Over at that great source known as Wikipedia, where I went to discover whether "nativism" has any meaning besides something liberals hate, it says:
Nativism is an opposition to immigration or to specific ethnic or cultural groups because the groups are considered hostile or alien to the natural culture, and it is assumed that they cannot be assimilated. Opposition to immigration is common in many countries because of issues of national, cultural or religious identity. [...]Given my reactionary views, I've never quite understood why it is that liberals think it denigrating to call someone a "nativist" which, as Wiki notes, is merely the flip side of "patriotism". On the other hand, most liberals seem to think that "patriot" is a term of abuse too; or was, it's in fashion again with Obama in office.
In scholarly studies "nativism" is a standard technical term. However, in public political discourse "nativist" is a term of opprobrium usually used by the opposition, and rarely by nativists themselves (they call themselves "patriots.").
The Times writes:
We wanted to introduce readers to some of the people making the nativist case for immigration crackdowns. The harsh Republican line on immigration is usually depicted as motivated by concern about jobs, national security, drugs or terrorism. But that tune has a persistent undercurrent of fretfulness about race, culture and ethnicity. Many hard-liners want to shut the Golden Door because they believe the latest waves of immigration from Spanish-speaking countries pose a grave threat to America’s identity as a white, European country.Again, I don't get it: the Times writes like those are bad things.
For the record, The Times does not support open borders, and never has.They say that they don't support open borders, yet they would like to legalize every illegal here, as well as increase legal immigration.
We support comprehensive immigration reform, a combination of stricter enforcement at the border and the workplace, a chance for those already here to earn legalization, and an improved system of future legal immigration.
Enforcement alone won’t work — any attempt to uproot and expel 12 million illegal immigrants is unfeasible and self-destructive. It hurts our citizens, by perpetuating an underclass of exploited workers who tolerate low pay and bad working conditions. We want a path into the country that immigrants will go through, not around.Enforcement won't work? Operation Wetback did. Punishing employers and landlords might work even better.
A commenter there wrote:
Mankind is not indigenious to the Americas as it is to Africa, so all of our ancestors immigrated here originally.Jesus wept.
The United States of America was the first big country composed of people without any common national heritage. When the Constitution was written the demographics could have resulted in a German speaking country as easily as an English speaking country.
Peter Brimelow writes in response:
But while it may not be “respectable”, the fact remains that what the New York Times calls “race, culture and ethnicity” is the most powerful way to analyze American politics. And the analysis suggests that the Democrats are in a precarious position: they are a coalition of minorities and must at all costs prevent America’s majority from uniting. Hence the NYT’s hysteria."What the New York Times calls “race, culture and ethnicity” is the most powerful way to analyze American politics." Words to live by.
Moral for the GOP: Stop. Immigration. Now. Deport. Illegals. Now. Reform the Citizen Child Clause. Now.
Update: Pat Buchanan has some choice words on the Times:
Let it be said. There is nothing wrong about Americans fighting to preserve the culture and country they grew up in. That is what patriotic conservatism is all about. And if the Times can understand and support the right of native tribes like the Navajo and Apache to preserve their unique character and culture, why this viral hatred of those of us who wish to preserve the Western and Christian character of America?
Why does the Times want to see our America destroyed? From what poisoned well comes this hatred of the America we love?
I mislike this new commenting system.
ReplyDeleteWell said, Dennis.
ReplyDeleteTen years ago, if the Manhattan Pravda bothered to express its distaste for so-called nativism, it would have been in a calm, almost throwaway line or two. After all, they were only saying what "everybody" understood.
Now the paper is having a panic attack, and that's a hopeful sign, if you ask my good self. The days when its editors had only to raise an eyebrow or lift a pinky finger, and the country would get the message and fall in line, are over. Power is slipping from their grasp, acts of lèse majesté occur regularly.
These enemies of the people are being given the justice they deserve, in a form that to them is worse than a firing squad: being laughed at and not taken seriously.
Thanks, Rick. Yes, the Times' panic attack is hopeful indeed.
ReplyDeletedearieme: Comment system has been reverted at your request.
Carlos Slim has loaned the NYTimes 250 million bucks Dennis (at 14% interest). You can expect a bunch more "nativist bashing" in the ensuing year from the NYT. Slim is getting what he paid for.
ReplyDeleteIn a way, Carlos Slim is the most powerful man at the New York Times. The "borrower is servant to the lender" and all that.....
m
How is whiteness determined? How can Japanese with a white skin be nonwhite and Italians with a dark skin be white in one set of court proceedings and the reverse found in different courts on different days? When Italian immigrants landed on American shores they were outsiders: dark in complexion, culturally different, and unable to speak English.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of white has changed over time and no consensus has been formed concerning it's constiuent parts. In 1790, United States naturalization law granted citizenship to "free white persons"- which meant, mostly, those of Anglo-Saxon descent. Thus, Celtic-descended Irish immigrants were discriminated against. In the first half of the 19th century, some three million Irish emigrated to America. In the years surrounding the Civil War, the Irish became part of a white racial class. They were not the only ones who went through this evolutionary process of "becoming white".
As the U.S. population became more culturally mixed, people who came from Poland, Germany, Italy, and Greece, as well as Jews from many nations, all became, "Caucasian" whites.
Non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants and their children were the first beneficiaries of the modern civil rights movement.
Thank you, Dennis.
ReplyDeleteAs for "Thus, Celtic-descended Irish immigrants were discriminated against" - very possibly, but not for being Celts, but for (1) being Papists, and (2) being trouble.
Dennis:
ReplyDeleteAny hope you'll mention the attempt to get an E-Verify provision in the Senate version of the stimulus?
NumbersUSA is a good website for activism on this issue.
@dearieme
ReplyDeleteIn the 1880s, Woodrow Wilson wrote that southern and eastern European immigrants had "neither skill nor energy nor any initiative of quick intelligence."
Bruce Graeme: Why is it that "the definition of white" has changed? I ask that seriously, because it seems to me that, while non-Anglo-Saxon Europeans were "discriminated" against - not legally, but socially - no one ever considered them non-white. It was always a given that there were 3, maybe 4, races, white, black, yellow, and maybe red, if you just want to go by colors. And Italians and Irish, e.g., were always white.
ReplyDeleteFYI
ReplyDelete"Bruce Graeme" is either a non-white or an anti-racist white. He was exposed on another racialist web log.
His bullshit questions were answered quite thoroughly, akin to Dennis' answer on 2/07/2009 08:50:00 AM. He then slinked away after his outing.
Whiteness is simply a matter of what people believe. There is no core or essential White identity or White race. There are only popular conceptions of Whiteness. And this common knowledge, like all social beliefs, is unstable, highly contextual, and subject to change.
ReplyDelete"Nativist" is what they use when they don't want to say "racist", but that's what they mean anyway (liberal readers understand nativist = racist).
ReplyDelete"Bruce Graeme said...
ReplyDeleteWhiteness is simply a matter of what people believe. There is no core or essential White identity or White race. There are only popular conceptions of Whiteness. And this common knowledge, like all social beliefs, is unstable, highly contextual, and subject to change."
This is complete nonsense. Racial identity is not arbitrary. Race is a category which includes the following information in short-hand form: "from which place most of your ancestors are descended". One's racial makeup is genetic - it is recieved from one's ancestors, who got it from their ancestors, who got it from theirs, etc. Steve Sailer has offered this (quite workable) definition of race: a large, partially in-bred, extended family.
If you have convinced youself that the concept of "race" does not exist and is a complete fiction - a social construct, then you really have no reason for believeing that the concept of "family" exists either. In which case you must believe that the people who occupied the house where you grew up, and whom you called mother, father, brother, and sister, were not really your relations, but just those people who were assigned to live in that house by the Central Comassariat for the Distribution of Co-Dwellers.
By the way, Mr. Graeme, we're all familiar with this line of un-reasoning. It is the anti-white line of propaganda pushed by Noel Ignatieff, Tim Wise, and other promoters of "whiteness studies". So your ignorance doesn't even have the distinction of novelty. Such ridiculous beliefs about race as espoused by you are exactly what Orwell meant when he talked about "an idea so stupid that only an intellectual could have conceived of it".
"Non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants and their children" were not discriminated against. The Scots-Irish featured prominently in the ranks of the early American leadership. Neither the Scots nor the Irish are Anglo-Saxon.
ReplyDeleteYes, but... the Scots-Irish are a distinct, and Protestant, group of people who have been here from the beginning. Irish Catholics who came in the 19th century were not so highly thought of.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"Non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants and their children" were not discriminated against. The Scots-Irish featured prominently in the ranks of the early American leadership. Neither the Scots nor the Irish are Anglo-Saxon."
My understanding of the matter (derived largely from "Albion's Seed" by David Hackett Fischer) is that those people known as the scots-irish were primarily low-land scots (both from scotland directly as well as those who had settled in northern ireland). And these lowland scots were largely anglo-saxon. These, together with englishmen from the north counties are the people Fischer refers to as "the Borderers" who settled the backcountry of the original thirteen colonies. And they were mostly protestant. By and large, they were an obstreperous and troublesome lot and were not particularly beloved by the British Crown (mostly they weren't Anglican) but they were recognized as subjects, and were deemed useful in pacifying the backcountry and providing a buffer between the Indians and the colonies.
My understanding of the matter (derived largely from "Albion's Seed" by David Hackett Fischer) is that those people known as the scots-irish were primarily low-land scots (both from scotland directly as well as those who had settled in northern ireland).
ReplyDeleteYes.
And these lowland scots were largely anglo-saxon.
No, they were not Anglo-Saxon. You can tell by their names. For instance, Buchanan, as in President James Buchanan, is a Gaelic (Celtic) surname, not English (Anglish). A famous, or infamous, Ulster man of our own time is named Ian Paisley. Both the forename and surname are of Scottish origin.
The term 'anglo-saxon scot' is an oxymoron. The Scots, like the Welsh and the Irish, are Celtic by definition. You might was well say 'german japanese'.
Of course they were Celts who had converted to Protestantism, which was the important thing at the time. But within the European system of genealogy they are considered more distant relatives from the English than are the Germans. The Angles and Saxons, as I'm sure everyone knows, were Germanic tribes.
Bruce Graeme, are you familiar with the concept of "family resemblance?" Of course there is no single, unifying characteristic of "white" or "Western" or "caucasian" people, and of course the definition of these varies. Is there no such thing as Western civilization merely because some people say it encompasses classical Greek and Roman cultures, Christianity and the Enlightenment, while others say it should only includes the latter two elements, or that it must take into account other, equally important facets? Of course not. Is there really no such a thing as a "planet" or "asteroid" because the former planet Pluto and former asteroid Ceres are now designated "dwarf planets?" I recommend some later Wittgenstein to you to help you out of your language puzzle.
ReplyDeleteDennis Mangan said: " while non-Anglo-Saxon Europeans were "discriminated" against - not legally, but socially - no one ever considered them non-white."
ReplyDelete---
Congress in 1790 restricted naturalization to "white persons." At the turn of the twentieth century, American law constructed a 'white'race. Much of this had to do with keeping Blacks and Native Americans reduced to second-class members of the society. The criteria used by the courts in their efforts to determine the whiteness of some and the non-whiteness of others, were often arbitrarily.
Courts ruled that applicants from Mexico and Armenia were "white," but vacillated over the Whiteness of petitioners from Syria, India, and Arabia. Seen as a taxonomy of Whiteness, these cases reveal the imprecisions and contradictions inherent in the establishment of racial lines between White and non-Whites.
Italians were never considered fully white in America; they are not completely "white", they are olive skinned and have African ancestry. However,the federal government always considered Italians "white".
Mexican-Americans have been legally classified as white. Although white identity has been a traditional source of privilege and protection, Mexican-Americans did not receive the usual benefits of whiteness. In non-legal discourse, Mexican-Americans have been categorized as irreducibly Other and non-white.
Racial inferiority has always been ascribed to immigrants when they were used as unskilled labor. For example: Jews like to look like their host population so they marry off their daughters to the males of the host population. The offspring, having Jewish mothers, are therefore Jews and over succeeding generations look more and more like the host population. However, Jewish whiteness became 'American whiteness' only after WWII, when Jews began to speak as whites and Jewish intellectuals contrasted themselves with blacks. And if we can have Jewish white nationalists (e.g., Lawrence Auster), why not Arab white nationalists...?
---
@Martin B said: "It is the anti-white line of propaganda.."
I would like to draw your attention to the prevalence of "Nordicism" among most white nationalists. This has to do with attachments based on common habits, language, mannerisms, history, locality and shared physical traits (phenotype!). When a stoic, fair-skinned Swede looks at a gesticulating Sicilian whose skin is darker than most mulattos, do you think he cares if he and the Sicilian share the same genotype? Sharing the same genotype is NOT going to cause Northern Europeans and Southern Europeans to develop a deeply-felt attachment to one another.
Those white nationalist also consider the Irish, the Italians, the Spaniards and the Jews ("there’s no choice about the unyielding refusal to assimilate." - Michael Medved) as unassimilable white minorities.
Salut!
ReplyDeleteTo B.G.
"Italians were never considered fully white in America; they are not completely "white", they are olive skinned and have African ancestry."
0mg,No they have European ancestry,maybe little bit North African!
Dude You need go to oculist,They are Caucasoid "race" ,get over- skin is not only difference ;)
You only want split us........
You think You will tell us "crap" all time and than We start believe in that "crap",than pigs have wings and can fly,sorry We are not a You:)
@ Eshenberg:
ReplyDeleteThe term Caucasian (or Caucasoid) is normally used to describe (without regard to skin tone) the entire population of Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, West Asia and parts of North Africa and Central Asia.
Italians were never considered fully white in America; they are not completely "white", they are olive skinned and have African ancestry.
ReplyDeleteBruce, you have now exposed yourself as being ignorant of the subject matter at hand. The Italians do not have "African ancestry", and they are not even "olive skinned".
Follow this link to see what Italians look like.
http://www.prouditalians.com/
Seen as a taxonomy of Whiteness, these cases reveal the imprecisions and contradictions inherent in the establishment of racial lines between White and non-Whites.
How is that relevant to anything being discussed here? It's hardly news that racial categories blur around the edges.
Bruce Graeme, for the sake of argument lets say that an *individual* hispanic is just like an individual italian except spanish speaking and darker. That still leaves many ways that hispanic immigration in *aggregate* turns out different.
ReplyDelete1) A much larger Hispanic population as a percentage of US immigrants, resulting in a larger percentage of total US population.
2) Closer proximity to mexico.
3) Longer time-span of sustained high immigration flow
4) There's a lack of US confidence that the dominant culture is better, thus less assimilation pressure. T
5) The existence of affirmative action which gives hispanics a material interest in staying seperate.
6) Lack of white children to immerse hispanic children with, in part due to much higher white birthrates during the era of italian immigration.
See Huntington for more.
Bruce, if you want Hispanics to truly become white and prosperous then the only slim chance of that happening is through an immigration moratorium.
But just in case you don't trust me and huntington, maybe you'll trust some Hispanic sociologists at UCLA:
"Mexican American integration slow, education stalled, study finds"
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-study-of-four-generations-46372.aspx
excerpt:
"The UCLA study, released today in a Russell Sage Foundation book titled "Generations of Exclusion: Mexican Americans, Assimilation, and Race," concludes that, unlike the descendants of European immigrants to the United States, Mexican Americans have not fully integrated by the third and fourth generation."
Why do you think this happened Bruce Graeme? Is it just because americans are more oppresive today to mexicans than they were 100 years ago to those dark, part-african italians (your description)?
Also see Steve Sailer's review of the telles/ortiz work here: http://vdare.com/sailer/080601_barone.htm
Bruce Graeme,
ReplyDeleteItalians have genes from all over the place, but mainly from Europe. Most of Italy has been ruled from, or had large populations from, outside Italy at one time or another beginning in the late Empire.
I have been to Sicily -- which you would probably say is the most "African" part of Italy -- and seen quite a few blue-eyed, blond Sicilians. They are descended from northern Europeans who ruled the place at one time, can't recall offhand exactly when (everybody has taken a turn).
There is a Moorish (north African) influence, seen in some buildings in Palermo and heard in the Sicilian dialect (pasta e fagioli = "pasta fazool"). There is also much Greek blood in Sicily.
The Italian genealogy and culture are mainly European, even in Sicily, and particularly from Naples (Greek Neapolis) north.
Whereas, Mexicans except of the very upper classes are almost entirely of Indian ancestry. I don't say that is a bad thing, but it is not culturally compatible with a European-derived culture.
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"And these lowland scots were largely anglo-saxon."
No, they were not Anglo-Saxon. You can tell by their names."
After some further research into the matter, I've concluded that you are more right than I had thought, though not entirely so. The lowland scots are indeed more celtic than I had been led to believe, although there was a strong infusion of anglo-saxon people into the region as well (via the northumbrian kingdom), and probably significant inter-breeding between the two peoples. At least according to this article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/four_nations_02.shtml
Also, scottish surnames indicate some anglo-saxon influence:
http://genealogy.about.com/library/weekly/aa_scottish_surnames.htm
Numbers 1, 2, and 22 from this list of top 100 scottish surnames, Smith, Brown, and Miller, may indicate an anglo-saxon origin as they have direct analogs in german. And number 33, Martin, is I believe, a Norman name. There was also a good deal of viking influence in Scotland as well.
Bruce Graeme said...
ReplyDelete@Martin B said: "It is the anti-white line of propaganda.."
I would like to draw your attention to the prevalence of "Nordicism" among most white nationalists......Sharing the same genotype is NOT going to cause Northern Europeans and Southern Europeans to develop a deeply-felt attachment to one another.
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I don't happen to care. I am neither a nordicist, nor a "white nationalist". I am a traditionalist and I want to live in a nation of people who are substantially like me, and with whom I share a cultural commonality. Very few, if any, of the people who post here, or read Sailer, or Auster, or Vdare, are "nordicists". What you're thinking of are nazis. And outside of the the fevered imaginations of the SPLC and the producers of public TV documentaries, there just aren't many of those clowns. And of the ones there are, probably half of them are FBI snitches.
And I can tell you that I will probably feel more affinity for any random italian, spaniard, or bulgarian than I would for any random guatemalan.
So once again, you are wrong.
Rick: it was the Normans who ruled Sicily from about the 11th to 13th centuries. Ages ago I knew a blond-haired blue-eyed Lebanese. It seems that some northerners (Vikings) got out that way as well.
ReplyDeleteMartin wrote: "I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I don't happen to care. I am neither a nordicist, nor a "white nationalist". I am a traditionalist and I want to live in a nation of people who are substantially like me, and with whom I share a cultural commonality."
That was well put. All this splitting of hairs as to who does or does not constitute white/European concerns me not at all either. As far as immigration is concerned, the most important factor is the numbers. Good people of other races will work in small numbers. For instance, California has long had a small Japanese minority who, IMO, have been nothing but good for the state. Ten million or even one million of them and we would be talking a separate cultural identity with resultant damage to cultural unity. OTOH, small numbers of some groups, like Muslims, we do not need at all.
But we are so far from that situation now, with tens of millions of illegal Latinos, that an all but complete halt to immigration is needed.
A couple of off-topic observations:
ReplyDeleteWhen driving from London to Beirut in 1974 [just about the last time that journey could be made without innumerable hassles due to conflicts like the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the Lebanese Civil War] I picked up two members of the Syrian Secret Police [at the border with Turkey & the customs officer whispered that they were 'Baathists' in Arabic/French] and dropped them off in Latakia on the Syrian coast. When I asked why everyone I saw on the streets was tall, blond, and blue-eyed, they mentioned that the population was largely descended from Crusaders who decided to stay behind and convert [many to Alawite Shi'ism] rather than return to frigid northern Europe!
Also, didn't Congress while residing in York, PA, during the Revolutionary War come within one vote of making German the national language, it being at the time the language of poets and musicians?
The only die-hard supporters of the Revolution during Valley Forge [except New Englanders] were supposedly the German-Americans and Irish papists, who disliked the Brits for different reasons and stayed in the Continental Army [the Germans were useful in getting food and fodder & scrounging from the Deutsch-speaking locals, the Irish hated the British for the usual reasons].
Martin B
ReplyDeleteRe: top Scottish surnames, that is data from today. What's more important to this debate is the situtation 250 years ago, when the Scots-Irish were immigrating to America.
Given that the Scots-Irish in America have always had a distinct identity of their own I don't see what's to be gained by trying to conflate them with any other group, including the English. The reason why New England is New England and the Appalachian states are the Appalachian states can be traced back to the different people who settled them hundreds of years ago.
If the Scots-Irish were Anglo-Saxon (which as I said is an oxymoron) then you are left to wonder why they behave so differently. Because it's not too much of an exaggeration to say that the whole North/South split which has divided the country since it's beginning has been a manifestation of the cultural divide between the Anglo-Saxons and the Scots-Irish.
"dave in boca said...
ReplyDeleteAlso, didn't Congress while residing in York, PA, during the Revolutionary War come within one vote of making German the national language, it being at the time the language of poets and musicians?"
No, as explained here:
http://www.us-english.org/view/12
That this myth has the traction it has is astonishing given that it does not pass the most rudimentary smell-test. The overwhelming majority of people (the whites, that is) in the 13 colonies spoke english. Why would they ever propose to adopt a foreign language? They were no more likely to do that then, as we would be now to adopt French as our official language.
"Anonymous said...
Martin B
If the Scots-Irish were Anglo-Saxon (which as I said is an oxymoron)...."
No, it isn't. They (at least some of them) had some anglo-saxon heritage. This is quite obvious as they spoke English - which is you know essentially anglo-saxon. Language patterns usually - indeed, perhaps always - follow intermarriage patterns. If the scots-irish spoke english, it must be because they had some significant anglo-saxon lineage.
".....then you are left to wonder why they behave so differently. Because it's not too much of an exaggeration to say that the whole North/South split which has divided the country since it's beginning has been a manifestation of the cultural divide between the Anglo-Saxons and the Scots-Irish."
"The reason why New England is New England and the Appalachian states are the Appalachian states can be traced back to the different people who settled them hundreds of years ago."
But there are different kinds of englishman. Why were (are) Massachusetts and Virginia so different? They were both settled by Englishmen? Yes, but different Englishmen. Just as the backcountry was settled by Scotsmen and Englishmen (different englishmen from either the puritans or New England or the cavaliers of the coastal south) who had much more in common with each other than with any other people of the British Isles.
Hackett referred to the people who settled the appalachians as "Borderers", i.e. those who lived on either side of the Scottish/English border. Some considered themselves Scots, some considered themselves English. They had much in common, as they shared a common history of almost never-ending strife. They were independent, prideful, cussed, and by the 17th century overwhelmingly protestant (non-anglican).
Someone should tell the Irish,French and Polish
ReplyDeleterevolutionary war officers they were not "white.".
I think I understand what some
commentors are getting at and
how there can be a backlash of a
large unassimilated group, but
this discourse is far too simplistic. If class transcends
whiteness (as it did w/ those
officers) than "whiteness" is
very insubstantial indeed.
They (at least some of them) had some anglo-saxon heritage. This is quite obvious as they spoke English
ReplyDeleteAll the modern Irish and Scottish speak English. By your logic this indicates Anglo-Saxon genetic heritage. All modern Americans speak English (some Hispanics excepted). By your logic this indicates that they all share a common Anglo-Saxon genetic hertiage.
I don't really understand why you are so emotionally attached to an idea which is obviously false, but if you so badly want to believe it, carry on.
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteAll the modern Irish and Scottish speak English. By your logic this indicates Anglo-Saxon genetic heritage."
Yes, some. Isn't that obvious? They all lived together on a tight little island for hundreds of years. On occasion a Scotsman and and an Angle or Saxon woman probably made whoopee, or vice-versa. So their descendents would be both.
What about the english? They are called "anglo-saxon", and yet the place was originally inhabited by celtic britons. The Angles and the Saxons were mean dudes, but they surely didn't kill off every Briton (especially the women). So the english are a mix of celtic and low-german peoples. As are the lowland Scots (the highland Scots less so, as they were more isolated). I'm not saying that the lowland Scots were not celtic, I'm just saying they were not just celtic.
This seems perfectly reaonable to me, and is not obviously false, as you assert. What evidence other than your assertion do you offer as proof of your contention? The Scots-Irish must be completely celtic because they're called Scots-Irish? Are frenchmen completely german because they are named after a german tribe (the Franks)? Are people from Lombardy in northern Italy german because they are named for a german tribe? For that matter, the Scots-Irish were not particularly Irish. The ones who were in Ireland were transplanted Scots.
Honestly, I don't think I'm the one who's emotionally attached to an idea here.