51–60 of 85 posts
I didn't think the existence of such signs was a contested bit of history. I guess you can find apparently qualified people espousing all sorts of nonsense.
There are people denying the holocaust. An event for which plenty of historical evidence exists. People will believe what they want to believe.
Ouch. That's a serious burn.
It's funny how blind people are to the same thing happening today. Most employers openly refuse people based on their nationality and we are perfectly accepting of that, even enforcing it with the law! I wonder if people in another 100 years will think it's wrong to discriminate against people because of who their parents were.
I assume you're talking about the H-1B visas, etc?
Oh really? Australia, 1862:
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/115763711?searchTerm...
It's funny how blind people are to the same thing happening today. Most employers openly refuse people based on their nationality and we are perfectly accepting of that, even enforcing it with the law! I wonder if people in another 100 years will think it's wrong to discriminate against people because of who their parents were.
Well one had to say the whole premise of 'couldn't find evidence thus fact didn't exist' was fishy even before the article started digging out the evidence that reseaecher somehow missed.
> "the whole premise of 'couldn't find evidence thus fact didn't exist' was fishy" Not really. The one thing he's correct about is that, if NINA was a real and widespread phenomenon, it would show up in certain pieces of documentation of the era -- newspaper want ads, for example (we actually have fairly large archives from the relevant era; it's not like something from thousands of years ago where it's plausible tha…
My reading is the opposite. He started with a theory and then did a shallow search to bolster his pre-conceived theory, ignoring or discounting any findings that didn't fit.
It's funny how blind people are to the same thing happening today. Most employers openly refuse people based on their nationality and we are perfectly accepting of that, even enforcing it with the law! I wonder if people in another 100 years will think it's wrong to discriminate against people because of who their parents were.
If this is a veiled reference to affirmative action, at least show the courage to say what you really mean.
It's funny how blind people are to the same thing happening today. Most employers openly refuse people based on their nationality and we are perfectly accepting of that, even enforcing it with the law! I wonder if people in another 100 years will think it's wrong to discriminate against people because of who their parents were.
> Most employers openly refuse people based on their nationality and we are perfectly accepting of that, even enforcing it with the law! I assume you're talking about the H-1B visas, etc?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did they really consider themselves "Irish", though?
Yes, of course they did. They were Irish, but the unionists agreed (along with Great Britain) that Ireland should be ruled by the King and be under British rule, and subsequently they all adopt the "British" sect of Christianity (Anglicanism).
The relationship between Unionism and Protestantism and Nationalism and Catholicism was and still is much more grey than many realise. The current situation with Northern Ireland makes this appear much more dry-cut than it actually is because NI was set up on sectarian grounds. However, historically many, in fact the majority, of the prime movers in Irish nationalism have been from Anglican backgrounds that would naively be associated with Unionism.
Also, Irish Nationalism was contrary to Unionism, but a good number of prominent Nationalists had Monarchist tendencies too, such as the founder and leader of the original Sinn Fein, Arthur Griffith[1]. Republicanism was something that came out of the more militant strains of Nationalism, as represented by the Irish Republican Brotherhood, who infiltrated Sinn Fein to use it as a vehicle for their own aims.
Moreover, the vast majority of Irish Protestants have been Presbyterian, not Anglican. Anglicanism was the church of the Establishment, not the common people. Presbyterians, being Nonconformist, were subject to many of the discriminatory practices of the various penal laws, just as Catholics were, because they weren't Anglicans, albeit not to quite the same extent. Anglicanism was historically the church of the upper classes and parts of the middle class.
[1] Griffith wasn't technically what you'd call a Monarchist, but he wasn't a Republican either. He supported the idea of an independent Ireland under a dual monarchy with the United Kingdom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this is a veiled reference to affirmative action, at least show the courage to say what you really mean.
I mean not allowing foreigners to work, even when they live in the country. Ironically, the public's distrust of the Irish and other foreigners has led to the law disallowing them at the border rather than individual employers at the job application. We don't allow Irish to freely enter the US and work today.