How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

downcow · 23-06-2020 2:50pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are using examples here that may be the exception to the rule.

If 4 generations of your family were born in Ireland and you were too, then you are as Irish as anyone.

It isn't an insult.
It is how downcow or anyone else will be seen everywhere they go.

I said it before...everyone of us HAS to tell a stranger what our 'identity' is. Me included.

Not everyone makes the assumptions that you do. I find that most people who want to know your nationality are inclined to ask you, and once you tell them, they believe you and accept it. So more nonsense Francie

Fionn1952 · 23-06-2020 3:03pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

They don't have that colony mindset except Cyprus. And have an inclusive approach which stops them fracturing. Unlike Ireland.

I don't know why you persist in using Austria as an example as German is thier main lingo - the only difference is in dialect. Many in Switzerland are multi-lingual in using languages as communication.

In Ireland Irish is not used as a communication language and only approx 70,000 people speak it within a community. It has only being used as political tool instead of a language of communication. Using a language is easily done. By just speaking the language. But for some reason many proud Republicans who call for a UI for a sense of national identity don't speak Irish or have a low level.
It does not say much to me for a future of a UI that English is still the main language of Ireland after 100 years.

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/libraryResearch/2016/2016-11-07_l-rs-note-the-irish-language-a-linguistic-crisis_en.pdf

If Ireland cannot even get thier own culture in order, how will they manage real inclusiveness in NI?

I still believe that a country is not a real country without a widely spoken native language as communication. It is just people using the language of another instead. Definitely lacking.

This conversation started with your allegation that 'there is no other country in Europe that doesn't speak it's native language' or words to that effect. You pushed this as the reason that Ireland is essentially British in culture.

I persist in using Austria as a example as they do not speak their native language. Given the history of Austria, Austro-Bavarian would be the native language, and yes, this is distinct from the Austrian-German widely spoken there. In your eyes, apparently that prohibits them from having a distinct Austrian culture, and they're basically just Germans. Their history and art mean nothing, because, 'tír gan teanga, tír gan anam'.

Now you've shifted the goalposts away from your original position to rambling on about a colonial mindset, and how despite the Swiss not speaking their own native language, because they're multilingual, it doesn't count.

Let's just create a starting point here. Can you acknowledge that you were incorrect when you stated that Ireland is the only European country to not widely speak it's native language?

FrancieBrady · 23-06-2020 3:31pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It is my point language is the main expression of culture. A turn of phrase, a way of thinking, it has tradition embedded in it. A unique lovely language. Yet it is way more easier for gombeens to think that a changing of the line of map is going to make them 'feel' more Irish instead. While still identifying more with British culture - the SF LCM (Lowest Common Denominator) in particular.

As for your point on Gaelscoil's they are a good thing. Language should not be politicised like SF cynically did with the Irish language Act - as most don't use it as a community language. When I was talking to a fluent Irish speaker from Donegal for example. I asked him why he did not wear a fainne. He explained how it has negative associations which he wishes to avoid -IRA - Provos and so on.

Yet the diehard republicans are precisely the types who call for a UI - the loudest. But even manage to tarnish the Irish language by thier approach. What hope real inclusiveness in a UI without a real move towards recognising and including a Unionist tradition? None in my opinion.

Language is a tool of culture. Americans use English to express themselves differently to us and to the English.

Enough of the rubbish pseudo educated science please.

FrancieBrady · 23-06-2020 3:37pm

downcow wrote: »

Not everyone makes the assumptions that you do. I find that most people who want to know your nationality are inclined to ask you, and once you tell them, they believe you and accept it. So more nonsense Francie

Well maybe tell your former PM's that who agreed that it was 'for the people of the island of Ireland (the Irish) to agree their future, without outside impediment'...'outside' = those who are not Irish i.e. The British themselves , French, Germans, Martians etc etc.

It's one of those things downcow - identity. All fine in theory, but the reality is you are seen as Irish, just like me and everyone else who calls this island their home or born on it.

Someday you will be able to see that, not as an insult but just as a reality, as Ian Paisley and James Craig and Trimble etc did.

Identify as you wish, I couldn't give a monkeys tbh.

gormdubhgorm · 23-06-2020 3:41pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Let's just create a starting point here. Can you acknowledge that you were incorrect when you stated that Ireland is the only European country to not widely speak it's native language?

I have not shifted any goalposts you are being disingenuous going on about dialect now. We will have moved on to Ulster Scots before we know it.
I had forgotten about Switzerland they are an exception to a lot of rules - speaking many languages as communication.
In contrast the Irish language is listed as definitely endangered.

Losing a language means according to UNESCO:

“Language loss entails an impoverishment of humanity in countless ways. Each language – large or small – captures and organizes reality in a distinctive manner; to lose even one closes off potential discoveries about human cognition and the mind.

The death of a language inevitably leads to the disappearance of various forms of intangible cultural heritage such as performing arts, social practices, rituals and festive events, traditional crafts and the priceless legacy of the community’s oral traditions and expressions, such as poetry and jokes, proverbs and legends.”

Yet people's first jump to proclaim how Irish they are has become ending partition. There is something really warped about this mentality to me.
As other cultures revived thier language like Hebrew / Hungarian. A glue that keeps a country together. The fact that partition was caused by the very people who wanted a UI is not lost on me either - yet somehow this is an expression of Irishness?
It seems like the colonial mindset as I have said - and I said it before. It is still in Irish people's mind that is the problem, not partition. And it starts with the Irish language. It was actually a fluent Gaeilgeoir who said to me Ireand still behaves like it is a colony - regarding The Irish language and obsession with British pop culture. That was when the realisation hit me that he was spot on.

If you go to places where people try and speak Irish you will find a large proportion of non-Irish people want to learn it. Yet most Irish people are terrified of it or dismissive of it. It is far easier for such Irish people to be seen calling for UI it sounds good, and takes zero effort of thought.

Plus anyone who says otherwise about partition (like me - thinking of possibly better alternatives, and a more practical way of Irishness) is labeled as a self deprecating Irish citizen at best, or a West Brit at worst.

FrancieBrady · 23-06-2020 3:45pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Yet people's first jump to proclaim how Irish they are has become ending partition.

More utter rubbish.
Name me one real person who names 'an end to partition' as the defining aspect of their Irishness.

Fionn1952 · 23-06-2020 4:23pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I have not shifted any goalposts you are being disingenuous going on about dialect now. We will have moved on to Ulster Scots before we know it.
I had forgotten about Switzerland they are an exception to a lot of rules - speaking many languages as communication.
In contrast the Irish language is listed as definitely endangered.

Losing a language means according to UNESCO:

“Language loss entails an impoverishment of humanity in countless ways. Each language – large or small – captures and organizes reality in a distinctive manner; to lose even one closes off potential discoveries about human cognition and the mind.

The death of a language inevitably leads to the disappearance of various forms of intangible cultural heritage such as performing arts, social practices, rituals and festive events, traditional crafts and the priceless legacy of the community’s oral traditions and expressions, such as poetry and jokes, proverbs and legends.”

Yet people's first jump to proclaim how Irish they are has become ending partition. There is something really warped about this mentality to me.
As other cultures revived thier language like Hebrew / Hungarian. A glue that keeps a country together. The fact that partition was caused by the very people who wanted a UI is not lost on me either - yet somehow this is an expression of Irishness?
It seems like the colonial mindset as I have said - and I said it before. It is still in Irish people's mind that is the problem, not partition. And it starts with the Irish language. It was actually a fluent Gaeilgeoir who said to me Ireand still behaves like it is a colony - regarding The Irish language and obsession with British pop culture. That was when the realisation hit me that he was spot on.

If you go to places where people try and speak Irish you will find a large proportion of non-Irish people want to learn it. Yet most Irish people are terrified of it or dismissive of it. It is far easier for such Irish people to be seen calling for UI it sounds good, and takes zero effort of thought.

Plus anyone who says otherwise about partition (like me - thinking of possibly better alternatives, and a more practical way of Irishness) is labeled as a self deprecating Irish citizen at best, or a West Brit at worst.

You also forgot about the Belgians and Cypriots (though apparently they don't count either because of their colonial mindset).

I'm not disputing for a second that the Irish language is in trouble, and I would see it as beneficial for us as a country and a people to do more to preserve it. Slowly but surely, I'm trying to do my bit with that.

My issue is with your absolutist statements, factual gaps and jumping to completely unjustified conclusions.

Yes the Irish language is in danger.....that isn't directly connected to unification. As they are separate, albeit connected issues, you will have an overlapping spectrum of people with an exclusive interest in one (you with the language side, your bar-stool bogeymen on the other), and a whole bunch in various areas along the spectrum in between.

Likewise, the mental gymnastics to decide that rejoining the commonwealth has anything to do with preserving Irish culture screams of starting with an answer and scrappily working back to the question. I can see how it may merit discussion should unification be on the table, if there is a public clamour for it, I don't feel particularly strongly about it to be shouting against it, but when there's nought but a tiny minority calling for it, I just can't see any upside to it. I certainly don't see how rejoining an organisation with the Queen of England as a figurehead leader would help get rid of the, 'colonial mindset' you're so fond of pointing out.

I don't think you're a self-hating Irish person, for the record. I think you have an unnecessarily narrow and outdated view of what constitutes culture, combined with a dose of, 'can't see the wood for the trees', with your inability to accept that as the world gets more connected, there will be cultural overlap and rub off. This is the case everywhere in the world. Somewhere in Germany, there's a bloke shouting insecurely at his friends about losing German culture for eating pizza and watching a Liverpool game too.

Regarding the Irish, 'hating' their own language, again you start with a reasonable(ish) premise.....and then jump off the deep end and declare it as a fact that this is due to a colonial mindset. It is just as reasonable a conclusion that there is a negative reaction because the language has been taught in an absolutely awful way through the schooling system, and rather than hatred, you're encountering embarrassment from people that they don't have the command of the language that they feel they should. Combine that with years of schooling spent trying to get it, a feeling of hopelessness and apathy naturally creep in as they're convinced they CAN'T do it.

While not in order, I've tried to address each of your points rather than just cutting out a few snippets to reply to, so apologies to all for the long post.

BonnieSituation · 23-06-2020 4:49pm

downcow wrote: »

This is part of the issue. From where I'm looking it seems to be all about 'preserving and promoting' the Irish language, and i would go further, that for many involved it is about showcasing, pushing, even forcing it on those who have no interest.
It may transform it if you take a leaf out of the loyalist marching scene and just focus on enjoying and celebrating it, live it, breathe it and feel good about it. The rest will then follow with little or no funding needed and it will flourish, just like the band scene is currently.
If it doesn't flourish, then maybe its not worth 'preserving and promoting'.

....or put another way, take a chill pill and relax and enjoy it for what it is

No one is pushing it on anyone.

How many times do you have to be told that?

You don't have to speak it. You don't even have to learn it. You don't have to engage with anything that could enrich your history or cultural understanding.

You also have no right to interfere with anyone else's wish to enrich their understanding of the language or history.

BonnieSituation · 23-06-2020 4:55pm

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Francie claims that everyone born on the island of Ireland is Irish. Fact. End of story. No debate. I used Heaslip as an example of how that is a stupid position to take. He was born to Irish parents (one of whom was serving in the Irish army) and raised in Ireland but because he was born in Israel, going by Francie;s logic, he is Israeli. Its ridiculous.

Another example is Stephen Moore who was born in Saudi Arabia to Irish parents and raised in Australia. According to Francie, he is Saudi. Do you agree?

Going by Francie's logic, yes Ronan O'Gara is American because he spent the first 6 months of his life there. I disagree.

Joey is a bit different. Born in NZ to an Irish mum and an Irish-Kiwi dad. Raised in NZ for a bit. I'd call him Irish-Kiwi.

My point is that nationality is not based solely on your place of birth. You have to factor in where your parents are from and where you are raised. Francie refuses to do this and just has a blinkered view that everyone born here is Irish so everyone should be happy with a united Ireland. He refuses to accept that people can be born on this island and not be Irish. I don't know if he accepts that people can move to Ireland and become Irish.

I don't speak for Francie. I'm merely pointing out that your approach was clearly obtuse and set to keep the argument going.

You are correct, your place of birth is not the sole defining feature of national identity. I mean, you have kids, I'm sure they are more than aware of the duality of their heritage.

I mean, I dare you to call Kevin Kilbane English!!!

There is a difficulty with the phraseology of the bolded bit because it could refer to a number of things that have a contentious background in Ireland, and it's been re-hashed numerous times on here regarding the unionist ignorance of their heritage and the rock on which they live and were born.

Anyway, moving on... apparently I'm not Irish enough anyway, will NZ have me?

FrancieBrady · 23-06-2020 4:57pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I don't speak for Francie. I'm merely pointing out that your approach was clearly obtuse and set to keep the argument going.

You are correct, your place of birth is not the sole defining feature of national identity.

Which is not what I am saying btw.

You can identify any which way you want IMO.

BonnieSituation · 23-06-2020 4:58pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Well it is a different approach to the issue of Brexit for a start a bit of give and take helps you know.

I fully understand how you were force fed like me with the 800 years of hurt line and so on. And how you would John Bruton who called for Ireland to join the commonwealth is a 'West Brit'. I used to think the same myself.
But when you step back from the rhetoric and think about it. Burton may have a point in saying 1916 was unnecessary. All it ended up doing was splitting the country in two and harbouring mistrust and division.

In this thread for example there is very little discussion of inclusiveness, and trying to understand another political viewpoint on the island of Ireland. Poor auld downcow could well be excused for thinking he/she is heading for the slaughterhouse once a UI is proclaimed. :eek:

Here is a general discussion on why Ireland joining would not be a bad idea.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EPl9WomJvcEJ:https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-the-republic-must-consider-rejoining-the-commonwealth-1.3605886+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

The latter is not the first to consider this an an option 'The reform group' was formed in 1998 to promote "a more inclusive definition of Irish identity" throughout all of Ireland.

The Reform Group released a book discussing the topic ten years ago.

https://www.omahonys.ie/ireland-and-the-commonwealth-towards-membership-p-262266.html

FF TD Malcolm Byrne (who has since lost his seat )

- even suggested that Ireland have the 12th as a National Holiday, Ireland rejoin the commonwealth, and 30pc of Cabinet positions for unionists in a UI.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/ff-td-united-ireland-could-celebrate-the-twelfth-and-rejoin-commonwealth-38795028.html

He pointed out that "The late Albert Reynolds once suggested that we could reserve 30pc of cabinet places for those from a unionist tradition - that could prove to be a very visionary statement."

--

Now you might think that joining the commonwealth is outlandish and abhorrent to Republican traditions. But the fact is a Republic can still join the Commonwealth with all its bells and whistles. Even keep the President. India manage perfectly well in the commonwealth as a Republic. One of the fastest growing economies in the world. But the crucial aspect is it is a way of keeping Ireland united while including all traditions. Member states have no legal obligations to one another, but are connected through their use of the English language and historical ties. Which Ireland already has as I have discussed.

In Eamon De Valera's last years in office as Taoiseach to achieve a UI he was in secret negotiations to join The Commonwealth.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:T5qdNqtK4NAJ:https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/united-ireland-de-valera-s-secret-plan-for-unification-1.3999072+&cd=16&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

"De Valera and Aiken proposed that Northern Ireland should surrender its direct allegiance to the queen in return for a united Republic of Ireland within the Commonwealth"

In fact even earlier back in 1953 De Valera said to Churchill that: he would not have taken Ireland out of the Commonwealth, as Costello had done.

At the time of the Republic of Ireland act 1948 - Republics were not permitted to join The Commonwealth. This changed following The London Declaration of 1949.

https://thecommonwealth.org/london-declaration

So that is why I think it would be a good idea for Ireland to join the Commonwealth. It stops the posturing of the likes of Celtic jerseys at Republican protests and actually accept common bonds. Instead of focusing on differences to divide and politise they should be included. That is how a UI should be achieved. As Gerry Adams once said himself the oppressed must not become the oppressors in a UI. But I believe it is only mere rhetoric unless a proper move forward is made, like joining The Commonwealth, that will lead to an inclusive United Republic of Ireland.

I asked a VERY simple question that did not require your now infamous wall of text, pseudo-intellectual retort.

I'll ask again:

You say that the Republic joining the Commonwealth would solve a problem.

What is the problem that the we are currently living with in the Republic that this will solve?

BonnieSituation · 23-06-2020 4:59pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It is my point language is the main expression of culture. A turn of phrase, a way of thinking, it has tradition embedded in it. A unique lovely language. Yet it is way more easier for gombeens to think that a changing of the line of map is going to make them 'feel' more Irish instead. While still identifying more with British culture - the SF LCM (Lowest Common Denominator) in particular.

As for your point on Gaelscoil's they are a good thing. Language should not be politicised like SF cynically did with the Irish language Act - as most don't use it as a community language. When I was talking to a fluent Irish speaker from Donegal for example. I asked him why he did not wear a fainne. He explained how it has negative associations which he wishes to avoid -IRA - Provos and so on.

Yet the diehard republicans are precisely the types who call for a UI - the loudest. But even manage to tarnish the Irish language by thier approach. What hope real inclusiveness in a UI without a real move towards recognising and including a Unionist tradition? None in my opinion.

Surely it is the Unionist-bloc that are politicising it?

Do you know the history of the ILA?

Did you know that the DUP agreed to implement an ILA in the St Andrew's agreement in 2007?

FrancieBrady · 23-06-2020 5:01pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I asked a VERY simple question that did not require your now infamous wall of text, pseudo-intellectual retort.

I'll ask again:

You say that the Republic joining the Commonwealth would solve a problem.

What is the problem that the we are currently living with in the Republic that this will solve?

It would actually create problems in our relationship with the EU if the CW did do as many MP's suggested, change it's emphasis on economic activity to compete with the EU.

It would also be anathema to any republican to give allegiance or their membership to an organisation headed by a monarch...any monarch.

jm08 · 23-06-2020 5:24pm

downcow wrote: »

This is part of the issue. From where I'm looking it seems to be all about 'preserving and promoting' the Irish language, and i would go further, that for many involved it is about showcasing, pushing, even forcing it on those who have no interest.
It may transform it if you take a leaf out of the loyalist marching scene and just focus on enjoying and celebrating it, live it, breathe it and feel good about it. The rest will then follow with little or no funding needed and it will flourish, just like the band scene is currently.
If it doesn't flourish, then maybe its not worth 'preserving and promoting'.

....or put another way, take a chill pill and relax and enjoy it for what it is

Here are some young Irish people enjoying the Irish language in song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A6__HssHW8

Scoil Lorcain is an Irish summer school in the Gaeltacht. They have a whole series of videos like this - translating popular songs into Irish and then performing them with dance and Irish instruments. This particular Youtube video has over 8 million views.

Enjoy DC

BonnieSituation · 23-06-2020 5:28pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

More utter rubbish.
Name me one real person who names 'an end to partition' as the defining aspect of their Irishness.

Maybe one of Downcow's republican mates profess this emotion?

BonnieSituation · 23-06-2020 5:30pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It would actually create problems in our relationship with the EU if the CW did do as many MP's suggested, change it's emphasis on economic activity to compete with the EU.

It would also be anathema to any republican to give allegiance or their membership to an organisation headed by a monarch...any monarch.

I just find it bizarre that the one person belittling us all as west Brits or what have you, is precisely the one who is suggesting that we move closer into the bosom of Britain.

The idea of doing such a thing is warped anyway but to do it given how the UK has been acting since 2016 is certifiable.

downcow · 23-06-2020 6:04pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

No one is pushing it on anyone.

How many times do you have to be told that?

You don't have to speak it. You don't even have to learn it. You don't have to engage with anything that could enrich your history or cultural understanding.

You also have no right to interfere with anyone else's wish to enrich their understanding of the language or history.

Chill and just enjoy it.

BonnieSituation · 23-06-2020 6:06pm

downcow wrote: »

Chill and just enjoy it.

Says the man afraid of the fada.

You always know when you have run out of road with your "arguments".

downcow · 23-06-2020 7:24pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Says the man afraid of the fada.

You always know when you have run out of road with your "arguments".

Let’s agree to do our on thing.

You continue focusing on ‘preserving and promoting’ your culture.
I’ll just continue enjoying and celebrating mine.

You worry about yours changing and I’ll embrace mine evolving.

We just have different approaches

BonnieSituation · 23-06-2020 7:30pm

downcow wrote: »

Let’s agree to do our on thing.

You continue focusing on ‘preserving and promoting’ your culture.
I’ll just continue enjoying and celebrating mine.

You worry about yours changing and I’ll embrace mine evolving.

We just have different approaches

So you're in favour of an ILA now to help those preserve and promote the Irish Language?

Yeah_Right · 23-06-2020 9:05pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I don't speak for Francie. I'm merely pointing out that your approach was clearly obtuse and set to keep the argument going.

You are correct, your place of birth is not the sole defining feature of national identity. I mean, you have kids, I'm sure they are more than aware of the duality of their heritage.

I mean, I dare you to call Kevin Kilbane English!!!

There is a difficulty with the phraseology of the bolded bit because it could refer to a number of things that have a contentious background in Ireland, and it's been re-hashed numerous times on here regarding the unionist ignorance of their heritage and the rock on which they live and were born.

Anyway, moving on... apparently I'm not Irish enough anyway, will NZ have me?

I was simply arguing against blanket, black & white statements because like you, I think nationality has many factors. I used a few famous names to get the point across. I'd never call Kilbane English because he is quite clearly proudly Irish. Born in England to Irish parents? To some that would make him English. Not to me.

I don't actually have any kids of my own. I do have a step-son who is Irish. Some of my mates here have Irish-Kiwi kids and they make sure they are aware of their heritage.

I'm NZ born and bred, I have a British passport through grandparents but I don't identify with the UK. I've never lived there. It's a document of convenience. Not so much with Brexit so I'm in the process of getting my Irish one. I don't identify as Irish but it's my second home and my second team.

Of course NZ will have you. Are you or your kids any good at rugby? Or any Olympic sports? Actually, we could do with some decent soccer players ðŸ˜

downcow · 24-06-2020 7:07am

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So you're in favour of an ILA now to help those preserve and promote the Irish Language?

No. I’d rather our resources were used for supporting those needy, the nhs, etc. If it’s going to be spent on language then let’s focus on supporting those who don’t speak English.
If there is money left (which there won’t be) then it would be better spent on stuff people enjoy , rather than stuff that people need coerced to do

If you want to promote stuff then do that out of your own pocket, not mine

Fionn1952 · 24-06-2020 8:17am

downcow wrote: »

No. I’d rather our resources were used for supporting those needy, the nhs, etc. If it’s going to be spent on language then let’s focus on supporting those who don’t speak English.
If there is money left (which there won’t be) then it would be better spent on stuff people enjoy , rather than stuff that people need coerced to do

If you want to promote stuff then do that out of your own pocket, not mine

This kind of reductionism sounds noble on the surface, but quickly falls apart under even the most basic scrutiny.

Carried to it's logical conclusion, it either leads to small-government Libertarianism (to which the NHS would be hugely antithetical) or a litany of exceptions so long that your bias becomes apparent (already happening).

Just to apply your own logic, why would we spend money on supporting people who can't speak English? If someone chooses to emigrate to an essentially monolingual society, the onus is on them to ensure they have sufficient grasp of the language. I'd much rather the money went to the NHS.

We can very easily go down the list from July 12th/11th Night or St Patrick's Day, and the expense to the public purse (if you want to burn stuff and march up and down a few streets, do it out of your own pocket, not mine. I'd rather the money went to the NHS).

Moving a step along - local arts councils. Create art in your own time. If it isn't profitable, do it out of your own pocket, not mine. I'd rather the money went to the NHS).

Your local kids soccer team? If local kids want to play soccer, do it out of their parents own pocket. I'd rather the money went to the NHS.

The fiction section of your local library? If you want to read fiction.....

Infrastructure improvement projects. If you want better roads.....

So where is your line, Downcow? You don't have to answer in your post, but at least analyse it yourself. I suspect it'll slice awfully close to, 'Nationalist/Republican community interests' on the cut off side, with at least a few exceptions made for the Unionist/Loyalist interests side, with cross community interests preserved so you can continue to feel like you're being moderate. Even if I'm mistaken, surely you can see the issue with the reductionist, 'but the NHS' argument?

gormdubhgorm · 24-06-2020 12:23pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I asked a VERY simple question that did not require your now infamous wall of text, pseudo-intellectual retort.

I'll ask again:

You say that the Republic joining the Commonwealth would solve a problem.

What is the problem that the we are currently living with in the Republic that this will solve?

If you read the post the explanation is there. I can't explain it more simply for you I am sorry.. Other than saying that it will show inclusiveness to the Unionists, and will be more likely to bring about a peaceful and stable UI.
If you refuse to read, I can't make you.

gormdubhgorm · 24-06-2020 12:31pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Surely it is the Unionist-bloc that are politicising it?

Do you know the history of the ILA?

Did you know that the DUP agreed to implement an ILA in the St Andrew's agreement in 2007?

It is SF also cynically politised the Irish language as well (Irish Language Act etc), while only mostly using the language symbolically in Stormont. Yet the two SF leaders one has no little Irish, and another has just passable Irish in no way fluent.
As I said earlier if people just spoke the language day to day (at home daily life) that is a much more practical demonstration of Irishness and culture. Yet the sole way many seem to have to claim Irishness is crow about a line on a map.
Very hypocritical - in my opinion. Plus I suspect you know it is true deep down, which is why you are getting so rattled.

downcow · 24-06-2020 12:35pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

This kind of reductionism sounds noble on the surface, but quickly falls apart under even the most basic scrutiny.

Carried to it's logical conclusion, it either leads to small-government Libertarianism (to which the NHS would be hugely antithetical) or a litany of exceptions so long that your bias becomes apparent (already happening).

Just to apply your own logic, why would we spend money on supporting people who can't speak English? If someone chooses to emigrate to an essentially monolingual society, the onus is on them to ensure they have sufficient grasp of the language. I'd much rather the money went to the NHS.

We can very easily go down the list from July 12th/11th Night or St Patrick's Day, and the expense to the public purse (if you want to burn stuff and march up and down a few streets, do it out of your own pocket, not mine. I'd rather the money went to the NHS).

Moving a step along - local arts councils. Create art in your own time. If it isn't profitable, do it out of your own pocket, not mine. I'd rather the money went to the NHS).

Your local kids soccer team? If local kids want to play soccer, do it out of their parents own pocket. I'd rather the money went to the NHS.

The fiction section of your local library? If you want to read fiction.....

Infrastructure improvement projects. If you want better roads.....

So where is your line, Downcow? You don't have to answer in your post, but at least analyse it yourself. I suspect it'll slice awfully close to, 'Nationalist/Republican community interests' on the cut off side, with at least a few exceptions made for the Unionist/Loyalist interests side, with cross community interests preserved so you can continue to feel like you're being moderate. Even if I'm mistaken, surely you can see the issue with the reductionist, 'but the NHS' argument?

So much utter nonsense and that, I don't know where to start.

Carried to it's logical conclusion, it either leads to small-government Libertarianism (to which the NHS would be hugely antithetical) or a litany of exceptions so long that your bias becomes apparent (already happening).

we don't normally carry everything to its logical conclusion - indeed I can't think of any position that, if carried to its logical conclusion, would not become ridiculous - so that's your first nonsense

Just to apply your own logic, why would we spend money on supporting people who can't speak English? If someone chooses to emigrate to an essentially monolingual society, the onus is on them to ensure they have sufficient grasp of the language. I'd much rather the money went to the NHS.
this is just racist rubbish, not even worth of reply

We can very easily go down the list from July 12th/11th Night or St Patrick's Day, and the expense to the public purse (if you want to burn stuff and march up and down a few streets, do it out of your own pocket, not mine. I'd rather the money went to the NHS).

even more nonsense. You are now trying to include policing violence and protecting lives. I think you probably know the nonsense this is.
As for funding for the 12th/11th night or St Patrick's Day - I stand completely by my statement and would far rather see the money spent on cancer treatment. And anyhow, maybe you could outline the millions are spent on the 12th, because I am not aware of it

Moving a step along - local arts councils. Create art in your own time. If it isn't profitable, do it out of your own pocket, not mine. I'd rather the money went to the NHS).
here we go again taking it to its 'logical conclusion', but I have no problem with small sensible amounts of money being spent on the arts. I do though have an issue about £millions of money raised from the poor, through lotteries etc, being spent on exclusive hobbies and entertainment of the rich.

Your local kids soccer team? If local kids want to play soccer, do it out of their parents own pocket. I'd rather the money went to the NHS.
Certainly I would support kids to take part in any sport or activity that improves their health. This actually saves money for the NHS. It is also not targeted at just a small number of the population based on the community background. So no comparison, at more of your nonsense

A few posters on here from an Irish background have given us a good insight into the niche interest that Irish language is. I think it was quoted 70,000 speakers in a population of 5 million people. Yet some people want more and more money poured in and more and more 'preserving and promoting'.
It does not stand up to sensible scrutiny

Fionn1952 · 24-06-2020 12:57pm

downcow wrote: »

So much utter nonsense and that, I don't know where to start.

Carried to it's logical conclusion, it either leads to small-government Libertarianism (to which the NHS would be hugely antithetical) or a litany of exceptions so long that your bias becomes apparent (already happening).

we don't normally carry everything to its logical conclusion - indeed I can't think of any position that, if carried to its logical conclusion, would not become ridiculous - so that's your first nonsense

Just to apply your own logic, why would we spend money on supporting people who can't speak English? If someone chooses to emigrate to an essentially monolingual society, the onus is on them to ensure they have sufficient grasp of the language. I'd much rather the money went to the NHS.
this is just racist rubbish, not even worth of reply

We can very easily go down the list from July 12th/11th Night or St Patrick's Day, and the expense to the public purse (if you want to burn stuff and march up and down a few streets, do it out of your own pocket, not mine. I'd rather the money went to the NHS).

even more nonsense. You are now trying to include policing violence and protecting lives. I think you probably know the nonsense this is.
As for funding for the 12th/11th night or St Patrick's Day - I stand completely by my statement and would far rather see the money spent on cancer treatment. And anyhow, maybe you could outline the millions are spent on the 12th, because I am not aware of it

Moving a step along - local arts councils. Create art in your own time. If it isn't profitable, do it out of your own pocket, not mine. I'd rather the money went to the NHS).
here we go again taking it to its 'logical conclusion', but I have no problem with small sensible amounts of money being spent on the arts. I do though have an issue about £millions of money raised from the poor, through lotteries etc, being spent on exclusive hobbies and entertainment of the rich.

Your local kids soccer team? If local kids want to play soccer, do it out of their parents own pocket. I'd rather the money went to the NHS.
Certainly I would support kids to take part in any sport or activity that improves their health. This actually saves money for the NHS. It is also not targeted at just a small number of the population based on the community background. So no comparison, at more of your nonsense

A few posters on here from an Irish background have given us a good insight into the niche interest that Irish language is. I think it was quoted 70,000 speakers in a population of 5 million people. Yet some people want more and more money poured in and more and more 'preserving and promoting'.
It does not stand up to sensible scrutiny

You've clearly misread with the impression that these statements are MY opinions, rather than just applying your, 'the NHS needs more money, so anything less important than the NHS should not receive funding' logic.

If you DON'T believe that anything less important than the NHS should not receive funding until all the NHS woes are fixed, then your statement is an irrelevant piece of nonsense.

To clarify, I fully support funding for people struggling with English or struggling to integrate into society. I'm a huge supporter and big fan of the Arts, regular user of library resources. I'm not the one calling for all our tax funds to be diverted into the NHS though.

Quite obviously, my point was that your objection has SFA to do with NHS funding, but rather it is a convenient excuse, Downcow. I thought it was quite clear to anyone who took their time to actually read it.

gormdubhgorm · 24-06-2020 1:03pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

You also forgot about the Belgians and Cypriots (though apparently they don't count either because of their colonial mindset).

I'm not disputing for a second that the Irish language is in trouble, and I would see it as beneficial for us as a country and a people to do more to preserve it. Slowly but surely, I'm trying to do my bit with that.

My issue is with your absolutist statements, factual gaps and jumping to completely unjustified conclusions.

Yes the Irish language is in danger.....that isn't directly connected to unification. As they are separate, albeit connected issues, you will have an overlapping spectrum of people with an exclusive interest in one (you with the language side, your bar-stool bogeymen on the other), and a whole bunch in various areas along the spectrum in between.

Likewise, the mental gymnastics to decide that rejoining the commonwealth has anything to do with preserving Irish culture screams of starting with an answer and scrappily working back to the question. I can see how it may merit discussion should unification be on the table, if there is a public clamour for it, I don't feel particularly strongly about it to be shouting against it, but when there's nought but a tiny minority calling for it, I just can't see any upside to it. I certainly don't see how rejoining an organisation with the Queen of England as a figurehead leader would help get rid of the, 'colonial mindset' you're so fond of pointing out.

I don't think you're a self-hating Irish person, for the record. I think you have an unnecessarily narrow and outdated view of what constitutes culture, combined with a dose of, 'can't see the wood for the trees', with your inability to accept that as the world gets more connected, there will be cultural overlap and rub off. This is the case everywhere in the world. Somewhere in Germany, there's a bloke shouting insecurely at his friends about losing German culture for eating pizza and watching a Liverpool game too.

Regarding the Irish, 'hating' their own language, again you start with a reasonable(ish) premise.....and then jump off the deep end and declare it as a fact that this is due to a colonial mindset. It is just as reasonable a conclusion that there is a negative reaction because the language has been taught in an absolutely awful way through the schooling system, and rather than hatred, you're encountering embarrassment from people that they don't have the command of the language that they feel they should. Combine that with years of schooling spent trying to get it, a feeling of hopelessness and apathy naturally creep in as they're convinced they CAN'T do it.

While not in order, I've tried to address each of your points rather than just cutting out a few snippets to reply to, so apologies to all for the long post.

Well in my opinion language is the bedrock of any (most cultures) you did point out exceptions. But I think by and large Ireland is a nation of hypocrites and deluded. English is still spoken as the main language in the ROI of Ireland after 100 years of freedom. Plus you cannot deny that Irish people have extremely close identification to British culture. Whether they like to admit it or not.

Because of the troubles Irish language became politicised and not used as a language of communication by the Protestant tradition

Also I feel in the ROI in the Irish psyche, many think Irish is still the language of the poor. Caused by a few generations believing it. A colony mindset.

As for the claim on a UI.
The only people who managed to 'Unite Ireland' was the British got all those clans into one unit. Plus the split was caused by Irish people themselves who decided force was an option. Yet there is this delusion that the ROI has a birth right to those six counties, just by the very fact it is on the same island.

In my view most people in the ROI say they would like a UI because that is what they were taught at school. Makes people feel more 'Irish' by saying it.
I used to be the same myself as a young fella even voted against the GFA because of the removal of Articles 2 and 3. I was well indoctrinated in that myth of 'the national territory'. I was wrong to vote like that now in hindsight as there has to be compromise in order to bring peace.

There is no real thinking of the practicalities of such a move to a UI , money, economics etc. It is not as if gas and oil will be found in lough Derg to pay for everything. No plans on how the Unionist tradition would not be left out in the cold. Which is why I mentioned the Commonwealth as a solution. Compromise a UI / ROI within a Commonwealth.

gormdubhgorm · 24-06-2020 1:37pm

downcow wrote: »

A few posters on here from an Irish background have given us a good insight into the niche interest that Irish language is. I think it was quoted 70,000 speakers in a population of 5 million people. Yet some people want more and more money poured in and more and more 'preserving and promoting'.
It does not stand up to sensible scrutiny

It ends up as nothing, but lip service. Instead of using the language. Irish people as a whole have a very odd attitude towards the Irish language they blame schools and so on. Yet all that has to be done is speak it more often in thier daily life. But most don't.
So the sole foundation expression of Irishness is no longer language like most countries it becomes - 'A Nation Once Again' with a few Irish phrases bandied about.

The truth is British culture has been almost completely submerged Irish culture. That is no longer just the fault of 'The Brits' but the Irish themselves.
A UI is not going to change that in whatever form it takes.

FrancieBrady · 24-06-2020 1:47pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Well in my opinion language is the bedrock of any (most cultures) you did point out exceptions. But I think by and large Ireland is a nation of hypocrites and deluded. English is still spoken as the main language in the ROI of Ireland after 100 years of freedom. Plus you cannot deny that Irish people have extremely close identification to British culture. Whether they like to admit it or not.

Because of the troubles Irish language became politicised and not used as a language of communication by the Protestant tradition

Also I feel in the ROI in the Irish psyche, many think Irish is still the language of the poor. Caused by a few generations believing it. A colony mindset.

As for the claim on a UI.
The only people who managed to 'Unite Ireland' was the British got all those clans into one unit. Plus the split was caused by Irish people themselves who decided force was an option. Yet there is this delusion that the ROI has a birth right to those six counties, just by the very fact it is on the same island.

In my view most people in the ROI say they would like a UI because that is what they were taught at school. Makes people feel more 'Irish' by saying it.
I used to be the same myself as a young fella even voted against the GFA because of the removal of Articles 2 and 3. I was well indoctrinated in that myth of 'the national territory'. I was wrong to vote like that now in hindsight as there has to be compromise in order to bring peace.

There is no real thinking of the practicalities of such a move to a UI , money, economics etc. It is not as if gas and oil will be found in lough Derg to pay for everything. No plans on how the Unionist tradition would not be left out in the cold. Which is why I mentioned the Commonwealth as a solution. Compromise a UI / ROI within a Commonwealth.

Did you read the article written by a Unionist and Orangeman I posted earlier?

Not hard to divine from the facts posted in it who changed their attitude to the Irish Language and politicised it.

How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

Comments