Irish Recessions - Then & Now

swampgas

From a Corkonian perspective, the 70's and 80's was a time when "traditional" industries were on the way out. Dunlop and Ford shut their doors, and Irish Steel were discovering that without cheap electricity they were never going to compete internationally. Verolme dockyard was another casualty - Ireland couldn't compete in the global ship-building market. The transition to an economy more heavily based based on Pharma/IT/Finance took quite a few years and left many older men effectively unemployable.

The prospects for recovery in Ireland are much better now than they were in the 80's, but competitiveness is key. IMO the government could do much more to improve education - the next generation will be competing in science, IT and technology with the rest of the world, and the rest of the world isn't hanging about.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manach

Permabear however does not mention how much that social liberal change was not as a result of grass roots support, instead it was imposed by an elite wish to be closer to European levels and as well imposed by membership of EU and ECHR.
The imposition of the legislation of homosexuality was as a result of the Norris decision in Europe. Divorce was only passed on the second time around, and that was with the support of what it retrospective illegal Government spending on behalf of the Yes campaign.
What might be called parochial values were conservative traditional virtues of an excellent education provided at low cost by Church resources and a social care model a of network of dispensaries that provided a level of care to the poorest members of society.
Today we are burdened by a historically over-large state sector that seeks to expand its control over economic, social, proprietorial sectors which is the now dominant stakeholder in Irish society. Initiatives such as the property tax seek to institutise a tithe that will allow the State to better follow the European norm instead of the alternative US model which does mix conservative social values with a free marker economy.

later12

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But I wonder if that did not have more to do with the public consistently electing socially conservative, traditionalist politicians with more direct dominion over their lives than had been the case with absentee MPs at Westminster. Not only were Irish politicians now stationed at Dublin, there were a lot more of them, with a direct mandate to oversee Irish policy and institutions without having to worry much about outsiders.

So I'm not sure that one can directly ascribe responsibility for the rise in conservatism to the voluntarily supported Roman Catholic church.

The alliance between the Fianna Fáil of De Valera (a man deeply and trenchantly opposed to modernity and liberalism in all its forms) and the Catholic Church quickly saw legislative prohibitions on many freedoms that the Irish had previously enjoyed under British rule. Over the ensuing decades, Irish people were banned from using contraceptives. Many books that had been freely available under British rule were banned, as Ireland suffered a regime of censorship that Robert Graves in 1950 described as "the fiercest ... this side of the Iron Curtain." The school curriculum became overwhelmingly dominated by religion and Irish. Female civil servants came to face statutory retirement upon marriage.

Again, nobody doubts that the conservatism outlined existed. Nobody denies who implemented it. Ireland was a very conservative place in 1930 and 1950 and 1970 and so it is today, as well.

However, what I feel you are trying to say, and what I responded to, is this issue of the RC Church 'dictating' social policy. That is very questionable. What I am questioning is whether or not Irish people were not the ones very keenly dictating the popularity of the RC Church and essentially ranking their political choices in order of the most absurd levels of social conservatism.

It seems to me that throughout the 20th century, there was always a spark of resistance to conservatism, this is certainly evident in Irish media. However, that spark seems never to have been taken up and made into something more reformative, and perhaps the desire was never there to do so. I wouldn't be so quick to blame all of this on the diktats of a religious institution who was totally dependent on a public who apparently gladly propped it up, and does so to an extent today too.

When Irish people look back on society in 50 years time, what vehicle will they find to blame socially conservative laws on marriage, divorce and abortion legislation, without implicating us, their ancestors who are actually responsible? I think they will simply come to the ultimate conclusion that Irish people were simply a very conservative bunch. No need to prop it up by blaming it on enforced conservatism by a voluntary organisation.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Probably a lot of truth in your post and DeV gets a lot of blame but he was in power from 1932 on, Cumann na Gael were very socially conservative and started the cosy relationship with the Church from the start, IIRC they organised the Eucharist congress in 1932, DeV just happened to have taken over power a few months before it actually happened.

Laws may have been different under Britain pre 1922 but the influence of the Church was huge before independence, widespread in society, independence just saw them get more influence officially.

CnaG/FF/FG, not much difference between any of them socially (the Mother and Child scheme a great example) until the 70's and Garret, mavericks like McBride or Browne tended to be outside the main parties.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

swampgas

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Interesting - do the books listed address economic factors much?

I often wonder how much regressive/conservative social attitudes might inhibit economic development, as economic factors seem to affect social attitudes. Perhaps the less conservative social values we have today compared with the 80's are a positive factor when it comes to economic recovery. (I was wondering if you know of any research in this area.)

Sleepy

later12, when indoctrination into a religion takes place side-by-side with education in reading and arithmetic etc., at the hands of the clergy of that religion for generations, is it any surprise if the population are consistently electing socially conservative, traditionalist politicians who adhere (at least publicly) to that religions teachings?

An ignorant population is an easy one to control with religion. When the only education available tells you from a young age that you'll burn in a place of everlasting torment if you don't tow their line alongside demonstrable facts (e.g. 2+2 = 4) you're inclined to believe them and tow their line.

Is it any wonder that religious adherence is lower amongst the knowledge generations? When anything can be looked up on-line (or even in the case of those of us who were children in the 80's: absorbed via foreign media with the emergence of NTL /cablelink / satellite television in the 80's) you come across more evidence of the contradictions within the teachings of that religion.

The church controlled the schools, the hospitals and the soup kitchens. Of course people were religious.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I see where you are coming from. Ferriter I think mentioned how Cumann na Gael basically inherited the British civil service which would have had many Catholics employed and these became the new establishment themselves. Being a "good Catholic" would have been an extension of that so by the time DeV came to power the foundations had been set, he sadly just built on them.

Sleepy wrote: »

later12, when indoctrination into a religion takes place side-by-side with education in reading and arithmetic etc., at the hands of the clergy of that religion for generations, is it any surprise if the population are consistently electing socially conservative, traditionalist politicians who adhere (at least publicly) to that religions teachings?

An ignorant population is an easy one to control with religion. When the only education available tells you from a young age that you'll burn in a place of everlasting torment if you don't tow their line alongside demonstrable facts (e.g. 2+2 = 4) you're inclined to believe them and tow their line.

Is it any wonder that religious adherence is lower amongst the knowledge generations? When anything can be looked up on-line (or even in the case of those of us who were children in the 80's: absorbed via foreign media with the emergence of NTL /cablelink / satellite television in the 80's) you come across more evidence of the contradictions within the teachings of that religion.

The church controlled the schools, the hospitals and the soup kitchens. Of course people were religious.

Free Education was a big player in the eventual crumbling of the Churches power. You can see it in the North as well, though it happened at a slower rate due to the Troubles. Third Level Education was for the privileged few, once that was opened up it was only a matter of time.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

happyman81

swampgas wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Interesting - do the books listed address economic factors much?

I often wonder how much regressive/conservative social attitudes might inhibit economic development, as economic factors seem to affect social attitudes. Perhaps the less conservative social values we have today compared with the 80's are a positive factor when it comes to economic recovery. (I was wondering if you know of any research in this area.)[/Quote]

There is research in this area, but I don't have it off the top of my head. Try Google 'Centre for Economic Development Harvard' and have a browse around there as they have a good collection of articles, papers and datasets in this broad area.

Sleepy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I agree. And agree that it should be done away with.

OldNotWIse

Manach wrote: »

The fear is now reserved for the social workers of whatever stripe that now show up at the door.

Yup, nanny state beckons. We'll be taxed on farting next, sorry for being crude On the other hand you have cases where the children should be taken away, and are not. Not too long ago, a woman in the city centre was arrested after she drunkenly pushed her baby in his buggy into a wall.... :mad: And of course (in the UK) the terrible plight of Baby P comes to mind... No they would rather inspect kids lunch boxes for sugary drinks and ban parents from photographing their own children at swimming contests

OldNotWIse

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Quite disturbing statistics...

OS119

Sleepy wrote: »

...The church controlled the schools, the hospitals and the soup kitchens. Of course people were religious.

chicken and egg?

i don't for a moment doubt that the church used its pivotal societal position to do the kind of 'strong-arming' you suggest, but did not the churches position - and therefore capability - come from the 'will of the people' in that they elected conservative, insular, knee-bending politicians on a ticket of conservative insularity and bening the knee?

a viscious circle certainly, but was it really one not entered into freely?

happyman81

OS119 wrote: »

Sleepy wrote: »

...The church controlled the schools, the hospitals and the soup kitchens. Of course people were religious.

chicken and egg?

i don't for a moment doubt that the church used its pivotal societal position to do the kind of 'strong-arming' you suggest, but did not the churches position - and therefore capability - come from the 'will of the people' in that they elected conservative, insular, knee-bending politicians on a ticket of conservative insularity and bening the knee?

a viscious circle certainly, but was it really one not entered into freely?

Like an offer you can't refuse...

swampgas

Sleepy wrote: »

< ... >

Is it any wonder that religious adherence is lower amongst the knowledge generations? When anything can be looked up on-line (or even in the case of those of us who were children in the 80's: absorbed via foreign media with the emergence of NTL /cablelink / satellite television in the 80's) you come across more evidence of the contradictions within the teachings of that religion.

I read A Great Feast of Light a while back - it has an interesting take on the influence of TV on Ireland, especially as many of the American soaps depicted quite the decadent lifestyle ... you didn't see JR heading off to mass on Sunday.

later12

Sleepy wrote: »

later12, when indoctrination into a religion takes place side-by-side with education in reading and arithmetic etc., at the hands of the clergy of that religion for generations, is it any surprise if the population are consistently electing socially conservative, traditionalist politicians who adhere (at least publicly) to that religions teachings?

i fully recognize the interplay between society and church, and the cause and effect that the informally institutional role the Roman Catholic church has had in Ireland for centuries.

My point was simply that it was not as straightforward as Permabear's assertion about diktats being passed down from the Church which were obediently followed by parliamentarians.

That's a suspiciously neat, simple idea and I think it ignores the possibility that Irish people were aware of moral and logical arguments to the contrary and chose not to engage with them. The fact that some people clearly were engaging with alternatives --and in commercially popular newspapers -- makes me suspicious of the overbearing oppression we are sometimes led to believe was exerted by the Roman Catholic Church.

I think the danger here is absolving the Irish people of all blame for their failure to engage in any dialogue, failing to ask questions and failing to address an imbalance with how their society dealt with the inequality and mistreatment of individuals.

We are in danger of using the RCC as a scapegoat, when I think that there is a possibility its relationship with the public was more symbiotic than that, with the public perhaps using and promoting it as a vehicle for Irish society's own conservative ideals.

I'm not arguing overwhelmingly for one or the other explanation, I just don't think the nature of the relationship is as easily described as may have been suggested. We cannot just overlook personal responsibility by deeming ourselves oppressed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

later12

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Only if you ignore the context of the public popularity of the RC church and of those politicians who adhered to and promoted conservative, and usually Catholic, ideals.

You cannot look at it in isolation, which is my point. And contrary voices were out there. They were just ignored.

n97 mini

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The school year here is ridiculously short (possibly the shortest in the world?). You could have plenty of time for everything if the year was the same as the UK. E.g primary level summer holidays there start around July 22 and last ~5 weeks, here they start on July 1.

Sleepy

OS119 wrote: »

chicken and egg?

i don't for a moment doubt that the church used its pivotal societal position to do the kind of 'strong-arming' you suggest, but did not the churches position - and therefore capability - come from the 'will of the people' in that they elected conservative, insular, knee-bending politicians on a ticket of conservative insularity and bening the knee?

a viscious circle certainly, but was it really one not entered into freely?

Can it be said to be a chicken and egg scenario when the Catholic Church was the only place one could receive an education? The fee paid was indoctrination to a faith that tolerated no deviation from the edicts of the Vatican.

happyman81

n97 mini wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The school year here is ridiculously short (possibly the shortest in the world?). You could have plenty of time for everything if the year was the same as the UK. E.g primary level summer holidays there start around July 22 and last ~5 weeks, here they start on July 1.[/Quote]

Yeah, don't teach less religion, just increase the length of the year.

Sleepy

n97 mini wrote: »

The school year here is ridiculously short (possibly the shortest in the world?). You could have plenty of time for everything if the year was the same as the UK. E.g primary level summer holidays there start around July 22 and last ~5 weeks, here they start on July 1.

It's OT but the argument is that indoctrination is not education (I'd actually argue it's the polar opposite) and, as such, shouldn't be presented to children in the same environment.

Also, as a secular state, taxpayers money should not be wasted indoctrinating children into religions. If parents are serious about indoctrinating their children this should be done in their own time and at their own expense.

later12

Sleepy wrote: »

Can it be said to be a chicken and egg scenario when the Catholic Church was the only place one could receive an education? The fee paid was indoctrination to a faith that tolerated no deviation from the edicts of the Vatican.

The R Catholic church was the only place that parents who wanted their child to receive a R Catholic education could send their children.

The Primary School legislation of the early 19th century, and that portion of it which was unchanged into the 20th century, did not in any way profess against allowing parents to send their children to any other non Catholic school (of which of course there were many), and facilitated the building of any such schools if there was adequate support.

The same broad system remains in place today as far as I can make out. It's just a matter of people wanting it.

happyman81

Sleepy wrote: »

n97 mini wrote: »

The school year here is ridiculously short (possibly the shortest in the world?). You could have plenty of time for everything if the year was the same as the UK. E.g primary level summer holidays there start around July 22 and last ~5 weeks, here they start on July 1.

It's OT but the argument is that indoctrination is not education (I'd actually argue it's the polar opposite) and, as such, shouldn't be presented to children in the same environment.

Also, as a secular state, taxpayers money should not be wasted indoctrinating children into religions. If parents are serious about indoctrinating their children this should be done in their own time and at their own expense.

We are not strictly a secular state. The word 'endow' is key.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

n97 mini

happyman81 wrote: »

Yeah, don't teach less religion, just increase the length of the year.

Complaining about the time devoted to something while not complaining about all the time devoted to nothing is very Irish.