What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP
Comments
-
Jaysus I read the first few lines and said- here we go, how many are our politicians foisting on us!
Tell rte to get a camera crew out pronto, a few days of NGO's belittling us to do more on the airwaves and coveney the elder statesman will pronounce we'll take 100 initially.(we can't say the real figure at the start as there'll be mumblings about housing crisis etc etc)
6 -
Pretty much. When I was in China, there was a group of us (all living throughout Asia) who had met, liked each other, and stayed in contact. These would be guys who have lived in their respective Asian nations anything from 10 to 50 years, often marrying, and having kids. It doesn't matter where they were, and the level of involvement they had with their chosen country. To the locals they were foreigners, and would remain so forever. The color of someone's skin counts for too much for any kind of real acceptance to happen.
And this is borne out in most countries around the world where you look, or sound (even with learning the language, sounding like a native is often extremely difficult) different, will set you apart as a foreigner... regardless of what passport you have. It simply doesn't matter. Oh, you'll get smiles, and a degree of acceptance by living there for that extended period... but you'll still be considered foreign.
Which is why I find it so interesting the attitude in the West that foreigners are going to be accepted equally with natives.. and somehow these foreign people coming from cultures where this never happens, are going to embrace that, and not retain their own identities separate to that of the host nation? I guess this is why multiculturalism places so much importance on diversity.. since assimilation isn't a desired result, and honestly, I suspect integration isn't really desired either.
9 -
Ssh! You're not supposed to acknowledge that it's happening. It's racist to acknowledge the decreasing percentage of white Europeans in Europe. Unless you are celebrating it, then it's fine to talk openly about it.
9 -
If everyone is Irish, no-one is.
11 -
I would imagine that there is a difference between being ethnically Irish and being Irish in terms of nationality/citizenship.
Oh, I gather that pro-multiculturalists have sought to downplay the difference, or the importance of being ethnically <insert nation>, but it remains an important distinction for most people. Especially, when it can be used to claim some kind of minority status.
TBH I often wonder if the pro group ever get confused by the wide range of hats they wear, promoting one idea as being important in this situation, but then downplaying (or attacking) it when it relates to another group, usually the native one.
Having a million migrants gain Irish nationality doesn't mean that we have another million Irish people, except in terms of nationality. Most of them will continue to retain their sense of national identity and connections to their own culture, irrespective of a piece of paper... after all, they've been encouraged to think that way under the guise of multiculturalism.
10 -
Advertisement
-
And that stage of %'s, they will start pressing for their own culture to be accepted, and laws changed to reflect this, as what is happening in other Country's who have accepted large Nrs of immigrants.
7 -
The thing is that they don't need to have laws changed to reflect their interests. France is proof of that. By gathering enough of a population in a localised area, "minority" groups have been able to enforce their own cultural norms on the local area, either pushing natives out, or bullying other to oblige these foreign cultural norms. In that area. Yes, the national laws remain, but police stop visiting the area after a while, and invariably there's nobody to reinforce the host nations culture in the area.
Just do a search, and you'll find news reports, and personal observations about the creeping spread of foreign culture in French suburbs, especially in the south of the country.
Post edited by Ten of Swords on8 -
Klaz, you already posted before that Irish culture has changed dramatically since in your lifetime, and that immigrants are not the reason or cause of this change.
So, two questions, why is that cultural change is not a problem unless it is changing to reflect that of a society which contains, some, but by no means a majority of people from different backgrounds?
And two, why do we so most of the conversation lamenting the perceived changing of a culture instead of how to strengthen, maintain a specific one? We see threads on here frequently undermining 'traditional' examples of Irish culture whether it be media or entertainment people, having a strong faith, being avid members of various sporting communities etc. There's even a thread where people are lamenting the promotion of the Irish language.
2 -
The problem for Muslims is that they cannot change, the Quran forbids it, and for a practicing Muslim, Islam and the Quran is the most important thing in a their lives. It's even more important than their Family's or their Friends or anything as Islam comes first in all things. So not so surprising where they congregate in any Nrs, in an area, it will become Islamic.
7 -
Klaz, you already posted before that Irish culture has changed dramatically since in your lifetime, and that immigrants are not the reason or cause of this change.
Yes, I did. However, it's worth considering that the numbers of migrants have increased dramatically between that period and now... and later, over the next decade or two, the numbers will have increased further. In most of my posts, I have referred to when the populations of immigrant/foreign groups grow to a significant size, that they're able to directly influence the environment around them. In the past, Ireland didn't have those kinds of populations with migrants being more spread out.... without the concentration of other cultural groups, which we can see in other countries, such as France, which has a longer experience of immigration.
Also, I've said before that I'm not terribly concerned by immigration in Ireland as it exists today, although I don't like the policies behind them. I do have concerns about what comes next, when the effects of immigration and multiculturalism are taken into account, by looking at other European nations, which are ahead of us in experiencing this.
So, two questions, why is that cultural change is not a problem unless it is changing to reflect that of a society which contains, some, but by no means a majority of people from different backgrounds?
I have no idea. I haven't made such a case, considering the wording of your question. Irish society already has a culture that was shaped by the contributions of people from different backgrounds.
And two, why do we so most of the conversation lamenting the perceived changing of a culture instead of how to strengthen, maintain a specific one? We see threads on here frequently undermining 'traditional' examples of Irish culture whether it be media or entertainment people, having a strong faith, being avid members of various sporting communities etc. There's even a thread where people are lamenting the promotion of the Irish language.
Again, I have no idea, although if I was to guess it would be that it's more comfortable to complain about what we've lost, than committing to the work (which it would be) of encouraging others to strengthen what already exists. I'd say people are very good at waiting until the problem arrives, rather than preempting the problem and offering practical solutions, that they're willing to invest in themselves.
You do realise that your two questions have nothing to do with my posts? Only the introduction made any real connection to what I've posted previously.
5 -
Advertisement
-
She was on The Tonight Show last night, you'd swear DP was just one step up from a concentration camp the way she was going on about it and of course Claire Brock let her away with everything she said.
Says she is working full time now to improve things in DP, no need to do that at all sure Roddy O Gorman has promised them all free houses and we will foot the bill.
11 -
This is key. An identity which anyone can lay claim to is meaningless. There is this well meaning desire to not exclude people, to be nice. but for an identity to have any value, it has to be exclusive in some way.
For example, I will never be Japanese. I can move to Japan. I can learn the language. I can become an anime artist. I can bulk up and join a sumo wrestler gym. Etc. etc. But I will still never be Japanese. The Japanese people have a distinct history, experience and culture that I can admire, enjoy and to some extent partake in. But even so, I am not nor ever will be Japanese. Because they aren't trying to be Japanese, they just are. I'm Irish. I'm not trying to be. I just am. Even living in Japan, I'll still be an Irish person living in Japan.
We have effort based identities - sports, careers, educational achievements, etc, etc. Ethnic identity is not based on effort, but it remains important. Why else would I accept taxation with the aim of assisting other Irish people if a common Irish identity had no value? Expanding Irish identity to include anyone devalues us.
17 -
So, to clarify, Irish culture has changed in the past, and will change in the future, and you expect it to be an issue when it reaches a particular number of people from what? One different nationality? One different culture? One specific religion? What percentage of the population do you think it needs to be before this becomes the type of cultural change which is now a problem in your view. (I know I am asking you to predict the future, but that is what you yourself or doing)
You can't look at current issues in France or anywhere else and say that it is automatically going to happen in a particular way. Frances colonial past of its own at the very least ensures both a different national identity with respect to how others are viewed and influenced how people were integrated in to the country.
Why don't you advocate that Ireland should ensure that doesn't happen through being welcoming rather than being isolationist and unwelcoming, and completely ignorant of the experience of Irish people, to this very day, who travel to other countries. It's worth noting, 17% of the population of Ireland were born elsewhere, 17% of the people born in Ireland, go on to live their lives elsewhere. We travel as much as anyone.
You do realise that your two questions have nothing to do with my posts? Only the introduction made any real connection to what I've posted previously.
You do realise how debates and conversations evolve? This isn't Prime Minister Questions where we all have to submit questions for approval before they are accepted. Either answer them or don't, you don't need to express some form of indignation at being asked about a topic. Those questions were very relevant as they indicate your specific concern not being Irish culture changing, but your concerns about people of a specific background.
2 -
How about America? It too has a culture, one of integration of people from many different backgrounds. There are plenty issues with the country, so too with Japan, but to suggest that one is more inherently desirable than the other has no basis in reality. In fact, if you apply that logic to the evolution of the human race, we would probably not be here having this conversation as people would never have moved outside their circle/location/comfort zone or whatever way you want to describe it.
You argue that you could move to Japan, as you describe and never become Japanese, that is to imply that every Japanese person has the same knowledge, experience and level of integration with their history, or has to attain a benchmark of this to be considered Japanese, again something which likely has little or no basis in reality. So are some Japanese people more Japanese than others? Your post would suggest that this is possible and if so, how did that happen and could somebody born elsewhere in theory not do the same thing. Are people in Ireland with Anglo-Saxon names less Irish than the O'Sullivans and McCarthy's? How much less?
I'm not suggesting that people could live 20, 30 or 40 years in a country then travel to another country and immediately become one with that countries identity or heritage, but it could and does certainly happen over time. And another thing that is worth noting, a countries identity is significantly made up by the people who live there, wherever their origin, and it evolves over time naturally and from within, as pointed out by Klaz. If you feel the Irish culture or identity should be preserved, why not put effort in to advocating and promoting elements of the culture instead of being looking out in fear of what might be in God knows how many years in the future.
0 -
So, to clarify, Irish culture has changed in the past, and will change in the future, and you expect it to be an issue when it reaches a particular number of people from what? One different nationality? One different culture? One specific religion? What percentage of the population do you think it needs to be before this becomes the type of cultural change which is now a problem in your view. (I know I am asking you to predict the future, but that is what you yourself or doing)
You've read most of my posts on this, so you know that my concern is about cultures that are connected with Islam. Oh, my other concerns about immigration relating to a lack of education/skills and what kind of lifestyle they're going to have in a first world nation.
You're not asking me to predict the future. You're asking me to be specific about the future. And no, I'm not going to repeat all my previous posts about Islam and how it's established itself in Europe.
You can't look at current issues in France or anywhere else and say that it is automatically going to happen in a particular way. Frances colonial past of its own at the very least ensures both a different national identity with respect to how others are viewed and influenced how people were integrated in to the country.
That's fine, because I didn't. The chances of it happening here are high though, since it's happened in other nations without a colonial past, with the Irish government implementing similar policies to welcome and encourage immigration from certain areas, such as the M.East, and Africa. Similar to what Germany, and France did while multiculturalism was popular.
Why don't you advocate that Ireland should ensure that doesn't happen through being welcoming rather than being isolationist and unwelcoming, and completely ignorant of the experience of Irish people, to this very day, who travel to other countries. It's worth noting, 17% of the population of Ireland were born elsewhere, 17% of the people born in Ireland, go on to live their lives elsewhere. We travel as much as anyone.
I'd say that the many of the current problems in Europe happened because they were welcoming to these other groups, bending over backwards to provide for them.
And you're going off point here. I've never suggested that Ireland/Europe should become Isolationist and/or unwelcoming to immigration. I've always said that we should encourage skilled/educated migrants, giving a clear guide relating to our expectations of their behavior while in Europe. I favor limiting immigration, not ending it.
You do realise how debates and conversations evolve? This isn't Prime Minister Questions where we all have to submit questions for approval before they are accepted. Either answer them or don't, you don't need to express some form of indignation at being asked about a topic. Those questions were very relevant as they indicate your specific concern not being Irish culture changing, but your concerns about people of a specific background.
What indignation did I display? Was there the use of caps, insults, or snide remarks in my post? No? I merely wondered why you were assigning opinions/attitudes to me, that I didn't make, and then deciding to go on discussing them as if I had, along with a line of further questions. I guess I've become a little gun-shy when it comes to your posts, since that does tend to happen. As you've just admitted above.
6 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,125 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59054
What indignation did I display? Was there the use of caps, insults, or snide remarks in my post? No? I merely wondered why you were assigning opinions/attitudes to me, that I didn't make, and then deciding to go on discussing them as if I had, along with a line of further questions.
It's an all too common debate gambit in this back and forth and not just on this subject. The "How could you think like this! You must be angry!" or whatever. For me it's a mix of an inability to debate the points raised and a devotion to one's point of view that can't quite fathom how someone with a different point of view mighy hold such views quite reasonably.
How about America? It too has a culture, one of integration of people from many different backgrounds.
America is not a great example at all. It was born as a White Anglo Saxon Christian(and Protestant) nation and culture and has remained pretty close to that template and those outside it are quite stratified. Even though it has promoted its "melting pot" narrative, it's anything but for the most part. We see this in marriages. The vast majority of White people end up with other White people, Black with Black and so forth. The outliers would be East Asian women who are more likely to marry White men. Neighbourhoods also tend to strongly align with "race", as does economics and homelessness. Even areas like crime are decidedly not "integrated". EG If Black men were gaoled at the same rate as White the prison population of America would be instantly halved. If one were to magically remove all Black, Hispanic and Asian people from the United States of America it would be a significantly more "integrated" nation.
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.
6 -
And the circle starts its rotation once again.
People mention negatives about multiculturalism, people respond pointing out benefits, these are discounted as inconsequential and dismissed out of hand.
People give an example of one country, others respond about another, it is discounted as being inconsequential and dismissed out of hand.
Your point about black men being jailed at a particular rate is interesting, I wonder what the people who argue against the idea that there is systemic racism in America will make of that.
For me it's a mix of an inability to debate the points raised and a devotion to one's point of view that can't quite fathom how someone with a different point of view mighy hold such views quite reasonably.
This whole point applies to all sides of the discussion, as you know, and of course to say that the 'quite reasonably' is pretty subjective would be an understatement.
1 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,125 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59054
Your point about black men being jailed at a particular rate is interesting, I wonder what the people who argue against the idea that there is systemic racism in America will make of that.
I wouldn't be among that number. Racism is a major problem in the US and I would contend a problem in the wider "multicultural" west. It's pretty much a given in multicultural societies, increasing in severity the more different the incoming demographic is to the native ascendant culture. EG in Ireland A Ghananian is going to suffer far more from it than a Swede. It's one of the main reasons why I consider the multicultural politic to be a busted flush of wishful thinking. In every single multicultural western nation we see the same patterns in play. Those of African background are more likely to be poorer, less educated and more involved in antisocial behaviour than those of European and East Asian background. Racism is a huge part of that. It's not the only part to play of course and is more complex than that. For example; in the UK those of Indian background are on average richer, more educated and less likely to be involved in crime than those from a Pakistani background. Same "race". Eastern Europeans compared to Western Europeans similarly. Again the same "race". Groups like East Asians and Jews are hardly immune to racism and the latter have even been subjected to genocidal drives in living memory and yet they both do better on average than the native White populations. Internal cultural differences are clearly also in play.
The reason I regard much if not most of the argued positives of multiculturalism as "inconsequential and dismissed out of hand" is that they are remarkably easy to do so TMH. The negatives are far easier to list and measure. Vague references to exoticism, charity and the "Irish were emmigrants once" are nebulous and misrepresentative, or both. Never mind that multiculturalism is remarkably discerning about what actually constitutes it. As I noted earlier if every single non White European person left Ireland in the morning we would still be far more "multicultural" and "diverse" than we were 30 years ago, but is seems that wouldn't be diverse enough apparently.
This whole point applies to all sides of the discussion, as you know, and of course to say that the 'quite reasonably' is pretty subjective would be an understatement.
Not for me. I may not agree with some of your views, but I don't consider them unreasonable. I would just prefer the same regard going the other direction.
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.
10 -
The reason I regard much if not most of the argued positives of multiculturalism as "inconsequential and dismissed out of hand" is that they are remarkably easy to do so TMH. The negatives are far easier to list and measure. Vague references to exoticism, charity and the "Irish were emmigrants once" are nebulous and misrepresentative, or both. Never mind that multiculturalism is remarkably discerning about what actually constitutes it.
There's a couple of well known phrases that could go some way towards explaining this, and that is not to say that I agree with it entirely. A, we are familiar with the phrase 'If it bleeds, it leads'. Violence, death, aggression commonly get more attention then positive or lifting stories. Put it down to how we have evolved to be hardwired to pay attention to something which may harm us or an inherent attraction to such stories for whatever reason but this is a well known fact. Even instances of death which are not as dramatic, get less attention than expressively violent ones. 8 people were trampled to death at a concert in the US last week, if that was a terrorist attack, then there would be much more conversation about the matter with calls for immediate steps to ensure it didn't happen again. America fought for 20 years and spent trillions of dollars in Afghanistan on the back of 3,000 people being killed in the 9/11 attacks. Twice that number are still dying a week from Covid over 18 months since the deaths started on a large scale and people are largely ambivalent to it at this point.
The second phrase is similar to the first but focused on positive stories or experiences. It's kinda of the 'what have you done for me lately' variety with the insinuation being that no matter how much good is done, or has been done, it is easily dismissed.
I think both of these points are relevant when considering whether things are 'inconsequential and dismissed out of hand'. We don't notice/recognize/appreciate the benefits of something anywhere near as much as we notice threats or unpalatable features. But that doesn't mean that we should not try to do so. You see a lot of the advantages of multiculturalism as being 'exoticism' but that is to dismiss the joy/benefits/positivity that people experience on a much more consistent and widespread manner than the negative elements (albeit at a lower intensity).
And aside from that, our human experience has shown that when cultures do mix/interact/engage more positively, that is more harmonious that when they adopt a more fearful and isolationist approach to each other.
Finally, on one of your first points in referring to multiculturalism as being a busted flush. I think you are looking at it over too narrow a timescale. When you look at how societies have evolved throughout history, only in dramatic and tragic events does change come about within the space of even a few years. Outside of that it usually takes decades or more to see a distinctly different landscape from what was there before. The use of the internet, and social media, has and will continue to impact this significantly however as people become more and more familiar with elements of different cultures at a pace never before seen. There's always going to be areas or spots of conflict, but the general trend of the human race has been in a particular direction, and if for no other reason then the safety that 'generally' comes with that, I don't have a problem with this.
0 -
To be honest, the multicultural vibe and the "fight" against racism, tends to place so much emphasis on race as being important, that they're doing nothing beyond screaming into the night for it to end. They're encouraging the very thing they claim so much that they're against. When you elevate one group over another based on the color of their skin, that's going to result in racism continuing, because you make it an important distinction between people. When you remove race from the equation, downplaying the differences, then people will gradually stop considering race to be important, because it no longer is..
Oh, there will always be racism, because some people are conditioned that way or simply their experiences have brought about that feeling of superiority or inferiority (since racism can come from both). However, as a society, we can stop making race or the colour of peoples skin so important. That would be a great first step towards tackling racism... but the "disadvantaged"groups themselves, the activists involved, and the politicians don't want to remove such a talking point, especially when it's reinforced as being an important part of a person's identity.
That's why the US is such a mess. They've never really moved away from the problems within their society, just regurgitating it constantly. Alas, we're importing the same utterly retarded logic here, and following in their footsteps.
9 -
Advertisement
-
Well, America is whatever advocates of mass migration need it to be, isn't it? When it suits their argument, it is a fascist white supremacist totalitarian empire. When it suits differently, it is a multicultural economic zone which has traditionally welcomed and integrated peoples of all creeds and religions without fear or favour. It is the Schroedingers cat of countries: both white supremacist and inherently multicultural at the same time.
What I would point out is that Japan has its own issues, but as a broadly homogeneous country it is not at war with itself in the same way as the US is. While US politicians are busy demonising parents disagreeing with school boards as domestic terrorists, Japanese politicians are trying to deal with their own peoples problems. Diversity is a weakness, not a strength.
The reason I argue I could never be Japanese is because I don't view Japanese ethnic identity as being a collection of stereotypes that I can mimic. Japanese ethnic identity is completely independent of pursuing hobbies or skill sets that are considered to be inherently Japanese. Japanese culture is whatever the Japanese people pursue. The people define the culture, not the reverse. I don't understand how you missed that point.
I do agree that the culture of a state is defined by the people that live there. This is why mass migration is a problem. The USA was defined by European norms, not native american norms. Because Europeans and their descendants lived there. Increasingly, European norms (like fair trials, and the presumption of innocence) will diminish in the USA, because European descended Americans will diminish to minority status (without any of the legal protections). On current trends, "Irish" culture in the future will less and less be defined by Irish people. Not because the culture of ethnic Irish people has changed. But because ethnic Irish people will be less and less a share of all those living in Ireland. As I said above though, I don't view Japanese ethnic identity or Irish ethnic identity as being a collection of activity badges, like the Scouts. Ethnic identity is not frozen, unchanging and fixed. It is organic, it assimilates and changes over time. But that change is governed and regulated by the interests of the indigenous people. Not mass migration overwhelming the indigenous people.
The dream of mass migration advocates is that if enough mass migration occurs, ethnic strife must end from the sheer practical reality of surviving in a state with multiple ethnic identities. It is a utopian ideology like 20th century communism. But the reality is the Soviet Union, the utopian state of the workers without ethnic identity collapsed under the pressures of ethnic conflict. Ethnic identity - however malleable and hard to define - is important to people. And the people define the state.
13 -
The people define the culture, not the reverse.
You don't understand how I missed that point? Virtually everyone on this thread is arguing that this is not the case.
Your point about the culture of a state being defined by the people, I agree with, (and that is not to say that new arrivals are more influenced by the people already in place than the other way around). This has been the case throughout human history and will continue to be the case. There is no law that states that the culture of Ireland (or anywhere else) as it is in 2021 is the optimum culture and must be maintained.
And finally, there is no 'dream of mass immigration' you are not the first on here to imply that this is the case but I dispute it. We have others talking about immigration being virtually uncontrolled while simultaneously acknowledging that this is not the case. The dream is, at least speaking for myself, is that people who do arrive are treated in a welcoming and compassionate manner and are encouraged to assimilate and contribute to Irish society without having to discard their heritage entirely.
1 -
That's why the US is such a mess. They've never really moved away from the problems within their society, just regurgitating it constantly. Alas, we're importing the same utterly retarded logic here, and following in their footsteps.
Speaking as someone living in the US, I would dispute the statement that it is in 'such a mess' as if it is the only country on the planet with trouble and difficulties. It absolutely has plenty to work on, but so too other places. You will find no shortage of people to decry each country and say it is a disaster but only in a few instances could it be said that this is truly the case.
Where you and I differ very strongly is that when you talk about 'moving away from the problems within society' I suspect that you see separation between communities and identities as being necessary to accommodate that where as I think integration and understanding, on both sides, is what is required. Creating division may suggest short term peace but ultimately, in my view, will lead to long term conflict.
0 -
I'm not responsible for the argument of everyone on this thread. Just my own. If you are responding to my posts, then argue those.
When you say "the culture of Ireland"...what do you mean by "Ireland"? Ireland is by most definitions a nation-state, that came from a revolt by Irish nationalists against a multicultural/imperial United Kingdom. A state that is intended as the political expression of the Irish people. You're here arguing that the political expression of the Irish people should have no particular loyalty or obligation to the Irish people. As Orwell said there are ideas so dumb that only educated people can believe them.
Again, I contend that migration is virtually uncontrolled and I do not simultaneously acknowledge this is not the case. If you're responding to my posts, then argue against my views. Your dream is presented as some utopia that no one can disagree with, but the reality is that as mass migration continues the ethnic Irish people will be increasingly denied their own state which represents their own interests above and beyond any other concerns. We will increasingly look like the US, and we will increasingly have the ethnic divisions and hatreds of the US. Ethnic diversity is a weakness, not a strength.
12 -
Look it, I am the only person on this thread today advocating with respect to the benefits of multiculturalism. You and Klaz seem to get very offended at any content in a post responding to yours which you feel doesn't directly and categorically deal with a comment that you have made. It's tiring trying to humour this level of in your face type insistence that the you can dictate the conversation and every post must only refer to items either of you introduced.
Whatever about Orwell saying some ideas are so dumb that only educated people can believe them, I don't know about that but what I do know is that you have misconstrued my position in order to try to make such a statement. I have said no such thing about the political expression of the Irish people having no particular loyalty to the Irish people.
Give the comparative histories of Ireland and the US, there is no logical argument to suggest that we, in Ireland, are heading towards the same ethnic divisions and hatred as exist there. America's divisions have been influenced hugely by the enslavement of a community of people for hundreds of years. No such thing happened in Ireland with respect to the native population and those seeking to see the country as home.
There is no risk of Irish people being increasingly denied their own state that has any basis in reality. As I've said before, if you are so insistent in preserving it, why not advocate in a positive way towards creating the state you wish to see, instead at getting annoyed on the basis of a future that likely will not happen.
3 -
"Look it, I am the only person on this thread today advocating with respect to the benefits of multiculturalism."
Did the other regulars on the rotation call in sick or something?
Klaz and I can and likely do disagree on the minutiae of the issue at hand. Either way, when I make a point it is because I believe it. If you disagree with it, then argue the point I made. I'm dealing with your posts, not the other regulars on the rotation. Do me the same courtesy.
If you accept that the Irish state has a particular loyalty/obligation to the Irish people, then you must agree that the Irish state must prevent mass migration by non-Irish peoples into Ireland. You don't, so you don't.
Ireland is only behind the US by 50 or so years of mass migration. We already have the sparks of ethnic conflict and resentment being stoked by the NGO industrial complex with academics and activists busy to create the same narratives as already exist in the US.
I don't have to advocate for creating an Irish nation state. It already exists, but it is under threat from mass migration. What you need to advocate for is why that nation state should be subverted by mass migration into a multicultural economic zone.
14 -
Speaking as someone living in the US, I would dispute the statement that it is in 'such a mess' as if it is the only country on the planet with trouble and difficulties.
As if... as if... hmm... so rather than deal with what I've written, which is crystal clear in it's meaning, you've decided to expand on my statement, and use that as a basis for your argument. Dispute away, since you're arguing with yourself.. Although if you're ready to stick to what I have written, then I'm here for you to argue with.
Where you and I differ very strongly is that when you talk about 'moving away from the problems within society'
We differ very strongly in that i quote someone and argue what I've quoted. Context is important. The format of the sentence and it's place in a paragraph is important. It has relevance. Whereas you've changed the sentence itself, and decided to argue against the changed sentence. Which is reflected in the fact that you're not arguing the points I made, but instead, what I seem to mean, but haven't stated myself.
I really don't understand the logic behind your posting "style".
I suspect that you see separation between communities and identities as being necessary to accommodate that where as I think integration and understanding, on both sides, is what is required. Creating division may suggest short term peace but ultimately, in my view, will lead to long term conflict.
That makes no sense whatsoever based on what I wrote. Even your suspicion that I see separation between communities and identities as being necessary doesn't make sense. Where did I say that creating division was a good idea? I sometimes wonder if you're quoting me, but responding to someone else, considering how little it relates to what I've written in the quoted piece, or even throughout the thread itself.
4 -
Ireland is only behind the US by 50 or so years of mass migration.
False in virtually every manner in which you could consider this.
If you accept that the Irish state has a particular loyalty/obligation to the Irish people, then you must agree that the Irish state must prevent mass migration by non-Irish peoples into Ireland. You don't, so you don't.
If the Irish state has an obligation to the Irish people in this way, is true now, then it would have been true throughout history and as such maybe we'd probably have bred ourselves out of existence. Should we still be under the control of those who controlled the state for 800 years? Or how about the clergy who did so for 50-80 years?
The Irish state has an obligation to provide a suitable standard of safety, education, system of governance etc to the the Irish people, nothing else really that I can think of, and certainly not maintaining any particular status quo that a few are comfortable with.
1 -
Talk to Sand, you guys could get a group deal on some internet discussion board coping skills training or something. It's literally draining to put up with this level of demanding nonsense. I'm out for today.
2 -
Advertisement
-
"False in virtually every manner in which you could consider this."
Do you have a source for that?
"If the Irish state has an obligation to the Irish people in this way, is true now, then it would have been true throughout history and as such maybe we'd probably have bred ourselves out of existence. Should we still be under the control of those who controlled the state for 800 years? Or how about the clergy who did so for 50-80 years?"
Mask off, again.
You're ranting about 800 years when the Irish state has only existed since 1922. Whereas the Irish people have existed long before that. The people created the state. The state does not define the people.
4
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
