RIC and DMP to be commemorated this month

Danonino.

markodaly wrote: »

My comment is correct. The Irish written word was never outrightly banned across the entire Island of Ireland. Putting me on ignore does not change this fact.

But, ehhh, it WAS outrightly banned across the entire Island.

On the legal side of things:
“The first British Law enacted in Ireland which specifically banned the use of the Irish language was Article III of The Statute of Kilkenny from 1367 which made it illegal for English colonists in Ireland to speak the Irish language and for the native Irish to speak their language when interacting with them.

This was followed in 1537 with The Statute of Ireland – An Act for the English Order Habit and Language that prohibited the use of the Irish language in the Irish Parliament. In 1541, further legislation was passed which banned the use of Irish in the areas of Ireland then under English rule.”

There were more acts in 1737 etc and other more outright ‘if anyone speaks Irish hang em’ kind stuff pre 1500 but anyway.

Ireland was completely under English rule since way before 1542, But we’ll count from then as that’s when it became the Kingdom of Ireland. Anyway the English rules the entire Island and did so for .... well a very long time.
Enough time to kill the language. The use of Irish was banned, not just in court rooms or official proceedings etc. The acts themselves ban the use outright through various means. Was it illegal to ‘speak’ Irish on the street, yes but that was never really enforced after the 1400’s so is a moot point. Was IRISH POETRY illegal and had to be hidden? No... but. Who was to say that Irish poem wasn’t a secret official document? What if that poem wasn’t a poem but rebellious propaganda? That kind of nonsense went on for sure, and worse.

Also interestingly, outside of the Good Friday agreement and proposed changes in 2006 that never happened there was never any real reform of the Acts. The Irish language is still banned in Northern Ireland Courts for example.

2010:
https://www.bbc.com/news/10215317

Edit: I never comment on anything like this, just seen the last few comments and I remember covering a lot of this years ago. Just playing devils advocate. Also I messed up some dates and shiz

pjohnson

McMurphy wrote: »

The Indos front page has almost entirely been dedicated to attacking the black and tan wankfest the blueshirts had planned.




Seriously though, how could FG be so goddam arrogant/ignorant right in the mouth of an election?

Mark will send a strongly worded letter to then blaming the Normans.

McMurphy

pjohnson wrote: »

Mark will send a strongly worded letter to then blaming the Normans.

The funny thing about Mark is - he is constantly proclaiming that people who can't see the difference/separate the RIC from the black and tans are poorly educated etc.

cough

markodaly

Danonino. wrote: »

But, ehhh, it WAS outrightly banned across the entire Island.

The keyword is outrightly banned. It wasn't.

Sure, its use in certain contexts and situations was banned and made illegal, such as using it in the Irish Parliament, but there was no law passed that outrightly banned its use in ALL context and All people, nor was holding or writing a poetry book as Gaeligle ever banned as well.

That is the trouble with Irish history, a half-truth becomes the actual truth.
Like the 'fact' that the Black and Tans came from English prisons, and absolute falsehood.

Danonino.

markodaly wrote: »

The keyword is outrightly banned. It wasn't.

Sure, its use in certain contexts and situations was banned and made illegal, such as using it in the Irish Parliament, but there was no law passed that outrightly banned its use in ALL context and All people, nor was holding or writing a poetry book as Gaeligle ever banned as well.

That is the trouble with Irish history, a half-truth becomes the actual truth.
Like the 'fact' that the Black and Tans came from English prisons, and absolute falsehood.

Sorry I edited my post before your reply.

If you want to get specific the use of Irish was outright banned including the spoken word up until the 1450s or so.

Anyway, the main point I was making was that it was legislated and banned in all practical use by law by multiple acts. Now writing or holding a poetry book, true it was never banned to the best of my knowledge. It’s been an age since I had to study any of that stuff, and in hindsight I would have picked a different topic ha ha
The issue arises when who is to say that book of poetry isn’t rebellious propaganda or legal documents?

People don’t just make up having to hide Irish poetry for ****s and giggles and in a very true sense the Irish word was banned.

marieholmfan

I think the phrase you're looking for is:
Thank you for the history lesson Danonino

markodaly wrote: »

The keyword is outrightly banned. It wasn't.

Sure, its use in certain contexts and situations was banned and made illegal, such as using it in the Irish Parliament, but there was no law passed that outrightly banned its use in ALL context and All people, nor was holding or writing a poetry book as Gaeligle ever banned as well.

That is the trouble with Irish history, a half-truth becomes the actual truth.
Like the 'fact' that the Black and Tans came from English prisons, and absolute falsehood.

markodaly

Danonino. wrote: »

People don’t just make up having to hide Irish poetry for ****s and giggles.

Sorry, Is there documented cases where this happened?

FrancieBrady

Danonino. wrote: »

Sorry I edited my post before your reply.
If you want to get specific the use of Irish was outright banned including the spoken word up until the 1450s or so.

But anyway the main point I was making was that it was legislated and banned in all practical use by law by multiple acts. Now writing or holding a poetry book, true it was never banned. The issue arises when who is to say that book of poetry isn’t rebellious propaganda or legal documents?

People don’t just make up having to hide Irish poetry for ****s and giggles.

Brian Friel addressed this in Translations and his supplementary writings. Suppression of native tongues and culture was a familiar tool of colonists. If you can make people using the native tongue feel that they are inferior then control is easier.

It has taken generations for that inferiority complex to wear off and it is not done yet. It transcends generations.

farmchoice

ah mark, id have a certain sympathy for you point of view but this ludicrous attempt to down play the obvious English policy of attempting to suppress Irish is nothing short of embarrassing. also it presents you as little more than a fanatic yourself and to a large degree removes the legitimacy of any argument you might have.

it really is hard to take you seriously after this. you are very much coming across as the mirror image of that christian brothers version of Irish history.

Danonino.

markodaly wrote: »

Sorry, Is there documented cases where this happened?

.....


Why is it that much of a sticking point? It’s absolutely no secret in anyway that the English Rule wiped the Irish Language through legislation and brute force. There’s literally hundreds of years of legal acts and hundreds preceding those which stretch back to the 1100s.

The documented cases you are looking for, is exactly why this conversation started. It’s most likely in the poetry that another poster recommend.

I’m positive if you searched you’d find cases where non threatening texts were ‘confused’ for legal documents etc you’d find them. Of course you won’t find any ‘Irish folklore and poetry destroyed in midnight raid’ official court documents because heck we are talking about a system that even in as late as 1882 could see a man hanged for not being able to speak English to defend himself in court.


I’ve waffled. Getting caught up on specifics from 500+ years ago. I’ll bow out. I’ll go back to having a tasty coffee and ignoring politics for another few years ha ha

FrancieBrady

farmchoice wrote: »

ah mark, id have a certain sympathy for you point of view but this ludicrous attempt to down play the obvious English policy of attempting to suppress Irish is nothing short of embarrassing. also it presents you as little more than a fanatic yourself and to a large degree removes the legitimacy of any argument you might have.

it really is hard to take you seriously after this. you are very much coming across as the mirror image of that christian brothers version of Irish history.

It's a familiar pattern. If things don't go the way he wants, the denigration, invective and inferiority complexes from whence it comes, begin to show.

I am not having a cheap shot here, again and again we see it here on boards. It's peculiar and very weird to see it in this day and age and thankfully it's dying out. Charlie Flanagan might have something to say on it, if he could be honest as he seen a confident and self respecting Irish people stand up very tall and resist him. He knew he was a beaten docket but like Mark, he choose to denigrate and call people 'immature' and huff about 'sinister forces' :rolleyes:

markodaly

Danonino. wrote: »

.....


Why is it that much of a sticking point? It’s absolutely no secret in anyway that the English Rule wiped the Irish Language through legislation and brute force. There’s literally hundreds of years of legal acts and hundreds preceding those which stretch back to the 1000s.

The documented cases you are looking for, is exactly why this conversation started. It’s most likely in the poetry that another poster recommend.

I’m positive if you searched you’d find cases where non threatening texts were ‘confused’ for legal documents etc you’d find them. Of course you won’t find any ‘Irish folklore and poetry destroyed in midnight raid’ official court documents because heck we are talking about a system that even in as late as 1882 could see a man hanged for not being able to speak English to defend himself in court.


I’ve waffled. Getting caught up on specifics from 500+ years ago. I’ll bow out. I’ll go back to having a tasty coffee and ignoring politics for another few years ha ha

Firstly, I acknowledge the fact that the ruling class from Britain passed laws in an attempt to subjugate the Irish language in terms of commerce, law and elsewhere on this Island. This I do not disagree with.

However, I asked a simple question about a poetry book as Gaeilge. Another poster wrongly stated that such a book was illegal. I challenged them on this and I am still waiting on proof of this claim.

One would think, in a thread about history that historical facts should be deemed important.

CrankyHaus

This has been a long thread, have we worked our way through all of the nonsense arguments in favour of this yet?

1. The RIC did not include the RIC Auxiliary Division or the Black and Tans.
Yes it did.

2. They were Catholic Irish men so must be commemorated.
Why?

3. We need to aknowledge our history warts and all.
Okay, here are photographs of some atrocities perpetrated by the RIC.

4. Actually no, we need to stop obsessing over our history and move on.
How does obessing over the "decent men" of the RIC move us on in any way?

5. It's necessary for reconciliation with the Unionists.
They've had pretty much nothing to say on the issue and no Northern Irish Councils were even invited to this farce.

6. Some Irish people support English soccer teams and even listen to English music.
Indeed, not sure of relevance to the argument.

7. Many Irish people can't even speak Irish.
Indeed, as a result of centuries of British rule.

8. Those opposed to this are bar-stool Republicans.
Some may be, many just have a problem with commemorating a force of colonial oppression, certainly the popular opposition to this extends far beyond SF voters.

8. My great-garandaddy was in the RIC and he was a decent man.
Ah, the crux of the issue, if you wish to honour him do it yourself and don't expect the country to re-write its history for you.

Plumbthedepths

CrankyHaus wrote: »

This has been a long thread, have we worked our way through all of the nonsense arguments in favour of this yet?

1. The RIC did not include the RIC Auxiliary Division or the Black and Tans.
Yes it did.

2. They were Catholic Irish men so must be commemorated.
Why?

3. We need to aknowledge our history warts and all.
Okay, here are photgraphs of some atrocities perpetrated by the RIC.

4. Actually no, we need to stop obsessing over our history and move on.
How does obessing over the "decent men" of the RIC move us on in any way?

5. It's necessary for reconciliation with the Unionists.
They've had pretty much nothing to say on the issue and no Northern Irish Councils were even invited to this farce.

6. Some Irish people support English soccer teams and even listen to English music.
Indeed, not sure of relevance to the argument.

7. Many Irish people can't even speak Irish.
Indeed, as a result of centuries of British rule.

8. Those opposed to this are bar-stool Republicans.
Some may be, many just have a problem with commemorating a force of colonial oppression, certainly the popular opposition to this extends far beyone SF voters.

8. My great-garandaddy was in the RIC and he was a decent man.
Ah, the crux of the issue, if you wish to honour him do it yourself and don't expect the country to re-write its history for you.

Excellent post, well put.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Firstly, I acknowledge the fact that the ruling class from Britain passed laws in an attempt to subjugate the Irish language in terms of commerce, law and elsewhere on this Island. This I do not disagree with.

However, I asked a simple question about a poetry book as Gaeilge. Another poster wrongly stated that such a book was illegal. I challenged them on this and I am still waiting on proof of this claim.

One would think, in a thread about history that historical facts should be deemed important.

Mark...the poster never said that 'having a poetry book was illegal'. You are creating myths!

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Mark...the poster never said that 'having a poetry book was illegal'. You are creating myths!

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=112193905

It is directly inferred in that post.

Plumbthedepths

Anyway leaving aside the 'illegal' poetry rabbit hole, it's good that FG copped on and realised comemoration of the RIC/DMP/ Black and Tans was an abhorrent idea and have cancelled it. I know the word 'defered' was used but it's done, over, finished. Time to move on.
Have a good day folks. ;-)

The Rape of Lucretia

The use of English as the language of Ireland greatly benefits everyone on the island today. It would be to our disadvantage if our native language was Irish. Not that there is anything wrong with it at all, and fine for people to choose to use it as a hobby, and as valid to study and preserve as Latin or ancient Greek.
But the transition from Irish speakers to English speakers is an unalloyed good, and benefit of our historical relationship with Britain, and not an aspect to be regarded as a negative.

Plumbthedepths

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

The use of English as the language of Ireland greatly benefits everyone on the island today. It would be to our disadvantage if our native language was Irish. Not that there is anything wrong with it at all, and fine for people to choose to use it as a hobby, and as valid to study and preserve as Latin or ancient Greek.
But the transition fro Irish speakers to English speakers is an unalloyed good, and benefit of our historical relationship with Britain, and not an aspect to be regarded as a negative.

Come on you used to be so much better and less obvious. 2/10

weldoninhio

I'd say there is someone in Charlie Flanagan's office right now thinking "fcuk, what do i do with this now?" while looking at Charlies plans for March 17th this year where Ireland will be commemorating the snakes in 2020 instead of St. Patrick, in the interests of fairness of course.

LostinBlanch

CrankyHaus wrote: »

This has been a long thread, have we worked our way through all of the nonsense arguments in favour of this yet?

1. The RIC did not include the RIC Auxiliary Division or the Black and Tans.
Yes it did.

2. They were Catholic Irish men so must be commemorated.
Why?

3. We need to aknowledge our history warts and all.
Okay, here are photgraphs of some atrocities perpetrated by the RIC.

4. Actually no, we need to stop obsessing over our history and move on.
How does obessing over the "decent men" of the RIC move us on in any way?

5. It's necessary for reconciliation with the Unionists.
They've had pretty much nothing to say on the issue and no Northern Irish Councils were even invited to this farce.

6. Some Irish people support English soccer teams and even listen to English music.
Indeed, not sure of relevance to the argument.

7. Many Irish people can't even speak Irish.
Indeed, as a result of centuries of British rule.

8. Those opposed to this are bar-stool Republicans.
Some may be, many just have a problem with commemorating a force of colonial oppression, certainly the popular opposition to this extends far beyond SF voters.

8. My great-garandaddy was in the RIC and he was a decent man.
Ah, the crux of the issue, if you wish to honour him do it yourself and don't expect the country to re-write its history for you.

Exactly.

Though those in the Fraperoom who have been working overnight and trying to derail the thread would disagree with you.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=112193905

It is directly inferred in that post.

but a good start would be some 19th century Gaeilge poetry, you know, what we had to hide because our language was illegal

What you SHOULD be looking for here are historical facts that explain WHY Irish people might be hiding books and artworks in the Irish language. Have a read:



https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/irelandHouse/documents/0111-0126_PoliticsOfTheIrishLanguage.pdf

Dyr

FrancieBrady wrote: »

he choose to denigrate and call people 'immature' and huff about 'sinister forces' :rolleyes:

I wonder does Drew blush slightly everytime Charlie uses the phrase "Sinister Forces" he'd know a fair few of them personally

Nift

Billcarson wrote: »

Bambi wrote: »

And The others who decry any glimpse of national sentiment as barstoolism while themselves becoming all dewy eyed for the days of Union when patriotic "ballsy" RIC men bravely turfed peasants out of their homes




If they where alive back then they would probably be the informer type scum.

What and you'd be one of the rebels? Like all the millions of Irish who weren't.

This is the problem with our history, its so intertwined and complex. Unlike other colonial nations, its spread over centuries. We have no idea if 200 years ago our forefathers were agents/supporters of the crown. I mean many of our national heroes weren't even really true Republicans. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/wolfe-tone-republican-hero-or-whig-opportunist

I mean we had the idea yesterday that Flanagan was a decent Irish name. like wtf does that really mean when half of our greatest people are anglo irish? as unpalatable as that is. During the famine, there was a large number of people who spoke no English, remnants of the Cromwell purges. They lived in hovels in fields etc on the margins of Irish society. Many were paid/given a ferry ticket by landlords, governments, agents to leave. These were seen by Lady Gregory's husband and people of the time as the last true Gaels. The remnants of an old Ireland. And many even sympathetic people (gregory is qouted as such), were glad to see them gone. Just cause your name is O'Brien it doesn't mean your directly purely descended from the clan.

Most people arguing against the outcry are only highlighting the absolute ludicrousness of people going on about a border poll.

Its not going to happen if this is whats going to go on. The same thing happened in 1987 when Garett Fitzgerald honored ww1 soldiers. It was a large part of him losing the next election.

It should have been done as recommended by Ferriter but still, it goes to show we have a long way to go.

Just cause people look at the ideas of romantic irish nationalism and question them, doesn't make them an enemy of the state.

And people go on about brexit nationalists and US fly over state patriots with a straight face. We're as nationalist as anybody. And sometimes there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe its only cause they're nationalists in an imperial sense that we don't like.

How are people going to react for the civil war. I read on the journal comments more than one comment this morning that pro treaty = west brit. I mean ffs.

We have a great history and we can be proud of those who fought the yoke of colonialism for decades. But we need to at least acknowledge if not commemorate many of those quirks we have as a nation. I mean take a walk through Dublin city centre and walk around. One of those quirks is all around, and has directly led to the housing crisis. Post colonial, nationalist, but loving British architecture so much they'd block any development.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What you SHOULD be looking for here are historical facts that explain WHY Irish people might be hiding books and artworks in the Irish language. Have a read:



https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/irelandHouse/documents/0111-0126_PoliticsOfTheIrishLanguage.pdf

But by your own logic Irish has not being 'illegal' or discouraged foe a hundred years by that logic.
So why are most of the country conversing in English the mother tongue of the oppressors?
Why are we conversing in English on this very thread who's fault is that - the English?

LostinBlanch

McMurphy wrote: »

Deferred not cancelled Flanagan reckons.

Yes, but he's such a gob****e that he hasn't realised that by not apologising and cancelling the thing he has just kicked it down the road and left it in the air as a possible election topic. You think that won't be thrown back in his face when an election is called?

Black and Tan election anyone? :rolleyes:

I can't see some FG backbenchers thanking him or Leo for that. Watch those transfers dry up.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

But by your own logic Irish has not being 'illegal' or discouraged foe a hundred years by that logic.
So why are most of the country conversing in English the mother tongue of the oppressors?
Why are we conversing in English on this very thread who's fault is that - the English?

What?

marieholmfan

Billy_Madison wrote:

Mr. GormDubhGorm, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Sometimes the classics speak louder than words.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

You are going on about how the British discouraged the Irish language etc.

If Ireland is such a proud nation/a real nation why does it not converse in it's own language, rather than piecemeal stuff.
The British are not the fault for that - Irish people are.

The irony that we are conversing in English on a thread where many view themselves as republicans and nationalists, seem lost on many including you.

Yet on the other hand people seem to try and create the narrative that all the British were the oppressors and evil which is silly. With no nuance whatsoever and refuse to even remember the RIC/DMP. And are doing so in the language of thier former 'colonial masters' they 'hate' still!.
It's comical stuff - a colony mindset.

Dr. Bre

weldoninhio wrote: »

I'd say there is someone in Charlie Flanagan's office right now thinking "fcuk, what do i do with this now?" while looking at Charlies plans for March 17th this year where Ireland will be commemorating the snakes in 2020 instead of St. Patrick, in the interests of fairness of course.

St Patrick never drove the snakes out of Ireland- they still here