'Being Irish' - essay by Tom Hayden

MakeEmLaugh

You may not have heard of Tom Hayden, but he is an American author, political and activist who - among many other things - was married to Jane Fonda for 17 years. Hayden is someone who very strongly identifies with his Irish ancestry.

He contributed to the collection 'Being Irish', edited by Paddy Logue, which was published in 2000, and of which I picked up a copy a few months back. His own essay was striking to say the least. He discusses his 'Irishness' in language which many may feel is strident, or even an appropriation of Irish culture.

From a historical point of view, Hayden's essay is bafflingly simplistic, in my opinion.

In general, what are other people's opinions of this?

When David Trimble said recently that Irish republicans need house-training, I heard my master's voice down through the ages, that of the Vikings, the British, and the WASPs, and knew I am Irish.

Now and then someone has to shit on the master's rug.

They have tried to house-train us for thousands of years. And to a degree, they have succeeded. They have occupied our souls and minds, not simply our lands. We have tried to be good colonial subjects, even post-colonial subjects, learning their language, deifying their culture, denouncing our rebels. And we have trained ourselves to shit properly. We've made vaudeville paddies of ourselves, tried to become respectable, lace-curtain, corporate, won honours for everything from prize-fighting to literature, and even elected an American president. We've tried of [sic] wash off every trace of the bog, even from our memory. We've done our best to ethnically cleanse our race.

But it's not enough, and try as we might, it never will be. The Irish soul is not British, not WASP. Those people need dogs to train. We are not dogs, nor are we good at being masters.

Plenty of Irish, of course, would be embarrassed by this whole discussion. After all our sanitary progress in becoming white Anglos, they say, let's shut the closet door on the past, or excommunicate anyone who refuses to be be house-trained. “The Filthy Irish Haven't Grasped the Hygiene Habit”, screamed a headline in the Irish Independent this year, the author complaining that we “believe tidiness is not important” (27 February 2000).

Maureen Dowd of the New York Times excels at reinforcing our shame. For St Patrick's Day this year, she recounted how she “blushed in childish embarrassment” when her parents led Irish parades in her youth. Even today, “The mere tap-tap sound that signals the approach of Riverdance” fills Ms Dowd with “dread”.

On the other side are sometimes found people of colour, applauded by self-hating Irish, who insist that we be classified with the master, that we are the Devil's kin, that we have chosen white skin privilege, and that the right to shit on the rug belongs only to descendants of Africa, Asia, Latin American and the American Indians. The Irish haven't really been tarted like dogs, they say, only like pets.

These differences among the Irish demonstrate that the struggle for the conscious of our race continues from generation to generation.

The Irish are rightly touted as a grand success story, proof of the melting pot thesis, an example to new immigrants. But the continuing price of our material success is disregarded because it spoils the myth. For the past 150 years, we have experienced high rates of schizophrenia, depression, alcoholism and domestic violence. Irish immigrants in England today have the most serious rates of suicide and mental illness of any immigrants in Europe. Even the sanest among us have lost our bearings because our history has been forgotten or sanitised. Our major universities rarely tell our story, filing us instead under British or European civilisation.

The most extreme measure of running from our past can be counted by the thousands of Irish Americans who visit the old country without ever entering the North. It is not a fear of violence that keeps them out – but a denial of our roots, and a preference for a more acceptable, if fanciful, identity.

We must re-inhabit our history. We are an old culture, ten times older than the United States. Our deepest identity is bound up with resistance to foreign domination. But we are more than warriors. Our forebears at Newgrange charted the universe through apertures that caught the rising sun on 21 December, the solstice. They were great scientists and dreamers long before they were yoked by colonialism to a shrunken concept of themselves. Our Celtic ancestor John Muir noted the conquest of our consciousness very well when he wrote that our God image “become very much like an English gentleman [who] believes in the literature and languages of England, is a warm supporter of the English constitution and Sunday schools and missionary societies.”

Why do I love being Irish? Because it makes me feel alive with all the possibilities and contradictions of the human conditions. We are both tragic and triumphant. We have assimilated but not submitted. My hope is that we assimilate in a new direction. It is not being fully Irish to assimilate only into the “English-speaking world”, as if that is there we belong. Because we have been colonial victims ourselves, we should identity with the non-English speaking world of indigenous cultures who live under oppression all to [sic] familiar to the Irish.

Our destiny is to be a global race, not a master race.

tac foley

But he is not Irish. He is AMERICAN.

Can't he be proud to just be an American, rather than a hypenated American? His parents had Irish ancestors, wiki notes. I had black African ancestors, a good while back now, but I'm definitely not any kind of African.

The 'remote' Irish are a race apart, that's for sure.

tac

whisky_galore

Some grains of truth here and there, but he can only speak for being American of Irish ancestry which is not the same as being 'Irish'.
I never hear of Americans of Teutonic ancestry calling themselves 'German' or say Scandinavian forebears proudly calling themselves 'Norwegian' or 'Danish' etc.

Peregrinus

Well, that's partly because German-Americans and Norwegian-Americans don't annoy us by coming to Ireland, wearing improbably lurid shades of green and loudly proclaiming their spiritual affinity with us.

But German-American and Norwegian-Americans (and etc. etc. etc.) certainly exist, and certainly celebrate their hyphenated identity.

Norwegian Americans hang out mostly in the upper midwest, and celebrate their identity by participating in the Lutheran-Evangelical Church, eating lutefisk (which, take it from me, is an uspeakable gelatinous goo which could easily be mistaken for fish-glue) and celebrating Norwegian independence on 17 May. They do this by getting drunk on akvavit made from pototoes and flavoured with caraway seeds to disguise the revolting taste, wearing horned helmets made of plastic, and practising the ancient sport of herring-tossing. (I'm not making this up. Seriously, they toss herrings.)

German-Americans are a little less demonstrative, largely because they're a huge ethnic group, so they don't need to be so demonstrative. There are about 50 million of them, as compared to a paltry 33 million Irish-Americans, and they have given America kindergartens, Christmas trees, hot dogs, hamburgers and most American beers. Maybe one of the reasons they are not so visible is because they have successfully germanised much of American social identity; they don't stand out from general American culture because general American culture is itself so germanised. They other reason is probably that they stopped celebrating German national days in the middle of the twentieth century, what with the General Unpleasantness that was under way at the time.

whisky_galore

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, that's partly because German-Americans and Norwegian-Americans don't annoy us by coming to Ireland, wearing improbably lurid shades of green and loudly proclaiming their spiritual affinity with us.

But German-American and Norwegian-Americans (and etc. etc. etc.) certainly exist, and certainly celebrate their hyphenated identity.

Norwegian Americans hang out mostly in the upper midwest, and celebrate their identity by participating in the Lutheran-Evangelical Church, eating lutefisk (which, take it from me, is an uspeakable gelatinous goo which could easily be mistaken for fish-glue) and celebrating Norwegian independence on 17 May. They do this by getting drunk on akvavit made from pototoes and flavoured with caraway seeds to disguise the revolting taste, wearing horned helmets made of plastic, and practising the ancient sport of herring-tossing. (I'm not making this up. Seriously, they toss herrings.)

German-Americans are a little less demonstrative, largely because they're a huge ethnic group, so they don't need to be so demonstrative. There are about 50 million of them, as compared to a paltry 33 million Irish-Americans, and they have given America kindergartens, Christmas trees, hot dogs, hamburgers and most American beers. Maybe one of the reasons they are not so visible is because they have successfully germanised much of American social identity; they don't stand out from general American culture because general American culture is itself so germanised. They other reason is probably that they stopped celebrating German national days in the middle of the twentieth century, what with the General Unpleasantness that was under way at the time.

Well these are the equivalents of Paddywhackery, plastic shamrocks and little people, but do they like Irish-Americans, assume they have the pulse of the people back in the 'old country'? Or have they cut their ties?

Peregrinus

Certainly in the nineteenth century Norwegian-Americans were as active in support for Norwegian independence as Irish-Americans were in support of Irish independence. I think the difference is that Norwegian independence was completely and amicably arrived at in 1905, whereas the Irish story was more mixed, and less amicable.

Whether today Norwegian-Americans comment on, or offer advice and opinions to, Norwegians in relation to issues of current interest in Norway, I can't say.

Sounds like a Macklemore song.

Ipso

"whisky_galore wrote: »

I never hear of Americans of Teutonic ancestry calling themselves 'German' or say Scandinavian forebears proudly calling themselves 'Norwegian' or 'Danish' etc.

Maybe their German or Scandanavian parenrs didn't bring them up that way.
I've heard Italian Americans refer to themselves as Italian, and sometimes people will use the ethnic background of a person to describe a bit more about them.

Fighting leprechaun 20

whisky_galore wrote: »

Some grains of truth here and there, but he can only speak for being American of Irish ancestry which is not the same as being 'Irish'.
I never hear of Americans of Teutonic ancestry calling themselves 'German' or say Scandinavian forebears proudly calling themselves 'Norwegian' or 'Danish' etc.

Your user name is hilarious and lronic, it's spelled whiskey btw

garrixfan

whisky_galore wrote: »

Some grains of truth here and there, but he can only speak for being American of Irish ancestry which is not the same as being 'Irish'.
I never hear of Americans of Teutonic ancestry calling themselves 'German' or say Scandinavian forebears proudly calling themselves 'Norwegian' or 'Danish' etc.

They all do that! We are Irish so hear about the Irish Americans.

Peregrinus

Fighting leprechaun 20 wrote: »

Your user name is hilarious and lronic, it's spelled whiskey btw

It's the title of a novel by the Scotsman Compton McKenzie, dealing with Scotch, set in Scotland. It's spelt "whisky".

se02orqua5xz9v

We have tried to be good colonial subjects, even post-colonial subjects, learning their language.

It is not being fully Irish to assimilate only into the “English-speaking world”, as if that is there we belong. Because we have been colonial victims ourselves, we should identity with the non-English speaking world of indigenous cultures who live under oppression all to [sic] familiar to the Irish.

I wonder if Tom Hayden actually speaks the Irish language (Gaelic).

He seems awfully concerned about the English language being foisted upon us.

Wegian

This is the most interesting, and tragic, bit in the context of History being removed as a mandatory subject in our Secondary schools.......

"Even the sanest among us have lost our bearings because our history has been forgotten or sanitised. Our major universities rarely tell our story, filing us instead under British or European civilisation."

whisky_galore

Fighting leprechaun 20 wrote: »

Your user name is hilarious and lronic, it's spelled whiskey btw

There was no set spelling for it at one time.

http://www.irelandwhiskeytrail.com/userfiles/image/Midletonlarge8.jpg

whisky_galore

Wegian wrote: »

This is the most interesting, and tragic, bit in the context of History being removed as a mandatory subject in our Secondary schools.......

"Even the sanest among us have lost our bearings because our history has been forgotten or sanitised. Our major universities rarely tell our story, filing us instead under British or European civilisation."

This is hardly surprising, Irish history would barely feature in the enormity of modern European history, the Famine may figure and the blip that was the Rising might be mentioned in passing if they were covering WW1 in a US university.

Fighting leprechaun 20

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's the title of a novel by the Scotsman Compton McKenzie, dealing with Scotch, set in Scotland. It's spelt "whisky".

*WHISKEY*

whisky_galore

Fighting leprechaun 20 wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's the title of a novel by the Scotsman Compton McKenzie, dealing with Scotch, set in Scotland. It's spelt "whisky".

*WHISKEY*

Whatever. :rolleyes:
Can we get back on topic?

Fighting leprechaun 20

whisky_galore wrote: »

This is hardly surprising, Irish history would barely feature in the enormity of modern European history, the Famine may figure and the blip that was the Rising might be mentioned in passing if they were covering WW1 in a US university.

Bit of a lie there or perhaps it's ignorance on your part.

Pretty sure the Nine Years' War
And brain boru are fairly important in world history. ..boru less so but still...

whisky_galore

Fighting leprechaun 20 wrote: »

Bit of a lie there or perhaps it's ignorance on your part.

Pretty sure the Nine Years' War
And brain boru are fairly important in world history. ..

Note the words 'modern history'.:rolleyes:

Banjoxed

He could have replaced it with six words, "I am an Irish-American w@nker" and that would have been sufficient.

Fighting leprechaun 20

whisky_galore wrote: »

Note the words 'modern history'.:rolleyes:

*Since when does anyone care about modern history*:p

Fighting leprechaun 20

whisky_galore wrote: »

Fighting leprechaun 20 wrote: »

Whatever. :rolleyes:
Can we get back on topic?

never ! *WHISKEY* WHISKEY*

Eugene Norman

whisky_galore wrote: »

This is hardly surprising, Irish history would barely feature in the enormity of modern European history, the Famine may figure and the blip that was the Rising might be mentioned in passing if they were covering WW1 in a US university.

It should matter to us, though. Which is what he is saying.

whisky_galore

Eugene Norman wrote: »

It should matter to us, though. Which is what he is saying.

Well then, let him lobby US universities for provision of Irish history dedicated courses.

Eugene Norman

I liked this bit.


On the other side are sometimes found people of colour, applauded by self-hating Irish, who insist that we be classified with the master, that we are the Devil's kin, that we have chosen white skin privilege, and that the right to **** on the rug belongs only to descendants of Africa, Asia, Latin American and the American Indians. The Irish haven't really been tarted like dogs, they say, only like pets

What's really amazing is how the descendents of spainish, Portuguese and other colonialists have managed to become victims over time by adopting the Hispanic moniker. Argentina is 86% European (only 1% Amerindian) but 100% Hispanic. And therefore "brown". This feeds back into the Portuguese who have no shame about whiteness.

On the other hand our history is closer to that of native Americans, albeit we were disease resistant.


In the simple world of American political correctness, whiteness of skin is related to present and past privilege and being mind colonised by the US we soak that up.

Eugene Norman

whisky_galore wrote: »

Well then, let him lobby US universities for provision of Irish history dedicated courses.

He probably does. The book the op is talking about seems to be an Irish not American publication so he is talking to us.

Peregrinus

The book may be Irish, but Hayden's contribution is plainly a reflection on Irish-American identity and experience. That's what we'd expect from his background, and the extract quoted in the OP makes it very plain that that's what he's talking about.

tac foley

You wrote - 'What's really amazing is how the descendents of spainish, Portuguese and other colonialists have managed to become victims over time by adopting the Hispanic moniker. Argentina is 86% European (only 1% Amerindian) but 100% Hispanic. And therefore "brown". This feeds back into the Portuguese who have no shame about whiteness.'

What has this to do with Argentina, which is Spanish-speaking, not Portuguese?

On the other hand our history is closer to that of native Americans, albeit we were disease resistant.

Explanation, please, this makes no sense whatsoever to me.

tac

Eugene Norman

tac foley wrote: »

You wrote - 'What's really amazing is how the descendents of spainish, Portuguese and other colonialists have managed to become victims over time by adopting the Hispanic moniker. Argentina is 86% European (only 1% Amerindian) but 100% Hispanic. And therefore "brown". This feeds back into the Portuguese who have no shame about whiteness.'

What has this to do with Argentina, which is Spanish-speaking, not Portuguese?

I put Spanish(albeit misspelled) in the list. I think you could have worked it out.

On the other hand our history is closer to that of native Americans, albeit we were disease resistant.

Explanation, please, this makes no sense whatsoever to me.

tac

Really? The plantations of Ireland were designed to push people westwards, or onto unviable land in the areas planted. Had we the same lack of protection to smallpox say that would have pretty much left the irish in the same situation as native Americans.

whisky_galore

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Really? The plantations of Ireland were designed to push people westwards, or onto unviable land in the areas planted. Had we the same lack of protection to smallpox say that would have pretty much left the irish in the same situation as native Americans.

Bit of a clunky comparison to make imo.

Eugene Norman

whisky_galore wrote: »

Bit of a clunky comparison to make imo.

Why? The plantations had the same aim as settlers moving to the US or anywhere. Had the Native American population not been decimated by disease the resistance would have been greater, the colonials less likely to go ( lots of colonial settlers in Ireland after Cromwell sold up because of the violence) and the America would have ended up a bit like Ulster. To hell or Connaught, was the plan.

tac foley

Mr Norman - please bear with me. I'm not Irish and have never lived there either, so like most other foreigners coming to a forum like this to learn, I look for information, not sarcasm and belittling responses.

I also expect those who propose a theory to be able to explain it, and you, Sir, with your Spanish/Portuguese conundrum, did not. Furthermore, the 'plantations' in Ireland, as I understand it, took place in the 16th and 17th centuries, long before Edward Jenner had discovered a remedy for smallpox, so your argument falls over at that point. Everybody in the British Isles was at that time susceptible to smallpox. There was no protection for anybody.

tac

Peregrinus

Actually, Eugene Norman may have a point. Nobody in the seventeenth century was vaccinated for smallpox, but the European population was descended from generations who had repeatedly been exposed to it and - natural selection at work - had built up a higher level of natural resistance. Europeans were therefore less likely to contract smallpox, if exposed, and more likely to survive it, than native Americans, who were decimated by the disease on first exposure.

The story goes - I don't know if it's true - that it was the other way around with syphilis. It was endemic in the native American population, but Europeans had never encountered it until they brought it back from the New World, and they had no natural resistance to it. But it doesn't kill as quickly as smallpox, and isn't as easily spread, so this wasn't a disaster on the same scale as smallpox was for the Americans.

Fighting leprechaun 20

whisky_galore wrote: »

Bit of a clunky comparison to make imo.

In what way ? I think it's a perfectly good comparison. .

Fighting leprechaun 20

tac foley wrote: »

Mr Norman - please bear with me. I'm not Irish and have never lived there either, so like most other foreigners coming to a forum like this to learn, I look for information, not sarcasm and belittling responses.

I also expect those who propose a theory to be able to explain it, and you, Sir, with your Spanish/Portuguese conundrum, did not. Furthermore, the 'plantations' in Ireland, as I understand it, took place in the 16th and 17th centuries, long before Edward Jenner had discovered a remedy for smallpox, so your argument falls over at that point. Everybody in the British Isles was at that time susceptible to smallpox. There was no protection for anybody.

tac

.. pretty sure Europeans had natural immunity ..

Ipso

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, Eugene Norman may have a point. Nobody in the seventeenth century was vaccinated for smallpox, but the European population was descended from generations who had repeatedly been exposed to it and - natural selection at work - had built up a higher level of natural resistance. Europeans were therefore less likely to contract smallpox, if exposed, and more likely to survive it, than native Americans, who were decimated by the disease on first exposure.

The story goes - I don't know if it's true - that it was the other way around with syphilis. It was endemic in the native American population, but Europeans had never encountered it until they brought it back from the New World, and they had no natural resistance to it. But it doesn't kill as quickly as smallpox, and isn't as easily spread, so this wasn't a disaster on the same scale as smallpox was for the Americans.

According to Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel; syphliss originated in Eurasia. It was originally a livecstock disease that spread to humans.

Eugene Norman

tac foley wrote: »

Mr Norman - please bear with me. I'm not Irish and have never lived there either, so like most other foreigners coming to a forum like this to learn, I look for information, not sarcasm and belittling responses.

I also expect those who propose a theory to be able to explain it, and you, Sir, with your Spanish/Portuguese conundrum, did not. Furthermore, the 'plantations' in Ireland, as I understand it, took place in the 16th and 17th centuries, long before Edward Jenner had discovered a remedy for smallpox, so your argument falls over at that point. Everybody in the British Isles was at that time susceptible to smallpox. There was no protection for anybody.

tac

There is no Spanish/Potuguese conundrum. I mentioned both. You decided there was a conundrum twice despite the fact I mentioned Spanish twice.

What has the remedy for small pox to do with anything.

The plantations of Ireland preceded the plantations of America but the plantations in America were more successful because the native population was decimated by small pox and other diseases. If Ireland had had less resistance to English diseases then the Irish would have been displaced to Connaught, which was effectively a reservation. Cromwells parliament legislated for that but it didn't happen.

Conversely if the native Americans had resistance to diseases they would have survived. The colonisation of Africa didn't decimate the local population because the disease resistance worked the other way.

DarkyHughes

Yeah, take that David Trimble you ****