Would you be ok with white Irish becoming a minority?

dav3

donegaLroad wrote: »

Driving into Dublin city centre about five years ago, I had to stop and ask directions to an address near Smithfield. The first three people I asked didn't have any English.. all white by the way. When i found someone who spoke English, he turned out to be eastern European.

Imagine that, Dublin of all places. Dublin, a major city in Europe. Dublin, a city you can fly to from nearly anywhere in Europe for under a tenner. Dublin, a city you can fly to from nearly any continent in the world. Dublin, a city that attracted over 5.6 million tourists last year.

donegaLroad

dav3 wrote: »

Imagine that, Dublin of all places. Dublin, a major city in Europe. Dublin, a city you can fly to from nearly anywhere in Europe for under a tenner. Dublin, a city you can fly to from nearly any continent in the world. Dublin, a city that attracted over 5.6 million tourists last year.

I lived in Dublin a couple of times, 1999, 2001. It has changed a lot since then. You would have had a greater chance of meeting a Dub in the city centre than today.

Berserker

donegaLroad wrote: »

Driving into Dublin city centre about five years ago, I had to stop and ask directions to an address near Smithfield. The first three people I asked didn't have any English.. all white by the way. When i found someone who spoke English, he turned out to be eastern European.

Common enough in Dublin. You can walk down the likes of O'Connell street without hearing an Irish accent. In reply to the OP, I have no problem with the Irish, white or not, becoming the minority.

Barry Badrinath

No

suicide_circus

Can't happen soon enough.

The white man's culture must be eliminated.

Wibbs

alchemist33 wrote: »

It happened in Ireland as a whole too, where the native Irish were taken over by the Celts.

Nope. a) the "Celts" is a very braid description of different cultures from different places and b) it was far more a cultural change than a population one.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

People with swathy skin because of some family interaction with the Spanish from the armada?

Didn't happen.

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

No

suicide_circus wrote: »

Can't happen soon enough.

What?

The white man's culture must be eliminated.

What the actual fuck? The white man's culture must be eliminated eh? And what do you suggest it gets replaced by? This should be good. The level of self hate among some is beyond comprehension to me.

LordSutch

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Would you be ok with white Irish becoming a minority?

So I came across the fact that Ballyhaunis a small town in Mayo now has white Irish people as a minority only making up 40% of the town.

White Irish kids only account for 28% of the community school, think I read somewhere a lot of local parents are now sending their kids to the rural schools outside the town and away from the community school

NO.

I think its been a disaster in parts of England & France, France more so because immigrants are not expected to integrate into French society/culture, hence there are immigrant ghettoes in France which are not actually part of France & the people are not integrated into French culture.

Some towns in England are now 60% immigrant.

Immigration is fine & to be welcomed, if its controlled.

Harry Palmr

Has anyone worked out how long this would take?

If it breeds out the gingers I'm all in favour.

Board.surf

Be ok with it? What a ridiculous question. It's not something that someone controls or has a say in. If an Irish person marries a Latin or black person, there kids won't be white. If it happens it happens. I would be questioning the moral value of your intentions here more so than anything else. This would be like e asking:

Men, would you be ok with women being in charge of everything. In some industries the majority of bosses are women and in some countries, they have refused to hire men.


It simply appears that you are trying to get a rise out of racists and are eager to create a heated discussion against non white people. You've given the most extreme and biased example possible. The irony is that I say this article today and was just thinking how far Ireland has come from the olden racist, pig days.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ex78dBceVV8&feature=player_embedded

In reality, just like in the early days of the US success story, if your local culture is strong enough it will make people want to integrate and become Irish. If it's pathetic and hateful toward noobs, they will hate it and build their own China town.

Nationality is nothing more than proximity and location. You were lucky to be born in Ireland and your question literally asks if you are comfortable sharing what you feel entitled to, with people that you think aren't entitled to those resources. You're entitlement comes from where you were born or your parent was born.

hairyslug

In time, granted we would be looking at a long long way away, won't there, internationally, be only 1 predominant race with breeding between races where (as the Spice Girls put it) we all become one.

Samaris

Well, no-one can seem to agree what the scary new majority will be. Will it be Middle Easterners, Africans, Eastern Europeans, Americans or British retirees if Spain gets fed up with them? It makes it very difficult to decide based on a vague scaremonger. And it changes every decade that we actually manage to have net immigration rather than net emigration anyway.

I'm actually pretty okay with diluting our national gene pool a bit, tbh. It's kinda needed. Maybe we could end up having only the second or third highest rate of cystic fibrosis in the world. Cultural subsumation is a different story, but it's a bit airy-fairy as to its likelihood of happening. It's -possible-. It's not incredibly likely and Ireland does not have a large enough influx of immigrants from anywhere to dominate the national character. Even the Irish in America only managed it in small portions, generally a couple of cities or regions within cities.

There is a bit of irony to the Irish complaining about immigration. Not that we shouldn't be allowed to talk about it, just it is amusingly ironic.

Wibbs

hairyslug wrote: »

In time, granted we would be looking at a long long way away, won't there, internationally, be only 1 predominant race with breeding between races where (as the Spice Girls put it) we all become one.

Hopefully not. More diversity is better, not less. For all sorts of reasons, not least biologically. I also can't see it happening any time soon. The vast majority of people end up having kids with people from within their own population group. Even in countries whose foundation is immigration this remains the trend.

Wibbs

Samaris wrote: »

There is a bit of irony to the Irish complaining about immigration. Not that we shouldn't be allowed to talk about it, just it is amusingly ironic.

Not this tried old argument again? 1) the countries we emigrated to were in the overwhelming majority of cases nations founded on immigration(the UK being the exception). 2) for the overwhelming majority of Irish emigres there were no social or fiscal safety nets like the Irish social welfare system.

RandomName2

Nations are defined by nationality. Two world wars were fought, partly to bring about that consensus. If it were ever the case that Ireland ceased to be mainly Irish, the point of its entire existence becomes questionable. Spice in a dish is one thing, but you can't have a dish be predominantly spice or it becomes inedible.

Will I Am Not

Samaris wrote: »

Well, no-one can seem to agree what the scary new majority will be. Will it be Middle Easterners, Africans, Eastern Europeans, Americans or British retirees if Spain gets fed up with them? It makes it very difficult to decide based on a vague scaremonger. And it changes every decade that we actually manage to have net immigration rather than net emigration anyway.

I'm actually pretty okay with diluting our national gene pool a bit, tbh. It's kinda needed. Maybe we could end up having only the second or third highest rate of cystic fibrosis in the world. Cultural subsumation is a different story, but it's a bit airy-fairy as to its likelihood of happening. It's -possible-. It's not incredibly likely and Ireland does not have a large enough influx of immigrants from anywhere to dominate the national character. Even the Irish in America only managed it in small portions, generally a couple of cities or regions within cities.

There is a bit of irony to the Irish complaining about immigration. Not that we shouldn't be allowed to talk about it, just it is amusingly ironic.

Yeah because African and Middle Eastern countries are disease free.

Is this actually what people are using in the "for" column?

Samaris

Wibbs wrote: »

Hopefully not. More diversity is better, not less. For all sorts of reasons, not least biologically. I also can't see it happening any time soon. The vast majority of people end up having kids with people from within their own population group. Even in countries whose foundation is immigration this remains the trend.

Yiiis, I don't really see it happening that much either. Sheer mathematics makes it unlikely - although of course there is the potential introduction of other elements we don't currently have that might make it more likely. Diversity will continue, particularly so long as world populations inhabit different parts of the world and have adapted at population levels -to- live in those particular parts of the world. Now, if we all had to cram into the same latitude in the north, say, Siberia/Greenland's north to approximately southern Ireland, that enforced mix could homogenise the survivors eventually (taking climate catastrophe as a potential "extreme" factor that throws current balances off).

But as it stands, it all appears extremely unlikely. Mind you, it would be -less- likely if whites didn't continue to vaguely stand on the "one drop" rule (as evidenced by boards.surf's comment above regarding the child of a white and a Latin person is not white - they're not Latin either by the same rule, and if the rule isn't the same, it's a social construct of nonsense). If we're going on the elimination of the Irish via the potential of a black or Chinese person marrying into a family and corrupting its whiteness, yeah, the white Irish population may ultimately be doomed and all. Bit extreme though.

Board.surf

Wibbs wrote: »

Not this tried old argument again? 1) the countries we emigrated to were in the overwhelming majority of cases nations founded on immigration(the UK being the exception). 2) for the overwhelming majority of Irish emigres there were no social or fiscal safety nets like the Irish social welfare system.

You may want to read a history book. England isn't as old of a nation as people let on. It's made up of Norman's, Anglo saxons, prussians, Irish etc. After the collapse of Rome, the Inhabitants of Britain were completely seperate to those who immigrated there and now occupy the land.

RandomName2

Samaris wrote: »

There is a bit of irony to the Irish complaining about immigration. Not that we shouldn't be allowed to talk about it, just it is amusingly ironic.

As true as that is, America is somewhat bigger than Ireland.

Samaris

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

Yeah because African and Middle Eastern countries are disease free.

Is this actually what people are using in the "for" column?

Hrm, I don't think you quite understand the concepts of population genetics and the results of a limited genepool with net emigration over generations. It is an inevitable result for an isolated island population and a few fresh influxes of new genes is far more healthy than otherwise. It's the same thing as intermarriage within families on a rather larger, but still genetically limited, scale.

Board.surf

NEW QUESTION!

Would you be ok with a town in Ireland that wasn't good enough for a lot of Irish people,to live in, being inhabited by people from another culture?

Irish people leave small towns in their droves to leave the country as a whole. How can we then turn around and say that nobody can marry a foreigner or a foreigner can't enter and live where we deem insufficient for our needs?

RandomName2

Board.surf wrote: »

You may want to read a history book. England isn't as old of a nation as people let on. It's made up of Normans, Anglo saxons, prussians, Irish etc. After the collapse of Rome, the Inhabitants of Britain were completely separate to those who immigrated there and now occupy the land.

So "just a thousand years old" isn't old? Just as a point of information the Normans, Danes and Romans butchered their way across Britain (although the Danes were ultimately stopped). No Prussians though, except for the some of the modern royalty.

Cornwall considers itself the least affected area (within England) by all those invasions, and consequently occasionally makes noises about independence. Scotland and Wales were also less affected, hence their separate national identities from England.

Wibbs

Board.surf wrote: »

You may want to read a history book.

Medice, cura te ipsum.

England isn't as old of a nation as people let on.

Who said it was?

It's made up of Norman's, Anglo saxons, prussians, Irish etc.

Genetically the UK is mostly "britons", with pre Norman French and German admixture with some later Saxon(little enough Norse), broadly following an east west/north south trend. Romans left little if any trace.

Board.surf

Samaris wrote: »

Hrm, I don't think you quite understand the concepts of population genetics and the results of a limited genepool with net emigration over generations. It is an inevitable result for an isolated island population and a few fresh influxes of new genes is far more healthy than otherwise. It's the same thing as intermarriage within families on a rather larger, but still genetically limited, scale.

To dull it down,

Narrow gene pool from mating with your cousin over generations = health issues
Wide gene pool from mating with those who are extremely different to you = their offspring are healthier


All in all people don't get it. They are simply clinging to their entitlement of "nationality" or entitlement to free stuff due to their place of birth. They whine about Ireland constantly, yet they think that someone who wasn't born on a certain rock shouldn't have access to the resources that they have taken for granted. It's all very amusing. The fact that the town in question is a success story and all over the news as a perfect example of integration also seems to bemuse most people.

Board.surf

Wibbs wrote: »

Medice, cura te ipsum.

Who said it was? Genetically the UK is mostly "britons", with pre Norman French and German admixture with some later Saxon(little enough Norse), broadly following an east west/north south trend. Romans left little if any trace.

So basically your backing down on it not being an immigrant nation. And Norman is obviously of Norse decent also. But sure, lets all mix up diaspora, nationality, ethnicity etc. This thread is basically bashing anyone who isn't white so let's stick with that. [/sarcasm]

Harry Palmr

Wibbs wrote: »

Medice, cura te ipsum.

Who said it was? Genetically the UK is mostly "britons", with pre Norman French and German admixture with some later Saxon(little enough Norse), broadly following an east west/north south trend. Romans left little if any trace.

Apart from the roads, the language, the Baths, the cities and the peace!

pumpkin4life

The main rule is with multiculturalism is that the closer genetically and culturally the immigrant population is, the less of a negative change there is to a host country.

For people who are ok with white Irish being an Irish minority;

The first thing is that being born in Ireland does not make you Irish. If my girlfriend and I move to Japan and have a son, that kid is not and never will be Japanese. He is genetically white Irish. And you can measure this genetically. You can actually quantify this.

If you import a foreign culture into a country, then that country begins to look like that foreign country. The other problem is things like IQ for example. Ireland will become more steadily dysfunctional on a day to day basis if things continue on like this. Why is my internet down? Why is it that there are more students failing science and maths subject at the leaving cert? Why am I watching a comedy about halal meat in Sligo and a ten part TV show called BUM? And so on.

Multiculturalism is a sick twisted failure. It is mainly advocated by white Irish who are intelligent but not very intelligent, tend to live in and stuck in roles where there is no diversity or these problems and tend to, on the personality scale, low to openness to experience. Your average immigrant? Nah, on an individual basis he's cool. Its the Fintan o Toole benny or the public sector civil servant who knows so much better than you. Thats the guy I hate.

Also: Someone mentioned Balbriggan there. Friend of mine teaches out there. Says the job involves making sure the diverse groups of kids don't actually ****ing kill each other. I predict the upcoming generation of lads will be some of the most right wing since my Granddadds generation.

Board.surf

RandomName2 wrote: »

So "just a thousand years old" isn't old? Just as a point of information the Normans, Danes and Romans butchered their way across Britain (although the Danes were ultimately stopped). No Prussians though, except for the some of the modern royalty.

Cornwall considers itself the least affected area (within England) by all those invasions, and consequently occasionally makes noises about independence. Scotland and Wales were also less affected, hence their separate national identities from England.

And the US is 250 years old. Is there a set cut off? My point is, that these racist threads pick and choose. What the heck is Irish? A young lad whose dad is from or Nigeria playing for the local GAA team or a 25th gernation Irish young lad who leaves the country at 21 and hates Ballyhaunis and Ireland.

Fourier

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Apart from the roads, the language, the Baths, the cities and the peace!

Well the language is not true, Latin died out rapidly in Britain, probably being gone by the 7th century.

Board.surf

pumpkin4life wrote: »

The main rule is with multiculturalism is that the closer genetically and culturally the immigrant population is, the less of a negative change there is to a host country.

For people who are ok with white Irish being an Irish minority;

The first thing is that being born in Ireland does not make you Irish.

If my girlfriend and I move to Japan and have a son, that kid is not and never will be Japanese. He is genetically white Irish. And you can measure this genetically. You can quantify this.

If you import a foreign culture into a country, then that country begins to look like that foreign country. The other problem is things like IQ for example. Ireland will become more steadily dysfunctional on a day to day basis if things continue on like this. Why is my internet down? Why is it that there are more students failing science and maths subject at the leaving cert? Why am I watching a comedy about halal meat in Sligo and a ten part TV show called BUM? And so on.

Multiculturalism is a sick twisted failure. It is mainly advocated by white Irish who are intelligent but not very intelligent, tend to live in and stuck in roles where there is no diversity or these problems and tend to, on the personality scale, low to openness to experience. Your average immigrant? Nah, on an individual basis he's cool. Its the Fintan o Toole or the public sector civil servant who knows so much better than you. Thats the guy I hate.

Also: Someone mentioned Balbriggan there. Friend of mine teaches out there. Says the job involves making sure the diverse groups of kids don't actually ****ing kill each other. I predict the upcoming generation of lads will be some of the most right wing since my Granddadds generation.

WOW!! Irish is not an ethnicity and never will be. It's a diaspora. We are Caucasian. Japanese is an ethnicity.

Samaris

Wibbs wrote: »

Not this tried old argument again? 1) the countries we emigrated to were in the overwhelming majority of cases nations founded on immigration(the UK being the exception). 2) for the overwhelming majority of Irish emigres there were no social or fiscal safety nets like the Irish social welfare system.

Hardly an argument, just an observation. I did not state "the Irish were immigrants therefore we can never discuss it"; quite the opposite in fact. The conditions as they were then for emigrants or immigrants is irrelevant to the topic though; we were not better immigrants for social security not existing. Social aid or no, America was a better option than famine (or definite poverty in Ireland). Social aid or no, Europe is a better option than being blown up or shot (or famine), which are major influences on current migration.

Social aid does reduce the appalling levels of destitution and suffering that many migrants to America suffered if they weren't lucky, had no connections or weren't well-off/able to immediately get a job though. So there's that. But an awful lot of the scaremongering on the topic blankly ignores that Ireland doesn't actually have a huge number of either refugees or economic migrants and so the fuss over it all is a tad apocalyptic based on relatively little evidence.