IRA burnt Protestant orphanages

troubleshooter

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0727/1224251382252.html



In the House of Lords last night Lord Carson asked the Government whether two orphanages in the county of Galway had recently been looted and burned to the ground by Sinn Féiners, and whether the Admiralty sent ships, which brought to England the staff and 33 boys and 25 girls; what had become of these children, and how they were to be provided for in the future.

He said that this particular outrage was one of the very worst of the many hundreds that had been sent to him within the past two months. His information was that last month some Sinn Féiners called at the orphanage, and demanded deliverance of six boys, who were, in the language of Sinn Féin, to be “done in”. By a subterfuge they were got out of the country by the matron.

A few days later the Sinn Féiners went again to the orphanage, and asked for a particular boy, that he might be brought out and shot. They then went to the master, and told him to clear out. They then went to the diningroom, and asked for the boy in charge. The eldest boy stood up. The boys were paraded, and some who were working in the fields were rounded up. The master and the boys were taken away to different parts of the premises.

The matron showed great courage. She pleaded to the men to spare the lives of the boys, and asked for a guarantee for their safety. Surrounded by these fully armed barbarians she asked why this was being done, and the answer was – because the boys were being taught loyalty to England, and the orphanage had sent many of the boys into the great war. The whole place was then burnt to the ground, and 33 boys and 25 girls were left absolutely stranded. Fortunately the founder’s daughter was in England at the time, and through her interposition the Admiralty send a destroyer round to Galway to take away the staff and children.

He wanted to know what was to be the future of these children. Did the Government who had abandoned them hold themselves responsible for their future, or would they be treated like all the loyalists and Protestants in the south and west of Ireland – as outcasts. This was only one of many instances. Further, he wanted to know how long was this to go on. (Hear, hear.) Was there to be any limit to it at all? Did the Government really mean to stand by until the loyalists of Ireland had been blotted out – because that was what it was coming to . . .

The Earl of Crawford, for the Government, regretted that the statement contained in the question was correct. These orphanages contained 33 boys and 25 girls, with a staff, all Protestants. At the beginning of July the orphanage was attacked by the IRA and burned to the ground, and the house in which the girls were accommodated was similarly destroyed. The refugees were brought to London, and accommodation was found for them. The Irish Distress Committee was in constant communication with the treasurer of the orphanages, and it was hoped that arrangements would be made for the future accommodation and welfare of these children at an early date.

Judgement Day

Sure your name wouldn't be better as sh..tstirrer rather than troubleshooter? What is the point of posting ancient history like this to set people at each others throats?

brianthebard

Op what is the purpose of this thread? Unless you can find some real evidence other than Carson's accusations then I will be locking this thread. Mod.

Anatomy Boy

Well I don't see why McArmalite can bring up topics about the popularity of the 1916 Rebellion (comment removed by author), yet you have a problem with this topic.

As for evidence; The Hansard Records prove it
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1922/jul/04/clifden-protestant-orphan-age-destruction

troubleshooter

Judgement Day wrote: »

Sure your name wouldn't be better as sh..tstirrer rather than troubleshooter? What is the point of posting ancient history like this to set people at each others throats?

So you dont like history when it shows up Irish republicans, you would just prefer threads on bloody sunday, "the burning of cork" etc, hey ?

getz

the protestant history in ireland has never been told,as to be expected as the catholic church with vatican blessing had control of the new ireland .so you were only ever told the good bits that suited their ideals.

troubleshooter

brianthebard wrote: »

Op what is the purpose of this thread? Unless you can find some real evidence other than Carson's accusations then I will be locking this thread. Mod.

Oh so when a thread on a wrong done to protestants gets posted the thread gets locked :rolleyes:

Morlar

troubleshooter wrote: »

Oh so when a thread on a wrong done to protestants gets posted the thread gets locked :rolleyes

What exactly is your point with this thread? You have posted an article quoted without giving any opinion on it yourself.

getz

i wonder what ever happened to those young irish children, did they have to grow up in a foreign country ?

troubleshooter

Morlar wrote: »

What exactly is your point with this thread? You have posted an article quoted without giving any opinion on it yourself.

What do you mean what is the point of this thread, its the history section ffs, where does it say no threads allowed which show republican history in a bad light ?

Brit bashing threads only ?

Judgement Day

troubleshooter wrote: »

So you dont like history when it shows up Irish republicans, you would just prefer threads on bloody sunday, "the burning of cork" etc, hey ?

For your information I am a Protestant, a Unionist (in the best sense of the word) and I have lived quite happily in the Republic for most of my 50 years and I see little point in you trying to whip up sectarianism where none exists. Get yourself a new hobby or, better still, a life! I have no time for McArmalite either!

troubleshooter

Judgement Day wrote: »

For your information I am a Protestant, a Unionist (in the best sense of the word) and I have lived quite happily in the Republic for most of my 50 years and I see little point in you trying to whip up sectarianism where none exists. Get yourself a new hobby or, better still, a life! I have no time for McArmalite either!

Stay off the thread then, no one is whipping up sectarinaism, its a legimiate part of history few know of.

Morlar

What exactly is your point with this thread? You have posted an article quoted without giving any opinion on it yourself.

troubleshooter wrote: »

What do you mean what is the point of this thread, its the history section ffs, where does it say no threads allowed which show republican history in a bad light ?

Brit bashing threads only ?

Were those questions in your post there real or were you just being juvenile ?

Normally when people post a link to a newspaper article they are expected to add some comments of their OWN ie what exactly they think of the article or story in question.

It's not normally a platform for regurgitating things you agree with verbatim without adding any comment/view of your own.

MarchDub

Anatomy Boy wrote: »

Well I don't see why McArmalite can bring up topics about the popularity of the 1916 Rebellion and MarchDub the burning of Cork, yet you have a problem with this topic.

Excuse me here - I did not "Bring up" the subject of the burning of Cork. In fact, the thread was a few days old before I even joined in. If you are going to bring "evidence" forward to support whatever it is you are doing here then please be accurate.

brianthebard

Anatomy Boy wrote: »

Well I don't see why McArmalite can bring up topics about the popularity of the 1916 Rebellion and MarchDub the burning of Cork, yet you have a problem with this topic.

As for evidence; The Hansard Records prove it
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1922/jul/04/clifden-protestant-orphan-age-destruction

Its not the topic its the post and the manner its presented. As for evidence the parliamentary paper is just the same as what the op posted, do you have any evidence from a newspaper or other record?

troubleshooter wrote: »

So you dont like history when it shows up Irish republicans, you would just prefer threads on bloody sunday, "the burning of cork" etc, hey ?

troubleshooter wrote: »

Oh so when a thread on a wrong done to protestants gets posted the thread gets locked :rolleyes:

It has nothing to do with religion. Your post was not an opinion or a question but a statement designed to cause trouble. Please do not question mod decisions in thread, this is a general rule of boards. If you provide a reasonable purpose for the thread it will remain open otherwise I will be locking it. Its up to you to decide whether or not it is a legitimate thread or not.

troubleshooter

Your biased moderation is a disgrace, especially the infraction/warning just sent for asking a poster who broke forum rules by name calling to stay off the thread, your attitude says alot more about you then me posting this thread does, Goodbye, LOL.

Anatomy Boy

Firstly MarchDub, I do apologise, I saw your name alonside the thread and read it as the proposer of the thread rather than a contributor, stupidity on my part.

Back to the topic at hand! Yes, perhaps troubleshooter should have given their opinion on the topic, but there is no defining rule to say he must.

Children from Protestant orphanages near Clifden, Co Galway had to be rescued by the British navy when their orphanage was burned by the IRA in July 1922. The attack was ostensibly because of the past use of the Union Jack and other pro-British displays by the resident boy scouts troop.34 However, a history of proselytising by the Irish Church Missions, who operated the orphanages, is likely to have been a factor.
(http://www.drb.ie/more_details/09-03-27/getting_them_out.aspx)
Article; Getting them Out

British spies and Irish rebels: British intelligence and Ireland, 1916-1945
By Paul McMahon Pg 85; viewable online

And again I say Hansard!

Morlar

That is an interesting article. This part here caught my eye and may provide more balance to this thread ;

Measured against the scale of other ethnic conflicts then and since, including that in Northern Ireland, the toll – not much more than a hundred shot, some thousands fleeing – can be viewed as modest. But it was from within a small population base and probably only a minority of the minority were terrorised. Remoteness, and Daniel Corkery’s trinity of "nationality, religion and land" were the lethal ingredients. Although the threat was widespread it was neither universal nor uniform. There is little evidence of Protestants in Dublin or in other large urban centres, with the possible exception of Cork, being troubled to any significant degree. Most urban middle class Protestants continued to prosper, although Dublin working class unionism, which a decade earlier could organise impressive demonstrations, disappeared as a political force.

pwd

The display of flags has always been controversial in the college, particularly in the wake of the Allied victory in World War II in 1945. Students hung out Allied flags to celebrate but this enraged Charlie Haughey who was then a UCD student. He set fire to a Union Jack outside the college, prompting a minor riot.

http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/students-call-on-tcd-to-fly-the-flag-every-day-61809.html

In relation to the thread - I agree that there are double-standards about this sort of thing. Not specifically on this forum [I don't look at it enough to be able to comment one way or another], but in general.
It reminds me of seeing a tricolour with the orange torn off flying publically every day in a town in the west of Ireland - apparently this was completely acceptable - people who certainly would have considered themselves Nationalist defiling their National flag and turning it from a symbol of peace into a symbol of bigotry. The Union Jack is a symbol of imperialism and bigotry to a lot of people, but in the context presented above, that's not what it was being used for.
I think this sort of stuff should be moved on from, on both sides. There shouldn't be different sides any more in the Republic. At a fundamental level it's supposed to be united state. This sort of stuff stirs up anger, division and bigotry. Catholics might feel like they're in the right and justified because historically they were mainly the ones being oppressed. Protestants might feel like they're inthe right because they're much more likely to be subjected to prejudice or be treated unfairly in the here and now. Neither side is right. When you allow anger or other negative feelings about specific people or specific actions to become generalised into bigotry, then you're wrong.

MarchDub

pwd wrote: »

I think this sort of stuff should be moved on from, on both sides. There shouldn't be different sides any more in the Republic. At a fundamental level it's supposed to be united state. This sort of stuff stirs up anger, division and bigotry. Catholics might feel like they're in the right and justified because historically they were mainly the ones being oppressed. Protestants might feel like they're inthe right because they're much more likely to be subjected to prejudice or be treated unfairly in the here and now. Neither side is right. When you allow anger or other negative feelings about specific people or specific actions to become generalised into bigotry, then you're wrong.

The problem I have with this is that this is a HISTORY forum. We discuss history here. Your advice to "move on" may be appropriate to other topics but hardly seems to apply on a forum which is centred around historiography. I also would remind you that there are lessons to be learned from history no matter how unpalatable it might be to look at certain events.

Would you seriously sit in a history class and ask the instructor what is the point in dragging up the past?

pwd

MarchDub wrote: »

The problem I have with this is that this is a HISTORY forum. We discuss history here. Your advice to "move on" may be appropriate to other topics but hardly seems to apply on a forum which is centred around historiography. I also would remind you that there are lessons to be learned from history no matter how unpalatable it might be to look at certain events.

Would you seriously sit in a history class and ask the instructor what is the point in dragging up the past?

Things like this need to be in the proper context. Presented in isolation, I'm not sure what can be learnt from something like this, except possibly that you should feel angry.

Generally this sort of thing is presented in a very one-sided manner. Presenting things in such a way doesn't really educate: It imbues information, but it doesn't imbue knowledge. It encourages people to close their minds and get angry. All they learn is misguided justification to repeat the very same mistakes again and again.

MarchDub

pwd wrote: »

Things like this need to be in the proper context. Presented in isolation, I'm not sure what can be learnt from something like this, except possibly that you should feel angry.

Generally this sort of thing is presented in a very one-sided manner. Presenting things in such a way doesn't really educate: It imbues information, but it doesn't imbue knowledge. It encourages people to close their minds and get angry. All they learn is misguided justification to repeat the very same mistakes again and again.

I agree with you as regards this particular thread - I don't like the thread title and think it was meant to be emotive and little else. I think that the OP has actually cried off without adding any substance to the discussion at all but just hurled insults at the moderator when cornered.