mothed out
12/8/2009 4:50:00 PM
On Dec 7, 9:41 pm, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 08:45:58 -0800 (PST), mothed out
>
>
>
>
>
> <mothed-...@live.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 7, 4:16 pm, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:58:10 -0000, "Westprog" <westp...@hottmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Féachadóir wrote:
> >> >>> Michael probably would not have stagnated, but would have developed
> >> >>> his insights and moved on from civil war politics and Brit bashing.
>
> >> >> Perhaps, but real politics would have intervened. Whatever vision
> >> >> Collins might have had for stepping stones, his government would still
> >> >> have had to deal with huge financial problems. Governments who face
> >> >> those kinds of problems are never popular, even if he had enough
> >> >> political cop-on not to cut a shillng off the pension.
>
> >> >> Dev was never going to be insignificant. Politics demands an
> >> >> opposition, and Dev was always head and shoulders above Labour
> >> >> (figuratively as well as literally)
>
> >> >There's nothing to be found in anything Collins ever said or did, AFAIAA,
> >> >that indicated the slightest wish to stand up to the Catholic church, for
> >> >example. If Collins had lived and Dev had been killed, we might be having
> >> >exactly the same discussion.
>
> >> It's worse than that. There's an argument to be made that Dev *did*
> >> stand up to the Church on several occasions.
> >> --
> >> 'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
> >> © Féachadóir
>
> >Out of interest, Féachadóir, what do you think were the core factors
> >that made it so seemingly inevitable that the church was going to have
> >such extraordinary institutional and political power in the
> >independent Irish state?
>
> In a word, partition. The border created two secarian states, one smug
> and inward-looking, the other paranoid about it's scheming Fenian
> minority. We needed each other, and we both were the worse without
> each other, an opinion that was incidentally shared by both Connolly
> and Carson.
>
> >Most people i think have picked up the idea that Dev wanted a Catholic
> >country with a capital C anyway, which if true is obviously a big
> >factor.
>
> No, Dev wanted a country where Dev was in charge. As far as Dev was
> concerned, McQuiad wasn't an ally, he was a political opponent, and a
> fearsomely powerful one.
>
> >But would a differently disposed leader have found it easy or even
> >possible to make a more secular country anyway?
>
> There was a strong anti-clerical vein in Ireland in the 1930s. A lot
> of IRA veterans (many of the=m on Dev's backbenches) still remembered
> when the Princes of the Church denounced them from the altars and -
> in some caases - excommunicated them. Whether Dev, or anyone else,
> could have channeled that history into a movement for clerical
> separation is academic at this point. Schools and hospitals would have
> been the place to begin, but it would have required a completely
> different political and economic analysis.
>
> >If not, what would you say were the most important means that the CC
> >would use to exert its power and influence?
>
> Fine Gael (or rather, its petty* bourgeous supporters),p ious
> hypocrites (we still have them, setting up astroturf committes to
> support the Bishop of Limerick), the oridinary dacent faithful, and
> generations of Jensenist conditioning.
>
> >For example, would it be based on direct 'preach power' over the
> >population? - (i've read that the pulpit was hugely influential in
> >getting Irish catholics to enlist for WW1).
>
> In a rural community, the priest read your name of the altar, you
> emigrated, because afterwards precious few would employ you, sell to
> you, or even talk to you. and until about 1960, even dublin was a
> rural community.
>
> > That could perhaps have
> >given them a huge power over whether there was broad public acceptance
> >of govt policy, or even voting patterns?
>
> The beauty of PR was, they didn't have to worry about FF v FG, they
> just had to point to the candidate among the choice of FFers or FGers
> on offer who was suspect.
>
> >Or would you say perhaps that their practical and de facto control of
> >extensive funds/property etc. would have made it very difficult for
> >the newly independent state to provide social/educational/health
> >services without their involvement?
>
> All of the above.
>
> >(or other factors i haven't considered)
>
> [* Yes, I mean petty, not petit]
> --
> 'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
> © Féachadóir
Thanks for your response. I've got a lot reading to do : )