Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Scotlands Shame

geminisnake said:
I really think you two should let it go.

Totally agree with this. A prime example if I ever saw one, of what differences in religious opinion achieves. A virtual battle. Give it a rest, or take it to pm's children :rolleyes:
 
In all fairness this isn't really about religious opinions so much as a disagreement about history and sociology.

I don't really think there's any reason to take this to PMs, it's not a private matter and if you don't want to read these things then you don't have to keep looking at the thread. You can even attempt to move the debate on if you like and I'll be happy to respond to anything you say that's on topic. However, please don't patronise me by dismissing my position as childish. I think that's unfair.

In the interests of better community relations I'll even issue a small apology:

Dave, I'm sorry I called you a pig-ignorant cunt. That was unfair of me.

However, seeing that you've yet to correct me on my summary of US immigration history I'll presume you're happy to withdraw your accusation that I am ignorant with regard to this subject.
 
As to why there's no Catholic/Protestant animosity in New York . . . that one's easy. It's because they're all white.

I am not being flippant. Irish immigrants to the US in the 19th century thought their initial position would be improved if they bought into the hegemonic racism of US society, something that continues to this day.
 
Idris2002 said:
As to why there's no Catholic/Protestant animosity in New York . . . that one's easy. It's because they're all white.

I am not being flippant. Irish immigrants to the US in the 19th century thought their initial position would be improved if they bought into the hegemonic racism of US society, something that continues to this day.
There's a book about that called How The Irish Became White. Are you referring to that? I think I'll buy it.
 
inflatable jesus said:
However, please don't patronise me by dismissing my position as childish. I think that's unfair.

It's not your position that I'm on about, it's the petty name calling between you and dave. Anyway, this thread is way off topic, so cheers for your comment dude :)
 
Idris2002 said:
As to why there's no Catholic/Protestant animosity in New York . . . that one's easy. It's because they're all white.

I read a few bits and peices about that in a book about the Civil War. From what I recall, the Democrats seemed fairly sure that the racism went down pretty well with Irish voters on the East coast.

It kind of puts a dent into some of the more romantic ideas about the Irish and their struggles with discrimmination.
 
forked brain said:
It's not your position that I'm on about, it's the petty name calling between you and dave. Anyway, this thread is way off topic, so cheers for your comment dude :)

In all fairness it was only me doing the name calling. The only marginally offensive thing he said to me was that I needed to learn some US History.

I'll try to stop.
 
fishfingerer said:
There's a book about that called How The Irish Became White. Are you referring to that? I think I'll buy it.

Not only am I referring to it, I'm reading it at the moment, and I intend to use it in class next semester.

A better title would be 'How a bunch of Irish eejits fell for the oldest trick in the book'.

One interesting thing that I wasn't aware of before reading it is that during the initial phases of Irish mass migration to the US there was a lot of rivalry, often leading to violent clashes, between Irish people from different counties. This was in a context of competition for limited employment opportunities at low wages, natch.

Those Cork people in particular seem to have been very clannish (what's the Irish for 'quelle surprise' does anyone know?).
 
Idris2002 said:
Not only am I referring to it, I'm reading it at the moment, and I intend to use it in class next semester.

A better title would be 'How a bunch of Irish eejits fell for the oldest trick in the book'.

One interesting thing that I wasn't aware of before reading it is that during the initial phases of Irish mass migration to the US there was a lot of rivalry, often leading to violent clashes, between Irish people from different countries. This was in a context of competition for limited employment opportunities at low wages, natch.

Those Cork people in particular seem to have been very clannish (what's the Irish for 'quelle surprise' does anyone know?).
I wasn't aware of that either. The whole Tammany era is fascinating. Look up stuff on George Washington Plunkitt if you haven't already.

As for the corkonians, ehh, iontas mór is ea é or something like that.
 
Idris2002 said:
Irish immigrants to the US in the 19th century thought their initial position would be improved if they bought into the hegemonic racism of US society, something that continues to this day.

When you say that it continues to this day are you refering to other immigrant groups buying into racism or that Irish-Americans are still notably racist?
 
I got lambasted for saying that I-Ams have strong tendencies towards racism in my early days on urban . . . but it's true they are notorious for that to this day.

(in fairness though, my I-Am friend is definitely not like that).
 
It's something I haven't noticed since I've moved here.

Tendencies towards thinking JFK and the NYPD are great I've noticed, a big sense of Irish-American patriotism with a heavy emphasis on the American part I've noticed, that the AOH are a shower of arseholes I've noticed.

But I haven't seen any signs of racism from the various Irish-Americans that I've gotten to know.
 
There's a couple of them in work (which is a largely African-American and Hispanic workplace) they're 25-30, thoroughly assimilated Americans. I've never discussed race with them but they're definitely on friendly terms with their African-American and Hispanic colleagues.

Then there's a friend of a friend who's about 30, a working class and very heritage conscious Irish-American Brooklynite that I've discussed many things with and I'm absolutely sure doesn't have a racist bone in his body. He works largely with Mexican immigrants and gets on great with them.

Then there's a few older guys that I know a little through the local Celtic supporters club. I heard some of them discussing other Irish-Americans and talking about tendencies towards Catholic fundamentalism, but nothing really about race.

If I was to guess, I would say that if it's there, it's probably part of a certain Irish-American subculture. Perhaps it's more prevalent among older folks, or certain social classes or proffessions or locations or something. But as far as I've seen, it's certainly not all-encompassing and I don't think it's even something that's even widely acknowledged by the American public. I presume I would have heard something to that effect by now if it was.

Were you basing your comments on personal experience or on something you've read?
 
Things I've read and things people have told me.

My wee brother came home from the pub one night saying he'd met these yanqui girls who were very racist. . .

As long as racism remains a problem in the US at least some I-Ams will be racist.

I'll ask my I-Am friend about this the next time I see her, but she moved around a lot as a kid, so she may not be fully up to speed with what the 'community' thinks in this case.
 
Donna Ferentes said:
So what's it doing at a football match? Does anybody really think that the players don't know that they're in a Cathoilics v Protestants atmosphere and that the Sign of the Cross is a specifically Catholic observance?

It's not the same as singing the Sash, but that doesn't make it innocent. If you're going to ask people to avoid displays that are sectarian or provocative then it need to be among the things that are avoided. Otherwise we're going to be in a position where all the things that are sectarian just happen to be things that Rangers people do and all the things that Celtic people do just happen to be religious observances. Which will get us nowhere.

Sorry but you're talking shite.
making playing flute gestures and singing the sash are 100% linked to the orange orders and are symbolic of their triumphialist and sectarian ethos.
crossing yourself is simply a catholic gesture.
what you are saying is like saying there's no difference between wearing a cross and wearing a red hand of ulster on a necklace.
 
chico enrico said:
crossing yourself is simply a catholic gesture.
what you are saying is like saying there's no difference between wearing a cross and wearing a red hand of ulster on a necklace.

An expressly forbidden gesture at old-firm matches & one that has been used repeatedly to "inflame" hair-trigger members of the opposition.

Also, when it was up against the wire for the Rangers support & combined with v-signs & pretend wanking, how on earth can you argue that his intention was not to aggrevate someone?
 
pogofish said:
Also, when it was up against the wire for the Rangers support & combined with v-signs & pretend wanking, how on earth can you argue that his intention was not to aggrevate someone?

was it really?:rolleyes:

In which case i would have thought the blue-noses would have had enough to make their case without bringing the 'crossing' into it.

but then again, i suspect there are sections of ibrox ticketholders who would be less 'offended' were he to have given a hitler salute.
 
chico enrico said:
was it really?:rolleyes:

Yes. Fairly well reported - some linked earlier on this thread & well-discussed on various Scottish sports boards. My guess is that they are adopting their usual pussyfoot approach to policing football & jumped on the least offensive/explicit gesture to try & warn him on.

In the old-firm context, that would be seen as a peace-gesture by a fair chunk of the fanbase! :D
 
Back
Top Bottom