To think that if you’re told a phrase is offensive, you don’t insist on using it?

[changehere]

Yes, a TAAT. The context is that we explained to mumsnet HQ that the phrase ‘beyond the Pale’ is found eyebrow-raising by many (but not all) Irish people.

The Pale was the name given to an area of Ireland under English rule and those outside that area were considered uncivilised aka ‘beyond the pale’. This is a phrase that is only used with raised eyebrows in Ireland and certainly feels inappropriate, if not offensive, coming from an English person.

Mumsnet use it as part of their racism guidelines as in that they only ban language that is ‘beyond the pale’. Mumsnet accept the origins of the phrase. However, they insist on using this phrase to describe whether something is or is not racist.

Given the context, AIBU in requesting that Mumsnet find another phrase in their racism guidelines?

Math excellent post. I am an American who has had the huge privilege to have lived almost all my life in London. Many of my American friends/relatives are openly disconcerted if ever any discussion discloses any critique of aspects of American life.

Whenever I do anythingnaporoaching a normal slightly curmudgeonly critique of an aspect of life here in uk (just normal whinge type stuff) they are so pitying of my ‘plight’ I feel positively disloyal to the uk.
I find the positivity I experience in the us hugely attractive but ultimately empty of ‘nourishment’. Bit like gorging on favourite treats at the expense of real food.

I agree with MA. There are some countries much worse than others of course at censorhip and rewriting history. Eg the US does tell pupils about 1m native Americans who died of disease, given smallpox infected blankets and the like. The British are taught about their role in the irish famine. We all learn about the appalling treatment of women in the US and UK and the history of slavery etc. I do not accept we are particularly bad internationally in censoring our history in the way some totalitarian regimes are although there is always room for improvement. The internet of course has also made it much harder to censor for those states (unlike say China) who allow full access to it. There is also plenty of US TV which does not who the US is great at everything. The criticism of Trump for example is pretty constant and intense - a lot more than you might get of the gerat Chinese leader aka winnie the pooh.

On the topic of the thread we stood shoulder to shoulder with the French after the bombings of the satirical magazine because most of us do think there is a specific right to offend people.

So although most of us are pretty polite most of the time and do not mock others on a personal basis, the fact someone says it is offensive if I say men are not superior to women or if if show my ankles or if I say all women should work should not mean I have to stop saying those things. Mentioning the word God (as it is so holy) is not allowed in some religions but we still mention it/him/her on here. Also some people who might come across mumsnet may not like a photograph by Boden showing a woman's legs 0 iut is offensive - it would be cut out of a magazine going in some parts of Stamford Hill or the UK Saudi boarding school and the l ike. Taht does not mean MN should never show photos of women in skirts or avoid all pictures of humans - some religions do not think any images of people shoujld appear. I can see pictures of 3 people kids discuss WWI items next to this as I type - that offends people whose religion does not allow humans to be depicted. It also mentions what used to be unmentionable in the presence of germans ( do not mention the war constant refrain to remind us all not to upset people we had recently been fighting).

Anyway enough. .. i need to go and earn some money. All interesting stuff. i will be stopping using beyond the pale (Russian derivation and meaning in my book not Irish) nor any of the vast numbers of expressions I used every day but will certainly try to steer clear of irish threads.

Interesting thread.

But I do think the world would be a happier place if everyone stopped trying to see offence in everything. Just using an expression isn't offensive if you don't understand the origins of it and don't intend offence. I do think intention is key.

It's not good saying an expression is offensive for the sake of it. It really isn't. Ok some things are well known to be racist and those expressions should be avoided. But in most cases people don't mean to be offensive and it's a waste of everyone's energy and in some cases simple virtue signalling to be looking for offence everywhere. Just move on. Educate the person if you think they need to understand that people will take something the wrong way. But otherwise, life really is too short.

There should be a massive debate about historical facts obscured for political purposes in the UK, Xenia.

Yes, there should. Urgently. But facts need to be assessed with reason and, as far as can be managed, an absence of preconception.

This thread is just a tiny example of the problem. I pointed out to you that there’s no evidence to link the phrase that started all this to Ireland, in fact that the evidence is that it doesn’t refer to Ireland. I gave you a source that you could inspect. But you carried on maintaining you were right with no evidence or argument at all. The best you could do was “colonial mindset” which is just a meaningless ‘get out of jail free’ card, along with “false consciousness”.

When the origin argument failed, someone else then started a different line of attack: that the phrase is used in a racist manner. When asked for examples she posted headlines from an NI newspaper, none of which are racist.

I pointed out that the phrase is widely used in the media in the Republic in the same (plainly non-racist) way and gave examples.

Yet, as I understand it, despite all this MN have been harangued into changing their wording.

Still, I’ll say for the third time that the British have much to be ashamed of in their treatment of Ireland. And I’ll add that reunification is right, inevitable and will cause a great deal of good. (I assume that the political future of the island of Ireland is at the root of all this, rather than its past.)

But I’m fucked if the debate is going to be conducted on spurious, bullshit grounds.

Educate the person if you think they need to understand that people will take something the wrong way.

that’s exactly what we’re being told we’re not allowed to do, we’re being told we have imagined things, we’ve misunderstood, our information is wrong and according to you, were virtue signalling.

Good summary, Ruffina.

I think most of us are pretty good at trying to avoid offence. Eg I use beyond the pale a lot but if anyone in my audience (I'[ve given about 1700 talks) is not white I try to avoid it in case they wrongly take it to mean something about pale skin. If I have someone there who is obese I am particularly careful to avoid anything said about size. I hope most of us are quite careful to be kind and not upset other people. In fact women can be too polite - we don't knee our abuser in the groin but just tolerate his mild grope half the time so he thinks he can get away with it. It's a difficult balance when you have to live with and work with people to decide how often you want to ovbject to things and when it is important that you do and when not eg my own red line is I don't tolerate racism so if I am in a taxi and the driver makes a racist or anti semitic comment I tend to say something mildly against it eg not everyone is like that or whatever (one taxi driver asked me if I were jewish before launching into his diatribe - he was an Afghan and I get the white racists too sometimes). I don't let children be hit so if I see a parent thumping them in the street I say something even if it upsets their feelings but it is certainly a difficult area for all of us in life.

MN runs a website and sensibly will give in to vocal complaints even if only from 0.01% of posters and that is just how websites work.

I used every day but will certainly try to steer clear of irish threads

@Xenia days ago you said you would stop talking about Ireland and stay away from Irish threads. I check in today and lo and behold, here you are again. 🤣

Ruffina the irony of posters saying how valuable history is and how we need to use the skills it teaches us and then they do the opposite.

The facts, the evidence, the sources provided indicate the term does not originate in Ireland but posters want it banned anyway because they think it does.

Folk history tells a tale and they believe it. There granny told them this so it must be true and acted upon.

Colonial history taught 'officially' has created one mindset but equally dangerous you have folk history which can be dressed up prejudice.

Consider the information and sources provided on this thread not just your preconceived beliefs.

Indeed, that has been the farce of the debate - that it was in a sense about fake news.
Yse I did say I would avoid Irish threads and I have come back on here but it has gone well beyond Ireland to the more general and other interesting issues so I will excuse my own lapse.

Today I received one of my many Irish ancestor's birth certificates. He was born in 1849 in England. I think he mother was English h owever. His father who in 1849 was working down the mines was born in about 1819 in Armargh, Irish Catholic, born not too long after the Act of Union. So it has been hard to avoid Ireland entirely today.

Moussemoose

Quite.

Are you referring to my referencing my DGM MM? , you're mentioning grandmothers a lot. Bit weird. Her anecdotes were not part of my own historical research at all - that was all separately researched.

The granny in question is random.

One of my bugbears is when posters say "but that can't possibly be true my said this is what happened".

Now as an individual source that is interesting and helps to paint a picture but it proves absolutely nothing.

One of the issues with Irish history is that it has been massively distorted by the British = colonialism and also by the Irish. In the immediate aftermath of the formation of Ireland dislike of the British (entirely understandably) influenced the historical and political narrative of the country.

This thread illustrates the point beautifully. Posters have been told that something is the case and they believe it because it is 'true' in their family and locality. However, when faced with evidence that that is not the case they refuse to believe or accept it.

Finally the point is made we think it's true and it offends us so it must be banned.

The question is - if some people find it offensive should it be banned or changed - even if the historical evidence does not back up their belief?

Accused of Racism thread.

Person A was overheard saying something that person B thought was racist. Person A did not mean it in a racist way. Person B comes from a different cultural background and thinks it is racist. Because person B thinks it is racist, everyone who says it is racist, she has complained to her boss.

Overwhelming support for person A.

Interesting.

I pointed out to you that there’s no evidence to link the phrase that started all this to Ireland, in fact that the evidence is that it doesn’t refer to Ireland. I gave you a source that you could inspect. But you carried on maintaining you were right with no evidence or argument at all. The best you could do was “colonial mindset” which is just a meaningless ‘get out of jail free’ card, along with “false consciousness”.

I read your offering. It wasn't convincing.

I am pretty sure I posted a link that illustrated how the phrase was inextricably linked to the colonial mindset in Ireland, Ruffina.

I am not sure why you can't accept that there was a colonial mindset in Ireland (you seem to imply that the concept itself is a figment of the imagination) or that the process by which Ireland became tied to England (later Great Britain) involved the deliberate creation of a hierarchy on the island. I would be interested to hear your take on anti-Irish feeling in Britain, in particular what you see as its origins.

I would also like to know if you think there might have been a colonial mindset in the New World colonies? In India? In Africa?
What were the philosophical underpinnings of Britain's Imperial adventure? When do you think the adventure started?

Wrt the Statutes of Kilkenny, 1366:
eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/98911/3/Law%20and%20the%20Irish%20language.pdf
(The author of this paper is professor of Modern English Lit at the University of Manchester).
The Statutes were based on the simple fact that the colonists, 'forsaking the English language, manners, mode of riding, laws and usages, live and govern themselves according to the manners, fashion, and language of the Irish enemies’.1

As a consequence, ‘the said land, and the liege people thereof, the English language, the allegiance due our lord the king, and the English laws there, are put in subjection and decayed, and the Irish enemies exalted and raised up, contrary to reason’.

Therefore, as part of the colonial response the Statutes ordained that 'every Englishman do use the English language, and be named by an English name, leaving off entirely the manner of naming used by the Irish’, and threatened that ‘if any English, or Irish living amongst the English, use the Irish language amongst themselves, contrary to this ordinance, and thereof be attainted, his lands and tenements, if he have any, shall be seized into the hands of his immediate lord’.2

Yet despite their effective status as the first piece of colonial language legislation in Ireland, the Statutes were highly restricted in scope. Their focus was on the behaviour of those who lived in relatively narrow area of English rule (what later became known as The Pale) - hence the stipulation about the ‘English, or Irish living among the English’. In fact, rather than an attempt to ban Irish and impose English as the language of Ireland, the Statutes actually constituted a legal effort to prevent the colonisers from going native.

1. There was a clear perception that if the Irish were 'raised up' then the English must be laid low. The concept of two cultures, two legal systems, two languages knocking along pleasantly together was anathema. Contamination had to be prevented.

The Statutes were an attempt to preserve English language and culture and ultimately English power in the foothold established in Ireland (i.e. the Pale) from the surrounding Irish culture, law, language and customs. They were directed at those within the border of the colony. Those outside the border, beyond the Pale, had a culture, language, law and customs that were considered inherently suspect, disloyal, and barbarous. The Pale had a real significance for English power. Maintaining the English culture within it was so important that several attempts were made to legislate against the encroachment of native culture.

1. It is a given that the Irish outside and inside the Pale are enemies. The Pale is territory that must be protected.

1465 saw the passing of another Act by the Irish Parliament directed at Irishmen living within the Pale ordering English styles of personal grooming and clothing as well as adoption of English naming customs.

The Tudors changed the political, religious, legal, and cultural landscape of Ireland by means of military campaigns followed by plantations, which were extensions of the idea of the Pale, featuring fortified parcels of land and manpower to defend them, and which predated later plantations in the New World.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudor_conquest_of_Ireland for background.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Spenser#A_View_of_the_Present_State_of_Ireland
'A View of the Present State of Ireland'
Disparagement of Irish culture, language, law, calls for scorched earth policy in order to effect conquest. "Ireland is a diseased portion of the State, it must first be cured and reformed, before it could be in a position to appreciate the good sound laws and blessings of the nation"

www.historyireland.com/early-modern-history-1500-1700/a-view-of-the-state-of-ireland-by-edmund-spenser-andrew-hadfield-willy-maley-eds-blackwell-publishers-40isbn-0631205349-solon-his-follie-by-richard-beacon-vincent-carey-clare-carroll-eds/
On 'the intellectual world of sixteenth-century English imperialism in Ireland'. The 'colonial mentalité', attitudes toward the Irish and their customs, law, and culture, and opinions on how to subdue the Irish offered by Spenser and Beacon, both of whom spent long periods in Ireland.

books.google.com/books?id=xCsEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA291&lpg=PA291&dq=They+dwelt+by+west+of+the+law+that+dwelt+beyond+the+Barrow&source=bl&ots=y_47OYVWc_&sig=EIpA_PUyY-1xb051lBmeYkmdz5Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOovOX6MXeAhVCJt8KHdWEBawQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=They%20dwelt%20by%20west%20of%20the%20law%20that%20dwelt%20beyond%20the%20Barrow&f=false
Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Third Series, Volume VI, 1885, p 291.
For a long time the Barrow was the utmost limit of the Pale, even before the English power in Ireland was weakened by the withdrawal of its garrisons to take sides in the Wars of the Roses. The O'Tooles, the O'Byrnes, and the Kavanaghs, exiled the administration of the King's law from Munster by preventing the judges from riding their circuits beyond it. Hence the saying: "They dwelt by west of the law that dwelt beyond the Barrow." They had indeed laws of their own; but because these were not English, they were declared to be "lewd, wicked, and damnable". Moreover the bridge of Leighlin was the sole passage by land to the plantations in the south, in Tipperary, Waterford, and Limerick, even to Wexford, for the O'Tooles and O'Byrnes kept strict watch and ward, so that no one could set foot in Wicklow with impunity. Hence the great numbers of castles along the way, all "well bataylled and inhabited". A castle was built at Leighlin for the protection of all English travellers, and the good Carmelite monks of the monastery there had a yearly pension of twenty marks, payable out of the rents of Newcastle of Lyons, "in consideration of the great burthen and expense in supporting their house and the bridge contiguous thereunto against the King's enemies." But who will guard the guardians of the law among the "Irois sauvages"? Who will give kindly protection to those who are going to root out vice and introduce good morals among "these sons of * Belial"?
The author is quoting Sir John Davies, 'A Discovery of True Causes why Ireland was entirely subdued', written in 1612.
books.google.com/books?id=QbmUL00jYCcC&pg=PP536&lpg=PP536&dq=They+dwelt+by+west+of+the+law+that+dwelt+beyond+the+Barrow&source=bl&ots=K8ZmkrAViA&sig=sVOFDGsSlKcG4FiFi-5CFHkKZ_Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOovOX6MXeAhVCJt8KHdWEBawQ6AEwA3oECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=They%20dwelt%20by%20west%20of%20the%20law%20that%20dwelt%20beyond%20the%20Barrow&f=false
'By west' entry by Samuel Johnson, quoting Sir John Davies on the plantation of the barony of Idrone, in present day Carlow, Ireland.

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belial Gloss on 'sons of Belial'.

www.jstor.org/stable/845834?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Preview from JSTOR review -
Fergus Kelly, A Guide to Early Irish Law. Early Irish Law series, vol. 3. Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies, 1988, xxiv, 358 pp.

When the English of Tudor Ireland looked beyond the defensive perimeter surrounding Dublin known as the English Pale they often wrote off Irish society as barbaric and concluded that the law of the Irish, commonly called Brehon law after the native judges, was a barbarism so gross that there was in fact no law beyond the Pale.1. While the English perspective can be explained partly in terms of the difficulties attendant upon differences in language... even when understood, the distinctions between the law of the native population and that of the settlers were deemed too great for the latter to accommodate the former - even in that compartment of the Common law called "reasonable custom".2. Thus, though largely ineffective, the English Parliaments held in Ireland and the English courts of law periodically prohibited use of the Brehon law or proscribed specific aspects of it, at least so far as English settler use was concerned.

There are clear associations in these passages with the concept of barbarism existing 'beyond the Pale'.

.............
www.amazon.com/Indians-Victorian-Childrens-Narratives-Animalizing/dp/1498546846?tag=mumsnetforum-21
This study of the subtle Imperialist indoctrination of British children by way of children's literature might interest you.

...
goo.gl/images/fbTHfr Leighlin bridge (14th century) with the Black Castle on the banks of the river Barrow, Carlow, Ireland. The ruins of the Carmelite monastery (1270) are located close to the castle.

Moussemoose I read that thread too. Person A didn't mean it in a racist way. Of course not - they were explaining to person C why a particular remark was racist.
Person A didn't even say the word in question, but only described its use in a rhyme and how Jeremy Clarkson once got in trouble for saying part of the rhyme. Person B overhears the conversation and then complains that person A is being racist by even referring to it's existence.
So it seems that now people aren't even allowed to explain to others why something shouldn't be said.
Bonkers.

math in Ireland there was a 'Pale' nobody disputes that. Ruffina does not dispute dispute the colonial mindset exists. Just that using it as an argument in this case isn't relevant. Most of your post is therefore irrelevant.

The term was used in Ireland - however, it didn't start there and it's use is not exclusive to Ireland.

Considering the 'other thread' there was a rhyme that had extreme racist meaning in the US, in the U.K. it does not. In the U.K. is it racist to refer to this rhyme when it does not have the same cultural baggage? You are saying because it is racist in one country it is in another.

In the U.K. the phrase 'Pale' does not originate in Ireland. It has been used in many places and with many different nuances.

In Ireland the phrase is (by some) linked to the colonial mindset (although some Irish posters deny that). In the US the rhyme has racist meanings. In the UK the phrase predates it use in Ireland and is linked to other cultures most commonly Russia.

math It was a good post, filled with primary sources to illustrate the exact point several of us have been trying to make all thread.

However, I don't believe certain posters will pay it any attention. Certain posters are obsessed only with the etymology of the phrase "beyond the pale" and have ignored anyone (myself included) who have pointed out that the etymology is irrelevant, and that the existence of other pales is irrelevant, to its racist connotations today. They have ignored our explanations that what is actually relevant is the long historical culture of English/British people describing Ireland in terms of inside the Pale as civilised and outside the Pale as uncivilised, and
that this conceptual parallel continued long after the Pale ceased to be a political boundary in Ireland. They have ignored evidence that this perspective is not confined to Ireland and that some British historians also subscribe to the cultural connection between the Pale in Ireland and the figurative meaning of "beyond the pale" as uncivilised. They have ignored and dismissed people who have recounted their experiences of "beyond the pale" being used as a racial slur in NI in the present day. They have ignored the fact that we only sought the phrases's removal from MN talk guidelines and have never sought its use to be banned on MN.

I post for the sake of the lurkers and for posterity as this thread is archived. I do not believe that it will make any difference to certain posters who are only here to belittle and goad.

OK, one last time.

Math, you said The etymologist demonstrates a lack of insight into the colonial mindset. You can't rearrange the facts with the magic spell "colonial mindset".

Of course there was a colonial mindset among the English in Ireland in the middle ages. But that's completely irrelevant to the earliest evidence of the use of 'beyond the pale' in 1720.

All your sources do is repeat what we already know. They do not support the word origin. As the etymology shows, the phrase came into the language far too late for it to be a reference to the Pale in Ireland. The allusion is to any demarcation; it's figurative and unspecific.

What you're left with is that you see an association. Well, we all do. But it's not to the Pale in Ireland any more than any other pale, of which there have been many, rather than the conceptual use of pale.

As for "well the etymology doesn't matter" (not your point, I know), why does the OP say Mumsnet accept the origins of the phrase?

Even so, I would certainly agree that the word origin wouldn't matter if the phrase had been taken up (wrongly) by boneheads and was used in a racist fashion. But when asked to show this unlikely effect not a single example could be found. It's hard to see how a phrase like that could be used in an intentionally racist way in any case. The fact it's in wide use in the Republic strongly suggests it does not have the unpleasant meaning you've conjured out of nowhere.

I guess we're simply at that point when people campaign for things because others tell them it's the right thing to do, not because there's any proper basis for the demands. There is such a thing as synthetic offence, and it's on display in this thread.

I'll just repeat yet again that we seem to share a view of the politics of Ireland. The difference is that I don't want language altered for no good reason.

@MarDhea I think this point sums up the issue * "the etymology is irrelevant*."

Basically, the facts don't matter.

People have accepted that some people in Ireland find the term offensive we have not "ignored and dismissed people who have recounted their experiences". Yes many Irish posters have stated this opinion. I accept it and am not dismissing it.

But I do feel you have ignored the point that other Irish posters have said they do not find the term offensive.

I will not insult you I believe you are sincere but I do not think it helps the discussion when you say posters who disagree with you are here to belittle and goad.

I am engage by this argument because I like a debate, I am interested in both history and freedom of speech.

The term is viewed by some as racist and that may be the case in Ireland, but the evidence is not compelling or overwhelming. However, in the U.K. most people do regard the etymology as important and use the term to refer to other Pales.

As with the accused of racism thread - should a person or organisation be asked to adjust to the whims of certain sections of certain countries if they are in a different cultural setting?

I am not sure if there is anything I can say to persuade you that 'earliest recorded instance of a phrase' doesn't necessarily correlate with 'earliest use of a phrase', Ruffina and Mousse.

As the etymology shows, the phrase came into the language far too late for it to be a reference to the Pale in Ireland.
The etymology shows no such thing. It only shows the limits of etymology as a means of establishing when a phrase was used. In this particular case, the article in which you place so much faith also shows the limits of the individual etymologist.

He is clearly no historian, and I will hazard a guess based on your fondness for etymology as a font of fact that neither are either of you.

Moose, you are sure the phrase didn't 'start' in Ireland, and this may well be so, but the concept behind its meaning and the term upon which the phrase is built originated there in the context of the development of a toxic mindset associated with colonialism. Ireland and England (later 'Great Britain') were two parts of the same jurisdiction/ kingdom from the age of the Tudors on, so it is splitting hairs in a political sense to try to establish some separation between Ireland and England.

...in Ireland there was a 'Pale' nobody disputes that.
It is important to remember that we are not talking about the term 'the Pale'. Yes, there were Pales elsewhere, but what we are talking about is the term 'beyond the Pale', which is a different kettle of fish altogether.

This phrase occurs in English, not Yiddish or Russian or French. It is a phrase that has its origins in the English conception of what lay beyond the English Pale in Ireland, as I have demonstrated with numerous references, including Dr. Johnson's reference to an uncivilised place where the Common Law did not prevail - "by west", which itself referenced the writings of John Davies (1569-1626). John Davies was a poet, political commentator, MP, and also Attorney General in Ireland, a leading light in the policy of plantation, who formulated many of the legal principles underpinning the British Empire.

You can look up Davies' career here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Davies_(poet)

The fact it's in wide use in the Republic strongly suggests it does not have the unpleasant meaning you've conjured out of nowhere.
This is easily refuted by pointing to the use of racist slurs by black people referring to themselves, anti-Semitic slurs by Jews referring to themselves, etc.

Language is used like this (1) by people who have absorbed the view of themselves expressed in the culture of the oppressor, (2) in an ironic way, and (3) to 'reclaim' the terms as a means of self-empowerment.
Use of such language is not uncontroversial. Some people accept the last two scenarios, or one or other of them, but reject the first, and there are other permutations. Of course there will also be people who do not think too deeply about language.
Language use is far more complex than your flat assertion that Irish people use the phrase so it can't be offensive.

I asked Xenia to explain how a phrase allegedly from Russia in the 1700s found its way into the English language, but I got no reply, so I am now asking Mousse to have a stab at it, in light of her assertion that the phrase is linked to other cultures, most commonly Russia. Again, a reminder that it is not 'the Pale' that we are talking about but the phrase "Beyond the Pale" and the meaning of that phrase.

Maybe look up the meaning of the word 'whim' too and reflect on how it may come across on a thread such as this.

Damn! I said ‘one last time’, but I can’t let that go Math.

You have produced not a shred of evidence to link the phrase itself to Ireland. What you’ve posted is no more than supposition. That supposition relies on the fantastical idea that a phrase arose in the late Middle Ages but no one ever wrote it down in any form of work in England or in Ireland for hundreds of years. That’s so unlikely as to be immediately discountable.

I won’t comment on the rest except to say that without any evidence of racist use it’s odd that that objection should have been made at all (not by you).

I suspect you are an historian. I suspect you may be an historian of Ireland. This is likely to be the cause of the problem: you cannot see beyond your subject and you have no grounding in either language or logic.

I did enjoy the thread, though. Thank you (genuinely).

I do know a little bit about history - it's best not to fling insults in these discussions.

A little bit of digging. I found a number of articles for and against. As a historian I would say their is no clear causal link. At best it was contemporaneous. It was probably used referencing Pales both in
Ireland and the U.K.

What is clear is that it is not a specifically Irish term. As it use became common place it was subsumed by other Pales most famously the Pale of Settlement in Russia.

Language evolves and is distinctly regional. Even if you could point to a clear causal link in Ireland would that mean everyone in the rest of the world would need to change how they use the word?

"The earliest figurative sense that’s linked to the idiom was of a sphere of activity or interest, a branch of study or a body of knowledge, which comes from the same idea of an enclosed or contained area; we use field in much the same way. This turned up first in 1483 in one of the earliest printed books in English, The Golden Legende, a translation by William Caxton of a French work"

The area of Ireland called “the Pale” inside the Dublin region formerly controlled by the English is often said to have been the inspiration for this expression, but many authorities challenge that explanation

Professor P Brians Common Mistakes in English Usage.

Figuratively therefore, beyond the pale of means beyond the bounds of, and the later beyond the pale, outside the limits of acceptable behaviour. No historical evidence supports the theories that the origin of the phrase relates to a specific region, such as the area of Ireland under English jurisdiction; these theories are probably later rationalisations.
From World histories.

It is clear their is no direct causal link how's that?

As an aside about how a phrase from Russia came to be used in English. English is a mongrel language which has subsumed many words and phrase from around the world. While digging I came across the Hindi entomology of the phrase Beyond the Pale. Do we ask for the phrase to be controlled in India?

Not sure why you insist despite ample evidence that the phrase is related to a certain Pale and that Pale only and to those who lived beyond it, that the phrase has nothing to do with Ireland or colonial attitudes to the Irish, to their customs or laws or language.

I suspect if you knew more about the history of the printed word in Ireland and England you might not have written this - the fantastical idea that a phrase arose in the late Middle Ages but no one ever wrote it down in any form of work in England or in Ireland for hundreds of years. That’s so unlikely as to be immediately discountable.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Caxton
William Caxton's life and times.
He translated and transliterated quite a lot from French and printed it. No mention apparently of the French Pale.
Also printed popular classic works and chivalric romances.
This was the sort of tripe people wanted to read in the 15th/16th centuries, along with religious tracts, and the Bible (in the context of the Reformation).

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a translation from Yiddish or Russian or French, and evidence that the phrase relates to Pales in Imperial Russia or early modern France and somehow made its way into English.

I suspect you may be an historian of Ireland. This is likely to be the cause of the problem: you cannot see beyond your subject and you have no grounding in either language or logic.
[chortle]
You continue to dispense categorical statements on topics you know very little about.
(I am not just referring to your views on history and historians there).

Mousse, you are still mixing up "the Pale" and the phrase "beyond the Pale".

English is indeed a mongrel language, but there are precious few expressions in it that came from Russian, or Yiddish. The idea that the Pale of Settlement is what is referenced in the phrase 'beyond the Pale', and that it became part of the English language is frankly ludicrous, and makes anyone arguing for it look as if you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Entomology is the branch of zoology concerned with the study of insects... Are you sure your Hindi reference was a direct translation or was it an approximation of the meaning?

For instance, 'Dia dhuit' has a literal meaning and an approximation.
www.quora.com/Is-there-any-way-to-say-hello-in-Irish-that-doesnt-involve-God