# "The Irish weren't considered white." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 21, 2015, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171 "2015-11-21T07:45:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![skdo23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@skdo23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/skdo23)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2015, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171/41 "2015-11-23T23:24:33Z")
> [@sitchensis](#): > > But being white and being treated as white under the law allowed them to catch up faster. In my family it went railroad builder/miner, government worker, college educated engineer in three generations. True, I just meant that that was what it was like to be Irish at the time. Thanks for posting this though, I was just sorting through some old family documents to share with relatives who are going to be visiting for T-Day and I came across my Great Grandfather’s work visa application for when he emigrated over here from Dublin and among other things it lists the wages he will be earning ($35/wk) from the job he had been offered as a railroad maintenance worker. My father (two generations later) is a recently retired engineer. [Saol fada chugat!](https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10150137449131732&id=81602031731) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2015, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171/42 "2015-11-23T23:45:29Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > [This recent thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=743052) suggests that “No Irish Need Apply” was a fairly rare phenomenon, for what it’s worth. I don’t remember what I thought of the underlying sources so I’m just throwing it out for discussion. That thread took place before a meddling kid decided to use Google to check for herself. > **[Teen Schools Professor on "No Irish Need Apply" Signs](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/teen-schools-professor-no-irish-need-apply-signs-180956162/?no-ist)** > > Armed with a Google search and a theory, a 14-year-old enters the fray on a longstanding historical debate > [@](#): > > This week, a 14-year-old made headlines for her epic takedown of a popular theory put forth by University of Illinois history professor Richard Jensen, Ben Collins reports for The Daily Beast. > > The historical business practice of posting “Help Wanted! No Irish Need Apply” signs in windows and newspaper want ads to deter Irish workers has become part of America’s cultural history and a powerful symbol of the discrimination faced by Irish immigrants at the turn of the last century. But for decades, Jensen has suggested that it was more myth than fact. > [@](#): > > To her surprise, she got results. The Washington Post’s Moriah Balingkit reports that newspaper archive databases turned up dozens of work ads from the 1800s with the “No Irish Need Apply” caveat spanning a number of professions and U.S. states. According to Fried’s findings, which were published last month in the Journal of Social History, the New York Sun newspaper ran 15 “No Irish Need Apply” ads in 1842 alone. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2015, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171/43 "2015-11-23T23:55:58Z")
I also noted that Jensen did reply claiming most ads were taken out of context, but much to his chagrin others did take a look too and Irish American magazine was not amused with Jensen. > **[Commentary: “No Irish Need Apply” a Myth?](https://www.irishamerica.com/2015/10/commentary-no-irish-need-apply-a-myth-2/)** > [@](#): > > Our sister publication IrishCentral ran numerous pieces on finding over 1,400 examples of NINA signs and ads, and Niall O’Dowd wrote a blistering piece in The Irish Voice condemning Jensen and applauding Fried, arguing that Jensen’s article constituted “a dangerous precedent, rewriting the history of a people who by any standard faced very hard times.” > [@](#): > > The fact is, calling NINA signs a myth is inaccurate. And it is a testament to the passionate interest within the Irish American community that Jensen’s claim is still generating headlines over a decade later. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Gadai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@An\_Gadai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Gadai)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2015, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171/44 "2015-11-24T11:29:20Z")
I think Jensen defended himself [adequately](http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/160234). > [@](#): > > Using all 1,841 newspapers with 9.7 million pages online, I calculate a subscriber would have to read over 41,000 pages of small print to encounter even one NINA Seems to me though that physical NINA signs wouldn’t have lasted. Did people typically keep their wanted ads after they hired someone? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2015, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171/45 "2015-11-24T13:05:00Z")
> [@An\_Gadai](#): > > I think Jensen defended himself [adequately](http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/160234). Those numbers he quotes are meaningless - they assumes equal significance of all pages, but surely one should restrict it to just the help wanted pages rather than consider all pages to determine pervasiveness? And Jensen comes across as a complete tool in that comments section. Hell, stuff like > [@](#): > > hey Phil – I have a BA in math & a PhD minor in econometrics from Yale. How about you? what is your expertise in statistics? and > [@](#): > > Do you have a PhD–your skills don’t show to your best advantage. look achingly familiar to anyone else? Note that the guy he’s arguing with, [Phil Magness](https://theihs.org/people/phillip-magness/), _does_ in fact have a PhD in history with economics thrown in - one a leeetle more recent than Jensen’s 1966 one, I might add. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2015, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171/46 "2015-11-24T14:20:12Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > And Jensen comes across as a complete tool in that comments section. Yep. And BTW\*\* An Gadaí\*\* I also did find and looked at that reply from Jensen that you linked at, that is why I looked around to see if others did look besides that kid and as Irish America reported it looks like if not a tool, at least Jensen is a researcher that came with a preconceived notion that prevented him from finding the big picture. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2015, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171/47 "2015-11-24T14:25:36Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That thread took place before a meddling kid decided to use Google to check for herself. Ah, yes, I remember reading about that now. Good catch. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Gadai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@An\_Gadai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Gadai)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2015, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171/48 "2015-11-24T19:13:53Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Those numbers he quotes are meaningless - they assumes equal significance of all pages, but surely one should restrict it to just the help wanted pages rather than consider all pages to determine pervasiveness? > > And Jensen comes across as a complete tool in that comments section. Hell, stuff like and look achingly familiar to anyone else? Note that the guy he’s arguing with, [Phil Magness](https://theihs.org/people/phillip-magness/), _does_ in fact have a PhD in history with economics thrown in - one a leeetle more recent than Jensen’s 1966 one, I might add. A good point on the help wanted pages, although how many of them were printed in the period covered to only yield 80-something results? It does seem like the print ads were vanishingly rare though not as much so as Jensen had posited. Jensen does come across as a bell end but it doesn’t seem that Fried’s counter was as much of a knock out as was reported. Fried looks like she’ll go far and I wish the best for her! Interesting that [wanted ads specifying Protestants](http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/shorthand-for-protestants-sectarian-advertising-in-the-irish-times/) were not unknown in the Republic of Ireland into the 1970s. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2015, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171/49 "2015-11-25T06:22:17Z")
> [@An\_Gadai](#): > > A good point on the help wanted pages, although how many of them were printed in the period covered to only yield 80-something results? If you read the comments section, you’ll see that’s actually at the low end. Others have found higher numbers. And also excludes more coded/circumspect ads like “Only English and Americans need apply”, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2015, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171/50 "2015-11-25T16:32:59Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I think the point is that in the mid 19th century, most people writing about race didn’t perceive a unified white race. Irish were considered a separate race, as were Jews, Italians, and many others. Yes. In those times it was still common to see phrases like ‘the English race’, so even if people spoke of an ‘Irish race’, ‘race’ didn’t necessarily have the same meaning as now. Also now the meaning of ‘race’ is fairly jumbled (as in ‘white Hispanics’, ‘racism’ of Caucasian ‘whites’ against Caucasians from the Mideast, etc) so who says it was crystal clear in the mid 19th century? But as others have mentioned there was a clear practical distinction in the ‘race’ of the Irish v that of blacks in mid 19th century was in being subject to slavery. Though again today, it’s just a political construct of some people that there’s a such thing as ‘whites’ on one hand and ‘non whites’ on the other. Asians and various Hispanic groups and African Americans have a limited amount in common in practical fact in current US society just based on being ‘non white’. ‘Race relations’ in the US practically speaking now is still largely about the special situation of people of African descent. ---
**Author:** ![Last\_Glacial\_Maximum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bc79bd/32.png) [@Last\_Glacial\_Maximum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Last_Glacial_Maximum)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2015, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171/51 "2015-11-25T20:54:29Z")
My Irish-American Grandmother was born in Chicago in 1889. She only received an education until the 3rd grade because as she was told “The Irish don’t need an education”…😕 She was a great person and I feel fortunate to have talked to her about growing up without automobiles, planes, telephones, modern medicine etc. etc. . ---
**Author:** ![syncrolecyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f08c70/32.png) [@syncrolecyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/syncrolecyne)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2015, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171/52 "2015-11-27T07:17:05Z")
> [@Arcite](#): > > It’s a common left-wing trope I’ve seen numerous times on these boards, used to discredit critics of non-white immigration, to assert that at some point in the past, in America, the dominant view of Irish was that they weren’t white. > > Is there any actual evidence of this? And please don’t post photos of signs saying “Irish need not apply.” That proves that Irish weren’t welcome, not that they weren’t considered white. In a legal and formal sense, yes the Irish were considered white; otherwise they would not have been eligible for naturalization under the 1790 (and subsequent) Naturalization Acts, which limited citizenship to “free white persons.” There are historically two kinds of “white” status in American history, the first is legal status for naturalization, census taking, vital statistics, and so on. In this category, all Europeans, North Africans, Middle Easterners, and Latin Americans not specifically designated members of another racial group are “white.” Irish, Egyptians, Mexicans, and Iranians are white. Then there is the man-in-the-street definition. In that second view, Irish Catholic people were arguably not fully “white” through the late nineteenth century, just as many people view Syrians as “non-white,” even though by historic law and custom they are. > **[Dow v. United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_v._United_States)** > > Dow v. United States, 226 F. 145 (4th Cir., 1915), is a United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, case in which a Syrian immigrant, George Dow, appealed two lower court decisions denying his application for naturalization as a United States citizen.: 257  Following the lower court decisions in Ex Parte Dow (1914) and In re Dow (1914), Dow v. United States resulted in the Circuit Court's affirmation of the petitioner's right to naturalize based, in the words of Circuit Judge Charles Alber ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2015, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171/53 "2015-11-27T15:25:07Z")
“Do you not get it, lads? The Irish are the blacks of Europe. And Dubliners are the blacks of Ireland. And the Northside Dubliners are the blacks of Dublin. So say it once, say it loud: I’m black and I’m proud!” – _The Commitments_ ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2015, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171/54 "2015-11-28T19:46:58Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > “Do you not get it, lads? The Irish are the blacks of Europe. And Dubliners are the blacks of Ireland. And the Northside Dubliners are the blacks of Dublin. So say it once, say it loud: I’m black and I’m proud!” > > – _The Commitments_ That’s the PC version. He actually said "the niggers of Europe"etc. IIRC. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2015, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171/55 "2015-11-28T20:40:51Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > That’s the PC version. > > He actually said "the niggers of Europe"etc. IIRC. In the book, yes. The movie sanitized the language for some silly reason. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2015, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171/56 "2015-11-29T21:57:25Z")
> [@syncrolecyne](#): > > There are historically two kinds of “white” status in American history, the first is legal status for naturalization, census taking, vital statistics, and so on. In this category, all Europeans, North Africans, Middle Easterners, and Latin Americans not specifically designated members of another racial group are “white.” Irish, Egyptians, Mexicans, and Iranians are white. > > Then there is the man-in-the-street definition. In that second view, Irish Catholic people were arguably not fully “white” through the late nineteenth century, just as many people view Syrians as “non-white,” even though by historic law and custom they are. I think the problem of distinguishing current and past norms shows up in both categories. US Census questions about and definitions of ‘race’ constantly changed. You’re referring to the current system. At one time ‘Mexican’ for example was a ‘race’ in the Census. In the second case, as in the comment you responded to, there’s a significant ambiguity between ‘prejudice, animus, suspicion against a group’ and ‘saying they aren’t white’. The ‘man in the street’ view of whether people from Mexico are ‘white’ does indeed differ from the current Census categorization (for people from Mexico who consider themselves white not black, it’s up to the respondent). Whether there was a serious view that the Irish weren’t white in that same sense is more debatable. Discriminated against, clearly; literally not viewed as ‘white’ (as opposed to flippant insults with that implication), debatable. Same goes for current example you give. The left side of the modern US political spectrum is generally eager to characterize the right’s views as ‘racist’. So they, the left, may say the right doesn’t view Syrians as ‘white’ and are thus showing racism to oppose letting in Syrian refugees (or slow down or re-examine the vetting process etc). But the right claims to be opposed to admitting Syrian refugees because they might be infiltrated by Islamist extremists, or become extremists once in the US, and/or the vetting process to prevent this is actually questionable. It can be debated whether the right’s actual argument is valid or whether it’s simply a smokescreen for unstated ‘racism’, but the general stated argument on the right is not in fact that ‘Syrians shouldn’t come because they aren’t white’. It’s not to sidetrack onto the Syria debate, but just to illustrate how ambiguous and POV dependent such characterizations are. And here we’re trying to determine ‘what the Irish were really viewed as’ in a time before living memory. Selective period quotes only go so far. ---
**Author:** ![dude5568](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@dude5568](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dude5568)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171/57 "2015-12-01T07:28:40Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I’d agree with this. Same for the Jews and the Italians. > > They certainly faced lots of prejudice, but they were never legally worse off. > > I think the appropriate comparison to illustrate the differences in 19th Century and early 20th Century America would be the comparable treatment of Asian(mostly Chinese) immigrants. > > Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants were all allowed to become US citizens practically as soon as they got off the boat whereas Asian immigrants were never allowed to become citizens until 1952(!), because until then in order to become naturalized an immigrant had to be a “free, white person”. That’s why they couldn’t build up voting blocs or communities. > > They also, unlike the Chinese immigrants were never prevented from marrying white people due to anti-miscegenation or preventing from owning property by laws restricting that to “white persons”. > None of what I’ve said of course is to minimize what they went through. You basically are on the right track. This country was " started " by Anglo upper class men ( much like a country club ). They obviously did not want anyone else getting a piece of the action. A huge reason why other " whites " were relatively better tolerated than " others " was because they were the closest to them in skin color , religion , culture. Not to mention , they needed workers . People to build their cities , dig their subways , fight their wars, do the dirty work. They had to let people in and other europeans were an obvious choice. America is unique in that it has essentially been a white supremacist club since it was started. A frenchman and a hungarian probably have nothing in common and may even hate each other’s guts but in this country they could just blend into the generally accepted definition of " white people ". ---
**Author:** ![dude5568](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@dude5568](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dude5568)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171/58 "2015-12-01T07:50:00Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > It used to be the only white people were from England. Here’s [Ben Franklin on the races](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observations_Concerning_the_Increase_of_Mankind,_Peopling_of_Countries,_etc.): > > There was a big moral panic over the massive amounts of German immigration. The rhetoric is identical to concerns over Mexican immigration, unchanged over hundreds of years. > > Do you know crazy it is that Italian and Greeks are considered white now? They’re practically Turks. But then again, plenty of Turks and Arabs could pass for white too. If you ever want to troll a white nationalist forum post a bunch of pictures of white looking Arabs, Slavs, Egyptians, Pashtun, etc. and, without identifying the source, ask them if they’re white or not. Bring popcorn. Good point about the Italians and Greeks. I have a notion about this. IMO , the " established whites " wanted to claim ancient Roman and Greek as " white " civilizations and because of the vague connection of modern day Italians and Greeks to the abovementioned , their acceptance was easier. I’m not saying that this was the only reason but it certainly helped especially in comparison to turks , persians and all others who look essentially the same but have roots in Islam which is essentially foreign. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171/59 "2015-12-01T16:13:55Z")
> [@Arcite](#): > > It’s a common left-wing trope I’ve seen numerous times on these boards, used to discredit critics of non-white immigration, to assert that at some point in the past, in America, the dominant view of Irish was that they weren’t white. Hmmm. I’m not sure how it discredits them anyway. They are already discredited. If anything, I think the fact that the Irish were shunned even though they are white is discrediting. BTW just to throw fuel on the fire, some Irish were imported as slaves to the New World along with blacks from Africa. Not many, but it happened, and yes they were real slaves, not indentured servants. Most went to the Caribbean. Just an interesting factoid. ---
**Author:** ![Gorilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/eada6e/32.png) [@Gorilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorilla)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2015, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171/60 "2015-12-08T10:24:52Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > In modern terms, consider the status of Hispanics. People whose ancestry is Latin American are white but many people don’t consider them to be white in the same way as people whose ancestry is European. I’m not sure what you mean by this. The ancestry of white Latin American people _is_ indeed European (mostly south European), in the same way that the ancestry of most North Americans is European. And I personally have never met or seen any Latin American person of predominantly (or entirely) European ancestry who was not regarded as “white” (except in one or two cases where the person was clearly being facetious). Notice that the term “white Hispanic” is often used - a term that would be tautologically unnecessary if there weren’t “non-white Hispanics”. (Nevertheless, there may indeed be some relatively dark-skinned Latin American people of Mediterranean ancestry who may not call themselves “white” in the same way that Arab people often don’t regard themselves as “white”.) > [@](#): > > I just did a google search for interracial celebrity couples and found Matthew McConaughey and Camila Alves, Eva Mendes and Ryan Gosling, Kelly Ripa and Mark Consuelos, Salma Hayek and Francois-Henri Pinault, and Matt Damon and Luciana Barroso all listed. So there is a widespread belief that Hispanic people belong to a different race than other white people. Perhaps the belief is due to the fact that the word “Hispanic” is frequently used to refer to Spanish-speaking people of indigenous (native) American descent, as well as people of mixed indigenous and European (or African) descent. I suspect that many, if not all, the people in that list that represent the “Hispanic” part of each couple have noticeably indigenous ancestry and that may be the reason for the relationships being called “interracial”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-irish-werent-considered-white/738171.md?page=4)