Posted on 04/04/2006 5:34:55 PM PDT by neverdem
Today's rancorous debate over immigration has a parallel in the nativist reaction to the mass Irish immigration in the mid-19th century.
Spurred by the potato famine that began in 1845, 3.5 million mostly destitute Irish migrated to America by 1880 - about 7 percent of the population of 50 million. By contrast, today's 11 million unauthorized immigrants, of all nationalities, constitute just 4 percent of our population.
Contemporary immigration foes, like former Gov. Dick Lamm and Rep. Tom Tancredo, claim America can't absorb so many foreign-born without fatal damage to our economy and culture.
Yet, history shows we did just that. Today, there are 43 million Americans of Irish ancestry, a key element of the vibrant alloy that is America.
Today's nativists argue we can't compare today's illegal immigrants to the Irish, because the Irish came here legally. That's technically true, but the 19th century wave was just as uncontrolled, because America had virtually no bars to immigration in those days.
Kenneth Ackerman's book, "Boss Tweed: The Rise and Fall of the Corrupt Pol Who Conceived the Soul of Modern New York," details how the desperate Irish were welcomed at the docks by the political machine that provided the only social safety net in that era.
Tweed minions would help the newcomers find housing and work and, if there was an election in the offing, they would swiftly be naturalized as citizens in mass ceremonies by Tweed's judges, so they could vote for their benefactors.
Cartoonist Thomas Nast, who hated Irish and Catholics with equal fervor, pandered to the nativist bigotry by depicting Irishmen as drunken, subhuman brutes. The accompanying Nast cartoon depicts the role immigrants played in supporting Tweed by showing an Irish thug and a Catholic priest carving up the Democratic Party goose that laid the golden eggs.
But though the Irish were despised, they were still admitted through America's golden door. That's because Americans needed them to do our dirty work.
The first generations of Irish worked largely at unskilled and semiskilled occupations, but their children found themselves working at increasingly skilled trades. By 1900, when Irish Americans made up about 8 percent of the male labor force, they were almost a third of the plumbers, steamfitters and boilermakers. Their places at the bottom of the ladder were taken by newly arrived laborers from southern and eastern Europe.
Today, those dirty, low-paying, jobs are being taken by Latinos. But if history is any guide, the daughter of that Latina who scrubs your floor today may be the doctor who delivers my granddaughter's baby a generation hence.
To some, that is a frightening prospect. But I think Clio, the muse of history, would join with Lady Liberty herself to say:
Bienvenidos, Americanos nuevos.
Bob Ewegen is The Denver Post's deputy editorial page editor.
I say it isn't racist because it matches the behavior described. Of course La Raza would beg to differ, as would LULAC. Aren't you carrying their water by denouncing the language that they denounce because the truth hurts?
I haven't seen you around on the anti-illegal threads, but if you had seen some of my posts, you wouldn't assuming that I am pro-Mexican because I am not. I am not pro-illegal either. My side of this debate is often accused of being racist just for being anti-illegal-invader, the last thing we need is someone using the perjorative "wetback" and solidifying the view of us as ignorant bigoted racists.
I didn't assume you were pro-Mexican. I assumed you were politically-correct.
"The Irish are white."
As are most Mexicans. Please don't turn this into another racial pity party.
You haven't explained why identifying someone by his behavior is racist.
I hate to mention it, but I must. Live up to your name...Jesus went to the cross for all colors...and all races.
OK, then.
A lot, but not nearly as many
In the 1860 census the North had almost 4,000,000 foreigners, while the South had 233,000, this was one of the reasons for the South's defiance.
Five Southern generals were born in Ireland.
"Also, the Irish speak the same language we do, which makes assimilation 100 times easier."
No problem. We've adopted bilingualism.
The Irish didnt easily assimilate. They were reviled. Instead they built parochial schools, and clubs to keep their native ways intact. Over time assimilation happened.
they didnt expect that we would change to satisfy them!
"Ok, sure."
Well, just what "race" are Mexicans? If you use the term "race", you should be able to answer the question.
I never said he didn't!
Human nature gives us the preference for one's own "tribe."
Nothing racist about that.
You assume I am politically correct because I take exception to someone using the term "wetback?" Guess what, it doesn't just apply to South Americans. If I saw someone calling any race or "ethnic group" by putdowns, I'd call them on it too. It doesn't matter if YOU think it's racist, it matters if those around you do.
PLEASE spare me from this studpid comaparison.
Where were the Irish flags and the illegal "crossings?"
'wetback' is a racist epithet"
And I will ask you the same question, what "race" are Mexicans. There are three. Choose one.
I can tell you've thought this out very well, thanks. I'm not following you, but then all the best anyway.
I really am not interested in getting into a semantics argument over this....if you do, enjoy.
That is such a strawman. A few protesters make an "Aztlan" claim, and you think every Mexican wants to turn the Southwest into Mexico.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.