What's the definition of "White Irish" and "White Other" on ethnicity forms?

SharpshooterTom

I was just looking at the 2016 census results. And saw for ethnicity:

White Irish (including travellers) - 82.8%
Other white - 9.6%
Ethnic Minorities - 5.0%
Not stated - 2.6%

By "White Irish" do people mean actual Irish people? What about someone who's born and raised in Ireland to Polish parents but solely identifies as Irish? Or an American of Irish descent? There's a lot of "White other" I'm curious about type people who tick that?

I'm born and raised in England, but my parents are Irish and live here. Its a bit confusing what to put down. The census asks for this every 5 years. Its not really a big deal obviously, but just curious anyway as it doesn't seem very well defined.

amcalester

If you’re white and hold an Irish passport then tick white Irish.

If you’re white and don’t hold an Irish passport tick white other.

Boom_Bap

I thought White Other was for white Irish people that listened to rap music?

sk8erboii

Do travellers identify as irish?

kneemos

Other white presumably covers everything not white Irish.

somesoldiers

Irish Pride


Makes great sandwiches

SharpshooterTom

amcalester wrote: »

If you’re white and hold an Irish passport then tick white Irish.

If you’re white and don’t hold an Irish passport tick white other.

Right so its a case of nationality, not ancestry. So an American with distant ancestry "My great great great granny came from Kerry!" does not suffice?

Glad we cleared up this mightily important question.

dxhound2005

https://www.cso.ie/en/census/faq/detailedlookatcensusquestions/question14/

RandomName2

sk8erboii wrote: »

Do travellers identify as irish?

Travelers claim not to be Irish, and calling them Irish is racist, but they will presumably have Irish citizenship.

Harry Palmr

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

I was just looking at the 2016 census results. And saw for ethnicity:

White Irish (including travellers) - 82.8%
Other white - 9.6%
Ethnic Minorities - 5.0%
Not stated - 2.6%

By "White Irish" do people mean actual Irish people? What about someone who's born and raised in Ireland to Polish parents but solely identifies as Irish? Or an American of Irish descent? There's a lot of "White other" I'm curious about type people who tick that?

I'm born and raised in England, but my parents are Irish and live here. Its a bit confusing what to put down. The census asks for this every 5 years. Its not really a big deal obviously, but just curious anyway as it doesn't seem very well defined.

If you are a white Irish citizen then you tick that box, otherwise the other.

SharpshooterTom

Harry Palmr wrote: »

If you are a white Irish citizen then you tick that box, otherwise the other.

So someone who has Polish parents, but has an Irish passport, puts down White Irish? So its not based on blood purity that your ancestors must have been here for centuries sort of thing?

Richard Hillman

Polish, British, Czech etc

mad muffin

Irish Celtic.

dxhound2005

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

So someone who has Polish parents, but has an Irish passport, puts down White Irish? So its not based on blood purity that your ancestors must have been here for centuries sort of thing?

Our country is less than 100 years old, so it couldn't refer back beyond that.

Harry Palmr

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

So someone who has Polish parents, but has an Irish passport, puts down White Irish? So its not based on blood purity that your ancestors must have been here for centuries sort of thing?

The day we start classifying people's nationality by their "blood" is the day we should just ask the NAZI's in to run the gaff. Travellers play the bloodline card and that's bad enough.

Ipso

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The day we start classifying people's nationality by their "blood" is the day we should just ask the NAZI's in to run the gaff. Travellers play the bloodline card and that's bad enough.

And In a small island with a lot of small rural populations I wouldn’t be drawing attention to purity.

The Satanist

No option for transgender people of colour??? I'm offended and oppressed

recedite

Hmmm.. so far all the answers given in the thread have been wrong.
Which doesn't give much hope for the accuracy of the actual census results, if that's how people fill out their census forms.


Ethnicity is not the same as citizenship. So if you have an Irish passport and you are white, that does not mean you should automatically tick "white Irish".


You tick whatever you identify as yourself, in terms of your origins or your ethnicity.

Its not about purity. Its about the future provision of services and state policies.
If you were born in Ireland but you go home for your dinner and the family are speaking Polish, then you are an probably an ethnic Pole.


Maybe you don't like the fact that Irish language classes are mandatory for everyone in schools? Don't tick the "white Irish" box then.

recedite

Its the same for religion. Don't like the fact that you have to get your kid christened to get a place in the local state funded school?
Don't tick the "I'm a catholic" box then.

Franz Von Peppercorn

RandomName2 wrote: »

Travelers claim not to be Irish, and calling them Irish is racist, but they will presumably have Irish citizenship.

They do claim to be Irish. It’s nationality vs ethnicity.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The day we start classifying people's nationality by their "blood" is the day we should just ask the NAZI's in to run the gaff. Travellers play the bloodline card and that's bad enough.

Well “blood”, or ancestory is kind of what is being asked here. Some people who have Irish passports will say white other. The explanation in the census isn’t very clear though.

Franz Von Peppercorn

recedite wrote: »

Hmmm.. so far all the answers given in the thread have been wrong.
Which doesn't give much hope for the accuracy of the actual census results, if that's how people fill out their census forms.


Ethnicity is not the same as citizenship. So if you have an Irish passport and you are white, that does not mean you should automatically tick "white Irish".


You tick whatever you identify as yourself, in terms of your origins or your ethnicity.

Its not about purity. Its about the future provision of services and state policies.
If you were born in Ireland but you go home for your dinner and the family are speaking Polish, then you are an probably an ethnic Pole.


Maybe you don't like the fact that Irish language classes are mandatory for everyone in schools? Don't tick the "white Irish" box then.

I don’t see the logic of the last statement. At all. The rest makes sense.

SharpshooterTom

recedite wrote: »

You tick whatever you identify as yourself, in terms of your origins or your ethnicity.

So someone like me who was born and raised in England of Irish parents but currently lives here has a choice? Can tick either?

I never learned Irish obviously.

Franz Von Peppercorn

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

So someone like me who was born and raised in England of Irish parents but currently lives here has a choice? Can tick either?

I never learned Irish obviously.

It’s how you self identify, within reason. You are of Irish descent, so you can choose white Irish (as you could in the UK census).

recedite

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I don’t see the logic of the last statement. At all. The rest makes sense.

Well, if your family are Polish, then the Polish language and culture are going to be special to you, even if you are an Irish citizen. Polish is now a Leaving Cert subject. But its voluntary.
Maybe its time we stopped assuming that everyone wants or needs to learn Irish as their second language? The state needs info in order to assess the needs and wants of future citizens. It gathers that info in the Census.

Franz Von Peppercorn

recedite wrote: »

Well, if your family are Polish, then the Polish language and culture are going to be special to you, even if you are an Irish citizen. Polish is now a leaving Cert subject. But its voluntary.
Maybe its time we stopped assuming that everyone wants or needs to learn Irish as their second language? The state needs info in order to assess the needs and wants of future citizens. It gathers that info in the Census.

I never find that foreigners care about that as much as Irish people who don’t like the Irish language. If anything they wonder why we don’t teach it better. Why we don’t know it or speak it. Plenty of countries have dual languages, and plenty of those languages are not that useful.

It’s a constitutional issue btw, nothing to do with the census.

biko

From Guggul

The term Other White is a classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom and has been used in documents such as the 2011 UK Census to describe people who self-identify as white persons who are not of the English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish ethnic groupings.

Maurice Yeltsin

Another one, according to the census our second largest nationality is British.

Does this go on place of birth? Are nordies living here listed as British even though, while they technically re, the don't regard themselves as such?

Are nordies listed as foreign born?

Residents of this country who are actually out and out British are rare enough in my view, but I can think of maybe 10 people I went to school with down the years who came back from England at a very young age, are they counted as Brits?

SharpshooterTom

Maurice Yeltsin wrote: »

Residents of this country who are actually out and out British are rare enough in my view, but I can think of maybe 10 people I went to school with down the years who came back from England at a very young age, are they counted as Brits?

What do you mean 'out and out British'? People with English accents?

Most of those people who came back young would identify as Irish.

There were 219,817 people born in England, Scotland and Wales.

But only 103,113 identified as British only.

Of those British only, just 12,183 identified their ethnicity as White Irish.

Maurice Yeltsin

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

What do you mean 'out and out British'? People with English accents?

Yes. People with no Irish cultural identity.

Most of those people who came back young would identify as Irish.

There were 219,817 people born in England, Scotland and Wales.

But only 103,113 identified as British only.

Of those British only, just 12,183 identified their ethnicity as White Irish.

Where'd you see these?



Are the people who refuse to give their ethnic identity typically freeman on the land types convinced FG is going to ship them to the camps?

SharpshooterTom

Maurice Yeltsin wrote: »

Where'd you see these?

Are the people who refuse to give their ethnic identity typically freeman on the land types convinced FG is going to ship them to the camps?

These three links

Birthplace and ethnicity
https://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/Define.asp?maintable=E7057&PLanguage=0

Birthplace and nationality
https://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/Define.asp?maintable=E7053&PLanguage=0

Nationality and ethnicity
https://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/Define.asp?maintable=E7015&PLanguage=0

Clicking on the "Profile 7 - Migration and Diversity" link for a full list of stuff.

goose2005

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Our country is less than 100 years old, so it couldn't refer back beyond that.

our country is thousands of years old

recedite

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I never find that foreigners care about that as much as Irish people who don’t like the Irish language. If anything they wonder why we don’t teach it better. Why we don’t know it or speak it. Plenty of countries have dual languages, and plenty of those languages are not that useful.

It’s a constitutional issue btw, nothing to do with the census.

The kind of person in my example is not a foreigner (born here of Polish parents) but they are not "ethnic Irish" either. In some ways they might be in a similar position to the nordies ie they may or may not be fully invested in all the aspects of Irish culture and language. So that person may well be "an Irish person who hates Irish". To some extent your culture is handed down through your family, and to some extent from the surroundings in the place you are reared.
I agree mandatory Irish language is a political issue, but any possible political change starts with lobbying, and statistics are used at that stage.


You'll see a similar process now with divestment of schools from RCC patronage. Census might show that 50% or less families in an area identify as catholics, but 90% of state funded national schools are RC. That spurs a process whereby the local parents are asked what they want to do going forward. But the census results by themselves do not cause a change of patronage. They are only used as a rough guide.

Franz Von Peppercorn

recedite wrote: »

The kind of person in my example is not a foreigner (born here of Polish parents) but they are not "ethnic Irish" either. In some ways they might be in a similar position to the nordies ie they may or may not be fully invested in all the aspects of Irish culture and language. So that person may well be "an Irish person who hates Irish". To some extent your culture is handed down through your family, and to some extent from the surroundings in the place you are reared.
I agree mandatory Irish language is a political issue, but any possible political change starts with lobbying, and statistics are used at that stage.

What I am saying is that the immigrants and their descendants are not hostile to Irish, often quite the contrary. Is there any evidence that this is so? Hostility to Irish tends to be one of those cultures that is in fact "handed down through your family", often from people who were pro Empire etc back in the deep past.

You'll see a similar process now with divestment of schools from RCC patronage. Census might show that 50% or less families in an area identify as catholics, but 90% of state funded national schools are RC. That spurs a process whereby the local parents are asked what they want to do going forward. But the census results by themselves do not cause a change of patronage. They are only used as a rough guide.

The two are not remotely similar. The latter is for instance a constitutional issue, Irish is an official language. The RCC is not protected by the constitution. So to not get Irish taught in schools you need a constitutional change on the Irish language and theres no political will for that. In fact I never hear of any such hostility really outside the internet.

recedite

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The two are not remotely similar. The latter is for instance a constitutional issue, Irish is an official language. The RCC is not protected by the constitution. So to not get Irish taught in schools you need a constitutional change on the Irish language and theres no political will for that. In fact I never hear of any such hostility really outside the internet.

In fact both are mentioned in the Constitution.
Those in favour of public funding of segregated denominational education cited the wording in the Constitution saying the state will "provide for" free primary education as opposed to just "provide" to justify the state subcontracting out education to Christian Brothers and nuns in the past. And even though the public appetite for CB schools has since fallen off a cliff, the religious control of public education is still a dominant force.


Its not an argument I would buy myself. Nor would I buy the argument that having the Irish language as an official state language translates into a requirement to make it a mandatory subject in the curriculum.


Even if it did, the constitution can be changed, if it is the will of the people. Which takes us back to lobbying and the use of statistics.


BTW I don't accept that being against mandatory Irish means I am hater of all things Irish. We have to be realistic, there are schools dropping core subjects like history so they can offer up new subjects like coding. There just is not enough space in the timetable for every subject.

When you make something mandatory, you are taking away people's choices, which means you are taking away their freedom. That should not be done unless there is a very good reason.

Franz Von Peppercorn

recedite wrote: »

In fact both are mentioned in the Constitution.
Those in favour of public funding of segregated denominational education cited the wording in the Constitution saying the state will "provide for" free primary education as opposed to just "provide" to justify the state subcontracting out education to Christian Brothers and nuns in the past. And even though the public appetite for CB schools has since fallen off a cliff, the religious control of public education is still a dominant force.

Thats not mentioning the RC specifically. It can justify government subsidies to some private schools, I suppose. There was a specific reference to the RC until the 70's.

Its not an argument I would buy myself. Nor would I buy the argument that having the Irish language as an official state language translates into a requirement to make it a mandatory subject in the curriculum.


Even if it did, the constitution can be changed, if it is the will of the people. Which takes us back to lobbying and the use of statistics.

The will of the people is expressed through the democratic process not through the census, the fact that people might over-estimate their usage of Irish in the census won't change the constitutional position. You may be right that the teaching of Irish doesn't have to be mandatory but if so then English also would have to be non-mandatory, as both have equal status. How would you feel about some schools only teaching through Arabic?

BTW I don't accept that being against mandatory Irish means I am hater of all things Irish. We have to be realistic, there are schools dropping core subjects like history so they can offer up new subjects like coding. There just is not enough space in the timetable for every subject.

When you make something mandatory, you are taking away people's choices, which means you are taking away their freedom. That should not be done unless there is a very good reason.

Being an official language probably is a good enough reason, as in most countries will teach their official language.

recedite

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You may be right that the teaching of Irish doesn't have to be mandatory but if so then English also would have to be non-mandatory, as both have equal status. How would you feel about schools only teaching through Arabic?

Obviously I would be against mandatory Arabic, unless I lived in a country where Arabic was the normal day to day language, or even the lingua franca. As English is here.

Franz Von Peppercorn

recedite wrote: »

Obviously I would be against mandatory Arabic, unless I lived in a country where Arabic was the normal day to day language, or even the lingua franca. As English is here.

I’m beginning to think you can’t read. I didn’t say mandatory Arabic.

recedite

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I’m beginning to think you can’t read. I didn’t say mandatory Arabic.

You said "only teaching through Arabic". That's even worse.

Whats your point, that English is a foreign language imposed and maintained by a colonial oppressor?
I think we're done here.

Franz Von Peppercorn

recedite wrote: »

You said "only teaching through Arabic". That's even worse.

I said some schools teaching only through Arabic. If there are no mandatory or official languages that’s possible. My guess is you want to keep one official language but not the other, however constitutionally

Whats your point, that English is a foreign language imposed and maintained by a colonial oppressor?
I think we're done here.

I’m not. First please do not engage in strawman arguments. I never said anything about English, and I am not a gaelgoir.

Secondly you are leaving because you’ve been fairly rigorously schooled on the constitutionality of removing the Irish language from schools.

recedite

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You may be right that the teaching of Irish doesn't have to be mandatory but if so then English also would have to be non-mandatory, as both have equal status.

I don't think that follows.
A subject is made mandatory because it is deemed an important knowledge asset in life, not because it has a particular constitutional status. Maths is mandatory, but where does it get that status from? Simply because it is deemed to be an important thing to know.



Having said that, I could imagine lawyers lining up on both sides of the argument, just like they have done in the "provides for" wording as mentioned earlier. Once that happens, political inertia usually sets in and no changes can occur.