What did Bobby Sands die for?

K-9

junder wrote: »

A pop test for you all, who said this:

"If I thought that the principle that the librarian in a Catholic community should be Catholic was a new principle introduced merely to deny a Protestant an appointment, I should vote against it, but I know from my youth that it is not so," he continued. Catholic communities were entitled to Catholic librarians and Catholic doctors, he contended.

"If I had a vote on a local body, and if there were two qualified people who had to deal with a Catholic community, and if one was a Catholic and the other a Protestant, I would unhesitatingly vote for the Catholic."

DeV if I recall correctly.

Wolfe Tone

Dev.

KeithAFC

junder wrote: »

A pop test for you all, who said this:

"If I thought that the principle that the librarian in a Catholic community should be Catholic was a new principle introduced merely to deny a Protestant an appointment, I should vote against it, but I know from my youth that it is not so," he continued. Catholic communities were entitled to Catholic librarians and Catholic doctors, he contended.

"If I had a vote on a local body, and if there were two qualified people who had to deal with a Catholic community, and if one was a Catholic and the other a Protestant, I would unhesitatingly vote for the Catholic."

It would upset him so much to still know that Ulster is free of republican rule.

junder

0Share


Church pays the price for its history of sectarianism and blind arrogance
By Ryle Dwyer
SATURDAY, JANUARY 17, 2009
THE pub culture has been changing in this country in recent years. The drift from the bars is matched only by the drop in vocations and the attendances at Sunday mass, which can probably be attributed largely to the culpable arrogance of prominent church people.

Mercier Press published Pat Walsh’s book, The Curious Case of the Mayo Librarian, this week. It is a timely reminder of the controversy surrounding the appointment of Letitia Dunbar Harrison as Mayo county librarian in 1930. While we have never been slow to criticise the Orangemen in the North for their sectarianism, we have been conveniently blind to our own failings.

Dean Edward D’Alton of Ballinrobe denounced the Local Appointments Commission’s selection because Ms Dunbar Harrison was a Protestant and a graduate of Trinity College, Dublin (TCD).

Some people tried to make an issue of her inadequate command of the Irish language, but Dean D’Alton ridiculed the need to know Irish. "If a farrier looks for the shoeing of horses, he must know it," the Dean said. "It’s a wonder they don’t require the horse to know it."

Eamon de Valera, the leader of Fianna Fáil, joined with the protesters who argued that for educational reasons the people were entitled to a Catholic librarian. A Protestant librarian was supposedly not properly qualified to deal with Catholics, any more than a Protestant doctor would be qualified to deal with Catholic patients, according to de Valera.

"If I thought that the principle that the librarian in a Catholic community should be Catholic was a new principle introduced merely to deny a Protestant an appointment, I should vote against it, but I know from my youth that it is not so," he continued. Catholic communities were entitled to Catholic librarians and Catholic doctors, he contended.

"If I had a vote on a local body, and if there were two qualified people who had to deal with a Catholic community, and if one was a Catholic and the other a Protestant, I would unhesitatingly vote for the Catholic." Carried to its logical conclusion, his argument would have barred Protestants from virtually every position dealing with the public.

But the Cumann na nGaedheal government tried to hold the line. Mayo County Council was dissolved for refusing to confirm the appointment, and Dunbar Harrison was then formally appointed.

With the roused people of Mayo unwilling to accept her, however, the Government gave her a comparable position within the civil service in Dublin at the start of 1932 in an attempt to prevent the controversy becoming an election issue.

A decade later there was a similar controversy in Galway when Robert Corbett, the master of the Coombe, was appointed professor of gynaecology at UCG.

Bishop Michael Browne of Galway objected to the appointment because Corbett — who was actually a Catholic — had been educated at TCD. Corbett turned down the post because of the bishop’s opposition, and he emigrated instead.

In the 1950s biology students at University College, Dublin needed the permission of Archbishop John Charles McQuaid’s office to check out Darwin’s Origin of the Species from the library. The bishops interfered in political matters at will.

"I, as a Catholic, obey my church authorities and will continue to do so," Taoiseach John A Costello told the Dáil during the Mother and Child controversy. He was prepared to kiss the Archbishop of Dublin on all four cheeks.

During the Clonlara affair in 1956, Costello responded to a protest from Bishop Joseph Rodgers of Killaloe by writing that he appreciated "the just indignation aroused among the clergy and the people by the activities of the Jehovah’s Witnesses". A local curate had a local group beat up two Jehovah’s Witnesses and burn their literature because they dared to distribute it publicly.

In 1957, the bishops supported the Fethard-on-Sea boycott of Protestant business people after a mother refused to bow to the dictates of a local priest who was insisting she send her children to a Catholic school.

There was also the controversy over the Rose Tattoo play at the Dublin Theatre Festival. The producer was arrested for "producing for gain an indecent and profane performance". Somebody was to drop a condom on stage. They did not have a condom, so they just pretended to drop it. The case was eventually thrown out of court, but not before the producer had lost his business and his marriage.
Well done it was dev seems the republic political elite was not immune to sectarianism either

THE pub culture has been changing in this country in recent years. The drift from the bars is matched only by the drop in vocations and the attendances at Sunday mass, which can probably be attributed largely to the culpable arrogance of prominent church people.

The people and politicians slowly began to stand up to the bishops. The symbolic high point came when President Mary McAleese defied Archbishop Desmond Connell who publicly denounced her for taking communion at a Protestant service in Christ Church Cathedral.

In contrast with the earlier gunmen turned politicians who cowered for fear of the proverbial belt of a crozier, President McAleese had the exquisite audacity to intimate where the archbishop could stick his crozier by announcing that she would receive communion in such circumstances again. More than threequarters of the people agreed with her, according to a public opinion poll. These bishops, who set themselves up as the great educators, exhibited a crass arrogance and an insufferable stupidity. They seem incapable of learning themselves. "Public trust has been damaged," Cardinal Seán Brady told RTÉ this week in reference to the clerical paedophile abuse in Cloyne. "The issue has raised very important questions which must be addressed," he said. "The first question must always be the suffering of victims."

If concern for the victims is the first test, then Bishop Magee has clearly failed it. The cardinal stated this week, however, that Bishop Magee has "begun to address these serious issues."

Could anyone in his or her right mind be reassured now that Bishop Magee had "begun" to address these issues more than a decade after the allegations were made? How long are people going to tolerate that threadbare excuse that the church authorities still did not know how to handle the allegations of sex abuse?

BEFORE these Cloyne cases arose, the Fr Brendan Smyth case had already led to the fall of Albert Reynolds. Anyone who could not learn from that fiasco should not be trusted to learn from subsequent mistakes.

Bishop Magee has been roundly criticised for his handling of priests who were accused of abusing children. Some people will argue the hierarchy has been more interested in protecting the church. In this they have failed miserably. They have really only been trying to protect their own privileged positions.

In the process they have betrayed not only the abused children but also the overwhelming majority of good, decent people who went into religious life to serve humanity.

Cardinal Brady stated that Bishop Magee "should not resign", but this is no longer the issue. It is patently obvious that he should go because his position is untenable. He may be a very good, decent man, but he has failed as an administrator in dealing with these matters. He has accepted that he mishandled the clerical paedophile abuse. If this happened in many other countries, it would be a police matter, but the Catholic Church was allowed to act above the law here in matters like the sexual abuse of children. The question now is whether Cardinal Brady should go, too?
*
This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Saturday, January 17, 2009
http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/ryle-dwyer/church-pays-the-price-for-its-history-of-sectarianism-and-blind-arrogance-82154.html#ixzz18m8gkcwB

mgmt

junder wrote: »

A pop test for you all, who said this:

"If I thought that the principle that the librarian in a Catholic community should be Catholic was a new principle introduced merely to deny a Protestant an appointment, I should vote against it, but I know from my youth that it is not so," he continued. Catholic communities were entitled to Catholic librarians and Catholic doctors, he contended.

"If I had a vote on a local body, and if there were two qualified people who had to deal with a Catholic community, and if one was a Catholic and the other a Protestant, I would unhesitatingly vote for the Catholic."

What a dick :eek:

mgmt

junder wrote: »

A decade later there was a similar controversy in Galway when Robert Corbett, the master of the Coombe, was appointed professor of gynaecology at UCG.

Bishop Michael Browne of Galway objected to the appointment because Corbett — who was actually a Catholic — had been educated at TCD. Corbett turned down the post because of the bishop’s opposition, and he emigrated instead.

Focking hell.

Now I know why there was so much opposition to JFK in USA. Jesus even Ian Paisley was right, Rome Rule.

Nodin

junder wrote: »

A pop test for you all, who said this:

"If I thought that the principle that the librarian in a Catholic community should be Catholic was a new principle introduced merely to deny a Protestant an appointment, I should vote against it, but I know from my youth that it is not so," he continued. Catholic communities were entitled to Catholic librarians and Catholic doctors, he contended.

"If I had a vote on a local body, and if there were two qualified people who had to deal with a Catholic community, and if one was a Catholic and the other a Protestant, I would unhesitatingly vote for the Catholic."

...and the relevance of this.....?

marienbad

Hello Isaw

There is really no point in quoting the behaviour of the great powers over the course of the last 100 years, Governments , just like corporations and indeed even like people behave in seemingly contradictory ways.

I am making the very limited contention that where we are now vis-a vis the Good Friday Agreement and advances in Civil Rights in N.Ireland may well have been achieved without the hunger strikes/armed campaign and that the cause of a United ireland may have even been damaged.

I know Sunningdale was in 1973 and that was a summation of what was on offer from Official England ( to borrow a phrase from Mr Dunphy) and I agree it took a further 30 years for the message to get acros to the rest of the power elites , some still hav'nt got it, just as on the other side the Continuity crowd hav'nt got it. But that is always the way,but untimately there is no stopping and idea whose time has come.

Similarly in the USA , all the great civil rights legislation had been enacted by the end of the 60's but it took the South another 25 years to catch up.

Now at the same time that Johnson was driving through that legislation and as he said himself ''losing the South for the Democratic Partry for generations'' he was carpet bombing Vietnam and the USA destabilised S.America and the Middle East for the next 30 years.

But in Realpolitik what was acceptable in Chile or Iraq or S.E.Asia was no longer acceptable in the heart of Democracy , be it the USA or Britain and as soon as those cameras began to shine a light into those sordid backwoods change was inevitable ,

Winston Churchill may have advocated the baton charge in the General Strike in the 20's, but when the Iron Lady actually did it against the miners and more particularly the poll tax protester it was the beginning of the end for her and her party for a generation. Similiarly with Kent State in the US. Times had moved on . What was acceptable in the 20/30/40/50's was no longer acceptable by the end of the 60's and 70's .

This is not to deny that these same powers continue to act like despots in other parts of the globe, that is always the case . Union Carbide cause Bhopal in India because they could no longer get away with it in America.

I am saying that because N.Ireland was part of the United Kingdom change was inevitable. Who would have though in 1970 there would be devolved parliments in scotland and wales ?

In the same way we did something about Yugoslavia and nothing about Rwanda. If this would seem to imply that politics in the western world is hypocritical and possibly even racist ? I would say a resounding yes .

On Terence MacSweeney, again who can say. If India Canada S.Africa have evolved to have a much or a little connection with the Crown as they wish who is to say Ireland would be any different, might have taken a bit longer but maybe caused less division aong the way.

Palestine or Israel is sui generis and is not really comparible

junder

This is the relevance

ISAW wrote: »

You must be joking! Im still trying to understand the rudiments of how things work here socially and technically.

Only a week ago or so was my first use of multiquote



So if Britian had worked harder on making Ireland into a third world country it would be different? How about Palestine anyway?



Well I'm not a pacifist in the conscientious objector mold.



No they didnt! the British rejected any appeal to human rights in Northern Ireland from the 1920s till the 1970s

the "democratic" US frequently used their military to surpress anyone who got in the way of business both inside and outside the US.
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 2010.
well over a hundred of them!



It took them till the next century to elect a black President! and they picked the Catholic over the liar!





Because British policy was exposed on TV to the world!



And who described the Good Froday Agreement as "sunningdale for slow learners"?

Sunningdale was in 1973 by the way.




'A man in Fintona asked him how it was that he had over 50 percent Roman Catholics in his Ministry. He thought that was too funny. He had 109 of a staff, and so far as he knew there were four Roman Catholics. Three of these were civil servants, turned over to him whom he had to take when he began.'
Sir Edward Archdale, Unionist Party, Minister of Agriculture, Stormont, 1925
Reported in: Northern Whig, 2 April 1925

"Another allegation made against the Government and which was untrue, was that, of 31 porters at Stormont, 28 were Roman Catholics. I have investigated the matter, and I find that there are 30 Protestants, and only one Roman Catholic there temporarily."
J. M. Andrews, Unionist Party, Minister of Labour, Stormont, 1933
Quoted in: Harrison, Henry (1939), Ulster and the British Empire 1939: Help or Hindrance?, London: Robert Hale.

Plenty more to chose from at this source:
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/quotes.htm



They knew since the 1920s. the world knew sincwe the 1970s. It took another 30 years before they even began to share power.



Well how about because of the mindset of the "Conservative and Unionist Party"?



Funny. Terence Mc Sweeny goes on hunger strike and REpublicans fight a war of independence in the 1920s. Result - Irish Independence. No more hunger strikes and scant armed campaign. Result - discriminiation for 50 years against Catholics. Growth of IRA due to world being told about civil rights abuse and Britian responding by putting the boot it.
Upsurge in violence dirty protest and hunger strikes bring international focus. Things then happen withing a decade.



The IRA were always active but were small unpopular and remote until the British put the boot in and drove Nationalists in the the hands of the IRA. Even then the SDLP and other constitutional nationalists were still strong but consistant bootings only served to fuel SF growth.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Hello Isaw

I am making the very limited contention that where we are now vis-a vis the Good Friday Agreement and advances in Civil Rights in N.Ireland may well have been achieved without the hunger strikes/armed campaign and that the cause of a United ireland may have even been damaged.

But history is history and "what if..." isn't!
What ifs aren't really up for discussion here.

I know Sunningdale was in 1973 and that was a summation of what was on offer from Official England ( to borrow a phrase from Mr Dunphy) and I agree it took a further 30 years for the message to get acros to the rest of the power elites , some still hav'nt got it, just as on the other side the Continuity crowd hav'nt got it. But that is always the way,but untimately there is no stopping and idea whose time has come.

But there is a way of slowing it upi. Now you tell me. Why should a Palestinian a balck south African or an Irishman be happy with the "the time of Imperialism has ended .In thirty years Empires will be gone" if they are getting bombed every day and denied jobs and houses?

Now at the same time that Johnson was driving through that legislation and as he said himself ''losing the South for the Democratic Partry for generations'' he was carpet bombing Vietnam and the USA destabilised S.America and the Middle East for the next 30 years.

And it was the Republican Party who were the original abolitionists.

But in Realpolitik what was acceptable in Chile or Iraq or S.E.Asia was no longer acceptable in the heart of Democracy , be it the USA or Britain and as soon as those cameras began to shine a light into those sordid backwoods change was inevitable ,

I think you have a niave view that powerfull Western Democracies foster new ideas about human rights which develop the world as a whole. A new age "Pax Brittanica" or "Pax Americana" to replace the "Pax Romana"

Winston Churchill may have advocated the baton charge in the General Strike in the 20's, but when the Iron Lady actually did it against the miners and more particularly the poll tax protester it was the beginning of the end for her and her party for a generation. Similiarly with Kent State in the US. Times had moved on . What was acceptable in the 20/30/40/50's was no longer acceptable by the end of the 60's and 70's .

At the same time more have died in conflicts funded and supplied by "civilised" western Arms manufacturers. Society has become more violent maybe and anomie has become more widespread.

This is not to deny that these same powers continue to act like despots in other parts of the globe, that is always the case . Union Carbide cause Bhopal in India because they could no longer get away with it in America.

So is it okay then for the US to support slavery as long as it isn't in the US?
See the problems that causes? Oops! GITMO springs to mind.

I am saying that because N.Ireland was part of the United Kingdom change was inevitable. Who would have though in 1970 there would be devolved parliments in scotland and wales ?

Change only happens when people act to bring it about.

In the same way we did something about Yugoslavia and nothing about Rwanda.

WE didn't! The US acted unilaterally and Europe later followed.
The idea that Europe acted because it was in Europe is not supported.
Rwanda didn't have anything militarists wanted.

If this would seem to imply that politics in the western world is hypocritical and possibly even racist ? I would say a resounding yes .

Im saying the Military industrial complex is one of the worst elements of Capitalism.

On Terence MacSweeney, again who can say. If India Canada S.Africa have evolved to have a much or a little connection with the Crown as they wish who is to say Ireland would be any different, might have taken a bit longer but maybe caused less division aong the way.

Wher doe that leave yu "closer to the western home countries democracy" theory?

Palestine or Israel is sui generis and is not really comparible

Ah sure why not make everything that doesn't fit into an exception?

ISAW

junder wrote: »

This is the relevance

dont be silly. Posting quotes like "all things being equal I will employ the catholic"
don't come anywhere near the objective research into discrimination going right bock to:

Campaign for Social Justice in Northern Ireland (CSJ). (1964), Northern Ireland The Plain Truth, (First edition), (5 February 1964), [PDF File; 58KB]. Dungannon: CSJ.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/crights/pdfs/csj179.pdf

I can post a plethora of subsequent reports by suitable academics using regression analysis etc.

marienbad

HELLO ISAW.

Ok where to start

You say history is history and what if's ... is'nt - yea normally I would agree with you but in this case no, the OP asked ''What did Bobby Sands die for '' a rhetorical question if ever there was one and inviting the further question ''was it worth it'' Possibly why the post is in politics and not history .

In anwer to my statement of an idea whose time has come , you say yea but it can be slowed up , Well not really its time has come or it has not and if not it will be shelved for another generation or two. De Gaulle understood than completely and reached an agreement on Algeria.
The problem in N.Ireland was that the original questions asked at the beginning were civil rights questions but by the time the British were willing to concede those demands the questions had changed to The National Question and so seeming stalemate , but all the civil rights issues were addressed in law, life takes a little longer to catch up.

You say The Republicans were the original abolitions ?? So what, some were some wer'nt , the point is the political establishment passed both in 1863 and 1963 in the face of ferocious opposition. To put this in perspective slavery was only abolished in Brazil in (i think) in 1898 !

That you go on to say I have a naive view of W.Democracies . I have anything but , I fully agree they do nothing about fostering civil rights world wide.

My argument is simply that situation that pertained in N'Ireland and southern States of the USA in the 50's where we had images of police baton charging and water cannoning women and children and people being burned out of their houses and lynched while ''the law'' looked on was over. The Western Democracies saw themselves as such , as the light that would guide all others , when it was pointed out that they had some nasty little secret themselves the game was up . I simplify but that it is in a nutshell. But it only applies to countries that saw themselves as defining democracy .

On Yugoslavia and Rwanda you say the US did somethink Europe nothing, I dont get it, same hair splitting as earlier with Republican and Democrat.
The Point is the west did something about a situation that was firmly viewed within the European/Western tradition , Rwanda was not , though it was more deserving in some people's opinion.

Then you go on to imply that anything that does not fit I declare an exception . Not at all ,the only exception i give is Israel and if you want a separate debate on that , no prob, but as I said before I believe it is a unique situation which shed little light on other conflicts.

To sum up my contention, certainly since the television age (Vietnam at the latest) any issue/conflict/mass-movement that is contained within the area of the western democracies is treated vastly differently than a similar one is outside that area) Is that right ? no, is it fair ?no, is it racist ? possibly, but it is pragmatic , and you accused me of being naive ?

On a separate but related issue, all the great advance in civil rights in the Republic came from Europe, from women having to leave their jobs in the Public Service and banks , equal pay, right on down to the last ruling on abortion, and the same would have applied up north if the British did'nt grant those rights.

So that beings us full circle , what was gained form those hunger strike deaths and all those other unfortunate , some would say needless, deaths on all sides ? All the civil rights are long granted and a united Ireland as far away as ever. I wonder if the price paid was so high that no one can contemplate ''the appalling vista'' that we may have been mistaken.

Japer

junder wrote: »

A pop test for you all, who said this:

"If I thought that the principle that the librarian in a Catholic community should be Catholic was a new principle introduced merely to deny a Protestant an appointment, I should vote against it, but I know from my youth that it is not so," he continued. Catholic communities were entitled to Catholic librarians and Catholic doctors, he contended.

"If I had a vote on a local body, and if there were two qualified people who had to deal with a Catholic community, and if one was a Catholic and the other a Protestant, I would unhesitatingly vote for the Catholic."

Who said that ? It was Eamonn DeValera, Taoiseach of Ireland at the time . Was it not in the thirties when non-catholics found it very difficult to get state jobs, and there was great controversy when a protestant did actually get a job as a librarian....when led to Devs speech in the Dail above condoning job discrimination.
Thankfully things have changed greatly in Ireland.

Fratton Fred

Japer wrote: »

Who said that ? It was Eamonn DeValera, Taoiseach of Ireland at the time . Was it not in the thirties when non-catholics found it very difficult to get state jobs, and there was great controversy when a protestant did actually get a job as a librarian....when led to Devs speech in the Dail above condoning job discrimination.
Thankfully things have changed greatly in Ireland.

Indeed they have. Now no one can get a job regardless of their religious orientation.

T runner

junder wrote: »

A pop test for you all, who said this:

"If I thought that the principle that the librarian in a Catholic community should be Catholic was a new principle introduced merely to deny a Protestant an appointment, I should vote against it, but I know from my youth that it is not so," he continued. Catholic communities were entitled to Catholic librarians and Catholic doctors, he contended.

"If I had a vote on a local body, and if there were two qualified people who had to deal with a Catholic community, and if one was a Catholic and the other a Protestant, I would unhesitatingly vote for the Catholic."

Junder, you should remember that this affair caused a considerable amount of controversy at the time. When you consider that the 26 counties had a massive catholic majority (insisted on by Northern Protestants) had just come from an era where that elite were Protestant and identified with the British imperial power. Only a few generations earlier anti-Catholic laws existed where every Catholic had to give a tithe to the established church.

This is one controversy over one job. There is always a minority in every country who are loyal to the imperial power. This minority was treated remarkebly well by the free state.

When you consider that over 7,000 Catholics were thrown out of their own jobs in Belfast by Protestants (taking their jobs back) in the early twenties withouit a finger being raised by the authorities. In the Arnon street massacre alone in the early twenties 12 Catholic civilians were murdered.

To be self righteously complaining about De Valera's comments about one
librarian is ludicrous given that you support a state which sanctions the above actions.

This was one librarian whose suitability for a job in the west of Ireland was questioned becuase of her relegion.

How many thousands of Catholics were denied jobs becuase of their religion in the history of the Northern state? 100,000 perhaps?

Was there ever 1 Protestant in the 26 counties who was beaten up and ejected from their job for being a Protestant while teh authorities here Did Nothing?

ISAW

proon4 wrote: »

Did he die so that Martin Mc Guinness could lick Ian Paisleys rear end ring? I dont think so.............

For What Died the Sons of Róisín, was it fame?
For What Died the Sons of Róisín, was it fame?
For what flowed Irelands blood in rivers,
That began when Brian chased the Dane,
And did not cease nor has not ceased,
With the brave sons of ´16,
For what died the sons of Róisín, was it fame?

For What Died the Sons of Róisín, was it greed?
For What Died the Sons of Róisín, was it greed?
Was it greed that drove Wolfe Tone to a paupers death in a cell of cold wet stone?
Will German, French or Dutch inscribe the epitaph of Emmet?
When we have sold enough of Ireland to be but strangers in it.
For What Died the Sons of Róisín, was it greed?

To whom do we owe our allegiance today?
To whom do we owe our allegiance today?
To those brave men who fought and died that Róisín live again with pride?
Her sons at home to work and sing,
Her youth to dance and make her valleys ring,
Or the faceless men who for Mark and Dollar,
Betray her to the highest bidder,
To whom do we owe our allegiance today?

For what suffer our patriots today?
For what suffer our patriots today?
They have a language problem, so they say,
How to write "No Trespass" must grieve their heart full sore,
We got rid of one strange language now we are faced with many, many more,
For what suffer our patriots today?

marienbad

T runner wrote: »

Junder, you should remember that this affair caused a considerable amount of controversy at the time. When you consider that the 26 counties had a massive catholic majority (insisted on by Northern Protestants) had just come from an era where that elite were Protestant and identified with the British imperial power. Only a few generations earlier anti-Catholic laws existed where every Catholic had to give a tithe to the established church.

This is one controversy over one job. There is always a minority in every country who are loyal to the imperial power. This minority was treated remarkebly well by the free state.

When you consider that over 7,000 Catholics were thrown out of their own jobs in Belfast by Protestants (taking their jobs back) in the early twenties withouit a finger being raised by the authorities. In the Arnon street massacre alone in the early twenties 12 Catholic civilians were murdered.

To be self righteously complaining about De Valera's comments about one
librarian is ludicrous given that you support a state which sanctions the above actions.

This was one librarian whose suitability for a job in the west of Ireland was questioned becuase of her relegion.

How many thousands of Catholics were denied jobs becuase of their religion in the history of the Northern state? 100,000 perhaps?

Was there ever 1 Protestant in the 26 counties who was beaten up and ejected from their job for being a Protestant while teh authorities here Did Nothing?

I can never understand this kind of logic, because A behaves badly B has a licence to do the same ! Either our values are true or they are not. I can fully understand how in the context of the time we did not live up to them , let us just acknowledge that , accept that it happened , point out that would not happen now and stop looking over the fence for a barometer of what is and is'nt right.

The treatment of Catholics is the north is well documented , but a story yet to be fully told and acknowledged is the treatment of the Protestants in the republic, from the murder gangs in Cork and Kerry in the 20's, to the job descrimination to the decimation of the Protestation population by the Catholic church in ruthlessly applying the strictest rules on children of mixed marriages. We made it a cold house indeed for some .

And in answer to you question of was there ever a protestentant beaten up ? Yes there were many , some wer even shot

Japer

T runner wrote: »

you should remember that this affair caused a considerable amount of controversy at the time.

That was because the librarian slipped through the net + got a job, but who lost her job because of her religion. In those decades the minority religion ( which was R. Catholic ) in N. Ireland increased in numbers , while the minority religions ( those not R. Catholic ) decreased in numbers in the Rep. Of Ireland. Thankfully minorities in both jurisdictions nowadays do not find it a cold house.

thecool

It still amazes me why these so called British Unionist's live on the island of Ireland.
They continue to say they are not Irish , but yet they live on Irish lands ,
Why don't they return home to the land of the queen

marienbad

thecool wrote: »

It still amazes me why these so called British Unionist's live on the island of Ireland.
They continue to say they are not Irish , but yet they live on Irish lands ,
Why don't they return home to the land of the queen

and of course the 100'000 of us that have descended on Britain's shores in the last two years should hotfoot home to the land of ''saints and Scholars'' Oh wait the saints all turned out to be pedos and the scholars turned out to be crooks !:)

Fratton Fred

thecool wrote: »

It still amazes me why these so called British Unionist's live on the island of Ireland.
They continue to say they are not Irish , but yet they live on Irish lands ,
Why don't they return home to the land of the queen

To where exactly?

Funfair

Whatever he died for even if you don’t agree with the reasons show some respect.100, 000 people turned up for his funeral. How many of us alive today North or South can expect that turnout when we go to our maker? Exactly not too many of us if any!!

T runner

marienbad wrote: »

If India Canada S.Africa have evolved to have a much or a little connection with the Crown as they wish who is to say Ireland would be any different, might have taken a bit longer but maybe caused less division aong the way.

Sorry Marienbad but the "division" in Ulster has been there for over 400 years.
This division is on religious, social and economic grounds and the entry point to either group is religion.

There was a heightening of tensions during the war of independence in NE Ulster where thousands of Catholics were murdered. (Many Protestants also).

There is strong evidence of a pattern in Ulster history where any advancement of the Catholic position (often peaceful, non-sectarian) is responded to by massive violence against the local Catholic population by Protestants usually aided by the police force of the day.

The nature of the political settlement of the early 20s meant that the problem was exacerbated by firstly: partition, secondly: the amount of territory that was given to the Northern state (they had only a majority in 3 counties) and thirdly teh fact that power was given to that state i.e the creators of the zero-sum sectarian society in NE Ulster now had complete political control over that territory. The predictable de facto sectarian state that emerged didnt unravel politically until 1972 and is only now starting to unravel socially and economically.

The problem was thus not Irish independence, it was partition and the nature of it.

The Irish question has really been the Ulster question since the 1870s.

If the Protestants of Ulster threatened to murder many Catholics if there was a united Ireland, then a temporary and fair part of Ulster should have been all that was available for them. This would have caused a lot less violence and may even have seen a federal Union in Ireland by now.

T runner

marienbad wrote: »

and of course the 100'000 of us that have descended on Britain's shores in the last two years should hotfoot home to the land of ''saints and Scholars'' Oh wait the saints all turned out to be pedos and the scholars turned out to be crooks !:)

Not comparable. We dont rule Britain and the 100,000 arent sent as "loyalists with benefits for remaining loyal".

Your further point about the saints and scholars is unfair and illogical.

Only <1%? of priests seem to have been involved in sexual abuse of children. Saying "All" may be being completely unfair on many innocent priests.
I dont think Britain is enamored with its politicians either. Youre a scholar. Are you a crook?

Apparently the Irish are fond of grossly exagerating even when putting their own country down.

Japer

Funfair wrote: »

Whatever he died for even if you don’t agree with the reasons show some respect.100, 000 people turned up for his funeral. How many of us alive today North or South can expect that turnout when we go to our maker? Exactly not too many of us if any!!

I would prefer only a small amount of people to turn up for my funeral, than to be ( or have been ) a member of a terrorist organisation like the PIRA which has caused the funerals of so many.

T runner

Japer wrote: »

That was because the librarian slipped through the net + got a job, but who lost her job because of her religion. In those decades the minority religion ( which was R. Catholic ) in N. Ireland increased in numbers , while the minority religions ( those not R. Catholic ) decreased in numbers in the Rep. Of Ireland. Thankfully minorities in both jurisdictions nowadays do not find it a cold house.

Most of the loss in Protestant numbers can be accounted for simple relocation in border areas while keeping the same job, British army personell etc.

Your "cold house" comment implies that sectarianism was somehow balanced between the communities.

7000 Catholics were physically thrown out of their jobs (and beaten) by Protestant mobs.

In the free state we have a huge scandal about a librarian who loses her job.

That shows the difference between official, societal and media attitudes to sectarianism in the different states. Not quite the same you might agree: not even close.

T runner

marienbad wrote: »

I can never understand this kind of logic, because A behaves badly B has a licence to do the same ! Either our values are true or they are not. I can fully understand how in the context of the time we did not live up to them , let us just acknowledge that , accept that it happened , point out that would not happen now and stop looking over the fence for a barometer of what is and is'nt right.

That has not or never has been my logic.

Catholics by and large have not behaved badly when given power to do so.

You stated that Irish independence may have accounted for divisions today. I rebuffed that stating it was partition based on a sectarian conflict in NE Ulster taht caused it. The divisions predate independence by some 300 years.

The treatment of Catholics is the north is well documented ,

What is not quite so well documented is the roots of sectarian conflict in NE Ulster. This is the Ulster question. And it didnt stsrt after Irish independence.

but a story yet to be fully told and acknowledged is the treatment of the Protestants in the republic, from the murder gangs in Cork and Kerry in the 20's, to the job descrimination to the decimation of the Protestation population by the Catholic church in ruthlessly applying the strictest rules on children of mixed marriages. We made it a cold house indeed for some .

It has been documented well enough. The facts are that, given the circumstances, Protestants in the free state were treated remarkeably well.

If you compare any country after independence there is always a backlash against the people who were loyal to the imperialist side. This was minor in Ireland. There were murders sure, that is deplorable but in a brand new country it can be difficult to stop reprisals after a war of independence.

Thankfully the atrocities were kept to a minimum relative to other states in Irelands situation. You are looking at short term stuff, not endemic societal sectarianism and de facto apartheid as witnessed in E Ulster.

Also even Northern (Unionist) historians like ATQ Stewart concede that southern Protestants were extremely well treated in teh 26 counties. They are the most elite group in the 26 counties, even after independence. It is almost unheard of that a group who remained by and large loyal to the imperial side should be treated so well after independence.


As rgds your explanations for the decline of the Protestant population in the Republic, you fail to acknowledge that there were relaitively few mixed marriages. The patterns of Protestant marriage remained as before. A massive difference for the people in the 26 counties, of course, is that the Protestant population was decimated by almost 80% at the stroke of a pen by the partition of Ireland.

They still married Protestants but they were in a different state and the couple would naturally settle in the "Protestant State". I detest religion but the blame for this cannot be left at the Catholic church.

This was what Unionists wanted, backed by the British army, conservative party, and eventually the British Government.

And in answer to you question of was there ever a protestant beaten up ?

Was there ever 7000 Protestants taken from there palce of work, beaten and ejected from their jobs as the state looked on? Was there ever even 7? The answer is no.

Youa re comparing minor unusual sectarian trouble after indepence here with widespread state sectarianism in the North.


The point of looking at the mistakes of the past is to ensure that they do not happen again. That is why we must analyse partition and analyse the roots of sectarianism. The principle unreconciled problem in Irish/Ulster history has been the festering anti-Catholicism in E Ulster over the past 400 years.

T runner

Japer wrote: »

That was because the librarian slipped through the net + got a job, but who lost her job because of her religion. In those decades the minority religion ( which was R. Catholic ) in N. Ireland increased in numbers , while the minority religions ( those not R. Catholic ) decreased in numbers in the Rep. Of Ireland. Thankfully minorities in both jurisdictions nowadays do not find it a cold house.

Sorry but a quick look at the cencus will show that this is incorrect. The Catholic population fell all through the 20's. It was a decade which saw some of the worst anti-Catholic pogroms since the plantation of Ulster.

As has been stated 7000 Catholics were forcibly and permanently thrown out of their jobs by Protestants in one day alone in Belfast.

Bottle_of_Smoke

KeithAFC wrote: »

An interesting one this is because as far as i know, he wanted political status.

1. the right not to wear a prison uniform;
2. the right not to do prison work;
3. the right of free association with other prisoners, and to organise educational and recreational pursuits;
4. the right to one visit, one letter and one parcel per week;
5. full restoration of remission lost through the protest

Obviously being a Unionist, i don't remember his passing or anything of the sort it but it seems many people think of him as a hero but was it worth it?

Was it really worth it to starve yourself to death to prove a point?

Sorry to be jumping in late but I just got back from nice holiday in Belfast and haven't been around.

I don't have too detailed a knowledge of the strikes but it is important to remember it wasn't a case of Bobby Sands just deciding one day he'd stop eating to get the 5 demands.

The blanket protest had been going for years. Previous to the Sands led strike Brendan Hughes led one which ended after it looked like a deal was agreed to. Then the British said ''Oh no we meant civilian uniform not civilian clothes'' and Bobby Sands led a new strike a while later.

Prior to that the prisoners were attacked leaving their cells to go to the toilet and possibly weren't allowed to slop out without uniform (I'm not 100% on the latter but it was portrayed that way in Some Mother's Son - appreciate if someone could clarify) so they spread their faeces on the wall. It is bloody disgusting it was called the ''dirty protest'' if they were the reasons they did it.

So the hunger strike began because the conditions they lived in were unbearable. If they were allowed to use the facilities without attack they might simply have continued wearing blankets instead of escalating it to a hunger strike. The British government of course didn't like that because they wanted them in criminal uniforms. Ironically though the hunger strikes are probably why many people around the world see the IRA as more legitimate than they otherwise might have.

junder

Inthe beginning the dirty protest involved all prisoners including loyalists, the entire campaign was supposed to involve all prisoners until sinn fein and the provisional ira took it over for thier own ends. I have a book with some photos of loyalist prisoner cells involved in the dirty protest. During thus time s close working relationship was formed between uvf members and offical ira members