NationStates Jolt Archive

At the turn of the century in North America, 'White' was not really a category. The English were much more desireable as immigrants than the Irish, the Germans more desireable than the Poles... In fact, early Canadian Parliament speeches refer to a 'multiracial nation', but the speaker goes on to mention these 'races' as: French, Scottish, English, Irish...

This springs to mind with all the 'White history' threads lately. I mean...are you going to tell me that Polish culture is just the same as French culture? As Dutch culture? As Czech culture? Sure, you can argue these are just nationalities...but it is also language, history, etc...very different in each case.

So this categorization of 'White culture' or 'Whites' in general...does it actually make sense to anyone? I mean...those of you with white skin...are you just like every other person with white skin out there? Seriously.

Good question.

The 1960s.

"White" is just a general title to categorize people. People are obviously more complex than that. White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, Aboriginal, names in which we categorize ourselves into concepts of "race."

I'm "white" and from NYC and think all this "white history month" nonsense is, um, nonsense.

The reason for "Black history month" and "Latino history month" was that these groups were ignored as not having made any contributions to "white history."

I'd just as soon do away with all ethnic history months and have everyone represented with equal respect. Since that seems unlikely, the emphasis on other cultures is appropriate, and those clamoring for a "white history month" strike me as the same people wailing that as white middle class males they are actually victims and unrepresented.:rolleyes:

Read Whiteness of a Different Color by Mathew Frye Jacobson, it analyzes the changing meaning of the word white throughout the US history. I just read it and wrote an essay over it for my Sociology of Minority Groups class. Very informative.

At the turn of the century in North America, 'White' was not really a category. The English were much more desireable as immigrants than the Irish, the Germans more desireable than the Poles... In fact, early Canadian Parliament speeches refer to a 'multiracial nation', but the speaker goes on to mention these 'races' as: French, Scottish, English, Irish...

This springs to mind with all the 'White history' threads lately. I mean...are you going to tell me that Polish culture is just the same as French culture? As Dutch culture? As Czech culture? Sure, you can argue these are just nationalities...but it is also language, history, etc...very different in each case.

So this categorization of 'White culture' or 'Whites' in general...does it actually make sense to anyone? I mean...those of you with white skin...are you just like every other person with white skin out there? Seriously.


it makes just as little sense as 'Black history'. When did 'Black People' become a homogenous group?

Read Whiteness of a Different Color by Mathew Frye Jacobson, it analyzes the changing meaning of the word white throughout the US history. I just read it and wrote an essay over it for my Sociology of Minority Groups class. Very informative.

Sounds interesting...

At the turn of the century in North America, 'White' was not really a category. The English were much more desireable as immigrants than the Irish, the Germans more desireable than the Poles... In fact, early Canadian Parliament speeches refer to a 'multiracial nation', but the speaker goes on to mention these 'races' as: French, Scottish, English, Irish...

This springs to mind with all the 'White history' threads lately. I mean...are you going to tell me that Polish culture is just the same as French culture? As Dutch culture? As Czech culture? Sure, you can argue these are just nationalities...but it is also language, history, etc...very different in each case.

So this categorization of 'White culture' or 'Whites' in general...does it actually make sense to anyone? I mean...those of you with white skin...are you just like every other person with white skin out there? Seriously.

I'd think it's a matter of uniting against a common "enemy." You decide that even if the Poles are bad, well, at least you've got more in common with them than you do with black people. I rather suspect that if some strange and horrible event ever killed off all the darker-skinned people on the planet, the remaining people would either go right back to looking down on the Poles (and so forth), or invent new internal groupings to hate.

That is an excellent question :eek: . I knew there were great distinctions in race that didnt once exist, I just never wondered where the breaking point was. I do not know the answer, or believe it could be garnered without study. The source of this may be key to understanding some modern social problems.

Would you mind if I asked your permission to use this as a term paper topic?

here in Poland, white, black, etc refer purely to skin colour. nothing about race.

I am white.

What anyone in my family did beyond my grandparents is of no intrest or use to me.

it makes just as little sense as 'Black history'. When did 'Black People' become a homogenous group?

Blacks within the US have historically been much more homogenous than whites in the US, having had gone through similar experiences of slavery, cultural assimilation and discrimination. 'Whites' however did not experience such homogenity. Italian immigrants were certainly not afforded the same treatment as English immigrants, etc. There was extreme prejudice shown by certain 'whites' towards other 'whites', and extreme variations in socio-economic power. Not so with blacks.

Would you mind if I asked your permission to use this as a term paper topic?

Go nuts, someone earlier suggested a resource.

the answer is, of course, NEVER.

so then the question comes up, "when did black people become a homogeneous group?". thats a much harder question. at least in the united states.

the answer to THAT question is "when they were taken from their homes in africa and not allowed to pass their culture on to their children in the US". slaves were not identified by country or tribe. their linguistic backgrouds were ignored. they were just "slaves". they were grouped with others without regard for ethnic background and when directly off the ship there was probably an effort to make sure that not too many ended up together.

in many ways, black americans are the most purely american of all our ethnic groups. they have few non-new world traditions to draw from. all they have is what they built HERE.

At the turn of the century in North America, 'White' was not really a category.

it actually was - segregation on skin color lines was already well established. there were various levels within 'whites', of course, but all of them trumped 'coloreds'.

in many ways, black americans are the most purely american of all our ethnic groups. they have few non-new world traditions to draw from. all they have is what they built HERE.
You're going to cause conniption fits among the racists with talk like this...:D

"White" is a group especially if "Non White" is a group.

For too many people, these are the two groups of humanity. Us vs Them.

Blacks within the US have historically been much more homogenous than whites in the US, having had gone through similar experiences of slavery, cultural assimilation and discrimination. 'Whites' however did not experience such homogenity. Italian immigrants were certainly not afforded the same treatment as English immigrants, etc. There was extreme prejudice shown by certain 'whites' towards other 'whites', and extreme variations in socio-economic power. Not so with blacks.

all right then. i didn't know this 'black history month' was only about black american history.

Free Soviets, I get what you're saying...I think Canada is a bit unique in this because our 'white on white' discrimination persisted well into the 70s, mainly between anglophones and francophones. Of course natives were at the bottom, and the few blacks we have (in comparison to the US) were maybe a bit above that...but white on white racism is a defining character of Canada, so I always find it amusing when that is ignored in favour of some sort of 'white' homogenity.

Free Soviets, I get what you're saying...I think Canada is a bit unique in this because our 'white on white' discrimination persisted well into the 70s, mainly between anglophones and francophones. Of course natives were at the bottom, and the few blacks we have (in comparison to the US) were maybe a bit above that...but white on white racism is a defining character of Canada, so I always find it amusing when that is ignored in favour of some sort of 'white' homogenity.

yeah, here's where the different historical paths of our two countries come in to sharp relief. a huge portion of USian history is intimately bound up with slavery and its off-shoots. we were making rules that specifically divided people up by skin color from the very beginning of the country. we invented 'whiteness' as a cohesive identity because we wanted to treat 'coloreds' badly.

This is by far one of the most interesting race threads NS General has had in a while. It raises a very good point because the answer to your question is "never."

The homogeny of the human race is an all or nothing affair, depending on how you look at it. On the one hand, everyone is essentially the same in the context of human behavior and biological characteristic. On the other, no two people are alike (even identical twins have their discrepancies). The entire concept of "race" is similarly subjective. Where is the breaking point? Sure you have your whites and your blacks, but then you have your Germans and your Italians, then you have your Bavarians and you’re Sicilians. Is it a cultural distinction? Is it a genetic one? Black North Africans occupied Sicily for four hundred years! If you follow the migration of human groups homogeny becomes an extremely moot point very quickly.

Personally, I feel that the idea of race simply falls into simple psychological terms. Specifically the schema (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_%28psychology%29)from Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget%27s_theory). We see something different from us, we create a mental schema for it, and we assimilate our experiences and concepts into that framework, and we accommodate for information that conflicts with that framework. It's very easy to look at the idea of race, stereotypes, bias, and even bigotry within this very simple concept. To be honest, we really do overcomplicate and overemphasize the issue of race far more then it deserves.

Black is a visual descriptor; just like height, weight, body type, style of dress, demeanor, or any number of countless factors we process and consider at a glance. The connotations we associate with that factor is what really matters when it comes to behavior. For instance, some people may direct their racial hatred to a specific group within their larger schema. Some may regard the stereotypical thug gangsta with contempt, but make an exception for that contempt when faced with a well-spoken, well-educated, well-dressed black person who destroys that stereotype.

You can't just shoehorn infinitely diverse characteristics into finite mental categories without running into some irreconcilable problems.

it actually was - segregation on skin color lines was already well established.

NINA

that's about all I need to say.

it actually was - segregation on skin color lines was already well established. there were various levels within 'whites', of course, but all of them trumped 'coloreds'.

Actually it wasn't, the Irish, or at least the celtic Irish, for example were not considered "white."

Actually it wasn't, the Irish, or at least the celtic Irish, for example were not considered "white."

yeah they were, as far as the black codes and jim crow were concerned

Actually it wasn't, the Irish, or at least the celtic Irish, for example were not considered "white."
I'm part Sicilian. Even other Italians don't think we're "white," and some American "whites" barely consider Italians "white." It's ridiculous.

I'm "white" and from NYC and think all this "white history month" nonsense is, um, nonsense.

The reason for "Black history month" and "Latino history month" was that these groups were ignored as not having made any contributions to "white history."

I'd just as soon do away with all ethnic history months and have everyone represented with equal respect. Since that seems unlikely, the emphasis on other cultures is appropriate, and those clamoring for a "white history month" strike me as the same people wailing that as white middle class males they are actually victims and unrepresented.:rolleyes:

+1

Since they realized there are more people outside that little patch of land known as western Europe and that they are no longer the centre of the world.

yeah they were, as far as the black codes and jim crow were concerned No, they weren't, they just weren't considered black. I mean how is the fact that they weren't considered black mean they were considered white? They were considered to be less than white that does not mean they were necesarily considered black. One can look at the sociological/anthropology/ehtenology of the time an one will see that the Irish, were not considered white. Same can probably be said of the Italians and diferent slavic peoples as well.

yeah they were, as far as the black codes and jim crow were concerned
That was in the south. In other parts of the country, it was strictly "No dogs or Irish." Here's a site with some examples of 19th century anti-Irish cartoons that appeared in major newspapers and magazines:

http://www.hsp.org/default.aspx?id=394

It's interesting that negative caricatures of the Irish showed similar kinds of physical distortions to enforce visual stereotypes as caricatures of black people. Racism is about the "other," no matter what color that "other" might be.

That was in the south. In other parts of the country, it was strictly "No dogs or Irish."

it wasn't just the south - the federal government was segregated. the social rules and norms that created blackness and whiteness identified the irish (and the poles, and the italians, etc) as white. and while there is a longstanding USian tradition of anti-immigrant bigotry, it didn't operate on the same level at all.

it wasn't just the south - the federal government was segregated. the social rules and norms that created blackness and whiteness identified the irish (and the poles, and the italians, etc) as white. and while there is a longstanding USian tradition of anti-immigrant bigotry, it didn't operate on the same level at all.
That's your take on it. I have no idea what classes you've taken or what books you've read, or what your personal experiences have been, but in my schools, we were taught that the bigotry against the Irish expressed itself in the same racist ways as bigotry against the Chinese, that the Irish were not considered "white" (possibly because they were not considered fully human), and as a person of southern Italian descent, I can personally tell you that a racist, with no black person in sight, will denounce me as not white just as readily. It has happened to me, to my family, and to others many, many times.

That's your take on it. I have no idea what classes you've taken or what books you've read, or what your personal experiences have been, but in my schools, we were taught that the bigotry against the Irish expressed itself in the same racist ways as bigotry against the Chinese, that the Irish were not considered "white" (possibly because they were not considered fully human), and as a person of southern Italian descent, I can personally tell you that a racist, with no black person in sight, will denounce me as not white just as readily. It has happened to me, to my family, and to others many, many times.

heck, forget about what is taught in school I've read documents from teh time where the discrimination against teh Irish, Italians, and other "white" people had the were expressed in teh same racial langauge as teh discrimination against such non blacks as asians or native americans. To say that a person wasn't considered black, therefor they were considered white is a blatantly false statment. At times none blacks were described as black by the law in order to utilize anti-black legislation against them, but that does not mean that they were socialy regarded as black and discriminated against on that basis. Further more you have to provide evidence that such Jim Crow laws as poll tax were never used against such non-black groups as the Irish in the south, considering the level of anti Irish/Cathloic sentiment at the time. More over lack of de facto discrimination is by no means evidence of a lack of de juro discrimination, so even if the Irish, and other whites who were not considered "white", were never discriminated against in teh same legal manner as blacks it does not hold that they were therfore regarded as "white" or the social equales of "whites."

edit:sorry for the rant I just find it annoying when people try simplifying history to reflect modern attitudes instead of looking at it from the way people were thinking at the time. i get equaly annoyed when people laugh at the "stupidity" of things such as medieval medicine, yes it is pretty stupid looking at it with what we now know, but most of the things they did do seem to make sense following the ideas and assumptions of the time.

heck, forget about what is taught in school I've read documents from teh time where the discrimination against teh Irish, Italians, and other "white" people had the were expressed in teh same racial langauge as teh discrimination against such non blacks as asians or native americans. To say that a person wasn't considered black, therefor they were considered white is a blatantly false statment. At times none blacks were described as black by the law in order to utilize anti-black legislation against them, but that does not mean that they were socialy regarded as black and discriminated against on that basis. Further more you have to provide evidence that such Jim Crow laws as poll tax were never used against such non-black groups as the Irish in the south, considering the level of anti Irish/Cathloic sentiment at the time. More over lack of de facto discrimination is by no means evidence of a lack of de juro discrimination, so even if the Irish, and other whites who were not considered "white", were never discriminated against in teh same legal manner as blacks it does not hold that they were therfore regarded as "white" or the social equales of "whites."
Um, do you mean to be yelling at me? My post agrees with your argument.

Um, do you mean to be yelling at me? My post agrees with your argument.

Oh, no I was just pointing out we don't have to rely on anything as "unreliable" as just saying this is what I learned in school, the actual documentation of the period agrees with us in our definition. teh rest was more furthering our argument after that point.

here in Poland, white, black, etc refer purely to skin colour. nothing about race.

Exactly. And oooh! You're Polish! How cute. Me too, sorta.

is it your contention that people a generation or two out from their irish immigrant ancestors were excluded from the category of white? shit, by that point they were getting themselves positions of political power all over the place. despite anti-immigrant and anti-catholic bigotries, they were not held down over the course of generations. it just wasn't anywhere near the same sort of deal, nor was it pursued with the same enthusiasm. once they stopped being identifiable as foreign, they moved right in to white america.

Oh, no I was just pointing out we don't have to rely on anything as "unreliable" as just saying this is what I learned in school, the actual documentation of the period agrees with us in our definition. teh rest was more furthering our argument after that point.
Oh, okay. :)

is it your contention that people a generation or two out from their irish immigrant ancestors were excluded from the category of white? shit, by that point they were getting themselves positions of political power all over the place. despite anti-immigrant and anti-catholic bigotries, they were not held down over the course of generations. it just wasn't anywhere near the same sort of deal, nor was it pursued with the same enthusiasm. once they stopped being identifiable as foreign, they moved right in to white america.

No, I'm saying that the racial definition of white at the time did not include the Irish, based on the writings of the time done by those of the time who involved them self in "studying" "race".

is it your contention that people a generation or two out from their irish immigrant ancestors were excluded from the category of white? shit, by that point they were getting themselves positions of political power all over the place. despite anti-immigrant and anti-catholic bigotries, they were not held down over the course of generations. it just wasn't anywhere near the same sort of deal, nor was it pursued with the same enthusiasm. once they stopped being identifiable as foreign, they moved right in to white america.
Yes, this is exactly what I am saying. Regardless of which group is "in" in society, racism/bigotry is still true to itself, even if it is "out." People who do not think the Irish are "white" do not start thinking it just because an Irish-American gets elected president.

EDIT: Oh, yeah, and I ditto Psyker's remarks, too.

Read Whiteness of a Different Color by Mathew Frye Jacobson, it analyzes the changing meaning of the word white throughout the US history. I just read it and wrote an essay over it for my Sociology of Minority Groups class. Very informative.

A good book. Among others, I also recommend How the Irish Became White (http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White-Noel-Ignatiev/dp/0415918251/sr=8-1/qid=1162195287/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-8510394-0405536?ie=UTF8&s=books) and How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says About Race in America (http://www.amazon.com/Became-White-Folks-About-America/dp/081352590X/sr=8-2/qid=1162195399/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-8510394-0405536?ie=UTF8&s=books).

They were both required reading for an anthropology class. Like Whiteness of a Different Color, very informative.

No, I'm saying that the racial definition of white at the time did not include the Irish

except legally and in practical effect for the second generation. there wasn't any irish exclusion act. they wound up nearly monopolizing many jobs (actively fighting off free black laborers for them in some cases). hell, to my knowledge nobody has ever actually found evidence of a 'no irish need apply' sign really existing. know nothings hated them, sure. but know nothings were completely ineffectual except in temporary and localized ways.

within one generation, the second wave of irish took up governorships and senate seats - those of the older wave had already held the presidency numerous times and some had actively campaigned on their irish heritage, like andrew jackson. on the other hand, we've still only had, what, 5 black senators?

the irish were white in every sense that mattered from the start.

except legally and in practical effect for the second generation. there wasn't any irish exclusion act. they wound up nearly monopolizing many jobs (actively fighting off free black laborers for them in some cases). hell, to my knowledge nobody has ever actually found evidence of a 'no irish need apply' sign really existing. know nothings hated them, sure. but know nothings were completely ineffectual except in temporary and localized ways.

within one generation, the second wave of irish took up governorships and senate seats - those of the older wave had already held the presidency numerous times and some had actively campaigned on their irish heritage, like andrew jackson. on the other hand, we've still only had, what, 5 black senators?

the irish were white in every sense that mattered from the start.Again you are equating the fact that they were not treated the same as blacks to mean they were regarded as white, in the anthropological lititure of the day the celtic Irish, as opposed to the so called Scotts-Irish, were not regarded as white.

the irish were white in every sense that mattered from the start.

I respectfully disagree. A third generation O'Brien or McCully was little better than an "uppity Negro" even outside the south. Read How the Irish Became White.

So this categorization of 'White culture' or 'Whites' in general...does it actually make sense to anyone? I mean...those of you with white skin...are you just like every other person with white skin out there? Seriously.

Such categorisations are utter nonsense.

By the way, US immigration laws, at least until '20s, told that there were 2 types of Italians. Northern (Po valley) were held to be "white", and central and southern Italians were regarded as "partly black". I know for sure that in the '20s, in the southern US, a black man, who was being tried for rape, escaped death penalty because his lawyer was able to prove that the woman the culprit raped wasn't "pure white" because she was of souther italian origin, and raping a non-white woman was held a lesser crime than raping a pure-white woman. Don't misunderstand me, I'm happy that the black guy wasn't hanged as I'm against death penalty, but there is a delightful irony, escaping a racist death penalty thanks to another sort of racism...

People who do not think the Irish are "white" do not start thinking it just because an Irish-American gets elected president.

that is to give far too much weight to the opinions of cranks and whackjobs.

to gain citizenship one needed to be white. to be elected to office one needed to be a citizen. ergo, irishmen who got themselves elected into positions of political power were white.

that is to give far too much weight to the opinions of cranks and whackjobs.

to gain citizenship one needed to be white. to be elected to office one needed to be a citizen. ergo, irishmen who got themselves elected into positions of political power were white.

The Irish-Americans you are reffering to were of Northern Irish decent, not gallic Irish which is the group being discussed.

The Irish-Americans you are reffering to were of Northern Irish decent, not gallic Irish which is the group being discussed.

Or more commonly, the distinction between Catholic Irish and Protestant Irish.

The Irish-Americans you are reffering to were of Northern Irish decent, not gallic Irish which is the group being discussed.

true or false, the irish that immigrated from 1840 on voted in elections and held public office.

true or false, the irish that immigrated from 1840 on voted in elections and held public office.

Legaly being considered white doesn't mean they were considered white socialy or in the ethenography of the time, any more than the fact that asians in some areas were ruled to qualify as blacks in order to apply the same laws to them means they were regarded as black either socialy or in the ethenography of the time. Also the fact that they were discrimminated against less then blacks doesn't indicate that their was no discrimination directed towards the Irish.

Free Soviets:

read this Ad from the 1840's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NINA-nyt.JPG

If you think Irish were on the same level as the rest of the country, then you have no idea what NINA stands for, or how bad the problem was.

it makes just as little sense as 'Black history'. When did 'Black People' become a homogenous group?

When they interbred with Whites and lost their native statuses.

In Africa "black" people are divided into three races. The blacks we're familiar with, the Kush people (black, but have huge fat deposits on their butts) and the Pygmies (black, but also very short).

At the turn of the century in North America, 'White' was not really a category. The English were much more desireable as immigrants than the Irish, the Germans more desireable than the Poles... In fact, early Canadian Parliament speeches refer to a 'multiracial nation', but the speaker goes on to mention these 'races' as: French, Scottish, English, Irish...
This is WASPism... the Poles and Irish were less desirable because they were Catholic.

In Africa "black" people are divided into three races. The blacks we're familiar with, the Kush people (black, but have huge fat deposits on their butts) and the Pygmies (black, but also very short).

Wow.

There are just a few more than that...

that is to give far too much weight to the opinions of cranks and whackjobs.

to gain citizenship one needed to be white. to be elected to office one needed to be a citizen. ergo, irishmen who got themselves elected into positions of political power were white.
You're acting as if racism/bigotry doesn't exist or has no effect outside the law. Hatred is an attitude, not a set of laws. I remind you that, during segregation, black Americans had the right to vote, but that didn't stop the racist societies of the south from blocking their access to the polls, even to the point of violence and murder to stop them voting. I remind you that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender in matters of employment, yet women are still routinely paid less than men for the same work and are passed over for promotion more often than men, despite equal qualifications and work performance. And there are plenty of dead gay people who could legitimately put on their tombstones, "The law was on their side." Too bad the law did not have the power to remove the effects of bigotry from society.

Just because the law eventually "accepted" the Irish (in and of itself racist and indicative of racism in society), that does not mean the bigotry they faced disappeared with the stroke of a legislative pen. In fact, it took many generations just to diminish it to a point where it was no longer a serious hindrance. To this day, I hear racists, even young ones (who are obviously still learning these attitudes from their elders), saying the same kinds of things about the Irish that they say about black Americans and Native Americans -- they are stupid, they can't run a country, they can't handle their liquor, they're all drunks and criminals, they're oversexed and beat their wives; it goes on and on.

You can point to the law all you like, but you will always miss the target, because racism and bigotry are not about the law.

true or false, the irish that immigrated from 1840 on voted in elections and held public office.
Irrelevant to the question of whether there was widespread anti-Irish racism at the same time. Nevered has already posted a copy of an 1840s newspaper ad showing usage of the term "No Irish need apply" for a job. This term was so common for so long that it became known simply as NINA. The fact that, by the 1840s many Irish in New York and Boston were taking jobs as policemen and getting involved in politics made no difference to their overall status in society.

I remind you that Jeannette Rankin of Montana was the first woman elected to the House of Representatives in 1917, but the Constitution was not amended to grant all American women the vote until 1920. So, did women have equal rights in 1917? No, they did not.

And neither did the Irish in the 1840s.

about the original post:
Even in the same culture you will have a huge variety of persons, an anarchist squatter and a neonazi skinhead may come from the same country and culture, but try finding two people more different.

Irrelevant to the question of whether there was widespread anti-Irish racism at the same time.

which is equally irrelevant to the question of whether they were considered white or not. they were. come on, it's not as if the state was unwilling to declare certain peoples to not actually be white at the time. there were all sorts of laws doing just that. hell, we've even got two contradictory supreme court cases that joined in the fun. takao ozawa v. u.s. in 1922 which said "we meant caucasian, not light skinned", and u.s. v. bhagat singh thind in 1923 which said "we meant light skinned, not caucasian". if there had been any significant support for dewhitifying the irish, it would have been done politically as well as informally.

the fact of the matter is that anti-irish bigotry was never strong enough or coordinated enough to really accomplish anything. barely off the boat irish immigrants held vastly more power than the know nothings ever did. i'm having trouble seeing what it would mean to be discriminated against while running most of the big cities and monopolizing a number of industries. that off somewhere where you don't live, people that have no power over you dislike you? that there is still the occasional guy running around hating the irish?

if anything, the irish form a success story for the use of collective action as a means to quickly overcome any possible threats of systematized bigotry from dumbass nativists.

Nevered has already posted a copy of an 1840s newspaper ad showing usage of the term "No Irish need apply" for a job. This term was so common for so long that it became known simply as NINA.

"No Irish Need Apply": A Myth of Victimization (http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/Jensen.htm)

the only place it ever apparently showed up in the u.s. was in a few personal want ads. to quote prof. jensen,

The fact that Irish vividly "remember" NINA signs is a curious historical puzzle. There are no contemporary or retrospective accounts of a specific sign at a specific location. No particular business enterprise is named as a culprit. No historian, archivist, or museum curator has ever located one; no photograph or drawing exists. No other ethnic group complained about being singled out by comparable signs. Only Irish Catholics have reported seeing the sign in America—no Protestant, no Jew, no non-Irish Catholic has reported seeing one. This is especially strange since signs were primarily directed toward these others: the signs said that employment was available here and invited Yankees, French-Canadians, Italians and any other non-Irish to come inside and apply. The business literature, both published and unpublished, never mentions NINA or any policy remotely like it. The newspapers and magazines are silent. The courts are silent. There is no record of an angry youth tossing a brick through the window that held such a sign. Have we not discovered all of the signs of an urban legend?

The NINA slogan seems to have originated in England, probably after the 1798 Irish rebellion. By the 1820s it was a cliché in upper and upper middle class London that some fussy housewives refused to hire Irish and had even posted NINA signs in their windows. It is possible that handwritten NINA signs regarding maids did appear in a few American windows, though no one ever reported one. Apart from want ads for personal household workers, the NINA slogan has not turned up in the newspapers.

You're acting as if racism/bigotry doesn't exist or has no effect outside the law. Hatred is an attitude, not a set of laws. I remind you that, during segregation, black Americans had the right to vote, but that didn't stop the racist societies of the south from blocking their access to the polls, even to the point of violence and murder to stop them voting. I remind you that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender in matters of employment, yet women are still routinely paid less than men for the same work and are passed over for promotion more often than men, despite equal qualifications and work performance. And there are plenty of dead gay people who could legitimately put on their tombstones, "The law was on their side." Too bad the law did not have the power to remove the effects of bigotry from society.

yes indeed. is there any evidence of such things happening on any sort of significant scale to the irish? not so much, no.

Free Soviets
which is equally irrelevant to the question of whether they were considered white or not. they were. come on, it's not as if the state was unwilling to declare certain peoples to not actually be white at the time. there were all sorts of laws doing just that. hell, we've even got two contradictory supreme court cases that joined in the fun. takao ozawa v. u.s. in 1922 which said "we meant caucasian, not light skinned", and u.s. v. bhagat singh thind in 1923 which said "we meant light skinned, not caucasian". if there had been any significant support for dewhitifying the irish, it would have been done politically as well as informally.

the fact of the matter is that anti-irish bigotry was never strong enough or coordinated enough to really accomplish anything. barely off the boat irish immigrants held vastly more power than the know nothings ever did. i'm having trouble seeing what it would mean to be discriminated against while running most of the big cities and monopolizing a number of industries. that off somewhere where you don't live, people that have no power over you dislike you? that there is still the occasional guy running around hating the irish?

if anything, the irish form a success story for the use of collective action as a means to quickly overcome any possible threats of systematized bigotry from dumbass nativists.
Free Sovietsyes indeed. is there any evidence of such things happening on any sort of significant scale to the irish? not so much, no.
Fine. You want to keep on denying that white racists apply racist thinking to other whites just as readily as they do non-whites, go right ahead.

The source you cited is respectable, but the author is still just interpreting history -- i.e. giving an opinion. I could present equally respectable sources that give the exact opposite interpretation of the exact same facts. Other people in this thread have already recommended just such sources, so I'll refer you to them.

Your opinion is that the Irish and other European immigrants were all considered white and you seem to base this on a few references in law. My opinion is that the Irish and other European immigrants were NOT all considered white, and I base that on many references in law, popular culture and the popular and academic writings of racists over the last 150+ years, contemporary instances of bigotry that are similar to the racism of past generations, AND personal experience.

Obviously, we disagree. What more is there to say?

when in england i had to fill out a form in the libary, bank, buying a phone, hospital and two work places, saying what ethnic group i was from. it had black, arab, white and a seperate box for irish. i thought that was wierd.
i was also called a ****** at some point. which again is wierd cause i'm white.

When did "White People" become a homogenous group?

At the same point that "black people" did, I would imagine.

I'm sorry, did you have a point?

Fine. You want to keep on denying that white racists apply racist thinking to other whites just as readily as they do non-whites, go right ahead.

if me and my pals decide that we aren't going to consider those with german ancestors to be white, and that they should be actively excluded from white skin privilege, so what? unless we have the power to actually affect that change in some way, it amounts to nothing. in every way that matters, the german-americans would still be considered white, no matter how loudly me and my powerless friends complained about it.

if me and my pals decide that we aren't going to consider those with german ancestors to be white, and that they should be actively excluded from white skin privilege, so what? unless we have the power to actually affect that change in some way, it amounts to nothing. in every way that matters, the german-americans would still be considered white, no matter how loudly me and my powerless friends complained about it.
And if you back up your nonsensical decision by refusing to hire or sell houses to German-Americans, or by restricting where German-Americans could live, or by shattering the windows of every German-American-owned business in your city, or by bombing churches used by German-Americans, or by snatching German-Americans off the street and lynching them, and if you get elected for public office on an unrelated platform -- or even if it turned out that enough other people also hated German-Americans enough that you could win on an anti-German platform -- and use your political power to enact laws that oppress German-Americans, so what? They're still white, right, no matter what you say, or what you do to them?

All those scenarios actually did happen -- to the Irish, the Chinese, Jews, black people, and yes, even Germans (in the US during WW1) -- but would not have if the bigotry had not already existed, in contradiction of both reason and law. But I'm sure the fact that racism is pure nonsense was a great comfort to those whose lives were destroyed by it.

EDIT: It occurs to me that what you are really arguing, if I'm reading you right, is that, since the Irish are "white," it is nonsense to think that they were ever considered not "white." But that argument itself does not make sense because it assumes that no one will ever think anything that is not true -- even though that is the entire basis of racism, as well as many other things. The Irish are "white," but it in no way follows that other people never said they weren't.

why wouldnt people love germans?

I'm "white" and from NYC and think all this "white history month" nonsense is, um, nonsense.

The reason for "Black history month" and "Latino history month" was that these groups were ignored as not having made any contributions to "white history."

I'd just as soon do away with all ethnic history months and have everyone represented with equal respect. Since that seems unlikely, the emphasis on other cultures is appropriate, and those clamoring for a "white history month" strike me as the same people wailing that as white middle class males they are actually victims and unrepresented.:rolleyes:

Well, in truth, they didn't. We invaded, we exploited, civilised and then liberated. Sub-Egyptian Africa and the Carribean has hardly shaped the world to the same extent as Europe, has it?

And if you back up your nonsensical decision by refusing to hire or sell houses to German-Americans, or by restricting where German-Americans could live, or by shattering the windows of every German-American-owned business in your city, or by bombing churches used by German-Americans, or by snatching German-Americans off the street and lynching them, and if you get elected for public office on an unrelated platform -- or even if it turned out that enough other people also hated German-Americans enough that you could win on an anti-German platform -- and use your political power to enact laws that oppress German-Americans, so what? They're still white, right, no matter what you say, or what you do to them?

All those scenarios actually did happen -- to the Irish, the Chinese, Jews, black people, and yes, even Germans (in the US during WW1) -- but would not have if the bigotry had not already existed, in contradiction of both reason and law. But I'm sure the fact that racism is pure nonsense was a great comfort to those whose lives were destroyed by it.

no, if that happened, then we would have effectively kicked the germans out of the white club. but that didn't happen to the irish to any significant extent, except for brief localized flare ups.

no, if that happened, then we would have effectively kicked the germans out of the white club. but that didn't happen to the irish to any significant extent, except for brief localized flare ups.

Once again, you're just arguing for YOUR interpretation of the facts over MY interpretation of them. I base this conclusion on the fact that whenever you start attaching your opinion to facts, your language gets fuzzy -- you use relative terms like "significant extent," "brief," and "localized," all of which can mean different things to different readers.

The facts have been laid out, sources have been cited, and I have made my entire argument based on them. If it has not convinced you, then it isn't going to, and I see no reason to just keep repeating the same statements over and over. Each of us is going to continue thinking the other is wrong.

no, if that happened, then we would have effectively kicked the germans out of the white club. but that didn't happen to the irish to any significant extent, except for brief localized flare ups.

white ****** i believe is the term.

When did "White People" become a homogenous group?
When black people stopped being able to tell us apart.

Once again, you're just arguing for YOUR interpretation of the facts over MY interpretation of them. I base this conclusion on the fact that whenever you start attaching your opinion to facts, your language gets fuzzy -- you use relative terms like "significant extent," "brief," and "localized," all of which can mean different things to different readers.

the language is relative because absolutes won't work. otherwise we'd have to say that a society that by all outward appearances was completely egalitarian was racist because there happened to be one dude who committed a hate crime recently. we have to look at things structurally and over time.

were there people who went out of their way to discriminate against the irish? sure. were there people who denied that the irish were fully white? sure. were they successful in getting society as a whole to go along with those notions? hell no. were the irish actively excluded from the work force in any sort of systematic way? not in the slightest. were they denied access to political power? obviously not.

none of the signs of systematic discrimination, let alone exclusion from whiteness, were in any way visible among the irish immigrants, and especially not among the second generation.

At the turn of the century in North America, 'White' was not really a category. The English were much more desireable as immigrants than the Irish, the Germans more desireable than the Poles... In fact, early Canadian Parliament speeches refer to a 'multiracial nation', but the speaker goes on to mention these 'races' as: French, Scottish, English, Irish...

This springs to mind with all the 'White history' threads lately. I mean...are you going to tell me that Polish culture is just the same as French culture? As Dutch culture? As Czech culture? Sure, you can argue these are just nationalities...but it is also language, history, etc...very different in each case.

So this categorization of 'White culture' or 'Whites' in general...does it actually make sense to anyone? I mean...those of you with white skin...are you just like every other person with white skin out there? Seriously.

Same time the Bantus, Somalis, and the other thousand African ethnicities became a black culture.

were they successful in getting society as a whole to go along with those notions? hell no. were the irish actively excluded from the work force in any sort of systematic way? not in the slightest. were they denied access to political power? obviously not.

none of the signs of systematic discrimination, let alone exclusion from whiteness, were in any way visible among the irish immigrants, and especially not among the second generation.

dont what country you are from so i dont know how to argue this.

one could say england as a whole discriminated against us for a long time.
"no irish" were apparently common in america.
harvard tried to keep irish out for awhile.

that irish people never suffer from racism is absurd.

the language is relative because absolutes won't work. <snip>
No (to the rest of your post, which I did read), the language is relative because you are trying to present your opinion as if it is fact, in and of itself. It is not, no matter how you slice it. You interpret the facts one way and build your opinion. I interpret the facts another way and build my opinion. Your interpretation of the facts seems wrong to me, and so I do not agree with your opinion. Vice versa for you rejecting my opinion. Since neither of us can convince the other, there is nothing more to be said about this particular point.

At the same point that "black people" did, I would imagine.

I'm sorry, did you have a point?

Which was about the same time "hispanic" and "asian" did too, right? Which is never. "Whites" tend to identify with their heritage as much as anyone else. When's the last time you asked someone where their family came from and they said "I'm a white american" or "I'm a european american"? I've been known to tell people I'm a "mutt american". Mixed breed. English, Scottish, German, French, Dutch, and Irish, as far as I know about. Yah. MUTT.

Reminds me of a book by Piers Anthony Race Against Time. I'd tell you about it, but it'd ruin the book if you read it.

ITALIANS ARE NOT WHITE! We are olive.

I stopped considering myself white a while back when I found out that Italians were considered non-white for much of the last century. Now I refere to myself as Italian or Olive. It origionally started as a joke when I'd get into any arguments about race where I was called white, but I've come to embrace myself as an independent "race"...even if I am the only one.

[QUOTE]Which was about the same time "hispanic" and "asian" did too, right? Which is never. "Whites" tend to identify with their heritage as much as anyone else. When's the last time you asked someone where their family came from and they said "I'm a white american" or "I'm a european american"? /QUOTE]
I actually see a lot of white people call themselves white rather than by racial origin. The German and Irish friends I have tend to identify by their race more, but most other european-americans in my area just don't care much about it.

At the turn of the century in North America, 'White' was not really a category. The English were much more desireable as immigrants than the Irish, the Germans more desireable than the Poles... In fact, early Canadian Parliament speeches refer to a 'multiracial nation', but the speaker goes on to mention these 'races' as: French, Scottish, English, Irish...

This springs to mind with all the 'White history' threads lately. I mean...are you going to tell me that Polish culture is just the same as French culture? As Dutch culture? As Czech culture? Sure, you can argue these are just nationalities...but it is also language, history, etc...very different in each case.

So this categorization of 'White culture' or 'Whites' in general...does it actually make sense to anyone? I mean...those of you with white skin...are you just like every other person with white skin out there? Seriously.


I hate it, and it makes no sense to me. I find it quite insulting, because the term paints all European cultures as if they're one and the same. My ancestors had individual cultures, godammit. Saying that the Swedish way of life is the same as that of people living in Sicily is just fucking stupid.

Whatever....

It is the human race...we are all just different breeds of the same dog....