An Gorta Mor and Remittances

 

Erin go Bragh - Image courtesy Ireland Reaching Out

Just the other day, gentle reader, I stumbled on an Irish history website which included an essay about remittances sent from the USA during An Gorta Mor (the Great Hunger, the irish famine). 

It was written by Dr Ciaran Reilly, historian at Maynooth University. 

The article reports that in 1851, Lord John Russell, then British PM, claimed that more than 1.5 million pounds had been sent to Ireland as remittances by new emigrants who had arrived in the USA. A survey of Irish newspapers from the late 1840s and early 1850s confirms this, with almost daily reports of people emigrating once they had received the remittance money.

I also remember reading about these remittances on my visit to Ellis Ireland's immigration museum a few years ago on a visit to New York. 

Ellis Island Immigration Museum

The process was not confined to the USA, with a mention in the article of letters received from Melbourne containing amounts ranging from fifty to five hundred pounds.

I knew from my own family history that my ancestors traveled to Moreton Bay on the Erin go Bragh during a voyage in 1862.

The Erin go Bragh was one of thirteen ships which transported people from Ireland to Australia under the Queensland Immigration Scheme. This scheme was established by Bishop James Quinn and assisted by Father Patrick Dunne with the aim of assisting Irish immigrants to make the arduous journey to Australia where it was hoped that they could start a new life of prosperity.

Remittances were used less frequently in Australia (or as then, the colonies of Moreton Bay, New South Wales and Victoria), but they did exist. I have no idea of the mechanics of this, or how the postal services worked back then to keep the funds secure.

If anyone reading this understands the process, please enlighten us in the comments.

Degrees of Separation - A Book Review (Sort of)

Recently I've reconnected with my class at boarding school in 1961/62. That's over sixty years ago. 

There was a reunion organised which I couldn't attend, but it led to a raft of email exchanges. 

It was almost eerie to discover that one of those people was, like me, an ex-Nasho, a Vietnam veteran, and like me, wrote a book about it. Strangely, I remember his name, but can't put a face to him. 

Again, it was a long time ago. 

Anyway, I tracked down his memoir which he called Dominoes and Marbles and read it in one sitting.

Apart from the fact that the subject matter describes experiences we shared which obvious resonates, it's an engaging narrative, and the product of a professional writer; a journalist.

One chapter, which he called Fortes in Fide,  and which describes his experiences at school, unearthed previously hidden memories of my two years at a boarding school nearly a thousand kilometres from my home in North Queensland, as a thirteen year old who had never been away from my family.

It reminded me of another schoolmate who often defended me when I was on the receiving end of a bit of bullying. In those days I weighed thirty kilograms wringing wet, and probably needed a bouncer. This schoolmate went on to join the regular army and was killed in the Battle of Long Tan in 1966.

The memoir covers much more than Vietnam. The author describes his childhood at Mount Tyson, his primary school experiences in the small state school there, and his time at Downlands.

He relates experiences at recruit training similar to mine, and his posting to Vietnam in September 1966, four years before me. He served with 5 RAR, the battalion my unit (7 RAR) replaced on its second tour.  

Much of the narrative describes his experiences as an apparently competent rugby union player, a journalist, and his appreciation of the music of the Vietnam era. 

For me, the memoir is very much an indulgence in nostalgia, but it's well worth a read as it captures the flavour of the time.

You can buy it online here - https://www.amazon.com.au/Dominoes-Marbles-Young-Times-Peace/dp/0994281439

  

Chicago 1968

 

Chicago 1968 (Image courtesy Washington Post)

1968 is a year I remember very well, gentle reader.

I had begun a teaching career, turned twenty-one (which had greater significance back then) and had reported in Warwick for my national service medical.

Bobby Kennedy was assassinated on my birthday, and I was passed A1 after my medical. Both these events effectively sealed my fate when it came to the following two years, as they combined to send me to Vietnam.

If I had failed my medical, or if Kennedy had the same luck as Trump, my experience would have been very different. When Kennedy announced that he was seeking the Democratic nomination, he made it clear that his campaign agenda prioritised opposition to the war in Vietnam over racial division and the problem of the cities.

From his announcement speech - I run to seek new policies - policies to end the bloodshed in Vietnam and in our cities, policies to close the gaps that now exist between black and white, between rich and poor, between young and old, in this country and around the rest of the world.

Whether or not his election as US President would have been timely enough to begin a withdrawal of US troops, and whether the Coalition would have followed quickly in this country will of course never be known, but it is feasible.

When Nixon was elected he talked about "peace with honour", but nevertheless began an indiscriminate bombing programme in Cambodia, which led, amongst other things, to the killing fields.

Where the bombs landed in 1972 (red)

Those events in 1968 demonstrate a frightening symmetry with what has so far occured in 2024. Then as now, the incumbent Democratic president will not seek re-election (Lyndon Johnson's decision); there were two assassinations back then, both successful, (Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy); and one this year which was unsuccessful; and the Democratic convention will be held in Chicago. The most significant difference between 1968 and 2024 is that the single (so far) assassination attempt was unsuccessful.

The 1968 Convention was a landmark event which vividly demonstrated the deep divisions within the Democrats, but more significantly within the US community. Those divisions are duplicated in 2024, even if the fault lines are different, but violence is always simmering just below the surface.

I'm reminded of two cliches that go hand in hand when it comes to that country across the Pacific. One is that violence is as American as apple pie, and the other is that history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.

However you look at it, the US is clearly at a crossroads now just as it was in 1968. By the time Saigon fell in 1975, fifty-seven thousand Americans, millions of Vietnamese, and five hundred Australians had died as a result of decisions made in the US. Many decisions had been made before those events in 1968, but many were made after that pivotal year. A reading of the Pentagon papers is informative.

Let's hope that the cadence of the rhyme fails, because if it doesn't, and more deadly conflict ensues,  there will be outcomes for Australians, just as there were in 1968, and many will be negative.

Affirmative Action

 

It was different in 1968

Teaching has always been a tough gig, but these days it seems to be getting tougher.

The attrition rate for early career teachers is pretty constant, and remains a problem. 

This report provides some useful detail.

Recently, reports of misogynistic behaviour directed at young female teachers have appeared. This essay describes an experience that is, unfortunately, far from unusual. 

It's nothing new, of course, and the plight of the casual or relief teacher is well-known. I had the opportunity to do some relief teaching post retirement, but chose advisory visiting teaching instead. The idea of working with a different bunch of students each day did not appeal. 

Frankly, without the possibility of properly engaging with your students for more than one day at a time, it seemed to me a futile exercise, despite the fact that it pays well.

This issue overlaps with the problem of gender balance within the profession, or as it frequently labelled, the feminisation of teaching.

If the statistics weren't enough evidence of a problem, my recent experience as a consultant made it abundantly clear. I had been working for a number of years in support of the rural primary school where I started my career in 1968.

At the time I was a member of a staff of eighteen, eight of whom were male. During my sojourn in support of the same school between 2006 and 2017, the school which now has thirty full timers on staff had only one male teacher.

The janitor-groundsman was male, but that really didn't assist. The phenomenon of a staff of female teachers led by a male principal (the cliche we hear a great deal) was also absent, as the principal was female.

In any profession, a gender balance which has gone beyond say, 80/20 either way, is regarded as undesirable. This gender balance report was compiled from the standpoint of improving diversity in corporate structures.  Most contemporary writings on the subject adopt a point of view which discriminates between the raw numbers and the hierarchical structures as they apply to gender in the profession.  

The problem is complicated in that whilst a large majority of teachers are female, the hierarchical structures within the profession favour career paths for men because they don't have to manage the interruptions caused by childbirth and child rearing.

Does this mean that the problems encountered by the author of the essay above are insoluble? 

I hope not, as apart from creating a difficult path for aspiring teacher of either gender, they simply encourage a view of teaching as a profession lacking in clout and significance. There is some irony in the fact that teachers are roundly criticised in some (especially right wing) media for leading children astray in a political sense, whilst these same criticisms imply that the profession is not all that important.

Perhaps there is room for a campaign of affirmative action that attracts males to the profession, driven by the same energy used (for example) to attract women into the trades and STEM. There is ample evidence out there that boys need strong and non-violent male models who can successfully relate to both genders.

Given the current worthy emphasis on the message that "women can do anything", maybe we need another message that says that "men can do most things, including teaching".

Diversity, by definition, requires balance.

  

Shared Values?

 

Pic courtesy GovNews

Since the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, we've been hearing a great deal about our "shared values" when it comes to the USA.

The contrasting attitude to gun control is perhaps the most stark evidence of this. In this country you may own a gun, but generally people only do so if they are hobby shooters or live in rural environments. Gun ownership is not seen as a fundamental right, based on a constitutional amendment that was made two hundred and thirty years ago.

The real world outcome of this would suggest that Australian values on this issue are pragmatically superior, and it hasn't made any difference to freedom across the two countries. At least it didn't when I travelled to the USA a few years ago. If anything, we were trammelled with more petty restrictions over there than we are here, ironically enough, many of them stemmed from precautionary scenarios implemented in a fearful community with almost universal gun ownership.

We don't, for example, need control measures in schools such as single-access points, fencing, or internal door locks to enable teachers to lock shooters out at proven intervention points.  

The comparative firearm fatality rate is probably the best example of one result of this different set of values. 

Then there's the contrasting attitude towards health care. In Australia we have a system which provides access to health care which isn't directly related to wealth. Not so in the USA. More than two-thirds (73.4%) of Australians reported being satisfied with their healthcare, whilst only a slight majority of Americans (54.2%) said the same.

Apart from satisfaction rates, a comparison of some important statistics is even more revealing. Life expectancy in Australia is nearly four years longer than the USA. In addition, infant mortality per one thousand live births in Australia sits at 3.14, but it's 5.44 in the USA. It seems that the satisfaction rates are based on a realistic appreciation of the situation in each country.

The firearm laws and health systems in each country are based squarely on opposing values of individualism against egalitarianism.

Then there's the contrasting welfare systems. In contrast to the USA, we don't worship the rich and despise the poor. We have created a welfare system that shares the nation's wealth more equitably than the USA whilst still valuing entrepreneurship and innovation. A wide collection of Australian inventions provides ample evidence of that. 

Because our immigration system is skills-based, we don't need an endless supply of cheap immigrant labour and we pay wages comparatively higher that those across the Pacific.  As of the latest data the minimum wage in Australia is AU $20.33 per hour as against the US federal minimum wage of USA $7.25 per hour.

Travelling in the USA exposes the social divide that becomes evident whenever you walk into a supermarket or a subway. I am beginning to notice the same situation developing here. It's not a positive trend.

My time in Vietnam where we had intermittent contact with Americans made these differences in values stark, particularly when it came to race. I remember being cautioned a number of times by white Americans that socialising with African American GIs when we were on leave was not a good idea.

The irony in this was that the black GIs were far better company that their white counterparts, and their sense of humour resembled ours, which was probably why we gravitated towards them.

And that's another difference. Our laconic sense of humour is a reflection of the fact that we don't take ourselves all that seriously. There is no such thing as Australian exceptionalism.

And that's a very good thing. Shared values? I think not.....

One Unheralded Possibility

 

Image courtesy People's World

Yesterday's UK general election has had a range of consequences, the most obvious (and predictable) of which is  a change of government.

There has been, however, a largely unacknowledged outcome in the seven counties of the United Kingdom across the Irish Sea. The counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry and Tyrone comprise the slice of Ireland that is part of the Union.

Back in 2022, after the shambles created by Brexit at the Irish border, the Democratic Unionists lost power in the Northern Ireland Assembly to Sinn Féin.

After the 2024 UK general election result, Sinn Féin's continued emergence as the party with the greatest number of seats will intensify debate around the region's future.

The complicated makeup of the governance of Northern Ireland makes it difficult to predict the constitutional future of the seven counties, but Brexit put a bomb under the old structures and split the Unionists. Sinn Féin seems disinclined to exploit the situation at the moment, and the attitude of the Irish Free State is unclear and malleable.

A poll conducted on unification in February 2020 indicated support south of the border, but not in the north.

Northern Ireland opinion

Republic of Ireland opinion

The architects of Brexit have broken some kind of record for creating unintended consequences.

If one of them is the unification of the emerald isle, it would be an ill wind after centuries of hate and violence.

Groundhog Day

 

Image courtesy awareness days

Right now, gentle reader, we're observing the onward march of Australian politics against a background of fear and loathing.

There are two prominent threats - climate change and an emerging China. The fear refers to climate change; the loathing to China and its system of government. 

Across the two issues we see the two major parties adopting largely opposing positions. It was ever so. In this country for the last twenty years or so, if one party takes a position, the other opposes it. 

You could say that this is how it is, how it should be, and how it always will be. Isn't democracy a contest of ideas? - I hear you say.

Perhaps there is another way of looking at it. If these two issues are about existential threats (and we are told they are) wouldn't it be a great idea if the two major parties formed a war cabinet to deal with them? History shows that this has been successful practice in the face of existential threat in the past.

In the case of energy policy, each party talks about a mix of energy sources, but with one party locked into total renewables, and the other using nuclear as a foil and a point of separation, the investors will be just as confused about the future as they have been for the last decade. Lack of investor confidence will delay any solution to the loss of energy capacity caused by the closure of the coal fired generators. 

A bear of little brain would understand that if our elected representatives got together and produced a joint statement, clarity would emerge, and we wouldn't be stuck on the merry-go-round that got us into the invidious situation that we're in now. If indeed the various lobbies (both fossil fuel and renewables) understood whatever the carve-up of energy sources provided them, the competition might end up in a draw, and we'd all be better off.

The fear of China has produced nothing of benefit except the AUKUS agreement, that is if you believe that we will ever see these boats actually in the water. Frankly I doubt it, and I'm in good company. The US Studies Centre describes the AUKUS agreement as a "hospital pass". Given the political volatility evident both in the USA and the UK, there are too many minefields to cross, if you'll excuse the military metaphor. 

More fundamentally, why do we need submarines capable of cruising waters off China and Taiwan, given we are an island, and could build many more modern and stealthy diesel boats that could prowl our littoral and defend our sea lanes for a fraction of the cost? There are those who believe the era of manned boats, nuclear or otherwise, is coming to an end. How many underwater drones could we acquire for the price of one nuclear sub?

More fundamentally, we could give a strong message about our sovereignty to both "friend" and "foe" alike if we separate our fleet from those of countries who seem intent on a policy of containment of China and redirect it towards an emphasis on littoral security. The last time the US attempted to contain an emerging Asian power did not end well. My use of quotes around friend and foe by the way, is more than accidental.

Our Westminster system does not hold the formation of political parties as absolutely necessary. They have grown out of a convention largely of convenience, which should ensure stability and consistency. The achilles heel of the party system is paralysis caused by two parties adopting contradictory positions on critical issues. That's what we're seeing now.

Perhaps the growth in numbers of independent candidates elected is evidence that the situation is self-correcting. I hope so.

What we're seeing now is dysfunctional.