Says the guy in the middle of a post about race... Are you genuinely unaware of the scholarship on the topic of race, or what? Another inept comment, given the context... Plenty of capricious things are nevertheless real. Especially when it comes to social constructs - gender is real, no? Do you dispute that race has real effects on real people? So what? Most social constructs come fitted out with mythical biological/genetic components (nationality, gender, race, heck it's hard to think of one that doesn't). People often believe in them. But they remain myths, and pointing out that they are myths doesn't invalidate the social constructs. They're actually rather incidental, even when powerful actors do things on the basis of their supposed reality. If you think about it for a second, your own analysis refutes the notion that what Hitler was doing was actually based on "biology" - going 2 generations back on the basis of genetics still leaves you with a sociological definition (i.e., those Jewish grandparents are not themselves defined as Jewish by their ancestry, which is never analyzed). You miss the point: there wasn't any biological basis for races even then. There has been more internal variation in the "African" genome than between the "African" and "European" genomes since before the invention of transportation technologies. Most of the Eurasian land mass was connected by simple pedestrian or equine transport for most of human history, for one example. It is not the case that there used to be genetic races, but that then they interbred and invalidated themselves. Race as a genetic construct has always been a sham - it was invented whole cloth as a social construct, and the biology stuff has always been a distraction. "Many?" We're nowhere near the point where there's anything like a critical mass of such people (i.e., enough that appearance-based racism would become unsustainable). Until then, they're the exception that proves the rule - specifically, the rule that race is about appearance and not genetics. And this hasn't the slightest bearing on his racial classification in the US. LOL what planet do you live on?
Not sure I'd know anything about trendy venues. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There are some jobs where (some degree of) Irish language proficiency is still a formal requirement; there are others where it's a formal preference. All the examples I'm aware of are public sector jobs, though, particularly in education. Immersive Irish teaching probably is on the increase -- they're certainly a vocal enough lobby, when it comes to complaining about curricular requirements and funding regimes not being precisely to their liking. It's still a pretty tiny sector, though, and isn't typically *early* immersion. (i.e. often these are kids from households where English is spoken at home, whose parents then get a notion that they then need to be sent to an English-free school. Hrm.) The one-quarter tallies with what I believe I've heard in the past. I imagine it very much depends on where you set the "simple conversation" bar (or indeed, "more or less correctly"), however. The entire natively schooled population have studied Irish throughout their primary and secondary education, so they certainly ought to be able to manage some fragments. If you were to set the standard at better than what (generally monoglot) Americans would call "broken" levels of fluency, I'd say it would be much less than 25%, however.
I thought Irish people were just white. At least in the US that's what they are. Else where I figured they would just be considered a different nationality, but not a different race.
There is a distinct difference between the Irish that preceded the Celts, from the "Spanish/Egyptian/Gibraltar Land-bridge" prehistoric migrations into the area that is modern Ireland.
