Deleted User wrote: » ... In any case, I'm more concerned with the effects of multiculturalism, and rising numbers of low-skilled migrants on the economy/welfare, than any fear of Irish people becoming a minority in their own country.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » ... Culture is very important aswell.
... My girlfriend is from South America but raised in Spain from a young age, and feels no affiliation for Ecuador at all. She considers herself Spanish.
eleventh wrote: » Culture can't be preserved in a melting pot of multi-culture. How would you describe 'American culture'.... It's anything you want it to be... Culture is something where there's general agreement among all who are part of it.
eleventh wrote: » She is South American / Ecaudorian (or whatever's the correct wording there).
eleventh wrote: » I am Irish and no matter where I live, how long I live there I will always be Irish; whether I like it or not. It's not something you pick and choose.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » The poster I was responding to said it was wishful thinking of mine that someone born in Ireland to foreign parents wouldn't have their roots here and nowhere else. I was pointing out that even people briefly raised abroad can have their roots firmly in the country they have spent the majority of their life.
eleventh wrote: » We seem to be interpreting roots differently. If you arrive to a country but your parents were of a different nationality, you have no roots in that country. Roots come from background/heritage.
eleventh wrote: » It is an effect of multiculturalism. It's the main reason I'm against it - the dilution and (eventual) destruction of native culture and people. A situation where majority are nominally Irish ('consider themselves Irish' / Irish on paper) while the ethnicity/culture is gone, or exiled to small enclaves - similar to what happened with the language.
I am Irish and no matter where I live, how long I live there I will always be Irish; whether I like it or not. It's not something you pick and choose.
Justin Credible Darts wrote: » tell me, if for example the kid and their patents arrive in Ireland, and the kid is 5 weeks old, knows nothing else but ireland, and is still living in Ireland by the age of 48 and never been to the parents "homeland", and the only culture they know is Irish, Are you telling me they are not Irish ? Despite decades here, decades of paying tax , voting etc ? having Irish mannerisms, understanding irish culture etc
eleventh wrote: » I'm wondering why you put 'homeland' in quotes like that. It's like you disdain the idea. In those situations, you could say Russian-Irish, Spanish-Irish, African-Irish, etc.
Deleted User wrote: » Similar to the language? There's is too much romantic nonsense about the Irish language, and it's supposed importance with Irish people. I grew up in a dual language household, where we all spoke Irish in the home, and English with those outside the immediate family. My father is from the west of Ireland, and my mother, well, went with the flow, since they're both teachers. And I spoke Irish fluently until I entered secondary school, whereupon I lost it. Why? A combination of two things. First, the focus on how it was taught was awkward, draining any pleasure away from the language, and secondly, as an adult, there was no use for it. Although TBH I suspect a greater risk to national culture is from the Internet, social media, and conforming to internet opinions over time..
TomTomTim wrote: » I don't agree, simply as a matter of preciseness. I'd struggle to call any 2nd generation immigrants ethnically Irish, because they simply aren't. They can be Irish citizens, and act as Irish as any of us, but they still aren't ethnically Irish. The word ethnicity has a meaning, and I'm not willing to betray that. The bastardization of language has been one of the main tools of "progressives", so I think we'd be wise not to go down that road, or at least not contribute to it. The world as it stands is blurry enough, without making it even worse.
That's exactly what we shouldn't be aiming for! It's sounds so American, and is why I said earlier to Sand that contrary to how it may seem it is in fact me who is arguing against Americanism.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » No it isn't. Culture is very important aswell. You seem to attach no importance to it at all and associate ethnicity solely with the nationality of the parents.
Who are you say to a person born in Ireland and raised in Ireland that Irish history isn't their history?
That is the height of arrogance. Polish history isn't your history because you weren't born and raised there. Nobody owns history regardless.
Why? My girlfriend is from South America but raised in Spain from a young age, and feels no affiliation for Ecuador at all. She considers herself Spanish.
I do not think it is unreasonable, I think it is wrong do it solely by that, which is what you are doing, and ignore things like culture.
A person can become Irish through naturalisation, nothing to do with their parent's descent.
And I am aware we are not America, it is, contrary what you may believe, me who is arguing against Americanism. I do not want the nonsense of someone whose great-great-grandfather was from Nigeria, who has never been there, has no ties to the place, doesn't know anything about the culture, going around calling themselves 'African' Irish because according to people like you they aren't truely Irish. They are (though they can call themselves what they like).
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Sand and I are discussing someone born in Ireland to foreign parents, not someone who arrived.
Mules wrote: » This is an Irish forum, you sound ridiculous talking about white males, like someone in an American university sociology department.
TomTomTim wrote: » You can thank Reddit and Twitter for this nonsense. We honestly might as well be Americans at this stage.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » It is just the reality of what has being demonstrated in other countries like the UK and the USA. It is likely Ireland will follow the same path and it will be the disgruntled white working class who will be just waiting for a spark.
You don't have to be a sociologist to realise that.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Enoch Powell had an idea back in 1976 of inducing migrants to return 'home' offering £1000. About £7500 sterling today. I am not sure it would work for EU citizens as I am sure there would be some legal challenge. Barring an A50 exit from the EU I assume such inducements could only be applied to non-EU citizens? It could be a viable idea for those who believe deporting illegals or criminal migrants is enough. It could encourage those who do not permanently wish to set up home in Ireland to leave? Also Mr Powell stated he considered 200,000 of a migrants a year leaving Britain as "perfectly possible". And as "nothing". By contrast Ireland only has 85,400 immigrants as of April 2020.https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/pme/populationandmigrationestimatesapril2020/#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20emigrants%20increased,%25)%20on%20the%20previous%20year. So by using Enoch's logic it should be particularly easy to encourage them to leave the country.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » So by using Enoch's logic it should be particularly easy to encourage them to leave the country.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Enoch Powell had an idea back in 1976 of inducing migrants to return 'home' offering £1000.
Deleted User wrote: » The US and later, the UK were the first countries to take on the utter stupidity and self-destructiveness of identity politics, and social science's theories presented as fact (which they're not, and in most cases, there's been no unbiased research into the consequences of applying such social programming) Thankfully, we're starting to see all the negative effects of applying this half baked nonsense to the real world. Double standards, reverse racism/sexism, excessive social divisions, a rise in aggressive behavior, and a general confusion regarding what's now acceptable in society (since the standards change so often, and are applied selectively to particular groups)True enough. Not any more, because now people are starting to get involved, reading some of the absolute ****e that has come from the social sciences, and recognising how much of it is unproven gaff, with superficial covering to excuse racism towards white people (or Asians in some cases).
biko wrote: » Sweden has this already. The foreign family returning to their homeland can get travel paid for as well as just shy of 4000 Euro in cash for a large family.
Sand wrote: » I'm not denying culture has some importance, but when it comes to identifying members of the Irish ethnic group descent is the factor that distinguishes the Irish from non-Irish groups, in a way culture alone does not.
the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.
Sand wrote: » A person born to Irish parents is ethnically Irish regardless of where they are born. They are immersed in Irish culture in their homes from birth. A person born in Ireland to non-Irish parents is not ethnically Irish. And they are immersed in non-Irish culture in their homes from birth. That's entirely natural and there is nothing wrong with it, but you cant ignore it because its inconvenient.
Sand wrote: » The Irish state recognizes descent as the key factor because it automatically extends Irish citizenship to children of Irish parents, regardless of where they are born, but not to children born in Ireland to non-Irish parents. 80% of the Irish population backed that position in a referendum.
Sand wrote: » Let me try explain this differently. I see you're quite opinionated on the trans issue. Would you agree that if a person is raised by women, embraces women's culture, dresses like a woman, speaks like a woman, acts like a woman, identifies as a woman then they are a woman, regardless of them being biologically male? I doubt it given the views I see you express on the JK Rowling thread. I wont be getting into a trans debate, but you hang your hat on substance (biology/descent) in one argument, and on form (culture/gender) in another.
An ethnic group or ethnicity is a named social category of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups such as a common set of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion, or social treatment within their residing area
Sand wrote: » A realist?
Sand wrote: » Even if I was born in Poland, Polish history wouldn't be my history. My history would still be derived from the experiences of my ancestors, not someone elses.
Sand wrote: » Well, your girlfriend wasn't born in Spain right? So by your definition she's not ethnically Spanish, right? still be derived from the experiences of my ancestors, not someone elses.
Sand wrote: » I'm not ignoring it. I'm placing it in its proper context. Culture is constantly shifting and changing. The Irish culture of the 1950s was very different to the Irish culture of today. You cant come up with a cultural definition of being Irish that doesn't exclude whole swathes of the population (then or now), or is so watered down and accessible that it amounts to no more than celebrating St Arthur's day with a pint of the black stuff. Irish culture is derived from Irish people, not the other way around. It will constantly evolve and change as the Irish people take up or discard points of view, religious beliefs, styles of music, sports, pastimes and so on. You cannot fix it at one point in time and say this is Irish, and anything else is not Irish, anymore than Canute could command the waves.
Sand wrote: » Descent is far more stable definition of ethnicity. It's why 80% of the Irish population backed Irish descent as automatically extending Irish citizenship to the child, not place of birth.
Sand wrote: » Sure, they can become Irish passport holders/citizens through naturalisation, but they still wouldn't be ethnically Irish unless of Irish descent. I can naturalise as a citizen of South Africa, but it doesn't make me a Zulu.
Sand wrote: » They're not ethnically Irish. You seem to believe I'm denying them something. I'm not. Again, I feel I have to point out that ethnicity is not a costume you can wear.
These words are often used interchangeably, but technically, they're defined as separate things. "'Race' and 'ethnicity' have been and continue to be used as ways to describe human diversity," said Nina Jablonski, an anthropologist and palaeobiologist at The Pennsylvania State University, who is known for her research into the evolution of human skin color. "Race is understood by most people as a mixture of physical, behavioral and cultural attributes. Ethnicity recognizes differences between people mostly on the basis of language and shared culture." In other words, race is often perceived as something that's inherent in our biology, and therefore inherited across generations. Ethnicity, on the other hand, is typically understood as something we acquire, or self-ascribe, based on factors like where we live or the culture we share with others.
Sand wrote: » I might surmise from your username that you are at least aware of Stephen Crowder, the US conservative/alt light youtuber? I'm not particularly familiar with him myself and I dare not review his youtube channel for fear of Youtube drowning me with recommendations for more videos from Crowder, JK Peterson, Douglas Murray and the like. However, I take it that he, like you, is appalled by identity politics in the US. And the general takeaway is that everyone who practices identity politics needs to stop, abandon their identity, and just act as individuals rather than groups organised for collective interests. Then all will be right with the world.
Sand wrote: » The problem with that is identity politics & collective action works. So why in the world would groups (i.e. Black Lives Matter) that practice identity politics give it up? Asking your opponent to stop using this approach which is allowing them to dominate US politics is a fools errand. But either way, the wailing about identity politics is an American conservative viewpoint based on the american myth of rugged individualism and 1980's nostalgia. It's failing in the US, its not the solution in Ireland. Everyone else, all around the world, is just getting on with getting what they want while US conservatives delude themselves.
biko wrote: » I and my Galway wife moves to China and live there 3 years and have a child there. Our child goes to Chinese school (speaks Chinese) for 10 years and have approx 50/50 Irish and Chinese friends. Is the child Irish or Chinese?
biko wrote: » Welsh that grew up in Ireland
Hamachi wrote: » If you are interested, I suggest you read Robert Putnam’s research in ‘Bowling Alone’, in which he documents how the bonds of social capital are depleted in diverse settings.
immigration and ethnic diversity have a devastating short- and medium-term influence on the social capital, fabric of associations, trust, and neighborliness that create and sustain communities. . . Putnam’s study reveals that immigration and diversity not only reduce social capital between ethnic groups, but also within the groups themselves. Trust, even for members of one’s own race, is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friendships fewer. The problem isn’t ethnic conflict or troubled racial relations, but withdrawal and isolation. Putnam writes: “In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’—that is, to pull in like a turtle.” This proved true in communities large and small, from big cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Boston to tiny Yakima, Washington, rural South Dakota, and the mountains of West Virginia. In diverse San Francisco and Los Angeles, about 30 percent of people say that they trust neighbors a lot. In ethnically homogeneous communities in the Dakotas, the figure is 70 percent to 80 percent.
Hamachi wrote: » Those with the financial means (aka the middle class) flee to more homogenous areas, whereas those with less financial resources (presumably the ‘working class’) are stuck in their community that is no longer recognizable and where social cohesion has been utterly eroded. Did you ever consider that this might explain why these folks may be a little disgruntled by wholesale demographic change vs. the middle class, who continue espouse their idealistic rhetoric, from the comfort of their homogenous boltholes?
This proved true in communities large and small, from big cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Boston to tiny Yakima, Washington, rural South Dakota, and the mountains of West Virginia. In diverse San Francisco and Los Angeles, about 30 percent of people say that they trust neighbors a lot. In ethnically homogeneous communities in the Dakotas, the figure is 70 percent to 80 percent. . .Neither age nor disparities of wealth explain this result. “Americans raised in the 1970s,” he writes, “seem fully as unnerved by diversity as those raised in the 1920s.” And the “hunkering down” occurred no matter whether the communities were relatively egalitarian or showed great differences in personal income. Even when communities are equally poor or rich, equally safe or crime-ridden, diversity correlates with less trust of neighbors, lower confidence in local politicians and news media, less charitable giving and volunteering, fewer close friends, and less happiness.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » By contrast Ireland only has 85,400 immigrants as of April 2020.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
