What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP

Hunky Monster wrote: »

There you are now to completely derail the thread as usual.

I am not the one constantly bringing up israel. Its the account weirdly called 'THE ZIONIST ' that is derailing the thread.

I am just the one being subjected to abuse. I am being told i am not Irish.

Clarence Boddiker

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I am to be held accountable for everything Israel does? All your frustrations about israel ...a country you have never been to are to be taken out on me. Hmm?

All your frustrations about multiculturalism ...are my fault. Hmm?

I'm not holding you to account for anything, I'm saying I would like Ireland to follow the lead of Israel and recruit immigrants (as much as possible) exclusively from a pool of the Irish diaspora.

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

It sounds like you believe that in order to be modern and progressive we must be like others and not ourselves.

Exactly this.

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

I'm not holding you to account for anything, I'm saying I would like Ireland to follow the lead of Israel and recruit immigrants (as much as possible) exclusively from a pool of the Irish diaspora.

Why are you talking about Israel?

And no it wouldn't be Irish. It would be catholic. catholic Nigerians etc.

Judaism is not a nationality its a religion.

And before you say no its an ethnicity ..well it wouldn't be if you were to let me be Irish!

Wibbs

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I am sorry. I have to say you are incorrect. We have no notable classical composers. We have no opera house. We have not contributed anything to the world of classical music. The standard of our classical singers is poor. The wexford opera festival at one point was an international joke in the opera world.

You are correct ...classical music HERE is boring. Its done BAAADLY.

Go the ballet in Russia ..go the opera in Italy or france. Its done well.

For orchestral music.

We don't produce many soloists.

The knowledge of Irish music critics is also poor.

Eh you do comprehend Ireland has a tiny population and has done for quite a while? For most of the 20th century it was around two million. The current population of Paris, a quarter the current population of London. Our impact on the world has been remarkably large considering that.

The BBC is state TV. And i am sick of using money as an excuse ...new ideas are free.

Another pie in the sky idiotic statement. Ideas may be "free", but implementing them isn't. Never mind that the BBC is about the pinnacle of state TV on the planet. RTE may be woeful of late, but down the years its output had its moments and certainly way better than many European state TV stations and especially given obvious comparisons with our neighbours output. Have you ever watched French, or Spanish, or Italian TV. Good god it's usually appalling, when it's not mind numbingly boring.

Which Ireland would you prefer to live in ...a homogeneous one that fears immigration ..or a multicultural one?

Depends entirely on the cultures involved. Japan is a homogeneous culture and is quite actively against outsiders and they do pretty well culturally and socially and technologically. Actually you could argue that's true of most East Asian cultures and guess who are on the up and up culturally and economically?

And the most important question ..which do you think would be the more narrow minded?

One can be open minded about cultures and cultural experiences and experience them without importing them in the form of people.

I mean ...I think multiculturalism has even helped the Irish language. Its made people more sensitive.

Seriously. I want to know what you're smoking. Sensitive? What the hell?

There are those on the right who tend to think its a waste of our taxes.

Those who think it a waste, or at least how that time, effort and money is spent are not to be found among any particular political leaning. Indeed your dancing at the crossroads old Ireland type right wingers are gung ho for the language.

Depends entirely on the cultures involved. Japan is a homogeneous culture and is quite actively against outsiders and they do pretty well culturally and socially and technologically. Actually you could argue that's true of most East Asian cultures and guess who are on the up and up culturally and economically?

And japan is very culturally rigid because of this young people often have mental health issues because of it. China also has similar issues. In fact if you look across for human rights in most of asia ..its not great.

Eh you do comprehend Ireland has a tiny population and has done for quite a while? For most of the 20th century it was around two million. The current population of Paris, a quarter the current population of London. Our impact on the world has been remarkably large considering that.

Norway has the same issues. They have a lot of classical composers.

Seriously. I want to know what you're smoking. Sensitive? What the hell?

In accepting that minority languages have rights beyond ..simply nationalism. It doesn't matter that it is related to Ireland. People speak this language. They have rights equal to ours. And often we let them down.

Those who think it a waste, or at least how that time, effort and money is spent are not to be found among any particular political leaning. Indeed your dancing at the crossroads old Ireland type right wingers are gung ho for the language.

With capitalists this is not the case tho. I accept your point as being relevant tho.

Thank you for engaging with my points in a respectful eloquent way wibbs.

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

I'm not holding you to account for anything, I'm saying I would like Ireland to follow the lead of Israel and recruit immigrants (as much as possible) exclusively from a pool of the Irish diaspora.

A big part of what makes Ireland attractive internationally now, is the fact that it has become more cosmopolitan. That doesn't take away from the strongly rooted cultural domain. If you wanted to attract folks from the Irish diaspora, you would do well to advertize both characteristics, just sayin'.

Clarence Boddiker

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Why are you talking about Israel?

And no it wouldn't be Irish. It would be catholic. catholic Nigerians etc.

Judaism is not a nationality its a religion.

And before you say no its an ethnicity ..well it wouldn't be if you were to let me be Irish!

I never said you weren't Irish, and most Nigerian Catholics in Nigeria do not have any Irish ancestry that I'm aware of so are not regarded as being part of the diaspora.

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

A big part of what makes Ireland attractive internationally now, is the fact that it has become more cosmopolitan. That doesn't take away from the strongly rooted cultural domain. If you wanted to attract folks from the Irish diaspora, you would do well to advertize both characteristics, just sayin'.

I agree with this.

We don't lose our 'Irish appeal' by doing so.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Wibbs: Breaks down nonsense, debunks it all.

Iloveyourvibes: I didn’t listen to any of that but instead I’ll throw some other random stuff at you.

Repeat.

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

I never said you weren't Irish,.

You were part of that same chorus.

and most Nigerian Catholics in Nigeria do not have any Irish ancestry that I'm aware of so are not regarded as being part of the diaspora

I am demonstrating to you why your analogy is a bad one.

Further more there are many African Americans with some Irish ancestry. Although a lot of this might be slave owner DNA.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/17/irish-african-american-dna-tests

ExMachina1000

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Irish culture was incredibly static.There was zero evolution. Anyone who wanted to be anything had to leave.

Things like classical music/Ballet never found roots here. While i love Irish music and dance...and it gave great imput into Irish pop music...this was becoming stagnant.

It wasn't evolving. It wasn't reflecting enough colour and nuance for a modern world. Our television etc is still pretty bad.

The best Irish film in recent years has been things like Breakfast on Pluto The Lobster Closure of Catharsis (amazing if you have not seen it). They have all had immigrant influences in either script acting or production.

Cultures become enriched from broader experiences and ideas. Without these they become stale and stagnant often the collective narrative within that culture becomes something the younger generation in that culture cannot relate to.

It becomes like an ill fitting shirt.

This coupled with the fact that a lot of young people tend to leave Ireland hasn't helped. We have perhaps entire decades of a huge outward migration of young people.

When talking about our cultural networks ..or your cultural network ..i am using it really to refer to your friend group ....it might seem an odd phrase but its the only one i can think of.Exposure to a wider group of people ..often brings wisdom ..an openness to new ideas and acceptance. I think this crosses over into how we think about people who might also be more like us or look more like us.

When people who look like us ..start to do new things or behave in a way ..we think of as 'unacceptable or weird' we can ostracize them. I think having a wider cultural network actually makes people more flexible and less rigid.

Cultural rigidity occurs in highly homogeneous places. It results in suppression of the alternative. Now you might ask...why does our culture need to contain everything? Well it doesn't ..but the less and less it contains ...the more primitive it will become. Island culture. The more narrowly defined things will be. The less nuance there is. And this will be reflected in everything from novels to films to songs to the way people talk.

People become afraid of things that cannot be narrowly defined. Like transpeople or fluid sexuality. OMG they are trying to change GENDER! :eek:

Why does our culture need to contain everything? Because such cultural rigidity harms progression.When you are rigid towards the different ....you are usually rigid towards the NEW. Society cannot evolve in anyway that is authentic when you only hear one voice or many voices that are just the same.

Etiquette is often defined by culture ....but who sets these rules that set the parameters of how we should live? Are they to be set wide or narrow ? Are they to be set rigidly or in a flexible way? Studies have shown the more rigid a culture is ..the more extreme it can be. Jihadists are hardly known for being flexible with their ideas.

So think ....are extremists of the LEFT or the RIGHT ...flexible? Or is their thinking more rigid?

And why do you think that might be? Do you think maybe their cultural network is too much like them? Or is it diverse?

The less diverse your network is ..the less you understand.

Cultures cannot evolve in an authentic way with only one voice.

Now cultural rigidity cannot be solved by multiculturalism alone. But it can help ..Overly rigid cultures EVEN companies can become codified overly ritualistic and disconnected ...think of the catholic church.

Also if people in a culture don't have to compete ..they lose their edge. If irish music doesn't have to compete with other music ....it won't be as good.

Ireland evolved more in the last 15 yrs than it had probably in the previous 50. that was not incidental.

When organizations ...like govt or companies try to evolve ...its in a ritualistic codified way ..that seems inauthentic ...if a company puts in gender policy ...its often scoffed at ...and when think about it that company is STILL often maybe 80% white men at the top. So you can't blame people for thinking this is silly. Whereas if it were truly diverse ...people would have no option but to evolve.

Irish culture was and is just fine.

Clarence Boddiker

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

A big part of what makes Ireland attractive internationally now, is the fact that it has become more cosmopolitan. That doesn't take away from the strongly rooted cultural domain. If you wanted to attract folks from the Irish diaspora, you would do well to advertize both characteristics, just sayin'.

Attractive to who?

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

And japan is very culturally rigid because of this young people often have mental health issues because of it. China also has similar issues. In fact if you look across for human rights in most of asia ..its not great.

Well, that's rather simplistic. Japan's issues stem from far more than a rigid adherence to it's primary culture. And China? Nope. I'm not going to write a long post on this, but you should try living in these countries before spouting this rubbish.

Norway has the same issues. They have a lot of classical composers.

And a long history combined with Sweden as being cultural powerhouses with close ties to imperial Europe... come on. Compare like with like. And no, don't use Belgium, for the same reasons as Norway.

In accepting that minority languages have rights beyond ..simply nationalism. It doesn't matter that it is related to Ireland. People speak this language. They have rights equal to ours. And often we let them down.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Slowyourrole

Tony EH wrote: »

That's hardly the same thing though, is it?

When you're talking about America, you have to remember that the original people and their cultures were exterminated and everybody going there in their stead, were immigrants, whether they were black, white, yellow or whatever you're having yourself.

But there was a hierarchy of immigrants, with the Irish being pretty low and considered much like many here consider asylum seekers and immigrants from outside Europe now. So I think the comparison is pretty valid. Do you think the Irish integrated and provided an overall benefit to the USA?

Wibbs wrote: »

I gave you six, but you quite simply don't want to hear them because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Do you think the large amount of Irish that travelled to the USA had an overall positive or negative effect?

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep, which is reflected in every society which has inward migration. Even Ireland. 30 years ago we had Italians, Chinese, quite a few from the Middle East, even a few Africans, but they were small in number and there were no enclaves and no talk of inclusion or any of that. Now there are and there is and watch and see what kicks off, just like everywhere else.

What enclaves?

Wibbs wrote: »

Again, and like everyone who wheels out this trite "argument", you are completely ignoring the simple fact that America is a colony that was built on immigration, forced or voluntary and couldn't have survived without it and often on the bones and blood of those who built it, the Africans, the Chinese, even a fair number of Irish. You can't compare a nation built on and directly dependent on immigration to an existing nation with a largely stable population of locals. What happened to the largely stable population of local Americans when Europeans rocked up?

You're using colonial countries as examples of what could happen in Ireland. Isn't there a difference there? Seems you're happy to ignore the differences when it suits your narrative.

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Attractive to who?

To me, as a member of the diaspora.

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Attractive to who?

People in general.

Of all races in the Irish diaspora. TBH the oul oirish stuff doesn't have as much pull with the kids in the states anymore.

Wibbs

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

Israel sucks in Jewish people from the diaspora and that is the bigger part of what makes it vibrant.

Not again. Bloody hell. Israel is a new country, essentially a colony, that drew in Jewish people from the aftermath of World War Two to build a homeland free from the sh1t they'd gone through. It had it's origins in 19th century European cultural revivals(just like the Celtic vibe here, the Teutonic in Germany etc), but that was its real start point. Israel like the US, like Canada is a nation based on and built on immigration.

It's like when Irish language types crow on about how Irish could be like Modern Hebrew. Entirely missing the point that Israel needed a lingua franca to survive because of the diaspora of languages coming in(In the early 20th century German of all things was in the mix as a frontrunner), whereas Ireland already has one that all Irish people under the age of 100 living on the Blaskets are fluent in.

You can't compare a nation or culture like Israel, or ex colonies like the US, Canada etc to long preexisting nations like Ireland. Look what happens when you try to impose cultural borders on such nations. You get crisis and eventually schisms. Look at many African nations for examples and tell them that borders don't matter and we're all the same people holding hands(with diversity cafes). I'm quite convinced that too many people have little clue of human nature, or human history.

Oh and its not as if Israel is happy clappy land along ethnic religious and cultural lines... Using Israel as another good example of multiculturalism. Jaysus... And no I'm not anti Israel. I have questions about the leaderships and some of the religious nut jobs, but that goes for many countries and many are way worse. Israel needed to exist and I'm glad it does.

ExMachina1000

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

To me, as a member of the diaspora.

Did you come back?

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

A big part of what makes Ireland attractive internationally now, is the fact that it has become more cosmopolitan. That doesn't take away from the strongly rooted cultural domain. If you wanted to attract folks from the Irish diaspora, you would do well to advertize both characteristics, just sayin'.

Actually, no... not really. Many Irish are returning because Ireland provides economic success and employment. It's seen as being a traditionally stable environment to raise a family, as opposed to the melting pots internationally. That's changing though, unfortunately.

If the government really wanted Irish people to return, they'd simply offer some financial incentives such as some support in settling here. It's really quite expensive to return to Ireland after living abroad, and something that prevents many expats from returning.

. And China? Nope. I'm not going to write a long post on this, but you should try living in these countries before spouting this rubbish.

You think china has a good human rights record?

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, no... not really. Many Irish are returning because Ireland provides economic success and employment. It's seen as being a traditionally stable environment to raise a family, as opposed to the melting pots internationally. That's changing though, unfortunately.

If the government really wanted Irish people to return, they'd simply offer some financial incentives such as some support in settling here. It's really quite expensive to return to Ireland after living abroad, and something that prevents many expats from returning.

I think he means diaspora returning not to live but for tourism.

Irish people who left coming home do so because this is where they have roots.

You won't get an Irish American uprooting here to look for a job and to start a family.

But they might come here for a year to visit or something.

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Did you come back?

I've been back on vacation, I lived in Dublin in the eighties. But I am Canadian, and really enjoy my life here. But Dublin would be high up in my places to live.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

You think china has a good human rights record?

Duh. Of course it doesn't. I didn't reply to it, because it's so obvious.. hardly needs an affirmative.

But the fact that you believe their human rights record matters to young Chinese people, simply shows just how little you understand about Chinese culture and Chinese people.

Deleted User wrote: »

Duh. Of course it doesn't. I didn't reply to it, because it's so obvious.. hardly needs an affirmative.

But the fact that you believe their human rights record matters to young Chinese people, simply shows just how little you understand about Chinese culture and Chinese people.

It really DOES matter to them. I know a lot of young chinese people.

I mean they have even invented a new term ..formalism.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I think he means diaspora returning not to live but for tourism.

Irish people who left coming home do so because this is where they have roots.

You won't get an Irish American uprooting here to look for a job and to start a family.

But they might come here for a year to visit or something.

And the Irish who left during the recessions? Those who left within the last twenty years, and would like to return but can't really afford to?

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, no... not really. Many Irish are returning because Ireland provides economic success and employment. It's seen as being a traditionally stable environment to raise a family, as opposed to the melting pots internationally. That's changing though, unfortunately.

If the government really wanted Irish people to return, they'd simply offer some financial incentives such as some support in settling here. It's really quite expensive to return to Ireland after living abroad, and something that prevents many expats from returning.

I agree with you on some points, but really, if Ireland is an expensive and desirable country, it is because it has a worldly component. It would not have had the success it had in the past thirty years without its worldliness in business, and playing its EU cards right, digging in when Russia was opening up to capitalism, etc...

OMM 0000

RyanthePirate wrote: »

I would like to see a Boards.ie Consensus.

Economists agree that immigration has a net positive on the economy and thus immigration is surely a wonderful thing for the country.

Agree/Disagree?

Your sentence is a bit of a trick. Let's break it down into it's two parts:

Economists agree that immigration has a net positive on the economy

thus immigration is surely a wonderful thing for the country.

So, assuming a country has a sensible immigration policy where its own citizens come first and immigrants are brought in on the basis of filling some skills or knowledge gaps, then the first part is probably fair, because you use the wording net positive.

But the second sentence then converts this into being wonderful.

That's not the correct word and is disconnected from the first sentence.

So I disagree.