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

Marcos wrote: »

Going by his own work, I think we'll be waiting a long time especially if he's correct that heavy immigration will inflict social deterioration for decades to come, harming immigrants as well as the native-born. He hopes that everyone will just come together and hold hands in a kumbaya moment and everything will be wonderful. But given the disdain for integration does anybody honestly think that will happen?

I had a look at the ink you provided, and the quoted pieces. The problem I find is that he's looking at diversity absent all of the social changes that have been happening in the western world over the last 50 years. The third/fourth waves of feminism, the rise of radical black (supposedly acceptable) supremacy, the wide range of identity politics, the shift away from color blindness to a fixation on racial difference, etc.

The point being that there's a lot more going on in society than simply the case of diversity, and the movements that started in America have spread into Africa, and other areas of the world, changing the way people look at themselves, and others. The perception of personal values, victimization, and aggressive speech/behavior towards others will directly affect how integration is supposedly to occur within any society...

I think his approach is naive and very limited. The world has moved into a very conflict focused attitude with the rise of social media and the internet, and that will change the attitudes of both, those who seek to immigrate, and those watching the newcomers arrive.

We're going to have social deterioration regardless of immigration, simply because we've allowed a series of philosophies which are self-destructive, and haven't given ourselves an effective out. Even without the presence of other racial/ethnic groups, society is set to tear itself apart on the ground of sexuality, gender, race, etc.

I'm going to avoid repeating myself, so I'm going to skip over most of this.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The law can change as I'm sure you are aware. This line of argument does not boost your position. I do not understand why you continue with it.

You're hanging your belief in the primacy of culture from your own interpretation of a Wikipedia article. My reference to Irish law independently relying on descent is far, far, far stronger.

No, because to be a women you have to be biological female. A women is a an 'adult human female'.

To be ethnically Irish you do not just have to be born to Irish parents

One is a simple question of biology, and the other isn't, as much as you may want it to be.

So sometimes, if you act like something then you are that something. But only sometimes.

The reality is that Irish ethnicity is derived from Irish descent.

Firstly no, as the definition is broader than merely were one was born. Seriously, go read the definition again. There are multiple factors at play. Not just one like you seem to believe. And secondly, the reason I brought her up was to show that the idea that someone born to foreign parents in a country has no roots in that country is ludicrous.

You corrected another poster that you and I were discussing only people born and raised near or in a nation being ethnically of that nation, regardless of their own ethnic heritage.

But you've introduced this example of your girlfriend who wasn't born in Spain, but now she is ethnically Spanish too. Its a slippery slope we're on. How do I know you wont next decide you don't have to be born or raised in Ireland to be ethnically Irish?

Descent is only one aspect in every definition I have read. You are trying to redefine words to suit yourself, exactly the kind of thing that happens in the trans-threads I've been involved in.

I haven't redefined anything. The issue you have is you've taken a Wikipedia article which gave some examples of how an ethnic group might define itself as a general concept and you're now trying to apply all those examples as being required for the definition of one ethnic group, the Irish. It isn't.

Religion? Irish people don't share a common faith, or increasingly any faith. Language? Irish people primarily speak English but so do Australians and Canadians. Society? The society an Irish person encounters in deprived areas of Dublin is very different to the society they may encounter in rural areas. Culture? Some Irish like trad music. Others cant stand it. Some play GAA. Some prefer rugby or football. I could go on.

None of these define the Irish in any useful sense which might distinguish the Irish ethnic group from other ethnic groups. Whereas being of Irish descent does.

I have not called for 'rugged individualism'. If anything I've done the opposite. 'African Irish' will describe less people than simply Irish. Honestly, I have no idea what this has to do with anything though.

If your priority is that no one can be excluded from the ethnic Irish definition and we need the broadest possible category to include the most people, why don't we just dispense with the concept of an Irish people at all and just say 'human'? Then everyone can feel included in 'human' culture, 'human' sports and 'human' history.

I see the unfairness in people born to non-Irish parents having to 'act Irish' to be accepted, whereas the ethnic Irish can simply be themselves without anyone marking their performance. African-Irish is simply a recognition of reality. If the African-Irish were ethnic Irish, then there would be no purpose to the various African-Irish cultural events and festivals. By trying to ignore those ethnic realities, you're essentially pressuring people to not express their own heritage and ethnicity.

I flat out oppose the Americanisation of our politics and political discourse that has/is creeping into our politics here, whether it be of a right or left-wing variation.

That's ironic, because the stubborn denial of ethnic differences, the idea that everyone in the world is American/Irish, they just haven't got there yet is Americanised politics. Ignoring the realities of ethnicity hasn't helped them.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Why?

Why did you believe this hypothetical child born in China, raised in China, schooled in China, speaking Chinese could be anything other than ethnically Chinese? On what grounds at all could this child be considered ethnically Irish?

Justin Credible Darts

If an Irish man moves to London, meets a girl of Jamaican heritage, and the have a child in London and weeks later moved to Ireland.
Child grows up in Ireland.,

Said child to me is Irish....not because one of the parents is Irish, but because said child's culture , rearing etc is in Ireland, it would be all they really know even if not born here.

Suppose leo Varadkar was born abroad when his family were on holiday, would he cease to be Irish ?

Sand wrote: »

I'm going to avoid repeating myself, so I'm going to skip over most of this.

You're hanging your belief in the primacy of culture from your own interpretation of a Wikipedia article.

I do not put a primacy on culture. I bring it up as it is one of many factors that matter in determining ethnicity. You wilful ignore what ethnicity actual is, because you want it to be something else.

Sand wrote: »

My reference to Irish law independently relying on descent is far, far, far stronger.

No, it isn't. Irish Law says nothing about ethnicity. It denotes nationality, two concepts you readily admit are not the same thing. Secondly, the Law can change. The Law on this area was different only in 2005. it may change again in 5 years for all we know. Using the law is an incredibly stupid argument. And I have more than a wiki article:

google definition:

the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.

No mention of parental descent.

From dictionary. com

an ethnic group; a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like:

No mention of parental descent.

From the Cambridge dictionary:

a large group of people who have the same national, racial, or cultural origins, or the state of belonging to such a group:

You could take racial here to mean parental descent at a push, but it also says national or cultural.

There is a running theme here i.e. ethnicity is not solely based on who your parents are. There is also the article I part quoted (forgot the link) written by an anthropologist.
https://www.livescience.com/difference-between-race-ethnicity.html

"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.

To conclude this point, I have more than simply a wikipedia article. You have the Law that can change one year to the next, and ofcourse can differ from country to country.

Sand wrote: »

So sometimes, if you act like something then you are that something. But only sometimes.

No. One is solely biological, the other is not solely biological. Quite simple. Again, the problem arises because you wrongly centre biology at the heart of what ethnicity is, but it isn't

Sand wrote: »

The reality is that Irish ethnicity is derived from Irish descent.

It is not. Read the definitions of what ethnicity is above.

Sand wrote: »

You corrected another poster that you and I were discussing only people born and raised near or in a nation being ethnically of that nation, regardless of their own ethnic heritage.

But you've introduced this example of your girlfriend who wasn't born in Spain, but now she is ethnically Spanish too.

Here is the exchange were I brought her up.

Again, you equate everything to whose ones parents are, and ignore every other aspect that goes into an ethnicity. A person born and raised in Ireland will very likely have all their roots in this country.

This assertion is just wishful thinking on your part.

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.

The point being that even someone born outside of a country can still end up with all their roots in that country ergo what I said was not 'wishful thinking' as you suggested.

Sand wrote: »

Its a slippery slope we're on. How do I know you wont next decide you don't have to be born or raised in Ireland to be ethnically Irish?

I never said you had to be born here. I used a person born here as an example of how one could meet the definition I initially gave even with foreign parents. I would certainly argue that one would have to spend their youth and formative years in a country in order to become culturally apart of that country however.

Sand wrote: »

I haven't redefined anything. The issue you have is you've taken a Wikipedia article which gave some examples of how an ethnic group might define itself as a general concept and you're now trying to apply all those examples as being required for the definition of one ethnic group, the Irish. It isn't.

First you accused me of only focusing on culture, and now you are saying I think that one needs all the examples given in the wikipedia article. Which is it?

Sand wrote: »

Religion? Irish people don't share a common faith, or increasingly any faith. Language? Irish people primarily speak English but so do Australians and Canadians. Society? The society an Irish person encounters in deprived areas of Dublin is very different to the society they may encounter in rural areas. Culture? Some Irish like trad music. Others cant stand it. Some play GAA. Some prefer rugby or football. I could go on.

None of these define the Irish in any useful sense which might distinguish the Irish ethnic group from other ethnic groups. Whereas being of Irish descent does.

Are you really arguing that there isn't an Irish culture distinct from others? We also speak English in a particular way unique to Ireland with our own slang, with particular accents that are unique to Ireland. We ofcourse also have distinct traditions, a person born here can lay claim to the nation aspect. One does not simply have to have the ancestry part. None of the other definitions given, not the words of the the anthropologist, require this either.

Sand wrote: »

If your priority is that no one can be excluded from the ethnic Irish definition and we need the broadest possible category to include the most people, why don't we just dispense with the concept of an Irish people at all and just say 'human'? Then everyone can feel included in 'human' culture, 'human' sports and 'human' history.

Christ. You were accusing me of wanting 'rugged' individualism and now you are accusing me of wanting the exact opposite. Do make your mind up please.

Sand wrote: »

I see the unfairness in people born to non-Irish parents having to 'act Irish' to be accepted, whereas the ethnic Irish can simply be themselves without anyone marking their performance. African-Irish is simply a recognition of reality. If the African-Irish were ethnic Irish, then there would be no purpose to the various African-Irish cultural events and festivals. By trying to ignore those ethnic realities, you're essentially pressuring people to not express their own heritage and ethnicity.

Nobody has to 'act Irish' to be accepted. I don't know were you have brought this up from.

Sand wrote: »

That's ironic, because the stubborn denial of ethnic differences, the idea that everyone in the world is American/Irish, they just haven't got there yet is Americanised politics. Ignoring the realities of ethnicity hasn't helped them.

None of which I have done, no matter how much you want it to be the case. It is not my fault if you can't see differences in, for example, culture.

Whether you like it or not, ethnicity is not simply defined, or as simply defined as you would like it to be. If you want to wilfully ignore the numerous definitions given to you, well, that's up to you.

Sand wrote: »

Why did you believe this hypothetical child born in China, raised in China, schooled in China, speaking Chinese could be anything other than ethnically Chinese? On what grounds at all could this child be considered ethnically Irish?

Because for all I know the child could spend half the year in Ireland every year, considering half their friends are Irish and half Chinese in the given example. As such they may speak English with an Irish accent for example, follow the GAA, play it in in China for all I know.

See, this is the point, things aren't as simple as you want them to be.

biko

There are two aspects to identity.
What you identify as, and what others identify you as.

Do you think the Chinese would recognise the white Irish child as Chinese?

Do you think the child would identify itself with Chinese society rather than it's parents?

eleventh

Deleted User wrote: »

Similar to the language? ...

Language and culture are very inter-related. Even where Irish isn’t spoken, there’s an Irish version of English, ways of saying things that are unique to the local county, townland etc. In my limited-enough understanding, I can identify some of those turns of phrase as coming from a culture where Irish was once spoken. Our generation has lost / is losing that.

When I moved to Dublin in student days, there was a large-ish group I was sometime part of, some were non-Europeans. After a few drinks they would now and then slag the turn of phrase, sometimes ours, or sometimes other Irish accents that even some Irish people make fun of in their comedy (It is different though when outsiders do it). My friend in the group was very travel-oriented, interested in speaking other languages etc, whereas me, not so much.
It was more when I was thinking about this later (years later) that I realised it’s a kind of scrutiny that can make people feel self-conscious or ‘wrong’ in some way in their expression of their own culture, in their own country. Generations past would not have had this kind of openness in their groups where outsiders could mock/slag/drawattention to quirks or differences as they perceived them. Likely it would be seen as immediately insulting/not appropriate/disrespectful – I now see that as the more right kind of response.

We should remember, we are a small minority culture, in danger of dying out. Some might say, well English are in the same boat. But it’s not the same. Their native language is one of the most spoken in the world, is the language of business etc. The Irish language may never recover, but now we are seeing the Irish way of speaking (“Irish English” if we can call it that) diminishing as well.

..First, the focus on how it was taught was awkward, draining any pleasure away from the language,

Agree

and secondly, as an adult, there was no use for it. ..

There’s a lot of things that are of no use, yet people have time for.
I think “no use” should be clarified. As a teen/ 20-something I was under a misconception or conditioning that told me that what’s valuable is more about what the wider world (outside of home, or Ireland) values. The older I got, that changed. I now believe that what’s of use/value is what’s close to home.

You see, the Irish language wasn't ever a major part of mainstream Irish culture except for poorer areas in certain regions, but it wasn't something sought after by most Irish people.

What’s sought after I think is a result of what’s valued, which comes from conditioning or how a society/culture shapes the person.
You mention poverty - that’s a big part of it. There’s not much money in being Irish - really Irish I mean, not the plastic paddy thing.

Its not as if Irish as a language was ever (since the founding of the State) a common integral part of Irish culture throughout the country. So, it's exile to enclaves is more to do with a general lack of interest, even before Ireland started receiving any significant amount of immigration.

I disagree on that point – that the past can be taken to predict the future. We’re in another era now where the pace of change is rapid.

Immigration has always been a theme in Ireland. We had ‘The Pale’, a centre of wealth, and commerce, which there were always some who wanted to get on the inside of and ‘do well for themselves’. These were English or Anglo-Irish immigrants. It was outright plantation that took place (not unlike what’s starting to happen now) not just urban but rural as well. These were people with wealth and the power that came with it – to give employment, let land, etc.

As for Irish culture being supplanted by another culture, it's culture... it changes over time. The Irish culture that exists today is very different from the Irish culture that I grew up in. ...

Culture does change, but should not at the rapid pace we’ve seen, if the culture is healthy. We should not be looking back to 20 years or so and seeing things unrecognisable (example: Dublin city centre). Not only has a lot changed but it’s accelerating. Changes of the last 5 years are probably greater than previous 10.

Although TBH I suspect a greater risk to national culture is from the Internet, social media, and conforming to internet opinions over time..

This is truth to this. I’d go back to the point though that where family/community/culture is strong, these things shouldn’t bring too much change. Before the internet people consumed TV, radio, pop music, newspapers, magazines. These media were really influential enough to influence the society as a whole. Internet now takes the place of and is more widespread, but also I think people talk about things less, or do their talking online, whereas back then people talked in person which fostered more actual connection in communities which are not as strong now.

Internet arrived around the same time as mass immigration here. I think that sense of ‘progress’ and optimisim of the time, and welcoming of the wider world coming in, allowed immigration to be accepted more easily. Early 90s was really a period of change and breakdown of what went before. It's only in those times that further changes, from other directions, are allowed in.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I do not put a primacy on culture. I bring it up as it is one of many factors that matter in determining ethnicity.

Some ethnic groups can be defined by their culture, if that is what distinguishes them from other groups. Other ethnic groups doesn't have anything to do with culture.

No, it isn't. Irish Law says nothing about ethnicity. It denotes nationality, two concepts you readily admit are not the same thing.

It isnt necessary for them to be the same thing (though they are related). It's enough that the Irish state recognizes descent as the primary means of automatically granting Irish citizenship to children of Irish parents.

There is a running theme here i.e. ethnicity is not solely based on who your parents are.

That's true for some ethnic groups, but not for others. Catholics are an ethnic group. Membership of that ethnic group relies on being a practicing Catholic, regardless of any other consideration. The Irish ethnic group is derived from descent. Different ethnic groups, different determining factors.

You have the Law that can change one year to the next, and ofcourse can differ from country to country.

I have a principle supported in law by 80% of the Irish people.

Again, the problem arises because you wrongly centre biology at the heart of what ethnicity is, but it isn't

It is central for Irish ethnicity. Ethnic groups which are centered on religious or cultural beliefs are dependent on those beliefs, but Irish isnt a religion or a fixed culture.

I never said you had to be born here.

Oh, okay - so now you think that people who have no Irish ancestry, who werent born in Ireland are ethnic Irish? They just have to spend some time here? Christ almighty.

Are you really arguing that there isn't an Irish culture distinct from others? We also speak English in a particular way unique to Ireland with our own slang, with particular accents that are unique to Ireland. We ofcourse also have distinct traditions, a person born here can lay claim to the nation aspect. One does not simply have to have the ancestry part. None of the other definitions given, not the words of the the anthropologist, require this either.

I think Irish people create their own culture. But this shows the paucity of your argument. All you've got is Irish accent and some unspecified traditions that distinguish the Irish as an ethnic group from other ethnic groups. That's it?

Nobody has to 'act Irish' to be accepted. I don't know were you have brought this up from.

Well you've been claiming that ethnic Irish is defined by cultural practices. That persons born to non-Irish parents can learn these Irish practices in school and having learned it be ethnically Irish. Your only line seems to be they spend some time in the country to absorb these practices to fit in. So which is it? Are these kids learning to be Irish (and just Irish, not African-Irish) so you can include them in the overall Irish grouping which denies them their own heritage? Or are you willing to accept terms like African-Irish (or whatever) are useful to account for them?

None of which I have done, no matter how much you want it to be the case. It is not my fault if you can't see differences in, for example, culture.

I acknowledge the differences. You're the one objecting to terms like African-Irish.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Because for all I know the child could spend half the year in Ireland every year, considering half their friends are Irish and half Chinese in the given example. As such they may speak English with an Irish accent for example, follow the GAA, play it in in China for all I know.

See, this is the point, things aren't as simple as you want them to be.

But the hypothetical didn't say they spent any time in Ireland. Just that they had some Irish friends. While being at school in China. Where would they pick up an Irish accent in China? Who in China would teach them GAA or play it with them?

Is having an Irish friend now enough to be ethnically Irish?

Deleted User wrote: »

We're going to have social deterioration regardless of immigration, simply because we've allowed a series of philosophies which are self-destructive, and haven't given ourselves an effective out. Even without the presence of other racial/ethnic groups, society is set to tear itself apart on the ground of sexuality, gender, race, etc.

Yeah. You've also got the UN pushing LGBT, whilst simultaneously importing large volumes of migrants from the Middle East/Africa. Nothing against either of those groups, but jaysus, you'd almost think they were trying to create conflict. Maybe they'll come along with the solution to that division for us afterwards, too

Sand wrote: »

Some ethnic groups can be defined by their culture, if that is what distinguishes them from other groups. Other ethnic groups doesn't have anything to do with culture.

It is multi-faceted. Irish culture is distinct from British and German culture, from so could be defined by this. But it is not simply about culture either.

Sand wrote: »

It isnt necessary for them to be the same thing (though they are related). It's enough that the Irish state recognizes descent as the primary means of automatically granting Irish citizenship to children of Irish parents.

No it isn't. 15 years ago this wasn't the primary means. It might not be again in 15 years time. Seriously, you need to let this one go. It's a non-point.

Sand wrote: »

That's true for some ethnic groups, but not for others. Catholics are an ethnic group. Membership of that ethnic group relies on being a practicing Catholic, regardless of any other consideration. The Irish ethnic group is derived from descent. Different ethnic groups, different determining factors.

Catholics in general are not an ethnic group. Some Catholics may ofcourse belong to the same ethnic group.

Sand wrote: »

I have a principle supported in law by 80% of the Irish people.

You do not. The referendum was about the granting of citizenship, not who was considered ethnically Irish and who isn't. Again, someone born to British parents in Belfast can obtain Irish citizenship, which, using your terms, makes them not ethnically Irish.

Here is the amendment that was added to the constitution due to the referendum:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, a person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, who does not have, at the time of the birth of that person, at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law.
2º This section shall not apply to persons born before the date of the enactment of this section

It says nothing of ethnicity.

Sand wrote: »

It is central for Irish ethnicity. Ethnic groups which are centered on religious or cultural beliefs are dependent on those beliefs, but Irish isnt a religion or a fixed culture.

Do you or do you not believe that there is a distinct Irish culture?

Sand wrote: »

Oh, okay - so now you think that people who have no Irish ancestry, who werent born in Ireland are ethnic Irish? They just have to spend some time here? Christ almighty.

I said spend their formative years. Again, you want ethnicity to be something it isn't. It is not defined as you want it to be.

Sand wrote: »

I think Irish people create their own culture. But this shows the paucity of your argument. All you've got is Irish accent and some unspecified traditions that distinguish the Irish as an ethnic group from other ethnic groups. That's it?

Why are you so dismissive of Irish culture and traditions? Do you not accept that Irish culture is distinct from, say, German or Japanese culture.

Again, we are back to you simply not accepting that ethnicity is not as easily defined as you want it to be.

Sand wrote: »

Well you've been claiming that ethnic Irish is defined by cultural practices. That persons born to non-Irish parents can learn these Irish practices in school and having learned it be ethnically Irish. Your only line seems to be they spend some time in the country to absorb these practices to fit in. So which is it? Are these kids learning to be Irish (and just Irish, not African-Irish) so you can include them in the overall Irish grouping which denies them their own heritage? Or are you willing to accept terms like African-Irish (or whatever) are useful to account for them?

I acknowledge the differences. You're the one objecting to terms like African-Irish.

No, again, I don't see why you can't grasp this, it is one of a number of factors that determine ethnicity. You want it all to boil down to who your parents are. But it doesn't, that is not how the word is defined.

Sand wrote: »

But the hypothetical didn't say they spent any time in Ireland. Just that they had some Irish friends. While being at school in China. Where would they pick up an Irish accent in China? Who in China would teach them GAA or play it with them?

Is having an Irish friend now enough to be ethnically Irish?

It didn't say they didn't not spend time in Ireland either. Again, you aren't grasping that ethnicity is not as easily defined as you wish it to be. Look up the definition of the word again if it helps.

How about you answer the question I proposed to Biko:

What about a Welsh couple from Holyhead, who move to Connemara in Galway, live there for a few years and have a child. That Child spends the next 48 years in Ireland, is fluent in Irish, played county, teaches Irish History in University, has all their friends in Ireland, their wife and kids also, only ever returning to Wales to cheer on Ireland in the 6 Nations.

Ethnically Irish, or Welsh?

Now I assume you will also suggest Welsh. If so, can you explain why, considering the definition of ethnicity is:

the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.

or use my wiki definition if you so please. It's up to you.

eleventh

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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.

If you think Irishness is about being anti-American in every way, that's a distorted view.
Many if not most Irish would have a relative in America. They are Irish-Americans.

If someone born here is of say, French heritage, describes themself as French-Irish, they're just being honest.
To put another way, it is disrespectful to Irish people to say you are Irish without qualification when you aren't.

If someone told me in a first conversation they are Irish and it's later revealed their parents are X nationality, I'd have a hard time trusting that person from then on for lying about who they are.
I don't think most would do that. At least of those I've met, if they're not Irish, they would say something like "I was born here in Ireland, parents are from ___". There is no problem. I'd value the honesty and respect for their heritage, which implies a respect for other's as well.

eleventh wrote: »

If you think Irishness is about being anti-American in every way, that's a distorted view.
Many if not most Irish would have a relative in America. They are Irish-Americans.

Sigh. I do not think this.

eleventh wrote: »

If someone born here is of say, French heritage, describes themself as French-Irish, they're just being honest.
To put another way, it is disrespectful to Irish people to say you are Irish without qualification when you aren't.

Are you again associating ethnicity solely with who you parents are? Because if you are you misunderstand what ethnicity is.

eleventh wrote: »

If someone told me in a first conversation they are Irish and it's later revealed their parents are X nationality, I'd have a hard time trusting that person from then on for lying about who they are.
I don't think most would do that. At least of those I've met, if they're not Irish, they would say something like "I was born here in Ireland, parents are from ___". There is no problem. I'd value the honesty and respect for their heritage, which implies a respect for other's as well.

I've not come across a person whose parents weren't Irish who hasn't simply described themselves as Irish (with the exception of an American). Why someone would explicitly need to state that whilst they were born in Ireland their parents weren't is bizarre to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9Bh0QXVg4I

Marcos wrote: »

Putnam disagrees with you there. His research of 41 sites in the US found that the more diverse the neighbourhood, the less residents trusted their neighbors

Just to pick up on a minor point, but you’ve misinterpreted my post. I actually concur with Putnam’s findings. My point was that those with sufficient financial resources tend to flee diverse areas for more homogenous boltholes.

However, due to social conditioning or a desire to maintain the veneer of being ‘right on’, the middle class continue to laud the virtues of multiculturalism, despite their hypocritical flight from diversity. They also display a significant tendency to criticize working class folks, who have the audacity to articulate their discomfort at having to live in diverse settings. Basically, the old mantra of ‘do what I say, not what I do’.

This pattern plays out consistently in London. Every year, many young and predominately white university graduates move to the city to start their careers. Fast forward ten years when children are on the horizon, and they’re gone from London almost immediately. Many of them will not even countenance sending their children to state schools in the city. Nevertheless, this doesn’t stop them preaching ad nauseum about the wonderful diversity of the city, whilst their kids are safely ensconced in homogenous towns across the Home Counties or in places like Dorset.

One eyed Jack

eleventh wrote: »

If you think Irishness is about being anti-American in every way, that's a distorted view.
Many if not most Irish would have a relative in America. They are Irish-Americans.

If someone born here is of say, French heritage, describes themself as French-Irish, they're just being honest.
To put another way, it is disrespectful to Irish people to say you are Irish without qualification when you aren't.

That’s a matter of your own subjective opinion though. My own subjective opinion I wouldn’t give a damn if someone said they’re Irish and according to you they aren’t. Being Irish in America wouldn’t make an Irishman any more American than Sting

eleventh wrote: »

If someone told me in a first conversation they are Irish and it's later revealed their parents are X nationality, I'd have a hard time trusting that person from then on for lying about who they are.
I don't think most would do that. At least of those I've met, if they're not Irish, they would say something like "I was born here in Ireland, parents are from ___". There is no problem. I'd value the honesty and respect for their heritage, which implies a respect for other's as well.

Let me know how it goes if you ever find yourself making small talk with Ruth Negga, she’d confuse the hell out of you

Ruth herself was born in 1981 in Addis Ababa where her father was a doctor and her mother had gone to work as a nurse. She very much identifies as Ethiopian-Irish, and speaks fondly of Ethiopian Emperor Haille Selassie.

...

How was her personal experience growing up mixed race in the west of Ireland? Did she find people to be "colour blind" - unable to look past the colour of her skin? "I don't think a whole nation can really be colour blind. I actually have problems with that term, because it assumes there is something wrong with my colour and you need to be blind to it - that I don't want you to see it, or it can't be seen or it shouldn't be seen. Someone came up with the fabulous term 'colour appreciation'. Growing up, I didn't feel that Irish people were colour blind. There weren't that many black people in Ireland. I moved there when I was three or four, so I suppose there is an exoticism to someone who is not from Ireland - that does not look the same - but I never felt uncomfortable in any way. I have a large family who were protective of me and I felt very welcomed in Ireland. I identify as Irish because that is where I feel most at home and it has contributed most to who I am."

Ruth Negga: 'Growing up, I didn't feel that Irish people were colour blind'

Picturing your reaction if she said she was Irish, reminded me of this -

eleventh

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Are you again associating ethnicity solely with who you parents are? Because if you are you misunderstand what ethnicity is.

You are using 'ethnicity' as a standalone term. In that sense it has a wider meaning not necessarily tied to place (example: gypsies).

In the discussion we're talking about ethnic nationality. If you read about ethnic nationality specifically you'll discover it is about heritage (parentage).

I've not come across a person whose parents weren't Irish who hasn't simply described themselves as Irish (with the exception of an American). Why someone would explicitly need to state that whilst they were born in Ireland their parents weren't is bizarre to me.

All this shows is that we don't agree. Cultures don't agree on a lot of things, which is what makes them different.

eleventh wrote: »

There’s a lot of things that are of no use, yet people have time for.
I think “no use” should be clarified. As a teen/ 20-something I was under a misconception or conditioning that told me that what’s valuable is more about what the wider world (outside of home, or Ireland) values. The older I got, that changed. I now believe that what’s of use/value is what’s close to home.

What’s sought after I think is a result of what’s valued, which comes from conditioning or how a society/culture shapes the person.
You mention poverty - that’s a big part of it. There’s not much money in being Irish - really Irish I mean, not the plastic paddy thing.

Culture does change, but should not at the rapid pace we’ve seen, if the culture is healthy. We should not be looking back to 20 years or so and seeing things unrecognisable (example: Dublin city centre). Not only has a lot changed but it’s accelerating. Changes of the last 5 years are probably greater than previous 10.

I agree with a lot of your post. Your point about valuing and prioritizing the wider world in your late teens and early 20s certainly resonates with me. At that age, I too considered Ireland to be parochial and irrelevant. However, as I’ve matured, I’ve come to appreciate the depth of my roots on this island and how much it has shaped me for better or for worse.

I’m curious about the accelerating pace of change you’ve noted. Do you mean culturally, demographically or both? Your observation of Dublin city center is certainly accurate. I first moved to Dublin as a teenager almost 20 years ago. Walking around the city center today is an almost surreal experience compared to back then.

Recently, I met a Brazilian colleague for a swim in the forty foot. He lives in the city center and doesn’t have a car. Afterwards, I brought him for a drive to show him some of Dublin. We pretty much drove from Sandycove all the way over to Howth. His first comment when I dropped him home was ‘now I understand where Irish people live in this city’. Pretty much sums up the significant demographic change in Dublin in the last two decades.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Catholics in general are not an ethnic group. Some Catholics may ofcourse belong to the same ethnic group

Your own source, (the Wikipedia article) contradicts you. It notes that ethnic groups may be ethno-linguistic (i.e. Gaelic speakers), ethno-nationalistic (i.e. Irish), ethno-racial (i.e. African-Americans), ethno-regional (i.e. Dubs) or ethno-religious (i.e. Catholics, or conversely atheists). Each of these ethnic groups by their very nature have different factors that determine membership - fluency in the language, ancestry, race, region you were born in and/or in some cases are living in, or the religion you practice (or don't).

Your own source repeatedly reinforces that ethnic identity of ethnic groups may be based on 'common ancestry' and 'shared ancestry', is gained as an 'inherited status', that members 'share a similar gene pool'. Irish being an ethno-nationalistic grouping, it is these factors that reliably distinguish this ethnic group from other groups.

You might be uncomfortable with that, but from a purely objective stance that is the definition that most reliably distinguishes the ethnic Irish from other categories.

Do you or do you not believe that there is a distinct Irish culture?

I believe there is a reasonably distinct group of Irish people defined by a shared ancestry/historical experience. And whatever culture they practice is by definition Irish culture. But I don't think there is a fixed Irish culture which either defines the Irish people throughout the centuries, or which survives independent of the Irish people. The difference is you seem to think culture creates people, but you cant seem to define what this culture is.

No, again, I don't see why you can't grasp this

Your argument is difficult to follow because it makes no sense. You've been pushing that Irish ethnicity is determined by (unspecified) cultural practices. That any child raised in Ireland learns these practices in school, not in the home, and therefore will be ethnically Irish as a result. You've repeatedly expressed your horror that identities like African-Irish might be recognized, and instead everyone must only be Irish. Now you are in denial of this, apparently?

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It didn't say they didn't not spend time in Ireland either.

You had no grounds for believing the child could be ethnically Irish. None at all, except the child was born to Irish parents and raised in an Irish home environment, despite being raised and schooled in China.

How about you answer the question I proposed to Biko:

Now I assume you will also suggest Welsh. If so, can you explain why, considering the definition of ethnicity is:

or use my wiki definition if you so please. It's up to you.

Ethnically Welsh, or maybe Cambro-Irish. What I can say with certainty is they are not ethnically Irish, though odds are they will marry an ethnic Irish person and their children will be ethnically Irish.

I think I've a test-case that will get to the heart of this. Do you think Rachel Dolezal was or could ever have been African-American? She presented herself as African-American and was widely accepted as being African-American by African-Americans so she presumably adopted the cultural practices of the ethnic group, identified with that ethnic group and espoused the interests of that ethnic group. But she was ultimately excluded on the basis she was not of African/African-American descent. Was there any circumstances under which she was genuinely a member of that ethnic group in your view?

Sand wrote: »

You had no grounds for believing the child could be ethnically Irish. None at all, except the child was born to Irish parents and raised in an Irish home environment, despite being raised and schooled in China.

Ethnically Welsh, or maybe Cambro-Irish. What I can say with certainty is they are not ethnically Irish, though odds are they will marry an ethnic Irish person and their children will be ethnically Irish.

I think I've a test-case that will get to the heart of this. Do you think Rachel Dolezal was or could ever have been African-American? She presented herself as African-American and was widely accepted as being African-American by African-Americans so she presumably adopted the cultural practices of the ethnic group, identified with that ethnic group and espoused the interests of that ethnic group. But she was ultimately excluded on the basis she was not of African/African-American descent. Was there any circumstances under which she was genuinely a member of that ethnic group in your view?

Thank you for this test case, your time and effort. I concede the point.

Marcos

Hamachi wrote: »

Just to pick up on a minor point, but you’ve misinterpreted my post. I actually concur with Putnam’s findings. My point was that those with sufficient financial resources tend to flee diverse areas for more homogenous boltholes.

However, due to social conditioning or a desire to maintain the veneer of being ‘right on’, the middle class continue to laud the virtues of multiculturalism, despite their hypocritical flight from diversity. They also display a significant tendency to criticize working class folks, who have the audacity to articulate their discomfort at having to live in diverse settings. Basically, the old mantra of ‘do what I say, not what I do’.

This pattern plays out consistently in London. Every year, many young and predominately white university graduates move to the city to start their careers. Fast forward ten years when children are on the horizon, and they’re gone from London almost immediately. Many of them will not even countenance sending their children to state schools in the city. Nevertheless, this doesn’t stop them preaching ad nauseum about the wonderful diversity of the city, whilst their kids are safely ensconced in homogenous towns across the Home Counties or in places like Dorset.

I agree, there's a lot of do what I say and not what I do at play there. What they say in public doesn't equate to their actions when push comes to shove. We saw that in the citizenship referendum when even Dun Laoire Rathdown voted 70% in favour of shutting that loophole, and why the NGOs are desperate to overturn it via useful idiots like O'Gorman etc. The last thing they want is another referendum as they know what the result will be.

Deshawn

Marcos wrote: »

I agree, there's a lot of do what I say and not what I do at play there. What they say in public doesn't equate to their actions when push comes to shove. We saw that in the citizenship referendum when even Dun Laoire Rathdown voted 70% in favour of shutting that loophole, and why the NGOs are desperate to overturn it via useful idiots like O'Gorman etc. The last thing they want is another referendum as they know what the result will be.

If this was overturned Ireland would be the only EU member to permit birthright citizenship. We would be painting a bullseye on the country. It would be a totally idiotic move to make

Marcos

Deshawn wrote: »

If this was overturned Ireland would be the only EU member to permit birthright citizenship. We would be painting a bullseye on the country. It would be a totally idiotic move to make

Well, I just did a quick google search and look at the Irish Nationality and Citizenship (Citizenship for Children) Bill introduced by Mick Barry of Solidarity / PBP last month.

The Irish Nationality and Citizenship (Citizenship for Children) Bill 2020 has two purposes: to restore automatic citizenship for all children born on the island of Ireland; and to provide citizenship for children residing here for three years or more.

It is fair to say that the decision to move this Bill at such a relatively early stage in this Parliament has been inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement.

The Bill will reverse the legislation enacted in 2005 on foot of the 2004 citizenship referendum which was, in my opinion, a racist referendum

They haven't gone away you know. And Eamon Ryan refused a chance to challenge the bill, scroll down in the Oireachtas link to see.

But I couldn't see how that wouldn't be constitutional seeing as it specifically states it wants to do away with the 27th Amendment. Wouldn't there need to be a referendum on this? If not then why was there a need for a referendum to repeal the 8th amendment? I'm sure someone can explain.

*I have no issue with repealing the 8th, but just don't understand how it was necessary to have a referendum to do that and just have the bill proposed above to do away with the 27th. Surely a referendum to repeal would also be necessary.

Deshawn

Marcos wrote: »

Well, I just did a quick google search and look at the Irish Nationality and Citizenship (Citizenship for Children) Bill introduced by Mick Barry of Solidarity / PBP last month.

They haven't gone away you know. And Eamon Ryan refused a chance to challenge the bill, scroll down in the Oireachtas link to see.

But I couldn't see how that wouldn't be constitutional seeing as it specifically states it wants to do away with the 27th Amendment. Wouldn't there need to be a referendum on this? If not then why was there a need for a referendum to repeal the 8th amendment? I'm sure someone can explain.

*I have no issue with repealing the 8th, but just don't understand how it was necessary to have a referendum to do that and just have the bill proposed above to do away with the 27th. Surely a referendum to repeal would also be necessary.

Hard to see the link between police shooting black people in America and people being born in Ireland automatically becoming Irish citizens.

Again we would be the only country in Europe. Makes no sense.

I saw where Eamon Ryan didn't oppose it. It then trails off.

What happens next? What is the next stage?
I also can't see how they can just decide to overturn a law that was made after a referendum vote.