Political Correctness Gone Mad? Or Is it?

by seedot Mon Jan 09, 2006 17:38

Including covering a bit from the Orla Barry show where the Lenihan curse of racist (sounding) blunders hits again

****Quote****
"You won't apologise for the remark, I take it?" asks Orla. "There's no need to," replies O'Rourke.

O'Rourke again goes on to harp on her work with asylum seekers.

Orla then reads out another text from a listener that makes comparisons to the way Paddies and Micks were treated in the UK and elsewhere. The listener says that she's black and she's offended by O'Rourke's remarks.

Asked for her response, O'Rourke says: "Good for her. She’s got clearly her asylum...or her papers. I wish all asylum seekers could work here."

Oops. Second mistake. In case you missed what it was--O'Rourke's first reactions when told that a black person in Ireland is offended are 1) to patronise the black person and 2) assume that the black listener is an asylum seeker.
***ends****
(BTW, this whole article probably belongs in other press.)

by abroad Mon Jan 09, 2006 17:39

kebabs and stereotypes
Did Ms.Eircom shares A.K.A M.O.R,
really say 'working like blacks'? I'm in Canada and heard a rumour via email. can't find any reports on Irish 'news' sites.
Is it true?

by Bernard M. Mon Jan 09, 2006 17:54

C'mon there is no defending that kind of remark. You can't have a positive stereotype. African Americans are great at basketball for instance (not great at academics), or Irish people being nice, with connotations of idiocy.
Saying 'working like blacks' is a compliment, is like saying, ''aww c'mon sure women like to chat and she didn't mean any harm."

Time for gaffe ridden Mary to go away.

by observer2 Mon Jan 09, 2006 18:05

My mother is 70 years old and grew up in a country where expressions like that used by Mary O'Rourke were commonplace. She would be liable to say something like that today. Is she a racist? no, she is not she is a kind tolerant compassionate woman. She is one of those people who all her life has donated to third world charities and who has a heart of gold. She is also one of the generation who worked hard all their lives to build this country to what it is today. Were it not for her and her generation we would not have the economy that is so attractive to people from other countries. They come here and are welcomed, to expect my mother and her generation to become over the top politically correct is an insult to them, what should be expected is that those who come here attempt to understand her and the culture which they chose to come to. If as much attention was given to help the older generations in this country come to terms with the very rapid changes taking place in our society and the culture shock it is to them as is given to picking out such isolated comments which despite what anyone may say are colloquialisms and are not intended to offend then we would be all the better for it.

Racism is a serious issue and attempts to combat it are demeaned by this type of insane over the top political correctness, it does little other than cause resentment and provide ammunition to those racists out there who would use it for their own propoganda.

by Richey Mon Jan 09, 2006 18:13

Your grandmother is not a public representative. Come off it, Mary O'Rourke is smart enough and experienced enough to know better. She followed up this comment by saying something far worse on Newstalk, assuming a woman was an asylum seeker because she was black. That is plain and simple, honest to goodness RACISM and it has to be identified and shamed as such, otherwise it will be accepted.

by observer2 Mon Jan 09, 2006 18:40

Racism is discriminating against somebody on grounds of race. Now since race is a social construct what that really means is discriminating against someone on the basis of the colour of their skin or their distinctive facial features. So please explain how the quote discriminates? or maybe you are suggesting it incites racial hatred?

What I said was that my mother would be liable to have said the exact same quote as that which O'Rourke did. Does that make my mother a racist?

Are you suggesting that there should be different levels of acceptibility based on whether someone is a public representitive or not?

For gods sake wise up and come into the real world instead of the utopian trendy leftie over the top politically correct fantasy world you seem to inhabit.

by Coillte, and proud of it! Mon Jan 09, 2006 19:14

Is this the only misdemeanor that you can label her with? Evidently a good number of you must be Fianna Faillers since it was her own 'kit and kin' who first picked up on this seemingly earth shatterring faux pas. Will the whole lot of you leave the keyboard, go out and have a cigarette to qualm yez frustration!!

by honkey paddy! Mon Jan 09, 2006 19:18

I suppose next it will be politically incorrect to refer to residents of Dublin as "jackeens" or those living in the countryside as "culchies" or allah forbid the even worse "mullahs". Then there is the practice of refering to English people as "brits" or of refering to those with the wrong type of name, accent or background as "west brits" and referring to members of the Gardai as " pigs" is surely offensive to our porcine friends and the "curvy blond" animal rights activists will be on our case. No more "hows it goin Horse" for the navan men!!!!

Sure why not ban the English language altogether, that would solve the problem.

by Richey Mon Jan 09, 2006 19:20

I suggest that you read what people write before you start mouthing off so vigorously. I didn't say she was a racist because of the original remark (although it was still completely out of order; that phrase is a legacy of slavery and even if the people using it don't mean to be racist, that doesn't make it ok. Your granny might be liable to say something like that; if she was a TD and she said it, I certainly would criticise her).

I said she was guilty of racist attitudes because she automatically assumed that a black woman must be an asylum-seeker (plus the patronising, "good for you" comment to add insult to injury). Go back and read over what she said on the Orla Barry show and if you don't have a problem with that, then you are very complacent indeed

by Richey Mon Jan 09, 2006 19:27

1) Thought you were talking about your granny, not your mother, sorry

2) Yeah, I do think public representatives have to be more careful than the average person when they speak. Your mother's comments on any subject will not be carried in the national media. O'Rourke's will, and have been, helping to perpetuate an insulting stereotype about black people.

by observer2 Mon Jan 09, 2006 19:35

really. MOR is a racist now is she? FFS have you nothing better to worry about? There is REAL racism taking place all over the gaff and you want to haul poor oul mary"i am being shafted by me own" o'rourke over the coals?

Coillte is right. get a f*****g life, if you or anyone else believes that the people of this country are liable to jump on mo'r because she used a colloquialism which has been in everyday use for a century or more as a way of complimenting the hard working nature of individuals and has Feck all to do with actual racism then you are seriously deluded.

You really ought to get out a bit more among the actual people, it might broaden your sense of reality.

by Richey Mon Jan 09, 2006 19:48

Ok, so I suppose you just aren't willing to deal with her second comment. As I said already, her first comment was stupid and she should have known better, but she followed it up by betraying an out-and-out racist attitude on the Orla Barry show. Since you aren't willing to discuss this at all, there's no point debating with you.

I suggest you acquire the ability to read what people write and acquaint yourself with the full facts of the matter before you start urging people to "get a fucking life." I have a fucking life, and I'm still disgusted by what MOR said on the Orla Barry show.

by observer2 Mon Jan 09, 2006 20:04

People are being spat at on buses, discriminated against by the Gardai, deported to dangerous countries, exploited by unscrupulous employers and on and on. That is racism, bad shit, it is serious.

Trying to combat it is difficult, very difficult. So M O'R, who has an excellent record in this area, uses a colloquialism and then as you say makes the mistake of assuming that because someone is "black" they are an asylum seeker and congratulates them on succeding in managing to stay here despite the efforts of the likes of McDowell. To make such an assumption is wrong as is usually the case with assumptions, it is however understandable given that the majority of people of African origin in Ireland are asylum seekers. It's a bit like the way people assume if you are from the south of Ireland you are catholic. If I were to take offence at everytime someone made that assumption about me I would be permanently offended.

Now, who does this furore serve? Does it serve the non national community? I would argue that it does not, i would argue that it only raises animosity because it makes the whole racism issue and the attendant political correctness seem to be over the top. Why would it do that? because there are thousands of people, who like me know that the older generation use these terms and mean no offence. It causes resentment, because the ordinary man or woman in the street are saying "ah here, this is too much". I suggest that is the reality. It damages the campaign against racism, and makes those who are campaigning appear to be zealots.

Who does it serve? it serves those within Fianna Fail who are opposed to Mary O'Rourke and her ideas. It serves the man who lost out to her in the nomination convention.

by Phuq Hedd Mon Jan 09, 2006 20:11

I agree with observer2 and all the people arguing against political correctness. We should be able to label someone clearly as we see fit and not allow worries about "upsetting" someone to stifle our free speech or how we think about things. So if someone is racist we should call it that and not be worried about trying not to upset observer2.

Your grannie (or whoever the elderly female relative you refer to is) may not be a racist but you definitely are. You say:

QUOTE: "They come here and are welcomed, to expect my mother and her generation to become over the top politically correct is an insult to them"

There are lots of black people that have been born in Ireland. They've been here for a long time. I know several that grew up here as children. You are making a racist assumption: conflating skin colour with origin.

Your shrill cries about being oppressed by political correctness just make your racism more tangibly odious. Well done.

You're a racist.

Now stop trying to oppress me with Political Correctness.

by observer2 Mon Jan 09, 2006 20:24

ah your right phuq, im a racist. thats right do your bit to feed the facists and provide them with ammunition.
Give them a good laugh!!!!!just like you have given me a good laugh!!!!!!!!

As for "lots of people" phuq? jaysus they must have hid them from 1960 until 1990 did they? because having grown up in Ireland I didnt see lots!!!!! very very few in fact .

now in reply, try reading what i wrote. If you have difficulty consult a dictionary.
what i said was "Were it not for her and her generation we would not have the economy that is so attractive to people from other countries. They come here and are welcomed, to expect my mother and her generation to become over the top politically correct is an insult to them, what should be expected is that those who come here attempt to understand her and the culture which they chose to come to."

Clearly I make reference to our economy being attractive to people from other countries and then state that they are welcome!!!!
ah yeah im a racist all right.

by Phuq Hedd Mon Jan 09, 2006 21:11

I've looked through your post with the aid of the standard reference work Observer2's Politically Correct Dictionary for Racists (Concise Revised Edition) and reach the unarguable conclusion that black is white and you are not a racist.

QUOTE: "Were it not for her and her generation we would not have the economy that is so attractive to people from other countries"

RESPONSE: You mean the 1st world capitalist economy of Irish agriculture bolstered by protectionist rules that suppresses agriculture in 3rd world countries, destablises incipient democracies and creates mass poverty? You and yer ma!

by Bernard M. Mon Jan 09, 2006 21:31

Should we leave Mary alone as she is not racist, but only stupid?
Ignorance is not a defence, as a public figure she is supposed to be media savvy or up to date on socially acceptable phrases or terms as set by her own shower.
Well I suppose that's the kind of pig ignorant folk we elect.

by gay geori Mon Jan 09, 2006 21:47 gg at bearla dot ie

God almighty, the reference has already make it into Wikipedia. Somone people have no work to do...

We need to bear in mind the context of the woman and the events.

For example, if I say something like Simon in Simon's Place cafe only employs very sexy women and I enjoy looking at them, am I being sexist or delivering a compliment? I would argue the latter. The bra-burners, Ivana Baciks and Ailbhe Smyths, would say otherwise, I am sure.

Similarly, I doubt very much if MOR is a racist. She was quick to condemn her nephew Conor Lenihan's racist remarks (kebabs) and criticised Herr McDowell's policy of chasing women and kids around the country for deportation, and really came out strongly against Kevin Myers's Mother of Bastards outrage.

It's an unfortunate comment she made, and it would not do MOR any harm to say "sorry" but the RAR crowd and the other "institutional racism watchdogs" are decontextualising it and reducing the while issue to a snarling Joe Duffy type Liveling debate, much to the detriment of the fight against real racists. Looked at from another way, blacks could even take it as a compliment, buit then again, it does have slavery overtones.

I give MOR the benefit of the doubt.

by observer2 Mon Jan 09, 2006 22:07

Ah now, Phuq I never claimed to be an economist! and in me mas day it definately wasn't a 1st world economy which is why she and my da and numerous relatives had to do a bit of asylum seeking themselves(admittedly on economic grounds) but yes we did have a protectionist economy. So you see all though she might say "working like a black" when her brother married a lady from vietnam in the seventies she was one of the family who supported him against those who might never say "working like a black" but were racist to the core! My point really is that MO'R should be judged on her record which is among the best in Dail/Seanad Eireann. Of course those of us who are younger should know better than to make a similar statement but I genuinely believe that there is not much point in me trying to understand people from other cultures if I fail to recognise the need to understand my own culture and it's older generations. I believe that some of our older citizens have found the last ten years a serious culture shock and rather than brand them as racist and get everyones back up we should listen to their concerns and difficulties in a compassionate and understanding way. It might not fit into any great philosophical or ideological model but it is just affording them the same common decency as we afford to the newer additions to our culture.

Mary O'Rourke said something that I heard regularly since my childhood, I never heard it said with malice and always understood it to mean that a person was a hard worker. I also as a child learned a song at school about having something that i put in the window for show and which on preceeding to fracture his finger could no longer play his musical instument. At the time that was the culture, it would be inappropriate to teach a child such a thing now. I understand that, I also understand that preceding generations did not have the same level of political awareness and development as exists today. That such was the case, has a lot more to do with the religious oppression they lived under than their own choice.

by Curious Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:54

"Mary O'Rourke said something that I heard regularly since my childhood, I never heard it said with malice and always understood it to mean that a person was a hard worker. "

Did you also regualary assume that if a person is black that it therefore follows that they are an asylum seeker?

by observer Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:13

The chances that a black person here is an asylum seeker is very high. No more racist than assuming that a Chinese person is a student. Phuq heds (how apt) claim regarding the number of black people born here in years gone by is nonsense. I have lived in Dublin for over 40 years and knew two black Dubs. Played hurling with one and the other was Phil Lynott!

by SH Tue Jan 10, 2006 13:00

First of all, regardless of whether the intent was there, which it wasn't, Mary's comments did offend some people. She should apologise for any offence that she might have caused. If she had done so earlier this whole issue would have been finished.

As for RAR's comments. What RAR have been saying is that Mary O'Rourke has done excellent work on asylum issues and specifically on the "bring them home" campaign in Athlone. RAR have said that this whole affair has been blown out of proportion, and that the expression was outdated and inappropriate in the present day. Mary O'Rourke wasn't called a racist she was simply asked to apologise for any offence that she has caused.

To call Observor2 a racist is to misunderstand what he is saying. The expression used by Mary O'Rourke was indeed very common. It is inappropriate in today's Ireland as we have rapidly changed. Even though the intent was not to offend people it has and that is why she should apologise.

As for Observor "The chances that a black person here is an asylum seeker is very high" this comment is quite a strange one. What is high? 20% 40% 80%. There are more non asylum seekers from Africa than there are asylum seekers. The number of asylum seekers is relatively small.

by observer Tue Jan 10, 2006 13:24

I have no figures but would guess that the proportion of Africans who are asylum seekers, or have been granted asylum is at least 40%. Nigerians make up the largest part of the African population here and the vast majority are here claiming asylum, are they not? So I would regard it as a neutral term and that making the assumption that a black African is seeking asylum implies no prejuidce on the part of most people.

It is simply another cultural rule of thumb that people employ in day to day dealings. Somewhat in the order of assuming that if you meet a person from NI in Dublin they are more likely to be Catholic! Is that sectarian?

by Devil Dog Tue Jan 10, 2006 14:08

I seem to recall a case in the US where a Democrat party official lost his job for using the word "niggardly". Apparently it "caused offence" to some people. Now imagine a similar situation here - if Mary had said someone was "niggardly" and some black punters claimed to be "offended", despite there being no intent to cause offence - would you say she should still apologise?

by SH Tue Jan 10, 2006 14:24

You have made an invalid assumption. The number of asylum seekers in Ireland is relatively small. The number of migrant workers from Africa is high. Take 2004 as an example. The numbers of immigrants from outside the EU and US was 14,900. During the same period there was 4625 applicants for asylum. A proportion of 3:1

Also in my own personal experience if I meet someone from the 6 counties in Dublin it would be about 60% catholic and 40% protestant. Assumptions are a dangerous thing

by SH Tue Jan 10, 2006 14:31

The word niggardly has nothing to do with race it means a miser or stingy person. It is completely different to what Mary O'Rourke said. If someone doesn't understand the meaning of a word, then there really is no need to apologise.

by Observer Tue Jan 10, 2006 15:58

Are you seriously claiming that the majority of Nigerians here (I use them merely because they are the largest African group) are migrant workers?

by SH Tue Jan 10, 2006 16:38

First of all you were talking about africans and producing false assumptions, now you are talking about Nigerians. Your quote is "The chances that a black person here is an asylum seeker is very high" which I disputed as being untrue as it is clearly untrue.
There are probably more Nigerian asylum seekers than non asylum seekers, I dont know for sure though. However that is not what you said, you were talking about black people, if that is what you meant to say than you have shown breathtaking ignorance.

by observer2 Tue Jan 10, 2006 17:11

If MO'R should apologise then we all should. We are all part of a society which is and has presided over the genocide of our own "ethnic minority" the travelling people. A proper debate on this issue is what is needed, in order that the sane middle ground of common sense and mutual understanding be reached. Racist attitudes are not confined to white Irish people. Racist attitudes can be found in every society no matter their colour or geographical location.
That offence is more often taken than intended is a truism. If some people choose to take offence at M'OR's comments then perhaps they ought to take time to study the society they live in, and make some attempt to understand it. Perhaps such unnecessary sensitivity is incompatible with this society? If your expectations are that you will change a society and it's culture overnight then you are indeed foolish, and not only foolish but abusive in that you refuse to recognise how that culture has developed and where it is today.
I welcome people to Ireland. I am aware that my culture has developed from pre celtic through celtic, norse, norman, english periods to arrive at where it is today. That it will continue to develop with the new influences is not only inevitable but welcome.
This year the McCarthy cup, the pinnacle of our national sport of hurling was lifted by a man of Fijian and Irish cultural background who was born in Australia. and who came to live in Ireland aged 11. It was also the first time in my many years of watching the game that I remember an all ireland winning captain in either code giving their entire speech as gaeilge. That he was also the only player selected for the international rules tests against his native Australia who didn't play football for his county adds to the example. It was an excellent example of Irelands ability to accept the people of other cultures who choose to come here to live., and an excellent example of someone from another culture taking to ours with such enthusiasm. Of course I'm not suggesting that every child who comes here should take up speaking gaelic and playing gaa, I do suggest that it is necessary to understand the society and culture you live in to some degree. To do otherwise is to ghettoise and the results of that can be seen in other countries.

by Phuq Hedd Tue Jan 10, 2006 18:58

QUOTE: If some people choose to take offence at M'OR's comments then perhaps they ought to take time to study the society they live in, and make some attempt to understand it.

RESPONSE: I'd suggest that's exactly what you do. If you do it seriously then one of the conclusions you might reach, but which you appear to have ruled out a priori because it's too upsetting to you, is that this is a fundamentally racist society.

To believe that a couple of hundred years of intensive propaganda from liberal capitalists seeking to justify the genocide and exploitation of people in other countries has had no lasting effects is untenable. To believe that there ought to be no effort made to remove that type of thinking is at best smug and at worst malign. It's a small effort for people of an older generation to be polite and remember that they should be careful not to normalise racist attitudes.

The special pleading that you engage in for those that display racist behaviour (pointing to inconsistencies in their racism as mitigating factors!) does not excuse their racist behaviour. It explains it, but that does not excuse it or provide a reason for why we should tolerate it. To make this clear, no one is suggesting that your mother or Mary O'Rourke should be fired. The fact that O'Rourke won't admit that it's a problem and that you feel that it's acceptable for your mother to wander around insulting people gratuitously points to a deeper core problem. This is further indicated by your automatic association of black people with asylum seekers which indicates that you are your mother's child.

Don't be Politically Correct. Don't be afraid to call a racist a racist. Free your mind from the Thought Police.

by observer2 Wed Jan 11, 2006 01:23

ah phuq, i bow to your obviously superior intellect and understanding of the culture of this island.

you win, happy now? ok you can have a lolly for being such a clever little phuq head.......................................

i'm off to the real world.

byeee....................................

by observer Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:11

The reason I referred to Nigerians is that they are the largest part of the African community here. If, as you say, most of them (and I would say at least 90%) are or were applying for asylum, that would indicate that the majority of black Africans in Ireland are asylum seekers. Therefore, a person making the assumption that a black African here is an asylum seeker is guilty of no more than common sense.

by SH Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:19

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but not anymore with your last post. You kep on making false assumptions and trying to introduce them as fact. You are wrong and you have been shown to be wrong yet you keep on making figures and statistics up. Your figures are wrong, your assumptions are wrong and your "indications" are wrong. You talk about common sense yet you seem to have none, common sense would dictate that you do not make up stats, figures or assumptions got from ignorance and stupiditiy.

by observer2 Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:54 observer.two at gmail dot com

just to point out that "observer" is not observer2, in case there is confusion!

by observer Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:30

What false assumptions am I making? Are you saying that the majority of black Africans in Ireland are NOT asylum seekers but are in fact part of the workforce, or students?

by observer2 Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:46

refugee/asylum stats are available at:

http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/stats.html

and work permit stats are available at:

http://www.entemp.ie/labour/workpermits/statistics.htm

From jan to nov 05 , 6992 new permits were issued and 18379 were renewed giving a total of 26165.

cursory analysis of the figures show that The Phillipines is listed as the nationality of over 4000 or about 15%, Brazil(1307), China(1324), South Africa (1748) Romania (1757) India (1631)and the Ukraine (1873) are the next highest.followed by Australia(888), Bulgaria(596), Belarus(556), Bangladesh(875)New Zealand (507), U.S.A(998), Pakistan (791)Moldova(698), Thailand (534) and the Russian Federation (638). The remainder consist of a global mix of countries including over 50 countries who are counted in single figures.

Anyone who wishes to analyze both sets of figures thoroughly would no doubt be able to break the figures down by continent of origin. It seems to me that few migrant workers come here from Africa, most are from eastern Europe and Asia. Most Asylum seekers do come here from Africa and of
1,259 new asylum applications in 2005 the top 5 countries of origin are Nigeria 557(or 40%),Somalia 88; Romania 77;Afghanistan 57and Sudan 32

The top 5 countries in 2004 were Nigeria – 1,776 Romania – 28 Somalia – 198 China – 152 Sudan – 145

Those are the facts. What you make of them is up tto yourself but at least it brings some clarity to what the actual figures are.

by observer Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:54

Hadn't the time to chase those down so thank you. I'm sure that SH will be able to digest them and draw the appropriate conclusions.

by observer2 Wed Jan 11, 2006 13:12

And their debate about making assumptions about Nigerians.
There are 70 Nigerians here on work permits(less than 2% of Nigerians currently in Ireland). It is clear from that figure that the vast majority of Nigerians come here are asylum seekers. It is also true that in their case Ireland is not the first point of entry into Europe and that this causes them to be refused asylum under the Dublin Convention.



Lets have a truthful national debate on the whole subject.

by observer Wed Jan 11, 2006 13:25

SH accused me of making things up. As the figures cited above demonstrate I was not.

SH also claimed that the number of migrant workers here from Africa is high. It is not. It is extremely small.

by Palto Wed Jan 11, 2006 14:07

I am fed up with the Political Correct Police, these people are the real faccists as nobody is allowed have free speech anymore according to their logic.
Thank God the Irish are a bit more outspoken than the Brits and people see through this "Racism Industry" with all these do-gooder who patronise everyone else.
What about the "west African" crack cocaine laboratory that was found in Phibsboro (My area) before christmas selling this dangerous drug to young people on moore street?
Should these people be allowed stay in society. No Deport them. If I get a greencard to the US and I start selling Crack do you think the authorities will let me stay!!
Also true I agree with observer there are no direct flights from Lagos to Dublin so they should be deported back to Amsterdam or London, their first port of call.
Also I could not afford the 8,000 euro to be smuggled from africa, or the 5,000 euro flight from Lagos via Amsterdam to Dublin, so how are these people paying for it?

by crushed velvet Wed Jan 11, 2006 14:14

A FF senator is not being discussed for saying " my team worked as hard as crack dealers " or " I encourage others to find their place in an entrepeneur based economy as a market leader " but rather
"worked liked blacks".

Now if a Conservative Briton of their upper house had made a similarly insensitive comment such as "I'm glad my staff didn't work like Micks" I presume your reaction would be different. It really is quite amazing how less than one generation from being on the butt of racism, the nouveau riche white teeth Irish forget all about it.

by SH Wed Jan 11, 2006 15:30

As you can see from the work permit figure South Africa had a high number of work permits. There are work permits issued to other african countries aswell. There are also work authorisation visa's and other such visa's for people conducting business or involved with training for business. There are also student visa's. So the truth is still that there are more africans here who aren't asylum seekers. The numbers of asylum seekers in Ireland are relatively small.

As for the Dublin convention this has been dealt with substantially in other threads and is nothing whatsover to deal with the original topic that is being discussed. Needless to say both observer and observer2 are making assumptions that just aren't true.

by SH Wed Jan 11, 2006 15:39

I forgot to add that there are currently 40,000 people on work permits in Ireland O2's figures only deal with new ones.

by observer Wed Jan 11, 2006 15:43

The point is that you are wrong. Most Africans here - as is obvious from the statistics are asylum seekers. And that does not even include those who WERE going through the asylum process but who have officially disappeared.

The least you could do is recognise that you were in error and that you were abusing people from ignorance. But hey. It''s a sunny day and I forgive you :)

by SH Wed Jan 11, 2006 15:59

Observer it is completely untrue and the statistics do not show you are correct. They show you are completely incorrect. Attempts to pass things of as true by repeating them over and over is an idiotic and devious way to cloud the truth.

by observer Wed Jan 11, 2006 16:08

Do the sums.

by SH Wed Jan 11, 2006 16:17

Grow up you child. You are completely wrong. 40,000 work permits are currently in operation in Ireland, there are thousands more work authorisation visas and student visas. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.

by Confidentiality Wed Jan 11, 2006 16:28

I find it amazing since I moved from Phibsboro to Dundrum that there are hardly any Ethnic Minorities on the South-Side that get the LUAS.
Could it be that the chatterin lefty/liberal/do-gooder class think immigration is great as long as its not in their back yard?
Cant wait until these immigrants start taking all the Middle Class jobs and housing and see what government policy will be.

by observer Wed Jan 11, 2006 16:36

Now who is being childish? The figures to the end of November 2005 include ALL work permits not just new ones. Of the 26,165 in operation 2,182 were held by people from sub-Saharan African countries, of which 1,748 were held by South African citizens, many of those here being white.

It is unlikely that 14,000 new permits have been issued in the last six weeks wouldn't you think? But even if they had been, and the same proportions applied and sub-Saharan Africans got 8% of them, then that would only be an extra 1,120.

At the end of March 2005, there were 7,280 asylum seekers officially registered. 85% of them were from sub-Sharan Africa. That's 6,188. And that does not include a significant number who have been turned down but have gone off the official radar, or those already granted asylum.

But on any measure, the number of black Africans who are asylum seekers outnumber those in the workforce by 3:1.

by observer Wed Jan 11, 2006 16:44

There were 756 students here from sub Saharan Africa in 2005 so yet another of your "thousands" of other-than-asylum-seeker categories gone. Oh dear.

Be a mensch and admit you are wrong. I do it all the time. Helps one to grow as a person.

by Phuq Hedd Wed Jan 11, 2006 16:57

Who has slowly revealed his/her real agenda as one of complete racism. From an initial unsuccesful attempt to stifle free speech by claiming that calling a racist a racist was not allowed (Political Correctness is a favourite tool of the right-wingers) to claiming that all black people in Ireland are asylum seekers.

Fight the Thought Police: call a Racist a Racist!

by observer Wed Jan 11, 2006 17:05

Why don't you actually read what has been posted. No-one is claiing that most black people here are asylum seekers. I am stating the fact that most black people here are asylum seekers.

And by the way, how is that racist? I have no problem with people from unsafe countries coming here to claim asylum. Why do you regard it as some kind of stigma? And why do actual facts cause you such offence?

by seedot Wed Jan 11, 2006 17:22

observer, where did you get this fact
"I am stating the fact that most black people here are asylum seekers."
Last year 330,000 US soldiers spent a while in ireland. 10%+ were black - based on percentage of fatalities: see here

Then we have people from the UK - 9% of their population is 'non-white' according to their most recent census.

Then (I know this might be a tough one for you and Mary O'Rourke to grasp) some of these people might be Irish.

By your obsession with asylum figures (when do people stop being asylum seekers?) you are making the same assumptions that Mary O'Rourke made.

by observer Wed Jan 11, 2006 17:28

My facts all come from official sources. And no amount of claiming that there are thousands of Irish born black people or English tourists or AWOL black GIs gets away from that.

As for my interest in this, it is simply in the interests of the truth. As stated above I personally have no objection to asylum seekers and am bemused that others consider their status - the status of the majority of black people in this state - to be some kind of stigma.

by observer Wed Jan 11, 2006 17:29

I have posted the facts proving what I have said. Read them. Really, it's like teaching seven year olds.

by seedot Wed Jan 11, 2006 17:42

9% of their population are non-white.

these are two facts.

they imply that more than 300,000 non-white people came to Ireland in 2005 from the UK alone.

i saw some stuff you posted relating to sub saharan africans - but maybe you can guide this particular 7 year old brain to how that proves that most black people here are asylum seekers.

by SH Wed Jan 11, 2006 18:23

Sorry I was incorrect, there are currently 32,000 work permits not 40,000. Work authorisation visas and other such visas included with the students are thousands of other africans in the country. In this day and age it is pathetic that you have such an untrue and idiotic stereotype. We really must start attacking the education system in this country for churning out brainless buffon's.

by observer2 Wed Jan 11, 2006 19:55

do you think i am insulted by being called a racist? not in the least, this attempt at the attachment of what is considered a term of abuse (racist) to anyone who dares to question the views of a small minority of extremists will not work.

Those who use the term racist to try to stifle debate are the intolerant ones, they show by their use of this abuse that their arguments do not hold up and are based on nothing more than their own opinions.

So yeah thats right phuq, i'm a racist!!!!!
as for others, i'm sure you are capable of reading the thread and making up your own minds.

By the way to use the term racist to attempt to bully others is in itself a breac of this states anti bullying legislation.

You phuq are attempting to bully, not succeeeding you are merely a failed bully!

by Phuq Hedd Wed Jan 11, 2006 20:11

QUOTE: Those who use the term racist to try to stifle debate are the intolerant ones, they show by their use of this abuse that their arguments do not hold up

RESPONSE: Accurately identifying your thought processes as racist doesn't stifle debate. It describes clearly and accurately a mental error which you are committing. You've moved from portraying those who object to the offhand use of the phrase "worked like blacks" as oppressors of your poor oul' ma (who incidentally quite likes Vietnamese people and gives money to "third world charities" and sure didn't she create all the bounteous wealth to give to those charities) on to claiming that you can identify the birthplace and occupation and citizenship status of a person on the basis of their skin colour.

I wouldn't be surprised if you an yer ma even quite like listening to some of that there soul music.

Quit trying to stop people using the term racist. It is becoming more and more obvious that it describes you very neatly. Although there is insufficient evidence to tell for sure I'd be willing to bet that it describes Mary O'Rourke, her brother and her nephews very accurately as well. (RAR can say what they want about her, but we should be aware that RAR contains a lot of members who are also members of a potential future coalition partner with MO'R's party).

Stop trying to stifle debate by banning words that you deem politically incorrect you thought-censorer.

by observer2 Wed Jan 11, 2006 23:46

I'm not trying to ban anything Phuq, I object to the misuse of this term to abuse people who challenge the opinion of the self appointed thought censors!

you are the one who is being discriminatory.

I have no problem with a racist being called a racist, What I object to is these totalitarian tactics whereby anyone who challenges a particular opinion is branded as racist as a censorship tactic used to stifle debate and kill off an dissent.

end of debate.

by Phuq Hedd Thu Jan 12, 2006 04:35

What you're objecting to is being told that you're behaving like a racist. You're calling for the elision of this term from my thinking about you and describing you. That's a hyper-sensitive, politically correct, totalitarian, bullying and unsuppportable position. Now eat your cake.

by observer Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:17

You are sad pathetic little creatures. The statistics are quite easy to understand by anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size. Unfortunately neither of you seem to possess this so it is all lost on you.

The statistics in questions prove beyond all doubt that the majority of black Africans in this state are asylum seekers. And very welcome they are too.

There are, as the statistics show, approximately 7,000 asylum seekers and 3,000 who are on work permits or are students. There are not "thousands" of other Africans here under any other status. As for the references to visitors from the UK, that is just a pathetic red herring. So grow up the pair of you and engage in real debate instead of childish name calling and hysterics.

By the way, neither of you - nor the aptly named phuq hedd, have replied to my query as to why "asylum seeker" is a stigma? I see nothing wrong with anyone applying for asylum here, so why has it suddenly become such an insult to those of you who have taken on themselves the burden of the sensitivities of people who, unlike myself who work with a number of Africans, you probably don't know as individuals.

by Damien Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:21

It's very easy to call someone a racist these days, and the label can stick, without justification. Perhaps it would be wise to know the meaning of the word before throwing it about and clouding the issue by "playing the race card"

Racism is defined in most dictionaries as two ideas :

1) Discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race

2) The belief that a particular race is superior to others.

I can't see anywhere in the thread where the people labelled as racists have shown abusive attitudes toward another race nor can I see evidence of beliefs that one race is superior to another.

Discrimination in this context is definied in the dictionary as "unfair treatment or an action based on prejudice". I can't see how the statement of fact is unfair and by definition the statement of fact is not prejudice.

I certainly don't think MOR comments were abusive, and I don't think she has indicated that she feels superior to any other race. Thus, by definition she is not a racist.

She may however have been unwise to use such a turn of phrase, as it offers the stupid among us a chance to wrongfully call her a racist.

You owe the people you have labelled as racists an apology, as it would appear your understanding of the racism is different to that of the rest of the english speaking world.

by Clarance B. Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:26

Its a fact and the whole country knows it. The vast majority of asylum seekers are fake. The dept of foreign affairs knows this and can prove it because, Yes they actrually investigate the claims so are in the best position to know what is going on. Only the do gooder element are living in a fantasy land as usual, a land of elves and hobbits where everything is great and rosy. The coincidence of a massive increase in asylum seekers with our booming economy does not fool anyone as these people target good economies. However in saying that, we do need a certain amount of immigrants to sustain growth so that is no problem with me, i just refuse to be made accept that most asylum seekers are genuine...

by debate. Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:47

Interesting paper on Nigerian migration to Ireland.

Julius Kómoláfé is a Doctoral Student at Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

http://www.africamigration.com/archive_01/j_komolafe_searching.htm

by SH Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:06

The stats do not back you up at all and again trying to repeat something does not make it fact.

by observer Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:21

You say the statistics do not back me up. In what way do they not? When adults debate they cite evidence. They don't engage in "no you didn't, I did" type arguments.

by Damien Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:58

"There are more non asylum seekers from Africa than there are asylum seekers" - SH

I presume you refer to the number of Africans living in Ireland in the above comment. Are you able to provide evidence for this?

Or is this simply your personal opinion, which you accept is different to the figures provided by the Irish governement ?

by debate Thu Jan 12, 2006 14:52

Pia Prutz Phirl outgoing representitive for UNHCR in Dublin is quoted in todays I.T (pg8) as stating that Ireland has on of the fairest systems in Europe for dealing with asylum seekers, and that the level of access granted by Irish government departments and agencies is unique in Europe.

" we now have a system which, in many respects, is one of the best in Europe" UNHCR rep Dublin.

Not bad for a nation of racists, huh!


http://www.ireland.com/

by seedot Thu Jan 12, 2006 15:23

Observer, the debate started on whether Mary O'Rourke, on hearing that someone was black was correct in inferring they were an asylum seeker / had been granted asylum.

On that basis mentioning 330,000 UK non-white tourists, a figure which completely overshadows the 7,000 or so asylum seekers you fixate on is relevant. As to the side debate focussed on sub saharan Africa, I have not attempted to participate.

Like yourself, I am lucky enough to work with some black africans. But same as yourself - I do not work with any asylum seekers - since by definition these people don't work since they are not allowed (as I think of it perhaps you work in some section of the informal cash economy, so maybe you do know some asylum seekers in work).

My point re asylum seeking is that this is a process someone goes through, succeeds or fails and then it is over. And yet 'asylum seeker' has now become short hand for any black face seen on the streets of our city. Since this is incorrect (they are more likely to be a British Tourist) and carries with it the implicit belief that the asylum seeker is not working and therefore not contributing to the Irish economy I believe that it's use stereotypes and in many ways dismisses a huge number of people as unproductive. You only have to look at the numbers of African businesses or go to some of the call centres (especially French Speaking as well as English) to see that this classification of people in Ireland with different skin colour is not only incorrect but reinforces prejudices.

by Debate - Campaign for racial integration Thu Jan 12, 2006 15:57 campaignforracialintegration at yahoo dot co dot uk

It is long past time that Ireland had a debate on the issues involved in immigration and racial integration. For too long debates on these subjects have been dominated by political interest groups who are pushing their own hidden agendas as is evidenced by the comments posted on this thread.

The common ground has become sandwiched between the two extremes, at one side we have the racists of the immigration platform with their ireland for the irish mentality and at the other we have the extreme left groups such as RAR with their insane insistence on a one sided analysis and a refusal to debate on the facts.

The vast majority of Irish people are decent and are welcoming of immigrants. To seek to address the issue of immigration is to address racial integration. We believe it is necessary for understanding on both sides. Understanding by the indigenous Irish of the cultures of new immigrants and understanding by immigrants of the culture they have chosen to emigrate to.

In her comments in todays Irish Times, Irelands UNHCR representitve warns of the need for racial integration and of the consequences of ignoring this vital aspect of immigration policy. To continue to ignore is to allow the continuation of the formation of ghettos both physically and mentally. We must work to avoid this through an honest, open and understanding approach to each other.
It is regrettable that those who purport to be interested in acting against racism insist on labelling all who disagree with their narrow analysis as racist. We will challenge this tactic as we will challenge the tactics of the far right and their scaremongering.

The facts are indisputable as to how many immigrants are in Ireland legally either through the work permit system/Student Visas or as asylum seekers/refugees. Ireland has had a large influx of immigration from a total of over 100 countries and even more cultures. We must seek to integrate or we will reap the rewards. We believe it is the responsibility of all both indigenous and immigrant to face this challenge.

************************************************************
the campaign for racial integration does not claim to represent the views of anyone other than itself. It seeks only to stimulate debate and encourage action on the basis of the republican ideals of equality, liberty and fraternity.

by observer Thu Jan 12, 2006 16:16

As I said before, I am genuinely puzzled as to why people regard 'asylum seeker' as a stigma. However, I do take your point regarding the term being used as a term of abuse. However, that does not get away from the facts. And unless you deal with the facts you will not be able to deal with the reality of the problems that do face both the immigrant and domestic population. Shrouding them in denial or myth - from either side - only makes things worse.

Apologies by the way, if I was unnescarily insulting to you earlier.

by Debate Thu Jan 12, 2006 16:55

forgot the web address to last post

by R. Isible Thu Jan 12, 2006 18:06

Is the belief that races exist. Following on from that belief it's generalising about an individual person's character or abilities on the basis of perceived membership of a race.

O'Rourke's quote neatly encapsulates all of the above.

by oh here come the lefties Thu Jan 12, 2006 18:26

whether race is a social construct or not , actual people do have differing skin pigmentation which causes them to appear to be different.

The intellectual nuances don't make much difference when you are being abused or discriminated against, does they?

As for your definition of racism, it differs from every legal definition that I am aware of. The definition given above by Damien is the universally accepted one.

but you go ahead and massage that ego, thats really going to deal with the actual difficulties faced by the millions of people who believe that race does exist and who are being discriminated against on the basis of it.

bit like the mammy at the army parade who says to her husband " oh look, everyone is out of step with our risible"

by FFSYAM Thu Jan 12, 2006 18:30

let me get this straight Risible. Racism is the belief that there is such thing as race?

So MLK was a racist then was he? He spoke of "the different races"

that just puts the tin hat on it risible.
Martin Luther King was a racist, are you for real or have you just landed on earth recently?

by P. Fitzpatrick - C.R.R.I- personal capacity Thu Jan 12, 2006 18:43

It is the muddying of the waters by those who argue over whether race exists or not that is a part of the problem. The only interests served by such confusion is that of the extremists, it does nothing to allieviate racism or promote integration among people who, whatever else, percieve that they are different.

It would serve the cause of integration and equality much better if such arguments as to whether or not race is a social construct or an antrophological/biological fact were confined to the ivory towers in which the academics who attempt to promote their careers on the back of such socially divisive hypothesis reside.

by R. Isible Thu Jan 12, 2006 18:44

QUOTE: actual people do have differing skin pigmentation which causes them to appear to be different

An astute observation which does you credit and is a testament to your powers of observation. However, once you get past that there is absolutely /nothing/ that you can say about the character, intellect, abilities, propensities or otherwise of the person that you've decided has a skin pigmentation of a particular hue.

You can't say that they're going to be a harder worker, cleverer, worse at sports or /anything/.

Race is a figment of the imagination of those that believe in it. All that it results in is discrimination on the basis of skin colour because those that believe in race believe in skin colour as one of its phenotypic markers.

Ask any geneticist if there is a supported scientific concept of race and they'll say no. It's a figment of the imagination of racists who've tried desperately to prove its existence for about 120 years.

by R. Isible Thu Jan 12, 2006 18:48

QUOTE: It is the muddying of the waters by those who argue over whether race exists or not that is a part of the problem

So, don't argue over it then. Accept that it is a complete fiction and move on, or is this another of the taboo subjects? I hadn't realised the number of forbidden thoughts there were that surrounded this subject.

by p.fitz Thu Jan 12, 2006 18:49

sorry about this but there is the link, finally.


http://integrateireland.bravehost.com/

by P.Fitz Thu Jan 12, 2006 18:58

Whether or nor there is a genetic basis for people believing in race is irrelevant. There is no basis at all for believing in god but billions of people do.

People are being discriminated against on all sorts of basis. What integrate Ireland support is integration. The more people integrate with each other the more likely they are to see the myths for what they are.

There is an ongoing debate as to whether race is a social construct or not, the point I make is that the argument regarding that will have little effect in practice on discrimination. I am not saying that it is not a valid argument I am just saying that it is of little benefit to the actual person suffering discrimination today.

Intellectual debates as to the social construction of the concept of race and racial superiority are all fine and well but what do you propose we do R.Isible, talk about intellectual/scientific/philosophical ideas? Or actually DO something.

by R. Isible Thu Jan 12, 2006 19:09

QUOTE: Intellectual debates as to the social construction of the concept of race and racial superiority are all fine and well but what do you propose we do R.Isible

I"m not really interested in a debate on it. I don't think most geneticists give any serious credibility to the idea that there is anything that you can meaningfully define as a race. The only people that want to debate that after they've spent a few hours reading the current literature usually tend to be racists.

I do think that acceptance of the idea of race leads to racism and so it's important not to let it just slide by. So public pronouncements of the O'Rourkes and others should be challenged because they perpetuate the idea that there are innate differences tied to skin colour. That acceptance means that it's hard for people to integrate on an equal basis and will retard any possibility of creating a reasonable, stable society.

Finally, given that your own website says "Ours is a campaign to stimulate debate" you might want to stop foaming at the mouth whenever you achieve your objective.

by P.Fitz Thu Jan 12, 2006 19:19

Hardly foaming at the mouth. Slightly frustrated that while there is constant reference to racism and yet little if nothing is being done in the area of integration to combat it. Surely the best way to show that race is a social construct(my personal opinion) is by causing interaction and integration. It is on the one to one level where human meets human that most can be achieved to dispel the myths of thousands of years of indoctrination, and I mean on all sides.

People call discrimination on the basis of skin color racism. Thats the way it is. Now I can try to explain to them how believe in race is genetically untenable, I choose not to go down that path because first it is necessary to redefine words, phrases and concepts which are innate. I happen to believe that taking some action to cause people to redefine how they feel(racism is hatred and hatred is an emotional reaction, but thats a different debate) through human interaction.

by P.Fitz Thu Jan 12, 2006 19:23

apparently I should have made it clear that I am not a spokesperson for Integrate Ireland and I am only expressing my own views.Apologies.

by R. Isible Thu Jan 12, 2006 19:48

Thanks for the clarification that it's not your site: but it's the one that you cited and presumably therefore agree with. It specifically calls for debate and yet you object to debate as "ivory tower". I disagree. I think that if you don't tackle the fundamental assumptions of racism head on then you can do all you like to put people of different skin colours in proximity to each other and they'll "socially construct" discrimination, bigotry and other wrong-headed ways of thinking. If you start out on shaky premises then your "constructs" are going to be faulty. Of course it's not sufficient to sit on our arse arguing about the complete lack of any evidence that supports the existence of race, but neither is it sufficient to think that if we all play handball and drink Guinness then we're going to get along fine. Look at the UK, USA, Germany, or especially France for counterexamples.

by observer Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:32

Actually they would not. You may not be familiar with work of Neil Risch of Stanford but he carried out the most comprehensive survey comparing peoples self-perception of their racial group, and their DNA. Of over 3,000 samples only 5 individual's genetic make-up differed from their self-perception.

The Human Genome Project is most often cited as scientific evidence that race does not exist on the basis that it proved only a tiny %difference between different groups. However, as is known to anyone with even Junior Cert biology it is such small differences that determine inter-specific, never mind intra-specific differences.

The point is not whether race exists - and as others have said here the fact is that most people identify themselves in this way anyway - but whether it is used as an excuse to victimise people or claim superiority one over the other. That is a political issue and one that is not helped by people denying the facts, or worse claiming that even beleiving in the concept of 'race' makes one a racist.

by . Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:48

Interesting piece on it from this link.

Yale's Kidd, one of the coauthors of the Science paper, notes that following its publication, some observers argued that the findings demonstrated the existence of races as biological entities, while others maintained that the data proved the opposite. "My opinion is closer to the latter," says Kidd. The results, he explains, show that it is possible to detect very small genetic differences between different populations if you look closely enough. "There is a bit of history that is recoverable," says Kidd. "But that doesn't support the idea of race. It does support that when you look around there is some geographical structure that is present in the genome, though it's extremely small."

by Xavier Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:33

It is irrelevant to the racism issue whether or not there is actually a measurable genetic differentiation. Racism is not a question of the biological or physiological attributes of a human, it is a question of human perception that such a difference exists and then discriminating on the basis of the percieved difference.

While attempting to confront the social behaviour that is racism it is also necessary to educate the public as to the genetic reality.

Our society is dominated by a capitalist culture which is concerned with creating consumers rather than community. It is only through education and integration that a truly multi cultural society can exist in Ireland. A society where people rather than property/profit are the reference point in terms of values.

Capital cares little what the colour of a consumers skin is. Capital cares even less what the colour of a wage slaves skin is. Capital is colourless.

To combat and debunk the notion of racism(or any other discriminatory practice) we must build community based on the ideals of equality liberty and fraternity.

by Coillte, and proud of it! Fri Jan 13, 2006 15:14

"Outcomes" by Xavier is getting real close to the reasons for the confused state that we are in. M O'R desrves full credit for opening this record long debating thread.

"Our society is dominated by a capitalist culture which is concerned with creating consumers rather than community." to quote Xavier. People may not agree, but here follows my intrepretation.

The weapons of captilism i.e. organised financial systems; keep factors of production (e.g.labour) as cheap as possible; strict allegiance to the corporate structure; strict rules of corporate governance; the employess of each company must march in step in the achievment of corporate goals; the ethics of individual staff' has to bend to the corporations dictates in the achievment of profit i.e. loading of interest and fees charged. Such behaviour has no effective opposition when religious ethics are sidelined. (Iam talking here of religious beliefs, not human failings, so please do not give me back any shit on child molesting etc).

Society, Community or whatever you call it, in it's present makeup has not a ghost in hell chance of standing up to above well organised and rampant capitilism. Society is made up of people, the dignity of people is lost because we can't organise ourselves as corporations can. The introduction of devorce, acceptance of sexual intercourse outside marriage, and abortion has completely resulted in the abdication of society to the dictates of Capitlism. Drugs and drinking sessions, business association, the corporate structure is now the fulcrum in which society revolves. The bottom line is that the birth rate drops, we are all too busy making big profits for the Corporation. Immigrants are sucked into the same connundrum; their birthrate drops e.g. Britain, Italy, Germany, France etc. A list of the "Most Free Economic States" was published in the Irish Times a few weeks ago; it was not mentioned that these nations had fertility rates far below the replacement rates. Ireland has the fastest drop in fertility rates of any nation on earth during Peace Time. The current rate 1.87 is decreasing rapidly (replacement rate is 2.1). This eventually generates Old Aged Populations; neccessitating military activity for protection. Multi National Companies will then pack their bags and go and invest in areas with young populations. National governments won't know what hit them and panic into giving financial inducements to produce more babies; which they soon discover to be a useless exercise. But we must learn by mistakes rather than by world examples!

With our present mentality, there is hump-all we can do about this scenario. Let us retreat back again into the world of unreality as exemplified by our reactions to the apparent slip up of MO'R. This indeed was a slip up, not because it is racist! Contraception has been touted as a means to control the rampant increase in the worlds population! Why then are we inviting them all to this wee country of ours? but to indeed "work like blacks"! Good on ye, Mary! the mask of our cuddly Cetic Tiger is slipping! The community that makes up us Irish will shortly be the ones slliping into the background on this isle of ours! Call it racist or whatever you like, but we the indiginous Irish are a community heading rapidly for the knacker's yard!

by Xavier Fri Jan 13, 2006 15:40

It is unnecessary to use religion as a source of ethics. In fact in Ireland the dominant religion has for millenia oppressed the community. It participates in the capitalist structure in denial of its own sacred texts. Organised religion is merely another form of social control. Social control needs to be replaced with social assent.

Religion is not the answer, it is and has been part of the problem.

by observer2 Fri Jan 13, 2006 15:49 observer.two at gmail dot com

and how many exactly " indigenous Irish" are there, Coillte,do we exclude people of anglo/saxon, norman, viking decent?

Or are you the last of the Fir Bolg?

Or some Dalcassian warrior?

Maybe the indigenous Irish are the Milesians? How many Milesians are there out there?

There is nothing wrong with being a celt and proud of your celtic culture but to describe yourself in terms of "indigenous" is a misnomer.

by observer Fri Jan 13, 2006 15:50

Actually Coillte makes a valid point. Religion (of whatever stripe) does provide an ethical and moral basis for the manner in which people behave. It is all very well to talk about replacing it, but when it is replaced with nothing then you are in trouble. And btw, I speak as an athiest on this!!

by Coillte, and proud of it! Fri Jan 13, 2006 18:18

Xavier! You are now pulling me into a defence of my thoughts. I would be normally classified as a surface thinker. But here goes! Social Control and Assent are actually connected. However assent is a real democratic ideal, a bit like conscience; it is difficult to measure:
Whether if it is operated from a selfish or communal motive;
the different levels of assent for each individual and collate their wishes;
what the primary motive governing an individual is e.g. food, a house, a holiday, what level of welloffness are they at?
Assent would be ideal, but as well as the teaching of religion, its purpose, mode of practical use etc would have to be thought from an early age. Ideal Assent may involve blocking out those beliefs that do not concur with the ultimate ideals of Assent. Does Assent involve a God or must everybody conform to a set way of thinking? I think that I could run with your Assent, but you must realise that is the way of the human race to date. Life or death lies with those who are most effective at delivering their message. Capitalist System is great, but will only operate effectively if man is under some belief that he will be penalised for doing wrong in a religious afterlife. Otherwise, he just gets away with breaking all kinds of earthly laws, because he can pay the top solicitors; fat organisations operate in this fashion; the assent of the individual is ignored.

Oberser2. Indigenous Irish, okay you win, I will include those who have become more Irish than the Irish themselves! My fear is being swamped by hundreds of thousands of foreigners. Remember, we have yet to assimilate the last major wave of immigrants i.e. the Plantation of Ulster.

Observer. And in this wild earth, a grecian urn!

by R. Isible Fri Jan 13, 2006 19:10

QUOTE: Neil Risch of Stanford but he carried out the most comprehensive survey comparing peoples self-perception of their racial group, and their DNA. Of over 3,000 samples only 5 individual's genetic make-up differed from their self-perception.

Actually, no. Risch reanalyzed Wilsons data. The statement "only 5 individual's genetic make-up differed from their self-perception" is completely unsupported by any data in the paper "Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease" Neil Risch, Esteban Burchard, Elad Ziv & Hua Tang. Genome Biology 2002, 3.

The paper is far more complex than that.

Much stronger evidence for the _presence of genetic structure_ appeared to come from the 2002 study ("Genetic structure of human populations". Rosenberg, N.A., Pritchard, J.K., Weber, J.L., et al. _Science_ 2002 298(5602):2381-5 ) of SNP markers from the Human Genome Project. Although this indicated that on the basis of the markers chosen it was possible to cluster human populations into 5 major groups which link to geographical regions (and a 6th group which doesn't) the authors (especially Marcus Feldman) took pains to point out that while ancestry can be inferred from genotype, genotype can not be inferred from ancestry. This last point is very important in the discussion of "race". To take the medical slant which is used by Risch and others: imagine being admitted to hospital and identified as "Irish" and thus, without further consideration of the individual particulars of your actual biology being assigned a treatment on the basis that more Irish people respond positively to it than not.

That's the implication of what some people are mistakenly deriving from the presence of genetic structure in populations and it's good old fashioned phenotypic racism dressed up in new clothes.

by Xavier Fri Jan 13, 2006 21:50

I know this is a very simplified explanation but here goes: social control is control exercised on the community from external sources, social assent is control exercised by the community from within.

As for religion, I have nothing against an individuals choice to practice any given spiritual teaching. It only becomes a problem when people of like minded spiritual convictions align to form a "religion". In that regard they then become the equivalent of a political party insofar as they are organised around a specific philosophical belief. Thus organised religion and political parties are one and the same thing, bodies formed for the exercise of social control.

Community gatherings for spiritual reasons are a seperate and different issue. A good example would be organisations such as CROW which are loosely afffiliated groups with no central leadership. They follow anarchic "structure". It would appear that were ,christians for example, to follow the teachings of their spiritual leader they would also abhor hierarchical structure.

It is unnecessary to have either as far as the development of ethics are concerned, and based on the past couple of millenium it is desirable to avoid both as they corrupt ethics.

by Coillte, and proud of it! Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:53

Xavier! Stalinist Russia blows a big hole in your above comment. Incidentally, the absence of any real organised religion in that country is having exactly the same long term effect on society as irreligious Capitalism i.e. drastic reducing fertility rate. Russia today has a fertility rate of wait for it, 1.27 (Replacement Rate is 2.1). The youth population is very low. They have a huge burden of elderly people. The male life expectancy rate is down to 60. However like the West , they still think that they are a World Power. Why! same as the West, they have the A 0r H 0r Whatever BOMB. They, like the West think they have the real power over life and death; they don't need religion. However, nations with many children see this very uneven world divide opening up; so what do they do! they naturally try to get the Bomb also. Any idea where all this is leading to! Right on! Boooooom! If I was Putin, I’d go easy on the Gas!

by Xavier Sat Jan 14, 2006 15:03

"Thus organised religion and political parties are one and the same thing, bodies formed for the exercise of social control."

How does Stalinist Russia blow a hole in that? Stalinist Russia was a dictatorship, where the state exercised social control through the "communist party" as was the case throughout the history of soviet Russia. The fact that organised religion was effectively banned during the soviet period was to avoid any competition for the social control of the people. In case you are confused by my comments, let me be clear, I do not support the ideology of soviet Russia. Imperialist communism(a contradiction in terms, I know) and imperialist capitalism are equally abhorrent to me. So also is the concept of imperialist organised religion. Organised religion (christianity) was a central plank in the European oppression of Africa, India and the Americas. to quote Kenyata
" they gave us bibles to read, and while we looked up to heaven they stole the land from under our feet"

To me, oppressive social control and centralised power structures are the same wheter political or religious. To look to the middle east we can see the effects of Totalitarian Islam in Iran for example, where dissent on religious or political grounds is not tolerated.

India provides a much better example in terms of thew ability of organised religion to operate while not centralising power and exercising social control. Both Hindu and Buddhist practices are "organised" however they are organised without central leadership and the consequent centralisation of power. They too have the A bomb.

They question of the A bomb is interesting. Like any weapon it is not the weapon that is relevant but the mindset of the person holding it. Both soviet Russia and the USA used it as a threat(and in USA case as a weapon of war) as a means to gain control over other states in their effort to become the biggest bully in the school yard.

You quote stats for Russia. It is wise to bear in mind that russians are emerging from hundreds of years of oppression both under Czar and Party. It is natural that there is a fragmentation of society as individuals strive to exercise their individuality to the extreme. Similar to a post colonial effect, it only shows that post imperialism affects the imperialist state as it does the subjugated state.

Now Coillte, perhaps you can tell me why the same laws on discrimination that apply to the individual citizen do not apply to the organised religions? Why are the predominant religions allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender? and sexual orientation for example. Does this not supply them with the opportunity for greater social control?

I would reiterate my comment and add to it:
"Thus organised religion and political parties are one and the same thing, bodies formed for the exercise of social control through the centralisation of power and the use of hierarchical structures"
It really does not matter whether the sacred text of such entities was written by Marx or St.Paul. Adherence to dogmatic ideas with no opportunity for dissent from them, debate about them or progress forward from them has repeatedly failed the people as is evidenced not only by soviet Russia but also by the dictatorship of Roman Catholicism before it. It allows for no evolutionary thought, hence the guardians of power of such ntities come to be known as the thought police( wheter it is the K.G.B or the Congregation for the doctrine of the faith it amounts to the same thing)


I believe it is useless to look to the failed structures of the past. We need to look forward, to build true community based on the principles of equality, liberty and fraternity and the assent of the people and move forward from dependence on ideologies that not only control our lives but tell us what we may think.

by Coillte, and proud of it! Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:42

It is the human way from time immemorial that we try to control each other. It is our nature; you try to put your views across. I try to do the same. However the important thing is not to succumb to the thought police tactics, Spanish Inquisition, KGB etc. But to do as we are doing now i.e. dialogue. We then learn from each other. Your view on India and how they are not affected by harbouring an A Bomb has certainly giving me food for thought!

Xavier! Yes, as pointed out by you, organised religion does not mean dominance; it in fact is a check on abuse of power etc. It is most effective when it has the facility to indoctrinate society from kindergarden up to and including Third Level Education. It is a system of beliefs on how we should treat each other with respect. It in no way instructs us to maltreat or dominate other members of the human race. Religion is abused when a religious community is under some sort of threat from outside forces; often the short fuse of humanity explodes and a crime is committed. Yes, all religious people are perfectly able to commit misdeeds etc because they are human! Redemption is provided for in the Roman Catholic religion for this waywardness i.e. the Sacrament of Penance.

Without a practicing knowledge of Right and Wrong in a moral, ethical or religious sense, the institutions of any society break down. Self Regulation will no longer be left to the Professional bodies i.e. legal, medicine, accountants etc. There will be cries to publicly regulate these professions as a result of some of their members’ facilitation of crimes e.g Enron, Parmalat etc. Somebody has to take control; sometimes the State or what is happening now is a power that people are barely aware off i.e. the Brussels bureaucracy which is not even elected by the people. All power will then lie in the hands of the State/ Brussels. Professions in this way will have to report on any suspicious activity within their sphere of influence. A “Nation of Spies” is substituted for adherents of orthodox religions. Plebiscites will be ignored if they do not come up with the result wanted by these all powerful and unchallenged earthly authorities. Religious Communities will come even more under threat from societies whose fertility rates are dwindling because of past irreligious practices. Who started the Balkan War? but a race who got afraid because of the higher birth rates of their neigbours. Libraries, the fountains of knowledge were burnt to the ground!

Now, this is why I have found your comment on India so revealing. It appears that an irreligious society, the ones with falling fertility rates would be the most probable ones to use the A Bomb!

Xavier! Thank you for the enlightenment. I now have to get back to work and am withdrawing from this thread! Good on you Mary! I hope you get back to Leinster House!

by SH Mon Jan 16, 2006 15:52

Firstyly apologies for the delay in responding to posts, computer problems etc, etc.


In 2004 there was a total of 3035 asylum applicants from the whole of Africa. The total number of applicants for 2004 was 4766. The percentage of african applicants was 63.6%. As people can see observer is talking nonsense when he says 85% of applicants are from sub saharan africa. He has pulled this figure from absolutely nowhere.

According to the CSO, in 2002 the total number of Africans living in Ireland was 20,981. The breakdown given was 8969 from Nigeria, 4185 from South Africa and 7827 from other African countries. These figures are from 2002 but they are the most up to date that the CSO have available. According to these figures Nigerians make up around 43% of Africans in Ireland.



Definitions of racism www.nccri.ie

The UNESCO and UN declarations on racism and racial prejudice are the most widely acknowledged definitions of racism and give a clear statement that racism is without scientific foundation.

The UNESCO Declaration (1978) states:

Any theory involving the claim that racial or ethnic groups are inherently superior or inferior, thus implying that some would be entitled to dominate or eliminate others who would be inferior; or which places a value judgement on racial differentiation, has no scientific foundation and is contrary to the moral and ethical principles of humanity.?

The UN international Convention on all Forms of Racist Discrimination (1969) states:

Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference, based on race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, which has the purpose of modifying or impairing the recognition, the enjoyment or exercise on an equal footing of human rights and fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural, or any other field of public life constitutes racial discrimination.?

These internationally accepted definitions clearly indicate that racism is more than a set of attitudes or prejudice. Racism is a specific form of discrimination associated with skin colour and ethnicity. It is an ideology of superiority and provides a rationalisation for oppression. It also involves the abuse of power by one group over another group. So, while racism involves negative stereotypes and assumptions it should not be reduced simply to attitudes, thereby equating it with prejudice. The reality of unequal power combined with prejudice enables some groups to treat others in racist ways by denying them access to opportunities, resources and decision-making processes.

by LOCALIST Tue Jan 24, 2006 20:14

>>There is nothing wrong with being a celt and proud of your celtic culture but to describe yourself in terms of "indigenous" is a misnomer.

The Celts are Native Irish? Actually, the Celts were believed to have come to Ireland from Central Europe via Britain some 2500 years ago. The fact is though that most Irish people are genetically descendant from Stone Age populations who arrived here from northern Iberia around 9,000 years ago. The Genetic marker R1B is associated with this group. The Gaels might have spoken a Celtic language, but are not actually Celtic in ancestry. In the same way that many people speak English but are not actually English.

99% of men in Connacht with Gaelic surnames carry this marker, while most English men also carry it. This whole Celtic, Germanic or Nordic notion is not taken seriously be anthropologists today.