The Limits of Liberty

previous user

Has anyone else seen this engrossing documentary on how the rot set in early in Irish society on RTE this evening?
I thought it was well researched and explained alot of why our country is in such a state today, and how our unequal society is totally at odds with the constitution set down at the founding of our republic, very relevant in some ways to whats going on in our society right now.
Anyone else disagree/ agree with this?
Does anybody else who saw this documentary have anything else to say on this subject?

Coillte_Bhoy

previous user wrote: »

Has anyone else seen this engrossing documentary on how the rot set in early in Irish society on RTE this evening?
I thought it was well researched and explained alot of why our country is in such a state today, and how our unequal society is totally at odds with the constitution set down at the founding of our republic, very relevant in some ways to whats going on in our society right now.
Anyone else disagree/ agree with this?
Does anybody else who saw this documentary have anything else to say on this subject?

Only caught glimpses but will watch online soon. Thing is, the 1916 proclamation and the 1919 Democratic Programme were sops to the labour movement. I think, from waht i saw, explained very well that the class that came to power were in fact the embodiment of middle class catholic ireland. To this day the decison by Labour to stand aside in 1918 was a huge mistake but i can see merit in the decision taken at the time. Who was it that said that it was the most conservative successful revoultion in history? All thst changed was the post boxes cahnged from red to green

previous user

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Only caught glimpses but will watch online soon. Thing is, the 1916 proclamation and the 1919 Democratic Programme were sops to the labour movement. I think, from waht i saw, explained very well that the class that came to power were in fact the embodiment of middle class catholic ireland. To this day the decison by Labour to stand aside in 1918 was a huge mistake but i can see merit in the decision taken at the time. Who was it that said that it was the most conservative successful revoultion in history? All thst changed was the post boxes cahnged from red to green

I'm going to watch it again on rte player, it will be interesting to see the next installment next week and when Labour did actually come to power and it's influence in Ireland.

Mahatma coat

any chance of a link, or a bit more info on the program so I can try to find it meself, nothing comin up on google video that looks relevant with that title

bijapos

Mahatma coat wrote: »

any chance of a link, or a bit more info on the program so I can try to find it meself, nothing comin up on google video that looks relevant with that title

This is it here.
http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1074035

Biggins

Great programme last night.
A total education for those that are lost in the politics of the foundation of the state.

Denerick

Dammit, missed it last night. Diarmuid Ferriter is a fine lecturer and a provocative historian. Should be good.

scr123

I find the more of these programmes one sees and the more one reads on the period the less one knows. In fact the question I want answered will never be answered. When it was known that a large part of the country was to become free Sinn Fein were by far the dominant party and we were heading for a one party State. This obviously wasnt a good thing so what decision(s) were made to devise a balanced political system ?

The truth about the period will never be revealed but I for one always find it difficult to pass judgement on those involved . A new State needed stability and I believe the political leaders of the time did very well despite the huge risks

mike65

As Ireland was, Ireland still is.

slackerdude

Wasn't all that impressed on first viewing. Will watch again on RTE player to see if my initial impression was misplaced. I felt that the 1920s period was unfairly glossed over by focussing on Cosgrave's wealth and O'Higgins's conservatism. Much happened in Ireland during the 1920s after the Civil War that hasn't really been researched and I was hoping for some new insights in this programme which I didn't get. An authoritative history of 1920s Ireland still awaits the pen of a suitably gifted writer. Ferriter spoke about FF's great housing initiative when it came to power in 1932 and there's no denying that it built sigificantly more than Cosgrave's government did from 1922 to 1932. The question is why this was the case and that was not properly dealt with in the documentary. Cosgrave was a great campaigner for housing reform while he was a member of Dublin Corporation and it was never explained why he achieved so little in this area when he was in power. I recently came across a massive supplement published by the Irish Times on 21 January 1932 (the 13th anniversary of the first sitting of Dail Eireann) which interestingly chose 1921-1931 as the first decade of independent self-government (the December 1921 Treaty signatures of the British and Irish delegations are featured on the cover) even though it was not until the second week in January that the Provisional Government took office to implement the terms of the Treaty and tackle the vast array of problems facing the new state. I'm not sure whether this supplement has been commented upon by historians but it was very well received by a plethora of local and national newspapers at the time, including de Valera's Irish Press, as providing a useful authoritative overview of Ireland's development as a state between 1922 and 1932 in social, economic and cultural terms. Two months later the government responsible for the achievements outlined in this landmark supplement was replaced by FF.

Coillte_Bhoy

scr123 wrote: »

I find the more of these programmes one sees and the more one reads on the period the less one knows. In fact the question I want answered will never be answered. When it was known that a large part of the country was to become free Sinn Fein were by far the dominant party and we were heading for a one party State. This obviously wasnt a good thing so what decision(s) were made to devise a balanced political system ?

The truth about the period will never be revealed but I for one always find it difficult to pass judgement on those involved . A new State needed stability and I believe the political leaders of the time did very well despite the huge risks

Sorry but i really dont understand what you are trying to say. When exactly were we a one party state????

Deep Easterly

previous user wrote: »

Does anybody else who saw this documentary have anything else to say on this subject?

Yep, I watched it the other night and was enthralled. Ireland and its dirty little secrets, then, as is now. What I found very interesting was how the poor were treated with the same disregard as they are today. The question was asked, was the British regime any more oppressive towards the most destitute in Irish society than the 'free' Irish state was?

Ash.J.Williams

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Yep, I watched it the other night and was enthralled. Ireland and its dirty little secrets, then, as is now. What I found very interesting was how the poor were treated with the same disregard as they are today. The question was asked, was the British regime any more oppressive towards the most destitute in Irish society than the 'free' Irish state was?

That is the big question...I just cannot get my head around how, the tanks and guns of the british ended up being used by the Irish against ourselves. I know it probably makes sense economically and the the Irish were told to sort it out or the British will come back and sort it themselves...but man that was disgusting to watch.... I don't know anything about how corrupt the British were, but i doubt they were any worse than our lot.
Another image from the show that shocked me to the core was the smiling, smug faces on the church celebrating their Catholic state, they really did look like the cats who got the cream....state of them in their "fancy dress" reminded me of monty pythons Spanish inquisition....I can only imagine how scary they looked to the poor kids of ireland who they went on to abuse in those workhouses.....

yea another thing .....workhouses....an appalling legacy form our colonial past, that we irish actually reintroduced to get rid of our poor.....shocking. Ireland has (well pre celtic tiger anyway) the best people in the world, but man has our government been rotton from the beginning....

Denerick

To be fair, the workhouses are the single most mis-represented institution in history. You have to place them in the context of the time when they were introduced. Before it there was little or no social safety net. The workhouse was very unpopular, and O'Connell campaigned against its earlier forms (That and the Poor Laws) but it was better than death. (Maybe just about!)

steelcityblues

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

That is the big question...I just cannot get my head around how, the tanks and guns of the british ended up being used by the Irish against ourselves. I know it probably makes sense economically and the the Irish were told to sort it out or the British will come back and sort it themselves...but man that was disgusting to watch.... I don't know anything about how corrupt the British were, but i doubt they were any worse than our lot.
Another image from the show that shocked me to the core was the smiling, smug faces on the church celebrating their Catholic state, they really did look like the cats who got the cream....state of them in their "fancy dress" reminded me of monty pythons Spanish inquisition....I can only imagine how scary they looked to the poor kids of ireland who they went on to abuse in those workhouses.....

yea another thing .....workhouses....an appalling legacy form our colonial past, that we irish actually reintroduced to get rid of our poor.....shocking. Ireland has (well pre celtic tiger anyway) the best people in the world, but man has our government been rotton from the beginning....

I don't like Michael Moore in general, but I remember a quote from him in an interview at the time of Bowling for Columbine was released saying that the biggest enemy to ordinary Irish people in recent times was the 'official' classes of Ireland, rather than the Brits, Americans, etc.

He was quite accurate!

trapsagenius

Didn't see this yet, really looking forward to the podcast. Ferriter is a very, very good historian.

ronan0

trapsagenius wrote: »

Didn't see this yet, really looking forward to the podcast. Ferriter is a very, very good historian.

+1

premierlass

Never had anything against Diarmiud Ferriter as a historian before, but I found the basic premise very odd. Why was he holding up the Democratic Programme of the First Dail as the gold standard when his position as a historian is that the acceptance of the treaty was good and justified? If that is your position, then you accept the destruction of the Democratic programme and, essentially, the continuance of the same social, economic and political system with some administrative changes.

There was an uphill task for anyone whose aim was to effect change. They should of course have done a hell of a lot better in very fundamental ways, but the question I would ask is, why was it the prudent thing to accept something which locked the country into the same imperialist, graded social system? Why complain about the results and approve the thing that made it almost inevitable?

Ferriter also says that the move towards personal rights from the 1960s on opposed the agenda of the post-Civil War generation. This ignores the very obvious point that during the 60s Judge Cearbhall O Dalaigh was the first judge to enforce the Constitutional human rights provisions. This was a hugely important innovation. Laws banning birth control were later ruled unconstitutional, for example. Laws by which children were taken from their families and institutionalised were unconstitutional; judges just refused to regard Constitutional law before O Dalaigh.

I'm very uncomfortable with Ferriter's position on this, which appears to be a subtle affirmation of the current agenda that the whole Irish political system (including the Constitution) needs to be abolished. I don't see this prevailing agenda as a concern for the general welfare. I don't think it reflects his work as historian all that much either.

Ash.J.Williams

I could not believe the clip of the late late show last night!! The gay rights part of the program. Where did that guy come from talking about "we can't have men going around preocupied with other mens back passages!!"
The poor gay fella sitting there stunned....

Pittens

Much happened in Ireland during the 1920s after the Civil War that hasn't really been researched and I was hoping for some new insights in this programme which I didn't get

There was a massive land reform program, similar to the reforms by Chavez now for instance - considered far left. And a large program of housing development - a lot of social housing is from that time.

ferriter is the kind of guy who thinks that revolutions have to be marxist, or instantaneous ( you hear similar criticisms of the ANC).

Irish people wanted what they got, and by and large got what they wanted - a capitalist society with large safety nets. Thats the way it is going to stay.

Denerick

Pittens wrote: »

There was a massive land reform program, similar to the reforms by Chavez now for instance - considered far left. And a large program of housing development - a lot of social housing is from that time.

ferriter is the kind of guy who thinks that revolutions have to be marxist, or instantaneous ( you hear similar criticisms of the ANC).

Irish people wanted what they got, and by and large got what they wanted - a capitalist society with large safety nets. Thats the way it is going to stay.

I don't think so. And Ferriter is not a Marxist historian. There was a prevailing view that the Irish Revolution was essentially a transfer of political power to the Catholic Middle Class - ie, a bourgeouis Republic. Tom Garvin even went so far as to say that the only reason the 1916 Rising happened was because Catholics could go no further in the body politic!

Furthermore, Devs little Ireland (Self sufficiency, respectability, Church + State) was essentially a Catholic Parliamentary Democracy, much more so than Cosgraves Free State.

Spacedog

premierlass wrote: »

Ferriter also says that the move towards personal rights from the 1960s on opposed the agenda of the post-Civil War generation. This ignores the very obvious point that during the 60s Judge Cearbhall O Dalaigh was the first judge to enforce the Constitutional human rights provisions. This was a hugely important innovation. Laws banning birth control were later ruled unconstitutional, for example. Laws by which children were taken from their families and institutionalised were unconstitutional; judges just refused to regard Constitutional law before O Dalaigh.

That was in third episode.

Pittens

Tom Garvin even went so far as to say that the only reason the 1916 Rising happened was because Catholics could go no further in the body politic!

That would be reason enough, particularly if the reason they couldn't get further was discrimination ( as in Northern Ireland). However, it ignores the working class input into Irish nationalism, although - of course - a significant number of the descendants of the then irish working class are middle class now.

The Irish State was revolutionary enough - transferring power to the "native" classes, building social housing, land reform, and even self sufficiency. That is a derided ideology now, of course, but Ireland had historical reasons for self sufficiency in food. DeVelera's ideology of creating your own stuff, and removing yourself from then global capitalism - effectively the British Empire - seems radical enough to me, if misguided.

Its a wonder the Greens dont love it. The idea has not gone away ( you know), most green and many left wing pamphlets praise self sufficiency as the way to save the planet. We were certainly not just green ( nationalistic) but green ( in carbon footprint). We may be again.

Autarky is common enough when small nations cast of the larger. It is nevertheless radical. Misguided, but radical.

And obviously we later cast that off Autarky. That was a radical departure from the radical departure. Back to capitalism and globalisation, but not- now - the British Empire.

I am not sure what Ferriter wanted, or which of these policies he despises, since they are in opposition. In general the academic classes invent bogeymen ( the "MiddleClasses") and if these classes change, or change their nature, or allow in hundreds of thousands of working class people you can still say that society is run for the "middle classes". The definition is so loose that it cant be countered; any free society will have winners and losers. Declare the winners a permanent class - even if they are not - and your theory that "things never change" is unfalsifiable even if things change very much, even if a small farmer in 1930 has nothing in common with the Project Manager in 2010. So Ferriter may not be a marxist but he drinks from the same unfalsifiable well.

Denerick

Pittens wrote: »

That would be reason enough, particularly if the reason they couldn't get further was discrimination ( as in Northern Ireland). However, it ignores the working class input into Irish nationalism, although - of course - a significant number of the descendants of the then irish working class are middle class now.

Liam Mellows barely had a word in in the revolutionary movement. (And was eventually shot) Seán O Casy abandoned every aspect of Gaelic nationalism other than the Gaelicisation of his name. The Irish revolution as a working class movement is often overstated, though you may still get the occasional historian backing the claim (Back in the day it was Desmond Greaves, now you have Conor Kostick - a medieval historian - towing that line)

The Irish State was revolutionary enough - transferring power to the "native" classes, building social housing, land reform, and even self sufficiency. That is a derided ideology now, of course, but Ireland had historical reasons for self sufficiency in food. DeVelera's ideology of creating your own stuff, and removing yourself from then global capitalism - effectively the British Empire - seems radical enough to me, if misguided.

'Native classes'? Most of the land had been transferred to the Irish peasant by the first decade of the 20th century. Those 'non native' classes (IE, Protestants, to which you allude) were only a fragment of their former selves, almost completely without political power once independence was achieved. And as many as a quarter of them were hounded out of Ireland in the years following the Treaty. Honestly, one would think this nonsense of 'native' and 'non native' would have died out with the romantic nationalism of the 19th century. Alas, it is a curse that still afflicts this nation.

Its a wonder the Greens dont love it. The idea has not gone away ( you know), most green and many left wing pamphlets praise self sufficiency as the way to save the planet. We were certainly not just green ( nationalistic) but green ( in carbon footprint). We may be again.

Self sufficiency is not a viable economic or political objective - but then again, I am partial to free trade, so I'm hardly without bias.

I am not sure what Ferriter wanted, or which of these policies he despises, since they are in opposition. In general the academic classes invent bogeymen ( the "MiddleClasses") and if these classes change, or change their nature, or allow in hundreds of thousands of working class people you can still say that society is run for the "middle classes". The definition is so loose that it cant be countered; any free society will have winners and losers. Declare the winners a permanent class - even if they are not - and your theory that "things never change" is unfalsifiable even if things change very much, even if a small farmer in 1930 has nothing in common with the Project Manager in 2010. So Ferriter may not be a marxist but he drinks from the same unfalsifiable well.

I think you may misunderstand the fundamental point. Ferriter and his kind do not compare a well of 1930s farmer with the modern day Lawyer or Doctor. The middle classes is a rather arbitrary term, but the underlying concept is based around the notion that political power rests in the control of the 'respectable classes', and not, as either yourself or O'Casy seem to advocate, a transfer to the masses...

If you want my opinion, I think the new Irish State did pretty well under the circumstances. The likes of O'Casy were radical and in step with the movement towards international socialism, so his dreams and expectations were always fraught with a certain air of totalitarianism. But I don't believe O'Casy was wrong, and I think Ferriter's thesis is sound. Whether you think it is right for him to class the middle classes as some large bogeyman is besides the point. Its a short hand term to illustrate that a small and cosy elite of respectibles collected political power within a very small circle - IE, a ruling class will always form, we just had the bad luck that that ruling class happened to be Catholic and Conservative.