Yeah, she was always swanning around in her limo, staying in five star hotels and wearing those versace dresses! It's so obvious.
Any balanced history of the 1913 lockout?
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
Yeah, she was always swanning around in her limo, staying in five star hotels and wearing those versace dresses! It's so obvious.
The questions raised are legitimate. Her care for the sick has been questioned for decades as some former workers at her missions left because of what they considered a fatalistic philosophy of letting people die with dignity instead of making them better.
When we deify someone or something we remove critical appraisal from the public dialogue. That has happened in this country many times be it the RC Church or public figures. Nobody is perfect and all sides spin the truth in order to promote their agenda and/or ideals.
The same applies to the 1913 lock-out; we view it in terms of the good guys and the bad guys with altruistic motives on one side and selfish and greedy motives on the other. The truth is rarely that simple.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,770
Had to smile myself , confident of how wide of the mark the comment was !
Thankfully due to the influence of my Trade Union & the largesse of my previous employer I was able to retire from the burden of employment at an unfeasably early age some 6 years ago.
4 O'Clock generally finds me in the convivial company of ex colleagues in our club.
Thankfully due to the influence of my Trade Union & the largesse of my previous employer I was able to retire from the burden of employment at an unfeasably early age some 6 years ago.
4 O'Clock generally finds me in the convivial company of ex colleagues in our club.
Had to smile myself , confident of how wide of the mark the comment was !
Thankfully due to the influence of my Trade Union & the largesse of my previous employer I was able to retire from the burden of employment at an unfeasably early age some 6 years ago.
4 O'Clock generally finds me in the convivial company of ex colleagues in our club.
I hope that's a working man's club!
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,770
This is more like it.
Martin Murphy wasn't the villain of folklore's tales
By Michael Dwyer a member of the highly self-respected Edmund Burke Institute
Martin Murphy wasn't the villain of folklore's tales
By Michael Dwyer a member of the highly self-respected Edmund Burke Institute
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,596
Interesting stuff.
Wait till 2016. Jayz the wallowing in that myth is going to be suffocating. The fact is that the men of 1916 did not have the support of the people. Much is made of the fact that the Brits overreacted in executing the leaders. I dunno. It was an opportunistic attack at the heart of the empire when it itself was facing a deadly threat. We see how countries must and will react when, as in Egypt, they are faced with chaos. Executing the leaders of an armed and unpopular insurrection might have turned out to be bad judgement but the jury is out so far as I am concerned as to whether it was quite the day of infamy that all shades of current Irish political opinion apparently hold it to be.
Wait till 2016. Jayz the wallowing in that myth is going to be suffocating. The fact is that the men of 1916 did not have the support of the people. Much is made of the fact that the Brits overreacted in executing the leaders. I dunno. It was an opportunistic attack at the heart of the empire when it itself was facing a deadly threat. We see how countries must and will react when, as in Egypt, they are faced with chaos. Executing the leaders of an armed and unpopular insurrection might have turned out to be bad judgement but the jury is out so far as I am concerned as to whether it was quite the day of infamy that all shades of current Irish political opinion apparently hold it to be.
Martin Murphy was a Catholic and a business owner so it suited both sides for him to be a bad guy. It's a pity we didn't have a few more people like him.
I have great respect for the early Labour movement but I have no time for Jim Larkin. I do have a lot of respect for his son, who did more for the working poor than his father ever did.
dereko1969
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,046
Was that a typo or taking the pish out of them?
Should probably be the latter having read their description of their viewpoint which includes an ad for a book on Hayek.
"However market based politics have yet to strike deep roots in Ireland. With rare exceptions the conversion of Irish lawmakers to the market is shallow. Too few Irish politicians and opinion formers have any theoretical grasp of the philosophic and economic grasp of the case for markets."
I wouldn't exactly go looking to them for a fair and balanced view of the labour market and workers rights!
Though, in fairness, having read the article he does make some valid points (whilst giving Murphy a pass on being a slum landlord!).
Someone had to own the tenement buildings. The issue is how that landlord treated their tenants, and that has to be seen within the norms of the day.
If the country had been run on the communist ideals of Larkin and Connolly we could have ended up like North Korea.
It’s only in fiction that there are neat lines between the good guys and the bad guys. The truth is more subtle and nuanced.
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,962
Whatever your own perspective or views on economics, the truth of the above statement is incontestable.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,770
It was indeed the latter. If I may say so myself, I thought it was a good one!
Ceist Beag
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,445
There's a pretty good overview of the period if you haven't read it yet Brendan.
dereko1969
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,046
From the very interesting link just provided:
Housing conditions were deplorable. Overcrowding was a serious problem, and bred disease and infection. Malnutrition was common. The death rate in Dublin (27.6 per 1000) was bad as Calcutta, and the city’s slums were amongst the worst in the world. Over 20,000 families lived in one-room dwellings. There were often more than ten families in town houses that were built for one upper-class family in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. These houses became dilapidated when wealthy elites left them and moved to the suburbs. The houses were often taken over by landlords who rented them out, room by room, to poor families, and they quickly became slums. There was little privacy. Facilities for cooking, cleaning, and washing were wholly inadequate. Sanitary conditions were worse. Many tenement buildings shared one lavatory in a yard.
I'm really surprised and disappointed that you think this type of treatment of tenants is justifiable in the context of the "norms" of the time, "everyone else was doing it, so why not me" does not seem to me to be the right way to treat people, or perhaps I'm picking you up wrong.
From the same link;
Nobody would suggest that what was going on was right but the state was responsible for the appalling conditions that so many people lived in. No individual, no matter how powerful, was going to change things on their own.
The problem was poverty and inequality and overcrowding was a symptom of that problem. Due to historical reasons Ireland was very underdeveloped industrially so urban poverty was systemic and there was no easy solution.
That doesn't excuse it but lets not pretend that it was created by the business owners in Dublin, or that it was unique to Dublin or Ireland.
There were many business owners who were very charitable but it should be remembered that businesses didn't pay any corporation tax back then.