Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo

Zombrex

saado wrote:

if I were to take out rosary beads and start saying the rosary for 25minutes every day at work, I'd be fired or just told to cop on and get back to work.

Sorry, but what the hell are you basing this on? What Irish companies allow religious breaks for Muslims but not for Christians? The only companies I have ever heard of allowing Muslim workers break for prayer did it by allowing Muslims to re-arrange their coffee breaks. Must companies have a system of breaks, that can be quite flexable or inflexable depending on the nature of the work. What you do with that break is largely up to you, be it rosary or praying to Meca

saado wrote:

Same with the traditional dress, if someone wants to wear the clothes, then that's all well and good, but it's not fair in a situation like a school or an office where everyone is expected to conform to a certain dress code, if someone is allowed to look different because their culture is different.

Again, examples. Which Irish companies that require business dress allow muslims to wear something that breaks the dress code, but not non-Muslims people?

saado wrote:

Same as if an irishman were to go there and dare to drink alcohol, he'd be just as severely punished as anyone else would.

Where is "there" .. I am aware of very few countries that ban drinking of alcohol.

saado wrote:

Schools are no different, i think that a catholic school should be allowed to teach religion from a catholic perspective, if you don't like it, go to a different school.

Er, they are and they do.

saado wrote:

Preferential treatment for children who may be muslim or jewish or whatever is a joke, fair enough, state schools should have no religion classes, but if you go to a private catholic school, then put up or go to the school that will acommodate you.

Again, what the hell are you talking about? What "preferential treatment" in a private school? Has this ever actually happened?

Zombrex

dathi1 wrote:

The only place in the world I see multiculturalism working is in Singapore...and that's a dictatorship. Before that there was mass murder and inter ethnic riots. After that yes I agree its over rated. ...oh yes and Switzerland.....sorry jc

Define "working" ...

dathi1

Define "working" ...

Working: Singapore. Everybody living in peace and harmony because if you don't you end up in Changi Prison.
Switzerland.
Not working: The USA (the most ethnically divided society I've ever seen), Canada (looks like a good example but underlying French separatist pressure remember the last elections not to mention the "attempted sharia law implementation. The UK (need we say more) France...ye know...oh Iraq is now heading in the direction of a multicultural society too.....You aint seen nothin yet!

lazydaisy

Sorry WK-I meant the Irish who are on American salaries in that instance- but now that you mention it there are also the Irish who take all the American money for their "cross-border" projects.

I never understood that about certain immigrants, my parents did it too - raised their kids in the same country they spit on and call stupid.????

Ok you may not mind taking off another holiday instead of Christmas [not that there is any likely hood of that happenning anyway], but many people would be annoyed. Ireland is still very very Catholic outside of Dublin.

WK many Irish have family in America and Britain so they share more than just a language. Their histories are linked and they also share religion and being western. The two nations are a part of the Irish diaspora. Sharing a language is not to be dismissed lightly. It is a big deal. But yes, once people get used to things they don't seem so different.

Whats so funny about what you said about British people being shocked at how Americans sounded in film, is that those speech affectations of te 40s and 50s were completely false. Americans dont talk like and never did. The actors were sent to elocution school so they could learn to speak in a far more anglicised way.

Zombrex

dathi1 wrote:

Working: Singapore. Everybody living in peace and harmony because if you don't you end up in Changi Prison.
Switzerland.
Not working: The USA (the most ethnically divided society I've ever seen), Canada (looks like a good example but underlying French separatist pressure remember the last elections not to mention the "attempted sharia law implementation. The UK (need we say more) France...ye know...oh Iraq is now heading in the direction of a multicultural society too.....You aint seen nothin yet!

That is ridiculous, under that definition hardly any countries were "working", even the ones without much foriegn culture. Was Ireland "working" before the 90s? Was everyone living in peace and harmony? No crime, no problems, everyone was happy and smiling. Funny, don't remember that part. Maybe I need to buy a new pair of rose-tinted glasses

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

Ok you may not mind taking off another holiday instead of Christmas [not that there is any likely hood of that happenning anyway], but many people would be annoyed. Ireland is still very very Catholic outside of Dublin.

True, but that would have to change to have an Islamic holiday made the primary holiday instead of Christmas, and if the vast majority of people didn't mind, who am I to object. I am not religious but I have no problem with Christmas being a national holiday because the majority of the country is. So if that majority of the country were Islamic or Jewish I would have no problem with the country impliementing holidays around that calendar. I don't think this is ever going to happen though.

lazydaisy wrote:

WK many Irish have family in America and Britain so they share more than just a language.

Many Irish people have family and friends in Saudi Arabia, in Asia, in Australia etc. At the moment I know 3 people in S.A and 2 in Buiran (sp?). None of my friends are in America.

I accept what you are saying that we are close to America, but that was not always the case. It happened because of immigration, and multiculturalism. American culture is not strange and foreign to us as it was 200 or 100 years ago. Which is one of the reason why I don't fear multiculturalism, it brings people together, makes the world smaller. I doubt in 100 years anyone in Ireland will find Arab or Asia people in Ireland strange or scary.

lazydaisy wrote:

Whats so funny about what you said about British people being shocked at how Americans sounded in film, is that those speech affectations of te 40s and 50s were completely false. Americans dont talk like and never did. The actors were sent to elocution school so they could learn to speak in a far more anglicised way.

Well that is true that hollywood actors when to speech classes (as poked fun in "Singing in the Rain" ), but many early "talkie" films had strong american accents, were set in America and featured american story-lines. Even a movie like Hells Angels where the actors were playing English men made little attempt to hide their obvious American accents. Movies like "River of Romance" (1929) made no attempt to hide the Southern American accents and slang. It seems funny now, but British audiences were genuinely shocked at hearing the accents of their favourate stars.

Macmorris

Wicknight wrote:

Was Ireland "working" before the 90s?

Yes, it was. A country is "working" if it can provide security and defence for its citizens. By that standard the republic of Ireland was definitely working before the 90s.

Was everyone living in peace and harmony?

Most people were. The only people who weren't were those people who had the great fortune to be born in the multicultural north-eastern part of the country.

Hibernian2005

France is a harbinger of things to come if we don't control the influx of cheap labour and Islamic fundamentalists into our country.

I would also like to pose a question to those who oppose a United Ireland, but who support mass migration:

How do you reconcile your claims that we cannot afford an increased population from absorbing NI, with your claims that we can afford huge numbers of immigrants?

billy the squid

Hibernian2005 wrote:

France is a harbinger of things to come if we don't control the influx of cheap labour and Islamic fundamentalists into our country.

Your theory is flawed in that the troubles occouring in France has little to do with cheap labour, If you are referring to the riots, they were caused by poor intergration and unemployment amongst immigrants in France.

I would also like to pose a question to those who oppose a United Ireland, but who support mass migration:

How do you reconcile your claims that we cannot afford an increased population from absorbing NI, with your claims that we can afford huge numbers of immigrants?

Compare the percentage of immigrants on the dole to the number of people in Northern Ireland on the dole, and you will have your answer

Also you will have half the population of northern ireland (unionists) who would be a disruptive element in the country if we were to take on the north.

Hibernian2005

billy the squid wrote:

Your theory is flawed in that the troubles occouring in France has little to do with cheap labour, If you are referring to the riots, they were caused by poor intergration and unemployment amongst immigrants in France.



Compare the percentage of immigrants on the dole to the number of people in Northern Ireland on the dole, and you will have your answer

Also you will have half the population of northern ireland (unionists) who would be a disruptive element in the country if we were to take on the north.

The % unemployment rate in NI is arout 3.6%, which is lower than down here. The problem is that so many Northerners are employed in the public-sector, which accounts for 63% of economic output compared to 37% down here. Privatisation would resolve that, as would the trimming of bureaucracy that we are seeing in plans to merge the 26 district councils into just 7.

The thesis that Unionists would refuse to accept a United Ireland if voted for in the North is pure speculation, since we have not arrived at that position yet. It is not a thesis I would accept, considering the war-weariness of people up there, and the fact that 73% of NI Protestants say they would accept a UI if a majority up there voted for it.

In any case, what would the aim be of any uprising by former Unionists after a United Ireland?

billy the squid

Hibernian2005 wrote:

The % unemployment rate in NI is arout 3.6%, which is lower than down here. The problem is that so many Northerners are employed in the public-sector, which accounts for 63% of economic output compared to 37% down here. Privatisation would resolve that, as would the trimming of bureaucracy that we are seeing in plans to merge the 26 district councils into just 7.

63 percent, and how much does it cost the UK exchequer to pay all these civil servants. this ontop of our overpopulated civil service down here.

The thesis that Unionists would refuse to accept a United Ireland if voted for in the North is pure speculation, since we have not arrived at that position yet. It is not a thesis I would accept, considering the war-weariness of people up there, and the fact that 73% of NI Protestants say they would accept a UI if a majority up there voted for it.

and the other 27percent would dissappear into thin air right?

Bloodychancer

billy the squid wrote:

and the other 27percent would dissappear into thin air right?

No we should let 27% of Unionists have a veto over the rest of the Island right

Zombrex

Macmorris wrote:

Yes, it was. A country is "working" if it can provide security and defence for its citizens. By that standard the republic of Ireland was definitely working before the 90s.

Security and defence? What? From whom? What has multiculturalism got to do with the defence of this nation? Sorry not following your point at all ...

Macmorris wrote:

Most people were. The only people who weren't were those people who had the great fortune to be born in the multicultural north-eastern part of the country.

So there was no crime, not social unrest at all, till it was imported by foreigners into our peaceful little island??

Zombrex

Hibernian2005 wrote:

How do you reconcile your claims that we cannot afford an increased population from absorbing NI, with your claims that we can afford huge numbers of immigrants?

Because the immigrants aren't dragging their countries with them on their backs. If a Saudi doctor is working in Ireland it doesn't mean we have to spend money to build roads in Saudi Arabia or prop up their public service sector. In fact the Saudi doctor, by working and paying taxes, is helping ot build our roads and prop up our public sector.

Zombrex

Hibernian2005 wrote:

Privatisation would resolve that, as would the trimming of bureaucracy that we are seeing in plans to merge the 26 district councils into just 7.

What you think any of those 63% would still have jobs if large chunks of the public sector was privatised .. you seem to be missing the issue of why these people all work in the public sector. It cause there isn't jobs in the private sector for them.

Hibernian2005 wrote:

The thesis that Unionists would refuse to accept a United Ireland if voted for in the North is pure speculation, since we have not arrived at that position yet.

Does the name "Unionists" not give you some clue :rolleyes:

Unionists have been strongly against any hint at a move towards being in the Republic. There is no reason to believe this has changed.

Hibernian2005 wrote:

In any case, what would the aim be of any uprising by former Unionists after a United Ireland?

Same as the aim of the IRA

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

Where is "there" .. I am aware of very few countries that ban drinking of alcohol.

There are still a number of dry counties in the US.

spooiirt!!

Nothing wrong with letting a few foreigners into the country, on the contrary, theyre needed to keep the economy growing. There is a problem though with mass immigration of poor people that dont speak the language.
The US has a citizenship test, where the applicant has to demonstrate language skills and the will to integrate himself, as well as to work. Seems sensible to me. In contrast here in Gemany we just throw German passports in every direction, but thats because we want to show the world what nice tolerant people we are now! Yay!

annR

Isn't there a new law in Germany that immigrants have to pass a German language test or something?

It makes sense . . .nothing is going to ghettoise immigrants more than not being able to speak the language.

To me I see multiculturism aka tolerance as the difference between my kids growing up feeling safe and happy or feeling unsafe because of all the ghettos and places/people to be avoided. Not put very well but you get my meaning. I know which kind of country I'd prefer.

bonkey

spooiirt!! wrote:

Nothing wrong with letting a few foreigners into the country, ...
The US has a citizenship test,
...
In contrast here in Gemany we just throw German passports in every direction,

Umm...what has letting people into the country to work got to do with the requirements for citizenship?

jc

spooiirt!!

"Umm...what has letting people into the country to work got to do with the requirements for citizenship? "

If they cant even speak German,or dont have any qualifications, its gonna be pretty hard for them to get a job, considering that Germany already has 5 million unemployed. There is no economic boom in Germany ( the opposite actually), so we dont really need any more unskilled, non German speaking people with little or no money to get German citizenship. ( thereby becoming eligible for Germanys generous welfare handouts)

"Isn't there a new law in Germany that immigrants have to pass a German language test or something?"

Germany has 16 federal states, each sets their own rules. (afaik!)

Snickers Man

grubber wrote:

Hang on there. Who is coining this "new term"? As I said above Multiculturalism was invented by those loony-left, limp wristed liberal politically correct brainboxes who came to the realization that elements of some immigrant cultures have no intention of integrating.

Limp wristed loonies? Oooh you're such a man.

Whaddya mean 'invented multiculturalism'? Do you even know what you MEAN by 'multiculturalism'? The phenomenon of people migrating settling mingling intermarrying etc is as old as mankind.

It's not something that was 'invented' by any one person, or even group of people.

Now, if you're talking about attitudes as to how best to address this phenomenon in the context of the 21st century where long-distance rapid travel is much easier than ever before then I would contend that 'multiculturalism' is a bogey-man term invented, not by nampy pamby liberal lefties but by the sort of venomous sharp tongued, sharp suited right wing commentariat who like to spew hatred but will always leave the actual fighting that ensues from their bilious rantings to the untermenschen of the working class.

They are the sort of people who used to sit at the back of class shoving bananas up their own arseholes.

The term doesn't describe anything new at all. It's just a neologism (look it up) designed to cast aspersions on those trying to espouse the finer human ideals of tolerance, respectand adherence to the rule of law rather than the tyranny of conformity.

Have a banana.

Zombrex

spooiirt!! wrote:

If they cant even speak German,or dont have any qualifications, its gonna be pretty hard for them to get a job,

Then why go to Germany for work ... surely the probably takes care of itself, supply and demand ...

grubber

Snickers Man wrote:

Limp wristed loonies? Oooh you're such a man.

Whaddya mean 'invented multiculturalism'? Do you even know what you MEAN by 'multiculturalism'?

Yes. I believe I explained that above, but I see you are going to put me right.

Snickers Man wrote:

The phenomenon of people migrating settling mingling intermarrying etc is as old as mankind.

Wrong. The process you are describing now is Human Migration. And yes this is a well known, observable phenomenon.
Not so "multiculturalism", a concocted word which is currently fashionable.

Snickers Man wrote:

It's not something that was 'invented' by any one person, or even group of people.

Twas I'm telling you

Snickers Man wrote:

Now, if you're talking about attitudes as to how best to address this phenomenon in the context of the 21st century where long-distance rapid travel is much easier than ever before

You're onto something now. Though we are probably on opposing sides as to the desirability of these huge movements of population. Personally I would like my grandchildren, If I ever have any, to know Ireland as a country whose people are predominantly fair skinned.

Snickers Man wrote:

then I would contend that 'multiculturalism' is a bogey-man term invented, not by nampy pamby liberal lefties but by the sort of venomous sharp tongued, sharp suited right wing commentariat who like to spew hatred but will always leave the actual fighting that ensues from their bilious rantings to the untermenschen of the working class.

Wait a minute. Are you now saying M/C was invented after all? Please make up your mind Snickers Man.

Snickers Man wrote:

They are the sort of people who used to sit at the back of class shoving bananas up their own arseholes.

Snickers Man wrote:

The term doesn't describe anything new at all. It's just a neologism (look it up) designed to cast aspersions on those trying to espouse the finer human ideals of tolerance, respectand adherence to the rule of law rather than the tyranny of conformity.

Does this have a meaning, or is it something you cribbed from another source?
Would you say, Snickers Man, that you are one of "those trying to espouse the finer human ideals of tolerance, respectand adherence to the rule of law rather than the tyranny of conformity?

Snickers Man wrote:

Have a banana.

I hope you'll understand that I have no experience of using bananas in the way you describe above. The Ireland in which I grew up wasn't given to the waste of food.

CerebralCortex

What is the signifigance of ppl having fairskin just for your grandchildren?
Just curious is all.

Zombrex

grubber wrote:

You're onto something now. Though we are probably on opposing sides as to the desirability of these huge movements of population. Personally I would like my grandchildren, If I ever have any, to know Ireland as a country whose people are predominantly fair skinned.

Not that this fact is going to change any time soon, but I would ask why? Cause I am tanned skin with brown eyes and jet black hair and I am kinda taking offense at your statement. Should we all have red hair too?

oscarBravo

grubber wrote:

Personally I would like my grandchildren, If I ever have any, to know Ireland as a country whose people are predominantly fair skinned.

Why?

lazydaisy

Thats going to pretty hard especially with the number of women who slap on fake tans. It will probably be known as a country with a people who are predominantly orange skinned.

Orange women, white men, and green fields. A whole new meaning to the work tricolour.

billy the squid

lazydaisy wrote:

Thats going to pretty hard especially with the number of women who slap on fake tans. It will probably be known as a country with a people who are predominantly orange skinned.

twould be like oompa loompa land.

You're onto something now. Though we are probably on opposing sides as to the desirability of these huge movements of population. Personally I would like my grandchildren, If I ever have any, to know Ireland as a country whose people are predominantly fair skinned.

And here is the rub of the issue. our "imagrants" are not white. the colour of your skin does not determine your culture, although when ever I ask soemone claiming that our "culture" is being eroded, what exactly irish culture actually is, they never answer, so i don't think I'll bother asking you.

annR

>>Personally I would like my grandchildren, If I ever have any, to know Ireland as a country whose people are predominantly fair skinned. <<

You sound like a Nazi.

bonkey

spooiirt!! wrote:

"Umm...what has letting people into the country to work got to do with the requirements for citizenship? "

If they cant even speak German,or dont have any qualifications, its gonna be pretty hard for them to get a job, considering that Germany already has 5 million unemployed.

You're not answering the question.

There is a distinction ebtween citizenship and living/working in a country. The latter generally occcurs first, and is the source of much of the complaints about the problems with immigration. Citizenship comes further down the line.

So I still don't see what the requirements for citizenship have to do with Joe Bloggski deciding to move there, work away, settle, raise a family....because citizenship isn't required for any of that.


jc

Snickers Man

grubber wrote:

Yes. I believe I explained that above, but I see you are going to put me right.

No you didn't.

grubber wrote:

Wait a minute. Are you now saying M/C was invented after all? Please make up your mind Snickers Man.

I'm saying the term is a recent concoction which is being used by right wingers to assign a negative connotation to humane attempts to cope with an age-old issue.

Do try to keep up with the discussion.

grubber wrote:

The term doesn't describe anything new at all. It's just a neologism (look it up) designed to cast aspersions on those trying to espouse the finer human ideals of tolerance, respectand adherence to the rule of law rather than the tyranny of conformity.
Does this have a meaning, or is it something you cribbed from another source?

Sorry diddums. I'll try to rephrase that sentence in words that you might understand.

'Multiculturalism is a makey-uppey word that describes an attitude that is very old. IE "treat others as you would like to be treated yourself." A man called Jesus is thought to have said something like that about 2000 years ago. And it was probably an old idea even then.

But just as some nasty people 2000 years ago thought that Jesus was a silly airy-fairy sort of guy and stuck nails in him, so too some people today think that this sort of softy attitude is harmful to their sense of themselves because they can't make their own minds up about anything.

They like a mob to tell them what's right and what's wrong. Especially what's wrong because acting like a complete thug is always great when you have a load of other people egging you on and telling you you're doing the right thing.

So they take all the nice sentiments that decent people have and group them under a new makey uppey word which they use in a negative way. That means they can kid themselves into thinking it's very clever to treat badly newcomers to the country and also to treat badly anybody who wants to treat newcomers fairly. Because, hey there's a big nasty word that's hard to spell that we can all pretend we're fighting against."

And they all lived happily ever after.

GuanYin

grubber wrote:

Personally I would like my grandchildren, If I ever have any, to know Ireland as a country whose people are predominantly fair skinned.

Oh Dear, with skin cancer on the rise a fair skinned nation will require require even MORE foreign medical workers to cope with the nationwide epidemic.

Soon they dark skinned ones will throw off the shackles of their centra uniforms to rule over our scarred, translucent, milk bottle bodies, making us turn to their foreign devil tongue and eat lots of food with garlic.

Woe upon the world you have envisaged for our children

spooiirt!!

Wicknight wrote:

Then why go to Germany for work ... surely the probably takes care of itself, supply and demand ...

Well they traditionally came because there was lotsa work here, thats not the case anymore. But theres still lots of reasons to wantt German citizenship if you come from a poor country like Turkey or Poland, even if you dont actually work. For instance, free healthcare, free public transport, Child support from the state - 200 a month per kid-, ( a big reason why poor people would come here to start their families), and a social welfare system thats so easy to abuse its like taking candy from a baby. And of course the few jobs that are still around still pay better than those in 2nd and 3rd world countries.

spooiirt!!

bonkey wrote:

You're not answering the question.

There is a distinction ebtween citizenship and living/working in a country. The latter generally occcurs first, and is the source of much of the complaints about the problems with immigration. Citizenship comes further down the line.

So I still don't see what the requirements for citizenship have to do with Joe Bloggski deciding to move there, work away, settle, raise a family....because citizenship isn't required for any of that.


jc

Did i say theyre connected? i dunno if i did, i guess i was addressing two different points in the same sentence without making that clear. Sorry.

If Joe Bloggski commits a crime, he gets kicked out, but if he has a german passport he becomes our problem. Doesnt matter, makes for more diversityand tolerance in how the taxpayers money is spent.

spooiirt!!

bonkey wrote:

You're not answering the question.

There is a distinction ebtween citizenship and living/working in a country. The latter generally occcurs first, and is the source of much of the complaints about the problems with immigration. Citizenship comes further down the line.

So I still don't see what the requirements for citizenship have to do with Joe Bloggski deciding to move there, work away, settle, raise a family....because citizenship isn't required for any of that.


jc

Did i say theyre connected? i dunno if i did, i guess i was addressing two different points in the same sentence without making that clear. Sorry.

If Joe Bloggski commits a crime, he gets kicked out, but if he has a german passport he becomes our problem. Doesnt matter, makes for more diversity and tolerance in how the taxpayers money is spent.

ArthurDent

grubber wrote:

Personally I would like my grandchildren, If I ever have any, to know Ireland as a country whose people are predominantly fair skinned. .

and if I ever have grandchildren, I don't care if they or the people surrounding them are green, yellow, black or with pink polka dots, so long as they live in a country that treats everyone fairly, preferably better than it treats its children today.

grubber

psi wrote:

Oh Dear, with skin cancer on the rise a fair skinned nation will require require even MORE foreign medical workers to cope with the nationwide epidemic.

Soon they dark skinned ones will throw off the shackles of their centra uniforms to rule over our scarred, translucent, milk bottle bodies, making us turn to their foreign devil tongue and eat lots of food with garlic.

Woe upon the world you have envisaged for our children

Clever answer. But not clever enough. Although white skin is the most prone to the effects of UV rays, unfortunately brown skin is also high risk. People with black skin are the least affected because they have more melanin pigment in their skin.

That said, I would never expect those trained doctors to leave their families and communities that need them, to come to our shores just to look after us. That strikes me as very selfish, when I'm sure their own countries need their skills even more.

Would you not agree?

PS - I grow garlick in my garden. Love the stuff.

oscarBravo

grubber wrote:

Clever answer. But not clever enough. Although white skin is the most prone to the effects of UV rays, unfortunately brown skin is also high risk. People with black skin are the least affected because they have more melanin pigment in their skin.

Okie dokie, but that doesn't answer the question: why do you want your putative grandchildren to grow up surrounded by fair-skinned people?

GuanYin

grubber wrote:

Clever answer. But not clever enough. Although white skin is the most prone to the effects of UV rays, unfortunately brown skin is also high risk. People with black skin are the least affected because they have more melanin pigment in their skin.

That said, I would never expect those trained doctors to leave their families and communities that need them, to come to our shores just to look after us. That strikes me as very selfish, when I'm sure their own countries need their skills even more.

Would you not agree?

PS - I grow garlick in my garden. Love the stuff.

Likewise a clever answer, but unfortunately you seemed to miss the part where I was purposefully obtuse and also - not clever enough.

Firstly, the large amount of foreign medical students are here for two reasons 1) We offer a better environment to learn medicine (in terms of quality of hospital, facilities available in the hospitals, treatments we can afford to perform) 2) We couldn't afford to run medical schools in Ireland without them.

Secondly, many medical staff come here because this country offers a better training (in terms of experience) and better pay. Again, we can't complain, the health system would collapse if we didn't have foreign nationals in the medical sector here.

Thirdly, many, not all mind you, come here for residencies and then return home with invaluable education, training and experience where they offer great benefits to their own country.

So basically your second paragraph is a no-goer.

neilled

grubber wrote:

Personally I would like my grandchildren, If I ever have any, to know Ireland as a country whose people are predominantly fair skinned.

Too late. The non fair skinned paddy is here in the form of......... well umm.......... me.

I speak with an Irish accent (northern), carry the (formerly) green passport, study in an Irish university, am involved in as a volunteer in the biggest youth organisation in ireland whom i have represented on international events (twice this year), i play trad irish music and would say that i know irish history better than most of these "patriots"- (and that goes back all the way to primary school where i won the local Feis (history section) three years running and much to the constant bewilderment of the parents of the other kids that were taking part), follow my county Football Team (we're crap at hurling) and when I'm out on the town i drink guinness I have also been known to sport a saffron kilt in the past.

Oh wait..... I didn't pass the skin colour test that some people seem to think is the big issue in preserving Irish "Culture" and i put it like that because culture is a constantly evovling thing.

dathi1

Oh wait..... I didn't pass the skin colour test that some people seem to think is the big issue in preserving Irish "Culture" and i put it like that because culture is a constantly evovling thing.

I don't know how you got Skin colour rant mixed up in the multicultural debate but there again it seems people are beginning to wake up to the tissue of lies and deceitful diversions that the pro multicultural lobby make to justify what seems to be a lost cause worldwide.

I speak with an Irish accent (northern), carry the (formerly) green passport, study in an Irish university, am involved in as a volunteer in the biggest youth organisation in ireland whom i have represented on international events (twice this year), i play trad irish music and would say that i know irish history better than most of these "patriots"-

so you may have even had some experience with the results of 400 years of multiculturalism up north? same skin color there too ...mo chara.

grubber

oscarBravo wrote:

Okie dokie, but that doesn't answer the question: why do you want your putative grandchildren to grow up surrounded by fair-skinned people?

OB,
If I travel to Nigeria I expect to see a predominantly black population. In Ireland I expect to see a predominantly white population.

More and more Western European countries have had the experience of mass immigration and are now facing huge problems, partly caused by politicians who through their fashionable "multiculturalism" create expectations which cannopt be fulfilled. There are some towns and cities in England where the indigenous people are in the minority. Ireland has potentially a bigger problem because the existing population is low. Therefore Ireland is at risk of being swamped by foreigners.

Sorry it's a simple, unsophisticated answer. But there you are.

grubber

neilled wrote:

Too late. The non fair skinned paddy is here in the form of......... well umm.......... me.

I speak with an Irish accent (northern), carry the (formerly) green passport, study in an Irish university, am involved in as a volunteer in the biggest youth organisation in ireland whom i have represented on international events (twice this year), i play trad irish music and would say that i know irish history better than most of these "patriots"- (and that goes back all the way to primary school where i won the local Feis (history section) three years running and much to the constant bewilderment of the parents of the other kids that were taking part), follow my county Football Team (we're crap at hurling) and when I'm out on the town i drink guinness I have also been known to sport a saffron kilt in the past.

Oh wait..... I didn't pass the skin colour test that some people seem to think is the big issue in preserving Irish "Culture" and i put it like that because culture is a constantly evovling thing.

Neilled,
You are a true Irishman. And from what you say about your participation in Irish music and games etc, it sounds to me as though you believe in integrating. And I raise my Guinness to you.

But of course that's the opposite of multiculturalism. M/C is all about "celebrating diversity"

walshb

HelterSkelter wrote:

What's wrong with adapting aspects of other people's cultures. We do it already, look at all the Italian/Indian/Thai/Chinese/Leabanese restaurants around. By eating their food we are already accepting their culture. Look at all the idiots sitting outside coffee shops in the freezing cold thinking they are Italians/Spanish/French.

I don't see any problem with multiculturalism once the practice doesn't involve breaking the laws of the host country.

I agree fully, once the people entering our country respect the laws of the land, I have no real problem. It's a simple matter of choice then whether or not you embrace their culture......Oh and they respect the people of Ireland and their culture as well

Hobbes

Guinness is a British company (Diageo plc).

grubber

psi wrote:

Likewise a clever answer, but unfortunately you seemed to miss the part where I was purposefully obtuse and also - not clever enough.

Firstly, the large amount of foreign medical students are here for two reasons 1) We offer a better environment to learn medicine (in terms of quality of hospital, facilities available in the hospitals, treatments we can afford to perform) 2) We couldn't afford to run medical schools in Ireland without them.

Secondly, many medical staff come here because this country offers a better training (in terms of experience) and better pay. Again, we can't complain, the health system would collapse if we didn't have foreign nationals in the medical sector here.

Thirdly, many, not all mind you, come here for residencies and then return home with invaluable education, training and experience where they offer great benefits to their own country.

So basically your second paragraph is a no-goer.

OK so on your 3rd point. What do you think are the odds? Not very high I would guess. Also we are not just talking about medical staff here, are we? Most migrants certainly from Asia and Africa are young males. Whether they are skilled or not, they (in my humble opinion) would be better staying with their own communities where their energies could be put to use to help their own people.

So by using these people to use their labour here, we are actually exploiting them.

grubber

Hobbes wrote:

Guinness is a British company (Diageo plc).

And Wedgewood Pottery is an Irish company (Waterford Glass)

Complicated world. Isn't it?

grubber

ArthurDent wrote:

and if I ever have grandchildren, I don't care if they or the people surrounding them are green, yellow, black or with pink polka dots, so long as they live in a country that treats everyone fairly, preferably better than it treats its children today.

I'm not with this. In what ways are children in Ireland not being treated fairly?
Where do you think they are better treated?

GuanYin

grubber wrote:

OK so on your 3rd point. What do you think are the odds? Not very high I would guess.

I'm sorry, what exactly is your question here? Odds of which?

Also we are not just talking about medical staff here, are we?

In your post addressing me, specifically, yes you were.

Most migrants certainly from Asia and Africa are young males. Whether they are skilled or not, they (in my humble opinion) would be better staying with their own communities where their energies could be put to use to help their own people.

Ok in response to this I ask (and I'd appreciate if you answer this fully):

1) Is it fair to say then that Irish people should likewise, not be going to other countries to work and should be staying at home, despite the lower wages/inferior positions they may receive here?

2) (TWO PARTS TO THIS QUESTION)
Do you feel that we (Ireland) can afford to lose skilled workers more than (whichever of the) african/asian countries you mean? If so, where do you suggest they gain experience and training, if not in a more developed country?

3) (TWO PARTS TO THIS QUESTION)
Do you feel we, as a developed nation, should be helping less developed nations by providing training to their workforce? If not, then do you feel that other countries should follow suit in denying Irish workers access to industries in their country with a higher standard than Irelands?

Thank you for playing!

So by using these people to use their labour here, we are actually exploiting them.

Perhaps if we don't give them the same standard pay, treatment and conditions as Irish people then we are. If not, then I don't see how offering them an opportunity is exploitation. Several non-nationals work with me and are all very happy to have the chance to receive training here.

grubber

Snickers Man wrote:

No you didn't.



I'm saying the term is a recent concoction which is being used by right wingers to assign a negative connotation to humane attempts to cope with an age-old issue.

Do try to keep up with the discussion.




Sorry diddums. I'll try to rephrase that sentence in words that you might understand.

'Multiculturalism is a makey-uppey word that describes an attitude that is very old. IE "treat others as you would like to be treated yourself." A man called Jesus is thought to have said something like that about 2000 years ago. And it was probably an old idea even then.

But just as some nasty people 2000 years ago thought that Jesus was a silly airy-fairy sort of guy and stuck nails in him, so too some people today think that this sort of softy attitude is harmful to their sense of themselves because they can't make their own minds up about anything.

They like a mob to tell them what's right and what's wrong. Especially what's wrong because acting like a complete thug is always great when you have a load of other people egging you on and telling you you're doing the right thing.

So they take all the nice sentiments that decent people have and group them under a new makey uppey word which they use in a negative way. That means they can kid themselves into thinking it's very clever to treat badly newcomers to the country and also to treat badly anybody who wants to treat newcomers fairly. Because, hey there's a big nasty word that's hard to spell that we can all pretend we're fighting against."

And they all lived happily ever after.

Snickers man I think you've got your knickers in a twist. Havw a look at message #74 above, in which YOU are replying to my posting as to what I mean by M/C. Now to add to your confusion, you are arguing that M/C was "makeyd uppied" by "nasty people". And of course by enlisting Jesus to support your point doesn't come as any surprise. Hasn't the poor man suffered enough withou having to get embroiled in the Multicultural debate?:-)

You've got it wrong. Multiculturalism is not thought of as a "nasty" word. Libbos and the loony left love it. It is very fashionable. Though to me it is fatally flawed.

Anyway Snickers Man I think I'm banging my head off a brick wall.