The New Face of Ireland

[Warka]

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23636868/

‘New’ Ireland’s changes go more than skin deep

Country long known as a land of emigrants is transformed by migrants

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/ArtAndPhoto-Fronts/COVER/080317/g-080317-ireland01-6a.h2.jpg

Daniel Strieff

March. 17, 2008

PORTLAOISE, Ireland - As revelers worldwide celebrate St. Patrick’s Day with a pint of Guinness, dyed-green milk or visions of red-bearded leprechauns, it’s a good bet that few of them will have Rotimi Adebari in mind.

But, for those seeking an authentic vision of today’s Ireland, perhaps they should.

The election last year of Nigerian-born Adebari as mayor of Portlaoise is the most prominent manifestation of the changes sweeping this island, which is rapidly evolving from a land of emigration into one of immigration, where at least 1 in 10 people is foreign-born.

This transformation — fueled by a decade-long economic boom and relatively liberal immigration laws — means Ireland has gone from Western Europe’s poorest and most homogeneous country to one of its wealthiest and most cosmopolitan in little more than a generation.

For the first time in its history, Ireland, which sent hundreds of thousands of emigrants to the United States, Britain and elsewhere, is wooing large numbers of migrants.

That has forced the country — and communities like Portlaoise, a commuter town of 14,000 residents 50 miles southwest of Dublin — to get a crash course in integration.

“When I came into this town in 2000, I could count the number of people that are born outside of Ireland that live in Portlaoise,” said Adebari, the country’s first black mayor.

“But today it is a completely different story. The town has become so diverse, so multicultural,” he said.

Fastest-growing country in Europe

The Irish economy now depends on migrant workers — whether Asian medical personnel, Eastern European service staff or Polish construction workers.

“Whether or not we should have migrants in Ireland is not the debate in Ireland now. It’s actually all about can we retain the medium- to highly skilled migrants that we have,” said lawmaker Conor Lenihan, who was appointed as the country's first-ever integration minister in 2007.

In the 1980s, Ireland was barely able to retain its own. The unemployment rate was around 18 percent and thousands of young people were fleeing the country annually for Britain, the United States and elsewhere. The endless conflict in Northern Ireland along with divisive battles over social issues in the south combined to scare off the best and brightest.

But boosted by generous tax benefits for multinational companies, the Irish economy roared to life during the nineties, earning the moniker, the “Celtic Tiger.” Between 1995-2000, the economy expanded at an astounding average of 9.5 percent per year; now it has eased to a still robust rate of 4-5 percent annual growth.

The newest arrivals have helped boost Ireland’s population — now at around 4.2 million — to its highest level since 1861. It’s the fastest-growing country in Europe.

“I think attitudinally one of the issues that people took some time to adjust to was the idea that migration would be a permanent feature of Irish life,” Lenihan said. “People have now moved on and realized that they’re here to stay, they’re here for a long time. We’ve got to in a sense adjust ourselves to that reality.”

Under the most generous immigration laws in Europe, Ireland until 2003 automatically granted citizenship to foreign parents of Irish-born children and, until 2004, gave citizenship to Irish-born children whose parents were not Irish nationals.

A nation transformed

As the number of asylum applications and economic migrants rapidly began to increase, both laws were rescinded — the former by the high court in 2003 and the latter by national referendum the following year.

Although official statistics vary due to difficulties in monitoring movement within the open-bordered European Union, estimates for the number of Eastern Europeans — mostly Poles — living in Ireland range from 150,000 to 300,000. Since the mid-1990s Ireland also accepted an estimated 30,000 asylum seekers, especially from Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country.

Compared to the United States, the influx may not appear significant. Ireland remains nearly 95 percent white. But in a country that had virtually no people of color just a couple of decades ago, the change on the ground is unmistakable.

Parts of north Dublin, chiefly Parnell Street and nearby Capel Street, are developing into the country’s first Chinatown. Just yards away, on Moore Street, the Dublin brogues of the loquacious market vendors would be familiar to generations past, but the noodle shops that line the street would not.

On the south side of Dublin's River Liffey, the influx of young people from across Europe has helped the emerging arts and cafe culture in the trendy, cobble-stoned Temple Bar district rival its better known continental counterparts.

James Joyce once wrote that a “good puzzle would be [to] cross Dublin without passing a pub.” Soon, the riddle may be to cross the city without passing a Polish shop, Asian restaurant or Italian espresso bar.

The changes have extended to the entire country.

Brazil in the West

For example, in the western town of Gort (pop. 2,500) half the population is non-Irish, including nearly 900 Brazilians. To the south, in Ennis, Nigerian-born physician Taiwo Matthew became the first immigrant elected to local office when he won a seat on the town council in 2004. A Dublin-based South African dance studio owner, Joshua N. Amaechi, choreographed last year’s St. Patrick’s Day parade in the capital, the country’s largest.

In Portlaoise, Adebari, who arrived here as a refugee, has witnessed a transformation.

When he enrolled his son in the local primary school in 2000, he became the only foreign child out of a student body of around 300. By 2007, the school included more than 30 non-Irish children.

“I’d never have described Portlaoise as the hub of intercultural activities in the country, but that is how it has been in the last four years,” Adebari said.

Warmth and openness?

But the absorption of so many foreigners — especially those who may be nonwhite and non-Catholic — has at times tested Ireland’s reputation for warmth and openness.

Many economic migrants from non-EU countries complain the country appears to have an ad hoc immigration policy that, at best, leads to administrative headaches and, at worst, leads to abuses of vulnerable workers.

“They seem to not know the rules of their own country. One person at Immigration will give you one bit of rules and then the next person will tell you something totally different, which is contrary to what they’ve told you,” said Mark, a professional in his 40s who came to Ireland from a non-EU country three years ago. He spoke on condition his last name wasn't used as he's involved in a lawsuit with a former employer.

But unlike other European countries, Ireland has yet to have any major anti-immigration political parties. Still, acts of racism — and violence — are not unheard of.

Sani Mashiya, a 29-year-old from South Africa, was hospitalized for a week after what he called a “racist attack” by a gang of Dublin youths in 2005.

“I mean, I lived in South Africa in very rough places like Jo’burg but I was never attacked, you know,” he said. “There are quite a few (attacks on non-Irish) but maybe they're not publicized as much as they should be.”

In Balbriggan, a Dublin suburb, children of African immigrants found themselves attending an all-black school this fall because the country’s overcrowded education system could not find a place for them in any existing schools. The incident was blamed on a paperwork snafu, but suspicions of racism lingered.

An open question remains how welcome recent arrivals will feel should the Irish economy begin a downturn and the competition for jobs becomes fierce.

The soaring cost of living is already testing Ireland's lure as a base for international companies.

"[The immigrants] have been a solution to the employment situation in recent years when there was extra labor wanted in the country," said Pat Martin, a Dublin wholesale vegetable retailer.

Speaking just steps away from Slattery's, a legendary pub whose staff is now almost entirely Eastern European, and bustling Capel Street, with its profusion of Polish bakeries and Asian foodshops, he noted that the economy seemed to be slowing, "which is not going to encourage [them] to stay.

“They could be going back to their home countries," he added, "or other countries which are booming.”

In Portlaoise, Adebari has tried to head off any future problems by starting a consultancy providing advice on getting immigrants and local residents working together. He hopes that his historic mayoralty will be a model for socially disadvantaged people in Ireland and beyond.

“I took on board the norms and values of the host community without throwing away my own norms and values as well,” Adebari said.

“Now I have two cultures, I can come in and out,” he said.

Straw in the wind

Lenihan, the government minister, called Adebari’s election an “interesting straw in the wind” regarding public sentiment toward immigration.

“He’s as clever and as ingenious as any Irish politician and I think that’s what comes across to the public down there, that this guy — forget about his color, forget about where he’s from or his ethnic identity — this man can deliver the goods in terms of his service to his constituents and his service to the town,” Lenihan said.

Some observers point out that immigration — whether by Celts, Normans, Britons or Vikings — is not a new phenomenon for Ireland.

In fact, the figure who arguably had the greatest single impact on the course of Irish history was a bearded, snake-charming holy man who hailed from Roman-ruled Britain.

His name was St. Patrick.

[Heldensagen]

This mindset makes me sick. Why would a foreigner move to another country and wish to turn it into something alien from itself?

[harjit]

This mindset makes me sick. Why would a foreigner move to another country and wish to turn it into something alien from itself?

Something that Europeans have done in greater numbers than everyone else put together.

I'm not knocking it either, nothing says that nations or cultures have to be fossilized.

[Basil Fawlty]

Something that Europeans have done in greater numbers than everyone else put together.Except that Ireland was as much a colonised country as India, so your point is invalid.
I'm not knocking it either, nothing says that nations or cultures have to be fossilized.The people of Ireland were never consulted about this.

[harjit]

Except that Ireland was as much a colonised country as India, so your point is invalid.
Where did I specifically mention India? :confused: You may be an ethnocentrist but don't project such a thing on me.

And the point is not invalid. All colonization was carried out in much greater numbers by Europeans than all other nations put together. Good or bad aside, do you dispute this?

[MrAngry]

Except that Ireland was as much a colonised country as India, so your point is invalid.
The people of Ireland were never consulted about this.

The people of Africa, India, Asia, North America, Canada, South America, Australia, New Zealand weren't consulted either.

Quick question to you, would you prefer a white Irish Ireland that was poor? I'm not being facetious btw.

[Geist]

And the point is not invalid. All colonization was carried out in much greater numbers by Europeans than all other nations put together. Good or bad aside, do you dispute this?

Ireland does not equate to Europe especially in terms of colonial history. It is more or less unique in this respect. So I think your point is invalidated IMHO.

This is not to say Ireland should not have immigrants but that this angle is not useful for that argument.

[Geist]

The people of Africa, India, Asia, North America, Canada, South America, Australia, New Zealand weren't consulted either.

Quick question to you, would you prefer a white Irish Ireland that was poor? I'm not being facetious btw.

Ireland is actually losing its economic edge. In the future it may very well be poor, but with a large immigrant population to boot.

[cyborg]

Now is an excellent opportunity to mock the situation using visual arts. Ireland is strongly associated with the color green. Why not mass distribute Irish imagery in brown?

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd178/cryosteel/ireland.jpg (http://www.irlgov.ie/)

[Basil Fawlty]

Where did I specifically mention India? :confused:I mentioned so as to distinguish Ireland's histirical situation from other European countries that did engage in colonialism. You may be an ethnocentrist but don't project such a thing on me.Its not that I'm an ethnocentrist but rather that you are extremely deracinated.
And the point is not invalid. All colonization was carried out in much greater numbers by Europeans than all other nations put together. Good or bad aside, do you dispute this?I don't dispute that at all. In fact I am always making that point in this context, as you surely know by now. I was saying that your pint about European colonialisation is moot when applied to Ireland, which has more in common with the situation of the third world than with the imperial powers.

[Basil Fawlty]

The people of Africa, India, Asia, North America, Canada, South America, Australia, New Zealand weren't consulted either.Just to clarify here.
The point I think harjit was making was as follows.
The European powers engaged in aggressive colonialism so they can't really complain when the former colonised turn up on their shores.
Ireland was subjected to aggressive colonialism so that argument is invalid when applied to an Ireland subjected to mass immigration.
Quick question to you, would you prefer a white Irish Ireland that was poor?I object to the racist assumption underlying your question.
I am opposed to mass immigration and it is of no concern to me whether they be white, black or green with purple polka dots. In fact the background of the immigrants is totally irrelevant to me. My opposition is rooted in a wider hostility to the most recent phase of capitalism they call Globalisation. I can expand on that if you are interested.

As to the second part of your question. I am old enough to have lived a siginficant portion of my life in the old Ireland and yes, it was, on balance, better. Ireland is still not a rich country, the recently ended boom years were flash in the pan and did not result in any siginficant investment in public infrastructure, services, or long term real economic investment. Again, I can expand on that if you are interested.

[Winston]

Browns, blacks and anti-racists like to conflate all Whites when it suits them to.

[Dan Dare]

Just to clarify here.
The point I think harjit was making was as follows.
The European powers engaged in aggressive colonialism so they can't really complain when the former colonised turn up on their shores.

This is of course a quite specious argument that is often put forward by enthusiasts for mass immigration from the third world, at least into the former colonial powers in Europe.

However, it doesn't stand up because the countries that are the principal sources of migration were never 'aggressively colonised' during the colonial period. Large-scale emigration from the the British Isles (including of course Ireland) was limited to North America, Australasia and Southern Africa. For France, only Algeria and North America were colonised in any real sense.

The Indian subcontinent, for example, was never colonised as such by the British. There were never more than 150,000 non-Indians present in the Raj at any one time compared to an indigenous population of 300 million at independence. Even if one were to lean over backwards in an effort to be generous to the promoters of the 'reverse colonisation' aragument and agree to allow a proportionate number of subcontinentals to reside in Britain, that would mean that over 90% of the present immigrant cohort from that source would need to be packing their bags. Similarly, and probably even more so, for the rest of the countries that are providing the bulk of current permanent migrants into the UK.

...As to the second part of your question. I am old enough to have lived a siginficant portion of my life in the old Ireland and yes, it was, on balance, better. Ireland is still not a rich country, the recently ended boom years were flash in the pan and did not result in any siginficant investment in public infrastructure, services, or long term real economic investment. Again, I can expand on that if you are interested.

I believe somebody else commented quite cogently that Ireland's current economic success is likely to be transitory since it is based on financial flim-flammery and hyper-consumerism (as is the UK's) while the migrants and their progeny are there for good.

[Basil Fawlty]

This is of course a quite specious argument that is often put forward by enthusiasts for mass immigration from the third world, at least into the former colonial powers in Europe.

However, it doesn't stand up because the countries that are the principal sources of migration were never 'aggressively colonised' during the colonial period. Large-scale emigration from the the British Isles (including of course Ireland) was limited to North America, Australasia and Southern Africa. For France, only Algeria and North America were colonised in any real sense.

The Indian subcontinent, for example, was never colonised as such by the British. There were never more than 150,000 non-Indians present in the Raj at any one time compared to an indigenous population of 300 million at independence. Even if one were to lean over backwards in an effort to be generous to the promoters of the 'reverse colonisation' aragument and agree to allow a proportionate number of subcontinentals to reside in Britain, that would mean that over 90% of the present immigrant cohort from that source would need to be packing their bags. Similarly, and probably even more so, for the rest of the countries that are providing the bulk of current permanent migrants into the UK.Your objection is specious as it rests on a matter of terminology. Colonialism here means imperialism under all kinds. Britain exploited India to a considerable extent as it did to all the other pink bits of the map.
I believe somebody else commented quite cogently that Ireland's current economic success is likely to be transitory since it is based on financial flim-flammery and hyper-consumerism (as is the UK's) while the migrants and their progeny are there for good.Yes, although it is likely that a considerable number of them will move on as the slump starts to bite. Many of the Poles have left already.

[Dan Dare]

Your objection is specious as it rests on a matter of terminology. Colonialism here means imperialism under all kinds. Britain exploited India to a considerable extent as it did to all the other pink bits of the map.

Then I think a change in terminology is called for. In place of 'aggressive colonisation' I'd suggest 'aggressive exploitation'.

I actually like that better since it opens the door to claiming a villa on the Amalfi Coast as minimal recompense for the aggressive exploitation of England by the Italians. Perhaps a summer cottage in Normandy. I'm beginning to warm to this theme.

[Basil Fawlty]

Then I think a change in terminology is called for. In place of 'aggressive colonisation' I'd suggest 'aggressive exploitation'. I think terms like colonialism and imperialism covers the ground here. Unless you are one of those rare souls who believe that empire was an act of Christian charity but I don't think you do.

[Felix the Cat]

This is happening to every Western European nation, regardless of whether it engaged in colonialism or not

Wealth, rather than history, is what attracts these people

[Dan Dare]

I think terms like colonialism and imperialism covers the ground here. Unless you are one of those rare souls who believe that empire was an act of Christian charity but I don't think you do.

They may cover the ground, but are hardly synonymous I should have thought.

[Jake Featherston]

All colonization was carried out in much greater numbers by Europeans than all other nations put together. Good or bad aside, do you dispute this?

Only because we could, not because we had some special propensity for it. If some other group had been the stronger, it would have been them instead with global colonial empires. Japan almost pulled it off, for that matter.

[Jake Featherston]

Quick question to you, would you prefer a white Irish Ireland that was poor?

As an Irish-descended non-resident of Ireland, its perhaps easy for me to say this, but yes. Definitely and resoundingly, YES!

Of course, it depends how poor you mean. Poor like 30-40 years ago? Sure thing.

[harjit]

Just to clarify here.
The point I think harjit was making was as follows.
The European powers engaged in aggressive colonialism so they can't really complain when the former colonised turn up on their shores.
Ireland was subjected to aggressive colonialism so that argument is invalid when applied to an Ireland subjected to mass immigration.
No, I don't subscribe to that view, although I realize it is very common among liberals and anti-racists.

I was only responding to this post in isolation:
This mindset makes me sick. Why would a foreigner move to another country and wish to turn it into something alien from itself?
The typical thinking around these parts is that such is the mindset of non-Europeans, while kindly and peaceful Europeans have only innocently minded their own business and stayed rooted to blood and soil and hearth and home. I was pointing out that traditionally this was not at all the case. I don't think you dispute this, correct?

I realize the circumstances of Ireland are different. I was only focused on the above point, not about whether Ireland should allow immigrants or not. Since this is a thread about Ireland I should have been more specific, sorry about that.

This is of course a quite specious argument that is often put forward by enthusiasts for mass immigration from the third world, at least into the former colonial powers in Europe.
I'm not even such an enthusiast for mass-immigration in the first place. My circle of concern on these boards is mainly extant non-white minorities.

[Ahknaton]

This transformation — fueled by a decade-long economic boom and relatively liberal immigration laws — means Ireland has gone from Western Europe’s poorest and most homogeneous country to one of its wealthiest and most cosmopolitan in little more than a generation.
Propaganda of course. Homogenous = poor, cosmopolitan = wealthy.

Anyway, was Ireland really the poorest country in Western Europe in the 70s/80s? I remember visiting around '86 and it didn't seem very poor. I was just a child, but I can remember being impressed by all the stuff they had that we didn't have in New Zealand.

[Jake Featherston]

Anyway, was Ireland really the poorest country in Western Europe in the 70s/80s?

Maybe after Portugal.

[shanemac]

Propaganda of course. Homogenous = poor, cosmopolitan = wealthy.

Anyway, was Ireland really the poorest country in Western Europe in the 70s/80s? I remember visiting around '86 and it didn't seem very poor. I was just a child, but I can remember being impressed by all the stuff they had that we didn't have in New Zealand.

You're quite right. Ireland was relatively prosperous in the 70s, and not totally impoverished in the 80s. Pretty much every family had a car, a TV videos, micro-waves, etc. & plenty to eat in those days. What else do you really need?

The main thing was that jobs were scarce for young people... that's why so many young people emigrated in those days. Just as they emigrate from New Zealand these days.

[Errigal]

This is of course a quite specious argument that is often put forward by enthusiasts for mass immigration from the third world, at least into the former colonial powers in Europe.

However, it doesn't stand up because the countries that are the principal sources of migration were never 'aggressively colonised' during the colonial period. Large-scale emigration from the the British Isles (including of course Ireland) was limited to North America, Australasia and Southern Africa. For France, only Algeria and North America were colonised in any real sense.

The Indian subcontinent, for example, was never colonised as such by the British. There were never more than 150,000 non-Indians present in the Raj at any one time compared to an indigenous population of 300 million at independence. Even if one were to lean over backwards in an effort to be generous to the promoters of the 'reverse colonisation' aragument and agree to allow a proportionate number of subcontinentals to reside in Britain, that would mean that over 90% of the present immigrant cohort from that source would need to be packing their bags. Similarly, and probably even more so, for the rest of the countries that are providing the bulk of current permanent migrants into the UK.

...

"The Indian subcontinent, for example, was never colonized as such by the British." I myself think that's an important point to make. If any advocate of Third World immigration to Europe wants to argue that "we're here because you were there" then they should follow their argument to its conclusion. Under the historical president of French Algeria, French Indochina and British India; the aboriginal peoples of Europe should have the right to expel non-indigenous people en masse. "One suitcase or one coffin" was the graffiti message to the French community in Algeria in the early 1960s.


As well, as Basil and others have mentioned, the pro-immigration argument that allowing non-Europeans to settle in Europe is some form restitution hold absolutely no water in Ireland (or Scandinavia for that matter).

[Jake Featherston]

the pro-immigration argument that allowing non-Europeans to settle in Europe is some form restitution hold absolutely no water in Ireland (or Scandinavia for that matter).

Besides which, its totally irrational (in regards to Britain, France, Italy, Iberia and Benelux). After all, if they were so hot to come over here, then why the need to expel the Whites from the country they want nothing to do with? Since we had to leave their countries, they shouldn't be allowed to come to ours. If there were still a million Frenchmen in Algeria, they might have a point, but there isn't, so they don't.

[Felix the Cat]

A lot of Arabs also got thrown out of Algeria at independence. This is how France acquired its large Arab minority.

This is one case where the migration was not driven by economics

[Jake Featherston]

A lot of Arabs also got thrown out of Algeria at independence. This is how France acquired its large Arab minority.

This is one case where the migration was not driven by economics

Those Algerian Arabs (and presumably more than a few Berbers) got the boot presumably because they were perceived as collaborators ie., criminals. So France should get to ship its criminals to Algeria.

[Errigal]

A lot of Arabs also got thrown out of Algeria at independence. This is how France acquired its large Arab minority.

...

You're partly right; France did get a lot of Maghreb migrants who had to leave Algeria after independence for political reasons but they are a small part of the total North African population in France.

[Count Eustace II]

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."-Napoleon

The policy of flooding White countries with non-white savages is obviously not a sane policy, not endorsed by a vast majority of White citizens, and has nothing to do with some kind of "reparations" for past colonialism. It has to do with the bigger agenda of destroying nation states for the sake of empowering a Zionist World Dictatorship.

The media cheers it and everyone buys it.

[Basil Fawlty]

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."-Napoleon

The policy of flooding White countries with non-white savages is obviously not a sane policy, not endorsed by a vast majority of White citizens, and has nothing to do with some kind of "reparations" for past colonialism. It has to do with the bigger agenda of destroying nation states for the sake of empowering a Zionist World Dictatorship.

The media cheers it and everyone buys it.This is the bottom line of mass immigration which is another weapon in the arsenal of transnational capitalism for reducing the world to its complete hegemony.
Of course classic colonialism and imperialism was initially carried out by the first corporations as business ventures. When they ceased to be profitable they manipulated their own states into carrying the can. Imperialism in India was originally a venture of the East India Company, similarly with the Dutch East India Company in Indonesia and of course the early New World Colonies of Virgina and elsewhere; they were corporate ventures. Modern (17th century+) colonialism and imperialism and the current phase of Globalisation and mass immigration are phases of capitalism. The whole sorry business is summed up nicely by Alain de Benoist " Those who remain silent about capitalism should not complain about immigration."
This is why I have no sympathy with those who like to complian about immigration and other races yet want to retain a lifestyle that owes its own possibility to capitalism. You can't have your cake and eat it, lads.

[Basil Fawlty]

No, I don't subscribe to that view, although I realize it is very common among liberals and anti-racists.I know you have expressed more reasonable views on the matter. I think you have distinguished between 'new world' countries based on immigration and the old historic chthonic nations of Europe as being two distinct situations. If that is your view I agree that this is a very important distinction when discussing immigration.
The typical thinking around these parts is that such is the mindset of non-Europeans, while kindly and peaceful Europeans have only innocently minded their own business and stayed rooted to blood and soil and hearth and home.
I was pointing out that traditionally this was not at all the case. I don't think you dispute this, correct?Yes, of course not. However, if we agree that the people of the third world were vicitms of aggressive imperialist capitalism, the ordinary folk of the European countries were its first victims. Why should they be made pay the price? Its the poorest and most powerless groups in European coutnries who are on the front-line of conlfict with immigrants, not the middle class wind-bags who "celebrate diversity."
I'm not even such an enthusiast for mass-immigration in the first place. My circle of concern on these boards is mainly extant non-white minorities.The situation of Ireland pre-deluge was a very happy one. There were small numbers of people from all over the world here, mainly in Dublin, and their presence did not destablise society in the least. There was never any tension or unpleasantness of any kind.

[harjit]

I know you have expressed more reasonable views on the matter. I think you have distinguished between 'new world' countries based on immigration and the old historic chthonic nations of Europe as being two distinct situations. If that is your view I agree that this is a very important distinction when discussing immigration.
Yes, I'd say there is a difference and that I can have a modicum of sympathy for Europeans worried about the future. My position is mainly one that opposes the demonization of extant minorities. It's not like they did something wrong by going there (or being born there, in the case of the 2nd gen).

The situation of Ireland pre-deluge was a very happy one. There were small numbers of people from all over the world here, mainly in Dublin, and their presence did not destablise society in the least. There was never any tension or unpleasantness of any kind.
Pre-deluge... almost sounds Biblical :)

I am not opposed to the idea of it having stayed that way. Japan, for example, is not awash in immigrants and diversity and multiculturalism, yet I have no shortage of affection and regard for the place.

[Felix the Cat]

There seems to be agreement that minorities add value to an otherwise homogenous society, but that too much diversity is divisive, and possibly dangerous

Roughly what % minority population should responsible governments be trying to aim for?

[Dan Dare]

There seems to be agreement that minorities add value to an otherwise homogenous society...

There does?

Perhaps you could elaborate further in the 'Benefits of Diversity’ (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36246) thread.

[Dan Dare]

I know you have expressed more reasonable views on the matter. I think you have distinguished between 'new world' countries based on immigration and the old historic chthonic nations of Europe as being two distinct situations. If that is your view I agree that this is a very important distinction when discussing immigration...

It is an artificial distinction. The new-world settler countries were always intended as extensions of the old-world, with a few embellishments and improvements, and it was only much later, in the 1960s, that the fatal experiment of multiracial pluralism was actually launched.

The important distinction to be made is the one between settlers, and their progeny, and 'immigrants'.

[Count Eustace II]

This is why I have no sympathy with those who like to complian about immigration and other races yet want to retain a lifestyle that owes its own possibility to capitalism. You can't have your cake and eat it, lads.

Capitalism, or Corporatism, is a plague on humanity, a mutuant system causing misery for millions world wide. But this mutuated creature which rules the world from DC and NY came on piecemeal, over decades and decades, in back rooms, where the People were left out of the process yet fully indoctrinated into it's glorious benefits.

As for lifestyles built on runaway capitalism; now that the toothpaste is out of tube, how do you get it back in?

[Basil Fawlty]

It is an artificial distinction. The new-world settler countries were always intended as extensions of the old-world, with a few embellishments and improvements, and it was only much later, in the 1960s, that the fatal experiment of multiracial pluralism was actually launched. The Virginia settlement was certainly a kind of extension but the New England settlements involve a degree of mutual rejection. Old World/New World. The intentions of these founders were certainly for exclusivity, particularly after they had exterminated or pushed back sufficient natives, but the multi-ethnic dimension arrives with the slaves, then with the new kinds of immigrants in the 19th century, the Irish, the Chinese and the Jews. You are under the mistaken impression that the subsequent generations were or ought to be bound by the intentions of people who lived hundreds of years beforehand.
As for Australia, that was largely a penal colony and its not as if the convicts were signed up to your imperial vision, our lot certainly weren't. In NZ a unique kind of arrangement was worked out between the natives and the colonisers which again rather undermines your vision of things.
The important distinction to be made is the one between settlers, and their progeny, and 'immigrants'.I prefer - natives > colonisers > immigrants. The idea that you could launch these enterprises and that they would remain homogeneous forever is totally fantastic.

[Basil Fawlty]

Yes, I'd say there is a difference and that I can have a modicum of sympathy for Europeans worried about the future. My position is mainly one that opposes the demonization of extant minorities. It's not like they did something wrong by going there (or being born there, in the case of the 2nd gen).No, I don't think anyone should be demonised.
I am not opposed to the idea of it having stayed that way. Japan, for example, is not awash in immigrants and diversity and multiculturalism, yet I have no shortage of affection and regard for the place.I distingusih very sharply between the previous situation and mass immigration which is a very recent development here. This is something different and is bound up with the evils of Globalisation. I reckon though, that if you want to hitch your wagon to Globalisation then you more or less have to endorse mass immigration in order to remain consistent. That applies equally to the pro-capitalism/anti-immigrant crowd here.

[Felix the Cat]

There does?

Perhaps you could elaborate further in the 'Benefits of Diversity’ (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36246) thread. Well, the phrase "small numbers" has been used in this discussion to describe a pleasant level of diversity.

I'd like to get a rough idea of the figures involved in these optimal scenarios

[Jake Featherston]

There seems to be agreement that minorities add value to an otherwise homogenous society, but that too much diversity is divisive, and possibly dangerous

Roughly what % minority population should responsible governments be trying to aim for?

Even William Pierce said he was OK with 1% diversity.

[harjit]

It is an artificial distinction. The new-world settler countries were always intended as extensions of the old-world, with a few embellishments and improvements, and it was only much later, in the 1960s, that the fatal experiment of multiracial pluralism was actually launched.

The important distinction to be made is the one between settlers, and their progeny, and 'immigrants'.

There are countless white people in North America who are not the progeny of the original settlers. Are they also immigrants?

Or is that dividing line based on looks?

[brigadier Biggles]

There are countless white people in North America who are not the progeny of the original settlers. Are they also immigrants?

Or is that dividing line based on looks?

Danny is one of them :rofl: :whip: .

sry dan :(.

[shanemac]

Well, the phrase "small numbers" has been used in this discussion to describe a pleasant level of diversity.

I'd like to get a rough idea of the figures involved in these optimal scenarios

I think anything more than 10% alien race becomes a problem.

[harjit]

Danny is one of them :rofl: :whip: .

sry dan :(.
Well... I didn't want to make it personal or anything, you know. ;)

[harjit]

Even William Pierce said he was OK with 1% diversity.
I wonder how much Adolf Hitler would have been cool with.

[Dan Dare]

Even William Pierce said he was OK with 1% diversity.

But that doesn't seem to be answering the same question that CC posed. Being 'OK' with a level as high as 1% isn't necessarily the same as finding it 'pleasing'.

I suspect the question that Pierce was asked was more along the lines of 'how much diversity could be tolerated?'.

[Winston]

IMO, the New World would have ideally maintained an immigration policy barring anyone but Europeans, and in recent decades been strict about what sort of Whites were allowed to enter. i.e. a lot of the recent Russian and Irish would have been forbidden from entering.
Being a mix of disparate Europeans was never exactly ideal, but that was the nature of the country from the beginning, and I think America would have carried on nicely just siphoning off a steady stream of carefully screened people from Europe. Although this would have caused a brain drain situation and Europe would have suffered.

[Isra'il Yahya]

I wonder how much Adolf Hitler would have been cool with.

It didn't seem to matter much as long as you weren't a Pole, Russian, or a Jew.

[Starr]

This mindset makes me sick. Why would a foreigner move to another country and wish to turn it into something alien from itself?


That is a million times more understandable when compared to a native people thinking the same thing is either something to celebrate or not be too concerned about.

Quick question to you, would you prefer a white Irish Ireland that was poor? I'm not being facetious btw.

If it actually were to come down to a question of a less prosperous nation or a nation that would potentially lose it unique character and culture due to mass numbers of alien peoples, I would choose the less prosperous one. You have no chance of coming back from the latter.

I think anything more than 10% alien race becomes a problem.

That sounds like a reasonable figure. There needs to be laws in place to ensure the percentage does not go beyond that. Otherwise you will have a situation where a few more are allowed in, here and there, with people learning to accept it, and on from there.

[Unicorn]

Relax and enjoy diversity.

[JacktheNack]

The Irish were always the niggers of europe, so its appropriate that they brought some of their kind who happened to have a little bit more pigmentation (and ape bone structure). I just sit back and laugh. They've preached liberalism their whole lives, and now the chickens are coming to roost.

[harjit]

This is an Irish person:

http://www.ilovebeeing.com/heritage%20tees/europe/women_irish.jpg

This is an African person:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/ArtAndPhoto-Fronts/COVER/080317/g-080317-ireland01-6a.h2.jpg

The concept isn't that hard to grasp. Really it isn't.

They look like they'd make a perfectly good couple actually.

[Hakluyt]

That picture is wonderful. Captions? "Don't worry, everything is under control here. I'm Nigerian."

[Jake Featherston]

The Irish were always the niggers of europe, so its appropriate that they brought some of their kind who happened to have a little bit more pigmentation (and ape bone structure). I just sit back and laugh. They've preached liberalism their whole lives, and now the chickens are coming to roost.

Go back to VNN.

[JacktheNack]

VNN is not real national socialism. It is pan-european garbage.

[Jake Featherston]

VNN is not real national socialism. It is pan-european garbage.

Never-the-less....

[Basil Fawlty]

VNN is not real national socialism. It is pan-european garbage.VNN has nothing to do with Europe, its a purely American phenomenon.

But anyway, tell me, what rock did you crawl out from under? :irish:

[Wodan]

O'h well,

It's only to be expected after nearly 15 centuries of the Irish maintaining their loyalty to xInsanity.

[Errigal]

O'h well,

It's only to be expected after nearly 15 centuries of the Irish maintaining their loyalty to xInsanity.

So in an alternate timeline (to use sci-fi lingo) a pagan Ireland would be fighting off Nigerians at the pagan airport? Or would they not have jet travel in your imaginary pagan universe?

If Ireland and the rest of Europe had not become Christian approx 1500 years ago perhaps they wouldn't have a problem with Nigerian immigrants; or perhaps they would have been swamped with West African slaves brought in to Ireland by the Moorish conquerors of Europe. Who knows?

[shanemac]

O'h well,

It's only to be expected after nearly 15 centuries of the Irish maintaining their loyalty to xInsanity.

Our dedication to xInsanity is surpassed only by our dedication to scrounging.

[Basil Fawlty]

Our dedication to xInsanity is surpassed only by our dedication to scrounging.Speak for yourself, but then you do seem quite comfortable in the role of stage Irishman.

[Count Eustace II]

They've preached liberalism their whole lives, and now the chickens are coming to roost.

I personally know several old Irish guys who told me point blank that they didn't want to send their own kids to all-white Catholic schools back in the late 70's but rather wanted them to attend NYC Public schools so that they could experience diversity. Claimed it would make them more "rounded".

I swear I wanted to slap them all but they'd probably kill me.

[Wodan]

Our dedication to xInsanity is surpassed only by our dedication to scrounging.
That's possibly the reason for becoming xTians in the first instance!


Paddy to Mick:

"come on, their handing out free food at this churchy thing down the dell.
All we have to do is say 3 hail fucking mary's, and they'll feed the rugrats!"

[Kodos]

Then I think a change in terminology is called for. In place of 'aggressive colonisation' I'd suggest 'aggressive exploitation'.

I actually like that better since it opens the door to claiming a villa on the Amalfi Coast as minimal recompense for the aggressive exploitation of England by the Italians. Perhaps a summer cottage in Normandy. I'm beginning to warm to this theme.

I want my hacienda damnit.