Oliver Cromwell, like so many figures in Irish history, is very difficult to get an objective opinion on. The man is seen as a devil in human form by many even now, centuries after the events attributed to him took place. It is fair to say that no other English individual has become the poster-boy for Anglo-Irish division and hatred as much as the 17^th century Parliamentarian leader.

Cromwell has his name attached to all kinds of deeds, but none more infamous perhaps then the Siege of Drogheda in 1649, when forces under his command captured the town after a short fight. What is infamous is the events after the town’s defences were breached: what happened there that day sealed Cromwell’s reputation in Ireland and may well have radically altered the course of Irish history.

But why talk about Cromwell here, and the Siege of Drogheda in particular? Because there are two main threads of scepticism surrounding the siege, that have provoked fierce debate both in academic circles and beyond. Today, I will discuss both of these, and offer my own thoughts and conclusions.

The Facts

First, some background. Cromwell was born in 1599, a member of the English middle class. Relatively unknown for the first 40 years of his life, he was elected a member of Parliament in 1628, becoming a “Roundhead”, a member of the Parliamentarian side, in the Civil Wars that engulfed England shortly after. A brilliant and well-regarded campaigner, he rose in power to command his own army, and became one of the main leaders of the Parliament side. His name was among those on Charles I death warrant in 1649. Shortly afterward he was chosen to lead an army to stamp out rebellion and Royalist forces operating in Ireland.

Ireland was still a hotbed of opposition to the Parliamentarian cause, following a Catholic led rebellion in 1641. Those “Confederate Catholics” and Royalist forces had allied, and provided a substantial threat to Cromwell and his cause. From his landing in Dublin on 15^th August, Cromwell pursued an aggressive strategy against his foes, capturing town after town with assaults, with several, such as Drogheda, but also Wexford and Clonmel, being especially bloody. Cromwell departed Ireland in May 1650 to attend to threats from Scotland, but the commanders left after him finished his work, pacifying the island by 1653.

But we are discussing today just the Siege of Drogheda, which took place in September 1649. The military nature of the siege is straightforward and bares little study. Cromwell besieged it with 12’000 men under his own command, with 11 cannon to batter its walls. Cromwell offered the garrison their lives if they would surrender. They were 3’000 or so in number, under the command of Sir Arthur Aston, and they refused Cromwell’s terms. On the 11^th September, a week after his initial arrival, Cromwell’s assaulting forces fought their way through one of two breaches made by his cannon. Around 150 of Cromwell’s men were killed in the assault. Having gotten inside the walls, the majority of the defending troops were killed. As Parliamentarian troops sacked the town, several groups of defenders attempted to hold out in internal strongholds, but all were overcome, either through force or offers of safe conduct, offers which do not seem to have been honoured afterward. Reports on matters of prisoners are very sketchy, but it seems likely only 200 at most were taken. During the ransack of the town a number of civilians were killed, the number being in dispute.

In Defence Of Cromwell

The siege has become a major point of anti-English sentiment in Irish history. Those who follow this viewpoint see Cromwell as a war criminal, who deliberately killed unarmed civilians due to religious convictions and in order to provoke terror in other Irish strongholds, all as part of a brutal English subjugation of the island, which set the scene for several centuries of British domination of Ireland. The siege has become wrapped up in nationalistic sentiments, which emphasise a narrative of foreign (Protestant) invaders oppressing and murdering Irish (Catholic) patriots, a version of history popularised by the Catholic Church.

The first thread of sceptical thinking regarding the siege is aimed at this viewpoint which, I think it is fair to say, has dominated Irish thoughts of Cromwell and the battle. I wish to examine a number of points which have gained more and more prominence in the last number of years as literature and academic debate about Cromwell has grown.

• The allegiance/nationality of the defenders

Perhaps the most important point that goes ignored from the nationalistic narrative, that bears being especially emphasised, is that the defenders of Drogheda that day were, to a large extent, not Irish. They were English. The Siege of Drogheda was a fight between Englishmen that happened to take place on Irish soil and involve some Irish troops.

The allegiance of these men was not in any way to a free Ireland. Their allegiance was formerly to the executed King Charles I, and now his young son, the future Charles II. They were Royalist troops. Even the limited numbers of Irishmen present for the defence were supporters of the monarchy, and were not seeking to form an independent Ireland, free of Britain. At least half of the garrison was Protestant.

• Rules of war

Speaking of the actual massacre, when it came to the defenders, the contemporary rules of war were very clear. Surrender was offered as an option before the siege began. That offer was rejected. “The ram had touched the wall”, as the Romans would have said. Once that offer was rejected, Aston’s men would either win or have their lives at the mercy of Cromwell.

All traditions of war at the time insured that accepting surrender after the breach was forced was solely up to the attacker and Cromwell was not in a generous mood. The Parliamentarians were certainly not blood thirsty maniacs: while many succumbed to the bloodlust that typically follows the successful assault of a fortress (for an even more infamous example, see the Siege of Badajoz in 1812), there were certainly plenty who tried to accept surrenders from defending troops, only for their mercy to be overruled by higher commanders, who could trace all of their orders back to Cromwell.

When it came to the actual military defenders of the town, as brutal as it may seem to 21^st century sensibilities, Cromwell cannot be faulted. He was honourable enough within the confines of such military law, and it is undisputed that he would honour surrender terms from towns that capitulated before (and sometimes after) a siege started. Scenes like that in Drogheda had occurred over and over again in the fighting in England, with Aston’s side being just as “guilty” as the Parliamentarians. For example, from Trevor Royle’s Civil War, on the Royalist taking of Leicester in 1644:

“The street fighting continued until dawn. Most of it was a bloody hand-to-hand business in which quarter was rarely given and the garrison continued to resist long after they had any hope of beating off the invaders. This undoubtedly prompted the worst excesses: men who have been fired up by combat and seen their friends die are not usually given to displays of forgiveness come the cease-fire…Pyke’s soldiers surrendered and asked for quarter only to be killed in cold blood, women were raped and houses plundered…200 Scots (also) surrendered only to be rounded up and massacred.”

The Royalist defenders and Confederate Catholic soldiers were no strangers to massacre themselves, not after the 1641 rebellion and the war in England. Living by the sword, to say it bluntly, sometimes means dying by it as well.

Later in the Irish campaign, Cromwell would accept the conditional surrender of Clonmel after a bloody and failed attempt to storm a breach in the towns walls, showing that he was perfectly capable of compromise in regards to siege warfare, even after initial offers of clemency were rejected.

This is a common problem with modern study of centuries old controversies: the trend of examining such issues through the eyes of a modern morality, which does an injustice to the contemporary events. The descriptions of the deaths of the military defenders are gruesome enough, but that is not the discussion today.

• Civilian deaths

Of course, unarmed civilians are a different quandary. The accounts coming out of Drogheda are mostly either second hand, or have a distinct suspicion of bias (it must come as no surprise that the most negative accounts come from Catholic clergy) and simply cannot be completely trusted to provide truthful remembrance of what happened.

It is the numbers issue that is truly sketchy. Cromwell, in his letters about the Siege, says only that “many inhabitants” of the town were killed and his later speeches to Parliament make little mention of civilian deaths, only those “under arms”, the future Lord Protector hazarding only rough estimations as to death toll. One of his officers, Hugh Peters, claimed that 3’552 were slain in total, but his reasoning and accounting methods are not recorded. When you subtract the total number of troops that Cromwell claimed were defending the town – around 2’800 – a civilian death toll of 700-800 can be estimated. Cromwell was far more concerned with recording the death toll of the military defenders, which he claimed was almost total.

Beyond that, everything is unreliable. Royalist newspapers claimed that civilians were killed in their thousands at Drogheda, while subsequent stories from the Catholic clergy in Ireland put it above 4’000.

It certainly does not help that there is no census data, not even a general estimation, on the total population of Drogheda before or after the siege. It was a good sized town, with several fortresses, that was supporting nearly 3’000 troops after all. But no numbers are available. For what it is worth, the contemporary merchant accounts record names of families that lived in the town before and after, and these are mostly the same, indicating that a wholesale slaughter of the inhabitants did not take place. But with the lack of solid numbers for the town’s population, we cannot know what proportion of the towns inhabitants were killed in 1649. Further, as local historian Tom Reilly points out, no graves of the dead have been discovered en masse, indicating that the dead were cremated in pyres. Another avenue of evidence is lost to us.

Those who popularised the narrative of slaughter were usually connected to the Church. Other accounts of slaughter and atrocity, such as the account of New Model Army soldier Thomas Wood (who, surprise surprise, is depicted as a virtuous hero in his own account, trying to save innocent virgins from his more blood-thirsty brothers-in-arms, those who were using live children as shields) are not much better: Wood was known as a chronic exaggerator, and some subsequent chroniclers have refused to use him as a source for this reason.

But certainly, some were killed. The account of a Protestant cleric, a Dean Bernard, is the only civilian one to have survived and indicates that Cromwell’s soldiers were firing indiscriminately into civilian homes, stopping only when they discovered that one house was filled with Protestants. This certainly indicates that the Parliamentarians were shooting unarmed civilians (civilians who carried arms were likely counted among the defenders proper) and were targeting Catholics especially.

It has been argued that civilians who shelter and aid soldiers in a time of war cannot be considered “untouchable”, especially in the time period we are discussing, when the slaughter of besieged towns was almost common in the Thirty Years War in Germany. This is a question of personal moral leanings of course. For myself, it seems plain that in the time period being discussed a line was drawn between soldier and civilian, even in siege conditions. The common man in Drogheda would have had little say in the running of the towns defence or the soldiers it admitted. Perhaps they could have left before the siege started, but few would be willing to abandon their homes.

Ultimately, it is impossible to know how many civilians were killed at Drogheda, a point I will expand upon in a moment. It is a crucial thing to note though, in all discussions: nobody knows for sure how many civilians were killed at Drogheda. No narrative of the battle, regardless of its source or nature, can know that for sure.

• Cromwell’s brutality

Certainly, Cromwell did all that he could to promote the events as a righteous act, in his infamous words about the battle:

I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood; and that it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future…

I will return to these words towards the end. But for now they do seem to indicate a man who was dedicated to imposing his will forcefully upon Ireland, and was more than willing to do so at the point of a sword. The famous picture of Cromwell riding casually by as his men butcher women and children is the kind of thing that was borne of this sentiment, but that is not to say that it can be relied upon.

Cromwell didn’t like the Irish, this is known. He saw his overall campaign in divinely mandated terms. But his hatred of Catholic Ireland, while having much to do with the actual religion, was also a result of the Catholic Church’s key role in the slaughter of Protestants in the 1641 rebellion, a rebellion that Cromwell was keen to avenge – that being the “innocent blood” he mentions above.

For all that, Cromwell could be a soft touch as well. His proclamations to the Irish people after his arrival were less fire and brimstone and more “hearts and minds”, promising his troops would not live off the land as they pleased and that soldiers who unnecessarily harmed the native population would be punished. This pronouncement gained Cromwell much support from locals in the Dublin area, albeit mostly Protestant support.

In condemnation of Cromwell

With all of that being said, we must now explore the second path of scepticism regarding Drogheda, which arises from attempts to defend Cromwell and his actions that day, which have gained more prominence recently, here and abroad. This goes beyond the simple fact regarding the rules of war and how Cromwell followed them (for the military defenders).

• No civilians killed?

One of the more noted of these defenders is Tom Reilly, whose book Cromwell, an Honourable Enemy provoked much attention – and debate – when it was published. Reilly praises Cromwell and makes a number of claims about the Siege of Drogheda where he attempts to whiten the Parliamentarians reputation.

Reilly makes the claim that “not only was there no outright slaughter of the defenceless inhabitants…no evidence to substantiate the stories of the massacre of even one unarmed person”. Put simply, such a claim does huge damage to any other analysis that Reilly may make. The numbers of civilians killed at Drogheda is absolutely debatable, but what is beyond doubt is that some were killed. Nearly all primary accounts, Parliamentarian and Royalist, mention some civilian casualties. Perhaps we might struggle to condemn Cromwell in a court of law, but we must allow some common sense to prevail: the idea that no civilians were killed is laughable.

Cromwell had a reputation from the English fighting of letting his men plunder a breached town while he stayed outside, away from any such actions. This time however, he was noted as entering shortly after the breach was made, and being infuriated by the sight of his dead soldiers. He subsequently issued “no mercy” orders for those “under arms”. His actions are likely to have set a further fire under his men, who would have been difficult to control in the circumstances, which could easily have led to greater violence against civilians.

• Notoriety of massacre

Such defenders ignore other realities. The “massacre” was certainly notorious very soon after it happened, indicating that something outside the norm happened there. In this, Cromwell played a part, with his infamous words “barbarous wretches” and “righteous judgement” openly claiming that his actions at Drogheda were meant to scare others.

The argument can be made that Cromwell was exaggerating. Certainly, he did not want to be in Ireland for too long, and he knew well the potent weapon that fear could be. To that end, it would be easy for Cromwell himself to emphasise and exaggerate the casualties at the Siege of Drogheda, and the conduct of his soldiers, in order to scare other enemy garrisons throughout the country. He wanted them to surrender, quickly. Certainly, civilians were killed at Drogheda, but it is not inconceivable that when faced with this fact, Cromwell decided to take what seemed like a potential propaganda nightmare and use it for his own ends, to terrorise the rest of the country, in his own words, “while the fear of God was upon them”. Such tactics are worthy of condemnation of their own, using the event of civilian deaths, ordered or unordered, as a psychological weapon regardless of how true the message was.

Moral? No. Successful? I would argue yes, considering the steady stream of towns and fortresses that did not offer the same amount of resistance that Drogheda had. Some, like Dundalk and Trim, saw their garrisons flee directly after the news from Drogheda reached them. And when that strategy did not appear to be working later in the campaign, Cromwell accepted surrenders from towns and cities, Clonmel being a notable example, that had resisted him. He was not fixated on slaughtering the Irish. He was fixated on victory, and could compromise with his enemies to get it.

That is not to say that Cromwell was not a very religiously motivated person. Certainly, he and his army viewed all of their actions as God driven and guided. But that does not mean that Cromwell was so one-dimensional as to view all of his exploits in that light, or not intelligent enough to use his reputation to get what he wanted (and to abandon that course when it wasn’t working).

• Wexford

And those who seek to rehabilitate Cromwell tend to ignore events like the taking of Wexford, where the New Model Army certainly lost control, with Cromwell being just as guilty in preventing a massacre of inhabitants as his men. I take the time here to discuss Drogheda as it has become ingrained in the anti-Cromwell mindset in a special way, but Wexford deserves study and judgement of its own accord, a sack that Cromwell either allowed or didn’t do enough to stop while negotiations were ongoing with the towns commander.

Conclusion

It may appear that I have written a piece that is contradictory – defending and condemning Cromwell (I will admit to focusing more time on the defence, but with the excuse that there was more to be said on that thread)- but I come to my conclusion.

As in nearly all historical debates on events that happened well outside our lifetimes, the polarisation of accounts and opinions is evidence that one must seek the middle course. Allow me to indulge myself and offer some personal opinions on the Siege of Drogheda.

Cromwell’s optimum solution to the Drogheda problem was the surrender of the garrison before an attack was joined. That failed to come. Moreover, Cromwell knew that Royalist reinforcements could arrive quickly and upset the balance against him. So he threw his men into a costly attack, assaulting breaches with units dubbed “forlorn hopes” due to their high casualty rates.

Cromwell ordered the deaths of all enemy combatants, as the laws of war allowed him too. His soldiers, many enraged by the loss of life at the breaches, carried out these orders. Some tried to accept surrenders after the breach, but these were later countermanded.

Elements of Cromwell’s army ran amok in Drogheda after winning the town, firing into civilian homes, and certainly killing civilians. I do not believe that Cromwell purposefully ordered the killing of civilians, though I will accept that he is unlikely to have made much of an effort to stop it either.

The amount of civilians killed was significant enough to warrant attention, but was not as high as others make it out to be. The lack of primary sources, the lack of bodies, the same names on Merchant registers before and after the siege, the lack of census info, mean that an estimation of over a thousand civilian dead is hearsay, and less than 700 is more likely. It is within the realm of possibility that the figure is much lower, but this also cannot possibly be confirmed.

What proportion of the total townspeople this was is also, crucially to determining the correct use of the words “massacre”, unknown.

Cromwell knew that the civilian deaths would be turned into a propaganda campaign by his enemies and resolved to use it to his advantage. Thus inclined, he played up the siege and the death toll with religious language, in order to scare other garrisons into surrender and acquiescence. He focused primarily on actual armed defenders for this. The fact that, later in the Irish campaign, he began to accept surrenders after initial rejections shows that he was not committed to a “victory through terror” military operation.

Later, at Wexford, Cromwell lost control of his troops entirely and allowed a massacre to take place, without punishment in the aftermath, a much worse atrocity then Drogheda.

Much of this is simply guesswork and presumption of course, albeit based as much upon logic as I can muster.

Cromwell was a controversial man. A brilliant warrior, a devious politician, utterly determined when pursuing his aims on the field of battle or the Parliament floor. His actions in Ireland left a mark that will never be removed. But we would do better to judge our appraisal on the man and his actions using the reliable evidence that is available to us and a healthy dose of common sense, rejecting the conflicting biased narratives that have arisen since the mid 17^th century. True history demands nothing else.

Sources

Primary

Cromwell letter to John Bradshaw

Cromwell letter to William Lenthall

Peters letter to William Lenthall

Wood’s account of the storming of Drogheda

Secondary

“The Curse of Cromwell” in A History of the English Speaking Peoples Vol. II Part IV – Winston Churchill

The Civil Wars – John Keegan, Jane Ohlmeyer

Rewriting Cromwell: A Case of Deafening Silences – John Morrill

God’s Executioner, Oliver Cromwell and the Conquest of Ireland – Micheal O’ Siochru

Cromwell, an Honourable Enemy – Tom Reilly

Civil Wars – Trevor Royle

Find more from Hand of Blue here and follow @NFBblog

The Ling Herself

My partner and I took in Ling a six year old cat who was no longer able to be cared for where she was living. The first month was a whirl of vet’s appointments for checkups, vaccinations, worming, flea tablets, nutritional advice and catnip. Since then things have calmed down and she has integrated into family life. This has given me the time to think about her long term care and this is when I came across homeopathy for pets.

There are, it turns out, a number of fully qualified vets around Ireland who offer homeopathy as part of care packages. In fact there is an Irish Society of Veterinary Homeopaths! They offer homeopathic remedies for pets to treat a number of ailments from anxiety, respiratory problems, digestive issues and skin conditions caused by allergies or parasites. For those of you who do not know what homeopathy is, it is the practice of taking a substance and diluting it a large number of times. The idea is that the substance becomes stronger as the water has memory but the reality is that you are just left with water.

Support for this type of animal treatment seems to be based on two main arguments found in many blog posts and testimonials online. The first being that pets did not recover until homeopathy was given to them. This argument is easily rebutted as after a bit of digging into many of these stories it can be seen that other changes were made around the same time such as change of diet, environmental changes or simply the passage of time. Many of the pets were also on courses of medicines with proven efficacy simultaneously to using homeopathy. Sometimes these medicines take a bit of time to work before results are seen. These anecdotes did not show that the pets were sufficiently isolated to say for certainty that it was the homeopathy worked. Which to be honest it didn’t as homeopathy has no active ingredients.

The second argument in favour of using homeopathy for pets is that the placebo effect does not work on animals so therefore homeopathy must be effective. This is not the case. The placebo effect can be very strong in humans and animal caretakers are not immune from this. It has been shown that if caretakers have an expectation that something will or will not work they will act differently towards their pet. Animals can pick up on this and react accordingly. So the placebo effect does indeed affect animals and when it occurs in conjunction with other medication or lifestyle changes it can give a strong but false impression that homeopathy is effective.

A third argument used not so much to try and show efficacy but rather supporting the use of homeopathy is what’s the harm? The harm is found by delaying or not using effective, appropriate treatments or by continuing lifestyle practices which are contributing/causing the illness. This causes undue harm and suffering by delaying or preventing recovery. It has been argued that pain is felt more intensely by animals as they often do not understanding the concept of that pain ending. Meanwhile over in the UK the Veterinary Medicines Directorate stated that vets could only be prescribed as medicines if they could prove their efficacy, which they have not. Any vet using homeopathy will now be on dangerous ground. The Director of Operations John Fitzgerald described the harm homeopathy could do to pets,

“The products claim to treat diseases which can cause serious welfare problems and in some circumstances kill animals if not properly treated.”.

It is particularly worrying that some vets in Ireland despite their training science backgrounds are continuing to suggest using a treatment that does not work for animals. If your vet offers it as treatment please do not use it and insist on treatments that have been shown to work. We all want the best for our pets and it can be very upsetting to see them ill but homeopathy will not help. As for Ling she receives fresh bowls of water throughout the day so if she falls ill more water on a sugar pill will not help her!

On the same day Éamon Ó Cuív listened to his conscience (or at least the bit of his conscience that wants him to be re-elected) and resigned his position as deputy leader of Fianna Fail… Leading to a multitude of jokes on twitter about it being 90 years on and once again an eamon and a micheal are splitting the party over a treaty.

Let’s not forget Inkgate.. where Sinn Fein’s Aengus Ó Snodaigh managed to consume over €50k in toner ink in just under 2 years.. maybe that’s a reasonable amount of ink.. who knows..

It seemed to me, reading these stories that politics is broken. Politicians complain that people don’t’ get involved, but when they do get involved they get ignored. I can guarantee you that we will not get a grown up debate on the EU referendum.. instead we’ll get threats and cajoling.

I’m an adult. Treat me like one. Give me the respect of engaging in a proper debate with facts, and not spun opinion!.

So I sent out a tweet in exasperation asking who I should vote for in the next election.. closely followed by a tweet wondering if anyone would be interested in forming a new party..

People were. I got suggestions of forming a Pirate party, a Crafters Party (which morphed into a makers party).. a party that wasn’t nominally “left” or “right”.. A party that focuses on being scientifically literate and technologically adept.

Here’s what I want:

•A Party that treats me like a grownup. I understand that we’re in a bad place financially. The dog on the streets know we’re going to need a second bailout. If I know it, the markets do, and no amount of grinning and saying we’re on track is going to change it. Be honest with me. Trust me to make the right decision with all of the facts.

•A party that gets the modern world. The internet is global. The future is global. We need a party that gets that.

•I’m pro Europe. I think there’s a lot that needs to be done differently, but I think it’s generally a good thing. I’d like a party that’s not anti-europe.

•I want a party that’s pro-education. There’s a level of short sightedness in cutting education funding. I know we have no money, but education, research and development is the future. If we could even introduce a class in critical thinking (and remove religion) then we could go a long way to increasing young people’s ability to adapt to new possibilities. I think space needs to be provided for user lead groups like coder dojo. We need to let kids enjoy knowledge.

What do you want from your government? What party would you vote for? Don’t let our generation and the one that’s coming up after us be written off as uninvolved.

I get that politics is ultimately about compromise. To get the least worst solution. And that it’s hard. But I think we owe it to ourselves to try and make it better.

Here’s what we need to do in order to register as a new party:
To be registered, your party has to satisfy the Registrar that:

•It is organised to contest elections
•It does not have less than 300 recorded members aged 18 or over. A party that applies for registration as a party organised to contest elections in part of the State, local elections or elections to Údarás na Gaeltachta only needs 100 recorded members aged 18 or over and at least least half of the party’s recorded members are on the Register of Electors. Or
•The party has at least one member who, at the time of the application, is a member of the Dáil or a representative of the European Parliament and who certifies in writing to the Registrar that he or she is a member of the party
•In the case of a party that applies as a party organised to contest only local elections, the party has at least three members who, at the time of application, are members of a local authority and who each certify that he or she is a member of the party
•In the case of a party that applies as a party organised to only contest elections to Údarás na Gaeltachta, the party has at least one member who, at the time of application, is a member of Údarás na Gaeltachta and certifies that he or she is a member of the party.

In addition, the party must have a constitution, a memorandum or another document or set of rules that have been adopted by the party and that provide for:

•An annual or other periodic meeting or conference of the party
•An executive committee or similar body elected by the party, which administers the business of the party.
Maybe this will go nowhere.. but maybe we’ll start something good, something that strikes a chord, something that works. Maybe I’m just naive**.

still… how about it.. Want to start a party?

**Probably Naive

Why should nothing matter? If anything matters, why should nothing matter? And yet it does, for there isn’t anything, it seems, that nothing does not touch, or anything that does not touch nothing. History, philosophy, religion, science, art, literature, music – all look towards nothing at some point, stimulating questions that would otherwise not be asked.

Who, for example, could have believed that nothing held back progress for 600 years in the Middle Ages, all because of mistaken translation, or that nothing is a way to tackle (and answer) the perennial question “what is art?”? Ronald Green uses nothing in a genuine attempt to look at the world in a different way, to give new angles to old problems and so to stimulate new thoughts.

What is this nothing, that we can’t actually see, touch or feel? Is it absolute? Is it relative to everything else? If we are able to think about it, write and read about it, is it something, and if so wouldn’t it then not be nothing?

This is precisely the mystery of nothing – that the more we think about it, the more there is to it.

Disarmingly invisible, the point of nothing – to paraphrase Bertrand Russell on philosophy – is to start with something so simple as to seem not worth examining, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it.

Ronald Green is the author of “Nothing Matters – a book about nothing” (iff-Books). Philosopher, linguist, university lecturer and ESL teacher, with 13 ESL books published, Ronald has lectured and given workshops in Europe, North and South America and the Middle East on linguistics, ESL and the use of the Internet in education. His short stories have been published in Nuvein magazine, Tryst, Aesthetica, the Sink and Unholy Biscuit. He has completed a philosophical novel and co-authored a psychological thriller with strong philosophical underpinnings. For the past five years he has been thinking seriously about nothing, culminating in his recently-published book.

If you are from near Cork city Ronald will be giving his talk to the Cork Skeptics on Friday 2nd March, details here.

Big thanks to Alan from the Cork Skeptics for sharing his poster design with us.

“To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, mainstream media has difficulties differentiating between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilisation. Yet we rely on media to inform us of events and concepts in the world around us, despite the fact that they often get it terribly wrong, especially in the fields of science and medicine. In this talk we’ll outline some of the common mistakes journalists and indeed the public make, from shocking statistics to bogus balance, as well as discuss how they can be improved, and what sceptics, scientists, doctors and you can do to help rectify the situation.”

Our speaker: Dr David Robert Grimes is a writer, musician, actor, Doctor of medical physics, closet Jedi knight. 3menmakeatiger.blogspot.com

As someone who has battled with my weight over the last seven or eight years I know how beguiling all of these promises can be. However many times we are told that the equation is (relatively) simple, calories burnt > calories consumed = weight loss, you still hold out hope that there will be a magic pill, food combination or detox that will give you that quick fix. Even if it not a quick fix something that could get you kick started or help you one the way.

Having worked in a health food shop when I first attempted to lose weight, I quite steadily worked my way through the “Diet and Weight Loss” section. From Chromium to Zotrim – I tried them all, with no noticeable effects. It was only when I went to Weight Watchers that I actually lost weight. Now any article I write should not be read as a promo for WW but should be taken as an example of a calorie controlled diet. For me, without the accountability of going for the weigh in once a week, I have little or no self-control regarding food. I just love to eat!

This year two supplements that are new to me caught my eye, namely SlimSticks and African Mango.

The first one is very easy to unpick. SlimSticks are basically a controlled portion of low calorie high fibre food. Containing palm and oat oil they offer very little as way of nutrition, not to mention how strongly some people feel about the farming of palm oil… This conceit of fibre for appetite suppression is by no means new, in fact I myself tried fibre tablets in the past, and their results can be variable and can result in some gastrointestinal upset for some people. They can work as a mild appetite suppressant by allowing you to eat something that should make you feel fuller for longer than say a sugary snack. The same effect could be garnered by incorporating such high fibre complex carbohydrate into the overall diet, and would have the added benefit of having higher nutritional value. For those people who eat out of boredom or a more emotional response these would have little effect as studies have shown that people will consume a larger amount of a food if they believe it to be a low calorie option. Overall using a product such as these sticks does little to amend eating behaviour that results in being overweight, with the result that once “normal” eating is resumed the weight will in all likelihood be regained.

African Mango is another ball game however. A fruit that is found in Cameroon it has joined the ranks of being a “wonder food”. Those of you who listen to the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe podcast or read Dr Novella et al’s excellent blog will already regard the name Dr Oz with the utmost suspicion. This product is just one of the many that Dr Oz and his website promote as wonder supplement that not only helps you lose weight but has numerous other beneficial properties such as lowing cholesterol and rids your body of the ever present “toxins”. It is sold as being an ancient remedy, well known for its manifold health properties whilst also being the new celebrity diet – the ad on my Facebook home page told me Kate Winslet swore by it.

Apart from these being two very obvious logical fallacies – arguments from antiquity and popularity these are claims that are regularly put to several supplements a year. When I worked in the health food shop it was the wonders of Acai and Green Coffee for example. All of these supplements purport to be “super” foods full of antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, boosting your metabolism (a “thermogenic agent”), decreasing fat absorption from food (promoting mal-absorption) and suppressing your appetite due to the natural high fibre. The concepts of thermogenic, mal-absorptive supplements are well documented on the Quarkwatch website here.

However some websites promoting African Mango have claimed you don’t even need to change your diet for it to have an effect! Even better – now this is really a magic pill. I can still eat brie, demolish all the Christmas chocolate left in the house and drink all the Baileys I like and still lose weight. If that doesn’t send up warning flares for people I don’t know what would. Even doctors prescribing medications designed and proven to aid in weight loss can’t make such assured claims.

Again then we are back to the idea of fruit fibre being one of magic properties of this African Mango. Evidence does show the health benefits of such fibre, not to mention how we should all be aiming for at least five different coloured fruits and vegetables every day but how do you get the same benefits from a pill version? Well you don’t. Part of the benefit is eating the fresh fruit itself, your body having to digest it fully, along with the water – not in a powder form mechanically broken down for you.

On a more serious note though, anyone who searches for scientific information on African Mango or Irvingia gabonensis will find some results that have a more convincing ring to them. Many websites cite a clinical trial in which the participants lost 28 pounds in a month. They allude to the activity of an enzyme within the seed of the fruit that acts to lower bad cholesterol in the body when coupled with diet and moderate exercise can result in relatively dramatic weight loss as well as lower cholesterol and blood pressure. The one thing that I noticed whilst looking in the specific clinical trials that are cited in the literature and more serious news articles, that they all have two recurring authors (Ngondi and Oben), in the same university (University of Yaounde) with trial sizes of around 100 people or less. The last trial I can find a reference to was in 2009, with other trials taking place earlier. It is the 2009 paper with 102 double blinded trial that is most cited. It is also not a generic supplement being tested however, but a specific isolated compound from within it – namely IGOB131. This data whilst positive is still regarded as preliminary and only pertains to a substance isolated from the plant. The paper concludes that the study should be the impetus for further larger scale studies, which as of yet don’t appear to have been conducted. It also applies to patients that were regarded as overweight or obese by the BMI scale and was coupled with a reduced calorie intake. It was noted that the placebo group also lost weight during the trial at a reduced rate. Some websites reviewing the African Mango supplement have used this data to encourage those looking to buy the supplement to look for a higher level of the active substance IGOB131 to ensure positive results. Whether or not it is listed within the active “ingredients” of a supplement, as we have seen in recent times such products that are sold over the internet are not subject to strict controls and the quantities could vary from pill to pill within a box.

So what can we take away from this? Well that our money is more than likely better spent on some regular, run-of-the-mill fresh fruit and vegetables, a good pair of walking/running shoes and to admit to what we all probably knew all along – weight loss is hard. It shouldn’t happen overnight, steady slow weight loss with permanent life style changes is the only way to ensure you will lose any excess weight and remain as healthy as possible. As I head back to WW for what I have promised myself will be the last, and ultimately successful, time I have to once again recognise that even though I know all of these things – it is often easier blogged about than done!

I fundamentally disagree with this. What followed was a bit of back and forth about the definition(s) of skepticism, the reach of it and how it can be applied. Now we both come from two distinctly different areas of research, unlike David I am an Arts graduate. Having spent the past few years studying museums (and by extension society) I would argue that the ideals of skepticism can and should be applied to all aspects of human endeavour. If you ascribe to a purely sciencitific mode of skepticism this may not either of interest or seem relevant.

It turns out I am not alone in having an interest in promoting the role of the Arts and Humanities in promoting critical or rational thinking . The good people at the Skeptical Humanities are on the case and if you listen to the Token Skeptic you would have heard them being recently interviewed (they do a much better job of “unpacking” this idea that I ever could). Just as I think museology can be examined through the prism of skepticism I look forward to seeing how this more formalised field will develop.

“As a feminist, I want to see fathers’ rights recognised in Irish law…”
This is the opening line of an article by Senator Ivana Bacik about why Irish fathers should get paid paternity leave, and to be honest I didn’t get past that first line before I’d opened Word and hammered out a few notes that I could turn into a blog later. The line floored me, because we (or at least “I”, but I think it’s a common enough problem) have a very set idea of how any sentence that begins with “as a feminist, I…” is going to end.* This stereotypical sentence will often include phrases like “a woman’s right to choose…” or talk about gender disparities in our male-centric culture. This is, of course, utter bollocks in the same way that people might expect any sentence which begins “as an atheist…” will end with an hour long lecture about why we shouldn’t say “Bless you” when someone sneezes. Feminism has come in every shape, size and strength of opinion you could ask for, and there are a great many feminists who care about issues that men face too.

As it happens, Senator Bacik’s article isn’t about a man’s right to have paternity leave so he can have just as much of a chance to take part in raising his children as a woman can, but rather about how men still dominate the workplace and so the introduction of paternity leave would level the playing field when it comes to women being prejudiced against because they take maternity leave. I’m sure this is a very valid issue, and discrimination in the workplace is certainly something that we still need to talk about, but I couldn’t help but feel that an opportunity had been missed here. With that first line, “As a Feminist, I [comment about an unfair disparity in male rights]“, I thought a new precedent might be set, with a feminist article in the mainstream press looking at gender equality from a gender neutral standpoint, rather than looking at it from a woman’s perspective. Of course, the clue’s in the name, it is FEMinism, so it’s only natural that people would focus on the female perspective, but it can sometimes leave men (and particularly male feminist) feeling a little isolated when it comes to talking about these issues. Sometimes it’s important to take a step back and say “I’m a feminist, and I care about men’s rights” in the same way it’s sometimes important to say “I’m an atheist, and I care about freedom of religion”.

I don’t want to make too much of a meal about this article, because I agree with the idea that men should have paternity leave, just as I agree that women have it tough in the workplace and that introducing leave for men would be good for women as well as men, but I can’t help but feel that “men should have paternity leave because it’s the right thing to do and we should all be equal” is a more powerful message than “men should have paternity leave because then women will have more of a shot to become CEOs” (particularly if the message begins “as a feminist, I believe…”). I don’t think Senator Bacik disagrees with either of these messages, and I don’t think I’m the audience she had in mind when she wrote that piece, so I acknowledge I’m almost certainly making mountains out of molehills here. It’s just that sometimes it’s too easy to read articles like this as saying that men are the problem to be fixed, and that’s when people start throwing words like “Feminazi” around. If feminism is about the quest for equality then it should fight gender inequality where it finds it, not because it will benefit women, but because living together in a fair society benefits everyone.

I may disagree with how Senator Bacik laid out her argument, but by God it was one hell of a first line…

*I appreciate that this reflects much more badly on me than it does on your average feminist.

As I have written about in the past I have not always identified as a feminist. However as I worked through a Masters, which led me to read a lot of scholarly works about feminist theory, and by talked to more people about it my understanding and acceptance of the term has grown. It has also become clear to me that a lot of people fundamentally misunderstand what feminism is.

One tweet started me on this train of thought:

Needless to say I was embroiled in a good few tweets back and forth. His arguments and train of thought felt very familiar – just where I was a few short months ago, but like a great man once said “When my information changes I change my mind. What do you do?” At the time I insisted on saying I was egalitarian, which I still am of course, but that the word feminist did not apply. As with a lot of people this was due to me disliking the use of the word feminism instead of its meaning. Feminism is, by classic definition, a movement that strives for the economic, social and political equality of the genders. Thus the argument follows that it is inherently egalitarian as in an equal society some people cannot (and should not) be “more equal than others.” Feminism, if it is ever fully born out, would ensure equality between all the sexes (male, female, transgendered etc).

Just because some people have misused the term themselves to promote an anti-man agenda or such an agenda has been prescribed to feminists does not invalidate the use of the term feminist. Just as the skeptical community has not handed over the term Skeptic to the climate change deniers, why should some miscommunication allow the word feminism to be so demonised? It stands for decades and decades of campaigning, suffrage, literary thought and critical, rational debate. So along with many others in the skeptical, atheist and rational thinking community I have chosen to take this word back. Just as people judge me if I call myself a goth, a gamer, a nerd or a skeptic if they judge me for calling myself a feminist so be it. They can live in a world of pigeon holes with no shades of grey but they need not drag me into it.

And on that note a plug for the glorious resource that is UK She Talks website. If you’re a woman with an inclination towards rational communication sign up and get some women talking.