Were Protestants driven out of the Free State/Republic?

The Scientician

There seems to be an idea, due to a cursory look at the changing demographics of the Free State/Republic of Ireland, that the state actively drove out Protestants. Relevant demographic changes up to 1991 can be viewed here: http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/protestants_1861_1991.html
I've seen this idea expressed numerous times online.

Is there any truth to this? I'm aware of course that the state until recent times was Catholic Church dominated to a large degree but how did that domination impact upon Protestants in the 26 counties after independence?

Was there a significant migration out of the state by Protestants in the period? If such a migration occurred can it be rightly attributed to discriminatory policies on the part of the state? Or can this change be attributed to other factors?

To make this more into a debate/discussion, I'll pose a few other questions.

How did the southern government's policies with regard to Protestants legitimise those of the government in Northern Ireland in the period?

If the underlying hypothesis is correct, in what ways could/should the Irish government and broader society have made Protestants feel more welcome in the state?

Any suggestions of literature on the subject matter would be appreciated.

Peregrinus

There was a sharp fall in the Protestant population of the Republic (or what was to become the Republic) between the last census before independence (which was in 1911) and the first census afterwards (1926). Of course, a good deal had happened in the meantime - the Great War, for example - so we can’t attribute this entirely to the effects of independence. But it probably played a part.

In terms of people being “driven out”, there were of course people who had their houses burnt. Some of them left, and never came back. They were mostly Protestant, but they weren’t picked because they were Protestant but because they were establishment figures. Outside of border areas, where some Protestant farmers were targeted, I don’t recall any similar actions taken against working-class or middle-class Protestants. (And you could make a case that that was the result of partition, not the result of independence.)

A lot of people in government service chose to leave, with their families - rather than enter the civil/public service of the Free State they accepted transfers to other parts of the UK. I wouldn’t really see them as having been “driven out”. And of course there was a large British military establishment in Ireland, which brought its own followers. This group was disproportionately Protestant, and its raison d’etre vanished in 1922.

Others left not so much because they were being discriminated against, but because they no longer enjoyed a degree of social and official privilege/preference. From their perception, that might have been experienced as discrimination, but I wouldn’t see them as having been “driven out” either.

The fall between 1911 and 1936 was sharp. The Protestant population continued to fall thereafter, though more slowly. This is partly attributed to a lower Protestant birthrate, and partly to a higher-than-average propensity to emigrate (in a country where the average propensity to emigrate was already very high). The higher emigration rate may partly have reflected disengagement from the institutions of a society which they no longer dominated as they once had, and partly a relatively greate affinity with society in the UK.

Intermarriage must have played a factor. Everyone knows about the <i>Ne Temere</i> decree, but in fact intermarriage always tends towards the elimination of cultural minorities; what accounts for the near-disappearance of Methodism in the Republic is not marriage to Catholics, but marriage to Anglicans - the resultant family tends to gravitate towards Anglicanism.

I note that the linked article claims there was discrimination in the job market, which there undoubtedly was, but it’s not clear that this tended on balance to disfavour Protestants. There was some tendency for Protestants to work for Protestant firms and vice versa, but since Protestants started out in an economically dominant position this favoured Protestants over Catholics, rather than the other way around. I note the claim that for some jobs “Trinity college was not accepted as a source of education”; I’ve never heard of this, and would be interested to know more.

The Scientician

As regards employment, Protestant owned firms often explicitly sought Protestant employees. Here's an interesting article on the phenomenon.

Dub63

May sound like an eejit saying this...

But could one of the main factors in the drop of Protestants in the "Republic" be the creation of the North?

If you look at the 1911 census Ireland was still one country, but in the 1926 census the North had been created. Which held a large portion of the islands protestant population. Maybe I'm missing the point in something here, but that seems to me what could be a large factor.

Also, weren't the Cork brigade of the Old IRA active in burning out Protestants during and after the War of Independence? Or was that only land lords they did that to?

Peregrinus

Dub63 wrote: »

May sound like an eejit saying this...

But could one of the main factors in the drop of Protestants in the "Republic" be the creation of the North?

If you look at the 1911 census Ireland was still one country, but in the 1926 census the North had been created. Which held a large portion of the islands protestant population. Maybe I'm missing the point in something here, but that seems to me what could be a large factor?

The figures we're comparing are for the 26 counties, both from the 1911 and 1926 censuses. Yes, there could well have been Protestants who moved to the north (and there certainly were, in border counties at least), and of course they wouldn't have viewed themselves as emigrating or leaving the country. I don't know how big this factor was in accounting for the fall in the Protestant population of the Free State.

InTheTrees

I think education was the major divider.

Protestants had a choice to either send their children to a catholic school (would they even have been admitted?) or to a protestant school, which because of low numbers meant a boarding school following an english curriculum which wouldnt have included irish (so no government jobs).

Protestants were encouraged to get an english education, which inevitably resulted in work in england.

In addition of course it actually fostered the religious divide and encouraged an already elitist segment of society to stick even closer together.

:mad:

Peregrinus

I don't think education was a bigger divider in 1926 than it had been in 1911.

To the extent that Protestant schools chose to follow an English curriculum and not to teach Irish, this was effectively a refusal to adapt to the changing reality of the society that they were part of. Yes, obviously this would have disadvantaged their pupils from finding careers in Ireland, and it might have helped to account for a higher propensity to emigrate. I don't think you could see that as "driving Protestants out", however.

InTheTrees

Peregrinus wrote: »

To the extent that Protestant schools chose to follow an English curriculum and not to teach Irish, this was effectively a refusal to adapt to the changing reality of the society that they were part of.

Well the choice was Catholic Curriculum or English. I dont think they had the numbers to be developing a specifically Irish Protestant Curriculum. It was much easier to adopt the english system along with the trained teachers readily available.

So they churned out little anglo irish kids with A and O levels, who went on to jobs in London. I dont think anyone complained too much about it.

Yes, it would have been great if Irish language education had been mandatory.

Judgement Day

I think the requirement to have Irish to get certain jobs (teaching and the State sector in particular) was a factor in driving Protestants abroad - certainly it was a factor in the case of members of my family.

pedroeibar1

InTheTrees wrote: »

Well the choice was Catholic Curriculum or English. I dont think they had the numbers to be developing a specifically Irish Protestant Curriculum. It was much easier to adopt the english system along with the trained teachers readily available.

So they churned out little anglo irish kids with A and O levels, who went on to jobs in London. I dont think anyone complained too much about it.

Yes, it would have been great if Irish language education had been mandatory.

Strange choice of words and some stranger notions.
Founded in 1811 ‘The Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor in Ireland’ (aka Kildare Place Society) was a non-denominational organization and supplied grants to all schools, published schoolbooks and trained teachers up to the founding of the national school system in 1831. After that date the Catholic Church got heavily involved in the National School system and the Society allied itself to the C of I, thereby becoming its teacher training college. The Catholic Church always was against/suspicious of it and concerned about any influence it might create.

Go look at the current site at http://www.cice.ie/AboutCICE/History.aspx where you can read

However in 1922, with the political partition of Ireland, the Church of Ireland Training College lost its Northern students and became a much smaller college, serving the Protestant community in the Irish Free State. The Irish language became a core part of the teacher-training course and many students at the college came from the all-Irish Church of Ireland Preparatory College, Coláiste Moibhí, founded in 1926.

InTheTrees wrote: »

Yes, it would have been great if Irish language education had been mandatory.

Since the 1920’s Irish language education has been and remains mandatory today and a pass level is obligatory if a student wants to attend any NUI college. Fat lot of good that has done for the language or the country.

InTheTrees

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Since the 1920’s Irish language education has been and remains mandatory today and a pass level is obligatory if a student wants to attend any NUI college. Fat lot of good that has done for the language or the country.

No, Irish language wasn't mandatory. I was educated in Ireland up to age 14 and didn't have any Irish lessons at all.

Snickers Man

The Scientician wrote: »

As regards employment, Protestant owned firms often explicitly sought Protestant employees. Here's an interesting article on the phenomenon.

My parents, who entered the work force in the early 1950s always told me that a friend and contemporary of theirs was one of the first ever Catholic secretaries in Guinness.

Gay Byrne, whose family had long associations with Guinness, wrote in his autobiography that his brother Al was one of the first Catholics to be employed in a white collar job in Guinness. That would have been around the same time frame: late 1940s, early 1950s.

These stories each corroborate the general fact that it was not until 25-30 years after the creation of the Free State (later Republic) that Catholics started to make the transition into office jobs in large traditionally Protestant dominated companies and firms. Catholics had always been welcome to shift the barrels, drive the barges and work on the factory floor. But to get behind a desk? Not so common.

It illustrates the effects of more widely available basic education for the catholic working classes (both my parents were the first from each of their respective families to go to university), and the decline in number of "available" protestants to fill the office jobs in such companies.

It also indicates that there was no Zimbabwe-like "appropriation" of Protestant businesses. They were able to carry on much as before but inevitably, the growth in education and confidence of the catholic population saw a decline in the disproportionate numbers of protestants in management positions.

In the case of Guinness, it only took 25 years.

LordSutch

My Mother (Dublin Protestant) always said that once the State was created, Protestants learned "to keep their heads down" and not to speak out against the new governors for fear of being attacked, either verbally, socially or physically. Those who did speak out became known as West Brits and endured a bumpy ride, many of whom left for England in the intervening decades since 1921. As a testament to the rapid decline in Protestant numbers Dublin is now littered with empty Protestant Churches < She recalled the days when they were all full, and a substantial poportion of the population were not RC.

The 'Ne Temere' decree also played a massive part in the decline of the Protestant population.

Nowadays nearly everybody (85%) ticks the RC box on the census form. But to answer the original question, NO Protestants were not driven out of the Free State, but it did become somewhat of an alien state for for Protestants (many of whom were Unionists) for the first few decades at least.

pedroeibar1

InTheTrees wrote: »

No, Irish language wasn't mandatory. I was educated in Ireland up to age 14 and didn't have any Irish lessons at all.

So you went to a small private school. Irish is compulsory in any school that is in receipt of public money . Up to 1973 a pass in Irish was necessary to proceed to second level. TODAY, Irish is a requirement for any Irish national to enter any NUI (there are some exemptions.) And until recently there was a compulsory Irish exam for solicitors (part of the Prelim) that had to be passed.

jonniebgood1

LordSutch wrote: »

Nowadays nearly everybody (85%) ticks the RC box on the census form. But to answer the original question, NO Protestants were not driven out of the Free State, but it did become somewhat of an alien state for for Protestants (many of whom were Unionists) for the first few decades at least.

In 1911 89% were recorded as Roman Catholic as per the OP link.

posted by The Scientician

How did the southern government's policies with regard to Protestants legitimise those of the government in Northern Ireland in the period?

If the underlying hypothesis is correct, in what ways could/should the Irish government and broader society have made Protestants feel more welcome in the state?

The contrast between governments is a good observation to make. The policies in the north are widely known with electoral divisions widening between nationalist and unionist lines so much so that the labour party almost disappeared within 10 years of the state. The most likely explanation for this is the varying balances in population, this differed greatly from North to South. The Protestant population in the south had no chance of getting a ruling majority whereas in the North Catholic rule seemed possible to some.

InTheTrees

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Irish is compulsory in any school that is in receipt of public money .

Nope. Protestant boarding schools DO receive public money and Irish isnt compulsory.

I think you're getting confused by the fact that the Colleges are requiring it for admission, plus various occupations. Not schools though.

Witness the row about cutting the funding:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/this-is-about-much-more-than-education-1920856.html

Judgement Day

InTheTrees wrote: »

Nope. Protestant boarding schools DO receive public money and Irish isnt compulsory.

I think you're getting confused by the fact that the Colleges are requiring it for admission, plus various occupations. Not schools though.

Witness the row about cutting the funding:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/this-is-about-much-more-than-education-1920856.html

I think that you will find most if not all Protestant boarding schools (certainly secondary ones) have Irish as a compulsory subject for Irish students as they otherwise lose grants towards teachers wages.

BlatentCheek

I believe that's the case. I remember being told by by a guy in my year in UCD who went to John Scottus School that at one stage they nearly got their grants revoked by the department because one of the teachers insisted on teaching them Latin during their Irish class until he got found out at the end of the year (Sounds too funny to be but the chap was adamant that it happened)

InTheTrees

Judgement Day wrote: »

I think that you will find most if not all Protestant boarding schools (certainly secondary ones) have Irish as a compulsory subject for Irish students as they otherwise lose grants towards teachers wages.

Oh okay. Its all changing now. As it should.

I'm no fan of religious education in any guise and the sooner all kids get the same education the better.

Coles

The Scientician wrote: »

How did the southern government's policies with regard to Protestants legitimise those of the government in Northern Ireland in the period?

If the underlying hypothesis is correct, in what ways could/should the Irish government and broader society have made Protestants feel more welcome in the state?

Your hypothesis is on very shaky ground. It's worth noting that of the nine Presidents of Ireland two have been Protestant.

pedroeibar1

InTheTrees wrote: »

Nope. Protestant boarding schools DO receive public money and Irish isnt compulsory.

I think you're getting confused by the fact that the Colleges are requiring it for admission, plus various occupations. Not schools though.

Witness the row about cutting the funding:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/this-is-about-much-more-than-education-1920856.html

I’m not the slightest bit confused, I know what is happening because I see the bigger picture.
Of course Protestant schools get funding, and long may it continue under the current rules.

The link you quote dates to 2009 and has nothing about Irish in it. It is an opinion piece and most of it covers nonsense put forward by Batt O’Keefe who (thankfully) is gone from politics.

I deal in facts. Irish is compulsory. Should a school not insist that Irish be taught to some pupils, (or be taught in a half-assed way to suit the inane proclivities of some students or their parents) that is its own business, to be sorted out with the Dept. of Ed. on an argument about funding.

It is a simple fact that some spoiled brat students think themselves so important that they will forgo the option of wider 3rd level choices just 'to be cool' and avoid Irish. Then the tears start when they don’t get Business in TCD and cannot do a B. Comm. in UCD, Galway or even OMG get into UL (if they even considered putting UL on their CAO in the first place) because they have failed Irish. The crammer/repeat schools are full of these idiots trying for points and taking Irish. Today it is even more so, since fees have been introduced in the English colleges and ‘Daddy’ ,now that times are tough, is reluctant (or unable) to pony up the necessary £10k in fees + accomodation for a UK college.

Enquire at any Irish fee-paying secondary school (particularly CoI ones) and you will learn that they all are very concerned at pupil drop-off at Fifth Year, as parents focus on results and college entry, rather than a 'rounded education' and take their 'darlings' out and send them to where results, including Irish, are achieved. You might also ask have they noticed a drop-off in those completing the UCAS system.

Rebelheart

The Scientician wrote: »

There seems to be an idea, due to a cursory look at the changing demographics of the Free State/Republic of Ireland, that the state actively drove out Protestants. Relevant demographic changes up to 1991 can be viewed here: http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/protestants_1861_1991.html
I've seen this idea expressed numerous times online.

Is there any truth to this? I'm aware of course that the state until recent times was Catholic Church dominated to a large degree but how did that domination impact upon Protestants in the 26 counties after independence?

Was there a significant migration out of the state by Protestants in the period? If such a migration occurred can it be rightly attributed to discriminatory policies on the part of the state? Or can this change be attributed to other factors?

To make this more into a debate/discussion, I'll pose a few other questions.

How did the southern government's policies with regard to Protestants legitimise those of the government in Northern Ireland in the period?

If the underlying hypothesis is correct, in what ways could/should the Irish government and broader society have made Protestants feel more welcome in the state?

Any suggestions of literature on the subject matter would be appreciated.

Once again, and unsurprisingly the source for this persecution fantasy "history" is Wesley Johnston's loyalist website.

Time for them to change the record, or at least face the elephants in the room of British military withdrawal and British Protestant deaths in WW I. They astutely avoid addressing these massive sources of the decline in the Protestant population. Why? Because their entire "thesis" would collapse.

I suppose why face historical facts when they could turn history on its backside and portray the poor British coloniser as victims in the Irish colony. The loyalist Anglo-Irish are as much victims as the Pied-Noir were when the French decolonised from Algeria: collaborators who were on the losing side. No more, and no less. Actually, the Anglo-Irish collaborators got away lightly in comparison given that some 1 million French settlers and their descendants in Algeria were forced to return to their "mother country" of France in the 1960s.

In this context, the béal bocht from some of the self-declared British colonial community in Ireland, who are still in this country, is testimony to how gentle the native Irish have been with them/how supported the unionists/loyalists/Anglo-Irish have been by their "mother country" despite the British state's claims of impartiality. The Irish have been far kinder to this self-declared colonial community than their community has been to the Irish.

Sound of Silence

Judgement Day wrote: »

béal bocht - I don't know where this is coming from as most of us continue to keep our heads down and make the best of our lot under the 'new' order. You won't hear it from me anyway. As you so tactfully put it, 'we' lost, and have to live with it.

(I might be replying to a comment which is no longer on the thread)

This perplexes me quite a bit.

I'll preface my point with the fact that I could be considered an outsider, having lived in Northern Ireland my entire life; so take that into consideration. I'm just generally interested to know what the implications of being a Protestant in the Republic actually are (or were).

In all honesty, do you really feel like you have had to keep your head down in order to get by and make the best of a bad situation? I can clearly identify that there is a certain level of disdain that you hold for the Republic. Is this derived from bad experiences your family have had since Independence, or simply the mental out-powering of a Unionist living in a Republic.

Manach

Taking a broader viewpoint of the era, whilst there were some underlying hostility towards certain segments of the Protestant minority, especially those that were clearly identified with the Anglo-Irish ascendancy, compared to other upheavals in the 20s/30s Ireland was a relative haven of calm with a good part of that due to the Church's influence in promoting a sense of social solidarity and a generally peaceful society - compared with the turmoil of the 19th Century.

Peregrinus

InTheTrees wrote: »

Well the choice was Catholic Curriculum or English.

No, it wasn’t.

At primary level, a national school had to follow the curriculum of the Dept of Education. That wasn’t a “Catholic curriculum”; it was developed pre-1922, and was designed to be followed in schools with a variety of different (though mostly Christian) patronage. The main change which happened after independence was the addition of compulsory Irish (and, yes, it was compulsory), but that’s not a specifically Catholic thing. It’s a [/i]nationalist[/i] thing. It took a while to roll out in full, because of course not all teachers were qualified to teach Irish at the outset.

Most - in fact, I think, all - Protestant primary schools in the national school system remained in the national schools system. They took on the obligation to teach Irish (though with, I suspect, varying degrees of enthusiasm). There were a few primary schools attached to Protestant secondary schools which had never been in the national school system, and received no state funds. They were unaffected by the addition of compulsory Irish to the national school curriculum.

At secondary level, the picture was different. Until the 1960s, there was no state funding for secondary schools (leaving aside the development of a rather small technical education sector). The curriculum taught in secondary schools was not controlled; what was controlled was the content of the Inter and Leaving Cert exams. With a limited number of exceptions, a student could not get the Inter or Leaving Cert without passing Irish. Also, you could not matriculate into the National University of Ireland without a pass in Irish.

It was entirely up to schools as to whether they wished to prepare students for the Inter/Leaving/NUI matric. If they did, obviously teaching Irish had to be part of the package.

Presumably some Protestant secondary schools did do this. Others, however, might have seen it as their role to prepare students for the UK public exams, or for entry into the UK universities, or (popular in the 20s and 30s) for careers in the Colonial Service or the Indian Civil Service.

Since there was no state funding for secondary education, the decision was not “distorted” by that consideration; schools were free to choose according to what they thought parents wanted and expected. Many Protestant (and some Catholic) schools did choose to focus on the UK/international options rather than the Inter/Leaving/NUI matric; some sought to offer both streams.

Obviously the choices made here did affect people’s later lives, and may have made it difficult for them to make careers in Ireland. But I don’t think you can plausibly present that as Ireland “driving out” Protestants. Rather, it’s Ireland separating itself from Britain and its Empire, and people finding they have to make a choice for one or the other in terms of the education they pursue.

dubhthach

Just regarding university matriculation, Irish has never been a compulsory subject for matriculation to Trinity.

To be considered for admission to the University you must:

Present six subjects, three of which must be at grade C or above on higher Leaving Certificate papers or at least grade C in the University Matriculation examination
The six subjects above must include:

• A pass in English
• A pass in mathematics (or foundation-level mathematics (see note 2)) and a pass in a language other than English

OR

• a pass in Latin and a pass in a subject other than a language

ardmacha

Once again, and unsurprisingly the source for this persecution fantasy "history" is Wesley Johnston's loyalist website.

While it clearly reflects a Protestant view on things, I think the description of Wesley Johnston's website as "loyalist" is fantasy. His website contains information on a number of topics, including Irish language placenames.

Protestants in the 26 counties were not a homogeneous community. Some were out and out imperialists, some vaguely west British in culture, others supported Sinn Féin. Some were workers, others were prosperous businesspeople. Looking at the aggregate is only limited use.

The imperial types mainly left, as there wasn't much for them as their imperial project had failed in the 26 counties. There was substantial emigration of all people and it hardly surprising if a somewhat disproportionate number of people who felt culturally British went to Britain, which was twice as prosperous as the Republic. Why would they stay?
Many 26 county Protestants lived in the Ulster counties or Leitrim. The general population of this area declined by 30% after independence and with large scale movement out of the area any slight additional propensity for Protestants to move would decrease their numbers greatly. Many Ulster people from all communities moved to Belfast. For Protestants, even if they were not discriminated against in the 26 counties, they would get preference over local Catholics in the North, creating a pull factor.

An additional factor was the chaos in the 1918-1923 period, instigated by the British who refused to leave gracefully and who weren't too worried about local Protestants. The Ne Temere issue would have arisen whatever government was in place. While this caused great angst in the Protestant community, many of those directly involved weren't that bothered. The greatgrandchildren of those who had become Protestants in the 19th century often did not object all that strongly to changing back.

Rebelheart

ardmacha wrote: »

While it clearly reflects a Protestant view on things, I think the description of Wesley Johnston's website as "loyalist" is fantasy.

Far from it. He does not engage with historical facts which do not suit his agenda, in particular the two which I highlighted above. Why? Because his entire argument, if one could call it that, would collapse. The sort of people who favourably quote his website, like Eoghan Harris and Robin Bury, also coincidentally share his aversion for the above two historical realities for the same reasons. This attempt to portray a privileged British colonial class as 'victims' can only be based on a belief that they deserve a superior place to the native Irish in this society. It seems taking their dominance off them is the real crime.

ardmacha wrote: »

Protestants in the 26 counties were not a homogeneous community.

I don't believe I every said or implied they were. I actually never wrote about that denomination. The self-declared colonial/unionist/pro-Empire community/ "loyalist Anglo-Irish" were, however, by definition homogeneous on the critical issue of Irish independence or maintenance of British rule in Ireland. That's the community I was talking about, explicitly.

ardmacha

I don't believe I every said or implied they were. I actually never wrote about that denomination. The self-declared colonial/unionist/pro-Empire community/ "loyalist Anglo-Irish" were, however, by definition homogeneous on the critical issue of Irish independence or maintenance of British rule in Ireland. That's the community I was talking about, explicitly.

Nevertheless this thread is about Protestants.
There is tendency by some to regard the two as being the one and the same, and this view is common from northern analysis, probably shared by Wesley Johnston. But there are nuances.

I've no doubt that Bury and Harris have an agenda that likes to disregard relevant data. But the topic is an important one and needs to be analysed in some detail with full regard for data.

BFDCH.

I always felt that the creation of a protestant state for a protestant people on the island was the main cause for the drop in the population just across the border; so rather than being pushed out they were pulled by a number of factors- wanting to remain British, wanting to be amongst other protestants, economic migration etc.

Fratton Fred

It's good to see the catholic education system has achieved its desired outcome.

Its strange how the natural assumption is that protestants=British, catholic=Irish.

Demonstrates nicely how although not driven out, protestants weren't exactly wanted in the "Republic" of Ireland.

Sound of Silence

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It's good to see the catholic education system has achieved its desired outcome.

Its strange how the natural assumption is that protestants=British, catholic=Irish.

Demonstrates nicely how although not driven out, protestants weren't exactly wanted in the "Republic" of Ireland.

I've went into this in detail in another thread. I'm a product of the Catholic Education system and was born and raised in the heart of Republican South Armagh. Take that as you will.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81374251&postcount=161
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81249434&postcount=107
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81260436&postcount=109
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81302486&postcount=133

Are you perhaps claiming that Protestant Schools in the North have regularly preached a policy of Religious and Political Tolerance? Have they worked hard to identify Northern Ireland as a Nation with a diverse identity? I'd imagine that the topic was given as much attention as any topic which happened to not be on the curriculum.

The Protestant population in Ireland isn't particularly large, so perhaps you could forgive someone for being slightly ignorant of how such a group would describe themselves. People on this forum also tend to insist that Northern Nationalists should identify themselves as British. Whilst I would disagree with them, I could forgive them for not knowing that I personally would tend not to identify myself as such, because there is no mechanism in the Irish Education system to cope with us, and I wouldn't expect there to be.

Fratton Fred

Sound of Silence wrote: »

I've went into this in detail in another thread. I'm a product of the Catholic Education system and was born and raised in the heart of Republican South Armagh. Take that as you will.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81374251&postcount=161
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81249434&postcount=107
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81260436&postcount=109
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81302486&postcount=133

Are you perhaps claiming that Protestant Schools in the North have regularly preached a policy of Religious and Political Tolerance? Have they worked hard to identify Northern Ireland as a Nation with a diverse identity? I'd imagine that the topic was given as much attention as any topic which happened to not be on the curriculum.

The Protestant population in Ireland isn't particularly large, so perhaps you could forgive someone for being slightly ignorant of how such a group would describe themselves. People on this forum also tend to insist that Northern Nationalists should identify themselves as British. Whilst I would disagree with them, I could forgive them for not knowing that I personally would tend not to identify myself as such, because there is no mechanism in the Irish Education system to cope with us, and I wouldn't expect there to be.

I wouldn't hold the north up as a model or indicative of anything, other than an outright oddity.

That doesn't get away from the fact that in Ireland, despite numerous prominent protestants, to be Irish means to be catholic, which is a belief that stems directly from the policies of Archbishop McQuaid.

Even Revelheart, who has been outspoken about the catholic church still considers, it appears, that protestants are British and mot Irish. There has been 90 years of blatant indoctrination in this country that was an attempt to make this a pure catholic country.

Yes, there have been protestant presidents, but how many were elected? Would David Norris have been subjected to a smear campaign if he was catholic?

I have my doubts.

ardmacha

Its strange how the natural assumption is that protestants=British

This has feck all to do with the Catholic education system, much of which is very clear that everyone in Ireland is Irish, while Protestant schools often emphasised the opposite. You might all well blame boards, as one can run into flak here for declaring that Protestants are Irish!

But there is no doubt that some Protestants did not consider themselves Irish, rather they regarded themselves as superior to Irish people and the very existence of the State was offensive to these people. If these people left than it is hardly surprising and not especially regrettable.

Rebelheart

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Even Revelheart, who has been outspoken about the catholic church still considers, it appears, that protestants are British and mot Irish. There has been 90 years of blatant indoctrination in this country that was an attempt to make this a pure catholic country.

You can support this nonsense? Of course not. I have consistently said the opposite, focusing on the Anglo-Irish loyalists/unionists/colonial community who by their own definition are British. Ironically, your insistence that this group of British herrenvolk settler-colonial repining malcontents in Ireland, à la the French Pied-Noir in Algeria, are synonymous with "Protestants" reveals your own indoctrination within the British nationalist system.

I have never said nor implied they are synonymous because I quite simply do not believe it. I do, however, fully appreciate why British nationalists like you want to portray the entire conflict in Ireland as rooted in early modern religious beliefs, and therefore unsolvable, rather than as a political problem of British colonialism, and therefore solvable. The last thing British nationalists, whose identity depends upon what Ian Lustick termed the unquestionable "ideological hegemony" of the existence of the United Kingdom, would like to concede is that there is an entire nation of people in Ireland who reject all British political claims over Ireland as the solution would therefore obviously lead to a loss of British political power in Ireland.

Far better to write it off as an unsolvable problem of irrational, superstitious disgruntled Papists who, whether they like it or not, are really British and would be happily British were it not for those dastardly "nationalists", the bad taigs/Fenians. Portraying it thus has much the same function as calling the Irish "rebels", namely to portray all opposition to the new British colonial order as marginal and the British order as acceptable to all but unreasonable people.

pedroeibar1

You’re a bit off the mark with some of those ideas FF. Where I grew up many Protestant neighbours looked to London and saw their affinity there, even up to the 1970s. It was fine to play as kids, but as teenagers a Protestant girl was discouraged from going out with a Catholic boy. Going to separate schools did not help integration, nor did such activities as Sunday school, a different set of boy scouts and rugby instead of GAA. In retrospect I can see good reason for a siege mentality, given the school teaching of the era.

Anyone with doubts need only read the book on the Fethard boycott.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I wouldn't hold the north up as a model or indicative of anything, other than an outright oddity.

Agreed. I add that the orange flag and the black flag boys are uncouth tribesmen.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That doesn't get away from the fact that in Ireland, despite numerous prominent protestants, to be Irish means to be catholic, which is a belief that stems directly from the policies of Archbishop McQuaid. .

It predates McQuaid by at least a century. For example, in the mid 18c the then bishop put an end to the friendship between Fr. Michail Walsh and his neighbour, the CoI Bishop Graves.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Even Revelheart, who has been outspoken about the catholic church still considers, it appears, that protestants are British and mot Irish. There has been 90 years of blatant indoctrination in this country that was an attempt to make this a pure catholic country. .

Rebel heart’s views are – at best - phrased in diatribes and are ignored by most, as illustrated by the lack of interest in topics such as ‘Hidden Histories’ which has very poor response. Those views are not an indicator of anything, other than hatred persists.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, there have been protestant presidents, but how many were elected? Would David Norris have been subjected to a smear campaign if he was catholic? .

They were elected, if only by the houses of the Oireachtas, which required considerable support and backing. It is probable that in an open election they would have got in. Norris’s failure had nothing to do with his religion, it was a mix of things, from political ineptitude to his sexual orientation. Gallagher is I believe a Catholic and look at what happened to him. Both would not have made good presidents.

jonniebgood1

No more references to individuals please- keep it on topic or messages may be removed.

Moderator.

Rebelheart

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That doesn't get away from the fact that in Ireland, despite numerous prominent protestants, to be Irish means to be catholic

Since when? Have you got evidence for this?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, there have been protestant presidents, but how many were elected? Would David Norris have been subjected to a smear campaign if he was catholic? I have my doubts.

Norris got as far as he did precisely because he was different in a colourful way - gay and seemingly affable in a conservative country. In reality, despite his "colour" the guy has been traipsing around Dublin for decades getting ridiculously paid for sitting in an elitist undemocratic assembly (which, incidentally, your British state insisted upon back in 1921 precisely to give greater rights to its Anglo-Irish supporters) that has no place in modern Ireland. He wouldn't get elected in a general election because, to put it kindly, he's not cut out for that sort of roughness, meeting people outside TCD and the Irish House of Lords/Seanad Éireann, meeting working people with their feet on the ground.

Ultimately, however, Norris was not elected because there were fundamental questions about his attitude to child abuse. There's "different" and there's just wrong. That you are trying to ignore this and suggest it had something to do with his religion is alas unsurprising given your political views on things Irish. Oh, and his suggestion that he would be open to Ireland becoming part of the British Commonwealth didn't exactly endear him to many people either. No doubt you'll try and write opposition to his politics on that issue to be mere "anti-Protestant", too. :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

Rebelheart wrote: »

Since when? Have you got evidence for this?

You obviously don't read boards very much then. I've seen nnumerous references on here, as well as comments made to protestants I know, such as "Who do you support when Ireland are playing England?"

Rebelheart wrote: »

Norris got as far as he did precisely because he was different in a colourful way - gay and seemingly affable in a conservative country. In reality, despite his "colour" the guy has been traipsing around Dublin for decades getting ridiculously paid for sitting in an elitist undemocratic assembly (which, incidentally, your British state insisted upon back in 1921 precisely to give greater rights to its Anglo-Irish supporters) that has no place in modern Ireland. He wouldn't get elected in a general election because, to put it kindly, he's not cut out for that sort of roughness, meeting people outside TCD and the Irish House of Lords/Seanad Éireann, meeting working people with their feet on the ground.

Ultimately, however, Norris was not elected because there were fundamental questions about his attitude to child abuse. There's "different" and there's just wrong. That you are trying to ignore this and suggest it had something to do with his religion is alas unsurprising given your political views on things Irish. Oh, and his suggestion that he would be open to Ireland becoming part of the British Commonwealth didn't exactly endear him to many people either. No doubt you'll try and write opposition to his politics on that issue to be mere "anti-Protestant", too. :rolleyes:

I don't necessarily disagree with that. The upper house is outdated but whilst it is there, it needs people like Norris to prevent it being an extension of the Fianna Fail/Fianna Gail hegemony. I believe the president should be someone who is a bit radical as well. His views (Which were, I believe, mis understood as a result of Mr Norris being "Too" clever with his comments) were obviously the root of his downfall, but I'm still not convinced that conservative Ireland (onservative as a direct result of catholic rule here) would have been comfortable with a protestant president.

Blaming the British for it and also refering to the "British" Commonwealth though shows just how out of date your views are. Welcome to 2012.

I'd like an explanation on what you think my political views are on things Irish as well. Being anti the anti English brigade does not equal being anti Irish, by a long shout. If it did, I would be starting numerous bull**** threads about what a bunch of bastards the Irish are:rolleyes:

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

. . . but I'm still not convinced that conservative Ireland (onservative as a direct result of catholic rule here) would have been comfortable with a protestant president.

Well, they managed to put up with Hyde and Childers without evident discomfort.

Of the nine Presidents of Ireland, two have been Protestant. Relative to the proportion of Protestants in the population of the Republic, that's a substantial over-representation of Protestants in the office. Granted, a pool of nine is hardly statistically significant, but in light of this the fact that one Protestant in the 2011 election was among the six unsuccessful candidates is hardly very convincing evidence of an anti-Protestant bias.

Fascinating factoid of the day: Since 1938, the success rate of Protestants seeking the presidency has been 67%. The success rate of Catholics seeking the presidency has been 41%. Protestantism would appear to be a positive factor, not a negative one.

Fratton Fred

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, they managed to put up with Hyde and Childers without evident discomfort.

Of the nine Presidents of Ireland, two have been Protestant. Relative to the proportion of Protestants in the population of the Republic, that's a substantial over-representation of Protestants in the office. Granted, a pool of nine is hardly statistically significant, but in light of this the fact that one Protestant in the 2011 election was among the six unsuccessful candidates is hardly very convincing evidence of an anti-Protestant bias.

Fascinating factoid of the day: Since 1938, the success rate of Protestants seeking the presidency has been 67%. The success rate of Catholics seeking the presidency has been 41%. Protestantism would appear to be a positive factor, not a negative one.

Neither of whom were elected and in particular, the Church showed their respect for Hyde at his funeral.

Whilst maybe not indicitive of the people of Ireland, I'm pretty sure this sent a message to the protestant population that they were outsiders and despite the position that Hyde held, the cabinet were more worried about what the bishop thought than paying their respects in a normal manner.

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Neither of whom were elected . . .

Childers was elected. But don't let the facts of history stand in the way of the chip on your shoulder!

Fratton Fred

Peregrinus wrote: »

Childers was elected. But don't let the facts of history stand in the way of the chip on your shoulder!

Of course. I stand corrected.

BFDCH.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It's good to see the catholic education system has achieved its desired outcome.

Its strange how the natural assumption is that protestants=British, catholic=Irish.

Demonstrates nicely how although not driven out, protestants weren't exactly wanted in the "Republic" of Ireland.

good of you to assume Irish = catholic, did you get that from your Catholic schooling?

this Irishman went to a nondenom school and got his ideas under their watch.

Solair

I have C of I relatives and I spoke to them about this. They didn't seem to think anyone left because they were forced out by anything.

A lot left because like other Irish people at the time, they struggled to find jobs in the 20s and 30s. There was the same emigration pattern to North America and Australia / New Zealand that the rest of the population saw.
I haven't really heard of anything nasty other than against rural landlords who'd been evicting people during the 1800s. Then again my Protestant relatives were working class and Republican and would have been involved in the land league and later the urban ones in the lockout and stuff.

You can't really just assume all Irish protestants were of one social class or political persuasion.

Also speaking to a C of I clergyman in Cork he reckoned that a huge % of the pre independence population were English expats and moved because they were civil servants or military personnel. They were unlikely to hang around as they'd no ties to the place and were just relocated to the UK. You have to remember vast numbers of people worked for the state and it was controlled exclusively from London since the act of union.

He said some of Cork's larger C of I churches would have mostly been full of English soldiers during the 1800s and early 1900s.

During the 20th century a lot of my Protestant relatives married Catholics too. So I suspect that may have driven numbers down as in the past neither church was too keen on mixed marriage. These days it's a lot more live and let live! Both churches are very friendly with each other and religion is much less of a big deal to most people.

Balmed Out

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It's good to see the catholic education system has achieved its desired outcome.

Its strange how the natural assumption is that protestants=British, catholic=Irish.

Demonstrates nicely how although not driven out, protestants weren't exactly wanted in the "Republic" of Ireland.

Im interested to know what part of the coutry leads you to believe this. I went to the closest secondary school to where I grew up which happened to be a protestant school. I have always since had protestant, methodist, born again etc etc friends all of whom would be considere Irish by themselves, by all their catholic friends and from what I can tell the wider society.

One thing I have noticed is that some have had family traditions of going to English universities and many of those have emmigrated choosing to remain after finishing their education but they still would see themselves as Irish and are viewed as Irish in Britain.

old hippy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It's good to see the catholic education system has achieved its desired outcome.

Its strange how the natural assumption is that protestants=British, catholic=Irish.

Demonstrates nicely how although not driven out, protestants weren't exactly wanted in the "Republic" of Ireland.

My ex left Dublin and went to college over here in the UK, she was patronised on a night out and teased that she shouldn't be having any wild nights out as "a good little Catholic girl", to which she smiled sweetly and replied that actually, she's a Presbyterian girl

I think inaccurate assumptions are made, both sides of the pond, Fred.

None of my family, CofI or otherwise, had to endure much bigotry. Or so I'm told. That's not to say there isn't. But mostly from ignorant people. I remember being told to "piss of back to the Republic" at a close family member's funeral in NI.

An Sionnach Glic

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, they managed to put up with Hyde and Childers without evident discomfort.

I'm surprised that Ernest Blythe is so often ignored in these type of discussions. An Ulster Presbyterian, he held the second most powerful executive job in the Free State for the first ten years of its existence (i.e. Finance Minister) and went on to run the Abbey Theatre when he left politics. And he was very much elected. Were there any Catholics in the cabinets of Stormont? (I'm not trying to be smart, I'm genuinely curious).

HavingCrack

An Sionnach Glic wrote: »

Were there any Catholics in the cabinets of Stormont? (I'm not trying to be smart, I'm genuinely curious).

There was an Education Minister called Pheilim O'Neill who was suspected of being a Catholic I think..

ejmaztec

I read a potted history of the Musgrave family on the internet a few years ago, but can't for the life of me find the webpage now. With what was going on around Cork with regards to violent action against some protestants after independence, they were seriously thinking of getting the hell out, but decided to stay. They seem to have done well since.:eek:

I don't think they had any Catholics on the board of directors for decades, and I get the impression that this only changed in the last twenty or so years (no doubt someone will tell me if I'm wrong on this.)

A retired guy who had a SuperValu franchise about thirty odd years ago was telling me that, when he first started the franchise, one of the Musgrave people asked him what his religion was because he couldn't work it out from the surname.

An Sionnach Glic

HavingCrack wrote: »

There was an Education Minister called Pheilim O'Neill who was suspected of being a Catholic I think..

Suspected? I'll take that as a no, so.