Enda Kenny on Immigration - honest debate or oppotunist sh1t stirring?

purple'n'gold

I still can’t see why everyone is getting so excited about this. When our fragile little economy takes a downturn, and it will, soon, all this talk about immigration will not mean a lot. There won’t be any immigration. We just won’t have anything to offer.
And as I have stated before, the vast majority of people in this country (the plain people of Ireland, if you like) regard themselves as Celtic and Christian.

is_that_so

Wicknight wrote:

Ok, 2 points

Firstly what am I excluding these people from?

Secondly for me to exclude these people from anything one must first accept that yes that is what Kenny meant and yes there are a large number of people out there who think like this. If that is the case then my point is proven anyway.

Your conclusion is that your own interpretation of what he said is true so anyone of an opposite opinion is wrong. I don't agree with your assertion but I accept it as being different to my own, not wrong. But I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Wicknight wrote:

Are you happy to classify the Irish as Celtic and Christian?

Statistically it is true. I agree that's it's a truism that is open to debate but in the context of where the original speech was going it's fine. As I said in my first post, there are far more important things in there that are being missed because of what I believe is a storm in a teacup.

oscarBravo

ballooba wrote:

I do think it was a mistake for Enda to use that language. Maybe he should have just said "As a nation we understand" or something like that.

I'm concerned about the perceived need to pander to every remote possibility of someone taking any little thing you might happen to say and interpreting it to mean something you never even thought about just because it happens to be vaguely similar to something that was said by someone else with whom you've nothing in common.

Part of the perceived problem with multiculturalism is the small minority of people who are determined to find something - anything! - to get offended about in anything that anyone else says. If we have to watch our language because of what someone thinks we just might have meant instead of what we actually meant, we may as well call in the Thought Police and have done with it.

Zombrex

is_that_so wrote:

Your conclusion is that your own interpretation of what he said is true

Well it would be wouldn't it. I would hardly come to the conclusion that my interpretation of his speech was false. If I managed to come to that conclusion I would no doubt change my original interpretation.

is_that_so wrote:

so anyone of an opposite opinion is wrong.

Again it would be. This is a discussion board ....

is_that_so wrote:

I don't agree with your assertion but I accept it as being different to my own, not wrong.

You think what I said was "not wrong"? ... surely that means you think what I said was correct then? If not then surely you think what I said was wrong?

is_that_so wrote:

Statistically it is true.

Statistics don't matter at all. Explaining to a Muslim kid that statistically 70% of the population are Catholic and that is why you don't feel like you fit in is rather pointless.

(hands up who's immediate image of the Muslim kid was as an immigrant?)

is_that_so wrote:

I agree that's it's a truism that is open to debate

It isn't a truism because it isn't true. We are not a Celtic Christian people. I know this because I'm not Celtic nor am I Christian.

Some of us are celtic and some of us are christian. And that fact brings richness to the culture and the society. Some of us aren't celtic and some of us aren't christian. That also brings richness to the culture and society.

Notice the use of the word "us" in all that.

At the end of the day the bond between country men is not something that can be defined, nor should it, because as soon as you define it you also define those who are not your brothers, not your country men.

is_that_so wrote:

As I said in my first post, there are far more important things in there that are being missed because of what I believe is a storm in a teacup.

Well I actually think this issue is at the core of the issues of how we view immigration and intergration. The question of how we view ourselves is core to the question of how we view outsiders.

Zombrex

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm concerned about the perceived need to pander to every remote possibility of someone taking any little thing you might happen to say and interpreting it to mean something you never even thought about just because it happens to be vaguely similar to something that was said by someone else with whom you've nothing in common.

Part of the perceived problem with multiculturalism is the small minority of people who are determined to find something - anything! - to get offended about in anything that anyone else says. If we have to watch our language because of what someone thinks we just might have meant instead of what we actually meant, we may as well call in the Thought Police and have done with it.

That is fine Oscar, but it all hinges on the idea that Kenny didn't mean what he actually said.

Do you have any argument to back that up?

ballooba

WRT Wicknight's assertion that we don't need to define "Irish"ness.

We do, of course it's for our own sense of security. Otherwise, what's the point of having such a word at all if there is no distinction.

WRT people who have never set foot on the Island and who consider themselves Irish. There are hundreds of thousand of them if not millions. Most of them in America, they call themselves irish Americans.

ballooba

Wicknight wrote:

Statistics don't matter at all. Explaining to a Muslim kid that statistically 70% of the population are Catholic and that is why you don't feel like you fit in is rather pointless.

(hands up who's immediate image of the Muslim kid was as an immigrant?)

Actually, 93.14% of the population in 2002 were christian (which is the issue here, not "catholic") 0.49% were Muslim. Not sure how relevant that is, but at least it's correct.

Complete figures:

Derived from Census figures 2002 wrote:

Religious Denomination Total Persons (Percentage)
Christian 3,636,914 (93.14)

Muslim (Islamic) 19,147 (0.49)
Orthodox 10,437 (0.27)
Other stated religions 8,920 (0.23)
Buddhist 3,894 (0.10)
Hindu 3,099 (0.08)
Jewish 1,790 (0.05)
Pantheist 1,106 (0.03)
Agnostic 1,028 (0.03)
Atheist 500 (0.01)
Baha'i 490 (0.01)
Brethren 222 (0.01)

No religion 138,264 (3.54)
Not stated 79,094 (2.03)

Total 3904905

oscarBravo

Wicknight wrote:

At the end of the day the bond between country men is not something that can be defined, nor should it, because as soon as you define it you also define those who are not your brothers, not your country men.

Whoah, dude. What have you got against women? What are you, some sort of misogynist? Are women somehow less Irish in your eyes?





See what I mean?

is_that_so

Wicknight wrote:

You think what I said was "not wrong"? ... surely that means you think what I said was correct then? If not then surely you think what I said was wrong?
.

No I am just more tolerant of "wrong thinking" people. They too belong. It is immaterial to me that your opinion is right or wrong but I do not find your dismissing them as being particularly inclusive. I don't see this as an argument about who is right or wrong. Your position on the speech is not consistent with mine.

Inclusion includes everyone, even the people who hold views we find abhorrent. A vision of who we are is a shared vision not an imposed one and that is where I think the speech was going (once we exclude the offending words).

oscarBravo

Wicknight wrote:

That is fine Oscar, but it all hinges on the idea that Kenny didn't mean what he actually said.

I never suggested for a moment that he didn't mean what he said. I'm challenging the idea that what he said meant what you think it did.

Zombrex

oscarBravo wrote:

I never suggested for a moment that he didn't mean what he said. I'm challenging the idea that what he said meant what you think it did.

Groan ...

Firstly from reading your posts about exclusion and "digs" I don't think you understand what I think it meant at all.

Secondly, what did you think he meant?

In your opinion what is the purpose of stating "we are a Celtic Christian people" if it isn't and attempt to unify people around an idea of what "we" are?

Who is he referring to when he says "we" and why are "we" Celtic and Christian?

And since I'm not Celtic nor Christian am I included in that "we"?

Zombrex

is_that_so wrote:

Inclusion includes everyone, even the people who hold views we find abhorrent.

Sorry am I missing a post somewhere? Did I say I wanted people who I don't agree with deported to Monster Island (don't worry its just a name) or something?

is_that_so wrote:

A vision of who we are is a shared vision not an imposed one

That is my point entirely...

Zombrex

ballooba wrote:

WRT Wicknight's assertion that we don't need to define "Irish"ness.

You can define "Irishness" all you like, but equally so can anyone else.

ballooba wrote:

We do, of course it's for our own sense of security.

Security from what exactly?

ballooba wrote:

WRT people who have never set foot on the Island and who consider themselves Irish. There are hundreds of thousand of them if not millions. Most of them in America, they call themselves irish Americans.

Do you have a problem with that?

oscarBravo

Wicknight wrote:

...what did you think he meant?

I think he meant what he said. The only reason I'm debating this topic at all is that I get frustrated at the mind-reading that people indulge in when interpreting what other people say according to their own agendas.

Wicknight wrote:

In your opinion what is the purpose of stating "we are a Celtic Christian people" if it isn't and attempt to unify people around an idea of what "we" are?

I'm going to speculate that he was addressing his remarks to people who consider themselves Celtic and Christian, but then I might be placing too much emphasis on what he said and not enough on what I could guess at what he might have been trying to imply. But that's the way I am.

Wicknight wrote:

Who is he referring to when he says "we" and why are "we" Celtic and Christian?

See above.

Wicknight wrote:

And since I'm not Celtic nor Christian am I included in that "we"?

I guess you could be, if you wanted. It depends how determined you are to be convinced that Enda's trying to exclude you.

Much more importantly, are women included?

Zombrex

oscarBravo wrote:

It's a flawed analogy, for a simple reason: the audience is completely different. You're representing Enda's speech as if it was aimed at a non-Celtic

Groan .. if you think that then you aren't getting my point at all.

The target audience for the speech was clearly the people Enda considers the native Irish. That is the problem, since he defined them as Celtic and Christian.

Imagine I'm George Bush and I was addressing a group of American students at a pro-immigration college rally and I said something like "We Americans are a proud white Anglo-Saxon Christian people. As such we must be welcoming to new people who come to our fine country, and follow our Christian tradition of compassion and tolerance"

The president is being tolerant and open, That is great. He clearly wishes to help others. That is super.

But then do you think that maybe some of the black, hispanic, muslim Americans in the crowd might be going "Umm hold on a sec, what are we again...."

oscarBravo

Wicknight wrote:

The target audience for the speech was clearly the people Enda considers the native Irish.

Again with the mind-reading. I can see how it's possible to read that interpretation into the speech. I'm arguing with the presumption that that was what he meant.

Wicknight wrote:

Imagine I'm George Bush and I was addressing a group of American students at a pro-immigration college rally and I said something like "We Americans are a proud white Anglo-Saxon Christian people...

Do you see what you did there? You wrote a speech in which an equivalence was explicitly expressed. If Enda had said what you just wrote, I'd accept your concerns.

The point is, he didn't.

is_that_so

Wicknight wrote:

Sorry am I missing a post somewhere? Did I say I wanted people who I don't agree with deported to Monster Island (don't worry its just a name) or something?

No but you have asserted that they are wrong in their thinking and in their beliefs as well. This is where I see inconsistencies in your concept of inclusiveness.

Wicknight wrote:

That is my point entirely...

From any side.

Zombrex

is_that_so wrote:

No but you have asserted that they are wrong in their thinking

I did because I do.

You have also "asserted" that you think I'm wrong in my thinking.

Since when did inclusiveness mean you have blindly accept as being correct everyone anyone else said. You don't agree with me, does that mean you are excluding me from society?

Zombrex

oscarBravo wrote:

Again with the mind-reading. I can see how it's possible to read that interpretation into the speech. I'm arguing with the presumption that that was what he meant.

Don't be ridiculous, who else would the speech be for?

It is nonsense to suppose that Kenny was targeting the Celtic Christian part of Irish society with a specific speech. He talks about Ireland, as a whole, and "we" as a whole for 4 paragraphs before he gets to that point.

What he was doing was targeting is speech toward what he sub-consciously thinks/assumes is "Irish" people. That attitude is part of the problem.

oscarBravo wrote:

Do you see what you did there? You wrote a speech in which an equivalence was explicitly expressed. If Enda had said what you just wrote, I'd accept your concerns.

So who do you suggest the "we" is in his speech if not "the Irish"?

Does the fact that he mentions "Ireland" and "we" in the same sentence about 10 times before his comment on Celtic Christians not hint that maybe, just maybe he is talking about "Irish people" when he says "we are a Celtic Christian people"

I mean there is grasping Oscar and then there is grasping ...

ballooba

I think seeing as Wicknight is in the tiny minority on this one his opinion doesn't even count. :eek:

Job done. I'm off.

oscarBravo

Wicknight wrote:

Don't be ridiculous, who else would the speech be for?

I don't know. All I have to go on is what he said. If you have more information than I do about what he meant by what he said, please share it.

Wicknight wrote:

It is nonsense to suppose that Kenny was targeting the Celtic Christian part of Irish society with a specific speech. He talks about Ireland, as a whole, and "we" as a whole for 4 paragraphs before he gets to that point.

If I was absolutely determined (as you evidently are) to read between the lines of his speech, the one thing that would leap out at me is the word "predominantly" that would slot in comfortably before the phrase "Celtic and Christian". If he had included that word in the phrase, would it have quelled your concerns? If not, why not?

Wicknight wrote:

What he was doing was targeting is speech toward what he sub-consciously thinks/assumes is "Irish" people.

Again with the mind-reading.

Wicknight wrote:

So who do you suggest the "we" is in his speech if not "the Irish"?

Did I stutter earlier?

Wicknight wrote:

Does the fact that he mentions "Ireland" and "we" in the same sentence about 10 times before his comment on Celtic Christians not hint that maybe, just maybe he is talking about "Irish people" when he says "we are a Celtic Christian people"

Or, if you absolutely and utterly must impose a meaning on his words, you could give him the benefit of the doubt and suppose he might just have meant "most Irish people".

But why am I bothering to argue with someone who doesn't consider women worthy of nationality?

InFront

Surely it would be better to discuss this speech on its merits as opposed to such a minor point which both sides seem to acknowledge was not deliberately racist.

Wicknight I am uncomfortable with rigid interpretations of national belonging just as you are. But surely the most logical conclusion to arrive at from that perspective is that the whole concept of being Irish is a little silly anyway.

If someone, an Irish citizen, were to say that he wanted to describe himself as Asian-Irish or Irish-Asian would you have a problem with that?
Do you not think that is suggesting that his Irishness is somehow repugnant to his Asian heritage? What does it say about Asians who consider themselves totally irish?

sceptre

Personally I think there may well be a reasonable chance that he's trying to clean up a few votes from anyone who thinks border controls aren't strong enough and it's all (whatever "all" may be) the fault of the immigrants (whichever group particular parts of that group are prejudiced against).

Oh yeah, and it wasn't a particularly good speech. That's part of the reason that the other idiot will probably be elected Taoiseach again come June.

Zombrex

ballooba wrote:

I think seeing as Wicknight is in the tiny minority on this one his opinion doesn't even count.

Impressive argument :rolleyes:

oscarBravo wrote:

Again with the mind-reading.

What are you talking about? He references "Ireland" like 6 times before he states this. He says "we" the same amount of times.

If I'm the leader of a Irish political party giving a speech on immigration into Ireland to an audience of Irish party members in the run up to an election, and I keep saying "we" I'm not talking about Australians :rolleyes:

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

Surely it would be better to discuss this speech on its merits as opposed to such a minor point which both sides seem to acknowledge was not deliberately racist.

In my view discussion about intergration of minorities or immigrants is a little pointless without a discussion about why some in society have issue with minorities and immigrants, and what consider to be Irish. After all if we didn't then the problem would take care of itself.

InFront wrote:

Wicknight I am uncomfortable with rigid interpretations of national belonging just as you are. But surely the most logical conclusion to arrive at from that perspective is that the whole concept of being Irish is a little silly anyway.

If that was the conclusion that people arrived at I would be happy. But this clearly isn't the conclusion people arrive at, as this discussion some what demonstrates.

InFront wrote:

If someone, an Irish citizen, were to say that he wanted to describe himself as Asian-Irish or Irish-Asian would you have a problem with that?

No

InFront wrote:

Do you not think that is suggesting that his Irishness is somehow repugnant to his Asian heritage?

I'm not quite sure where that is coming from? Did you expect me to say "yes" to the above question? If you did then you clearly didn't understand my original point.

InFront wrote:

What does it say about Asians who consider themselves totally irish?

What does what say about Asians who consider themselves totally Irish?

InFront

Well it's very simple.

If someone of Asian or black or Hispanic heritage feels the need to describe themselves in those terms, despite Irish citizenship, is that not equally "insulting" to someone else in that ("landed") situation who considers themselves completely Irish?

Do you have a problem with the term African American, for example?

I'm just wondering how well your theory of "complete" Irishness in the immigrant scenario works in practice. You seem very ready to define many immigrants as "Irish", which is fair enough, I'm not sure however if many immigrants would accept such a restrictive term for themselves.

My point is: "Celtic and Christian" is basically a good description for Irish people.

ballooba

Wicknight wrote:

Impressive argument :rolleyes:

Nice sense of humour.

ballooba

InFront wrote:

I'm just wondering how well your theory of "complete" Irishness in the immigrant scenario works in practice. You seem very ready to define many immigrants as "Irish", which is fair enough, I'm not sure however if many immigrants would accept such a restrictive term for themselves.

Good point. Those people may well wish to retain elements of their own culture distinct from the culture they are joining. I don't think homogenisation of culture is in anyone's interests.

is_that_so

Wicknight wrote:

I did because I do.

You have also "asserted" that you think I'm wrong in my thinking.

Since when did inclusiveness mean you have blindly accept as being correct everyone anyone else said. You don't agree with me, does that mean you are excluding me from society?

No I have an opinion contrary to yours. We are not talking about facts here just perceptions, so who is right and and who is wrong does not come into it. Mine is different to yours.

The disagreement is over the interpretation of a text.

It is also clear to me that while we may agree on the basic principles of this topic we have very different inputs into it.

The word "blindly" is your own and not part of anything I said. I'd refer you back to my comments on pedantry some posts back and I think this illustrates the danger of it.

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

If someone of Asian or black or Hispanic heritage feels the need to describe themselves in those terms, despite Irish citizenship, is that not equally "insulting" to someone else in that ("landed") situation who considers themselves completely Irish?

Are you asking that if someone calls themselves "Irish-Asian" that act might be insulting to someone who is of Asian descent but calls themselves simply "Irish"?

If the "Irish-Asian" person isn't telling the "Irish" person that they need to call themselves "Irish-Asian" (or vice versa) I'm not sure why it would be insulting to them, but I don't know I'm not of Asian ancestory.

I'm also not sure what this has to do with my original points.

InFront wrote:

Do you have a problem with the term African American, for example?

I don't have a problem with people wishing to call themselves African American if they so wish. The only problem comes when people use it to classify people who don't wish to be classified that way, either Americans or even non-Americans, as what happened to poor old Samantha Mumba when she went over to America to promote her music career and kept being referrered to as an African-American singer. Antonian Banderas also spoke about how he always thought of himself as a white western European (he is from Spain) until he went to American and found out he was really an "hispanic"

InFront wrote:

I'm just wondering how well your theory of "complete" Irishness in the immigrant scenario works in practice. You seem very ready to define many immigrants as "Irish", which is fair enough

I'm not trying to define anyone. If you think that then you, like Oscar, are missing the point.

"Irishness" is not something that can be defined the way Kenny talks about it. "We" are not a Celtic Christian people. Some of "us" are. Some of "us" aren't.

That isn't to say that I have the perfect definition of what "we" are, because I don't and I don't think such a definition exists or can actually exist. I think such a quest to find such a definition is ultimately counter productive.

Ultimately, leaving aside the legal issue of citizenship, the only definition that matters is what people themselves think of themselves, how they judge themselves.

It is up to them to decide this, not for others to label them.

InFront wrote:

My point is: "Celtic and Christian" is basically a good description for Irish people.

It isn't a good description of me. In fact it is a completely incorrect description of me. I'm neither Celtic nor Christian.

So what does that mean? Does that mean I'm not really part of the "Irish people". I imagine people like ballooba would be shouting "NO, you are just an exception to the rule"

But the point is if there is exceptions to this rule then what is the point of the description in the first place. Why say "we are a Celtic Christian people" if we aren't actually a Celtic Christian people.

People seem to be working under the bizarre assumption that Kenny, or anyone, has to find some way to define "us", and choose the statistical majority because he had to.

I don't know why people think that. To me that is ridiculous. Kenny didn't have to say "we are a X and Y people" at all.

It was a silly thing to say, it was a stupid thing to say. It shows more ignorance on his part than anything else and is indicitive of this underlying sub-conscious feeling in some of Irish society that people who don't fit a certain mold are "outsiders". That attitude ultimately shapes who we tackle issues such as immigration. And it certainly does not instill a lot of confidence that this the man to sort out integration of immigrants.

I don't think Kenny made a malicious comment, or "dig" as Oscar calls it. But ultimately that isn't the point.

The point is that this idea of what was classically "Irish" is why we have problems with immigration, with racism, with integration. Only a small minority are actually racist, have an actual problem with integration. But this underlying attitude still effects how we as a society communicate with each other. And it needs to be pointed out and talked about. If Kenny doesn't realise this then he isn't going to be able to tackle it.

I mean raise of hands for how many people here when they see a black kid going to the cinema with a white girl, think "ah, two normal Irish kids going to the cinema". Or do you think "ah, an Irish girl going to the cinema with a refugee kid, integration is wonderful"

We are simply not used to thinking of black people as Irish as anyone else. There isn't really anything wrong with that, there isn't malice behind it, so long as we realise that that is not actually the reality of Ireland any more.

Even I sub-consciously think that from time to time. I remember a few years ago buying something in Woodies and going up to the cashier who was a black woman in her early twenties (probably about 21). I expected her to speak in foreign accent but she spoke to me in a thick Dublin accent.

It is times like that when you just have to go "wow we really are not a Celtic Christian people"