Will/Has the recession make people more racist?

Terry

vt3 wrote: »

You are a horrible horrible person. Any chance you'll move somewhere else?

BTW when does somebody become Irish?

You were banned yesterday.
You don't get to create another account to circumvent that ban.

Goodbye.

Biggins

Sadly, those that are racist by underlying nature, will use the recession to legitimise their ideology and evoke it onto other trains of thought to justify their continuing bigotry.

Neamhshuntasach

vt3 wrote: »

i dont get 'look after'...its not like we're in famine times here. one thing we can't complain about polish anyway. they are just fellow europeans. we are in eu and ireland wouldnt have had any good times without it.

I had better craic poor than i did when everyone became a prick with a bit of money in their pocket. Well borrowed money. So fúck the EU.

Degsy

The_Minister wrote: »

And women who might get circumcised, they just need to go back home and face the cigar-cutter?

Not all migrants are looking for money, some of them actually do face danger if they go home.

Its not done against thier will(or certainly not against the mother's will)..anybody who says otherwise is a liar.
The fact is that most migrants ARE here for economic reasons.
They will and do invent reasons for claiming asylum,some are legitimate,the vast majority(according to the Dept of Justice) are not.
Remember the woman who said she faced death by stoning if she returned to her country?
Half the do-goooders in this country united to champion her cause.It later transpired that she didnt even live in an area where sharia law was practised.Everybody was left with egg on thier faces and she quietly slipped awy into the country.
Solicitors and appeals that are state sponsored are costing millions upon millions of euro and this is a gravy train for certain people in the legal profession...its no wonder that they'll try any avenue to stop illegal migrants being deported.

marzic

its simple economics! the foreign workers who did the same jobs as us were no threat until these jobs become scarce, and because they worked for less in many cases and will settle for worse conditions/wont complain so much, may be preferential to employers! this understandably(whether right or wrong) causes a change in attitude towards them, it may be racism or it may be fear of loosing ones job. there should be an attempt at monitoring this to find whats really going on. a racist will use this arguement if there is no counter info, cos it can be justified by the perception out there.

Those whose jobs are not threatened see foreign migrants as contributing to multi*insert whatever blah blah*, which may be true, but were they might feel different if their job was at risk.

the other issue of refugees/asylum seekers is different and shouldnt be mixed in with migrant workers. I dont know what the difference is, and most people dont, so there is alot of mis-info out there which leads to some terrible perceptions, which we dont know how true they are.

0ubliette

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Nope, "Goobacks"... as in "go back".
They were time refugees from the future.

SouthPark episode WIKI Link

I think youll find gooback is a reference to 'wetback', racist slang for illegal mexican immigrants in the US. Called wetback due to the assumption that they had to swim across a river (cant remember where it was) to cross the border, coming out of the river with a 'wet back', much like the aliens come through the portal with goo on their backs in the episode

The_Minister

You forgot to add: The more you know.

consultech

TBH I think anything OP has noticed is product of a mix of:

a) Some Latent racism,
b) but moreover a diminishing of tolerance for the "Leech-culture" that Ireland has attracted/tolerated in the last ten years.

The age-old "Ah sure most Irish people are racist by nature" is all well n'good n'all; but I think the PC-brigade need to occasionally turn the sirens off for a minute and get their arses on the side of the fence that can actually identify the obvious epidemics of mass-immigration for the sole purpose of screwing the Irish state that this nation has fostered and encouraged.

It's only now that the same more-tolerant-than-can-be-practical people are slowly starting to change their tune from "Ah sure we're all loaded, we can absorb the leeching" to the same "Our people, first" protective approach that has seen every great indiginously-prosperous nation enjoy economic growth without backlash (i.e. Our recession).

Oh, and eh, dey tik arr jibbbssss etc...

0ubliette

The_Minister wrote: »

You forgot to add: The more you know.

well i usually just post the picture, but ah doesnt allow images :rolleyes:

(which btw, is retarded, what is this, 56k dial up in 1998???)

The_Minister

0ubliette wrote: »

well i usually just post the picture, but ah doesnt allow images :rolleyes:

(which btw, is retarded, what is this, 56k dial up in 1998???)

There was a feedback thread that dealt with it a few months ago.

javaboy

Degsy wrote: »

Its not done against thier will(or certainly not against the mother's will)..anybody who says otherwise is a liar.

And how do you know this?

iPlop

vt3 wrote: »

You are a horrible horrible person. Any chance you'll move somewhere else?

BTW when does somebody become Irish?

When they contribute to society

consultech

A pretty salient point on this is probably that while we, a predominantly Irish group of posters at 5:10pm who are either posting on company time or are on the dole, a number of immigrants in this country are out there working hard.

The_Minister

consultech wrote: »

A pretty salient point on this is probably that while we, a predominantly Irish group of posters at 5:10pm who are either posting on company time or are on the dole, a number of immigrants in this country are out there working hard.

The funny thing is that while I've been replying to this thread, I've also been reading a recent case on extraditing a Polish man.

asdasd

The term racism here is loaded, of course. in the 19th century the racists were opposed to the idea that people owned land because they were there for centuries.


Against the racists, were territorialists and ethnic nationalists: for instance the Irish, native americans, aborigines etc. All of these people believed that the fact they were there first entitled them to the land. Most still do ( reservations in the US, and Australia).

what happened was the needs of the ruling classes moved on. The early part of the industrial revolution saw the European population break free of the malthusian trap .An ideology was needed to justify the "surplus" population going to where it wanted. This was an actual racist ideology ( as opposed to the people who defended their ancient territory).

Fast forward a century or more. The ruling classes have different interests. They need population transfers in reverse. So their ruling ideology is anti-"racism". And they redefine racism as the belief that you have a right to a place because your ethnic group was there for centuries ( meaning that the native americans, and aborigines would be the racists in the 18th-19th centuries).

Of course, it is nonsense. The British empire was horrible but responsibility for it does not lie with the working classes in Tower Hamlets, and the actual ruling classes are immured themselves to the effects of multiculturalism and immigration- their jobs are protected etc.

Further, as in the 19th century, the natives are described as shiftless, nasty, ugly, genetically deficient ( we have seen this on this thread with regard to "culchies"), not willing to do jobs the outsiders will do willingly. Exactly the same as the racists of the 19th century. And their culture pathologised they respond by wallowing in alcoholism and abuse, and idleness.

Or to put it plainly 19th century ruling class racism is a response to a demographic increase in Europe, 19th century ruling class "anti-racism" is a response to the demographic collapse. Both ideologies are, bereft of cant, are the same.

Regardless of long term history( both ideologies claim) people can go anywhere. Nobody has a historical right to land. Incomers are better than natives.

Same old.

Degsy

javaboy wrote: »

And how do you know this?

You know the ceremony is performed by village elders,right?
They are usually old women held in very high regard in the area,they dont come stealing up to the girl in the night to cut her bits off while the mother cowers in the corner.The mother brings the child to be circumcised as it is considered a tribal rite of passage and a great honour.
Do irish people who pierce childrens' ears,do it against the familys' will?

markesmith

I have no problem whatsoever with other races, nationalities, creeds, etc. But of course the preceeding statement acts as qualifier to the subsequent one. Not in this case.

I do have a problem with parasitism, either from within or without. If someone can not work, or can not get a job, I'll happily help out tax-wise; that's our obligation as members of society.

But if someone doesn't want to work, that I have a problem with. And if people come to this country on the back of advice that Ireland gives a good handout, that's a problem.

I consider myself a liberal, but the default liberal position on this matter is either to ignore, or to claim it to be "much less of a problem than you think".

Right wing loons like Enoch Powell, the BNP etc have meant that any debate on this type of topic will get you branded a racist pretty damn quick.

Shame, because it means that there's no opportunity for a frank and honest discussion about it.

consultech

asdasd wrote: »

The term racism here is loaded, of course. in the 19th century the racists were opposed to the idea that people owned land because they were there for centuries.


Against the racists, were territorialists and ethnic nationalists: for instance the Irish, native americans, aborigines etc. All of these people believed that the fact they were there first entitled them to the land. Most still do ( reservations in the US, and Australia).

what happened was the needs of the ruling classes moved on. The early part of the industrial revolution saw the European population break free of the malthusian trap .An ideology was needed to justify the "surplus" population going to where it wanted. This was an actual racist ideology ( as opposed to the people who defended their ancient territory).

Fast forward a century or more. The ruling classes have different interests. They need population transfers in reverse. So their ruling ideology is anti-"racism". And they redefine racism as the belief that you have a right to a place because your ethnic group was there for centuries ( meaning that the native americans, and aborigines would be the racists in the 18th-19th centuries).

Of course, it is nonsense. The British empire was horrible but responsibility for it does not lie with the working classes in Tower Hamlets, and the actual ruling classes are immured themselves to the effects of multiculturalism and immigration- their jobs are protected etc.

Further, as in the 19th century, the natives are described as shiftless, nasty, ugly, genetically deficient ( we have seen this on this thread with regard to "culchies"), not willing to do jobs the outsiders will do willingly. Exactly the same as the racists of the 19th century. And their culture pathologised they respond by wallowing in alcoholism and abuse, and idleness.

Or to put it plainly 19th century ruling class racism is a response to a demographic increase in Europe, 19th century ruling class "anti-racism" is a response to the demographic collapse. Both ideologies are, bereft of cant, are the same.

Regardless of long term history( both ideologies claim) people can go anywhere. Nobody has a historical right to land. Incomers are better than natives.

Same old.

I bet you're left-handed.

Iang87

Is it just me or is racism the word just thrown around simply because we dont agree with certain things that directly involve foreign people.

Also its also kind of known people dont want to be referred to as racists so it shuts them up pretty damn quick, so what was goin on can continue without these "racists" speaking their bit trying to change this course of action.

Thats just what i can establish out of the amount of times racism is used in general media and general conversation

Degsy

Iang87 wrote: »

Is it just me or is racism the word just thrown around simply because we dont agree with certain things that directly involve foreign people.

Also its also kind of known people dont want to be referred to as racists so it shuts them up pretty damn quick, so what was goin on can continue without these "racists" speaking their bit trying to change this course of action.

Thats just what i can establish out of the amount of times racism is used in general media and general conversation

And then you have the likes of "anti racist week" and i've seen signs up saying "racist free workplace".
What an utter,utter load of tripe.
If someboduy is genuinly,completely racist,you'll never change thier minds..maybe they have thier reasons,maybe its just bigotry on thier part but the fact is that being "racist" is a normal human condition.
Everybody has prejudices against other types of people,some admit it some dont but those that say otherwise are deluded.

Iang87

very well said

gurramok

Ooh, look what i found: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0113/breaking55.htm

2 lines to add to the discussion:

More than one in five, or 55,455 of those on the live register last month, were foreign nationals.

Over the last year 89,766 Irish nationals and 31,221 foreign nationals have lost their jobs

I thought foreign nationals represent around 10-12% of the general population or workforce, not 20%?

imp

Degsy wrote: »

You know the ceremony is performed by village elders,right?
They are usually old women held in very high regard in the area,they dont come stealing up to the girl in the night to cut her bits off while the mother cowers in the corner.The mother brings the child to be circumcised as it is considered a tribal rite of passage and a great honour.
Do irish people who pierce childrens' ears,do it against the familys' will?

I think the bottom line is that if a person has arrived in Ireland and will have to face FGM if they return to their home country and doesn't want it done to them, then it is an abuse of their human rights. It may be quite a prevalent practice in some countries but equally it is outlawed in many of these countries and in the African Union's Maputo Protocol. As a country in which it is also outlawed I think it's reasonable that we should protect these people if their own countries are unable or unwilling to enforce their own laws.

markesmith

imp wrote: »

I think the bottom line is that if a person has arrived in Ireland and will have to face FGM if they return to their home country and doesn't want it done to them, then it is an abuse of their human rights. It may be quite a prevalent practice in some countries but equally it is outlawed in many of these countries and in the African Union's Maputo Protocol. As a country in which it is also outlawed I think it's reasonable that we should protect these people if their own countries are unable or unwilling to enforce their own laws.

Agreed. If someone is evading some type of persecution, then we should take them in. That's humanity, and concern for your fellow human's wellbeing.

That said, we're not a very large country, and there's persecution going on all over the world. Nigeria, Liberia, Guinea, Zimbabwe (much of Africa, if we're to be honest), Tibet, Chechnya, South America, the Middle East, and so on.

And a lot of people evading persecution - certainly not all by any means whatsoever etc - are evading it because of something they did. Notice the caveat. If you're a homosexual from Iran, or a Tutsi in Rwanda circa '93, then any help we can offer we will.

But if you look at things like the 1980 Mariel boatlift from Cuba, or people like Pinochet living in the UK, there's obviously another side to the "bring me your poor..." outlook.

I don't know if I'm playing devil's advocate here, or if I'm going right-wing right before my computer :pac:.

K-9

gurramok wrote: »

Ooh, look what i found: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0113/breaking55.htm

2 lines to add to the discussion:

Quote:
More than one in five, or 55,455 of those on the live register last month, were foreign nationals.

Over the last year 89,766 Irish nationals and 31,221 foreign nationals have lost their jobs


I thought foreign nationals represent around 10-12% of the general population or workforce, not 20%?

Probably largely explained by the very same figures you just quoted!

Irish Times wrote:

55,455 of those on the live register last month, were foreign nationals.

Over the last year 31,221 foreign nationals have lost their jobs.

gerky

If anyone is in any doubt as to the danger and cruelness of Female genital mutilation then please research it, and don't believe degsy's bull about it.
It is a brutal act, in some cases girls are kidnapped(There's actually a documentary where a hidden camera shows five women tie and hold down a girl while it was done to her, not sure if its on youtube)

Sorry I'm going off topic,

@gurramok

As seanies32 pointed out, it shows a far higher rate of layoffs among foreign workers, which would probably fit with building collapse and all that, and if someone has worked here they have every right to claim it.

K-9

gerky wrote: »

If anyone is in any doubt as to the danger and cruelness of Female genital mutilation then please research it, and don't believe degsy's bull about it.
It is a brutal act, in some cases girls are kidnapped(There's actually a documentary where a hidden camera shows five women tie and hold down a girl while it was done to her, not sure if its on youtube)

Sorry I'm going off topic,

@gurramok

As seanies32 pointed out, it shows a far higher rate of layoffs among foreign workers, which would probably fit with building collapse and all that, and if someone has worked here they have every right to claim it.

Indeed, it's nearly a 1 to 3 ratio, when it should really be 1 to 10.

What I find is: The people who moaned about the immigrants coming and taking our jobs, will now moan if they claim Welfare. They will also moan if they feck of home. Can't win really!

useful_contacts

ronnie3585 wrote: »

Dey tuk err jerrbs! (and swans).

*sniggers*

gerky

Seanies32 wrote: »

Indeed, it's nearly a 1 to 3 ratio, when it should really be 1 to 10.

What I find is: The people who moaned about the immigrants coming and taking our jobs, will now moan if they claim Welfare. They will also moan if they feck of home. Can't win really!

Pretty much,
Its like people ranting about them saving money to bring home and a week later ranting about them staying here and settling down.

Highsider

CreepingDeath wrote: »

There's a difference between racism and territoriality.
Ireland belongs to the Irish... once there's enough resources to go around and support us all, everyone is happy.

Once resources ( jobs, houses, money etc ) becomes limited, then tension arises. It's a completely natural reaction / evolved behaviour to try to defend the resources available to you.

You can't bury and repress millions of years of evolved behaviour just cos a few politically correct laws have been passed.

excellent point