November 30, 2023 - 2:30pm
Everyone is aware by now that Ireland has an “immigration issue”, with a portion of Dublin going ablaze after an Algerian-born — though naturalised Irish citizen for two decades — man went on a stabbing rampage, seriously injuring a woman and children. In West Belfast, graffiti reading “Irish Lives Matter” was daubed on a wall alongside signs railing against the “rehousing of illegal immigrants”. Clearly, what is being implied is the notion that Ireland is ruled by a detached, oikophobic, liberal regime that cares more about the interests of foreigners their own kin.
The problematisation of immigration and diversity in Ireland is symptomatic of the fact that Irish nationhood, and the idea of Irish peoplehood, is going through an identity crisis.
Irish nationalism is a broad phenomenon that contains many currents. Its inception was in the late 18th century with the United Irishmen, who were inspired by the universalist Enlightenment principles of the American and French revolutions. Their understanding of the Irish nation was not strictly ethnic, and certainly not sectarian, instead calling on the Irish to “forget all former feuds” and forge an independent republic based on civic liberty.
Since the mid-19th century, however, the dominant conception of Irish nationhood has been that of a romantic cultural nationalism. “Being Irish” has since denoted a strictly ethnic people, united by “concrete” and “natural” bonds to an ancient Celtic heritage. This identity was marked by Catholic religion and culture, and the Gaelic language as its primordial badge, with Eiré as their sacred heimat.
In the past few decades, Irish society has transformed dramatically, or to use Yeats’s blunt phrase: “Romantic Ireland’s dead and gone”. For one, it is now socially far more secular and liberal with the fading of the Catholic church’s domination of civil life. And secondly, its integration into neoliberal framework has meant years of mass immigration, which has significantly altered the demography of Ireland.
In an Ireland with a foreign-born population of 15%, and a small but growing non-white population, the question of Irishness thus becomes more acute. Indeed, the face of an Irishman is going to be more varied than before. “Black Irish” isn’t going to denote a strain of “white Irish” people with dark hair, apparently descended from Spanish Armada sailors, but of born and bred Irishmen and women who happen to be of African descent.
A romantic ethnonationalism that felt emancipatory against British colonialism, under new conditions, can easily mutate into racism against perceived “others”. Tommy Robinson, an Englishman no less, earlier this year made a documentary in collaboration with Irish anti-immigration activists called Plantation 2, comparing the 16th-century settler-colonisation of Ireland by Protestant British settlers to today. The trapdoor of such a discourse is that it condemns non-white Irish as permanent “others”: even if they have an Irish accent or speak Gaelic impeccably, they’ll never truly be “of” the nation because their religion or “race” makes them permanently alien to the (white) Irish/Celtic body politic.
Ireland isn’t unique in undergoing this national identity crisis. Plenty of European countries are having to go through a similar process of national redefinition. Germany, which was the birthplace of romantic ethnonationalism, has reexamined its entrenched ethnic conception of nationhood to better integrate its own minority population, especially its German-Turkish one, into the German nation.
There’s no inherent reason why Irishness isn’t strong enough to adopt immigrants and their descendants into Irish peoplehood. But if there isn’t mutual integration to make a civic whole, the perils of ghettoisation and separatism emerge — to the detriment of both immigrants and native-born populations. The country should therefore strive to emulate Wolfe Tone’s vision: “to unite the whole people of Ireland and to abolish the memory of all past dissentions”.
Ralph Leonard is a British-Nigerian writer on international politics, religion, culture and humanism.
buffsoldier_96
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribean Algerian-born — though naturalised Irish citizen for two decades — man went on a stabbing rampage, seriously injuring a woman and children
Thus demonstrating that, without a strong, cohesive culture to back it up, civic nationalism is at best a paper shield. Someone can have all the accoutrements of citizenship–national ID number, voting rights, etc.–but may feel no loyalty whatsoever to their host country. A country, a nation, is more than just a line on a map. What’s astonishing is that, after all the horrors of the twentieth century, from Rwanda to Kosovo to the Middle East, we still don’t understand that.
”all the accoutrements of citizenship” never had a job though , did he?
That is unknown.
It appears the assailant is mentally ill, which highlights another failure in our overstretched systems.
Good point. That should take the wind out of people’s sails
Because we don’t want to… In this case we means Ralph, because there is no such thing as mutual integration, there is integration in
I’ve read this Algerian was acting out because he could not get his welfare payments- he’s been on the dole for decades supposedly? That said, Africans and Arabs can never be ‘Irish’….they might colonize but they will never be part of the land and its history.
What about their children? And their children’s children. That’s where it becomes trickier, and the need for a strong and cohesive national identity becomes self-evident. I liken it to a tree. You may not be one of the roots, but there is nothing stopping you becoming a branch, or a leaf. Just don’t try and become another tree.
So Protestants in Northern Ireland can never be Irish?
Ask someone in the DUP or on the Shankill…
How did he get citizenship then? My friend was only granted citizenship because he had no criminal record and had worked and paid into the system since arriving 15 years previously. He is also a much needed medical professional with no mental health issues.
Why was this crazed useless dangerous foreigner not deported but given citizenship???
Who makes these decisions??
A sense of a shared history and culture and loyalties are what forms the basis of a socially cohesive society,
However, our shared sense of history is mostly a fiction. Both my maternal and paternal grandparents came to England from Southern Ireland in the late 1950s. My father and mother were born here. It’s slightly absurd then that I regard English history as my history, I may never have had ancestor that ever lived in England before my grandparents arrived here.
It’s a strange, universal, human fiction, but it only really works when one is of the same race as the historical inhabitants of a country.
If I were to emigrate to, say, Botswana, and my white children were born and raised there. I doubt my children would regard Botswana’s history to be their history. Further, I doubt any indigenous Botswanans would regard me or my children as just as Botswanan as Mangwato tribespeople. Both would be right.
Multiracial societies are inherently less cohesive because the fiction of a shared history cannot be maintained.
But if those of other races engage themselves with the dominant culture and are unequivocal in their loyalties to their respective countries, people can rub along together pretty well. If not there will be conflict and discord. That is where we come to Islam
Not only is an absence of shared history demonstrably absent, there is a conscious and voluntary separation, physically and culturally, from the dominant culture. It is apparent that loyalties are first to their religion and to their countries of origin.
Further, they actively seek to replace the dominant culture with their own, and are becoming ever more aggressive and open in their intentions to supplant it. Immigration from Islamic countries is ultimate corrosive of social cohesion, as is evident across Europe and the World. The Irish and every other country are right to resist it.
On the issue of tribal bonds and loyalty, which I think in essence is your point – you ever been to Celtic vs Rangers football game? Just perhaps it’s a little less visceral now than it was, but I doubt you see anything quite as nationalistic and tribal from other diverse groupings in the UK on show as openly at any time.
And then of course there is the Marching season in the North. Would you contend this is an example of multiracial lack of cohesion? Or are they the same race?
The problem I raise is many are blind to division until it’s a different colour face, and that shows how deep the prejudice is ingrained.
The most important point is that immigrants being the same race as the historical and current dominant population provides for an easy transition for their progeny to assimilate within it.
This is not simply because they can physically pass for a native, but because, not being from an obviously different race, no impediment for the psychological process of seeing themselves as having a common history and lineage with their fellow countrymen, even though, as I said, this will often be fictitious.
The first point to make about Rangers v Celtic is that, players aside, it will be perhaps the highest concentration of white people in one geographical location at the particular time.
More importantly, what you are describing is a particular rivalry within a population. Society is divided in to various antagonistic groups.
However, though Rangers and Celtic supporters may hate each other, that has nothing to do with whether the supporters as individuals feel themselves to be Scottish and see Scottish history as their history.
If you are suggesting that a black or Muslim Rangers or Celtic supporter feels that same same sense of historical connection and kinship to Scotland and their fellow Scots that its white supporters do, I would disagree. The notable absence of such people from the terraces is, I would suggest, indicative of a distinct separation in where people feel their roots are.
I think you’d find considerable difference in historical bias and loyalty in the football example I gave. There is a reason Celtic are named such and play in Green. Were there a Cricket team in Bradford extolling that difference with Asian heritage to the same degree you and maybe others would be pretty grumpy, maybe even outraged, about it I suspect.
However staying with the football example, as I think a good one, go to a Premier league match and look around you. Everywhere the crowd is distinctly different than 30yrs ago. It doesn’t quite mirror the actual pitch yet, (Is Mo Salah the best player in England right now?), but I strongly suspect your concerns remain overstated and we assimilate much more into our values and traditions than you think. We could do more too IMO, but do not let skin pigmentation blind you.
You have to understand – that people can agree to be 90 minute bigots … and good pals at all other times.
Of course and skin colour and family heritage no block to that.
“Multiracial societies are inherently less cohesive because the fiction of a shared history cannot be maintained.”
That is why the BBC amongst others are busy re-writing history.
Quite right.
What nonsense. We have a shared history with vast majority of those of more recent immigrant heritage. It’s called the British Empire. Our problem is we’ve basked in a distorted view of it. As we grow up and better appreciate it, both the good and bad, we have a shared history much more than we sometimes think.
Hi, Marcus. I’m curious….do you happen to have connections with Botswana? I’m originally from Derry City and was actually married to a Motswana lady for nearly 10 years. My step-son is now plying his trade as a professional footballer in Northern Ireland and he’s married to another Motswana who came to Dublin quite a number of years ago with her mother. An interesting story.
Why are European nations the only ones asked to redefine the concept of their ethnicity and nationhood? Being Irish or French or German or Italian is a real thing involving real cultures, languages, religions, etc. Why does that have to be redefined out of existence to please a globalist conception of free migration? What if the native born population decides they don’t want to change it? What if the Irish decide they’d prefer to ask all the newcomers to leave? Why is that illegitimate?
Be careful Arthur, there is an answer to your question, but I doubt you will like it
There are 5 questions. Which one are you referring to?
His main question, why can for example, an Eskimo born in London say he’s an English man, but if the same Eskimo was born in Tokyo, he would never claim to be Japanese, the Japanese would just laugh at his foolishness
Why is it like this. I know the answer. And I know he would hate to hear the answer
Please can you share what you believe is the answer?
I have no idea what you are talking about, but please can you answer the question!
Exactly. How welcome would hordes of white Christian or Jewish Europeans insisting on bringing thier native religion and culture with them be in any middle eastern country? Of course, we all know the answer to that.
A nice try to make this issue complicated and academic sounding – “A romantic ethnonationalism that felt emancipatory against British colonialism”, no less – but might it all be much simpler? That Irish people are sick and tired of having immigrants foisted upon them without consent or even consultation, and also despair of being gaslighted by the political leaders, police, and press?
Most nations, Ireland included can tolerate a certain amount of immigration and maintain their national identity. The issue is always, how much and how fast and that is the core issue in Ireland where we have had a huge amount in a really short space of time. We are a small population and if you project the current pace of immigration we are experiencing over one or two more generations there is absolutely no way we can maintain any semblance of an Irish identity.
I suspect we’d have a debate about the amount the immigration sensible for a country to take on, and I do concur there is a limit or social cohesion becomes a concern, but on your last point – how does one define an Irish identity? If Yeats in the early part of 20th C was seeing it fade, what is it now?
I’ve Irish parent, who was the classic economic migrant to England. Perhaps 60 years of living here changes things but she detests the quaint, pastoral image of the Ireland of her youth. In fact the ‘Celtic Tiger’ image played much more to how modern Irish wanted to see their country (even though ironically alot of tosh written about Celts without historical basis)
The identity is not important but the point is more general that a nations population needs to have a connection to the land, history, culture, language.
This is a very important facet of the issue. For those who would like to see a change, talking about the numbers is a better way to win votes than talking about how much you distrust and dislike “those people”.
I live in NYC. And I kind of enjoy the mix of cultures and languages. But there’s no denying that the number of immigrants has shot up dramatically here and abroad. There’s plenty of room for compromise. There are a lot of people who don’t dislike immigrants, but would rather see the numbers reduced, anyway.
All we need are functional representative/democratic governments! Maybe someone with a more political mind than me can turn this issue into a moment to get us back on track.
I would agree and the issue is always framed as all or nothing, zero immigration or unlimited when in reality very few people agree with either. A mature debate would look at numbers and realistic future projections.
Another article which sees nationhood as a synthetic product of the Romantic Movement of the late 18th Century. Walter Scott invented Scotland and Wolfe Tone invented Ireland, apparently.
It would have come as some surprise to the Irish Confederates of Kilkenny in 1642 to learn that they were fighting for an idea that wouldn’t exist for another 150 years.
Just take a moment to read the primary sources and see what history says of itself, in its own words. The Catholic Remonstrance of 1662 refers to the Irish nation as composed of “race. language, habits and customs”. Their motto was Pro Deo, Rege, et Patria, Hiberni Unanimes.
Yeah. The Remonstrance of 1317 might be seen as an even earlier precursor document.
The issue for Ireland in this context is no different to any other nation facing what amounts to a demographic shock due to modern immigration policies. The western immigration systems of the 20th century succeeded through a combination of controlled rates and correctly designed incentives.
21st century systems, conversely, create different incentives, ones that demote the importance of efforts to integrate, and are too generous in terms of welfare rights. There is also the vexed question of the rate at which immigration is now occurring, creating both economic and cultural tensions in host nations that are finding that even well-funded public services are unable to keep pace with demand.
Has “being Irish” lost its meaning, though? Well no, it hasn’t, and the fact that plenty of Irish people will take to the streets to defend a notion of it that admittedly conflicts with Irish Liberal opinion proves that it hasn’t. The Irish chattering classes don’t like that particular way of asserting national cultural identity for sure, but they are only one slice of Irish society, and not the biggest one either.
I was intrigued by this comment as Robinson is white working class from the south east of England. Many of this demographic group in fact have welsh, irish or scottish ancestry due to migration towards London during the agricultural and industrial revolutions and then onwards. (My own great-grandmother was a Watson who moved from Scotland to the Home Counties in search of respectable work and marriage in the early 20th century.)
Anyway, a quick wiki reveals that Robinson does in fact claim direct irish heritage through his parents. Though I don’t know if this is a verified fact.
My point here is not to examine Robinson’s credentials, merely to highlight that these debates so often slide between slippery definitions of nationality and ethnicity, depending on what purpose is being served. A man from Boston whose great-great grandfather came from Cork and married an Italian may be counted as an Irishman on St Patrick’s Day because of ancestral ethnicity. But a man from Billericay whose father and mother migrated from Dublin just 40 years before may be counted as an Englishman because he speaks with an estuary English accent and supports Spurs.
You can argue this one for ever and ever. I was born in England and have lived in Wales for 50 years. I have shopped in Wales, keeping alive the local retailers, paid council tax to Wales, voted in Wales, my wife is as Welsh as can be, I have a business registered in Wales and am a member of Plaid Cymru. But my in-laws see me as English. Another member of the family was born in Wales, emigrated at the age of 6 months (with parents of course) and has lived in Australia for 50 years. He is Welsh, through and through.
The whole thing is a game. People say they come from country X because it sounds more interesting than being from country Y – depending on who is listening. The politicians exaggerate the idea of Welshness to get more votes.
Basically, every individual needs something which makes them feel special or comfortable. I could define myself as – an engineer OR an englishman OR a fan of Liverpool FC OR an expert on archery. Or I could say that my daughter is the best teacher in the world. Anything to make me feel proud of something. It is all meaningless.
The interesting thing I find being English living in Wales is how different much of the country is to how the largely left wing political and media class want to believe it is.
This is why the Brexit vote in Wales was such a shock to them. They were confronted with the reality that they can usually safely ignore in their progresssive Pontcanna bubble.
Well, if we’re quoting Yeats: “mere anarchy is loosed upon the world”. And that is the doing of the WEF apparatchiks passionate about their entitlement to power. But the serfs must first be deracinated before they can be controlled.
The Irish fought to expel the British, and invited in the immigrants from Algeria, Nigeria, Kenya, Turkey, etc., in their hundreds of thousands. Like diving from the frying pan into the fire.
Might be more accurate say that they are being invited in on behalf of the Irish. If you want to see coverage of the background behind this in an Irish media source, it might be best to out Gript which has been covering this from a conservative non-establishment viewpoint for some time.
I don’t know what they are whinging about. The Irish politicians plainly made the case for mass immigration including all the pros and cons, the people had a free and fair debate on the topic and voted to open the floodgates.
What’s that? Oh you mean they didn’t? They just opened the floodgates and called everyone who objected names? Surely that can’t be what happened. Not in a democracy. I don’t believe it.
“There’s no inherent reason why Irishness isn’t strong enough to adopt immigrants and their descendants into Irish peoplehood.”
But it doesn’t work, does it, if only the existing population make the effort.
“Plantation 2, comparing the 16th-century settler-colonisation of Ireland by Protestant British settlers to today”
So, best thing that could happen to them then?
I have one line of Irish ancestry. Doesn’t everyone. My late grandmother on my mother’s side was a Southern Ireland Protestant at least in her family background. It seems to me that right from Henry IIs time the Irish have always kicked off at newcomers. The irish from.what I know which isn’t much have never been welcoming to other people settling there in large groups. Individual creative people were always welcome like artists,writers,movie directors people like that,people with the potential to add to the local wealth,directly or indirectly. I see why the writer of this article has an Interest in asserting the latest irish resistance to social engineering being foisted on them is an English media plot. But it seems to me that the Irish have had so long,centuries,to polish up on and perfect and identity with their put upon hard done by schtick that it’s really annoying to have another lot of even bigger “victims” rock up.
Of all nationalities it is Irishness that has been defined by romanticism and exploited by marketeers. The phenomenon of plastic Paddies and the advertising of Guinness go hand in hand. Pity the poor Irish to have to live up to it.
Well we have “Irish American” and African American”, so wouldn’t the immigrants just be “African Irish”?
That’s a rather recent invention and even though I live here I would counsel against any country looking to us to set any kind of standard.
Ireland has absorbed huge numbers of non Irish, plantation English and Scots for instance. Yeat’s phrase ‘romantic Ireland’s dead and gone’ is ironic not blunt, Yeats pushed for a more inclusive Irishness which included the Anglo Irish population. Wolf Tone, ironically was an Ulster protestant [Deist] motivated by the French revolution.
But surely didn’t Ireland first ‘absorb’ the Celtic hordes from central Europe,who then virtually wiped out/displaced the original inhabitants, such as the Picts?
Today’s (Dec 2nd) Irish Times article by Breda O’Brien is worth reading. Indeed Unherd would be well served by her analytical insights if she were open to contributing here.
Link for the foreigners?
https://www.irishtimes.com/
I don’t see it on the digital edition. It may be behind a paywall.
Who would have guessed? While everyone’s eyes were on Sweden and France, Ireland quietly took the lead. Eiristan by the end of this century! Europe’s first Islamic emirate.
I am continually surprised at the lack of information on the scale of immigration to Ireland. Those who write on the country should at least aquaint themselves with the data readily available from official sources. In Ireland today, 12% of citizens are migrant; they comprise 20% of the overall population (average across Europe and North America is 15%) and 25% (1 in 4) of the workforce, uniquely high. Of the 100,000 jobs created in the year to end of September, just over 50% went to migrants. If these trends continue, Ireland will have a minority white ethnic Irish population in little more than a generation. These are staggering figures (all taken from the website of the Central Statistics Office, CSO, in Dublin) and anyone who walks around Dublin or any urban centre will know they reflect the reality. Ireland is the most globalised country in Europe, in terms of its economy and society. And now a wealthy one. It’s an amazing achievement and it is why no public representatives at national Legisaluture level are calling for immigration controls. None, because their electors will not allow it. They know Ireland’s soceo-economic model of FDI based on EU membership is paying rich dividends. They will be happy enough to be a minority in their own country because they are fully confident in their plural Irish identity.
I am happy to write an article on all this for UnHerd if the editor is interested. I am a well-informed Dubliner in my sixties.
Wow, the downticks! It doesn’t help to be informed. The uninformed obviously know better. Ireland is not alone. Other countries are heading the same way in terms of the population trends and the more newcomers who gain voting rights the more the trend will be accentuated.
Indeed, Ireland is not alone. Most of Europe and North America are heading for 50:50 populations in terms of indigenous-migrant mix. What is astonishing is that Ireland is ahead of the curve on key metrics. And it does not yet have undermining factors such as anti-immigration parties at national level. Nor is it likely to because it is already the most globalised economy and society in Europe. There are historical reasons for that (the very large diaspora) and more recent ones (the FDI-EU model). Both are powerful currents likely to keep the country on its current trajectory. In addition, because it is late to widespread immigration, the country has avoided mistakes of others, such as ghettoisation. The immigrant population, incredibly diverse globally, is dispersed throughout the country, albeit that Dublin being the capital, has a higher concentration.
We’re not discussing economics though are we? We’re discussing culture. There’s been enough research by now showing that nations that are more homogeneous score much higher on the happiness index – because safer and more communitarian – even if less wealthy, than groups which are atomised.
We do use terms like African Irish and Polish Irish to refer to citizens of various backgrounds. I count many new Irish nationalised citizens among my friends. At the same time use of the Irish language is becoming more popular, with more people claiming fluency in the census and 1.6m learning Irish on Duolingo – mostly from Ireland! Overall, I think being Irish is acquiring more nuances than in the recent past, as we become less of a monoculture, perhaps drawing closer in spirit to the Irish nationalism of 1798.
However, this evolving picture has been challenged by the mass immigration of the last 18 months with refugees from Ukraine and international asylum seekers arriving daily to a country with a massive housing shortage and little or no consultation by the authorities when repurposing public property. This more than anything is causing discontent and protests in many parts of Ireland. The government will simply have to address these real social concerns.
We pride ourselves on our welcome which is why we were very shocked by the events of last week and crowdfunded over €350000 for the Brazilian delivery man who clocked the attacker with his helmet, apparently as a rebuff to the racist riot. Despite all the change, we sincerely want to remain the land of a hundred thousand welcomes, it seems.
I think I used more Irish in the past three months to other Irish people than I have had for the previous several years, but I wouldn’t take this as a resurrection of the Irish language just yet.
The usual refrain is that the Irish were welcomed in so many places overseas (they weren’t), they should now welcome the immigrants into Ireland. But it doesn’t seem to be legitimate to ask if we have the resources to accommodate them. There has been a sneering attitude to those asking questions and a liberality with the tag ‘far right’. Bodies like the National Party and the Freedom Party don’t have much traction in Ireland. Or at least they didn’t until now.
The spark that ignited last weeks riot was the fact that it was the 3rd high profile knife attack from a male migrant . who , when all the facts are weighed up, should not have been in the country
‘A romantic ethnonationalism that felt emancipatory against British colonialism, under new conditions, can easily mutate into racism against perceived “others”.’
I don’t think this analysis is quite right. The Irish used to see their identity in the Celtic ‘Golden Age’ (which never really existed). In recent decades though, their identity has been based on the character and ideals of the Irish Revolution. This tells a story of British colonisation and oppression, of poverty and emigration, and of a nationalist rediscovery of national self-respect. This is a very suspect interpretation of what actually happened, but that’s beside the point: this is Ireland’s creation myth, it’s the answer to the question, “Who are we?” On these points, Mr. Leonard and I agree.
One of the drawbacks of this interpretation is that a narrative of perpetual victimhood places the Irish in a very poor psychological jumping-off point for discussing racism. It’s not a question of ‘others’, it’s trying to get Irish heads round the the idea that they might actually be the oppressors. The killing of George Nkencho by a Dublin policeman in 2020 should have sparked some national soul-searching. Instead, it acted as a focus around which the accumulated discontents of Ireland’s newly arrived ethnic minorities could coalesce.
The indigenous poor who oppose immigration have just ‘spoken’. But we should expect the ethnic minority poor to ‘reply’ at some point.
Your second paragraph succinctly sets out the narrative of the Irish struggle for self-determination and it is a true and coherent one. But once self-determination was gained (in 1922), the Irish have chosen their own path and it is leading in a new direction this past generation. It ties in with Ireland’s other great narrative of an emigrant people. Its global diaspora, estimated at between 60 and 80 million for a home population of 5.3 million, is unique in scale. The Irish see no incompatibility between globalism and a strong national identity and that is being played out now.
On your following points, the killing of George Nkencho (a young man with a history of psychiatric issues) is revealing because it is such an isolated incident. The Gini coefficient on income equality places Ireland mid-range in the Western European table and it has the most progressive income tax regime in Europe. Both reflect the high degree of social mobility in the country. There will always be problems with racism, exclusion and marginalisation as elsewhere. But the immigration story in Ireland is a good one overall.