lopez
23/04/2006, 9:37 AM
This is unfortunately true. The Irish were happy to emigrate to a country where their being white was more important than their being Irish, but they didn't translate their own experience into empathy for non-white slaves/immigrants/natives.It is a little more complicated than just turning up and being welcomed as white. This might be the case in Britain in 2006 buit it wasn't the case in the 1950s for the Irish and certainly not in C19 US and Australia. With regards to the latter, most Irish initially arrived encarcerated. In the former, they were deeply hated and seen as lower down the pecking order than blacks. In the words of Noel Ignatiev, they needed to become 'white'. Initially this came about NOT through joining the WASP elite in exploiting black Americans but in undercutting them in the workplace and by strike breaking and later moving into areas seen as 'vulgar' by the elite, such as sport or 'showbiz.' Their bulk in the big cities, and a political sophisitication, also gave them political clout to gain public service jobs, once more at the expense of (the far fewer and politically impotent) emancipated blacks of the late C19.
As for thunderblaster bringing up O'Dwyer, his argument would also suggest that Amritsar was nothing more than an intra-communal spat. After all, the shooting was done largely by sepoys (mostly ghurkhas) who apparently enjoyed their day out if you believe James Lawrence in 'The Rise and Fall of The British Empire.'
As for thunderblaster bringing up O'Dwyer, his argument would also suggest that Amritsar was nothing more than an intra-communal spat. After all, the shooting was done largely by sepoys (mostly ghurkhas) who apparently enjoyed their day out if you believe James Lawrence in 'The Rise and Fall of The British Empire.'