Rating: 
Summary: Under Your Skin
Review: Ignatiev tells the tangled, tattered history of Irish-black relations in America in the 30 years or so leading up to the Civil War. It shows how the Irish used labor unions and the Democratic Party to elevate themselves in the stratified American republic. At first, the white protestant majority in America made little distinction between Irish immigrants and free blacks -- it scorned them both. But by emphasizing racism, leaders of the Irish-American community were able to swing themselves over to the side of the dominant class, to the horror of their brethren in Ireland, who identified the slaves' struggles for emancipation with their own battles against English rule.
Rating: 
Summary: Dark Side of Irish America
Review: Ignatiev's brief work documents a rough and unpleasant aspect of urban Irish America in the nineteenth century, its racism. It shouldn't be too surprising to any student of Irish history that an essentially conservative Irish peasantry, transplanted to America, maintained a cultural, rather than class-based, solidarity. Paradoxically, for many, this meant adopting the same racist attitudes towards African-Americans as their own nativist tormentors. Ignatiev's study is sober and well-researched. For those who can get around the enthusiastic back cover endorsement by Mumia Abu-Jamal, and the occasional obtuse side arguments with other socialist scholars, this is a valuable contribution to the history of race relations and the Irish diaspora.
Rating: 
Summary: How Ignatiev Condemned the Irish for Racism in America
Review: Im always struck by how ignorant academia is of race, class, and ethnic relations in America. Although it is true the Irish suffered for centuries under English (British) rule and were treated horribly in America, intermarriage and cultural similarities probably had more to do with their integration into WASP society than a concerted, organized effort to keep blacks down. Just as the Irish were blamed for all sorts of social ills in the 19th Century: violence, alcoholism, orphans, ghettoes, crime, etc., now Ignatiev wants to blame racism on the Irish. Having white skin clearly worked to the advantage of the Irish and many gained acceptance in a Protestant, Anglo Saxon nation but Ignatiev goes too far in judging and generalizing the entire Irish race when many fought against slavery, racism and inequality, especially in labor. Ignatiev seems to have a bone to pick with the Irish, heaven knows they have been oppressed and ridiculed enough already!
Rating:
Summary: excelent book
Review: noel ignatiev's book "how the Irish became white" is not necessarily a new idea. it has been written about before. ronald takaki wrote about it a different mirror. while, it's true this is nothing you learn about in school, it's been a well held belief about the irish relationship with african-americans. also, ignatiev's book is much better researched.
as an irish american i am not offended by ignatiev's book. certainly, there is much more to this book than how the "big bad Irish" treated african-americans. ignatiev doesn't reduce this book to such a simple theory. the story of the success of the Irish is too great to reduce it to such a simplistic view. the irish were a people that were so tired of being abused that they were willing to achieve success on any terms. luckily, for the irish they had white skin, and used that to their advantage in the democratic party. the story of the irish is the greatest success story in american history. all ignatiev does is portray an honest portrayal of the irish success story. he doesn't say that the irish got ahead just at the expense of blacks, but that it was one factor. too often that the irish look at themselves as being victimized. but it's also important to look at ourselves honestly as well: good with the bad.
Rating:
Summary: Those Troubling Irish
Review: Noel Ignatiev. How the Irish Became White Ignatiev�s stated purpose, in the broadest sense, in writing this work, was an attempt to examine immigrant assimilation and the evolution of an American working class. On a narrower level he sought to divine why the Irish Catholics, an oppressed race in their own land, became part of an oppressor race in the United States. His thesis is that the Irish immigrant made a conscious decision to adopt Anglo-Saxon racism in order to gain a foot up in a competitive society -- to the disadvantage of Afro-Americans and the frustration of the formation of a united working class in America. He failed in his attempt on both accounts.
Eric Foner is a Marxist historian. Ignatiev is a wannabe. Foner marshals his evidence, ignores the irrelevant, and analyses the meaningful from a leftist prospective. Ignatiev amasses a great deal of stuff, is unable to cull the meaningless and, without any sense of organization, tries to cram the results into his fevered preconceptions of racial relations in the nineteenth century. The result would be comical if in doing so he had not slandered an oppressed people striving to enter the American working class against all odds. �
Ignatiev created a racial construct -- the Irish � that fails to account for the substantial differences and interests between the Irish in America and those in Ireland, between Irish-Americans and native-born Irish, and between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants. Much of Ignatiev�s evidence relates to events prior to the Great Famine and the mass migration of destitute Irish Catholics to America. The net effect of this conglomeration is to obscure and to trivialize the struggle of Irish Catholics to climb out of the depths of poverty while burdening them with the racial and religious bigotry of their former oppressors. He criticizes the Irish for not taking up the abolitionist cause and labels them as racists for their failure to do so. Ignatiev seems unaware that a substantial number of abolitionists were white supremacists who believed that the superior Anglo-Saxon race abased itself by enslaving the inferior black race. It never occurred to Ignatiev that the apparent indifference of the Irish immigrants to slavery was not motivated by racism but that these people, engaged in a hand to mouth struggle for survival, were trying to avoid the stigma of �No Irish Need Apply.� �
Ignatiev�s publisher makes the claim that the author reveals �how the Irish used labor unions, the Catholic Church and the Democratic party to help gain and secure their newly found place in the White Republic.� This assertion raises the question of whether or not the publisher ever read this work for there is not one reference to the Catholic Church and its myriad institutions of charity and education which the Irish Catholics both established and exploited in order to raise themselves from poverty to membership in the working class and beyond. �
It is said that the empty drum resonates the loudest. Ignatiev at every opportunity, in this work and elsewhere, proclaims his abhorrence for racism. Racism, that is, as demonstrated by others. Indeed he is so busy berating others he fails to note the mote in his own eye. Witness Ignatiev�s stereotyping of the Irish. Huck-Finn must have been Irish because his father was the town drunk. [p. 58.] Witness Ignatiev�s belittling of the contribution of Irish born volunteers fighting for the Union in the Civil War. � The number of Irish who took part in the [New York draft] riots was not less than the number who wore the blue uniform.� [p. 88.] According to official records more than one hundred thousand native born Irish fought for the North in that war, thousands of whom died in combat. According to Iver Bernstein in The New York City Draft Riots, a source favorably cited by Ignatiev, there was far fewer people engaged in those riots, Irish immigrants, German immigrants and native-born Americans combined. �
In summation the book fails both as a work of history and social commentary. It adds nothing, save confusion, to what Theodore W. Allen had already written in 1994, about Irish Catholic immigrants in the final two chapters of his work The Invention of the White Race.
Rating:
Summary: Those Troubling Irish
Review: Noel Ignatiev. How the Irish Became White Ignatiev's stated purpose, in the broadest sense, in writing this work, was an attempt to examine immigrant assimilation and the evolution of an American working class. On a narrower level he sought to divine why the Irish Catholics, an oppressed race in their own land, became part of an oppressor race in the United States. His thesis is that the Irish immigrant made a conscious decision to adopt Anglo-Saxon racism in order to gain a foot up in a competitive society -- to the disadvantage of Afro-Americans and the frustration of the formation of a united working class in America. He failed in his attempt on both accounts.
Eric Foner is a Marxist historian. Ignatiev is a wannabe. Foner marshals his evidence, ignores the irrelevant, and analyses the meaningful from a leftist prospective. Ignatiev amasses a great deal of stuff, is unable to cull the meaningless and, without any sense of organization, tries to cram the results into his fevered preconceptions of racial relations in the nineteenth century. The result would be comical if in doing so he had not slandered an oppressed people striving to enter the American working class against all odds. '
Ignatiev created a racial construct -- the Irish ' that fails to account for the substantial differences and interests between the Irish in America and those in Ireland, between Irish-Americans and native-born Irish, and between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants. Much of Ignatiev's evidence relates to events prior to the Great Famine and the mass migration of destitute Irish Catholics to America. The net effect of this conglomeration is to obscure and to trivialize the struggle of Irish Catholics to climb out of the depths of poverty while burdening them with the racial and religious bigotry of their former oppressors. He criticizes the Irish for not taking up the abolitionist cause and labels them as racists for their failure to do so. Ignatiev seems unaware that a substantial number of abolitionists were white supremacists who believed that the superior Anglo-Saxon race abased itself by enslaving the inferior black race. It never occurred to Ignatiev that the apparent indifference of the Irish immigrants to slavery was not motivated by racism but that these people, engaged in a hand to mouth struggle for survival, were trying to avoid the stigma of 'No Irish Need Apply.' '
Ignatiev's publisher makes the claim that the author reveals 'how the Irish used labor unions, the Catholic Church and the Democratic party to help gain and secure their newly found place in the White Republic.' This assertion raises the question of whether or not the publisher ever read this work for there is not one reference to the Catholic Church and its myriad institutions of charity and education which the Irish Catholics both established and exploited in order to raise themselves from poverty to membership in the working class and beyond. '
It is said that the empty drum resonates the loudest. Ignatiev at every opportunity, in this work and elsewhere, proclaims his abhorrence for racism. Racism, that is, as demonstrated by others. Indeed he is so busy berating others he fails to note the mote in his own eye. Witness Ignatiev's stereotyping of the Irish. Huck-Finn must have been Irish because his father was the town drunk. [p. 58.] Witness Ignatiev's belittling of the contribution of Irish born volunteers fighting for the Union in the Civil War. ' The number of Irish who took part in the [New York draft] riots was not less than the number who wore the blue uniform.' [p. 88.] According to official records more than one hundred thousand native born Irish fought for the North in that war, thousands of whom died in combat. According to Iver Bernstein in The New York City Draft Riots, a source favorably cited by Ignatiev, there was far fewer people engaged in those riots, Irish immigrants, German immigrants and native-born Americans combined. '
In summation the book fails both as a work of history and social commentary. It adds nothing, save confusion, to what Theodore W. Allen had already written in 1994, about Irish Catholic immigrants in the final two chapters of his work The Invention of the White Race.
Rating: 
Summary: Solid look at America's caste system
Review: Overlook the author's Marxism and overreliance on sources from Philadelphia and you have a book that resonates even today -- how immigrants fleeing oppression trade off their principles in exchange for a place above the bottom of America's racial caste system. It applies to Hispanics in the Southwest today and Asians in inner city stores.
Rating:
Summary: Irish are like Indians too
Review: Some people think that the Irish held the black man down. Not unlike how people accuse us Hindus of holding Muslims down. My message to radicals like Ignatiev is "Who taught you how to make mashed potatoes?" Thats right, the Irish. And who taught the Muslims to make lentils? Thats right, the Hindus.
Rating:
Summary: Get a clue.
Review: Taking Ignatiev seriously will only anger you. Here is another Harvard professor trying to cause controversy and media for himself. Mr. Ignatiev attacks the Irish and blames them for the ills of the black man and pretty much calls them cowards for turning what he calls "White", His use of arcane 18th century material fails to grasp the Irish in there true immigrant form; for that we need to study the 1840's and the Irish genocide. Save your money and do not line the pockets of an Irish Hater.
ERIN GO BRAGH!!!
Rating:
Summary: Perhaps, there's something ELSE to be learned...
Review: The Irish starved in Ireland, the Irish worked (and starved) in our coal mines, they served in our Civil War and yet, through decades of opression in the United States, they were still able to find a way to make life more comfortable for this generation. How? Good old-fashioned hard work (for the most part. Molly Maguires don't count). There's no conspiracy against the blacks or Hispanics. The Irish were poor, looking for jobs, got jobs (the lowest paying ones at that), found opportunities and ran with them. That's all there is to it and I don't see how it can be interpreted as anything but a triumph over poverty.
|
