Monday, June 04, 2007
On Ireland’s own human rights failings?
Interesting response from El Nuevo Pantano to Newton Emerson’s satire on the unconscious way people in the Republic lecture other countries on human rights, apparently blissfully unaware of how the state came to be 97% (nominally) Catholic.
Mick Fealty @ 08:56 AM
This was posted some time ago but most of it is applicable here:
This canard has already been done to death-deja vu all over again.
The claim has been made that the Protestant minority was alienated, humiliated and largely silenced.
This is nonsense.
With the setting up of the Irish Free State, the Protestant minority remained in as strong a position as ever and were, if anything, more secure.
They retained their land and property rights and maintained a very much over-representative position in the law and the judiciary, banking and insurance and in the professions, commerce and industry.
This was certainly very different to the treatment meted out by the winning side in the aftermath of the Elizabethan wars, the Cromwellian period, the Williamite wars and after 1798.Fourteen Protestants were elected to the Dail in 1927 and special appointments of Protestants – many of whom had been militant unionists – were made to the Seanad to ensure more substantial representation there.
Proportional representation was retained and this provided a political voice for the small minority of Protestants.
There were some 60 English peers who still held Irish titles and lands in Ireland.
In later years Protestants went on to hold the position of President of Ireland.
It’s worth pointing out ,even if it’s not mentioned here that the Ne Temere decree usually pops up at this stage in this specific debate.
This decree was issued in 1908 and – while certainly insensitive – was intended more as a control measure for Catholics rather than an attack on Protestants.It also emanated from the Vatican and not the ROI.With this rule in force,over which the ROI had no control,it was Catholic pulchritude and not Catholic oppression that ate away at Protestant numbers -at least until 1960.
Insensitive it may have been, but it did not rate in the same realm of cruelty as did the Penal Laws introduced in the early 18th century after the Glorious Revolution.Posted by on Jun 05, 2007 @ 06:51 PMPart 2.
Have a read of Marcus Tanner’s ‘Ireland’s Holy War’ where you will find a detailed account of the why’s and wherefores of the relative decline in Protestant numbers during that period i.e 1922 to 1970 in ROI.
It is my contention that there was no mass-pogrom of Southern Protestants in the oft-quoted years of 1911-26. I contend that there was already a decline in Southern Protestantism from the late 19th century arising from the Land Acts in particular those of the Salisbury and Balfour govts, which broke up the aristocratic estates and gave loans to Irish tenants to buy out their landlords. This led to mainland British men (and their families) who had previously been sent over by absentee landlords in Britain to run their estates, returning to Britain. This accounts for a decline in the Protestant numbers from 356,000 in 1891 to 326,000 in 1911 (based on Census data). Then there is the Home Rule issue, brought to the fore by the Parliament Act’s removal of the House of Lords veto. This made it clear that Home Rule would pass at some stage. This lead to many more Southern Protestants leaving out of imagined fears of life under Home Rule. These fears had been drilled into them by irresponsible Unionist political leaders like Craig and Carson, evoking memories of wars like 1641 etc. to portray Catholics as enemies with slogans like “Home Rule is Rome Rule”. Then came WW1, partition, and the Boundary Commission. The latter 2 led to Southern Unionists mostly from border areas moving North. This was overwhelmingly simply because they were Unionists and wanted to live in the UK. But in a minority of cases people were driven out. However we were in a war and war isn’t pretty. Most of the previous rebellions in Irish history had been wrecked by informers. We had an election in 1918 which some Northern Unionists still refuse to respect the results of in the sense of them still agreeing with the use of force to suppress an election result with 58 Old SF MPs jailed before the fighting even broke out and before the Dail government and parliament were set up. It was the British that started the WOI not us. Those people, of whatever denomination, who were giving intelligence to the British in Dublin Castle to help subvert the democratically-expressed wishes of the Irish people had created their own harvest when they were targeted by the Old IRA. It was either them or us or else we would not have succeeded in setting up our state. But there was no general targeting of civilians.
During the same period following the setting up of the state the entire British army and the British government administration pulled out of Ireland – mostly, it appears from contemporary news coverage, in an orderly and in some cases a carnival atmosphere – which strongly influenced the religious statistics..The remainder had the choice of staying in the state where they were treated just like everybody else or going northwards where they were guaranteed preferential treatment in jobs,housing
etc..Not surprisingly many took the latter option.(cf Marcus Tanner’s ‘Ireland’s Holy War’ ).The second most powerful politician in the state at this time was a Lisburn Presbyterian ,Ernest Blythe, which does to exactly tie in with the state-sponsored sectarianism model.
I would suggest that most Protestants in the Republic perceive themselves as Irish and feel no need for the patronage of some of their more extreme co-religionists in NI.This would seem to be supported by a recent survey of Protestants in Donegal where most perceive their identity as Irish Protestants.
Certainly the Irish Free State was no paradise for the first 50 years or so of its existence but arguably Protestants fared better economically than Catholics who left in their hundreds of thousands.
However the stability developed during the years following independence was almost unique in western Europe and in recent years the Republic of Ireland is emerging as a prosperous and hopefully more tolerant and mature society.
No Protestant family gets attacked here as happened in NI to a clergyman who wished a Happy Christmas to a Catholic priest and was forced to leave the country.
No Protestant family gets attacked here as happened to the family of Eddie Ervine in the north when he went to live in Dublin.
Irishmen of the Protestant denominations have not abandoned their faith and their country because they ceased to have the support of the English government.Posted by on Jun 05, 2007 @ 06:57 PMPart 3
The decline in numbers of Protestants in the south in the early years had perfectly understandable reasons and has nothing to do with any fear of hostility.
They possess almost the same amount of property which they had when the state was set up.
Though they are less than five per cent of the population they retain 30 per cent of farms over 100 acres and some well known concerns,which were Freemason bailiwicks, did not employ a Catholic in administrative positions until after the second world war, a matter which was only remedied by the emergence of the trade unions.
Two of the first presidents of the state were Protestant.There have been two Protestant deputy Prime Ministers –the first being a Lisburn Presbyterian –Ernest Blythe.Contrast that with the record of the Stormont regime 1921-1971.
In an article in the Irish Times published on 7th September 1996, Dr Garret FitzGerald explains that previously, nobody seemed to examine emigration from the south in religious terms. However he highlights a distorting factor, namely the higher rate of attrition in the early days of the state when life expectancy was not as long as it is now. The number of people dying before reaching their 30s or 40s was as high as 15%, half as great as emigration itself. It’s a lot smaller now, thanks mostly to improvements in medical care, hygeine, nutrition etc.
As for the emigration rate, there was a significantly higher level of emigration by Protestants than by Catholic young people in the pre-war period. Since 1945 this has been reversed, the Protestant emigration rate is now much lower than that of Catholics. Dr FitzGerald continues:
>>"It may be recalled that in this column of November 8th last year, I reported that the latest (1991) census data for religion shows that 40 per cent of Protestants here are engaged in higher-income employments, (viz. administration, management, the major professions, or ownership of large farms) as against 20 per cent of Catholics. It might be helpful if these facts were better known to unionists in Northern Ireland. “
In other words, southern Protestants are actually prospering and doing very well for themselves. There is no evidence of any maltreatment in this day and age.
A former fundamentalist Free Presbyterian, who used to contribute to the talkback board, once went tentatively to Dublin to examine the ‘plight’ of southern Protestants. He found no ‘plight,’ only a group of contented people who were living out their lives in peace.
Here in the Republic no oppression of the Protestant population has occurred similar to that endured by Catholics in NI 1921-1972.. It is offensive to citizens of the State to suggest otherwise. The Republic has been based on equality from top to bottom. Hence, unlike Britain, a Catholic, Protestant, Hindu or Jew is free to seek election to the office of President. However look eastwards to Britain and a totally different state of affairs exist. Under the antiquated Act of Settlement a Catholic cannot inherit the throne. That is but one example of a state not completely purged of sectarianism.. Thankfully we here in the South can say with not just a tad of pride, that since 1920 we have established a State that has made all feel welcome and valued.
Since the early 1960’s the Protestant proportion of the ROI population has been rising and the Catholic proportion falling (Central Statistics Office).Looks like the South is bent on exterminating it’s Catholic population so that the Protestants can take over whatever is left .Since the early 1960’s the Protestant proportion of the ROI population has been rising and the corresponding Protestant proportion in NI falling.Looks like,if you are a Protestant in Ireland,that the ROI is the place to be.Posted by on Jun 05, 2007 @ 06:57 PMEamon,
You are one of those who ‘eventually came to believe it’.Posted by on Jun 05, 2007 @ 07:00 PMObj,
That line about ‘Catholic pulchritude’ made me laugh out loud. I have to thank you too for both your passion and your considerable industry. There’s a lot to chew over.
Notwithstanding Garret’s arguments on the multiple reasons for Protestant outmigration, I would quibble with your assertion that “since 1920 we have established a State that has made all feel welcome and valued. [Emphasis added]”
Simply: how do you know?
PS, the Donegal Protestants I know are quite capable of living happily in both worlds.
Posted by on Jun 05, 2007 @ 09:39 PMAs soon as I can get around to it I´ll try to write a proper reply to Obj.
Posted by on Jun 06, 2007 @ 01:49 AM“The Republic has been based on equality from top to bottom.”
http://www.nccri.ie/travellr.html
“In 1991, the European Parliament Committee of Inquiry on Racism and Xenophobia reported that, in Ireland:
“The single most discriminated against ethnic group is the Travelling People”
. The Committee, referring to Ireland, recommended
“that the only Member State which has not already signed the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, do so as soon as possible.” “
well worth reading the whole document.
“excerpt from a written submission by an Irish MEP to the Committee of Inquiry into Racism and Xenophobia in 1990:
“Ireland is a racially homogeneous country with no ethnic minority groups. As a consequence there are no racial problems of the kind experienced in countries with such groups. Neither is there a large presence of foreigners. . . the position could alter if the influx became sustained. . . there is however a minority group of travelling people giving rise to some of the problems associated with racism.3” “
Posted by on Jun 06, 2007 @ 01:59 AMHow come if Cromwell was so devastating there’s so many Catholics in Drogheda?
Building a 3% population in 800 years isn’t much to write home about in the genocide stakes.
Sort of hit and run holocaust?
“This was certainly very different to the treatment meted out by the winning side in the aftermath of the Elizabethan wars, the Cromwellian period, the Williamite wars and after 1798.
Lucky old 1921 prods.
and er...Peel’s 1800 abolition of the protestant parliament (against Orange Order wishes) followed by catholic emancipation?”
Posted by on Jun 06, 2007 @ 06:07 AMThe website backs up what I have argued in the past in assessing the role of intermarriage in the decline of the Protestant population in the period concerned as well as the exodus sparked by fears over Home Rule after the 1911 Parliament Act. As far as I am concerned, these - and the withdrawal of the British security forces and their families - account for the vast majority of the decline. In any case, the Census of 2002 and especially 2006 have shown a considerable growth in both the numbers and proportion of the population that are Protestant. So it could not be said that a decline is continuing.
Posted by on Jun 06, 2007 @ 07:10 AM““reland is a racially homogeneous country with no ethnic minority groups. As a consequence there are no racial problems of the kind experienced in countries with such groups. Neither is there a large presence of foreigners. . . the position could alter if the influx became sustained. . . there is however a minority group of travelling people giving rise to some of the problems associated with racism.”
LOL There’s no way you could say that in 2006!
Posted by on Jun 06, 2007 @ 07:15 AMNe Temere was not followed by the parents of the Glasnevin Gobshite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bono like many people of the time they just forgot about it unlike people seeking a mope.
Posted by on Jun 06, 2007 @ 08:04 AM“How come if Cromwell was so devastating there’s so many Catholics in Drogheda?”
Drogheda, not being in the Arctic or Sahara, was quite reachable by a lot of people on the island of Ireland. Ever heard of travel? You should try it - might do you good to leave your Protestant enclave and see some of the world.
“and er...Peel’s 1800 abolition of the protestant parliament (against Orange Order wishes) followed by catholic emancipation?”
Typical facetious colonial logic. Kick a guy in the face and then expect him to be grateful when you stop kicking him in the face. Hooray for the bootboys!
Eamon McDonagh,
You make the mistake of assuming that I was justifying the ethnic cleansing of 1920s. I was simply saying that it happened and that such actions always happen in times of conflict, especially when there’s a disparity of wealth. It’s human nature.However, there was no State discrimination of Protestants in the Republic since then as there was against Catholics in the North. Socially the two groups may not have had much dealings with each other but the idea that Protestants were in some way driven out is an outrageous lie.
Posted by on Jun 06, 2007 @ 11:01 AMWhen I was growing up in Waterford in the 60’s and 70’s Protestants had the big houses in the “posh” part of town. They had the good jobs such as doctors , solicitors and banking and the best school in the town was the posh protestant boarding school.
Yea, they were really suffering!!!I wish someone would deprive me of my human rights in that fashion!!
Posted by on Jun 06, 2007 @ 11:26 AM“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
-Joseph Goebbels”“They had the good jobs such as doctors , solicitors and banking and the best school in the town was the posh [enter your despised industrious but still strangely undeserving national minority here] boarding school.”
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 11:28 AMDid I ever say I was resentful of their status useful idiot? I wasn’t. I didn’t give it a second thought. I was busy leading my own life.
You are displaying your own prejudices by your last post.
I don’t know why you are quoting Goebbels here. Are you saying I am lying?
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 12:24 PMLet us not remember the Cathedral that could not have the organ played for around 6 months because the guy who was hired to fix it was the wrong religion.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 12:29 PM1. Ireland’s “human rights” failings is an over the top title for this thread. accepted.
2. People don’t like to feel “different” or resented.
“they had the good jobs” Interesting “the”. No-one else have a job?
“I don’t know why you are quoting Goebbels here. Are you saying I am lying?”
Of course not. Post 24 by Objectivist.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 02:28 PMI reply here,
to various ponts raised in these discussions about my post on “El Nuevo Pantano”
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 04:45 PMGreat response Eamonn.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 05:31 PMUseful idiot
You really read a lot into one word or sentence. OK then, some of the good jobs!
Later in my life I dated one of the “posh” protestant teachers so I couldn’t have resented them as much as you would like to think!
She never once mentioned to me that she had felt deprived of her human rights or that she was treated as different or indeed felt different in any way then other Irish people.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 05:37 PMThe fact that we have had Protestant Presidents and the odd successful Protestant politician is a relevant factor to take in to account. It is not in itself a knock down argument though. You can have an overall situation of discrimination against a specific group yet individual members of that group can still do well.,
That was just one of a myriad of points I made, Eamon, which painted a general picture.
,dismisses the ethnic cleansing that occurred during the War of Independence
Can’t say I completely agreed with his/her posting.However you are using a bit of when-are-you-going-to-stop-beating-your-wife sleight of hand in your phraseology here which presumes ‘ethnic cleansing’ as fact.To be fair I think you are unwittingly passing on a multihandled baton from the Stygian dephths.
Reminds me of the famous anecdote about Lyndon Johnson:
Back in 1948, during his first race for the U.S. Senate, Lyndon Johnson was running about ten points behind, with only nine days to go. He was sunk in despair. He was desperate. And it was just before noon on a Monday, they say, when he called his equally depressed campaign manager and instructed him to call a press conference for just before lunch on a slow news day and accuse his high-riding opponent, a pig farmer, of having routine carnal knowledge of his barnyard sows, despite the pleas of his wife and children.His campaign manager was shocked. “We can’t say that, Lyndon,” he supposedly said. “You know it’s not true.”
“Of course it’s not true!” Johnson barked at him. “But let’s make the bastard deny it!”
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 05:55 PMEl Nuevo Pantanois not as good a pontiff as the present one. His do not stand up.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 06:01 PMyou´ve lost me there owen, whose email address says margaret wilson :=)
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 06:17 PMponts
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 07:09 PM
