Kenny – Popular Politics in Early America

November 7, 2013

"Without enough sleep, we all become tall two-year olds."-Jojo Jenson

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

According to an extensive academic study conducted by BroBible (http://www.brobible.com/sports/article/10-most-hateable-fan-bases-college-football/page-2), Notre Dame Irish football fans are the most hated fans in the country. While college football seemingly has nothing to do with either of these articles, the hatred behind the Irish, specifically the Irish-Catholic at least runs along the same lines as both of these articles. As I read through the “‘No Irish Need Apply’: A Myth of Victimization,” I felt Richard Jenson’s research was thorough, yet quite selective. I agree with his overall argument, but not necessarily the method he used as justification. Initially, his argument focused on the lack of a visible NINA sign as justification for the myth of victimization felt by Irish during the period and many subsequent generations later. I kept reading, however, and warmed up to his argument when he discussed the economic plight of the Irish, which was what I thought he lacked initially. As is my understanding of Irish immigration, a massive wave occurred concurrently with the potato famine. Why were so many Irish migrating? They left their homeland because they were tired, hungry, and poor. They were the wretched refuse that Emma Lazarus later described in her poem “A New Colossus”. These immigrants came to this country with nothing, so they probably did not fit the traditional mold of a white settler from the Old World. I would imagine that these newcomers were shunned due to their extreme poverty rather than their Irish heritage, but at this time, the two were interwoven and topped off with Catholicism. Furthermore, Jenson uses many diverse geographic and time periods to create his argument. For the most part, and where I think his argument holds the most weight, Jenson discusses Irish encounters in New York City during the mid-1800s. He continues, however, by bringing up farmers in Iowa and treatment of Irish in Brooklyn. While these statistics and narratives have their place in history, it is not in this article. Another point of contention that Jenson makes describes the relationship the Irish had with African-Americans and the Chinese. He says the Irish “repeatedly attacked employers who hired African-Americans or Chinese.” (415) Did he think that maybe the Irish attacked these groups to “fit in” with other whites? Or maybe they attacked these employers because the Irish were on strike and members from either of these two races worked for cheaper thereby nulling the Irish strike? I understand he’s saying that the Irish weren’t attacked, but they were white. Irish or not, violence against whites was more frowned upon than violence against another race during this period. I just don’t buy a lot of his arguments. One of his strongest details alludes to the lack of socioeconomic mobility of the Irish. Granted this is all my speculation without additional research, but I think this restricted mobility refers back to the problem of being a penniless, hungry immigrant who is willing to work anywhere that puts food on the table. The Irish stuck together as a group, so people in the neighborhood helped others get jobs where they were working; therefore, (because Irishmen were helping Irishmen get jobs) the Irish dominated the fields of work, specifically as canal workers and longshoremen. I agree much more with Kevin Kenny’s article, “Race, Violence, and Anti-Irish Sentiment in the Nineteenth Century” which can be discussed further in class. I also agree with Wade’s comments about Kenny’s article. I didn’t notice until reading Wade’s post that I enjoyed Kenny’s clarity and consistency over Jenson’s arguments. I just didn’t think Jenson used appropriate justification, as I’ve already said, and his arguments were more jumbled and not flowing chronologically. Is that Vince Vaughn in the background of Lamo’s picture? Let’s embrace that as well.

November 6, 2013

The Irish were More than Just Violent

In “Race, Violence, and Anti-Irish Sentiment in the Nineteenth Century,” Kevin Kenny contends that racism towards the Irish in America stems from a concern for their tendency to violence, which originated from a complex background. He supports this notion well, however I feel that he hints at other factors of Irish racism that have the potential to be just as significant as their tendency towards violence. Based on Kenny’s evidence, there is no doubt that skin color and the simple fact that they were foreign was not the stem of the attitude towards them, as there were many other “white” immigrants from other countries who were not portrayed in such a negative fashion. He did hint at other factors that I feel should have been given more importance such as their sheer numbers in immigration and their lack of skill, among others.

Kenny noted that the Irish made up somewhere between one-third and one-half of the immigrant population, and that they became the face of any negative attitudes towards immigrants. This fact and claim are simply too significant to only mention in Kenny’s article. If this was the case, how were the Irish similar to other immigrants? After all, if the Germans deserved similar discrimination, as he alluded to on page 367, the German immigrant population should have had similar qualities as the Irish immigrant population. Kenny’s inclusion of the Irish being used as a scapegoat for the immigrant population as a whole left me wanting more support, with more questions than answers.

Kenny also noted that the Irish population, in large, arrived with a lack of skill. They therefore came to work in unskilled, low pay jobs. They could then have been used as strike breakers, as they were willing to work for low wages. This also allowed them to easily find work, discrediting the notion that they were discriminated against in the workplace. Although Kenny did not make claims that left me wanting more, I found myself wondering about other skill-related factors. For example, could the more well-to-do members of American society looked down upon the Irish because they felt they had no real ability? If so, this idea of the Irish as unable to do skilled work could have contributed to racism toward the Irish while having no factor towards workplace discrimination, as these unskilled jobs were still needed.

I feel that other factors could have been elaborated upon, such as CT’s mention of the direction of racially based stereotypes towards men rather than women. Perhaps this similarity with the African American population contributed to the negative attitude toward the Irish. I feel that this could be interesting if elaborated. One factor I believe he did provide enough evidence for was the anti-Catholic sentiment, as many nativists were concerned with Catholic loyalty to the Pope.

In general, Kelly should have extended his essay. He has good arguments and evidence, but he just needs more of it. This way, he could leave the reader more satisfied.

November 6, 2013

What Do You Mean, "You People"?

In ““No Irish Need Apply”: A Myth of Victimization,” Richard Jensen examines the myth of Irish-Catholic exclusion from mainstream American jobs and activities and its origins as a protective tool for the Irish community. He argues that Irish claims of its (NINA) existence were a political statement that enhanced and perpetuated non-individualistic work culture.

In order to fully understand the myth of discrimination in the Irish pathos, Jensen needed to show the full extent of evidence there was that supported it. He seemed to have boiled it down to a single piece of sheet music with the refrain “No Irish Need Apply!” in 1862(409). It is important to note that this was based off a song from London about discrimination against Irish maids, because of the fact that the American version is about Irish working men. I think this is significant because of the association of labor and masculine activities mentioned in Wilentz such as day drinking and putting out fires. In Kenny’s chapter on racial perceptions of Irish in American culture, he writes that racially-based stereotypes were mainly directed at men rather than women. In a paper I wrote for a different class about the rise of white supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan in North Carolina, masculinity and race were also closely related because African Americans and women in the antebellum South were dependents. White supremacy in this case was a reaction to the eclipsed dominance of the white man.

Both Jensen and Kenny return to the 19^th century Irish phenomenon of collective violence. Jensen views mob violence as one of the instances where Irish acted out in a way that demonstrated solidarity against what was perceived as hostility and “othering”. Kenny points out that these massive bursts of social and political violence provided the strongest evidence for nativists making racial claims about Irish. By comparing these two statements, it is easy to see how the solidarity could have been viewed instead as self-segregation based on racial standards.