Inside the Irish White House line up on St. Patrick’s Day
Mr. Windy Boy is a Cherokee Indian from Montana who is a keen advocate of grass dancing, according to his profile, a form of American Indian dancing that is very popular. He was also very helpful, as a state senator, to the victory campaign of President Obama in that state.
While literally hundreds of Irish American leaders from coast to coast were fuming at their lack of an invitation to the biggest Irish invite of all, Jonathan Windy Boy was able to sweep in.
By our count there were only 79 bona fide members of the active Irish American community among the crowd of 300 or so. We suspect that would be a number that is greatly down from the old days.
The geographic base has shifted also, of course. When did you think you would see a White House crowd of Irish where only five members with addresses from Massachusetts were present?
Actually, Windy Boy is a member of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation in Montana. So maybe this Irish author made an innocent mistake. Or maybe he heard "Chippewa Cree" and translated it into the vaguely similar "Cherokee." Because "Cherokee" is the only tribe he's heard of and besides, all Indians are alike.
PECHANGA.net gave this article a "Crybaby Alert." That sounds about right to me. It was St. Patrick's Day at the White House, but no one said it was an Irish-specific event. The author is crying because "only" a quarter of the people in attendance were Irish. Because one Indian was invited and some Irish people weren't.
Everyone's Irish on Paddy's Day
Aren't non-Irish people allowed to celebrate or participate in St. Patrick's Day? Should we also exclude non-Christians from Christmas celebrations at the White House? How about excluding non-Italians from Columbus Day celebrations? (Actually, the White House probably doesn't celebrate Columbus Day, but you get the point.)
Suppose Windy Boy is part-Irish on his mother's side. Or suppose he's a card-carrying Catholic who believes fervently in St. Patrick. Obama could've invited him for several reasons that this author didn't consider.
And why single out Windy Boy, who presumably "took the place" of only one Irish person? What about all the other Euro-Americans who also took the place of the Irish? There's a definite whiff of racism about this screed. You can just imagine John McCain (another Scots-Irish man) pointing a shaky finger at Windy Boy and saying, "How dare they invite 'that one' instead of one of us?"
Bemoaning the Irish
Those poor, neglected Irish! They've had only 17 presidents of Scots-Irish extraction, which is hardly any considering how great they were and are. Doesn't everyone know how the Irish saved (Western) civilization?!
With Obama in the White House and Windy Boy visiting him, it looks like Irish time is over. Next thing you know, millions of Irish politicians, corporate executives, and religious leaders will be out of a job. And then what...ship them back where they came from?
It sounds like the "black agenda" Russell Bates warned us about is finally happening. Except Russ thought Obama would exclude Indians as well as whites and include only blacks. Maybe Obama is excluding the Irish first and will exclude everyone else later.
In any case, a big boo-hoo for the downtrodden Irish. Let's all hoist a pint and shed a tear for the suffering sons of Eire. Waaah!
A note for Stephen
If reader Stephen isn't a regular visitor to IrishCentral.com, he probably should be. It sounds like his kind of place. I bet the people there don't generalize about the evils done by Europeans.
But I bet they do generalize about the greatness of the Irish. Here's a hint for them: A few Irish monks and scribes helped preserve parts of the West's written lore. The vast majority of the Irish did nothing to "save civilization."
So the claim that the Irish saved civilization is less true than any generalization I've ever made about Americans or Europeans. It isn't even true in general, since only a few Irishmen saved only a small part of Western culture. I trust everyone will agree that we should denounce and discredit this false generalization about the Irish.
For more on the Irish, see Fighting Sioux vs. Fighting Irish.
Below: The changing of the guard. Out with the old...
...and in with the new.
26 comments:
"Are non-Irish people not allowed to celebrate or participate in St. Patrick's Day? Should we also exclude non-Christians from Christmas celebrations at the White House? How about excluding non-Italians from Columbus Day celebrations? (Actually, the White House probably doesn't celebrate Columbus Day, but you get the point.)"
I agree it's stupid more plastic paddy crap, I don't actually celebrate it because of the countless stereotypes, I do commerate important dates in Irish history however.
"Those poor, neglected Irish! They've had only 17 presidents of Scots-Irish extraction, which is hardly any considering how great they were and are. Doesn't everyone know the Irish saved (Western) civilization?!"
First of all Irish-Americans and Americans of Scots-Irish descent are not the same; apart from cultural differences, the Scots-Irish came over here in the 18th century (thanks to the penal laws) and were primarily presbyterian. The Irish-Americans came over in the 1800s and other large groups of them would immigrate later on to various other reasons; such as De Valera's poor economic policies or in the case of my father's side, the war for independence.
It's because of these reasons that the Irish-Americans and Scots-Irish are treated as related but distinct and different ethnic groups. Also those presidents represent the wealthy minority of the Scots-Irish; most were piss poor, living in rural areas and widely viewed as scum. Calling someone a 'scotsman' was an insult back then.
"In any case, a big boo-hoo for the downtrodden Irish. Let's all hoist a pint and shed a tear for the suffering sons of Eire. Waaah!"
Good to see that stereotypes are thoroughly implanted in your mind. And I'm afraid that isn't so recent; look at the troubles for example.
"If reader Stephen isn't a regular visitor to IrishCentral.com, he probably should be. It sounds like his kind of place. I bet the people there don't generalize about the evils done by Europeans."
Oh I'm sorry is this supposed to be funny or something?
"But I bet they do generalize about the greatness of the Irish. Here's a hint for them: A few Irish monks and scribes helped preserve the West's written lore. The vast majority of the Irish did nothing to save civilization."
Personally I prefer to focus on more recent achievements; the Celtic tiger for example and the progress that Ireland has made.
"So the claim that the Irish "saved civilization" is less true than any generalization I've ever made about Americans or Europeans. It isn't even true in general, since only a few Irishmen did the saving. I trust everyone will agree that we should denounce and discredit this false generalization about the Irish."
I haven't read it so I wouldn't know.
"For more on the Irish, see Fighting Sioux vs. Fighting Irish."
Yeah I read that and it's idiotic, there's quite a few errors in there and you play the stupid 'my favorite people suffered more than your people' game. Which is idiotic and insensitive since it dismisses genocide and oppression; perhaps by that logic we should forget about slavery since obviously the holocaust was worse?
And yes notre dame's mascot is an insult equal to the washington red****s; the typical leprechaun image comes from a series of anti-Irish cartoons from the 19th century. Although I'd say it's less of a problem since Irish mascots are not quite as widespread as Indian mascots.
I once ate at a South Bend sports bar that had giant Fighting Irish logos and flags all over the place. Otherwise, I have barely seen him.
More on your Irish piece:
"I doubt any group of people has had as many government treaties broken as American Indians have."
Because there was no need for treaties; get a map and compare Ireland to America.
"I believe the Irish potato famine was caused by a biological blight, not by genocidal government policies"
Heh a myth and example of historical ignorance. More info here:
http://www.irishholocaust.org/
Even if it was true there's issue of Cromwellian genocide and the enslaved Irish.
"Americans did look down on and stereotype the Irish and other immigrants when they first arrived, but these ethnic slights have largely disappeared. Native stereotyping began long before the immigrant stereotyping of the 19th and 20th centuries and continues to this day."
They're still alive and well; for example I was watching Veronica Mars with my kid sis (yeah it's a lame show but she's a little kid so cut her some slack;) and the Irish were all thugs and in one case an alcoholic old man. Another example would be a stereotypical skit SNL did when Liam Neeson hosted, the list goes on and on.
"Nobody considers the Scottish "hillbillies" or "mountain men" anymore. If that stereotype ever existed, it's long gone. The Scottish are more commonly known as gruff, eccentric penny-pinchers. A better example of a current stereotype would be Italians as Mafiosos or Arabs as terrorists."
Are you kidding me? 'Rednecks' and 'hillbillies' are routinely mocked and portrayed as stupid savages, the only difference is that we've forgotten what country these people are from. Redneck is not a harmless word, it's an ethnic slur that mocked presbyterian dissenters (their ministers wore red collars), yet it's a standard everyday word.
"Irish Catholics founded Notre Dame and intended its team name and mascot to honor their history. Native Americans did not choose most Indian team names or mascots."
Just because some Irish-Americans have no problem with it does not mean that every single Irish-American is not offended by it. That's like saying that just because some Indians like the red****s that all Indians like the team.
""Fighting" isn't a trait associated with the Irish these days, so "Fighting Irish" isn't particularly harmful."
Actually it still is check out all the movies with an Irish element; tons of boxers 'n brawlers. And besides the leprechaun image is still a very negative stereotype.
"With people like John F. Kennedy, Tip O'Neill, and Ronald Reagan holding the reins of power, the Irish are no longer a marginalized group. Indians still are. When you become the group in power, you can and should expect to to be the butt of more jokes, satires, and stereotypes about your behavior. Marginalized groups who still feel the pain of injustice are not appropriate targets for insults that continue the injustice."
So just because there's a few guys in office whose surnames started with O' it's okay to stereotype them? Stereotyping is plain wrong and never justified. And just because there's a few powerful Irish-Americans doesn't mean the entire Irish-American population is rich; I'm an Irish-American and I grew up in poverty. Also perhaps by your logic it's okay to stereotype or mock blacks since Obama and other powerful Blacks exist?
"Scotch" is a drink, not an adjective describing things Scottish, but that's another matter."
Originally 'Scotch' was the same as Scottish.
While I am generally opposed to playing "more oppressed than thou," I have to agree with Stephen that the Irish have suffered from centuries of brutal repression and economic exploitation barely above abject slavery that was very similar to that inflicted on Indians. Irish who fled to America were exploited and discriminated against for decades. It is worth noting that Chief John Ross of the Cherokee, himself 7/8ths Irish, organized a relief drive for the Irish famine immediately after the Cherokee had been driven west to Indian Territory at bayonet-point.
And if you want to know what happened to the Irish in the 20th century look into what the auxilaries and black and tans did, not to mention what happened during the troubles.
While I am generally opposed to playing "more oppressed than thou,"
Yeah it's just plain stupid, oh and one detail, John Ross was actually 7/8 Scottish.
Also the donation Indians made to the victims of the Irish famine/genocide should never be forgotten; truly an amazing incident in history.
"PECHANGA.net gave this article a "Crybaby Alert." That sounds about right to me. It was St. Patrick's Day at the White House, but no one said it was an Irish-specific event. The author is crying because "only" a quarter of the people in attendance were Irish. Because one Indian was invited and some Irish people weren't."
Also I'd wager that there are more than a few Indians who get ticked off when non-Natives watch powwows or other NDN themed events. Also I'd like to correct a typo I just noticed:
"And I'm afraid that Irish oppression isn't something that just happened in the past; look at the troubles for example."
My eyes have a trouble with text.
"Moreover, as I've said, the Irish (along with other Anglo-Saxon ethnic groups) are the ones in power."
And with this gem Rob shows how little he knows about Irish history. The Irish are Gaelic and not of anglo-saxon origin; you might as well call Choctaws an anglo-saxon group that's how accurate that statement is. There are no anglo-saxon ethnic groups; hell not even the English (and no I don't hate them) are not purely anglo-saxon since they have Norman, Norse and in many cases Gaelic and Brythonic ancestry, in other words they're too mixed.
"Stereotypically speaking, the Irish are known as more than fighters or drinkers. They're also known as poets, lovers, Catholics, and saints (e.g., St. Patrick). The Indian case is far different."
Positive stereotypes are still negative.
One more thing; the guy who said 800 years tops 500 years is an insensitive moron and another idiot playing the oppression olympics. Why can't we all just agree that slavery, the Indian genocide, Irish genocide, Armenian genocide, Holocaust etc. are all equally horrible? Comparing them and dismissing them is stupid, insensitive and just plain insulting, not to mention childish ie "hahaha my ancestors suffered more than your ancestors nah nah."
Thank you Stephen.
You're welcome. Here's a good blog post on the oppression olympics btw:
http://www.o-dub.com/weblog/2004/02/one-more-thing-about-oppression.html
Re "It's because of these reasons that the Irish-Americans and Scots-Irish are treated as related but distinct and different ethnic groups": Looks to me like the definitions are unclear and overlapping:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_American
The term "Scotch-Irish" is an Americanism, almost unknown in Britain and Ireland, and refers to Irish Protestant immigrants from Ulster to America during the 1700s. An estimated 200,000 or more Scotch-Irish migrated to America in the 18th century. The majority of these immigrants were descended from Scottish and English families who had been transplanted to Ireland during the Plantation of Ulster in the 1600s.
The term "Scotch-Irish" has led to confusion even among descendants of the Scotch-Irish themselves: some taking it to mean a mixture of Scottish and Irish ethnicities, and others thinking it refers to Irish immigrants to Scotland. The term is also misleading because some of the Scotch-Irish had little or no Scottish ancestry at all.
http://www.barlowgenealogy.com/Resources/scots-irish.html
The Scots-Irish of the eighteenth century considered themselves Irish. Many came from families who had lived in Ireland for 150 years. It wasn't until the Irish immigrants of the 1845-49 potato famine arrived that this group began distinguishing themselves as Scots-Irish.
Re "Good to see that stereotypes are thoroughly implanted in your mind": Good to see you don't understand satire any better than you understand generalizations.
Re "Oh I'm sorry is this supposed to be funny or something?" Nope, just more pointed commentary.
Re "Yeah I read that and it's idiotic, there's quite a few errors": Sure there are. I trust you're going to prove your case this time rather than braying how ignorant I am without proof. You know, like a dumb ass does?
Re "And yes notre dame's mascot is an insult equal to the washington red****s": In your opinion, maybe. I bet most Irish people would disagree.
Re "Although I'd say it's less of a problem since Irish mascots are not quite as widespread as Indian mascots": If by "not quite as widespread" you mean Indian mascots are perhaps 50-100 times more common, you're right.
Re "Because there was no need for treaties; get a map and compare Ireland to America": Why would I need a map when you seem to be agreeing with me? Ireland's small size meant England didn't have to commit as many moral crimes to subjugate its inhabitants. If you didn't understand that that was my point, I trust you do now.
Re "Heh a myth and example of historical ignorance": It's an oversimplification at most. Here's why:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/2807/irishfamine.html
The Irish famine from 1845 to 1849 was the most severe famine in the history of European agriculture. Dependence of huge sections of the population on subsistence agriculture led to collapse when the blight appeared.
People died of starvation in their houses, in the fields, and on the roads. Disease became epidemic. More died of disease than of starvation. About one million perished. Most were deliberated from long starvation when they finally succumbed to typhus, cholera, dysentery, and scurvy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_02.shtml
This was not an artificial famine as the traditional Irish nationalist interpretation has long maintained--not at any rate at the start. The original gross deficiency of food was real. In 1846 and successive years blight destroyed the crop that had previously provided approximately 60 per cent of the nation's food needs. The food gap created by the loss of the potato in the late 1840s was so enormous that it could not have been filled, even if all the Irish grain exported in those years had been retained in the country. In fact, far more grain entered Ireland from abroad in the late 1840s than was exported-probably almost three times as much grain and meal came in as went out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Irish_Famine
The proximate cause of famine was a potato disease commonly known as late blight. Although blight ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, the impact and human cost in Ireland—where a third of the population was entirely dependent on the potato for food—was exacerbated by a host of political, social and economic factors which remain the subject of historical debate.
Let's note that on the same page I posted one statement about the cause of the Irish potato famine, I posted another one:
"According to some sources, with which I agree, the Great Hunger, the worst of several famines, was principally exacerbated by British policies concerning export of goods, landlord/tenant relationships, commodity prices, etc. In short, I have heard that it was not merely a shortage of food brought on by the biological blight but the deliberate policies of the British that caused the greatest devastation."
Since both quotes are on my main page, they constitute my position together. When you selectively quote my website, Stephen, you're basically fibbing to my readers. Nice trick if you can get away it, but I'm on to your intellectual sophistry.
So I guess you're saving your best examples of my historical "ignorance" for future comments, because you haven't shown us diddly-squat yet. Keep trying, lightweight, and perhaps you'll catch me in an outright error someday. Good luck with your efforts...you'll need it.
So much for my "historical ignorance" of the Irish. On to my alleged ignorance of the Irish today.
Re "They're still alive and well": You mean they've largely disappeared but a few examples are still "alive and well"? Okay, if you say so.
Apparently you're not too swift at thinking mathematically. When Indians appear on TV shows, they're stereotypical the majority of the time. Can you say that about the Irish? For every example of a stereotypical Irish character, how many non-stereotypical Irish characters are there? A hundred?
Unless you can say what percent of all Irish characters on TV or in movies are stereotypical, your few examples are worthless. They tell us nothing about the overall nature of Irish portrayals in American culture.
Re "Are you kidding me? 'Rednecks' and 'hillbillies' are routinely mocked and portrayed as stupid savages, the only difference is that we've forgotten what country these people are from":
Are you kidding me with your inability to read? I didn't say we don't stereotype "hillbillies" and "rednecks" anymore. I said nobody considers the Scottish "hillbillies" or "mountain men" anymore. Try addressing my point rather than the almost unrelated point you made up.
Re "Just because some Irish-Americans have no problem with it does not mean that every single Irish-American is not offended by it":
I didn't say nobody is offended by the "Fighting Irish" name or mascot. I said more Indians than Irish are offended by their respective mascots. Since my position is that people get to determine whether they want to be mascots or not, the numbers are relevant to my case.
Re "check out all the movies with an Irish element; tons of boxers 'n brawlers": Check out any list of famous Irish American actors. For example, this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irish_American_actors
You think they're all fighters and brawlers? Dakota Fanning, Ashton Kutcher, Anne Hathaway, Ben Affleck, Drew Barrymore, John Cusack, Rosie O'Donnell, Michael J. Fox, Jennifer Connelly, Nathan Lane, Bo Derek, Bill Murray, Mia Farrow, Richard Gere, Diane Keaton, Martin Sheen, et al.? They and the people they play on-screen look like a cross-section of America to me.
Re "So just because there's a few guys in office whose surnames started with O' it's okay to stereotype them?" and "perhaps by your logic it's okay to stereotype or mock blacks since Obama and other powerful Blacks exist?"
Are blacks in power as a group? Don't think so. I think my answer was clear and I'm sticking with it:
When you become the group in power, you can and should expect to to be the butt of more jokes, satires, and stereotypes about your behavior.
Re "And with this gem Rob shows how little he knows about Irish history. The Irish are Gaelic and not of anglo-saxon origin":
I wasn't referring to Irish history, doofus. I was referring to Irish Americans today. In case you're as obtuse as you seem, they haven't remained isolated and pure. They've intermarried with other light-skinned people from Northern Europe. In non-technical terms, we refer to all these people as WASPs.
Here, read what it says in Wikipedia and alleviate your obvious ignorance on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestant
Strictly speaking, many people now referred to as "WASPs" are not Anglo-Saxon--that is, the descendants of the Germanic peoples, who settled in Britain between the 5th century and the Norman Conquest. However, in modern North American usage, WASP may include Protestants, from English, Dutch, German, Huguenot (French Protestant), Scandinavian, Scottish, Ulster Irish and Welsh backgrounds, as well as persons of Irish Catholic ancestry who assimilated into Protestant religious traditions.
With your gem of a response, you've shown how pathetically eager you are to prove yourself at my expense. You couldn't care less that I've posted millions of words on my chosen subjects. All you care about is proving how superior you (think you) are.
All your asinine braying about my "ignorance" amounts to a few tiny differences of emphasis and interpretation. You literally haven't found a single clearcut mistake in almost 10,000 Web pages and blog postings, yet you often tell us how ignorant I am. Talk about missing the forest for the trees--you've missed the Sahara Desert for a grain or two of sand.
So you're desperately defensive about your Scots-Irish ancestors. And desperately dedicated to proving me wrong. Note the common theme here: your desperation.
I suggest you see a psychiatrist, bub. My blog doesn't exist so you can bolster your fragile Euro-American ego. As I've said before, stop wasting my time with your "ignorant" assertions or I'll start deleting them.
As for everyone's concern about the "oppression Olympics," let's recall how this debate started. An Irish writer complained about a less-deserving Indian taking a more-deserving Irish person's place. To respond effectively to this, I deemed it necessary to compare the two groups.
It's also necessary when you compare the "Fighting Irish" and "Fighting Sioux" nicknames. I explained why on one of my subsidiary pages:
"[T]o dismiss the sufferings of a people that has gone on so long in order to try to make a point about the sufferings of another serves no true purpose."
Wrong. It serves a very clear purpose. The whole point of these postings is to rebut those who say, "The Irish have suffered just as much as Indians, but you don't see them complaining about their 'Fighting' nickname." You can't touch this point unless you argue that Indians have suffered worse than the Irish in America.
Most people don't make that point, so I generally don't bring it up in my counterarguments. That's why I didn't compare Indian and Irish suffering on my main page. I really bring it up only when someone wants to maximize the Irish's suffering, because then it becomes relevant.
Let's recall what we're discussing here: the difference between "Fighting Irish" and "Fighting Sioux." The difference is that Indians have been stereotyped as fighters (i.e., as warriors or savages or killers) a lot longer than the Irish have. Especially if we're talking about in America, which we are. (I don't think English stereotypes of the Irish have any currency in the US.)
If you can prove that Americans have characterized the "fighting" Irish as warriors, savages, and killers for 500+ years, then my argument kind of falls apart. Then the "Fighting Irish" stereotype is as bad as the "Fighting Sioux" stereotype, historically speaking. So yes, I have an excellent reason for disputing the longevity of the problem. It's central to this argument.
"The Scots-Irish of the eighteenth century considered themselves Irish. Many came from families who had lived in Ireland for 150 years. It wasn't until the Irish immigrants of the 1845-49 potato famine arrived that this group began distinguishing themselves as Scots-Irish."
Basically the Scots-Irish were culturally different, settled in different areas, were mostly presbyterian (something they were oppressed for) and basically functioned as a completely seperate group. In other words while the two groups are part of the six Celtic nations they aren't the same; it's like claming that Choctaws and Cherokees are the same Tribe.
"ood to see you don't understand satire any better than you understand generalizations."
I was being sarcastic.
"Sure there are. I trust you're going to prove your case this time rather than braying how ignorant I am without proof."
You thought the Scots-Irish and Irish were one and the same; that's an example of ignorance.
"I bet most Irish people would disagree."
That's not the point; the fact is that mascot is a stereotype.
"Why would I need a map when you seem to be agreeing with me? Ireland's small size meant England didn't have to commit as many moral crimes to subjugate its inhabitants. If you didn't understand that that was my point, I trust you do now."
While there was no need to it certainly didn't stop them; as evidenced by the Cromwellian genocide.
"Since both quotes are on my main page, they constitute my position together. When you selectively quote my website, Stephen, you're basically fibbing to my readers. Nice trick if you can get away it, but I'm on to your intellectual sophistry."
My apologies.
"You mean they've largely disappeared but a few examples are still "alive and well?"
I meant that they're still alive and well.
"Apparently you're not too swift at thinking mathematically. When Indians appear on TV shows, they're stereotypical the majority of the time. Can you say that about the Irish? For every example of a stereotypical Irish character, how many non-stereotypical Irish characters are there? A hundred?"
Except I wasn't saying that the Irish are more stereotyped than Indians; just that the stereotypes still exist.
"Are you kidding me with your inability to read? I didn't say we don't stereotype "hillbillies" and "rednecks" anymore. I said nobody considers the Scottish "hillbillies" or "mountain men" anymore. Try addressing my point rather than the almost unrelated point you made up."
My mistake.
"I didn't say nobody is offended by the "Fighting Irish" name or mascot. I said more Indians than Irish are offended by their respective mascots. Since my position is that people get to determine whether they want to be mascots or not, the numbers are relevant to my case."
Fair enough.
"Check out any list of famous Irish American actors."
Except I'm talking about the sheer amount of Irish stereotypes out there.
"Are blacks in power as a group? Don't think so. I think my answer was clear and I'm sticking with it"
Last time I checked in addition to our messiah in chief there are Black business men, politicians etc.
"When you become the group in power, you can and should expect to to be the butt of more jokes, satires, and stereotypes about your behavior."
Which doesn't excuse those stereotypes.
"I wasn't referring to Irish history, doofus. I was referring to Irish Americans today."
Well you used the word Irish so I thought you were referring Irish people in general not just the diaspora.
"In case you're as obtuse as you seem, they haven't remained isolated and pure. They've intermarried with other light-skinned people from Northern Europe."
I'm fully aware of that.
"In non-technical terms, we refer to all these people as WASPs."
Which is incorrect unless a person is primarily of English descent that person is not a WASP. That's like referring to Asian people in general as Chinese; pretty stupid. Plus a lot of Irish-Americans have Italian, Polish or Jewish ancestry; not exactly my idea of Anglo-Saxon my Uncle for example is married to a Lebanese woman..
"Strictly speaking, many people now referred to as "WASPs" are not Anglo-Saxon--that is, the descendants of the Germanic peoples, who settled in Britain between the 5th century and the Norman Conquest. However, in modern North American usage, WASP may include Protestants, from English, Dutch, German, Huguenot (French Protestant), Scandinavian, Scottish, Ulster Irish and Welsh backgrounds, as well as persons of Irish Catholic ancestry who assimilated into Protestant religious traditions."
In other words the term is heavily misused and I don't see how a protestant Irish person is a WASP; religion doesn't change your ethnicity.
"With your gem of a response, you've shown how pathetically eager you are to prove yourself at my expense. You couldn't care less that I've posted millions of words on my chosen subjects. All you care about is proving how superior you (think you) are."
You're giving yourself too much credit I just enjoy a good argument.
"So you're desperately defensive about your Scots-Irish ancestors. And desperately dedicated to proving me wrong. Note the common theme here: your desperation."
Actually I only mentioned the Scots-Irish a few times and it had pretty much nothing to do with my ethnic background; for example I didn't bother defending Jackson.
"Wrong. It serves a very clear purpose. The whole point of these postings is to rebut those who say, "The Irish have suffered just as much as Indians, but you don't see them complaining about their 'Fighting' nickname."
I think that's a complete bull**** argument about mascots.
"You can't touch this point unless you argue that Indians have suffered worse than the Irish in America."
I have no problem comparing the history of races or ethnic groups and it's obvious that Indians have suffered the most in America however I draw the line at silly 'my favorite people suffered more than your favorite people' contests.
"Most people don't make that point, so I generally don't bring it up in my counterarguments. That's why I didn't compare Indian and Irish suffering on my main page. I really bring it up only when someone wants to maximize the Irish's suffering, because then it becomes relevant."
Personally I think it's idiotic to maximize the plight of one group over another so I agree with you there.
"Let's recall what we're discussing here: the difference between "Fighting Irish" and "Fighting Sioux." The difference is that Indians have been stereotyped as fighters (i.e., as warriors or savages or killers) a lot longer than the Irish have. Especially if we're talking about in America, which we are.
(I don't think English stereotypes of the Irish have any currency in the US.)
Actually they do where do you think most Irish stereotypes come from? The funny there is that there were papers comparing the Indians to the savage Irish.
"If you can prove that Americans have characterized the "fighting" Irish as warriors, savages, and killers for 500+ years, then my argument kind of falls apart. Then the "Fighting Irish" stereotype is as bad as the "Fighting Sioux" stereotype, historically speaking. So yes, I have an excellent reason for disputing the longevity of the problem. It's central to this argument."
I never claimed that Americans stereotyped Irish people longer than Indians.
Also since you asked I'd say an example of your ignorance would be how you've fallen hook, line and sinker for the 'Islam is a religion of peace' fairy tale.
Post a Comment