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

Black History Month Ireland, why?

Options
1910111315

Comments

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,161 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Yes and no Wren, rather the reasons are still up in the air. Take Tasmanian peoples, they were very dark skinned yet they lived in a (southern) temperate climate. Asians got a different set of genes that gave them lighter skin(and better ones too as unlike pale indo Europeans they suffer from skin cancers at about the same rate as darker Africans and their skin is more resistant to age related skin damage). One theory goes that it was farming that led to paler skin. Hunter gatherer diets tend to be far more varied and nutritious compared to farming diets and have more vitamin D available. So the idea goes that when we started farming in more temporate climes where the diet wasn't enough to cover our vit D needs lighter skin took over. Even this is conjecture as where farming first started the fertile crescent is extremely strong in sunlight and the peoples are much paler than Africans.

    The ancestors of Irish people today aren't the original hunter gatherers whose genetic legacy is almost entirely gone. They were replaced by farmers from the near east as were most of Europe's populations. Even Basques have a genetic disconnect between modern people and Basques of 5000 years ago. It looks like Neandertals were pale, but again there's a lot of conjecture going on because there isn't a "gene for colour", there's a suite of them and the skin tone of earlier peoples is not nearly the clearcut given that many of these reconstructions claim. For example the guys who did the Cheddar Gorge dark skinned early Briton are also the same guys who reconstructed a Neandertal woman with mousey reddish blonde hair and light eyes.


    Impressive but more art than science.

    There's a problem with such reconstructions; they pretty much always reflect the current wider "fashions", even politics, with often very shaky science. Look at reconstructions of Neandertals over the last hundred years. They start off as crooked "cavemen" with clubs, hairy and brutish, subhuman sports of god and stay that way for decades. Then when research showed non Africans have their DNA, so we got busy with each other around the campfire, it's remarkable, or not, how modern human looking they then become...

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    That's my claim from the book I quoted. I can't help it if everything isn't online.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Yes, but the obvious logical point is that if the book was accurate in what it claimed... it would be able to be confirmed or supported by a variety of sources online.

    I've done a range of searches online and I can't even get a footnote reference of their presence.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Doesn't mean it's incorrect. I'll find the book and give the relevant quote or quotes (which I doubt you will accept). I don't find it that hard to believe that a city at the heart of the colonial empire would have people from those colonies living here.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,161 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Contrary to the whole "Dublin second city of empire" thing we hear; that was an earlier period and by the late 19th century(and after one of the worst famines in modern European times) Dublin and Ireland was more a backwater and one that had one of the most populous slums in western Europe. It was not a place to "go west young man" to seek one's fortune. It was about the least industrialised city in the empire and Europe for a start. I am quite sure there were Black guys who came on ships into the port and availed themselves of Monto ladies, but any sort of presence seems to be a case of serious conjecture and remarkable invisibility. Indeed if IRA fighters in the GPO did have a contingent of men from the colonies of any stripe that would surely have been noted and widely so as a wider part of the whole down with English colonialism, but again this seems to be a remarkably invisible contingent. A Canadian was noted, but that's where it seems to stop.

    Yes there was a Black soldier, but even there he was an outlier. A few years back there was an episode of Doctor Who of all things that had British soldiers from Boer war times as part of the story and one of them was Black and a few people were calling revisionism on this. In the end they did some digging and did find one Black guy in a regiment from that time, but again he was an outlier.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    They weren't part of the armed revolutionaries as I recall, they barely had enough arms for themselves but happened to be there at the time and helped out.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,161 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    And yet something pretty unusual; that is people from other British colonies helping the Irish cause has only been noted it seems in one book and not more widely? I could see how the British wouldn't be too keen on mentioning it alright, but it would have been a very nice propaganda piece for Irish Republicans that even non Irish people from other parts of the British empire were helping our just cause with a mind to their own. One could imagine them growing in the telling, yet nada. You've pointed out that there was some African American support which has been noted, but on the ground?

    We know of others like the Polish born Herzog lad, the "Sinn Fein Rabbi" and fluent Irish speaker and Bob Briscoe who was one of the main armourers of the Republican forces and wider support from all sorts of quarters outside Ireland, but these other "forgotten dark skinned(students apparently)" GPO guys? Given it's one of the most picked apart narratives of our modern history and we're pretty damned sure of the names of the guys in that post office and many in the surrounding areas I'm really not buying this until anything approaching good evidence is to hand. Now I grant you that same narrative for many a year had everyone's grandfather in the GPO. So much so that if it were true the queue to get to O'Connell street would have stretched to Santry, but this smacks hard of a convenient revisionism. AKA in the parlance of Dublin a load of me bollex until proven otherwise.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    According to the source there were far more than one foreign person in the GPO at the time. I get it that why wasn't this more widely known but then again wasn't it 'Ourselves Alone', Irish blood etc etc and this mign't suit that narrative. I don't know when it was written but I doubt it was inspired by revisionism as you put it. I will look for the book and re read it for sources.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    There's a huge difference between there being "foreigners", and there being black people. Foreigners would mostly likely refer to peoples from predominately white nations, because of the culture of that time. There was extremely little respect for peoples of other races, it's highly doubtful that you would find Black people in Europe except in the major cities, such as London, or Paris. Possibly the industrial centers of Liverpool or such, because of the demand for labor.. but in an nation that was mostly agricultural in nature? It doesn't make sense.

    You say, that you get it why this isn't more widely known... but I don't get it. If there were Black people directly involved in the GPO or the general republican movement in Ireland, then there would be photos, poems, songs, accounts of their actions, etc. There would be plenty of somethings, because that's what the history of 1916 is like. Plenty of somethings from all manner of sources, but collected nonetheless. So, why do you think there's no mention of them, except in, one single book that you have....? Do your other books on the subject make reference to these Black people being involved in Ireland?

    (Yes, I keep saying "in Ireland" rather than have you start referencing the US or some other country)



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Afaik an argentine raised the tricouler at the gpo in 1916 (him being a surname bulfin of offaly? decent and educated by pearse at st endas!),though a finn and swede arrived along and took part as english were aligned with russia at the time


    Was under impression,the first real large amount of immigration into europe of blacks/indians etc was the french,belgian ,germam and british empires using their colonies (including here)for cannon-fodder during ww1,so surely the notion of blacks participating is therefore unlikely, though some may been sympathetic particularly with casements work on exposing the cruelty of what was going on in the congo.??



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    There were several people from other nations in the GPO in 1916. Way more than one Canadian. I also read about the Finn and the Swede taking part in the same source re the 'Black' group. Are people asking about proof of the Finn and the Swede too? or is it just the men of colour?



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ive no doubt they were/would be sympatethic (what with the brits ruling and colonzing/robbing half the world)....but feel its unlikely to be case?


    Ive never seen it in any of the bureau military history documents (they are brilliant read-everyone should read some of em,provided so as folks could optain the old ira pension!),have only seen mention of the swede/finn once or twice off a supposed sentries though havnt read em all either....but a quick search upon its archives shows no results for blackman??



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Well try under West Indian or Indian or Medical Students? Where did the author get his info?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Just the Black people. You said Black people originally, no need to switch to people of color now.

    Nobody is disputing that there were foreigners involved in the republican movement in Ireland.



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Its a free service (and great rabbithole),but only thing surronding indian/medical i seen linked to easter week was pearse ok-ing a indian student named omahony accompaging someone evcauating the gpo......gonna look more into it!


    https://www.militaryarchives.ie/collections/online-collections/bureau-of-military-history-1913-1921/bmhsearch/search.jsp?querystr=



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Considering what Europe was like in 1916 or previously, there would be little to no reasons for Black people to be coming to Ireland. As I said before, manufacturing centers would attract all races due to the need for labor, but in an agricultural nation, such as Ireland, there wouldn't be a similar demand.

    Also, it's worth remembering the culture of the time, where race was more about nationality than the color of a person's skin (although racism based on skin color would have been far worse then, than at any time later). It's highly unlikely that any wealthy family would bring in Black servants into Ireland due to the cultural norms of the time, and the fear of doing anything that might cause social alienation. It might happen in London, or Paris, but not in a backwater like Ireland.

    As Wibbs said, it's very possible that Black sailors would have landed in Irish ports from time to time, but the chance of them staying for extended periods would be slight. And considering how slight such a chance would be, can we really consider the other posters claim of "up to 20 Black" people being involved at the GPO.

    I'd honestly question the idea that there would be any Black people living in Ireland at the time of the Rising. Travelling to/through Ireland while living elsewhere, sure, possibly... but supposedly taking up arms, and fighting in a white man's war? Yeah.. no.. I don't buy it.

    It's different with Western nations or those colonies which remained mostly westernised, or Europeans who wanted to fight against the British. It would be rare, but it makes some logical sense... but Black people? Nope. That makes no sense at all... and we haven't been provided any evidence beyond a book that can't be referenced online, and no other links to support the claim.

    I would reassess my views if the other poster had provided, at least, some links to other sources, but he hasn't. It sounds too much like a pipe dream.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    I honestly can't believe someone popped up and ran with the idea of black people were defending and present in the GPO during the Easter rising ,

    You could fill Croke park from the pitch to the roof with the number of people who have claimed an uncle or grandad fought until the end of the fighting in the GPO to Moore st .


    Never have I heard my black uncle or grandad fought with the Irish on the Sunday ,not even a long lost relative of a survivor has ever claimed it either



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Worried you could be wrong? 'Black' or 'people of colour' there have been many names used for those with darker skin.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Many Black people took part in 'White man's wars' anyway they stayed to help the GPO and hadn't joined up to fight. See another poster's reference to an Indian! presumably 'Black'



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    That's very interesting. I wonder will some here discredit it soon?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    But you have provided zero evidence of this claim ,

    Zero ,

    No historical records or historians have claimed this over 100 years later Randomly someone pops up on boards and says it .



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Another poster has provided some re Pearse and I will.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I have been consistent in my opposition, and why I've opposed your points.

    Whereas you have repeatedly drifted away from your previous points... and I'm not going to be wrong until you provide some evidence to support your claims, and no, not from a source nobody else can verify.

    Prove it. Black people fighting in the GPO. Not Indians. Not Maori's. Not Brazilians or whatever.

    Your original statement. The one I objected to. Come on. Find some bloody evidence to support your statement. Otherwise I'm just going to assume you've been spouting woke revisionist nonsense, and stop dealing with your posts which constantly shift goal posts.

    Actually, forget it. I'm done chasing you, because I can see you're not going to prove anything.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Not 'Black' enough for you? Indians are generally 'Black' it doesn't have to mean African.

    Wikipaedia on the matter..

    Black people is a racialized classification of people, usually a political and skin color-based category for specific populations with a mid to dark brown complexion. Not all people considered "black" have dark skin; in certain countries, often in socially based systems of racial classification in the Western world, the term "black" is used to describe persons who are perceived as dark-skinned compared to other populations. It is mostly used for people of Sub-Saharan African descent and the indigenous peoples of Oceania. Indigenous African societies do not use the term black as a racial identity outside of influences brought by Western cultures. The term "black" may or may not be capitalized.[1][2] The AP Stylebook changed its guide to capitalize the "b" in black in 2020.[1][2] The ASA Style Guide says that the "b" should not be capitalized.[3]

    Different societies apply different criteria regarding who is classified "black", and these social constructs have changed over time. In a number of countries, societal variables affect classification as much as skin color, and the social criteria for "blackness" vary. In the United Kingdom, "black" was historically equivalent with "person of color", a general term for non-European peoples. In other regions such as Australasia, settlers applied the term "black" or it was used by local populations with different histories and ancestral backgrounds.

    Some perceive "black" as a derogatory, outdated, reductive or otherwise unrepresentative label, and as a result neither use nor define it, especially in African countries with little to no history of colonial racial segregation. Some have commented that labeling people "black" is erroneous as the people described as "black" actually have brown skin.[4]



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Jesus wept, that's pathetic.

    You made the claim that there were Black people involved in the GPO. Considering the state of society today, if you wanted to say "Indians", you would have said "Indians" and not Black people, because to do so would be insulting to Indians who are of a different race.

    You didn't make the statement, while quoting a piece spoken by some Irish person from the last century, describing a black person, who could have been Indian. You made the claim.. and I genuinely hope that you can tell the difference between an Indian person, and a Black person.

    Remember how I pointed out how you love to shift goalposts? Probably because you have nothing to support your original statement.

    Yup. I'm definitely finished dealing with you. Your posting manner is so damn dishonest.

    [No, I'm not insulting anyone, and I am genuinely finished with this rubbish]



  • Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It generally does mean African. In the US the month is exclusively African American history, of which of course they have lots.

    attempts in the U.K. to extend the month to other cultures has been seen as right wing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/30/councils-condemned-for-shameful-rebranding-of-black-history-month



  • Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I have a book about aliens building the pyramids and stonehenge. So that’s definitely true.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,554 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure




  • Registered Users Posts: 8,554 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    Some perceive "black" as a derogatory, outdated, reductive or otherwise unrepresentative label, and as a result neither use nor define it, especially in African countries with little to no history of colonial racial segregation.

    (*looks at the thread title) this is totally off topic, but...

    Scientists from the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, recently discovered that genetic differences and caste system were the main reasons behind the region-wise variation in the skin colour of Indians ...

    “Our study clearly reflects the profound influence of strict marriage patterns and multi-layered endogamy adding further to the variation in skin colour,“ said another researcher

    https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/skin-colour-tied-to-caste-system-says-study/articleshow/55532665.cms



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,556 ✭✭✭✭AckwelFoley


    Indians are not black.


    How many Americans descendant of India play in the NBA?


    I rest my case your honour



Advertisement