Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo

grubber

lazydaisy wrote:

There is nothing wrong with northside accents. But there are plenty of Dublin parents around who send their kids to private schools just so they are not socialised with children who come from working class families. So I'm guessing if their are parents who dont even like their kids socialising with kids from their own nation they wont want them socialising with kids from foreign ones.

grubber - before you get too offended by what I said. I will remind you that the Irish who landed in America in the late 19th to early 20th centuries, were eating out of garbage, were taking jobs no one else would, and were considered the bottom of the barrel. They were dirty and filthy. Even up to the 70s, the immigrants who came to the US were often working class people who couldnt get served in a restaurant in Dublin because of the blatant snobbery that existed there at the time. So thats what freedom meant to them, being able to be served in a restaurant. Did Ireland care much for them? I doubt it, despite her emigres working themselves to the bone just to send money home for it to be stuffed under mattresses by distant contemptuous cousins. Did Ireland care about all the illegitemate children that were shipped off to be adopted by American families? Hardly. She still doesnt care. Having to leave, being forced out by classicm, nepotism, and sometimes morality [because they got pregnant out of wedlock or their mothers did] many of the emigrant population were not wanted by the motherland. So yes, I would call that being repellant to your motherland, one that cant and wont feed you for whatever reasons she decided. I think maybe you should read some history. Or talk to some of the population that hemmoraged out of Ireland. You clearly have no idea.

What really gets me about the whole "unwilling to integrate" argument is that there is nothing to make it even the slightest bit easy for them to do so that especially outside of Dublin. Irish people are tribal, suspicious, dont like foreigners, and the women have to know you for 20 years before they'll even sit down for a drink with you. There are all these inside jokes in the culture. There is an entire subtext to the official and unofficial realities in Ireland so anyone who did not grow up here will most likely feel they are always losing at a poker game.

Captain Trips -Please do not bring up New Orleans and Katrina. That is not an example of multi-culturalism. The black population of New Orleans are AMERICAN. They have been in America since the foundations of the nation and have made invaluable contributions to the culture. The problems of Katrina are a totally different issue.

AS far as Irish integration in Britain and the US, it is usually the descendants who integrate, and as far as I have gathered it has been much harder for the Irish in Britain because of the fear that the troubles brought. But yes, that is true, the Irish were thought of as dirty and drunk in both nations. The new Irish who come to the US are leaving a different but just as dodgy set of footprints. You can go to any Irish pub in NYC or Boston and hear a lot of talk about how crappy America is and how dumb Americans are. The J1 visas come over drink a lot and destroy property. Its happenning enough that a reputation is developing. So, you can how well that integration is going!

Lazydaisy, I think you might be mixing me up with another poster. I actually agree with most (not all) of what you say. Even though it makes rather depressing reading!

Hobbes

spooiirt!! wrote:

The "towels" im referring to are the yokes that Muslim women have to wear on their heads.

Like I said, try and actually bother research about what you are prejuiced about.

grubber

growler wrote:

so Americans, a generation after their independence from the British retained a deeply ingrained hated of Irish due to a royal decree ? hmmm

Well you can "hmmmmm" all you like. Such bigoted prejudices are indeed "deeply ingrained" and are passed from one generation to the next without rational reappraisal. A good example of the process can be found without needing to travel outside Ireland.

lazydaisy

Yes grubber that is true. It is often inherited. Like my friend's six year old who supports anyone who beats the English in the World Cup because he "hates the english." He didnt come up with that on his own, he picked it up from someone older than him.

Sorry grubber I think I did mix you up. And sorry to depress you. It was not my intention.

Macmorris

Solair wrote:

People have been coming to Ireland for millenia. We're vikings, celts, anglo-saxons, normans etc..

Immigration into Ireland in the past was nowhere near as bad as it is now. Ask any geneticist and he'll tell you that the Irish are almost genetically identical to the original stone age people who came to this island around 9,000 years ago. The Celts, Vikings, Normans and British left very little impact on our gene-pool. That suggests that previous contact with outsiders was very limited.

Probably the biggest influx of people in the past was during the Ulster plantation and that added only around 40,000 people to the population during the early part of the 17th century. We already have around 100,000 Poles in the country with tens of thousands of people of other ethnic groups.

Cultural differences have existed on this island for as long as there have been people on this island.

That's true but look at how badly we we dealt with those differences.

The perfect response to anyone who thinks Ireland can cope with all these immigrants - Look at what happened the last time.

What is "Irish Culture" ?

I would define Irish culture as the culture of the Irish people. Without Irish people there is no Irish culture.

The most important part of our culture is our sense of being one people, with a common descent and a common heritage. That's what's being threatened by immigration and multiculturalism. Culturally we have very little in common with the Irish people of 300 years ago but the one thing we do have in common is the sense of a common ethnic identity. Although most of them spoke a different language to the one we speak now they still had the same genes as us. We know that they were the same people as us. They were our ancestors and we are their descendants. Up until a few years ago most people took it for granted that we could pass on that ethnic identity to future generations just as it had been passed on to us from previous generations. Now it's obvious that if we continue on with the current levels of immigration we're going to lose that aspect of our culture. In a hundred years from now Irish people (real Irish people) will probably be a minority on the island of Ireland.

Undoubtedly people immigrating into Ireland will also have to adapt to the exsisting Irish culture, social and political norms etc.

But that's the problem, there is no pressure on them to adapt. There is 'no have' to about multiculturalism.

segadreamcast

Macmorris wrote:

I would define Irish culture as the culture of the Irish people.

Probably the most tautological thing I've ever read on this forum. "Irish culture? Sure it isn't it the culture of the Irish people, begob!" What a load.

Ooo "their genes". My arse. I'm not even going to bother with a proper rebuttal - because somebody is going to do it much better in a matter of minutes/hours I imagine. Where do our genes come from? Well that depends really... the english? Sure. The Normans? Absolutely? The Celts? Mmm hmm. The Romans landed here too - but not outside the pale, and not for long. Who are *we* macmorris? There is no *one* Irish race, sir. There are only prejudices and misconceptions about both who 'we' are and who 'they' are.

Macmorris

NoelRock wrote:

Probably the most tautological thing I've ever read on this forum. "Irish culture? Sure it isn't it the culture of the Irish people, begob!" What a load.

I was making the point that Irish culture does not exist independently of the Irish people. Once the ethnic Irish people are eventually sidelined in this country within the next few decades so will Irish culture be sidelined along with us.

Who are *we* macmorris?

We are mostly the descendants of the pre-neolithic settlers of the island of Ireland, the first people who came to this island 9,000 years ago.

http://www.insideireland.com/sample19.htm

The prevalence of ancient genes in Ireland suggests that the Irish have largely maintained their pre-Neolithic genetic heritage. There has been little genetic influence from outside the country since the first people came to Ireland almost 9,000 years ago.

segadreamcast

Macmorris wrote:

I was making the point that Irish culture does not exist independently of the Irish people. Once the ethnic Irish people are eventually sidelined in this country within the next few decades so will Irish culture be sidelined along with us.



We are mostly the descendants of the pre-neolithic settlers of the island of Ireland, the first people who came to this island 9,000 years ago.

http://www.insideireland.com/sample19.htm

Good link.

Connaught men are the most Irish of the Irish

By your logic, surely other Irish people shouldn't be allowed into Connaught then (all the better, some would say, but still...) - in the event that we might 'sideline' their 'pure genes'?

samb

Macmorris wrote:

The most important part of our culture is our sense of being one people, with a common descent and a common heritage. That's what's being threatened by immigration and multiculturalism. Culturally we have very little in common with the Irish people of 300 years ago but the one thing we do have in common is the sense of a common ethnic identity. Although most of them spoke a different language to the one we speak now they still had the same genes as us. We know that they were the same people as us. They were our ancestors and we are their descendants. Up until a few years ago most people took it for granted that we could pass on that ethnic identity to future generations just as it had been passed on to us from previous generations. Now it's obvious that if we continue on with the current levels of immigration we're going to lose that aspect of our culture. In a hundred years from now Irish people (real Irish people) will probably be a minority on the island of Ireland.
.

Your justification to maintain the genetic purity of the real irish people uses is the exact same as that used to justify the extermination of six million jews.

It is also personally offensive to myself. By your strange definiition of irishness; if you look at my parents or grandparents I am 100% english, if you look at my great grandparents I am 3/8ths English, 3/8ths scotish, 1/8th welsh and 1/8th Irish. If you go back 170,000 years then I am African and so are you. It seems convenient that you chose 9,000 years to determine your nationality and exclude me and others and do not consider us to be really Irish.

Perhaps in a few years you can get your genes checked and find out just how Irish you are. You can then lobby to have anybody less than 98.68658% Irish deported.

I was born and raised in Ireland and have always considered myself Irish. When I have been in England and see the differences (funny accents, good currency etc) I observe them and compare them to back home (IRELAND)....

It is strange to suddenly find out that I am not Irish after all these years, will you please explain why I am not.:mad:

Zombrex

Macmorris wrote:

Immigration into Ireland in the past was nowhere near as bad as it is now.

I think someone having a Viking bashing down their door might disagree ...

Macmorris wrote:

The most important part of our culture is our sense of being one people, with a common descent and a common heritage. That's what's being threatened by immigration and multiculturalism.

How exactly? Is someone making you give up your common heritage?

Macmorris wrote:

Culturally we have very little in common with the Irish people of 300 years ago but the one thing we do have in common is the sense of a common ethnic identity.

Macmorris you are making up a "bond" with people who were dead 300 years ago just so you can say foreigners shouldn't enter the country and destroy that bond. Do you know how ridiculous that idea is. What is "ethnic identity"? I might as well claim we have a "spiritual bond" as Christians to people from the middle east and we should let them all in!!

Macmorris wrote:

Although most of them spoke a different language to the one we speak now they still had the same genes as us.

And Africans have the same genes as us .. hold on, the entire human race has the same genes as us ... let them all in!

Macmorris wrote:

Up until a few years ago most people took it for granted that we could pass on that ethnic identity to future generations just as it had been passed on to us from previous generations.

And you still can...

Macmorris wrote:

Now it's obvious that if we continue on with the current levels of immigration we're going to lose that aspect of our culture.

What aspect! Jesus talk about dancing around the issue. Having a specific protein marker on your Y chromosone is not "culture"

Macmorris wrote:

In a hundred years from now Irish people (real Irish people) will probably be a minority on the island of Ireland.

"real" Irish people are what now? People with the Y chromoson marker on them? So women are not real Irish people, am I understanding that correctly ...




But that's the problem, there is no pressure on them to adapt. There is 'no have' to about multiculturalism.[/QUOTE]

Captain Trips

samb wrote:

Your justification to maintain the genetic purity of the real irish people uses is the exact same as that used to justify the extermination of six million jews.:

Not at all. I think the point we all understand is that different people from different cultures have always moved about. The problem is perhaps that currently everything that's always happened is happening very quickly. It's one thing for a family to emigrate to Oregon in 1854, it's another for relocating 300,000 from a very different culture within a very short time (like 5 years).

So while everyone has roamed, from every culture and race, ease of transport means that everywhere is accesible all the time. Of course it leads to problems as many have mentioned. To ignore them so that one can side with the modern cuddly friendly "Multicultural meltingpot" is flying in the face of common sense.

It's very offensive and scaremongering of you to compare balanced sensibility with anti-Semitism.

Marco Polo to the Far East, Columbus to America, heck it's always being going on. People move and mix with each other, it's good and expands horizons. But rapid changes within a short few years due to imbalanced economics between different countries is not the same.

Zombrex

Captain Trips wrote:

The problem is perhaps that currently everything that's always happened is happening very quickly.

Its not actually happening very quickly compared to other times, it just feels new because we are actually here living it now.

In 1847 52,000 Irish immigrants arrived in New York alone. In the same year 53,000 German immigrants arrived in New York.

GuanYin

Macmorris wrote:

I was making the point that Irish culture does not exist independently of the Irish people. Once the ethnic Irish people are eventually sidelined in this country within the next few decades so will Irish culture be sidelined along with us.



We are mostly the descendants of the pre-neolithic settlers of the island of Ireland, the first people who came to this island 9,000 years ago.

http://www.insideireland.com/sample19.htm

I'll preface this by saying I know the woman who wrote the article you are referencing and I sincerely doubt she would agree with your slant on her piece.

The article merely suggested that through examing a gene that is associated with ancestral europeans and its conservation among Irish people, that there was relatively little outside breeding in Ireland.

However, the article did not state that there are NO changes in the genetic profile, merely that there were less than if we had a more "out-breeding".

For instance, it well known though genetic studies that there is strong evidence of portuguese heritage in western ireland. Any genetic changes to the marker gene in the article would be insignificant so long as the population diluted any foreign introductions sufficiently.

Even still, this gene conservation doesn't suggest no foreign blood was introduced, merely that it was introduced less than in other countries (mainly because we are an island and more isolated than mainland europe).

All in all you have to remember that it is more than one gene that defines a race. And even then, more genes differ between any two individuals than any two races.

samb

Captain Trips wrote:

It's very offensive and scaremongering of you to compare balanced sensibility with anti-Semitism.

I was refering to his use of genetics to back up his argument. He thinks we need to protect our ethnic identity (he refers to our common genes). This is almost identical to the racist retoric that came from the nazis.
A discussion on a sensible immigration policy is important. I acknowledge that there are problems associated with immigration and that restrictions are important under certain circumstances. I just don't think that genetics is relevant.

neilled

samb wrote:

Your justification to maintain the genetic purity of the real irish people uses is the exact same as that used to justify the extermination of six million jews.

It is also personally offensive to myself. By your strange definiition of irishness; if you look at my parents or grandparents I am 100% english, if you look at my great grandparents I am 3/8ths English, 3/8ths scotish, 1/8th welsh and 1/8th Irish. If you go back 170,000 years then I am African and so are you. It seems convenient that you chose 9,000 years to determine your nationality and exclude me and others and do not consider us to be really Irish.

Perhaps in a few years you can get your genes checked and find out just how Irish you are. You can then lobby to have anybody less than 98.68658% Irish deported.

I was born and raised in Ireland and have always considered myself Irish. When I have been in England and see the differences (funny accents, good currency etc) I observe them and compare them to back home (IRELAND)....

It is strange to suddenly find out that I am not Irish after all these years, will you please explain why I am not.:mad:

Nicely said Sam, I can tell you I feel pretty much the same way and have a similar set of cirumstances in being born elsewhere and being raised here.

Anotherthing to beware of is when your looking at immigration figures be very careful about what conclusions you come to when large figures are quoted in the press about the numbers of immigrants do take into account (it has varied from year to year) that from 30%-35% of the figure given are Irish returning home. 10% (im averaging) seem to come from the UK (I'm assuming that includes us northerners) and an addittional 20% seeming to come from the EU states (this does not include the new members) so that leaves the rest of the world with about a third.

So that that into consideration when you look at people touting figures like 300,000 in the past 6 years.

billy the squid

with regard to muslims on the dart.

would prefer muslims reading the Quaran than have irish scobes ogling your mobile.

Hobbes

Macmorris wrote:

We are mostly the descendants of the pre-neolithic settlers of the island of Ireland, the first people who came to this island 9,000 years ago.

http://www.insideireland.com/sample19.htm

Not sure you are reading it correctly. I guess you are trying to imply that only those people who have inter-breed with each other since the bronze age are "true Irish". Fact of the matter is we have Norman, Viking , Portuguese, Spanish, Scottish and British (which is mixed again) blood mixed within the Irish since the bronze age.

dathi1

In 1847 52,000 Irish immigrants arrived in New York alone. In the same year 53,000 German immigrants arrived in New York.

are you seriously comparing immigration to a massive continental land mass like the US with the largest mass immigration to a small island with nation of less than 4 million? BTW we all know what happened to the original indigenous culture that happened to live there.

Hobbes

dathi1 wrote:

BTW we all know what happened to the original indigenous culture that happened to live there.

They all set up casinos?

spooiirt!!

"Muslim women don't wear towels on their heads. "

Right so ive just been hallucinating when i see Muslim women on TV insisting that they be allowed wear their headcloths "because theyre part of their Islamic identity" eh? The whole "should female Muslim teachers be allowed wear their headtcloths in school" argument is just a figment of my imagination?

I dont care what foreign individuals do while theyre here. As long as they work, pay taxes, and dont act anti-socially i dont give a commies ass what religion they practice. I just dont want there to be too many of them.

I do, however want there to be limitations of how many foreigners from specific countries we let in. In germany the majority of them are Russian, Polish, Turkish and African. The problem with that is that they form their own blocks, their own culture-specific Ghettos. This leads to inter racial tensions and crime.

The fact that 9 % of the population here make up 23% of the social welfare recipients and 50% of the Criminals shows that something is wrong.
A country should only allow as many foreigners in as it can provide Jobs for. the fact that we have 5 million unemployed means that we dont need any more people with no education, money or German skills.


Ive no problem with there being different cultures in Germany, but i do have a problem with the foreigners mainly from two different regions.
And i want to preserve German culture, that doesnt mean i dont tolerate other cultures in this country, but when you have towns here that have been dubbed " Little Istanbul" because the majority of its inhabitants are Turks, thats just wrong.

Zombrex

dathi1 wrote:

are you seriously comparing immigration to a massive continental land mass like the US with the largest mass immigration to a small island with nation of less than 4 million?

I am comparing immigration to a city that at the time was 2 miles squared, to a country that has a disproportiantly small native population

dathi1 wrote:

BTW we all know what happened to the original indigenous culture that happened to live there.

When Irish people start being rounded up and moved onto reservations, give me a call ... (of course Macmorris and like probably believe that is just around the corner too :rolleyes:)

Zombrex

spooiirt!! wrote:

Right so ive just been hallucinating when i see Muslim women on TV insisting that they be allowed wear their headcloths

A Islamic head scarf if not a towel, it isn't anything at all like a towel and it isn't even where the derogatory slur "towel head" used to describe Arab people comes from ... as I explained in my last post

neilled

Wicknight wrote:

I am comparing immigration to a city that at the time was 2 miles squared, to a country that has a disproportiantly small native population


When Irish people start being rounded up and moved onto reservations, give me a call ... (of course Macmorris and like probably believe that is just around the corner too :rolleyes:)

And we all know which certain group of immigrants were very keen to get rid of the natives don't we??????

Actually, has anyone read "How Racism Came to Ireland" published by beyond the pale? Its an interesting little book, althogh the publishers are a bit Tiocfadih for my liking though!

Heres a little extract from a review of the book.

"It is from these contradictions and contours that we see the importance of an equally timely work, Encounters by Bill Rolston and Michael Shannon, which traces the relationship between black people and Ireland from the Vikings to the present day, with the subtitle, How Racism Came to Ireland . In a short but comprehensive overview, the authors cover both Ireland's participation in the slave trade - "Irish beef was the largest single West Indian import until well into the 18th century" - and the occasional power reversal, as when black soldiers marched under the banner of the empire to help suppress Irish revolts.

We learn not only that "with the exception of London, Dublin had the largest black population of any 18th-century European city", but also about the support that came to the Irish republicans from black Americans such as Marcus Garvey, and the involvement of many Irish-Americans in the most vicious racial disturbances in America during the early part of the last century. From this complexity emerges an ambiguous relationship between racial and national liberation. This ambiguity produced passionate abolitionist speeches from Irish MP Daniel O'Connell: "I want no American aid if it comes across the Atlantic stained in Negro blood.""

If i recall correctly Gravey wanted to sent negro battalions (civil war veterans) across the atlantic to help free ireland, once they had their own problems sorted out!!!

Imagine that.

growler

[QUOTE=spooiirt And i want to preserve German culture, that doesnt mean i dont tolerate other cultures in this country, but when you have towns here that have been dubbed " Little Istanbul" because the majority of its inhabitants are Turks, thats just wrong.[/QUOTE]

go to any major city anywhere in the world and you'll find areas that are largely populated by non-natives, Chinese, Polish, Italians, Colombians, Jamaicans, Irish whatever. Just because ne nationality or religion chose to live close together doesn't automatically mean that crime will be the result. This is perfectly normal behaviour for humans. I live in the "Little Turkey" area of London, it never once occured to me that it was wrong, when I first moved to London I lived in Kilburn i never once struck me that living in a predominately Irish area was wrong either. I agree that is a vast majority of an immigrant community chose to live in one area or were given social housing in one area that the seeds are sown for a ghetto mentality to thrive as happened so recently in Paris.

And Muslim women do not wear "towels" on their heads (except after washing their hair I'd guess), they may wear headscarves called khimars or hijabs though.

grubber

Wicknight wrote:

A Islamic head scarf if not a towel, it isn't anything at all like a towel and it isn't even where the derogatory slur "towel head" used to describe Arab people comes from ... as I explained in my last post

Spooirt,
It looks like we have to learn all the correct terms for the garb our immigrants wear. I guess we will also have courses being set up to explain their customs and particular "needs".

Well we don't want to upset the M/C applecart, now do we?

Solair

Macmorris wrote:

Immigration into Ireland in the past was nowhere near as bad as it is now. Ask any geneticist and he'll tell you that the Irish are almost genetically identical to the original stone age people who came to this island around 9,000 years ago. The Celts, Vikings, Normans and British left very little impact on our gene-pool. That suggests that previous contact with outsiders was very limited.

Probably the biggest influx of people in the past was during the Ulster plantation and that added only around 40,000 people to the population during the early part of the 17th century. We already have around 100,000 Poles in the country with tens of thousands of people of other ethnic groups....

... I would define Irish culture as the culture of the Irish people. Without Irish people there is no Irish culture.

The most important part of our culture is our sense of being one people, with a common descent and a common heritage. That's what's being threatened by immigration and multiculturalism. Culturally we have very little in common with the Irish people of 300 years ago but the one thing we do have in common is the sense of a common ethnic identity. Although most of them spoke a different language to the one we speak now they still had the same genes as us. .

I'm not going to beat about the bush here - what you're talking about there is ridiculous. You've already contradicted yourself by saying that "culturally we have little in common with the Irish people of 300 years ago" and what your arguing is that national identity should be based on some sort of prehistoric clan system.

How far would you take this? Would you only allow people decended from the 5 prehistoric celtic tribes of your particular choosing to be Irish and the rest of us would have to leave?

How narrow a gene pool would you like? Do you like the idea of marrying your own cousins?

There is no question that the vikings, anglo-saxons, normans etc had a pretty signifigant impact on our gene pool over the centuries. Do you really think those viking settlers in Dublin and various parts of the south east just packed up their belongings, closed up everything and headed back to Norway ? Or that they were the first vikings to make condom usage compulsary?

Cork has so much of a norman french influence that they still say "hien?" at the end of sentences when they want to ask a question!

Where do you think all the names ending in son/sen, names ending with aux, starting with fitz etc come from?

Do you think "garsuin" for a male in southwestern dialect of Irish just happened by accident?

You really need to broaden your horizons. It's not feasable nor is it reasonable to define a national identity based on gentic lines and in an Irish context it would be almost impossible! You'd be saying that a large chunk of the population isn't Irish at all.

If you trace the movements of the celts through europe too they also picked up plenty of genetic diversity on the way mingling with various other groups.

The thing that narrow minded people might realise if they took the blinkers off for a moment is that people in pretty much any part of the world are fundementally the same. Our similarities far outweigh our superficial differences.

Why do you think that "World culture" is possible if we were all so fundementally different. Strangely enough, under all the superfical stuff, people are people and have similar outlooks on life regardless of where they grow up.

grubber

growler wrote:

go to any major city anywhere in the world and you'll find areas that are largely populated by non-natives, Chinese, Polish, Italians, Colombians, Jamaicans, Irish whatever. Just because ne nationality or religion chose to live close together doesn't automatically mean that crime will be the result. This is perfectly normal behaviour for humans. I live in the "Little Turkey" area of London, it never once occured to me that it was wrong, when I first moved to London I lived in Kilburn i never once struck me that living in a predominately Irish area was wrong either. I agree that is a vast majority of an immigrant community chose to live in one area or were given social housing in one area that the seeds are sown for a ghetto mentality to thrive as happened so recently in Paris.

And Muslim women do not wear "towels" on their heads (except after washing their hair I'd guess), they may wear headscarves called khimars or hijabs though.

So I suppose while in Kilburn you would never have been seen out without the torn britches, the muddy brogues and of course the obligatory pig over your shoulder?

Hobbes

grubber wrote:

Spooirt,
It looks like we have to learn all the correct terms for the garb our immigrants wear. I guess we will also have courses being set up to explain their customs and particular "needs".

Well we don't want to upset the M/C applecart, now do we?

There are easily 20-30 different types of female headwear, some of which are no different then head scarfs that Irish women wear. However "Towel" is not one of them.

Towel is a step away from "Towel head" which is a derogatory term. But then yous knew that.

Captain Trips

Regarding genetics: there are large differences genetically between different nationalities. Irish, English, northern europeans are more prone to diseases like MS, alcoholism, etc., . Africans are more prone to cardiovascular disease. To say there are no differences is not correct.

However, gene pools are generally mixed to certain degrees. There is no "genetic purity", except for example in Ashkenazi Jews and Romany Gypsies (not native Romanians who are more "meditteranean").

It was not until 1968 that Watson & Crick published The Double Helix. However, it was obviously speculation and research for several decades before this. Imagine if you dislike a group of people, and a few smart scientists say that it possible tehre are fundamental differences for these people to be a certain way, well, it's attractive.

We still can't pinpoint is basic intelligence genetic or environment, or most likely a bit of both.

Genes, in reality, count for squat on there own. There are many dangers of rapid mixing of cultures. It's most likely not due to the fact that one group has a family history of alcohol disease and the other group has a history of eating falafels. It's due to one group liking to get pissed on a friday, and the other group thinking the first group are the children of satan because of it.

Solair

But the same could be said WITHIN Ireland ...e.g. there are clusters of people on the west coast who are totally wheat intollerant.
Heart disease is FAR more of a problem amongst Northern Irish and Scottish people than it is in England/Wales or the southern half of ireland.

that's just an isolated community with a single dodgy gene that keeps reappearing due to their isolation!