Aus and USA Irish

Malleeboy

Often see portrayals of US families of Irish descent on US TV, that are incredible self consciously and demonstrable Irish culturally. Whereas in Australia, there just just the same level of conscious Irishness. Even though to my understanding the percentage of Irish people in Australia was much higher (around 25% at Federation) compared to (from what I've read) around 10% in the US.

As one example or greatwer Irish influence in Australia historically is in politics, JFK is lauded as the first descended Irish US President, when his nearest Irish ancestor appears to be a G-GF (Great-Grandfather) and that in 1961-63. Whereas Australia had Irish descended PM's starting with Bruce 1923-25 (F and M Irish born, but Dad was from a Scots family), Scullin 29-32 both parent Irish born, Lyons 32-39 both parents Irish born, Fadden 41 both parents Irish, Curtin 41-45 both parents Irish, Forde 45 both parents Irish, Chifely 45-49 Mum Irish parents, Dad's parents both Irish born.

Is there as actually as strong a cultural linkage with Irish Americans to be Irish as is portrayed?
Given there doesn't appear to be that same linkage to Irishness in Australia as I see portrayed in the US, the question I have is why, given the much higher percentage of Irish ancestry in Australia?

My thoughts are maybe...
1) The higher percentage in Australia meant Irish were included and not be excluded as much as they were historically in the US? Therefore they didn't need to cling together as much
2) Australian's were less religious inclined than Americans, so Catholics and Protestant married each other more often?

Peregrinus

Malleeboy wrote: »

Often see portrayals of US families of Irish descent on US TV, that are incredible self consciously and demonstrable Irish culturally. Whereas in Australia, there just just the same level of conscious Irishness. Even though to my understanding the percentage of Irish people in Australia was much higher (around 25% at Federation) compared to (from what I've read) around 10% in the US.

As one example or greatwer Irish influence in Australia historically is in politics, JFK is lauded as the first descended Irish US President, when his nearest Irish ancestor appears to be a G-GF (Great-Grandfather) and that in 1961-63. Whereas Australia had Irish descended PM's starting with Bruce 1923-25 (F and M Irish born, but Dad was from a Scots family), Scullin 29-32 both parent Irish born, Lyons 32-39 both parents Irish born, Fadden 41 both parents Irish, Curtin 41-45 both parents Irish, Forde 45 both parents Irish, Chifely 45-49 Mum Irish parents, Dad's parents both Irish born.

Is there as actually as strong a cultural linkage with Irish Americans to be Irish as is portrayed?
Given there doesn't appear to be that same linkage to Irishness in Australia as I see portrayed in the US, the question I have is why, given the much higher percentage of Irish ancestry in Australia?

My thoughts are maybe...
1) The higher percentage in Australia meant Irish were included and not be excluded as much as they were historically in the US? Therefore they didn't need to cling together as much
2) Australian's were less religious inclined than Americans, so Catholics and Protestant married each other more often?

Australians may be less religiously observant, but until the last couple of generations they were strongly sectarian; Catholic-Protestant intermarriage was problematic, and was relatively rare. Public sector appointments were carefully doled out to people of the "right" religion. Etc, etc.

But I think you are spot-on with number 1. Australian society and culture has been hugely shaped by Irish culture (to the point that my Australian-born and raised wife, who has lived both in England and in Ireland, found Ireland much more familiar to her than England). The result is that Irish heritage isn't particularly distinctive, whcih is why there's no strongly-identified Irish-Australian community in Australia.

AngryHippie

Malleeboy wrote: »

My thoughts are maybe...
1) The higher percentage in Australia meant Irish were included and not be excluded as much as they were historically in the US? Therefore they didn't need to cling together as much
2) Australian's were less religious inclined than Americans, so Catholics and Protestant married each other more often?

96.7% of the Australian population have indigenous heritage
98.4% of the US population have indigenous heritage

There are a few factors at play that I can think of, namely:

• Proximity - Australian affairs only made headlines in Ireland when there had been a catacylsm
• Irish politicians and media have always "hokeyed" up the links between the two the US and Ireland, Irishness gave Americans an identity in an otherwise very segregated society, Powerful US connection made Irish leaders feel important on a global scale. Inferiority complex at play.
• Australians identify with their heritage, but there is a guilt complex about the first settler's treatment of the indigenous population, whereas the US still has an attitude of meh...genocide, wild west, guns woohoo about their history
• Aussies have a strong sense of national pride, but they don't have to be united in a war footing patriotic sense, they have enough enemies from mother nature down here not to start worrying about sticking fingers in the 3rd world, or starting wars with dictators to spread their "democratic" governance model
• Far lower religious influence over here. religion is basically a private gig.
  The US was the birthplace of fcuk knows how many religions, cults and weird sects of all sort of gibberish. Funny what sort of asshattery a tax-exempt status can inspire.....
• There was never quite the same level of discrimination (in the last century at least) against Irish in Aus, so there was no need to organize as you have pointed out. Gangs, unions and networks in the US were always a huge part of society due to the total lack of social protections and the wealth disparity.
• There was very little fund-raising for the RA over in Aus back in the day, it was too far away.
• Aussies Love Beer, Irish Love Beer, more beer=less feckin messing and meddling of the American sort and more together-ness overall

Peregrinus

AngryHippie wrote: »

96.7% of the Australian population have indigenous heritage . . .

Wait, what?

Only about 3.3% of the population identify as indigenous. Are you saying another 93% have indigenous heritage but don't acknowledge it, or are you using "indigenous" in some non-standard sense?

Victor

Malleeboy wrote: »

Whereas Australia had Irish descended PM's starting with Bruce 1923-25 (F and M Irish born, but Dad was from a Scots family), Scullin 29-32 both parent Irish born, Lyons 32-39 both parents Irish born, Fadden 41 both parents Irish, Curtin 41-45 both parents Irish, Forde 45 both parents Irish, Chifely 45-49 Mum Irish parents, Dad's parents both Irish born.

Demographics have changed hugely since then. In 1921, there were 5.5 million people in Australia. Today there are 25.5 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Australia

As of 2016, there are only about 75,000 Irish in Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_Australia

Tristram

Victor wrote: »

Demographics have chnage hugely since then. In 1921, there were 5.5 million people in Australia. Today there are 25.5 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Australia

As of 2016, there are only about 75,000 Irish in Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_Australia

And somewhere in the region of 2.3 million Australians of Irish heritage according to the 2016 census.

Malleeboy

Peregrinus wrote: »

Australians may be less religiously observant, but until the last couple of generations they were strongly sectarian; Catholic-Protestant intermarriage was problematic, and was relatively rare. Public sector appointments were carefully doled out to people of the "right" religion. Etc, etc.

But I think you are spot-on with number 1. Australian society and culture has been hugely shaped by Irish culture (to the point that my Australian-born and raised wife, who has lived both in England and in Ireland, found Ireland much more familiar to her than England). The result is that Irish heritage isn't particularly distinctive, which is why there's no strongly-identified Irish-Australian community in Australia.

Thanks for the reply, the intermarriage things was anecdotally from my and my wife's families, we are both descended from colonial era Australians. We both have a couple of Catholic/Protestants marriages in our ancestries. For example my Dad was an extremely nominal Catholic, my Mum was a slightly less nominal Protestant, but it is was her that insisted we kids start of as Catholics as she thought we should share the faith of our Dad. Whereas Dad couldn't have given a rats.


The other difference maybe to with military history and the effects of geo-politics. Whilst the Irish vote twice defeated conscription during WW1 in Australia and being a conscript only army is linked to the lack of death penalty for desertion as well. Anzac day and Kokoda are almost religious observances to Australians, there is almost a simultaneous a pride in the military conflicts even though they were in some sense a British Imperial project, but they are also used as marks of differentiation to the British (especially in common portrayal the toffy English generals etc).

Geo-politically Ireland's perceived threat ( or culturally felt grievance) was with Britain. Whereas Australians (even Irish-Australians) had a far greater fear of invasion/dominance from our northern neighbors, and Britain was perceived until WW2 as our defender from this.
Ireland continued neutrality is very different from Australia's almost constant war engagement. It is hard for me to perceive disliking the Poms so much that I wouldn't want to fight the Nazi regime or the Japanese empire (Changi/Death marches/Vivian Bullwinkle).

Australia until after WW2 was around 25% Irish descent, we are from my perspective as much a country created by the Irish as anybody else. Most of these immigrants chose to come during the gold rushes, especially to Victoria. However apart from AFL/Gaelic football and folk songs (eg Wild Colonial Boy) there is little linking us.

jackbhoy

It's a good question. The US seems quite unique in the way that people who are 4 or 5 or more generations removed from Irish emigrants still identify a culturally Irish. They often have a view of Ireland that is more aligned with Ireland their ancestors left than the country today. I still remember our American relatives visiting for first time in the late 80s and having a suitcase full of toilet paper as their granddad told them we all had outhouses and use grass and dock leafs to wipe our arses

Malleeboy wrote: »

My thoughts are maybe...
1) The higher percentage in Australia meant Irish were included and not be excluded as much as they were historically in the US? Therefore they didn't need to cling together as much

Like the US the catholic Irish were certainly excluded and discriminated against for the least the first 120 odd years from first fleet arrival. The Melbourne Argus newspaper archives show editorials and cartoons depicting Irish "Fenians" with primate type characteristics, as sneaky drunks, not to be trusted and generally as troublemakers. Pretty much the same as how the indigenous peoples were portrayed. Sydney papers were similar.
Most of the socially accepted influential and successful Irishmen from pre WW1 era were of Protestant Irish families in the professions.
Also a bit like NYC/Boston the Irish were a huge presence in police force and union movements in pre and few decades post federation, it seems around this time we started to become more accepted. We were probably only really fully accepted once the more catholic, more dark skinned Italians and Greeks started arriving, allowing us to be accepted as white and join the true blue aussie lads abusing the new immigrants!

AngryHippie

Peregrinus wrote: »

Wait, what?

Only about 3.3% of the population identify as indigenous. Are you saying another 93% have indigenous heritage but don't acknowledge it, or are you using "indigenous" in some non-standard sense?

The exact inverse sense in fact FML.

Neon_Lights

I think the Irishness was beaten out of them by the brits

Xertz

I’d suspect it’s two fold

1) The fact that politically Ireland and the US also broke away from the British Empire.

There’s a certain common thread in Irish and American history even if they’re not identical. The two countries effectively define themselves as having been founded on a revolution. The French also tend to find common ground with Ireland, even though their revolution was essentially against their own aristocratic system and France continued as an imperial power after the revolution. However they still tend to define their identity as having been forged by it.

Australia, Canada and New Zealand have had a far more benign relationship with the British Empire and really more of a fizzling our of those connections than any kind of dramatic cutting of ties. So I’m guessing that Irish identity in Australia existed in the past in the context of Australia being part of what was the British Empire and that’s probably why it’s not as visible as in the USA.

2) that Irish Americans tend to have faced very hard core discrimination in the US, particularly during the waves of emigration during the famine in the 19th C. Australia at that time was less established and more of an outpost. So you’d a banding together of Irish Americans to gain political influence, recognition and ultimately establishment respect within the US system. Whereas in Australia I think that likely happened without quite as much drama as the country developed in a big way much later than the USA and from a different base.

The other aspect is the US is simply a lot closer to Ireland geographically, so you’ve always had a lot of contact, especially with east cost cities like Boston and New York. You’re talking about relatively cheap, 5 to 6 hour flights vs getting to Australia which is a lot more expensive and takes a typically a couple of days if you include a layover. So there’s just much more frequent and deep contact.

Also I think in general Americans tend to have had their American and their ancestral identities. Despite all of its present day and historical issues, it still is one or the most genuinely multicultural countries on the planet and has been for a very long time. Australia’s obviously got common threads in the sense that most of its population were immigrants, but they were, at least initially, from a less diverse range of countries. It’s become far more diverse in the last 50+ years but, the history isn’t quite the same as the USA, despite similarities.