Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP
Options
Comments
-
Agree on the first part.
One eyed Jack wrote: »There’s a correlation between race and social status if someone wants there to be one.
If someone wants there to be one? That strikes me as odd. If Africans are coming into a western nation without the education/skills (or financial resources to get set up), then they'll likely end up at the bottom of society in terms of income. Their race is a factor when comparing them with other similar groups... it's not a matter of deciding to focus on race entirely, because that would be a matter of racism. Which I hope you're not suggesting about those here... (I don't think you are, but that opening sentence made me.. think along those lines)There are many correlations can be made such as any particular demographics attitudes to education, attitudes to their place within society in terms of their perception of class, their attitudes towards their own people, their attitudes towards other people, and all these are contributing factors which influence social mobility so much as to say there are ‘certain’ racial/cultural groups who are at the bottom, and some who are at the top. You’ll be familiar I suppose with how Chinese children fare in Irish education, I suppose I’d include Eastern European children in that too - genuinely excel far and above Irish children when it comes to mathematics, but far below Irish children when it comes to the main language used in Irish schools. No amount of replacements for corporal punishment can address that discrepancy.
Well, first off, I mentioned corporal punishment in regards to anti-social behavior... not in regards to any other aspect of society. Context is important. Which I believe you know, and yet, you decided to put that in. Seems strange to me.
Secondly, I don't see how you're disagreeing with me about social mobility and the difficulties those migrants face, when they enter a nation at that level.Migrants are already at average Irish levels because the vast majority of migrants are as well educated as Irish people, with the main barrier apart from their qualifications not being recognised in this country is the language barrier.
Hold up. Their educational qualifications, (if they exist at all) do matter in terms of quality. I've taught at various levels of education abroad, and there are gaping holes in many educational systems. We might criticise our own education for being lacking, but it's far better funded and fit for purpose than what you'll find in most third world countries. Getting a qualification in most African colleges is not comparable with an Irish one, except, in some cases where that African college has received the funding and recognition for being honest, and effective in teaching.
As an example, say from teaching at University level in Mainland China, it is extremely common for exam grades to be 'marked up' due to being an ethnic minority. Each semester I receive a list of student numbers who are minorities, and are told to give them special attention. Just as it's still quite common for Professors to be bribed into passing or giving better marks to students (in spite of the lackluster/selective anti-corruption initiatives by the CCP).
Education is not equal across the world. Not simply the implementation and transferal of knowledge, but there is so much corruption in many countries, which is why there is so much emphasis within EU Educational qualifications for commonly acceptable standards.
Skilled/educated (to a reasonably high standard) can prove their worth.. and ability easily enough to be comparable or better than Irish people. Sure. But the majority of migrants we've received who are on the bottom of the economic poll didn't enter because they were extremely skilled/educated people.Then there are those migrants, and I get what Wibbs means by “importing an underclass”, with all the associated problems of their associating themselves with an underclass of Irish society which already exists here (their common understanding being opportunities for anti-social and criminal behaviour), and it’s only those people really, or that class of people, which need to be targeted as a whole, rather than assuming by default that migrants are entering the country to take advantage of our generous social welfare system, when the criminal element don’t need it, and the employable element don’t want it.
Another "hold on" moment. It's okay to take them as a whole for other causes, but not for consideration that they're seeking handouts or... Seems odd.
In any case, I don't believe that most are coming here with the aim of getting on welfare. Oh, I do believe that they're aware of the benefits of living in a welfare state, and want the improvements in health, education, etc when compared to their own country.. but I don't see anything wrong with that.
The problem is that there aren't the jobs for them. I've said this multiple times already. We don't have a manufacturing base, or large enough service economy (which is where low skilled people typically end up working in), to cover the needs of so many low-skilled migrants. Those industries aren't growing, and we already have a native population of low skilled people wanting those positions.
In addition, those positions are typically temporary, unreliable, and provide a rather low income for people who have no resources from a family network (here) to help them get by. As such, government supplements are required... which still won't provide them with enough to be comparable to the average Middle Class Irish family, which they want to experience.I prefer to focus on the potential of the employable element than get bogged down in trying to change some people’s habits of a lifetime. I’ve no interest in breaking my balls at that craic, and in my experience the people who pretend they do care about those people whom they claim can’t fend for themselves (or those who are left behind as you say), are as much a drain on society as the criminal element, only for the fact that they’re legitimately funded by the various Government departments and the HSE, and they don’t actually want any kind of social progress or policy to interfere with their income.
I honestly don't have much of an opinion on that. Every nation has a portion of the population who fail or never really attempt to succeed. I see little reason to increase the population of such people in Ireland.. Yes, I do actually believe that most migrants who come to Ireland want to succeed... but I don't believe Ireland will ever have the resources available to help them to succeed.. and each failure means more people staying on welfare or other government supplements (both while attempting to succeed, and if/when they fail to achieve parity with others)
You see, I look at the investment angle of all this. Low skilled/educated people entering Ireland, even should they speak the language, will still need years to bring their educational qualifications in line with European/Irish standards. They'll need government support while they're studying full-time, or an extended period of support, if it's done part-time. For them, and their family, should they have one. Then, there's the difficulty in getting work.. I'm sure you're aware of just how often people graduate to find that their major is no longer in demand... or never was... but expecting to easily find work thereafter.
Nope. Most of these migrants are a poor investment. I don't see the upside for the nation. Again, I've no issue with EU migration or those from outside the EU with skills/education that is in demand... but I see little practical point in allowing immigration of poorly skilled labor. For Ireland. For bigger industrial nations, like Germany, I can see reasons for wanting it... but nope. Not for Ireland.0 -
-
-
-
oh boy... Wibbs... Let's go then Multiculturalism on the back of colonisation, invasion and empire building has been a part of human society since forever and in damned near every case the natives did badly out of it and in the majority of cases caused division and racism as you note(though for the majority of European history racism was far less in play as the overwhelming majority of Europeans were White, with some Arab in Spain and Greece). Surely not something we should emulate?
This is actually completely untrue, simply because BEFORE the great expansions of the so called age of discoveries, military conquests where done through being sure the locals where cared for, a peaceful conquered population is more profitable than a hostile rebelious one.
Sumerians did this, Hitites did this, Egyptians did this, Persians did this, Alexander the Great did this all along his expansion through Asia and the Romans did this. The reason these civilizations, some of them lasted thousands of years was precisely by learning to provide and to not ostracize who they conquered. Even the muslims did this in southern Europe. ´
There's examples of rebellions of course there is but when you think of something like the Roman Empire and you study it's expansion in places like the Iberian Peninsula you will see it was not empire building it was a slow expansion to establish trade routes. Trade and money was important and keeping the people happy meant trade would flow easily. Many Roman Emperors for example gave citizenship to so called barbarians precisely to ensure those tribes would be assimilated in the roman way of life and not wage unnecessary instability. If you look at how long the Roman Empire lasted and how few the rebellions where you will notice this to be true. They actually had more civil wars than actually so called natives rebelling... and that is a testament not to thought of superiority but to their understanding of including conquered peoples in the Empire... and no this was not consensual back then as history showed, one of the main reasons Caesar was stabbed in the senate was his willingness to have new senators from gaulish blood in Rome. Which angered the traditional native Roman families. But guess what? Augustus ended up doing the same and it became the norm. The end of the Roman Republic was effectively the end of the traditional roman families in Rome, but today we mostly remember the Roman Empire not the Roman Republic...
If you want a popcorn way to learn about this I suggest you have a watch at HBO's Rome. Or better... get the blu-ray, as you can watch each episode with historical notes.
Actually the Basque link is now seen as old hat and incorrect, though oft repeated. It was based on a rough sketch of the haplogroup R1b which is commonly found at the edges of western Europe. When they look at the subclades Basques have quite a different type to the Irish. Basques are mostly Spanish/French with some isolated gene differences because of their isolation(and they're different to Basques who lived 4000 years ago).
As for knowing our history: The native Irish are almost entirely, well natives, farmers who came in during the Bronze and Iron ages overwhelming the earlier hunter gatherer peoples. We're not "celts". Even the idea of celts owes more to 19th century nationalist thinking than any historical reality. The Romans and the Greeks who knew of them at the time could barely make up their mind what or who or where the Keltoi were. Later mixes came from Vikings and English, both on the back of conquest. As for how much of an impact that mix was?
Professor Gianpiero Cavalleri, who helped to devise the study, told TheJournal.ie: “In terms of the genetic diversity for Irish people, there’s actually very little. And the diversity we do see is very subtle.”
That is all nice and well put until you actually read the original study you so valiantly posted images off which... shows numerous genomes which proves the melting pot I mentioned
But let's look at the study... which is here:
The Irish DNA Atlas: Revealing Fine-Scale Population Structure and History within Ireland
And here's wha'ts in it:
"In conclusion we have identified fine-scale genetic structure in Ireland that is geographically stratified and surprisingly faithful to the historical boundaries of Irish Provinces and kingdoms. We have detected two sources of admixture into Ireland. One is associated with a significant level of Norwegian ancestry, which we date to the time of Norse-Viking activity. The second is associated with Scottish and English ancestry and dates to the times of the Ulster Plantations. Our work informs on Irish history, and by outlining fine-scale structure across the island, we hope can aid the study of genetic diseases within Ireland, and others populations with Irish ancestry."
What the study proves is that there is a genetic origin in certain areas of Ireland connected with local history not that it's an immaculate Irish gene, because it has been like it says a big part of Norwegian and Northern French genes...
Furthermore...
"Population Structure within Ireland
We assembled a combined dataset of individuals with Irish and British ancestry, to detect population structure within Ireland, within the context of neighboring Britain. "
In short, if you're looking for water in a lake... you'll find water no?
Genes are not a clear A or B, if you had bothered to even open the study you so happily showed you'd see this graphic in it:
Which literally discredits what you where saying... you can clearly see the amount of diversity in the gene in which there is a majority of one specific origin... this is pure genetics, there is no one on this planet that is 100% pure one gene...
oh and do you notice that percentage of "spanish" in it? That's precisely the proof of the Basque ancestry that you're trying to deny...A) the western empire had already crumbled and
the hermit traffic was very much going the other direction, with Irish missionaries to Britain and then Europe, getting as far as Italy, Spain, Kiev and the like. The "Land of Saints and Scholars" was imported culturally, but not by mass migrations of people and was very much an export market on that score. I can give you a long list of Irish missionaries into Europe, the list of Europeans that came here is tiny by comparison(and most would be Welsh, non Saxon English and Scots).
Huh... no... nope and no
The first Christians arrived in Ireland in the 5th century and the "official" date for the fall of the empire is after 476...
Also the establishment of Irish Christianism occurs from the 5th century on and Eastern expansion from the 6th century on...
Lastly the Christianization of Kievan Rus only occurs in the 9th century...
Sources:
Christianity in Ireland
Fall of the Western Roman Empire
History of Christianity - Western Missionary Expansion
Christianity in the 6th century - Irish Missionaries
Christianity in the 7th century
Christianization of Kievan Rus'
If you want aditional literary sources I recomend:
The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization
and specially:
The Evolution of the Late Antique World
Lastly, to have an easy popcorn type of knowledge, you can always watch the TV Show Vikings, they're actually right in the final season in Kievan Rus territory and dealing with early christianization of the territory...Actually there isn't and outside of the plantations(hardly a recipe for peace and harmony) what movements did occur were absolutely tiny in number. French Huguenots were one of the largest and that was under 5000 people. There are Jews here from the late Medieval, but again in tiny numbers(they seemed to have fitted right in with the locals, with a Jewish major being elected to the office of Mayor in Cork in the 1600's IIRC. Something that would have been vanishingly rare in the rest of Europe).
This is again incorrect
Because of the perfect position of Ireland in the western northern atlantic, the trade routes from north america including Spanish, Portugese, Dutch British and French ships all passed through Galway and along all the ports in Ireland. The trade routes where so profitable that made Ireland a very good place for piracy to prey on these trading ships. Exactly like in Southern Portugal and Span the trade routes out of the mediterranean where easy prey for pirates. Both Western south-western coast of Portugal and Ireland are filled with watch towers, guard towers to spot the pirates...
There's a very good book recently released by a UCC scholar on this subject matter
The Alliance of Pirates: Ireland and Atlantic piracy in the early seventeenth century"Whatever about an "immaculate culture of Christians" Ireland is one of most "native" nations in Europe and when it hasn't been in the case of English interference it didn't do the locals any good, nor many of the migrants and the Scots demographic are very close to us genetically, the same "race".
Huh... again.. no it's not like the study you linked above shows. Also the only person talking about race here is you. The idea of a pure race, a pure gene, is itself a belief in racial superiority that Hitler himself praised extensively.
Aditionally your pure Irish gene has absolute zero to do with culture, genes don't determine cultures. Cultures are built on traditional behaviours constructed on top of each other for thousands of years and even in this there aren't pure cultures or intact cultures. Even the secluded Tibetans had contacts with other cultures and the idea that multiculturalism is a new things is non-sensical at best.
Cultures always mingled between themselves, you have a perfect example of this in the US and how many cultures from around the world ended up existing in that one country... though to the much detriment of native Americans of course...
Or if you want another literary source that shows the horrors of colonialism but also how in the end it was the mixing of cultures that established the Portuguese rule in India:
Conquerors: How Portugal Forged the First Global Empire
So again, this fearful idea that the non-natives are out to eat your culture for breakfast is non-sensical, basic and pretty much racist...
The basic reality is because they're not blue eyed and fair skinned some people feel threatened by them or superior to them. This IS racist and xenophobic.
Also, talks about an Irish culture when half the culture in this country is actually British? It's the most pandering to your oppressors' that I could think of... the guys gave you the potato, cut down your forests, prosecuted your religion, starved you to death, killed your rebels, burned down Cork and still...
still you have your tea to drink with your milk and love your fish and chips (both staples of British culture btw) and still...
and still you are afraid brown and black people are out to get your "culture"... xD
But back on topic let's make a case for Irish Culture.
So here's a tiny challenge for you:
Name me:
5 Irish Dishes that you can say are 100% Irish
5 Irish Deserts that you can say are 100% Irish
5 Irish Drinks that you can say are 100% Irish
and lastly
5 Irish Culture Traits you can 100% say they are Irish and not taken or influenced from somewhere or some other culture.
EDIT: What I mean to write was that BEFORE the great expansions of the so called age of discoveries, military conquests where also done through being sure the locals where cared for, a peaceful conquered population is more profitable than a hostile rebellious one.
Just want to be 100% clear I am not for colonialism and fully understand how much crap it was brough around the world. I will correct this now on my original post with an edit note.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't you worry I have enough of a grasp of history to see through your nonsense.
I'm sorry, but you clearly have zero grasp of history and I can tell you that as I have a degree in History and Archaeology by the University of Lisbon. On top of that all you do is just spit out ad hominem and add nothing to the conversation.
If you want I can send you my diploma and my research papers, I'd glad you help you understand a bit of history
Otherwise be my guest, I'll wait for you to learn something from my words 0 -
Well I'd not go so far as to say nonsense, more like oft repeated and believed historical half truths. Celts being a classic example. The Irish aren't nor were ever celts. Certainly not as a population. Even culturally an expert in the field can look at a "celtic" object found in a dig and be able to narrow down where in Europe it originally came from. Saying the Irish are/were celts is akin to saying the Irish are Italians just because they were Christian. The Basque/Irish connection another example. It was jumped upon a few years ago on the back of rough interpretations of genetic clades and repeated until it became a bar stool truth. Latterly the idea that Ireland was a genetic melting pot of peoples long before the Celtic Tiger* has gained some favour, but again the evidence shows this to be at best a half truth at most utterly wrong. A small bunch of islands like Orkney with a tiny population has more genetic diversity and evidence of migration than the whole country of Ireland.
*we're not Celts and we never had Tigers outside of zoos, which should have given us some food for thought about that daftness.
Another information factually wrong. The so called Celtic Revolution pretty much reached Ireland too, obviously it wasn't just Ireland or they had origins in Ireland, it was just another culture that reached Ireland too in that melting pot you want to deny, yet post articles precisely about it...
We studied in great detail in Portugal this culture as we had also an influence in our archaeological data as the information below shows:
Celts
So no... calling the Irish Celts is not like calling them Italians, is like calling them Europeans because it was a culture that expanded all around Europe, just like the Indo-Europeans did before and the Neolithic Revolution/Megalithism Culture folks did before too...
I'll wait for you to answer point by point to my previous post because I love to deconstruct pseudo-historians like yourself 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
You have him now, he’ll never be able to name five Irish deserts.
I’m reminded that if you wish to delete a people, you first delete their history and culture.
Do you mind if I fight back a little bit?
You’re wrong about many things.
The Irish nation have always been overwhelmingly the numerically (if not politically) dominant grouping on this island for over a thousand years. Many other groupings have arrived and made their presence felt but were in almost all cases eventually absorbed by the natives becoming “more Irish than the Irish themselves”.
The one obvious exception to this were the Ulster planters, who
arrived in too great a number to be assimilated. Their presence on the island of Ireland has led to centuries of bloodshed which are in themselves an argument against multiculturism.
Of course, in common with the rest of the world, we have been heavily influenced by Anglo-American culture, through the dubious marvels of technology. Yet, we remain a distinctive nation we our own, indigenous, unique language, culture, music, literature, sports and collective history.
Ireland has been an unusually homogenous country throughout its recorded history. This homogeneity was our strength after independence: we remained a peaceful, stable society as much of the rest of Europe slipped the dark era of ethnic/religious violence that was the inter-war years and World War 2 itself.
A line of propaganda has arisen in the last few years which insists we have always been a multicultural society. This is a historical lie fabricated to buttress modern political and corporate agendas.
In just the last 20 years our homogeneity has been deliberately stripped from us to serve a largely corporate agenda. With it will fall our peaceful and stable society. We have seen clearest rumblings of this in Dublin over the last few days.
I’m immensely proud to be Irish. I’m proud of our achievements as a nation, of the successful society we have built on this island, of my Irish ancestry and of the gentle and human way Irish people tend to conduct themselves.
I’m not sure what your agenda is or why you’d take to an Irish forum to post so contemptuously about the Irish nation.
You see... this is exactly what I am saying and I could not agree more... there has always people coming in and they get assimilated into the irish gene pool just like the article above explains. So I could not agree more with you on this...
And no.. no one wants to erase Irish culture, but make you see that no culture simply pops up out of nowhere, but a constant stream of cultures, traditions mingling into each other that then gives you Irish Culture... Cultures change, as new information comes into that people and that culture. Obviously for us probably the biggest change we had was with the globalization of economy and so many different products cultures and people pouring into Europe with the maritime expansion of European nations.
It's very simple to understand how the simple fact that potato was massively introduced in Ireland had huge cultural changes, specially and obviously in Irish cuisine now seen as traditional...
This is all I am saying and has nothing to do with erasing a culture, but making some realize that there isn't a primeval Irish Culture disappearing before your eyes. Because this happened already when this Island was colonized by the British and as you know that was forcefully done and a lot of people died and suffered with it.. so I totally agree with your quote...
If you look around the world there are very very few cultures that have remained unchanged for thousands of years, probably some Pacific Islanders but even there obesity is rampant as they import food from other countries meaning, yet again a cultural and societal change... In a globalized world like the one we live in it's impossible to have immutable cultures, multiculturalism will happen unless you completely close all boarders and become North Korea? That's the only scenario I can see a country remaining with it's same culture and even there they have a huge influence from China...
Or are you going to tell me that 50 years ago Chinese and Indian restaurants where normal in Ireland? And have always been?
This change in the food consumed by the population has cultural influence, has influence in societal norms. How many times instead of a Sunday Roast Dinner, instead, you go and get take away?
And for me, there's nothing wrong with that, it's normal for these changes to happen.
My problem is seeing some say that people, just because they're brown or black as destroyers of an immaculate Irish culture that in reality it does not exist because no culture is immaculate and untouched.. believing in this is believing in cultural superiority, or in gene superiority like some have mentioned here and believing you are in danger just because that other guy is black or brown of staining your genes and culture...
Lastly.. thanks for keeping it civil and actually explaining your point of view allowing me to clear any misunderstanding on what I wrote.
In a conversation it's very important to listen as it is to expose your arguments and only in this way can it be a constructive debate where we can all learn... I for one had never heard of the Plantations for example. 0 -
oh boy... Wibbs... Let's go then
This is actually completely untrue, simply because the great expansions of the so called age of discoveries military conquests where also done through being sure the locals where cared for, a peaceful conquered population is more profitable than a hostile rebelious one.
Sumerians did this, Hitites did this, Egyptians did this, Persians did this, Alexander the Great did this all along his expansion through Asia and the Romans did this. The reason these civilizations, some of them lasted thousands of years was precisely by learning to provide and to not ostracize who they conquered. Even the muslims did this in southern Europe. ´
There's examples of rebellions of course there is but when you think of something like the Roman Empire and you study it's expansion in places like the Iberian Peninsula you will see it was not empire building it was a slow expansion to establish trade routes. Trade and money was important and keeping the people happy meant trade would flow easily. Many Roman Emperors for example gave citizenship to so called barbarians precisely to ensure those tribes would be assimilated in the roman way of life and not wage unnecessary instability. If you look at how long the Roman Empire lasted and how few the rebellions where you will notice this to be true. They actually had more civil wars than actually so called natives rebelling... and that is a testament not to thought of superiority but to their understanding of including conquered peoples in the Empire... and no this was not consensual back then as history showed, one of the main reasons Caesar was stabbed in the senate was his willingness to have new senators from gaulish blood in Rome. Which angered the traditional native Roman families. But guess what? Augustus ended up doing the same and it became the norm. The end of the Roman Republic was effectively the end of the traditional roman families in Rome, but today we mostly remember the Roman Empire not the Roman Republic...
If you want a popcorn way to learn about this I suggest you have a watch at HBO's Rome. Or better... get the blu-ray, as you can watch each episode with historical notes.
That is all nice and well put until you actually read the original study you so valiantly posted images off which... shows numerous genomes which proves the melting pot I mentioned
But let's look at the study... which is here:
The Irish DNA Atlas: Revealing Fine-Scale Population Structure and History within Ireland
And here's wha'ts in it:
"In conclusion we have identified fine-scale genetic structure in Ireland that is geographically stratified and surprisingly faithful to the historical boundaries of Irish Provinces and kingdoms. We have detected two sources of admixture into Ireland. One is associated with a significant level of Norwegian ancestry, which we date to the time of Norse-Viking activity. The second is associated with Scottish and English ancestry and dates to the times of the Ulster Plantations. Our work informs on Irish history, and by outlining fine-scale structure across the island, we hope can aid the study of genetic diseases within Ireland, and others populations with Irish ancestry."
What the study proves is that there is a genetic origin in certain areas of Ireland connected with local history not that it's an immaculate Irish gene, because it has been like it says a big part of Norwegian and Northern French genes...
Furthermore...
"Population Structure within Ireland
We assembled a combined dataset of individuals with Irish and British ancestry, to detect population structure within Ireland, within the context of neighboring Britain. "
In short, if you're looking for water in a lake... you'll find water no?
Genes are not a clear A or B, if you had bothered to even open the study you so happily showed you'd see this graphic in it:
Which literally discredits what you where saying... you can clearly see the amount of diversity in the gene in which there is a majority of one specific origin... this is pure genetics, there is no one on this planet that is 100% pure one gene...
oh and do you notice that percentage of "spanish" in it? That's precisely the proof of the Basque ancestry that you're trying to deny...
Huh... no... nope and no The first Christians arrived in Ireland in the 5th century and the "official" date for the fall of the empire is after 476...
Also the establishment of Irish Christianism occurs from the 5th century on and Eastern expansion from the 6th century on...
Lastly the Christianization of Kievan Rus only occurs in the 9th century...
Sources:
Christianity in Ireland
Fall of the Western Roman Empire
History of Christianity - Western Missionary Expansion
Christianity in the 6th century - Irish Missionaries
Christianity in the 7th century
Christianization of Kievan Rus'
If you want aditional literary sources I recomend:
The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization
and specially:
The Evolution of the Late Antique World
Lastly, to have an easy popcorn type of knowledge, you can always watch the TV Show Vikings, they're actually right in the final season in Kievan Rus territory and dealing with early christianization of the territory...
This is again incorrect
Because of the perfect position of Ireland in the western northern atlantic, the trade routes from north america including Spanish, Portugese, Dutch British and French ships all passed through Galway and along all the ports in Ireland. The trade routes where so profitable that made Ireland a very good place for piracy to prey on these trading ships. Exactly like in Southern Portugal and Span the trade routes out of the mediterranean where easy prey for pirates.Both Western south-western coast of Portugal and Ireland are filled with watch towers, guard towers to spot the pirates...
Are you talking about martello towers here?0 -
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,125 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59054
Yeah I'm sure native Americans who fell to Spanish, Portuguese and English swords and whips thought themselves well cared for. I can't believe you wrote a defence of colonialism with a straight face, but anyway...This is actually completely untrue, simply because the great expansions of the so called age of discoveries military conquests where also done through being sure the locals where cared for, a peaceful conquered population is more profitable than a hostile rebelious one.
For someone with qualifications in history you sure draw a wide revisionist arc with a crayon. With the general exception of the Persians who were more easy going as far as local cultures and religions were concerned the rest built empires by going in, kicking the locals teeth in, paying off a local leader to run the vassal state and insist the locals pray to the new gods and adopt the conqueror's customs. Rome most certainly did that. Become Roman, become that culture, language and mostly religion or else. Places like Israel who didn't do that quite enough found out pretty quickly what happened when you weren't "Roman" enough. Those empires did what empires tend to do, come in and replace local cultures and often people with a new one.Sumerians did this, Hitites did this, Egyptians did this, Persians did this, Alexander the Great did this all along his expansion through Asia and the Romans did this. The reason these civilizations, some of them lasted thousands of years was precisely by learning to provide and to not ostracize who they conquered. Even the muslims did this in southern Europe.
You claimed a "big percentage of genetics from the Basque Country in Ireland". This is quite simply wrong and based on out of date data and misconceptions.That is all nice and well put until you actually read the original study you so valiantly posted images off which... shows numerous genomes which proves the melting pot I mentioned
I stated that Ireland is one of the least genetically diverse countries in Europe and the facts back that up.Which literally discredits what you where saying... you can clearly see the amount of diversity in the gene in which there is a majority of one specific origin... this is pure genetics, there is no one on this planet that is 100% pure one gene...
Oh god... You really don't get how this works. OK, the now extinct bears of Ireland were more related to Iberian bears and particularly those found in northern Iberia and were less related to bears found in Britain. This does not mean Irish bears came from Spain on boats. It does mean that a earlier population of bears spread throughout western Europe, but a later population came in bred out the old bear genes, but they didn't do so in Ireland because of her isolation and similarly not enough of the new bears made it across the Cantabrian mountains so relict populations continued on. The Irish are a population of western European seaboard peoples, a population that ranged further in the past, but has been mostly swamped in most of western Europe by the later genetics of different people coming in.oh and do you notice that percentage of "spanish" in it? That's precisely the proof of the Basque ancestry that you're trying to deny...
The earliest classical references to Irish christians was when Paladius(later conflated with Patrick) was sent here to preach to "the Irish believing in Christ", which suggests there were pockets of christianity already here. No matter, you stated "Christianity brought hermits from all over Europe to Ireland, because of it's percieved remoteness of a land outside of the crumbling Roman Empire," This is a complete nonsense in the 5th century and it's a nonsense later on when the western empire fell and the insular church really got going. Unless you consider one Frenchman and one Englishman a mass of "hermits from all over Europe".Huh... no... nope and no The first Christians arrived in Ireland in the 5th century and the "official" date for the fall of the empire is after 476...
I'm afraid it doesn't. As I pointed out and the evidence clearly shows this, even the tiny population of the Orkney islands is more genetically diverse than the population of Ireland.Huh... again.. no it's not like the study you linked above shows.
Good oul Godwin. You may have missed the bit where I parenthesised "race".Also the only person talking about race here is you. The idea of a pure race, a pure gene, is itself a belief in racial superiority that Hitler himself praised extensively.
The US is a colony. Colonies are very different in population movements and diversity. Though at least the natives got a look in this time...Cultures always mingled between themselves, you have a perfect example of this in the US and how many cultures from around the world ended up existing in that one country... though to the much detriment of native Americans of course...
That you point to colonial imperial powers that subjugated and exploited local cultures and most certainly considered them inferior along racial lines as somehow a positive is pretty mad.Or if you want another literary source that shows the horrors of colonialism but also how in the end it was the mixing of cultures that established the Portuguese rule in India:
Conquerors: How Portugal Forged the First Global Empire
So again, this fearful idea that the non-natives are out to eat your culture for breakfast is non-sensical, basic and pretty much racist...But back on topic let's make a case for Irish Culture.
So here's a tiny challenge for you:
Name me:
5 Irish Dishes that you can say are 100% Irish
5 Irish Deserts that you can say are 100% Irish
5 Irish Drinks that you can say are 100% Irish
and lastly
5 Irish Culture Traits you can 100% say they are Irish and not taken or influenced from somewhere or some other culture.
McDonald's first opened in 1970's Ireland. We didn't require 10,000 Americans coming to Ireland for that to happen.
The potato became an Irish staple and we didn't require 10,000 Peruvians coming to Ireland for that to happen.
We drink coffee and tea and we didn't require 10,000 Arabians or Indians coming to Ireland for that to happen.
We speak English and and we didn't require... Oh wait... Yeah that went well.
Cultures do change all the time, they don't require mass migrations to do so and when mass migrations have happened in the past it has been on the back of conquest and colonisation and the local cultures didn't last too long.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,125 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59054
You stated; Then the Celts appeared and mingled with most populations While that may have happened in mainland Europe there is zero evidence of "celtic" gene flow into Ireland. It seems to have come here as a culture much like Christianity came here, by cultural exchange rather than by population migration. Hence my comparison to Italians.Another information factually wrong. The so called Celtic Revolution pretty much reached Ireland too, obviously it wasn't just Ireland or they had origins in Ireland, it was just another culture that reached Ireland too in that melting pot you want to deny, yet post articles precisely about it...
I never claimed to be a historian, you have. And yet your history is more problematic. [insert passive aggressiveI'll wait for you to answer point by point to my previous post because I love to deconstruct pseudo-historians like yourself here] Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Another information factually wrong. The so called Celtic Revolution pretty much reached Ireland too, obviously it wasn't just Ireland or they had origins in Ireland, it was just another culture that reached Ireland too in that melting pot you want to deny, yet post articles precisely about it...
We studied in great detail in Portugal this culture as we had also an influence in our archaeological data as the information below shows:
Celts
So no... calling the Irish Celts is not like calling them Italians, is like calling them Europeans because it was a culture that expanded all around Europe, just like the Indo-Europeans did before and the Neolithic Revolution/Megalithism Culture folks did before too...
I'll wait for you to answer point by point to my previous post because I love to deconstruct pseudo-historians like yourself
You certainly have the moral superiority one can only gain from a humanities degree anyway. Though usually the most cock-sure are full of the most ****e.0 -
-
-
-
OH MAN! I actually hoped you'd have the decency to at least try to admit something you're wrong... but obviously you don't...
All you did was just mumble about topics you hold no grasp and now that I caught you sudently play the passive agressive card that is always the same from people defending your beliefs.
I really hoped you'd learn something. Then you conclude with this:
McDonald's first opened in 1970's Ireland. We didn't require 10,000 Americans coming to Ireland for that to happen.
The potato became an Irish staple and we didn't require 10,000 Peruvians coming to Ireland for that to happen.
We drink coffee and tea and we didn't require 10,000 Arabians or Indians coming to Ireland for that to happen.
We speak English and and we didn't require... Oh wait... Yeah that went well.
Let me fix that for you:
McDonald's first opened in 1970's Ireland. We required millions of Irish to be "exported" to America
The potato became an Irish staple and we required 10,000 British coming to Ireland for that to happen.
We drink coffee and tea and we required 10,000 British coming to Ireland for that to happen.
We speak English and and we didn't require... Oh wait... Yeah that went well.
At least you got that last one right xD0 -
-
-
-
The evidence for the earliest brewers of beer are found in present day Iran, Iraq and Israel and rice beer was going down in China 6000 years ago(though it may well have been brewed even further back in present day Turkey). So it's simplistic to claim it was "created in Egypt". Even the first writings on it are Sumerian.
Oh well I didn't check that and pulled it off of my head, I mixed Beer and Bread aparently.
History of Bread
But you see, I have no problem in admiting when I'm wrong. You on the other hand... just simply lost the plot after I deconstructed your nativist bs
I really was thinking you'd learn something but obviously I keep forgetting people stuck in your ways despise any form of learning. They just want to be stuck in the same old dogmas forever.
A bit of an advice, have a read on the links I gave you at least. 0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »I never said that my experiences did... you're the one interjecting that assumption.
You obviously haven't spent any time in Egypt then.
No.. because it's a deflection, since I stated that you shouldn't/couldn't judge the people based on a national or cultural perception.
Ahh I have friends from there, and judging by their stories (and my own experiences in Lisbon and Porto) you're in no position to lecture Irish people about racial crime...
Bully for you. I haven't seen anyone associated to crime in many years... because I don't associate myself with any kind of groups that would be involved in crime.
I snipped a lot because I can't be bothered, because you didn't actually address what I wrote except to apply deflections. Consider your OP and my OP. And stop deflecting.
So...
1 - Yes you did, you erased the part where you said you got mugged for being white
2 - Yes I have been to Egypt a number of times
3 - No it's not a deflection, you want to justify your behaviour through saying entire continents feel the same which is not true...
4 - Yes I am very well aware of racism in my country and I'm the first one to point that out? So what's your point? That I can't point out how wrong you are here either? You only allow me to do so in my country is it? Though luck I'll denounce your bull**** here too as much as would do it in Portugal or in Egypt if I had seen it or anywhere else...
5 - Oh look again the imaculate Irish gene. Yes I'm sure you're extremely pure in your behaviour... nice try at another ad hominem but as always klaz, you have zero arguments, you just spit words and try to glue them to the cealing
6 - AHAHAH again with the Ad Hominem. I adressed everything you wrote again I find it so funny how you Irish with zero arguments just go down this road so easily
Now, don't be offended and report me to the admins now to have our comments removed again ok? 0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement