Charles Edward Trevelyan. Trevelyan believed it was up to the Irish people to help themselves. He did not want the British government to intervene or to help those suffering, as he worried this would encourage people to be lazy.’

Of course, it is fully justified to assign these convictions to Trevelyan. There is something to be said for seeing an influential politician as shaping his time, but what is left out is the fact that he was also a product of his socio-political and religious context. By not acknowledging that these beliefs were not idiosyncratic but had a wider ideological basis, some books prohibit achieving in-depth historical contextualisation and perspective taking. Consequently, students run the risk of not fully understanding how historical actors came to their decisions, and, importantly, how the historical period differs from their own lives.

Victims and perpetrators

Simplified victim–perpetrator discourses continue to feature in both Irish and UK textbooks. While very few of the textbooks analysed here can be said to be overtly partisan, if they offer simplified narratives, they typically do not provide sufficient ground for historical perspective taking and contextualisation and, by extension, they run the risk of stimulating partial sentiments in young learners. The latter is undesired, especially from the linked perspectives of historical empathy and present-day intercultural awareness. Research on historical understanding and identification processes shown by adolescents in Northern Ireland reveals that partisan accounts begin to feature among 13- and 14-year-olds (Barton and McCully, 2006). This implies that Key Stage 3 is an important stage for the development of historical understanding in young learners (Terra, 2014).

The textbooks offer varying degrees of diversification regarding the hierarchical nature of Irish rural society during the 1840s. Some only speak of ‘the Irish’ as one group, some distinguish between landlords and tenants, and others also provide a more complex image of Ireland’s highly stratified society (landlords, agents, middlemen, strong farmers, small farmers, cottiers, landless labourers). More complex constellations can be found in, for example, Lucey (2018: 187–9), Henry et al. (2018: 211–12, and its Activity Book) and Rees (2018: 110–14). Explicit variegation between the various subgroups can provide a more exact historical understanding of the complexities in the demographic and societal effects of the Famine.

In the majority of the Irish and UK textbooks analysed here, the Irish are generalised as victims, which aligns with Janmaat’s (2012) findings for earlier Irish textbooks. While I do not want to deny that the Irish poor suffered most during the Famine, generalisation does efface differences in victimhood. Moreover, a more complex narrative would provide room for subjects who cannot easily be subsumed under the categories of victim or culprit. Tenants availing themselves of the opportunity to rent land that others could no longer afford, for example, did not commit illegal acts, but they benefited at the expense of their worse-off peers. In the Activity Book to Henry et al. (2018: 215), a graph showing the decrease of small landholdings and increase of large holdings after the Famine is included. Students are asked to study the graph and to explain the decrease, not the increase. Although reflecting on a key consequence of the Famine, the activity does leave out explicit mention of those who profited from the changes in Ireland’s land system. Adelman and Byrne (2016: 75) include the point that some speculators and surviving landlords profited from the crisis through the Encumbered Estates Act, which was established in 1849 to facilitate the sale of estates from insolvent landowners. Functioning as implicated subjects (Rothberg, 2019), these varied historical actors contributed to maintaining a corrupt and highly unequal land system.

Figure 3 provides insight into how landlords are represented in the textbook corpus. While four advanced-level UK books and three junior-level Irish books provide a relatively nuanced view of landlords and their motives, also, for example, acknowledging their effort to help their tenantry, 17 offer more stark and typically negative depictions (and 3 books do not mention landlords). The majority of the corpus (23 books) do not discuss the landowning classes as victims. Hughes et al. (2018: 8–9) cast landlords as perpetrators, keen to make a profit or acting out of ill intentions. Exclusion of landlords from the category of victim is sometimes done explicitly, but also sometimes implicitly. Stout and Lucey (2018: 112–13), for example, ask students to draw their conclusions about primary quotations from the Famine era, but by only providing sources which focus on poor victims, and which negatively portray bailiffs and landlords, the book is suggestive in the exercise.

Figure 3

Representations of landlords in textbooks (Source: Author, 2023) 

Not all landlords were out to clear the Irish poor off their lands, and some landlords were destitute or sought to save rather than to expel their tenants when offering assisted emigration, or were at least motivated by a combination of conflicting reasons (McGowan, 2017: 93–4). Of course, this comment should not be understood as a disclaimer for the evils of British imperial rule, the corrupt land system in Ireland, or the misdeeds of landlords; rather, it is meant to again stress the complexity of human roles. In line with this, O’Neill and Jenkinson (2018: 219) and McCaughey (2018: 314) acknowledge that some landlords also reduced rents; the latter also includes that some landlords offered assisted emigration as a form of aid. Kidson (2016: 120, 126) acknowledges misdeeds committed by landlords, but equally provides a nuanced understanding of their situation and motivations. Adelman and Byrne (2016: 72–6) provide a distinction in how the various (sub)classes were impacted by the Famine, explaining that while the lowest classes were hit hardest, landlords were also impacted, while better-off farmers weathered the crisis relatively well. McCaughey (2018: 323), moreover, intriguingly challenges Irish students to imagine that they are the historical other. The book asks students to write on three possible topics, including the ‘Life of a landlord during the Famine’. This assignment has the potential to make students aware of the effects of the Famine beyond its Irish victims, and helps to acknowledge the complexity of the catastrophe and concomitant responses. The examples in this paragraph are from both UK and Irish sources, demonstrating that such multifaceted interpretations feature across the textbook corpus.

Moreover, the examples suggest that introducing the concept of ‘implicated subject’ in textbook discussions of the Famine would be conducive to a better understanding of Ireland’s land system, its interpersonal relations, and the prolongation of existing historical inequalities. In this context, it is vital to acknowledge that there are different types of suffering, and that it would be inappropriate to gloss over these differences. Crucially, for present-day learners, a narrow view of victimhood prevents full historical contextualisation and perspective taking. A simplified understanding of how the Famine hit the poor but not the rich fails to demonstrate the actual pervasiveness of the catastrophe. By extension, understanding that the effects of the Famine were not limited to one group – whether that group is distinguished on the basis of class, religion or nationality – can also help young learners understand that for other demographic catastrophes, consequences are often not clear cut, and do not neatly follow class or group lines.