‘Virtue Signalling’ About Dead Babies

at

it

Today’s Irish Times

the mawkish discussion of Tuam, the transformation of it into fodder for tabloid outrage and ostentatious emoting on Twitter, is an ugly spectacle.

It seems designed not to work out what happened in the home, but to make it a symbol of evil that we decent people might contrast ourselves against.

It’s virtue signalling – an attempt to advertise one’s own moral rectitude by poring over the depravity of bygone eras.

The most striking thing about the handwringing over Tuam is its impatience with fact-gathering. These Tuam ghouls cannot wait for all the information – they have virtue to display, and they’re damn well going to display it.

…If we look calmly at what is actually known, then it seems that while the home was an awful, tragic place, it was not necessarily a site of insanity or evil.

That the “structure” had 20 chambers suggests it had been turned into a kind of catacomb. That the children buried there were “swaddled up”, as one eye-witness described it, suggests they were not simply “dumped”.

That the discovery of the structure in the 1970s was followed by a priestly blessing and then the setting up of a grotto by local people suggests the town of Tuam, and Old Ireland more broadly, was not a foul place but rather had many good people in it, concerned for the dead.’

Rush to moralise over Tuam has run ahead of the facts (Brendan O’Neill, The irish Times)

Graham K writes:

A week on and the Irish Times has made no efforts to correct the smear on historian Catherine Corless. Instead we are left with ‘edgy’ op-ed columns like this (above) smearing people for their reaction to Tuam. We are virtue signalling about dead babies apparently…wow. Just wow.

Brendan O Neill?

Earlier: Children of A lesser God

Sponsored Link

159 thoughts on “‘Virtue Signalling’ About Dead Babies

    1. AlisonT

      What is actually wrong with what he is saying? He is basically saying to wait for the facts if they can be found. What happened here is terrible but we have very few facts. The report I read said this chamber may have been part of a sewerage works and if it was then it was not used for that purpose. People should be focusing more on the cause of death in these cases rather than the methods of burial. Were the mortality rates different to those in non religious institutions with similar funding and medical care available?
      In 50 years time the way many elderly are treated in our society today may well be looked upon in a similar manner to this.

      1. Nigel

        One thing that’s wrong is his lazy assumption that people are posturing for the sake of it. There are long-repressed demons and resentments within the Irish psyche, an incredible rage that rarely finds proper expression, because justice for things like this is so rarely forthcoming. ‘We haven’t all the facts yet’ is a safe enough thing to say. ‘Virtue signalling’ is to spit in the face of a moral fury that may be incoherent and misdirected, but is very, very real.

      2. mildred st. meadowlark

        Alison, I refer you to Listrade’s excellent comment below. You might find an answer or two.

        1. Brother Barnabas

          you know, clamps, when i hit ‘post comment’, i thought – “won’t be long before Clampers is along…”

          i was/am only joking. no offense intended – please don’t take any. i don’t condone violence (whether physical or anything else) against anyone at any time for any reason.

          1. mildred st. meadowlark

            I read it as tongue in cheek, brother B.

            However, for someone in Clampers situation, I’d imagine it could be what’s known these days as a ‘trigger’ word.

          2. Clampers Outside!

            No bother Brother Barnabas….. I’m sure you wouldn’t.

            I threw in the “s/” …as I believe it’s acceptable short for sarcasm.

            No, it’s not a trigger Mildred.

            I’ve only ever voted FG once… and I think that was 4th / 5th preference. And how the fupp did you get FG shill / on the payroll from the previous comment…. Amazing leaps between tangents of your mind in fairness :)

  1. Joe cool

    What’s the facts? 700 bodies dumped in a sewerage tank. Anything else we need to know about?

    1. Yep

      Ahhhh but it was different times back then to be sure, to be sure.

      We’re all just too bloody righteous these days we don’t understand the “context”…

  2. Mr. Camomile T

    Apart from the disgusting, cynical and obviously contrarian and provocative nature of the article, it also lacks all logic and should therefore never have made it to print.
    The author decries the “virtue-signalling” of those who are justifiably horrified by this story but then attempts to take the high moral ground himself by criticising the commission of investigation for not telling the victims group before informing the media.
    The author further decries the lack of a “scientific” approach to the investigation but goes on to presume that the structure “had been turned into a type of catacomb” based on no evidence whatsoever to justify the presumption.
    Finally, the author attempts to debunk the idea that the babies were “dumped” without any historical record of burial masses being performed on the site – how could proper burials have taken place without such masses?
    Perhaps in the rush to generate clicks the Irish Times has lost all moral authority.

  3. ScaryLady

    What on earth is going on in the Irish Times? They seem to be giving every alt-right noticebox a platform at the moment. Between that and the failure to apologise for Rosita Boland’s disgraceful column last year trouncing Catherine Corless’s peerless research, they’re really not covering themselves in glory.

    Or are they so desperate for readers that they’ve just gone clickbait crazy?

    1. The Old Boy

      They published a letter from a quasi-fascist this morning as well, someone claiming to represent a party called “Immigration Control Platform”.

    2. nellyb

      I think it’s great – we know who our society is made up of, realistic picture is best, don’t you think?

    3. Susan

      I saw Rosita Boland’s tweets smugly talking about trolls and the block button. I’m shocked, disgusted and enraged that she shows so much self-reverence little self-awareness. I’m doing myself no favours criticising her as she is heavily involved in the literary community but honestly, eff it. That column was a disgrace.

        1. Susan

          I know you are commenting in humour but are you really gonna try writersplaining to me? I’m a novelist ffs

          1. mildred st. meadowlark

            Calm down. Have a biscuit.

            It was definitely just intended as humour. And I highly doubt he found anything wrong with the structure of your comment.

            Incidentally, I didn’t know there was such a thing as ‘writersplaining’, so to speak, as a writer myself. This is why I love language. It’s an unstoppable demon.

          2. Brother Barnabas

            I’m actually knee-deep in writersplaining to Susan – and I’m deeply unhappy with the structure of her comment, betraying, as it does, muddled thinking, fuddled reasoning and puddled rationale. And SHE NEEDS TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. ffs.

          3. Susan

            Soz for delay in stepping up to plate, was busy doing other stuff. Plus there’s no reply button to the comment. I’m standing by all 3 adjectives tho, that article was…special.

    4. rotide

      I might have missed the virtue signalling snowflake memo, but how exactly was Bolands column disgraceful?

    1. Vote Rep #1

      Its an opinion piece. Are Its an opinion piece. Do you want the IT to only print opinion pieces you agree with?

        1. Vote Rep #1

          no idea what I did there. The ITs opinion pieces have gone the way of the guardians comment is free i.e. tripe to get clicks/people talking about it.

          That said, they print rubbish from all spectrums but people really only complain about articles from the opposite spectrum that they feel a part of. Its as if people really only want opinion pieces they agree with.

      1. mildred st. meadowlark

        No, that’s not what I meant at all by my question. And I feel that giving a voice to opposing views is necessary. But that raises the question of ‘balance’ in the media, and that’s a debate in and of itself.

        But as to my question about the times. Is it still the paper of record?

        I’m just thinking in terms of how papers are used by historians as a means to establish a form of social context, when looking back at a period.

        I know it’s less relevant now, what with the internet, but they are still a part of it. And it has me wondering, as to the content it produces now, how that will reflect our society in later years.

        1. Cian

          Historians can (and do) look at all the sources they can. So in 100 years from now, if someone was looking back at the Tuam case, they could look at both The Irish Times (paper of record) and also The Sun. Both papers provide separate social contexts.

  4. newsjustin

    It is notable that 2.5 years in and the Commission of Investigation still can’t say what the actual purpose, if any, of the underground concrete structure…subdivided into 20 parts, perhaps at a later date – was within the sewage treatment system. Or whether is was ever used as part of the system.

    Maybe they need a decent civil engineer. Or maybe, just maybe, the 800 babies dumped in a septic tank is not quite right.

    1. ivan

      yebbut…

      the structure was build x years ago. Unless they can find somebody who was around x years ago, or unless they can get, I dunno, planning documents from x years ago, or blueprints (unikely) then getting a definitive answer to the question “What was the actual *intended* purpose of the structure?” is going to prove rather difficult.

      All that being said, the fact that the structure contained significant amount of human remains, means that whilst we don’t know what the ‘intended’ purpose of the structure was, we know that it was actually used for. We’re dancing atop a pinhead here, methinks…

      1. newsjustin

        I’m sure the basics of treating waste hasn’t changed that much in 100 years.

        What the tank was and what it was used for IS important. People are rightly distressed at the idea that human bodies would be buried in tanks that may have contained waste.

        1. ivan

          My understanding was that the structure wasn’t used for anything else. But that doesn’t, IMHO, make things much better. Yes, of course, it’s better that the children weren’t flung into a tank of filth, but only a bit.

          The notion that somebody would have come to the conclusion ‘hang on, if we don’t use that concrete thing we’ve built a septic tank yoke, we can use it to inter dead children’ isn’t *that* much better. I’d be kinda distressed at the disposal of bodies in THAT fashion as well, because it’s almost inhuman.

          I just read A Study in Scarlet at the weekend; when the two Mormon lads murdered John Ferrier, even they had the decency to mark the grave.

    2. MoyestWithExcitement

      It’s mass grave. Of children. Do you really need to defend EVERYTHING your church does?

  5. 15p

    unbelievable .. why does it bother him that people are shocked and appalled about murdered babies? he’s making it out like everyone’s being over-sensitive .. about MURDERED BABIES!! .. i can’t get over it, and he’s trying to play it down by sayin basically “hey don’t overreact, they didn’t ‘dump’ the dead babies, they craddled them in together caringly” .. what an abhorrent, nasty fupper

      1. Anomanomanom

        I have to agree with you on the point your trying to make, because iv not seen any evidence that they killed babies and thats why they dumped them. Saying that I’m hoping I never see that evidence, I’m hoping the worst thing that comes out is the dumped the bodies(in awful way) after they died. But honestly I think that place was a fupping “death camp”and think those words might turn out to mild for what happened there.

      2. nellyb

        yeah, someone outsourced disposal of deceased to Bon Secours, but they performed below service level agreement and just dumped the bodies into infrastructure cavities. i hope commission is of the same mind with me. it’s a business matter, period (- not the menstrual one).

    1. Clampers Outside!

      You just proved his point silly.

      You are already convinced that these babies were all…… ” MURDERED BABIES!! ”
      That’s 800 murders you claim to know of at this site. Murders.

      You are clearly convinced that 800 murders took place. Please do elaborate and do tell of the evidence you have to this effect. Or shut up for FFS.

      You’re up there with the muppet two posts back who said… ” I’d like to see a glass case erected in Stephens Green filled with the skulls of the bodies found in Tuam so we are all constantly reminded of the cruelty that was inflicted on these innocent children ” – The emotive hysterical outrage of idiots. Even if they are not expecting to be taken seriously it’s fueling more emotional anger with unproductive bullpoo ffs.

      1. 15p

        the ‘F’ in ‘FFS’ stands for ‘for’ .. nice to see you all riled up and angry though. you’re easy to wind up but it’s still fun.

      2. 15p

        ps. clampers. the babies were starved, and mistreated, and died due to neglect in a lot of cases. not all 800, but if it was one baby who was starved and chucked into a septic tank, yea, id be fairly angry about it. unlike you, who seems to think its over-reacting if it was just like, ya know, a few babies, and sure it was ages ago .. smh

          1. 15p

            it’s fact. it is fact that babies were starved there. it’s not my opinion, it’s why i and the rest of the country have read and know for fact. Catherine Corless paid for the death records of the babies and most of them died from malnutrion or neglect. death records aren’t my opinion, they are death records, they are fact. so why are you getting annoyed that people are upset about this? you’re a sick, heartless idiot.

          2. ReproBertie

            How many babies dying from malnutrition in the care of the nuns is considered acceptable? I’m going to assume the answer is none but you carry on fighting the good fight on the nun’s behalf.

          3. newsjustin

            ReproBertie. I point out these facts simply because they are facts. They’re there for all to see in the journal article.

            I’m defending no one by pointing out facts. I am proving 15p wrong, but that’s not too difficult given his/her outlandish claims.

            There are natural reasons (in the early – mid 20th Century) why an infant might die of malnutrition. I wouldn’t assume that it was deliberate starvation – and I would be surprised if the all powerful nuns would have consented to have the cause of death recorded as malnutrition if it implicated them in starvation…

      3. 15p

        “Twelve of the 18 who starved were girls and there is a suspicion that some were mentally retarded. Bridget Agatha Kenny was two months old when she died as a result of marasmus, child malnutrition, on August 23, 1947. She is described as having been ‘mentally defective.’

        She was one of 18 children whose cause of death was listed as child malnutrition or the official term “marasmus.”

        but hey, clampers.. let’s not get all hysterical eh? nothing to be shocked about here. “for FFS.” .. you abhorrent, heartless fupp.

        1. Clampers Outside

          I’m “heartless” because I don’t show hyperbolic outrage like you do, shouting that 800 babies were “MURDERED”..? That’s your simpleton like opinion.

          And I’m glad I’m not agreeing with such

          1. MoyestWithExcitement

            Because that’s what it’s all about for guys like you; ego. ‘Everyone is in agreement on something. If I poke some meaningless hole in their stance and make out they’re being emotional that will mean I’m really smart and logical because feelings and emotions are for weaklings and I’m not weak!!’

          2. 15p

            exactly, moyest .. clampers is annoyed because people have emotions. like why does it bother him? he’s all over this thread goin mad about it. mad about people who havent done anything other than express sorrow for something awful that happened. and because he’s totally fine with what happeend in tuam, he doesnt like others being upset by it .. what a strange sick disposition.

          3. 15p

            ps. like i said already, its not my opnion, its fact. their death records say most of them starved to death or died of mistreatment. and YES.. i am outraged by that. the fact that you think it’s over dramatic to be outraged by MURDERED BABIES shows a really disgusting side of you.

          4. 15p

            so newsjustin, if 18 babies were starved to death and chucked into a septic tank .. thats .. ok?

          5. Clampers Outside!

            Ah poor 15p, you’ve been handed your hat by Broadsheet’s biggest conservative commenter, Newsjustin, on more than one occasion in this thread…. LOL!
            Fair play News!

            I really did enjoy this… and look forward to the proof… oh wait, someone else showed there was none… oh well… fun to read tho !
            “PS like i said already, its not my opinion, its fact. their death records say most of them starved to death or died of mistreatment.”

            And this spittle fest…
            “if 18 babies were starved to death and chucked into a septic tank .. thats .. ok?”

            You think that because News pointed out your mistakes, and disagrees with you they must then be assumed to believe your pointed question scenario to be OK….. alrighty then.

            Love it. Truly I do.

          6. Sheik Yahbouti

            Ah, so it’s actually a sport Clampers? ” I can parse and analyse, and chip at and negate people’s comments and that makes me the smartest boy in the class”. People are venting their distress in a harmless manner on an internet , what business is it of yours what terms they couch it in?

          7. 15p

            in your weird little world maybe, but just read thr comments, he said 10 out of 800, i asked does he think 18 starved babies is ok, he didnt answer, and then you, the biggest idiot on BS thinks thats a win for him? your dilusional. also, i keep telling you that Corless got the death certs, and they said the babies were starved to death, and that is fact, and u keep ignoring that part because im right. i just keep disproving your claims that im being dramatic, and keep hittin u with facts, and u keep thinking its gone differntly. clear proof you’re dilusional. you’re an absolute loser of the highest order. and what kind of sicko spends all day goin around a thread gettin mad at people for empathising over dead babies? you’re seriously wrong in the head.

          8. 15p

            i can’t believe im arguing with someone who is non-chalant about 800 MURDERED BABIES. someone who doesn’t even see it as newsworthy. also someone who not only doesnt care, but gets angry because other people care.. like how does that effect you? what does it matter to you? im not checkin back in for your reply becuase your completely unhinged and i genuinely think i have been arguing with someone with a mental condition, and im a bit embarassed about that now that i think about it. so write back what u like, i wont see it. then either do yourself in or hand yourself in, coz ur a freak and shouldn’t be out in public.

          9. Clampers Outside!

            Again… you claim to know that there were “800 MURDERED BABIES”.

            But when asked for proof, you do rants, like a sideshow, name calling and abuse. You have not proven anything. Y0ouhave made claims.

            Give a link to where you have proof 800 MURDERS occurred. I’ll go easy… I only want what you claim to have already shown proof for… that is, that “most” were murdered….
            I look forward to the proof of your claims…. but not your childish assertions nor abuse.
            Just so ya know pet, it’s not nice.

          10. Clampers Outside!

            This is just brilliant, thanks 15p….

            “Someone who doesn’t even see it as newsworthy.” – You have proof of that? No? Don’t need it, because you are judgemental.

            “someone who…. doesnt care,” – You assert this for whatever reason, because you are judgemental.

            “gets angry because other people care.” – You assert this without any proof, because you are judgemental.

            “like how does that effect you?”

            ” what does it matter to you? ”

            ” im not checkin back ” – Yeah right !

            ” becuase your completely unhinged ” – Your opinion accounts for nothing in fairness, as the above proves. The delegitimisation begins.

            ” i genuinely think i have been arguing with someone with a mental condition ” – The delegitimisation continues with a further assertion of the opinion held.

            ” im a bit embarassed about that now ” – aims for the victimhood like points… sympathy.

            ” then either do yourself in or hand yourself in, coz ur a freak and shouldn’t be out in public.” – and the closing assertion, and a request that I kill myself…. lovely.

            You really are lovely in a pathetic child kinda way. The name calling is your giveaway pet.

            Toodleoo…. I’m be off now ;)

            I may come back for a look… Hah!

      4. And Social Justice For All

        Lol at Clampers referring to the emotional overreaching. A dead donkey would have more self awareness

    1. mildred st. meadowlark

      Aye. As mentioned above, the guardian is rampant with that kind of shjte too. It’s unnecessarily divisive. We’ve enough of that with Twitter and the like.

  6. Vote Rep #1

    What was the smear against Catherine Corless in the IT? The article linked is from 2014.

    1. mildred st. meadowlark

      Pretty sure that’s the one. At the bottom there is also a link to Catherine Corless’ daughter’s blog, where she addresses the points made in the article, and then below that is a letter which responds to said blog post. Makes for some very… interesting reading.

  7. bisted

    …virtue signalling eh…the IT must have paid a lot for that alt-reich lexicon…using up all the left-overs …

    1. Pluto

      Mother and Baby home.

      800 dead babies.

      In a sewer pit.

      What more does one need?

      The apologists are arguing about the semantics of the term ‘sewer’.

      ”No no no it was a ceremonially consecrated sewer pit .. so that’s fine”.

      ”Actually the correct term is culvert, so stop virtue signalling the Tuam 800 babies thing.”

  8. Listrade

    “As an atheist, I have no interest in defending the Catholic church. I want to defend science, rationalism, and approach history in a measured way.”

    I’d like to use Brendan’s plea for application of science and rationalism to this piece of History. However, in order to do this, because of the silence and obstruction around this issue, we have no choice but to apply historical context.

    Let’s agree that we need more information on the number of bodies in the “chamber” and when they were buried. During that period 204 children died at the home. How many children were buried in that period we don’t know and it’ll probably be difficult to accurately state from testing the remains.

    Context though. When reviewing history all we tend to have is context.

    What are the odds the children were buried with dignity and respect? What are the odds that a septic tank (even an unused one) was chosen out of respect rather than convenience.

    Take the CICA report. This gives context. Vol iii lists the cases of physcial, mental and sexual abuse at institutions. It lists evidence of maltreatment.

    We have recorded witness testimony of nuns putting pillows over a child’s face to stop it from crying (it was hungry). Mothers forced to work in laundries and cleaning while heavily pregnant and immediately after birth. The healthy children being put work which the nuns charged money for.
    Mothers and children forced to work for money paid only to the homes. The homes also claimed a stipend for housing these poor unfortunate souls which was equal to the industrial wage (we’ll come back to that).

    That was the slave labour context. Don’t forget adoption.

    Adoption involved church hierarchy lobbying ministers to exempt the M&C homes from the adoption legislation. It involved mothers being forced to enter the M&C home, but only being allowed to (where else could they go?) if they signed a form that away all rights to their child. It involved church run third parties to sell the babies in America. It involved no record at all of the adoption (they were exempted from that). In some cases mothers were lied to about where their child was.

    It was immoral and (prepare to more hyperbole) akin to human trafficking.

    CICA supports the conclusion that given the widespread and wide ranging abuse, on the balance of probabilities it seems unlikely that the health and wellbeing of the children was a high priority. Unless it was ok to smother, hit, beat, scratch, humiliate and work to exhaustion children and pregnant women but they made sure they had a good meal. Taken into the greater factual context than the burial of babies it is clear that the benefit of doubt that there was any respect to how the deaths were handled is minimal.

    You can’t take this discovery in isolation. Agreed, we have to wait for more facts, but historical context leads to a very rational, very reasonable assumption that this was a deliberate and callous practice. These babies and children were judged in life by the church and state as sub-human due to the circumstances of their conception. I see no rational reason and more importantly no evidence that they were not judge as the same in death.

    Some more context for Brendan. The mortality rate at the M&C homes was equal to that of the mortality rate in slums. How does that happen? They charged for the labour of the mother and “fit” child, they received a stipend from equal to the average industrial wage at the time.

    They received £1 per child and £2 per mother, the average industrial wage at was £3. Roughly, today’s equivalent would be AIW of €803.98 p/w and €260 per child. Also bear in mind that this was a time of overcrowding and essentially slums in housing areas too

    Compare it first to tenements, a dad earning £3 per week if he was lucky and this probably going towards food, clothing and rent for a family of at least 4 (based on census data).
    Tenements were overcrowded, abject poverty, no amenities, no jobs, or seldom casual labour at way below the average industrial wage. Also, not untypical would be 17 families in one home. That could work out at over 800 people in one street. A typical M&C home catered for around 50-100.

    In every way and by every measure the life and conditions at the tenements were far worse than the conditions and resources at the M&B home.

    Yet.

    The infant mortality rate was the same.

    So the M&B homes had a decent stipend (at least compared to those who lived in tenements), were nowhere near as crowded, had better access medical assistance, had further income from its contracted work and it had the same infant mortality rate as a slum.

    We are expected to believe that despite this whole record of abuse and mistreatment, slave labour, child labour, human trafficking, inexplicable high infant mortality rate, we should wait before passing judgement? That we’re being shrill in outrage? We’re expected to assume that even though there is a factual record of abuse and neglect while the child was alive, but they were respected in death? I’m sorry, but the weight of evidence is completely against such a conclusion.

    1. Clampers Outside!

      ” You can’t take this discovery in isolation. ” True, and you can’t jump to conclusions, as some have, that the babies were all murdered and dumped in a septic tank with absolutely no respect whatsover. That pendulum swings both ways.

      I’m not making excuses for any one, just saying that readers of the story need to watch the hyperbole going one way or the other.

      1. Listrade

        “that the babies were all murdered and dumped in a septic tank with absolutely no respect whatsover. That pendulum swings both ways.

        I’m not making excuses for any one, just saying that readers of the story need to watch the hyperbole going one way or the other.”

        First, no critic is saying they were murdered. There is a lot of evidence to suggest systematic neglect while they were alive that would contribute to a mortality rate comparable to that of a slum though.

        Second, the burial is a nice distraction from how the babies died anyway. I have no reason to doubt the records provided that the deaths were from natural causes. After all it is signed by a local physician, who I’m sure would have also been used by the M&B home to provide all medical assistance to the children and babies when they were sick. The great thing is some of the nuns are still alive so we can ask them…weird how their mortality rate wasn’t as bad.

        But we should reserve some judgement, sort of. You see there’s a problem there. If everything was above board, if all respect had been paid in death…why was it a secret? It wasn’t until the 70s when a plaque was put up and that’s because some kids discovered it. But those who were still alive knew it was there. They never put a plaque up before then. They never marked the grave site or showed any other sign of respect to the children who died.

        They kept it a secret. They didn’t keep burial records.

        If the rational explanation is that there is nothing to see and that this was all legitimate…why be so secretive?

        This is the problem with Brendan’s appeal to logic and reason…its only his logic and reason. Bon Secours doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt because of historical context and evidence . We have no reason to presume there was respect because there has never been any record of respect shown to these children when they were alive and when they died at other sites.

        This isn’t judging a grim past through the more liberal haze of the present. Remember, some of these people are still alive. This isn’t judging pagan rituals based on a few bones and fragments of papyrus manuscript. This is recent history. When our grand parents were alive. Some of the people who did this are still alive. And they are still silent. They are paying Terry Prone to deny and divert. They know what they did and they know what they are doing.

        Were our morals on treatment of children so different back then? If so, again, why the secrecy? Why the lies? Why the cover up? Why the accidental fires or floods that destroyed documents? Why the lack of cooperation with investigations? And not just now in present, when it was happening too. They knew it was wrong when they were doing it, that’s why they tried to keep it a secret.

        They don’t have the luxury anymore of benefit of the doubt. It isn’t being scientific or rational sitting on the fence, waiting for more evidence to judge, it’s ignoring the overwhelming body of evidence at the utter disregard for the life and well-being of the mothers and babies shown by these institutions and the state,

      2. Clampers Outside!

        I agree with much of this, and a lot I don’t. I’m 50:50.

        But this…
        ” Were our morals on treatment of children so different back then? ” On the whole… very very much so, yes, evidently.

  9. wearnicehats

    Justifiable outrage on this. Nothing will happen though. Nice day for a day off yesterday for some repeal thingy or other. That showed them. Empty words from Enda – that showed those nasty religious orders alright. No-one does outrage like the Irish (unless it’s dirty brit soldiers being shot in the annex). One man can sort this and it isn’t Enda. It’s Il Papa. He’ll be the one the sort this – he’ll close down the religious orders, he’ll order the compensation, he’ll say abortion is ok after all. Reckon?

  10. rotide

    I need someone to explain to me how Rosita Boland is the devil all of a sudden for researching an article and coming to logical conclusions

    1. mildred st. meadowlark

      From what I understand, Rosita Boland disparages some of the research done by Catherine Corless, even goes so far as to imply that she’s confused about some of maps she’d been using as reference in her research, and apparently misquoted her a number of times.

      Her daughter goes into detail on her blog post, and there is a rebuttal made by IT, also attached to the article.

      In light of recent revelations, Rosita Boland’s article looks very much as though she was attempting to discredit the work done by Catherine Corless.

      1. rotide

        Having read the article, the blog and the rebuttal it is absolutely incorrect to say she was trying to discredit the work of corless.

        She picked up on 2 inaccuracies and asked corless about them, it’s as simple as that.

        1. mildred st. meadowlark

          To me it reads as a ‘she said, no she said’ sort of situation. But I think Rosita Boland writes with a certain cynicism in her article that people picked up on, and because so much of what Catherine Corless found appears to be, in fact, true, people are expressing a certain amount of anger for how she was treated by certain elements of our media when the story first broke.

          I also think there is a fairly justifiable level of distrust towards the media these days too, which may also be contributing.

          1. rotide

            Interesting comment Mildred. Certainly, this reader was left in no doubt as to the veracity of Corless’ research. What I took to be the point of the article was how (foreign) media misunderstood the research and went with stories that were misleading. Boland spotted two discrepencies which led to those stories and questioned them.

            Surely this is a classic example of what the media is supposed to do.

  11. Clampers Outside!

    O’Neill is right on the hyperbolic and irresponsible headlines calling it Ireland’s ‘holocaust’. That kinda careless writing is up there with leftists calling anyone to their right Nazis….. How to emotively enrage readers 101.

      1. 15p

        he really is a loser. i heard from a v good source that clampers runs about 4 accounts on broadsheet, they’re the usual ones you see commenting, and it’s just him doin em. sittin there gettin all worked up and talking to himself. super sad. super losery.

        1. Pluto

          Usually is the case with these types.

          It creates the illusion that there are many more of them than there actually are.

          1. Mourning Ireland

            Translation of four accounts; No job. Fat. Bedroom keyboard warrior living at home. Looking for notice.

          1. 15p

            gah! .. old people jokes .. OR .. old person jokes, as the same person writes under the name clampers and rotide.

        2. And Social Justice For All

          Probably on the broadsheet payroll as well – who else could be employing him – he’s here posting 9-5 every day? Moyest I reckon is also on a contract

    1. MoyestWithExcitement

      You want to emotively enrage people? Use the words ‘sexism’ or ‘racism’ and watch the right wing spittle fly.

        1. MoyestWithExcitement

          It’s funny you thought me talking about emotional snowflakes vetting enraged over words was aimed at you.

          1. Clampers Outside!

            It’s been leveled many times before… and em, sorry Ted, but you did hit the ‘reply’ to me button… But you carry on asserting you weren’t talkin’ to me… whatever floats your boat pet.

    2. Listrade

      Did you read the articles using that headline? I notice O’Neill doesn’t link to them.

      Maybe its because the writers tackle the use of the word Holocaust and why they chose to use it. They don’t just casually throw it in as O’Neill suggests.

        1. Listrade

          “O’Neill is right on the hyperbolic and irresponsible headlines calling it Ireland’s ‘holocaust’. That kinda careless writing is up there with leftists calling anyone to their right Nazis….. How to emotively enrage readers 101.”

          There were two headlines, that just about justifies the plural. Its reasonable to ask if you’ve read them, especially as you are appealing for people to wait until they have facts before they judge on this issue.

          You call them hyperbolic and irresponsible. How do you know if you haven’t read them?

          You say it is careless writing. How do you know if you haven’t read them?

          You see, not an excuse of anything, just asking if you’d read them before making your judgement on them.

          By the way, I don’t say whether I agree with the use of holocaust or not. I err towards it being misused by the writers, but I can see how they felt it was appropriate based on what they wrote. That was the point being made, they take the time to explain their position rather than using the term as pure hyperbole.

          1. rotide

            I’ve read them and in one case the use of the term was demonstrably unjustified and in the other no attempt is really made to justify it but the author does use the buzz words genocide, north korea and concentration camps, nicely prooving the Times’ writer’s point.

          2. Nigel

            The outrage police will pull you over and issue a hyperbole ticket for getting furious in an angry zone.

          3. Listrade

            @ rotide.

            From Derry Journal :

            “Holocaust is a very strong word, isn’t it? And I’ll be honest I thought long and hard about whether or not it was appropriate to use in these circumstances. I looked it up in the dictionary to get the exact meaning (beside the obvious historical meaning in relation to the mass murder of Jews and other ethnic minorities during World War II) and found it listed as ‘destruction or slaughter on a mass scale’.”

            Claire then goes on to describe the cruelty and neglect that to her meets the definition.

            The Irish Mirror goes further in its description, II’d have thought the run down of the entire Final Solution comparison to the State and the M&B Homes was more worthy of negative comment on hyperbole than North Korea, maybe you skipped that bit.

            Speaking of hyperbole. A news search for Tuam Babies gives 250,000 hits. There are two examples of use of holocaust. That’s 0.0008%. Which is basically the same dilution of molecules in homeopathy. How would that fit in with O’Neill’s appeal to science and reason?

          4. Clampers Outside!

            Simple… some questions first…
            What publications used hyperbolic language…. Are they thought leader publications… Do other publications republish their pieces…. Have they big readership… etc. etc….
            The fact that 25,000 searches are returned does not indicate all those carry equal weight.
            ——

            And yep. I read them. And no, the conclusion I came to is that your assertion is only that, an opinion said strongly. Argued well, but not convincingly. The uses I’ve read were hyperbolic, and with the comparison, whether the author explains themselves or not is ridiculous – mothers were not sent there with the intention that they never come out.

          5. Listrade

            Leader publications like the Derry Journal? Maybe, maybe not, but it is just 2 publications out of all those that have covered it, hardly a trend.

            As stated in my response, I don’t agree with the use of the term, but I understand why the have used it.

            I don’t understand why it’s always attack though. I mean this story is a pretty big effin deal. The history of negelct and abuse and the scale of these deaths.

            The place was open for 36 years. Nearly 800 kids died. 1000 were trafficked from the Home to America.

            The state sent mothers there. The state knew what was going on. They knew that in all probability, if a child went in, it wasn’t coming back.

          6. LW

            Clampers, remember your ridiculous hyperbolic claims last week that Sweden has legalised child marriage as a concession to Sharia law? Where was the restraint you counsel then?

          7. Clampers Outside!

            I too “don’t agree with the use of the term”, and I too “understand why the have used it” but I still think it’s wrong.

            I agree with all the rest of that last post.

  12. Allan

    What we know: nearly 800 children died in the home over a number of decades.
    What we don’t know: their cause of death. Infant mortality was high back then but incident of neglect & abuse in care homes was too.
    What we know: Remains of children were found in a structure designed to be a septic tank .
    What we don’t know: the exact number of bodies found in the structure and associated chambers.
    Hysterical reactions like “800 children were murdered in the home and dumped in a septic tank” are not consistent with what we know so far. O’Neill is no alt-right apologist although I accept he’s a professional contrarian. However his central tenent that humans be reasonable, logical and be free to express their views is worthy and he sums up the twitterati reaction to the Tuam scandal excellently :
    ” In running ahead of the facts and turning this into a black-and-white morality play, in which they star as paragons of decency against hellish nuns, they reveal that they share something in common with the Old Ireland they claim to hate: a preference for moral zealotry over reason”

  13. Listrade

    Couple of points.

    1. “Hysterical reactions like “800 children were murdered in the home and dumped in a septic tank”. Where are the hysterical reactions saying anything about murder?

    2. “What we don’t know: their cause of death. Infant mortality was high back then but incident of neglect & abuse in care homes was too.” We do know their cause of death, the nuns still had to have a physician record the deaths. That’s how we know how many died. We also know that the mortality rate at the home was twice the overall infant mortality rate within the state. We know it was at the same rate as infant mortality in the infamous tenements. This is all a matter of public statistics and record. That is the context for judgement. That an overcrowded hovel with no sanitary provisions, no regular wage, starvation, no access to medical provisions had the same mortality rate as the M&B homes. The difference being the M&B homes received a state stipend of £1 per child and £2 per mother. The average industrial wage at the time was £3. This went to the feeding, clothing and accommodation of a family of 4 and on average with an infant mortality rate of half the M&B home. The M&B home had to make the same stipend feed and cloth just two people, a mother and a child. Plus they had the additional income of the labour they forced the mother and child into. Yet infant mortality was the same as a slum.

    We know an awful lot.

    3. “However his central tenent that humans be reasonable, logical and be free to express their views is worthy and he sums up the twitterati reaction to the Tuam scandal excellently :
    “In running ahead of the facts and turning this into a black-and-white morality play, in which they star as paragons of decency against hellish nuns, they reveal that they share something in common with the Old Ireland they claim to hate: a preference for moral zealotry over reason” Yeah. Nope. Given what we actually do know, it is reasonable and logical to be angry and outraged over this.

  14. Mahoney

    I think the time frame is the most important fact that needs to be uncovered, if these 800 children died over a period of 20 years vs a period of 60/70 years, I hope it’s longer.

    1. Listrade

      The Mother and Baby home opened in 1925 and closed in 1961. The deaths were over a maximum of that 36 year period.

  15. Ivor

    Virtue signalling as a concept has a potential role in explaining certain phenomena within evolutionary biology. Potentially, it could have been a useful term in examining certain sociological phenomena, for example, with regard to the hysteria around wearing a poppy.

    In reality, the term is poisoned because of the cynical way it has been deployed by the “alt-right”. They use it as a way of suggesting that somebody’s motivation is compromised or that they are not sincere. When a celebrity dares to talk about the plight of refugees, they claim they’re virtue signalling I.e engaged in cynically attempting to improve their brand to further their own self interest.

    We do actually need to be cautious about not rushing to judgement about specifics with regard to Tuam and other cases, but there’s enough information in the public domain for us to draw certain conclusions about the general approach used in the institution and the attitudes of those who ran it to “fallen” women and “illegitimate” babies. Some people have enough empathy that they have a genuine emotional reaction to that problem. You can argue against jumping to conclusions about specifics without using terms that suggest others’ motives are compromised.

    1. Mahoney

      to be honest I think most celebrities are guilty of virtue signalling, but I dont think there’s much danger of the average person needing to in this case.

    2. Clampers Outside!

      Celebs are the best VSers… but…
      ” When a celebrity dares to talk about the plight of refugees, they claim they’re virtue signalling I.e engaged in cynically attempting to improve their brand to further their own self interest. ”

      No….. I’m lost here… Virtue Signaling is showing others how great you are on an issue when you don’t do anything on that issue that comes close to what was signaled.

      Wearing a poppy is not virtue signaling.

      When a celebrity dares to virtue signal about the plight of refugees… by telling ordinary people they are shameful and disgraceful for not taking refugees in to their country… and yet the celebrity owns homes all over the world yet takes in no refugees in any of them, nor will the celeb ever be affected by their arrival because the celeb is so rich they’ll never see any loss… and of course, the celeb lives in a hyper rich part almost completely populated by other rich whites….. JK Rowling is such a VSing billionaire as she has done these very things and yet has done nothing herself…

      All celebrities who engage in telling anyone what to do is more often than not acting as a virtue signaler.

      Look at Leonardo DiCaprio who flew from France on holidays to collect an environmental award and then flew back to France… all in a private jet… oh, and his new favourite hairdresser had to be flown from Australia to the US to do his do… that’s virtue signaling his so called passion for the environment….. he’s been called on that. And rightly too.

      Then look at Gwyneth Paltrow who virtue signals her child rearing abilities…. with the use of a few handy nannies. She’s been called on that. And rightly too.

      There are lots…. of genuinely guilty virtue signaling celebs.

      Stop pretending it’s a new or bad thing to call out this behaviour. It’s not, and the new phrase, is just that, a phrase to describe two faced behaviour. Nothing more.

      And no it’s not an alt-right originated phrase….. LOL! please…. Origins of “virtue signaling” phrase – http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/i-invented-virtue-signalling-now-its-taking-over-the-world/

      1. ivor

        Virtue signalling as a term emerged from signal theory. It had nothing to do with doing or not doing something related to an ” issue that comes close to what was signaled”.

      2. LW

        Clampers you plank, JK Rowling is not a billionaire, she’s a millionaire. She donated so much money she dropped from billionaire to millionaire. What class of virtue signalling does that fall under?

        1. And Social Justice For All

          He’s such a boring troll. I accept your responding to him is helping provide employment for a guy who might be a homeless bum otherwise but please reconsider

  16. Mourning Ireland

    Rushing to surround Rosita ‘Belvo Sleepover’ Bols d and her personal resentment and emotional ugliness with fake fans.

    Would the IT publish what O’Neill publishes about the likes of Una Mullally and the Snowflake Stasi’s identification politics and chilling of freedom of speech?

    Sure.

  17. nellyb

    People, Brendan’s threshold for evil is above modern european average. You can’t meaningfully argue with him until his scale of evil adjusted to modernity.
    Yes, 70 years ago piles of dead human bodies were awfully and tragically common, especially on the continent. But imagine Brendan talked to surviving relatives of these saying it was ‘awful, tragic’ but not ‘insane and evil’? He would be considered mentally ill. Truly, folks. I am curious as to how he rates what happened to MMCabe’s older kids. On Brendan’s scale it is probably harmless, like a sneeze to which you say gesundheit and laugh with sincerity.

  18. Listrade

    To add to the already lengthy posts, a few more thoughts on why it is right to be outraged and why it is right to look to hold the state responsible.

    We can blame ourselves for going along with the culture, but what exactly was that culture? The culture was one of deference to the Church, not one of accepting the abuse and neglect of children. Let’s not forget that. There’s a reason it was kept quiet, a reason why great pains were taken to hide what was happening…because they knew it was wrong.
    The idea that the “culture” at the time accepted this is nonsense. For many here our parents were born during that time, some of us may have been born during that time. There wasn’t a culture of accepted child abuse and neglect. It was a culture of deference and acceptance of what those in a position of power told us. They told us all was fine and there was nothing to see here. That was our culpability, choosing to believe them…probably too easily and too readily.
    Why else look to the state? Simple answer is it was the state that brought in the legislation to facilitate this. It wanted to get rid of the workhouses, which was noble, but the workhouse didn’t only house the poor, they housed the elderly, the mentally ill, the unmarried mother. The poor were looked after in different legislation, they wouldn’t have to suffer that indignity. The elderly too would find dignity in separate housing and care. Unmarried mothers and illegitimate children? Seen as the same as the mentally ill.
    That’s not just “culture”. That isn’t deference of the people to the Church, that is the state considering an unmarried mother and her child on the same level as the mentally ill. It passed off responsibility for care to the Church.
    And it was only the mothers. No institutions for the fathers. A weak attempt at legislation was made where the mother would have to sue the father in court and be cross examined and pay their costs and have her evidence of the conception corroborated.
    Then there was the Health Board who asked the Bon Secours to open a maternity ward because they didn’t want the unmarried mothers in the public wards with the “legitimate” pregnancies. If you had money you could pay for a private bed, otherwise if you wanted a midwife to be present at the birth, you had to go to the Home. The cost was you stayed for a year to repay them for their kindness. And sign over ownership of your baby.
    It wasn’t just “Irish” culture, it wasn’t just deference to the church, the whole mechanism of law and health care left those who were poor with no choice but to go to these homes. Yes many were shamed and abandoned by their families, but there was also no other choice for them. The state could have intervened to provide options, to counter the shaming, instead it legislated and mandated to strengthen and legitimise the shame.

    Want some more anger?
    The number of bodies at that site is going to be very significant. 796 dead is what we know from records. 2 of those listed as dying under the care of the Home were buried in a graveyard. There is no record of burial for any of the other deaths.
    The site the bodies have been found is not registered as a grave site and there are no records of any burials.
    If there are 796 bodies in there, then there will actually be some relief. At least they are accounted for and we can see how they died…and whether or not they were dumped. That’s minor though (trust me it is best case scenario given the alternative), if they were dumped, it is just another tick in the neglect and callousness these children were treated with in their short lives. If they were laid to rest with some respect, well it’s something at least, but it doesn’t mitigate the catalogue of neglect.
    Those saying that there won’t be 796, that it isn’t a mass grave, that it’ll be a handful…all I can say is be careful, if it isn’t 796, then there are more questions. For those wishing to play this down, the best scenario for them is 796 bodies, then we can argue over the semantics of “dumped” or “placed” as a distraction.
    Fewer than and we have a problem. First, where are they then? We are aware of rumours that bodies were sold to hospitals (hello Board of Health again!). Is that what happened to them? Or are they in a different site? Or is it as the HSE suspected in 2012 and raised with the Government (hello state again!) many of the death records were faked.
    Good news, the death rate at the Home may not have been as high as is recorded. It wasn’t twice as high as the national average after all, it wasn’t comparable to a slum, it was much lower, the Sisters just faked the records. Phew.
    The HSE reported concerns that a significant number of death certificates were faked in order that the children could be sold and trafficked. Oh.
    Now that would be bad. Criminal bad. They were exempted from the adoption legislation, but that was the formalities and record keeping. Faking the death of a child to sell it, well that’s blame criminal.
    So for those defending or in a flap over semantics, be careful. There is no good outcome here. 796 bodies opens up all the issues of neglect and abuse. It will not matter one bit if they were placed or dumped. It is how they ended up there.
    Fewer than 796 and it gets into worrying territory. Don’t be so quick to plead the case that this isn’t a mass grave.
    Finally, the lovely Sisters. Bit more to anger up the blood. The HSE report also mentions that as well as the stipend, as well as the slave labour, the Sisters wrote to the parents of the mother asking for more money. Let’s just say it verged on blackmail. Remember that culture of shame? Be a shame if anyone found out your daughter and grandchild were in here.
    It doesn’t end there. On a whim, that year could be extended by the sisters if they felt you hadn’t contributed enough to pay off your debt.
    And those letters were also sent to parents even though the child was supposed to have died.
    But yeah, the story is whether they were dumped or placed.

    1. Clampers Outside!

      Well said….
      Two points are clear from that….
      – Not a ‘holocaust’ then, as you say, a significant number were faked.
      – And no proof that of “800 murdered babies”.

      Great to see the hyperbolic stuff being sidelined so the actual, real and genuine atrocity can be investigated properly without emotional blurring. Whether one baby or hundreds only the facts can reveal truth, not emotional outbursts.

      1. Loan Some Cow Boy

        It’s really great that we have such a reliable, sturdy, man guide to explain to us how it all works and what we should and shouldn’t think

        1. Clampers Outside!

          Who is telling you what you should and shouldn’t think….. that’s terrible that you’ve allowed yourself to be so swayed.
          You should try thinking for yourself and try not to move with the superficial surface skimming ‘right on’ brigade. Life is deeper than that, and the topic far more detailed than some idiot shouting ‘800 babies murdered’.
          You’ll need to use your own brain rather than rely on others so fair play for recognising the need. Good luck in striving to break free of the hive mind of ‘right on’ bullpoo, I’m sure you can do it with a little effort.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link
Broadsheet.ie