The Battle of Toubacanti 1700 a.D. (Darian Expedition)

[TheScottishEconomist]

Originally posted by Polwarth
John Prebble was an Englishman who emigrated to Canada. He wrote a number of history books about Scotland. Although some of them are considered old-fashioned nowadays, it was reading some of his early books that gave me my great interest in Scots history! I still refer to his Glencoe and Culloden books. His Darien Disaster book is good.

Prebbles writings are good in that they are well written and enjoyable to read. The problem with them is content. Prebble was not a historian, if he were he would be considered a very bad historian as he tended to ignore evidence if it didn’t suit him, which of course a good historian should not do.

Prebbles books are big on heroic rhetoric, but low in critical analysis.

Originally posted by Scottish_Republican

Polwarth is right, however I would add that many of these subjects probably would not receive the same attention if he hadn't written on them. For example, I don't think we'd see so many people denying the Highland Clearances happened if Prebble hadn't produced his tome.

This is a prime example of John Prebble type history. The Highland Clearances were the product of the changing economic and social conditions of the 18th and 19th centuries, Prebble of course isn’t interested in that and prefers to overplay atypical incidents to suit his particular narrative.

For the reader who goes to Prebble with a mind naturally acquiescent, and credulity eager for simplistic notions of history in which the noble highlander suffers at the hands of the treacherous clan chiefs and assorted villains, they will not be disappointed by Prebbles works. It sure beats analysing figures for the import of raw cotton or the price of kelp after the French wars.

However for those who take their history more seriously it will serve as an excellent example of historical methods and practice.

[TheScottishEconomist]

Originally posted by TheVoyageur

The Glasgow uprising = Nationalism!

Perhaps a new thread on this?

The 1820 ‘rising’ (if it can be called that) or ‘Weavers rising’ (equally silly) is perfectly well known about. It is interesting to economic and social historians, but as it was not that important it is not well known by the general public. I don't think you could seriously claim it has been 'buried'.

One of the more idiotic claims made about this so called ‘rising’ is that it was a Scottish nationalist uprising! This despite its key pamphlet being Address to the Inhabitants of Great Britain and Ireland which talked of restoring liberties to ‘Britons’ and Magna Carta. Even though Wallace and Bruce were much referred to by the radicals in Scotland it was very much a shared struggle with their English counterparts, particularly in North England.

The economic conditions of the early 19th century saw the Weavers, who had been the aristocracy of labour, suffer a sharp decline in their living standards brought about by an influx of cheap labour. This saw them – and other trades – becoming involved in the radical politics of Cobbett and Cartwright who argued for better government.

This started out as being a moderate movement that became more radical (and thereby driving the middle class back into alliance with the government). The authorities did fear armed uprising, and while a few disturbances took place in Yorkshire, very little ever came of it. A few men (probably around 100 or so) did march towards Glasgow, but it petered out along the way.

It certainly could not be called a revolution, though rather predictably much myth making has gone on since. Sadly that happens all to frequently with Scottish history.

[Scottish_Republican]

It certainly is NOT well known about, and if it is known at all, it's mainly because of that book.

You seem to forget that many Scots had forgotten about Wallace until a certain inaccurate film. It stands to reason that the man on the street won't have heard of this, nor even John MacLean in many cases.

"One of the more idiotic claims made about this so called ‘rising’ is that it was a Scottish nationalist uprising!"

Some of the banners read "Scotland free or a desart [sic]". That's well recorded. Interpret that as you will.

"it was very much a shared struggle with their English counterparts, particularly in North England."

They'll say the same about the Poll Tax demonstrations here in a hundred years' time.

[Scottish_Republican]

Originally posted by TheScottishEconomist
This is a prime example of John Prebble type history. The Highland Clearances were the product of the changing economic and social conditions of the 18th and 19th centuries, Prebble of course isn’t interested in that and prefers to overplay atypical incidents to suit his particular narrative.

No it isn't. I was pointing out that Prebble is responsible for keeping the debate alive - the very one we're having. You wouldn't be talking like this yourself if it wasn't for that book.

Yes, the Highland Clearances were "the product of the changing economic and social conditions of the 18th and 19th centuries", but to leave it at that is a gross oversimplification in itself. I am well aware of parallel events, and of precursors to them in Southern Scotland and England. Economics can be a dry science, but its results are often anything but.

[Skyelander]

Originally posted by Scottish_Republican

No it isn't. I was pointing out that Prebble is responsible for keeping the debate alive - the very one we're having. You wouldn't be talking like this yourself if it wasn't for that book.

Yes, the Highland Clearances were "the product of the changing economic and social conditions of the 18th and 19th centuries", but to leave it at that is a gross oversimplification in itself. I am well aware of parallel events, and of precursors to them in Southern Scotland and England. Economics can be a dry science, but its results are often anything but.

I agree with Scottish Republican on this one. To many books produced today only look at the economic aspects of the Highland Clearances - as if somehow the loss of economy explains all the evictions and atrocities committed on those people. It is excuse-making history at it height.

I even have a book (modern) which attempt to tell the reader that the Clearances are modern mythology written by clever writers with a forte for deception.

Prebbble wasn't an historian: luckily for us, historians aren't the only ones allowed to write about history! I am an historian, and I would read Prebble over many of my own colleagues, simply for his readability. I never found anything terribly deficient in his works. Any writer of 13th century history can be criticised, and some of it is valid critisism. That's the danger inherent in writing older history for a modern reader.

Skye

[ANDY-J2]

That the methods involved in the clearances were immoral and inhumane is not in question however that is a seperate issue.There are two schools of thought as to the reasons why they happened.There are those historians who see them as part of the process of a Europe wide revolution in agriculture which occured at the time of the enlightenment in the late eighteenth century.Improvement in agricultural methods and the introduction of machinery to replace manpower would therefore have had to occur and inevitably such improvements and modernisation must have resulted in the displacement of people living in rural highland areas.Such demographic changes were occuring in the rest of the UK as the country became increasingly urbanised so it would have been unusual if there had been no similar population movement in the highlands.
Alternatively there are those who focus on what they believe were systematic attempts by British governments to eradicate Gaelic culture and remove once and for all the threat of Jacobitism however the clearances were still occuring into the nineteenth century so that doesn't provide a satisfactory explanation.In England it was not unknown for entire villages to be uprooted for no better reason than to allow landowners to expand their country mansions and the methods employed were often no less brutal than in the highlands.The highland clearances were not a myth but they should be seen in their proper context as part of a wider process of agricultural reform involving upheaval and hardship for rural communities throughout the UK.The Gaels were not singled out for special treatment and there wasn't a concerted effort on the part of the British government to depopulate the highlands,although the unique traditional relationship between landowners and their tenants which existed in the Highlands meant the victims perhaps felt a deeper sense of betrayal than displaced peoples in the rest of the UK.Also the fact that Scotland was less urbanised than England ensured that less employment opportunities were available so many highlanders were forced to move abroad,yet even prior to the Jacobite wars many Scots had chosen to go abroad,sometimes as indentured servants who were often no better off than slaves,so this was part of an ongoing process rather than a new phenomenon.

[TheScottishEconomist]

Originally posted by Scottish_Republican
It certainly is NOT well known about, and if it is known at all, it's mainly because of that book.

You seem to forget that many Scots had forgotten about Wallace until a certain inaccurate film. It stands to reason that the man on the street won't have heard of this, nor even John MacLean in many cases.

"One of the more idiotic claims made about this so called ‘rising’ is that it was a Scottish nationalist uprising!"

Some of the banners read "Scotland free or a desart [sic]". That's well recorded. Interpret that as you will.

The scribblings of some semi literate person do not offer even remotely convincing evidence that it was a Scottish nationalist uprising, and I don’t think any reasonably minded person could come to the conclusion that it was.

When I said it was well known I meant well known to those who might be expected to find it interesting. That people were unaware of Wallace before that appalling bad film is an indictment of our society and its values. However the story of Wallace lends itself to romantic telling in a way the Weavers simply don’t

In the case of John Maclean, he is unfortunately one of those Scots who is loved for being a loser. Not despite being a loser, but because he is a loser. We Scots have an unhealthy obsession with lost causes and with people who are failures. I hope we can be cured of it in the not to distant future as it’s a symptom of something wrong in the national psyche.

Originally posted by Scottish_Republican
"it was very much a shared struggle with their English counterparts, particularly in North England."

They'll say the same about the Poll Tax demonstrations here in a hundred years' time.

Not one of your finest refutations SR, but I have noticed that you quite frequently disagree with things because you don’t find them convenient rather than because evidence clearly indicates something to the contrary. Whats wrong with a bit of 19th century cross border solidarity? I am puzzled as to why you seem to find such things so threatening that you prefer to argue against them even if it diminishes your own credibility.