Greatest Irish Person

Dummy · 23-03-2010 12:37pm #1

I heard this being discussed on the radio yesterday morning. Our chance to vote for the Greatest Irish Person. And I'm not on it ?????

Anyways, I thought this might belong in the History Forum as there are a lot of interesting people that make up and have become part of the fabric that is our colourful history. But Mods, move it if you don't think it appropriate here.

Here's the linky - http://www.rte.ie/tv/irelandsgreatest/index.html

I'm looking forward to hearing the results.

D

Flamed Diving · 23-03-2010 12:49pm

Gately will prob win it. Seriously.

Flamed Diving · 23-03-2010 12:51pm

Is Jack B.Yeats counted as English, or what?

Judgement Day · 23-03-2010 1:21pm

No mention of Dana or Twink ffs!!:D

InTheTrees · 23-03-2010 5:16pm

Parnell.

I was suprised there as no Sean Macbride?

brianthebard · 23-03-2010 5:26pm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Is Jack B.Yeats counted as English, or what?

RTE are just too uncultured to have ever heard of him.

Dummy · 23-03-2010 5:45pm

I don't think the list was generated by RTE themselves, but by a seperate survey company who questioned people on the street.

Looking at the list, I'd love to know the spread of ages of the people questioned.

brianthebard · 23-03-2010 6:13pm

I'd say someone in the survey people's office just asked the other people in the office and left it at that, I have no faith in surveys of any kind, especially ones like this.

(I'm not actually as angry about this as it might sound, just cynical.)

HalloweenJack · 23-03-2010 8:13pm

I can only see Dev winning this one.

I'd rather it were someone like Noel Browne, someone who stood up to the status quo and tried to change things. (Yes, I know he joined FF later on.)

Dummy · 23-03-2010 9:54pm

HalloweenJack wrote: »

I can only see Dev winning this one.

I'd rather it were someone like Noel Browne, someone who stood up to the status quo and tried to change things. (Yes, I know he joined FF later on.)

That would be interesting. If it were Collins or Dev, would you consider this result to be the last remnants of the Civil War divide?

Yes, I completely agree with your choice of Noel Brown. He brought a lot of social good to the country, the best of which was the eradication of the scourge of TB.

Yet my vote would finally fall with Michael Collins. Nothing to do with civil divides, but simply, admiration for a great charismatic leader.

trapsagenius · 23-03-2010 10:25pm

Dummy wrote: »

That would be interesting. If it were Collins or Dev, would you consider this result to be the last remnants of the Civil War divide?

Yes, I completely agree with your choice of Noel Brown. He brought a lot of social good to the country, the best of which was the eradication of the scourge of TB.

Yet my vote would finally fall with Michael Collins. Nothing to do with civil divides, but simply, admiration for a great charismatic leader.

I voted for Dev.I hope either he or Lemass wins it.

Collins will probably win it because he's built up to be a demi-god in Ireland as a result of the movie and TP Coogans overly favourable autobiography.Don't get me wrong, he was a great man but he wasn't the superhero people make him out to be.

Dummy · 23-03-2010 10:59pm

Dev had his good points - he kept Ireland out of WW2 although the country did suffer economically as a consequence.

Lemass, I know very little about. I have never studied the man.

trapsagenius · 23-03-2010 11:11pm

Dummy wrote: »

Dev had his good points - he kept Ireland out of WW2 although the country did suffer economically as a consequence.

Lemass, I know very little about. I have never studied the man.

The country suffering was more a result of the economic war and protectionist policies Dev implemented, than WW2.I'd still absolve him of a lot of blame because:1.Protectionist policies were not really uncommon during the 1930s after the stock market crash and great depression.
2.Tariffs from Britain were practically inevitable anyway- as a result of Dev's Republican policies, the British were bound to retaliate, most likely in the form of tariffs.
3.The economic war ended up helping Ireland in the end, with the return of the Treaty Ports.
I rate Dev highly because of his great work in pushing Ireland along the road to full independence, the constitution, the pride he instilled in Irish people and his successful leadership during WW2.While he acted somewhat poorly during the Treaty negotiations and Civil War, I believe his positives far outweigh his negatives.

Lemass-fought in 1916 when still only 16 himself, fought in the war of independence and was probably our most successful Taoiseach.All in all, 2 remarkable men.

MarchDub · 24-03-2010 12:58am

trapsagenius wrote: »

The country suffering was more a result of the economic war and protectionist policies Dev implemented, than WW2.I'd still absolve him of a lot of blame because:1.Protectionist policies were not really uncommon during the 1930s after the stock market crash and great depression.
2.Tariffs from Britain were practically inevitable anyway- as a result of Dev's Republican policies, the British were bound to retaliate, most likely in the form of tariffs.
3.The economic war ended up helping Ireland in the end, with the return of the Treaty Ports.
I rate Dev highly because of his great work in pushing Ireland along the road to full independence, the constitution, the pride he instilled in Irish people and his successful leadership during WW2.While he acted somewhat poorly during the Treaty negotiations and Civil War, I believe his positives far outweigh his negatives.

Lemass-fought in 1916 when still only 16 himself, fought in the war of independence and was probably our most successful Taoiseach.All in all, 2 remarkable men.

Great post. Few people seem aware now that the Protectionist polices of the 1930s were typical of the time - as economists retreated from the Victorian laissez-faire theory, blamed for the Great Depression [and a huge contributing factor to the disaster of the Famine]. When John Maynard Keynes came to Ireland in 1933 he praised De Valera's economic polices, in particular his emphasis on national self sufficiency.

I would be happy to see Parnell, Collins or De Valera win. But I'm not holding my breath -

Snickers Man · 24-03-2010 6:56am

Has to be Ronnie O'Brien.

Again.

FiSe · 24-03-2010 10:24am

trapsagenius wrote: »

I voted for Dev.I hope either he or Lemass wins it.

Collins will probably win it because he's built up to be a demi-god in Ireland as a result of the movie and TP Coogans overly favourable autobiography.Don't get me wrong, he was a great man but he wasn't the superhero people make him out to be.

Don't overestimate Irish population

I'd say that only tiny percentage of current populus read that biography, after all, it's not Roy Keane, or Jordan and almost nobody remembers what that movie was all about, well a lot of people in Wicklow would remember being an extras.

My point, it's a disgrace, but pretty good picture of the state of the nation.

Flamed Diving · 24-03-2010 11:01am

MarchDub wrote: »

Great post. Few people seem aware now that the Protectionist polices of the 1930s were typical of the time - as economists retreated from the Victorian laissez-faire theory, blamed for the Great Depression B]and a huge contributing factor to the disaster of the Famine[/B. When John Maynard Keynes came to Ireland in 1933 he praised De Valera's economic polices, in particular his emphasis on national self sufficiency.

I would be happy to see Parnell, Collins or De Valera win. But I'm not holding my breath -

This is nonsense. I have read the same journal articles that claim this (which are the source of any book that does the same), and they go on to contradict themselves by providing clear examples of market interventionism, on behalf of the British, and then go on to say that this is laissez-faire economics. My experience with almost every historian I have met has left me with the impression that they had less than an undergraduate understanding of economics. Despite the rhetoric, blathering on in the House of Commons is one thing, but the actions you take are entirely another. The price ceilings set by the British, and their use of public works to help the destitute, are hardly policies that I would expect from laissez-faire ideologues. The Victorian element, where people were expected to work their own way out of poverty, and that a little pain might be good for a nation may well have been the political ideology of the time. But this has nothing to do with economic theory.

PS: Rather than derail the thread. I'm just going to make that my point, and end it there.

I still reckon Gately, ftw.

MarchDub · 24-03-2010 12:24pm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

This is nonsense. I have read the same journal articles that claim this (which are the source of any book that does the same), and they go on to contradict themselves by providing clear examples of market interventionism, on behalf of the British, and then go on to say that this is laissez-faire economics. My experience with almost every historian I have met has left me with the impression that they had less than an undergraduate understanding of economics. Despite the rhetoric, blathering on in the House of Commons is one thing, but the actions you take are entirely another. The price ceilings set by the British, and their use of public works to help the destitute, are hardly policies that I would expect from laissez-faire ideologues. The Victorian element, where people were expected to work their own way out of poverty, and that a little pain might be good for a nation may well have been the political ideology of the time. But this has nothing to do with economic theory.

.

Not sure what are journal articles you refer to - let me give you some original sources. The parliament under Peel was far more willing to intervene [although his purchase of American corn was not entirely a successful intervention, it became known as "Peel's brimstone" and sickened many]. When John Russell came to power in 1846 his government stopped intervention and he made a statement that "it must be clearly understood that we cannot feed the people. It was a cruel delusion to pretend to do so". His government passed The Poor Law Extension Act of 1847 which essentially eliminated all public works and categorically stated that "no further government aid for any form of relief" for Ireland.

Charles Trevelyan's report "The Irish Crisis" [he was permanent head of the treasury] details the government philosophy and economic theory behind the handling of the Famine. He gives the details and the systematic lowering of numbers of those who had fallen onto public works because the government was unwilling from early 1847 to pay for relief - it cost too much money. It makes for chilling reading.

I know this if off topic - but you did say.

Flamed Diving · 24-03-2010 12:53pm

MarchDub wrote: »

Not sure what are journal articles you refer to - let me give you some original sources. The parliament under Peel was far more willing to intervene [although his purchase of American corn was not entirely a successful intervention, it became known as "Peel's brimstone" and sickened many]. When John Russell came to power in 1846 his government stopped intervention and he made a statement that "it must be clearly understood that we cannot feed the people. It was a cruel delusion to pretend to do so". His government passed The Poor Law Extension Act of 1847 which eccentrically eliminated all public works and categorically stated that "no further government aid for any form of relief" for Ireland.

Charles Trevelyan's report "The Irish Crisis" [he was permanent head of the treasury] details the government philosophy and economic theory behind the handling of the Famine. He gives the details and the systematic lowering of numbers of those who had fallen onto public works because the government was unwilling from early 1847 to pay for relief - it cost too much money. It makes for chilling reading.

I know this if off topic - but you did say.

Just to address the journal sources, the only one I can remember is Irish Historical Studies, among others I can't recall. The periods would have been around the 1930s, late 60s/70s and early to mid 90s. They were the major journals, containing the likes of Mokyr and O'Grada, who would have been the notable exceptions I saved space for.

Read this · 24-03-2010 1:46pm

Surely it cannot be given to anyone with blood on their hands?

That rules out most of the early leaders. I don't care what their cause was - if they condoned and sanctioned the taking of a life, they are murderers.

I vote for George Bernard Shaw who was born in Dublin in 1856. He won both a Nobel Prize and an Oscar, and was a leading member of the Fabian Society.

As I was travelling through Niagara-on-the-Lake in Ontario I was amazed to find a statue of him in the main street. They have an annual festival there in his honour.

When travelling through China, I discovered photographs of him standing with China's pre-communist revolutionary leaders.

trapsagenius · 25-03-2010 11:03pm

Read this wrote: »

Surely it cannot be given to anyone with blood on their hands?

Yes it can.Unfortunately, taking lives has often been a necessary part of history.Do you think the British Government would have bowed to the will of the Irish people after they gave a mandate to SF after the 1918 election?I sincerely doubt it. Therefore, it was necessary for the IRA to try and implement the wishes of the Irish people.

Read this wrote: »

I don't care what their cause was - if they condoned and sanctioned the taking of a life, they are murderers.

No, they're not.No more than a soldier who kills in a war is.

Read this · 26-03-2010 1:07pm

I was thinking more of the 10 Commandments.

I don't think there is an exception for soldiers, freedom fighters, zealots or suicide bombers.

MarchDub · 26-03-2010 7:06pm

Read this wrote: »

I vote for George Bernard Shaw who was born in Dublin in 1856. He won both a Nobel Prize and an Oscar, and was a leading member of the Fabian Society.

As I was travelling through Niagara-on-the-Lake in Ontario I was amazed to find a statue of him in the main street. They have an annual festival there in his honour.

When travelling through China, I discovered photographs of him standing with China's pre-communist revolutionary leaders.

I'd actually put Oscar Wilde there before Shaw. He was a better playwright - Shaw even said so when he [Shaw] was a scribbler in London reviewing Wilde's plays. His prose writings are also more insightful than Shaw's. Wilde was also a much more interesting person IMO - "I have put my genius into my life".

Just my opinion anyway.

Flamed Diving · 26-03-2010 7:32pm

Wilde's plays are a laugh to read, even in 2010.

That is true genius.

CDfm · 27-03-2010 1:25am

Lemass, Parnell, Geldof , Haughey, in that order

talla10 · 27-03-2010 1:37am

Hmmm if i can i'd like to nominate me

any seconds??lol

Nah seriously i think it has to be Michael Collins in his short life he did so much for this country and his achievements speak for thenselves. I would hope and pray De Valera does not get it for obvious reasons!!(plus he founded Fianna Fail :mad::mad:)

CDfm · 27-03-2010 1:48am

talla10 wrote: »

Nah seriously i think it has to be Michael Collins in his short life he did so much for this country and his achievements speak for thenselves. I would hope and pray De Valera does not get it for obvious reasons!

DeV vs Collins - architects of the Civil War. I dont think so.

So what criteria.

Lemass, Haughey & Reynolds/McSharry all presided over economic regenerations. DeV had the economic war.

Was there a Fine Gael Economic Guru - Garret Fitzgerald was a disaster.

You need objective criteria not subjective. The greatest politician would be judged by elections won.

trapsagenius · 27-03-2010 5:36pm

talla10 wrote: »

Hmmm if i can i'd like to nominate me any seconds??lol

Nah seriously i think it has to be Michael Collins in his short life he did so much for this country and his achievements speak for thenselves. I would hope and pray De Valera does not get it for obvious reasons!!(plus he founded Fianna Fail :mad::mad:)

I hope Dev gets it, for obvious reasons.

CDfm wrote: »

DeV vs Collins - architects of the Civil War. I dont think so.

So what criteria.

Lemass, Haughey & Reynolds/McSharry all presided over economic regenerations. DeV had the economic war.

Was there a Fine Gael Economic Guru - Garret Fitzgerald was a disaster.

You need objective criteria not subjective. The greatest politician would be judged by elections won.

There's more to being a good Taoiseach than economics!Dev had many successes-pushing Ireland towards full independence, writing the constitution and successfully leading the country during WW2.And like I said earlier, I wouldn't really hold protectionism or the economic war against him.

Completely, 100% agree with you about Fitzgerald.He was a shambles.

I can also see where you're coming from with Reynolds, Mcsharry and Lemass.But Haughey?While he led a very good administration from 1987 to 1989 where he effectively dealt with the country's economic problems, would you not agree he himself contributed to the problem in his earlier terms as Taoiseach?And would you also not agree he was too much of a crook?

BTW, Bruton was a fairly good Taoiseach with regards the economic front, but I can never rate his term in office as a success after the damage he did to the Peace Process, especially after all the great groundwork Reynolds had done.

CDfm · 27-03-2010 8:03pm

trapsagenius wrote: »

I hope Dev gets it, for obvious reasons.

Cos you are related

There's more to being a good Taoiseach than economics!Dev had many successes-pushing Ireland towards full independence, writing the constitution and successfully leading the country during WW2.And like I said earlier, I wouldn't really hold protectionism or the economic war against him.

He had some sucesses but largely because of luck on the League of Nations. I would say his image and intellectual image meant his weaknesses were overlooked.

Presided over an economic shambles and left a basket case of a country.

Completely, 100% agree with you about Fitzgerald.He was a shambles.

Overrated and overhyped

I can also see where you're coming from with Reynolds, Mcsharry and Lemass

I could add a few more.

But Haughey?While he led a very good administration from 1987 to 1989 where he effectively dealt with the country's economic problems, would you not agree he himself contributed to the problem in his earlier terms as Taoiseach?And would you also not agree he was too much of a crook?

Compared with who -his successes out weighed the personal payments he recieved.

Compared to both sides of the house in the Bertie years he should be canonised. Say he got 10 million we are now in the whole for 70 billion - a huge amount.

BTW, Bruton was a fairly good Taoiseach with regards the economic front, but I can never rate his term in office as a success after the damage he did to the Peace Process, especially after all the great groundwork Reynolds had done.

Funnily enough Bruton and Spring were disasters with the peace process - even Haughey handled his bit with Chutzpah. You sort of knew he was a guy who would order people shot and his personal emnity with Hillary made you believe there were little backroom deals.

bigeasyeah · 28-03-2010 5:18pm

Arthur Wellesley,1st Duke of Wellington.

CDfm · 28-03-2010 7:13pm

As a General and Statesman and he was pro Catholic Emancipation and predicted the inevitability of the Great Famine and Britains relutance to do something about it.

Good choice.

Greatest Irish Person

Comments