Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 10:57:41 -0500
From: Gerd Korman


I have been following the "white" discussion and would like to make a
comment or two.
At Toronto I heard John Higham gently tell the "new
"white" enthusiasts to be more careful in their easy generalizations.
I myself tend to agree . . . but . . . for reasons of my own.
More often than not, the "white" enthusiasts do not know enough about
the immigrant groups they want now to incorporate into their new
nomenclature and continuum. They also make a very different kind of
mistake. The racial categories used for European populations in the
nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century had
characteristics that overlapped with categories used for Africans,
African Americans, women, and Native Americans. And of course, as some
of monographic literature reveals, Europeans in America brought
stereotypes from Europe and applied them to populations encountered
here, eg: attitudes held by English folk towards Irish folk being
used as a model for characterizing native Americans.

But there is another important issue, as I think I have
started to demonstrate, most recently in Modern Judaism (Feb.2001)
and in the Leo Baeck Yearbook,2001. The subjects are conveyed by the
titles, respectively: "Jews as a Changing People of the Talmud: An
American Exploration," "When Heredity Met the Bacterium: Quarantines
in New York and Danzig,1898-1921." Let me just say here that I integrate
findings from studies involving bio-cultural determinism and
attitudes of physicians turned anthropologists as well as all
sorts of public health officials. The point in this case (Jews) is that
there is a complex set of dynamic interactions going on. There is a
participating bio-cultural determinism, which in practise is not
related to white vs. non-white or white vs. whatever but more with
individuals and groups, each themselves in the process of change and
identity
content, responding to respective pasts and competing expectations of
the future, on the basis of fluid criteria, inherent and clearly
constructed in response to the moments and public politics.

How the Infidels Can Save Civilization:
Traditional Irish and American Indian Law

James W. Zion

The attempted annihiliation of peoples; broken treaties; forced relocation;
reservations; the cavalry at the charge--do those things sound familiar?
No, I'm not referring to American films but to what happened in Ireland. We
can add conquest under the pretext of a papal bull, slavery, degrading
labels, the singling out of poets and wisdom keepers for persecution,
assimilation policies, stereotyping as drunks and John Ford-John Wayne
movies
to the list of similarities between the treatment of Irish and American
Indians (among other things).

My paper (1) traces the growth of British Indian policy in the Americas
based
on experiments with Scots and Irish; (2) discusses the development of
British and American rules of recognition of the laws of indigenous peoples;
(3) generally reviews the nature of Brehon and Indian law; (4) compares
principles of family and property law in the two bodies of law; (5)
contrasts Brehon and Navajo dispute resolution; and (5) addresses the
implications of the comparisons, including how Brehon and traditional Indian
law can save civilization.

Students of the Tanistry decision will be interested in Lord Coke's huge
conflict of interest when he penned that opinion.

Dr. Z




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Send FREE Holiday eCards from Yahoo! Greetings.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/IgTaHA/ZQdDAA/ySSFAA/TJ_qlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Brehon Law Project
www.brehon.org (temporarily out of service. Please visit the backup at:

http://ua_tuathal.tripod.com/testdefault.html

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
fenechas-unsubscribe[at]yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

From: Richardjjensen[at]aol.com
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 12:51:47 EST
Subject: Re: H-ETHNIC: whites

responding to David Beriss' interesting posting about Boas et al.

He seems to be saying that at some point in time there was a
significant folk or scholarly belief to the effect that Irish, Jews or
Italians were not white.

Neither I nor anyone else has found any text in the 19th century that
makes this statement or assumption.

(However there was an ambiguity about whether Jews were Caucasians--a
language category. Jews used Hebrew as a sacred language, but they spoke
Germanic languages (Yiddish is a German dialect written with Hebrew
alphabet).

As I pointed out earlier, in the last couple years we have available
massive electronic texts from the19c -- hundreds of thousands of
pages of materials--all of which can be searched. I've been searching for
a year now, especially regarding the Irish, and have not found a single
reference.
(I also have been systematically going through cartoons.)

I gave what I think is very strong negative evidence: highly race-conscious
white Southerners welcomed the Irish Catholics as leaders in 1850s and
1860s.
It is inconceivable they would have welcomed non-white leaders.

Did Boas say that Irish were non-white in 1900? That would be astonishing
indeed.
Can we have the quote please.

Richard Jensen rjensen[at]uic.edu

Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 19:13:09 -0600
From: "Rudolph J. Vecoli"
Subject: Re: H-ETHNIC: whites

It may come as a surprise to Jensen and others that there were some who did
not consider Swedes to be white. A Yankee from St Paul described his
Swedish fellow lumberjacks as follows in a letter to his parents of ca.
1900: "There are probably 15 white men to 60 Swedes ...It is only evenings
that I am forced to associate with these beasts they call Swedes..etc."
For full quotation and source see my essay, "Immigration and the Twin
Cities: Melting Pot or Mosaic?" in SWEDES IN THE TWIN CITIES, (St. Paul:
MN Historical Society, 2001). Of course, Italians and Mexicans were not
considered "white" and still are not by some. Remember that Nixon thought
Italians smell different.

RJVecoli

From: "Matthew Barlow"
Subject: Re: H-ETHNIC: whites
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 13:50:49 -0500

In response to Richard Jensen's argument, at least in part, I find it
interesting that he asserts that other 'white' ethnic groupings in the
nineteenth century were not considered as 'white'. Part of this may come
from my own background as a Canadian historian, rather than an American
one. Nonetheless, in the course of my own research, I have come across
clear references to the 'Irish race' or 'Popish race'.

While Prof. Jensen may conclude upon hearing this that this confirms his
argument that the Irish were not seen as being 'non-white', I suggest a
different argument. I would contend that the denotation of the Irish, or
any other pale-skinned ethnic grouping, as a separate 'race' from the
dominant one (in this case, as in the USA, Anglo-Protestant and mostly of
British descent) is an important demarcation point. It suggests to me that
the Irish Catholics were, indeed, a 'race' apart from the Anglo-Protestants
in nineteenth century Québec. It has also been well-established by
historians that the British operated under a sort of 'racial' hierarchy
during the 'long' nineteenth-century. This hierarchy saw themselves, not
surprisingly, at the top, along with the Germans, Scandinavians, and
Americans. The Irish, on the other hand, occupied the lower rungs of the
hierarchy, grouped in with Africans and aboriginal Americans, ie: groups
whose skin colour was not white.

As for the United States (and let me reiterate that I am not an historian
of the USA), I think that Dale Knobel's 1986 book, Paddy and the Republic,
makes it pretty clear that the Irish in antebellum America and the
immediate reconstruction era were not really seen as being 'white'. He
provides many examples of editorial cartoons from popular serials of the
day, such as Harper's, which depict the Irish as apes, monkeys, and other
simian creatures. The other group so-represented as such? African
Americans. Is that not a very strong indication that the Irish were not
necessarily regarded as being white?

Similarly, Noel Ignatiev has argued that Irish Catholics in the United
States were not regarded as 'white' at first by Anglo-Protestant America.
The Americans, it seems, were borrowing phraseology and attitudes from the
British. British sources are full of references to the 'black Irish', and
the Americans were employing this in the States. It was only after the
Irish began to turn on African Americans that they began to be seen as
white, amongst other things. The Irish turned on African Americans because
those two groups were heaped at the bottom of the 'racial' hierarchy
employed by the Americans.

At any rate, it seems to me that there is some evidence in the United
States, Canada, and the United Kingdom that demonstrates that the Irish
were not necessarily seen as a 'white' ethnic group. I say 'not
necessarily' as I don't think that one can engage in absolute generalities,
as Prof. Jensen seems to be doing.

Matthew Barlow
Concordia University
Montréal (QC)

[Editor's Note: I usually restrain my impulses to participate in ongoing
threads but could not this time. I am simply too interested in the topic.
-- John McClymer, co-editor]

I fully appreciate that any attempt to sum up so many-faceted a
discussion can only seem presumptive, all the more so since I offer my own
views in the process. There is another risk as well. Whenever one seeks to
make sense of a category like "white," one must leave room for the
irrational, the illogical, and the stupid. Race is a wish as much as it is
an idea. "White" expresses what various groups and individuals want to be
true as much as it describes a physical characteristic. We cannot hope to
provide a coherent explanation that will resolve every anomaly or reconcile
every inconsistency.
"White," as several contributors to the discussion observed, is a
moving target. Chronology matters. Let us start in the middle of the
nineteenth century. Race was a matter of white and non-white. In 1853, for
example, a California court ruled that Chinese residents were "black" under
the terms of the state constitution and therefore could not testify against
whites. The court held that the constitution's authors clearly intended to
limit certain rights and privileges to whites and that "black" was simply a
synonym for non-white. By this standard, the Irish were unquestionably
white. No one challenged their right to testify in court or, as Professor
Jensen points out, to become citizens. The same holds for other immigrant
groups from Europe, including Jews. The 1850s witnessed an intense outburst
of anti-Catholicism as well as some anti-Semitism. The matter of being
white, however, was not at issue.
By 1880 the situation was more complex. The white/non-white divide
remained, even intensified. But additional meanings for "white" emerged.
One can see this in the way the Rev. Josiah Strong used the term
"Anglo-Saxon" in his Our Country. The Anglo-Saxons of the U.S., Strong
held, were a racial hybrid of European Protestant "stocks." The white
American was superior to his English cousin, furthermore, precisely because
of the "mix." One can see a similar fixation on "Old Stock" Americans in
the Sons and Daughters of the American Revolution and the many local
historical societies founded to preserve the memories of the founding
generations. This same notion underlay Francis Amasa Walker's theory of
"race suicide," i.e., that "low standard" immigrants so drove down the
price of labor that "American" workers restricted the size of their
families in order to maintain an "American standard."
Did this mean that "Old Stock" Americans regarded various immigrant
populations as non-white? I would argue that the answer is "No." Carroll D.
Wright's Annual Report as Commissioner of the Massachusetts Bureau of the
Statistics of Labor for 1880 provides a revealing glimpse into the matter.
The "Canadian French," Wright claimed, were "the Chinese of the Eastern
States." The objects of his scorn were outraged and demanded a chance to
defend themselves. Wright acceded. The Bureau would hold a hearing. The
Canadian French could choose the chair; they could introduce whatever
evidence they wanted. He would publish the transcript in his next Annual
Report. The task, one correspondent wrote to the editor of Worcester's
French-language paper was "to prove to Col. Wright that we are a white
people." How did they go about doing this? They assembled evidence showing
property ownership, naturalization, literacy in English as well as in
French, and entrepreneurial activity. Further, Wright accepted their
proofs. The "complete assimilation" of the French Canadians, he wrote at
the conclusion of the hearing, is simply a matter of time. "White," in this
instance, was a metaphor. It suggested social values, not racial
characteristics. Further, the exclusion of the real Chinese at the same
time demonstrated the basic racial division remained white/non-white.
By the 1890s the debate over race was more complex still. In part,
this reflected the shift away from "old" to "new" sources of European
migration. In part, it derived from even more intense efforts to
distinguish "Old Stock" Americans from all immigrants and their children --
not coincidentally the 1890s witnessed a sharp increase in both
anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism. Fears of "race suicide" gained more
adherents. And the new science of Eugenics provided a rationale for
distinguishing among European peoples. It is customary to put the term
science in quotation marks when discussing Eugenics. This is misleading as
well as anachronistic. Between the 1880s and the 1930s Eugenics was one of
the most flourishing subfields in Biology. By the 1920s virtually every
textbook devoted a chapter to it.
As Gerd Korman has shown in several recent articles, at the heart
of Eugenics lay a neo-Lamarckian understanding of evolution.
Neo-Lamarckianism was widely acepted and taught. Because acquired traits
became hereditary characteristics over time, it fused culture and biology.
Nurture became nature. Why were Catholics unfit to be "true" Americans?
Centuries of obedience to authoritarian decrees made them genetically
unable to think for themselves. Why could Jews not be true patriots?
Centuries of wandering had left them incapable of attachment to country.
Why, according to some white Southerners, would blacks "revert" to
barbarism? It was because slavery had not lasted long enough to alter the
African's heredity.
Historians have sometimes read the reactions against such attempts
to distinguish among Europeans as well as between white and non-white as
efforts on the part of one group or another to "prove" it was "white." Here
too an example may help. In 1912 E.A. Ross, professor of sociology at the
University of Wisconsin published The Old World in the New, an eugenically
informed discussion of immigration. In one chapter he quoted a physician to
the effect that "a Slav can stand dirt that would kill a white man." I
initially took this to mean that Slavs were considered non-white, a view I
now regard as mistaken. Some whites wanted to limit the category "white"
to "Old Stock" Americans. Ross, an orphan, is an especially revealing case.
In his autobiography he included an appendix detailing his physical
characteristics as a way of demonstrating to the reader and himself his own
"Nordic" heritage.
Ross had lots of company, as Eugenics became ever more influential.
Its great triumph was the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924 which
incorporated its distinctions among European groups. Its other legislative
victories, however, reinforced the older white/non-white understanding of
race. This is most obvious in the anti-miscegenation laws many states
adopted through the 1920s and 1930s, none of which targeted Italians, Jews,
or Slavs.
The culture wars of the 1920s, if one may use that term, pivoted to
a large degree on this struggle to restrict the category "white" to
Protestants of northern European background. Pride in "Old Stock" ancestry,
fear of "race" suicide, neo-Lamarchianism, and Eugenics did not erase the
white/non-white view of race in the U.S. Nor did they, in the end, alter
the meaning of "white" in a lasting way. They did, on the other hand,
provoke many non-Nordic European immigrants to insist upon the salience of
the white/non-white divide, efforts open to interpretation as attempts to
prove their own whiteness.

John McClymer

From: Kerby Miller
Subject: travel plans

In case anyone wishes to get in touch with me between
mid-January and mid-May, I will be teaching at Ireland House, at New
York University.

I hope that at NYU I will still be able to receive and access
E-mail sent to my Missouri E mail address, but as yet I'm uncertain.
However, below is my New York address and phone number.

Glucksman Ireland House
New York University
One Washington Mews
New York, NY 10003
(212) 998-3954 phone
(212) 995-4373 fax

Wishing you a very Happy New Year,

Kerby Miller

Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 17:01:33 EST
From: Huddis[at]aol.com
Subject: Re: H-ETHNIC: whites

I would just like to point out that "Jews" were and are a much more diverse
group than the Yiddish speaking group to whom Prof. Jensen refers. {there
was an ambiguity about whether Jews were Caucasians--a language category.
Jews used Hebrew as a sacred language, but they spoke Germanic languages
(Yiddish is a German dialect written with Hebrew alphabet).}

The explanation of what Yiddish "is" is more complicated than simply a
German dialect written with Hebrew alphabet. For instance, the language is
filled with jokes (check out the definitions of 'schmuck' in both Yiddish
and the 'German dialect' it supposedly "is." In one language it means
"penis;" in the other, "treasure.") And Yiddish differs from one eastern
European language community to another as is evident, just for instance,
when one visits a Jewish retirement community and listens to old old women
who still speak fluently the Yiddish of their childhoods. Listen to them
compare recipes for "koggle," "kiggle" and "poodging." That, by the way,
is not only an old Jewish joke, but a reflection of reality: I once spent,
back in the sixties, several days at such a place collecting recipes. In
addition to the variations in pronunciation, the vocabularies are different
in significant ways.

And we haven't even begun to talk about Ladino, the language spoken by Jews
in the Iberian peninsula. Or the languages spoken by Jews in the middle
east. Nor, of course, have we talked about the pigmentation of that latter
group of Jews.

In re. who was considered what "color," I wonder if another way to think
about that isn't to think about who was denied access to what kind of
employment or accommodation when, where, and why.

Just some thinking aloud.
Susan Koppelman

A quick follow-up to Richard Jensen's comments on my note...

First, I must admit that I am not certain of the case of attitudes
toward Irish immigrants and should have left them off the list at the
head of my last note. Boas, in the material I have read, makes no
mention of them.

Italians, Jews and various other Eastern European groups are mentioned,
both in his work and elsewhere. Boas' work, of course, was oriented
precisely to demonstrating that racial distinctions, of the biological
sort, were not useful in distinguishing these groups. The fact that he
made this point central to his research is clear evidence that someone
thought otherwise. The case I cited previously of the US Immigration
Commission's rejection of his conclusions ought to be sufficient as well
and interested parties may go look it up.

Further references to other's work may be found in Boas' articles (that
I cited in the previous note) or in Baker's book (also cited
previously). I only have time to include one somewhat detailed
reference to demonstrate that a) race was physical and not (only)
linguistic in the view of mainstream social science at that time and b)
Italians, Jews and other immigrants were not categorized within the
dominant white, Anglo-Saxon or Teutonic group (note that the terms
change, although I have not found the term "Caucasian" in any of this
stuff, but its probably out there...).

Harvard's William Z. Ripley, in "The Races of Europe" (1899, D. Appleton
and Co) argued that there were three fundamental European races, "the
long-headed, dark Mediterranean; the short-headed, brunet Alpine; and
the long-headed, blond Teutonic." I am quoting Boas' review here, p. 155
of "Race, Language and Culture, which originally appeared in Science,
vol. 10 (sept. 1 1899), pp. 292-296. Ripley's work is also examined by
George Stocking in "Race, Culture and Evolution" (1968, The Free Press).

Ripley also popularized his work, notably in the Atlantic Monthly, in an
article entitled "Races in the United States" (December 1908, Vol. 102
(6), pp.745-759, also available at
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/immigr/rip.htm, which is
what I am quoting here). Here he indicates that he is looking at
physical, not linguistic, races: "I have been at some pains to
reclassify the immigration for 1907, in conformity with the racial
grouping of the "Races of Europe"; disregarding, that is to say, mere
linguistic affiliations, and dividing on the basis of physical types."
Interestingly, in addition to the 3 races already noted, he further
includes "Slavic" and "Jewish" as distinct physical types. Ripley
believes that there was an original European type, from which these
races evolved and that mixture may cause reversion to that type. He
writes: "...there can be little doubt that the primitive type of
European was brunette, probably with black eyes and hair and a swarthy
skin. Teutonic blondness is certainly an acquired trait, not very
recent, to be sure, judged by historic standards, but as certainly not
old, measured by evolutionary time. What probability is there that in
the unions of rufous Irish and dark Italian types a reversion in favor
of brunetteness may result?"

I hope this is helpful.

David Beriss
--
Department of Anthropology
University of New Orleans
New Orleans, LA 70148

tel: (504) 280-6306
fax: (504) 280-1123
email: dberiss[at]uno.edu
http://www.uno.edu/~dberiss/

from Richard Jensen rjensen[at]uic.edu

I'm on vacation in Denver and don't have access to my handy hard-drive full
of quotes back in
New Hampshire, so I'll just toss out my thoughts regarding this interesting
debate.

"Whiteness" is a category that the cultural or postmodern mode of
historiography handles very
poorly. I think I can state flatly that in my opinion no concept has ever
been so badly mishandled
by scholars on such poor evidence. Talk about stereotypes based on flimsy
generalizations!

One of my goals is to force scholars back to the evidence. Happily the
availability of massive
electronic data sources means that it is now possible *easily* to actually
look at how words were
used in tens of thousands of texts. So I can find 114 references to "Irish
race" in the Cornell
MOA corpus, and 195 references to "American race" (used by Henry Adams,
Emerson,
Higginson, Bret Harte, Oliver W Holmes, Howells, etc-- big name writers), as
well as 569
references to "British race" (as used by Bryce, Carnegie, Emerson and
others.) Note also 205
references to "Aryan race." see http://cdl.library.cornell.edu

Very highly recommended for this discussion is the work of John Fiske, one
of
the leading
interpreters of European thought. see for example his "Who are the Aryans"
article of 1881,
online at Cornell. It gives an excellent summary of the state of race
thinking, with a heavy
emphasis on cultural groups based on language (and very little emphasis on
biology). I think he
was quite influential for the general literate public. See
http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/moa-cgi?notisid=ABK2934-0047-31

I believe the "whiteness" concept probably stems from Dale Knobel's book on
Paddy And the
Republic (1986). The book is very badly flawed statistically, is trapped
into a content analysis
coding scheme that fits the 1950s but not the words of the 1850s, and he
greatly exaggerates his
findings. Bad book. Ignatief on Whiteness is even worse, with a very poor
data base of a handful
of texts (which I think he misreads).

Using the Cornell and Michigan corpuses, you can find 40,000 or more
citations to the Irish.
Using Boolean searches you can look for references to the Irish as ape-like,
Simian, or monkey-
like. It simply was not in common rhetorical usage. (I have already
discussed the cartoons,
which were not widely reprinted in any case.) I found zero examples of
"black Irish" in American
usage. Several historians have claimed the term was often used; they gave
zero examples and I
found zero. Another myth. How about textual references to Irish as monkeys?
References are
rare-I found perhaps three examples--and also the use of "monkey shines" to
refer to Yale
students who hazed freshmen-were they subhuman too?). Hence I conclude: the
evidence is
that very rarely did American writers ever identify the Irish in terms of
monkeys or blacks. I
challenge people to come up with some "black Irish" quotations that we can
look at. Knobel
mentions "simian" several times but never footnotes it. I think he either
lost his source or
misremembered it. I am a very empirical historian. If I see people making
up imaginary
evidence, or using one case in 40,000 to generalize that "many" Americans
thought this way, I
challenge it as bad history.

Inferiority and superiority regarding other groups-rather common in the 19th
century, and I
suspect throughout history. The Irish Catholics, for example, had a
strongly
developed position
that God favored them and that (most) Protestants would be damned to hell.
(After attending a
series of Catholic parochial schools in the 1950s, I can attest to hundreds
of hours of religion
lectures that made this point.) Various groups claimed they are God's
chosen
people and are
they are morally superior to their adversaries (who may be tools of the
devil). Historically most
of the rhetoric stressed either spiritual superiority or civic superiority
(group X has inferior
citizenship).

So what is this "whiteness" business all about. I suggest (and can cite
four
or five people in this
very conversation on H-ETHNIC) that "whiteness" is being used as a synonym
for discrimination.
Or put another way, if a group is not white then it does not deserve full
citizenship rights. Issues
of citizenship, legal rights, and pluralism are, in my opinion, very
important issues in American
history. My own interpretation is to strongly emphasize the political
ideology of republicanism.
The American credo then comes out to something like "all true republicans
should be full-status
citizens. People (groups/individuals) who are not fully republican in their
beliefs and values are
second class." I would argue that this credo is just as strong in 2001 as
in
1789. I would also
argue that in the 19th century group identity was much more important than
it
is today, and that
people's republicanism was often gauged by their ethnicity (or as they
usually called it "race").
Pluralism gets stronger as these group-based criteria weaken and we
emphasize
individual
criteria more. So we are a much more individualistic society than ever
before, though races and
ethnic groups remain somewhat important.

The "whiteness" model I think is attractive to scholars who insist that
race-class-and gender are
dominant (or even the only important) categories of analysis. They ignore
or
downplay ideology
of republicanism itself, and say it must be a mask for race-class-or gender.
In this case they
argue it is a mask for race. No, no, I counter. Republicanism and ideology
are irreducible core
values that stand on their own. The themes include personal freedom, free
labor, free soil, free
speech; free enterprise; Bill of Rights; civic duty demanded of all
citizens;
high prestige to
sacrifice, military service, and [even to this day] being a farmer;
"corruption" = the worst political
sin. Reducing these themes to class-race-gender is a serious
historiographical error, in my
opinion. (The Progressive historians, like Beard and Turner, of c 1890-1940
tended to reduce
them to material and demographic factors, also an error, I think.)

An important theme in republicanism is the question (19th century) whether
Catholics could be
true republicans. (Hence the "Popish race" Matthew Barlow noted regarding
the Irish, can be
translated as "priest-ridden people") Many serious people said that if you
are morally
subservient to the Italian Pope you could never have an independent
political
judgment--you
would be a pawn of priests and a bad citizen. (This debate was alive as late
as 1960.) We are
right now having a debate about whether certain Moslem fundamentalists (eg
Wahhabi sect) can
be true republicanism or not. It's his *religion* not his *race* that made
John Walker such an
unrepublican and unattractive figure.

A thought on John McClymer's observations when statistician Walker referred
to the French
Canadians as the Chinese of the East. He obviously was using a metaphor. He
meant
something like: "this group is politically or socially of comparable status
to the Chinese in
California." The Chinese were under very heavy attack at the time to the
effect that their social
system made them very bad republicans who threatened to seriously damage
free
labor. (If you
thought so you would try to get rid of them.) The 1880 question for the
French Canadians was
*not* their race or ancestry or biology in any sense whatever. It was
whether their behavior as a
group showed republicanism or lack thereof. And the same for the
Irish--were they good
republicans or not? (I might add in the 20th century the Italians came under
this scrutiny,
especially regarding crime. The stars of Sopranos or Godfather are *not*
good republican
citizens, and the Italian-American community is much annoyed by that
negative
image. -- In
1914 Blacks reacted the same way to "Birth of a Nation" wherein they were
depicted as enemies
of republicanism, and the KKK as the champion of American republican
values.)
Deconstructing
the rhetoric in terms of republican core values, I suggests, explains much
more than these stilted
attempts to fit it into race-gender-class.

The history of ethnic, religious and gender discrimination is a great
subject. In the American
context it is especially interesting to look at the margins--when and where
were Mexicans or East
Indians considered white or colored or what? When were Irish or Jews
considered nonwhite by
anyone who wrote or gave speeches? (I have the answer there: never).

From: "Matthew Barlow"
Subject: Re: H-ETHNIC: whites
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 12:24:09 -0500

I thank Prof. Jensen for his clarification, and I believe that his purpose
is a valuable one, to force historians back to the source, as he said.
Nevertheless, I do find it troubling that he feels that he can safely
conclude that no person in the United States of America ever stated that the
Irish were 'black'. Or that there were never, ever, anywhere, any 'help
wanted' signs indicating that the Irish were not welcome to apply for
employment there. Has he looked at every written historical source in the
entire United States? Has he interviewed every single person who may have
recollection of such things? I doubt it. Thus, I find his absolute
declarations somewhat troubling. Nothing is all that certain in the work
that historians and social scientists do. Our answers obviously depend on
the questions we ask and our own politics inform our interpretation of the
sources. Prof. Jensen takes issue with both Knobel and Ignatiev (two
sources I cited previously) and states that he feels that they have misread
their sources. Fair enough, but is there not a chance that Prof. Jensen may
have also misread the sources? In other words, how can he be so definite,
so absolute, that he is correct and that everyone else is incorrect?

Matthew Barlow
Concordia University
Montréal (QC)

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 13:38:08 -0800
From: Frances
Subject: Re: H-ETHNIC: whites

I havennn't read every message on this thread but I did want to note that
there
is a considerable literature on 'whiteness' in the cultural studies field.
Among
many references, I would recommend:

Frankenberg, Ruth, Displacing Whiteness: essays in social an cultural
criticism,1994
Stowe, David, Uncolored People: The Rise of Whiteness Studies.1996

Nakayama and Martin, eds. Whiteness: The Communication of Social Identity,
1999

Dr. Frances Henry

From Email Patrick O'Sullivan

The University of Bradford Computer Centre, which hosts the Irish-Diaspora
list, has told us that there will be no email service on Thursday January 3
and Friday January 4 2002. So that there will be no Ir-D service on those
days.

If anyone does need to contact me, my other email address works outside the
University of Bradford system
Email Patrick O'Sullivan

We are also going to seize this opportunity to do some engineering on the
irishdiaspora.net web site and the DIRDA database, the database of the
Irish-Diaspora list archive.
Irish Diaspora Net Archive http://www.irishdiaspora.net
The DIRDA database will not be available from January 2 to January 5.

In due course we also plan to some tidying and updating of my academic web
site, which needs a good clean
Irish Diaspora Studies http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/diaspora/
Especially the links page...

Patrick O'Sullivan

- --
Patrick O'Sullivan
Head of the Irish Diaspora Research Unit

Email Patrick O'Sullivan
Email Patrick O'Sullivan

Irish-Diaspora list
Irish Diaspora Studies http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/diaspora/
Irish Diaspora Net Archive http://www.irishdiaspora.net

Personal Fax National 0709 236 9050
Fax International +44 709 236 9050

Irish Diaspora Research Unit
Department of Interdisciplinary Human Studies
University of Bradford
Bradford BD7 1DP
Yorkshire
England

From Email Patrick O'Sullivan

Forwarded on behalf of
Boston Irish Tourism Association...

For details on Mary Robinson's speech at the JFK Library in January 2002,
the opening of George B. Shaw's Heartbreak House at the Huntington Theatre,
and the opening of Thomas Murphy's play Bailegangaire, presented by Sugan
Theatre, visit

{http://www.irishmassachusetts.com/events-jan.htm}

You can also learn about Irish cultural groups, pubs and restaurants, travel
agencies, gift shops and lodging throughout Massachusetts by going directly
to www.irishmassachusetts.com


Happy Holidays.

Boston Irish Tourism Association
www.irishmassachusetts.com
www.irishheritagetrail.com

From Email Patrick O'Sullivan

Forwarded on behalf of
From: bernie.folan[at]sagepub.co.uk
Subject: Ethnicities Volume 01 Issue 03


PLEASE POST WIDELY

__________________________________________________________

A FREE ONLINE SAMPLE COPY OF A RECENT ISSUE OF THIS JOURNAL IS NOW AVAILABLE
AT
{http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journals/details/j0338.html}


Ethnicities
Volume 1 Issue 3 - Publication Date: December 2001

Editorial

Clash of Civilizations or Clash of Religions: Which is a More Important
Determinant of Ethnic Conflict?
Jonathan Fox Bar Ilan University, Israel
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journals/details/issue/abstract/ab020331.html


Skin Color and Latinos in the United States
Frank F. Montalvo and G. Edward Codina University of Texas, San Antonio
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journals/details/issue/abstract/ab020330.html


Identity and Nation-building in Ukraine: Defining the 'Other'
Taras Kuzio York University, Toronto, Canada
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journals/details/issue/abstract/ab018425.html


The Limits of Culture in the Politics of Self-determination
Michael Murphy University of Queens, Canada
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journals/details/issue/abstract/ab020332.html


Debate: Critical Multiculturalism

Can There Be a 'Critical' Multiculturalism?
Gregor McLennan University of Bristol

Wayward Multiculturalists: A Reply to Gregor McLennan
Peter McLaren University of California, Los Angeles, USA

Not Multiculturalism: A Rejoinder to Peter McLaren
Gregor McLennan University of Bristol

Books Received

Thanks to Referees

Index to Volume 1

From Email Patrick O'Sullivan

2001 has been a sombre and difficult year, and, as we wait here for the turn
of the year, we know that these celebrations and anniversaries are a
difficult time for those with sad, hard memories. Our thoughts are with
those who have suffered grief during the past year...

And we can hope for better times in 2002...

Now, launching the traditional Irish-Diaspora list New Year's Eve
Competition...

What do Adam, Napoleon, Ferdinand de Lesseps and the year 2002 have in
common?

Answers by January 2, 2002, please...

A Happy New Year to all on the Irish-Diaspora list - here's wishing you Good
Scholarship...

Paddy O'Sullivan

- --
Patrick O'Sullivan
Head of the Irish Diaspora Research Unit

Email Patrick O'Sullivan
Email Patrick O'Sullivan

Irish-Diaspora list
Irish Diaspora Studies http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/diaspora/
Irish Diaspora Net Archive http://www.irishdiaspora.net

Personal Fax National 0709 236 9050
Fax International +44 709 236 9050

Irish Diaspora Research Unit
Department of Interdisciplinary Human Studies
University of Bradford
Bradford BD7 1DP
Yorkshire
England

From: "Anne-Maree Whitaker"
To: irish-diaspora[at]Bradford.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Ir-D Welcome 2002

Palindromes!

Madam, I'm Adam

Able was I 'ere I saw Elba

A man, a plan, a canal - Panama

And of course, the numeric palindrome 2002

From Anne-Maree "Smarty-Boots" Whitaker


>From: irish-diaspora[at]Bradford.ac.uk
>Reply-To: irish-diaspora[at]Bradford.ac.uk
>To: irish-diaspora[at]Bradford.ac.uk
>Subject: Ir-D Welcome 2002
>Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 15:00:26 +0000
>
>From Email Patrick O'Sullivan
>
>Now, launching the traditional Irish-Diaspora list New Year's Eve
>Competition...
>
>What do Adam, Napoleon, Ferdinand de Lesseps and the year 2002 have in
>common?
>
>Answers by January 2, 2002, please...
>
>A Happy New Year to all on the Irish-Diaspora list - here's wishing you
>Good
>Scholarship...
>
>Paddy O'Sullivan
>

Dr Anne-Maree Whitaker FRHistS
P O Box 63
Edgecliff NSW 2027
Australia
ph (+61-2) 9356 4929 fax (+61-2) 9356 2065
mobile 0408 405 025
email ahcwhitaker[at]hotmail.com
website {http://www.geocities.com/joseph_foveaux}

From Email Patrick O'Sullivan

For the past few weeks there has been a really interesting discussion of
'whiteness' rumbling on, on the H-Ethnic list...

The archives are freely available on the H-Ethnic web site...

http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~ethnic/

You can look at 'Recent Messages' or go back through December's 'Discussion
Logs'...

I have been following this discussion - in between computer crashes... And
thank you to Ir-D members who mentioned the debate to me.

The Irish are indeed much mentioned, but in a comparative context - and the
discussion is of great interest to Irish Diaspora Studies. For there was,
at one point, the possibility, or the danger, that the 'whiteness' approach
would reshape all of our own area of study...

I have to say that I have not seen this debate opened up in this way
anywhere else. The argument is balanced. I particularly liked the angry
bits - because some of this 'whiteness' stuff is really very sloppy. I was
wondering about constructing some sort of summary for Ir-D of the main
points of the debate, or of persuading someone to make some sort of
summary...

Anyway, at the very least I thought I should bring the discussion to the
attention of Ir-D members.

P.O'S.

- --
Patrick O'Sullivan
Head of the Irish Diaspora Research Unit

Email Patrick O'Sullivan
Email Patrick O'Sullivan

Irish-Diaspora list
Irish Diaspora Studies http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/diaspora/
Irish Diaspora Net Archive http://www.irishdiaspora.net

Personal Fax National 0709 236 9050
Fax International +44 709 236 9050

Irish Diaspora Research Unit
Department of Interdisciplinary Human Studies
University of Bradford
Bradford BD7 1DP
Yorkshire
England

Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 11:23:18 -0500
From: David Fahey
x-post from: Historical documents on-line

12/6/2001
NewspaperArchive to put London Times online

Heritage Microfilm, sister company to NewspaperArchive.com, has recently
acquired a copy of the London Times microfilm from the 1700's and will
be scanning it to the website in early 2002.

By trading copies of some of its extensive vault holdings with the Fort
Wayne, IN library, Heritage was able to acquire the elusive microfilm
from the most prestigious newspaper in the world.

The film, dating from the mid 1700's is scheduled to begin being scanned
in January.

"We're very exited. This will enable Americans to read about the
Revolutionary War from the English perspective!. Wow!" effuses Chad
Rosenbohm, webmaster of the most successful historic newspaper website
on the planet. "I mean, most Americans have never had the opportunity to
read this stuff. It's fantastic."

Part of the challenge will be modifying the OCR software to read the
archaic typeset. For example, before about 1850, the letter "s" looked
like an "f".

"Our software team is on it, and we'll be ready to go very soon" beams
Chris Gill, president of both Heritage Microfilm and NewspaperArchive.
"When I first conceived this project, getting the London Times online
was a major goal. Many Americans have ancestors from England. We are
also looking at papers from Ireland and Europe as well."

Anything printed before 1924 is "public domain" and may be freely
reproduced. NewspaperArchive currently has the New York Times from the
1860's to 1923 online, and is looking to add more titles. "If anyone has
access to historic microfilm they'd like to see online, be sure to send
us an email" offers Gill. "The more we put on the web ,the more people
can learn about their past."
press release from http://www.newspaperarchive.com/news/

Dear All,

Just a brief reminder...

The address for the web archives of all messages sent to the mailing list
is: http://forum.ngfl.gov.uk/trav-ed

If you have any queries send an email to

owner-trav-ed[at]ngfl.gov.uk

USING THE LIST

TIP - For the commands below, leave the Subject field of the email message
blank.

1. To join the list, send the following message:

To: majordomo[at]ngfl.gov.uk
Subject: (leave blank)
Body of message: subscribe trav-ed

2. To leave this list, send the following message:

To: majordomo[at]ngfl.gov.uk
Subject: (leave blank)
Body of message: unsubscribe trav-ed

3. To send a contribution to the trav-ed list, send your email to:

trav-ed[at]ngfl.gov.uk

Regards,

Jason


Jason Douglas
British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta) Milburn
Hill Road, Science Park, Coventry CV4 7JJ
Tel: +44 (0) 24 7641 6994
Fax: +44 (0) 24 7641 1418
Email: jason_douglas[at]becta.org.uk


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

Becta

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************

trav-ed