Arlene, Edwin, her replacement and his replacement as leader of the DUP

gormdubhgorm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I've heard Adams speaking in Irish in interviews, I don't know if he is 100% fluent but he does seem to be able to converse in it anyway.

I've never heard McDonald speak it though, maybe she can but if not theres no excuse for her not to know it being well educated and from Dublin.

Adams has conversational Irish sort of like a second tier level. He wears a silver fainne to signify this. Discussions in Irish involving technical terms such as 'fiscal rectitude' are passed over to Pearse Doherty for a reason!

I would argue that Gerry has a better level/handle of Irish than Mary Lou. She is vary shaky either reads it off or sounds like she learnt it by rote. Which should be a bit of embarrassment to her for the reasons you state.

breezy1985

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Anyone can start learning Irish or improving their Irish tomorrow. But it is much easier to have the pretence of an Irish Language Act for people to focus on symbolism rather than actually do the practical stuff.

Why not have both

gormdubhgorm

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you a fluent/native speaker yourself?

No middle of the road. I could converse that is about it. Written Irish would be a disaster. Reading would be shaky. But I do try and improve on my vocabulary on a very regular basis bit by bit in my own ways. It is fairly easy to do in this day and age with focloir.ie, tuairisc.ie, RnaG and TG4 etc.

But the problem I have is when you reach a plateau at non-native level it is difficult to make the jump up a level unless you are completely immersed for a long period. Or take further education.

I find the core group of those in the Irish Language community in Ireland to be very fond of symbolism. But ignore practical realities a lot of the time. A lot of what is done looks good on paper, but does little on the ground for the spread and growth of the Irish language. Hungary managed to revive a language in 100 years, Ireland is still fluting around with theirs during the same period.

Speedline

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

My problem is the Irish language Act achieves nothing in itself it annoys me.
There is nothing practical about it.

I actually admire Adams giving Irish a go which is more than lot of Republicans or even regular Irish citizens do. But it also annoys me that Republican's have hijacked the Irish language as political symbol but many do not either speak it at all or speak it in their day to day lives. It is the height of hypocrisy a language is there to be spoken not being abused/kicked around as some sort of symbol/game.

Anyone can start learning Irish or improving their Irish tomorrow. But it is much easier to have the pretence of an Irish Language Act for people to focus on symbolism rather than actually do the practical stuff.

Yes the DUP should not have reneged on the promise to implement the Irish Language Act. But if they receive a mandate after a GE following this it will say there is a proportion in NI who do not want it.

Yes, in an ideal world it would be nice if all sides of the divide did not feel threatened by the Irish Language, nor use it as a flag waving exercise.

People like Linda Ervine UUP - are few and far between in NI. Fair play to the woman she speaks the Irish language just as a language and does not attach political hooks/agendas to it. If more had her attitude NI would be the better for it.

Unfortunately many such as SF (how many use it in day to day lives? - using Irish as a merely a symbol) and the DUP (Anti-Irish for the sake of it) both have a really insincere approach to the Irish Language it is never simply about the language itself. And does nothing really to help it in practical terms 100% for symbolism though because that is all it is.

Tell the UK government if you're that bothered. They will be implementing the act in a matter of months.

golfball37

All arguments against equal rights for Irish language that they enjoy in wales and Scotland fall down on one crucial factor.
The dup agreed to it before stormont recommenced.
Whataboutery on numbers and Gerry Adams should have been raised back then

gormdubhgorm

breezy1985 wrote: »

Why not have both

You could but symbolism for the sake of it really annoys me. In any subject really not just the Irish language. Half-baked sort of efforts that is 'identity' based rather than practically based.

I have already mentioned Irish as an official language of the EU, you have lads that are paid to translate documents over there into Irish!

Also the Irish language was used just nine times in the seven years (in EU business) after it was made an official language. I could not find figures after 2013 maybe someone else has them?

There is some Irish interpreter(s) just twiddling their thumbs in Europe just praying for an Irish Minister or Irish MEP to use the 'cúpla focal'
It must be one of the handiest jobs in European Union!

But yet on the face of it we see 'Irish Official Language of the EU'...

Come on lads - pure symbolism!

And I am not going down the rabbit hole of Irish as the official language of the ROI. But that is more symbolism as well.

The truth is. In a few generations 75 years or so I doubt Irish will be spoken as a 'community language' any more. The whole dance around the Irish language is a bit of a farce. It comes with real disingenuous figures from the census -

Have you spoken ANY Irish in the last -

Week
Month
Or more regularly

Etc.

Then they concoct figures that try and make it seem that such and such percentage of people have 'some' Irish.

https://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/population/2017/7._The_Irish_language.pdf

ArthurDayne

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

My problem is the Irish language Act achieves nothing in itself it annoys me.
There is nothing practical about it.

I actually admire Adams giving Irish a go which is more than lot of Republicans or even regular Irish citizens do. But it also annoys me that Republican's have hijacked the Irish language as political symbol but many do not either speak it at all or speak it in their day to day lives. It is the height of hypocrisy a language is there to be spoken not being abused/kicked around as some sort of symbol/game.

Anyone can start learning Irish or improving their Irish tomorrow. But it is much easier to have the pretence of an Irish Language Act for people to focus on symbolism rather than actually do the practical stuff.

Yes the DUP should not have reneged on the promise to implement the Irish Language Act. But if they receive a mandate after a GE following this it will say there is a proportion in NI who do not want it.

Yes, in an ideal world it would be nice if all sides of the divide did not feel threatened by the Irish Language, nor use it as a flag waving exercise.

People like Linda Ervine UUP - are few and far between in NI. Fair play to the woman she speaks the Irish language just as a language and does not attach political hooks/agendas to it. If more had her attitude NI would be the better for it.

Unfortunately many such as SF (how many use it in day to day lives? - using Irish as a merely a symbol) and the DUP (Anti-Irish for the sake of it) both have a really insincere approach to the Irish Language it is never simply about the language itself. And does nothing really to help it in practical terms 100% for symbolism though because that is all it is.

Yes, because the same principles applying to the part in bold mattered so deeply to the DUP in the context of NI not wanting Brexit.

Anyway, would there still be no chance of you spelling out in any sort of coherent way what you actually want? Or perhaps I can put the put the words in your mouth and you can tell me where I’ve gotten it wrong, how does that sound? So let’s try that:

The Irish Language Act should be scrapped:

1. Because it is part of a Republican symbolism plot;
2. Because you perceive SF to have insincere motivations and (even if this was true) that should be allowed to cancel out and punish anyone who has sincere motivations — not to mention cancelling out the fact that other non-Republican parties also support it;
3. Irregardless of the fact that you have been demonstrated as knowing nothing about the Irish speaking or Irish-learning community in the North but still have such deep understanding of what the Act means to them;
4. Because people who aren’t gloriously fluent have no standing to seek action to preserve the language;
5. Because the language is threatened anyway as a spoken language so what’s the point.

gormdubhgorm

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Yes, because the same principles applying to the part in bold mattered so deeply to the DUP in the context of NI not wanting Brexit.

Anyway, would there still be no chance of you spelling out in any sort of coherent way what you actually want? Or perhaps I can put the put the words in your mouth and you can tell me where I’ve gotten it wrong, how does that sound? So let’s try that:

The Irish Language Act should be scrapped:

1. Because it is part of a Republican symbolism plot;
2. Because you perceive SF to have insincere motivations and (even if this was true) that should be allowed to cancel out and punish anyone who has sincere motivations — not to mention cancelling out the fact that other non-Republican parties also support it;
3. Irregardless of the fact that you have been demonstrated as knowing nothing about the Irish speaking or Irish-learning community but still have such deep understanding of what the Act means to them;
4. Because people who aren’t gloriously fluent have no standing to seek action to preserve the language;
5. Because the language is threatened anyway as a spoken language so what’s the point.

1. Because it is part of a Republican symbolism plot

It is mainly driven by Republican's and yes it is purely symbolic - nothing more nothing less. It does little practically other than serve as a 'flag waving exercise' for all but a few such as Linda Ervine who is in favour the Irish language Act.

It also serves a duel purpose of antagonising other Unionists (not in favour) to watch them squirm. It has little to do with the language itself.

2. Because you perceive SF to have insincere motivations and (even if this was true) that should be allowed to cancel out and punish anyone who has sincere motivations — not to mention cancelling out the fact that other non-Republican parties also support it;

This is a fair argument but I believe the large majority of those pushing for an Irish Language Act have insincere motivations. If they are so pro 'The Irish language' they literally do not practice what they preach. Granted there is also a middle ground who would not be bothered either way. But it is the insincere piggybacking on the few sincere individuals that do have an actual interest in Irish language and make a real effort to speak it.


3. Irregardless of the fact that you have been demonstrated as knowing nothing about the Irish speaking or Irish-learning community but still have such deep understanding of what the Act means to them;

Where have you gathered this 'fact' from?

Let's address what the ILA would mean to an Irish speaking community it would be purely symbolic based and make them feel good about themselves. More identity than anything of practical use for the language in NI. They can attend court in the Irish language if they failed to pay a parking ticket if they wish. How does it really grow the language other than adding another layer of bureaucracy all for the sake of identity. How often would it be used?

I remember hearing a fluent Irish speaker who was a barrister from Donegal (on radio) working in Dublin saying she was never asked to hear a case in Irish even after over 10 years in practice.

Much as I would not agree with much of what Arlene Foster says or stands for.
She made the flippant point about making more sense to have a Polish Act than an ILA.

But again it does have a grain of truth in in. In NI 2018 figures

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/revealed-the-different-languages-spoken-in-northern-ireland-schools-36651867.html

6671 speak Polish in NI schools and just 454 speak Irish. More spoke Chinese!

So you must then ask should a whole myriad of languages get their own Language Act's, And what would it 'mean' to them?

4. Because people who aren’t gloriously fluent have no standing to seek action to preserve the language;

This is the major misnomer that really properly annoys me. The false flag of delusion pretending that such an Act will preserve the Irish Language.

We have clearly seen from the ROI that all sorts of legislation putting Irish on pedestal over English had done nothing to save the threat to Irish as community language.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30679384.html

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2015/0529/704583-irish-in-decline-in-gaeltacht-areas-report/

So legislation for the sake of it is not the answer in solving the issue. Practical steps such as speaking it are!

5. Because the language is threatened anyway as a spoken language so what’s the point.

I said there is no point in an Irish Language Act as it serves no practical purpose.

To have a strong a language it has to be spoken as a community language the majority of the time. The Hungarians managed it with their language. The Jews revived Hebrew.

An Irish Language Act is by itself pointless just a symbol. Irish has to be spoken in the home, in school and in communities to thrive. Children have to speak it.

Bláthnaid Ní Chofaigh fluent Irish speaker from the Meath Gaeltacht was on a programme discussing living in Ireland while trying to speak Irish fluently. She would be asked to say her name 'in English' when getting Car Insurance or the like. Her son although fluent in Irish (Peadar I assume) admitted to her in the programme that he would converse to his friends in English outside the home. This saddened and upset her.

It clearly an uphill battle from a practical standpoint, from a symbolic standpoint an ILA would 'look nice' but do little practical to help grow the language. As there is little practical action on it from the majority, nor desire to take practical action. It is a much easier route to go for the symbolic instead.

FrancieBrady

Who is engaging in 'ransom politics' again?


https://twitter.com/Independent_ie/status/1406586385281302533

Speedline

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who is engaging in 'ransom politics' again?


https://twitter.com/Independent_ie/status/1406586385281302533

Do they not realise its too late? It's being implemented over their heads. By grown up people.

UDAWINNER

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

My problem is the Irish language Act achieves nothing in itself it annoys me.
There is nothing practical about it.

I actually admire Adams giving Irish a go which is more than lot of Republicans or even regular Irish citizens do. But it also annoys me that Republican's have hijacked the Irish language as political symbol but many do not either speak it at all or speak it in their day to day lives. It is the height of hypocrisy a language is there to be spoken not being abused/kicked around as some sort of symbol/game.

Anyone can start learning Irish or improving their Irish tomorrow. But it is much easier to have the pretence of an Irish Language Act for people to focus on symbolism rather than actually do the practical stuff.

Yes the DUP should not have reneged on the promise to implement the Irish Language Act. But if they receive a mandate after a GE following this it will say there is a proportion in NI who do not want it.

Yes, in an ideal world it would be nice if all sides of the divide did not feel threatened by the Irish Language, nor use it as a flag waving exercise.

People like Linda Ervine UUP - are few and far between in NI. Fair play to the woman she speaks the Irish language just as a language and does not attach political hooks/agendas to it. If more had her attitude NI would be the better for it.

Unfortunately many such as SF (how many use it in day to day lives? - using Irish as a merely a symbol) and the DUP (Anti-Irish for the sake of it) both have a really insincere approach to the Irish Language it is never simply about the language itself. And does nothing really to help it in practical terms 100% for symbolism though because that is all it is.

What about the large portion of people who vote for SF, SDLP, Alliance who want it, does their vote not count.
A large portion of the population do not want Parades or Union Jacks flying on every street corner, should they be banned also.
Or is it just Unionists get to choose what laws get enacted in the North, I would like to think time has moved on

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who is engaging in 'ransom politics' again?


https://twitter.com/Independent_ie/status/1406586385281302533

Don't worry a deal with be reached following a long impasse as usual in NI politics after Stormont is brought down for another while.
As Michael Martin brilliantly once put it the 'choreographed conversation of NI politics.' I think that sums it up.

No doubt one side will pretend to give a damn about the Irish Language and the other will pretend the Ulster Scots is a language and not a dialect. The two will probably get sandwiched in some piece of paper at some deadline. As a a compromise.

If there is a GE over this issue and the DUP increase in mandate what will happen then? One side of the electorate will have clearly spoken
Circle keeps turning?

If there is a GE on this issue results in lower mandate for the DUP then it would be an indicator that NI is ready for some slight changes.

No matter what the result I would like to know what are the chances of Michelle trying to learn a language she is 'proud' of as the leader of her crew in NI.
It would be at least an example of someone showing leadership and taking practical action. Making an real effort. Do Michelle O'Neill's children speak any Irish in the home I wonder? Just thinking out loud.

gormdubhgorm

UDAWINNER wrote: »

What about the large portion of people who vote for SF, SDLP, Alliance who want it, does their vote not count.
A large portion of the population do want Parades or Union Jacks flying on every street corner, should they be banned also.
Or is it just Unionists get to choose what laws get enacted in the North, I would like to think time has moved on

Of course the SDLP, Alliance want it. But the difference is the impression I get is their motives are sincere. Those in such parties want to take border politics out of NI and focus on normal issues that face every democracy. SF and the DUP are just taking the piss in my opinion as usual. Zero real sincerity the Irish language Act s just used as a tool, a plaything. An excuse for a fight.

Speedline

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Don't worry a deal with be reached following a long impasse as usual in NI politics after Stormont is brought down for another while.
As Michael Martin brilliantly once put it the 'choreographed conversation of NI politics.' I think that sums it up.

No doubt one side will pretend to give a damn about the Irish Language and the other will pretend the Ulster Scots is a language and not a dialect. The two will probably get sandwiched in some piece of paper at some deadline. As a a compromise.

If there is a GE over this issue and the DUP increase in mandate what will happen then? One side of the electorate will have clearly spoken
Circle keeps turning?

If there is a GE on this issue results in lower mandate for the DUP then it would be an indicator that NI is ready for some slight changes.

No matter what the result I would like to know what are the chances of Michelle trying to learn a language she is 'proud' of as the leader of her crew in NI.
It would be at least an example of someone showing leadership and taking practical action. Making an real effort. Do Michelle O'Neill's children speak any Irish in the home I wonder? Just thinking out loud.

If Stormont is collapsed, the uk government will implement the ILA as they have agreed to.

It is now out of the DUPs hand. They cannot kick it down the road for another few years. You seem to have difficulty understanding this.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Don't worry a deal with be reached

A 'deal' was reached long ago and several times. I didn't read anymore of your post, no doubt it is just a vehicle to vent the peculiar inferiority complex of partitionism.

alchemist33

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who is engaging in 'ransom politics' again?


https://twitter.com/Independent_ie/status/1406586385281302533

Looks like the DUP holding itself hostage and threatening to blow itself up unless its demands are met

UDAWINNER

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Of course the SDLP, Alliance want it. But the difference is the impression I get is their motives are sincere. Those in such parties want to take border politics out of NI and focus on normal issues that face every democracy. SF and the DUP are just taking the piss in my opinion as usual. Zero real sincerity the Irish language Act s just used as a tool, a plaything. An excuse for a fight.

You did not answer the question, why should the DUP voters gets to decide what is enacted but SF voters, vast majority of nationalist don't get what they want. Should SF get rid of parades and union jacks as they are seen as sectarian and bigoted because their voters don't want them. Or are unionist voters more important than nationalist voters

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A 'deal' was reached long ago and several times.

I know a 'deal' was reached and reneged on by Poots in a speech (ironically) well over a decade ago.

Poots did a 180 on it now and it cost him his job.

If the DUP go into a GE as a result of this issue under Donaldson and increase/maintain their mandate. It will be a clear sign that the largest proportion of the Unionist electorate do not want an ILA as is proposed, or want it to be overhauled. And surely based on the principle of democracy it will have to be listened to.

UDAWINNER

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who is engaging in 'ransom politics' again?


https://twitter.com/Independent_ie/status/1406586385281302533

Just waiting on the "be careful what you say, it's the marching season line" that is spouted out by various Govts over the years.
Personally I would get rid of marches and union jacks as they only represent one side of the population until the ILA and other things are enacted to make NI a more inclusive country

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I know a 'deal' was reached and reneged on by Poots in a speech (ironically) well over a decade ago.

Poots did a 180 on it now and it cost him his job.

If the DUP go into a GE as a result of this issue under Donaldson and increase/maintain their mandate. It will be a clear sign that the largest proportion of the Unionist electorate do not want an ILA as is proposed, or want it to be overhauled. And surely based on the principle of democracy it will have to be listened to.

If they wish to overturn the deal, democracy says they have to do that in the proper forum, the executive. Without recourse to petitions of concern when a democratic vote is taken.

UDAWINNER

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I know a 'deal' was reached and reneged on by Poots in a speech (ironically) well over a decade ago.

Poots did a 180 on it now and it cost him his job.

If the DUP go into a GE as a result of this issue under Donaldson and increase/maintain their mandate. It will be a clear sign that the largest proportion of the Unionist electorate do not want an ILA as is proposed, or want it to be overhauled. And surely based on the principle of democracy it will have to be listened to.

A large proportion of the Nationalist community want parades and union jacks scrapped, should that happen as well

golfball37

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Don't worry a deal with be reached following a long impasse as usual in NI politics after Stormont is brought down for another while.
As Michael Martin brilliantly once put it the 'choreographed conversation of NI politics.' I think that sums it up.

No doubt one side will pretend to give a damn about the Irish Language and the other will pretend the Ulster Scots is a language and not a dialect. The two will probably get sandwiched in some piece of paper at some deadline. As a a compromise.

If there is a GE over this issue and the DUP increase in mandate what will happen then? One side of the electorate will have clearly spoken
Circle keeps turning?

If there is a GE on this issue results in lower mandate for the DUP then it would be an indicator that NI is ready for some slight changes.

No matter what the result I would like to know what are the chances of Michelle trying to learn a language she is 'proud' of as the leader of her crew in NI.
It would be at least an example of someone showing leadership and taking practical action. Making an real effort. Do Michelle O'Neill's children speak any Irish in the home I wonder? Just thinking out loud.

By that rationale straight people had no business pushing for marriage equality either. unless they learned the language, so to speak?

Strazdas

Opposition to the Irish Language Act is largely a red herring and just a bit of political point scoring.

In truth, the DUP are probably far more energised by the Irish Protocol.

gormdubhgorm

UDAWINNER wrote: »

You did not answer the question, why should the DUP voters gets to decide what is enacted but SF voters, vast majority of nationalist don't get what they want. Should SF get rid of parades and union jacks as they are seen as sectarian and bigoted because their voters don't want them. Or are unionist voters more important than nationalist voters

Compromise will have to be reached that both sides can agree on as simple as that.

It stood out to me that when the presenter of this programme as the guy from CnaG what Unionist would get in return for an ILA. He went on the defensive saying it is not his decision to make. Despite previously speaking of the Irish

Language in general terms such as a 'shared future' 'litmus test' as so on.
He could very quickly go into his I am not a politician mode when asked a question he would not like to answer.

Campbell's retort was that the Irish Language is not 'disadvantaged' and the devolved institution never agreed to it. Campbell was rightly stumped when told that the British government could bring it in on their own without them.

However, Campbell correctly pointed out that the Irish language was politicised unlike other languages in other parts of the UK. That is the fault of two sides imo not just one he is blaming.

gormdubhgorm

Strazdas wrote: »

Opposition to the Irish Language Act is largely a red herring and just a bit of political point scoring.

In truth, the DUP are probably far more energised by the Irish Protocol.

Agreed, it will be a right minefield when they move on to that. With far more practical consequences.

FrancieBrady

Strazdas wrote: »

Opposition to the Irish Language Act is largely a red herring and just a bit of political point scoring.

In truth, the DUP are probably far more energised by the Irish Protocol.

And they will burn down the house on that to no avail either.

Strazdas

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Agreed, it will be a right minefield when they move on to that. With far more practical consequences.

And they won't be able to get rid of that either. The only way the IP could be scrapped is if GB rejoins or moves closer to the Single Market.

gormdubhgorm

golfball37 wrote: »

By that rationale straight people had no business pushing for marriage equality either. unless they learned the language, so to speak?

That is not the same corrolly at all a logical fallacy. Unlike sexual orientation a language can be learnt/practiced by anyone. Even Linda Ervine. People are born with a sexual orientation that they cannot change.

The bit that irks me is many on the UI side of the NI fence who are pro-ILA do not literally practice what they preach. In other words they put no practical effort in with it. Linda Ervine really shows them up and she from the Unionist side!

UDAWINNER

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Compromise will have to be reached that both sides can agree on as simple as that.

It stood out to me that when the presenter of this programme as the guy from CnaG what Unionist would get in return for an ILA. He went on the defensive saying it is not his decision to make. Despite previously speaking of the Irish

Language in general terms such as a 'shared future' 'litmus test' as so on.
He could very quickly go into his I am not a politician mode when asked a question he would not like to answer.

Campbell's retort was that the Irish Language is not 'disadvantaged' and the devolved institution never agreed to it. Campbell was rightly stumped when told that the British government could bring it in on their own without them.

However, Campbell correctly pointed out that the Irish language was politicised unlike other languages in other parts of the UK. That is the fault of two sides imo not just one he is blaming.

Where is this on the Unionist side, it's always their way or the high way

alchemist33

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Compromise will have to be reached that both sides can agree on as simple as that.

It stood out to me that when the presenter of this programme as the guy from CnaG what Unionist would get in return for an ILA. He went on the defensive saying it is not his decision to make. Despite previously speaking of the Irish

Language in general terms such as a 'shared future' 'litmus test' as so on.
He could very quickly go into his I am not a politician mode when asked a question he would not like to answer.

Campbell's retort was that the Irish Language is not 'disadvantaged' and the devolved institution never agreed to it. Campbell was rightly stumped when told that the British government could bring it in on their own without them.

However, Campbell correctly pointed out that the Irish language was politicised unlike other languages in other parts of the UK. That is the fault of two sides imo not just one he is blaming.

The Irish language certainly is politicised, but that goes way way back to the British trying to eradicate and it them becoming a symbol of Irish nationalism. And really, it shouldn't matter. It should be on a par with Welsh and whatever they have in Scotland as a language to have protection, and given how unbothered the British government appear to be about bringing in an ILA, they seem to see it the same way.
I agree with a lot of your points on the ILA. It won't achieve much in the way of preservation of Irish, it could cost a lot if it leads to much bureaucracy, and it has been used as a weapon. But IMO this is more about rights and an ILA is a good thing. It was the British who historically made it an issue and the Unionists who allowed it to be made a weapon; instead of seeing it as a rights issue they made it a hill to die on while being completely, and sometimes violently, in support of their own symbols like flags and marches.