Irish Social revolution 1917-1923

brianthebard

I'd never heard of this before this mornings lecture, apparently it gets glossed over/plain forgotten by a lot of historians who wish to focus on the more obvious political aspects of the period. Has anyone here read or studied this part of Irish history and what can you tell me about it?

csk

Did the social revolution not occur earlier with the Land Acts etc. I know my lecturer used to say that the so-called Irish Revolution was strange in that the social aspect of the Revolution was over long before the The Rising and all that.

But yes I do think that social, cultural and economic history does tend to get ignored or at least did in the past.

brianthebard

Well this would have been happening at the same time as some of the later land acts. Although the politics in Irish history are always more emphasised I never thought that social history was being ignored until this term popped up which seems completely new to me. Maybe it was the hangover but I couldn't remember hearing about it before.

csk

I should have said the social aspect of the revolution began long before 1917, the first Land Act was 1870 iirc.

Yes it did tend to get glossed over but I believe in recent years there has been attempts by people to reasearch social aspects of history a lot more.

Shutuplaura

Would the land acts be considered social history? I would have thought that was more political/economic - the Land League movement etc.

brianthebard

Well I know they start off as a political thing but their impact is definitely social history imo, it allowed tenant farmers to get a foot in on the property market for the first time ever, caused a lot of change in the country. It's not somethign I've studied much of so I'm open to correction but they definitely have a big social impact. They also allow tenants to bring Landlords to a fair rent court to review rent, which almost always led to rent being reduced for the tenant and fixed for the next fifteen years. All of these things are economic changes but they feed easily into social history.

TerrorFirmer

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2279/is_n155/ai_19734147

Might be of interest to you. I'd imagine what you're referring to is what began with Sinn Fein, the attempts of introducing conscription in Ireland, and the end of popular support for Home Rule.

Edit: Political mainly obviously but tied in closely with it, sorry that was what I was hinting at.

Shutuplaura

Out of interest what areas did your lecture touch on?

brianthebard

Basically what I outlined above. Didn't go into it much, just said there had been a social revolution that tends to get glossed over by historians. It wasn't my regular lecturer and he seemed a bit all over the place, didn't get an awful lot out of it.

#15

csk wrote:

I know my lecturer used to say that the so-called Irish Revolution was strange in that the social aspect of the Revolution was over long before the The Rising and all that.

^^^^
Prof. Michael Laffan in UCD, by any chance?

Dontico

Not sure what you are talking about. Labour, james conolly and people of that ilk?
Didnt he say something like, if Ireland still isnt a socialist country when independant we'll be ruled by the crown?

Shutuplaura

Ernie o'Malley in his books on the period talked a bit about the effects the revolution had on peoples outlooks and attiudes. He talks about how younger people in families started asserting themeslves in front of their elders and no longer took authority figures powers for granted. Think he also mentions how women involved in the struggle started to expect equality and that sort of thing. Perhaps that is the sort of thing your lecturer meant.

brianthebard

Yeah that sounds a bit like it all right. I'd look into it, but tbh its only a small part of the course and I have much to study at the minute!

katarin

Diarmaid Ferriter's book ''THe Transformation of Ireland 1900-2000'' does a section on 1918-23, it's a fairly recent book so it addresses the social aspect of the period. The politics of the period would naturally dominate any historiography though : it permeated all aspects of life, so that could be seen as social history enough for most historians.

brianthebard

That's a fair point I think there is a tendency to think that the country (or any country in the middle of military turmoil) grinds to a halt in anything that is not directly related to the war effort. If I get a chance I'll check that book out over the summer, even though I'm sure the wars of the period fed into social history I imagine there would be more to it than that, considering global events and events in Ireland leading up to it. Thanks for the info.

Little_Korean

Shutuplaura wrote: »

Ernie o'Malley in his books on the period talked a bit about the effects the revolution had on peoples outlooks and attiudes. He talks about how younger people in families started asserting themeslves in front of their elders and no longer took authority figures powers for granted. Think he also mentions how women involved in the struggle started to expect equality and that sort of thing. Perhaps that is the sort of thing your lecturer meant.

Strange, if true, considering the type of society the Free State/Republic ended up as.

Reekwind

Conor Kostick's Revolution in Ireland: Popular Militancy 1917 to 1923 sounds right up your street. Gives a very solid introduction to the real labour unrest that both Nationalists and Unionists faced in the years

That this generally gets glossed over in histories (traditionally, at least) is largely because it doesn't fit into the state's 'creation myth' of a unified Irish-Ireland fighting British oppression. Even at the time this was a very strong narrative that contributed to Labour's abysmal failure to provide an alternative to Sinn Fein

Jolly Red Giant

The period from 1917-1923 were known at the time as the 'red flag' years. There was widespread social unrest outside the control of and seperate from the nationalist movement (indeed the nationalist movement did its level best to sabotage it) and the potential for socialist revolution existed in ireland during this period. The main focus of this social upheaval was around the ITGWU and in particular its rank-and-file organised by left-wing and Marxist industrial organisers. The period saw dozens, if not hundreds of local and workplace soviets, organised 'red guards' patrolling the streets at different times and significant levels of support for left-wing candidates in elections. However, as a syndicalist trade union, the main focus of the ITGWU industrial organisers was the building of a major trade union movement capable of overthrowing capitalism.

And yes - the history of the 'red flag' years was and has been conveniently swept under the carpet.

(Kostick's book - while a decent introduction - does, in my opinion, contain factual errors, over-emphasises some aspects of the movement and under-emphasises others. Labour historiography has moved on significantly since it was written.)

jonniebgood1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The period from 1917-1923 were known at the time as the 'red flag' years. There was widespread social unrest outside the control of and seperate from the nationalist movement (indeed the nationalist movement did its level best to sabotage it) and the potential for socialist revolution existed in ireland during this period. The main focus of this social upheaval was around the ITGWU and in particular its rank-and-file organised by left-wing and Marxist industrial organisers. The period saw dozens, if not hundreds of local and workplace soviets, organised 'red guards' patrolling the streets at different times and significant levels of support for left-wing candidates in elections. However, as a syndicalist trade union, the main focus of the ITGWU industrial organisers was the building of a major trade union movement capable of overthrowing capitalism.

And yes - the history of the 'red flag' years was and has been conveniently swept under the carpet.

(Kostick's book - while a decent introduction - does, in my opinion, contain factual errors, over-emphasises some aspects of the movement and under-emphasises others. Labour historiography has moved on significantly since it was written.)

Notwithstanding the quoted post I believe the context of this thread was originally the 'social change' as opposed to the 'socialist change', as in a change of peoples attitudes and roles in society.

Jolly Red Giant

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Notwithstanding the quoted post I believe the context of this thread was originally the 'social change' as opposed to the 'socialist change', as in a change of peoples attitudes and roles in society.

The social revolution was inextricably linked to the potential for socialist revolution and the growing radicalisation of the Irish working class. Just as the nationalist movement attempted to suppress the socialist movement - they attempted (and eventually succeeded) in suppressing the social movement. Ireland in the 1920s had one of the most conservative, reactionary, semi-dictatorial regimes on the planet - that was only surpassed by the emergence of most of the fascist regimes of the 1930s.

Smiles35

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Ireland in the 1920s had one of the most conservative, reactionary, semi-dictatorial regimes on the planet - that was only surpassed by the emergence of most of the fascist regimes of the 1930s.

No, no. At the end of WW1 the germans sent bands of returned soilders around their own citys after these movements. A law unto themselves. Shocking stuff. At least it shocked me.

Jolly Red Giant

Smell Badda wrote: »

No, no. At the end of WW1 the germans sent bands of returned soilders around their own citys after these movements. A law unto themselves. Shocking stuff. At least it shocked me.

The Free Staters established the Special Infantry Corps in late 1922 whose job it was to go around intimidating, beating up, arresting and torturing trade union activists and busting strikes. There were particularly vicious during a strike by farm labourers in Waterford and East Cork. There were also noted for robbing whatever they could lay their hands on from striking workers - including trade union strike pay.

robp

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The social revolution was inextricably linked to the potential for socialist revolution and the growing radicalisation of the Irish working class. Just as the nationalist movement attempted to suppress the socialist movement - they attempted (and eventually succeeded) in suppressing the social movement. Ireland in the 1920s had one of the most conservative, reactionary, semi-dictatorial regimes on the planet - that was only surpassed by the emergence of most of the fascist regimes of the 1930s.

Sounds like extreme hyperbole to me. What is the consensus amongst historians?

Historybluff

Here's a few books that might prove enlightening on the subject of social and industrial unrest in Ireland in the period 1917-1923:

• Fergus Campbell, Land and Revolution: Nationalist Politics in the West of Ireland 1891-1921 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)
• The relevant chapter in David Fitzpatrick, Politics and Irish Life 1913-1921: The Provincial Experience of War and Revolution (Cork: Cork University Press, 1998 edition)
• Emmet O'Connor, Syndicalism in Ireland, 1917-1923 (Cork: Cork University Press, 1988)
• The relevant chapter in Emmet O'Connor, A Labour History of Ireland 1824-2000 (Dublin: University College Dublin Press, 2011 edition).

brennan1979

robp wrote: »

Sounds like extreme hyperbole to me. What is the consensus amongst historians?

One of the major problems with Irish historiography is the consensus of historians. Out of all the books and articles that deal with the War of Independence / Civil War period the number of works that actually mention, let alone deal in detail with, the social movements in Ireland at the time are few and far between. It's unbelievable that you could write a detailed work on the period while leaving out the labour movement, the Limerick Soviet, the postal strike, the rise in union militancy and demands for land.

Read some of Kevin O'Higgins reports to the cabinet in the wake of the Civil War. JRG has already mentioned the Special Infantry Corps. How can you have a history of the Civil War and not mention the role of the Free State Army in suppressing the urban and rural workers' movements throughout the country?