|
Review Article
The Irish in America: 'old' history and the 'new'
By: Donald M. MacRaild
University of Northumbria at Newcastle
Andy Bielenberg (ed.), The Irish Diaspora (London, Longman, 2000),
pp.368, £14.99.
Kevin Kenny, The American Irish: A History (London and New York:
Pearson Education Ltd, 2000), pp.xix+327, £17.99.
Adam Cohen and Elizabeth Taylor, American Pharaoh: Mayor Richard J.
Daley, His Battle for Chicago and the Nation (Boston, New York and
London: Little, Brown and Company, 2000), pp.614, $26.95, £25.00.
Michael Glazier (ed.), The Encyclopedia of the Irish in America
(Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press). Pp.xxi + 988, £89.95.
Scholars continue to find new things to say about the
Irish Diaspora. For many of them-especially those in Ireland and America-the
term Diaspora, when applied to the Irish, has a deep, politicised meaning.
We can see this point exemplified in two observations. First, the term
Diaspora once was used mainly to describe the Jewish experience; only
occasionally (but with increasing frequency lately) has it been applied
to other groups with traumatic migration histories, such as the victims
of the African slave trade or the Armenians who fled before the Turks.
Secondly, the application of the term Diaspora to the Irish is (at least
in part) shaped by a particular critique of British rule in Ireland and
of the traumatic Great Famine. For nationalist scholars, the hunger that
accompanied famine is seen to have been exacerbated unnecessarily by British
callousness; the flight from Ireland thus becomes 'exile' not 'emigration'
and the connection with Africans or Jews becomes complete.
This increasing deployment of the term Diaspora 1 may be a good thing; the term itself
may provide historians and social scientists with some of the points of
reference they need to plot what was a global phenomenon. It certainly
makes scholars think in comparative terms-and this is no bad thing. However,
there is a potential downside. By allowing a broader usage of the term
Diaspora and by deploying the term for an increasing number of groups,
there is a sense in which all migrant groups suddenly seem to be locked
into a competition of relative victimhood. Whether or not this might affect
the utility of the term, depends very much on the reader's political viewpoint.
Whatever that viewpoint, though, there is a sense in which Diaspora studies
represents a return to the 'emigration as trauma' school which dominated
American writing on migration from Thomas and Znaniecki in the aftermath
of World War 1 to Oscar Handlin in the Fifties.2
This is despite the important work of scholars of migration such as Frank
Thistlethwaite and John Bodnar who have stressed the more constructive
(and complicated) nature of migration in the Atlantic world.3
What is perhaps most worrying, however, is the fact that most
writers do not actually attempt to define the term Diaspora even though
they use it with abandon. This is certainly true of Andy Bielenberg's
collection of essays, The Irish Diaspora, which is the end product
of a conference held at University College Cork in the summer of 1997.
It should perhaps be pointed out at this stage that the introduction is
actually written by Piaras Mac Éinrí, Director of the Centre
for Migration Studies, Cork, rather than by the editor himself. Nevertheless,
no attempt is made to explain how the contributors use the term. When
we read the book, in fact, we find that most of the authors don't use
it all. As with so many studies, then, an opportunity is lost and the
term simply becomes a collective noun rather than an element of social
theory.
That this is the case does not diminish the value of individual
contributions. While very few authors seek to place what they are writing
into the wider context of this book, there is some very good work on offer.
Certainly, one cannot help but note the variety and breadth of research
that is currently being conducted under the banner of the Irish Diaspora.
The editor has been assiduous in putting together essays that range broadly
over both chronology and area. Britain, America and the former colonies
all receive considerable coverage. Indeed, the inclusion of the latter
enables interesting papers from Bielenberg himself and Michael Holmes
to provide coverage of aspects of the Irish Diaspora that most scholars
will not be familiar with. Similarly, Bielenberg has also conjured up
essays that are historical and sociological; some which are (near) contemporary;
and others covering the pre-famine period. Breda Gray's study of 1980s
London is an interesting example of how our growing interest in the more
recent Irish migration is formulating new research questions. The inclusion
of work demonstrating new methodologies and important new research findings
also adds to the important parts of the volume. Ruth-Ann Harris's discussion
of her missing friends research, using The Boston Pilot column
which for years sought to bring separate migrants back together, is a
very good example of this.
When thinking 'Diaspora', we surely must think in comparative
terms. Yet few of the essays in this volume address the Irish in more
than one polity. The exceptions are Malcolm Campbell's study of migrants
in rural Minnesota and New South Wales and Enda Delaney's wide-ranging
attempt to place post-war Irish migration to Britain into European perspective.
Both writers succeed well. Campbell's piece is doubly stimulating for,
in addition to considerable the comparative aspects, he draws upon the
rural world. In so doing, he demonstrates that (as Donald Akenson has
been saying for years)4 there
is more to the Irish than slum-dwelling and machine politics. The Irish
could make a fist of agricultural work in foreign countries, irrespective
of the fact that a majority ended up in towns and cities. Delaney, by
considering the Irish alongside migrants from comparable economies, particularly
in Mediterranean countries, brings fresh new ways of thinking to bear
to the problems of language and the issue of return migration. While Mac
Éinrí makes the point about Irish migration being unique
in the period between the Great Famine and the mid-20th century,
Delaney clearly asserts that this was anything but the case in the later
period.. The implications of Delaney's and Campbell's work is that one
of the last great barriers to our understanding of the Irish Diaspora
(and indeed of any Diaspora) is our weakness with the comparative method.
More research of this type is needed.
The part of the Irish Diaspora which we know best is
America. New books on this aspect of Irish migration and settlement continue
to flow apace. Kevin Kenny's new book, The American Irish: a History,
therefore, stands out as an important contribution, offering a compelling
narrative for the specialist and the general reader alike, as well as
being a must for students. In offering such a volume, he demonstrates
a formidable ability to synthesis a vast body of monographs and articles.
But Kenny deserves far more credit than the mere implication that he is
a bag carrier for someone else's scholarship. As author of one of the
best books on an Irish-American theme, Making Sense of the Molly Maguires
(1998), Kenny is well placed to make sense of a literature running to
thousands of titles. The American Irish provides vital context
for understanding the breadth and depth of issues underpinning Irish American
society as it has emerged, changed and developed over the past three hundred
years. This is the route map through Irish America we have long needed.
There is something distinctly un-American about Kenny's
book, which might be explained by his Irish, rather than American-Irish,
nativity. This book is not a celebratory anthology in the style of some
of the old classics: populist works like some of those written in the
era of the Kennedys or before.5
Nor is it a collection of quirky anecdotes about boozers and boxers, priests
and politicos, womanisers and gangsters. Kenny's study is underpinned
by a solid theoretical strength. It moves forward with a sense of period
that is much stronger than readers will find in some of the more eclectic
early general studies, such as Carl Wittke's Irish in America (1956),
or the unashamedly one-sided approach of Lawrence McCaffrey's The Irish
Diaspora in America. Too many books on Irish America in the past have
written in black and white terms about the Irish experience of migration,
stressing the Catholicism, poverty and oppression of what was in fact
a much more variegated transatlantic population movement. English colonial
evil (a viewpoint undoubtedly endorsed by some degree of truth) has dominated
so many books on the subject that they cannot be recounted here. On the
other side, too many American ethnic histories have celebrated the achievements
immigrants in the new Republic in a rather teleological way, the aim seemingly
being to recount how this or that group made good in America, land of
opportunity, before contributing uniquely to whatever it was that came
out of the melting pot. All too often such books ignored the complexities
of the migrants' experiences, successful or otherwise (and here I refer
to more than just American Irish writers and histories).
The thirty years or so after 1914 saw an gradual closing of the
'Golden Door' and, as a counterweight, came a great outpouring of books
offering near-biblical tales of a variety of immigrants groups as they
strove to imprint their signature on American life.6
The story being told in those days was of the migrants' value-added contribution:
the Scandinavian contribution in the mid-West; what the German did for
brewing; how the Irish ran the church, etc. Of course, in the new nation
the struggle for recognition was, in a sense, even more important than
in the Old World: political and civic fluidity meant there was more to
play for, with potentially higher rewards round the corner. The notion
of American sidewalks being paved with gold grew from a sense of hope
far more apparent, far more locked into working-class folk-lore, than
was ever the case with the Irish (or any other incoming group) in Britain.
Yet the common logic of these early immigrant histories was the fact that
American society was beginning to reject the very people who were being
written about. Immigrant histories in those days were, in some respects,
an attempt to re-impose the notion that a cosmopolitan culture was a central
strength of the American self-image.
The immigrants' story in America is as much a part of
American passions as class is in Britain. Yet, there has long been (in
this reviewer's opinion) a need for more books which emphasises a traditional
socio-economic approach to the Irish in America, of the type shown (admittedly
in case-study form) in Burchell's excellent monograph on the San Francisco
Irish, or in some of Donald Akenson's works on the Irish in Canada.7 It is his attempt to quantify, objectify and to assess
in the round, which prompts praise for Kenny's marking out of the terrain
in general terms.
Kenny's book takes a chronological approach, starting with the
eighteenth century (and therefore, importantly, with Protestants), moving
through the period of the Great Famine and beyond, beyond World War II.
In assessing each of these periods, Kenny's relegates celebrations of
ethnic achievement in favour of a multi-dimensional approach to the way
in which immigrant and indigenous cultures feed off each other. This is
not simply a book about how the Irish made America; it is also very much
a study of how America re-made the Irish. Perhaps most striking of all
is Kenny's presentation of important historical context on Ireland itself.
Again, an observation can me made to the effect that far too many scholars
embark on studies on immigrants in particular places (America, Britain,
Australia) without knowing very much about the land from which they were
sent forth. This has resulted in some curiously naïve and myth-laden
writings on the Irish dimension of the American immigrant story. A rather
simplistic paradigm of cruel landlordism, British colonial brutality,
and the much-bandied concept of 'anti-Irish racism' are too often used
as the backdrop to the migration story. Elements of truth, of course,
underpin such conceptualisations, for no one could begin to imagine Irish
history in this period without some sense of Britain's (or England's)
wrongs. But too often there has been a tendency to caricature the true
complexity of social relations and economic fortunes in Ireland.8 Expressions of chagrin about the fact that Irish 'peasants'
'had no vote and no stake in government' may strike an American of the
1950s as odd and unfair.9 But it would have been of no surprise whatsoever to
the Chartist, Samuel Holberry, who was walked to death on a York gaol
treadmill for planning a rising in Sheffield, nor to the Tolpuddle Martyrs
who were transported to Australia for forming a union bound by a secret
oath. Irish 'peasants' or English labourers: neither group enjoyed much
political power in the 1830s and 1840s.
Kenny attempts a more dispassionate analysis of the Irish
side of things, and this is crucial. It is rare for a scholar of the Irish
in America to demonstrate such a keen appreciation of the Irish backdrop
to the emigrant saga. Each chapter contains a series of passages explaining
vital aspects of Irish history, at the given point in time, as they relate
to the emigrant experience of those heading to the United States. Landholding
systems (cottier, runrig/rundale, etc) are outlined; the Penal Laws are
indicated where relevant; the famine is explained rather than enshrined.
Indeed, some of these pages on Irish history offer as succinct an insight
into the socio-economic conditions of Irish life as anyone could provide
in the space allowed. This material is perfect for the student reader,
and not just undergraduates.
The chapters on the eighteenth century and on the post-war
period must have been the most difficult to write. There is so much material
on the nineteenth century, that one could not begin to imagine covering
it all. By contrast, the age of the Scotch-Irish migration has attracted
less scholarly interested (though a formidable body still exists), while
more recent times are so crowded with contemporary images and unfinished
business that they are difficult to encapsulate. What Kenny says about
the eighteenth century is more than synthesis; he manages to capture some
of the most important aspects of colonial America history and to see them
through the prism of ethnicity. Indian fighting might have been heroic,
but it was often far from gallant. Butchery and the frontier went hand-in-hand,
and the Scotch-Irish group was involved in many of the major skirmishes.
Kenny also captures the cultural imprint of the Scotch-Irish in way that
will not be familiar to many people. Words that theScotch-Irish introduced
to the dialects of Trans-Appalachia are the subject of a fascinating discussion;
the Irish contribution to American country music provides another valuable
source of cultural transplantation and adaptability that Kenny handles
well. These are very things, in fact, that were brought to life in one
of the episodes of the recent TV series, The Irish Empire, which
looked at the cultural impress of the Irish abroad. The nineteenth century-that
century of so many millions of poor emigrants-is detailed with an imperious
control. Again, the interweaving of ethnic and indigenous cultures works
well: sections on Nativism and the Know-Nothing movement; labour and gender;
and the recurring theme of nationalism deliver to the reader, time and
again, the duality of being 'ethnic' and 'national', 'Irish' and 'American'.
One of the sections which most fascinated this reviewer
is Kenny's short but sharp discussion of the 'wages of whiteness', a controversy
which has been brewing for quite some time in America. There is some particularly
interesting work, by historians such as David Roediger and Noel Ignatiev,10 discussing the role of immigrants, particularly
the Irish, in propagating American racism. The idea is that the Irish
and blacks competed with each other, and therefore harboured particularly
acute animosities. The hinge upon which the Irish dimension of the 'wages
of whiteness debate turns is the claim that the Irish, when they arrived
as poor, starving, outcast, wretches, were accorded honorary black status.
That is, they were despised, sneered at, and people felt superior to them.
Their progress into a position of acceptance by white America constituted
the next important phase.
Were the Irish and blacks comparable? In the past, anecdotal
evidence of blacks denigrating the Irish has been used to endorse a romantic,
politicised notion of the melancholy story of Irish exile and to emphasise
the English colonialism which drove them from Erin's shores. Ignatiev,
for example, argues in his book, How the Irish Became White, that
the life of the Irish peasant was similar to that of the black slave in
the southern states of America. While this is an exaggerated and simplistic
conceptualisation, it is nevertheless true that the Irish were often presented
in the receiving countries as the lowest of the low. It is often said
(admittedly from eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century anecdotes),
that a plantation owner in the south would rather use a gang of Irish
workers to clear a dangerous swamp than to risk a squad of slaves-his
own personal property and therefore of real monetary value-to do
the job. The 'Condition of England' debates about Thomas CarlJyle's 'Wild
Milesians are not very much different from the suggestion that poor Irish
Catholics were undermining 'village green America' and threatened the
essential democracy of the young republic. This latter point, after all,
was one of the things which prompted the huge 'Know Nothing' development
of the mid-1850s, when, for a while, Nativism achieved political dominance
in states such as Massachusetts.11
The idea that Irish were perhaps even lowlier than America's
blacks has provided a useful way of increasing the sorrowful image of
Irish emigration and exile. More recently, this question of Irish-black
relations has become an issue of more widespread scholarly study, and
new light suggests a greater degree of tolerance between the pre-Famine
Irish emigrant and his freeman black neighbour in the big cities of the
North.12 At the heart of
this debate is the invented-ness of race and the sense in which it is
an ascribed, mythological label rather than an objective fact. Kenny's
contribution cuts through much of the half-truth surrounding debates about
the Irish, blacks and race. He places the Irish in their correct position-that
is, as whites who 'presumably shared to some extent the general European
propensity to attach negative connotations to "blackness", even
if they had not yet encountered racial oppression in its distinctively
American form'. The simplistic notion that low-level social improvement
might equate with a serious degree of acceptance of a whole political
structure called whiteness, is rejected by Kenny in favour of a more realistic
model:
Picture the case of an impoverished Irishman living
with his family in an infested cellar in Manhattan's Sixth Ward. If
he took a job on the docks once held by an African American, so that
he could move his family up to a tiny, windowless room on the floor
above, had he really 'opted for whiteness' in any meaningful sense?
Or had be taken an action, which because of the racial structure of
the United States, had important racial consequences?
Kenny goes on to discuss the more issue of collective action,
often violent, against blacks:
Those Irishmen who drove black workers from the docks
[e.g. in New York] and excluded them from labour organizations knew
what they were doing, and they doubtless advanced their assimilation
by doing so. But the American Irish did not create the social and
racial hierarchy into which they came, and to expect them to have
overturned this hierarchy in the course of putting food on their tables
is surely unrealistic.
The essential point, as with most history, is that the right answer
does not lie on one extreme or the other. The Irish were not the wholly
racist fiends that their arraigners might have us believe; nor were they
every remotely as oppressed as the blacks, which will disappoint some
at the other pole.
Yet there is no question that Irish workers, as with all groups
of whites, at times displayed traits that we would call racist. One reading
of Irish political behaviour, especially among the urban bosses, would
be to say that racism, and racially motivated policy enactment, played
at least some part in the developing political culture. The problem is
that evidence to the contrary can always be found for a subject as vexing
as racism across something as complicated as two hundred years. The balance
between racism, on the one hand, and doing deals, on the other, is captured
a thousand times over by the realities of city life in America over the
past two centuries. Those who would lionise Irish American politicos for
their remarkable ability to grab and make use of the Democratic political
machine, fundamentally underestimate the sense in which both the achievement
of that power and its maintenance was the product of clever negotiation
as well as strong-arm tactics. Irish political power was interrupted by
defeats as well as cemented by victories. Some Irish politicians did deals
with blacks and non-Irish ethnic groups at the same time as others worsted
them very badly. Irish politics, as Cohen and Taylor's stimulating biography
of the Mayor Daley of Chicago demonstrates, was as subtle or as tough
as conditions dictated.
If New York's Tammany Hall is the symbol of American
Irish political power, we should look to Chicago, and to Mayor Richard
J. Daley, for the greatest wielding of power by any single individual
of Irish parentage. As with other Irish leaders (Al Smith or Robert F.
Wagner in New York), Daley's power spread beyond his city, county or state;
his power, like theirs was national, but perhaps more so. Daley used circumstances,
the mass media and a certain personal talent to become a man whose name
was associated, in the minds of millions of Americans beyond Illinois,
with a particular brand of conservative political behaviour. But his background,
and his early-life show of talents, were unlikely markers for what was
ultimately to be an astounding achievement: a vice-like grip on power.
The story of the Daley ethos and of his rise is revealing
of an acute collective consciousness among Irish immigrants in America.
In this sense, too, Daley was a typical Irishman from a typical community.
There were, though, differences. First, his family was small (he was an
only child) and his mother and father were quiet. Daley was noted for
not being a drinker in his youth, and he worked incredibly hard to make
the most of his modest talents (even in his youth he uttered the malapropism
that would draw much comment later). He went to night school to study
law, following a solid Catholic education, which included a spell at De
La Salle College. He fell into the Irish political machine at its lowest
level, working for Big Joe McDonough at a time, in the 1930s), when a
Czech American, Anton Cermak-the man who died taking a bullet aimed at
Franklin D. Roosevelt-was running the show, albeit briefly.
By the end of his twenty-odd year, six-term hold on the mayoral
office, Chicago had been transformed. University campuses, O'Hare international
airport, a rejuvenated central business district (including what was then
the world's largest building, the Sears Tower)-these were just some of
his achievements. There were others, some of them controversial. The creation
of housing projects such as Cabrini Green helped to staunch the flow of
whites out of the city by containing the extent of black Chicago, but
the cost was in the creation of black-only neighbourhoods. The Dan Ryan
Expressway, then the world's widest, acted as a border between working-class
black and white districts of Chicago's south side, including the neighbourhood
where Daley grew up. Daley's Chicago was just about as segregated as some
of the southern cities which, in the mid-1960s, were feeling the heat
from Martin Luther King Jnr. Indeed, Cohen and Taylor make the point forcibly
that 'Daley's modern Chicago was built . on an unstated foundation: commitment
to racial segregation.' This is why King made Chicago his focus and temporary
home when, in 1966, he took the campaign against racism north.
Daley's battle against King was conducted in a way that
typified his political abilities. He refused to allow himself to become
a fall guy for the black freedom struggle; this, and his other acts of
conservatism, cast him into the public eye across America. As well as
opposing King, Daley also stood against President Johnson's Great Society
programme, and he loathed and fought against the Hippie tendency and the
anti-war movement. Daley was a classic product of the ethnic ghetto, yet
the English would understand him equally as a nineteenth-century Gladstonian
Liberal: he believed in a religious morality that underpinned good social
behaviour, and welcomed the social role of churches as a boon. He also
stressed loyalty and bootstrap-tugging self-help. He was considered 'dollar
honest', although he ignored the corruption of those around him. Daley
was faithful to his wife. Long days and nights in Springfield, in the
execution of duties for the state legislature, turned many men to gambling
and prostitutes: but not Daley. While others were making hot money, sleeping
around and getting drunk, Daley was demonstrating a remarkable aptitude
for the tedious actuarial side of politics. Moreover, while he did not
trouser millions in ill-gotten gains, he earned enough legitimate money
from his numerous political jobs to raise a large family, to build a big
house and to school his children well.
Daley bore all the hallmarks of a nineteenth-century
boss politician displaced into the wrong century. His patch was the neighbourhood
into which he was born and where his first political allegiances had been
forged. His team was the White Sox. Chicago was his city. But, perhaps
by being a man who seemed out of his time, he was able to be more effective
than if this had not been the case. The Chicago he inherited needed to
find itself a new role: it was no longer the boom-time city standing at
the crossroads of American civilisation; this image was giving way, as
with most Mid-West towns, to the appeal of the rejuvenated south and the
wider Sun Belt. But Daley set about revitalising Chicago by rebuilding
it. Government took a lead and the physical map of Chicago was changed
massively under his tutelage. Despite the negative racial connotations
of so much of what he masterminded, there is no doubt that the revitalised
Chicago of the post-war epoch is a far cry from other decaying Mid-West
cities, such as Detroit and St Louis, which atrophied consistently in
the generation after 1945. As boss politicians fell by the wayside in
the post-war years, the old-fashioned Daley machine lived on.
Daley rescued his Chicago and rebuilt it. Daley was the last big
city boss. At the end of his life, it is said, he was recognising the
frailty of his old-style political machine. He was losing ground, but
not enough for any opponent to reap the ultimate reward, not in Chicago
at least. Daley managed to win his sixth term in the year of his death,
1976, but at the same time he lost out in a race to work closely with
Jimmy Carter. Big city bossism had a limited utility beyond its bedrock;
bosses such as Al Smith of New York had realised this in the 1920s. As
a rule, machine politics does not go down well in the rural expanses of
other parts of America. Some would argue Daley got lucky in not being
able to get closer to Carter, but it is an irrelevance to say so because
death intervened anyway. While this failure struck him hard, changing
times enabled one of Daley's sons to realise his father's dream-but twenty
years later and with a very different presidential candidate. The son
is Richard M. Daley and the presidential hopeful was Al Gore. Yet something
else that brings us full circle, and what proves the limitations of any
attempt to render Richard Daley Snr as a dinosaur, is the proof, found
in Chicago, that political dynasties are stronger in America than almost
anywhere. In 1999, Richard M. Daley was elected to his fourth term as
Mayor of Chicago, an office he has held since his father's death in 1976.
Two Daleys, both named Richard, have held the city's top job for ten terms
and nearly half-a-century.
Not even the Daley lineage in Chicago is as telling an
indictment of the power of Irish America as the very existence of the
fourth item under review, Michael Glazier's Encyclopaedia of the Irish
in America. Advance praise from a variety of notable scholars adorns
the back cover: Glazier's is, we cannot doubt, the book Irish America
has been waiting for. Given the success of Bayor and Meagher's collection
of essays, The New York Irish, it is not surprising to lean that
Irish America is confident in its ability to do itself justice. And Glazier's
is an impressive effort. It looks beautiful and is good value for money.
Moreover, the coverage is catholic, not just Catholic. The range and quality
of each of the essays are very good. There is also a remarkable consistency
to the text, for which both Glazier and Notre Dame University Press deserve
our thanks. The choice of subject matter is largely uncontroversial, although
one could quibble with certain inclusions. I am not sure that some of
the Irish-born contemporary figures are necessarily 'Irish in America'
in quite the way we are asked to believe. It is impossible to imagine
that, if this volume had been produced in 1865, John Mitchel would have
been excluded: even though he was born and died in Ireland, he spent important
years in America developing, among other things, a sympathy with slavery.
The thematic entries really are excellent: for example, short histories
of the Irish in each major city and every state is provides a resource
of unparalleled utility for scholars trying to come to terms with the
huge variety of Irish communities in America. Readers will not be surprised
to learn that New York, Boston and Chicago get large entries. The historical
characters, each with a short contextual biography, are very well rendered.
Helpful lists of further reading come with each entry. Reading this book
enforces the view that the Irish Diaspora is alive and well-and that most
members seem to be writing books! In future, however, one would imagine
that projects such as Glazier's will appear on CD-Rom.
These four books demonstrate the old and new traits of
Irish studies in America. Glazier's Encyclopaedia captures the
balance of styles most dramatically: hero-worship, as mode of writing,
has itself passed into history, yet the sense of communal pride remains.
Alongside biographies of the great and the good of Irish America are some
wonderful 'new' historical approaches to the key themes-nationalism, Catholicism,
urban history, city politics, and so on. Cohen and Taylor's biography
of Mayor Daley demonstrates both the utility and the limitations of bossism;
it is a warts and all study that might serve as an emblem of for that
period of American history when Irishmen ran the great cities. The nature
of urban politics; the fragility of real democracy in a world of such
corruption, and the role of grace and favour, are all perfectly balanced
against the degree to which the big city boss could, and could not, extend
himself beyond the home turf. Not many Irish bosses became President of
the United States; yet no president had the degree of control over his
political turf that Mayor Daley had in Chicago.
But it is Kenny's book that points the way forward for American
Irish history. His is an inclusive history. It does no disservice to the
grand Catholic narrative of so many other studies. Yet it manages to introduce
a much less fleeting image of the Scots-Irish than is portrayed via the
usual long list of Irishmen of Scots descent who made America (from Daniel
Boone-who was in fact part Devon Quaker-through Andrew Jackson to Neal
Armstrong and any other Scots-Irish on the moon we might mention). Irish
history in America grew out of sectarian competition in the nineteenth
century, something that was taken to America in the cultural baggage of
the emigrants. The Scots-Irish myth was developed in the second-half of
the nineteenth century as some sort of antidote to the hugely important
nationalist tradition focusing on St Patrick's Day and the various movements
for home rule and independence. It is this sense of connection to the
old country's unfinished business, more than anything else, which has
made Irish American history so important to people whose Irish roots are
in the distant past. But the time has come for us really to learn about
the Irish in America and to move beyond a prosopography of Irish success.
Kenny has provided an important marker.
October 2001
Notes:
1. Kurds, Italians and South Asians
are just two of the groups recently to have received treatment in books
bearing the word 'Diaspora' in the titles. See Crispin Bates (ed.), Community,
Empire and Migration: South Asians in Diaspora (Palgrave, 2001).
2. William Thomas and Florian Znaniecki,
The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (1918-20); Oscar Handlin, The
Uprooted: The epic study of the Great Migrations that made the America
People (1951).
3. F. Thistlethwaite, `Migration from Europe overseas
in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries' in H. Moller (ed.), Population
Movements in Modern European History (New York, 1964) and J. Bodnar, The
Transplanted: A History of Immigrants in Urban America (Bloomington, 1985).
4. Donald Akenson, The Irish in Ontario:
A Study in Rural History 2nd edn (2000).
5. The American Irish: A Political and Social Portrait (Boston,
1963; 2nd edn 1989).
6. Many of the early studies were sociological in their orientations,
with studies such as Henry P, Fairchild, Greek Immigration to the United
States (1911), Thomas Burgess, Greeks in America (1913), Kenneth Babcock,
The Scandinavian Element in the United States (1914),) and Robert E. Foerster,
Italian Emigrants of Our Times (1919) offering a variety of perspectives
of the way in which people left Europe and established themselves in America.
7. R.A. Burchell, The Irish in San Francisco, 1848-80 (Manchester,
1979); Akenson, Irish in Ontario.
8. We might point to the example of Shannon's doom-laden
description of Irish history in his American Irish, ch.1 or that given
in D. Clark, The Irish in Philadelphia: Ten Generations of Urban Experience
(Philadelphia, 1973).
9. Wittke, Irish in America, p.6.
10. David R. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness:
Race and the Making of the American Working Class (London and New York,
1991) and N. Ignatiev, How the Irish Became White (New York and London,
1995).
11. It should be remembered, too,
that the anti-immigrant/anti-Catholic/anti-Irish feelings of the Know
Nothings were shaped as much by a fear that America democracy was under
threat from immigrants who, it was argued, had no experience of upholding
such cherished political traditions. That, and the sense in which the
Catholic Church (and, by default, the Irish) were thought to be supporters
of slavery helps to explain why such inhospitable views developed in Massachusetts,
spiritual home of abolition. See Tyler Anbinder, Nativism and Slavery:
The Northern Know Nothings and the Politics of the 1850s (New York
and Oxford, 1992).
12. G. Hodges, '"Desirable companions and
lovers": Irish and African Americans in the Sixth Ward, 1830-70',
in R.H. Bayor and T.J. Meagher (eds.), The New York Irish (Baltimore
Md, 1996).
Kevin Kenny's Response
|