Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Mass unmarked grave for 800 babies in Tuam

Options
1…2021232526…92

Comments

  • Options
    #662
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    You'd have to ask, if children were being deliberately killed by withholding food, then why would there be official death certs stating that.

    So if there's no evidence, there was no crime, but if there is evidence, there was no crime, because if there was a crime the evidence would have been covered up, so evidence of a crime is evidence there was no cover-up and therefore no crime.

    I see.


  • Options
    #663
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    No, what I'm getting at is - why would "the powers that be" allow death certificated (100s potentially) to exist that said children were dying from malnutrition (leading to the question of why they were suffering from malnutrition), unless there was some other reason for the malnutrition, apart from deliberate starvation.

    I'd imagine the nuns were able to just give a cause of death, a doctor would verify it but the powers that be would have had no reason to think the nuns were being dishonest. Remember the context of the time, nuns could do no wrong, they were angels.


  • Options
    #664
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    No, what I'm getting at is - why would "the powers that be" allow death certificated (100s potentially) to exist that said children were dying from malnutrition (leading to the question of why they were suffering from malnutrition), unless there was some other reason for the malnutrition, apart from deliberate starvation.

    What other reason would there be? The homes received a generous fee from the government to house and feed these kids. They also put the children and their mothers to work on lucrative laundry contracts. The only reason i can see is that the Nuns didn't feed them correctly. I don't see any reports of any nuns dying from malnutrition.


  • Options
    #665
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    You understand that malnutrition is not the same as starvation?

    You'd have to ask, if children were being deliberately killed by withholding food, then why would there be official death certs stating that. Why would these criminals (for that is what they would be) not put cause of death as "fever" or something like that to avoid trouble.

    Nobody back then questioned their word, which was their bond and sacrosanct, right?

    They were above suspicion and had their mandate from above.


  • Options
    #666
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,497 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    old hippy wrote: »
    They were above suspicion and had their mandate from above.

    If you did dare question the nuns I'm sure the local priest would pay you a visit to have a word,
    In context people feared this type of stuff.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #667
    R P McMurphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭R P McMurphy


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I'd imagine the nuns were able to just give a cause of death, a doctor would verify it but the powers that be would have had no reason to think the nuns were being dishonest. Remember the context of the time, nuns could do no wrong, they were angels.

    Looking at the statistics, surely the 'powers that be' should have had grave concerns about what was going on in these institutions. Unless they were aware and viewed residents with as much contempt as the religious orders that ran the places


  • Options
    #668
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    bumper234 wrote: »
    What other reason would there be?

    Well that's what I'd like to know.

    Could it be that children who were too unwell or disabled to take food normally suffered and died from malnutrition becasue inadequate methods for feeding them artificially (as would be a simple thing today) were much less commonplace? Could that be it?


  • Options
    #669
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    R P McMurphy wrote: »
    Looking at the statistics, surely the 'powers that be' should have had grave concerns about what was going on in these institutions. Unless they were aware and viewed residents with as much contempt as the religious orders that ran the places

    Maybe they did but at least society has moved on in its thinking, the church still has the same old views.


  • Options
    #670
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,497 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    R P McMurphy wrote: »
    Looking at the statistics, surely the 'powers that be' should have had grave concerns about what was going on in these institutions. Unless they were aware and viewed residents with as much contempt as the religious orders that ran the places

    Maybe they did,
    But then this viewpont didn't come from nowhere, the whole view of unmarried mothers came from the catholic church and was engrained into people from a young age.

    The church being the moral guardians of whats right and wrong weren't questioned much,


  • Options
    #671
    Flippyfloppy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭Flippyfloppy


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    No, what I'm getting at is - why would "the powers that be" allow death certificated (100s potentially) to exist that said children were dying from malnutrition (leading to the question of why they were suffering from malnutrition), unless there was some other reason for the malnutrition, apart from deliberate starvation.

    You wouldn't be encouraging wild speculation now would you :O


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #672
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Well that's what I'd like to know.

    Could it be that children who were too unwell or disabled to take food normally suffered and died from malnutrition becasue inadequate methods for feeding them artificially (as would be a simple thing today) were much less commonplace? Could that be it?

    Hundreds of children, who just happened to be the children of unmarried mothers, who just happened to all end up in the same home? You really are clutching now :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #673
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Well that's what I'd like to know.

    Could it be that children who were too unwell or disabled to take food normally suffered and died from malnutrition

    Why would illegitimate children in a home be more disabled than regular children? Do you suspect that the nuns were disabling them? Horrible thought!


  • Options
    #674
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    old hippy wrote: »
    Nobody back then questioned their word, which was their bond and sacrosanct, right?

    They were above suspicion and had their mandate from above.
    eviltwin wrote: »
    I'd imagine the nuns were able to just give a cause of death, a doctor would verify it but the powers that be would have had no reason to think the nuns were being dishonest. Remember the context of the time, nuns could do no wrong, they were angels.

    So why didn't the nuns just insist that all death certs say something like, "fever" or "measles" and hide things entirely? If they were all pwerful like that.


  • Options
    #675
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Why would illegitimate children in a home be more disabled than regular children? Do you suspect that the nuns were disabling them? Horrible thought!

    I don't. I'm suggesting those who were may have been malnourished though.


  • Options
    #676
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    So why didn't the nuns just insist that all death certs say something like, "fever" or "measles" and hide things entirely? If they were all pwerful like that.

    A doctor probably had to sign off on it, the doctor was unlikely to fake a cert even back then.


  • Options
    #677
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,497 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    So why didn't the nuns just insist that all death certs say something like, "fever" or "measles" and hide things entirely? If they were all pwerful like that.

    Who's to say they didn't do that for cases where physical abuse may have been involved?

    Thought you didn't like speculation...yet here you are doing just that
    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #678
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    I don't. I'm suggesting those who were may have been malnourished though.

    They were malnourished, Due to lack of food, that the nuns were supposed to feed them :mad:


  • Options
    #679
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,177 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    eviltwin wrote: »
    A doctor probably had to sign off on it, the doctor was unlikely to fake a cert even back then.

    A doctor would have faked whatever you liked as long as a nun or a priest was doing the asking. Some of them still would. Welcome to Ireland, the Land of Fakes and Spanners.


  • Options
    #680
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    No, what I'm getting at is - why would "the powers that be" allow death certificated (100s potentially) to exist that said children were dying from malnutrition (leading to the question of why they were suffering from malnutrition), unless there was some other reason for the malnutrition, apart from deliberate starvation.

    Have you considered the existence of a State structure that was in thrall to the Roman Catholic Church?

    Although the State failed to act - it did fund these 'homes' and, as the 1944 report into Tuam shows, it did highlight the existence of malnutrition.

    However, the fact remains that the people charged with caring for these children - and paid to do so - did not see themselves as answerable to the State - they were answerable to the hierarchy of the RCC only. And no matter how you try and spin it in order to reconcile your membership of this organisation with your unease at what they did, the fact remains it was nuns deciding how food was allocated. Nuns who controlled the budget. Nuns who ordered food. Nuns who applied for State funds. Nuns who denied these children that 'Christian' burial that is such an important part of your religion. Those nuns reported to the hierarchy of the RCC - not the State.

    You are trying to shift the blame but it was not a representative of the State who neglected this children onto death. It was the Bon Secour Sisters.


  • Options
    #681
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    So why didn't the nuns just insist that all death certs say something like, "fever" or "measles" and hide things entirely? If they were all pwerful like that.

    They were so all-powerful that they didn't have to care what anyone thought.

    The proof is that they really did write "Malnourishment" on the death certs, and they really did dump the bodies in an unmarked pit, and they got clean away with it!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #682
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Maybe they did,
    But then this viewpont didn't come from nowhere, the whole view of unmarried mothers came from the catholic church and was engrained into people from a young age.

    It came from the Victorians really, to be more accurate, adopted and endorsed by the catholic church.


  • Options
    #683
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    So why didn't the nuns just insist that all death certs say something like, "fever" or "measles" and hide things entirely? If they were all pwerful like that.

    Maybe they did? Disease was also a popular cause. It still doesn't explain why they all happened to be under the care of nuns.


  • Options
    #684
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    It came from the Victorians really, to be more accurate, adopted and endorsed by the catholic church.

    so the church took its moral cues from the public rather than the other way around?


  • Options
    #685
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    eviltwin wrote: »
    A doctor probably had to sign off on it, the doctor was unlikely to fake a cert even back then.

    But you said the nuns could pretty much write what they wanted.


  • Options
    #686
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    So if there's no evidence, there was no crime, but if there is evidence, there was no crime, because if there was a crime the evidence would have been covered up, so evidence of a crime is evidence there was no cover-up and therefore no crime.
    Rather similar to what happened in the 1970's with the infamous "Team B" cooked up by Donald Rumsfeld.

    In essence, the lack of intelligence-sourced evidence of advanced Soviet weaponry was construed as firm evidence that the Soviet weaponry had advanced beyond the US's ability to detect it.

    Of course, it hadn't, but that didn't stop Rumsfeld from making exactly the same disastrous thinking error when it came to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B


  • Options
    #687
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Though you didn't like speculation...yet here you are doing just that
    :rolleyes:

    I'm a devil for the oul speculation alright.


  • Options
    #688
    Birroc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭Birroc


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    I don't. I'm suggesting those who were may have been malnourished though.

    Ah stop will ya, just stop and cop yourself on.


  • Options
    #689
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    eviltwin wrote: »
    so the church took its moral cues from the public rather than the other way around?

    The church is us and we are the church.

    As much as we all like to think otherwise, our grandparents and great-grandparents (and in some cases our parents) knew about these "homes" and did nothing about them. They were happy that the "problem" of unmarried mothers was being taken care of for them.


  • Options
    #690
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    The church is us and we are the church.

    Not me, not anymore.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #691
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Well that's what I'd like to know.

    Could it be that children who were too unwell or disabled to take food normally suffered and died from malnutrition becasue inadequate methods for feeding them artificially (as would be a simple thing today) were much less commonplace? Could that be it?

    Could it be that the funds went into the Bon Secour's coffers and was used to build all those 'private' hospitals and purchase large swathes of land?

    Far more likely an explanation that an unprecedented number of unwell (and why would they be unwell from?) and disabled children being born in a small geographical area unless Tuam is far closer to Chrnobyl than any of us think.

    Unwellness and disability that effects those children who were 'the result of sin' over 5 times more than their legitimate counterparts?

    You really are stretching now.


Advertisement