What do Led Zeppelin and the Christian Brothers have in common?
That's right: they're both distinct ethnic groups.
I recently wrote a post about Travellers claiming separate ethnicity and it stirred up a fair bit of passion. Many believe that prejudice against Travellers is racism because of their claimed distinct ethnicity and when I made the point that Travellers are white Irish Catholics like the majority, some people replied that ethnicity is not a genetic trait.
While I don't necessarily agree with that, I thought it might be worth looking into the entire thing a bit further. Maybe, we should see what other groups fit the criteria for separate ethnicity.
Here's what the UN says about racism:
the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
Good enough. Ethnic origin.
Let's see how the word ethnic is defined.
According to Wikipedia
An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed. Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioural or biological traits,real or presumed, as indicators of contrast to other groups.
Right. Now we're making progress.
All you need to be an ethnic group is to identify with each other, through a common heritage, which doesn't need to be real. You can make it up if you like. The main thing is that you really feel something in common with the others.
Does the group have to be big? No. Not at all. It can be you and your drinking buddy if you like. Two people can be an ethnic group if they identify with each other through a common heritage, real or presumed. Isn't that great?
Ethnicity is further marked by common traits, which again don't need to be real. You can make them up. Just pick one or two of these:
cultural
linguistic
religious
behavioural
biological
So now we have an easy way to figure out if you're part of an ethnic group or not. First we can make a list of groups with a common heritage, which doesn't need to be real. Then we'll check them against the other markers, which also don't need to be real.
Let's tick some boxes. Remember, you only need one.
|
cultural |
linguistic |
religious |
behavioural |
biological |
|
| Deaf people |
X |
X |
|
|
X |
| Circus performers |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
| Blind people |
|
|
|
|
X |
| Men |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
| Midgets |
|
|
|
|
X |
| Women |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
| Scientologists |
X |
|
X |
X |
|
| Lawyers |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
| Rich people |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
| Actors |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
| Organised criminals |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
| Fashion models |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
| Fianna Fail |
X |
|
|
X |
|
| Police officers |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
| Your family |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
| The Christian Brothers |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
| Led Zeppelin |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
So there you have it. I've followed the definition exactly as it's written down and the facts are clear. All these groups have their own distinct ethnicity.
If you're prejudiced against deaf people, you're a racist.
Likewise, if you have something against acrobats or blind people.
Also, men, women, Scientologists, Pastafarians, lawyers, rich people, actors, criminals, models, members of Fianna Fáil or policemen.
If you call the Christian Brothers a crowd of child-abusing bastards, that's racist.
If I say something about your family, I'm a racist, just as you are if you discriminate against mine.
You're a racist, because, following this definition, they're all distinct ethnic groups.
I'm sure we could think of a lot more ethnic groups if we took a few minutes to reflect. Remember, your group just needs to have a common heritage, whatever that might mean, and it needs to tick one of the boxes.
If you can prove you're a member of an ethnic group, you can spend the rest of your life happily claiming discrimination and prejudice against you.
Now! Wasn't that easy? Everyone's doing it these days.
I was going to nominate the GAA, but Fianna Fáil have already ticked their corporate boxes.
Limerick City parishes followed by it's nine rugby clubs should be listed individually. Eg. "Garryowen bollix"
"Young Munster ghoul" "Shannon Rat". The possibilities are endless.
But this seems to suggest that ethnic groups may too be racists; doesn't it?
p.s. What's with the new music CD widget?
No 8 — You don't mean ghoul as in evil spirit, do you? I think you mean gabhal, the Irish word for fork or crotch.
Bravo. This is your usual old hat, enormously entertaining but, sadly, inevitably pointless (same as my old hat, I suppose). We're never going to get anywhere against this idiotic bureaucracy of correctness.
The most interesting snippet here, I think, is the 'real or presumed' terminology. What in the name of Jesus 'tap-dancing' Christ does that even mean? Something is either 'real' or it's not. If we're equally including things that aren't real, then why bother making any mention of reality at all?
Why not just say 'any old guff is good enough,' and leave it at that?
I insist we begin a drive towards defining Bloggers as an ethnic group.
How do poets and three-card-trick operators fit into your above ethnicity analysis box?
I don't know. Why don't you test them and see if they qualify?
I know bock, but the thing is, anyone who doesnt know this by now is a sheep, and no matter how logically or innovatively ( and you have been both) you seek to make your case, the reply you get will still be, "Baa, racist."
Nice piece of semantic sophistry, Bock. The point is if you preach hatred against any marginalised, materially disadvantaged, socially excluded or otherwise subordinated group, you're still preaching hatred and not really contributing much to positive change. You can call it what ever you like or not. And if by doing so you, you open up the door to people who don't just restrict their hatred to travellers, but to anyone who is disadvantaged, different or feared, then you just perpetuate a bigger problem. The attitude to Travellers in Ireland and the unwillingness to engage with them meaningfully is rooted in that rural (petit)bourgeois ideology that correlated moral respectability with economic and social standing and you've written about the consequences of that often enough. In this area at least you could invest your time more usefully opening up a dialogue with Travellers rather than wasting it in devising clever, but ultimately facile, ways of justifying the distaste/hatred/fear you have for them.
Liam — You are no doubt aware that by calling it semantic sophistry, you are engaging in semantic sophistry.
Whatever about your insights into my personal feelings, maybe you could point out which bit of this analysis is actually wrong.
By the way, the last time I tried to open a dialogue with a traveller who was beating a little girl in the street, he threatened to kill me. I think I wrote about this incident some time back.
Identifying it ain't the same as doing it, so I don't think so, but what the hey, and I wasn't so much interested in your personal feelings as the consequences of them. The sophistry of your analysis lies in its wilful misapplication of key terms. Members of Led Zeppelin or policeman for example, can't constitute an ethnic group in the same way that travellers or Nigerians can, because membership of those first two groups is both voluntary and non-inheritable. You can join the police or Led Zep because your dad did, but membership isn't automatic. Deaf people don't form a cultural group,their cultural status derives from the wider group into which they're born or live. Furthermore you can't just describe yourself as an ethnic group because it suits you or Wikipedia. Irish people in Britain had to meet quite stringent criteria to pass the legal test which led to them being protected under the equal ops legislation. But, of course you know all that, Bock. I think you should just get over this one and come to terms with the fact that you can't excuse the blanket hate and condemnation of a whole group of people most of whom you've never met because of your experience with a few of them. I was married to a traveller woman, so I know that like all cultures they have good folks and bad folks amongst them. And to be honest, if I experienced half the exclusion and intimidation my ex-wife and her siblings did while growing up, I'd be a bit less than concerned about the feelings of people who demonstrate their dislike for me whatever I do. What you seem to want is to say that its alright for Bock to object to Travellers, but not ok for them Loyalists up North to object to Rumanians or them rednecks to want to send all the Nigerians back. All just variations on the same basic process as far as I can see.
I don't object to Travellers. I object to their attitudes.
There's no wilful dishonesty in this post: it's simply the well-established technique of reductio ad absurdum which is a perfectly valid form of argument.
I have said, over and over again, that Travellers are part of us, and not a separate ethnic group from the rest of the population and I wish they would participate more fully as citizens, with the same sense of civic responsibility that is expected of everyone else. That's quite different from the loyalists trying to expel the Romanians, is it not?
I have criticised Travellers, and justifiably so. I make no apology for that, as long as they continue to hold settled society in contempt.
I didn't notice a requirement to be born into a group in the definition of ethnicity, but you could say this about, for example, Fianna Fail adherents, or about my family. Would you consider that Aran Islanders constitute an ethnic group? They're all born into a community which has very distinct cultural heritage, and they speak a language which the majority of the population does not. That seems to tick the boxes.
On the other hand, since membership of a religion is voluntary here and most other European countries, we would have to exclude religious belief as a marker of ethnicity.
I haven't dealt with every single traveller in Ireland, it's true, but I have encountered more than most, for reasons I won't go into. I might just mention that the most violent, murderous drug-dealing gang in the country has soiled the good name of my town, and is controlled by Travellers.
You could say that the experience of most settled Limerick people has not been positive.
I notice you overloooked some of the other examples that would come within your definition:
Circus people, men, women, rich people.
I'd be interested in people's comments on Canada's move today to expect Visas for all Czech citizens due to the huge numbers of "Roma" people who are claiming refugee status by the hundreds in Canada, due to their claim of persecution in Czech Republic. In retaliation now the Czechs want the EU to push that Canadian diplomats and perhaps all its citizens will need to have visas to enter the EU. The Roma people are the second largest refugee claimant group now in Canada next to Mexicans, only 10% being found to have valid claims and the refugee claimant system being totally stuffed up by these "gypsies". Should Canada be worried or open the door in "justice"?
The whole Roma question is now one of PC are you a racist if you object toward their attitudes, just as with irish travellers.
Canada lifted visa regs from Czech rep end of 07 at that time the applicants from Czech rep for asylum were granted 84 acceptances, 5 rejections, 11 abandoned, 95 withdrawn.
A huge increase in applications in 2008 post lifting of visas, 878 claims from Czech rep,
Canada lifted visa regs in mid '90's but re-imposed them a year later after a flood of 4,000 Czechs, mostly Romas.
Interpol issued a warning that organised criminals among the roma immigrants are stealing and commiting crimes from indiginious populations on orders from criminals back home. British police claim a staggering 800% rise in crime such as pickpocketing and mugging commited by Romas, Germany, France and Italy have made similar reports , acts of retaliation are widespread, and i would never condone and particularly dispise acts of vigilantism, i do wonder what is really happening.
There is no doubt that Romas are recieving poor treatment in most areas but my personal experience of them was very negative, i was robbed twice, once in ireland and once abroad by Romas.
I have encountered Romas in Europe where i found them very intimidating and threatening and highly organised in their endeavours to commit crime.
I'm sure there are genuine Romas as there must be Irish travellers but in the main they threaten our commitment to a peaceful existence too much to ignore the problem does that make me a racist.
I think Canada has a particularly generous immigration system, i am presently looking at it myself with regard to the medical advances they have made in treatment of a rare condition which a member of my family suffers from, yes, i would not like to think their system might preclude genuine and needful applicants because their system is being taken advantage of, but at this point in time i need to know more.
Very interesting side to the issues, expecially in terms of the criminal impact on other Western countries. Canadians want to be humanitarian but often end up with a refugee system put out of wack by those taking advantage. I believe reasonable claims will be met as fairly as any country can meet them. It's because things Are so nicely accomodating, Canada is seen as a soft touch. The import of this vIsa move is to make the system fluid enough for the "real" refugees, (even real Roma refugees who have actually had a fair success rate)…but Toronto particularly doesn't want to see its tone abused by a flood brought in by intermiediary "refugee businesses"…almost plane loads arriving at once… several families "camping" in the airport until they can get settled before a readily given welfare cheque.
The way i'm seeing it now is that most of us committed to peaceful respectful living having laid down our choices over several years of work and life, these choices we made become the backbone of our peaceful co existence with society, our movements, habits, inclinations all executed with a certain level of awareness of our fellow man gives us a level of enjoyment and security and we feel we are entitled to that, and we are, i believe, when we are propelled into situations with which we have no experience and are alien to out way of life we struggle to have to find new coping mechanisms.
When this way of life is ruptured by forces which do not return such choices with respect and boundaries, I feel our primitive fears and indignation rises to the surface and we avoid at all costs being branded as disrespectful or small minded, struggling to maintain the simplicity and safety and structure we have put in place.
Whereas we fight to maintain flexibility in our outlook, there comes a time when the shutters come down so that we can continue to enjoy the quality of that structure and defend it against people attempting to destroy it.
Presently the destroyers of that structure come in all guises, from those we trusted to those we may have been willing to trust right down to those who have long since decimated all trust.