What defines an 'Irishman' in context of upcoming centenaries

InTheTrees

deirdremf wrote: »

In other words, did they isolate themselves from the general population, or did they integrate? What part did their separate schools play in all of this?

Personally I could care less about religion but back in the early 60's, public education in Ireland was controlled by the catholic church and the only alternative was a protestant school, which had to follow an english curriculum, I suppose to avoid the Catholicism.

So protestant kids were being educated and trained to work in England. It was incredibly exclusionary and divisive. No Irish language classes meant exclusion from government jobs too.

Seriously i grew up feeling it was a kind of retaliation against protestants but I also understand why.

Wild Bill

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I really dislike any definition of Irishness that involves any mention of Britain or England.

OK. I'm trying to temper my "keyboard warrior" tendency - but I'm soooo easily provoked.

You are correct. I should just say a core value is an independent Ireland. Period.

It's just that there are not many people on the island who wish we were part of anywhere else - other than Britain.

Bannasidhe

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Why the bit I have bolded? Are we not also politically independent of Sri Lanka and Peru?

I really dislike any definition of Irishness that involves any mention of Britain or England.

[And, by the way, how do we define an Irishwoman? Or is that unimportant?]

As an Irishwoman I do not define myself by any relationship my country may or may not have with any other country.

Speaking for myself, I define myself as Irish because I was born in Ireland of Irish parents, I was raised in Ireland and my cultural touchstones are Irish.
Other's may have different personal definitions which are equally valid...

Wild Bill

InTheTrees wrote: »

in the early 60's..... the only alternative was a protestant school, which had to follow an english curriculum, I suppose to avoid the Catholicism.

So protestant kids were being educated and trained to work in England. It was incredibly exclusionary and divisive. No Irish language classes meant exclusion from government jobs too.

Seriously i grew up feeling it was a kind of retaliation against protestants but I also understand why.

Never realised that (bits in bold). When did it change?

dubhthach

Wild Bill wrote: »

Now that birthright is abolished there is no better measure than holding that value - citizenship has serious issues since then, as discussed above.

Birthright isn't fully abolished. It applies in the following two cases:

• One of the two parents is a pre-existing Irish citizen
• The Parents (who are both foreign nationals) have been living in Ireland legally for at least 3 years.

My own son qualifies as a citizen via birthrate via the first of two clauses above (his mother only received her citizenship last year after 10 years here).

As most of our immigrant population is form other EU states it's a bit moot. However where issues can arise is where immigrants are from outside the EU. The example of the Sir Lankan boy above. If he doesn't receive Irish citizenship before he goes to university he will be charged as a non-EU citizen (full fees) even though he has lived in Ireland since 3months and been fully educated in Irish system. Plenty of cases around of teenagers been forced to not go to college because as non-EU citizens they can't afford it -- even though they've been in Ireland 5-8years (completed secondary).

Thankfully there has been a major speed up in the processing of citizenship applications. The crowd running the process were worse then those arranging appointments in the Health service.

Wild Bill

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As an Irishwoman I do not define myself by any relationship my country may or may not have with any other country.

If your country is part of another country it is a province, not a country. So being Irish in that context means no more than being a Carlow woman as distinct from a Wexford woman.

You have no legal identity separate from the larger unit. Also I find if difficult to fit my Nigerian Muslim pal into your definition - even though he is now a proud citizen.

(in his case it took 17 years!)

Wild Bill

dubhthach wrote: »

Birthright isn't fully abolished.

OK. But we had the American system where if you were born on the island you were a citizen by right.

dubhthach

Wild Bill wrote: »

OK. But we had the American system where if you were born on the island you were a citizen by right.

Indeed or as it's known in Latin as: Jus soli (right of soil), the other means is of course Jus sanguinis (right of blood).

At the moment our system is kinda a hybrid. If you are born in Ireland and have one Irish parent you get citizenship (Jus sanguinis), however if your parents are legal residents (and non-citizens) of at least 3 years then you are also guaranteed citizenship (Jus soli). Of course I known of at least one filipino family where child was born 2 and half years after parents arrived here (both are legal citzenships). Under the system doesn't get Irish citizenship. Which tbh I think is unfair especially as the parents are both Irish taxpayers. However more then likely if they apply for citizenship they will all be naturalised at the same time.

This of course is ignoring that if you are born in a foreign country you are also guaranteed citizenship if you have at least one Irish grandparent.

Bannasidhe

Wild Bill wrote: »

If your country is part of another country it is a province, not a country. So being Irish in that context means no more than being a Carlow woman as distinct from a Wexford woman.

You have no legal identity separate from the larger unit. Also I find if difficult to fit my Nigerian Muslim pal into your definition - even though he is now a proud citizen.

(in his case it took 17 years!)

Were we still part of the Union I would still be a Corkwoman (county), a Munsterwoman (province) and an Irish woman (country). I fail to see the issue.
Are my friends in Inverness not still Scottish even though Scotland is still part of the Union (for now)? .

As I said, different people have different definitions - all of them valid. Your Nigerian, Muslim friend is Irish because he made the decision to swear fidelity to the Irish State.

My problem is that we seek a simple and absolutist definition of what it means to be Irish when we live in a multi-ethnic, multi-denominational society.

CDfm

Wild Bill wrote: »

Never realised that (bits in bold). When did it change?

Actually, thats quite legal, there is no law saying what the standards are as I understand it.

You could follow A levels or the french Bac .

The value of the Leaving Cert is as an entry qualification for 3rd level or a trade or profession.

You also had a matriculation entry to the universities by their own exams as an alternative and separate civil service entry exams in irish, english and maths seperate from the leaving. My mother tutored people in Irish for them.

Wild Bill

CDfm wrote: »

Actually, thats quite legal, there is no law saying what the standards are as I understand it.

You could follow A levels or the french Bac .

The value of the Leaving Cert is as an entry qualification for 3rd level or a trade or profession.

You also had a matriculation entry to the universities by their own exams as an alternative and separate civil service entry exams in irish, english and maths seperate from the leaving. My mother tutored people in Irish for them.

Maybe the practice changed; Newpark school in Blackrock has the same curriculum as any other local secondary afaik.

Wild Bill

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Were we still part of the Union I would still be a Corkwoman (county), a Munsterwoman (province) and an Irish woman (country). I fail to see the issue.
Are my friends in Inverness not still Scottish even though Scotland is still part of the Union (for now)? .

As I said, different people have different definitions - all of them valid. Your Nigerian, Muslim friend is Irish because he made the decision to swear fidelity to the Irish State.

My problem is that we seek a simple and absolutist definition of what it means to be Irish when we live in a multi-ethnic, multi-denominational society.

Bar in some British-originated sports Scotland isn't regarded as a country; the Olympics for example.

It isn't represented in international events such as the European song contest (or Miss World )

It has no independent foreign policy and no embassies abroad.

It isn't a full country in the sovereign international sense.

And people from Scotland who accept that are British first and Aberdonians/Scots second.

Not a concept of nationhood, or of country the acceptance of which, I'd regard as remotely compatible with being Irish.

LordSutch

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I really dislike any definition of Irishness that involves any mention of Britain or England.

Now I find this really puzzling, why wouldn't some of us have connections with the island next door

Many of our accestors came from Britain, (St Patrick included). There are many shades of Irishness, including Irishness in a British context.

CDfm

Wild Bill wrote: »

Not a concept of nationhood, or of country the acceptance of which, I'd regard as remotely compatible with being Irish.

It has football teams.

As far as I know has a separate criminal law where the unique Scottish verdict "not proven" existed/s as an alternative to guilty or not guilty.

It has a Scottish Assembly.

And I was in Germany a few years back. Hamburg is still very much a City state and part of the German "Federation".

The Scottish Voters kept Labour in Power in the UK and both Blair and Brown are Scottish.

Scotland has a fairly strong identity.

KeithAFC

Happy Monday wrote: »

People in England - I have lived there too - consider people on this island to be Irish and British as well.

I have to come across one Ulster Protestant yet who considers himself Irish and not British. They see themselves as Irish and British or Northern Irish and British but never as just Irish.

There is a reason for that though. I live amongst them and they all come from the Ulster Scots background. They are more Scottish than Irish. I don't consider myself Irish.

P. Breathnach

KeithAFC wrote: »

There is a reason for that though. I live amongst them and they all come from the Ulster Scots background. They are more Scottish than Irish. I don't consider myself Irish.

I accept what you say about the Ulster-Scots tradition as being generally true (there are exceptions to every generalisation), but there are more strands of Protestantism in NI than Ulster-Scots.

KeithAFC

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I accept what you say about the Ulster-Scots tradition as being generally true (there are exceptions to every generalisation), but there are more strands of Protestantism in NI than Ulster-Scots.

It is all a mixture. Protestants from the Ulster Scots tradition are more devout in their religious beliefs.

P. Breathnach

KeithAFC wrote: »

It is all a mixture. Protestants from the Ulster Scots tradition are more devout in their religious beliefs.

And their political beliefs!

Happy Monday

KeithAFC wrote: »

Happy Monday wrote: »

People in England - I have lived there too - consider people on this island to be Irish and British as well.

I have to come across one Ulster Protestant yet who considers himself Irish and not British. They see themselves as Irish and British or Northern Irish and British but never as just Irish.

There is a reason for that though. I live amongst them and they all come from the Ulster Scots background. They are more Scottish than Irish. I don't consider myself Irish.

Exactly my point in this thread.
People down south would deny this and insist on you being Irish and nothing else.

P. Breathnach

Happy Monday wrote: »

...
People down south would deny this and insist on you being Irish and nothing else.

Some people "down south".

dave2pvd

Happy Monday wrote: »

People down south would deny this and insist on you being Irish and nothing else.

I don't agree. Quite a generalisation.

Happy Monday

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Happy Monday wrote: »

...
People down south would deny this and insist on you being Irish and nothing else.

Some people "down south".

All people down South in my experience.

CDfm

Happy Monday wrote: »

Exactly my point in this thread.
People down south would deny this and insist on you being Irish and nothing else.

Ahem, I'm from the south and we have the Good Friday/Belfast/Stormont Agreement so people in the South accept him for what he is.

jonniebgood1

KeithAFC wrote: »

There is a reason for that though. I live amongst them and they all come from the Ulster Scots background. They are more Scottish than Irish. I don't consider myself Irish.

The Ulster scots are an interesting grouping. I respect that you don't consider yourself Irish. Ancestors of Ulster scots are an interesting case though. In post no. 60 I mentioned this

Is an Ulster-scot an Irishman for example- ........ They were planted in Ireland in the first place, settled in Ulster and developed their means to suit their situation in Ireland. Their descendants in America are termed 'Scotch Irish Americans' so it should be fair to call them Irish to some extent. They left Ireland when nationalism was perhaps not an issue as survival dominated personal agendas, work in the linen industry caused some of this in the late 18th century ('The Scotch-Irish in America' By Henry Jones Ford gives a timeline of this- pg 164). That those who remained in Ireland rather than emigrate may prefer in this era not to be referenced 'Irish' then brings about a problem in accepting peoples wishes on one hand or simply classifying them based upon where their inherited culture and heritage has been developed from. By 1790 14% of Americas population were emigrants from Northern Ireland ('Chasing the Frontier: Scots-Irish in Early America' By Larry Hoefling, pg 18) and they must form a large part of Americas Irish lineage which is proudly declared. To link back with the thread title I would expect that many of these people will celebrate centenaries with enthusiastic gusto that Ireland will welcome.

It is never universal but I think it is interesting that descendants of planted people in America celebrate their Irishness but similar distance descendants in NI wish to have nothing to do with being Irish. It all comes down to personal choice at the end of the day.

Happy Monday

CDfm wrote: »

Happy Monday wrote: »

Exactly my point in this thread.
People down south would deny this and insist on you being Irish and nothing else.

Ahem, I'm from the south and we have the Good Friday/Belfast/Stormont Agreement so people in the South accept him for what he is.

Look at Darren Clarke for instance.
Wins the Open.
Now an Irishman.
Not a Northern Irishman.
Not a Briton.
An Irishman only as Greg Allen would have it.

KeithAFC

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The Ulster scots are an interesting grouping. I respect that you don't consider yourself Irish. Ancestors of Ulster scots are an interesting case though. In post no. 60 I mentioned this
It is never universal but I think it is interesting that descendants of planted people in America celebrate their Irishness but similar distance descendants in NI wish to have nothing to do with being Irish. It all comes down to personal choice at the end of the day.

A lot of the people from the Ulster Scots background left Ulster and went to America and ended up fighting the British in the American revolutionary war. If they had been around today, they would have most likely been Unionist. It wasn't always one way traffic in terms of people from the Ulster Scots background being Unionist. The ironic thing is they helped shape the United States with George Washington but a lot of Ulster Scots fought against the Union for the CSA during the American civil war.

But the background towards these group of people has always involved fighting to some degree. From the border fighting from Scotland and England to the siege of Derry and the Boyne, 1916 Somme and so on.

TomKat

Having freckles and a farmer's tan and actually liking Guinness

jonniebgood1

KeithAFC wrote: »

A lot of the people from the Ulster Scots background left Ulster and went to America and ended up fighting the British in the American revolutionary war. If they had been around today, they would have most likely been Unionist.

So it is the invening period of time that has determined what the Ulster scots see as their heritage, i.e. after the large scale emigration (associated with the slow down of the linen industry in the late 1700's). In some terms this would seem like a narrow field of time to sort out ones heritage. It does coincide with the development of nationalism (in international terms rather than Irish) amongst much of Europe.

KeithAFC

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

So it is the invening period of time that has determined what the Ulster scots see as their heritage, i.e. after the large scale emigration (associated with the slow down of the linen industry in the late 1700's). In some terms this would seem like a narrow field of time to sort out ones heritage. It does coincide with the development of nationalism (in international terms rather than Irish) amongst much of Europe.

Does go some way back before that. Although heritage can change over time. A very good documentary though.

Wild Bill

CDfm wrote: »

Scotland has a fairly strong identity.

So, it's a country in the sense that Hamburg is !

I'll na be disagreein' wi thawt!