Mass unmarked grave for 800 babies in Tuam

Birroc

Some more revelations from the Tuam home.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/-18...baby-home.html

"Details are emerging of the horrific stories behind some of the 796 deaths at the Tuam mother and baby home – where 18 children died of hunger. 12 of the 18 who starved were girls and there is a suspicion that some were mentally retarded. One child wasn’t even given a name by the Bons Secours nuns who ran the Tuam home"

Lingua Franca

Catherine Corless: 'I want to know who's down there'

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Catherine Corless: 'I want to know who's down there'

An amateur historian who had spent weeks scouring records in libraries, churches and council offices, she had uncovered the fact that, between 1925 and 1961, 796 children died in the St Mary's Mother and Baby Home, run by nuns from the Bon Secours order, but she was unable to find records of where they were buried.

Could have saved a bit of time if she'd only used Google. The Central Statistics Office have helpfully put the Reports of the Registrar General online.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/birthsdm/archivedreports/P-VS,1923.pdf
Deaths of illegitimate infants under one year of age registered in Saorstat Eireann during the year 1923 was 559 the resulting mortality rate is 344 per 1,000 births for both sexes <...> These rates must be regarded as excessive. <...> the illegitimate infant mortality as derived from the records for 1923 is about 6 times the mortality among legitimate infants, <...> at least one out of every 3 illegitimate infants born alive in 1923 died before the completion of their first year of life.
In England and Wales in 1923, the illegitimate infant death rate was about one death to every 8 <..> about twice that for legitimate infants<..>

What's the difference between hidden in plain view, and not hidden at all?

Corless is delighted that her work has belatedly paid off, but the slowness of the media, the government and the church to respond still puzzles her.

It may be answered a couple of sentences later

The facts of the case remain uncertain.

I think the point of amazement is the way we're holding an inquiry into the speculations of an amateur historian.

They blamed the women – they didn't blame the men who did it, just the women for leading them on.

Or something.

http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0032/D.0032.192910300036.html
Dáil Éireann - Volume 32 - 30 October, 1929
Illegitimate Children (Affiliation Orders) Bill, 1929—Second Stage.

<...>This is a Bill the object of which is to make the fathers of illegitimate children liable for their support.
<...>Dr. Ward: <....> Much complaint has been made on the ground of the inadequacy of the protection afforded to the unmarried mother. <...>The vast majority of these mothers are more sinned against than sinning,<...>

Ireland. A frustrating place. So rarely clear-cut.

Spring Onion

"Ill Exuberance Fume God" is back. Yay!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Could have saved a bit of time if she'd only used Google. The Central Statistics Office have helpfully put the Reports of the Registrar General online.What's the difference between hidden in plain view, and not hidden at all?It may be answered a couple of sentences laterI think the point of amazement is the way we're holding an inquiry into the speculations of an amateur historian.Or something.Ireland. A frustrating place. So rarely clear-cut.

She wants to know where these children were buried. Is that contained online?

The intimation that she has made is that there is a link between the lack of 796 burial sites, and the existence of bones within a septic tank located at the site of the home that the 796 children lived in.

Is that a crazy intimation?

Odd to attempt to belittle her work or discredit her intentions really. She's only asking for more information, something which if denied, is usually seen as hiding something.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Deleted User wrote: »

She wants to know where these children were buried. Is that contained online?

Ah, here. Once it became clear that the burial in the septic tank story was an inference, and not a physical discovery, didn't the debate move on to saying that the mortality rate was the real issue?

Deleted User wrote: »

Odd to attempt to belittle her work or discredit her intentions really. She's only asking for more information, something which if denied, is usually seen as hiding something.

The point is, surely, that the information is out there.

Or is it now necessary to pretend that it was a discovery to find that Irish infant mortality rates were quite high, particularly among infants in institutions?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Ah, here. Once it became clear that the burial in the septic tank story was an inference, and not a physical discovery, didn't the debate move on to saying that the mortality rate was the real issue? The point is, surely, that the information is out there.

"The Debate", and what Catherine Corless has asked for (from the beginning) are very different things. Corless is not responsible for what people are questioning as a result of her research. Nor should they be "silenced" for looking further into the results of her research and questioning the care given to those children.

If the information is out there, then someone ought to make that known. It has not been made known, has it?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Or is it now necessary to pretend that it was a discovery to find that Irish infant mortality rates were quite high, particularly among infants in institutions?

Again, why the belittling of people asking for more information? Asking for an inquiry is not that odd no?

Do you deem it spurious to ask for information on the whereabouts of 796 childrens' remains? (Corless' request from the off.)

Do you deem it spurious to ask for an inquiry into the care afforded to the wards of the Mother & Child Homes, a question that has been raised by others as a result of Corless' work?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Deleted User wrote: »

Corless is not responsible for what people are questioning as a result of her research.

Why would any single person be responsible for setting the terms of the debate?

Deleted User wrote: »

It has not been made known, has it?

Well, yes, it has. That's the point. And all the stuff about vaccinations was flavour of the month 14 years ago.

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you deem it spurious to ask for an inquiry into the care afforded to the wards of the Mother & Child Homes, a question that has been raised by others as a result of Corless' work?

I don't know what "spurious" means in this context. Certainly, out of all the problems we face as a collectivity, I don't see this one as registering at all. I don't see any practical benefit, unless it's a vehicle through which people finally get some kind of a grip on the history of the Irish State.

Incidently, I'm not belittling anyone. I'm saying these issues are little.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, yes, it has. That's the point. And all the stuff about vaccinations was flavour of the month 14 years ago.

Where are the bodies buried?

Given that you are asserting that the data is available, I'd hope you might be able to cast some light on this matter.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Deleted User wrote: »

Where are the bodies buried?

Given that you are asserting that the data is available, I'd hope you might be able to cast some light on this matter.

What I'm asserting is the location of the burials is unimportant, as the salient facts are and were known. We know, just as people in 1923 knew, that the infant mortality rate was high. We know, and they know, the state causes of death as they were extensively set out at the time.

Now, I don't see how you are advancing the discussion beyond this point.

We're not having a public inquiry just to erect a headstone.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What I'm asserting is the location of the burials is unimportant, as the salient facts are and were known. We know, just as people in 1923 knew, that the infant mortality rate was high. We know, and they know, the state causes of death as they were extensively set out at the time.

Now, I don't see how you are advancing the discussion beyond this point.

We're not having a public inquiry just to erect a headstone.

That's your opinion. Which of course you are entitled to. However, that it is not echoed by Corless, nor the > 30k people who've put their names to the petition here

There is also a legal issue with regards to correct burial procedure.

So in effect, am I right in thinking that you are taking issue only with the fact that people think that this issue is worth investigating, when you believe it is not?

Spring Onion

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What I'm asserting is the location of the burials is unimportant, as the salient facts are and were known. We know, just as people in 1923 knew, that the infant mortality rate was high. We know, and they know, the state causes of death as they were extensively set out at the time.

Now, I don't see how you are advancing the discussion beyond this point.

We're not having a public inquiry just to erect a headstone.

Unimportant to whom?

The Sisters of Bon Secours had the remains of 12 members of the order exhumed and re-buried in a cemetery in Knock before they abandoned their base in Galway in 2001 – after selling property to the Western Health Board for a reported €4m.

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What hope justice when the executive branch and the judicial branch are so inextricably intertwined?

Sad but true that every Irish judge is a political appointee. Yet I remember last year when there was talk by the govt. of applying a levy to their pay, similar to other public sector workers, a great cry of "separation of powers...separation of powers" arose from them. Blatant hypocrisy.

Corkfeen

Of course their burial locations matter. Secondly, their unwillingness to have written such important details down is indicative of how they viewed them in life. You quoted her and claimed the CSO has the info readily available, it does not. Corless has raised questions that should have been raised decades ago so yep the work of a historian have pointed out how the state has failed miserably in terms of investigating.

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's here.

http://darkroom.sundayworld.com/original/ceb7e622d53f2b67bf1cd99228b41b57:276be5a65b9eb1f5777c83244dcbc798/tuam-deaths-records.pdf

I see there Bridget Kenny, died 23.08 1947 by marasmus (starvation) at 2 months old. "Mentally defective" is listed among causes of death. What does that mean? Are they claiming that the "mental defect" contributed to the starvation, or is it being openly given as a reason or a justification for the withdrawal of food? Could anyone be sure of the mental state of a 2 month old baby anyway? Would a properly trained modern clinician be able to predict the likely mental outcome for a 2 month old baby? Maybe she was judged worthless anyway, due to the "defects" in her parentage.

Then in the following couple of months two "congenital idiots" died (Sarah Carol 20.11.1947 and Noel Murphy 6.03.1948).

Seven more "congenital idiots" died between August 1949 and August 1952. I wonder was that the term they used for what we now call Down's Syndrome, and was extermination the official policy for them.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Could anyone be sure of the mental state of a 2 month old baby anyway?

For most common mental health ailments, I believe the answer is a resounding "No".

Mrs OBumble

Lisha wrote: »

Yes I think so.

It also could be another sign that the majority in society colluded against those poor women and children. Treating these people as second class citizens really seems to have strengthened other peoples position in society.

When people feel superior to others, when they believe that other people are less than them it really brings out the worst in people.

Absolutely.

And this continues today, in the way Ireland houses asylum seekers in Direct Provision. Supported by an incredible number of people I know.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Nodin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Ah, here. Once it became clear that the burial in the septic tank story was an inference, and not a physical discovery, didn't the debate move on to saying that the mortality rate was the real issue? The point is, surely, that the information is out there.

Or is it now necessary to pretend that it was a discovery to find that Irish infant mortality rates were quite high, particularly among infants in institutions?

Four times the national average on occasion.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Corkfeen wrote: »

You quoted her and claimed the CSO has the info readily available, it does not.

Well, yes, it is. The Registrar General's reports gave a very succinct account of the issue, as it was happening. Publically available on the interwebulator.

Nodin wrote: »

Four times the national average on occasion.

Indeed, as I said the issue was very well set out at the time.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/birthsdm/archivedreports/P-VS,1923.pdf

Deaths of illegitimate infants under one year of age registered in Saorstat Eireann during the year 1923 was 559 the resulting mortality rate is 344 per 1,000 births for both sexes <...> These rates must be regarded as excessive. <...> the illegitimate infant mortality as derived from the records for 1923 is about 6 times the mortality among legitimate infants, <...> at least one out of every 3 illegitimate infants born alive in 1923 died before the completion of their first year of life.

In England and Wales in 1923, the illegitimate infant death rate was about one death to every 8 <..> about twice that for legitimate infants<..>

The Reports also elaborate on the extent to which these deaths occurred in institutions.

All very fully explained at the time, as it was happening.

marienbad

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, yes, it is. The Registrar General's reports gave a very succinct account of the issue, as it was happening. Publically available on the interwebulator.Indeed, as I said the issue was very well set out at the time.The Reports also elaborate on the extent to which these deaths occurred in institutions.

All very fully explained at the time, as it was happening.

So other than disagreeing with everyone do you have a point of your own ?

Corkfeen

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, yes, it is. The Registrar General's reports gave a very succinct account of the issue, as it was happening. Publically available on the interwebulator.Indeed, as I said the issue was very well set out at the time.The Reports also elaborate on the extent to which these deaths occurred in institutions.

All very fully explained at the time, as it was happening.

Nope,you were very specific and made appear like it provided us with even a tiny bit of info on burial locations(that was what you had quoted and claimed was easy to find). Which it obviously did not.

Glancing through the CSO report,it does not go into any particular detail in terms of conditions in the homes,how the women and children were treated. What was the money used for(provided by state) if not to care for the people it was for? While it acknowledges the higher rate,it doesn't investigate the reasons for it. It's just accepted. It's not an adequate investigation,it's just a summary of stats.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

marienbad wrote: »

So other than disagreeing with everyone do you have a point of your own ?

Yes.

Corkfeen wrote: »

Nope,you were very specific and made appear like it provided us with even a tiny bit of info on burial locations(that was what you had quoted and claimed was easy to find). Which it obviously did not.

You are inventing an artificial disagreement, which I'm not a party to. The point of the Registrar General's reports is that the official record of vital statistics from the period very clearly drew attention to the issue, and identified the salient features - the high general infant mortality rate, the fact that illegitimate children faced a particularly high risk of mortality and that a great number of those fatalities occured in institutions.

I'm afraid, if you can't see how that debunks the notion that this was a hidden problem, discussion is simply impossible. Reasonable people will not share this difficulty.

@GCU

@GCU -

Nobody else at all has used the term hidden except for you. I'm struggling to understand why you keep changing the issues you appear to have with this topic (and its development) as a whole.

I would appreciate if you could answer this post (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90867541&postcount=1722) as I feel you may have missed it.

That the information was available publicly in 1923 (if one was to take a train to Dublin, organise a hotel and check the National Records etc) doesn't really change anything. The internet now means that information can spread near instantaneously, this was not the case 90 years ago.

Corkfeen

I don't question that there was an awareness but I don't think we've ever dealt with it correctly. Acknowledging its existence,fails to explain how both the state,society and the church failed these people massively. As a part of it, I feel that we need go into deep detail on this part of the period in our country's history.

Also,it's pretty important to acknowledge the burial sites and the thousands of children that we failed miserably to support or even acknowledge. Would have thought that it's a pretty reasonable view tbh.

Nodin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

...........Indeed, as I said the issue was very well set out at the time.The Reports also elaborate on the extent to which these deaths occurred in institutions.

All very fully explained at the time, as it was happening.

....which doesn't mean that it was dealt with properly, that it shouldn't be looked at and dealt with now.

Spring Onion

Deleted User wrote: »

@GCU -

Nobody else at all has used the term hidden except for you. I'm struggling to understand why you keep changing the issues you appear to have with this topic (and its development) as a whole.

I would appreciate if you could answer this post (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90867541&postcount=1722) as I feel you may have missed it.

That the information was available publicly in 1923 (if one was to take a train to Dublin, organise a hotel and check the National Records etc) doesn't really change anything. The internet now means that information can spread near instantaneously, this was not the case 90 years ago.

GCU wont answer posts/questions that do not help him derail the thread.

marienbad

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yes.

You are inventing an artificial disagreement, which I'm not a party to. The point of the Registrar General's reports is that the official record of vital statistics from the period very clearly drew attention to the issue, and identified the salient features - the high general infant mortality rate, the fact that illegitimate children faced a particularly high risk of mortality and that a great number of those fatalities occured in institutions.

I'm afraid, if you can't see how that debunks the notion that this was a hidden problem, discussion is simply impossible. Reasonable people will not share this difficulty.

I think you are missing the point to be honest , many issues are known but not well known and this appears to be one of them. You seem to be saying that because the information has been there for decades provided one had the time, tools and expertise to search for it should disqualify this current public outrage .

The same could be said about the child abuse scandals, Japanese internment in the USA, the Nanking massacre and countless more . But it took decades for those events to be fully exposed and as is usually the case the powers that be were well aware of them but choose , for whatever reason ,not to face up to them. This is not very different but now we have an education informed generation and full accountability is demanded .

Why would anyone have a problem with that ? It is just what reasonable people expect.

obplayer

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yes.

You are inventing an artificial disagreement, which I'm not a party to. The point of the Registrar General's reports is that the official record of vital statistics from the period very clearly drew attention to the issue, and identified the salient features - the high general infant mortality rate, the fact that illegitimate children faced a particularly high risk of mortality and that a great number of those fatalities occured in institutions.

I'm afraid, if you can't see how that debunks the notion that this was a hidden problem, discussion is simply impossible. Reasonable people will not share this difficulty.

So you are saying that you do not agree with this investigation? Fine, you are entitled to that belief. However vast numbers of people around Ireland, and Irish people around the world, disagree. You are over-ruled. Tough. Live with it, consider it a growing-up experience.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Deleted User wrote: »

@GCU -

Nobody else at all has used the term hidden except for you. I'm struggling to understand why you keep changing the issues you appear to have with this topic (and its development) as a whole.

I would appreciate if you could answer this post (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90867541&postcount=1722) as I feel you may have missed it.

That the information was available publicly in 1923 (if one was to take a train to Dublin, organise a hotel and check the National Records etc) doesn't really change anything. The internet now means that information can spread near instantaneously, this was not the case 90 years ago.

I've answered this on the other thread, as you suggested. The relevant post should have enough quotes to demonstrate that these issues weren't just recorded and commented on in vital statistics reports, but were debated openly in the national parliament.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90874703&postcount=319

Nodin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I've answered this on the other thread, as you suggested. The relevant post should have enough quotes to demonstrate that these issues weren't just recorded and commented on in vital statistics reports, but were debated openly in the national parliament.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90874703&postcount=319

and again....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90874194&postcount=1736