Insecurity rather than insularity is the issue which we - or at least some of those who channel public discourse - insist upon describing as racism.
Fear of change and disruption of the familiar can express itself as opposition to the outsider, and what seems like dislike of difference. People of different race or colour offer a simple representation of a complex social condition, and what we call racism, in this context, is simply the public expression of the fear arising from uncertainty and change. Jeering at black people in the street is an ignorant expression of an inchoate fear. It is the fear, rather than its expression, that we will usefully focus on.
There is racism in Ireland, as in all European countries. Europe is the architect of racism in the world, and, since this country spent most of the last millennium under the boot of the most racist power on earth, it would be surprising if it were otherwise. Racism is not, as is often alleged, the expression of superiority. On the contrary, it is the expression of a deep sense of inferiority. In the science, yes, of colonialism, racism is the primary catalyst of civilisation, existing in direct proportion to the extent of colonial oppression, and reflecting the success of the coloniser in implanting in the native a sense of his master's superiority in all things. Those whose humanity has been denied are most likely to deny the humanity of others.
But this has not yet manifested itself here as a widespread intrinsic dislike of black people or Romanians or Jews. We have had such people here in small numbers for many years, and, apart from the occasional outburst of ignorance, usually drink-related, have not treated them any differently to how we treat each other. There is some evidence of incipient racism in Irish cities, particularly Dublin, and this is something we have to look at. Perhaps Dublin, being the centre of colonial rule, is more prone to this condition than other places. Certainly Dublin has long been a font of crypto-racist sentiment about the rest of Ireland.
I was interested in my colleague Fintan O'Toole's column of Tuesday last, in which he proposed that the fact that Muslims have been welcomed in the Co Mayo Town of Ballyhaunis is entirely a matter of local self-interest. I disagree.
As it happens, I was the editor of Magill who, in 1988, commissioned Fintan to write an article about Ballyhaunis. I grew up in Castlerea, which is a slightly bigger town about 12 miles to the east, across the Roscommon border. The reason I commissioned Fintan to write about Ballyhaunis was that I was fascinated by the extraordinary juxtaposition of a Muslim culture and what might be perceived as a "country and western" sensibility. Several friends worked in the Halal factory by day and went to the Midas Club at the weekend. This story seemed to unsettle conventional notions about small-town Ireland and I was intrigued to see what Fintan would make of it. He wrote an exquisite piece, full of compassion and insight. Perhaps it was easier to be compassionate about Ireland then.
It is not the case that Ballyhaunis welcomed the Muslim community only because of the benefits to the local economy. This perspective is easy to adopt in retrospect, but the truth is a good deal more complicated. In the first place, when Sher Rafique first came to town in the mid-1970s, he did not bring with him the approximately 200 Muslims who live in Ballyhaunis now, some of them playing GAA and attending meetings of the local Fianna Fail cumann. He brought his family and a small number of workers. The impact on the local economy was at first negligible.
Secondly, it is not the case that there was no resistance to the Halal operation. There were public meetings and objections in the Ballyhaunis of the mid-1970s, just as there are public meetings now in Wexford and Kildare and Waterford. I'm sure racist things were said at those meetings, but their occurrence was not in itself racist. The main objections were to the location of the Halal slaughterhouse - on the edge of Ballyhaunis on the Claremorris road - and people were concerned about health issues and the smell. In other words, the development was scrutinised and considered by the local community in a democratic and open manner, and ultimately welcomed and approved. And the main reason it was approved was that people could see that the newcomers were decent people, anxious to make a living, who would keep themselves to themselves and not represent a threat to the local community.
In other words, it's not the economy, stupid, but the equilibrium of the community, part of which relates to the capacity of newcomers to pay their way, integrate to a reasonable extent and contribute to the general well-being. If these considerations could be met in relation to the introduction of refugees and asylum-seekers to any community in Ireland, there would not be a negative response, never mind a racist one. Ballyhaunis, allegedly in the most conservative part of Ireland, with its mosque and its contingents of Turks, Syrians, Pakistanis and Egyptians, stands as a challenge to the glib, sanctimonious media sermonising about the nature of Irish racism.
But if you propose sending hundreds of extra people of any kind into a closely-knit community, and do not expect those people to complain, then there is something wrong with your brain. Most communities would object if their numbers were overnight to be swollen by 10, 15 or 20 per cent. It wouldn't matter if the newcomers were Romanians, Jews, Dutchmen, Red Indians, or brown-eyed octogenarian dart players - people would have genuine reasons for concern about the sudden change in their way of life. To call this racism is asinine.