I have found lots of e-mails from Reform in my inbox lately. They all
fascinate me. Here is my "wish list" of changes I would like to see in
Ireland. Although I am a London resident, I feel I have some interest in the
place. I was born and brought up in Dublin. The official name of my
adopted country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland. Some of my tax money goes to Ireland therefore !
1. Ireland in the here and now - History is history !!
Is too much attention paid to history in Ireland? I would like to see the
present needs of all Irish people wherever they live being attended to.
Perhaps some consideration might be paid to potential future needs as well even?
I believe history is best left to historians. We do not live in the past and we do live now. We are all entitled to read a book or article of
course. We will all form an individual view depending on who we are and
where we come from. I don't feel we should behave badly towards others
because of a book though. I have always felt how little I know really when I
look at the pages of notes and bibliography in history books.
I have friends in both Germany and Poland. I have been looking lately at the
details of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany
September 12, 1990 and the Treaty between the Federal Republic of Germany
and the Republic of Poland on the confirmation of the frontier between them
which was signed on November 14, 1990 and entered into force with the
exchange of the instruments of ratification on 16 January 1992. The Germans
dropped claims to their former territories east of the Oder Neisse line in
return for the reunification of Germany and the formal ending of the post
1945 4 power occupation. Both Germany and Poland and the people of both states have moved on.
The 1998 agreement between the UK and Ireland is similar. Ireland has
dropped claims to Northern Ireland. Now, Ireland can and should move on. If
I may say so, and perhaps not everyone would agree, I believe the Great
Britain part of the UK has always tended to live in the present and
consequently has moved on already.
2. Respect.
I would like to see all discussions take place in an atmosphere of
politeness, tolerance and mutual respect. So many Irish discussions seem
acrimonious and discourteous sometimes. Irish individuals sometimes appear
to have an almost religious zeal about converting others to their point of
view. This is so unnecessary when diversity of viewpoint is so much more
interesting and valuable.
All Irish people, regardless of origin should have their cultural identity
respected. Do Irish people of British origin feel fully respected in the ROI?
3. ROI new constitution.
I would like to see the ROI write a new constitution. There are so many
amendments now. The 1937 document is too much a document of its time. The
amy sense of this need. The highly technical Lisbon document appears to hold
few of the dangers within it which the ROI No campaign seized on. Would a
Dail vote not have been more appropriate on these issues? Did the Dail
debate the Lisbon Treaty in any detail ?
4. Voice for Irish Diaspora in Irish affairs.
Voices have been raised recently in England questioning the Irish right to
vote in UK affairs. Do Irish citizens living overseas have rights to vote
where they live in all cases?
I would like to see Irish people wherever they live given a right to be
represented in the Oireachtas. After all, those of us living overseas carry
the burden of Irish silliness as well as the kudos of Irish achievements. As
citizens of the ROI, we ought to have some say really. The Senate might be
an appropriate place for such representation rather than the Dail. I would
like to see senators elected directly by the Diapora. Diaspora Senators
ought to be elected by proportional representation from constituencies of
registered overseas Irish citizens similar in size to Dail
constituencies. Irish citizens resident overseas would have the freedom to
exercise a right to register to vote either directly with the Dept of
Foreign Affairs in Dublin or with Irish Diplomatic missions overseas. Only
citizens registered in advance would have the right to vote. Diaspora Senate
elections would take place at the same time as Dail elections. Irish
citizens overseas would have a right to stand as candidates for Diaspora
Senate seats as well.
5. Ending Irish Neutrality.
Ireland has enjoyed a free ride on defence since 1922. In reality, the UK
(including Northern Ireland), the USA and NATO have defended Ireland all
this time. What does neutrality mean these days? Ireland has such close ties
with the USA, the UK, Canada and Western Europe I believe Ireland should
shoulder a little of the defence burden.
6. Commonwealth.
Rejoin ! The Commonwealth is a fine club and membership would be a natural
step for a grown-up Ireland to take. Ireland has such close ties with so
many Commonwealth countries, membership ought to be natural really.
7. Irish territorial re-unification - put it on the long finger !
Reunification is only possible if the people of Northern Ireland wish it.
ROI Irish people have recognised the Irish border officially and
therefore ought to forget about reunification unless political changes in
NI indicate any change there. I am sure everyone would agree the prospect of
such change remains purely hypothetical just now. Nonetheless, perhaps the
ROI might bear in mind at every official level, that NI folk need to be
respected and that legislating for unnecessary difference merely for the
sake of it, is divisive.The status given to the Irish language and Republican iconography may come into that category.
But, in the unlikely event of NI voting for re-unification, as the 2 parts of Ireland have grown so seperate since 1922, my suggestion would be that
only a formal change in sovereignty in Northern Ireland would actually
take place. I would suggest that any Dublin Government taking over
sovereignty of NI from the UK would do well to leave the internal structures
within NI unchanged with any internal change also taking place only if the people of NI wished it. I would envisage the NI Westminster MPs transferring
to the Dail and the UK Government taking over the current role played by the
Irish Government within NI. A sort of "role reversal" might take place
therefore. I would expect suitable transitional financial and other
arrangements would be agreed by the ROI and UK governments without too much
difficulty.
8. Republican Iconography.
Yes - by all means please remove the cult of Republican hero-worship and of
the cult of Republican violence from the official ROI state ideology. This
development would bring about a healthier ROI. I cannot see how the British
who live on the island of Ireland are respected fully when the official
culture of the ROI lauds those who sought and, in a few psychopathic cases,
still seek to kill them. Too many Irish people have suffered because of
these evil cults. De-mythologise the cults and place them in a proper
historical context and keep them there I say ! Russia has removed communist
iconography and Germany has been de-nazified. Germany no longers identifies
with its imperial past either, nor do Austria, Hungary or Turkey. Spain no
longer appears to value the Franco years.The UK takes little official pride
in its imperial past these days and acknowledges imperial shortcomings
openly. Italy accords little respect to Mussolini. France has consigned its
north African colonial adventures to history. Why does neutral peace-loving
Ireland with its horror of joining NATO still feel any need to honour those who preached violence and whose memory continues to inspire violent
attitudes amongst the ill-educated and those with psychopathic personalities
towards the people of its nearest neighbour?
We live in 2008, not 1912.
Jerry Walsh
Friday 18 July 2008
Friday 4 April 2008
Ireland 2008
So Bertie is gone. Great. For the past few days we’ve been bombarded with constant pieces of how wonderful this man was, how mature he was. Politicians and members of the public, from all over the island, have been singing his praises. His involvement in Northern Ireland has been one of the main focus points for those worshipping at the FF altar. Supposedly, this reflects the growing maturity of the southern Irish republic in relation to it’s Northern neighbour and Bertie is the embodiment of just that. Everyone seems to be conveniently forgetting that it was FF who were denouncing anyone supporting the BA as traitors just a a few years earlier and that it was FF who for so many years, in one way or another, encouraged the despicable behaviour that sections of the republican movement in Northern Ireland meated out to Protestants and Unionists all over the province. I digress though. With all the talk of Bertie and his accomplishments in Northern Ireland and with all the talk of how mature we’ve become, I kept wondering how people were able to delude themselves so effectively. The republic hasn’t moved on . The days of politicians rallying the troops by calling for an end to partition and British rule might be gone, the days of talks of gassing Protestants might be gone, but it doesn’t mean the sentiments are gone. It’s more refined, more subtle than before.
Radio reports on Irish Protestant culture recently have forced the maggots out from under their rocks. As soon as you think perhaps Irish Protestants might just been getting enough guff to stand up from themselves once again, something happens which has a negative effect and acts to put us back in our place. The RTE documentary on the murders at Coolacrsse sparked a lively debate, and while the good-amount of logical and rational people who spoke out about it was refreshing, there was the enviable bunch of republican apologists, armed to the teeth with their revisionism and their emotional blackmail which silenced the majority. The whole debate quickly fell into nothing more than an anti-Protestant smear campaign. Old habits die hard it seems. Another RTE Radio 1 report on Irish Protestant culture brought about the very same result and while attending a function for my local parish I had the oppturnity to speak to an ex Roman Catholic who spoke of the abuse she’d be at the end of for her conversion. It seems, even on a purely religious basis, the Irish people are not, under any circumstances allowed to go to the “dark side”. To do so is the ultimate sin and act of betrayal. Another radio report on Irish soldiers in HM Armed Forces, about to be deployed to Afghanistan recently ended in the very same way. It would seem that on some small level, it is ok for Northern Irish Protestants to be who they are, but Southern Protestants are expected to toe the line or suffer the inevitable barrage of insults and ridicule.
Where’s the “maturity”?
Radio reports on Irish Protestant culture recently have forced the maggots out from under their rocks. As soon as you think perhaps Irish Protestants might just been getting enough guff to stand up from themselves once again, something happens which has a negative effect and acts to put us back in our place. The RTE documentary on the murders at Coolacrsse sparked a lively debate, and while the good-amount of logical and rational people who spoke out about it was refreshing, there was the enviable bunch of republican apologists, armed to the teeth with their revisionism and their emotional blackmail which silenced the majority. The whole debate quickly fell into nothing more than an anti-Protestant smear campaign. Old habits die hard it seems. Another RTE Radio 1 report on Irish Protestant culture brought about the very same result and while attending a function for my local parish I had the oppturnity to speak to an ex Roman Catholic who spoke of the abuse she’d be at the end of for her conversion. It seems, even on a purely religious basis, the Irish people are not, under any circumstances allowed to go to the “dark side”. To do so is the ultimate sin and act of betrayal. Another radio report on Irish soldiers in HM Armed Forces, about to be deployed to Afghanistan recently ended in the very same way. It would seem that on some small level, it is ok for Northern Irish Protestants to be who they are, but Southern Protestants are expected to toe the line or suffer the inevitable barrage of insults and ridicule.
Where’s the “maturity”?
Sunday 2 March 2008
The Tara Motorway - Desecrating Ireland's Shared Heritage? (by David Christopher)
On a slightly less political note, I was struck today by the comments of Seamus Heaney, Ireland's renowned poet and Nobel Laureate, who has lent his voice to all those opposing the government's plan to drive a motorway through the ancient Hill of Tara. Heaney stated:
“I mean the traces on Tara are in the grass, are in the earth - they aren’t spectacular like temple ruins would be in the Parthenon in Greece but they are about origin, they’re about beginning, they’re about the mythological, spiritual source - a source and a guarantee of something old in the country and something that gives the country its distinctive spirit.”
“I think it literally desecrates an area - I mean the word means to de-sacralise and for centuries the Tara landscape and the Tara sites have been regarded as part of the sacred ground,” he said.
---
I know that for most Northern Unionists one of the things they admire most about the Irish Republic is its booming economy and entrepreneurial spirit - yet as a southerner living in the North I was also often questioned about the changes in values which have gone alongside this economic growth.
Preserving our shared environment strikes me as one of those things where almost all nationalists and unionists would agree - just like the way all parties, from SF to DUP agree on the need to keep nuclear power plants out of Ireland.
The environment is one of those issues which really does transcend political boundaries - both north/south and east/west. After all the history of Tara goes back through the millenniums, far far predating the modern differences between Ireland's unionist and nationalist traditions.
The whole debate about this proposed motorway strikes me as a false dichotomy between Ireland's past and future, as though the two cannot be reconciled. Supporters of the motorway paint their opponents as fuddy-duddy environmentalists, lost in the past. But why do we have to destroy the past to embrace the future? This makes no sense to me.
In my mind, I'm all for prosperity and progress and like most other southern unionists I take great pride in the progress of our Irish Republic in recent years, yet I cannot for the life of me fathom the logic of destroying an ancient part of our history and heritage just to knock five or ten minutes off of the commute to Dublin.
(this post, like all others on this blog, reflects the views of the author and not necessarily the views of other Reform members or of the Reform Movement as a whole - let us know your own views using the comments section!)
“I mean the traces on Tara are in the grass, are in the earth - they aren’t spectacular like temple ruins would be in the Parthenon in Greece but they are about origin, they’re about beginning, they’re about the mythological, spiritual source - a source and a guarantee of something old in the country and something that gives the country its distinctive spirit.”
“I think it literally desecrates an area - I mean the word means to de-sacralise and for centuries the Tara landscape and the Tara sites have been regarded as part of the sacred ground,” he said.
---
I know that for most Northern Unionists one of the things they admire most about the Irish Republic is its booming economy and entrepreneurial spirit - yet as a southerner living in the North I was also often questioned about the changes in values which have gone alongside this economic growth.
Preserving our shared environment strikes me as one of those things where almost all nationalists and unionists would agree - just like the way all parties, from SF to DUP agree on the need to keep nuclear power plants out of Ireland.
The environment is one of those issues which really does transcend political boundaries - both north/south and east/west. After all the history of Tara goes back through the millenniums, far far predating the modern differences between Ireland's unionist and nationalist traditions.
The whole debate about this proposed motorway strikes me as a false dichotomy between Ireland's past and future, as though the two cannot be reconciled. Supporters of the motorway paint their opponents as fuddy-duddy environmentalists, lost in the past. But why do we have to destroy the past to embrace the future? This makes no sense to me.
In my mind, I'm all for prosperity and progress and like most other southern unionists I take great pride in the progress of our Irish Republic in recent years, yet I cannot for the life of me fathom the logic of destroying an ancient part of our history and heritage just to knock five or ten minutes off of the commute to Dublin.
(this post, like all others on this blog, reflects the views of the author and not necessarily the views of other Reform members or of the Reform Movement as a whole - let us know your own views using the comments section!)
Thursday 21 February 2008
Change We Can Believe In? - Diversity and Minority Identities in Ireland's New Republic (by David Christopher)
This is my first piece for Reform’s new blog and I thought I would use it to express some personal perspectives on developments over the past 10 years, and on the potential for Reform, and the wider Irish Republic, looking ahead.
Ten years ago, at the public launch of the Reform Movement, one of our members commented that the Irish-British identity was Ireland’s “oldest and largest” minority. Back then that may well have been true - but certainly not today! We may still be the oldest of the Irish Republic’s minorities but today we are probably somewhere between small and middling-sized compared to our very welcome new communities from Eastern Europe, West Africa and beyond who have brought so much positive change and diversity to our shores.
Ten years ago almost feels like a different country. Back then the peace process was still in its infancy - all-party talks had barely begun and many sceptics doubted that a unionist-nationalist agreement was even possible. Back then the Irish Republic was still a largely mono-ethnic, mono-cultural state. “Official Ireland” still seemed more comfortable reflecting stale decades-old nationalistic orthodoxy than in embracing the potential of a rapprochement with the Unionist tradition.
Nowadays, so much has changed for the better that it is difficult to know where to begin. Beyond the obvious headline-grabbing issues which we are all aware of - such as the Irish Government’s invaluable support for the peace process over the past 15 years since the Downing Street Declaration, there has been a whole host of lesser-noticed, but no less important, developments which are going a long way towards boosting reconciliation between the two traditions in Ireland, and especially in the Irish Republic.
These are just some examples:
Of course there is still so much to do, and a long road ahead - we have seen the fruits of embracing Europe - so why not embrace the Commonwealth also? In doing so Ireland would become the fourth European Union nation in the Commonwealth, after the UK, Cyprus and Malta. Joining the Commonwealth would give the Irish Republic a whole new dimension to the work we already do with the EU and United Nations.
And perhaps most important of all, those of minority identity in the Republic are still denied the fundamental promise of the Good Friday Agreement - the right to choose between Irish citizenship, British citizenship or both. It is nonsensical that somebody of nationalist identity in Strabane, County Tyrone has this right, whilst somebody of Irish-British identity across the river in Lifford, County Donegal is denied it.
Nevertheless, I hope these are future steps along the way of the peace process and will be realised in time. On the whole, I have a great sense that after many years of stalemate post-1998, things are finally really moving in the right direction now. The Irish Republic is moving towards being a truly inclusive, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural modern European state which recognises and respects its own minority strands of identity, including the Irish-British strand.
This is a development that can be welcomed by all of us - and Reform Movement members should be proud of having been in the vanguard of this change over the past decade. What seems so clear today was certainly not so clear ten years ago when the Reform Movement was launched.
The foundation of power-sharing in Northern Ireland between Unionists and Republicans is the most positive development of all - let us all hope it opens up the door to a new future of genuine equality and mutual respect, north and south, between Ireland’s age-old political traditions of Unionism and Nationalism - and leads to an Ireland that is a warm house for all of us.
What are your thoughts on all of this? - let us know, the comments section is open for your views!
Ten years ago, at the public launch of the Reform Movement, one of our members commented that the Irish-British identity was Ireland’s “oldest and largest” minority. Back then that may well have been true - but certainly not today! We may still be the oldest of the Irish Republic’s minorities but today we are probably somewhere between small and middling-sized compared to our very welcome new communities from Eastern Europe, West Africa and beyond who have brought so much positive change and diversity to our shores.
Ten years ago almost feels like a different country. Back then the peace process was still in its infancy - all-party talks had barely begun and many sceptics doubted that a unionist-nationalist agreement was even possible. Back then the Irish Republic was still a largely mono-ethnic, mono-cultural state. “Official Ireland” still seemed more comfortable reflecting stale decades-old nationalistic orthodoxy than in embracing the potential of a rapprochement with the Unionist tradition.
Nowadays, so much has changed for the better that it is difficult to know where to begin. Beyond the obvious headline-grabbing issues which we are all aware of - such as the Irish Government’s invaluable support for the peace process over the past 15 years since the Downing Street Declaration, there has been a whole host of lesser-noticed, but no less important, developments which are going a long way towards boosting reconciliation between the two traditions in Ireland, and especially in the Irish Republic.
These are just some examples:
- It was recently announced that the British-Irish Council (BIC), established under the Good Friday Agreement, will now be placed on a permanent footing, and will now have its own Secretariat. This goes some way towards placing the crucial Strand 3 (all-islands) of the Agreement on an equal footing with the Strand 2 (north-south) element, and is a sign that the Irish government recognises the vital importance of the all-islands dimension to the peace process.
- 10m Euros has been spent on the Battle of Boyne Interpretive Centre - due to open in 3 months - a very welcome investment by the Irish government in promoting greater understanding of the Orange tradition in Ireland.
- 250k in government support for Orange Order in the Irish Republic. This will go some way towards helping the Orange minority, particularly in the border counties where they have witnessed a number of their halls and community centres burnt down in recent years. Interestingly, the Orange Order chose to quote the Easter Proclamation in their response: "Our members in the Republic of Ireland stand ready to play a fuller part in civic society than heretofore. The recognition which this funding brings with it goes some way towards providing reassurance in the Republic of Ireland that all the children of the nation will now be treated equally."
- The renewed historical interest and appreciation of the suffering inflicted upon the minority community in Southern Ireland throughout the 1919-1923 period - in particular the sectarian slaughter of many West Cork unionists during this time who were condemned as “spies and traitors” simply for holding a different political belief. It is significant and welcome that one of the most eye-opening documentaries on this period - the documentary on the Coolacrease murders in Offaly - was produced by the State broadcaster RTE. This is a very positive sign of growing maturity on the part of the majority nationalist community in the Republic towards dealing with the past, warts and all, and recognizing that wrongs were inflicted on all sides.
Of course there is still so much to do, and a long road ahead - we have seen the fruits of embracing Europe - so why not embrace the Commonwealth also? In doing so Ireland would become the fourth European Union nation in the Commonwealth, after the UK, Cyprus and Malta. Joining the Commonwealth would give the Irish Republic a whole new dimension to the work we already do with the EU and United Nations.
And perhaps most important of all, those of minority identity in the Republic are still denied the fundamental promise of the Good Friday Agreement - the right to choose between Irish citizenship, British citizenship or both. It is nonsensical that somebody of nationalist identity in Strabane, County Tyrone has this right, whilst somebody of Irish-British identity across the river in Lifford, County Donegal is denied it.
Nevertheless, I hope these are future steps along the way of the peace process and will be realised in time. On the whole, I have a great sense that after many years of stalemate post-1998, things are finally really moving in the right direction now. The Irish Republic is moving towards being a truly inclusive, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural modern European state which recognises and respects its own minority strands of identity, including the Irish-British strand.
This is a development that can be welcomed by all of us - and Reform Movement members should be proud of having been in the vanguard of this change over the past decade. What seems so clear today was certainly not so clear ten years ago when the Reform Movement was launched.
The foundation of power-sharing in Northern Ireland between Unionists and Republicans is the most positive development of all - let us all hope it opens up the door to a new future of genuine equality and mutual respect, north and south, between Ireland’s age-old political traditions of Unionism and Nationalism - and leads to an Ireland that is a warm house for all of us.
What are your thoughts on all of this? - let us know, the comments section is open for your views!
Thursday 7 February 2008
Time to make Irish optional in schools? - (Article by Robin Bury)
Brian Fleming tells us that thousands of students are opting out of learning Irish (Education Today 17th Jan. 2006). An ESRI study concludes that Irish is "the least popular subjects among school students". What has gone wrong? Why after 80 years of force-feeding is Irish so unpopular and spoken by practically no one? Let me explain why the language is all but dead, especially in the quiet, once isolated country places where it was the thriving first language, the small Gaeltacht areas.
The truth is that today less than 20,000 people speak Irish as their native language.
Reg Hindley, a former lecturer at Bradford University, has specialised in studying languages, both Irish and Welsh. He took a sabbatical year from Bradford University to study the status of the Irish and wrote a book called The Death of the Irish Language, published in 1990. His main conclusion is clear and uncompromising. He states, "There is no doubt that the Irish language is now dying". In effect, we are now vying with Portugal as the most monolingual country in Europe -- but at least in Portugal the official language is Portuguese.
Hindley believes the current generation of children who are first language native speakers may well be the last one. And remember all these children speak fluent English. They know, as do their parents, that their job prospects are zero if they do not speak English. Their parents also know that this country would never have had the "Celtic Tiger" if we spoke Irish, not English.
Unlike the children of HiCo parents, we know that the children in Gaeltacht areas think that Irish is really quite boring and certainly not cool. But the state has been blinded to these realities. "The failure to reconcile romantic nationalism and nationalist myth with the realities of Gaeltacht life has been a conspicuous element in the failure to save the language" according to Hindley.
The reasons why Irish is dying are obvious. Irish once thrived in the isolated small communities which spoke it. With the coming of the motorcar and the advent of mass tourism, all this ended. Dingle, for instance, now depends on tourism for its main source of income, and these tourists speak English, whether from London, Paris or Berlin.
But what happens if Irish dies in the Gaeltacht areas, as now seems inevitable?
"A country which cannot adequately support at home the people who speak its dying national language, will have grave difficulties in sustaining it into the future", states Hindley. Do the HiCo parents believe this? Doubtful. They will be happy to have their children speaking classroom Irish, a dumbed down, easier to learn version of Irish that native Irish speakers find almost incomprehensible. And can Irish be sustained by only by enthusiastic intellectuals who associate language with nation?
Understandable as it was that the new Free State had as a top priority to revive Irish, it was probably too late by 1922 to succeed.In 1922 only a handful of people were native, monoglot speakers. That decline began as far back as the late seventeenth century when parents increasingly encouraged their children to speak Irish, especially as the penal laws were relaxed.
By the late eighteenth century Irish was "an interest for scholars and occasional Protestant activists as a medium for conversions", according to Hindley. Put simply, Irish people had decided over a period of some 200 years to speak English for very sensible pragmatic reasons.
Let us face facts: despite all sorts of ingenious plans and incentives, the battle has been lost.
And students know it. Irish is not a "sexy" language. Even in Gaeltacht areas teenagers have rejected Irish as a language of romance. One said, "But if you went to a disco in Galway and asked someone to dance in Irish, you'd be absolutely shunned. It's just so uncool, man." For sheer compression, as an obituary for a language, that would be very hard to beat.
It was once believed that the failure to embrace the Irish language is to disavow your very Irishness. This spirit is very much alive today among many adults, but our youth have learnt the way to gain access to knowledge and power is through the language of the Anglophone world. Is it not time to make Irish optional?
(by Robin Bury - originally published in the Irish Times)
The truth is that today less than 20,000 people speak Irish as their native language.
Reg Hindley, a former lecturer at Bradford University, has specialised in studying languages, both Irish and Welsh. He took a sabbatical year from Bradford University to study the status of the Irish and wrote a book called The Death of the Irish Language, published in 1990. His main conclusion is clear and uncompromising. He states, "There is no doubt that the Irish language is now dying". In effect, we are now vying with Portugal as the most monolingual country in Europe -- but at least in Portugal the official language is Portuguese.
Hindley believes the current generation of children who are first language native speakers may well be the last one. And remember all these children speak fluent English. They know, as do their parents, that their job prospects are zero if they do not speak English. Their parents also know that this country would never have had the "Celtic Tiger" if we spoke Irish, not English.
Unlike the children of HiCo parents, we know that the children in Gaeltacht areas think that Irish is really quite boring and certainly not cool. But the state has been blinded to these realities. "The failure to reconcile romantic nationalism and nationalist myth with the realities of Gaeltacht life has been a conspicuous element in the failure to save the language" according to Hindley.
The reasons why Irish is dying are obvious. Irish once thrived in the isolated small communities which spoke it. With the coming of the motorcar and the advent of mass tourism, all this ended. Dingle, for instance, now depends on tourism for its main source of income, and these tourists speak English, whether from London, Paris or Berlin.
But what happens if Irish dies in the Gaeltacht areas, as now seems inevitable?
"A country which cannot adequately support at home the people who speak its dying national language, will have grave difficulties in sustaining it into the future", states Hindley. Do the HiCo parents believe this? Doubtful. They will be happy to have their children speaking classroom Irish, a dumbed down, easier to learn version of Irish that native Irish speakers find almost incomprehensible. And can Irish be sustained by only by enthusiastic intellectuals who associate language with nation?
Understandable as it was that the new Free State had as a top priority to revive Irish, it was probably too late by 1922 to succeed.In 1922 only a handful of people were native, monoglot speakers. That decline began as far back as the late seventeenth century when parents increasingly encouraged their children to speak Irish, especially as the penal laws were relaxed.
By the late eighteenth century Irish was "an interest for scholars and occasional Protestant activists as a medium for conversions", according to Hindley. Put simply, Irish people had decided over a period of some 200 years to speak English for very sensible pragmatic reasons.
Let us face facts: despite all sorts of ingenious plans and incentives, the battle has been lost.
And students know it. Irish is not a "sexy" language. Even in Gaeltacht areas teenagers have rejected Irish as a language of romance. One said, "But if you went to a disco in Galway and asked someone to dance in Irish, you'd be absolutely shunned. It's just so uncool, man." For sheer compression, as an obituary for a language, that would be very hard to beat.
It was once believed that the failure to embrace the Irish language is to disavow your very Irishness. This spirit is very much alive today among many adults, but our youth have learnt the way to gain access to knowledge and power is through the language of the Anglophone world. Is it not time to make Irish optional?
(by Robin Bury - originally published in the Irish Times)
Monday 4 February 2008
Some Thoughts on the Irish language (submitted by Anonymous)
My own views in brief are that I would object to compulsory Irish, but taking it head on would be counter productive because it is so important from a symbolic point of view to Irish nationalism (even if most people don't want to speak it or make an effort around it). I do not object to the state spending money on it, because nobody else will, but since a substantial share of the population now object to the compulsory aspect you could argue that teaching people who dont want to learn the language is a waste of money and it is not rationale in terms of developing the language. Instead, the funds should be focused on those who wish to learn it, the TV station etc, so those involved would get more money, while those who do not wish to would not have to do so.
In relation to the Protestants, this was probably the feature of the new state that they objected to most, even if some notable Protestants were involved in the nationalist revolution and language movement, most found it objectionable because it had no link with their heritage. In a sense their heritage did not count in the new set up. Although it must be said that the new state treated the Protestants minority well on the whole, notably in relation to education, it was around the Irish language that it was most intolerant of the protestant position.
In this regard, I would also argue for parity of esteem for English in the constitution as this is the language that most people speak, it is the language of the Irish Diaspora etc. In symbolic terms it would also recognise that there has been an English speaking tradition on the island as well as a Gaelic tradition, and one is not superior to the other. The Irish variant of republicanism gives priority to the Gaelic nationalist tradition, and this is expressed in the constitution, in relation to the status of Irish as the first language, whereas true republicanism would afford parity of esteem to both languages and both traditions.
In the event of the end of partition, which 32 county Republicans aspire to, compulsory Irish would be a non-runner in Northern Ireland. A new 32 county Ireland would have to accept that there were historically two ethnic groups on the island and for one of these for the most part Irish was not part of their cultural set up. By making Irish compulsory the state failed to recognise this; in a united Ireland if it comes to pass they will have to! Learning compulsory Irish would be just as unattractive to most northern Protestants today as it was to southern Protestants in the 1920s. However, the northern Protestants could not be forced into learning Gaelic the same way as southern protestants were in the 1920s. Why not change this sooner than later. As immigrants enter Irish society in increasingly larger numbers the section of the population for which Irish is not part of their cultural heritage increases further, but the biggest group of objectors to compulsory Irish are now neither Protestants nor immigrants.
In relation to the Protestants, this was probably the feature of the new state that they objected to most, even if some notable Protestants were involved in the nationalist revolution and language movement, most found it objectionable because it had no link with their heritage. In a sense their heritage did not count in the new set up. Although it must be said that the new state treated the Protestants minority well on the whole, notably in relation to education, it was around the Irish language that it was most intolerant of the protestant position.
In this regard, I would also argue for parity of esteem for English in the constitution as this is the language that most people speak, it is the language of the Irish Diaspora etc. In symbolic terms it would also recognise that there has been an English speaking tradition on the island as well as a Gaelic tradition, and one is not superior to the other. The Irish variant of republicanism gives priority to the Gaelic nationalist tradition, and this is expressed in the constitution, in relation to the status of Irish as the first language, whereas true republicanism would afford parity of esteem to both languages and both traditions.
In the event of the end of partition, which 32 county Republicans aspire to, compulsory Irish would be a non-runner in Northern Ireland. A new 32 county Ireland would have to accept that there were historically two ethnic groups on the island and for one of these for the most part Irish was not part of their cultural set up. By making Irish compulsory the state failed to recognise this; in a united Ireland if it comes to pass they will have to! Learning compulsory Irish would be just as unattractive to most northern Protestants today as it was to southern Protestants in the 1920s. However, the northern Protestants could not be forced into learning Gaelic the same way as southern protestants were in the 1920s. Why not change this sooner than later. As immigrants enter Irish society in increasingly larger numbers the section of the population for which Irish is not part of their cultural heritage increases further, but the biggest group of objectors to compulsory Irish are now neither Protestants nor immigrants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)