Campaigning for Irish Diaspora Ancestral Return Rights: Jus Sanguin

[Riadach]

Exactly my point, when you put two communities that are completely different from one another together..................... this has happened time and time again, a misunderstanding occurs and relations deteriate whic leads to conflict.

I wish I could make you see this but this happened throughout history, people have a habit of never learning what went wrong the last time and subsequenly repeat the same damn mistake all over agin.

The last people to arrive in this country en masse were Strongbow and friends along with that Traitor Dermot McMurrogh which lead to our problems throughout our history and then there was the arrival of the 17th century plantations which contained some corrupted Anglocised Scots whom delusionally thought they were different to their proven Irish Ancestors.

Then there was Brian Boru in 1014 against the Vikings.................... proving that every foreign settler whom has arrived in this country, we have ended up fighting with them..............

When did we end up fighting against the huguenots? You are ridiculous if you think the peaceful settlements with immigrants today is comparable with the violent intrusions of political classes in the distant past. The circumstances are completely different. By the way, you have a very distorted, limited view of history to match.

[DaBrow]

When did we end up fighting against the huguenots? You are ridiculous if you think the peaceful settlements with immigrants today is comparable with the violent intrusions of political classes in the distant past. The circumstances are completely different. By the way, you have a very distorted, limited view of history to match.

This isn't a historical thread, hence why I am giving short examples which are relevant.

Settlements that start off peacefully, often don't end that way as time goes on because that happened in Sri Lanka when Britain ruled the place and the Sinhalese weren't in a position to object because they couldn't.

Also the Huguenots primarily settled in places within the Pale like Dublin and ulster during the plantations away from the native irish, but in smaller numbers and fought alongside the english and planted settlers when trouble with the natives broke out. So we have had indirect trouble with them when they arrived but not square on confrontation.


The thread is about giving citizenship rights to people whom are predominently ethnic Irish and have strong ancestral descent ties to this country, many of them are beyond the threshold of current eligibility and I am demanding that the generational cutoff point be scrapped and replaced with something more fair.

[Brenny]

Riadach Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBrow
Exactly my point, when you put two communities that are completely different from one another together..................... this has happened time and time again, a misunderstanding occurs and relations deteriate whic leads to conflict.

I wish I could make you see this but this happened throughout history, people have a habit of never learning what went wrong the last time and subsequenly repeat the same damn mistake all over agin.

The last people to arrive in this country en masse were Strongbow and friends along with that Traitor Dermot McMurrogh which lead to our problems throughout our history and then there was the arrival of the 17th century plantations which contained some corrupted Anglocised Scots whom delusionally thought they were different to their proven Irish Ancestors.

Then there was Brian Boru in 1014 against the Vikings.................... proving that every foreign settler whom has arrived in this country, we have ended up fighting with them..............


When did we end up fighting against the huguenots? You are ridiculous if you think the peaceful settlements with immigrants today is comparable with the violent intrusions of political classes in the distant past. The circumstances are completely different. By the way, you have a very distorted, limited view of history to match.

Riadach, surely you can admit that there is a strong element of truth in what DaBrow is saying. If you look through the history of many islands around the world such as New Zealand, Taiwan, Fiji, Tasmania and Jamaica you'll see a common trend where a native population has encountered mass migration and in extreme examples (Jamaica and Tasmania) the native population is gone forever, in moderate examples (New Zealand and Taiwan) the original population is reduced to a small percentage of the present population whereby many of this relict population live in reservations of one kind or another where they remain as curiosities, in the case of Fiji the natives briefly became a minority as the Fiji-indian population grew so much. It looked at one stage in Fiji as though the Fiji-indians would take control of politics in the country and the army had to intervene. Since then Fijians have regained political and demographic domination of the island but to this day much of the Western part of the island is an alien world to the natives.

If we are to experience immigration I would prefer if the migrants were of Irish background and descent. It would be harder for a person of African or Asian origin to integrate here, particularly if there are large populations of African or Asian people here, they'll simply choose to live with people like themselves rather than integrate with Irish people, that's down to human nature and is undeniable.

Btw descendents of Huguenots and other similar groups like the Palatines were on the receiving end of attacks from many Irish secret society groups like the Rockites and Ribbonmen amongst others in the 1700s and 1800s on account of their Protestantism and the sense that they were of planter stock and needed to be driven out.

[Riadach]

This isn't a historical thread, hence why I am giving short examples which are relevant.

When you misinterpret them, they become irrelevant.

Settlements that start off peacefully, often don't end that way as time goes on because that happened in Sri Lanka when Britain ruled the place and the Sinhalese weren't in a position to object because they couldn't.

Are you familiar with the concept of divide and rule? Do you not think that the British had alterior motives for bringing Tamil into Ceylon, when there were plenty of native workers there already. Had things been left naturally, there is very little reason to think that the same conflict would have developed.

Also the Huguenots primarily settled in places within the Pale like Dublin and ulster during the plantations away from the native irish, but in smaller numbers and fought alongside the english and planted settlers when trouble with the natives broke out. So we have had indirect trouble with them when they arrived but not square on confrontation.

There were no Huguenots in County Wexford for instance? And there were plenty of 'native irish' in the pale.

The thread is about giving citizenship rights to people whom are predominently ethnic Irish and have strong ancestral descent ties to this country, many of them are beyond the threshold of current eligibility and I am demanding that the generational cutoff point be scrapped and replaced with something more fair.

Why though? These people may have absolutely no understanding of what it means to be Irish, and may merely exploit the opportunity? Why should the blood that runs through their veins matter a damn to the state when awarding citizenship? Should the fact that my grandfather worked in the printing press of the Irish Independent get me a job there? My other grandfather had land in Carraduff in clear, am I entitled to first refusal?

The Irish diaspora are hardly culturally homogenous, and will more than likely maintain the culture of their adopted country then the country to which they have blood ties of which they can only vaguely remember.

[Riadach]

Riadach, surely you can admit that there is a strong element of truth in what DaBrow is saying. If you look through the history of many islands around the world such as New Zealand, Taiwan, Fiji, Tasmania and Jamaica you'll see a common trend where a native population has encountered mass migration and in extreme examples (Jamaica and Tasmania) the native population is gone forever, in moderate examples (New Zealand and Taiwan) the original population is reduced to a small percentage of the present population whereby many of this relict population live in reservations of one kind or another where they remain as curiosities, in the case of Fiji the natives briefly became a minority as the Fiji-indian population grew so much. It looked at one stage in Fiji as though the Fiji-indians would take control of politics in the country and the army had to intervene. Since then Fijians have regained political and demographic domination of the island but to this day much of the Western part of the island is an alien world to the natives.

It is in no way similar to what is happening today. You are talking about areas being overtaken by one single homogenous population group. I doubt that any one of the recent migration groups makes up more than 1% of the Irish population.

If we are to experience immigration I would prefer if the migrants were of Irish background and descent. It would be harder for a person of African or Asian origin to integrate here, particularly if there are large populations of African or Asian people here, they'll simply choose to live with people like themselves rather than integrate with Irish people, that's down to human nature and is undeniable.

And what if the immigrants choose to live with themselves, like for instance, with Jewish groups in Israel?

[bormotello]

I doubt that any one of the recent migration groups makes up more than 1% of the Irish population.

In 2006 Polish alone were 2%(63,276)
add 42554 in 2008 and 79816 in 2007
6% in total

Lithuanians in 2006 - 24,628, 2007 - 10728, 2008 - 6443 ( in total more then 1%)

[Riadach]

In 2006 Polish alone were 2%(63,276)
add 42554 in 2008 and 79816 in 2007
6% in total

Hmmm, can you see what is wrong with the second set of figures? I accept the first.

Lithuanians in 2006 - 24,628, 2007 - 10728, 2008 - 6443 ( in total more then 1%)

Same problem.

[DaBrow]

When you misinterpret them, they become irrelevant.



Are you familiar with the concept of divide and rule? Do you not think that the British had alterior motives for bringing Tamil into Ceylon, when there were plenty of native workers there already. Had things been left naturally, there is very little reason to think that the same conflict would have developed.




There were no Huguenots in County Wexford for instance? And there were plenty of 'native irish' in the pale.



Why though? These people may have absolutely no understanding of what it means to be Irish, and may merely exploit the opportunity? Why should the blood that runs through their veins matter a damn to the state when awarding citizenship? Should the fact that my grandfather worked in the printing press of the Irish Independent get me a job there? My other grandfather had land in Carraduff in clear, am I entitled to first refusal?

The Irish diaspora are hardly culturally homogenous, and will more than likely maintain the culture of their adopted country then the country to which they have blood ties of which they can only vaguely remember.

The British also promoted the Tamils into the Ceylon government and gave them rewards for being more loyal and productive than the Sinhalese, when you place a minority into powerful positions it creates a ruling class elite..................... That is your answer


The whole Irish Diaspora isn't homogenous no, because some of them will have itermarried elsewhere and lost their ties to ireland making them partially Irish and ineligiable. However the vast majority of the Irish Diaspora are predominently Irish and culturally attached to this country, there are practically towns in Argentina where the inhabitants could have been sucked out of a rural Irish town and planted there through a portal because they are so identitical.

The same goes for America and other places that have significant Irish Diaspora proportions.........

If there is any country where there's a section of the Diaspora who have cultural detatchment syndorme, they are mainly found in Britain because the majority of them have no interest in Irish Culture unless it involves getting drunk or trying to take advantage of a fine Irish Colleen whom doesn't know any better........................ they think playin gaelic football and supporting Ireland in Football makes them Irish yet ignoring the fundamental values and history of their heritage.

I know this type because I have seen and been amongst them for years to spot them a mile away, not all of them are like this but 90% I have come across fit this undesirable profile.

[Brenny]

Riadach Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenny
Riadach, surely you can admit that there is a strong element of truth in what DaBrow is saying. If you look through the history of many islands around the world such as New Zealand, Taiwan, Fiji, Tasmania and Jamaica you'll see a common trend where a native population has encountered mass migration and in extreme examples (Jamaica and Tasmania) the native population is gone forever, in moderate examples (New Zealand and Taiwan) the original population is reduced to a small percentage of the present population whereby many of this relict population live in reservations of one kind or another where they remain as curiosities, in the case of Fiji the natives briefly became a minority as the Fiji-indian population grew so much. It looked at one stage in Fiji as though the Fiji-indians would take control of politics in the country and the army had to intervene. Since then Fijians have regained political and demographic domination of the island but to this day much of the Western part of the island is an alien world to the natives.

It is in no way similar to what is happening today. You are talking about areas being overtaken by one single homogenous population group. I doubt that any one of the recent migration groups makes up more than 1% of the Irish population.

Polish make up around 5% of the population at least. North America received migrants from many different areas, after 1600, who all coalesced and, in time, completely dominated the natives. In Taiwan if you ask about ethnicity you'll be told that there are the Hakkan (originally Chinese) and the Kokkien (originally Chinese but from a different part of China) are the main ethnicities and as an afterthought people might say, 'Oh yeah there's also a few guys who live in the mountains, they're the real Taiwanese.' You sound like a nice guy who likes to see the best in humanity but believe me if you pump enough different nationalities into a country everyone doesn't eventually form a big circle and start singing 'We are the World.' The world is a multi-cultural place because there are regions of homogeneity that are different from each other, I'd like to maintain that diversity.

Quote:
If we are to experience immigration I would prefer if the migrants were of Irish background and descent. It would be harder for a person of African or Asian origin to integrate here, particularly if there are large populations of African or Asian people here, they'll simply choose to live with people like themselves rather than integrate with Irish people, that's down to human nature and is undeniable.

And what if the immigrants choose to live with themselves, like for instance, with Jewish groups in Israel?

If the people are closely related they'll integrate easily. If they are choosing to come here over America, Canada, Australia or Argentina then they will probably have romantic notions of Irishness and will probably become more Irish than the Irish themselves.

[bormotello]

Hmmm, can you see what is wrong with the second set of figures? I accept the first.

In 2006 Polish alone were 2%(63,276)

add 42554 in 2008 and 79816 in 2007