Is Ireland Racist?
Comments
-
It's enough for me that you accept that racism has been updated very recently, in fact in just the last few years.
It's not the skin colour or the shape of the eye that drive anti-Black or anti-Chinese racism; it's the inherited cultural characteristics that are assumed to go with them. If any group is discriminated against by reference to a (supposed) set of inherited characteristics, that pretty much defines that group as a "race".
You're wrong here. In the 80's growing up in Ireland the type of racist abuse I got was specifically to do with my eyes. It was nothing about the 'inherited cultural characteristics' because I didn't have any of those, I grew up only in Ireland. At the time kids would pull on the corner of their eyes and bring it up for Chinese and down for japanese.
Have you ever experienced racism yourself?
I've thought deeply about it all of my life, I'm not sure you can imagine how much I've thought about this.
The definition of racism revolves around a feeling of superiority (or feeling someone else is inferior). Without this, what reason is there for 'racism'? What reason is there for people to discriminate against each other? Just for the craic?
Racial discrimination comes from this feeling of superiority. Acting on believing you are better than another person, or acting on believing this other person is inferior to you. That's what racism is. Believing you are better than another person because of the ideas you hold does not make you a racist. It might be just as horrible, but generally not.
In South America there exists the Jivaroan tribe of headhunters. They have inherited cultural characteristics that are assumed to go with them(the culture of headhunting).
Were I to criticize their practise of head-hunting does this make me a racist? How could it not according to your definition?
1 -
These are inherited cultural characteristics from the Jivaroan tribe in Ecuador.
Killing becomes a vital part of the Jivaro culture. Men are only marriageable after becoming hunters within their communities. The more one kills, the more power one has, granting one immunity of death. Violence is a huge part of Jivaroan culture in respect to this type of soul belief.
Is it racist to criticize the Jivaroan? Can we not subjectively say this is wrong? Is it genocide to want the Jivaroan people to stop these practices?
2 -
You need to look up the.definition of genocide🙄
1 -
Just want to comment on this. Do you think this post is racist?
I suspect you, or others will be adamant that it isn't. And I'm not saying that it definitely is. It's not particularly offensive and the person who it is referring to is unlikely to read it.
But, it does imply something negative must be at play if is being claimed a traveller is successful at something. And while you, and others will probably say that you are saying that from experience (even if it isn't your own experience) that type of attitude is prejudicial to travellers who have to fight against the negative stereotype that is applied to them. Often without any direct cause with that being done for a specific individual.
It doesn't mean it is as bad as what goes on in other countries, or towards other races but it can still be harmful to people who feel that they are judged before they get a chance to prove themselves. If you were a young traveller and you constantly saw people judge you in this way, do you think it would ultimately be a positive experience or not?
I was the second person to respond to the OP on this thread, and said that I don't think Ireland is a racist country, and I still don't, but that doesn't mean that there isn't areas in which we could improve or that there aren't people who are in fact being racist. Some possibly without even knowing that they are being so.
2 -
Is that a genuine question?
Are you aware of the concept of 'the greater good'? We have all sorts of laws in place specifically so as to minimise the impact of harm or suffering to people. Stopping people committing murder is more important than allowing people to continue a practice that might, at one point have been able to have been carried out without attempting to stop it.
People are entitled to free speech, but not if they are inciting hatred or harm to others. This is another example where restricting one persons right is deemed necessary, for the greater good.
1 -
Advertisement
-
Doesn't your post repeat the point that OP was making?
Wanting a group of people to fairly contribute to society and end harmful cilultural practices was referred to as ethnic cleansing earlier in the thread (not by you).
4 -
The word is not a recent coinage; it has been around in English for about a century. You've only noticed it more recently because it used a lot more than it used to be - not the result of a conspiracy to silence criticism of Islam, but because anti-Muslim prejudice is much more common, and much more commonly expressed, than it used to be. We talk more about Islamophobia because there's a lot more of it to talk about.
2 -
People jeered you about the shape of your eyes, but why were they bothered about the shape of your eyes? Because of what they assumed went along with eye-shape - the various social and cultural differences that separated you from them. The shape of your eyes marked you out as (I'm guessing) East Asian, and they had a whole set of prejudices and preconceptions about East Asian people that they dumped on you.
You're quite right that they thought they were superior to you, or that you were inferior to them, but they didn't think that it was the lack of an epicanthic fold that made them superior; that was just a convenient and visible marker that called attention to your ethnicity. It was other supposed characteristics of your ethnicity that they assumed made you inferior.
With regard to the Jivaroans, criticising the practice of headhunting would not make you a racist. Assuming that, because somebody is a Jivaroan, he practices headhunting or he is accountable for the headhunting practiced by Jivaroans would be racist. Believing that you or your ethnic group are intrinsically superior to the Jivaroans because you do not practice headhunting would be racist. Becoming obsessed with the practice of headhunting because it is something Jivaroans do while discounting equally or more grotesque forms of violence practiced or sanctioned by your own culture would be racist
1 -
No.
What was referred to as ethnic cleansing was when posters suggested that a certain ethnic group should stop their culture and become integrated to the majority culture, disappearing their original culture.
Basically eliminating an ethnic group. That is ethnic cleansing. Plenty of examples in history.
0 -
The first coinage I can find for that word in English is by Georges Chahati Anawati in 1976. It appeared at the turn of the century in French literature, as "Islamophobie" but it certainly didn't mean what it does today. Back then it referred to a fear of Islam by liberal Muslims and Muslim feminists, rather than a fear or dislike/hatred of Muslims by non-Muslims.
2 -
Advertisement
-
Words change over time, meanings change.
Such is language
1 -
Yes, my comment was based on my previous experiences with travellers, of which I have much experience. I've grown up near them, had them in my class in school and would be on a first name basis with many of them. And from my experience, all of those travellers that I know engage in dodgy practices. Every single one of them. I know dodgy settled people too, so I'll throw that in for balance.
I fully accept that the comment does imply something negative because I do have a negative view of travellers, and that is justified in my opinion based on my own personal experiences of them.
I'll be honest here. My negative attitude towards travellers is unlikely to change as long as the travellers keep behaving as they do. The narrative is always 'We're prejudicial to travellers; we need to change our views of travellers; we need to be more accommodating of traveller culture etc'. How about adding to the narrative 'Travellers need to cop the fcuk on and stop engaging in illegality/antisocial behaviour'. Apparently it's racist nowadays to ask a community that has a problem with illegality to behave (and yes, they do have a problem with illegality - 0.3% of the population are traveller women. 22% of women in prison are travellers). All I want travellers to do is to obey the law and stop causing so many problems. I don't see it being racist by expecting travellers to modify their behaviour to remove the antisocial/illegal aspect from their culture.
6 -
It was used by scholars who invent all manner of words to expand their vocabulary within their own small collection of readers. It wasn't part of the common vocabulary used by most people, because the words racist and bigot were adequate, were more appropriate due to how specific they used to be, because people knew the actual meaning of the words and their usage. Over the last two decades, we've had people influenced by the social sciences pushing these phrases into the fore because it suits their narrative of shutting down discussions, expanding on the use of words taken from obscure research papers, so that they cover just about anything.
Any degree of criticism of Islam and/or Muslims is considered to be Islamophobic. It's not that there is more prejudice against Islam. It's that there's more reason to be critical of Islam, since there have been more incidents such as the reaction to the Mohammad cartoons, or the beheading of the French teacher. Islam should be examined and criticised due to the greater presence it has within western societies... but those who throw around the phrase Islamophobic are usually seeking to stop that criticism from happening. As for a conspiracy, that's another way people try to dismiss or ignore what's been going on.
9 -
I was wondering if people would consider refusing to date someone of another race, racist?
0 -
What people are trying to do, is to prevent the condemnation of the entirety of a group of people because of the actions of a comparatively small number of people within the group who ascribe to a radical interpretation of the fundamentals of the religion.
And in terms of talking about incidents, that you think should be examined, I've no problem with that. I think they are examined in the context of the radicals within those groups but you say these things are shut down in some way like we don't have a massive history of turning a blind eye to the actions of the catholic church or that other Christian organisations, particularly in the US, don't have their own skeletons in their closets which probably haven't been discussed publicly as much as they should be.
And many of the people who want to actively have a discussion about the problems within the religion are doing so so as to use it as an argument against the movement and integration of people and the wider concept of multiculturalism. Or do you think they are theologists who are equally interested in discussing the pros and cons or fallacies of all other religions?
0 -
And from my experience, all of those travellers that I know engage in dodgy practices. Every single one of them.
That's quite the insight. To what degree do you know them? Do you know them by name, do they know you? Or are you referring to members of the community who you have read about after court proceedings or whatever?
As for the percentage of female travellers who are in prison that has been quoted a number of times. I'm not going to say that they are imprisoned incorrectly even though there are claims many of them are there for first time offences for things such as driving without tax which I think we can all agree wouldn't be a practice solely limited to the travelling community.
I have no problem with people being held accountable for the crimes they have committed. But, I do have an issue with the widespread condemnation of a group of people because of the actions of some within that group. That leads to negative self worth, stigma, mental health and an unwillingness to engage. What do you think the impact of a group of people who might be experiencing those actions and emotions over several decades? Do you think they might become more likely to put up barriers and to be confrontational and to have a two finger attitude towards everyone else?
I lived beside a family of travellers for just under 3 years. I had no issue with them and even after they moved, if I met some of the children in town, they'd recognize me and salute me. Is it right to have a prejudicial and negative view of those children and to treat them accordingly? Who does that serve?
0 -
What people are trying to do, is to prevent the condemnation of the entirety of a group of people because of the actions of a comparatively small number of people within the group who ascribe to a radical interpretation of the fundamentals of the religion.
By exempting an entire group of people from any kind of criticism, but also by exempting the culture/religion of criticism. We are able to criticise Christianity without extending that criticism to every Christian in existence, but somehow, that's not possible when it comes to Islam/Muslims.
But you've just reinforced what I said in that quoted piece. It's used as a way to shut down criticism of Islam, and by extension, the behavior of Muslims.
like we don't have a massive history of turning a blind eye to the actions of the catholic church or that other Christian organisations,
Such as what? And no, don't go back to the 80s or 90s. Within the last two decades (the same time-frame that Islam has received attention) which aspects of the Christian organisations has been ignored? [Yes, we used to have a society that ignored the abuses of religion, but that's changed]
And many of the people who want to actively have a discussion about the problems within the religion are doing so so as to use it as an argument against the movement and integration of people and the wider concept of multiculturalism.
And many are criticising for other reasons... however considering that the arguments are about Islam/Muslims in Europe, then it makes logical sense that the arguments would be connected with immigration and/or multiculturalism. If the arguments were about Islam in the M.East, then immigration or multiculturalism wouldn't be a factor.. obviously enough.
0 -
That's quite the insight. To what degree do you know them? Do you know them by name, do they know you? Or are you referring to members of the community who you have read about after court proceedings or whatever?
The street where I grew up had two settled traveller families. They were my neighbours. I know every one of them by name. I know lots of their cousins and extended families by name too even though they don't live in my old street. We are on a first name basis and I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them. Over the years they have accumulated quite the criminal record. As antisocial stuff goes, they aren't the worst, but as for robbery and stuff like that, they are very industrious.
There are three more (sets of) traveller families in the town where I grew up. By that I mean three different extended family groups so maybe 60 of them in total. I would be on a first name basis with a lot of them. Some of them were in my class in school until they left at about 14 or 15 so I'd know them very well. Some others I don't know to be quite honest. They keep the Gardai quite busy.
Examples of the crimes that they do regular enough so that I know about them: Stealing caravans in England and Germany and bringing them back here for sale. They've got caught at that a few times. Selling drugs, my Mam's neighbour regularly buys off them, quite openly too. Some have robbed local shops and gotten caught. Burglary is very common. My cousin caught them trying to break into his neighbours house. The local Gardai have caught them using cloned licence places. I could go on and on and on. They are shady as fcuk.
As for the percentage of female travellers who are in prison that has been quoted a number of times. I'm not going to say that they are imprisoned incorrectly even though there are claims many of them are there for first time offences for things such as driving without tax which I think we can all agree wouldn't be a practice solely limited to the travelling community.
I'll agree that the travellers aren't the only ones driving with no tax etc. but that's just a deflection on your part. It's quite clear that the traveller community has a problem with illegality.
I have no problem with people being held accountable for the crimes they have committed. But, I do have an issue with the widespread condemnation of a group of people because of the actions of some within that group. That leads to negative self worth, stigma, mental health and an unwillingness to engage. What do you think the impact of a group of people who might be experiencing those actions and emotions over several decades? Do you think they might become more likely to put up barriers and to be confrontational and to have a two finger attitude towards everyone else?
You talk about 'some' within that group. What percentage is some? 5%, 10%, 50%, 80%. One could argue that if the troublemakers numbered 99.9% of the traveller population that it is still only 'some' travellers are causing a problem. There has to be a time where their sh1te behaviour has to be called out and something has to be done about it.
And you are talking about traveller negative self-worth. One of the worst insults a traveller can call another traveller is a 'countryman'. And that's their word for settled people like me and I'm assuming you too.
Travellers don't give a sh1te about us. They have their barriers up because they don't want to change any aspect of their lives except for to figure out how to get more and more stuff for free. And again I'm basing that on my own personal experience with them.
I lived beside a family of travellers for just under 3 years. I had no issue with them and even after they moved, if I met some of the children in town, they'd recognize me and salute me. Is it right to have a prejudicial and negative view of those children and to treat them accordingly? Who does that serve?
Hey, I've had no issues from the travellers who lived near me as I was growing up either so we were both lucky there. They caused me no problems. Like I said, they were not the worst when it came to antisocial stuff. And they were mostly careful not to 'sh1te on their own doorstep' so to speak so they didn't do much robbing in my street. But they did and still continue to build quite a sizeable criminal record.
I'm not saying the travellers you know are breaking the law by robbing etc., but if they were, would you change your opinion of them then? Because that's what's forming my prejudicial and negative view of travellers? They aren't changing their ways one little bit yet we are supposed to bend over backwards to accept them and facilitate their culture when they are robbing us blind at the back of it.
5 -
By exempting an entire group of people from any kind of criticism
Except that isn't happening. There's no shortage of criticism of radical islamists. They've literally being targeted militarily with all such action supported and encouraged by conversations on discussion boards, social media platforms and TV chat shows and newscaster editorials.
And no, don't go back to the 80s or 90s.
This made me laugh. You are literally saying that you know how bad those religions have been so literally want to shut down any mention of that while complaining about criticism of islam being shut down. How about the Christian fundamentalism that is fueling motivation to abolish abortion in the US? That is likely going to negatively impact more people than radical islamists is it not?
0 -
That's a similar can of worms to the one about how a guy who refuses to date a transwoman is transphobic or a lesbian who refuses to date a transwoman is transphobic.
Some people just might not be attracted to the look of people of a certain race, just like some people mightn't be attracted to gingers or short/tall people.
If you are going to start claiming people who aren't physically attracted to some types of people of being discriminatory you going into full on la la land.
I am not allowed discuss …
1 -
Advertisement
-
Except that isn't happening. There's no shortage of criticism of radical islamists. They've literally being targeted militarily with all such action supported and encouraged by conversations on discussion boards, social media platforms and TV chat shows and newscaster editorials.
Of course it's happening... You've just done it with your response by turning to radical Islamists... as opposed to the criticisms that exist about Islam as a religion and a culture, one that is supported by the average Muslim.
This made me laugh. You are literally saying that you know how bad those religions have been so literally want to shut down any mention of that while complaining about criticism of islam being shut down. How about the Christian fundamentalism that is fueling motivation to abolish abortion in the US? That is likely going to negatively impact more people than radical islamists is it not?
More with the radical Islam, as if that's the only kind of criticism people have about Islam. As for the rest, you skipped over the qualifier in my post. Not sure why you've decided to jump to the US for examples when we were talking about Europe previously...
In any case, the US has always been a clusterF when it comes to religion, and to say that people avoid talking about religion there is quite wide of the mark. Americans endlessly compete with each other to promote one religion over another by showing how wonderful one is, while showing the perceived negatives of other faiths.
0 -
Only if you're refusing to date someone, because of their race (ie. you're attracted to them, but it's their race that is the important factor in deciding). Refusing to date someone because you don't find most Black women attractive isn't racist... it's a simple instinctual preference. Just as refusing to date men, and preferring to date women isn't sexist, because we have natural inclinations. It's when the conscious decisions comes into play that terms such as racism become relevant.
0 -
Yeah a blanket refusal is likely rooted in racism, however some people aren’t particularly attracted to people from certain races, they may however meet someone who they are attracted to one day and be happy to go out with them. I’d be more concerned if someone said they’d never date a person from x race.
0 -
If the culture ( of headhunting) was stopped would it be cultural genocide?
By the way asking people to look up something on the internet is not just snark but hardly helpful to your own argument. Make your own argument.
2 -
One thing is certain, the support for bombing countries and also supporting immigration from those countries is insane, although it is the ideology of our ruling classes.
0 -
More than the ruling classes... It's common enough at all levels. The belief that you can separate your own agenda from the results of other groups/peoples actions.. as if the victims or targets of those agenda are going to make any kind of distinction between you and others.
0 -
No, it's ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing is more of a catchall term, which can include genocide, but also the destruction/elimination of cultures (without the genocide itself).
0 -
I’d be more concerned if someone said they’d never date a person from x race.
Why? Would you be equally bothered if someone said they'd never date someone with red hair? Or Blue eyes?
If we want racism to decline, we need to stop making race such an important distinction between people.
0 -
interesting , in that case I must be racist against oriental asians and not racist against black women
1 -
Advertisement
-
I see Traveller culture has been mentioned a few times and how we want to destroy it but no mention as to what this culture actually is.
Only culture we see from them over this end of the country is nearly wrecking Tuam at a funeral last summer and last Friday one of them rammed another car off the road at Bothar na dTreabh as part of a fued between 2 different factions.
Its just a miracle no innocent person was killed because that a very busy stretch of road, the pavees seem to think its the wild west and laws don't apply to them.
4
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
