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

Slowyourrole

Deleted User wrote: »

If anything shows us where we are in 2020 it's a couple getting sacked for flying a banner saying white lives matter while a cambridge professor gets promoted days after tweeting white lives don't matter.

The banner brought attention to them but I'm fairly sure it was the social media posts about sending black people home on banana boats that got them fired.

joe40

Gradius wrote: »

It's the rapidity of it all that's astounding. I remember that if you saw a coloured person anywhere, it was like seeing a giraffe walking down the street. Unheard of.

To go from that to the likes of your woman in Cambridge declaring that "white lives don't matter" in such short time is genuinely hard to fathom.

Granted that Cambridge isn't Ireland of course, but the change in discourse is still awesome in scale.

I'm trying to imagine some similarly shocking change in the near future. Watching people go from walking upright to on all fours?? Bizarre.

Such a load of nonsense. I'm 50 and nobody thought Paul McGrath or Phil Lynott were as rare as a giraffe walking down a street.
Coloured is incredibly offensive but I'm sure you won't mind.
You're entitled to use the term of course, that is your right. But why be offensive deliberately.

Gradius

joe40 wrote: »

Such a load of nonsense. I'm 50 and nobody thought Paul McGrath or Phil Lynott were as rare as a giraffe walking down a street.
Coloured is incredibly offensive but I'm sure you won't mind.
You're entitled to use the term of course, that is your right. But why be offensive deliberately.

There's a big old difference between television and real life. I wouldn't have been amazed to see a spaceship on TV, but I damn well would be if one flew down the street in front of me!

So no, not nonsense.

Oh so "coloured" is incredibly offensive now, is it? Let me just flagellate myself here for not keeping up with the daily updated list of offences, you sap

joe40

Gradius wrote: »

There's a big old difference between television and real life. I wouldn't have been amazed to see a spaceship on TV, but I damn well would be if one flew down the street in front of me!

So no, not nonsense.

Oh so "coloured" is incredibly offensive now, is it? Let me just flagellate myself here for not keeping up with the daily updated list of offences, you sap

No need to flagellate your self, I was expecting a response like that.
You use whatever term you wish that is fine.
If basic good manners is beyond you so be it.

olestoepoke

Gradius wrote: »

There's a big old difference between television and real life. I wouldn't have been amazed to see a spaceship on TV, but I damn well would be if one flew down the street in front of me!

So no, not nonsense.

Oh so "coloured" is incredibly offensive now, is it? Let me just flagellate myself here for not keeping up with the daily updated list of offences, you sap

I'm almost 50 and grew up in Coolock and as a young boy saw a black family that lived near by on a regular basis.

Gradius

joe40 wrote: »

No need to flagellate your self, I was expecting a response like that.
You use whatever term you wish that is fine.
If basic good manners is beyond you so be it.

Of course you expected that kind of response. You had the entire set up by...

1) implying that I'm a liar
2) assuming that I know that some new word has been added to some godforsaken "list" of what you are not allowed say, so I'm bring deliberately offensive
3) that not only is "coloured "offensive", but that it is INCREDIBLY offensive. If you consider that word incredible, you must have grown up under a stone.and lived there until now. Exaggerated bollix, in other words.
4) insinuate that to not follow the mandate passed to you by dopes is to be impolite, an attempt to assert some kind of moral grounding. Also bollix.

A 50 year old Irish bloke feigning incredulity on behalf of no doubt some American dope in order to police what another Irish person can and can't say is madness, and in it's own way IS offensive. Offensively stupid, that is. That in itself tells me that my initial observation is still correct, that these are the thoughts of a sap. The good news is that you can stop being that way, it's up to you.

joe40

Gradius wrote: »

Of course you expected that kind of response. You had the entire set up by...

1) implying that I'm a liar
2) assuming that I know that some new word has been added to some godforsaken "list" of what you are not allowed say, so I'm bring deliberately offensive
3) that not only is "coloured "offensive", but that it is INCREDIBLY offensive. If you consider that word incredible, you must have grown up under a stone.and lived there until now. Exaggerated bollix, in other words.
4) insinuate that to not follow the mandate passed to you by dopes is to be impolite, an attempt to assert some kind of moral grounding. Also bollix.

A 50 year old Irish bloke feigning incredulity on behalf of no doubt some American dope in order to police what another Irish person can and can't say is madness, and in it's own way IS offensive. Offensively stupid, that is. That in itself tells me that my initial observation is still correct, that these are the thoughts of a sap. The good news is that you can stop being that way, it's up to you.

Yeah as I thought, basic good manners is beyond you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/30999175/warning-why-using-the-term-coloured-is-offensive

Just in the off chance you might be interested, but I doubt you will be

Gradius

joe40 wrote: »

Yeah as I thought, basic good manners is beyond you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/30999175/warning-why-using-the-term-coloured-is-offensive

Just in the off chance you might be interested, but I doubt you will be

There's nothing "good manners" about parroting tripe either. You saw a word, and it triggered your response. Grow up.

And you're too right, I don't give a flying fook about some random arseholes list telling what I can and can't say, on behalf of some internet void, to curry favour with an internet void. BBC, ITV, HIV, whoever happens to be jumping on some nebulous bandwagon of impotent frustration, it matters not.

Arthur Daley

Gradius wrote: »

It's the rapidity of it all that's astounding. I remember that if you saw a coloured person anywhere, it was like seeing a giraffe walking down the street. Unheard of.

To go from that to the likes of your woman in Cambridge declaring that "white lives don't matter" in such short time is genuinely hard to fathom.

Granted that Cambridge isn't Ireland of course, but the change in discourse is still awesome in scale.

I'm trying to imagine some similarly shocking change in the near future. Watching people go from walking upright to on all fours?? Bizarre.

It's the subversion of democracy here that is alarming.

Do you remember when you voted for all this?

joe40

joe40 wrote: »

Such a load of nonsense. I'm 50 and nobody thought Paul McGrath or Phil Lynott were as rare as a giraffe walking down a street.
Coloured is incredibly offensive but I'm sure you won't mind.
You're entitled to use the term of course, that is your right. But why be offensive deliberately.

Depends where you grew up. I'm 43 and from Athlone. I can remember when the first African family (who were also Jehovah witnesses) moved into the town, and the gossip started long before I actually saw them. Hard to miss with their colorful fashions and rather impressive physical size. Sure, we'd had black priests come and address us at Mass but it was different when it was a complete family set.

Within the next decade, another three African families settled in my hometown, and most people started getting used to it.

If you're from a city area, or spent more time visiting the larger population centers, you'd probably have seen more racial groups. When I was young, there was little point going to Dublin (we didn't have the money for that kind of expense), and spending time in Galway was a special event... Simply put, we spent our time in the smaller towns/villages.

Black people were very rare in my area until the late 80s/early 90s. Plenty of Asian families though.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

I literally don’t know what to call them. I’ve heard everything is offensive. Coloured, POC and even black! I heard a new one acronym today on the radio. BAM or something. I can’t even remember.

Coloured people = racist.

People OF colour = not racist.

A quick google search suggests the second one is indeed racist. So who knows.

Carry on.

Absolute clown world.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

TikTokTim wrote: »

BAME.
Black African Middle Eastern is my best guess.
Seen it mentioned in the football a lot lately

Thanks. Good to know for the next 6 months til it changes again

olestoepoke

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I literally don’t know what to call them. I’ve heard everything is offensive. Coloured, POC and even black! I heard a new one acronym today on the radio. BAM or something. I can’t even remember.

Coloured people = racist.

People OF colour = not racist.

A quick google search suggests the second one is indeed racist. So who knows.

Carry on.

Absolute clown world.

Daoine gorm (blue people) or fear gorm (blue man) is probably safest as in it will most probably confuse most and they won't pull you on being a racist. I thought we called black folks fear gorm because they we had never seen a person of colour and they looked blue on the black and white TVs many years ago. This is what I was told as a child anyway probably nonsense. In fact fear dubh (black man) typically refers to the devil in the irish language so maybe fear gorm was the nearest alternative.

Hunky Monster

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Thanks. Good to know for the next 6 months til it changes again

Not terribly useful since you're assuming someones nationality/ethnicity... that's a no no, too.

So unless you know for certain a person's background, it wouldn't be a suitable term.

cooperguy

Deleted User wrote: »

If anything shows us where we are in 2020 it's a couple getting sacked for flying a banner saying white lives matter while a cambridge professor gets promoted days after tweeting white lives don't matter.

Why do people insist on ignoring context and then getting offended at someone "only" saying white lives matter.

That phrase did not exist before people used Black Lives Matter as a tag line to talk about racism against black people. Its inherently dismissive of racism and tries to minimise the issues.

take everything

Deleted User wrote: »

Because the sense of entitlement is so strong. They feel that they're entitled to have everything provided for them, so if they destroy everything, someone else will pick up the bill, and they'll come out on top.

It's hardly a surprise. Minority activism has been at play for over two decades now, first with feminism, then LBG, and now with everything else, with race having a particular trump card. (longer than two decades, but its presence has been truly strong over the last two decades)

The problem with the encouragment of multiculturalism, is that it feeds into creating minorities, all of whom are entitled to be protected. The NGO's, Charities, lobbyists, and activists have ensured that minorities know that they have this "right" to be provided everything on the backs of the white people. Which is why (as Wibbs has said) we never hear that Ethiopia is too black, or that China is too Asian. Instead, Western nations need other racial (and cultural) groups for them to be successful, dismissing that these nations were far more successful when immigration by other racial groups was extremely limited.

This isn't about dealing with reality. This is about reshaping reality. Which is why we have this crap with "chop" going on. Or the PC brigade which continues to reinvent itself, reinforcing a creed that seeks to encourage divisions. PC culture tramples on peoples rights to express themselves... and that encourages bitterness and anger, which feeds into racism, which proves that the activists are needed. With activists who are entitled to protection even when they reject the government or every aspect of society in favor of anarchy.

They're not responsible for whatever happens because they are either victims themselves, or they represent victims. So, they'll dismiss the systems that keep people safe, and dismiss any suggestion that they're responsible for any deaths or suffering caused by their movement, because they're still entitled to be protected/provided for.... and they're entitled to act against the system that provides for them.

The world has gone full retard. I swear China, Russia, etc must be laughing themselves silly right now at the self-destructive impulses of western society. All they need to do is wait, while we tear ourselves apart...

Have to agree with a lot of this.
I keep wondering when people in the West are going to become tired of this bull**** childish behaviour.

There are so many stark hypocrisies and absurdities to be pointed out in this stuff that i'm amazed rational people don't just say enough already of this bull****.

As you say, why isn't Japan or China vilified for its policies on immigration/multiculturalism. Whats that about. They are laughing at the West. That Chinese term for this bull****/white guilt someone posted is so on the money it's funny.

It's almost natural to vilify white people, despite their societies bending over backwards to accommodate and integrate minorities

I'm slow to use terms like Clown World but there really is no other way to describe these absurdities.

irishproduce

Deleted User wrote: »

Because the sense of entitlement is so strong. They feel that they're entitled to have everything provided for them, so if they destroy everything, someone else will pick up the bill, and they'll come out on top.

It's hardly a surprise. Minority activism has been at play for over two decades now, first with feminism, then LBG, and now with everything else, with race having a particular trump card. (longer than two decades, but its presence has been truly strong over the last two decades)

The problem with the encouragment of multiculturalism, is that it feeds into creating minorities, all of whom are entitled to be protected. The NGO's, Charities, lobbyists, and activists have ensured that minorities know that they have this "right" to be provided everything on the backs of the white people. Which is why (as Wibbs has said) we never hear that Ethiopia is too black, or that China is too Asian. Instead, Western nations need other racial (and cultural) groups for them to be successful, dismissing that these nations were far more successful when immigration by other racial groups was extremely limited.

This isn't about dealing with reality. This is about reshaping reality. Which is why we have this crap with "chop" going on. Or the PC brigade which continues to reinvent itself, reinforcing a creed that seeks to encourage divisions. PC culture tramples on peoples rights to express themselves... and that encourages bitterness and anger, which feeds into racism, which proves that the activists are needed. With activists who are entitled to protection even when they reject the government or every aspect of society in favor of anarchy.

They're not responsible for whatever happens because they are either victims themselves, or they represent victims. So, they'll dismiss the systems that keep people safe, and dismiss any suggestion that they're responsible for any deaths or suffering caused by their movement, because they're still entitled to be protected/provided for.... and they're entitled to act against the system that provides for them.

The world has gone full retard. I swear China, Russia, etc must be laughing themselves silly right now at the self-destructive impulses of western society. All they need to do is wait, while we tear ourselves apart...

A really excellent coherent well put together post. Thanks.

Gradius

cooperguy wrote: »

Why do people insist on ignoring context and then getting offended at someone "only" saying white lives matter.

That phrase did not exist before people used Black Lives Matter as a tag line to talk about racism against black people. Its inherently dismissive of racism and tries to minimise the issues.

I just can't imagine what it would be like to be a child now in Ireland, or in the future.

What impact would that have had, hearing and seeing the likes of someone telling that my life distinctly doesn't matter because I'm "white", seeing it come from some prestigious place like Cambridge across the way?

There's something sickening about the intended nature behind it all. That's why I wasn't particularly cordial toward the offended-on-behalf man above, he's part of that chastising movement, whether he realises it or not. Insidious and creeping.

joe40

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I literally don’t know what to call them. I’ve heard everything is offensive. Coloured, POC and even black! I heard a new one acronym today on the radio. BAM or something. I can’t even remember.

Coloured people = racist.

People OF colour = not racist.

A quick google search suggests the second one is indeed racist. So who knows.

Carry on.

Absolute clown world.

I really don't understand why you find it complicated. I wouldn't call someone from Pakistan a "Paki" Irish people don't like been called "paddy" definitely wouldn't call a black person a Ni**er ( don't think you would either) it really is not complicated.

The term coloured has a lot of links to segregation, so if people don't like I won't use.

Kids with learning difficulties used to be called retarded, that term isn't used any more. Would you still call a child retarded if they had a learning difficulty.

Some people present this as some sort of PC control thing. I honestly don't get that at all. For me it does come down to basic manners.
If black people don't want to be called coloured I honestly don't see the problem.

Why insist on using the term just to make a point.

Nothing to do with chastisement or whatever.

But ultimately do your own thing, it's still a free world.

cooperguy

take everything wrote: »

Have to agree with a lot of this.
I keep wondering when people in the West are going to become tired of this bull**** childish behaviour.

There are so many stark hypocrisies and absurdities to be pointed out in this stuff that i'm amazed rational people don't just say enough already of this bull****.

As you say, why isn't Japan or China vilified for its policies on immigration/multiculturalism. Whats that about. They are laughing at the West. That Chinese term for this bull****/white guilt someone posted is so on the money it's funny.

It's almost natural to vilify white people, despite their societies bending over backwards to accommodate and integrate minorities

I'm slow to use terms like Clown World but there really is no other way to describe these absurdities.

I don't. Are we saying that we didnt need gay and feminist activism a few decades ago? Or is it just now that its "reinvented itself" its no longer needed.

It basically plays on lazy stereotypes. Minorities coming here to be provided with something on the back of the white man. The minorities I actually meet have no interest in that, they just want to work.

I havent been particularly stopped from expressing myself either. It can be vaguely annoying when a phrase comes in that's either now on trend or not allowed. But its really doesn't impact me particularly hard...

irishproduce

Wibbs wrote: »

Because Eastern Europeans are White Europeans. Simple as that. White faces don't look good in HR department posters or NGO front pages. They're not the Right sort of immigrant or multicultural. Same for the thousands of German, French, Italian, Russian, Spanish, British etc White folks living here. Most people don't realise there are over 100,000 British people living here, over 10,000 each of Germans, French, Spanish and Italians. You won't see them in posters glorifying our diversity. They may as well be invisible to the progressives.

Like I noted earlier, none of these multiculturalist muppets would dream of suggesting a Black nation is in need of the "diversity" of a large influx of White people, but they're very particular about what kind of "diversity" they want and it's only White people who need it. So Ireland could be one of the most multicultural places on Earth, but if those sub cultures were only pale of face White Europeans that wouldn't cut it. Not even close. You'll note East Asian folks don't get so much of a look in either and are definitely down the hierarchy of what is Correct Diversity. Like I also noted before there is very much a hierarchy of "race" with your progressive types and it exactly follows the hierarchy of out and out racists. They're both just as obsessed by it.

TL;DR? the darker the berry, the sweeter the juice of attention and virtue.

It's true. When you write it out like that. It's as though the NGO and RTE types are obsessed with people of colour.
If you stood back from it, assessed it objectively and took away the emotion of the subject, you'd have to conclude there is something wrong with them. They're delusional with regards to their own outwardly image they portray.
They should be challenged on it. What is their issue and maybe they can get help with it.

Kaybaykwah

cooperguy wrote: »

I don't. Are we saying that we didnt need gay and feminist activism a few decades ago? Or is it just now that its "reinvented itself" its no longer needed.

It basically plays on lazy stereotypes. Minorities coming here to be provided with something on the back of the white man. The minorities I actually meet have no interest in that, they just want to work.

I havent been particularly stopped from expressing myself either. It can be vaguely annoying when a phrase comes in that's either now on trend or not allowed. But its really doesn't impact me particularly hard...

Totally dead on.


None of this multi-culti bashing does anything for me, nor the talk of special interest, minority groups, etc...

The fact that someone in this thread posted about feminists sticking up for a minority speaks volumes.

Also, the idea that the White Western Civilization turning on itself, jumping off a cliff is ludicrous. You are just as likely to read about some ****ed up happening in Africa, Asia, in a liberal rag like the Guardian, than you are about something amiss in the US, UK, elsewhere in the West.

The take away is that there have always been issues to confront, and the process of demanding justice is a continued one, that this continuum is daunting for some who are on the defensive when confronted with a changing environment.

take everything

cooperguy wrote: »

It basically plays on lazy stereotypes. Minorities coming here to be provided with something on the back of the white man. The minorities I actually meet have no interest in that, they just want to work.
.

But is it a stereotype.
Why aren't masses of people from the US and Europe emigrating to Africa, parts of the Middle East or South/Central America, availing of all the things their cultures provide and giving out endlessly about how racist they are.
It seems to be one way and a very definite pattern.

Does the actual overall evidence chime with your anecdotal data. In terms of benefits to economies, crime etc.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

joe40 wrote: »

I really don't understand why you find it complicated. I wouldn't call someone from Pakistan a "Paki" Irish people don't like been called "paddy" definitely wouldn't call a black person a Ni**er ( don't think you would either) it really is not complicated.

The term coloured has a lot of links to segregation, so if people don't like I won't use.

Kids with learning difficulties used to be called retarded, that term isn't used any more. Would you still call a child retarded if they had a learning difficulty.

Some people present this as some sort of PC control thing. I honestly don't get that at all. For me it does come down to basic manners.
If black people don't want to be called coloured I honestly don't see the problem.

Why insist on using the term just to make a point.

Nothing to do with chastisement or whatever.

But ultimately do your own thing, it's still a free world.

I accept the points you make but I wasn’t having a dig at the terms they want to be called but more of a dig at the ever changing language we’re supposed to use.

Google any of those terms, poc, coloured, black etc and you’ll find every term is racist. There’s no winning at all.

Personally I think “black” is fine. I have black friends, family, work mates who refer to THEMSELVES as black. This new POC, BAME thing will evolve into some other acronym in a few months again when some woke high profile twitter uses gets “offended”.

joe40

joe40 wrote: »

I really don't understand why you find it complicated. I wouldn't call someone from Pakistan a "Paki" Irish people don't like been called "paddy" definitely wouldn't call a black person a Ni**er ( don't think you would either) it really is not complicated.

The term coloured has a lot of links to segregation, so if people don't like I won't use.

Kids with learning difficulties used to be called retarded, that term isn't used any more. Would you still call a child retarded if they had a learning difficulty.

Some people present this as some sort of PC control thing. I honestly don't get that at all. For me it does come down to basic manners.
If black people don't want to be called coloured I honestly don't see the problem.

Why insist on using the term just to make a point.

Nothing to do with chastisement or whatever.

But ultimately do your own thing, it's still a free world.

Perhaps because it's a term that was mostly kept within US culture, and the subsequent outrage over it's use was also born in the US?

The same with most of the terms being highlighted as being offensive. They're coined and then designated as being nasty in the US. Why is it that the English language for the whole world is being dictated by people who are outraged over just about everything?

Take N***** for example. I hate the word. Disgusting way to describe another person, regardless of the context. However, Black people have full freedom to use the phrase towards each other, but anyone else who uses it, is being offensive. Even when white people use it towards other white people, it's offensive to Black people... but they can use it towards each other without the negative connotation? Who decides that?

Just as I've never liked the use of Bit.ch to describe a woman, and yet, you can hear it from many black people in describing their partners, and friends. But it's a bad word, isn't it? It's demeaning, isn't it?

Double standards abound. They really do. The use of the word colored didn't really need to be used, because most Europeans would use Black or African to describe those they encountered. There was little need for other terms, because our exposure to Black people was not the same as the US... and there wasn't any serious drive to "police" language.. policing language by allowing double standards. Funny how it's perfectly acceptable to use hillbilly, redneck, etc when talking about poor white people in the US. No outrage there about labeling people incorrectly.

We (Europeans) should not be following in the steps of the US. It's completely divided them as a nation. They're seriously ****ed, and yet, so many people here want to import their BS as if it's perfectly reasonable... except it doesn't stay reasonable.

cooperguy

take everything wrote: »

But is it a stereotype.
Why aren't masses of people from the US and Europe emigrating to Africa, parts of the Middle East or South/Central America, availing of all the things their cultures provide and giving out endlessly about how racist they are.
It seems to be one way and a very definite pattern.

Does the actual overall evidence chime with your anecdotal data. In terms of benefits to economies, crime etc.

Err yes, it does. Absolutely. The people from the poorer countries with less opportunities to make a life for themselves move to the countries where there is opportunity. It has been like this for generations as a (presumably) Irish person you should be at least vaguely aware of this. Of course there are also the war zones that people are escaping from.

As for benefits to economies, at a basic level, Ireland was pretty much back at full employment before Covid. Remove all the immigrants who work here and the economy shrinks by a massive amount. The high tech sectors (IT, Med Tech, Pharma etc) and the service industry implodes without all that has been brought in.

And crime. The prison population, within a few percent reflects Irish Vs foreign nationality. The benefit to the economy far out-weights the fairly proportional impact on crime.

Kaybaykwah

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

The fact that someone in this thread posted about feminists sticking up for a minority speaks volumes.

You realise you got the point about feminism completely wrong? That speaks volumes, in itself.

Also, the idea that the White Western Civilization turning on itself, jumping off a cliff is ludicrous.

Ok, explain to me how the identity politics and racial divisions we are seeing in the US, and which are being transplanted into the UK, are a good thing.

This should be good, if you can be bothered to actually engage with the discussion being held.

You are just as likely to read about some ****ed up happening in Africa, Asia, in a liberal rag like the Guardian, than you are about something amiss in the US, UK, elsewhere in the West.

The take away is that there have always been issues to confront, and the process of demanding justice is a continued one, that this continuum is daunting for some who are on the defensive when confronted with a changing environment.

Gobbledygook.

Come on. Rather than simply dismissing the points made by various posters, how about actually making a stand and discussing them? Refute them.

cooperguy

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok, explain to me how the identity politics and racial divisions we are seeing in the US, and which are being transplanted into the UK, are a good thing.

This should be good, if you can be bothered to actually engage with the discussion being held.

This seems like such a bad take. The racial divisions in the US are not white people suddenly pulling themselves apart because of multiculturalism and immigrants. Its a long history from slavery that is bubbling up, again, over there. Not a desire for multiculturalism going wrong. The civil rights act only came in 1964. That stuff has repercussions.

Kaybaykwah

Deleted User wrote: »

You realise you got the point about feminism completely wrong? That speaks volumes, in itself.



Ok, explain to me how the identity politics and racial divisions we are seeing in the US, and which are being transplanted into the UK, are a good thing.

This should be good, if you can be bothered to actually engage with the discussion being held.



Gobbledygook.

Come on. Rather than simply dismissing the points made by various posters, how about actually making a stand and discussing them? Refute them.

Yes, as cooperguy just stated, the wounds are still fresh for Blacks in the US, and the remedial stuff was in many cases a band-aid, and slow to progress. If you had a decent education as a black, that wasn't a free ticket to a good job or a good neighborgood. There is a whole rich history of making it impossible for blacks to be part of the fabric of American Life outside of a very well defined cultural mindset. I agree with you about the demeaning language used by blacks and wannabe blacks and the violence eked out by the black community upon its members. There has been for a long time a culture of self.loathing and auto-destruction, and this needs to change as much as the forces that have done a lot to divide.


The Irish had a lot of these reflexes of self deprecation because of a long winded exposure to humiliation, and impotence in their own country. I think that the arrival of many ethnicities has been a boon to Ireland, economically and socially. I remember the Italian and Chinese and Eastern European Jewish population were the most prevalent, and numbered below ten thousand each. You cannot tell me the influx of many tens of thousands of immigrants hasn't been stimulating for the Irish Nation. How can it not be? What is bad about mixing ethnicities, and why would it be scary to you from the outset?

I believe the opposite of mixing is actually seriously menacing. Think of the Travelers culture of inbreeding, think of those who because of their poor upbringing never venture past their little pasture whether it be Sheriff Street or Tallaght or East Los Angeles. Something tells them they don't belong, and that they are not meant to attain.

Hamachi

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

The Irish had a lot of these reflexes of self deprecation because of a long winded exposure to humiliation, and impotence in their own country. I think that the arrival of many ethnicities has been a boon to Ireland, economically and socially. I remember the Italian and Chinese and Eastern European Jewish population were the most prevalent, and numbered below ten thousand each. You cannot tell me the influx of many tens of thousands of immigrants hasn't been stimulating for the Irish Nation. How can it not be? What is bad about mixing ethnicities, and why would it be scary to you from the outset?

The arrival of skilled migrants, primarily from the old and expanded EU has been a positive for Ireland. Many of these migrants are degree-level educated or skilled trades people. They are economically active almost from day one upon their arrival. Similarly, Asian migrants plug essential gaps in the health care sector. They contribute significantly to the economic development of this country and are almost universally welcomed by the general public. The degree to which they mix with Irish people is limited to date. However, this may change if they put down more permanent roots.

The same cannot be said for other cohorts of migrants. They enter the country in a dubious manner, subvert the asylum process, and over stay visas. Many do not possess the skill set to work in an advanced economy, their English language ability is rudimentary, and rates of welfare dependence are extraordinarily high. Socially, some of these groups are starting to ghettoize, particularly in west Dublin. The issues seen across Western Europe, as the second generation mature to adulthood, are already beginning to manifest in Ireland.

The very last noun I would apply to describe the latter category of migrant is a ‘boon’.