Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Would you be ok with white Irish becoming a minority?

Options
13567…25

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Board.surf
    Registered Users Posts: 179 ✭✭Board.surf


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    As true as that is, America is somewhat bigger than Ireland.

    America is 2 continents. The USA is 50 states, and having lived there for 7 years, I can say that no, no state is that much larger than Ireland to say that what you've said is true. They are all insular and have their own culture. Some have massive Immigrant populations. Some call themselves Norwegian en masse. Some Irish. Most states were completely under the control of one culture.


  • Options
    #63
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    Making the poll about skin colour really makes it quite a difficult question, is it about cultures and religions? 'cause it wouldn't matter if future generations were black, would it. That in itself is meaningless.


  • Options
    #64
    Harry Palmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    Fourier wrote: »
    Well the language is not true, Latin died out rapidly in Britain, probably being gone by the 7th century.

    Yeah because it's as if no English words have any Latin derivation.....;)


  • Options
    #65
    Minderbinder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,030 ✭✭✭Minderbinder


    Board.surf wrote: »
    WOW!! Irish is not an ethnicity and never will be. It's a diaspora. We are Caucasian. Japanese is an ethnicity.

    Why are Japanese an ethnicity but Irish are not?


  • Options
    #66
    Board.surf
    Registered Users Posts: 179 ✭✭Board.surf


    I'm done with this nonsense. The "question" will bring out the racists who want to rant in a KKK manner. It's supposing in a favourable way toward the teaching of the KKK about something that will never happen to scaremonger. Anyone falling for this needs to think twice.

    Have a look at this video about Ballyhaunis and if your still ranting against it, then I pity you.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ex78dBceVV8


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,967 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    I can't see the problem. More Irish /more non Irish? Who cares? So long as Irish /non Irish are working & paying taxes it does not effect me at all.


  • Options
    #68
    Fourier
    Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    Harry Palmr wrote: »
    Yeah because it's as if no English words have any Latin derivation.....;)
    That doesn't come directly from the actual Romans though, but due to conscious borrowings during the Renaissance, not the Sub-Roman or Roman periods.


  • Options
    #69
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    Board.surf wrote: »
    WOW!! Irish is not an ethnicity and never will be. It's a diaspora. We are Caucasian. Japanese is an ethnicity.

    Caucasian is a funny term we've gathered ourselves under. It refers to similarities in bone structure and includes includes Asia Minor and North Africa. Given where the Caucasus is, the original Caucasians were generally Islamic and many chunks of the "population region" are still so.

    Caucasian tends to be used in a very limited sense by Western Europeans and Americans. Definitely shouldn't be conflated with being white, but it usually is.


  • Options
    #70
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    NIMAN wrote: »
    Its going to be a VERY long time before white Irish are in a minority in this country, in fact it ain't going to happen.

    If you compare Ireland to the likes of the UK, we have hardly any non-nationals at all.

    That's funny. It's also complete bull****.
    Ireland's foreign-born population is 15.9%. Higher than the US (14.3%) or the UK (13.2%) which both have a much longer history of immigration and much larger populations which should be able to handle such changes better than Ireland. We're doing well so far with immigration but pretending that it's never going to be an issue is ****ing idiotic.


  • Options
    #71
    Nervous Wreck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Nervous Wreck


    I have no allegiance to Ireland or Irish people. I'm Irish, I was born and raised here but so what? I'd rather forget about weird allegiances like that and just be happy for anyone who's able to live well, irrespective of where they're from or what colour their skin is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Minderbinder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,030 ✭✭✭Minderbinder


    Deleted User wrote: »
    That's funny. It's also complete bull****.
    Ireland's foreign-born population is 15.9%. Higher than the US (14.3%) or the UK (13.2%) which both have a much longer history of immigration and much larger populations which should be able to handle such changes better than Ireland. We're doing well so far with immigration but pretending that it's never going to be an issue is ****ing idiotic.

    'foreign-born population' is different to 'non-nationals' though, isn't it?


  • Options
    #73
    Board.surf
    Registered Users Posts: 179 ✭✭Board.surf


    Samaris wrote: »
    Caucasian is a funny term we've gathered ourselves under. It refers to similarities in bone structure and includes includes Asia Minor and North Africa. Given where the Caucasus is, the original Caucasians were generally Islamic and many chunks of the "population region" are still so.

    Caucasian tends to be used in a very limited sense by Western Europeans and Americans. Definitely shouldn't be conflated with being white, but it usually is.



    I was supposed to write that Japanese is part of the Asian race. The kid would be Japanese! That much is obvious, Japanese is an ethnicity or nationality and I guess Irish can technically be to. The question was about a white kid born in Japan. He is japanese due to nationality but he's not Asian ethnicity. If his parents were Irish he could technically still claim Irish ethnicity. It's a lot more complicated than people spouting nonsense


  • Options
    #74
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,111 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Board.surf wrote: »
    So basically your backing down on it not being an immigrant nation.
    Going by your criteria everywhere is an "immigrant nation" outside of the horn of Africa. Which is a patent nonsense.
    And Norman is obviously of Norse decent also.
    Read again. Norse/Norman admixture within the British population is low.
    Samaris wrote: »
    The conditions as they were then for emigrants or immigrants is irrelevant to the topic though;
    It most certainly isn't. Remove all social welfare for immigrants and see how quickly the "asylum seekers" dry up. Goes for throughout the EU. Funny how the Middle Eastern countries are seeing vanishingly few "refugees" yet are closer. Funny how said "refugees" march through Europe towards the nations with the highest levels of social welfare support. Obviously, but to say it's irrelevant is beyond daft.

    Samaris wrote: »
    Caucasian is a funny term we've gathered ourselves under. It refers to similarities in bone structure and includes includes Asia Minor and North Africa. Given where the Caucasus is, the original Caucasians were generally Islamic and many chunks of the "population region" are still so.

    Caucasian tends to be used in a very limited sense by Western Europeans and Americans. Definitely shouldn't be conflated with being white, but it usually is.
    You really seem to have the most basic understanding of population and population history. "Similarities in bone structure" indeed....
    Minderbinder wrote: »
    Why are Japanese an ethnicity but Irish are not?
    Cos white guilt. The Japanese are allowed to be "ethnic", because they're yellow. Not white. It's an odd and ironic racism all too often to be found among the Right On. Hell we have another poster hoping for the destruction of "white man's culture". I'd love to see their alternative among the other non white shining cultures out there. They seem to completely miss the obvious point that they can even publicly hold such opinions because of "white man's culture".

    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.



  • Options
    #75
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    Board.surf wrote: »
    I was supposed to write that Japanese is part of the Asian race. The kid would be Japanese! That much is obvious, Japanese is an ethnicity or nationality and I guess Irish can technically be to. The question was about a white kid born in Japan. He is japanese due to nationality but he's not Asian ethnicity. If his parents were Irish he could technically still claim Irish ethnicity. It's a lot more complicated than people spouting nonsense

    That whole argument about how Irish do you have to be to be Irish and who can be eliminated from Irishness is pure identity politics. Sure, it has some relevance to he various issues, but it's not as important (or clear-cut) as it's made out to be. It certainly isn't the be-all and end-all.


  • Options
    #76
    Ninjavampire
    Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭Ninjavampire


    It's mental looking at the poll results. Who cares about skin colour? Is there a difference between a half polish child who is white Irish and a half Nigerian child who is half-black Irish?

    We should only care that immigrants are given the proper opportunities to integrate into Irish society and aren't ghettoised or treated badly by a proportion of the population.


  • Options
    #77
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,111 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Board.surf wrote: »
    I was supposed to write that Japanese is part of the Asian race. The kid would be Japanese! That much is obvious, Japanese is an ethnicity or nationality and I guess Irish can technically be to. The question was about a white kid born in Japan. He is japanese due to nationality but he's not Asian ethnicity. If his parents were Irish he could technically still claim Irish ethnicity.
    Observe if you will, the confused thinking and internal knot tying of the Right On around this matter, writ large for our delectation. Let's flip the script so we can see the very thing the poster rails against.

    I was supposed to write that Irish is part of the European race. The kid would be Irish! That much is obvious, Irish is an ethnicity or nationality and I guess Japanese can technically be to[sic]. The question was about a Yellow kid born in Ireland. He is Irish due to nationality but he's not Irish ethnicity. If his parents were Japanese he could technically still claim Japanese ethnicity.
    It's a lot more complicated than people spouting nonsense
    Indeed.

    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.



  • Options
    #78
    Golfproam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 150 ✭✭Golfproam


    Ninjavampire wrote: »
    It's mental looking at the poll results. Who cares about skin colour? Is there a difference between a half polish child who is white Irish and a half Nigerian child who is half-black Irish?

    We should only care that immigrants are given the proper opportunities to integrate into Irish society and aren't ghettoised or treated badly by a proportion of the population.
    What about the ones who won't integrate and prefer to continue with the way of life they are claiming to be leaving behind?


  • Options
    #79
    Ninjavampire
    Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭Ninjavampire


    Golfproam wrote: »
    What about the ones who won't integrate and prefer to continue with the way of life they are claiming to be leaving behind?

    I know plenty of born and bred Irish people who won't integrate with the rest of the population either. You will never get everyone on board but you have to try. The more welcome people feel, the less likely they are to keep to their own and in time, you will encourage people to integrate that would have never done so before.


  • Options
    #80
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,111 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Golfproam wrote: »
    What about the ones who won't integrate and prefer to continue with the way of life they are claiming to be leaving behind?
    Which seems to be the overwhelming experience of every single other European nation with larger non native/immigrant populations. One can lay the blame on the host nation, one can lay the blame of the new population, or lay the blame equally. It doesn't matter, that's a red herring. The plain fact is that there seems to be a point reached in the population size of incoming cultures where the problems kick off and usually in the second generation.

    It beggars belief why any country would want to emulate that because "diversity". Mostly peddled by the "Ow wow Fintan, have you tried the new Uzbek restaurant" set. Like politicians, people who won't have to deal with any fallout of such a social experiment. Like the D4 types who will happily and loudly witter on about Traveller's rights, but will quietly and strongly object to planning for halting sites in their backyard.

    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.



  • Options
    #81
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Minderbinder wrote: »
    'foreign-born population' is different to 'non-nationals' though, isn't it?
    Ugh. Yes, different words have different meanings, imagine that.
    Foreign-born means immigrants. The relative "ranking" of countries by foreign-born population will generally align closely with the "ranking" of countries by non-citizen population.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    Wibbs wrote: »
    It most certainly isn't. Remove all social welfare for immigrants and see how quickly the "asylum seekers" dry up. Goes for throughout the EU. Funny how the Middle Eastern countries are seeing vanishingly few "refugees" yet are closer. Funny how said "refugees" march through Europe towards the nations with the highest levels of social welfare support. Obviously, but to say it's irrelevant is beyond daft.
    Okay, so it's the absolute driving factor behind all migration in Europe and it is absolutely not falsified at all by the countless examples of mass migration taking place without said support as you yourself brought up with the American example. Migration will happen. Migration always has happened. Social welfare can be a factor, sure, but the alternative has tended to be that there isn't any, people come anyway, and there is a lot more suffering than is really neccessary in the host country. Why do you place "asylum seekers" in inverted commas, btw? An awful lot of people are, and you really only have to watch the news to see that all of them are probably not making it up. There are economic migrants too, ofc, and Britain is soon to find out why kicking all of -them- out isn't the best notion either.

    Wibbs wrote: »
    You really seem to have the most basic understanding of population and population history. "Similarities in bone structure" indeed....
    Thank you for your courteous refutation of my point based on evidence.

    The concept of a Caucasian "race" was coined by Meiners as a counterpoint to "Mongolian" and drew on Europe, down to the middle east, India and North Africa and it was simplistic enough to pretty much be "beautiful peoples" vs "ugly peoples" (no prizes for guessing which). Blumenthal took the term and ran with it, basing his classification on bone structure of the skull! (Specifically Georgian, i.e. within the Caucasus region. The very -word- refers to "resemblance", and it etymologically means "similar [to those of] the Caucasus."

    So yes, I quite stand by "similarities in bone structure"; it was further typified (again in the early days) by shape of the nose, size of mouth, incline of skull, etcetera - all bone structures. It subsequently moved into classifying by purity of whiteness - starting with "German" and "non-German" (aka dirty whites), but the ideas of bone structure were the origination of the term and remained strongly involved with its classification. White is not specifically Caucasian and Caucasian is certainly not specifically white.

    What do you argue it to be then? I'm honestly curious as I took purely from the historical evidence around the word and its application and usage. Although it is all pretty irrelevant to migration.


  • Options
    #83
    pumpkin4life
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭pumpkin4life


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Which seems to be the overwhelming experience of every single other European nation with larger non native/immigrant populations. One can lay the blame on the host nation, one can lay the blame of the new population, or lay the blame equally. It doesn't matter, that's a red herring. The plain fact is that there seems to be a point reached in the population size of incoming cultures where the problems kick off and usually in the second generation.

    It beggars belief why any country would want to emulate that because "diversity". Mostly peddled by the "Ow wow Fintan, have you tried the new Uzbek restaurant" set. Like politicians, people who won't have to deal with any fallout of such a social experiment. Like the D4 types who will happily and loudly witter on about Traveller's rights, but will quietly and strongly object to planning for halting sites in their backyard.

    And then people like me and others like me; who come from really poor areas who talk about the crime and problems these communities have as a result of this wonderful social experiment, but are ignored by the D4 lads.

    Not to get all Paul Murphy, but there is a massive class division in this country.


  • Options
    #84
    BillyBobBS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,568 ✭✭✭BillyBobBS


    Ninjavampire wrote: »
    I know plenty of born and bred Irish people who won't integrate with the rest of the population either. You will never get everyone on board but you have to try. The more welcome people feel, the less likely they are to keep to their own and in time, you will encourage people to integrate that would have never done so before.

    A policy that has failed in the UK, in the US, in Sweden, in France, in Germany etc... You can't force people to integrate who want no part in our culture or way of life. I totally disagree with your statement "we have to try", we don't have to try. We do have to be smart and learn lessons from others failures.


  • Options
    #85
    Ronaldinho
    Registered Users Posts: 829 ✭✭✭Ronaldinho


    Nervous Wreck wrote: »
    I have no allegiance to Ireland or Irish people. I'm Irish, I was born and raised here but so what? I'd rather forget about weird allegiances like that....

    I find that attitude a bit odd (no offence intended) to be honest, but each to their own.

    I've seen that viewpoint a few times on Boards over the past couple of years. To me, it's a symptom of a decadence in society. We've been fortunate to live in a very settled period of history and I don't think people really appreciate the sacrifices made by previous generations that made this country what it is today. Yes we have problems to work on (housing etc.) but if this survey is anything to go by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report#2017_report we're not in too bad a place.

    Myself, I'm proud to be Irish and I think a strong national identity is a good thing, whether on a national level or in a local community. Without that I don't think an Irish Republic would ever have come about. I've been very lucky to be born in what is generally a great place to learn, live, work, raise a family and so much more. And I hope the country will remain so for many, many generations to come.

    I would agree with your second point - I too would be happy for anyone who's able to live well, irrespective of where they're from or what colour their skin is.

    This, and having an allegiance to our country are not mutually exclusive.


  • Options
    #86
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    I would 100% have a problem with any area in any part of the world having the minority over run the natives.


  • Options
    #87
    BillyBobBS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,568 ✭✭✭BillyBobBS


    pumpkin4life wrote: »
    And then people like me and others like me; who come from really poor areas who talk about the crime and problems these communities have as a result of this wonderful social experiment, but are ignored by the D4 lads.

    Not to get all Paul Murphy, but there is a massive class division in this country.

    Someone will be along in a minute to tell you you are lazy. Same people wouldn't have a social housing estate, traveler site or refugee centre within a mile of their front door.


  • Options
    #88
    Ninjavampire
    Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭Ninjavampire


    BillyBobBS wrote: »
    A policy that has failed in the UK, in the US, in Sweden, in France, in Germany etc... You can't force people to integrate who want no part in our culture or way of life. I totally disagree with your statement "we have to try", we don't have to try. We do have to be smart and learn lessons from others failures.

    So we don't bother to try and integrate people? What's the alternative? Immigration ban?


  • Options
    #89
    southstar
    Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭southstar


    Board.surf wrote: »
    To dull it down,

    Narrow gene pool from mating with your cousin over generations = health issues
    Wide gene pool from mating with those who are extremely different to you = their offspring are healthier


    All in all people don't get it. They are simply clinging to their entitlement of "nationality" or entitlement to free stuff due to their place of birth. They whine about Ireland constantly, yet they think that someone who wasn't born on a certain rock shouldn't have access to the resources that they have taken for granted. It's all very amusing. The fact that the town in question is a success story and all over the news as a perfect example of integration also seems to bemuse most people.

    So I take it you are for open borders then..oh well I'm off to the States and sure let 50/100/500? Asians/ Africans in to replace me..a recipe for social disaster but clearly I just I'm just 'entitled' or too stupid to 'get it'.I don't consider my home just some arbitrary rock...its a place that I identify with in a real sense(family,culture history)..and all the condescension in the world by ,I suspect, a rather immature and ideologically enslaved commentators aint changing that.By the way can you advise me what major genetic frailties have befallen us as a result of our contemptible insularity.


  • Options
    #90
    Golfproam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 150 ✭✭Golfproam


    Ninjavampire wrote: »
    So we don't bother to try and integrate people? What's the alternative? Immigration ban?
    Borders must be controlled. Immigration control is essential.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    Weird thing is, I don't think I have ever heard anyone argue for free, unfettered, absolute right of migration from anywhere to anywhere. It just doesn't happen. Even the dread EU, that harbinger of population amalgamation has its own rules about it (some of them are foolish, I'll grant, but they tend to benefit the north so we don't hear that much complaining up here about them!).

    Free unfettered mass migration will not benefit the country in which it takes place. Absolute ban on immigration will also not benefit the country in which it takes place.

    Crisis migrations tend to cause upheaval and upset, they have done so in the past, they do now, they will do so in the future. And it passes and a new equilibrium is set. -This- particular migration crisis is partially imv causing a lot of reaction by everyone being able to pay a lot more attention to it and, frankly, panic about it a lot more. But there were similar views from local Americans regarding the Irish, from the British regarding the Pakistanis, from everyone regarding the Jews and without specifying the exact issues (such as a strong current of religious views which often conflict with local concepts of what's acceptable), and sweepingly dismissing all immigrants as fake refugees here to wipe out the white Irish (seriously, this thread title is pure scaremongering) just isn't helpful to anyone and detracts from debate about specific issues.
    southstar wrote: »
    By the way can you advise me what major genetic frailties have befallen us as a result of our contemptible insularity.

    Cystic fibrosis, phenyketanuria, hemochromatosis (iron-loading, pretty much, and once called the "Celtic disease") and something called transferase-deficient galactosemia (no idea). https://www.jstor.org/stable/20764508?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents


Advertisement