The transformation of Ireland 1900-2000 by Diarmuid Ferritery - your opinion?

upncmnhistori

Hi I am after finished Ferriter's The Transformation of Ireland 1900-2000 I thought it was a very interesting book. My interpetation was that it took us very long for social change in 20th c. I am disgusted the RC church (excluding scandal of child abuse) believed they had a right with 'spirituality' over medical science in 1950's Ireland. Eamon De Valera a chauvinistic man. Its like the Irish were so afraid to discuss different kinds of Taboo apart from now (although some may disagree with me). As for FF, CnG/FG, Labour party.
What I can gather is that CnG really disliked FF, Labour party (according to Ferriters book in my opinion) seemed to real sit on the fence from the Irish Civil War until the era of Patrick Hillary came along. What Irish women were put through was horrible in 20th c. Ireland? Were people in the south censored from the North? As I said this is my interpetation - I think people interpet things differently all the time but if you read the book what is your own opinion of it?

jonniebgood1

upncmnhistori wrote: »

Hi I am after finished Ferriter's The Transformation of Ireland 1900-2000 I thought it was a very interesting book. My interpetation was that it took us very long for social change in 20th c. I am disgusted the RC church (excluding scandal of child abuse) believed they had a right with 'spirituality' over medical science in 1950's Ireland. Eamon De Valera a chauvinistic man. Its like the Irish were so afraid to discuss different kinds of Taboo apart from now (although some may disagree with me). As for FF, CnG/FG, Labour party.
What I can gather is that CnG really disliked FF, Labour party (according to Ferriters book in my opinion) seemed to real sit on the fence from the Irish Civil War until the era of Patrick Hillary came along. What Irish women were put through was horrible in 20th c. Ireland? Were people in the south censored from the North? As I said this is my interpetation - I think people interpet things differently all the time but if you read the book what is your own opinion of it?

You cover a wide number of topics but I think the book you mention in title of thread is excellent. I use it alot for referencing almost in an encyclopedic fashion given its multitude of referenced sources. The way the book presents its information is always based on fact with any opinions usually based upon a referenced source.

cml387

Thanks OP, you've reminded me what I was going to buy and read over Christmas.

One thing I would suggest is that it's easy to fall into the trap of intepreting history from today's standpoint.

upncmnhistori

@cml387 I know because when I did a thesis I found that one of the 21st century views the early 20th century very differently. As to the other username I agree it does cover a lot of information I had to take a few 'short breaks' as in weeks of from the book as there is a lot to take in per page or maybe that is just me.

GRMA

With large tomes I've found that it is best to read it in bits on specific topics, and not cover to cover like a novel.

There are outline histories available to do that with.

Say you see something in an article, mentioned somewhere, dig out the big book and read the chapter, then if you are still curious read the reference material.

You will burn yourself out reading cover to cover and will probably forget a lot of it anyway.

upncmnhistori

GRMA wrote: »

With large tomes I've found that it is best to read it in bits on specific topics, and not cover to cover like a novel.

There are outline histories available to do that with.

Say you see something in an article, mentioned somewhere, dig out the big book and read the chapter, then if you are still curious read the reference material.

You will burn yourself out reading cover to cover and will probably forget a lot of it anyway.

That is true but I like reading one book at a time plus I probably did burn myself out perhaps that is why I moved from that book to religous academics like Josh McDowelll and C. S. Lewis (Atheist turned Christian Apologetic) funny enough I am the most non-religous person you would meet. I just like heavy reading that's just me. I must read Dawkins and Darwin at some point.

marieabennett

I am genuinely non-political (no affiliation to any party) but how can Ferriter be described as a Historian when his bias for certain political figures is so VERY heavy in his writings. What happened to balance... Sadly, his is not a history of Ireland, but a heavily weighted version of same!

jonniebgood1

marieabennett wrote: »

I am genuinely non-political (no affiliation to any party) but how can Ferriter be described as a Historian when his bias for certain political figures is so VERY heavy in his writings. What happened to balance... Sadly, his is not a history of Ireland, but a heavily weighted version of same!

You need to back up your comment with examples of what you are talking about. Without doing so your post reads as an unproven theory.

gobnaitolunacy

cml387 wrote: »

One thing I would suggest is that it's easy to fall into the trap of intepreting history from today's standpoint.

Figures like Dev should be thought of in the context of their time. Collins is always going to be lauded as the great lost hero as we never saw him get old and crotchety. The pace of social change was slow, I guess from being an isolated and mainly agrarian society (until fairly recently) on the margins of europe it is to be expected.

robp

upncmnhistori wrote: »

Hi I am after finished Ferriter's The Transformation of Ireland 1900-2000 I thought it was a very interesting book. My interpetation was that it took us very long for social change in 20th c. I am disgusted the RC church (excluding scandal of child abuse) believed they had a right with 'spirituality' over medical science in 1950's Ireland. Eamon De Valera a chauvinistic man. Its like the Irish were so afraid to discuss different kinds of Taboo apart from now (although some may disagree with me). As for FF, CnG/FG, Labour party.
What I can gather is that CnG really disliked FF, Labour party (according to Ferriters book in my opinion) seemed to real sit on the fence from the Irish Civil War until the era of Patrick Hillary came along. What Irish women were put through was horrible in 20th c. Ireland? Were people in the south censored from the North? As I said this is my interpetation - I think people interpet things differently all the time but if you read the book what is your own opinion of it?

How so? I have never heard this argument before.

I would argue its not social change that primarily drove the improving standards of living, it was what was made possible through the rising tide of capital such as the growth of the welfare state and widespread access to education.

I am genuinely non-political (no affiliation to any party) but how can Ferriter be described as a Historian when his bias for certain political figures is so VERY heavy in his writings. What happened to balance... Sadly, his is not a history of Ireland, but a heavily weighted version of same!

I agree he has some bias but to some extent bias is inevitable. I don't think that reduces his right to be considered a historian. Balance is a good thing but it does not create best-sellers like those of Ferriter.

Balaclava1991

As miserable as the history of the new state was after independence - crippled by overt Roman Catholic social control, a counter revolutionary crack down on republicanism, a bitter hatred for Britain, a lack of any meaningful attempt to engage with the Northern Ireland, social, cultural and political isolationism from the wider world, mass poverty and emigration - things could have been a whole lot worse. De Valera's steered a middle way between the radical socialist republicanism of the IRA and the right wing extremism of the likes of the Blueshirts in the 1930s which probably saved us from a renewed civil war and either a fascist style or communist dictatorship.
The most patriotic of the War of Independence and Civil War period killed each other or else left the country when they faced the adult reality of post independence rather than the Celtic mystical utopia they dreamed of.
Later Ireland's neutrality during World War 2 was motivated by both anti-British sentiment more than practical military reality.
Early on in the war when Hitler seemed about to defeat the British neutrality was a wise course but after 1943-1944 when Nazi Germany was clearly on the ropes and America and the Soviets were leading the war effort with Britain very much as a junior partner, De Valera should have declared war on Nazi Germany. We would not have been asked to send very many troops much like Brazil and other countries who only send small token forces and the war would not have reached these shores at that stage in the war.
De Valera's expressions of sympathy upon the death of Hitler was ludicrously wrongheaded.
Many of our public figures were pro-Nazi and indeed many Nazis found refuge in Ireland after the war while thousands of men who fought bravely against the Nazis and the Japanese were considered traitors.
In the 1950s when Europe rapidly recovered Ireland was needlessly left behind until we belatedly modernized and opened up our economy in the 1960s.
If we had leaders with more vision between the 1920s and 1960s the North need not have been left to fester.
By the time Lemass met Terence O'Neill an explosion in Northern Ireland was all but inevitable.
During the Troubles in the south we had political leaders like Haughey who were too hardline republican or like Fitzgerald who were too Anglophile and therefore the south was reduced to an irrelevance during the 1970s when the six counties were torn apart.
However the conflict might easily have spilled over the border and led to a wider war between Ireland and Britain which would have led to military occupation of the whole of the island.
The greed of the Celtic Tiger has done immense damage to our society while the North has simply been parked although peace is most welcome.
We still have a divided politics since the Civil War and the Troubles, we have institutions that badly need to be reformed and we have a tired apathetic public who seem to have a fatalistic attitude about the future.
Once again our best and brightest are leaving in droves and the stage is still being left to the gombeen men.

recipio

Nice summary Balaclava and I totally agree.We are low on the evolutionary scale of modern state development due to a centralized government, an insane obsession with the Nationalist agenda and a failure of the education system to adapt to a world that has long left us behind.
I actually think the last election was the first triumph of urban liberalism over rural conservatism, so perhaps there is hope. Oh....the book is a good if detailed read !

Historybluff

Unlike many histories of twentieth-century Ireland, which often focus exclusively on political history, Ferriter's Transformation is very good on social history, such as poverty, unemployment, women etc.
However, he doesn't have a thesis or an argument. Therefore, he presents history as 'one damn thing after another' (to quote Arnold Toynbee) in shopping-list style: this happened, then this, then this etc. I found that this made the book a bit of a struggle to read at times. Moreover, there's no conclusion, no attempt to make sense of all the 'damn things'. This seems to be Ferriter's modus operandi as he does the same thing in his book Occasions of Sin (2009).
Nevertheless, he uncovers some good material so I'll probably read his new book Ambiguous Republic.