Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Noel Edmonds calls for UK's borders to be shut
Options
Comments
-
Did you even read the headline of that article?
A lot of people don't consider foreign-born people "a problem"; some of us consider them friends and family.
I don't care; which rock people were born on is of little concern to me.
Maybe Noel Edmunds needs to read
Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them
by Legra Philippe
0 -
djpbarry wrote:So you don’t have a problem with the foreigners; you just want them all to **** off back where they came from?
Yes, but I would never use such violent language or allow such violent thoughts to pass through my beautiful brain though. I think it would make things easier if they were encouraged to return home and if we discouraged more of them from coming here, particularly as we're in a recession and it's beginning to cost us a lot of money to support them.djpbarry wrote:Hmm…. That sounds to me like you have a problem with the foreigners.
I don't have a problem with the foreigners as people. I have a problem with the foreigners as potential permanent residents of this country.djpbarry wrote:…with 60,000 to leave. That would be net emigration of 20,000 people.
That would be very good news if the people emigrating are mostly non-Irish.
If we had only 10 thousand people arriving here next year and 60,000 people left that would mean we would have net emigration of 50,000 people, which would be twice as good. All the more reason for us to cut down on the numbers coming in.djpbarry wrote:Yeah…
As far as I’m aware, the vast majority of foreigners in this country are not “out robbing and killing people”. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise?
And you accuse me of trying to construct a straw-man?djpbarry wrote:…with a very low population density of approximately 60.3 persons per square kilometre. This will decrease further with net emigration returning next year.
Not really. You forgot to include this year's increase in the population. There have been predictions that we can expect a net increase of 30,000 people this year. Next year's fall in the population will not be enough to make up for this year's increase. We'll still see an increase in population density over the two years. Three steps forward and two steps back is still one step forward.djpbarry wrote:We also have lots and lots of empty houses.
Are all those houses on the market and ready for people to move into them?djpbarry wrote:Don’t worry – there’s still plenty of room.
It's not lack of space that's the problem, it's the lack of jobs and public services to support the people entering the country. Our schools, hospitals and prisons are already under pressure and the competition for jobs is already bad enough without adding to the problem by bringing in another few thousand people to liven things up. We have too many people here already, we don't need any more. We need to look after the people born on this rock first.djpbarry wrote:We’re not continuing to take in “this number of people” – net emigration next year, remember?
And net immigration this year, remember? And the net emigration next year won't be high enough to make up for the increase in the population this year. According to this, they're estimating that we'll see immigration this year of 76,000 with around 45,000 expected to leave. That means that we could expect to see net immigration this year of 30,000 people. Even if we have a net fall of 20,000 next year, that won't be enough to make up for this years increase of 30,000. We'll have a net increase of 10,000 over the two years.djpbarry wrote:Don’t worry – the foreigners aren’t taking over just yet.
No, they're not taking over just yet. We still have time to act before it's too late.djpbarry wrote:Barring genocide, it most likely will be.
No it won't. If the president of DCU is proved right, the indigenous Irish people could be an ethnic minority in Ireland by 2050. An Ireland in which the native-Irish are in a minority will not be an Irish country.djpbarry wrote:Do you honestly think that, 100 years from now, decedents of immigrants who have arrived in Ireland over the last few years, will not consider themselves Irish?
They may consider themselves Irish but they won't be ethnically Irish. They won't be the ethnic descendants of the gaelic Irish people in the same way that we are.djpbarry wrote:They won’t, remember? Net emigration.
If there is net emigration next year, and if most of the people leaving are foreigners, then I welcome that and I hope it continues. The net emigration would be higher if we took action to reduce the number of people ag teacht anseo though.0 -
I have subjected your post to a rigorous technical analysis and it seems your argument lost all credibility around about here:
Are you trying to tell me that you can trace your ancestry back purely to the ancient inhabitants of this island (whoever they were)?They won't be the ethnic descendants of the gaelic Irish people in the same way that we are.
I see little point in addressing any of the other points in your post, because it is quite evident that you have no interest in discussing the economics of migration, but are rather hung up on the idea of foreigners "polluting" our gene pool; I hate to break it to you, but that's been happening for millennia.0 -
djpbarry wrote:Are you trying to tell me that you can trace your ancestry back purely to the ancient inhabitants of this island (whoever they were)?
I'm not certain but I am very confident that if a DNA test was done that they would find that I'm genetically identical to the oldest of the island's inhabitants that they have specimens for. I've been thinking of getting one of them done but I don't know who to contact about it. I don't see any point anyway as I know what the results would show.
It's the same with most Irish people. The geneticists believe the Irish are almost entirely descended from the original stone-age people who first arrived on the island 7-9 thousand years ago. The Celts, Vikings, Normans and British had very little impact on the gene pool. We really are indigenous to the island.
http://www.insideireland.com/sample19.htmdjpbarry wrote:I see little point in addressing any of the other points in your post, because it is quite evident that you have no interest in discussing the economics of migration,
You're right, I don't have any interest in discussing the economics of migration. I've said many times before that immigration is not an economic issue for me. It's a emotional issue to do with national identity.
In saying that though I still think I can put forward a stronger case for restricting immigration in the current economic climate than you can for continuing on with the current levels.djpbarry wrote:but are rather hung up on the idea of foreigners "polluting" our gene pool
I would word it slightly differently. I want to preserve the national identity of the Irish people and ensure our survival and advancement as an ethnic group into the future.0 -
I would word it slightly differently. I want to preserve the national identity of the Irish people and ensure our survival and advancement as an ethnic group into the future.
Impossible in the long term. The entirety of human history has happened in the blink of an eye from the perspective of evolution. In an interconnected interdependent world where ethnic groups have to mix there will be no long term ethnic divides. The forces involved are natural and impossible to stop.
And what makes the ethnic Irish gene pool special and different enough from the rest of humanity for it to be worth preserving? Can you even tell the physical difference between a person who can trace their lineage back to the earliest settlers from someone with Viking or Norman blood?0 -
Advertisement
-
You do realise that this is virtually impossible, don't you? If person 'A' is genetically identical to person 'B', that basically means that person 'A' IS person 'B'. Why do you think DNA testing is used in forensics?I'm not certain but I am very confident that if a DNA test was done that they would find that I'm genetically identical to the oldest of the island's inhabitants that they have specimens for.
I think you have misunderstood the point of that article. Just because a particular genetic marker has persisted within a population that does not mean that said population are all genetically identical! That's like saying that everyone with blue eyes is genetically identical.The geneticists believe the Irish are almost entirely descended from the original stone-age people who first arrived on the island 7-9 thousand years ago. The Celts, Vikings, Normans and British had very little impact on the gene pool. We really are indigenous to the island.
http://www.insideireland.com/sample19.htm
I have always maintained that migration is largely self-regulating, as per the ESRI:In saying that though I still think I can put forward a stronger case for restricting immigration in the current economic climate than you can for continuing on with the current levels.
Economic activity has declined and so has net inward migration. With rising unemployment, we will soon see a return to net emigration, as I have already stated several times. People aren't going to want to come to Ireland if there are no jobs.ESRI wrote:As a result of the overall difficulties being forecast for the economy, we expect net outward migration to re-emerge in 2009 and are forecasting a net outflow of 20,000 in that year. Without such an outflow, the rate of unemployment would likely rise above 8 per cent. It seems implausible to us that migratory flows would not react to such a situation. Our thinking on this is influenced by work published in earlier Commentaries which showed how migration flows between Ireland and the UK tended to react to changes in the difference between the rates of unemployment in the two jurisdictions. The reaction was such that any widening of the gap between the rates of unemployment tended to be reduced as a result of the labour flows whereby a long-run stable gap was restored.0 -
Sink wrote:Impossible in the long term.
Maybe it is impossible in the long term, but then everything is impossible in the long-term. The law of entropy can be used to argue for the futility of trying to preserve, conserve or protect anything. In the end everything will disappear so what's the point in trying to prevent nature taking its course?
Protecting endangered species from extinction is impossible because eventually most species will become extinct. Does that mean that we shouldn't make an effort to prevent endangered species from becoming extinct?
We act on the basis of preserving the world we want to live in for as long as possible. We don't have much control over the kind of country Ireland will be in 600 years from now but we do have some control over the kind of country that Ireland will be in 60 years from now. I want us to act to make sure that Ireland is still an ethnically Irish country in 2068.Sink wrote:The entirety of human history has happened in the blink of an eye from the perspective of evolution.
Human evolution didn't start with humans. We're as much the product of mammalian and primate evolution as we are the product of human evolution. Our most primal instincts were formed long before our first biped ancestors made an appearance.Sink wrote:In an interconnected interdependent world where ethnic groups have to mix there will be no long term ethnic divides.
I don't think so. Multicultural societies are as ethnically divided as any other. I think tribalism and xenophobia are so deeply ingrained in human nature that it would be very naive to expect that the world's population will ever be free from ethnic divisions.Sink wrote:The forces involved are natural and impossible to stop.
I don't think they are impossible to stop. The Japanese are managing to stop those forces and most other European countries are doing a much better job at stopping them than we are. The Jew have managed to resist the forces of assimilation for thousands of years and so I don't think it's impossible for us to hang on for at least another few centuries.Sink wrote:And what makes the ethnic Irish gene pool special and different enough from the rest of humanity for it to be worth preserving?
There's nothing objectively special about it. It doesn't need to be special for it to be worth preserving. It only needs to be special in our eyes for it to be worth preserving.
There's nothing objectively special about Australian Aborigines but that's no reason why they they shouldn't try to hold on to their culture and their identity. Just as we recognise biodiversity to be a good thing in itself, I think we should also recognise global ethnic diversity to be a good thing in itself.Sink wrote:Can you even tell the physical difference between a person who can trace their lineage back to the earliest settlers from someone with Viking or Norman blood?
No, the small numbers of Celts, Vikings and Normans who came to this country were fully assimilated centuries ago. Ethnically we're all the descendants of the indigenous pre-Celtic Irish who have been (and still are) the majority ethnic group on the island of Ireland for most of its history.djpbarry wrote:You do realise that this is virtually impossible, don't you? If person 'A' is genetically identical to person 'B'
Well now, come on, you know I didn't mean literally identical in every sense. I meant genetically identical in the sense that you're genetically identical to your brother, in the sense that you share the same ancestors, you look the same and you have the same genetic history. We are genetically identical to the original inhabitants of Ireland in that same sense of the term.djpbarry wrote:that basically means that person 'A' IS person 'B'
Either that or they're identical twins.djpbarry wrote:I think you have misunderstood the point of that article. Just because a particular genetic marker has persisted within a population that does not mean that said population are all genetically identical!
Well alright then, lets forget all the talk about being genetically identical. Our gene pool is largely identical to the gene pool of Ireland's first inhabitants and so in that sense it would be fair to say that we're the direct descendants of Ireland's first inhabitants.djpbarry wrote:Economic activity has declined and so has net inward migration.
It may have declined but if the ESRI are proved right, net inward migration this year could be as high as 30,000. As gross inward migration into Britain each year is around 200,000, and as they have ten times the population we have, that would mean that our net immigration is 50% higher than our closest neighbour's gross immigration. And this is in a year of recession. Net inward migration is not falling at the same rate as the fall in economic activity.djpbarry wrote:People aren't going to want to come to Ireland if there are no jobs.
I disagree, there will always be jobs and the scarcity of something doesn't have an automatic effect on people's desire to possess it. People are still going to want to come to this country as long as the average wage is higher here than it is back in their own country and as long as they have full access to our jobs market.
You seem to think that there's a certain number of jobs reserved specially for the immigrants and that once those jobs dry up that that they'll stop coming. That's not how immigration into Ireland works. There are no jobs for us and jobs for the immigrants. Our jobs are their jobs. Any new vacancy on the jobs market can be applied for by an immigrant just as it can be applied for by an unemployed Irish man.
A recently arrived Pole, just off the plane, can go straight to a building site and offer his services at a rate that an unemployed Irish labourer simply can't afford to match. The recession will not change that. We're still going to see large numbers of people arriving here unless our government takes action and applies some restrictions.0 -
I'm reminded of a story told by a character in Howard Fast's book The Outsider: there's a chaplain in the army who is Jewish, and also happens to be Japanese. He meets another Jew and remarks to him, "you don't look Jewish".The Jew have managed to resist the forces of assimilation for thousands of years and so I don't think it's impossible for us to hang on for at least another few centuries.
I'm confused. If they were assimilated, then they have contributed their genetic and ethnic identities to what it means to be Irish. If they can do so, why can't Poles? Or Nigerians? Or Japanese? Or Jews? Or Japanese Jews?No, the small numbers of Celts, Vikings and Normans who came to this country were fully assimilated centuries ago. Ethnically we're all the descendants of the indigenous pre-Celtic Irish who have been (and still are) the majority ethnic group on the island of Ireland for most of its history.
My grandmother was English. Am I Irish?
Why? Do Polish people eat less than Irish people?A recently arrived Pole, just off the plane, can go straight to a building site and offer his services at a rate that an unemployed Irish labourer simply can't afford to match.0 -
oscarBravo wrote:If they can do so, why can't Poles? Or Nigerians? Or Japanese? Or Jews? Or Japanese Jews?
Because there are so many of them coming in and because they're so ethnically different from the majority population here already. Previous waves of immigrants were few in number and they were mostly of the same western European stock as us. Because of that it was easy for them to blend in and to identify themselves with the native population.
You'll notice that I didn't include the Ulster Scots in the list along with the Celts, Vikings and Normans. Why do you think I left them out?oscarBravo wrote:My grandmother was English. Am I Irish?
Irishness as an ethnic designation (as opposed to a legal one) is a subjective term and so if someone perceives themselves to be Irish and if they are treated as Irish by other people then it's fair to consider them Irish. You don't seem like the kind of gent who is racy of the soil so I don't know what you're attitude is towards this country.
Would you not rather call yourself European than Irish?oscarBravo wrote:Why? Do Polish people eat less than Irish people?
I don't know their average daily calorie intake is compared with Irish people but there was a good article in the Irish Independent a few days ago about why the immigrants are more inclined to "rough if up" than the native workers (see here).0 -
Maybe it is impossible in the long term, but then everything is impossible in the long-term. The law of entropy can be used to argue for the futility of trying to preserve, conserve or protect anything. In the end everything will disappear so what's the point in trying to prevent nature taking its course?
Protecting endangered species from extinction is impossible because eventually most species will become extinct. Does that mean that we shouldn't make an effort to prevent endangered species from becoming extinct?
We act on the basis of preserving the world we want to live in for as long as possible. We don't have much control over the kind of country Ireland will be in 600 years from now but we do have some control over the kind of country that Ireland will be in 60 years from now. I want us to act to make sure that Ireland is still an ethnically Irish country in 2068.
incomparable as different and unique species play essential roles in natural ecosystems. Ecosystems that we rely upon to survive as they provide us with clean air, water and recycle our waste. A large chunk of biomedical science is based up the study of ecosystems and a loss of ecosystems is a equivalent to a loss of knowledge. No similar such argument can be made for the mixing of ethnic human groups.Human evolution didn't start with humans. We're as much the product of mammalian and primate evolution as we are the product of human evolution. Our most primal instincts were formed long before our first biped ancestors made an appearance.
I was talking about human history which is the history of culture and civilisation only about 10,000 years not the entirety of human evolution which started some 3 billion years ago.I don't think so. Multicultural societies are as ethnically divided as any other. I think tribalism and xenophobia are so deeply ingrained in human nature that it would be very naive to expect that the world's population will ever be free from ethnic divisions.
In 60 years since the end of WWII we have then the homogenisation of advanced cultures to a massive extent. This is set to continue for as long as humans live and in a century or two the entire globe will be one universal culture with only small regional difference.I don't think they are impossible to stop. The Japanese are managing to stop those forces and most other European countries are doing a much better job at stopping them than we are. The Jew have managed to resist the forces of assimilation for thousands of years and so I don't think it's impossible for us to hang on for at least another few centuries.
Modern Japanese culture little resembles the Japanese culture before WWII and the culture back then little resembled the culture at begging of the 19th century. Sure you can see influences of traditional Japanese customs in today's Japan but you see an even greater influence of American and western culture and over here you can see the influence of Asian cultures and others from around the globe. This homogenisation of culture is being facilitated by tv/films, music, trade, travel and migration and in the last 5-10 years by the internet. In what way do you think the Japanese are managing to stop these forces? It is impossible for the state put a stop to them unless it closes in upon itself like North Korea. Any attempt to do so is purely driven by an irrational fear of the outside.There's nothing objectively special about it. It doesn't need to be special for it to be worth preserving. It only needs to be special in our eyes for it to be worth preserving.
Will the next generation of O'Morris's feel the same? Doubtful as history has shown that as the generations progress they become more accepting of subsequent generation of immigrants. I can't imagine your grand kids treating 3rd generation ethnic Polish living here any different from ethnic Irish.There's nothing objectively special about Australian Aborigines but that's no reason why they they shouldn't try to hold on to their culture and their identity. Just as we recognise biodiversity to be a good thing in itself, I think we should also recognise global ethnic diversity to be a good thing in itself.
Culture is not a static thing. Living culture evolves at a lightning pace and can dramatically shift in a generation or two. It has been happening since the dawn of civilisation. The only way to preserve culture is in historic records but all cultures evolve or die out. You don't see many ancient Romans walking about the place today, even in Rome!No, the small numbers of Celts, Vikings and Normans who came to this country were fully assimilated centuries ago. Ethnically we're all the descendants of the indigenous pre-Celtic Irish who have been (and still are) the majority ethnic group on the island of Ireland for most of its history.
And the Celts, Vikings and Normans added their genes to the Irish gene pool and their culture and technology merged with the native culture. Irish culture did not remain static during those periods it evolved and took on many characteristics of those imported cultures. You don't see them as foreign today because they have been part of our culture for generations but your great, great, great .... grandparents will have have seen them as strange and foreign. If you did a genetic survey of Ireland to find Celtic, Viking and Norman genetic history you would find it just as prevalent as that from early settlers. One genetic line doesn't have to replace the other they simply merge. You might have genetic markers that date back to the earliest settlers but you probably also have genetic markers from the Celts, Vikings, Normans and probably even the Angles.0 -
Advertisement
-
Quote:
A recently arrived Pole, just off the plane, can go straight to a building site and offer his services at a rate that an unemployed Irish labourer simply can't afford to match.
Surely the fact that Irish people are paying abolutely massive mortgages (on modest houses) is one key reason why Polish people can work cheaper?0 -
I know why you left them out: they're "like us". Your problem is with people who are "not like us". That's pretty much the textbook definition of a xenophobe.Because there are so many of them coming in and because they're so ethnically different from the majority population here already. Previous waves of immigrants were few in number and they were mostly of the same western European stock as us. Because of that it was easy for them to blend in and to identify themselves with the native population.
You'll notice that I didn't include the Ulster Scots in the list along with the Celts, Vikings and Normans. Why do you think I left them out?
I am Irish. I'm also European. I'm also human. All of these are accidents of birth.Irishness as an ethnic designation (as opposed to a legal one) is a subjective term and so if someone perceives themselves to be Irish and if they are treated as Irish by other people then it's fair to consider them Irish. You don't seem like the kind of gent who is racy of the soil so I don't know what you're attitude is towards this country.
Would you not rather call yourself European than Irish?
If someone whose parents are Nigerian is born here, considers himself Irish, and his friends consider him Irish: is he Irish by your definition?
If someone who has one Irish and one Polish parent has a child here, who considers herself Irish, and her friends consider her Irish: is she Irish?0 -
Gene flow does not cause extinction; poor analogy.Protecting endangered species from extinction is impossible because eventually most species will become extinct. Does that mean that we shouldn't make an effort to prevent endangered species from becoming extinct?
I think we can safely say that Ireland in 2068 will be rather different to Ireland in 2008. In the same way that Ireland in 1948 was a vastly different place to Ireland today. The only way to prevent these changes, as sink has already said, is to cut yourself off from the outside world, ala Cuba (well, Castro).We don't have much control over the kind of country Ireland will be in 600 years from now but we do have some control over the kind of country that Ireland will be in 60 years from now.
Why? Because people like you want to enforce them?I think tribalism and xenophobia are so deeply ingrained in human nature that it would be very naive to expect that the world's population will ever be free from ethnic divisions.
Genetic variability is also a good thing; without variability, it becomes difficult for a population to adapt to changes.There's nothing objectively special about Australian Aborigines but that's no reason why they they shouldn't try to hold on to their culture and their identity. Just as we recognise biodiversity to be a good thing in itself, I think we should also recognise global ethnic diversity to be a good thing in itself.
Which would mean that they contributed to our gene pool, no?No, the small numbers of Celts, Vikings and Normans who came to this country were fully assimilated centuries ago.
I’m not genetically identical to my brother; similar, maybe, but certainly not identical.Well now, come on, you know I didn't mean literally identical in every sense. I meant genetically identical in the sense that you're genetically identical to your brother…
No, we’re not. Not even close. How could we possibly be given the waves of different invaders and settlers that have come to Ireland over the years, contributing to our gene pool? Not to mention the fact that many people in Ireland have non-Irish ancestors (most commonly British). I myself have British, French, Danish and Irish ancestors (that I am aware of); I suppose you’d be able to tell by my appearance :rolleyes:?We are genetically identical to the original inhabitants of Ireland in that same sense of the term.
Nope; identical twins are not genetically identical. Their traits and physical appearances are not exactly the same; although they have nearly identical DNA, environmental conditions both inside the womb and throughout their lives influence the switching on and off of various genes.Either that or they're identical twins.
NO IT IS NOT! How could it be? With all the people that have come and gone from this island over the last 9,000 years, along with all the genetic mutations that have taken place over that time, how could the gene pool possibly be identical? If everyone on this island had the same genetic makeup as the people who were living here 9,000 years ago, it’s quite possible we would have been wiped out by some humble pathogen by now.Our gene pool is largely identical to the gene pool of Ireland's first inhabitants and so in that sense it would be fair to say that we're the direct descendants of Ireland's first inhabitants.
I’m not sure why anyone would expect it to?Net inward migration is not falling at the same rate as the fall in economic activity.
Really? If you were thinking of heading off to a country where you know the average wage is significantly higher than where you live, would you not be ever-so-slightly put off if unemployment was rather high, especially if the cost of living is much higher than what you’re used to? I know I would.I disagree, there will always be jobs and the scarcity of something doesn't have an automatic effect on people's desire to possess it. People are still going to want to come to this country as long as the average wage is higher here than it is back in their own country and as long as they have full access to our jobs market.
Wow, really? :rolleyes:Any new vacancy on the jobs market can be applied for by an immigrant just as it can be applied for by an unemployed Irish man.
Well, that would totally depend on the current circumstances of both men, wouldn’t it? Suppose the Irish guy is single but the Polish guy has a family?A recently arrived Pole, just off the plane, can go straight to a building site and offer his services at a rate that an unemployed Irish labourer simply can't afford to match.
You mean they look and sound different? Did the Vikings not look and sound different to the natives of early medieval Ireland?Because there are so many of them coming in and because they're so ethnically different from the majority population here already.
Where they? I was under the impression that many of the larger cities and towns in Ireland were originally Viking settlements. Why did they need so many settlements if there were so few of them?Previous waves of immigrants were few in number…
You were around when the Vikings invaded, were you?Because of that it was easy for them to blend in and to identify themselves with the native population.0 -
Sink wrote:incomparable as different and unique species play essential roles in natural ecosystems. Ecosystems that we rely upon to survive as they provide us with clean air, water and recycle our waste.
What role in our ecosystem do the Panda bears play and would it cause any serious problems for us if they became extinct? If the answer is no, should we therefore allow the Panda bear to become extinct?Sink wrote:A large chunk of biomedical science is based up the study of ecosystems and a loss of ecosystems is a equivalent to a loss of knowledge. No similar such argument can be made for the mixing of ethnic human groups.
I don't accept that the driving force behind the desire to preserve the world's biodiversity is the medical and scientific benefits that can result from it. Biological and ethnic diversity makes the world a much better and a much more interesting place to live and that alone justifies our efforts to want to preserve it.
I want the Inuit people, and the San people of the Kalahari, and indigenous Irish people, and the Masai warrior people in kenya and the Australian Aborigines and all those other native Amazonian tribes out foreign to survive into the next century as much, in not more, than I want Panda bears to survive into the next century. Whether or not we benefit economically or scientifically from their continued existence is irrelevant.Sink wrote:In 60 years since the end of WWII we have then the homogenisation of advanced cultures to a massive extent. This is set to continue for as long as humans live and in a century or two the entire globe will be one universal culture with only small regional difference.
Maybe it will, culture is distinct from ethnicity though.Sink wrote:Modern Japanese culture little resembles the Japanese culture before WWII and the culture back then little resembled the culture at begging of the 19th century.
But the Japanese people today are the same as the Japanese people at the beginning of the 19th century, as will be the people at the beginning of the 22nd century. It's the people that I want to preserve more than the culture.Sink wrote:Sure you can see influences of traditional Japanese customs in today's Japan but you see an even greater influence of American and western culture and over here you can see the influence of Asian cultures and others from around the globe. This homogenisation of culture is being facilitated by tv/films, music, trade, travel and migration and in the last 5-10 years by the internet.
You're confusing culture and ethnicity. I want to preserve our national and ethnic identity. Culture is of secondary importance.Sink wrote:In what way do you think the Japanese are managing to stop these forces?
I don't think they are trying to stop those forces and that's not the forces I was talking about. I was talking about the forces of multiculturalism. The Japanese want Japan to be a Japanese country in a hundred years from now and that's why they have no net immigration. I want Ireland to still be an Irish country in a hundred years from now and that's why I want no net immigration into this country.Sink wrote:It is impossible for the state put a stop to them unless it closes in upon itself like North Korea. Any attempt to do so is purely driven by an irrational fear of the outside.
Japan is a modern, liberal, technologically advanced democracy that is about as far from resembling North Korea as it's possible to be.Sink wrote:And the Celts, Vikings and Normans added their genes to the Irish gene pool and their culture and technology merged with the native culture.
Their influence on the Irish population was mainly cultural and technological and not genetic. In the same that western influence on Japan at the end of the nineteenth century was cultural and technological rather than genetic.Sink wrote:Irish culture did not remain static during those periods it evolved and took on many characteristics of those imported cultures.
It did and I think that was a good thing (apart from losing ar teanga fein) and I hope it continues.
I want Ireland to be an open, modern country receptive to new technology and new ideas and where we have ready access to the best that other countries and cultures are capable of producing. I think it's possible to be that kind of country while still preserving our ethnic identity as a people. Japan is that kind of country and I want Ireland to be like Japan, only with better quality television.Sink wrote:If you did a genetic survey of Ireland to find Celtic, Viking and Norman genetic history you would find it just as prevalent as that from early settlers.
I don't think so. Maybe I'm not fully up to date on the latest research on this but my understanding is that the genetic evidence shows the Irish to be mostly the descendants of the original stone-Age people who came to this country 9,000 years ago. External influence has been almost negligible.
It used to be thought that the Irish were descended from Celts who arrived here during the Iron-Age. That theory has now been discredited. There was no evidence of a mass influx of Celts from the continent at any stage in our history.Sink wrote:One genetic line doesn't have to replace the other they simply merge. You might have genetic markers that date back to the earliest settlers but you probably also have genetic markers from the Celts, Vikings, Normans and probably even the Angles.
I probably do. If I do, I don't think it's enough to make me any different from the rest of the indigenous Irish population or radically different from the ancient stone-age Irish either.0 -
oscarBravo wrote:I know why you left them out: they're "like us".
No, I left them out because they don't belong in a list of foreigners who have been successfully assimilated into the Irish population. Most Ulster protestants don't consider themselves Irish. Most people descended from the Normans and the Vikings do but not the protestants up in the north.
The reason the orangemen didn't assimilate into the Irish population while the Vikings did was because there were so many of them and because they were so heavily concentrated in one part of the country. I believe the same will happen anois leis na daoine ag teacht anseo.oscarBravo wrote:Your problem is with people who are "not like us".
It wouldn't make any difference to me if the immigrants coming to this country were as similar to us as the Scottish, Welsh or English are. I would still be opposed to this level of immigration because I don't think we can successfully assimilate this number of people into our population. We weren't able to assimilate the Scottish settlers and they're not that different from us. If we can't assimilate people from the neigbhouring island what chance do we have of assimilating tens of thousands of people from the other side of the world?oscarBravo wrote:I am Irish. I'm also European. I'm also human. All of these are accidents of birth.
But wouldn't you consider them to be happy accidents at the same time though? I sure as hell do.
I don't believe in God but there isn't a day that I don't get down on my knees and thank Jesus for having made old Mac an Irishman.oscarBravo wrote:If someone whose parents are Nigerian is born here, considers himself Irish, and his friends consider him Irish: is he Irish by your definition?
Absolutely. If he identifies himself with the indigenous Irish ethnic group more than he does with any other ethnic group and if the indidigenous Irish ethnic group considers him one of their own then yes he is an Irishman by my definition.
I have an Australian acquaintance who said to me that his ancestors arrived in Australia thousands of years ago. I was a bit surprised to hear him saying that as he looks very European and he didn't appear to have any aborigine ancestry. He assured me however that his people have been so fully absorbed into the indigenous Australian population that they identify completely with it's pre-European inhabitants. He also claims to have a brilliant memory on account of how his ancestors were such brilliant trackers and hunters.oscarBravo wrote:If someone who has one Irish and one Polish parent has a child here, who considers herself Irish, and her friends consider her Irish: is she Irish?
Yes, as with the Nigerian, if she identifies with the indigenous Irish ethnic group more than any other ethnic group, if she considers Irish history to be the history of her ancestors and if the indigenous Irish consider her to be one of their own then she would be considered Irish.0 -
djpbarry wrote:Why? Because people like you want to enforce them?
I don't want to enforce them, I want to obey the wisdom of the blood.djpbarry wrote:Genetic variability is also a good thing; without variability, it becomes difficult for a population to adapt to changes.
I think the native Irish population has enough genetic variability to adapt to change. If there is a massive flu pandemic that wipes out 80% of the population, the 20% with the resistance will survive and will carry on and in time the tribe will recover.djpbarry wrote:Which would mean that they contributed to our gene pool, no?
Yes, the contributed to our gene-pool. The evidence seems to show that their contribution was very small though.djpbarry wrote:No, we’re not. Not even close.
Yes, we are. Very close. Read thisdjpbarry wrote:How could we possibly be given the waves of different invaders and settlers that have come to Ireland over the years, contributing to our gene pool?
It's a mystery to me. I would have expected their contribution to have been much greater but that seems not to have been the case. The geneticists believe that the Irish are still mainly the descendants of the original Stone-Age people who arrived here thousands of years ago.djpbarry wrote:NO IT IS NOT!
YES IT IS!
Read what the experts have to say (here). We are the same people that were living on the island 9,000 years ago.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.djpbarry wrote:How could it be?
I don't know. I'm not an expert on genetics. I'm only repeating what the experts have written about it.djpbarry wrote:I myself have British, French, Danish and Irish ancestors
Do you mean French as in Norman and Danish as in Viking? If you have French and Danish (as distinct from Norman and Viking) ancestors then you can't claim to a typical Irishman. Most Irish people that I know, including myself, have all Irish ancestors all the way back to prehistory.djpbarry wrote:I was under the impression that many of the larger cities and towns in Ireland were originally Viking settlements. Why did they need so many settlements if there were so few of them?
They weren't permanent settlements. They were small trading bases. It took many centuries before they grew to anything like the towns and cities they are today. Most of the vikings in Ireland were people who were just passing through. They came to Ireland first to raid and then to trade. Only a small minority of them settled here permanently.
A lot of the Vikings left the country as well after our boys gave them a good kicking at Clontarf.
I remember there was a programme about the Vikings on BBC a few years ago called Blood of the vikings. They found no significant Scandinavian influence in the Irish population. It disappoints me to say that as I would love to be able to say I'm descended from a Viking.0 -
What role in our ecosystem do the Panda bears play and would it cause any serious problems for us if they became extinct? If the answer is no, should we therefore allow the Panda bear to become extinct?
If you think nothing can be learned from Panda Bears then maybe you should read a few of these scientific journals.Brambell, M. 1976. The giant panda ( Ailuropoda melanoleuca). Translations of the Zoological Society of London, 33:85-92.
Brambell, M.R. 1974. London Zoo's giant panda(Ailuropoda melanoleuca) Chi-Chi, 1957-1972. International Zoo Yearbook,14:163-164.
Carter, T. 1937. The giant panda. Animal Kingdom, 40:6-14.
Castillo, E. 1982. Mexico's baby panda. Caminos de aire, Mexicana de Aviacion, March-April, 14-24.
Chin, H. 1979. China's first baby giant panda reproduced by artificial insemination. International Zoo News No.157, 26:8-10.
Ching, C. 1974. On the systematic position of the giant panda, Ailuropoda melanoleuca (David). Acta Zoologica Sinica, 20:191-200.
Chorn, J., and R.S. Hoffmann. 1978. Ailuropoda melanoleuca. Mammalian Species, 110:1-6.
Cohn, J.P. 1990. Genetics for wildlife conservation. BioScience, 40:167-170.
Colbert, E. 1938. The panda: A study in emigration. Natural History, 42:33-39.
Dierenfeld, E.S., H.F. Hintz, J.B. Robertson, P.J. Van Soest, and O.T. Oftedal. 1982.
Utilization of bamboo by the giant panda. Journal of Nutrition, 112:636-641.
Dolnick, E. 1989. Panda paradox. Discover, Sept:71-76.
Giron, J. 1980. Giant pandas Ailuropoda melanoleuca in Chapultepec Park Zoo, Mexica City. International Yearbook, 20:264-269.
Gittleman, J.L. 1994. Are the pandas successful specialists or evolutionary failures?
BioScience, 44:456-464.
Gittleman, J.L., and P.H. Harvey. 1982. Carnivore home-range size, metabolic needs and ecology. ehavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 10:57-63.
Goldman, D., P.R. Girl, and S.J. O'Brian. 1989. Molecular genetic-distance estimates among the Ursidae as indicated by one- and two- dimensional protein electrophoresis. Evolution, 43:282-295.
Goodwinh, L. ed. 1976. 'Chi-Chi' the giant panda Ailuropoda melanoleuca at the London Zoo 1858-1972: A scientific study. Trans. Zoolo. Soc. London 33:77-171.
Gould, S.J. 1986. Fuzzy wuzzy was a bear and Andy Panda,too. Discover, Febuary:40-48.
Hearn, J. 1982. Research progress report 1979-1981: Giant panda. pp. 31-33. In Scientific report 1979-1981, The Zoological Society of London. Journal of Zoology (London) 197:1-123.
Helton, D. 1992. Loving it to bits. BBC Wildlife, 10:44-53.
Johnson, K.G., Schaller, G.B., and H. Jinchu. 1988. Comparative behavior of red and giant pandas in the Wolong reserve, China. Journal of Mammalogy, 69:552-564.
Kleiman, D. 1983. Ethology and reproduction of captive giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). Z. Tierpsych, 62:1-46.
Kleiman, D., W. Karesh, and P. Chu. 1979. Behavioral changes associated with oestrus in the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) with comments on female prospective behavior.
International Zoological Yearbook, 19:217-223.
Lazell, J. 1974. Color patterns of the "panda" bear (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) and the true panda (Ailurus fulgens). Mississippi Wildl. Fed. (4pp.)
Liu, J. 1988. Litter size and survival rate in captive giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). International Zoo Yearbook, 27:304-307.,
Mainka, S. A., and H. Zhang. 1994. Daily Activity of captive giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) at the Wolong reserve. Zoo Biology, 13:13-20.
Mayr, E. 1986. Uncertainty in science: is the giant panda a bear or a raccoon? Nature, 323:769-771.
McClure, F. 1943. Bamboo as panda food. Journal of Mammalogy, 24:267-268.
Mills, S. 1983. The panda puzzle. BBC Wildlife, 1:8-13.
Moore, H.D.M., M. Bush, M. Celma, A-L. Garcia, T.D. hartman, J.P. Hodges, D.M. Jones, J.A. Knight, L. Monsalve, and D.E. Wildt. 1984. Artifical insemination in the Giant Panda
( Ailuropoda melanoleuca). Journal of Zoology, 203:269-278.
Nash, N. 1981. How the panda got its patches. Young discover, Cathay Pacific, 4:4-7.
O'Brian, S. J. 1987. The Ancestry of the Giant Panda. Scientific American, 157:102-107.
O'Brian, S. J., W.G. Nash, D.E. Wildt, M.E. Bush, and R.E. Benveniste. 1985. A Molecular solution to the riddle of the giant panda's phylogeny. Nature, 317:140-144.
O'Brian, S. J., P. Wenshi, and L. Zhi. 1994. Pandas, people and policy.Nature, 369:179-180.
O'Brian, S. J., and J. A. Knight. 1987. The future of the giant Panda. Nature, 325:758-9.
Qiu, X. and S.A. Mainka. 1993. Review of Mortality of the Giant Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca).
Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 24:425-429.
Raven, H. 1936. Notes on the anatomy of the viscera of the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). Am.Mus.Nov. 877:1-23.
Reed, T. H. 1972. What's Black and White and Loved all over? National Geographic,142:803-815.
Reid, D. G., H. Jinchu, D. Sai, W. Wei, and H. Yan. 1989. Giant panda Ailuropoda melanoleuca behavior and carrying capacity
following a bamboo die-off. Biological Conservation, 49:85-104
Reid, D. G., and H. Jinchu. 1991. Giant panda selection between Basania fangiana bamboo habitats in Wolong reserve, Sichuan, China. Journal of Applied Ecology, 28:228-243.
Sage, D. 1935. In quest of the giant panda. Natural History, 35:309-320.
Sarich, V. M. 1973. The giant Panda is a Bear. Nature, 245:218-220.
Schaller,G.B. 1988. The giant panda. World Magazine. 15:22-28.
Schaller, G.B. 1987. Bamboo shortage not the only cause of panda decline. Nature, 327:562.
Schaller, G. B. 1986. Secrets of the wild panda. National Geographic, 169:284-309.
Schaller, G. B. 1981. Pandas in the wild National Geographic, 160:735-749.
Sheldon, W. 1937. Notes on the giant panda. Journal of Mammalogy, 18:13-19.
Shipman, P. 1990. Killer bamboo. Discover, Febuary:22.
Sung, W. and L. Changkun. 1973. Giant pandas in the wild. Natural History, 82:70-71.
Taylor, A.H., and Z. Qin. 1988. Structure and composition of selectively cut and uncut
Abeis-Tsuga forest in Wolong Natural Reserve and implications for panda conservation in China. Biological Conservation, 47:83-108.
Vrana, P. B., M.C. Milinkovitch, J.R. Powell, and W.C. Wheeler. 1994. Higher level relationships of the Arctoid Carnivora based on sequence data and "total evidence."
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 3:47-58.
Wenshi, P. 1995. New hope for China's giant pandas. National Geographic, 187:100-115.
Wurster-Hill, D.,, and M. Bush. 1980. The interrelationship of chromosomes banding patterns in the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca), hybrid bear
(Ursus middendorfix Thalarctos maritimus), and other carnivores. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 27:147-154.
Yaoting, G. 1973. Records of the giant panda in Chinese ancient literature. Animal use and control, 4:31-33.(In Chinese)
Zhang, Y. and L. Shi. 1991. Riddle of the giant panda. Nature, 352:573.
Zhi, L. 1993. Newborn panda in the wild. National Geographic, 183:60-65.
I got all that in one very quick search.I don't accept that the driving force behind the desire to preserve the world's biodiversity is the medical and scientific benefits that can result from it. Biological and ethnic diversity makes the world a much better and a much more interesting place to live and that alone justifies our efforts to want to preserve it.
Maybe so but the scientific knowledge on offer adds impetus to the preservation of the diversity of life. Unlike different ethnic groups which offer no benefit outside of some vague emotional attachment. When two ethnicities mix the genetic knowledge is no lost, it is carried through all of their descendants.I want the Inuit people, and the San people of the Kalahari, and indigenous Irish people, and the Masai warrior people in kenya and the Australian Aborigines and all those other native Amazonian tribes out foreign to survive into the next century as much, in not more, than I want Panda bears to survive into the next century. Whether or not we benefit economically or scientifically from their continued existence is irrelevant.
Maybe it will, culture is distinct from ethnicity though.
But the Japanese people today are the same as the Japanese people at the beginning of the 19th century, as will be the people at the beginning of the 22nd century. It's the people that I want to preserve more than the culture.
Culture and ethnicity while different are very much related. You have a strange way of looking at things, it is the inverse to how I look at it. I see the recording and preservation of culture records as more important than maintaining pure genetic heritage. I also can also see the benefit of recording the evolution of the human genome but I see no benefit in trying to preserve it unchanged. I still haven't grasped why you bestow so much importance towards what can only be seen through an atomic force microscope.You're confusing culture and ethnicity. I want to preserve our national and ethnic identity. Culture is of secondary importance.
Ethnicity can be preserved in a test tube.I don't think they are trying to stop those forces and that's not the forces I was talking about. I was talking about the forces of multiculturalism. The Japanese want Japan to be a Japanese country in a hundred years from now and that's why they have no net immigration. I want Ireland to still be an Irish country in a hundred years from now and that's why I want no net immigration into this country.
Japan is a modern, liberal, technologically advanced democracy that is about as far from resembling North Korea as it's possible to be.
They also have a higher death rate than birth rate resulting in a declining population and their demographics are entirely lopsided towards middle aged and older. The consequences of which will be economic collapse in a few decades if they don't have a significant amount of immigration.Their influence on the Irish population was mainly cultural and technological and not genetic. In the same that western influence on Japan at the end of the nineteenth century was cultural and technological rather than genetic.
Of course we were influenced by their genealogy as we interbred with them.
Ireland will always be Ireland and culturally will always have uniquely Irish traits regardless of the genetic make up of the population which is what I would place more importance upon.
I have Scottish, English and even French blood if you go back far enough. Should I be barred from breeding with any 'ethnically pure' Irish women for fear of contaminating the gene pool?
I see no inherent worth in racial purity which cannot be preserved in a test tube. I do not define people by their genetic make up. What genes a person has inherited from their ancestors makes no difference to me. If you go back far enough we all share a common ancestor and the human population will continue to interbreed across genetic lines without suffering any loss and gaining genetic strength. My own personal interpretation of your opinions is that you are a racist for what is a racist if not someone who believes in racial purity?0 -
Absolutely. If he identifies himself with the indigenous Irish ethnic group more than he does with any other ethnic group and if the indidigenous Irish ethnic group considers him one of their own then yes he is an Irishman by my definition.
I have an Australian acquaintance who said to me that his ancestors arrived in Australia thousands of years ago. I was a bit surprised to hear him saying that as he looks very European and he didn't appear to have any aborigine ancestry. He assured me however that his people have been so fully absorbed into the indigenous Australian population that they identify completely with it's pre-European inhabitants. He also claims to have a brilliant memory on account of how his ancestors were such brilliant trackers and hunters.
Yes, as with the Nigerian, if she identifies with the indigenous Irish ethnic group more than any other ethnic group, if she considers Irish history to be the history of her ancestors and if the indigenous Irish consider her to be one of their own then she would be considered Irish.
Here you switch tract. Earlier you were going on about ethnic purity having greater importance than culture and now you consider culture to have greater importance than ethnicity. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.0 -
I think the native Irish population has enough genetic variability to adapt to change. If there is a massive flu pandemic that wipes out 80% of the population, the 20% with the resistance will survive and will carry on and in time the tribe will recover.
Genetic diversity provides greater immunity from disease as offspring retain both parents immunity and if they are from more diverse backgrounds they will have a broader spectrum of immunities.0 -
I have no idea what that means, but you have made it quite clear that you want to enforce division along ethnic lines.I don't want to enforce them, I want to obey the wisdom of the blood.
In your expert opinion, eh?I think the native Irish population has enough genetic variability to adapt to change.
Evidence I have encountered would appear to suggest otherwise:Yes, the contributed to our gene-pool. The evidence seems to show that their contribution was very small though.
“Scandinavian PAH mutations (F299C, R408Q, Y414C and G46S) accounted for 6.1% of the mutant alleles detected in this study while G272X, the most common Norwegian mutation, was not observed. Mutations associated with the north-west coast of Norway (F299C, R408Q and Y414C) were more common than those associated with south-eastern Norway. This supports the view that the Scandinavian contribution to the Irish gene-pool was significant and mediated largely by Viking incursions from north-western Norway. ”
Yeah, you posted that already and I already pointed out the error in your interpretation.Yes, we are. Very close. Read this
Two things to note; firstly, over 20% of men in this country do not have the haplogroup 1 gene – are they not “really” Irish? Also, does that mean that anyone who possesses this gene is genetically Irish, whether they hold an Irish passport or not?Read what the experts have to say (here). We are the same people that were living on the island 9,000 years ago.
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.
Secondly, as I said earlier, just because one particular genetic marker persists in a population, it does not mean that there have been no other genetic influences.
I'm not going to argue the science anymore because by your own admission you don't follow it and besides, this is a politics thread.
You’re a funny guy. Really.Most Irish people that I know, including myself, have all Irish ancestors all the way back to prehistory.
Do you have any idea how incredibly unlikely that is?
For arguments sake, let’s suppose you’re right. Let’s suppose your ancestors came to Ireland 9,000 years ago – that would make you the descendent of immigrants, wouldn’t it?0 -
Advertisement
-
Sink wrote:If you think nothing can be learned from Panda Bears then maybe you should read a few of these scientific journals.
I never said that nothing can be learned from Panda Bears. I think a lot can be learned from Panda bears, I'm just not sure what practical difference it would make to us if they became extinct.Sink wrote:I got all that in one very quick search.
Well done. I have a busy weekend of reading about Panda bears in front of me.Sink wrote:Maybe so but the scientific knowledge on offer adds impetus to the preservation of the diversity of life.
Of course, but I don't think that's the motive driving the "Save the Panda Bear" brigade. People see preserving endangered species as an end in itself. Even if there was no medical or scientific benefit, and even if we had nothing further to learn from them, we would still consider it a worthwhile endeavor to try to protect endangered species of mammals from extinction.
Do you share that view or do you hold the politically-incorrect view that we should let useless mammals go extinct?Sink wrote:Unlike different ethnic groups which offer no benefit outside of some vague emotional attachment.
There's a whole scientific discipline dedicated to the study of the world's different ethnic groups. It's called antropology and it makes important contributions to the other social sciences of sociology, psychology ane economics.
And the emotional attachment you refer to us is not vague. Because it's not easy to define doesn't mean that it's vague. The emotional attachment you feel towards your family might not be easy to define but it's still something that you value.
I see my ethnic group as an extended family and so the emotional attachment I feel towards the tribe is a extension of the emotional attachment I feel towards my closest kin. Unlike you, I'm not a citizen of the world, I'm a citizen of Ireland and my loyalty is to the Irish tribe.Sink wrote:When two ethnicities mix the genetic knowledge is no lost, it is carried through all of their descendants.
Yes it is, genetic knowledge is expressed externally. When two ethnicities mix, the dominant genes are expressed while the recessive ones are hidden.
A perfect example would be the case of the red squirrels and the brown squirrels. Originally all the squirrels in the British isles were red squirrels but then the American brown squirrel was introduced and because the gene for brown fur is dominant to the one for red fur, the brown squirrels were almost completely wiped out. That's why it's very rare to see a red squirrel in the wild in Ireland or Britain today.Sink wrote:I also can also see the benefit of recording the evolution of the human genome but I see no benefit in trying to preserve it unchanged.
I don't want to try to preserve it unchanged either. I just want Ireland to still be an Irish country in a hundred years from now.Sink wrote:I still haven't grasped why you bestow so much importance towards what can only be seen through an atomic force microscope.
Only through an atomic force microscope? That would be like asking why do I feel attracted to people who have two x chromosomes but not to people with xy chromosomes. Chromosomes can only be seen through a microscope and so why would something that can only be seen through a microscope make such a difference in how I see other people.
As for why I bestow so much importance on it, I think it's an in-built evolutionary thing. I've you read the book the Selfish Gene you'll understand what I mean. All of us sub-consciously want as many of our genes to survive into the future as possible and that's we feel a strong sense of attachment to people who share our genes. I'm just consciously stating explicitly something that most people feel implicitly and sub-consciously.Sink wrote:Ethnicity can be preserved in a test tube.
No, it can't. Ethnicity is a social phenomenon and can only be preserved at the macroscopic, social level.Sink wrote:They also have a higher death rate than birth rate resulting in a declining population and their demographics are entirely lopsided towards middle aged and older. The consequences of which will be economic collapse in a few decades if they don't have a significant amount of immigration.
I bet you a thousand old Irish punts that the immigration level in Japan will be no different in 2018 or 2028 from what it is now. The Japanese are a proud and patriotic people and they would never be as foolish as to throw open their borders in the way that our government has. Japan will still be a Japanese country in a hundred years from now.Sink wrote:Genetic diversity provides greater immunity from disease as offspring retain both parents immunity and if they are from more diverse backgrounds they will have a broader spectrum of immunities.
I think we'll manage alright. We've survived long enough and built up enough resistance that I think we'll pull through.Sink wrote:What genes a person has inherited from their ancestors makes no difference to me.
Would you like to be a father some day? If you would, please tell me that you're planning on adopting rather than having your own biological children.Sink wrote:If you go back far enough we all share a common ancestor and the human population will continue to interbreed across genetic lines without suffering any loss and gaining genetic strength.
What do you mean by gaining genetic strength? Do you think that some people are genetically stronger than others?Sink wrote:My own personal interpretation of your opinions is that you are a racist
I'm disappointed, I thought you were one of the more polite and tolerant contributors to this forum. I didn't think you were the kind that would feel the need to resort to making that kind of insulting remark.Sink wrote:for what is a racist if not someone who believes in racial purity?
And what makes you think that I believe in racial purity? I don't think I've ever even used the word race or purity. They're not in my vocabulary. I'm an ethnic Irish nationalist. I think in terms of nationalities and ethnic groups, not races. I believe in preserving Ireland as an ethnically homogeneous nation. I want Ireland to still be an Irish country in a hundred years from now.0 -
djpbarry wrote:I have no idea what that means, but you have made it quite clear that you want to enforce division along ethnic lines.
I was hoping it might set you off when I used the "wisdom of the blood" but sadly you didn't fall for it.
I don't want to enforce division along ethnic lines. I want every citizen of this country to be treated equally before the law and to have the same rights and the same opportunites regardless of what their race or gender or sexual orientation or religion is. I just want to preserve the ethnic homogeneity of the Irish population and I want Ireland to still be an Irish country in a hundred years from now.djpbarry wrote:In your expert opinion, eh?
I'm no more of an expert on genetics than you are old boy. I think the fact that we've survived for 9,000 years is a good indication that we've enough genetic variation to get by. We made it through the black death, the plague, the famine and the 1918 flu pandemic and so I think we've built up good resistance over the centuries. If we mix with people who don't have the same resistance maybe it might weaken our descendants genetically.djpbarry wrote:This supports the view that the Scandinavian contribution to the Irish gene-pool was significant and mediated largely by Viking incursions from north-western Norway.
That's great news. I always felt I had a bit of a Viking in me and now I know I probably do.djpbarry wrote:Two things to note; firstly, over 20% of men in this country do not have the haplogroup 1 gene – are they not “really” Irish?
Those would be the orangemen up in the north. I would class them as "New Irish".djpbarry wrote:Secondly, as I said earlier, just because one particular genetic marker persists in a population, it does not mean that there have been no other genetic influences.
There have been other genetic influences but those influences are not as extensive as people like you would like us to believe. Mass immigration into Ireland is a recent phenomenon and so those people who try to claim that Ireland has always been a nation of immigrants are not being entirely honest.djpbarry wrote:and besides, this is a politics thread.
And I would be happy to discuss the politics of immigration. I don't know how we got side-stepped by discussing test tubes and genes but enough, let's get back to real issue.
To get it back on track, can I ask you if you think it might help things if we didn't have so many people entering the country during a time of low employment and long dole queues?0 -
I never said that nothing can be learned from Panda Bears. I think a lot can be learned from Panda bears, I'm just not sure what practical difference it would make to us if they became extinct.
90% of all primary scientific research has no clear benefits to humanity. Research into Panda Bears or any other species is only to expand our knowledge. Knowledge which applied in a different context might bring forth tremendous benefits.Of course, but I don't think that's the motive driving the "Save the Panda Bear" brigade. People see preserving endangered species as an end in itself. Even if there was no medical or scientific benefit, and even if we had nothing further to learn from them, we would still consider it a worthwhile endeavor to try to protect endangered species of mammals from extinction.
There probably is. But vegans have similar emotion based life stances however we realise that vegans have no other ground to stand other than an emotional one and most wouldn't support them and their aims.Do you share that view or do you hold the politically-incorrect view that we should let useless mammals go extinct?
Speaking hypothetically yes, but there are no useless mammals. Every single species on this planet has a a role in nature and helps us advance scientific knowledge.There's a whole scientific discipline dedicated to the study of the world's different ethnic groups. It's called antropology and it makes important contributions to the other social sciences of sociology, psychology ane economics.
Anthropology is the study of human culture and behaviour, something you have placed in secondary importance to ethnicity. You can take a baby Australian Aborigine and place him with a remote tribe in the Amazon and the baby will grow up having all the cultural traits of the Amazonian tribe. Anthropologists regard ethnicity more as a product of interaction, rather than reflecting essential qualities inherent to human groups which we call culture.And the emotional attachment you refer to us is not vague. Because it's not easy to define doesn't mean that it's vague. The emotional attachment you feel towards your family might not be easy to define but it's still something that you value.
I see my ethnic group as an extended family and so the emotional attachment I feel towards the tribe is a extension of the emotional attachment I feel towards my closest kin. Unlike you, I'm not a citizen of the world, I'm a citizen of Ireland and my loyalty is to the Irish tribe.
I have read the selfish gene and I think you are applying it in completely the wrong context. In prehistory when our instinct for genetic preservation developed our closest competitors would be our so called 'countrymen'. Tribes would only have been no more then a few dozen strong and we would not feel any emotional attachment to the next tribe over. We would have in fact felt hostility towards them as we would compete with them for resources. These tribes in close proximity would share the same genetic history. These tribes would not have any contact with tribes from distant lands with whom they shared only distant genetic history and no such instinct of hostility would have developed towards them based on purely genetic grounds.
The nationalism that you feel is largely a product of the last 400-500 years of feudalism and is a purely cultural trait and one that should be allowed to die in my opinion.Yes it is, genetic knowledge is expressed externally. When two ethnicities mix, the dominant genes are expressed while the recessive ones are hidden.
A perfect example would be the case of the red squirrels and the brown squirrels. Originally all the squirrels in the British isles were red squirrels but then the American brown squirrel was introduced and because the gene for brown fur is dominant to the one for red fur, the brown squirrels were almost completely wiped out. That's why it's very rare to see a red squirrel in the wild in Ireland or Britain today.
True, but why do you presume that Irish genes will be dominant? I can point to one that isn't, the ginger gene.I don't want to try to preserve it unchanged either. I just want Ireland to still be an Irish country in a hundred years from now.
An Irish person is defined as being Irish in a cultural sense because of their culture not because of their genetic make-up. And this Islands will always have unique cultural traits that tell us apart from all others but culture evolves at a rapid pace and what defines people as Irish in the future will be different to what defines us a Irish today. Just as what defines us as Irish today is different to what defined us as Irish 100 years ago.Only through an atomic force microscope? That would be like asking why do I feel attracted to people who have two x chromosomes but not to people with xy chromosomes. Chromosomes can only be seen through a microscope and so why would something that can only be seen through a microscope make such a difference in how I see other people.
You are not basing you're predisposition to people on the physical manifestation of a particular gene. You said yourself you could not tell the physical difference between some with or without the ancient Hibernian gene you attribute to being Irish. When you meet someone you don't take a sample and then breakdown their genetic code in laboratory to see if they are one of 'your people'. You base it entirely on outward physical appearance and these people could be of north-west European descent never having come into contact with the Hibernian genetic marker and you would not be physically able to tell them apart.As for why I bestow so much importance on it, I think it's an in-built evolutionary thing. I've you read the book the Selfish Gene you'll understand what I mean. All of us sub-consciously want as many of our genes to survive into the future as possible and that's we feel a strong sense of attachment to people who share our genes. I'm just consciously stating explicitly something that most people feel implicitly and sub-consciously.
That only applies to close relatives not to 4 million fellow countrymen most of whom you have never met.No, it can't. Ethnicity is a social phenomenon and can only be preserved at the macroscopic, social level.
Here you go mixing up ethnicity with culture again. Ethnicity is not purely a social phenomenon only the cultural aspect of ethnicity is observed at the social level and culture evolves at breakneck speed making it impossible to preserve in a living sense. Other factors which influence ethnicity are purely biological but only have a minor impact in how we define ourselves culturally. The best we can to preserve culture is make historical records.I bet you a thousand old Irish punts that the immigration level in Japan will be no different in 2018 or 2028 from what it is now. The Japanese are a proud and patriotic people and they would never be as foolish as to throw open their borders in the way that our government has. Japan will still be a Japanese country in a hundred years from now.
I would take that bet as it is fairly safe to presume that Japan will require a massive influx of immigrants in the next few decades to fill vital vacant positions within the economy due to their ageing demographics. The only other option they have is to shrink their economy or to create a baby boom.Would you like to be a father some day? If you would, please tell me that you're planning on adopting rather than having your own biological children.
I would be open to adoption however I don't even have a current girlfriend so I think that would be getting a bit ahead of things.What do you mean by gaining genetic strength? Do you think that some people are genetically stronger than others?
Not in a racial sense but diverse genes give a strong resistance to disease and people of mixed genetic backgrounds are usually quiet physically attractive.I'm disappointed, I thought you were one of the more polite and tolerant contributors to this forum. I didn't think you were the kind that would feel the need to resort to making that kind of insulting remark.
And what makes you think that I believe in racial purity? I don't think I've ever even used the word race or purity. They're not in my vocabulary. I'm an ethnic Irish nationalist. I think in terms of nationalities and ethnic groups, not races. I believe in preserving Ireland as an ethnically homogeneous nation. I want Ireland to still be an Irish country in a hundred years from now.
You really need to sort out your definition of race, ethnics and culture. Ethnicity combines genetics history (race) with social traits (culture). You clearly stated that you place culture as secondary to genetics which means you place emphasis on race and when you talk about preserving Irish ethnicity you really are talking about preserving the Irish race. Simple as.0 -
Actually, very little of it is; you can’t tell too much about a person’s genetic make-up just by looking at them.Yes it is, genetic knowledge is expressed externally.
I presume you mean the grey squirrel rather than the brown squirrel? The grey squirrel appears to be able to out-compete the red squirrel for three main reasons:A perfect example would be the case of the red squirrels and the brown squirrels. Originally all the squirrels in the British isles were red squirrels but then the American brown squirrel was introduced and because the gene for brown fur is dominant to the one for red fur, the brown squirrels were almost completely wiped out.- The grey squirrel can easily digest acorns, while the red squirrel cannot.
- The grey squirrel carries a disease, the squirrel parapoxvirus that does not appear to affect their health but will often kill the red squirrel.
- When the red squirrel is put under pressure, it will not breed as often.
Can you detect all genetic variations visually?Only through an atomic force microscope? That would be like asking why do I feel attracted to people who have two x chromosomes but not to people with xy chromosomes. Chromosomes can only be seen through a microscope and so why would something that can only be seen through a microscope make such a difference in how I see other people.
You seem to be obscuring the line between ethnicity and culture there.Ethnicity is a social phenomenon and can only be preserved at the macroscopic, social level.
Then they’re pretty much screwed:I bet you a thousand old Irish punts that the immigration level in Japan will be no different in 2018 or 2028 from what it is now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6624049.stm
If they’re as proud as you say they are, then it’s unlikely that they’ll allow their population to plummet and their economy collapse.
Another expert opinion?I think we'll manage alright. We've survived long enough and built up enough resistance that I think we'll pull through.
Splitting hairs.I'm an ethnic Irish nationalist. I think in terms of nationalities and ethnic groups, not races.
Which would involve restricting access to this country to people who are of the same ethnicity as you?I just want to preserve the ethnic homogeneity of the Irish population and I want Ireland to still be an Irish country in a hundred years from now.
Does that mean that you’re not Irish?I always felt I had a bit of a Viking in me and now I know I probably do.
Eh, no. According to the article you posted, “ In Leinster, 73.3% of men with Gaelic surnames have this gene…”, which means that 26.7% don’t. Are they not Irish? And what about the “ men in Ireland with surnames of English origin have 62% haplogroup 1 genes; men with Scottish names have 52.9% and men with Norman and Norse names have 83%.” All Irish, yeah?Those would be the orangemen up in the north. I would class them as "New Irish".
The influences are there, never-the-less.There have been other genetic influences but those influences are not as extensive as people like you would like us to believe.
Aren’t they? Have people existed on this island since the dawn of time? Or did they MIGRATE (ooohh, dirty word) from some other place?Mass immigration into Ireland is a recent phenomenon and so those people who try to claim that Ireland has always been a nation of immigrants are not being entirely honest.
You were trying to convince that you were directly descended from the original inhabitants of Ireland (Mary and Séamus) with no other “foreign” influence.I don't know how we got side-stepped by discussing test tubes and genes…
I have already addressed this several times, but you seem unwilling to accept the fact that, due to our current economic circumstances, we will have NET EMIGRATION next year, as predicted by the ESRI. I see little need to restrict immigration in these circumstances.To get it back on track, can I ask you if you think it might help things if we didn't have so many people entering the country during a time of low employment and long dole queues?0 -
I have already addressed this several times, but you seem unwilling to accept the fact that, due to our current economic circumstances, we will have NET EMIGRATION next year, as predicted by the ESRI. I see little need to restrict immigration in these circumstances.
That depends on who's leaving and who's staying. I imagine the more ambitious types, Irish and non-Irish, would consider emigrating for better job prospects. Other will stay, and continue to arrive, as they expect a better quality of life here. One example being our, relatively speaking, generous welfare system.0 -
That depends on who's leaving and who's staying. I imagine the more ambitious types, Irish and non-Irish, would consider emigrating for better job prospects. Other will stay, and continue to arrive, as they expect a better quality of life here. One example being our, relatively speaking, generous welfare system.
generous welfare system?
0 -
Relatively speaking. It's a lot better than what's on offer in Somalia for example.0
-
I was referring to predictions made by the ESRI earlier this year:That depends on who's leaving and who's staying.ESRI wrote:As a result of the overall difficulties being forecast for the economy, we expect net outward migration to re-emerge in 2009 and are forecasting a net outflow of 20,000 in that year. Without such an outflow, the rate of unemployment would likely rise above 8 per cent. It seems implausible to us that migratory flows would not react to such a situation. Our thinking on this is influenced by work published in earlier Commentaries which showed how migration flows between Ireland and the UK tended to react to changes in the difference between the rates of unemployment in the two jurisdictions. The reaction was such that any widening of the gap between the rates of unemployment tended to be reduced as a result of the labour flows whereby a long-run stable gap was restored.
I'm not sure that's going to be much of a draw to someone who would likely not be able to secure employment upon their arrival.Other will stay, and continue to arrive, as they expect a better quality of life here. One example being our, relatively speaking, generous welfare system.0 -
Sink and djpbarry, I'm not going to reply to your points about the genes and the test tubes as it's just not a subject I'm interested in discussing. I don't know why you're so obsessed with genetics and the question of who is and isn't Irish anyway. I consider all people who look Irish, who have roots in this country going back several generations, who speak with an Irish accent and who identify themselves with the indigenous Irish ethnic group more than any other group to be Irish. It's true that some of us are more Irish than others but we're prepared to overlook the foreign ancestry of those of you who are not as lucky. Eamon De Valera and Padraig Pearse both had non-Irish fathers but they were still Irish. The Duke of Wellington on the other hand was not Irish. I don't believe it will be possible to assimilate the tens of thousands of people coming here each year and so in that sense I don't think they will become Irish. They will be Duke of Wellingtons rather than Padraig Pearses.
To reply to the point about the economy.djpbarry wrote:I have already addressed this several times, but you seem unwilling to accept the fact that, due to our current economic circumstances, we will have NET EMIGRATION next year, as predicted by the ESRI. I see little need to restrict immigration in these circumstances.
I was expecting that to be your reply but it doesn't answer the question I asked. I didn't ask you if we should restrict immigration, I asked you if it would help things if we didn't have as many people entering the country at a time when we don't have enough jobs for our own unemployed and the new arrivals. According to the ESRI, immigration into the country this year could be as high as 70,000. Next year it could as high as 40,000. Considering that we have over 115,000 people on the dole (a figure which is set to rise), net emigration next year of 20,000 will not be enough to make a real difference. If we had only 10,000 people entering the country next year, that would give us net immigration of 50,000. That would really go a long way in easing the competition for the available jobs and would mean that we wouldn't have to spend as much money supporting people on the dole. It would also help ease the pressure on schools and hospitals at a time when the recession is forcing the government to make cuts in health and education spending.
Would you not agree with me that it would help things if instead of 70,000 we had only 35,000 people coming here this year? Can you not see why it would help things? Or do you think that this level of immigration is good for the economy?0 -
Advertisement
-
I think you’ll find that it was you who took the discussion down that particular path:I don't know why you're so obsessed with genetics and the question of who is and isn't Irish anyway.
“I want Ireland to still be an Irish country in a hundred years from now. If the demographic trends continue we can expect our share of the population to fall below a level where the long-term survival of an Ireland of Irish people is put in doubt.”
That is somewhat at odds with what you said earlier:I consider all people who look Irish, who have roots in this country going back several generations, who speak with an Irish accent and who identify themselves with the indigenous Irish ethnic group more than any other group to be Irish.
“They may consider themselves Irish but they won't be ethnically Irish. They won't be the ethnic descendants of the gaelic Irish people in the same way that we are.”
Why not?I don't believe it will be possible to assimilate the tens of thousands of people coming here each year...
I don’t know – that would depend somewhat on who the immigrants are, wouldn’t it? I mean, there are job vacancies in this country at present, are there not?I didn't ask you if we should restrict immigration, I asked you if it would help things if we didn't have as many people entering the country at a time when we don't have enough jobs for our own unemployed and the new arrivals.0
Advertisement