next »

[dr_stones]

The real paradox when it comes to the 'Irish Abjection' is the fact that contemporary Irish people now use to same racist terminology to abuse present-day immigrants that, in the not too distant past, was used to characterize Irish emigrants abroad.  Forget all the claptrap about Ireland of the welcomes; since the economic boom of the mid-1990s, racism has emerged on a grand scale in Irish society -- a scenario in which the Irish yet again manage to ape the Brits.

Wittgenstein once refused to give away his inheritance to charity because he claimed that money would corrupt the poor.  Well, take a look at Ireland to see the truth of this: it has become a dreary, boorish nation that is incapable of looking past the third car in the driveway and the carbon-crunching five foreign holidays a year. 

Here's a title for a thesis on the Irish Abjection: not 'How the Irish became White,' but 'How the Irish became a**holes.'

 

You ever pay close attention to anti-immigrant sentiment in the African-American community? Hate is an equal-opportunity employer.

[tenured_feminist]

Back to thread: there's a great book by Allen Feldman called Formations of Violence about the IRA/British prison authorities' struggle in Northern Ireland culminating in the hunger strike.

[sockgumbee]

You ever pay close attention to anti-immigrant sentiment in the African-American community? Hate is an equal-opportunity employer.

Anti-immigrant sentiment is not necessarily hate talk. Yes it could be xenophobia but often it's just conservative values--although I know some see these one and the same. Given that even some naturalized immigrants are against open immigration and/or especially illegal immigration it's not like all immigrants think alike.

PS: Great book Tenured Feminist. thanks for the recommendation.

[magistra]

Well, no.  Legal immigrants are sometimes the most outspoken against illegals, and are rightfully angered that so many policies and laws wind up directed at both groups.  After all, immigrating is incredibly difficult and expensive; to have your hard-won rights endangered by people who didn't go through the same process must be discouraging.  (Virginia's debating a law that you can be fired for not speaking English on the job.)

And no, color of skin doesn't pre-determine one's political stance.  Africans who immigrate are often appalled at African Americans, who have access to free education, etc. -- opportunities not available in Africa -- and can't understand why they don't work their way up the socioeconomic ladder.  Then there's religion -- if you're African-American and Baptist, do you have more in common with the religious right, or with a black Muslim?  There are too many subgroups and shades of gray to make sweeping generalizations.

[captain_obvious]

I do believe that during the busing controversy in Boston in the early 1970s, white working class folks in places like Southie thought the whole thing was just another case of English bosses screwing over the Irish workers.  I.e., the (Anglos) in the government, with their own kids in private schools, were forcing the (Irish) workers' kids to ride an hour into another neighborhood to mix with African-American kids.

Whether it's still active in contemporary "diversity" politics I couldn't say.

Anti-Anglo sentiment (and resentment) among the Boston Irish is certainly a large part of this story, but not all by far.  There are, for example, famous photos of demonstrators holding signs reading "Ted Kennedy, send your kids to our schools!"  It was a reference to the fact that Kennedy, obviously Boston Irish, supported busing while sending his kids to private school.  In many ways, the more pressing resentment was working-class Irish Bostonians against the "limousine liberals" in the suburbs, rather than against Anglos particularly (although there was that too).  I can't remember whether it's Anthony Lukas in Common Ground or Ronald Formisano in Boston Against Busing who addresses this issue specifically.

Well, no.  Legal immigrants are sometimes the most outspoken against illegals, and are rightfully angered that so many policies and laws wind up directed at both groups.  After all, immigrating is incredibly difficult and expensive; to have your hard-won rights endangered by people who didn't go through the same process must be discouraging.  (Virginia's debating a law that you can be fired for not speaking English on the job.)

This is simply an inaccurate view of immigration history in the United States.  Immigration policy here has long been set up to favor European immigrants over non-Europeans in terms of who had access to legal means of entry.  While it's true that many 'legal' immigrants are indignant about others coming in 'illegally,' it's not at all true that 'illegals' have simply somehow avoided the hard work of doing it by the book because they couldn't be bothered going through the process.  For an excellent analysis, see Mai Ngai's Impossible Subjects.


More generally, and in answer to the thread's original question, it is absolutely clear that the Irish have experienced considerable discrimination in the United States.  But do they add to 'diversity' today anymore than German Americans, Scandinavian Americans, or any other European ethnic group?  No way.  As Kaysixteen said, we are long past the days of "No Irish need apply."  Incidentally, I don't think that Jews, also subjects of those signs, increase diversity either, except maybe at a Christian school or something. 

The attempts to relate the Irish American experience to the black American experience on other threads are both, I think, historically inaccurate and interesting examples of a long-standing discourse about how "We were discriminated against, but we worked hard and made good, so why can't they?" in which many historic immigrant groups, particularly the Irish because of their own history, participate.  Reading some of the literature on whiteness, of which the Ignatiev book is a part, might help to illuminate these issues, although it's worth noting that whiteness as a concept and category of analysis is very much a matter of debate right now.

[bewildered]

My great-uncle was in the IRA and proud of it.

That's pretty much all I know, but I thought I'd brag on him anyway.

The Fiona

My great-uncle has a Roth IRA, and is proud of it.

[acrimone]

Wait!  You don't have the second word after all!  You'll have to squeeze it in when you find it. 
What?  You want to know where it is?  Hmmm.   Let's ask the Oracle.

"Hey Oracle... where's the second word?" we ask.

"In the classroom," the Oracle says, but "Where do I begin?" he asks.








(If you have no idea what I'm talking about, look here: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,47013.0.html)

[dinglejingleus]

I grew up in the Irish suburbs of Boston-very Irish, and my relatives (in Ireland) supposedly have links to the IRA- some of them having been arrested and imprisoned (so I was told. My grandmother being long dead I have no way to confirm this). I am not an expert on Irish-American history, but I can make a few observations based on my experience growing up.

My father hates all things Irish -- despite being 100% Irish, he maintains that he is from Hungary (don't ask). To this day he will deny that he is Irish despite our surname which obviously is. My mother also never discusses her half Irish heritage though she doesn't hate it as openly.

I didn't realize that I was ethnically Irish until I was about 15. Sounds unbelievable, but given that everyone I knew was Irish-American
(pretty much), and my father's views, it was never discussed.

My grandmother (first generation Irish-American) always spoke of the IRA supporting relatives (and hers here who were involved in funding them) with sympathetic disdain. She thought it wrong, but could understand it somewhat. She was always frustrated that my father refuses to acknowledge that he was Irish.

I think that this denial on the part of my parents- who ascended socioeconomically from parents who worked in menial jobs to having MA's- is reflective of a typical desire to blend in presented in any study of immigrants. I having grown up without the stigma associated with the Boston working class Irish, am more interested in my ethnic heritage.

I do feel cheated in some ways ethnically-mostly due to a loss of language. I wish my relatives had retained something of their language. I suppose I could attempt learning Gaelic, but it seems insincere to me when none of my relatives speak it. 

I think that real value of the dissemination of Irish history amongst Irish Americans is not to argue for the narrative that "we made it and so can you", but instead to argue that "my ancestors suffered and therefore I don't want you to experience the same thing." At least that is how I view it.

I do think though that some of us Irish-Americans become slightly annoyed to be lumped in as "whites". There is a clear difference among white ethnic groups. I understand that such lumping is done for a specific purpose and I am okay with that, but when the act of lumping for an argumentative purpose becomes solidified and no longer seen as a necessary rhetorical move, it negates the difference in identity and experience between "white" Americans which is, in my opinion, contrary to the idea behind the valuing of diversity.

[iomhaigh]

I have seen some studies which look into why and how first generation Irish Immigrants from Boston do what your parents (and some of my relatives) did -- why they tried so hard to assimilate that they denied their heritage, how rising class levels impacted these choices, etc.

[august]

Wow, super interesting thread.

I grew up in the West, CA.  My grandparents were first generation Irish-Americans and my gramp was part of what was unofficially an Irish mafia or, excuse the expression, cabal.  They were  a powerful group of Irish Americans, my own grandfather was appointed state pharmacist by the old governor Brown.  My dad went to an Irish law school and mostly hired Irish-Americans who also went to similar law schools, women and men. 

I remember that as a child I thought that the fourth of July was an Irish celebration because there was so much trash talk about the English.

Also, as a grad student at Berkeley, Seamus Heaney gave a poetry reading (to about 2000 people).  There was a wine and cheese reception later, and at the end of the evening (about 4:00am), the only folks left were me, an Irish priest and an Irish nun (my friends), one IRA deserter, and Heaney (and his body guards).  We were three sheets to the wind, good thing no one was driving.  This is perhaps my fondest memory in grad school.

[daurousseau]

That's for starting this thread. It gives them something to do and keeps them off the streets of the fora.

[ideagirl]

Immigration policy here has long been set up to favor European immigrants over non-Europeans in terms of who had access to legal means of entry.  While it's true that many 'legal' immigrants are indignant about others coming in 'illegally,' it's not at all true that 'illegals' have simply somehow avoided the hard work of doing it by the book because they couldn't be bothered going through the process.

Saying "has been" (instead of "was") makes your post misleading. Our immigration laws don't work that way anymore. The single most-favored group, under our current laws, are Cubans. It is basically impossible for a Cuban to be an illegal immigrant; once they set foot on American soil, they're legal. We would deport the Queen of England before we deported a Cuban. As you can perhaps tell from my tone, I have a slight problem with this policy.

Incidentally, I don't think that Jews, also subjects of those signs, increase diversity either, except maybe at a Christian school or something. 

In a country that's about 77% Christian, vs. 2% Jewish (http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#gallup), and a world where Jews have been persecuted everywhere they went for 2000 years and millions of people literally believe that all Jewish people are going to hell, Jews don't increase diversity?! That just seems weird to me. Why do they not increase diversity? Or more to the point, I assume you would count African-Americans as increasing diversity, so why do they "count" when Jews don't? Keep in mind that this country is about 73% white and 12-13% black. And that you'd be hard pressed to find an American who believes black people can't go to heaven, whereas there are plenty who believe Jews can't. (My point with the heaven/hell stuff is just to illustrate that at least in certain quarters, there continues to be a fundamental, or should I say Fundamentalist, prejudice against Jewish people in this country.)

[ideagirl]

My great-uncle has a Roth IRA, and is proud of it.

I have a Roth IRA too, and I get all misty-eyed when my statement arrives each month. I put on "The Risin' of the Moon" and have a whiskey while I open it.