|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Nov 12, 2021 23:36:19 GMT
Today I had the honour of looking at LinkedIn and seeing a Sri Lankan woman living in Ireland talking about how she finally earned her citizenship after many, many years. This woman seems to be doing well for herself because she talks about privilege and the usual things that are such common talking points in the black community these days. And the kicker? She wasn't brought here by a black family; she was adopted by an Irish family. It's nice to know that members of the black community that were adopted by Irish people, out of their pits for countries, have returned the gratitude by joining the rest of their kin by lecturing white people about everything that's wrong about them. I particularly liked how she mentioned she was Irish, but simultaneously felt underrepresented - as an "Irish" person in Ireland? Hm. I know Antaine has said that he will no longer engage with me (as is his right), but can I make just three points about this: 1. He seems to imply that people adopted by Irish families are not Irish. To give my personal experience on this, one of my cousins was adopted from China as a toddler twenty years ago. She is now a fluent Irish speaker, even getting an Irish-language scholarship (on merit!) and was active in the Irish language society in UCD (Maolsheachlann might even have seen her around!). At this point, she almost certainly has FAR greater ties with Ireland than with China, and as a result, I would not think of her as anything other than Irish. Another lady I dated for a while was also adopted from China as a baby, though she has spent the rest of her life in America. Again, I don't think of her as Chinese but as American. One reason why I reject ethnonationalism is that it implies that both these ladies should return to the country of their birth, even though they are more Irish/American respectively than Chinese, have little or no knowledge of Chinese, and thus would find it very difficult to integrate successfully there. I should point out that at least in the latter case, my former date has shown an interest in her Chinese heritage, and it's actually very common for people with multinational backgrounds to have affinities with all of their countries, so the lady Antaine is talking about might have a point. 2. I would not have considered Sri Lankans to be black, because that designation is usually associated with people of African descent, but rather South Asian, even if they do tend to have darker skin. 3. I would suggest that referring to any country as a "pit" is offensive and such discourse really does nothing to contribute to reasoned debate. Just remember that it was not so long ago that many British people were saying similar things about us. Notice also the implied denial that racism exists in Ireland and that newcomers should shut up, put up and be grateful for being allowed to exist in such a wonderful country, even if they are on occasion the target of racial abuse (which I have seen with my own eyes: I remember seeing an elderly gentleman threatening an Indian with his crutches saying that he didn't like brown people; I did try to intervene before anyone asks btw). I wouldn't really like to call any country a pit myself, and I have no problem accepting that adopted babies from abroad can be Irish. But I agree with Antaine that this woman sounds stunningly ungrateful. Three of my cousins are half Filipino. I remember them being teased about "slitty eyes" when we were kids. They seem to have survived this trauma. Every kid gets teased about something.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Nov 13, 2021 9:03:55 GMT
[quote author=" Maolsheachlann" I would suggest that referring to any country as a "pit" is offensive and such discourse really does nothing to contribute to reasoned debate. Just remember that it was not so long ago that many British people were saying similar things about us. Notice also the implied denial that racism exists in Ireland and that newcomers should shut up, put up and be grateful for being allowed to exist in such a wonderful country, even if they are on occasion the target of racial abuse (which I have seen with my own eyes: I remember seeing an elderly gentleman threatening an Indian with his crutches saying that he didn't like brown people; I did try to intervene before anyone asks btw).[/quote]I wouldn't really like to call any country a pit myself, and I have no problem accepting that adopted babies from abroad can be Irish. But I agree with Antaine that this woman sounds stunningly ungrateful. Three of my cousins are half Filipino. I remember them being teased about "slitty eyes" when we were kids. They seem to have survived this trauma. Every kid gets teased about something. [/quote] There is some overt racism in Ireland but it is socially disapproved of and is becoming increasingly rare and marginalised. But we also have many more foreigners living here than in the past so it may be more visible too. Much of the limited abuse I have heard has been from poor and mentally impaired people who are often relatively disadvantaged or directly impacted by mass immigration unlike most Irish Times readers. I do resent the prominent new Irish who chose to use their race as their selling point. I am thinking of that small group of well connected well off , foreign born people who make a lucrative living giving courses on all the usual imported American racialist ideology to various companies and businesses. The brass neck and arrogance of some of their claims is gob smacking. I suspect they know well they can get away with lecturing the backward Irish natives nowadays. And get paid handsomely too for their efforts.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Nov 13, 2021 10:30:17 GMT
[quote author=" Maolsheachlann" I would suggest that referring to any country as a "pit" is offensive and such discourse really does nothing to contribute to reasoned debate. Just remember that it was not so long ago that many British people were saying similar things about us. Notice also the implied denial that racism exists in Ireland and that newcomers should shut up, put up and be grateful for being allowed to exist in such a wonderful country, even if they are on occasion the target of racial abuse (which I have seen with my own eyes: I remember seeing an elderly gentleman threatening an Indian with his crutches saying that he didn't like brown people; I did try to intervene before anyone asks btw). I wouldn't really like to call any country a pit myself, and I have no problem accepting that adopted babies from abroad can be Irish. But I agree with Antaine that this woman sounds stunningly ungrateful. Three of my cousins are half Filipino. I remember them being teased about "slitty eyes" when we were kids. They seem to have survived this trauma. Every kid gets teased about something. [/quote] There is some overt racism in Ireland but it is socially disapproved of and is becoming increasingly rare and marginalised. But we also have many more foreigners living here than in the past so it may be more visible too. Much of the limited abuse I have heard has been from poor and mentally impaired people who are often relatively disadvantaged or directly impacted by mass immigration unlike most Irish Times readers. I do resent the prominent new Irish who chose to use their race as their selling point. I am thinking of that small group of well connected well off , foreign born people who make a lucrative living giving courses on all the usual imported American racialist ideology to various companies and businesses. The brass neck and arrogance of some of their claims is gob smacking. I suspect they know well they can get away with lecturing the backward Irish natives nowadays. And get paid handsomely too for their efforts. [/quote] Exactly, I think most immigrants don't have time for all this woke nonsense and seeing racism everywhere.
I remember, when myself and my wife were desperately looking for somewhere to live in Dublin, we were in a Texaco or some kind of garage talking to the shop assistant, who was from Slovakia or somewhere. She was listening to us for a while and said: "Irish people are discriminated against in their own country". She hadn't had nearly as hard a time, she got help from her embassy. And, when it comes to race and second-generation immigrants, what about people like Ben Scallan and Kevin Sharkey who don't have any time for PC or the victimhood Olympics. I think it's just a minority of non-native Irish, or dark-skinned Irish, who go in for all this nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Antaine on Nov 13, 2021 20:13:31 GMT
Young Ireland,
I will respond to you this once, but will not make a habit of it.
First of all, congratulations to your cousin, sincerely.
The reason I won't bother talking to you anymore is because you have - as I already explained - been dishonest in your dealings with me. Case in point, I have explained to you several times already that I am not an ethno-nationalist - that is, someone who believes Ireland should be 100% White. Ireland has an obligation to preserve Irish people as a race. It doesn't make sense that we live in a world where people are supposed to pour out their hearts because a subspecies of animal is on the verge of extinction, but preserving a race of people is deemed somehow to be nonsense.
You are right about Sri Lanka, but this woman appeared African to me. Maybe not.
Yes, the term pit is harsh, but simultaneously is a fairly accurate description of some of the countries these people come from. The point is, if you come from a horrendous country and are allowed into a decent one, you'd think there would be some level appreciation and decency. That is not the case with many people who come here, who, on the contrary, seem to have a massive chip on their shoulder. Second case in point as to why I don't talk to you, I have never stated that non-White people in Ireland have never experienced racism, or should be quiet and just appreciate that they're here. My point - which was pretty obvious - was that this was a woman adopted by a White family, and she has decided to make a career talking about the usual nonsense of White "privilege" and "representation", which anyone with a shred of common sense and integrity can see as what it really is - craftily worded anti-White sentiment. If you claim that White identarianism is wrong because race doesn't matter, then neither can you justify what she stands for - you can't have it both ways.
Feel free to reply if you wish, but I will leave it there with you, lest we are both sucked into another inane back-and-forth.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Nov 14, 2021 12:38:59 GMT
Young Ireland, I will respond to you this once, but will not make a habit of it. First of all, congratulations to your cousin, sincerely. The reason I won't bother talking to you anymore is because you have - as I already explained - been dishonest in your dealings with me. Case in point, I have explained to you several times already that I am not an ethno-nationalist - that is, someone who believes Ireland should be 100% White. Ireland has an obligation to preserve Irish people as a race. It doesn't make sense that we live in a world where people are supposed to pour out their hearts because a subspecies of animal is on the verge of extinction, but preserving a race of people is deemed somehow to be nonsense. You are right about Sri Lanka, but this woman appeared African to me. Maybe not. Yes, the term pit is harsh, but simultaneously is a fairly accurate description of some of the countries these people come from. The point is, if you come from a horrendous country and are allowed into a decent one, you'd think there would be some level appreciation and decency. That is not the case with many people who come here, who, on the contrary, seem to have a massive chip on their shoulder. Second case in point as to why I don't talk to you, I have never stated that non-White people in Ireland have never experienced racism, or should be quiet and just appreciate that they're here. My point - which was pretty obvious - was that this was a woman adopted by a White family, and she has decided to make a career talking about the usual nonsense of White "privilege" and "representation", which anyone with a shred of common sense and integrity can see as what it really is - craftily worded anti-White sentiment. If you claim that White identarianism is wrong because race doesn't matter, then neither can you justify what she stands for - you can't have it both ways. Feel free to reply if you wish, but I will leave it there with you, lest we are both sucked into another inane back-and-forth. OK, fair enough Antaine. I think we mean different things by the word ethnonationalism (which includes identitarianism btw) - I simply meant somebody who believes that nationality is defined by ethnicity as opposed to culture or citizenship. While some ethnonationalists do believe that Europe should be 100% white, it's not a prerequisite for applying that term. Per Wikipedia's definition: Given that in the past you've made a distinction between ethnic and legal Irishness, I do think that ethnonationalist is a fair summary of your stated views, bearing in mind the definition above. That's OK, it's understandable that people might assume a Sri Lankan to be black on the basis of looks alone without any background knowledge. I accept that you did not explicitly state that non-whites in Ireland never experience racism, though at first glance your criticism of her did seem to imply (not necessarily intentionally) that suggesting that her experience in Ireland was in any way less than perfect displayed a lack of gratitude towards her adopted country. Again, no need to reply if you don't want to - I just wanted to clarify my comments above.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Nov 15, 2021 17:40:08 GMT
It's probably worth noting that in the Ireland I grew up in, North and South, there was never any real interest regarding immigration into Ireland. Nor did I ever hear expressed any grand desire among the Irish to bring in large numbers of immigrants. It just wasn't on the radar. We were happy enough to donate to overseas charities and help people in 3rd world countries. And there were missionaries and charity workers who went out to these countries in person. Almost nobody, in the general population, the Church or government, thought this strange or unusual, in fact it was considered a good thing.
This all leads me to pose the question, why should that approach, considered normal and virtuous amongst almost the entirety of society over a long period of time suddenly become an almost despised approach by those on the liberal left now?
|
|
|
Post by Seán Ó Murchú on Nov 16, 2021 13:05:47 GMT
It's probably worth noting that in the Ireland I grew up in, North and South, there was never any real interest regarding immigration into Ireland. Nor did I ever hear expressed any grand desire among the Irish to bring in large numbers of immigrants. It just wasn't on the radar. We were happy enough to donate to overseas charities and help people in 3rd world countries. And there were missionaries and charity workers who went out to these countries in person. Almost nobody, in the general population, the Church or government, thought this strange or unusual, in fact it was considered a good thing. This all leads me to pose the question, why should that approach, considered normal and virtuous amongst almost the entirety of society over a long period of time suddenly become an almost despised approach by those on the liberal left now? I would say the vast majority of Irish people are Liberal and tools of the left today. Your question is a good one and definitely isn't a easy answer. I think we would need to discuss alot of isms to get a understanding of this. Such as Materialism, Globalism, Liberalism, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Nov 16, 2021 15:25:51 GMT
It's probably worth noting that in the Ireland I grew up in, North and South, there was never any real interest regarding immigration into Ireland. Nor did I ever hear expressed any grand desire among the Irish to bring in large numbers of immigrants. It just wasn't on the radar. We were happy enough to donate to overseas charities and help people in 3rd world countries. And there were missionaries and charity workers who went out to these countries in person. Almost nobody, in the general population, the Church or government, thought this strange or unusual, in fact it was considered a good thing. This all leads me to pose the question, why should that approach, considered normal and virtuous amongst almost the entirety of society over a long period of time suddenly become an almost despised approach by those on the liberal left now? The issue of inward immigration hardly seems to have been discussed in the history of Irish nationalism or even Irish society prior to the 1990s. Ironically, as far as I can tell, one of the few times anyone raised the subject was James Connolly, in denouncing English and Scottish workers immigrating to Ireland. Ironic because he is such a darling of the Irish left. politics.ie/threads/james-connolly-the-anti-immigrant.250086/But Irish people never seemed to question the right of the Irish to go to Britain, Canada, Australia, America and other countries and to retain their Irish identity there. Of course they are much bigger countries with different histories. Could the Irish people have been expected to see this coming when they enthusiastically accepted EEC membership? I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Nov 16, 2021 17:46:17 GMT
It's probably worth noting that in the Ireland I grew up in, North and South, there was never any real interest regarding immigration into Ireland. Nor did I ever hear expressed any grand desire among the Irish to bring in large numbers of immigrants. It just wasn't on the radar. We were happy enough to donate to overseas charities and help people in 3rd world countries. And there were missionaries and charity workers who went out to these countries in person. Almost nobody, in the general population, the Church or government, thought this strange or unusual, in fact it was considered a good thing. This all leads me to pose the question, why should that approach, considered normal and virtuous amongst almost the entirety of society over a long period of time suddenly become an almost despised approach by those on the liberal left now? The issue of inward immigration hardly seems to have been discussed in the history of Irish nationalism or even Irish society prior to the 1990s. Ironically, as far as I can tell, one of the few times anyone raised the subject was James Connolly, in denouncing English and Scottish workers immigrating to Ireland. Ironic because he is such a darling of the Irish left. politics.ie/threads/james-connolly-the-anti-immigrant.250086/But Irish people never seemed to question the right of the Irish to go to Britain, Canada, Australia, America and other countries and to retain their Irish identity there. Of course they are much bigger countries with different histories. Could the Irish people have been expected to see this coming when they enthusiastically accepted EEC membership? I don't know. Doubly ironic, because Connolly himself was an immigrant!
|
|
|
Post by cato on Nov 16, 2021 18:32:30 GMT
Connolly was also anti refugee which is something you don't hear much about when he opposed the temporary settlement of Belgian refugees in Ireland after the German invasion of that country in 1914.
One of the big problems for Ireland is the free movement of people within the EU which we signed up to very willingly to facilitate cheap and specialist labour. Very few predicted we would experience problems with no control over our borders with EU citizens and people who pointed out everyone in the EU could come here legally ( very unlikely I know) was dismissed as a crank. We need labour quotas to control and plan housing schools and for social reasons. No major party has called for this.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Nov 16, 2021 20:49:07 GMT
the free movement of people within the EU which we signed up to very willingly to facilitate cheap and specialist labour. Very few predicted we would experience problems with no control over our borders with EU citizens and people who pointed out everyone in the EU could come here legally ( very unlikely I know) was dismissed as a crank. We need labour quotas to control and plan housing schools and for social reasons. No major party has called for this. Key point to the whole thing! This is what the EU had offered, and it was little debate at the time before increased mass immigration took up speed, including high costs for supporting people out of work (same in Sweden early 1990s just before joining in 1995). But the controversial outcome of this rule especially would be obvious. No observer with any skill in maths, 2+2=4 level only required, could possibly plead to have missed it. Free movement for goods, capital, people was the whole "good vibes" from pro-EU quarters in the 1990s. That most of these people would be considered burdensome, and that economies were tainted by "injustices" were less popular arguments voiced at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Seán Ó Murchú on Nov 17, 2021 8:22:13 GMT
"But Irish people never seemed to question the right of the Irish to go to Britain, Canada, Australia, America and other countries and to retain their Irish identity there. Of course they are much bigger countries with different histories."
My answer is so what? The people that are here today did not leave and most of us are not anti-Immigration but would like to see controlled migration. I would advocate a small amount of migration giving work based on religion, culture, Education, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Nov 17, 2021 9:28:29 GMT
"But Irish people never seemed to question the right of the Irish to go to Britain, Canada, Australia, America and other countries and to retain their Irish identity there. Of course they are much bigger countries with different histories." My answer is so what? The people that are here today did not leave and most of us are not anti-Immigration but would like to see controlled migration. I would advocate a small amount of migration giving work based on religion, culture, Education, etc. I've heard the argument that "the people who are here today did not leave" a few times. But that's not entirely true. A huge amount of them did, and came back. My parents, for instance. For preference I would like to see more controlled immigration, too. The level we have now seems excessive to me and I don't like it-- not out of any dislike of immigrants, simply because I fear we are losing our Irishness. I've more or less stopped being vocal on the subject, though, as the social teaching of the Church seems to emphasise the welcome to the stranger above preserving national character. My Catholicism comes ahead of my nationalism. Others have different interpretations of Catholic teaching on immigration and that's a valid debate. I admit I err on the side of caution.
|
|
|
Post by Seán Ó Murchú on Nov 17, 2021 11:30:20 GMT
"But Irish people never seemed to question the right of the Irish to go to Britain, Canada, Australia, America and other countries and to retain their Irish identity there. Of course they are much bigger countries with different histories." My answer is so what? The people that are here today did not leave and most of us are not anti-Immigration but would like to see controlled migration. I would advocate a small amount of migration giving work based on religion, culture, Education, etc. I've heard the argument that "the people who are here today did not leave" a few times. But that's not entirely true. A huge amount of them did, and came back. My parents, for instance. For preference I would like to see more controlled immigration, too. The level we have now seems excessive to me and I don't like it-- not out of any dislike of immigrants, simply because I fear we are losing our Irishness. I've more or less stopped being vocal on the subject, though, as the social teaching of the Church seems to emphasise the welcome to the stranger above preserving national character. My Catholicism comes ahead of my nationalism. Others have different interpretations of Catholic teaching on immigration and that's a valid debate. I admit I err on the side of caution. The exception that proves the rule on the people that came back. "The social teaching of the Church seems to emphasis the welcome to the stranger above preserving national character." You will find charity starts at home and we have an immediate need to be charitable to our Family, Friends and local Neighbors. The Spiritual and Corporate works of Mercy are required by all for Salvation. That does not mean it is prudent to destroy and Catholic Nation by importing immigrants. Do you or others think this is a post conciliar world view or something that is a historic tug of war (Open borders, etc.)? (Today the majority of the Hierarchy seem to supporting Globalism, LGBT+, Nature worship etc.)
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Nov 17, 2021 11:43:07 GMT
I've heard the argument that "the people who are here today did not leave" a few times. But that's not entirely true. A huge amount of them did, and came back. My parents, for instance. For preference I would like to see more controlled immigration, too. The level we have now seems excessive to me and I don't like it-- not out of any dislike of immigrants, simply because I fear we are losing our Irishness. I've more or less stopped being vocal on the subject, though, as the social teaching of the Church seems to emphasise the welcome to the stranger above preserving national character. My Catholicism comes ahead of my nationalism. Others have different interpretations of Catholic teaching on immigration and that's a valid debate. I admit I err on the side of caution. The exception that proves the rule on the people that came back. "The social teaching of the Church seems to emphasis the welcome to the stranger above preserving national character." You will find charity starts at home and we have an immediate need to be charitable to our Family, Friends and local Neighbors. The Spiritual and Corporate works of Mercy are required by all for Salvation. That does not mean it is prudent to destroy and Catholic Nation by importing immigrants. Do you or others think this is a post conciliar world view or something that is a historic tug of war (Open borders, etc.)? (Today the majority of the Hierarchy seem to supporting Globalism, LGBT+, Nature worship etc.) I find very little evidence in history that the Church ever took much account of borders. I stand open to correction. I don't think it's fair to run all those things together (globalism, LGBT stuff, nature worship, etc). They're separate issue. The parable of the Good Samaritan seems to say that everybody is our neighbour.
|
|