Black History Month Ireland, why?

Same here.

I can't remeber Made in Japan being considered tat. 70s onwards anyways

Made in China was extremely rare, if it existed at all

Hong Kong and Taiwan were the cheap tatty ones.

Surely the fact that the people being celebrated were/are Irish is more relevant than their skin colour.

Pointing out their "difference" is just saying they're "not really" Irish.

Anything that draws attention to frankly unimportant issues like skin colour (we're all equal in the eyes of any rational person) isn't a worthwhile endeavor and the knots some people tie themselves into defending this as a concept never ceases to amaze.

A glance at the weekly headlines will tell you that a certain ethnic minority I'm not allowed to name have that market cornered.

Welcome to inclusive history, yeah we know who was and who wasn't there but that won't stop people telling us that there should be adding others to make them feel included in Irish history ,

It's bollo5ksology of the highest order and my licence fee going towards this carp.

MLK was idealistic, but also pragmatic and mostly moderate about how to achieve his goals. He understood that African-Americans were less than 12% of the US population (at the time), and that the best outcome for them was to achieve equality in the US, alongside all other Americans. He knew that to do this, he couldnt simply get on a public platform and start making angry demands. He might be right, be he wouldn't get anywhere. Instead he built up a coalition of all kinds of Americans. He explained in moderate language what the injustices facing African-Americans were, convinced the majority of righteousness and the urgency of his cause. And the created a path the remedy these issues. What does he have to show for his efforts? All the civil rights legislation of the 1960s.

Its true that he's less exciting than Malcolm X. But what are criteria for greatness here?

Malcolm X entered public life after joining the Nation of Islam. Still a rather odd group. They have a racist founding belief that the original people of the world were created "black". But that a black scientist Yacub who lived 6,600 years ago began the creation of the white race/white people. He is said to have done this through a form of selective breeding referred to as "grafting". The brutal conditions of their creation explains the inherent evil of "white" people. During most of his time with the Nation, Malcolm X preached this doctrine of Black Supremacy, "white devils" etc.

The Nation believes we are living in "end times", and they will be rescued by a Mothership when the Apocalypse happens.

What we know of as the "civil rights" movement was hugely involved in restoring and protecting the voting rights of African-Americans, but the Nation forbade its members from voting.

They preached self-sufficiency and being "separate". In 1961, the Nation invited the leadership of the American Nazi Party to one of their rallies. The idea was that Nazis and Black Muslims could be allies since they both sought the same goal—separation of the races. At this rally, Malcolm delivered a talk entitled “Separation or Death”. “Muslims are not for integration and not for segregation, Separation!”. The Nation met with the KKK for the same reason around that time.

George Lincoln Rockwell and members of the American Nazi Party attend a Nation of Islam summit, 1961 - Rare Historical Photos

Around 1963 Malcolm became disillusioned with the Nation. He could see its divergence from mainstream Sunni Islam. He became aware of its leaders (elijah muhammed) affairs with young women, etc, etc. in 1964 broke with the Nation, and advised African Americans to vote, he moved towards sunni islam. He made a pilgrimage to Mecca, seeing Muslims of "all colors, from blue-eyed blonds to black-skinned Africans," interacting as equals led him to see Islam as a means by which racial problems could be overcome. Then in Feb 1965, he was assasinated. Most likely by the Nation of Islam.

So what did he achieve? Promoting a message of "empowerment" perhaps. But he was dead two years after having a massive change of direction on so many issues.

Unsurprisingly, I'd argue the complete opposite. Trying to ignore differences, like race by claiming to 'not see colour', is the much more simplistic and childish way of looking at the world.

It is really the type of comment you expect from an insulated child, who hasn’t seen the world outside of their safe bubble. Even in the extremely unlikely situation where you truly see everyone as equal, the perspective only holds up if you again take the childlike view that everyone else in the world sees things the same as you and also doesn’t see and act on differences – which we know for a fact isn’t true due to the many examples of racism, sexism etc. 

By trying to push your narrative you ignore the experiences of those who have and are treated negatively due to their differences, in the case of race where these negative impacts can be seen generation after generation. The view also shows the lack of self awareness and arrogance seen in a lot of teenagers who are repulsed when it is pointed out that maybe they were put in a position where it was easier for them to succeed than others.

The fact that you seem to believe your post has nothing to do with equality is very telling. Nearly all evidence says that race isn't 'practically meaningless' in the outcomes for generations of people across the world.

Again, even if you truly only pay attention to the individual for your approach to work you have to take the sheltered, childish opinion that everyone sees the world and acts as you do - which they clearly do not. There is no way to deal with racism today, ignoring historical racism impacting people today, by looking at each individual, all you're giving yourself is an excuse to put your head in the sand to the facts of the world we are living.