What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP

eleventh

Deleted User wrote: »

...
In any case, I'm more concerned with the effects of multiculturalism, and rising numbers of low-skilled migrants on the economy/welfare, than any fear of Irish people becoming a minority in their own country.

It is an effect of multiculturalism. It's the main reason I'm against it - the dilution and (eventual) destruction of native culture and people.
A situation where majority are nominally Irish ('consider themselves Irish' / Irish on paper) while the ethnicity/culture is gone, or exiled to small enclaves - similar to what happened with the language.

eleventh

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

... Culture is very important aswell.

Culture can't be preserved in a melting pot of multi-culture.

How would you describe 'American culture'.... It's anything you want it to be...

Culture is something where there's general agreement among all who are part of it.

... My girlfriend is from South America but raised in Spain from a young age, and feels no affiliation for Ecuador at all. She considers herself Spanish.

She is South American / Ecaudorian (or whatever's the correct wording there).

I am Irish and no matter where I live, how long I live there I will always be Irish; whether I like it or not. It's not something you pick and choose.

CtevenSrowder

eleventh wrote: »

Culture can't be preserved in a melting pot of multi-culture.

How would you describe 'American culture'.... It's anything you want it to be...

Culture is something where there's general agreement among all who are part of it.

I am not in favour of multi-culturalism, or mas migration. I'd describe American culture as one of stupidity (though that may be a little unfair!)

eleventh wrote: »

She is South American / Ecaudorian (or whatever's the correct wording there).

You have taken this out of context. The poster I was responding to said it was wishful thinking of mine that someone born in Ireland to foreign parents wouldn't have their roots here and nowhere else. I was pointing out that even people briefly raised abroad can have their roots firmly in the country they have spent the majority of their life.

eleventh wrote: »

I am Irish and no matter where I live, how long I live there I will always be Irish; whether I like it or not. It's not something you pick and choose.

I never said it was.

eleventh

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The poster I was responding to said it was wishful thinking of mine that someone born in Ireland to foreign parents wouldn't have their roots here and nowhere else. I was pointing out that even people briefly raised abroad can have their roots firmly in the country they have spent the majority of their life.

We seem to be interpreting roots differently. If you arrive to a country but your parents were of a different nationality, you have no roots in that country. Roots come from background/heritage.

CtevenSrowder

eleventh wrote: »

We seem to be interpreting roots differently. If you arrive to a country but your parents were of a different nationality, you have no roots in that country. Roots come from background/heritage.

Sand and I are discussing someone born in Ireland to foreign parents, not someone who arrived.

Justin Credible Darts

eleventh wrote: »

We seem to be interpreting roots differently. If you arrive to a country but your parents were of a different nationality, you have no roots in that country. Roots come from background/heritage.

tell me, if for example the kid and their patents arrive in Ireland, and the kid is 5 weeks old, knows nothing else but ireland, and is still living in Ireland by the age of 48 and never been to the parents "homeland", and the only culture they know is Irish,


Are you telling me they are not Irish ? Despite decades here, decades of paying tax , voting etc ? having Irish mannerisms, understanding irish culture etc

eleventh

eleventh wrote: »

It is an effect of multiculturalism. It's the main reason I'm against it - the dilution and (eventual) destruction of native culture and people.
A situation where majority are nominally Irish ('consider themselves Irish' / Irish on paper) while the ethnicity/culture is gone, or exiled to small enclaves - similar to what happened with the language.

Similar to the language? There's is too much romantic nonsense about the Irish language, and it's supposed importance with Irish people. I grew up in a dual language household, where we all spoke Irish in the home, and English with those outside the immediate family. My father is from the west of Ireland, and my mother, well, went with the flow, since they're both teachers. And I spoke Irish fluently until I entered secondary school, whereupon I lost it. Why? A combination of two things. First, the focus on how it was taught was awkward, draining any pleasure away from the language, and secondly, as an adult, there was no use for it. Even within our family, Irish was gradually replaced with English, as all the children grew up, and were exposed more and more to Irish society. Where we found that few could speak it with any real degree of comfort.

You see, the Irish language wasn't ever a major part of mainstream Irish culture except for poorer areas in certain regions, but it wasn't something sought after by most Irish people. Whereas the culture of Ireland, which is a combination of sports, music, general attitudes, a certain perception on common sense, etc were relatively important parts of that culture. You could be completely uninterested in Irish sports (as I was) but still be exposed and influenced by all manner of offshoot cultural aspects related to it. The lad culture, the various teams being followed, whatever.

Its not as if Irish as a language was ever (since the founding of the State) a common integral part of Irish culture throughout the country. So, it's exile to enclaves is more to do with a general lack of interest, even before Ireland started receiving any significant amount of immigration.

As for Irish culture being supplanted by another culture, it's culture... it changes over time. The Irish culture that exists today is very different from the Irish culture that I grew up in. Although, It still retains many elements of the past culture, but has absorbed so many influences from other countries through public exposure to American movies/tv/music, or the changing of our education over time.

Just look at British culture... It still retains a very strong native element to it, although it has absorbed all manner of aspects from it's migrant population. Even after decades of having and dealing with it's foreign born (and 2nd/3rd gen) population, seeking (and failing) to integrate them, their culture is still easily identifiable as being British, or English, or whatever. So.. no.. I don't see this massive risk/threat of Ireland losing the core elements of its culture.

Although TBH I suspect a greater risk to national culture is from the Internet, social media, and conforming to internet opinions over time..

eleventh

eleventh wrote: »

Culture can't be preserved in a melting pot of multi-culture.

How would you describe 'American culture'.... It's anything you want it to be...

Culture is something where there's general agreement among all who are part of it.

Except that American culture was never easily identified. It was always divided, either due to geographical lines, moral, racial, ethnic, etc. Using American culture as an example doesn't work because, they've never really identified themselves as being Americans. There's never been any particular focus on American, in spite of what Hollywood wanted to project.

I am Irish and no matter where I live, how long I live there I will always be Irish; whether I like it or not. It's not something you pick and choose.

I'd agree with that. We grow up within a culture, absorbing many aspects of that culture, along with a wide range of beliefs/values. Even as an adult, should we choose to seek to alter those values, it's a struggle to do so, because we've been conditioned by our national identity.

eleventh

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

tell me, if for example the kid and their patents arrive in Ireland, and the kid is 5 weeks old, knows nothing else but ireland, and is still living in Ireland by the age of 48 and never been to the parents "homeland", and the only culture they know is Irish,

Are you telling me they are not Irish ? Despite decades here, decades of paying tax , voting etc ? having Irish mannerisms, understanding irish culture etc

I'm wondering why you put 'homeland' in quotes like that. It's like you disdain the idea.

In those situations, you could say Russian-Irish, Spanish-Irish, African-Irish, etc.

Justin Credible Darts

eleventh wrote: »

I'm wondering why you put 'homeland' in quotes like that. It's like you disdain the idea.

In those situations, you could say Russian-Irish, Spanish-Irish, African-Irish, etc.

change it to what ever the pc term is for their country of ethnicity.

CtevenSrowder

eleventh wrote: »

I'm wondering why you put 'homeland' in quotes like that. It's like you disdain the idea.

In those situations, you could say Russian-Irish, Spanish-Irish, African-Irish, etc.

That's exactly what we shouldn't be aiming for! It's sounds so American, and is why I said earlier to Sand that contrary to how it may seem it is in fact me who is arguing against Americanism.

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

Similar to the language? There's is too much romantic nonsense about the Irish language, and it's supposed importance with Irish people. I grew up in a dual language household, where we all spoke Irish in the home, and English with those outside the immediate family. My father is from the west of Ireland, and my mother, well, went with the flow, since they're both teachers. And I spoke Irish fluently until I entered secondary school, whereupon I lost it. Why? A combination of two things. First, the focus on how it was taught was awkward, draining any pleasure away from the language, and secondly, as an adult, there was no use for it.

Although TBH I suspect a greater risk to national culture is from the Internet, social media, and conforming to internet opinions over time..

I agree. Irish people often tell me well ...Opera is not useful ..nor is classical music.

But actually they are right ..OPERA is NOT useful.

And is it popular? No.
Is opera in a healthy position? No.

It relies on state funding and plays to empty houses.

I love Opera.

ILoveYourVibes

TomTomTim wrote: »

I don't agree, simply as a matter of preciseness. I'd struggle to call any 2nd generation immigrants ethnically Irish, because they simply aren't. They can be Irish citizens, and act as Irish as any of us, but they still aren't ethnically Irish. The word ethnicity has a meaning, and I'm not willing to betray that. The bastardization of language has been one of the main tools of "progressives", so I think we'd be wise not to go down that road, or at least not contribute to it. The world as it stands is blurry enough, without making it even worse.

There is no such thing as ethnically irish when it comes to DNA our DNA is no diff from the UK.

In fact all those ancestery dna tests lump us in with the UK.


Ethnicity is being a part of shared culture. If you grow up in Dublin then you are a part of that shared culture.

That's exactly what we shouldn't be aiming for! It's sounds so American, and is why I said earlier to Sand that contrary to how it may seem it is in fact me who is arguing against Americanism.

You can't aim for anything. People are who they are. Probably in reality they won't do this as russians see people born here as irish. I think people who look different and feel racism might feel differently though.

I used to have an issue with people not thinking i was ethnically irish. I don't mind it now though. That is their opinion.

Sand

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No it isn't. Culture is very important aswell. You seem to attach no importance to it at all and associate ethnicity solely with the nationality of the parents.

I'm not denying culture has some importance, but when it comes to identifying members of the Irish ethnic group descent is the factor that distinguishes the Irish from non-Irish groups, in a way culture alone does not. A person born to Irish parents is ethnically Irish regardless of where they are born. They are immersed in Irish culture in their homes from birth. A person born in Ireland to non-Irish parents is not ethnically Irish. And they are immersed in non-Irish culture in their homes from birth. That's entirely natural and there is nothing wrong with it, but you cant ignore it because its inconvenient. The Irish state recognizes descent as the key factor because it automatically extends Irish citizenship to children of Irish parents, regardless of where they are born, but not to children born in Ireland to non-Irish parents. 80% of the Irish population backed that position in a referendum.

Let me try explain this differently. I see you're quite opinionated on the trans issue. Would you agree that if a person is raised by women, embraces women's culture, dresses like a woman, speaks like a woman, acts like a woman, identifies as a woman then they are a woman, regardless of them being biologically male? I doubt it given the views I see you express on the JK Rowling thread. I wont be getting into a trans debate, but you hang your hat on substance (biology/descent) in one argument, and on form (culture/gender) in another.

Who are you say to a person born in Ireland and raised in Ireland that Irish history isn't their history?

A realist?

That is the height of arrogance. Polish history isn't your history because you weren't born and raised there. Nobody owns history regardless.

Even if I was born in Poland, Polish history wouldn't be my history. My history would still be derived from the experiences of my ancestors, not someone elses.

Why? My girlfriend is from South America but raised in Spain from a young age, and feels no affiliation for Ecuador at all. She considers herself Spanish.

Well, your girlfriend wasn't born in Spain right? So by your definition she's not ethnically Spanish, right?

I do not think it is unreasonable, I think it is wrong do it solely by that, which is what you are doing, and ignore things like culture.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm placing it in its proper context. Culture is constantly shifting and changing. The Irish culture of the 1950s was very different to the Irish culture of today. You cant come up with a cultural definition of being Irish that doesn't exclude whole swathes of the population (then or now), or is so watered down and accessible that it amounts to no more than celebrating St Arthur's day with a pint of the black stuff.

Irish culture is derived from Irish people, not the other way around. It will constantly evolve and change as the Irish people take up or discard points of view, religious beliefs, styles of music, sports, pastimes and so on. You cannot fix it at one point in time and say this is Irish, and anything else is not Irish, anymore than Canute could command the waves.

Descent is far more stable definition of ethnicity. It's why 80% of the Irish population backed Irish descent as automatically extending Irish citizenship to the child, not place of birth.

A person can become Irish through naturalisation, nothing to do with their parent's descent.

Sure, they can become Irish passport holders/citizens through naturalisation, but they still wouldn't be ethnically Irish unless of Irish descent. I can naturalise as a citizen of South Africa, but it doesn't make me a Zulu.

And I am aware we are not America, it is, contrary what you may believe, me who is arguing against Americanism. I do not want the nonsense of someone whose great-great-grandfather was from Nigeria, who has never been there, has no ties to the place, doesn't know anything about the culture, going around calling themselves 'African' Irish because according to people like you they aren't truely Irish. They are (though they can call themselves what they like).

They're not ethnically Irish. You seem to believe I'm denying them something. I'm not. Again, I feel I have to point out that ethnicity is not a costume you can wear.

I might surmise from your username that you are at least aware of Stephen Crowder, the US conservative/alt light youtuber? I'm not particularly familiar with him myself and I dare not review his youtube channel for fear of Youtube drowning me with recommendations for more videos from Crowder, JK Peterson, Douglas Murray and the like. However, I take it that he, like you, is appalled by identity politics in the US. And the general takeaway is that everyone who practices identity politics needs to stop, abandon their identity, and just act as individuals rather than groups organised for collective interests. Then all will be right with the world.

The problem with that is identity politics & collective action works. So why in the world would groups (i.e. Black Lives Matter) that practice identity politics give it up? Asking your opponent to stop using this approach which is allowing them to dominate US politics is a fools errand.

But either way, the wailing about identity politics is an American conservative viewpoint based on the american myth of rugged individualism and 1980's nostalgia. It's failing in the US, its not the solution in Ireland. Everyone else, all around the world, is just getting on with getting what they want while US conservatives delude themselves.

biko

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Sand and I are discussing someone born in Ireland to foreign parents, not someone who arrived.

I and my Galway wife moves to China and live there 3 years and have a child there.
Our child goes to Chinese school (speaks Chinese) for 10 years and have approx 50/50 Irish and Chinese friends.

Is the child Irish or Chinese?

gormdubhgorm

Mules wrote: »

This is an Irish forum, you sound ridiculous talking about white males, like someone in an American university sociology department.

TomTomTim wrote: »

You can thank Reddit and Twitter for this nonsense. We honestly might as well be Americans at this stage.

It is just the reality of what has being demonstrated in other countries like the UK and the USA. It is likely Ireland will follow the same path and it will be the disgruntled white working class who will be just waiting for a spark.

You don't have to be a sociologist to realise that.

gormdubhgorm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It is just the reality of what has being demonstrated in other countries like the UK and the USA. It is likely Ireland will follow the same path and it will be the disgruntled white working class who will be just waiting for a spark.

The US and later, the UK were the first countries to take on the utter stupidity and self-destructiveness of identity politics, and social science's theories presented as fact (which they're not, and in most cases, there's been no unbiased research into the consequences of applying such social programming)

Thankfully, we're starting to see all the negative effects of applying this half baked nonsense to the real world. Double standards, reverse racism/sexism, excessive social divisions, a rise in aggressive behavior, and a general confusion regarding what's now acceptable in society (since the standards change so often, and are applied selectively to particular groups)

You don't have to be a sociologist to realise that.

True enough. Not any more, because now people are starting to get involved, reading some of the absolute ****e that has come from the social sciences, and recognising how much of it is unproven gaff, with superficial covering to excuse racism towards white people (or Asians in some cases).

gormdubhgorm

Enoch Powell had an idea back in 1976 of inducing migrants to return 'home'
offering £1000.

About £7500 sterling today.

I am not sure it would work for EU citizens as I am sure there would be some legal challenge.

Barring an A50 exit from the EU I assume such inducements could only be applied to non-EU citizens?

It could be a viable idea for those who believe deporting illegals or criminal migrants is enough.
It could encourage those who do not permanently wish to set up home in Ireland to leave?

Also Mr Powell stated he considered 200,000 of a migrants a year leaving Britain as "perfectly possible". And as "nothing".

By contrast Ireland only has 85,400 immigrants as of April 2020.


https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/pme/populationandmigrationestimatesapril2020/#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20emigrants%20increased,%25)%20on%20the%20previous%20year.

So by using Enoch's logic it should be particularly easy to encourage them to leave the country.

newhouse87

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Enoch Powell had an idea back in 1976 of inducing migrants to return 'home'
offering £1000.

About £7500 sterling today.

I am not sure it would work for EU citizens as I am sure there would be some legal challenge.

Barring an A50 exit from the EU I assume such inducements could only be applied to non-EU citizens?

It could be a viable idea for those who believe deporting illegals or criminal migrants is enough.
It could encourage those who do not permanently wish to set up home in Ireland to leave?

Also Mr Powell stated he considered 200,000 of a migrants a year leaving Britain as "perfectly possible". And as "nothing".

By contrast Ireland only has 85,400 immigrants as of April 2020.


https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/pme/populationandmigrationestimatesapril2020/#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20emigrants%20increased,%25)%20on%20the%20previous%20year.

So by using Enoch's logic it should be particularly easy to encourage them to leave the country.

take the money and come back the following year, seems the logical and likely thing that would happen.

gormdubhgorm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

So by using Enoch's logic it should be particularly easy to encourage them to leave the country.

Why do we need to encourage EU citizens to leave Ireland?

And the non-EU migrants who have been granted permission/citizenship in Ireland aren't going anywhere.. unless they, themselves, choose to leave for greener shores. The issue is about new migrants..

biko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Enoch Powell had an idea back in 1976 of inducing migrants to return 'home' offering £1000.

Sweden has this already.
The foreign family returning to their homeland can get travel paid for as well as just shy of 4000 Euro in cash for a large family.

TomTomTim

Deleted User wrote: »

The US and later, the UK were the first countries to take on the utter stupidity and self-destructiveness of identity politics, and social science's theories presented as fact (which they're not, and in most cases, there's been no unbiased research into the consequences of applying such social programming)

Thankfully, we're starting to see all the negative effects of applying this half baked nonsense to the real world. Double standards, reverse racism/sexism, excessive social divisions, a rise in aggressive behavior, and a general confusion regarding what's now acceptable in society (since the standards change so often, and are applied selectively to particular groups)



True enough. Not any more, because now people are starting to get involved, reading some of the absolute ****e that has come from the social sciences, and recognising how much of it is unproven gaff, with superficial covering to excuse racism towards white people (or Asians in some cases).

As someone who had to read a lot of political theory in college, the vast majority of it is absolute nonsense. They create theories, the theories get all but proven wrong, then they slightly adapt their theories, and still end up being wrong. It's actually one of the greatest examples of the delusions of social academics. Much of the failures actually come down to political correctness. Very relevant variables are often ignored because if they were included they'd cause offence. This then obviously results in deeply flawed theories because important aspects are overlooked.

seenitall

Sounds like pipe dreams for the forseeable, anyway. Doesn’t Coveney want them all in, in, in, and not out, out, out? And from what I can gather, he’s on track for the main position in the next decade..?

ILoveYourVibes

biko wrote: »

Sweden has this already.
The foreign family returning to their homeland can get travel paid for as well as just shy of 4000 Euro in cash for a large family.

Why would they leave sweden for that? I imagine they 'leave' and come back a lot.

CtevenSrowder

Sand wrote: »

I'm not denying culture has some importance, but when it comes to identifying members of the Irish ethnic group descent is the factor that distinguishes the Irish from non-Irish groups, in a way culture alone does not.

But it isn't. You have simply decided to impart more importance to that factor of the definition, then, for example, the nation the person is born (which is apart of the definition given. Here is another definition of ethnicity for example:

the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.

There is no mention of parental descent here. You have yet to give a definition that explicitly states that parental descent is of the most importance when determining ethnicity, because there isn't one.

Sand wrote: »

A person born to Irish parents is ethnically Irish regardless of where they are born. They are immersed in Irish culture in their homes from birth. A person born in Ireland to non-Irish parents is not ethnically Irish. And they are immersed in non-Irish culture in their homes from birth. That's entirely natural and there is nothing wrong with it, but you cant ignore it because its inconvenient.

This is mere opinion, stated as fact. How do you know a person born to parents from abroad isn't immersed in Irish culture? Culture, ofcourse, also extends beyond the home.

Sand wrote: »

The Irish state recognizes descent as the key factor because it automatically extends Irish citizenship to children of Irish parents, regardless of where they are born, but not to children born in Ireland to non-Irish parents. 80% of the Irish population backed that position in a referendum.

Well, no it doesn't. You can be born to British parents in Belfast and be able to get Irish citizenship. And regardless, the Irish state could tomorrow decide to grant Irish citizenship to those born in France if it wanted. The law can change as I'm sure you are aware. This line of argument does not boost your position. I do not understand why you continue with it.

Sand wrote: »

Let me try explain this differently. I see you're quite opinionated on the trans issue. Would you agree that if a person is raised by women, embraces women's culture, dresses like a woman, speaks like a woman, acts like a woman, identifies as a woman then they are a woman, regardless of them being biologically male? I doubt it given the views I see you express on the JK Rowling thread. I wont be getting into a trans debate, but you hang your hat on substance (biology/descent) in one argument, and on form (culture/gender) in another.

No, because to be a women you have to be biological female. A women is a an 'adult human female'.

To be ethnically Irish you do not just have to be born to Irish parents, as per the given definition:

An ethnic group or ethnicity is a named social category of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups such as a common set of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion, or social treatment within their residing area

One is a simple question of biology, and the other isn't, as much as you may want it to be.

Sand wrote: »

A realist?

We'll agree to disagree!

Sand wrote: »

Even if I was born in Poland, Polish history wouldn't be my history. My history would still be derived from the experiences of my ancestors, not someone elses.

Again, no-one owns history. You can ofcourse feel a deep affiliation with a particular time in human history that happened in a particular area of the World, but then again so can someone born in that particular area, whether to foreign parents or not.

Sand wrote: »

Well, your girlfriend wasn't born in Spain right? So by your definition she's not ethnically Spanish, right? still be derived from the experiences of my ancestors, not someone elses.

Firstly no, as the definition is broader than merely were one was born. Seriously, go read the definition again. There are multiple factors at play. Not just one like you seem to believe. And secondly, the reason I brought her up was to show that the idea that someone born to foreign parents in a country has no roots in that country is ludicrous.

Sand wrote: »

I'm not ignoring it. I'm placing it in its proper context. Culture is constantly shifting and changing. The Irish culture of the 1950s was very different to the Irish culture of today. You cant come up with a cultural definition of being Irish that doesn't exclude whole swathes of the population (then or now), or is so watered down and accessible that it amounts to no more than celebrating St Arthur's day with a pint of the black stuff.

Irish culture is derived from Irish people, not the other way around. It will constantly evolve and change as the Irish people take up or discard points of view, religious beliefs, styles of music, sports, pastimes and so on. You cannot fix it at one point in time and say this is Irish, and anything else is not Irish, anymore than Canute could command the waves.

You are not placing it in context. You are ignoring it completely. One can only be ethnically Irish in your view if born to Irish parents. It is black and white. As such culture plays no part at all in how you are trying to define ethicity. You could be the most stereotypical Irish person (speak Irish in an Irish accent, play in a Trad band, Irish dance, love 'the craic', play GAA, only drink Guinness etc.), but have parents from 60 miles across the Irish Sea, and in your view that person is not ethnically Irish. You flat out ignore culture.

Sand wrote: »

Descent is far more stable definition of ethnicity. It's why 80% of the Irish population backed Irish descent as automatically extending Irish citizenship to the child, not place of birth.

Descent is only one aspect in every definition I have read. You are trying to redefine words to suit yourself, exactly the kind of thing that happens in the trans-threads I've been involved in.

Sand wrote: »

Sure, they can become Irish passport holders/citizens through naturalisation, but they still wouldn't be ethnically Irish unless of Irish descent. I can naturalise as a citizen of South Africa, but it doesn't make me a Zulu.

Again, you miss the point. You bring up the Law to back your argument, but it doesn't.

Sand wrote: »

They're not ethnically Irish. You seem to believe I'm denying them something. I'm not. Again, I feel I have to point out that ethnicity is not a costume you can wear.

I'm not saying it is. But what it is is more complex than you are trying to make out. Here, maybe this will explain it better (ignore the race aspect, I am not suggesting you are equation skin-colour with ethnicity)

These words are often used interchangeably, but technically, they're defined as separate things. "'Race' and 'ethnicity' have been and continue to be used as ways to describe human diversity," said Nina Jablonski, an anthropologist and palaeobiologist at The Pennsylvania State University, who is known for her research into the evolution of human skin color. "Race is understood by most people as a mixture of physical, behavioral and cultural attributes. Ethnicity recognizes differences between people mostly on the basis of language and shared culture."

In other words, race is often perceived as something that's inherent in our biology, and therefore inherited across generations. Ethnicity, on the other hand, is typically understood as something we acquire, or self-ascribe, based on factors like where we live or the culture we share with others.

Sand wrote: »

I might surmise from your username that you are at least aware of Stephen Crowder, the US conservative/alt light youtuber? I'm not particularly familiar with him myself and I dare not review his youtube channel for fear of Youtube drowning me with recommendations for more videos from Crowder, JK Peterson, Douglas Murray and the like. However, I take it that he, like you, is appalled by identity politics in the US. And the general takeaway is that everyone who practices identity politics needs to stop, abandon their identity, and just act as individuals rather than groups organised for collective interests. Then all will be right with the world.

I don't believe that are their views and they aren't mine, but I digress.

Sand wrote: »

The problem with that is identity politics & collective action works. So why in the world would groups (i.e. Black Lives Matter) that practice identity politics give it up? Asking your opponent to stop using this approach which is allowing them to dominate US politics is a fools errand.

But either way, the wailing about identity politics is an American conservative viewpoint based on the american myth of rugged individualism and 1980's nostalgia. It's failing in the US, its not the solution in Ireland. Everyone else, all around the world, is just getting on with getting what they want while US conservatives delude themselves.

I have not called for 'rugged individualism'. If anything I've done the opposite. 'African Irish' will describe less people than simply Irish. Honestly, I have no idea what this has to do with anything though. I flat out oppose the Americanisation of our politics and political discourse that has/is creeping into our politics here, whether it be of a right or left-wing variation.

CtevenSrowder

biko wrote: »

I and my Galway wife moves to China and live there 3 years and have a child there.
Our child goes to Chinese school (speaks Chinese) for 10 years and have approx 50/50 Irish and Chinese friends.

Is the child Irish or Chinese?

Both, potentially. But then again, I'm not the one pretending that ethnicity is always easy to determine, or that it solely comes down to where your parents were born, because it isn't and it doesn't. Ethnicity and descendance are not the same thing.

What about a Welsh couple from Holyhead, who move to Connemara in Galway, live there for a few years and have a child. That Child spends the next 48 years in Ireland, is fluent in Irish, played county, teaches Irish History in University, has all their friends in Ireland, their wife and kids also, only ever returning to Wales to cheer on Ireland in the 6 Nations.

Ethnically Irish, or Welsh?

biko

Welsh that grew up in Ireland

CtevenSrowder

biko wrote: »

Welsh that grew up in Ireland

Why?

Marcos

Hamachi wrote: »

If you are interested, I suggest you read Robert Putnam’s research in ‘Bowling Alone’, in which he documents how the bonds of social capital are depleted in diverse settings.

As a follow on to this, his latest research a five year study on immigration and ethnic diversity shows that

immigration and ethnic diversity have a devastating short- and medium-term influence on the social capital, fabric of associations, trust, and neighborliness that create and sustain communities. . .

Putnam’s study reveals that immigration and diversity not only reduce social capital between ethnic groups, but also within the groups themselves. Trust, even for members of one’s own race, is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friendships fewer. The problem isn’t ethnic conflict or troubled racial relations, but withdrawal and isolation. Putnam writes: “In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’—that is, to pull in like a turtle.”

This proved true in communities large and small, from big cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Boston to tiny Yakima, Washington, rural South Dakota, and the mountains of West Virginia. In diverse San Francisco and Los Angeles, about 30 percent of people say that they trust neighbors a lot. In ethnically homogeneous communities in the Dakotas, the figure is 70 percent to 80 percent.

It's not that diversity is producing bad relations but people in more diverse communities tend to withdraw from close friends, expect the worst from their community and leaders, volunteer less, give less to charity, agitate for more social reform but believe that it's fruitless as they can't influence change, so they huddle unhappily in front of TV, laptops or phones. And he also acknowledges that such research could have underestimated the real effect of diversity on social withdrawal.

Does this ring true with people? As Irish/Western/European/American society has become more diverse, has there been a sense of people expecting the worst of society and those in control? Are people feeling more angry and powerless at the same time? Or is diversity our strength?

Hamachi wrote: »

Those with the financial means (aka the middle class) flee to more homogenous areas, whereas those with less financial resources (presumably the ‘working class’) are stuck in their community that is no longer recognizable and where social cohesion has been utterly eroded. Did you ever consider that this might explain why these folks may be a little disgruntled by wholesale demographic change vs. the middle class, who continue espouse their idealistic rhetoric, from the comfort of their homogenous boltholes?

Putnam disagrees with you there. His research of 41 sites in the US found that the more diverse the neighbourhood, the less residents trusted their neighbours.

This proved true in communities large and small, from big cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Boston to tiny Yakima, Washington, rural South Dakota, and the mountains of West Virginia. In diverse San Francisco and Los Angeles, about 30 percent of people say that they trust neighbors a lot. In ethnically homogeneous communities in the Dakotas, the figure is 70 percent to 80 percent. . .Neither age nor disparities of wealth explain this result. “Americans raised in the 1970s,” he writes, “seem fully as unnerved by diversity as those raised in the 1920s.” And the “hunkering down” occurred no matter whether the communities were relatively egalitarian or showed great differences in personal income. Even when communities are equally poor or rich, equally safe or crime-ridden, diversity correlates with less trust of neighbors, lower confidence in local politicians and news media, less charitable giving and volunteering, fewer close friends, and less happiness.

He hasn't fully published his research yet, just the initial findings as he feels it would be too irresponsible to publish without developing proposals to counter the negative effects of diversity.

Going by his own work, I think we'll be waiting a long time especially if he's correct that heavy immigration will inflict social deterioration for decades to come, harming immigrants as well as the native-born. He hopes that everyone will just come together and hold hands in a kumbaya moment and everything will be wonderful. But given the disdain for integration does anybody honestly think that will happen?

Geuze

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

By contrast Ireland only has 85,400 immigrants as of April 2020.

That figure is a flow, not a stock.

It includes many Irish people returning.