Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1679111215

Comments

  • Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Brayden Colossal Chalkboard


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Some think food was so plentiful that malnourishment couldn't happen, when we have been told these places were also underfunded by the state.
    Food was really scarce in the 1940's, compared to today.

    Have we?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,472 ✭✭✭brooke 2


    Muise... wrote: »
    I don't argue that food was plentiful; I'm questioning the use of this as a reason for excessive deaths in a home that should not have had a scarcity. If these places were underfunded by the state, it was not for want of money but for lack of care for the sinful inmates.

    Thought I read somewhere that a Department Inspector was of the opinion that a lot of the money which the Government gave the homes was sent on to Rome. There was
    a lot of tension between the government and some of the institutions back in 1951
    when the government wanted the religious orders to provide them with an account
    of how they were spending the money which the government gave them. They
    refused to do so! Very strong echoes of Angela Kerins and Frank Flannery in relation
    to Rehab!! :(


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭same ol sh1te


    Muise... wrote: »
    I don't argue that food was plentiful; I'm questioning the use of this as a reason for excessive deaths in a home that should not have had a scarcity. If these places were underfunded by the state, it was not for want of money but for lack of care for the sinful inmates.

    It's been reported that the nuns received the average industrial wage for each in their care, they also did not have to pay for the upkeep of the building and had their own farms where they farmed their livestock grew their vegetables.

    So where did the money go, Rome?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,775 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Muise... wrote: »
    I don't argue that food was plentiful; I'm questioning the use of this as a reason for excessive deaths in a home that should not have had a scarcity. If these places were underfunded by the state, it was not for want of money but for lack of care for the sinful inmates.

    It was a bad construct from the start - it helped spread disease, it separated mothers and babies (where the fathers were is another question), food does seem to be have been a problem at certain stages.
    Diarmaid Ferriter read out a newspaper clipping on the Pat Kenny show a couple of weeks ago, it was a rates payer in Galway complaining about his money being used to support such places and how these people didn't deserve to have public money used to support them - this Mr ferriter claims was when they were already underfunded.
    It is just sad what happened, it is not like it was a secret even in the 1930s when it was discussed in the Dail.
    It was seen as acceptable what was happening, and that was the biggest problem.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,775 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    It's been reported that the nuns received the average industrial wage for each in their care, they also did not have to pay for the upkeep of the building and had their own farms where they farmed their livestock grew their vegetables.

    So where did the money go, Rome?

    Doctors, gravediggers, food...

    How big was the farm and did they hire workers?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,775 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Have we?

    Professor of history in UCD said this.


  • Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Brayden Colossal Chalkboard


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Professor of history in UCD said this.

    Have you any more information on this? I can find the newspaper clipping about the complaints from locals etc, that's all easily verified but doesn't imply underfunding, just resentment at having their money go to pay.

    The only funding amounts and details I could find detailed that the amounts paid to the nun's were above the National Average wage. Obviously you're just passing on Ferriter's comment, but surely he needs to be asked about this (sources etc) given that it's directly in contention with the direct research available online so far.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    I think we need to be careful that we don't have revisionism in either direction.

    Times were hard during WWII in particular but let's get things into perspective. There was a lot of rationing of food and 'luxury' goods though.

    Things weren't that bad pre-War and the funding levels seem to have been reasonably OK.
    Also there certainly shouldn't have been any issue from the mid 50s onwards. Ireland was a not very wealthy but fairly normal European country at that stage.

    What's concerning me is that I'm hearing direct accounts which are describing a denial of access to normal levels of care and resources which were being justified on either penitential grounds or social exclusion grounds.

    There was a 'it's good enough for that sort' kind of attitude.

    Antibiotics for example were widely available and in use through a large portion of that period of history.

    There have been stories of women being denied pain medication and even been left with unstitched tears (there was a midwife explaining this on a radio show recently)

    Also with regards to funding levels please ensure you're using correct inflation calculations. The numerical values of currency in the early 20th century were totally different. So what seems like very small amounts of money may have actually been very significant values.

    I've seen a lot of direct comparisons that have taken no account of purchasing power and inflation.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,775 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Have you any more information on this? I can find the newspaper clipping about the complaints from locals etc, that's all easily verified but doesn't imply underfunding, just resentment at having their money go to pay.

    The only funding amounts and details I could find detailed that the amounts paid to the nun's were above the National Average wage. Obviously you're just passing on Ferriter's comment, but surely he needs to be asked about this (sources etc) given that it's directly in contention with the direct research available online so far.

    In the previous closed thread a link was put up by someone to Newstalk when Diarmaid Ferriter said this.
    I apologise in that I am not in the mood to torture myself by looking for the said link - that thread is long.... but it is there somewhere in the Tuam babies thread, if you feel like punishing yourself.
    If that thread was short I would have looked myself.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    RobertKK wrote: »
    It is just sad what happened, it is not like it was a secret even in the 1930s when it was discussed in the Dail.
    It was seen as acceptable what was happening, and that was the biggest problem.
    Indeed, and it wasn't the only thing happening. As we've seen, Dail debates for the period do make explicit reference to the issues. But it's far from being the only issue that they are dealing with. The broad context is one where 80% of people born in the 1930's emigrate in the 1950's.

    The Annual Reports of the Registrar General stop making specific reference to the "illegitimate" infant mortality rate after 1940. However, the reports do something to give a flavour of what's happening.

    In 1923, there were 61,690 births, including 1,624 "illegitimate" births. There were 4,098 infant deaths, including 559 of illegitimate infants. Three years later, in 1926, the number of births is about the same at 61,176 births. But there's slightly more illegitimate births, at 1,716. Infant deaths have actually increased to 4,552, although a marginally reduced number of 553 are of illegitimate infants. in 1936 births have dropped to 58,115, but illegitimate births are higher at 1,908. There's 4,309 infant deaths, of which 581 are of illegitimate infants. In 1940 births have fallen again to 56,594 births, including 1824 illegitimate births. Infant deaths are down, at 3,759 deaths of which 449 were illegitimate. However, in 1946 births are up to 67,922 including 2,642 illegitimate births. Total infant deaths are also up, at 4,390.

    The only part of that I'd find surprising in the increase in the numbers of illegitimate births. It gives an indication, IMHO, of another way that the ideals behind the independence movement - devout Catholicism, veneration of the rural, Irish language - just didn't connect to the lives many were living.

    But that's another topic.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Brayden Colossal Chalkboard


    ^
    Year Births 'Illegitimate Births' Pct % Infant Deaths 'Illegitimate Deaths' Pct %
    1923 61,690 1,624 2.63% 4,098 559 13.64%
    1926 61,176 1,716 2.81% 4,552 553 12.15%
    1936 58,115 1,908 3.28% 4,309 581 13.48%
    1940 56,594 1,824 3.22% 3,759 449 11.94%


    Disparities between the proportions of total births and infant deaths are stark.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    It's not really another topic though. The sad reality is that after independence, Ireland embarked on a whole load of disastrous attempts at social engineering and isolationist economics driven by a group of conservatives who were going to model their ideal Ireland come hell or highwater.

    Basically, instead of accepting the reality of Ireland which was always a lot more complex and probably in reality quite liberal. They just oppressed the heck out of it.

    A lot of this stuff stemmed from things like clearing red light districts etc etc... 'Social hygiene'


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,113 ✭✭✭Electric Sheep


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I did not say anything was alright, but one has to be realistic that hygiene back then was not as easy to maintain as it is now.
    Disease far more common as there was no vaccines for lots of diseases, TB was not under control, antibiotics not as advanced.

    I simply think some are looking at the past in modern day eyes and thinking things back then were no harder than the present, when the challenges in the past were far greater, this is not excusing anything, it is just being factual.
    Society had a lot to answer for in how it treated people who were associated with children that were born outside of marriage. From the state down they were viewed as a problem, and it was viewed as such in all of society.
    I remember not so long ago one would be hearing complaints about the single mothers allowance, but it is interesting this allowance/support is what helped women and children the most who had children outside of marriage and it was much better for society by supporting them than viewing them as a problem.
    We were hearing complaints about single parents allowance right here on boards.ie a couple of weeks ago.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,947 ✭✭✭✭Neyite


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Doctors, gravediggers, food...

    How big was the farm and did they hire workers?

    lol.

    These were the three things that the nuns specifically didn't pay for.

    Inmates did not get adequate food.
    Inmates did not get adequate medical attention.
    Inmates did not get a respectful burial.

    Lets not forget that in addition to the farms, and laundries that they may have ran, they also got the equivalent of the average industrial wage (which, outside the walls, would support a man, wife and very large family) per inmate. Then they charged women who wanted to leave £100. Or got free labour from them for three years. Then sold the babies for an average of £2,000 - £3,000 per baby. Or, in today's money, €70,000 - €82,000.

    Those nuns made hundreds of thousands from a mother & child. Probably equal to a lifetime of wages that an adult of the time would earn per mother and baby.

    So where did this money go?


  • Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Neyite wrote: »
    lol.So where did this money go?

    Probably to Priests to say Mass for their suffering souls?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,472 ✭✭✭brooke 2


    Neyite wrote: »
    lol.

    These were the three things that the nuns specifically didn't pay for.

    Inmates did not get adequate food.
    Inmates did not get adequate medical attention.
    Inmates did not get a respectful burial.

    Lets not forget that in addition to the farms, and laundries that they may have ran, they also got the equivalent of the average industrial wage (which, outside the walls, would support a man, wife and very large family) per inmate. Then they charged women who wanted to leave £100. Or got free labour from them for three years. Then sold the babies for an average of £2,000 - £3,000 per baby. Or, in today's money, €70,000 - €82,000.

    Those nuns made hundreds of thousands from a mother & child. Probably equal to a lifetime of wages that an adult of the time would earn per mother and baby.

    So where did this money go?

    Rome??


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,947 ✭✭✭✭Neyite


    Probably to Priests to say Mass for their suffering souls?

    Hmmm, starve them to death, or to the point that they could not fight off survivable infections and diseases, deny them medical attention, toss them onto a pile of other decomposing bodies instead of a decent burial.

    But have a mass said.

    Actually, that sounds like perfect logic that the religious orders might come out with.

    brooke 2 wrote: »
    Rome??

    Highly likely. Or back to headquarters to buy swathes of land elsewhere to build more hell-holes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,775 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    I don't see why the money would go to Rome given they are not ruled from Rome.
    It is totally different than a Bishop for example being answerable to Rome, given they are clergy and nuns are basically lay people.
    The nuns would only be answerable to their order and I can't see them giving money to Rome when they would be able to use the money themselves for projects they wanted to carry out.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    Neyite wrote: »
    Hmmm, starve them to death, or to the point that they could not fight off survivable infections and diseases, deny them medical attention, toss them onto a pile of other decomposing bodies instead of a decent burial.

    But have a mass said.

    Actually, that sounds like perfect logic that the religious orders might come out w

    Highly likely. Or back to headquarters to buy swathes of land elsewhere to build more hell-holes.
    Once again, have you no clue how a surviving family member of these children might feel when reading this speculative, sensationalist, mind numbingly hurt full, insensitive tabloid claptrap?? A poster claiming to be a survivor of one of these homes has already called this thread "shame full" and now the thread has been taken down another notch.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    Once again, have you no clue how a surviving family member of these children might feel when reading this speculative, sensationalist, mind numbingly hurt full, insensitive tabloid claptrap?? A poster claiming to be a survivor of one of these homes has already called this thread "shame full" and now the thread has been taken down another notch.

    I daresay a survivor of one of these institutions has suffered so much by actions that the only words on the internet that will bother them are the ones that deny or try to minimise their experience.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Smidge


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    Once again, have you no clue how a surviving family member of these children might feel when reading this speculative, sensationalist, mind numbingly hurt full, insensitive tabloid claptrap?? A poster claiming to be a survivor of one of these homes has already called this thread "shame full" and now the thread has been taken down another notch.

    I'm unsure as to what part of Neyites post you are so worked up about?
    As far as I can see, its not speculation at all. Many, many survivors of these homes have reported ALL of the things that are in that post and worse.

    So therefore how could it be speculative claptrap?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    I am a former resident of a Mother & Baby home and I can assure you that my point is entirely valid. I speak from direct experience of one of these institutions.

    My baby was forcibly adopted in 1980 and I am now faced with the prospect of possibly having to trace her to see if she was indeed adopted or lies in one of the home graves around Ireland.

    When I pass from this world, I can assure you that no symbol or trace of that religious body will be on show at my funeral.

    A real live one of "them" - would you have guessed it? not quite the same as speculating ridicuously about whether the bodies are in the tank, out of the tank or somewhere else is it? You should be ashamed of yourselves and your
    ignorance.
    You must have missed this post. Even a survivor suffering horrendously from her experience finds the speculation in this thread sickening. I really have no words.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    You must have missed this post. Even a survivor suffering horrendously from her experience finds the speculation in this thread sickening. I really have no words.

    It's not so much the speculation on what happened (which has always acknowledged the wrong of it) as the excuses and relativities presented that are offensive. This survivor you quote also finds your church, and its potential participation in memorials, utterly reprehensible.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Smidge


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    You must have missed this post. Even a survivor suffering horrendously from her experience finds the speculation in this thread sickening. I really have no words.

    So, what you are saying is that because one survivor of these institutions voices their opinion on a public forum, everyone else should not have an opinion about the the subject?

    And again, its not speculation.

    And also, for someone with "no words" you have a helluva lot to say on the matter yourself.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    Muise... wrote: »
    I daresay a survivor of one of these institutions has suffered so much by actions that the only words on the internet that will bother them are the ones that deny or try to minimise their experience.

    But you already replied to a poster who says she is a survivor and was finding the speculation and ignorance on this thread upsetting. You told her that she shouldn't expect to control others reaction to this story despite your acknowledgment that she had had a hard time.
    . No words of comfort. Just a kind of determination that you would carry on speculating in whatever manner you liked, irregardless of whoever it offended. Even if it offended the victims for whom you claim to seek justice. Please explain this I don't understand.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    Muise... wrote: »
    It's not so much the speculation on what happened (which has always acknowledged the wrong of it) as the excuses and relativities presented that are offensive. This survivor you quote also finds your church, and its potential participation in memorials, utterly reprehensible.

    No, YOU find the excuses offensive.
    The survivor quite clearly found the speculation about the septic tank, and what she considered the "ignorance" on this thread "shame full' . Its only a mercy that she didn't see the original AH thread, which was far far worse.
    Unlike you, I didn't try to defend 'my" church the way you defended your right to speculate about how the bodies of the babies were handled after death, even while an investigation is taking place.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    But you already replied to a poster who says she is a survivor and was finding the speculation and ignorance on this thread upsetting. You told her that she shouldn't expect to control others reaction to this story despite your acknowledgment that she had had a hard time.
    . No words of comfort. Just a kind of determination that you would carry on speculating in whatever manner you liked, irregardless of whoever it offended. Even if it offended the victims for whom you claim to seek justice. Please explain this I don't understand.

    I think we are talking about the same poster. She hates the church now, and I do not blame her at all - this is a reasonable position for her to hold after what they put her through - but I also think that we cannot realistically expect to exclude the church (as in today, 2014's church) from any memorials or redresses to the wrongs in the past.

    I can totally see why she doesn't want to see them at a memorial (and I would just like to see them in court) but I think that all sincere sympathies should be directed toward the dead in this case, including any repentant perpetrators and current practising Catholics. Otherwise we learn nothing and nothing will change. That is what I meant when I said she could not dictate the responses of others.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    Smidge wrote: »
    So, what you are saying is that because one survivor of these institutions voices their opinion on a public forum, everyone else should not have an opinion about the the subject?

    And again, its not speculation.

    And also, for someone with "no words" you have a helluva lot to say on the matter yourself.

    While an investigation is ongoing into the whole scandal, yes, its speculation. Posts about babies being starved to death and flung into septic tanks is speculation. Its also grossly offensive and ignorant. A survivor said that, not me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    While an investigation is ongoing into the whole scandal, yes, its speculation. Posts about babies being starved to death and flung into septic tanks is speculation. Its also grossly offensive and ignorant. A survivor said that, not me.

    When death certificates state malnutrition as a cause of death, and when there are no corresponding records of burial but a heap of baby bones are found in or near what was once a septic tank beside the place of death, "starved to death" and "flung into septic tanks" are not speculation; they are a valid hypothesis.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,534 ✭✭✭gctest50


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    While an investigation is ongoing into the whole scandal, yes, its speculation. Posts about babies being starved to death and flung into septic tanks is speculation. Its also grossly offensive and ignorant. A survivor said that, not me.


    Have a look through the attachment for " marasmus "


Advertisement