Mother Child Homes Discussion ###DO NOT POST WITHOUT READING 1st POST###

jank

Muise... wrote: »

Eh, some of the death certificates recorded malnutrition. But of course, sone of them didn't, so let's not get carried away...

As for the rest of your oddly fact-free plea for objectivity, what do you suggest we do? Blame the grandparents and shrug it off?

First point, malnutrition != 'deliberately' staving someone to death.Its a subtle but key difference.

Second point. Find the truth and not have agenda seeking populist thinking determining the flavor of the truth.

Hermy

It's such a relief to know that the catholic church wasn't responsible for any of the acts of neglect and abuse that took place in Ireland and that society was actually to blame for it all.
Still, I wonder who or what shaped that society?

jank

Hermy wrote: »

It's such a relief to know that the catholic church wasn't responsible for any of the acts of neglect and abuse that took place in Ireland and that society was actually to blame for it all.
Still, I wonder who or what shaped that society?

I don't think anyone is saying that the RCC is free from any responsibility (I have never said that) however, using them as the sole arbitrator of blame is easy and populist.

Regarding society, there are many many factors that shape societies views on such things as unwanted pregnancies. Religion is one of course but not the only factor as the reality is often more nuanced. The econimic argument rarely gets mentioned but should be aired.

People confuse social status with religious doctrine. Most people care more about the former than the latter. There are many places in the world where Christianity has not had much of an influence yet social conservatism and purism still exists, even more so than what existed in Ireland. The obvious answer is of course the Middle East yet you also have Asia. India, China and Japan for example are quite conservative socially yet the RCC has never had much or any power there and religion in those regions range from philosophical attitude to life (Japan) to non existent (China). Still, if you are an unwed woman, you are not exactly going to look forward to telling your father your pregnant. India by and large still has a caste system.

So what shaped society in Ireland? Well what shaped Swedish society that thought it was acceptable to steralise the disabled? What shaped German society to carry out the Holocaust? These questions are hugely complex and multi-layered which deserves debate. However, people don't really want to debate these forces that shape organisations or power systems, instead soundbites of 'da nuns did it' or 'god told them to do it' passes for rational debate in the Irish media.

jank

jank wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying that the RCC is free from any responsibility (I have never said that) however, using them as the sole arbitrator of blame is easy and populist.

Regarding society, there are many many factors that shape societies views on such things as unwanted pregnancies. Religion is one of course but not the only factor as the reality is often more nuanced. The econimic argument rarely gets mentioned but should be aired.

People confuse social status with religious doctrine. Most people care more about the former than the latter. There are many places in the world where Christianity has not had much of an influence yet social conservatism and purism still exists, even more so than what existed in Ireland. The obvious answer is of course the Middle East yet you also have Asia. India, China and Japan for example are quite conservative socially yet the RCC has never had much or any power there and religion in those regions range from philosophical attitude to life (Japan) to non existent (China). Still, if you are an unwed woman, you are not exactly going to look forward to telling your father your pregnant. India by and large still has a caste system.

So what shaped society in Ireland? Well what shaped Swedish society that thought it was acceptable to steralise the disabled? What shaped German society to carry out the Holocaust? These questions are hugely complex and multi-layered which deserves debate. However, people don't really want to debate these forces that shape organisations or power systems, instead soundbites of 'da nuns did it' or 'god told them to do it' passes for rational debate in the Irish media.

Brilliant post and you have showed the limitations of boards in having a debate on the issue ( I think boards is fantastic by the way ) Thoughtful and sensible points like yours are often drowned out and overwhelmed by the ...it all the fault of those cruel sadistic nuns and looking to widened the debate to include society means that somehow you are excusing the nuns/religious orders!

conorhal

Hermy wrote: »

It's such a relief to know that the catholic church wasn't responsible for any of the acts of neglect and abuse that took place in Ireland and that society was actually to blame for it all.
Still, I wonder who or what shaped that society?

What shaped society? As I said before on this thread, poverty.

People have no idea what this state was like in the 1920's and 30's. The highest tax rate was 24% and few paid it (or qualified to pay it), thus social services were non existant and there was no dole, at best there was the poor house (something my great grandmother to her dying day lived in absolute terror of, nightly she would make my mother promise that she's never let anybody send here there), at best there were places like the mother and baby homes and charity hospitals that recieved a pittance from the state for their running. It was a primitve time and into those curcumstances another mouth to feed was never welcome, particularly if there was no man with a wage to support it.
We need the nuns and the church to blame of course, because if we didn't we'd have to recognise that mere circumstance and a decline in our fortunes means the you and I would probably again resort to demonizing the vunerable because of the burden they presented to the rest of us.
Would you or I do this to young women again we have to ask ourselves?
Yes, we probably would, in fact we already are. You think it's not so, but when the choices you face are limited you'd be surprised by the decisions you might make or be forced to make.

Hermy

jank wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying that the RCC is free from any responsibility (I have never said that) however, using them as the sole arbitrator of blame is easy and populist.

I get the distinct impression in this thread and elsewhere that some people do want to diminish the role of the catholic church in all of this despite the fact that it IS guilty of untold numbers of acts of cruelty, neglect and abuse - and not just historically but until quite recently too.


As to what shapes society, I single out the catholic church only because it was the dominant player in Irish society but I have the same disdain for all groups who seek to exert undue influence over people for their own ill-gotten gain - be they religious, political, economic or military. The catholic church was a very, very influential force in Ireland and sought to exert that influence in all aspects of society from healthcare to education to politics and beyond - and while they may not be the sole arbitrator of blame any attempt to diminish their role is quite frankly absurd.

brooke 2

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Great post I agree with every word. Both my grannies were turned out into the street by their own mothers. Nothing to do with religion, in either case, social status was the deal breaker in each case. One family were big privileged farmers busy making matches for each of their 8 other children with the children of other local big privileged farmers.
My great grandparents weren't about to let their one "dud"slutty daughter( my granny) put a spanner in the works.
My other poor granny was the daughter of a Superintendent in the RIC. Her mother was a shameless social climber in the Mrs Bouquet mould. My granny never stood a chance once she revealed her "terrible" news.
Both grannies I must add were very "lucky" in that the fathers of the unborn children both stood by them, married them , and went on to have more children. But neither had any further contact with their parents (not one word, in either case) and little or no contact with siblings.

From what I have heard/read over the past few months, most of the girls who were brought to these homes by their fathers/brothers seemed to have come from 'respectable' families.

conorhal

conorhal wrote: »

What shaped society? As I said before on this thread, poverty.

People have no idea what this state was like in the 1920's and 30's. The highest tax rate was 24% and few paid it (or qualified to pay it), thus social services were non existant and there was no dole, at best there was the poor house (something my great grandmother to her dying day lived in absolute terror of, nightly she would make my mother promise that she's never let anybody send here there), at best there were places like the mother and baby homes and charity hospitals that recieved a pittance from the state for their running. It was a primitve time and into those curcumstances another mouth to feed was never welcome, particularly if there was no man with a wage to support it.
We need the nuns and the church to blame of course, because if we didn't we'd have to recognise that mere circumstance and a decline in our fortunes means the you and I would probably again resort to demonizing the vunerable because of the burden they presented to the rest of us.
Would you or I do this to young women again we have to ask ourselves?
Yes, we probably would, in fact we already are. You think it's not so, but when the choices you face are limited you'd be surprised by the decisions you might make or be forced to make.

Its great for everyone to get on their moral high horses, however no one knows what they would do until they are tested, I don't think anyone is making excuses for the RCC.

I acutely don't think Irish society has every dealt with the effects of the famine fully. We all know how it changed attitude to land and marriage, how the population dropped from something like 8 million to 2.5 million and so on, however the psychological effects on a whole nation had never been explored. I was listing to a very interesting documentary about the folklore commission collecting stories in the 1930s and one thing they found was the extreme reluctance of older people to talk about the famine and one of the main reasons was they there was a deep sense of shame at the fact people were not give a prober burial, plus can you imagine what it must have been like not to be able to feed your children!! in a way its no wonder we turned in to a passive pious people who lost a sense of self reliance.

Muise...

jank wrote: »

First point, malnutrition != 'deliberately' staving someone to death.Its a subtle but key difference.

Second point. Find the truth and not have agenda seeking populist thinking determining the flavor of the truth.

First point: if you are charged with the care of children, and given money from the State to pay for this care, and they somehow die of malnutrition - deliberate or not aren't you legally responsible?

You seem to be generalising the whole sorry case out to an ever-expanding universe of blame for all. When really, how hard is it to admit that in this case, where many of the death certificates state causes of death that were preventable, where bones of infants were found in a mass unmarked grave... how hard is it to admit that, however enabled by wider society, the buck stops with the nuns?

Second point - "agenda seeking populist thinking" - what on earth is this? Feeling sorry that children were neglected and died and wanting to find out why without shrugging it off as shure we were all like that then?

What's your agenda in all this diversionary waffling, or will you run off and start a feedback thread complaining about me asking you that?

conorhal

mariaalice wrote: »

Its great for everyone to get on their moral high horses, however no one knows what they would do until they are tested, I don't think anyone is making excuses for the RCC.

I acutely don't think Irish society has every dealt with the effects of the famine fully. We all know how it changed attitude to land and marriage, how the population dropped from something like 8 million to 2.5 million and so on, however the psychological effects on a whole nation had never been explored. I was listing to a very interesting documentary about the folklore commission collecting stories in the 1930s and one thing they found was the extreme reluctance of older people to talk about the famine and one of the main reasons was they there was a deep sense of shame at the fact people were not give a prober burial, plus can you imagine what it must have been like not to be able to feed your children!! in a way its no wonder we turned in to a passive pious people who lost a sense of self reliance.

My great Grandmother would have been born after the famine but it would have been a living memory for her generation, though she lived into her 80's and died in the 1960's she did so (as I mentioned in my post) with a deep seated fear of 'the poor house'. The prospect of institutionalization in such a hell was the bogyman and spectre of the consequence of poverty for her generation.
There was shame and a loss of confidence after the Famine, but I suspect that we as a nation were enfeabled also by the loss of the strong, the smart and the capable members of our population, because if you could get out during those years you did.

conorhal

conorhal wrote: »

My great Grandmother would have been born after the famine but it would have been a living memory for her generation, though she lived into her 80's and died in the 1960's she did so (as I mentioned in my post) with a deep seated fear of 'the poor house'. The prospect of institutionalization in such a hell was the bogyman and spectre of the consequence of poverty for her generation.
There was shame and a loss of confidence after the Famine, but I suspect that we as a nation were enfeabled also by the loss of the strong, the smart and the capable members of our population, because if you could get out during those years you did.

I do not agree with your idea that we lost the strong the smart and the capable because of the famine, its a lot more complex that that. It is good that the debate is being widened to look the interplay between the RCC, poverty and society, nationalism and the GAA. Looking at all of those with a critical eye might and I stress might get us nearer the truth.

Red Pepper

I don't think anyone is saying that the Roman organisation is solely to blame for the mistreatment of these mothers and babies. The state and society in general have a lot of questions to answer. That is why I want a full judicial inquiry to investigate every aspect of this once and for all. And I do not care one bit how badly it reflects on the Irish people or the Irish state. Only through acceptance of the past, can we build the republic we strive for.

Spring Onion

Muise... wrote: »

First point: if you are charged with the care of children, and given money from the State to pay for this care, and they somehow die of malnutrition - deliberate or not aren't you legally responsible?

You seem to be generalising the whole sorry case out to an ever-expanding universe of blame for all. When really, how hard is it to admit that in this case, where many of the death certificates state causes of death that were preventable, where bones of infants were found in a mass unmarked grave... how hard is it to admit that, however enabled by wider society, the buck stops with the nuns?

Second point - "agenda seeking populist thinking" - what on earth is this? Feeling sorry that children were neglected and died and wanting to find out why without shrugging it off as shure we were all like that then?

What's your agenda in all this diversionary waffling, or will you run off and start a feedback thread complaining about me asking you that?

Good post Muise. Big week this week, the terms of reference for this inquiry will tell a lot about how committed the government will be to go after the religious orders before the next election.

Red Pepper

Red Pepper wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying that the Roman organisation is solely to blame for the mistreatment of these mothers and babies. The state and society in general have a lot of questions to answer. That is why I want a full judicial inquiry to investigate every aspect of this once and for all. And I do not care one bit how badly it reflects on the Irish people or the Irish state. Only through acceptance of the past, can we build the republic we strive for.

On an individual basis individual nuns/christen brothers/lay people who mistreated any child or adult are fully responsible for what they did, however that does not tell us about the response of society.

conorhal

mariaalice wrote: »

I do not agree with your idea that we lost the strong the smart and the capable because of the famine, its a lot more complex that that. It is good that the debate is being widened to look the interplay between the RCC, poverty and society, nationalism and the GAA. Looking at all of those with a critical eye might and I stress might get us nearer the truth.

Colonialism also played it's part, not just in the famine but the fact that authoritarian rule by a colonial power meant that investment in public social services was minimal and the development of the civic state was retarted. It was useful to ensure that the governed population was devided, ignorant and poor.

jank

Hermy wrote: »

I get the distinct impression in this thread and elsewhere that some people do want to diminish the role of the catholic church in all of this despite the fact that it IS guilty of untold numbers of acts of cruelty, neglect and abuse - and not just historically but until quite recently too.

That is the problem right. Anyone with the opinion that we should look and examine things in context rather than modern day revisionism is labelled as someone who is defending the church. Unless one takes the abolsute view then one is defending or diminishing the role of the church in Irish Society.

Hermy wrote: »

As to what shapes society, I single out the catholic church only because it was the dominant player in Irish society but I have the same disdain for all groups who seek to exert undue influence over people for their own ill-gotten gain - be they religious, political, economic or military. The catholic church was a very, very influential force in Ireland and sought to exert that influence in all aspects of society from healthcare to education to politics and beyond - and while they may not be the sole arbitrator of blame any attempt to diminish their role is quite frankly absurd.

Firstly, that is wrong. The dominant player in Irish society up to 1921 was British or english rule. Are you forgetting the Penal laws which had very harsh penalties for people who wanted to practice the Catholic faith. Mention the penal laws to the average person on the street they won't have a clue to what you are talking about but they sure 'the nuns still did it'. That is the level of debate we are having currently. If you want to apportion blame then you must blame the Irish state and by extension the Irish people first and foremost.

jank

Muise... wrote: »

First point: if you are charged with the care of children, and given money from the State to pay for this care, and they somehow die of malnutrition - deliberate or not aren't you legally responsible?

Being legally responsibly? Rather different tune from 'deliberately' starving them to death now if I must say.

Muise... wrote: »

You seem to be generalising the whole sorry case out to an ever-expanding universe of blame for all. When really, how hard is it to admit that in this case, where many of the death certificates state causes of death that were preventable, where bones of infants were found in a mass unmarked grave... how hard is it to admit that, however enabled by wider society, the buck stops with the nuns?

Where was this mass un marked grave? How many bones were found and what were their causes of death.....

Muise... wrote: »

Second point - "agenda seeking populist thinking" - what on earth is this? Feeling sorry that children were neglected and died and wanting to find out why without shrugging it off as shure we were all like that then?

I think you have answered the question for us with that comment.

Muise...

jank wrote: »

Being legally responsibly? Rather different tune from 'deliberately' starving them to death now if I must say.



Where was this mass un marked grave? How many bones were found and what were their causes of death.....



I think you have answered the question for us with that comment.

I never said there was deliberate starvation. I do suspect neglect and cruelty.

Bones were found behind the Mother and Baby Home in Tuam. They have not yet been examined.

Are you seriously seriously saying that it is "agenda-seeking populist thinking" to want to investigate the unnecessary deaths of children? Because if you are, I question your agenda even further: are you a contrarian or an outright troll?

Hermy

jank wrote: »

The dominant player in Irish society up to 1921 was British or english rule.

Should have said my comments are all in the context of the State since the British left.

Spring Onion

jank wrote: »

Being legally responsibly? Rather different tune from 'deliberately' starving them to death now if I must say.

Give the high mortality rates I would absolutely expect the inquiry to investigate if some babies were deliberately starved to death or whether "dying rooms" existed. And to be frank, nothing would surprise me but I will wait to see if there was any evidence of that.

Little CuChulainn

Muise... wrote: »

I never said there was deliberate starvation. I do suspect neglect and cruelty.

Bones were found behind the Mother and Baby Home in Tuam. They have not yet been examined.

Are you seriously seriously saying that it is "agenda-seeking populist thinking" to want to investigate the unnecessary deaths of children? Because if you are, I question your agenda even further: are you a contrarian or an outright troll?

I think he's saying that people are calling for an investigation to confirm what they know. Such an investigation is pointless. Either the bias will affect the impartiality of the investigation or the findings will be dismissed if they don't conform to popular opinion.

jank

Muise... wrote: »

I never said there was deliberate starvation. I do suspect neglect and cruelty.

Bones were found behind the Mother and Baby Home in Tuam. They have not yet been examined.

Are you seriously seriously saying that it is "agenda-seeking populist thinking" to want to investigate the unnecessary deaths of children? Because if you are, I question your agenda even further: are you a contrarian or an outright troll?

Other posters have made reference to deliberate starvation yet there is zero evidence other than circumstantial. Saying that Babies died of malnutrition is the result of a deliberate official policy has no basis in fact at this very minute but I would welcome an independent investigation into such questions.

Again, with the mass graves. The headlines around the world stated that 800 were dumped in a septic tank yet this is factually wrong. Bones were found, but were they human and if so how many and from what ear and date?

It is populist to make assumptions first and foremost and then lead for calls to investigate. It is populist to come to knee-jerk conclusions as evidenced by the opinions pages of the Irish and world media. To reiterate my point, what happened to unwanted pregnancies and single mothers before 1922?

jank

Hermy wrote: »

Should have said my comments are all in the context of the State since the British left.

A society does not change its culture overnight and attempts to do so usually causes more harm then good. Examples, China's cultural revolution and Ireland's attempts to implant a Gaelic culture by force post independence.

Muise...

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I think he's saying that people are calling for an investigation to confirm what they know. Such an investigation is pointless. Either the bias will affect the impartiality of the investigation or the findings will be dismissed if they don't conform to popular opinion.

I think people are looking for an investigation into wtf happened, and are more than a little bit frustrated with being accused of having a populist agenda by people waffling on about socio-economic excuses, alibis and other such irrelevancies to the actual dead babies in the home.

mrsbyrne

Muise... wrote: »

I think people are looking for an investigation into wtf happened, and are more than a little bit frustrated with being accused of having a populist agenda by people waffling on about socio-economic excuses, alibis and other such irrelevancies to the actual dead babies in the home.

Your frustrated at being accused of having a populist agenda, and then you go on to accuse people people who want a thorough investigation into the running of the Mother and Baby Homes of "waffling on " and " irrelevancies"?
Its as clear as day that you have already made up your mind what should be in the report, and if it doesn't come to the conclusion that "it was the nuns wot did it gov their pure evil I tells ya evil! And nobody else is to blame!"then , well, your not going to be a happy camper.

Muise...

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Your frustrated at being accused of having a populist agenda, and then you go on to accuse people people who want a thorough investigation into the running of the Mother and Baby Homes of "waffling on " and " irrelevancies"?
Its as clear as day that you have already made up your mind what should be in the report, and if it doesn't come to the conclusion that "it was the nuns wot did it gov their pure evil I tells ya evil! And nobody else is to blame!"then , well, your not going to be a happy camper.

Nonsense. It is clear in my mind that the investigation should question what happened in that home - i.e. question the surviving nuns and anyone else who had business there, such as the County Council, and go through all the records available and seek full access to any missing documents. What I consider waffling are the diversionary tactics jank uses to throw the investigation so wide open - to pretty much everyone alive in Ireland at the time - that it will have no hope of ever getting to the truth of the matter. And the matter is where are all those bodies of the babies whose deaths were recorded, and why did they die of preventable causes in the care of the church and state, btw, not my opinion of nuns in general.

mrsbyrne

Muise... wrote: »

Nonsense. It is clear in my mind that the investigation should question what happened in that home - i.e. question the surviving nuns and anyone else who had business there, such as the County Council, and go through all the records available and seek full access to any missing documents. What I consider waffling are the diversionary tactics jank uses to throw the investigation so wide open - to pretty much everyone alive in Ireland at the time - that it will have no hope of ever getting to the truth of the matter. And the matter is where are all those bodies of the babies whose deaths were recorded, and why did they die of preventable causes in the care of the church and state, btw, not my opinion of nuns in general.[/quote

Nonsense lol!
Here's your list of what you DONT want to hear about:
1. Where were the fathers of the children


2. Why did the families of the girls put them in the Mother and Baby home
3. Where would they have gone if they weren't wanted at home and there had been no Mother and Baby home
4. What happened to pregnant single women immediately before there were Church run Mother and Baby homes
5. What happened to single pregnant women in other parts of Europe in particular our near neighbour.
6. When these children died why did their family not take them home and bury them?
7. Why did taxpayers constantly complain about how much the mothers and baby's were costing them?
8.What antibiotics were available to the Homes?
9. What was the policy regarding getting medical advice?
10. Was every single solitary GP who signed off on these "suspect" deaths in on this massacre of the innocents? Jesus, they must have been. That's astonishing!
Heres what you do want to hear:
1. What them nuns done
2. Meh....investigate the CoCo, but not too much. That's waffling and an irrelevance.

Muise...

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Muise... wrote: »

Nonsense. It is clear in my mind that the investigation should question what happened in that home - i.e. question the surviving nuns and anyone else who had business there, such as the County Council, and go through all the records available and seek full access to any missing documents. What I consider waffling are the diversionary tactics jank uses to throw the investigation so wide open - to pretty much everyone alive in Ireland at the time - that it will have no hope of ever getting to the truth of the matter. And the matter is where are all those bodies of the babies whose deaths were recorded, and why did they die of preventable causes in the care of the church and state, btw, not my opinion of nuns in general.[/quote

Nonsense lol!
Here's your list of what you DONT want to hear about:
1. Where were the fathers of the children


2. Why did the families of the girls put them in the Mother and Baby home
3. Where would they have gone if they weren't wanted at home and there had been no Mother and Baby home
4. What happened to pregnant single women immediately before there were Church run Mother and Baby homes
5. What happened to single pregnant women in other parts of Europe in particular our near neighbour.
6. When these children died why did their family not take them home and bury them?
7. Why did taxpayers constantly complain about how much the mothers and baby's were costing them?
8.What antibiotics were available to the Homes?
9. What was the policy regarding getting medical advice?
10. Was every single solitary GP who signed off on these "suspect" deaths in on this massacre of the innocents? Jesus, they must have been. That's astonishing!
Heres what you do want to hear:
1. What them nuns done
2. Meh....investigate the CoCo, but not too much. That's waffling and an irrelevance.

I'd like to hear research about 1-10 from historians and sociologists, not whatabouters on the internet. It would be an interesting study.

I'd like to hear what happened in the Mother and Baby homes from an investigation with powers to access documents and testimonies pertaining to the Mother and Baby homes, some of which are in the possession of State archives. 1-10 are not relevant here, and unless carried out by historians and sociologists based on evidence from specific investigations, would simply be a whitewash.

Spring Onion

It would be nice if those 800 children could get some kind of a headstone.

http://s23.postimg.org/xnscv9hbv/smyth.jpg

mrsbyrne

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100277164/associated-press-apologises-for-its-incorrect-reporting-of-the-tuam-babies-scandal/