While admitting to a certain bias as some of my ancestors were poor Scots and Irish who came to the US at various times, while Ireland did have masses of people who were dirt poor, let's not forget that the Irish produced the Book of Kells, massive castles, and the monastic culture of Ireland helped lead the rest of Europe into re-learning Latin and Greek.
Ireland was so succesful, in short, that its population was very vulnerable to plagues and famines. The combination of being poor (relative to England), a large population, and the various revolts etc that led to the union with England, led to a tumultous century, when most of the Irish emigration to the US occurred.
I don't think it's remotely fair or accurate to compare the waves of Irish immigration with those from sub-Saharan Africa, etc.
While admitting to a certain bias as some of my ancestors were poor Scots and Irish who came to the US at various times, while Ireland did have masses of people who were dirt poor, let's not forget that the Irish produced the Book of Kells, massive castles, and the monastic culture of Ireland helped lead the rest of Europe into re-learning Latin and Greek.
It wasn't meant as a dig against the Irish at all. Many highly civilized people were poor at some point, or those who were civilized at some point are poor now.
It's just addressing that mention of 'third world' in the title. Irish peasants were even poorer than black slaves according to W.E. Dubois, and they had a life expectancy that was about half. This doesn't make them bad, but it does mean that Ireland was a bit of a third world country.
I was hoping he'd address what he thinks about it, but it seems he'd rather yell about Reddit.
I don't think it's remotely fair or accurate to compare the waves of Irish immigration with those from sub-Saharan Africa, etc.
Obviously, culturally, the Irish are much closer to Anglo-Saxons than are the inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa. But if he does not like immigration from the third world, i.e. very poor countries, that would cover Ireland in the 19th century as well.
It's just addressing that mention of 'third world' in the title. Irish peasants were even poorer than black slaves according to W.E. Dubois, and they had a life expectancy that was about half. This doesn't make them bad, but it does mean that Ireland was a bit of a third world country.
Actually I guess from a different kind of perspective, Ireland was third world!
That would be the original meaning of the word as Europe/NATO/allies were "first world," Russia/Eastern Europe/Communist nations/allies were the "second world," and everyone else was third world. That would include Ireland. Not a particularly helpful usage of the term though.
And yes, the Appalachian poverty belt, even today, is highly Scots-Irish, from Georgia, really intensifying in North Carolina and Virginia, but stretching through West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and NY. I have a diary of a relative who grew up in Apalachia. Their house did not have running water or electricity in the 1950s; she wrote about waking up with a layer of snow on her bed that had blown in through the wooden siding, etc.
That would be the original meaning of the word as Europe/NATO/allies were "first world," Russia/Eastern Europe/Communist nations/allies were the "second world," and everyone else was third world. That would include Ireland. Not a particularly helpful usage of the term though.
Wow, an oldtimer who still knows that! True enough, but in popular parlance, Third World refers to what dekachin calls "the poors". When we talk about First World Infrastructure, we don't mean infrastructure that's stamped "NATO", after all.
And yes, the Appalachian poverty belt, even today, is highly Scots-Irish, from Georgia really intensifying in North Carolina and Virginia, but stretching through West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and NY.
Right, and that's after a century (your date) of Irish immigration.
To be clear: when I say poor, I don't mean bad. I find a lot of poor people to be rather virtuous, as opposed to some of the wealthy who wax rotten in idleness.
It's got nothing to do with my 'worldview'. But Ireland was probably the worst third world country from which the US took immigrants, certainly more so than Mexico or Asian countries.
It's meant to address '3rd world' in your title. I don't know what Redditors or Americans say, nor do I care. But if you think immigration from the "third world" is bad, then the Irish were more poor and therefore more third worldy than anyone else in the 19th century.
Why start there? Ireland was also 'third world'.
While admitting to a certain bias as some of my ancestors were poor Scots and Irish who came to the US at various times, while Ireland did have masses of people who were dirt poor, let's not forget that the Irish produced the Book of Kells, massive castles, and the monastic culture of Ireland helped lead the rest of Europe into re-learning Latin and Greek.
Ireland was so succesful, in short, that its population was very vulnerable to plagues and famines. The combination of being poor (relative to England), a large population, and the various revolts etc that led to the union with England, led to a tumultous century, when most of the Irish emigration to the US occurred.
I don't think it's remotely fair or accurate to compare the waves of Irish immigration with those from sub-Saharan Africa, etc.
It wasn't meant as a dig against the Irish at all. Many highly civilized people were poor at some point, or those who were civilized at some point are poor now.
It's just addressing that mention of 'third world' in the title. Irish peasants were even poorer than black slaves according to W.E. Dubois, and they had a life expectancy that was about half. This doesn't make them bad, but it does mean that Ireland was a bit of a third world country.
I was hoping he'd address what he thinks about it, but it seems he'd rather yell about Reddit.
Obviously, culturally, the Irish are much closer to Anglo-Saxons than are the inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa. But if he does not like immigration from the third world, i.e. very poor countries, that would cover Ireland in the 19th century as well.
Actually I guess from a different kind of perspective, Ireland was third world!
That would be the original meaning of the word as Europe/NATO/allies were "first world," Russia/Eastern Europe/Communist nations/allies were the "second world," and everyone else was third world. That would include Ireland. Not a particularly helpful usage of the term though.
And yes, the Appalachian poverty belt, even today, is highly Scots-Irish, from Georgia, really intensifying in North Carolina and Virginia, but stretching through West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and NY. I have a diary of a relative who grew up in Apalachia. Their house did not have running water or electricity in the 1950s; she wrote about waking up with a layer of snow on her bed that had blown in through the wooden siding, etc.
Crazy stuff.
Wow, an oldtimer who still knows that! True enough, but in popular parlance, Third World refers to what dekachin calls "the poors". When we talk about First World Infrastructure, we don't mean infrastructure that's stamped "NATO", after all.
Right, and that's after a century (your date) of Irish immigration.
To be clear: when I say poor, I don't mean bad. I find a lot of poor people to be rather virtuous, as opposed to some of the wealthy who wax rotten in idleness.
It's got nothing to do with my 'worldview'. But Ireland was probably the worst third world country from which the US took immigrants, certainly more so than Mexico or Asian countries.
It's meant to address '3rd world' in your title. I don't know what Redditors or Americans say, nor do I care. But if you think immigration from the "third world" is bad, then the Irish were more poor and therefore more third worldy than anyone else in the 19th century.