A Culture Of Greed: A Charachteristic Of Both Cowen and Kenny`s Governments
But, it seems, that culture is hard to stamp out. Justice Minister, Alan Shatter recently requested use of the government jet to fly to an informal meeting of EU justice ministers at a Polish resort, at a cost of a hefty €20,000 to the taxpayer. Mr. Shatter was told, thankfully, to travel commercially instead, saving the government, and more importantly, those who fund it, a total of €17,000.
What is hard to believe, however, is the argument provided by Shatter as to why he needed to use the private jet. The out-of-touch minister complained that no direct flights were available to Gdansk airport on the night he wished to travel. If he was forced to take a commercial flight, he would have to endure a lengthy stopover in Copenhagen, something beneath the minister’s stature and office.
But Mr. Shatter isn’t the only Fine Gael minister enjoying the perks of office. Government ministers have used the official jet on 23 occasions since taking office earlier this year, at a staggering cost of €400,000. Enda Kenny is the biggest spender, €195,000 in taxpayer money on flights which included ‘drop offs’ in Knock and a €5,600 jaunt to Cork, to bid farewell to Queen Elizabeth. Michael Noonan regularly flies to Brussels on the back of the taxpayer, while Mr. Shatter has already clocked up €50,000.
It would seem that the recession stops at the doors of Dáil Éireann, despite vows of solidarity with the people.
It took several years for the Irish people to recognise and put an end to the excess and greed of Fianna Fáil. It will not take them as long this time.
The party was characterised by greed and excess. Junkets, hours spent racking up thousands in the Dáil bar. The tent at the Galway races, hand-outs and stuffed envelopes. By means of the general election earlier this year, the people voted to end the privilege and self-importance so valued by the previous Fianna Fáil administration.
But, it seems, that culture is hard to stamp out. Justice Minister, Alan Shatter recently requested use of the government jet to fly to an informal meeting of EU justice ministers at a Polish resort, at a cost of a hefty €20,000 to the taxpayer. Mr. Shatter was told, thankfully, to travel commercially instead, saving the government, and more importantly, those who fund it, a total of €17,000.
What is hard to believe, however, is the argument provided by Shatter as to why he needed to use the private jet. The out-of-touch minister complained that no direct flights were available to Gdansk airport on the night he wished to travel. If he was forced to take a commercial flight, he would have to endure a lengthy stopover in Copenhagen, something beneath the minister’s stature and office.
But Mr. Shatter isn’t the only Fine Gael minister enjoying the perks of office. Government ministers have used the official jet on 23 occasions since taking office earlier this year, at a staggering cost of €400,000. Enda Kenny is the biggest spender, €195,000 in taxpayer money on flights which included ‘drop offs’ in Knock and a €5,600 jaunt to Cork, to bid farewell to Queen Elizabeth. Michael Noonan regularly flies to Brussels on the back of the taxpayer, while Mr. Shatter has already clocked up €50,000.
It would seem that the recession stops at the doors of Dáil Éireann, despite vows of solidarity with the people.
It took several years for the Irish people to recognise and put an end to the excess and greed of Fianna Fáil. It will not take them as long this time.
November 9th 2011,
Gone, But Not Forgotten – Ireland’s First World War
On the 11 th of November, people around the Commonwealth donned a small red poppy, commemorating Armistice Day, remembering those who died on the fields of Europe, recalling the official end to the Great War.
Irish participation in the First World War has not always been remembered in years past, and certainly not with the fervour in neighbouring England or indeed throughout the Commonwealth. However, Irish soldiers made a huge contribution between 1914 and 1918. In the region of 135,000 volunteered and 50,000 were already serving on the eve of war. Though many of the officers would have been Anglo-Irish or Protestant, many Catholics served in the rank and file. And, by the end of the conflict, over 35,000 Irishmen lost their lives. Support from Irish quarters came in both civilian and military form. Voluntary work was undertaken and supported by both Catholic and Protestant. Hospital ships docked in Dublin carrying 19,000 patients between 1914 and 1918, volunteer hospitals were opened by recent graduates and workrooms were established across the city, making garments for the war effort.
It is perhaps fair to say that, in the case of Irish involvement in World War One, the motives were not a love for empire and a defence against her enemies alone, at least in the case of those Volunteers under Redmond. It was more so a case of quid pro quo; Irish assistance in return for Home Rule, not to mention the economic benefits. Nonetheless, they did also fight to help rid Europe of tyranny and injustice. Kevin Myers, leading Sunday’s Remembrance service in Dublin, noted their importance and impact on history, from both world wars.
“Those Irish soldiers helped to end a regime of gas chambers and the guillotine, slavery and the firing squad,” said Mr Myers. “In those liberated lands in due course emerged what is now the European Union. Our bondholders there might be completely unaware of the debt that they owe the…Irish dead, who died freeing an unfree Europe.”
For their trouble, they were marked as traitors. Of the Irish soldier it was remarked: ‘If they die, if they live it matters not to me, they are no longer Irishmen.’ Returning soldiers faced unemployment, hostility and often outright violence in those strongly nationalist parts of the country who instead honoured those who had fought in the Easter Rising. Their story, their bravery and courage passed out of Irish history, as those in power sought to create a national identity based on nationalist past and those who fought for Ireland against England. Any Irish man who fought for England was an embarrassment to this ideal and had no place in the new Ireland, and so they were confined to a footnote in Irish history.
In recent years, Remembrance Day has risen into the public consciousness again. In Ireland, it cropped up again when Queen Elizabeth, alongside Mary McAleese, honoured the Irish dead in the Memorial Gardens. And on Sunday our new President, Michael D. Higgins, attended a Remembrance Service in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, honouring those who died on battlefields across Europe and two world wars. Though debate still rages across papers and forums as to whether Ireland should remember Britain’s war or wear the poppy, we must remember that it is not the war we remember, but our soldiers who were able to put aside internal politics, and fight for a much greater cause.
On the 11 th of November, people around the Commonwealth donned a small red poppy, commemorating Armistice Day, remembering those who died on the fields of Europe, recalling the official end to the Great War.
Irish participation in the First World War has not always been remembered in years past, and certainly not with the fervour in neighbouring England or indeed throughout the Commonwealth. However, Irish soldiers made a huge contribution between 1914 and 1918. In the region of 135,000 volunteered and 50,000 were already serving on the eve of war. Though many of the officers would have been Anglo-Irish or Protestant, many Catholics served in the rank and file. And, by the end of the conflict, over 35,000 Irishmen lost their lives. Support from Irish quarters came in both civilian and military form. Voluntary work was undertaken and supported by both Catholic and Protestant. Hospital ships docked in Dublin carrying 19,000 patients between 1914 and 1918, volunteer hospitals were opened by recent graduates and workrooms were established across the city, making garments for the war effort.
It is perhaps fair to say that, in the case of Irish involvement in World War One, the motives were not a love for empire and a defence against her enemies alone, at least in the case of those Volunteers under Redmond. It was more so a case of quid pro quo; Irish assistance in return for Home Rule, not to mention the economic benefits. Nonetheless, they did also fight to help rid Europe of tyranny and injustice. Kevin Myers, leading Sunday’s Remembrance service in Dublin, noted their importance and impact on history, from both world wars.
“Those Irish soldiers helped to end a regime of gas chambers and the guillotine, slavery and the firing squad,” said Mr Myers. “In those liberated lands in due course emerged what is now the European Union. Our bondholders there might be completely unaware of the debt that they owe the…Irish dead, who died freeing an unfree Europe.”
For their trouble, they were marked as traitors. Of the Irish soldier it was remarked: ‘If they die, if they live it matters not to me, they are no longer Irishmen.’ Returning soldiers faced unemployment, hostility and often outright violence in those strongly nationalist parts of the country who instead honoured those who had fought in the Easter Rising. Their story, their bravery and courage passed out of Irish history, as those in power sought to create a national identity based on nationalist past and those who fought for Ireland against England. Any Irish man who fought for England was an embarrassment to this ideal and had no place in the new Ireland, and so they were confined to a footnote in Irish history.
In recent years, Remembrance Day has risen into the public consciousness again. In Ireland, it cropped up again when Queen Elizabeth, alongside Mary McAleese, honoured the Irish dead in the Memorial Gardens. And on Sunday our new President, Michael D. Higgins, attended a Remembrance Service in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, honouring those who died on battlefields across Europe and two world wars. Though debate still rages across papers and forums as to whether Ireland should remember Britain’s war or wear the poppy, we must remember that it is not the war we remember, but our soldiers who were able to put aside internal politics, and fight for a much greater cause.
November 15th 2011,
TG4 Documentary On Female IRA MembersCauses A Stir
There issomething rather unsettling, however, about the way in which she is portrayed. Fromthe beginning, she is referred to, for example, as a former soldier, and amember of Oglaigh na hÉireann, a title reserved for the only legitimate armedforces on this island, the Irish army. The programme charts her ascension inthe socialist movement in England, moving over to republicanism in Ireland,interspersed with snippet interviews with former jailed republicans, oracademic authorities. They paint a very bleak picture of life for Catholics inthe North during the 1970s, certainly evoking sympathy for their existence assecond class citizens. What is disturbing is the way in which the violentresponse, the campaign waged by the IRA which claimed the lives of morecivilians than occupiers, is almost normalised. As Rose herself says during oneof the many clips of her interview, one had to accept, when taking up the causeof Ireland’s freedom, that you might have to kill people. Darker still is theassumption, “that’s the only way you deal with them.” And this seems quitenormal, acceptable. That is not to lay the blame solely at the feet of physicalforce Republicans; obviously each of those groups in the North was as bad asthe other. Dugdale comes out of the programme looking like a freedom fighter,enjoying a well-earned rest after a hard life of necessary violence. And,although the focus of the programme, as stated by its makers, is on thoseinvolved in the IRA campaigns and why they joined in the first place,noticeably absent are any hard questions about her decision to pursue theviolent route, and, of course, the impact of her actions on the victims andtheir families.
In an interview withJohn Murray on RTE radio, Dugdale went even further, dismissing the notion ofIRA atrocities. “I wouldn’t accept that the IRA has carried out atrocities,”she contended, “I think that is your language, it is certainly not mine. Ithink that is a fairly ridiculous statement…” In the end, this is a woman whotook part in the raid on Russborough House, pistol whipping an old man and hiswife before tying them up in a chair, who threw bombs inside milk cans from ahelicopter hoping to land them in a barracks, and who completely condoned aplan in which her boyfriend kidnapped a doctor in an attempt to release herfrom prison. “Fair play to anyone that was involved in that,” she says. Thewhole programme seems like a celebration of her life of violence rather than acondemnation. If these were the actions of Unionists, would they be glorifiedin the same way by TG4?
People may argueover the cause at the heart of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, and even moreso about the violence wielded by those on either side. That period in ourhistory is a shameful one, regardless of stance, and cannot be understood aswell by those of us examining it second hand. What can be understood, however,is that the violence and bloodshed suffered in the North over those 30 years isnothing to be praised, nothing to be glorified, not forgotten certainly, butremembered, something to be learned from. The one positive about theseprogrammes is the insight into the mindset of the people involved in the IRA’scampaign against the British state, the complete willingness to use violenceeven when there are other methods available, and the way in which theycompletely rationalise attempts at murder.
Since theprogramme aired last week, a board member of TG4 has criticised the series,arguing that executives must now take a closer look at the direction of theremaining five episodes. Concubhar O Liathan stated that Mna an IRA is a “serious stain” on the television channel. Writingin the Sunday Independent, O Liathan argued that “If the first programme is anyindication of what’s to come, it will be nauseating and heartbreaking for thevictims of the IRA and their relatives.”
Kevin Myers,writing in the Irish Independent earlierthis week warned of the dangers of halting free speech, speaking of TrinityCollege’s decision to prevent BNP leader Nick Griffin and Holocaust denyinghistorian, David Irving, from speaking at the Hist. Freedom of speech, heargued “is not dependent on intellect or eloquenceor political content. Quite the opposite. It tolerates ideas that areoffensive, cretinous, ludicrous, bizarre, grotesque and nauseating, merelydrawing the line at incitement to hate or to inflict violence.” People likeRose Dugdale should indeed be allowed their platform, regardless of whether weagree or disagree with her. We just have to be careful what they say from itand how we shape it.
A new TG4television series has become mired in controversy after the broadcast of itsfirst episode on Thursday night. Mná anIRA is a six part documentary series which, according to its makers,Loopline Film, will investigation the “involvement of women in active servicewith the provisional IRA in modern times.”
The seriesbegins with a look into the life of Rose Dugdale, born to a wealthy family inEngland, educated in Oxford University, before becoming increasinglypolitically radicalised during the late 1960s and early 1970s, culminating inher joining the Provisional IRA in 1973.
The seriesbegins with a look into the life of Rose Dugdale, born to a wealthy family inEngland, educated in Oxford University, before becoming increasinglypolitically radicalised during the late 1960s and early 1970s, culminating inher joining the Provisional IRA in 1973.
There issomething rather unsettling, however, about the way in which she is portrayed. Fromthe beginning, she is referred to, for example, as a former soldier, and amember of Oglaigh na hÉireann, a title reserved for the only legitimate armedforces on this island, the Irish army. The programme charts her ascension inthe socialist movement in England, moving over to republicanism in Ireland,interspersed with snippet interviews with former jailed republicans, oracademic authorities. They paint a very bleak picture of life for Catholics inthe North during the 1970s, certainly evoking sympathy for their existence assecond class citizens. What is disturbing is the way in which the violentresponse, the campaign waged by the IRA which claimed the lives of morecivilians than occupiers, is almost normalised. As Rose herself says during oneof the many clips of her interview, one had to accept, when taking up the causeof Ireland’s freedom, that you might have to kill people. Darker still is theassumption, “that’s the only way you deal with them.” And this seems quitenormal, acceptable. That is not to lay the blame solely at the feet of physicalforce Republicans; obviously each of those groups in the North was as bad asthe other. Dugdale comes out of the programme looking like a freedom fighter,enjoying a well-earned rest after a hard life of necessary violence. And,although the focus of the programme, as stated by its makers, is on thoseinvolved in the IRA campaigns and why they joined in the first place,noticeably absent are any hard questions about her decision to pursue theviolent route, and, of course, the impact of her actions on the victims andtheir families.
In an interview withJohn Murray on RTE radio, Dugdale went even further, dismissing the notion ofIRA atrocities. “I wouldn’t accept that the IRA has carried out atrocities,”she contended, “I think that is your language, it is certainly not mine. Ithink that is a fairly ridiculous statement…” In the end, this is a woman whotook part in the raid on Russborough House, pistol whipping an old man and hiswife before tying them up in a chair, who threw bombs inside milk cans from ahelicopter hoping to land them in a barracks, and who completely condoned aplan in which her boyfriend kidnapped a doctor in an attempt to release herfrom prison. “Fair play to anyone that was involved in that,” she says. Thewhole programme seems like a celebration of her life of violence rather than acondemnation. If these were the actions of Unionists, would they be glorifiedin the same way by TG4?
People may argueover the cause at the heart of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, and even moreso about the violence wielded by those on either side. That period in ourhistory is a shameful one, regardless of stance, and cannot be understood aswell by those of us examining it second hand. What can be understood, however,is that the violence and bloodshed suffered in the North over those 30 years isnothing to be praised, nothing to be glorified, not forgotten certainly, butremembered, something to be learned from. The one positive about theseprogrammes is the insight into the mindset of the people involved in the IRA’scampaign against the British state, the complete willingness to use violenceeven when there are other methods available, and the way in which theycompletely rationalise attempts at murder.
Since theprogramme aired last week, a board member of TG4 has criticised the series,arguing that executives must now take a closer look at the direction of theremaining five episodes. Concubhar O Liathan stated that Mna an IRA is a “serious stain” on the television channel. Writingin the Sunday Independent, O Liathan argued that “If the first programme is anyindication of what’s to come, it will be nauseating and heartbreaking for thevictims of the IRA and their relatives.”
Kevin Myers,writing in the Irish Independent earlierthis week warned of the dangers of halting free speech, speaking of TrinityCollege’s decision to prevent BNP leader Nick Griffin and Holocaust denyinghistorian, David Irving, from speaking at the Hist. Freedom of speech, heargued “is not dependent on intellect or eloquenceor political content. Quite the opposite. It tolerates ideas that areoffensive, cretinous, ludicrous, bizarre, grotesque and nauseating, merelydrawing the line at incitement to hate or to inflict violence.” People likeRose Dugdale should indeed be allowed their platform, regardless of whether weagree or disagree with her. We just have to be careful what they say from itand how we shape it.
Conor Forrest
January 9th 2012,
The Necessity for Universal Freedom ofSpeech
“Ignorant free speech often works against thespeaker,” argued Anna Quindlen. “That is one of several reasons why it must begiven rein instead of suppressed.”
The issue offree speech has been rearing its controversial head in recent weeks and months,particularly in relation to college societies and their invitations to somerather dubious figures. Trinity College, for example, invited British NationalParty leader, Nick Griffin, to speak at a debate before Christmas. Ratherunsurprisingly, the invitation was withdrawn soon after, on the basis ofstudent safety and security. Not long after, Griffin was again invited to speakat an Irish university, this time at University College Cork. And, several daysago, the invitation was once again withdrawn, for the same reasons given asbefore.
There are twomain sides to the arguments these events have spawned. The first deals,unsurprisingly, with free speech, arguing that preventing Griffin from taking theopportunity to voice his opinions to the masses goes against everything theliberal college of UCC believes in, and that they are merely hiding behindother excuses. This argument believes that free speech is universal. Toparaphrase Kevin Myer’s writing in the IrishIndependent, free speech does not have limits, it tolerates ideas that areboth intellectual and inane, agreeable and offensive. The other would setlimits on the freedom of speech, deeming Griffin’s policies and ideals to betoo offensive for public consumption. Should Griffin be allowed to hold forthin front of the Irish people, the message of the BNP would be spread around thecountry, and we would all surely become fascists, to take the more extreme ofthese arguments. Such people would argue that to withdraw an invitation tospeak does not constitute prevention to speak freely, rather, merelywithdrawing a platform from which to speak.
And clearly,both of these arguments have their merits. If one does believe in the conceptof free speech then one must believe in free speech without limitations. Ifconstraints are placed upon the concept, disallowing certain topics from beingdiscussed outside of closed doors, then it isn’t really free speech at all. Thenagain, no one is preventing Griffin from talking, merely on a large platform. Thereis a difference between a privilege and a right, and speaking from a podiumdoes not fall into the latter category. That prevention, however, is in theend, a bad idea.
Hiding suchpeople away from us is pointless. Are the people of Ireland really such moronsthat, if we hear a differing opinion to the one we already hold, we willimmediately turn to that, substituting it for our own? Or have we some measureof intelligence, that we can hear preposterous and thinly veiled racistarguments and recognise them for what they are? In 2008, noted and perhapsinfamous historian, David Irving, appeared on the Late Late Show, to discusshis life and ideas. Irving specialises in military and political history duringWorld War II, the Third Reich in particular. He is best known for his fascistbeliefs, and, more so, his denial of the Holocaust and his sympathy towardsHitler’s role in the process. Irving’s appearance and views were broadcast tomillions across the country. Was there a sudden outpouring of sympathy andunderstanding for the man? Or did we, as intelligent people, examine hisargument, compare it with the facts, and duly note its ignorance?Interestingly, as Irving revealed at the beginning of the interview, heregarded the removal of his invitation to speak at a debate on free speech inUCC, due to take place shortly after the interview, as a victory for himselfand his ideals, showing him that there was nobody capable of successfullydebating against his position. One can imagine Nick Griffin also taking heartfrom Trinity and UCC’s rejections.
In preventingGriffin from speaking, in both Trinity and Cork, there is only one clearwinner; Nick Griffin. Instead of presenting the Irish public with a chance tosee his ideas systematically debunked, he can instead gain a degree more ofcredibility, especially amongst his own supporters and those who might beinclined to support him; to them now he is once again a victim of the ‘left’who seek to shut him up. If the public do not get a chance to hear theignorance, how can we be expected to understand it is ignorant?
The issue offree speech has been rearing its controversial head in recent weeks and months,particularly in relation to college societies and their invitations to somerather dubious figures. Trinity College, for example, invited British NationalParty leader, Nick Griffin, to speak at a debate before Christmas. Ratherunsurprisingly, the invitation was withdrawn soon after, on the basis ofstudent safety and security. Not long after, Griffin was again invited to speakat an Irish university, this time at University College Cork. And, several daysago, the invitation was once again withdrawn, for the same reasons given asbefore.
There are twomain sides to the arguments these events have spawned. The first deals,unsurprisingly, with free speech, arguing that preventing Griffin from taking theopportunity to voice his opinions to the masses goes against everything theliberal college of UCC believes in, and that they are merely hiding behindother excuses. This argument believes that free speech is universal. Toparaphrase Kevin Myer’s writing in the IrishIndependent, free speech does not have limits, it tolerates ideas that areboth intellectual and inane, agreeable and offensive. The other would setlimits on the freedom of speech, deeming Griffin’s policies and ideals to betoo offensive for public consumption. Should Griffin be allowed to hold forthin front of the Irish people, the message of the BNP would be spread around thecountry, and we would all surely become fascists, to take the more extreme ofthese arguments. Such people would argue that to withdraw an invitation tospeak does not constitute prevention to speak freely, rather, merelywithdrawing a platform from which to speak.
And clearly,both of these arguments have their merits. If one does believe in the conceptof free speech then one must believe in free speech without limitations. Ifconstraints are placed upon the concept, disallowing certain topics from beingdiscussed outside of closed doors, then it isn’t really free speech at all. Thenagain, no one is preventing Griffin from talking, merely on a large platform. Thereis a difference between a privilege and a right, and speaking from a podiumdoes not fall into the latter category. That prevention, however, is in theend, a bad idea.
Hiding suchpeople away from us is pointless. Are the people of Ireland really such moronsthat, if we hear a differing opinion to the one we already hold, we willimmediately turn to that, substituting it for our own? Or have we some measureof intelligence, that we can hear preposterous and thinly veiled racistarguments and recognise them for what they are? In 2008, noted and perhapsinfamous historian, David Irving, appeared on the Late Late Show, to discusshis life and ideas. Irving specialises in military and political history duringWorld War II, the Third Reich in particular. He is best known for his fascistbeliefs, and, more so, his denial of the Holocaust and his sympathy towardsHitler’s role in the process. Irving’s appearance and views were broadcast tomillions across the country. Was there a sudden outpouring of sympathy andunderstanding for the man? Or did we, as intelligent people, examine hisargument, compare it with the facts, and duly note its ignorance?Interestingly, as Irving revealed at the beginning of the interview, heregarded the removal of his invitation to speak at a debate on free speech inUCC, due to take place shortly after the interview, as a victory for himselfand his ideals, showing him that there was nobody capable of successfullydebating against his position. One can imagine Nick Griffin also taking heartfrom Trinity and UCC’s rejections.
In preventingGriffin from speaking, in both Trinity and Cork, there is only one clearwinner; Nick Griffin. Instead of presenting the Irish public with a chance tosee his ideas systematically debunked, he can instead gain a degree more ofcredibility, especially amongst his own supporters and those who might beinclined to support him; to them now he is once again a victim of the ‘left’who seek to shut him up. If the public do not get a chance to hear theignorance, how can we be expected to understand it is ignorant?
Conor Forrest
January 28th 2012,
JFK – The Irish Connection
Released in 2010, the book examines Kennedy’s 1963 visit toIreland, a visit JFK himself described as “the best four days of my life,” andhis last visit to the country before his assassination five months later. Kennedy,who was America’s first Irish-Catholic President, was a member of two familieswith a rich history stretching back to Ireland. The Fitzgerald family was fromBruff in County Limerick and in the famine years emigrated to the New World toescape the most devastating effects. The first Irish-American Fitzgerald wasborn John Francis Fitzgerald in Boston on February 11 th 1863. It wasthrough this line JFK’s mother came from; Rose Elizabeth Fitzgerald, thedaughter of John Francis and Mary Hannon of Acton, Massachusetts - herself ofIrish descent. Meanwhile, another Irish family had also emigrated to Americaduring the Great Famine; Patrick Kennedy left his home in Dunganstown, Co.Wexford and sailed for the States. There he married Bridget Murphy who would beeventually widowed and left to care for four sons, the youngest of whom wasnamed Patrick Joseph, whose future grandson would become his country’sPresident.
Boston was the first port of settlement for both families,and became their home in this new country. They sought to take advantages ofall the economic opportunities the US had to offer, although first they had toovercome a wave of discrimination against Irish-Catholic immigrants which was sweepingthe country at that time. First they worked as peddlers and labourers,gradually moving up in the world to take positions as clerks and tavern owners.And, by the end of the 19 th century, both of JFK’s grandfathers hadbecome successful politicians in their own right; John Fitzgerald in particularserved as Mayor of Boston and in the US Congress.
JFK was intensely proud of his Irish heritage and hisfamily’s hardworking roots. During his visit to Ireland he remarked to thepeople of New Ross, Wexford – “When my great grandfather left here to become acooper in East Boston, he carried nothing with him except two things: a strongreligious faith and a strong desire for liberty. I am glad to say that all ofhis great grandchildren have valued that inheritance.” The John FKennedy library in Boston is a lasting reminder of the President’s link to thecountry of his ancestors. Amongst its treasures is a large Bible, brought overfrom Ireland by his great grandparents. An 1850 edition, it carries with it arecord of the Fitzgerald family, including a marking of the birth of one JohnFitzgerald Kennedy, born May 29 th 1917, and was the Bible he placedone hand on when being sworn in as President of the United States almost 44years later. Along with its other exhibits is a Waterford Crystal vase, etchedinto it is an Irish homestead, an immigrant ship followed by the White House,symbolising the journey of the Fitzgerald and Kennedy families.
This week theLate Late Show has reached somewhat of a wider audience than usual. PresenterRyan Tubridy agreed to sit on the other side of the table as he appeared onNBC’s The Today Show. Tubridy made his appearance on the popular US morningshow on Wednesday to promote his book ‘JFK in Ireland: Four Days That Changed aPresident.’ "I am going to talk about Ireland, mybook, JFK, and perhaps use it as an opportunity to wear the green jersey andget people to return to Ireland like JFK did. I'm going to be banging the drumfor Ireland," Tubridy told the IrishIndependent.
Released in 2010, the book examines Kennedy’s 1963 visit toIreland, a visit JFK himself described as “the best four days of my life,” andhis last visit to the country before his assassination five months later. Kennedy,who was America’s first Irish-Catholic President, was a member of two familieswith a rich history stretching back to Ireland. The Fitzgerald family was fromBruff in County Limerick and in the famine years emigrated to the New World toescape the most devastating effects. The first Irish-American Fitzgerald wasborn John Francis Fitzgerald in Boston on February 11 th 1863. It wasthrough this line JFK’s mother came from; Rose Elizabeth Fitzgerald, thedaughter of John Francis and Mary Hannon of Acton, Massachusetts - herself ofIrish descent. Meanwhile, another Irish family had also emigrated to Americaduring the Great Famine; Patrick Kennedy left his home in Dunganstown, Co.Wexford and sailed for the States. There he married Bridget Murphy who would beeventually widowed and left to care for four sons, the youngest of whom wasnamed Patrick Joseph, whose future grandson would become his country’sPresident.
Boston was the first port of settlement for both families,and became their home in this new country. They sought to take advantages ofall the economic opportunities the US had to offer, although first they had toovercome a wave of discrimination against Irish-Catholic immigrants which was sweepingthe country at that time. First they worked as peddlers and labourers,gradually moving up in the world to take positions as clerks and tavern owners.And, by the end of the 19 th century, both of JFK’s grandfathers hadbecome successful politicians in their own right; John Fitzgerald in particularserved as Mayor of Boston and in the US Congress.
JFK was intensely proud of his Irish heritage and hisfamily’s hardworking roots. During his visit to Ireland he remarked to thepeople of New Ross, Wexford – “When my great grandfather left here to become acooper in East Boston, he carried nothing with him except two things: a strongreligious faith and a strong desire for liberty. I am glad to say that all ofhis great grandchildren have valued that inheritance.” The John FKennedy library in Boston is a lasting reminder of the President’s link to thecountry of his ancestors. Amongst its treasures is a large Bible, brought overfrom Ireland by his great grandparents. An 1850 edition, it carries with it arecord of the Fitzgerald family, including a marking of the birth of one JohnFitzgerald Kennedy, born May 29 th 1917, and was the Bible he placedone hand on when being sworn in as President of the United States almost 44years later. Along with its other exhibits is a Waterford Crystal vase, etchedinto it is an Irish homestead, an immigrant ship followed by the White House,symbolising the journey of the Fitzgerald and Kennedy families.
During his fourday visit he made a stop at Limerick on the 29 th of June. There hetold the gathered crowd - “Thisis not the land of my birth, but it is the land for which I hold the greatestaffection, and I certainly will come back in the springtime.” Five monthslater, Ireland’s only claim on an American President was dead, assassinated inDallas while on a political trip to the state of Texas. The honour guard at hisgraveside in Arlington National Cemetery was the 37 th Cadet Class ofthe Irish Army.
“I must say that though other days may not be sobright, as we look toward the future, that the brightest days will continue tobe those we spent with you here in Ireland.”
-JFK, Eyre Square, Co. Galway, 29 thJune 1963
-JFK, Eyre Square, Co. Galway, 29 thJune 1963
Conor Forrest
March 22nd 2012,
