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

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

There's a book about that called How The Irish Became White. Are you referring to that? I think I'll buy it.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.
inflatable jesus said:However, please don't patronise me by dismissing my position as childish. I think that's unfair.

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.
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![]()
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.
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.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?).
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.
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.
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.
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?
chico enrico said:was it really?![]()


pogofish said:Especially for Ally's Tartan Army!![]()
chico enrico said:Anyway, I thought "Scotland's Shame" was Andy Cameron![]()
