Ok I have been working most of the evening, and slept most of the morning, so I only had time to respond to the hyghlandyr is a total loser thread.
Now I have a moment to make a couple preambles to my real comments here which will follow after I bathe.
First, it is interesting that Utopian wants pictures of Irishmen being lynched, and infers, states outright, that such things did not happen? Ok, I will hunt some up for you. I will also prepare a reading list for you.
The issue with the Irish btw was not because they were Catholics. Most americans think that it is a Protestant vs Catholic war then and now. It is not. The real issue relates to something you said also, so I will address them both, your claim and the Issue.
Irish people are WHITE, and anglo-saxon like their northern european conterparts. No matter how much you would like us to believe that poor innocent irish immigrants were of a different color, they were NOT. White is white.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I almost fell over laughing when I read that. Sorry Irish people are not anglo saxon. The anglos, saxons and jutes came from the continent in the first millenium, near the end, and continued in successive waves throughout the past millenium. First into britain, alba, and eventually to Eire. They are Germanic peoples.
Irish belong to what we call the Celtic family of peoples. Specifically the Gaelic. This is based upon language and customs. Prior to the Roman invasions there were hundreds of Gallic races existing in europe. Each had a distinct identity, but shared common bonds of language, religion, and culture. When the romans invaded, gallic identity began to be consildated as various tribes joined forces either against the romans or for them. Eventually they thought of themselves as one people, one race, as opposed to say the race of the greeks or romans. And before you give me some whiney comment about there being only four races, go look up the word in a dictionary and see in which manner I am using it here.
The Tuetons, germans, and others had a distinctly different culture, language, and religious concept. Especially language is where we trace these things, because language, more than anything, is what gives us our world view, and our identity. Germanic languages are different from celtic languages.
The troubles in Ireland are not based on religion. They are based on race, language, and culture. The Anglos, saxons and jutes, among others, are a recent addition to the islands. The vikings as well.
Particularly in Eire, when invaders came, conquered and settled, they assimilated. They began speaking Gaeilge, the vikings with a scandanavian accent, their descendants still speaking it like that to this day. They took our marraige customs, our religion, our world view, our bravado. This also occured with the anglos. Those that came over and conquered us, were assimilated by us, became us. When Henry VIII came to speak with his nobles in Eire, he had to speak through an interpreter because most of them could not speak english. Thus a saying arose 'more irish than the irish.' The leaders in england were very disturbed at this and forbid intermarraige. Eventually the new anglos that were sent over, and the scots, did not assimilate. Thus you had two distinct groups, native (often catholic) Irish, and invading Anglos (Anglican) and Scots (Presbyterians).
And never the twain would meet, as they say. Yes there was some interbreeding, but very little. Most of the anglos settled in the six Ulster Counties in the North. I wont get into the modern troubles and their development at the moment, that can be saved for another post. However I think these comments suffice to demonstrate that the Gaels are not Anglo-Saxons. At any rate my claims are easy to verify.
Now as skin color, are the Irish white. Yes, and no. Which Irish are you talking about? The ones that mingled with the anglos, the 'more Irish than Irish' Irish? Or are you talking about the Tuatha? Or perhaps the Milesians, what we call 'black Irish.' All of the other Irish usually have very pale skin, generally dark hair, red being most often seen in those of royal descent. Blonds also being fairly common. (Though many Irish can trace their lineage to royalty since a man or a woman might be king over merely 20 or so, and in a few months be replaced by his fella. It was actually a very democratic sort of society) But the Milesians on the other hand, are greeks. Some think that perhaps they are spaniards. They have dark skin, and usually dark hair. Much debate has raged as to just where they came from and when. But it is obvious they are not 'white'.
But also, let us ask that question again. Are the Irish white? Yes, and no. Depends on whether you are talking skin color or race. None of the races of europe of the past couple of centuries considered the Irish their race. They certainly did not consider them white. They were mongloids, descened from apes when Darwin was popularized, while other europeans were descended from adam and eve. Pure humans were they. We, were sub humans. We had smaller brains, were lazy, were unable to display good morals, were dirty, stunk to high heaven even when we bathed, we were unintelligent and needed the assistance of the europeans to care for us, because we were unable to care for ourselves. Why if you dont believe it, just look at the wretched state of Ireland, they would say smugly. Of course they ignored the fact that Ireland, like africa, was in such a state because of centuries of unending occupation, violence, and rape.
Thankfully we have white skin so we can hide and pretend to be proper europeans.
As far as the Irish being innocent? The things I point out in no way claim that. Who was there before we were? Who did we take the land from? We enslaved british and then whined when the anglos enslaved us. (British are celtic peoples, as are welsh, and cornish.) When the civil war broke out and the Irish were drafted, while wealthy anglos were able to dodge, new york city broke out in riots, and who did they kill? Anglos? Of course not. Oppressed peoples never attack the oppressors, merely other oppressed. Several black men were killed. By Irish. However, it was the Irish police force that put down the riots and stopped further killing. It was a result of those police that the term 'New Yorks finest' was coined.
Andrew Carnegie? ok...I will also name names, Jessie Jackson. Did the Irish see his swindling then? Some did and some spoke out. How many blacks see how Jackson is swindling them? Each race attacks itself, and others. That is just the long run of history. And I am not pretending in any sense that the Irish are innocent. However, they have been viciously persecuted all over the world and in America. As have the jews, and germans and italians and the native americans, and on.
You and I do agree on one point for different reasons. Give the blacks slave reparations. The african countries that sold your ancestors to us, owe us reparations for selling us the poor quality goods. All that are left here owe the indians land reparations. You owe me war reparations, since my ancestors died, freeing your ancestors. And the United States owes me marraige reparations for enforcing an unnatural state of monogamy by sentence, law and gun.
And finally, then I am off to poop and bathe, this has been touched on often by the critics of slave reparations, but the proponents always seem to gloss over it. They state, as you did, that reparations are not about money. Ok...even so you want money? Ok. Now be specific. What form would reparations take. Who would pay. Who would receive. Would it be individuals? Blacks? Are blacks that came here after slavery ended going to get reparations also? What about blacks that moved here in 1956? Would it include white descendants of black slaves? White descendants of white slaves? And so on. You know the questions. What exactly are we looking for. Also, how long would the reparations go on? To all now? for three generations? three hundred years?
This question is open to Aguest also, not just Utopian.