Fox and Friends’ Brian Kilmeade (he’s the idiot. No, not Doocy, the other idiot. No, not Gretchen Carlson….) has a problem: it seems that there’s too much race-mixing in America. Not between whites and Blacks — I mean, that goes without saying — but between the Irish and the Italians.
Kilmeade and two colleagues were discussing a study that, based on research done in Finland and Sweden, showed people who stay married are less likely to suffer from Alzheimer’s. Kilmeade questioned the results, though, saying, “We are — we keep marrying other species and other ethnics and other …”
At this point, his co-host tried to — in that jokey morning show way — tell Kilmeade he needed to shut up, and quick, for his own sake. But he didn’t get the message, adding, “See, the problem is the Swedes have pure genes. Because they marry other Swedes …. Finns marry other Finns, so they have a pure society.”
As Steve Benen notes, Kilmeade goes on to say, “In America, we marry everybody. Some will marry Italians, the Irish….”
Yes, Americans will even marry the Irish. How will America cope as we move into the bold tomorrow of 1873 if good Americans are willing to marry the Irish? Next thing you know, people will be suggesting women get the vote and a Catholic could win the presidency and that the government regulate the amount of cocaine in our tonic water. It’s madness, I tell you. Madness!
Other species? This may be more information than we need to have about Mr Kilmeade’s sex life.
I am confused as to why Mr. Brian Kilmeade thinks that Americans marrying “the Irish” is a problem? Or is this like Ann Coulter saying that women shouldn’t have the vote?
This is what happens when you put a sports anchor on a news desk. Also, I’m now really curious to know Kilmeade’s ethnic background. I’m sure he’ll bring it up to explain how his comments couldn’t be problematic, because he himself is of mixed descent (“I’m Anglo AND Saxon!”).
Pingback: Wait, Regular People are Allowed to Marry the Irish Now? « Tiny Cat Pants
I will never forget the look on a woman’s face when I did an educational talk for a branch of the Colonial Dames (I know, I know.. I didn’t realize what they were when I said yes) and she was asking me if my family came over on the Mayflower (I’m first generation American from the UK – my family came over on a 747), and I said “no, but my husband’s part Sicilian and part Irish”. She recoiled.
I guess everyone knew about that Irish-Italian breeding prohibition but me.
(and WTF other species?! Do not let that man near a farm.)
He is an idiot, but he was attempting (badly) to make a valid point; we can’t necessarily extrapolate studies done in relatively homogenous populations to our much more heterogenous one.
Ironically enough Wikipedia has him down as Irish American.
Robert,
What do you think is different in the marriages of “pure” Swedes and Finns that would reduce Alzheimer’s among those who are married relative to those who are not, that does not exist in the marriages of impure Americans? I thought the fairly obvious reason that married people would have lower rates of Alzheimer’s is that we already know that maintaining mental activity helps to stave off Alzheimer’s, and elderly people who are in constant contact with another person — in activities, conversation, etc. — will presumably have more mental activity than those who are not. Why would this be less true in a marriage across ethnic lines than one within the same ethnicity?
korshi, it”s the way to bet for anyone named Kilmeade.
Anyway, I know an Irish woman who married an Italian man, and then they divorced and now she’s LIVING IN SIN with a JEW!
(My partner, in particular…)
PG –
I don’t know. Maybe Finns have the CRZ-1 gene which makes dementia more controllable through mental stimulation, whereas non-Finns have the CRZ-2 variant which means that the dementia proceeds completely unaffected by behavioral choices. I have no idea at all what the state of the science is or whether there could be any relevance.
I DO know that heterogenous populations and homogenous populations aren’t necessarily the same. The point that the little Irish idiot was trying to express is that we can’t necessarily directly apply a study done on a small (and genetically isolated) group to everyone; it might not be true for everyone. Or it might be completely true; it depends.
Robert —
While that may just barely be possible, Kilmeade loses the right to such a charitable reading when he mentions that Americans marry members of other “species.”
While Robert has a point about medical studies done in genetically homogenous populations, I highly doubt that was what Kilmeade was trying to get at. He doesn’t seem to be able to string that many complex concepts together.
Robert,
But the research on mental stimulation’s effect on Alzheimer’s has been conducted on we mixed “species” Americans. I agree that there will be an issue of genetics as a factor in many studies — indeed, that’s why Finland is particularly favored as a place to do studies, because the genetic isolation makes it easier to break out the non-genetic variables — but I don’t see how that leads to the conclusion that if researchers identify a particular non-genetic variable (such as marital status) that affects a medical condition, that means the research may not apply to a more genetically-diverse population. That would seem to make Finland actually somewhat useless as a site for research.
Other species? The land of opportunity, indeed.
I think JupiterPluvius nailed it. As it happens, Kilmeade is a place in county Kildare. Unless, of course, he made up the name himself, because he liked the sound of it, after emerging from the oceans fully formed, completely free of any ethnic roots.
I linked to this in a piece I did at the CA NOW Blog: http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2009/07/postracial-my-ass.html
So now Alas! A Blog is objecting to anti-Catholic bigotry? Um…
Is this the same blog which told me “fuck you very much” for being a Catholic? Which told me that in response to a coment about my history of suicide attempts (and didn’t even bother to preface it with “I’m sorry you tried to kill yourself”)?
Thedistributist,
Actually, the way that went was that you said, “I also oppose the idea that purely selfish relationships should be honoured by civil contracts,” and in specific response to that only — not to your being Catholic, which you didn’t even mention — Mandolin said, “Well, fuck you very much. Do whatever you want in your own life. If “selfish” sex makes you unhappy, then voila! Don’t do it. See how easy that was? Now stop legislating morality on other people.”
It is unfortunate that you tried to kill yourself, but that doesn’t really justify lying about people by claiming that this blog is somehow anti-Catholic. Especially when Google makes it so easy to expose the lie. I recommend lying about what people said in oral conversation instead of online ones — much harder to track.
When I tell people about the history of the Irish in the States (and England) on St. Patrick’s Day, while they are getting drunk, puking, and claiming to be “Irish for a day”, I really want to smack them if they don’t cut it out.
I’m glad my Irish great-grandmother came to the States with her English husband. Just wish he’d not been run out of England for …. marrying the Irish!
Robert @10:
I wished you’d not used “Irish” to modify “idiot” because “idiot” is more than sufficient. I’ve also been unable to find anything Irish about him other than his surname. I have a hard time accepting that someone is recently-enough Irish that they’d make such a stupid comment.
I have Irish ancestry, so I’m allowed to make fun of my slack-jawed drunken kin.
Exposing implcit dog whistles which are not made explicit is not lying.
And if I was promiscuous, my problems would be tragic. Because I’m not they’re “unfortunate.”
“Exposing implcit dog whistles which are not made explicit is not lying.”
You can only call it a “dog whistle” if you can provide evidence that the speaker knew of the trait that’s being implicitly referenced, and that the audience would know from the speaker’s words that the trait was being referenced.
Given that based on your post, I assumed you were some kind of evangelical Protestant (since they have a tendency to believe that their personal experiences are a sound basis for making law), I find it improbable that Mandolin could have been making a dog whistle at your now-claimed Catholicism (which, again, you’ve never mentioned before and did not even implicitly reference in the comment to which Mandolin responded — nothing about the Church’s teachings was noted there, just your personal experiences). There are all kinds of people who become suicidal over their sexuality and then say stuff like, “I also oppose the idea that purely selfish relationships should be honoured by civil contracts.” That combination is not peculiar to Catholics, nor even particularly associated with them.
You’re feeling put upon because I thought it was unfortunate that your difficulties in reconciling with your sexual impulses drove you to attempt suicide? OK, I give up.