An Irish identity

I think those kinds of reactions come from people who come from secondary nations. Canadians always get upset if they are mistaken for American but Americans dont care if you mistake them for Canadian.

In fairness there are certain Irish accents that I sometimes mistake for British, and the northeast of the US and the northeast of Canada also sound similar.

Relax, its an easy mistake to make.

Eliot Rosewater

Well Ill preface by saying that Ive been totally alienated by this idea of "Irish identity." Principally because it doesn't seem to be as much pro-Irish as it is anti-British and anti-"prodys." In all my life I haven't heard many people say "Ireland is great - look at our great culture of literature and music." Instead its usually "We're way better than those baby-killing prody Brit bastards." Its effectively a negative identity, based on putting down the other culture rather than appreciating our own.

This is especially tragic given there is so much to appreciate - go to the Irish literature section of Hodges Figgis Dublin and see all the greats Ireland has produced. Joyce, Swift, Yeats etc. Consider the Man Booker prize which is the most prestigious award for a novel in the British Commonwealth, Ireland and Zimbabwe. Irish authors have won it 4 times out of 41 (years 1969-2009). Thats 9% of the winners for a country that makes up a mere 0.25% of the population of the region chosen from. How great is that?

But - when did you hear a patriot mention this? Never, I imagine, as bashing ancient history is way more fun that appreciating our own culture.

I don't think any one culture is superior to any other one, they are just different. Ditto for this idea of a "nation," which I think is a bit outdated. I have more in common with some people I know in the States than I do my next door neighbor. Yet I am put in the same "nation" or "society" as my neighbor, despite having nothing in common with them except out place of birth. This is the libertarian reason I dont subscribe to nationalism towards one particular place.

Perhaps Kurt Vonnegut said it best:

Kurt Vonnegut wrote:

"You hate America, don't you?" she said.

"That would be as silly as loving it," I said. "It's impossible for me to get emotional about it, because real estate doesn't interest me. It's no doubt a great flaw in my personality, but I can't think in terms of boundaries. Those imaginary lines are as unreal to me as elves and pixies. I can't believe that they mark the end or the beginning of anything of real concern to the human soul. Virtues and vices, pleasures and pains cross boundaries at will."

#15

Eliot, my views are quite similar to your own. Which is why I was so surprised by my reaction to the 'Are you British?' question!

b12mearse

I think alot of Irish culture has been invented. We are in denial of Britains legacy in this country. So we turn to the likes of boggers in the west, like galway, kerry and in the north donegal in search of the 'Irish' identity.

Medievalist

I think maybe it's also because British is the only nationality we can be mistaken for. If she had thought you were French you would have just laughed it off. But when we have a strong sense of who we are, and it isn't obvious to someone else, then the natural reaction is to get a bit peeved.

TheCandystripes

yeah interesting question. growing up in france many would just have thought ireland was british. it really annoyed me yet i never had any love for my parents country or anything i always considered myself french.

i think irish identity is kind of insecure if i'm honest. its hard to define what is irish in 21st century with both british and american influence. a lot of countries face americanisation but they speak their own language, ireland doesn't have this and is subject to two bigger more powerful cultures influencing them. it will be interesting to see accent of irsih people in 100 years.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think those kinds of reactions come from people who come from secondary nations.

I don't find it at all offensive if somebody mistakes me for British while abroad but, if when they discovered their mistake, they referred to me as coming from one of the worlds 'secondary nations' I would assume they knew very little about Irish history; and I would be right.

This country was populated for millennia before the colonists arrived here. The evidence of that is displayed in natural history museums all over the land. Ireland is widely recognised internationally as possessing the oldest archeological sights in Western Europe. There is nothing ‘secondary’ about this nation.

seahorse wrote: »

This country was populated for millennia before the colonists arrived here. The evidence of that is displayed in natural history museums all over the land. Ireland is widely recognised internationally as possessing the oldest archeological sights in Western Europe. There is nothing ‘secondary’ about this nation.

What does the age of its archeological sites have to do with anything?

Zulu

It's evidence that our culture and society not only existed, but trived long before others; our roots run deeper.

To refer to the Irish as a "secondary" nation, is a little offensive.

topper75

b12mearse wrote: »

I think alot of Irish culture has been invented. We are in denial of Britains legacy in this country. So we turn to the likes of boggers in the west, like galway, kerry and in the north donegal in search of the 'Irish' identity.

All culture is 'invented' is it not? I mean British culture was 'invented' with the act of union with Scotland.

I'm not in denial of Britain's legacy here. I weigh and measure myself in stone and feet. I am typing now in English. You may be in denial of your Irishness though, as your dismissal of people of the west betrays. The Gaelic culture and language thrive there, and it doesn't sit well with you.

Zulu wrote: »

It's evidence that our culture and society not only existed, but trived long before others; our roots run deeper.

To refer to the Irish as a "secondary" nation, is a little offensive.

So did the Egyptians. So did the mesopotamians. So what?

Its still a derivative culture. It just adopted everything British, its political structure, etc and stuck Irish names on it. In terms of exports, what does it export culturalluy? The past. And if it werent for the diaspora how many would be interested in it? It never had the same influence as the US, China, France, Rome, or Great Britain. Its a teeny tiny neutral country, you cant blame people for not knowing where it is or anything about it.

Everything you see on RTE is English or American. Even its own programming still adopts foreign "forms."

Sorry if you find it offensive. But its a bit like Canadians when you ask about products from the US, they often dont say something is "American". They say "north American" because they have hangups about being in the American shadow.

metrovelvet wrote: »

What does the age of its archeological sites have to do with anything?

It illustrates that civilisation in Ireland predates the arrival of colonists by thousands of years.

What does the term 'secondary nation' have to do with anything?

seahorse wrote: »

It illustrates that civilisation in Ireland predates the arrival of colonists by thousands of years.

What does the term 'secondary nation' have to do with anything?

I still dont get what you are saying. So does Mexico's, so does the US, so do many post colonial states.

Its secondary because its not primary. Its not a nation that shapes the world. Its tiny, its neutral, and its exports are crystal and beer. And people.

metrovelvet wrote: »

But its a bit like Canadians when you ask about products from the US, they often dont say something is "American". They say "north American" because they have hangups about being in the American shadow.

We don't have hangups about being in the American shadow. We do not take kindly to being compared to them because we don't agree with how the country has conducted itself in the last decade and continues to conduct itself. Nothing to do with being in a shadow. It's offensive because of our completely polarized viewpoints, not our size or status with the rest of the world.

liah wrote: »

We don't have hangups about being in the American shadow. We do not take kindly to being compared to them because we don't agree with how the country has conducted itself in the last decade and continues to conduct itself. Nothing to do with being in a shadow. It's offensive because of our completely polarized viewpoints, not our size or status with the rest of the world.

Well then why dont you just say that certain goods and products are American and not North American.

Plus I dont know why you get offended when its so easy to confuse the northeastern american accent with the canadian one. Its not the other persons fault.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well then why dont you just say that certain goods and products are American and not North American.

Typically it's not relevant where a product comes from, so there's really no need to state it's American in the conversation. If it were to come up, I, and everyone else I know wouldn't have problems with products being from America. Why would we? I've never encountered anyone who does that tbh.

Zulu

metrovelvet wrote: »

So did the Egyptians. So did the mesopotamians. So what?

It displays the culture existed before the country was colonised. You understand that, right?

Its still a derivative culture.

Em, how could a culture that existed before hand be a derivative?

It just adopted everything British, its political structure, etc and stuck Irish names on it.

We didn't "adopt" the political structure. Are you aware of Irish history?

In terms of exports, what does it export culturalluy?

Other than globally exporting art, literature, quality goods, and highly skilled professionals. Not a whole lot considering the population is about 3 million. :rolleyes:

It never had the same influence as the US, China, France, Rome, or Great Britain.

Ireland & the Irish have had a massive impact on both Europe and the US relative to its size.
Sure we never bombed a plethora of other countries into the third world, by hey, thats just another thing that make be proud to be Irish.

You cant blame people for not knowing where it is or anything about it.

True, some countries are extremely introspective and ignorant. Most Europeans would know where it is though.

Everything you see on RTE is English or American.

Well thats bullshit.

But its a bit like Canadians when you ask about products from the US, they often dont say something is "American". They say "north American" because they have hangups about being in the American shadow.

Thats very accurate, and I can sympathise with Canadians, I wouldn't like to be confused with a neighbouring nation that has a similar reputation.

liah wrote: »

We don't have hangups about being in the American shadow. We do not take kindly to being compared to them because we don't agree with how the country has conducted itself in the last decade and continues to conduct itself. Nothing to do with being in a shadow. It's offensive because of our completely polarized viewpoints, not our size or status with the rest of the world.

+1 Very well made point.

ok fine then. Believe that if you want.

You want to be proud of something that happenned centuries ago, then all you have is the past and everyone's got one of those.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Plus I dont know why you get offended when its so easy to confuse the northeastern american accent with the canadian one. Its not the other persons fault.

To respond to your edit:

I wasn't aware we did? I always maintain that border Canada's accent is very neutral and sounds like your average American one. The coasts do have a bit of an accent but Ontario's accent, at least (where I've spent the majority of my life), is quite like the rest of the continent.

Where are you meeting these so-called Canadians, because I've never met any who take offense to.. well, anything, other than being offended by people who think Canadians are living in the "American Shadow." Which, tbh, is nothing but a bunch of grandiousity and propaganda on America's part.

But you just said that they get offended by being mistaken for American because of how america has behaved in the last ten years and now you are saying you arent aware that they get offended?

I get mistaken for Canadian alot. Very typical northeastern US accent. And people say to me "oh I just said Canadian just in case and you wouldnt get offended being mistaken for American."

metrovelvet wrote: »

But you just said that they get offended by being mistaken for American because of how america has behaved in the last ten years and now you are saying you arent aware that they get offended?

I get mistaken for Canadian alot. Very typical northeastern US accent. And people say to me "oh I just said Canadian just in case and you wouldnt get offended being mistaken for American."

We get offended by being called similar to America, which we're not, but it's not because of the shadow business you were going on about. So yes, it's offensive, because we are our own country and we are ridiculously different to the US regardless of whether or not we use American products or watch American television. We would not get offended if you pointed out a product, film, band, whatever that was American. We would get offended if you said America and Canada are the same or Canada is "jealous" of America, or living in America's shadow.

Nobody ever mentioned a Canadian getting offended by someone saying they had an American accent except you, and I was saying I've never met a Canadian who would be offended by that.

Clear now?

Who ever mentioned being compared to them. I was talking about being MISTAKEN for an American.

The thing is - I would never get offended by someone saying that America is living in someone else's shadow. You know why? BEcause I know its not true. You could argue that we are living in China's shadow, now that China owns us basically, but why be offended by that since it's a fact.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Who ever mentioned being compared to them. I was talking about being MISTAKEN for an American.

The thing is - I would never get offended by someone saying that America is living in someone else's shadow. You know why? BEcause I know its not true. You could argue that we are living in China's shadow, now that China owns us basically, but why be offended by that since it's a fact.

What exactly defines a shadow-casting country, then? Does a country's ability to join in warfare make them a primary nation? All the nations you mentioned were highly war-based and put great emphasis on military operations.

It is offensive to say any country is in the shadow of another, primarily because countries are different and have different ideals and viewpoints regardless of how similar their media or product tastes are. Theoretically you could say all of Europe is pretty much the same, but could you really compare the politics and ideology of the Netherlands or Sweden to that of Ireland or Italy? Sure, they dress similarly and listen to similar music and I'm sure we all watch the same American-produced programs and movies, but the countries cannot possibly hold the same standards of merit and thus one cannot really say one is better or more "primary" than another; they just choose to operate at a different wavelength and perhaps don't see having the greatest military or most popular media or most well-known products as standards of judgement.

liah wrote: »

What exactly defines a shadow-casting country, then? Does a country's ability to join in warfare make them a primary nation? All the nations you mentioned were highly war-based and put great emphasis on military operations.

So? You think neutrality is good? Do you think it is praiseworthy to stand by and let other countries fight the battles? Let other countries sacrifice their young men while yours stands back and does nothing? You think that is laudable?

liah wrote: »

It is offensive to say any country is in the shadow of another, primarily because countries are different and have different ideals and viewpoints regardless of how similar their media or product tastes are. Theoretically you could say all of Europe is pretty much the same, but could you really compare the politics and ideology of the Netherlands or Sweden to that of Ireland or Italy? Sure, they dress similarly and listen to similar music and I'm sure we all watch the same American-produced programs and movies, but the countries cannot possibly hold the same standards of merit and thus one cannot really say one is better or more "primary" than another; they just choose to operate at a different wavelength and perhaps don't see having the greatest military or most popular media or most well-known products as standards of judgement.

People dont pay much attention to the netherlands or sweden either, precely because they are not at the heart of Europe or of the west or of the ango saxon nations or of the east either. I could easily mistake somone one Finnish for Swedish or even German but I will certainly know the difference between French and Italian. I would put Ireland on the same map as Malta.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its secondary because its not primary.

You're going to have to elaborate on this if you expect me to understand you because this line is not making any sense. The Republic of Ireland is a sovereign nation and as such is neither secondary nor primary.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its not a nation that shapes the world.

Really? Well for starters, the Irish built modern-day America from the ground up and then it gave it the best president it ever had.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its tiny, its neutral, and its exports are crystal and beer. And people.

Irish exports are hugely broad and varied. A staggering percentage of the money in this country comes from our exports. Sorry Metro but you clearly do not know what you are talking about here and are coming across as someone who has more than a bit of a gripe towards Ireland. That's all very well, we're all entitled to our gripes, but please arm yourself with some current and historical facts before you come on to an Irish website making offensive comments to Irish people about Ireland!

metrovelvet wrote: »

So? You think neutrality is good? Do you think it is praiseworthy to stand by and let other countries fight the battles? Let other countries sacrifice their young men while yours stands back and does nothing? You think that is laudable?

I certainly do think it is laudable to let Americans fight wars since America is consistently the country that starts them.

metrovelvet wrote: »

So? You think neutrality is good? Do you think it is praiseworthy to stand by and let other countries fight the battles? Let other countries sacrifice their young men while yours stands back and does nothing? You think that is laudable?

Doesn't surprise me that it's come to this, but alright. I'll have a go.

Yes, I think neutrality is good. I think it's good to not enter into conflict where people's lives could be taken unless it's a matter like WWII where genocide is involved and people's lives are at stake. I don't think it's good to enter into conflict when one simply wants something-- like oil. I don't believe that's worth wasting lives over. I think there are better ways to deal with things like that.

9/11 originally had a good cause and at the beginning many countries were there for the United States in their time of need, including Canada. Unfortunately, the search for Osama in Afghanistan fell by the wayside when Bush got his eyes on the oil in Iraq, which is when support from other countries started to fall and Canada began peacekeeping.
It's not quite a decade later and the search for the original perpetrator of the attacks has not resumed. The cause is lost. I do not agree with the current war. And I think neutrality towards it is good.

I think it is praiseworthy when a country can be sensible about something and not immediately send the sons, brothers, and fathers of millions out to die without at least trying to resolve things in different manners or let the countries who got into it resolve it themselves. There is no need for world police. None at all.

People dont pay much attention to the netherlands or sweden either, precely because they are not at the heart of Europe or of the west or of the ango saxon nations or of the east either. I could easily mistake somone one Finnish for Swedish or even German but I will certainly know the difference between French and Italian. I would put Ireland on the same map as Malta.

Is global attention the measure of success of a nation, now? I would think a nation's overall level of happiness is a better indicator of success.

It's like these "superpower" countries are all utterly obsessed with being popular. It's just like highschool.

A country's worth should not be decided upon popularity. A country's worth should be decided on a number of factors, such as human rights (something which America is losing every day), overall happiness, safety, health, etc.