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

Is Ireland Racist?

Options
191012141518

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    When you posted this I checked at the time and this quote could only be found on the CRER website (Coalition for racial equality and rights) in Scotland. When you made this post that definition was on this website. https://www.crer.scot/what-is-racism. (They openly admit to being anti-racist and encourage everyone else to also)

    I was just checking something and realized that the quote no longer exists. They updated it. Check for yourself. This is how it reads now;

    "The term ‘racism’ is often poorly understood. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as, "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior." However, this is a simplified explanation of a complex issue."

    So your quote above has never appeared in the OED. This was a lie(or mistake?)and you were fooled. At least they should admit they made a mistake but they haven't made mention of it anywhere.

    This reenforces my original point that racism has to do with a feeling of superiority. That's where racial discrimination comes from. To believe that your ideas are superior to someone else is not racism, that is politics. Discriminating against a person because of other reasons is not racism. It might be equally as horrible, maybe, but it surely is arguable and depends on the situation. We are now discriminating against unvaxxed people in society.

    When you now google: 'racism definition' the first thing that pops up is the dead link to the CRER definition of racism as quoted in your post above. Now google:

    'prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.'

    and the first thing that pops up is the CRER website. When you click into it, their claim that this is the OED definition no longer exists. They have updated the definition. Please check for yourself. Hopefully it will be removed as the first hit on google soon so as not to fool anyone us.

    If you google: 'oxford english dictionary definition racism' it now gives the correct definition as defined for the last century, it really hasn't changed much. ", "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." "



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The definition I quoted is the one in the Oxford English Dictionary (the big one, not the Shorter or the Concise); doubtless that's where the CRER got it from.

    Which dictionary does your suggested definition come from?

    So it never was from the OED, seems that CRER either made it up or made a mistake. I just can't see how they could make a mistake like that. Google have also copied this mistake and mistake still exists as the first hit on google.

    My suggested definition was always the right one.



  • Registered Users Posts: 190 ✭✭Luttrell1975


    Ok, fair point. But let me tell you if there is a cluster of outright racism its at the smaller brain section. I totally accept that brighter people can be emotionally unintelligent crones, high score Simplex Crossworders, and racists at the same time.

    You say that the citizenship referendum curbed asylum seeking. Ehhhhhh no it didn't. It had absolutely nothing to do with that. Ireland's Asylum system rose to its highest point in 2010 six years after......................................




  • Registered Users Posts: 196 ✭✭SamStonesArm


    Every country has racist people so in the simple way , yes it's racist but in the broad spectrum of racist countries then I would think it's not a racist country



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 190 ✭✭Luttrell1975


    Well put it this way. Referendums do things that are strange. Look at the Brits, they brought in Brexit, and its bunkum the whole lot of it. Not one single argument for it is partly true. A lovely cocktail of austerity, insecurity, racist rag headlines, opportunism to take over leadership of the Tories, insipid Cameron, and the lies managed to up what had never been more than 40% support to 50.5%.

    Compare that to Ireland, the unchallenged FF/PD permanent hegemony, a highly insecure McDowell, a hired in American strategist they needed a stunt for the June election. And the data I supply on the previous shows that asylum demand was created outside Ireland, Ireland was not targetted by anyone, Ireland had no problem in its maternity hospitals other than being underfunded.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,606 ✭✭✭Hamachi


    Can you please point me to a peer reviewed study corroborating your assertion that racists cluster at the side of the bell curve with smaller brains? I’d love to read some scientific evidence supporting this statement of yours.

    The trend line you’ve presented is misleading. It counts the number of asylum seekers recognized as refugees annually in Ireland. The reason for the apparent peak in 2010 is that many of those cases were legacy applications, finally processed and approved after up to a decade in the system. It should also be noted that many of these approvals were only granted after multiple appeals against the initial rejection. I suggest you do some reading on the Pamela Izevbekhai case to learn more about a particularly egregious asylum application at this time.

    The true numerical representation is the sum of net new asylum applications annually. The zenith was in 2002 when there was almost 12K net new applications. 2002 was also slap bang in the middle of the period when the jus soli citizenship loophole remained vulnerable to exploitation. When the loophole was closed in 2004, the number of net new cases immediately declined to ~7K and subsequently declined to 2K - 3K per year, particularly after the 2008 recession began to bite. This data is all there for you to peruse on worldinfo.data.

    So yes, I conclude that the 27th amendment proved highly successful in curbing the volume of spurious asylum claims and has resulted in Ireland experiencing the manageable inflows that we handle to this day. Like I said, the 80% of the electorate made a profoundly rational decision in 2004 that continues to reverberate to the present day.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,606 ✭✭✭Hamachi


    See my previous response. The chart you posted is the first result resulted by Google. It’s misleading in that it refers to the count of those recognized as refugees annually.

    Please review the counts for annual net new asylum applications. The downward trajectory is stark from the 2002/2003 peak. Ireland was clearly targeted due to our lax jus soli citizenship loophole. In fact, McDowell was subject to intense criticism from EU partners, deeply concerned that Ireland was a weak link in the EU migration frontline.

    Question for you: How many of our EU partners offer unconditional jus soli citizenship in 2021?



  • Registered Users Posts: 190 ✭✭Luttrell1975


    Happy to contribute to your self improvement. There are several studies that attempt this, all of which say they can't rule out other factors but this one proves, it: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/47547/1/Dhont%26Hodson%202014%20CDPS%20cogn%20ability%20and%20prejudice.pdf

    I got a review of that too just to help you establish their finding:

    Now its your turn.

    Get me a peer reviewed journal of properly done research which proves that the adjusting the Citizenship provisions led to a fall off in Asylum applications. Let me re-state, you need to look at troubles in the country of origin to understand why there would be an increase flow, and you need to look at the effect on all the countries of the EU together. For example, why are there suddenly loads of Syrian refugees coming into the EU?

    I repeat - the 2004 was a dodgy referendum based on misinformation, and pushed by a near permanent FF Government. The Act that followed it was even more dodgy and was amended.



  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,552 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    A post and follow-ups deleted. I instructed not to reply to mod warnings in thread

    If anyone has a problem with mod actions take it to PM. If you have a problem with posts or posters report it



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,641 ✭✭✭Montage of Feck


    Working class? You mean welfare class I presume. Isn't everyone middle class now even if it's just an effected "lifestyle" fuelled on credit.

    🙈🙉🙊



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    The 2004 referendum was required as we were out of step with the rest of Europe ,the EU didn't want that kind of leak



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    As already stated, Ireland is not a particularly racist country, except when it comes to our own minorities, then we are all guilty of that.

    The lengths some posters will go to, to try and say that travellers are to blame for the discrimination against them, just proves it. It's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against them, posters going so far as to advocate for the destruction of their culture and forced integration into society.

    Ethnic cleansing; the elimination of an unwanted ethnic group or groups from a society.

    I don't know why posters don't want to admit this.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I don't think so. I'd say the middle class represent the largest part of Irish people, but there is still a working class, due to education and income potential. I don't think it's as large as some people want to make it out to be, but it's still there nonetheless. All the same, I doubt there's much difference in opinions and temperament anymore between the classes, due to a shared education system, and opportunities for social mobility. The welfare class would be something else altogether.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Travellers have an very very high unemployment rate, very poor health outcomes and are a disproportionate presence in our prisons relative to their size. Let’s not try and pretend their culture is working out great for them and for society. Who is responsible for those outcomes is it us or them?



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    In the minds of WOKE progressives ,once you have minority status, nothing is ever you're fault and always broader society's problem



  • Registered Users Posts: 13 whiskersmcgee


    Do humans and animals discriminate and differentiate? Yes.


    Take a stroll through many parts of West Africa as a black man and you'll be lucky to make it out with arms still attached.


    Take a stroll through many parts of South America and see if you aren't specifically targeted for the colour of your skin, to the tune of being murdered in a barrel.


    Grab a taxi as an Irish woman in Mexico City and see how you fine you may end up.


    Meanwhile, the least racist places on Earth, such as ireland, you have people taking a conniption about the way someone looked at someone else sometime 19 years ago.


    Imbeciles and spoilt brats.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,511 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    I am not relying on CRER to tell me what is in the OED. I am looking at the OED. This definition is there.

    (I was unaware that this definition was on the CRER website until you told me. If it was on the CRER website, they must have got it from the OED; where else could it have come from. It may or may not have been removed from the CRER website; I haven't checked. I'm not as interested as you are in the CRER website, to be honest. But this definition is still in the OED.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,511 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    The defintion I gave is in the OED. Have you looked at the OED? Why do you say the definition is not there?



  • Registered Users Posts: 21,685 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo



    What fooking culture ?

    Riding ponies and horses around, leaving them to starve tied down in some scrap of land or on the side of the road?

    Breeding lurchers?

    Allowing or even forcing your kids to give up school at a young age?

    Marrying off your daughters before they turn 18?

    Grabbing?

    High level of spousal abuse?

    Much higher criminality than general population, including theft, harassment and murder of elderly people, drug dealing, fraudulent building and construction services?

    Family gatherings like weddings and funerals that require the attendance of the riot squad lest people are hacked or shot to death?

    Inter family feuds resulting in mass riots and deaths?

    Very high level of antisocial behaviour including brawling, bare knuckle fighting, sulky racing on public roads, harassment, littering on a grand scale (sorry I forgot shure isn't that the settled community littering on their sites 🙄), destruction of public property and sports club facilities, burning of toxic materials?

    Is all that above culture offset by the fact we have had a few talented folk artists such as Margaret Barry and the Furries or some very good boxers who have hailed from the Travelling community?

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Registered Users Posts: 464 ✭✭The Quintessence Model


    'sorry I forgot shure isn't that the settled community littering on their sites'


    Ah yes, one of the most infamous comments ever on boards!



  • Registered Users Posts: 13 whiskersmcgee


    Here's what you can do, go off to the arse end of nowhere, stay there for a year, then come back and see how willing you are to puke out the "racist!!!".


    No, you won't. You know fine well that the majority of this planet will laugh at your porcelain sensibilities and just as quick skin you SPECIFICALLY due to racism. Actual racism, not the sitting-behind-a-computer-in-the-best-part-of-the-world-moaning-at-leisure "racism".


    Instead, you'll hang around the most accommodating people in the world and tell them they aren't good enough while lapping it up in extreme comfort.


    Weak, spoilt brats. A good slap on the arse is what ye all need.



  • Registered Users Posts: 21,685 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how




  • Registered Users Posts: 190 ✭✭Luttrell1975


    For me it is ok to point out and discuss how some travellers, or some Nigerians do terrible things. So long as you also point out that Irish people do those and [to make some here squirm] white collar crime is more damaging to our society than anything any of the above do.

    When you get to the point where you speak about a whole group exhibiting bad characteristics you just bought the armband. Some people here have done that.

    To say someone is woke (as I see here) is just to attack them for disagreeing with you.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Whatbout, whatabout, whatabout ...........

    Ah yes the NOT ALL angle.

    When is some just too damn many?

    When does some effectively become the majority?

    Would it be 51% or does it have to be 99.9% for you?

    White collar crime is bad and can cause lots of long term effects, but are you saying it is worse than torturing some edlerly person living on their own and leaving them tied up to die a lonely sad death?

    Does white collar crime result in life long harrassment for the neighbours of the white collar criminal ?

    Jaysus feck I hope the 1975 isn't your year of birth because I would hope you would have a bit more sense than some of your statements.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    People tend to generalise in discussions because it's tedious having to say every time that it doesn't relate to everyone, and that individuals should be considered differently, due to their personal circumstances. The assumption is that the reader has the basic cop-on to understand this, and factor it into the discussion. When people complain about painting a whole group a certain way, they're simply seeking to promote outrage and shut down the discussion.

    Generally speaking posters have complained here about Traveller culture, rather than blaming the whole Traveller population themselves for the state of things. When that culture is protected, and supported by the State, there's little chance of Travellers choosing to embrace mainstream Irish cultures and leave their traditional group. Instead, its the posters looking for outrage, that seek to change the narrative by making accusations about being racist, stereotyping the whole group, and not talking about individuals.

    As for being called woke.. the views and manner of responding/contributing to discussions is representative of the style that woke groups involve themselves in. Hyper aggressive posting, taking the high moral position, changing the narrative just to push their own virtue.

    Here's a point I made earlier, and I've noticed a lot on this thread. The people complaining about posters commenting about Travellers have consistently ignored all the negatives associated with Traveller culture or the Traveller community. Rather than discuss the idea the Travellers would be healthier, safer, happier, etc without Traveller culture, instead, the view is to talk about ethnic cleansing or the push the outrage over being racist. The focus of these posters is entirely on the belief that all cultures should be protected... even when that culture is extremely bad for the people within that group. So, obviously, their concern is not about Travellers themselves. Hence the reference to being woke, because woke people tend to care more about the agenda they're pushing rather than the people that are affected by that agenda (although I haven't called anyone woke, I understand the reference being used).

    I've worked with and taught Travellers at many periods of my life, and known a variety of families with Traveller backgrounds. I don't have any issues with Travellers on an individual basis, no more than I do with any other cultural group. However, I've seen what their culture does to them, and how it changes them over time, from children through to adults. Not everyone is affected the same way, but overall, IMHO, it's a horrible culture that encourages all manner of abuse.. and the idea that the State should support its continued existence is abhorrent to me. Remove the supports, and it will disappear over time. There's no need to seek it's destruction.. just remove the focus on enabling Traveller culture. No more or less than we would do for any other culture.



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Calling for the death of a culture, because you don't like it, and you think that you know better, is calling for ethnic cleansing.

    And you can write all the essays you want, but that's what it boils down to. Replace traveller with any other ethnicity or race.



  • Registered Users Posts: 516 ✭✭✭BattleCorp1


    Fair enough. So, using that same standard that you used above, are we engaging in ethnic cleansing of many Africans here when we outlawed FGM? After all, it is part of the culture in some parts of the world?

    I don't see how asking one section of the community to stop continually breaking the law and engaging in antisocial behaviour is in the same book, let alone on the same page as ethnic cleansing.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Except we're not replacing Traveller culture with another culture, because in the main, the vast majority of cultures are suited to modern living, and the example is specific to Ireland, in any case. And it is ethnic cleansing along cultural lines... I'm not denying that.

    And no, you don't replace it with race because that's a entirely different scenario. Ethnic cleansing of a race is very very different.

    Notice my second last paragraph (of the quoted piece)? That one goes out especially to you. Once more you're putting the existence of a culture as being far more important than providing the people of that culture with a far better life.



Advertisement