Friday, February 09, 2007
Northern Ireland: world capital for bigotry…
Picked this up from TCAL. It’s originally drawn from a University of Ulster paper, but they got it from the Belfast Telegraph originally.
The acid test of the study relates to a single question. “Would you like to have persons from this group as your neighbours?” They were given just five possible answers: people from another race, immigrants or foreign workers, Muslims, Jews, homosexuals. In the end (by these indices at least), Northern Ireland’s ultra conservative society beats Greece (by one percentage point) to become ‘Bigot Capital of the World’.
Interestingly the major ‘victims’ are gay (over 80% of bigoted persons in Northern Ireland and Canada and 75% of bigots in Austria, the USA, Great Britain, Ireland and Italy would not want homosexuals as neighbours). This from Pink News:
Not only does the province have the highest proportion of bigots, but the bigots are on average more bigoted than those in other countries. The main target of Northern Irish prejudice is the gay community, with over a third of respondents saying they did not want gay neighbours.
Interestingly Scandinavia headed the list for bigotry against Muslims:
The exceptions to this were the Scandinavian countries in which the main target of bigotry was Muslims: 74% of bigoted Danes, 68% of bigoted Swedes and 63% of bigoted Icelanders did not want Muslims as neighbours. The corresponding proportions for homosexuals in these countries were, respectively 37%, 44% and 43%.
Mick Fealty @ 11:40 AM
“Sectarian strife predates partition by centuries.”
The point is that partition has kept it healthy. The South has it’s own problems on these issue but even they are some degree ahead of us.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 02:17 PMAs all polls tend to exaggerate the middle ground, as people are disinclined to appear extreme, I think it realistic that 45% is quite a low figure.
Not wanting a gay next door - or even one per village - would probably be something that many more than 45% would actually see no problem with.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 02:20 PMFD: “Sectarian strife predates partition by centuries. “
Please, by all means, count it, but also make up your mind. When e’er a nationalist brings up the plantation and the like, we are informed that that is all “old news” and of little import to modern day affairs; yet, when it suits, apparently, the olden times do apparently count for something. Will wonders never cease.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 02:26 PMI have a houseful of eastern Europeans living next door to me. I would honestly rather have them than the Northern Irish family who were their predecessors.....asking me to turn down the music at my house warming party indeed.....
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 02:43 PMGuys,
Much to the disappointment of some, this study has nothing whatsoever to say about one of our oldest hot potato…
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 03:07 PMDC
1. History while very interesting is largely redundant. Few people will sacrifice something today to make up for a real or imagining slight their ancestors did a few centuries ago. BTW allowing casinos isn’t a sacrifice ;-).
2. It was your good self who went back into history first with the reference to partition not I. I did not introduce history into the topic.
3. Also my comment on history did not infer cause and effect, simply to argue the problem is older and more consistent than your chosen event.Sectarian strife owes much less to historical events and more to do with the presence of two large distinct groups. The events are more the means of keeping ‘score’ on mutual rights and wrongs.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 03:21 PMGuys,
Much to the disappointment of some, this study has nothing whatsoever to say about one of our oldest hot potato…
Surely you can conclude though that if we can’t be civil to each other what chances are there of us being civil to immigrants? Unfortunately, I think this alleged bigotry towards migrants comes from the fact that we have got to a point were we are so intolerant that we just automatically hate every race/culture/religion that is not exactly the same as our own.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 03:29 PMJEB,
Greenflag
‘All a bit simplistic to blame this on Partitition ‘
I’m not blaming it all on Partition but I’d hazard a guess that Partition exacerbated the already latent ‘xenophobia’ which as you say goes back several centuries.
‘and interestingly I dont know how you marry your first paragraph with your advocation of the justification of repartition ? ‘
Simplicity itself JEB - If the vast majority of Irish Nationalists in NI can be removed out from the xenophibic hothouse that is the NI State then the sooner their ‘xenophobic’ ratings will approximate the Irish as opposed to the Unionist norm. This can only be good for them as a people and as individuals . Unionist ‘xenophobia’ is a matter for Unionists themselves to resolve . There’s nothing that we Irish can do to assist British Unionists in that regard . Their very presence on the island as a minority in the North East makes for the ‘condition’ .
There is hope however as apparently the younger population groups seem to be less ‘xenophobic’ than their parents . 40 years ago in terms of ‘race’ the Irish Republic could also have been described as a sheltered ‘all white’ community. But it seems the Republic has managed to cope with it’s immigrant community in a less openly hostile manner than Northern Ireland.
‘In terms of foreigners the demographic head count is also an issue. Loyalist areas esepcially are suspicious of most Eastern Europeans because they consider them Catholic. ‘
Brilliant rationale . How would Loyalist areas feel about English or Scottish Catholics their fellow Britons as next door neighbours assuming of course that any of the latter would ever consider such a suicidal move ?
‘The Catholic Protestant thing here (for most) is not about transubstantiation, the role of Mary and the Saints etc but is about Constitutional politics. ‘
I agree JEB. It’s also about the changing demographics and economic power structure within NI and as between the Republic and NI. In such an environment it’s no surprise that ‘loyalists and unionists’ are and will remain xenophobic for as long as the present ‘balance’ remains.
‘you are not born a bigot but you are shaped as one by the environment around you and therefore appreciating that environment and trying to change it is more important than condemning a whole society with a label ‘
Full marks for the obvious JEB but you are essentially putting the egg before the chicken here or is it the other way around ? For those of us who believe that the 6 county NI State given it’s local history and socio-cultural religious characteristics and demography is inherently incapable of change without the demise of the State .
The ‘xenophobia’ of Loyalists will only cease when it has no reason to exist . That situation will most likley only arise with the disappearance of the NI State in it’s present format. It will not be a total cure for the ‘condition’ but a step forward in the right direction -IMO.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 03:34 PMFD,
‘Sectarian strife predates partition by centuries.’
True but also true of other european countries /nations such as France /Germany/England /Holland/Switzerland/Scotland etc . But in all of the above sectarian strife eventually disappated due to the emergence of the nation state -secularism and the growing freedoms associated with ‘democracy.
These countries/nations did not have their ‘constitutional ‘ future forever hanging in the balance depending on the result of a) the next election or b) the next census .In that respect Northern Ireland is a political oddity -neither one thing nor the other a half colonial twilight zone which is neither nation nor country in itself but can only be defined in relation to it’s neighbours east and west .
A recipe for eternal constitutional confusion but if that’s waht the people want well that’s what they’ll get to pay for .
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 03:43 PMFD: “History while very interesting is largely redundant. Few people will sacrifice something today to make up for a real or imagining slight their ancestors did a few centuries ago. BTW allowing casinos isn’t a sacrifice ;-). “
Depends on whom you ask—ever try to live near one? How about between two?
FD: “2. It was your good self who went back into history first with the reference to partition not I. I did not introduce history into the topic. “
Ah, but I presented was a general rule, gleaned from the broad general experience on this site, not some narrow argument. When a nationalist brings history into the discussion—penal laws, the Plantation, the Blight, etc., he is roundly shouted down by Unionists, who claim that those events are too far back to consdier. Apparently, history is only important when it suports Unionist contentions.
FD: “Sectarian strife owes much less to historical events and more to do with the presence of two large distinct groups. The events are more the means of keeping ‘score’ on mutual rights and wrongs. “
A predictable, convenient and almost trite position to take, all things considered…
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 03:54 PMDC
1. My reference to sacrifice was of a common one not an individual one ie living beside one. However my phraseology of “few people” probably contributed to this confusion, my apologies.
2. I am not responsible for what other Unionists do or do not do. Historical debate is something I find interesting but as I said largely redundant for how we sort out where we are today. Why argue about discriminatory laws passed and abolished centuries ago when we could be debating our present laws for equality and human rights and the mechanisms for their protection?
3. No you used specificity e.g. direct reference to partition it was I who used generality.
4. Simply an analysis that doesn’t rely on poor historical point scoring.Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 04:36 PMI think people are getting a bit hysterical here over nothing.
The report is fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons, yes it does show preferences for what neighbour you want but that only goes to show that people have preferences particularly men.
Below are three options with answers followed by the same three options worded differently with three answers.Option 1) would you like two homosexual men living next door?
Answer a) No I really wouldn’t I bought this house for its south facing back garden where I could enjoy watching the neighbours teenage daughters and their friends sunbath on a warm summers day wearing micro bikinis and smiles not listen to some sexual dysfunctional male scream in a grossly enhanced girlie voice about a caterpillar on his towel and secretly ogling me from an upstairs window, the dirty pervert.
Answer b) Not a chance, that means that there won’t be a woman next door who given a few weeks of friendliness and general flirting will be gagging to have an affair with me once her husband goes away for a business trip.
Option 2) Would you like Muslims for neighbours?
Answer ) Are you on drugs man my alarm clock goes off at quarter to seven five days a week now you want me to listen the call to Salaah getting yelled from the attic of my next door neighbours at the crack of dawn, not a fucking chance, besides their women don’t do affairs, there’s absolutely no chance of fluff watching in their back garden and any summer snaps taken there would look like a Hamas school reunion and I don’t want some guy in white pajamas and an army surplus haversack charging into my living room screaming Allaabu Akbar.
Option 3) Would you like people of a different race as neighbours?
Answer ) Right now your really asking to be slapped, I don’t want some big buck nigger pushing drugs to my kids or spreading AIDS to the women I’m planning to have affairs with, besides what use would any of be to any woman that had been with Sergei Bubka
Option 1 reworded ) Would you like two drop-dead gorgeous lipstick lesbians for neighbours.
Answer ) Fucking right.
Option 2) Would you like two stunning Pilipino nurses living next door
Answer ) Do they need a hand to move in
Option 3) Would you like Beyonce and Naomi Campbell living next door
Answer ) Would I like man I insist on it.
So as you see all things are relative as to what you think your getting and not what your getting.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 04:39 PMFD: “No you used specificity e.g. direct reference to partition it was I who used generality. “
Let me break this down to small words with big letters.
I noted the partition.
You pointed out the broader history.
I commented that citing events such as the Plantation usu. attact howls of derision from Unionists.
The problem is that you which to retain a dead-lock on our original exchange when the flow of the converstaion has moved past that point.
FD: “Why argue about discriminatory laws passed and abolished centuries ago when we could be debating our present laws for equality and human rights and the mechanisms for their protection? “
Because there is, frequently, a gap between what the law specifies and what actually happens. I am certain that there were laws on the books against murder that were selectively enforced by the RUC. Likewise, the present laws do not address certain realities on the ground.
FD: “ Simply an analysis that doesn’t rely on poor historical point scoring. “
So sayeth the fellow who likes his bowler and his summer-time triumphalist marches.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 04:52 PM“I would think seeing the sterling work of Messers Paisley, Adams and associates in this particular field that it really would be a massive policy failure if our bigotry towards each other wasn’t passed onto immigrants moving here.”
Partly true, yes obviously true about Paisley and his cohorts. Incorrect about the shinners.
http://www.queerday.com/2004/apr/25/sinn_feins_leader_backs_gay_rights.html
http://www.sinnfein.ie/policies/document/118
The Shinners, in fairness, have always been on the good side when it comes to those two issues.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 05:09 PMOh and here’s the other side’s (DUP) view, not Alliance, they’d be very liberal on gay issues i’m sure.
http://www.allianceparty.org/news/002685.html?PHPSESSID=801ceb21
No wonder, it’s the bigotry capital of the world with a religious fundy party as the main vote winner.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 05:16 PMApologies to Mick for straying off topic, but…
Ireland under the British had always been treated as a single entity. To my knowledge there was no equivalent of Dublin Castle in Scotland or Wales. So many other trappings marked the difference between Ireland and Britain even under the union.
Partition split that administrative unit and essentialized and concretized politico-religious identities in a completely new way. The problem is that it never really “took”: it had to keep reproducing itself throughout the Troubles (through ethnic cleansings and the like) to prove it was “real.” Partition can’t be consigned to the rubbish-bin of history just yet: it hasn’t gone away you know.
Things have changed somewhat: everyone now accepts the need for effective local accountable government on an island basis. We just need to keep on thinking about what that really means.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 05:17 PMDC
Sorry how could I understand that last post you didn’t use the big letters like you said you would.
1. I respond to exactly what the person says. How dreadful of me. Also I disagree with the value of history as present day political argument so adding to the list of events had no impact as I didn’t accept the premise.
2. I don’t wear a bowler but so what if I wear a collarette and go on parades? I do not use history to go to nationalists “We won at the Boyne so we get the Union forever” nor “We should get down Garvaghy Road because some of your ancestors may have carried out a massacre against some of my ancestors at Portadown” etc etc. nor do I credit the argument in reverse.Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 05:36 PMI do protest.
We have bigger mountains, strippers with bigger silicon boobs than Norn Iron and the biggest blundering fools and biggest bigots in the whole damn world.
The great state of California will personally set up any detractor in a flaming red Carrera Cabriolet with California oy veh! vanity plates with a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker and a 44-22-38 blonde, black stripper in leopard skin spandex for a trip through rural Alabama.
If you can draw two breaths before you are bent over a log ala Deliverance or dangling from a tree you win.
Bah! Goddam Dillitantes.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 05:51 PMDC
“You may “what if” all you like—but it doesn’t change what is.”
Indeed.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 05:56 PMThe Devil
Very funny very true
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 06:14 PMThe Devil,
Spot on Satan ole bean :) The Devil as always is in the detail . Not until the day arrives when a bunch of travellers moving into an area increases property values will all anti traveller bigotry cease . It’s the human condition -at the same time we should do whatever is possible to diminish the worst aspects of this interesting societal phenomenon.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 06:15 PMThere is one interesting little local twist nobody seems to have mentioned. When it comes to ‘white flight’ to the surburbs in NI the newcomer’s opening gambit is likely to be “Hullo there - I’se your new boss” which is likely to draw a different response. ;-)
The same thing has happened in Atlanta where a rising black middleclass has appeared and displaced the old powerstructure, just as it’s happening in Glengormley at present.
The way in which ‘themmuns’ are perceived is all-important when we’re talking about prejudice. What will the perception of Nationalists as being more successful and with more social capital do to unionist self regard?
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 06:41 PMFD: “Also I disagree with the value of history as present day political argument so adding to the list of events had no impact as I didn’t accept the premise. “
You not accepting the premise does not invalidate it, FD. Likewise, your assertion that the past isn’t prologue in N.I. and that historic discrimination has no impact on current cross-community perceptions is naive.
FD: “ don’t wear a bowler but so what if I wear a collarette and go on parades?”
It would be an indication that you are a participant in these little triumphalist displays and, therefor, have a dog in the fight. As a result, some of your positions arise from self-interest.
To be wholly fair, the truth lies somewhere between the poles you and I habitually stake out. The problem has some roots you seemingly to ignore, particularly the historical aspects, and some I honestly will likely never be able to comprehend, not being a Unionist and, therefore, not an “owner” of the associated mythology and world-view that accompanies being a Unionist. What you call “heritage” and culture, I see a petty triumphalism and “hate.”
The real question is how to bridge that obvious communications gap. Frankly, given the troubled history and the things your culture is celebrating with these events, I’m not sure it can be done.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 06:44 PMDC,
‘Frankly, given the troubled history and the things your culture is celebrating with these events, I’m not sure it can be done. ‘
Another good reason to consider a fair repartition solution . The Republic’s National Development plan will work wonders towards this end with all those billions being directted at the western and southern areas of Northern Ireland . As these will all be new ‘republican ‘roads then the OO will be unable to claim they are the Queen’s highway . They will also be non traditional roads and thus the OO will be unable to march them .
The OO will have to restrict it’s marching to small areas around local church’s or halls and this should help to reduce community tensions. Of course in the smaller Unionist State the lads would still be able to march around for several months each summer bating their drums and scaring the shite out of any remaining Irish and new immigrants . So they’d not have lost everything .
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 07:20 PMTD,
‘What you call “heritage” and culture, I see a petty triumphalism and “hate.” ‘
In fairness TD -FD can say the very same re your celebration of 1916 etc etc. There is always the other side of the coin .
It’s easy enough to bridge communication gaps . Constitutional gaps are less easy to bridge and not lightly traversed.
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 07:25 PM
