What is racism?

Mr White

A dictionary will say it is hostile or oppressive behaviour towards other races,or believing one race is superior to another because of innate characteristics.But really it means a lot more than that, judging by the blanket use of the epithet by leftists on this forum. There are a few things that seem to set them off.

1. White:don't mention it,because racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by white people."Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of white pride is a form of hatred.
2. Diversity:it's good and must be celebrated.An homogenous monocultural Ireland(ie.pre-1995)is to be deplored because of the excess of Irish people.If you don't agree you're a racist.
3. Irish people must champion the racial interests of non-whites.We must sacrifice our own future on the alter of 'diversity' and cooperate in our own dispossession.We are to encourage,even subsidize,the displacement of Irish culture by alien people and cultures.To refuse to do so is racism.

You won't see any of these meanings in a dictionary or the rules of this forum,but you know if you express agreement with my views you'll be censored and maybe even banned.So be careful.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by Mr White

1. White:don't mention it,because racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by white people."Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of white pride is a form of hatred.
2. Diversity:it's good and must be celebrated. An homogenous monocultural Ireland(ie.pre-1995)is to be deplored because of the excess of Irish people.If you don't agree you're a racist.
3. Irish people must champion the racial interests of non-whites.We must sacrifice our own future on the alter of 'diversity' and cooperate in our own dispossession.We are to encourage,even subsidize,the displacement of Irish culture by alien people and cultures.To refuse to do so is racism.

You won't see any of these meanings in a dictionary or the rules of this forum,but you know if you express agreement with my views you'll be censored and maybe even banned.So be careful. [/B]

1. [Insert colour here] pride is not racism. Pride in one's own (perceived) collective identity is merely a political stance that amounts to a generally positive and healthy attempt to eradicate subjugation. Racism is more virulent and attempts to perpetuate that subjugation or, in other cases, reverse it.
2. That is a completely skewed way of viewing it. Ireland was 'monocultural' once (and even that assumption can be criticised) because Ireland was largely isolationist and few people moved around in those days. Ireland pre-1955 was an Ireland that wasn't really tapped into the global economy - which even then was in its infancy. Multicultural Ireland is a result of greater connectedness to other countries, cultures and economies because of modern technologies, telecommunications, economic globalisation, cheap and easy transport and the European Union. This is just what's happened; there's the history of modern Ireland and I don't think anyone's wishing it all went back to the old days.
3. Respecting the rights of individuals and groups to enjoy their own culture is not just enshrined in the UN Convention on Human Rights, the UN Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and in European Law, it's enshrined in our own constitution. We all, as citizens have a duty to make welcome anyone who comes to this country to work, live or escape persecution. Added to that is the fact that cultures change, full stop. If we actually took a leaf out of our own history books and got over our past historical traumas, we'd find we have a lot more in common with asylum seekers and economic migrants than we currently think. It's only by, yes, embracing our own unique history that we can begin to healthily move along as a country imbued with greater levels of connectedness and diversity than ever before.

Meh

Originally posted by Mr White
White:don't mention it,because racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by white people."Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of white pride is a form of hatred.

Yeah, like all those people here praising Robert Mugabe's racist land redistribution policies. Oh wait, there aren't any.

Irish people must champion the racial interests of non-whites.We must sacrifice our own future on the alter of 'diversity' and cooperate in our own dispossession. We are to encourage,even subsidize,the displacement of Irish culture by alien people and cultures.To refuse to do so is racism.

You appear to have a very low opinion of Irish culture -- if it is so weak that it is threatened by a mere few tens of thousands of economic migrants as you say, then it must be a pretty sorry excuse for a culture. Irish culture has survived many waves of immigrants over the past few millennia, and it definitely isn't going to be destroyed any time soon.

mike65

Oh dear, I can see where this is going...:(

Mike.

DadaKopf

Ah no, good topic for discussion, I wish there were more like this. Everyone should just be, eh, 'delicate' about how they express their opinions .

mike65

Originally posted by Meh
Y Irish culture has survived many waves of immigrants over the past few millennia, and it definitely isn't going to be destroyed any time soon.

Meh I don't need to point this out to you, but Irish culture is
waves of immigrants, those bloody Danes, French, Brits and various others are what gave us Mr White! There's a thought...

Mike.

DadaKopf

Culture is history. Irish culture is its history. So everything happening now is Irish culture. Why people make a distinction is beyond me.

Some random French hoardes invading Ireland in the 11th century indelibly became part of our 'culture' so why is this 21st century 'invasion' any different?

mike65

Originally posted by DadaKopf

Some random French hoardes invading Ireland in the 11th century indelibly became part of our 'culture' so why is this 21st century 'invasion' any different?

I imagine there were protests at Bannow Bay when the Normans came ashore in 1169. "Hop Off You Frogs!" etc

Mike.

DiscoStu

http://www.stormfront.org/

Mr. White you will fit in a lot more there.

pertinax

"We all, as citizens have a duty to make welcome anyone who comes to this country to work, live or escape persecution."

Is this an Irish thing? Will Israel or Pakistan allow people to escape persecution to work and live like we will?(when they've stoped persecuting people first of course). When will the cut off point come? For Israel when the jewish nature of that state is treatened no more people will allowed in who are not jewish. How much will jewish culture change then? It would stagnate or develope slowly while elsewhere culture develops rapidly.

gandalf

Ok Mr. White what exactly are you trying to protect here.

I want you to define what you mean by Irish Culture, what exactly are you trying to perserve. Go on then try and persued this liberal leftie why I should agree with your vision.

Define for me what a pure Irish person is ?

Define for me what Irish Culture is ?

Go on I challange you

Gandalf.

PHB

For Israel when the jewish nature of that state is treatened no more people will allowed in who are not jewish. How much will jewish culture change then?

Thats a flawed comparision.
The reason why the Israeli wont let some Palestinians in is because as it clearly states in the UN agreement

"...Refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date..."

In ireland we arent generally killed by the refugees coming into this country, compared to the Israelis who live in constant fear for their lives.

Zombrex

This sounds like a troll, so I won't get too worried about it, but the truth is there are quite a few people out there who seriously aggree with Mr White

"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of white pride is a form of hatred.

If the shoe fits ... show me one example of "White Pride" that does not celebrate white (western european) people as being better and superior to black (African) or Asian people. "Black Pride" originated from the oppression of african people in the Americas and Europe. Just as Irish people tried to discover reasons to be proud of Irish culture while being oppressed by the British empire (leading to the GAA, and a rebirth of the Irish language), black groups have tried to rediscover reason to celebrate their different cultures (leading to Jazz, Rock 'n Roll, etc in North America). In this respect "White Pride" is a pretty silly idea. Why would you need to refind "white" (i assume you mean european) culture (especially in Ireland), it has never been underthreat. European culture has invade every corner of the world. The truth is that "White Pride," in modern context, means celebrating the supperiority of Europeans over Africans and Asians. And this is rasicm in its simplest form.

Diversity:it's good and must be celebrated.An homogenous monocultural Ireland(ie.pre-1995)is to be deplored because of the excess of Irish people.If you don't agree you're a racist.

Why would you not celebrate diversity? While you have not been clear above, I would assume you would claim to oppose diversity because you fear that the "culture" of Ireland will be lost. Not only is this a pretty naive view (TV erodes more Irish culture with 5 minutes of american advertisments, than all the refugees that have every come into this country), I would suspect that there are other less policatly correct reasons. My experience with most people who don't want a mulitcultural ireland is because they don't want ireland full of "f*cking blacks"

Irish people must champion the racial interests of non-whites.We must sacrifice our own future on the alter of 'diversity' and cooperate in our own dispossession.We are to encourage,even subsidize,the displacement of Irish culture by alien people and cultures.To refuse to do so is racism.

Irish people must champion the "civil rights" of all people, white or not. Would you please explain how that is sacrificing our own future. For a start you assume an Ireland with a large population of "non-whites" will lead to the destruction of our future. To be blunt, our future really has f*@k all to do with inward imigration. What would you like to do, that you assume you will not be able to do in the next 10 years, due to imigration? Will you not be able to go to your local because it will be full of black people.

Frankly I am getting a bit sick of this stupid idea that Irish culture is going to be destroyed by imigration. The British tried to destroy our culture for 1000 years ... and guess what, GAA is on the telly and broadcast around the world, most people (who want to) know Irish, and I can get a pint of Guinness in Tokyo. I certainly believe that there are serious threats to culture around the world, most of them coming from Disney and Coke. But imigration is not one of them. Mr White, I would suggest you try and relax a bit ... the black man walking down the street doesn't hate you, so why do you hate him.

pertinax

And thats going to hapen is it? When the line of the israeli government is that the returned palestinian refugees will mean the destruction of the state of israel? Because Israel made an agreement it will adhjere to it?
"some Palestinians"?
If all the perfidious palestinian refugees returned to Israel and not a Palestinian state or even better, Jordan Isreal would have a jewish majority of under a million. Birth trends, aging population and immigration levels would mean a future jewish minority.

dathi1

Thats a flawed comparision. The reason why the Israeli wont let some Palestinians in is because as it clearly states in the UN agreement

what ?

Cultural Diversity;

Singapore:
works well under dictatorship.

Yugoslavia:
Worked well under dictatorship.

Britain:
Works ok ish. except Brixton, Oldham etc.

France:
Doesn't work now at all.

Germany:
Ethnic Turk and Kurd problems abound.

Fiji:
Didn't work and led to the overthrow of Fijian culture by Indian immigrants.

Israel,
as above with a twist.

North of Ireland:
Doesn't work.

USA:
everybody's in the same boat i.e.; immigrants (250,000) but cultural diversity is not celebrated.

Modern Immigration and its implications is a problem that has never faced Nations in the same way as it did in the past. Transport, communications and the mass movement of people around the globe is a relatively new phenomenon and will provide major challenges for us here in the next few years. We will have to deal with it. That means talking about it, not covering it up during elections by media self censorship and people not being afraid to express their opinions or fears on the subject without being labelled racist.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

DadaKopf

France: there are no minorities because in their constitution, everyone's a Frenchman. Nice way to get around human rights issues .

Zombrex

Modern Immigration and its implications is a problem that has never faced Nations in the same way as it did in the past.

From the earliest movement of humans, out of Africa to European, Asia and the Americas, people have been moving around this planet. Europeans have been immigrating to the Americas and Africa for the last 500 years (millions of Irish included).

What is new about modern immigration, as you call it, is people are now (in the last 100 years) coming to back Europe to find work and a new life. The problems with the countries you mention above, is that immigration is not welcome in these countries. The BNP had its best ever general election result in Brixton. This doesn't really tell me that they are welcoming people with open arms. White people are beating up black people on the streets of dublin, not the other way round.

I have no problem talking about immigration, and I do not think that every anti-immigration view is racist. I certainly have a few strong opinions about getting rid of the stupid Irish law that allows the parent of all children born in the state to claim citizenship. But you have to recognise that a lot of racism hides behind the fear that we will lose our cultural identify. Most persons fears about immigration are not based on rational analyse, but on a fear of the unknown and a fear of other cultures. Also, immigration has always been a scapegoat for the internal problems of a country (brilliantly satirised by the Simpsons). Anyone who is anti-immigration should ask himself or herself what are you really afraid of. I will listen to anyone that has a rational answer.

Meh

Originally posted by dathi1
USA:
everybody's in the same boat i.e.; immigrants (250,000) but cultural diversity is not celebrated.

So those St. Patrick's Day/Colombus Day/etc. parades you see in the US are just figments of my imagination?

Also, to your list I would add:

Canada:
Works very well under a democracy

Australia:
Works ok under a democracy (exception is the mistreatment of illegal immigrants)

Unjaku

Originally posted by Mr White
[*]Diversity:it's good and must be celebrated.An homogenous monocultural Ireland(ie.pre-1995)is to be deplored because of the excess of Irish people.If you don't agree you're a racist.

Irish society in this century was never really monocultural, monoethnic or even entirely white. Just because the majoirty of it was composed of white catholics does not mean 'the Other' was not present: the protestant and jewish communities; the traveller community and the presence of non-whites as far back as the beginning of the century.

Just because a government post-independance pushes the notion of the country's population as a homogenous unit doesn't make it so.

tribble

I certainly have a few strong opinions about getting rid of the stupid Irish law that allows the parent of all children born in the state to claim citizenship.

Do i remember that being challenged in a test case?

The kid was entitled to be an irish citizen but in the interest of the child he was deported with his parents.
He can, however, return here later in his life.

b

pro_gnostic_8

What is racism...............usually an accusation levelled at those of us who cannot see any reason to "celebrate" multi-culturalism.
Can someone explain to me why I should embrace multiculturalism. I am of the opinion that the achievements of Western European culture in Art, Literature, Science, etc., surpass those of Congolese or Romanian culture.. And does my desire to associate with people who share my heritage rather than with those of other ethnic backgrounds make me a racist?

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Culture is history.

Culture is primarily an expression of a set of moralities, philosophies and outlook.............a community-specific consciousness formulated through the history of a race.



Neither are we racist for articulating our disquiet about the large numbers of immigrants entering this country. By expression of our concern about indigenous Irish people losing their jobs as a result of cheap imported labour we are labelled xenophobic in the current politically-correct climate. Nationalistic definitely, (I feel no shame in admitting my allegiance to my race and country) but being called racist is unfair.

Meh

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
I feel no shame in admitting my allegiance to my race

There is no such thing as an Irish "race". You are claiming allegiance to something that doesn't exist -- a bit silly really.

And does my desire to associate with people who share my heritage rather than with those of other ethnic backgrounds make me a racist?

Yes, it does. Or, to be more accurate, it makes you a racial separatist. Either way, you advocate treating people differently based on their skin colour.

Neither are we racist for articulating our disquiet about the large numbers of immigrants entering this country

You're right, opposition to unrestricted immigration isn't racism. But scaremongering about a "black Ireland" is racism. There are plenty of black people in Ireland who aren't immigrants. Or would you like to see Paul McGrath, Phil Babb, Clinton Morrisson and Phil Lynott denied citizenship?

Wow, the Justin Barrett brigade are really coming out of the woodwork in this thread...

DadaKopf

Neither are we racist for articulating our disquiet about the large numbers of immigrants entering this country. By expression of our concern about indigenous Irish people losing their jobs as a result of cheap imported labour we are labelled xenophobic in the current politically-correct climate. Nationalistic definitely, (I feel no shame in admitting my allegiance to my race and country) but being called racist is unfair.

Like I said, pride in one's own collective identity (however narrow) is fine. Pride in one's own collective identity of a kind that causes harm to others and attempts to subjugate 'the other' is to be condemned.

bonkey

Originally posted by Mr White
White:don't mention it,because racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by white people."Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of white pride is a form of hatred.

While the original idea of Black Pride was to encourage an oppressed people to take pride in the very reasons for their oppression. Its original intention was supposed to help people understand that they should not be ashamed of their colour, nor willingly accept subjugation based on racial grounds. This was absolutely "a wonderful thing".

White pride is a complete misnomer. The whites are not being oppressed by any racial group, therefore the pride they show is "pride in not being non-white". This is a supremacist notion, which by definition is racism.

I would equally say that today, Black Pride has mostly grown into a racist movement as well. It is no longer about its original ideals, it is now a case of "we dont need the white man", or "we are better than the white man" or some other seperatist or supremacist slant - all of which is racist in nature, as they are making distinctions about colour.

Its not unakin to the ongoing quest for equality amongst the sexes. The Suffragettes originally wanted women to take pride in their womanhood, so as to stop believing the myth of inferiority which was used to suppress/oppress them. Today, all too many women are no longer talking about equality, but somehow want to claim that women are, in actual fact, better than men.

If you are not supporting equality, then you are biased. With gender, this is sexist, with race it is racist.

[*]Diversity:it's good and must be celebrated.An homogenous monocultural Ireland(ie.pre-1995)is to be deplored because of the excess of Irish people.If you don't agree you're a racist.

Incorrect.

Ireland pre-1995 was mono-cultural to the extent that there hadnt been a large influx of foreign culture in so long that the diverse cultures had re-homogenised over time.

Go do some research - find how many people the British moved to Ireland over the centuries whilst we were under their rule. The fact is that Ireland had a period where there wasnt a continuous influx of different cultures allowed the existing ones to re-homogenise, but historically Ireland has had significant amounts of foreigners bringing their foreign culture here.

Therefore, if you take pride in Irish history, you should take pride in the fact that our base culture has withstood the centuries of foreign cultural influence and managed to retain much of its own original essence.

I dont deplore the homogenized culture which Ireland had, because it did not come about through any attempt to disallow foreign influence.

Wanting Ireland to "remain Irish" in any way shape or form is to deny our heritage, not take pride in it. It is also making a conscious effort to disallow foreign influence. This is not what happened pre-95 (or whatever benchmark you choose). It is what is happening today. It is discriminatory and seperatist, and should (in my opinion) quite rightly be deplored.

As an aside, the Irish as we know them (i.e. the Celts) came from eastern Europe. You know....just a touch north of Serbia, Croatia, and those other places who have formed large numbers of the immigrants/refugees who have come to Ireland. In other words, these people are actually closer to our ancestral cultures than we are. We came from their part of the world, not here.

Irish people must champion the racial interests of non-whites.

No. Irish people, as a nation, must not distinguish on a basis of colour. Every time you refer to "non-whites" you are not talking about "non-Irish", you are making a distinction on the basis of skin-colour. One way or another, you are advocating policies which will make decisions based on colour. This is racial discrimination.

I am not saying we should champion these people's interests. I am saying that we shouldnt side with the people who believe in denying people anything because of the colour of their skin.

You want to change "non-white" to "non-irish", then you can go back to your previous point which I have already answered. Both are deplorable reasons for refusing someone entry to this country.

You won't see any of these meanings in a dictionary or the rules of this forum

You're right. Dictionaries deal in definitions, not in examples. You havent offered a single definition of racism in all your points, you have offered test cases. You are asserting that because it is a test-case that doesnt appear in a dictionary it is not racist? I suggest that you re-educate yourself on what a dictionary is for.

When you look at the underlying meaning of what you are saying, it is entirely evident that in every case you are making a distinction in how policy or attitudes should be, based on nothing more than the colour of someones skin. This is exactly what your supplied dictionary definitions define as racism.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Like I said, pride in one's own collective identity (however narrow) is fine. Pride in one's own collective identity of a kind that causes harm to others and attempts to subjugate 'the other' is to be condemned.

This is probably better expressing what I was trying to get at in my previous post.

Pride in one's own attributes (race, nationality, gender, whatever) is fine, as long as it does not engender a belief that one's own attributes are somehow superior to others.

jc

dathi1

Originally posted by Meh
So those St. Patrick's Day/Colombus Day/etc. parades you see in the US are just figments of my imagination?

Also, to your list I would add:

wrong again....black Americans, Hispanics etc would totally disagree with you.


Canada? wrong again: They cant even agree on Indian Land resevervation reform. (the original natives) also its still on the verge of break up under the French separatists.

Australia: wrong again. aboriginal exclusion and deprivation on a wide scale. Although they're not about to make the same mistakes as their ancestors in Europe by allowing illegal immigrants to lose themselves within Australia without being checked out first.

Wow, the Justin Barrett brigade are really coming out of the woodwork in this thread...

A very smart contribution about peoples concern on illegal immigrants entering this country. Pigeon holeing people again. well done.

The fact remains that unrestricted access by illegal immigrants into a small country like Ireland will have major negative implications in the very near future. (re Fiji above) It already is: Our current Asylum Bill for 2002 will be in excess of Euro 450 million for social welfare, health care (especially post natal) ,accommodation, integration education, support agencies, "Racial Tolerance" advertisements campaigns, social services etc Soon to come: radio and Tv programming budgets for "special interest groups etc.i.e.: Islamic prayer before bedtime and the Islamic equivalent of the angelus//etc...Special "equality" laws (which are very discriminate against Irish citizens)...With a rate now of 8-10,000 illegal immigrants a year this bill will balloon in 2003. On top of the unrestrictive exclusive labour influx due in on the 1st Jan 2004 (IBEC /Cowen)..this will not make us like the USA...Comparison to the USA a major continental landmass which consists of only immigrants (now) is way off the mark. Granted it will have no effect on those who like behind the electric gates of D4 and Big business..but I don't want to live in an Irish version of Johannesburg.

Raskolnikov

Originally posted by bonkey

As an aside, the Irish as we know them (i.e. the Celts) came from eastern Europe. You know....just a touch north of Serbia, Croatia, and those other places who have formed large numbers of the immigrants/refugees who have come to Ireland. In other words, these people are actually closer to our ancestral cultures than we are. We came from their part of the world, not here.

The people living in Serbia and most Eastern European countries aren't the same people that lived there in the time of the Celts. Over the 1,000's of years groups of people have settled and moved on so to say they are close to our culture isn't necessarily correct.

If you ask me Irish culture has already been almost totally eroded by American and British influence. The only culture we have left is commercialised bull**** like Guiness and lerperchuans. If people like Mr White really cared they be more concerned with trying to re-introduce the Irish language, reestablish Irish traditions etc instead of loading all the blame onto immigrants.

dathi1

As an aside, the Irish as we know them (i.e. the Celts) came from eastern Europe. You know....just a touch north of Serbia, Croatia, and those other places who have formed large numbers of the immigrants/refugees who have come to Ireland. In other words, these people are actually closer to our ancestral cultures than we are. We came from their part of the world, not here.

they apparently came from the caucus region of the Russian steppes but that's not even proven. what about the pre-Celts native to here before the euro Celt invasion? just a thought.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dathi1

If these immigrants are asylum seekers then they're not bloddy well illegal then are they!

if you really believe that 97% of Illegal immigrants entering this country are escaping Political persecution etc then you're way off te mark. Illegal immigrant (entered the country illegally)

Again incorrect term used. Asylum seekers not illegal immigrants

as above

Doesn't even deserve a rebuttal

re Johannesburg

if you're comfortable with that.

Raskolnikov

Originally posted by dathi1
they apparently came from the caucus region of the Russian steppes but that's not even proven. what about the pre-Celts native to here before the euro Celt invasion? just a thought.

They'd be the Milesians, i don't know much about them other than the fact that they originated in North Africa apparently

DadaKopf

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
If you ask me Irish culture has already been almost totally eroded by American and British influence. The only culture we have left is commercialised bull**** like Guiness and lerperchuans.

I'm not sure this is entirely true. Irish culture has 'lost its way' insofar as the logic of the market (what bits of Irish culture can be marketed and profited from; eg. Temble Bar as 'cultural' quarter) has overtaken authentic authentic Irish culture which persists underneath all this commercial crap.

Irish culture has to be 'rescued' from commercialism. There are pockets of genuine creativity, culture and authenticity all over the place but we have to begin to see it as separate from the market. As something relevant to us all and self-sustaining. That means seeing Ireland in its past historical context and its present diversifying context, separate from its marketability. We should acknowledge the past but also embrace the present and visualise the future - where do we want to go as a society?

One example: some report or other emerged recently that said the Irish tourism industry may suffer due to immigration because tourists aren't seeing friendly Irish faces at hotel reception desks anymore. Instead they're seeing non-Irish migrants. The correct thing to do would be to ditch this Disneyworld image of Ireland and market Ireland for what it really is. We should concentrate on what's actually happening at the grassroots level.

Meh

Originally posted by dathi1
wrong again....black Americans, Hispanics etc would totally disagree with you.

Isn't there an entire black history month in the US? As well as Martin Luther King day being an official public holiday...

It already is: Our current Asylum Bill for 2002 will be in excess of Euro 450 million

Link to back this up please. In any case, you appear to be confusing asylum seekers with immigrants in general. The majority of immigrants into Ireland are not asylum seekers -- they are legal immigrants from countries like Brazil, or Eastern Europe and have been issued with work permits by the government. They outnumber asylum seekers two or three to one (source).

Soon to come: radio and Tv programming budgets for "special interest groups etc.i.e.: Islamic prayer before bedtime and the Islamic equivalent of the angelus//etc...Special "equality" laws (which are very discriminate against Irish citizens)...

Do you have anything to back this up, or are you pust pulling these statements out of thin air? Please link to an RTE statement that they are going to replace the Angelus with a Muslim call to prayer. Or a governemtn press release announcing new anti-Irish laws.

With a rate now of 8-10,000 illegal immigrants a year this bill will balloon in 2003.

As a matter of fact, asylum claims are on a downward trend -- they have fallen between 2000 and 2001 (the last years for which figures are available).

bonkey

OK - all of this legal/illegal immigrant thing has nothing to do with anything.

Any nation has a right to protect its well-being by placing a limit on the number of immigrants it allows into the country.

There are also practical reasons why limits must also be placed for asylum seekers.

However, once those limits are in place, deciding which immigrants or asylum seekers you will or will not accept based on their skin-colour is, quite honestly, racist.

Thus, the basic original premise of "keeping Ireland white" is racist.

Insisting the limit should be at 0 (i.e. a closed door policy) to protect our culture is nothing but rubbish. Ireland has never had a closed door policy, so there is no evidence whatsoever that our culture is under threat. As argued previously, our culture is already a hodge-podge of other people's cultures anyway. Also, as Raskolnikov alluded to, our culture is probably under more "attack" from international media then from immigration.

Finally, discussing illegal immigrants and/or illegal asylum seekers is a moot point. It has nothing to do with racism. These people are here illegally - they have broken the law, and this should not be tolerated.

Regardless of where our policy places limits (0 or 1,000,000 incoming per year), these people are still here illegally, and should still be held accountable for their illegal actions. Whether this means imprisonment, deportation, fines, or what, is a seperate issue, because again it has nothing to do with whether or not we legally allow people into the country, nor with what colour/race of people we allow in. An illegal entrant is an illegal entrant. This is non-discriminatory.

jc

p.s. dathi1.....

Switzerland:
works well under a democracy

Go figure - it can work.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Von

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
I am of the opinion that the achievements of Western European culture in Art, Literature, Science, etc., surpass those of Congolese or Romanian culture.

I ain't been to the Congo recently but I can tell you that Romania is steeped in history and cultural achievements. Are you some kind of authority on european art and literature? Or are you a shudderingly sub-literate ignoramous who's just using someone else's achievements to support a misguided belief in his own inherent superiority?

Irish art and culture has traditionally been about experimenting, sweeping away redundant conventions and creating new forms of expression in culture and in politics. It has nothing to do with rubbish like "racial allegiance" or infantile conservative nationalism.

Mr White

Posted by Dadakopf:

pride is not racism. Racism is more virulent and attempts to perpetuate that subjugation or, in other cases, reverse it.

Whether you're a racist depends on your race.Everyone is familiar with the dragging death of James Byrd in Texas some years ago,but has anyone heard about the Wichita Massacre,where 4 whites were sexually assaulted,robbed,and executed by 2 black brothers in 2000?Crimes like these are commonplace in America but because they don't fit the black victim dogma they are ignored by the liberal media.

According to crime statistics in the same country blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit 'hate' crimes.Again this isn't generally known because it contradicts orthodox political views.

Last week there was a story in the Irish Independent about a Nigerian in Limerick who was stopped for dangerous driving.Hardly a newsworthy event,you would think,but because his taxpayer-funded lawyer claimed he was stopped because of his race it made headlines.The implication is that blacks are to be treated with kid gloves,purely on the basis of their skin colour.This is a double standard familiar to anyone in a multiracial society.

Multicultural Ireland is a result of greater connectedness to other countries, cultures and economies because of modern technologies, telecommunications, economic globalisation, cheap and easy transport and the European Union.

If globalism leads to multiculturalism how do you explain Japan?Or any Asian country:they're all as globally oriented as Ireland,but don't go in for multicultural folly.That's something promoted by white elites,for some perverse reason.In 1930,30% of the world's population was of European ancestry,white.Today we are only 10%,and 10% can't assimilate 90%.

I agree that the EU is a factor.It has eroded our sense of sovereignty and conditioned us to believe it's normal to have large non-european enclaves in your country.At the same time,there are significant differences in asylum trends.Across Europe asylum seeker numbers have remained fairly constant since the early 1990s,indeed they've dropped sharply in Germany, France and Sweden.By contrast,applications in Ireland have risen steadily(2001 was slightly lower than 2000,but monthly figures released by the DOJ for this year show another increase).We had over 10,000 applications last year,compared to 200 for Portugal.Yes,200.Last year Ireland had more applications for asylum than Spain or Italy,countries with much larger populations.There must be limits to how many we accept.

If you take a look at UNHCR annual refugee statistics you'll notice a pattern:most people seek refuge in neighbouring countries.For instance,Afghanis go to Iran or Pakistan; Rwandans go to Tanzania or the former Zaire.You'll also see that host countries generally take refugees from compatible cultures.Saudi Arabia(rich North?) had 245,000 refugees in 2000,however 240,000 of these were Palestinians,ie,muslims.Can you imagine them taking 240,000 Hindus or Nigerian Christians?Of course not,because they care about compatibility,and Ireland should too.We should not accept refugees from Africa or Asia,and if the Geneva Convention says otherwise we should pull out of it(Article 44).

Respecting the rights of individuals and groups to enjoy their own culture is not just enshrined in the UN Convention on Human Rights, the UN Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and in European Law, it's enshrined in our own constitution. We all, as citizens have a duty to make welcome anyone who comes to this country to work, live or escape persecution. Added to that is the fact that cultures change, full stop.

Well the UN is a sham,given that the majority of it's members are dictatorships. As for the constitution,I'm not sure it says anything about foreign cultures being respected.The new Article 3 talks about uniting 'all the people who share the territory of the island..in all the diversity of their identities and traditions',but that is in the context of a united Ireland,and actually is an exaggerated way of saying 'both traditions'.

I don't welcome the 90%+ of asylum seekers who are frauds. Why should I?They're bleeding us dry.Also,as I've said,I think asylum should be conditional on compatibility.Race matters in this respect,whatever about PC dogma.It's just not meaningful to talk about assimilation of other races.

mike65

Read it and weep...the above is so partial and selective a view of planet Earth its not worth analysing.

Mike.

gandalf

Are you going to respond to this Mr.White or are you going to keep spouting propaganda.

Originally posted by gandalf
Ok Mr. White what exactly are you trying to protect here.

I want you to define what you mean by Irish Culture, what exactly are you trying to perserve. Go on then try and persued this liberal leftie why I should agree with your vision.

Define for me what a pure Irish person is ?

Define for me what Irish Culture is ?

Go on I challange you

Gandalf.

Personally I don't think you have a clue about this Irish Culture that your trying to protect. Prove me wrong.

Gandalf.

BuffyBot

Originally posted by mike65
Read it and weep...the above is so partial and selective a view of planet Earth its not worth analysing.

Mike.

Agreed - my god, talk about the selective picking of incidents out of a pool of interactions with a total number that boggles the mind.

Mr. White, your just posting a mish-mash collection of right-wing dogma no doubt collated from the wonderfully diverse offering that is the internet. There is nothing new here in what you say, nor anything of value.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Meh
There is no such thing as an Irish "race". You are claiming allegiance to something that doesn't exist -- a bit silly really...

If you could read the relevant sentence again, Meh, you will see that nowhere was the adjective "IRISH" associated with race. I assumed that by "my race" it would have been understood as "White Western European".

Yes, it does. Or, to be more accurate, it makes you a racial separatist

Maybe I should have used the word "socialise" rather than "associate". Whether or which....... do you associate with the wino's/down'n'outs sleeping in doorways? If not, does that make you a "Social Separatist"?

You're right, opposition to unrestricted immigration isn't racism. But scaremongering about a "black Ireland" is racism. There are plenty of black people in Ireland who aren't immigrants. Or would you like to see Paul McGrath, Phil Babb, Clinton Morrisson and Phil Lynott denied citizenship? Wow, the Justin Barrett brigade are really coming out of the woodwork in this thread...

Who said anything 'bout a "black Ireland"? And are you inferring that I want to see McGrath's, Babb's, et al citizenship revoked or summat?

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Von
I ain't been to the Congo recently but I can tell you that Romania is steeped in history and cultural achievements. Are you some kind of authority on european art and literature?

No, I'm not, ............ but I'll bow to your self-proclaimed expertise on Romanian Art and history -- and furthermore , I'll say that Romanian culture is the epitome of cultural achievement if you want me to.

Point tho', since you appear to have missed it in my original post, is that I have f'all interest in Romanian, Albanian, Congolese or Yemeni culture, and I object to Government initiatives at taxpayers expense to interest me in this multiculturalism. I have no affinity for these people........... them and I share not any common language, history, heritage, or sense of place.

You can rubbish "infantile conservative nationalism" all you want but some of us do feel it a priority to assist our own disadvantaged people in the first instance.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Dear God, what tripe. Enough to bring me out of retirement for a bit I think. /Wave bonkey, gandalf, friends Now, to the codswallop I just read:

Originally posted by Mr White
Whether you're a racist depends on your race.Everyone is familiar with the dragging death of James Byrd in Texas some years ago,but has anyone heard about the Wichita Massacre,where 4 whites were sexually assaulted,robbed,and executed by 2 black brothers in 2000?Crimes like these are commonplace in America but because they don't fit the black victim dogma they are ignored by the liberal media.

Being both American, and a libretarian I can safely say you're full of sh1t. To the proverbial brim. The Wichita "massacre", if you read the god-damn case notes, was a retributive crime. In other words, an unlawful retaliation. Why is this worth mentioning you ask? Because my little gimpasaurus, 95% of all retributive crimes are committed by a white offender. Even with a 3% margin of error, that's pretty damning wouldn't you say? And puts the so-called massacre into perspective- as a freak occurence. As for the 'black victim dogma'- don't spout such gibberish k thx. Yes, blacks are more likely to commit crimes of passion, but they're also 13.5 times more likely to be randomly stopped and searched by police.

There's roughly a 580% greater chance of being assaulted by the police if you're black, roughly half that if you're Hispanic. There's an awfully ugly pattern here, and it points to police brutality driving a wedge of mistrust into minority communites. There's a historical precedent for this...think it was coincidence that Capone, Don Guissepe and Paul Castellano were of Italian descent? The Italian community from the early 20s onwards were horribly ostracized in the seaboard states. After a few decades of police oppression in many forms, they decided to go postal and take the crime world by storm. See a pattern here?

According to crime statistics in the same country blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit 'hate' crimes.Again this isn't generally known because it contradicts orthodox political views.

It's not generally known because that statistic in isolation means jack sh1t. It's like me saying that most shotgun deaths are caused by redneck hick farmers. There's probably a degree of truth to it, but the stat itself is bullcrap in isolation.

The implication is that blacks are to be treated with kid gloves,purely on the basis of their skin colour.This is a double standard familiar to anyone in a multiracial society.

Kid gloves? That's hilarious- most minorities are treated like sh1t and given a truckload of attitude by narrow-minded people much like yourself. Judging someone by the color of their skin is racist...is it really so hard to understand?

If globalism leads to multiculturalism how do you explain Japan?Or any Asian country:they're all as globally oriented as Ireland,but don't go in for multicultural folly.

Japan hasn't globalized dumbass, they've externalized. A fact they're dearly paying for now, their country's in a shambles both financially and economically. Their insular form of capitalism collapsed about 10 years ago- get with it.

As for other Asian countries...wtf are you talking about? I've traveled Asia extensively, outside 2-3 countries they're about as homogenous as the oatmeal I eat for breakfast. Most asian countries are a huge mish-mash of ethnic backgrounds, religions and cultures. To a far greater extent than most European countries, and that's to their advantage.

That's something promoted by white elites,for some perverse reason.In 1930,30% of the world's population was of European ancestry,white.Today we are only 10%,and 10% can't assimilate 90%.

Paranoid much? We're all human beings- if you can't abide someone because they look different from you or speak with a slightly odd accent, I suggest you return to your hick-populated neighborhood and stfu. The internet was supposed to globalize and integrate people who appreciated their differences, not fenced themselves in with them. If such things are so troublesome, the 21st century isn't for you.

We had over 10,000 applications last year,compared to 200 for Portugal.Yes,200.Last year Ireland had more applications for asylum than Spain or Italy,countries with much larger populations.There must be limits to how many we accept.

Immigration has limits, people who seek asylum should be treated on a bona fide basis. Some of the world's greatest and most influential minds were refugees. Think where we'd be if the US took your horribly narrow-minded approach towards Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer, or if France did the same toward the Curies. Or is their immigration ok because they're white? I notice a horrible double-standard with your stance here. Racist is the only term I can find for it, suitably ironic since part of your goal was to try and define a racist stance. Take a good look in the mirror! Gimp.

If you take a look at UNHCR annual refugee statistics you'll notice a pattern:most people seek refuge in neighbouring countries.For instance,Afghanis go to Iran or Pakistan; Rwandans go to Tanzania or the former Zaire.You'll also see that host countries generally take refugees from compatible cultures.Saudi Arabia(rich North?) had 245,000 refugees in 2000,however 240,000 of these were Palestinians,ie,muslims.Can you imagine them taking 240,000 Hindus or Nigerian Christians?Of course not,because they care about compatibility,and Ireland should too.

Compatibility? No one's asking you to marry them assclown, just give them a fair hearing. When an entire region gets screwed over, many don't want to move from one sh1tstorm to another, they want security and a stable surrounding. If your government can provide that, then there's a moral call to do so within reason. Think of the humanitarian crises that would have hit Ireland if England or the US took that view after WWII when so many Irish refugees fled harsh economic conditions for greener pastures.

Well the UN is a sham,given that the majority of it's members are dictatorships. As for the constitution,I'm not sure it says anything about foreign cultures being respected.

More BS, perhaps a tenth of the UN are officially dictatorships or OPS's, and part of the purpose of the UN is to help engage these nations and encourage reform. And it's working- look at China for example.

I don't welcome the 90%+ of asylum seekers who are frauds. Why should I?They're bleeding us dry.Also,as I've said,I think asylum should be conditional on compatibility.Race matters in this respect,whatever about PC dogma.It's just not meaningful to talk about assimilation of other races.

Oh zip-a-dee-doo-dah, 90% of them frauds huh? Guess you've talked to a lot of asylum officers then...thought not. More than 70% of asylum seekers have a legitimate claim, less than 5% of those are given a fair hearing, and most are deported. Those that are left have to contend with bare-faced racism that you exhibit, or the insidious right-wing politik that preach unity of race/culture, when NO NATION on the planet has either. If race matters to you so much as I said, you're living in the wrong god-damn century. Go invent a time machine and park yourself in 19th century Europe with it's insular racist dogma, you'd fit in perfectly. "It's just not meaningful to talk about the assimilation of other races"-- if that statement isn't racist, I dunno wtf is. If these things dig as deep as seems the case, you're a lot more insecure than perhaps you realize. I hear electro-shock therapy works well. Fortunately, the prevalence of decent-minded human beings will eventually force such antiquated views quickly (and hopefully harmlessly) from the productive flow. Racism is as they say, a crime of ignorance- and it's a while since I've seen such an abundance of it on boards.ie.

I'm sure any response you'd care to scrape up will be equally racist, and any examples suitably shielded in a vacuum of precondition enough to cover your ass. So if you respond with more of the same I'm inclined to ignore you and do more useful things with my time, like bathing my goldfish or something.

Occy

Zombrex

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
If you could read the relevant sentence again, Meh, you will see that nowhere was the adjective "IRISH" associated with race. I assumed that by "my race" it would have been understood as "White Western European

For a start, there is no such thing as "race" ... modern biology has shown that there is not enought genetic difference between people around the world for the idea of race. We all originated from a hand full of people (1000 - 10,000) a few thousand years ago. So racism becomes even more of a stupid idea because the black man sitting beside you on the bus is built exactly the same as you and you are probably genetically related.

So we are left with culture. And last time I checked there wasn't really a unified "White Western European" culture. I have as much in common with a German as I do with a South African. So if you are saying you would rather sociallise with a French man than a Japanise man, could you please explain why?

Point tho', since you appear to have missed it in my original post, is that I have f'all interest in Romanian, Albanian, Congolese or Yemeni culture, and I object to Government initiatives at taxpayers expense to interest me in this multiculturalism. I have no affinity for these people........... them and I share not any common language, history, heritage, or sense of place.

You object to Government initiatives to interest you ... you mean like schools, the educational system, universitys? Sorry to burst your bubble, but no one cares if you are "interested" in Romanian history ... what, you think we should only let in people that interest you?? Does that work the same way round? Only Irish people with "interesting" lives will get J1 visas for the US, or be allowed move freely around Europe? You don't share a common language, history, heritage or sense of place (what?) with someone from Germany or Spain. But because they are the same "race" as you, you get on better with them?? Could you please explain what you are on about??

Von

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
...and furthermore , I'll say that Romanian culture is the epitome of cultural achievement if you want me to.

That won't be necessary but do at least look up the work of Eugen Ionescu. He should be right up your street.

bonkey

Originally posted by Mr White
Whether you're a racist depends on your race.

No, it doesnt. Regardless of how the popular media may treat issues, or the public in general, racism is not racially dependant.

If someone was spouting anti-white crap here, and was a self-admitted afro-American, I would give them no more and no less tolerance than I have given to anti-non-white advocates like you.

I dont care how the rest of the world treats racism. In here - in this forum - it is not the pervue of any given race, colour or creed. I, gandalf and Swiss will not accept any form of racism.

Also,as I've said,I think asylum should be conditional on compatibility.Race matters in this respect

Race matters in this respect.....to racists. To the rest of us, it is not an issue.

jc

p.s. Occy - great to see you back m8

bonkey

Originally posted by Wicknight
For a start, there is no such thing as "race" ... modern biology has shown that there is not enought genetic difference between people around the world for the idea of race.

Incorrect.

If you take the sporting world, you will find, for example, that there are very few, if any, successful black swimmers. Why? Simple - their physiology is sufficiently different to whites that their physique is simply not suited to the event. Their bone density differs in a small but significant way to whites.

While it is absolutely correct to claim that our genetic makeup is sufficiently identical to mean that we are a single species, this does not mean that there isnt sufficient differences for sub-genus differentiation. This, when applied to humans, is termed race. Whether you like it or not, or choose to agree with it or not, it exists.

However, unlike what supremacists and seperatists appear to believe, there is no distinguishable mental characteristics that I am aware of which have been attributed to racial traits. There are cultural and sociological differences, to be sure, but culture and race are very, very different things.

Mr. White wants Ireland kept White. Obviously he would have problems, therefore, with people like Paul McGrath, born and bred in Dublin, and about as non-white as you can get. However, culturally, Paul is as Irish as they come. Not only is he living proof that Mr White's distinction regarding colour or race is completely ridiculous, but he is also proof that race and culture are seperate entities.

We all originated from a hand full of people (1000 - 10,000) a few thousand years ago.

OK - you need to go and revise your history. Mankind has been around for a lot longer than "a few thousand years", and evolved from a previous species which didnt all happen at one instant, nor would that species have been entirely homogenised in the first place. Homo Sapiens has been around for about 400,000 years, but appears to have evolved from homo erectus, who in turn came from Homo habilis (we're about 2 million years back at this point) which is where it is believed that mankind's evolution "branched" from that of the apes.

2,000,000 years, in any evolutionary book, is more than enough time for genetic sub-species differentiation to occur. Its also a bit bigger than "a few thousand years ago". Of course youre a biblical fan and believe in Ussher's timescale, then yes, we are only a few thousand years old, but you have left your rational thought processes at the door and should go and retrieve them

So racism becomes even more of a stupid idea because the black man sitting beside you on the bus is built exactly the same as you and you are probably genetically related.

OK - no - he's not built the exact same as me. There are noticeable physical racial traits which distinguish us. Without wanting to point out the obvious...our skin colour for a start.

However, at a non-racial level, I am physically and intellectually different to every other human on the planet. So, while racial characteristics do serve to distinguish races, it has no bearing on the actual individual, because each individual is unique anyway.

These differences often allow us to visually seperate races, but this has no refelection on anything. You cant tell by looking at someone what their creed and culture is, what their intellectual beliefs are. Ultimately, to make a sociological distinction based on nothing more than physical traits is stupidity in the extreme.

Unless, of course, someone wants to claim that skin colour, bone density, average height, or anything else that is a racial characteristic is somehow important.

jc

Gordon

Originally posted by bonkey
Homo Sapiens have been around for about 400,000 years

Apparently, to be pedantic, we are actually "Homo Sapiens Sapiens". Anyway, carry on! (oh yea, good to see you again Bob!)

Zombrex

just to clear up a few things ....

1st - Race

From American Anthropological Association, 1998
"Human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that there is greater variation within racial groups than between them. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective."

From The Burke Museum
"Modern research has shown that human populations cannot be divided into clearly defined, biologically distinct groups. Skull measurements, for example, vary widely not only within communities but even during a person's lifetime."


Charles Keyes, Anthropologist, University of Washington, 1996
"Race does not exist. Racism does exist."

There is no such thing as "race" . A black man in Africa can be as genetically different to his neighbour as to an Irish person. People are different and adapt genetically to different environments, but races of people cannot be defined as once believed.


2nd - Common Ancestry

I am actually an atheist and have no "creationist" believes. I was referring to the study into common ancestry. It is believed that all humans living on earth descended from a handful (86,000) that lived about 100,000 years ago in Africa (sorry about the 10,000 years in my original post, that was a mistake).

Some believe that a catastrophic event (for example a super volcano) wiped out a large population of early man, leaving only the few thousand to re-populate the planet (though there is a lot less evidence for this catastrophic event).

It is also believed that all humans living on earth share a common ancestor, know as the Mitochondrial Eve, due to the process of tracing ancestry through the mitochondria DNA (different from normal DNA, changes less through generations).

Originally posted by bonkey
However, at a non-racial level, I am physically and intellectually different to every other human on the planet. So, while racial characteristics do serve to distinguish races, it has no bearing on the actual individual, because each individual is unique anyway.

You are half right. You are physically and intellectually different from everyone else. But so is everyone else. There is not enough common genetic make up between Africans and Europeans to classify them as races.

Basically what modern biology says is that a person is as different from everyone else as the next person, be they from Africa, Asia North America etc .

People such as Mr White, can define people on the grounds of skin colour, or other physical traits, but there is no scientific bases for grouping people into "races"

But unfortunately even though "race" does not exist, racism sure does, as Mr White has demonstrated. The point of my posts in this board is to show that distinguishing between people on the grounds of "race" is not only racist it is simply not based on fact. The only thing that exists is culture.

bonkey

Originally posted by Wicknight
People are different and adapt genetically to different environments, but races of people cannot be defined as once believed.

But the very definition of race is people from a common geographic location sharing common genetically-inherited traits.

In other words...when people adapt genetically to their environment enough to become in some way distinct from their "neighbours" in a different environment, you have race.

It matters not if their DNA is 99.999% common - the level of difference is only significant to claim seperate species or sub-species. By adapting genetically to their environment, they become a race.

It is also believed that all humans living on earth share a common ancestor, know as the Mitochondrial Eve, due to the process of tracing ancestry through the mitochondria DNA (different from normal DNA, changes less through generations).

Actually, thats not quite true.

Mitochondrial Eve does not show that we share a common ancsestor, but rather that of all of the women alive at that time, only one has successfully managed to maintain an unbroken line of mitochondrial descent.

How is this different. Because it is possible for a branch of maternal lineage to disappear if a generation does not generate any female offspring - they could be all male for example.

Thus, while it may be true to say that we can trace a single common ancestor from that time, the mathematics and logistics of it show that it is probable that we all share a common ancestry with many others who were alive at the time, but that their maternal mitochondrial lineages died out over time.

jc