Category Archives: article

The Invisible Minority: Unraveling the Anglo-Irish Identity Conundrum in the UK

In the mid-1970s, as an Anglo-Irish lad on the grimy streets of Birmingham, I learnt early that the sharp cut of prejudice and discrimination ran deep. I was schooled not only in mathematics and English but also in the raw lessons of hate – that being Irish in England was equivalent to being the “other”, an undesirable. Yet, today, when discussions of racism and ethnic minorities rear their head in the UK, the plight of the Anglo-Irish community is conspicuously absent. We are neither acknowledged for the hate we bore nor included in the efforts towards ethnic diversity and inclusion. It is as if we, who have endured the harsh sting of bigotry, are invisible.

During the dark periods of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, the Anglo-Irish were discriminated against ruthlessly. Job postings brazenly sported signs “No Irish need apply”. Bricks were thrown through windows of Irish homes and crude caricatures of us flooded the newspapers, accentuating our ‘otherness’ with brutal clarity. We were demeaned, dehumanised and treated as second-class citizens. The echoes of this era still linger, and yet, they are largely forgotten.

We have been conveniently erased from the narrative of ethnic minorities in the UK. As society rightly fights for the rights of those facing discrimination based on their race, ethnicity or religion, why are the Anglo-Irish left out of this crucial conversation?

The problem is twofold. Firstly, it’s a matter of definition. The UK’s Equality Act 2010 defines ethnic minorities concerning race, colour, nationality and ethnic or national origins. The Irish, whether from Northern Ireland or the Republic, are deemed as ‘White’ under these categories, and so, despite the historical and ongoing discrimination, we are not officially recognised as an ethnic minority.

Secondly, there’s a potent cultural amnesia at play. The collective memory of the Irish diaspora’s historical suffering in the UK seems to have been conveniently set aside. This intentional forgetfulness doesn’t make sense unless it is seen as a part of the larger project of concealing inconvenient histories and avoiding difficult conversations.

Are we to forget the Birmingham pub bombings of 1974, or the Guildford pub bombings the same year? The consequent rampant anti-Irish sentiment was no less racially charged than the horrors we see today, inflicted on other ethnic minorities. Does our paler skin or our geographic proximity to England make our suffering less valid?

Let it be clear – we do not seek to compete in an oppression Olympics. Rather, we seek recognition of our past, inclusion in the present, and safeguards for our future. We cannot build an inclusive society by picking and choosing the stories we wish to remember and the histories we wish to acknowledge.

Inclusion and equality should not be a selective process, and the silencing of the Anglo-Irish community’s past and present experiences is a disservice to the principles of fairness that the UK purports to uphold. Ethnic minorities are not simply those who are visibly different, but those who have been marginalised, demeaned and treated as less than equal, based on their ethnic, national or racial backgrounds.

In this light, the neglect of the Anglo-Irish community is not only a historical failing; it’s a present failing of our societal conscience. If we are to truly strive for a diverse, equal and inclusive society, then the struggles and the experiences of all ethnic minorities, including the Anglo-Irish, should be acknowledged, understood and tackled.

The road to a fairer society is bumpy and difficult, but it is one we must all tread. We need a paradigm shift in the understanding of ethnicity, one that recognises the experiences of discrimination, prejudice, and hatred that are not bound by the colour of one’s skin but are anchored in the collective cultural memory of being the ‘other’. The narrative must change; the Anglo-Irish should not be made to feel that they are ‘less than’ any other ethnic group. We must ensure that the wider society acknowledges our historical struggles, understands our unique cultural heritage, and accepts our place in the mosaic of multicultural Britain.

Acknowledging the Anglo-Irish community as an ethnic minority is not an exercise in tokenism. Rather, it represents a fundamental principle of equality – that all who have suffered discrimination and prejudice based on their ethnicity are entitled to be seen, heard and protected. To exclude the Anglo-Irish is to dismiss a vital chapter of the UK’s complex multicultural narrative. It is to undermine the efforts towards creating a society where all its members, regardless of their ethnic or racial background, are treated with respect and dignity.

The Anglo-Irish, despite decades of enduring prejudice, have contributed immensely to the UK in myriad ways, from arts and literature to politics and science. The James Joyces and the Oscar Wildes are part of the cultural DNA of this land as much as any other ethnic minority. To overlook this is to rob the UK of a rich tapestry of diversity and dynamism.

The painful legacy of prejudice against the Irish in Britain is a stark reminder of the suffering that can result from intolerance and misunderstanding. Yet, the silence surrounding the discrimination faced by the Anglo-Irish today perpetuates this injustice. By excluding us from the discussions on ethnicity and minority rights, the UK fails not only the Irish but all those committed to the cause of equality and diversity.

So, I ask, not merely as an angry yet hopeful Anglo-Irish man in his fifties, but as a member of this intricate tapestry we call Britain, don’t allow our narrative to dissolve into the annals of obscurity, that our story not be swept under the rug. Our shared history must not be a spectre that haunts us, rather it should be the compass that guides us, pointing towards a horizon of inclusivity and acceptance.

The Anglo-Irish story, imbued with strife and endurance, deserves more than a footnote in the grand volume of Britain’s multicultural narrative. Our voices need to reverberate in the halls of discussions on ethnicity, diversity, and minority rights. The mosaic of Britain’s multicultural society, resplendent in its varied hues, can only be seen in its entirety when every piece is honoured. To neglect even one piece is to distort the integrity of the whole.

Because, who among us, would willingly embrace a Britain that is less than it can be? Who would be content to inhabit a Britain that doesn’t echo with the diverse voices of its people? The strength of Britain lies in its ability to embrace all its narratives, to give voice to each of its citizens. Our collective future depends on our ability to acknowledge our collective past.

It’s time the Anglo-Irish narrative became an integral part of Britain’s multicultural symphony, not a forgotten refrain. It’s time we lived in a Britain that is, in every sense of the word, whole.




The Inadvertent Blindspot: BAME and BIPOC Labels in the UK

The categorisation of people based on their ethnicity has always been a contentious issue, often leading to impassioned debates and, at times, spirited disagreements. In the United Kingdom, acronyms like BAME (Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic) and BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour) are widely used to signify non-white individuals or groups. While these terms aim to encompass diversity and foster inclusivity, they inadvertently create an exclusionary dichotomy that leaves some communities, like the Anglo-Irish, on the periphery.

Despite their laudable intent, these terms are binary in nature, differentiating people into the broad categories of ‘white’ and ‘non-white’. This oversimplification fails to consider the intricate historical and socio-cultural dynamics that have shaped people’s experiences and identities.

Take, for instance, the Anglo-Irish community. Historically, this group has faced significant discrimination and prejudice in the UK. Despite this, they are typically categorised as ‘white’ and, therefore, left out of discussions about ethnic minority rights and racial discrimination. This omission underscores the inherent shortcomings of terms like BAME and BIPOC. By ignoring the Anglo-Irish community’s unique experiences of marginalisation and ‘othering’, these labels inadvertently perpetuate a form of racism by exclusion.

The Anglo-Irish are not alone in this predicament. There are other communities of ‘white’ ethnic minorities, such as Eastern Europeans, who face similar situations. The broad-brush approach embodied in terms like BAME and BIPOC overlooks these nuances, failing to capture the richness of people’s diverse experiences and backgrounds.

However, the solution is not simply to expand the acronym. Instead, we must acknowledge the limitations of any categorisation system that attempts to encapsulate the vast complexity of human diversity within a few letters. We must push for a more nuanced understanding of ethnicity that recognises the unique histories, experiences, and struggles of all ethnic minorities, not just those who are visibly different.

The challenge lies in striking a balance between acknowledging shared experiences of racism among different ethnic groups while also recognising the distinct histories and challenges faced by each community. While BAME and BIPOC may serve as useful shorthand in certain contexts, they should not be allowed to erase the unique struggles and experiences of any community, including the Anglo-Irish.

Only by understanding and addressing these nuances can we foster a truly inclusive society where every voice is heard, and every story is acknowledged.

Differences between the Traditional Missal and the New Missal in the Catholic Church

The major differences between the Traditional Missal (also known as the Tridentine Mass or the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite) and the New Missal (also known as the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite) in the Catholic Church are as follows:

  1. Language: The Traditional Missal is typically celebrated in Latin, while the New Missal is commonly celebrated in the vernacular language of the local region (e.g., English, Spanish, etc.). However, the Traditional Mass can also be celebrated in the vernacular with the permission of the local bishop.
  2. Liturgical Form: The Traditional Missal follows the liturgical form codified by Pope St. Pius V after the Council of Trent in 1570, while the New Missal was promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969 as a result of the Second Vatican Council. The Traditional Missal retains the pre-Vatican II form, while the New Missal introduced significant changes to the liturgy.
  3. Priest’s Position: In the Traditional Missal, the priest typically faces the altar, with his back to the congregation. This is commonly referred to as celebrating “ad orientem” (towards the east), symbolizing the orientation towards God. In the New Missal, the priest typically faces the congregation, celebrating “versus populum” (facing the people).
  4. Structure and Prayers: The structure and prayers of the Mass differ between the two missals. The Traditional Missal follows a more elaborate and ritualistic form, with prayers and gestures that have been handed down over centuries. The New Missal simplifies some of the prayers and introduces new options for certain parts of the Mass. The overall structure remains similar, but there are differences in the arrangement of prayers and the inclusion of additional options.
  5. Readings: In the Traditional Missal, the readings from the Epistle and Gospel are generally in Latin, and the readings themselves are usually prescribed for specific days. In the New Missal, the readings from the Epistle and Gospel are typically in the vernacular language, and a three-year cycle of readings is followed, allowing for a wider selection of biblical passages.

It’s important to note that both forms of the Mass are recognized and valid within the Catholic Church, and the choice between them is often a matter of personal preference or pastoral considerations. Pope Benedict XVI, in 2007, issued a document called “Summorum Pontificum,” which allowed for a wider celebration of the Traditional Missal within the Church, affirming its continued relevance and significance.

Dystopian Novels Compared… Orwell vs. Huxley

“Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley and “1984” by George Orwell are two of the most well-known dystopian novels, each painting a bleak picture of a future society controlled by a totalitarian regime. While both novels depict a world where individual freedom is curtailed, they approach the theme in different ways, with “Brave New World” focusing on a society where people are manipulated into compliance through pleasure and conditioning, while “1984” portrays a world where fear, surveillance, and brute force are used to maintain control.

Continue reading

Comparing “Jeeves” & “Marlow” Writing Styles

P.G. Wodehouse’s “Jeeves” stories and Raymond Chandler’s “Marlow” stories are two works of fiction that are often contrasted for their distinct writing styles. Wodehouse’s “Jeeves” stories are known for their witty, light-hearted humour and use of sophisticated language. In contrast, Chandler’s “Marlow” stories are characterized by their hard-boiled detective style, with a focus on crime and violence in a rough, urban environment.

Continue reading

Joyce’s “Ulysses” vs. Miller’s “Tropic of Cancer”

James Joyce’s Ulysses and Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer are two significant works of modern literature that reflect the change in prose writing style during the early 20th century. The former represents a complex, experimental and modernist style of writing, while the latter represents a straightforward, direct and realist style of writing. This essay will compare and contrast the prose writing style in Ulysses with the realist writing style of Tropic of Cancer with examples.

Continue reading

Emojis as punctuation

Introduction

Punctuation is an essential aspect of written language, guiding the reader’s understanding of the text’s intended meaning and conveying the author’s tone and emphasis. It has evolved over time and changed with the development of written language and printing technology. In this article, we will explore the history and evolution of punctuation from classical antiquity to modern times, including obsolete punctuation marks and the emergence of emojis as a new form of punctuation.

Punctuation in Classical Antiquity

Punctuation in the classical era was minimal, and the earliest forms of punctuation consisted of spaces between words. However, as written language became more complex, more punctuation marks emerged. In ancient Greece, punctuation marks such as the percontation point (⸮) and the coronis (a half-circle) were used to indicate questions and conclusions, respectively. The Greeks also used the hypodiastole (a vertical line) to mark the end of a sentence.

Middle Ages and the Age of Reason

During the Middle Ages and the Age of Reason, punctuation continued to evolve. In the ninth century, the Catholic Church introduced punctuation to aid in the reading of scripture. Punctuation marks such as the punctus (a dot), virgula (a comma), and the punctus elevatus (an upward-pointing arrow) were used to indicate different pauses and intonations. In the fourteenth century, the Italian poet Petrarch introduced the use of the modern comma, colon, and period.

Rise of the Printing Press and Modern Era

The invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century revolutionized the written word and made books and manuscripts more widely available. This led to standardization in punctuation, and printers created new punctuation marks such as the asterism (a star) and printers’ flowers (ornamental marks). The development of the printing press also popularized the use of the modern exclamation point and quotation marks.

Obsolete Punctuation Marks

Some punctuation marks used in the past are no longer in use, such as the pilcrow (¶), which was used in medieval manuscripts to mark the beginning of a new paragraph, and the manicule (☞), a pointing hand used to indicate important text. Other obsolete punctuation marks include the diple (a double vertical line) and the percontation point mentioned earlier.

Emojis as a New Form of Punctuation

In recent years, emojis have emerged as a new form of punctuation. Emojis can convey tone and emotion in a way that traditional punctuation cannot. They have become so popular that in 2015, the Oxford English Dictionary named the “Face with Tears of Joy” emoji its Word of the Year. Emojis can also replace words in a sentence and change the meaning of a message entirely. For example, a simple “thumbs up” emoji can replace the phrase “I agree,” and a “fire” emoji can indicate something is excellent or exciting.

Conclusion

In conclusion, punctuation has come a long way since its earliest forms in classical antiquity. The development of written language, printing technology, and the rise of the digital age have all influenced the evolution of punctuation. While some punctuation marks have become obsolete, new forms such as emojis have emerged. Emojis, in particular, are changing the way we communicate and adding new dimensions to written language. They may not replace traditional punctuation marks entirely, but they certainly offer a new way to express ourselves in the written word.