Why is there so much sneering at Americans with European ancestry?

[BrBa]

I don’t understand! I identify with all my ancestors whether they came as religious refugees or early colonisers, were already indigenous to the region or brought in as slaves.

Yours
Swiss, German, Native American North, Central and South, Sephardic, Irish, South East African, Scottish, Acadian/French, and English

On the contrary, I understood perfectly.

You do realise that a small percentage of people in Northern Ireland identify as Irish AND British (in that order) which is not significant?

You might like to believe that absolutely nobody in the Republic of Ireland would identify as Irish and British, but you're likely to be wrong on that.

More to the point, you cannot prove absolutely none identify that way in the Republic of Ireland.

In any country, you simply cannot state things in absolute terms which is what you're doing. You're relying on a generalisation and stereotype which leads to logical fallacies meaning errors in logic and reasoning.

It's not out of the realms of probability that 1-2% of the ROI population identifies as Irish and British. Same as in Northern Ireland.

And if "Part of the cultural identity is literally identifying as "not-British, sod off", this kind of attitude will hold a united Ireland off too. Indeed, in such a scenario, that kind of attitude would have to change into a more diverse one accepting of the Britishness of the population.

I realise you may not desire a united Ireland, neither do I. But there are those who do and they won't like your comment there.

It really IS out of the realms of possibility,and if you are cintinuing to think that Irish people in Ireland are in anyway the same as British people in NI, there really is no point in talking to you any further!

I don't care whether they like my comment or not. A united Ireland is not what most people want anymore. We can't afford them and there's no appetite for it. Irish people do not identify as British,its insane to suggest one in 50 would!

Hang on a minute, you're blatantly shifting the goalposts!

This is what you previously claimed:

"There are people in NI who identify as being British,but they aren't Irish."

There are approximately 2% of the NI population who identify as Irish and British (in that order!). Logically, this doesn't mean they're NOT Irish by any means. All it means is they feel absolutely no conflict between being Irish and British!

To use a public figure as an example, Douglas Beattie identifies as Irish and British. See the attached images for his tweets on the subject.

As is often said, a lot of people in Great Britain will say they're Irish too.

I know of one who is an Irish Nationalist who identifies as Irish and British. Thus person also wants a united Ireland. Good luck telling such people they're not Irish because they also identify as British.

Honestly, you sound pretty close minded here. It's pretty glaring you provide zero evidence for what you say. There's lots in the ROI who consider Northern Ireland Irish and will say those who identify as Irish are Irish, even if they also identify as British at the same time.

You have no evidence to support your argument.

This highlights ghe absurdity of Biden saying he's Irish and the PP saying those in Northern Ireland who identify as Irish and British are not...Irish.

That 2% in NI have far more of a claim than the Americans like Biden do....

Also:

Ireland is an island.

Ireland is not an island.

Both statements are true.

Little wonder outsiders get confused!

You've emphasised Irish and British 'in that order' a couple of times @DownNative. Just curious as to what you mean exactly. The census in NI didn't record the order of national identity preferences or did it? Or are you talking about yourself or other individuals who have expressed a wish to be thought of as Irish first, then British? Just interested really as I don't quite understand the point you're making.

I would think there are some people in ROI who identify with their British heritage @postapesto, though I think the numbers are much smaller than 1 in 50. Where I am there are a fair number of old estates and quite a few people are CoI. They've been here for generations, some intermarried, some have changed religion in the process, but some haven't done either. I think that group might have a mix of identities like in NI, why wouldn't they?

@Chickenkeev Surely you're 1/500th American then as our specialty is monetizing the f*ck out of things😂

Seriously though, I can't understand people having weird outdated ideas about places in today's information age. How lazy are you that you don't Google a place you plan to visit?!

@MissConductUS i agree with you and that was my point, Americans don’t spend their time going on and on and on about Brits the way they do on MN.

Any topic that mentions Americans immediately goes crazy with people coming up with random stuff that in many cases don’t even have anything to do with the topic or are just plain false.

A Brit knows one American that does something and concludes all Americans do that lol.

I recall poster said she visited her brother in the US or something and they didn’t eat vegetables while she was visiting hence Americans don’t eat vegetables looool.

okay okay we get it.

Americans: I'm Irish
British: Noooooo you can't say that. It's fine if you want to say Irish-American. Just say Irish AMERICAN.
Americans: Okay, semantics and cultural wording. Got it. I'm Irish-American.
British: Noooooo you can't be "Irish-American" just because you have distant relatives from like three generations back!
African Americans: ...
British: It's just puzzling. I'm BEMUSED. It's cringe. I'm puzzled. It's daft.
Americans: But we explained it all already. It just works differently in other places. ...oh, it's the IRISH and the AMERICAN part, then, is it?
British: [Saying the quiet part out loud]. Yes, yes it is. We know perfectly well what they mean when they say Irish, as we all know what a 'Weekend' is.

We need to get over ourselves.

The point is though that you don’t know what it means, because it can mean a load of different things.

I’m Scottish, as in, from Scotland and live in Scotland, if I meet someone with an American accent who says they’re also Scottish - I don’t know whether they mean, they have no known connection to Scotland but did a DNA test and it says there is, whether they have distant known ancestors from Scotland, they have close relations from there or they are themselves originally from there... it’s obviously relevant to the conversation we’re having, so then you have to ask what they mean by it, and they could have just started with the relevant bit instead.

Online interactions are the same, except worse because there’s not an accent to make you start at the assumption that they’ve a link to America and they don’t necessarily mean Scottish literally.

Is it a huge deal? No, of course not, but it is sometimes mildly irritating to have to work out what someone means by a word that is usually pretty straightforward when it’s used by everyone else.

This trans parallel interested me. In a way our phenotype (or physical expression of our genotype) has much in common with biological sex. Many were not able to simply identify their way out of looking Jewish enough for Hitler for example. Or black enough for the lynch mob. And so on.

The social construct of your national identities and any citizenship you hold is similar to ideas about gender identity. They are, like gender, legal or philosophical constructs rather than a biological fact.

34 pages. Stomach-disturbing reminder of Harp (I had no idea it was still made). Truly stomach-churning reminder of Sammy W au naturel thanks for that.

No mention that I noticed of the Anglo-Irish, speaking of people whose families can live in a country for centuries without assimilating.

People might think a bit about WASPS, the Know Nothings, the DAR, the sort of attitudes expressed by Thoreau, and all the other factors that help explain why new immigrants to the USA, particularly Catholic immigrants, needed to support each other. Well into the 20th century, Americans of mainly British descent were referred to as 'native Americans', in a lot of political discourse that compares them favourably to Irish and other more recent arrivals. Kennedy's election was a bombshell.

It might also be worth wondering why the habit of raising money to send back to Ireland started - I'm as appalled as anyone at the naivety of people imagining all the money they raised was supporting 'political prisoners' or 'refugees' during the height of the most recent troubles, but American money did help people in Cork after the city was burned down by British forces, did help establish our Dail, did provide protection for people fleeing the shipyard 'clearances, and on and on. It's good that nowadays Irish companies provide so much direct investment in the USA - what goes around comes around.

One of the oddest delusions I encounter among Irish Americans, particularly ones with little contact with the country or its inhabitants, is the belief in 'the Black Irish', dark haired (not dark skinned) descendants of Spanish survivors of Armada wrecks - that morphs into a belief all the 'real' Irish have black hair. nah.

But hurrah for Joe Biden, the most Irish American President since Kennedy (and only the second Catholic), I'm glad he had a good time when he was here, and hope the relationship between the two countries continues to prosper.

Spot on! That's exactly what I was trying to say earlier in the thread, but you said it so much more succinctly!

You are SO wrong about that. This was one of the key elements of the GFA: that people born in NI could choose whether to BE (not just identify as) British or Irish. And that isn't just reflected in the fact that half of the population has chosen never to hold a British passport. Until recently of course the other half ONLY held British passports, but that all changed with Brexit - now they're all merrily applying for Irish passports, including Ian Paisley Jr.

There was a landmark court case while the UK was still in the EU, of a woman from NI who demanded to be considered as Irish, NOT British. She had been told by the Home Office that her American husband could not live in NI with her, because they failed the stringent rules imposed by the UK on their own citizens for bringing in non-EU spouses. She was invoking the unconditional right of EU citizens to live with their spouse in an EU country OTHER THAN THEIR OWN ( because in your own country, that country's laws supersede those of the EU).

She argued in court, invoking the GFA, that although she was born in NI, as were here parents etc, they were IRISH, not British, so effectively living in another EU country to their home country. So the same rules should apply to her as if she'd been born in Ireland and later moved to NI. And she won.

From then on, the UK recognises that anyone in NI who sees themselves as purely Irish is so. This means that these people are also protected under the Withdrawal Agreement, just like any other EU citizens living in the UK before Brexit - which doesn't apply to Brits. There's a list of advantages, such as continued entitlement to EHIC (which covers more countries than the new British GHIC, which is all British citizens are entitled to).

But the main point is the principle. The very many people in NI who don't see themselves as British, only Irish, are Irish. Period.

Going back to when this was first established, in the 1920s (even though the UK didn't respect it in many ways until the GFA), this is of course the reason for the Common Travel Area between the UK and Ireland. Irish people in the UK have exactly the same right as Brits, including to vote. And vice versa. It has to be that way, because a very large proportion of the population of NI is Irish, not British.

End of History lesson :)

But it can lead to problems, as referenced several times above Noraid funded terrorism in the UK.

When people believe they are Scottish they think they have a stake in Scotland and in its politics, the same for anywhere else.

South Africa has the wonderful term 'salt dick' which should be more widely used.

Emma DeSouza lost her case that you're talking about above. The Home Office still did what she wanted in order to formally end the case.

https://extra.ie/2019/10/14/news/irish-news/emma-desouza-loses-appeal-home-office

And dropped her appeal too:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-52755553

The people of Northern Ireland are all still officially regarded as British until/unless they formally renounce their British citizenship through official channels.

But this is a very different situation from that which people informally identify themselves. This is identity, essentially. And identity is what the Belfast Agreement deals with - not nationality.

But postapesto is still wrong because such individuals view themselves as Irish, especially in a cultural sense.

"Ms DeSouza criticised the UK government for its failure to bring the Good Friday Agreement into direct legislative alignment with the Northern Ireland Act" (ie the domestic legislation linked to the peace treaty).

I think she was absolutely right to criticise this. Who decided that everyone in NI was still automatically of British nationality post 1998? Because it really doesn’t seem to align with the aims of the GFA.

Regardless the Belfast Agreement doesn't say a word about nationality and only talks about identity in this respect. Much the same way it says nothing about prohibiting a hard border and certainly didn't remove a border as the references to cross-border bodies makes clear.

Irrespective of the British Nationality Act 1981, those citizens who want to officially be regarded as Irish only can simply renounce their British citizenship. In this regard, it meets the aims of the Agreement as the Government with the "sovereign power there" will accept it.

It's not really a major issue.

All sovereign powers automatically assign nationality to citizens. And everyone accepts the legitimate sovereign power of the UK Government in Northern vis a vis the Belfast Agreement itself. The text recognises the UK as having the sovereign power.

The GFA speaks of more than identity, it speaks of citizenship, which for most people is the same as nationality.

Emma de Souza, for one, objected to renouncing British citizenship because to her that was akin to saying she was once British. And she didnt accept that and in the spirit of the GFA she should be free not to accept that. It was a major issue for her so it's really not that simple.

She also remains a citizen of Northern Ireland. Without being British.

In terms of law, it's simpler than DeSouza liked. It's widely accepted within international law that the sovereign power automatically designates nationality to its citizens.

Including those who are separatists.

DeSouza lost on a point of law. Even so, the Home Office still gave her what she wanted which doesn't apply to anyone else.

The Belfast Agreement can and should only be read in terms of what the text says. That is the basis of any Treaty or Law - domestic and international. It stands and falls based on the legal text.

Not spirit.

If that were so, other core parts of the Belfast Agreement could easily be undermined. Indeed, a spirit could undermine the concept of Sovereignty too - including the fact the Secretary Of State NI has sole power over referendums aka UK Government. So, we only go by the legal text.

Anything else is playing politics with it.

Officially, DeSouza is regarded as an Irish national resident in Northern Ireland. Even though she lost her case.

This doesn't extend to anyone else who hasn't renounced their British national as automatically designated.

The Agreement speaks of identity which is why the Northern Ireland census asks people about which identity or combination of they hold.

The above is a Home Office concession to DeSouza when they weren’t legally obliged to do so....

The Agreement speaks of identity which is why the Northern Ireland census asks people about which identity or combination of they hold.

The Agreement also speaks of citizenship.
I'm sure if you consider yourself British, as you do @DownNative, then the legal text doesn’t seem problematic . But I do see Emma DeSouza's point of view I have to say. It does seem unfair. Not sure what the solution is, I'm no lawyer.

It must be remembered that Article 15 under Universal Declaration of Human Rights states "Everyone has the right to a nationality" and "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality".

Therefore, states such as the UK automatically confer nationality onto its people. It is the citizen under international law who will have to renounce a nationality they don't or no longer identify with.

Identity and nationality are separated in the Belfast Agreement here:

"....recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves
and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly
confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both
Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of
Northern Ireland."

The two aren't the same as per above. Personal identity is informal and nationality is formal. Hence, legislation does not use nationality and citizenship interchangeably.

Politics and politicians use them interchangeably which can cause problems when it runs into the law.

The two aren't the same as per above. Personal identity is informal and nationality is formal. Hence, legislation does not use nationality and citizenship interchangeably.

There's no hence. Identity is not the same as citizenship. Citizenship is formal. You quoted the Agreement as saying
"...accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments"

Does the word 'both' lead to a bit of ambiguity? As in, could it be taken to mean you can't have Irish citizenship without British citizenship (or at least British first)? As seems to be the case now.

But then that would mean you couldn't have British citizenship without Irish either and that's not the case at all.