|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 2, 2018 20:18:14 GMT
Appealing to context or nuance is what racists and xenophobes always do! If we allow that, there will always be a get-out clause...calling someone a dog, or even a puppy, is objectively offensive.
I don't see why I have to explain that story or how it's even relevant to my thesis. Tribalism is a permanent feature of human life; present social policy in most Western countries is a deliberate attempt to engineer cosmopolitanism, which is always going to be disastrous at worst and alienating at best. As I say, our experience of diversity in Ireland has been miserable. Storing up more of that for the future looks like insanity to me-- just to virtue signal, or to give the two fingers to the ghost of Dev, or whatever the motivation is.
I accept greater diversity might be inevitable. It might be the morally right thing to do for all sorts of reasons. But pretending that it's a good IN ITSELF, I'm not willing to do that.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 2, 2018 20:34:13 GMT
Appealing to context or nuance is what racists and xenophobes always do! If we allow that, there will always be a get-out clause...calling someone a dog, or even a puppy, is objectively offensive. I don't see why I have to explain that story or how it's even relevant to my thesis. Tribalism is a permanent feature of human life; present social policy in most Western countries is a deliberate attempt to engineer cosmopolitanism, which is always going to be disastrous at worst and alienating at best. As I say, our experience of diversity in Ireland has been miserable. Storing up more of that for the future looks like insanity to me-- just to virtue signal, or to give the two fingers to the ghost of Dev, or whatever the motivation is. So in your view, not only is there nothing wrong with xenophobia, but we should actually embrace it as a virtue, if I understand you correctly? If that is the case, then there is not more that I can say. In my view, talk about keeping Ireland ethnically Irish (in a context that suggests that Irishness is synonymous with whiteness) is clear-cut racism pure and simple, since it implies that those of other ethnicities and their descendants can never be truly Irish, even if they integrate. If you want to dismiss my view as "virtue-signalling", feel free by all means.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 2, 2018 20:47:45 GMT
Appealing to context or nuance is what racists and xenophobes always do! If we allow that, there will always be a get-out clause...calling someone a dog, or even a puppy, is objectively offensive. I don't see why I have to explain that story or how it's even relevant to my thesis. Tribalism is a permanent feature of human life; present social policy in most Western countries is a deliberate attempt to engineer cosmopolitanism, which is always going to be disastrous at worst and alienating at best. As I say, our experience of diversity in Ireland has been miserable. Storing up more of that for the future looks like insanity to me-- just to virtue signal, or to give the two fingers to the ghost of Dev, or whatever the motivation is. So in your view, not only is there nothing wrong with xenophobia, but we should actually embrace it as a virtue, if I understand you correctly? If that is the case, then there is not more that I can say. In my view, talk about keeping Ireland ethnically Irish (in a context that suggests that Irishness is synonymous with whiteness) is clear-cut racism pure and simple, since it implies that those of other ethnicities and their descendants can never be truly Irish, even if they integrate. If you want to dismiss my view as "virtue-signalling", feel free by all means. You seem to see everything in all-or-nothing terms. I absolutely accept Paul McGrath and Phil Lynott are (or were) Irish. I don't think "those of other ethnicities and their descendants can never be truly Irish", but I don't think it happens automatically-- the "New Irish" thesis, or what the identitarians call "the magic soil" thesis (no, I'm not an identitarian). Realistically I don't think it could take less than ten years in terms of new adult arrivals. I'm not really keen on "integration", because those people are losing their own traditions and heritages-- which I see as a tragedy in itself. It might be OK in terms of intermarriage or individual arrivals, but when you have large groups, it becomes increasingly unlikely. Again, it might even be tolerable for another reason, but I can never see it as a good in itself, whereas others DO see it as a good in itself-- exciting, novel, adventurous, etc. And then then, I think a LIMITED multiculturalism is OK-- perrsonally, I prefer a limited multiculturalism to "the melting pot", as I think it is a tragedy for people to lose their cultures-- but the basic homogeneity, I think, should remain. Perrsonally, I have zero interest in skin colour. I realize it is pointless to say this, but there it is. It's true that people of Irish descent are going to be overwhelmingly white, but that's incidental as far as I'm concerned. Sometimes I wish we could all just be the same colour, despite my general love of life's diversity, so all this tedious race-baiting could end. And I don't care which colour it is.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 2, 2018 21:06:55 GMT
So in your view, not only is there nothing wrong with xenophobia, but we should actually embrace it as a virtue, if I understand you correctly? If that is the case, then there is not more that I can say. In my view, talk about keeping Ireland ethnically Irish (in a context that suggests that Irishness is synonymous with whiteness) is clear-cut racism pure and simple, since it implies that those of other ethnicities and their descendants can never be truly Irish, even if they integrate. If you want to dismiss my view as "virtue-signalling", feel free by all means. You seem to see everything in all-or-nothing terms. I absolutely accept Paul McGrath and Phil Lynott are (or were) Irish. I don't think "those of other ethnicities and their descendants can never be truly Irish", but I don't think it happens automatically-- the "New Irish" thesis, or what the identitarians call "the magic soil" thesis (no, I'm not an identitarian). Realistically I don't think it could take less than ten years in terms of new adult arrivals. I'm not really keen on "integration", because those people are losing their own traditions and heritages-- which I see as a tragedy in itself. It might be OK in terms of intermarriage or individual arrivals, but when you have large groups, it becomes increasingly unlikely. Again, it might even be tolerable for another reason, but I can never see it as a good in itself, whereas others DO see it as a good in itself-- exciting, novel, adventurous, etc. And then then, I think a LIMITED multiculturalism is OK-- perrsonally, I prefer a limited multiculturalism to "the melting pot", as I think it is a tragedy for people to lose their cultures-- but the basic homogeneity, I think, should remain. Perrsonally, I have zero interest in skin colour. I realize it is pointless to say this, but there it is. It's true that people of Irish descent are going to be overwhelmingly white, but that's incidental as far as I'm concerned. Sometimes I wish we could all just be the same colour, despite my general love of life's diversity, so all this tedious race-baiting could end. And I don't care which colour it is. For me, it is a matter of logic. If whiteness is a prerequisite for Irishness then it implies that non-whites cannot truly be Irish, or at best are merely "less" Irish. Conversely, if non-whites can be just as Irish as whites, then there is no connection between whiteness and Irishness. I think ten years, is a bit too rigid: if a person is committed enough to this country to become a citizen, especially if they have to renounce their previous citizenship, then they are Irish, regardless of any other details.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 2, 2018 21:15:41 GMT
You seem to see everything in all-or-nothing terms. I absolutely accept Paul McGrath and Phil Lynott are (or were) Irish. I don't think "those of other ethnicities and their descendants can never be truly Irish", but I don't think it happens automatically-- the "New Irish" thesis, or what the identitarians call "the magic soil" thesis (no, I'm not an identitarian). Realistically I don't think it could take less than ten years in terms of new adult arrivals. I'm not really keen on "integration", because those people are losing their own traditions and heritages-- which I see as a tragedy in itself. It might be OK in terms of intermarriage or individual arrivals, but when you have large groups, it becomes increasingly unlikely. Again, it might even be tolerable for another reason, but I can never see it as a good in itself, whereas others DO see it as a good in itself-- exciting, novel, adventurous, etc. And then then, I think a LIMITED multiculturalism is OK-- perrsonally, I prefer a limited multiculturalism to "the melting pot", as I think it is a tragedy for people to lose their cultures-- but the basic homogeneity, I think, should remain. Perrsonally, I have zero interest in skin colour. I realize it is pointless to say this, but there it is. It's true that people of Irish descent are going to be overwhelmingly white, but that's incidental as far as I'm concerned. Sometimes I wish we could all just be the same colour, despite my general love of life's diversity, so all this tedious race-baiting could end. And I don't care which colour it is. For me, it is a matter of logic. If whiteness is a prerequisite for Irishness then it implies that non-whites cannot truly be Irish, or at best are merely "less" Irish. Conversely, if non-whites can be just as Irish as whites, then there is no connection between whiteness and Irishness. I think ten years, is a bit too rigid: if a person is committed enough to this country to become a citizen, especially if they have to renounce their previous citizenship, then they are Irish, regardless of any other details. Well, I believe the vast majority of people will not be happy with civic patriotism for long, and indeed, this explains the rise of populism in our time (as well as being a big part of jihadism). Belonging means more than paperwork. You might think that's exclusionary, but I would use the word "special" instead. Civic patriotism is the cultural counterpart of liberal Christianity. You don't have to actually strive towards anything-- come as you are, and stay as you are. No horizon. Boring. I don't see any problem with degrees of belonging (although that's a clumsy and inexact phrase). Someone who uses Irish as their first language is more Irish than I am, in my eyes-- in a certain sense. We can't let resentment ruin everything. Why not see it as something to aspire to, rather than something to exclude or degrade? Take the analogy of femininity. Is a woman who wears a butch haircut and dresses in a masculine manner and behaves in a masculine manner NOT a woman? Of course she is a woman. And if she wants to do that, you know, most people will be fairly tolerant, maybe there is a reason for it, maybe it's a phase, the world is wide and it takes all sorts....but it still remains that a woman who wears dresses and long hair is more feminine than she is. It's not somehow oppressive to have this standard. Again, I don't give two hoots about anybody's skin colour. I use the term "tribalism" because if I say "nationalism", you get the tedious arguments: "Nationalism began in the nineteenth century, it's a Western construct", etc. Tribalism covers everything.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 2, 2018 21:39:37 GMT
You seem to see everything in all-or-nothing terms. I absolutely accept Paul McGrath and Phil Lynott are (or were) Irish. I don't think "those of other ethnicities and their descendants can never be truly Irish", but I don't think it happens automatically-- the "New Irish" thesis, or what the identitarians call "the magic soil" thesis (no, I'm not an identitarian). Realistically I don't think it could take less than ten years in terms of new adult arrivals. I'm not really keen on "integration", because those people are losing their own traditions and heritages-- which I see as a tragedy in itself. It might be OK in terms of intermarriage or individual arrivals, but when you have large groups, it becomes increasingly unlikely. Again, it might even be tolerable for another reason, but I can never see it as a good in itself, whereas others DO see it as a good in itself-- exciting, novel, adventurous, etc. And then then, I think a LIMITED multiculturalism is OK-- perrsonally, I prefer a limited multiculturalism to "the melting pot", as I think it is a tragedy for people to lose their cultures-- but the basic homogeneity, I think, should remain. Perrsonally, I have zero interest in skin colour. I realize it is pointless to say this, but there it is. It's true that people of Irish descent are going to be overwhelmingly white, but that's incidental as far as I'm concerned. Sometimes I wish we could all just be the same colour, despite my general love of life's diversity, so all this tedious race-baiting could end. And I don't care which colour it is. For me, it is a matter of logic. If whiteness is a prerequisite for Irishness then it implies that non-whites cannot truly be Irish, or at best are merely "less" Irish. Conversely, if non-whites can be just as Irish as whites, then there is no connection between whiteness and Irishness. I couldn't agree more. As far as I'm concerned, there is no essential connection between whiteness and Irish.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2018 13:55:05 GMT
I'm talking about being racially Irish. Or "Old Irish", if that's how you'd prefer to speak.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 4, 2018 14:20:34 GMT
I'm talking about being racially Irish. Or "Old Irish", if that's how you'd prefer to speak. The word "race" is controversial. It's hard to get a definition of it. Back in the day, it was an accepted term-- you'd have something like "The Irish Race Conventions" of the 1920s, and the term was bandied about freely elsewhere, simply to mean "the Irish people". Now, the association with skin colour and Nazism makes it controversial. I generally use the term "ethnicity", which is more flexible and not as concerned with genetics-- and yet, not as abstract as "nationality".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2018 14:34:42 GMT
I'm talking about being racially Irish. Or "Old Irish", if that's how you'd prefer to speak. The word "race" is controversial. It's hard to get a definition of it. Back in the day, it was an accepted term-- you'd have something like "The Irish Race Conventions" of the 1920s, and the term was bandied about freely elsewhere, simply to mean "the Irish people". Now, the association with skin colour and Nazism makes it controversial. I generally use the term "ethnicity", which is more flexible and not as concerned with genetics-- and yet, not as abstract as "nationality". I notice the very people who have made it controversial, are the same hypocrites who are happy to use race to get their own way. When talking about the white race, it's controversial and racist; when talking about other races, it's a great way to earn special privileges or force an agenda.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 4, 2018 16:29:39 GMT
I'm talking about being racially Irish. Or "Old Irish", if that's how you'd prefer to speak. So anyone who gains citizenship by naturalisation (or even their descendants) is not actually Irish in your book?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2018 16:36:42 GMT
I'm talking about being racially Irish. Or "Old Irish", if that's how you'd prefer to speak. So anyone who gains citizenship by naturalisation (or even their descendants) is not actually Irish in your book? Nationally, not racially. Was I really making it that difficult to follow?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 4, 2018 16:56:08 GMT
So anyone who gains citizenship by naturalisation (or even their descendants) is not actually Irish in your book? Nationally, not racially. Was I really making it that difficult to follow? Well, if you insinuate that only those who are "racially" Irish are actually Irish, people can interpret that for themselves here: The problem is that the check-list was implying, as far as I was concerned, that these things are outdated (ie, bad.) The idea that Ireland being majority Irish is in itself somehow bad is the issue. I'm talking about being racially Irish. Or "Old Irish", if that's how you'd prefer to speak. Why does there even need to be a distinction? If you are an Irish citizen, you are Irish, end of story.
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Sept 5, 2018 10:47:30 GMT
I think whether you are racially Irish or not is a bit of a red herring, to be honest. It's open to accusations of racism, which distracts and derails from discussion of the actual source of the tension, which is whether you are *culturally* Irish or not. You can be an Irish citizen but not culturally Irish. If you are a native citizen, you tend to grow up and become encultured Irish. The difficulty arises when people encultured in very different environments are transplanted here (whether they go on to be citizens or not).
What actually is Irish culture is another matter. Personally, I think we don't have much of a national culture left, apart from a few pockets here and there. We've assimilated patches of other external cultural values over recent decades which has diluted our own, and our educational (and other formational practices) have started to reflected that, so it will soon be "with O'Casey in the grave". GAA and Guinness and Riverdance is all well and good, but it's our culture of values that is important, and where collisions arise.
Of course, there are those who say that Irish culture now *is* to be multi-cultural, but I don't think it is that simple. It has been a relatively quick historical transformation for us, with little chance for Irish society to adjust to any tensions created (within the native Irish people *and* those people from other cultures).
We still aren't prepared for those tensions. We're not even openly acknowledging and discussing them as a society yet.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 5, 2018 11:20:53 GMT
I think whether you are racially Irish or not is a bit of a red herring, to be honest. It's open to accusations of racism, which distracts and derails from discussion of the actual source of the tension, which is whether you are *culturally* Irish or not. You can be an Irish citizen but not culturally Irish. If you are a native citizen, you tend to grow up and become encultured Irish. The difficulty arises when people encultured in very different environments are transplanted here (whether they go on to be citizens or not). What actually is Irish culture is another matter. Personally, I think we don't have much of a national culture left, apart from a few pockets here and there. We've assimilated patches of other external cultural values over recent decades which has diluted our own, and our educational (and other formational practices) have started to reflected that, so it will soon be "with O'Casey in the grave". GAA and Guinness and Riverdance is all well and good, but it's our culture of values that is important, and where collisions arise. Of course, there are those who say that Irish culture now *is* to be multi-cultural, but I don't think it is that simple. It has been a relatively quick historical transformation for us, with little chance for Irish society to adjust to any tensions created (within the native Irish people *and* those people from other cultures). We still aren't prepared for those tensions. We're not even openly acknowledging and discussing them as a society yet. I totally agree with everything you say here. You know, if I had to take two guys-- say Roddy Doyle versus some guy who'd just come in on the plane from Singapore, but was instantly setting about learning the Irish language, getting into Gaelic games, studying Irish history and culture, and who was grateful rather than resentful of his host country-- I would consider the guy from Singapore more Irish by far. Singapore can have Roddy Doyle. I agree. We don't have much of a culture. What we do have is really the fruits of the Irish Revival and other cultural nationalists. They never succeeded in reviving the Irish language or "de-anglicizing" Ireland, but they did achieve a huge amount. But even that is only a small colouring compared to our globalized lifestyle. There is also the question of-- what direction are you going in? Not only do we not have much of our native culture left, but we're not even really TRYING to revive it or cultivate it. We're going in the opposite direction. Most Irish people don't seem to care. That's their free choice. But I think they or their descendants will bitterly regret it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2018 12:38:26 GMT
It seems to matter to the people who have such a fetish for diversity that they are willing to allow large numbers of women and children to be brutally raped and then cover it up. It seems to matter to some Germans, who think that becoming a racial minority in their own country is good, because it means the "Nazis" (see, German people) are dying off. It seems to matter to the hypocrites who whinge and complain to us about having too many children and over-populating the world, yet then announce how we don't have enough people to make up the future generations, so now we'll be importing our new people from anywhere else. It seems to matter to the people in this country who are all tears and shame when it comes to people in other parts of the world suffering, yet have apathy (at best) or contempt (at worst) for the people within their own country. It's interesting how there are so many Irish families who have to put up with being homeless, yet we've done such a fantastic job of putting up migrants in hotels, etc. It also seems to matter to the police in Britain who were supposedly too afraid of dealing with Pakistani gangs who abducted, raped, and prostituted white and Sikh girls for fear of being called racist. It also seemed to matter to the rapists themselves, whose reasoning was that the girls were fair game for being both non-Muslim and white. It also seems to matter to regressive types who try to claim race is a social construct, yet who have made their fame and fortune off of race-baiting over even the most inane issues.
It's quite astounding that not wanting your race to die off due to the incompetence and hypocrisy of those in positions of power is somehow racist, yet to treat a race of people with such contempt is not.
It is one side of the same coin of what you propose to hate, Young Ireland. It's simply an opposite extreme. Either one is a form of racial discrimination or worse. Creating classes based on race, criminalising mixed-races marriages, etc - discrimination against the foreigner. Apathy or contempt towards the original/once majority race, hypocrisy in how the origin race and foreign races are dealt with, slandering as racist when the origin race merely raises questions while allowing foreign races to run rampant screaming about nonexistent racism which forces people to kowtow in fear, etc - discrimination of the origin race.
I honestly believe, Young Ireland, that had this situation been in reverse - that had this been a case of mass amounts of white people going to non-white countries - people like you would be the first to pipe up, decrying the situation as putting a racial burden on non-white countries. I believe, then, you wouldn't so nonchalantly brush it off as an insignificant consequence of the great cultural movement and diversifying of the world, or that as long as the people integrate into those countries it will be unimportant. Even if not you, there are certainly people who would start singing a different tune.
The simple fact is, when it comes to race, white people are held to a different standard. It's why, verbally white people dare not thread where other races will. The expectations and consequences are simply different. Simply look to the case of Sarah Jeong and the New York Times for a taste of this double-standard. An Asian woman makes a series of racist messages about white people on Twitter, and it's defended and played down as much as possible, with some rags even trying to make her out to be the victim. Had this been a white person, we know too well what would have happened. We would see no end to the comments about her racism, how NYT is a white supremacist outlet, how such a thing was a sign of the rise of fascism and Nazism, etc. Of course, that's assuming the NYT would stand by a white person for making such comments after a simple distancing themselves from the actual messages. They wouldn't.
It is hypocrisy. A hypocrisy that dictates whites cannot complain about racism towards them, due to such a thing paradoxically being racist itself.
|
|