There were also signs that said, “No Micks on the grass.” Irish were called Micks, because so many of their last names started with Mc.
Personally when I saw something excerpted from that book (I’m sure it was), I thought there has to be something to it.
Indeed, people DO tend to keep telling stories until they are turned into truth. It has happened many times, until the truth was forgotten.
Summary: 14-year old (eight grader) found enough information to create a scholarly article disproving entirely a “typical” biased PhD’s claim that Irish segregation and prejudice did not exist in America.
With the guidance of a different professor, her article and research were published.
I had ancestors who were put on a train with a label saying “Lake County Oregon” to deliver them to a prearranged job. They were not to be let off anywhere in route. They and the railroad laborers were not given much White Privilege.
Welcome to the club. The same crew of liberals opine that the Holocaust was not discrimination and Jews always had it easy.
I’m not sure I by this because the use of “No Irish Need Apply” was so commonplace and prevalent in that era that Mark Twain used it twice in “Scotty Briggs and the Clergyman” as a slang way of agreeing, or saying “amen”.
Obviously then, it was not quite that rare.
Leftists have been rewriting history for decades. They also enjoy slamming our history, judging our ancestors by the social mores of today. STOP IT!!
Same folks who say anti-war protestors never so much as spat on a soldier.
Of course they did crappy research.
“After only couple of hours Googling it, Rebecca, a 14-year-old, had found out these signs had, in fact, existed all along. Not only in newspaper listings—in which they appeared in droves—but, after further research, in shop windows, too.”
Where is this article? Where is the actual physical evidence?
I’d really like to see how actual SIGNS are verified. Did she find some in someone’s attic?
Where is this article so I can see just how she proves him all wrong?
‘“It was out of the blue on May 1st, May Day—which is sort of fortuitous, now that I think about it,” says Miller. May Day is International Workers’ Day, which celebrates laborers worldwide.’
oooohhhhkaaay.....
Gives me great boost of confidence in the motives.
“She then makes a salient point: Even if it were 15 recorded instances per year or 1,500—the signs existed, the persecution was real, and discrimination of the Irish was not an imagined feeling, but a reality difficult to both express and quantify.”
Not salient. It INDEED matters how many/% exist; typical liberal thoughts “if just one....”. Any given thing always has 1 example, but that does not prove its prevalence; in this case, not ipso-facto “discrimination”.
Irish lives matter the most. IMHO
Wow. I’m boggled that a History prof at a good school like U of C would actually posit something so absolutely wrong and so easily disproven.
Irish immigrants most certainly did face discrimination, along with many of the other groups (Italians, Eastern Europeans, etc.) that came over in the 2nd big wave of immigration. Part of it stemmed from the fact that most Irish were of the Catholic faith.
Also, there were signs worse than “No Irish Need Apply.” More than one late 19th/early 20th century boarding house or other public establishment was known to put up signs stating “No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish.”
I disputed a extremely liberal law professor from the University of Wisconsin who was speaking about minimum wage.
I sent him a conservative well written scholarly article from Ohio State that backed my position, and he didn’t reply.
I give credit for Prof Jensen that at least he replied, even though it was very weak.
From the article:
” “From the first, my responses to Jensen’s claims had been strongly negative, as were those of a few other scholars, but, for various reasons, most historians, social scientists, journalists, et cetera accepted or even embraced Jensen’s arguments,” says Miller.”
Miller (the young girl’s supporter) seems surprised that Jensen’s bogus argument was so readily accepted; apparently, he failed to realize than in most of modern academia, victimization is an exclusively non-white province: among the liberal elites, when it comes to claims of discrimination, no Caucasians need apply.
A number of Irish turned to crime. It was not too difficult to see how a mostly Protestant majority would look down on these strange looking people with a disliked religion. Eventually the Irish made themselves into typical Americans. Except for certain physical traits, the Irish today are indistinguishable in their habits from other Americans.
As someone of part Irish heritage what some Americans might have done to some of my Irish ancestors affects me not the slightest. The people who may have discriminated against my ancestors have been dead for more than a century.
The point is none of that goes on today. We should remember history but not let it affect our lives remembering past grievances.
Irish immigrants were never persecuted because they are white.
Only brown and black and yellow immigrants can be persecuted.
Therefore, it never happened, and those who say it did are racists.
Isn’t it fun to be a liberal?
Several comments are relevant.
I. In a free country, employees could hire or not hire any prospective workers for any reason whatsoever. Before the 1960s, that’s how it was in the United States.
II. Many, many employers were happy to hire the Irish, because they wanted cheap labor, and you could hire immigrant Irish for less in those days.
III. Here is the link for Jensen’s original article
http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/no-irish.htm
which is actually very detailed and documented, it’s not some kind of PC hit piece.
IV. Now, if this girl can prove that part of what Jensen says is not correct, well, more power to her. That’s what
academic give and take should be all about. But it should be over the evidence, not some kind of PC power play.
Several comments are relevant.
I. In a free country, employees could hire or not hire any prospective workers for any reason whatsoever. Before the 1960s, that’s how it was in the United States.
II. Many, many employers were happy to hire the Irish, because they wanted cheap labor, and you could hire immigrant Irish for less in those days.
III. Here is the link for Jensen’s original article
http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/no-irish.htm
which is actually very detailed and documented, it’s not some kind of PC hit piece.
IV. Now, if this girl can prove that part of what Jensen says is not correct, well, more power to her. That’s what
academic give and take should be all about. But it should be over the evidence, not some kind of PC power play.
Interesting that apparently this girl Rebecca is a fellow student of the Obama daughters.