The reason people misunderstand Ignatieff's portrayal of the Irish is that it is not politically correct but still an accurate reflection (as summarized in the Irish union statements, writings, and memoirs of the time) of the Irish rage at being the working class of 1800's America. Many would hold a strike if a factory owner hired an African American (freeman). This highlights the psychic dischord between the reality of being at the bottom of the social barrel and the comfort a RACIAL HIERARCHY offered this ethnic working class.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike33
I'll check them. The first book seems to have struck a chord, good and bad with readers. Some of the harsher critics (reviews from online readers):
"I picked up this book hoping to have a better understanding of the Irish past, and all I got was a racist slant on an otherwise abused people. It is sad that even in the modern day the Irish must still deal with racist garbage like this. Mr. Ignatiev should try reading more on the Irish before writing a book of half-truths and presumptions."
"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."
|