What defines an 'Irishman' in context of upcoming centenaries

Wild Bill

TomKat wrote: »

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

Whatever about liking Guinness I feel some folk do indeed think having a pale complexion is an important feature of Irishness.

(If ya know what I mean, nudge, nudge, , )

slowburner

Wild Bill wrote: »

Whatever about liking Guinness I feel some folk do indeed think having a pale complexion is an important feature of Irishness.

(If ya know what I mean, nudge, nudge, , )

I hope you don't Wild Bill, that could be a perilous avenue to explore in search of Irishness.

Bannasidhe

slowburner wrote: »

I hope you don't Wild Bill, that could be a perilous avenue to explore in search of Irishness.

Indeed.

CDfm

Wild Bill wrote: »

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

I'll na be disagreein' wi thawt!

LOL

Hamburg is probably the richest region in Europe , if you exclude London's Square Mile.

And it is a republic and has its own constitution.

I am going to use a wiki here cos its handy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Hamburg

TomKat

Wild Bill wrote: »

Whatever about liking Guinness I feel some folk do indeed think having a pale complexion is an important feature of Irishness.

(If ya know what I mean, nudge, nudge, , )

White as a Sheep

dubhthach

Wild Bill wrote: »

Whatever about liking Guinness I feel some folk do indeed think having a pale complexion is an important feature of Irishness.

(If ya know what I mean, nudge, nudge, , )

TomKat wrote: »

White as a Sheep

Folks, this isn't a tangent that I'll tolerate on the thread.

Wild Bill

dubhthach wrote: »

Folks, this isn't a tangent that I'll tolerate on the thread.

I'm not sure that this issue is tangential to the subject of defining "Irishness".

I believe, based on what I read and hear, that a certain minority actually believe that white genes are an essential part of Irishness.

Clearly that isn't a view I support; but to state that such a view exists, albeit it is usually obliquely expressed, or expressed in code (nudge, ) is hardly "tangential"? :mad:

Bannasidhe

Wild Bill wrote: »

I'm not sure that this issue is tangential to the subject of defining "Irishness".

I believe, based on what I read and hear, that a certain minority actually believe that white genes are an essential part of Irishness.

Clearly that isn't a view I support; but to state that such a view exists, albeit it is usually obliquely expressed, or expressed in code (nudge, ) is hardly "tangential"? :mad:

Personally I am beige to coffee colour depending on amount of sun available. My brother goes from milk to beetroot.

Some people may think a 'white gene' (what ever that is) is a precondition of being Irish - they are wrong. As are those who think being Catholic is.

Yes - these people exist. Yes - we must acknowledge they exist. But - this is also the kind of insular, absolutist, narrow-minded crap I, for one, will always challenge.

jonniebgood1

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Personally I am beige to coffee colour depending on amount of sun available. My brother goes from milk to beetroot.

Some people may think a 'white gene' (what ever that is) is a precondition of being Irish - they are wrong. As are those who think being Catholic is.

Yes - these people exist. Yes - we must acknowledge they exist. But - this is also the kind of insular, absolutist, narrow-minded crap I, for one, will always challenge.

BNP?

Bannasidhe

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

BNP?

Indeed .

slowburner

Wild Bill wrote: »

I'm not sure that this issue is tangential to the subject of defining "Irishness".

I believe, based on what I read and hear, that a certain minority actually believe that white genes are an essential part of Irishness.

Clearly that isn't a view I support; but to state that such a view exists, albeit it is usually obliquely expressed, or expressed in code (nudge, ) is hardly "tangential"? :mad:

How is it clear that this is not a view you support?
It doesn't really matter whether or not you support this Benny Hill view of skin colour and Irishness.
The problem is that you have expressed it.
You have written it down in public without clear condemnation, and doing that gives the view tacit support.

CDfm

How did we veer into this.

Historically, Ireland has hardly had a non-white population of any significance. Because of Ireland's poverty it wasn't a country people immigrated to but emigrated from.

I don't know of anyone who would say Phil Lynott was not Irish.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66445484&postcount=1

And this is a history thread, so it should be about what the historical opinions of people were.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

And this is a history thread, so it should be about what the historical opinions of people were.

Oh History - yes, thanks for the mentioning that!:)

When the former American slave/abolitionist Frederick Douglass visited Ireland in the mid nineteenth century he found a country of white people, and was not at all hesitant in calling it that and writing about his experiences. Here is part of what he wrote on his experience with the white Irish - I have scanned two sections of it in from my own copy of his document so the American spelling remains as I was not about to do editing:

It is dated January 1st 1846

In the Northern States, a fugitive slave, liable to be hunted at any moment like a felon, and to be hurled into the terrible jaws of slavery— doomed by an inveterate prejudice against color to insult and outrage on every hand, (Massachusetts out of the question)—denied the privileges and courtesies common to others in the use of the most humble means of conveyance—shut out from the cabins on steamboats—refused admission to respectable hotels—caricatured, scorned, scoffed, mocked and maltreated with impunity by any one, (no matter how black his heart,) so he has a white skin.

But now behold the change! Eleven days and a half gone, and I have crossed three thousand miles of the perilous deep. Instead of a democratic government, I am under a monarchical government. Instead of the bright blue sky of America, I am covered with the soft grey fog of the Emerald Isle. I breathe, and lo! the chattel becomes a man. I gaze around in vain for one who will question my equal humanity, claim me as his slave, or offer me an insult. I employ a cab—I am seated beside white people—I reach the hotel—I enter the same door— I am shown into the same parlor—I dine at the same table—and no one is offended. No delicate nose grows deformed in my presence. I find no difficulty here in obtaining admission into any place of worship, instruction or amusement, on equal terms with people as white as any I ever saw in the United States. I meet nothing to remind me of my complexion. I find myself regarded and treated at every turn with the kindness and deference paid to white people. When I go to church, I am met by no upturned nose and scornful lip to tell me, "We don't allow n——s in here"!

Thank heaven for the respite I now enjoy! I had been in Dublin but a few days, when a gentleman of great respectability kindly offered to conduct me through all the public buildings of that beautiful city; and a little afterwards, I found myself dining with the Lord Mayor of Dublin. What a pity there was not some American democratic Christian at the door of his splendid mansion, to bark out at my approach, "They don't allow n s in here"! The truth is, the people here know nothing of the republican Negro hate prevalent in our glorious land. They measure and esteem men according to their moral and intellectual worth, and not according to the color of their skin. Whatever may be said of the aristocracies here, there is none based on the color of a man's skin.

CDfm

I believe Frederick Douglass visited Cork.

Didn't he also have some contact with Father Matthew and Daniel O'Connell.

On an aside, I wonder if he shared his thoughts on the famine ?

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

I believe Frederick Douglass visited Cork.

Didn't he also have some contact with Father Matthew and Daniel O'Connell.

On an aside, I wonder if he shared his thoughts on the famine ?

Yes, Father Matthew is mentioned and Douglass became good friends with O'Connell and visited his home. His descriptions of O'Connell are very interesting - O'Connell sitting around the dinner table telling stories and jokes. Another time he describes the two of them walking down Sackville St [now O'Connell St] in Dublin with young kids recognising O'Connell and chasing after him calling 'It's Dan, it's Dan' in affectionate ways and O'Connell turning and patting their heads.
Douglass said it was like he was their Father come home...

Yes, Douglass also mentions what would later be described as the early stages of the Famine - the starvation as he called it. What was very striking for him was the awful abject poverty that he saw throughout the countryside.

Incidentally amongst his papers is a copy of 'God Save Ireland' ...it has a harp and a wolfhound motif on the top.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

. Another time he describes the two of them walking down Sackville St [now O'Connell St] in Dublin with young kids recognising O'Connell and chasing after him calling 'It's Dan, it's Dan' in affectionate ways and O'Connell turning and patting their heads.
Douglass said it was like he was their Father come home...

That's a bit like Muhammad Ali escaping his digs in 1972 and walking into Dublin followed by children. He swore like an Irishman.

Awkwardly, though, when Ali came to town he didn’t seem to have been in particularly good form. O’Shannon told the Clare People in 2009 that Ali had spent the pre-interview period whining about manflu, before shocking the assembled RTÉ staff by muttering, ‘I hate this ******* place.’
It seemed that Ali – who was staying in a hotel near Bray – had grown so frustrated with his rural surroundings that he had bailed to the Gresham in Dublin, but was then weary of being mobbed by children wherever he went.


http://www.thejournal.ie/cead-mile-failte-five-other-controversial-visits-to-ireland-137105-May2011/

Perhaps more importantly, he took lessons in hurling from Eddie Keher.

In the summer of 1972, Eddie met Muhammed Ali in Enniskerry, Co. Wicklow, and taught the heavyweight champion how to hurl. ‘He was a hero of mine,’ said Eddie, ‘but I was surprised how quiet he was … until we met with the press.’ Eddie’s father Stephen had been a passionate boxing fan for a long time, and was fascinated by Ali. ‘I still remember getting up in the middle of the night to listen to the Ali-Sonny Liston bout with him on the radio’. Eddie took his father to see Ali fight Al Lewis later in the week. It wasn’t a great match but the Kehers enjoyed it. ‘When Ali went in for the kill, there was no stopping him’, recalls Eddie.

http://www.turtlebunbury.com/interviews/interviews_ireland/sporting%20legends/interviews_sports_eddiekeher.html

A digression, Frederick Douglass is a fascinating man.

thecommietommy

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes, Father Matthew is mentioned and Douglass became good friends with O'Connell and visited his home. His descriptions of O'Connell are very interesting - O'Connell sitting around the dinner table telling stories and jokes. Another time he describes the two of them walking down Sackville St [now O'Connell St] in Dublin with young kids recognising O'Connell and chasing after him calling 'It's Dan, it's Dan' in affectionate ways and O'Connell turning and patting their heads.
Douglass said it was like he was their Father come home...

Yes, Douglass also mentions what would later be described as the early stages of the Famine - the starvation as he called it. What was very striking for him was the awful abject poverty that he saw throughout the countryside.

Incidentally amongst his papers is a copy of 'God Save Ireland' ...it has a harp and a wolfhound motif on the top.

CDfm wrote: »

A digression, Frederick Douglass is a fascinating man.

Not trying to drag this off topic, but didn't Fr Matthew stab Douglass in the back later by making overtures in favour of the Confederates in the American Civil War ? In fact I think Douglass was treated quite badly by the Irish in America ?

MarchDub

thecommietommy wrote: »

Not trying to drag this off topic, but didn't Fr Matthew stab Douglass in the back later by making overtures in favour of the Confederates in the American Civil War ? In fact I think Douglass was treated quite badly by the Irish in America ?

I'm afraid I know very little about Father Matthew - but Douglass remained a friend to Ireland and years after the [1860s] American Civil War when he was a well known and respected social reformer [among other roles] he spoke in support of Home Rule for Ireland and for Parnell. He visited Ireland again in 1886.

But if we go further down this path we will be off topic for sure....

CDfm

thecommietommy wrote: »

Not trying to drag this off topic, but didn't Fr Matthew stab Douglass in the back later by making overtures in favour of the Confederates in the American Civil War ?

From beyond the grave :eek:

There was something about Matthew's open support for abolition versus his total commitment to the temperance movement. I am going to suggest that he saw a conflict and wanted his movement to be apolitical whatever his personal opinion was.

I seem to remember he delayed signing the anti-slavery petition though he was friendly with Douglass.Douglass had a political movement , hence the conflict.

I am guessing this was near the end of his life .

Douglass was treated quite badly by the Irish in America ?

Off topic I know but any sources ?

Wild Bill

slowburner wrote: »

The problem is that you have expressed it.

No. I most certainly have not.

You have written it down in public without clear condemnation, and doing that gives the view tacit support.

I will cite any opinion without feeling any obligation to give "clear" condemnation.

If you don't understand irony then I suggest you go to some place where autism is admired.

(And now I wait for the PC police :rolleyes:)

jonniebgood1

Wild Bill wrote: »

No. I most certainly have not.



I will cite any opinion without feeling any obligation to give "clear" condemnation.

If you don't understand irony then I suggest you go to some place where autism is admired.

(And now I wait for the PC police :rolleyes:)

This is a ridiculous comment Bill.

Refer to charter

You are not allowed directly insult another poster. This will not be tolerated.

Furthermore commenting about autism in this derogatory way is despicable in my view, neither funny nor clever (whether you think it is PC or not). Because of this I am issuing you with a ban.

Moderator.

thecommietommy

MarchDub wrote: »

I'm afraid I know very little about Father Matthew - but Douglass remained a friend to Ireland and years after the [1860s] American Civil War when he was a well known and respected social reformer [among other roles] he spoke in support of Home Rule for Ireland and for Parnell. He visited Ireland again in 1886.

CDfm wrote: »

From beyond the grave :eek:

There was something about Matthew's open support for abolition versus his total commitment to the temperance movement. I am going to suggest that he saw a conflict and wanted his movement to be apolitical whatever his personal opinion was.

It was on a programme about Douglass on TG4 a while ago. The question about Fr Matthew was basically, Fr Matthew made positive overtures towards the Confederacy. Appearently the Catholic church supported the Confederacy, not sure the reasons why (it might be worth a thread of it's own ?)

MarchDub

thecommietommy wrote: »

It was on a programme about Douglass on TG4 a while ago. ... Appearently the Catholic church supported the Confederacy, not sure the reasons why (it might be worth a thread of it's own ?)

Pope Pius IX didn't officially issue any formal support for the Confederacy BUT he did write to the southern President Jefferson Davis which essentially recognised his status as president of the southern states - and sent him a picture of himself.

The reasons for this are vague - but the best 'guess' is that the Pope wanted to support the more 'Christian' south against what was seen as the progressive, modernism and liberalism of the northern states. Pius IX was the one who issued the "Syllabus of Errors" against modernism so this position would make sense.

But just to be accurate many of the Irish Catholics fought and died on the side of the north -

http://www.hibernians.us/irishcivilwar.htm

dave2pvd

MarchDub wrote: »

.....the Pope wanted to support the more 'Christian' south against what was seen as the progressive, modernism and liberalism of the northern states.

Hard for me to concur with that. Most of the population was in the North, and most of the Catholics too.

Atlanta was one the Southern flashpoints during the Civil War. Like most of the South it was majority protestant. To get an idea of the religious breakdown at the time (hasn't changed much since), the story of Fr. Thomas O'Reilly from County Cavan can give some insight:

Originally from Georgiabulletin.org

It was in the fall of 1864 that Father O’Reilly first heard of Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman’s plan to destroy the entire city of Atlanta by fire. Father O’Reilly was outraged and Patrick Lynch drove the priest to speak to Gen. Henry Slocum, a subordinate of Gen. Sherman.

“In this meeting, Father O’Reilly argued that the order to burn homes and churches was beyond the normal confines of warfare,” Mears said. “Father O’Reilly pleaded for a compromise that would spare Atlanta’s five churches.”

At first Gen. Sherman rejected the priest’s proposal. But Father O’Reilly would not relent and reminded the general that many of his own troops were Catholics and would create a mutiny if Catholic churches were burned.

As a result of Father O’Reilly’s heroics, five churches in Atlanta - St. Philip Episcopal Church, Central Presbyterian Church, Trinity Methodist Church and Second Baptist Church, as well as the Catholic Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, were spared. In addition, Atlanta City Hall, the Fulton County Courthouse and a residential area between Mitchell and Peters streets were saved.

I suspect the Vatican would have sided with

(a) whomever they perceived the eventual winner would be. Or,
(b) the side to which victory would improve Vatican fortunes, but they also had a reasonable chance of victory.

Over the centuries, a or b seems to have been the modus operandi, no?

MarchDub

dave2pvd wrote: »

Hard for me to concur with that. Most of the population was in the North, and most of the Catholics too.

Oh yes - the Catholics were mostly in the north, and after the war with reconstruction and the Jim Crow era the Catholic Church was not at all in favour with the southern ethos.

I was just putting out there what the best 'guess' was on the Pope's position. Davis was Episcopalian...

dave2pvd wrote: »

I suspect the Vatican would have sided with

(a) whomever they perceived the eventual winner would be. Or,
(b) the side to which victory would improve Vatican fortunes, but they also had a reasonable chance of victory.

Over the centuries, a or b seems to have been the modus operandi, no?

Agree - and there was the wider notion at the time that the US was becoming too powerful economically and would overshadow Europe, used to being the rulers of the world. So any break-up of the US into smaller parts was not entirely unwelcome in Europe anyway.

CDfm

thecommietommy wrote: »

It was on a programme about Douglass on TG4 a while ago. The question about Fr Matthew was basically, Fr Matthew made positive overtures towards the Confederacy. Appearently the Catholic church supported the Confederacy, not sure the reasons why (it might be worth a thread of it's own ?)

it could well be worth doing a douglass in ireland or using it as a springboard for a wider thread .

i vaguely know bits of the fr matthew thing mostly from contributing to a US history group on mixed race in new orleans post civil war

actually some say that some groups have difficulty in comming to terms that the irish were slaves too

http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/1638

Rebelheart

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't give more than the occasional (usually impatient) passing thought to the defence of Irish sovereignty. Does that mean I am not truly Irish?

So how, then, do you define Irishness? If you really think that Irishness can be protected within the British (i.e. English) state and its ideological basis in anti-Irishness and anti-Catholicism then you have some accounting for the past few centuries to do. Let's start with the ideas of Edmund Spenser

This Sasana Nua darbh ainm Éire ("New England called Ireland"), in the words of a 17th century poet, is not Irishness except to those people who are so desperate to claim Irishness while acting like English people. Truth. Honesty. Those with only an Irish identity are trying to deny those with an Irish culture as well as an Irish identity a right to be regarded as the true Irish. Politically self-serving ráiméis by the conquered Irish: we took the soup, join us or you're no longer really "Irish"!

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I absolutely refuse to define myself in terms of opposition to Britain or Britishness (or England and Englishness). That's irrelevant to my sense of being Irish.

Indeed. Given that the only state which has ever threatened Irish sovereignty is the British state, you can explain this rationally how?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The concept of Irishness you seem to advocate is largely an invention of the Gaelic League.

Lovely cliché. Should get your thanks quotient up on, like, Boards, like a bit. Congratulations. How, precisely, do you rationally - and I do mean rationally - expect British (i.e English) culture to step back and allow Irish culture to flourish in Ireland given the power dynamics which your seemingly apolitical British created here in Ireland?

jonniebgood1

Rebelheart wrote: »

Indeed. Given that the only state which has ever threatened Irish sovereignty is the British state, you can explain this rationally how?

Really?
The Vikings from Norway and Denmark were not of "the British state", if we are being rational surely they need to be considered. They established settlemants at Dublin, Cork and Waterford for example.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Originally Posted by P. Breathnach
The concept of Irishness you seem to advocate is largely an invention of the Gaelic League.

Lovely cliché. Should get your thanks quotient up on, like, Boards, like a bit. Congratulations. How, precisely, do you rationally - and I do mean rationally - expect British (i.e English) culture to step back and allow Irish culture to flourish in Ireland given the power dynamics which your seemingly apolitical British created here in Ireland?

???
You have ignored the post you are responding to. There is an excellent description in post no. 73 by Bannasidhe detailing the intertwining of British (Normans) and Irish (Gaelic) people.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Really?
The Vikings from Norway and Denmark were not of "the British state", if we are being rational surely they need to be considered. They established settlemants at Dublin, Cork and Waterford for example.



???
You have ignored the post you are responding to. There is an excellent description in post no. 73 by Bannasidhe detailing the intertwining of British (Normans) and Irish (Gaelic) people.

To recap- the traditional teaching of irish history does not acknowledge the actuality..

Brian Boru's era Ireland 150 tuath/tribes autonomous with their tribal allegience the most important part of their identity.

Henry VIII era had Ireland as a "unified kingdom".

Not all Irish Chiefs left -many switched alleigence from the tuath to the king adopting feudal titles and powers.Brian Boru's descendants amongst them. The "Norman" descendants of Silken Thomas "more Irish than the Irish themselves " did the same.

The Duke of Wellington called all of that class collectively the proprietors of the country in 1832 when he predicted a greater famine than the 1830 to 1834 famine.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

To recap- the traditional teaching of irish history does not acknowledge the actuality..

Would you link the "traditional teaching of irish history' with the Gaelic league revival?