Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo

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.

grubber

Wicknight wrote:

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?

No need to take offence. You haven't said which was the country of origin of yourself or your predecessors. But would you not have any problem envisaging a future in which all of the characteristics that you (rightly) are proud of, being overwhelmed/submerged by those of outsiders?

tim3115

annR wrote:

>>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.

How does he/she sound like a 'Nazi'? Care to explain? And even if he/she is, what's wrong with that - free speech and all that, no?

Naturally, I would agree with the former comment. The people who got us to where we are today were fair skinned. I would not expect Africa to become a white nation, would you?

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.

It's who your ancestors were/what they did that counts. It's in the blood. You may speak fluently in the native tongue, but Éire has (for the most part) been a proud white nation - something that matters to me. I'm against multiracial relationships (naturally, if I'm despise a multiracial society). I believe that (e.g) both parties would serve their fatherland substantially better if seperated. This is where white man prospered up till recently - so dramatic change is needed!

Zombrex

grubber wrote:

No need to take offence. You haven't said which was the country of origin of yourself or your predecessors.

Ireland .. would have thought that would have been obvious ...

grubber wrote:

But would you not have any problem envisaging a future in which all of the characteristics that you (rightly) are proud of, being overwhelmed/submerged by those of outsiders?

Characteristics such as (in your mind) my non-Irish enough skin colour, hair and eyes?

How does skin colour define someone?, and how can skin colour "submerge" the culture of someone else?

If I was surrounded by Muslims in lidl on Parnell St does that mean I have to start following their culture?

spooiirt!!

"I'm against multiracial relationships (naturally, if I'm despise a multiracial society). I believe that (e.g) both parties would serve their fatherland substantially better if seperated. "

So youre a rascist? Theres nothing wrong with foreigners coming into Ireland, as long as there are controls concerning quantity. IMO if they come to the attention of the police for the wrong reasons, they should be kicked out. If they dont work, they should be kicked out.
As long as the immigration is controlled, and the country doesnt let unlimited amounts into the country, its not a problem. Unless you have personal issues with people of other races.

Hobbes

tim3115 wrote:

I believe that (e.g) both parties would serve their fatherland substantially better if seperated. This is where white man prospered up till recently - so dramatic change is needed!

Better to integrate to be honest. We are a nation of 4 million and I would be intrested to see how fast we are breeding (if anyone has those figures).

Of course inbreeding eventually your left with the best/worst and rarely in between (See British royal family history).

You also end up in a situation similar to Korea. A hermit country for a long time, population of 48 million approx, however they have mainly 3 last names and in certain cases you can't marry someone with the same last name even if not a direct blood relation.

Btw, wtf has skin colour got to do with anything? There are probably more foreign people in Ireland who are white and our nation has been mixed with others for generations.

Zombrex

dathi1 wrote:

I don't know how you got Skin colour rant mixed up in the multicultural debate

About the time grubber said he wanted Ireland to stay a country of mostly pale white skinned folk (otherwise sure how would you be able to tell the true honest to God Irish from the dirty stealing-our-jobs-and-raping-our-women foreigners!!)

Zombrex

tim3115 wrote:

It's who your ancestors were/what they did that counts. It's in the blood.

Who's blood exactly ... cause I am very dark skinned, with jet black hair and everytime the fecking spanish students come over the local skanger kids keep asking me what Spain is like.

But I can trace my family history in Wicklow and Kildare back to before the 1800s ... can you do that? I doubt most Irish people know anything about there families past their great grandparents.

tim3115 wrote:

You may speak fluently in the native tongue, but Éire has (for the most part) been a proud white nation - something that matters to me.

"Eire" for the most part is made up of people who never defined themselves as being a "white nation," except maybe the idiots on Stormfront.ie.

tim3115 wrote:

I'm against multiracial relationships (naturally, if I'm despise a multiracial society). I believe that (e.g) both parties would serve their fatherland substantially better if seperated. This is where white man prospered up till recently - so dramatic change is needed!

And if both parties "fatherland" is Ireland what do you do then?

tim3115

"Eire" for the most part is made up of people who never defined themselves as being a "white nation," except maybe the idiots on Stormfront.ie.

I agree with the 'idiots on Stormfront' statement. I visited that site a while back, and it's full of the usual brainless twats. And what do mean by the first part exactly?

But I can trace my family history in Wicklow and Kildare back to before the 1800s ... can you do that?

I can indeed. But I don't need to look back any further as a glance at the mirror tells the story.

And if both parties "fatherland" is Ireland what do you do then?

Clearly, you do not understand the concept of the 'fatherland' so.

Btw, wtf has skin colour got to do with anything? There are probably more foreign people in Ireland who are white and our nation has been mixed with others for generations.

Yes, mixed with other white nations i.e. we are all of the one blood.

So youre a rascist?

That ugly phrase 'racist' (yes, you spelt it incorrectly) means "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character". I believe in keeping those differences sperate.

Karl Hungus

Wicknight wrote:

"Eire" for the most part is made up of people who never defined themselves as being a "white nation," except maybe the idiots on Stormfront.ie.

I don't think that Tim had said that people actually defined themselves as such, but simple are. Which is true, as we still are a country of predominantly white people, reguardless of whether or not most of the people would define it as such, so I don't see what point you had there Wicknight.

grubber

psi wrote:

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

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



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!

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.

Well PSI. You set very stringent rules on how I should answer your questions. Whereas you can't be bothered to look back to YOUR OWN postings and the points you previously made.

Anyway I will make a general point to (hopefully) answer your questions re the fairness or otherwise of Irish people going to other countries for work.

Well two answers really. Firstly it depends where they go to. So, for example, the emigration for most of the period after 1922 was to the UK and the USA. I don't believe those 2 countries, regarded this immigration as harmful because a/ the economies were large enough to absorb it, and b/, the Irish are natural mixers and will integrate easily with host populations that are generally of the same cultural, religious values as themselves.

My Second answer however goes back to my point about whether emigration is"good" for the emigrants. And I wouldn't be so sure about this at all. Through most of the history of our Republic, governments used emigration as part of economic planning. Whereas if we had told them to stuff the Holyhead boat and demanded a functioning economy, arguably Ireland wouldn't have been the "poor man" of Europe for so long. In other words, it was mostly the young and energetic people who emigrated. And they went off to build up Britain and the USA, instead of building up their own country.

Yes I know this might sound simplistic. And yes, of course there will always be emigration. But the scale of Irish emigration during parts of the last century was appalling for such a small country. It blighted us for decades

neilled

dathi1 wrote:

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.

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.

Ah but you see dathi, it all depends on what you view multiculturalism as - multi culturalism is not the various groupings arriving in one place and expecting to carryon as they always did "back home" and its not about the locals carrying on as they always done either - it is about the people adapting and changing. And in my view there is no multiculturalism up north - thats called segregation and walling yourself off.

I think alot of people are missing the point - Irish people have went all over the world and created Irish communities ( and causing all sorts of problems for the "locals" whilst they were at it) that over time have come to view themselves as full blooded spanish,American, Canadian, Austrialian etc, without forgetting where they are from.

Thats my definition of multiculturalism - the new one seems to have been dreamed up by the members of the ranting right, as well as their lefty loon bedfellows.

All i want is a bit of balance - you can be whatever skin colour you like and still be as irish as anyone else - but you dont have to forget where you come from.

annR

tim3115 wrote:

How does he/she sound like a 'Nazi'? Care to explain? And even if he/she is, what's wrong with that - free speech and all that, no?

Talking about 'fair skinned' races just reminds me a lot of Hitler and his Ayran philosophy and therefore sounds Nazi-like to me. Just an observation.

neilled

tim3115 wrote:

It's who your ancestors were/what they did that counts. It's in the blood. You may speak fluently in the native tongue,................... This is where white man prospered up till recently - so dramatic change is needed!

Interesting that you use the word "prospered" whenever so many still moan about 700 years of rape and pillage by the brits.

Zombrex

Karl Hungus wrote:

I don't think that Tim had said that people actually defined themselves as such, but simple are.

I think in the context of his post when he says "proud white nation" he means proud to be a white nation, not "we are proud, and on an unrelated matter we also happen to be white"

tim3115

I am proud to be white

Hobbes

tim3115 wrote:

That ugly phrase 'racist' (yes, you spelt it incorrectly) means "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character". I believe in keeping those differences sperate.

Actually it doesn't. It means.. (www.dictionary.com)
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Funny how the racists miss the last parts.

tim3115 wrote:

I am proud to be white

Are you an albino? most causaisans are pink'ish.

Zombrex

tim3115 wrote:

I can indeed. But I don't need to look back any further as a glance at the mirror tells the story.

Maybe you missed the part about me not looking like a typical Irish person ...

tim3115 wrote:

Clearly, you do not understand the concept of the 'fatherland' so.

Clearly you don't understand that a dark, black or asian featured person can be Irish

tim3115 wrote:

Yes, mixed with other white nations i.e. we are all of the one blood.

Other "white nations" who mixed with black, dark skinned, asian nations ... if you look at the spread of skin colour it is all just one big blur. So an pale Irish person "mixing" with a dark skinned Spanish person is the same as an pale Irish person mixing with a very dark skinned (black) african person. There is no difference.

tim3115 wrote:

That ugly phrase 'racist' (yes, you spelt it incorrectly) means "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character". I believe in keeping those differences sperate.

No racisim means assuming something about a person based soley on their race. Wanting to keep people seperate based solely on their race is racism.

Zombrex

tim3115 wrote:

I am proud to be white

You should be very proud you made your skin cells loose pigment ... well done

grubber

annR wrote:

Talking about 'fair skinned' races just reminds me a lot of Hitler and his Ayran philosophy and therefore sounds Nazi-like to me. Just an observation.

No AnnR I'm definitely not a Nazi. Just that I'm not ashamed to be white. I realise this might not be very fashionable in Grafton St now that we are a "multicultural society"

annR

No AnnR I'm definitely not a Nazi. Just that I'm not ashamed to be white. I realise this might not be very fashionable in Grafton St now that we are a "multicultural society"

I didn't say you were a Nazi, I said you sounded like one.

I'm not ashamed to be white either. The point about multiculturism is that other people shouldn't be ashamed to be their colour either. And they shouldn't be made feel ashamed.

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"

Integration is not the opposite of M/C, that's segration. M/C "celebrates diversity" by NOT segregrating those people who are different but by integrating them. I think you can integrate people who are different.