Friday, August 24, 2007
A brief glance into UUP thinking…
DAVID Burnside’s recent suggestion that the UUP leave the Executive to join the Opposition looks likes it’s been put on the long finger, if these minutes (below the fold) of UUP meetings earlier this month are anything to go by. Elsewhere in the (admittedly rather dull) document, the party seems keen on pushing the establishment of an Environmental Protection Agency (thus removing Crown immunity from the Dept of Environment run by the DUP’s Arlene Foster) and 15 local authorities (as opposed to the 11 favoured by the relevant Minister, Arlene Foster). There was nothing to report on party reform - the most pressing issue for the UUP - but “but that our attempts in getting articles through to the local press required greater effort”. Hopefully, this post goes some way towards addressing that. On the Irish Language, the UUP sees the “Act is an attempt by republicans to use the language as a cultural weapon in their ongoing struggle against unionism. As such, their proposals should not be supported”.
SUMMARY OF OUTCOME OF SPECIAL MEETINGS OF THE ULSTER UNIONIST MLA’S HELD ON TUESDAY 7th and WEDNESDAY 8th AUGUST 2007
UUP Opposition / Corporate Executive Decisions
It was agreed that the Ulster Unionist Assembly Group will keep under ongoing review the Party’s participation in the Assembly Executive and will prepare a submission to the Executive Review Committee to put forward proposals to ensure the creation of a more suitable form of democratic and accountable government for Northern Ireland. Ministers report to Group on Executive Business.
Devolution of Policing & Justice
It was agreed that the relevant parties would meet to prepare a submission on the Devolution of Policing & Justice, due on 17th August. Meeting to be called by Party Leader.
National Stadium
It was agreed to pursue consultations in the Party with key people. Meeting with key people to be called by Party Leader.
Environment & Planning
It was agreed that the Party spokesperson should look at taking the initiative in launching a campaign for an environment protection agency by way of a Private Member’s Bill or a Committee Bill; and to take an interest in the relevant environmental Groups and engage with them on a regular basis. It was also agreed not to move on the Party’s position of a 15-council model.
Performance in the Assembly & Projection of our efforts at Stormont / Party Reform
Performance in the Assembly & Projection of our efforts at Stormont – It was agreed that the Party’s performance in the Assembly had dramatically improved, but that our attempts in getting articles through to the local press required greater effort.
Party Reform – The Party Leader agreed to fully report to the Group again in due course. It was also agreed that the issue of MLAs contributions would be returned to the agenda for a full discussion.
Irish Language
It was agreed to support the motion with the inclusion of a suggested amendment, put forward by Roy Beggs, to include the words ‘St Andrews’ in the text. The motion is as follows:
This house considers that arrangements for suitable recognition of the Irish Language were made in the practical implementation of the Belfast Agreement, and that present agitation for an Irish Language Act is an attempt by republicans to use the language as a cultural weapon in their ongoing struggle against unionism. As such, their proposals should not be supported.
Education
It was agreed that as this was such a wide-ranging topic it warranted a comprehensive discussion; therefore a special meeting should be arranged with a full complement of Members.
Belfast Gonzo @ 12:04 AM
Personally as someone who was educated in a protestant school I’d have loved the opportunity to learn Irish. Because for the simple fact that Irish isn’t offered in all school it does seem to become the property of the “other side”. If we where all taught it, along with a few classes in the similaraties between Gaelic and Ulster Scots to keep the Rabbie Burns crowd happy, it wouldn’t be such a touchy issue.
Even as an adult it’s damn difficult to get involved in Gaelic classes, Belfast Met in College Square East being the only place outside staunchly Republican areas to offer it as a class. I’m gonna have to give up my Friday night in pissup so I’m in a for condition come my class on a Saturday morning.
As for the signs in Gaelic I’m affraid that these signs are being used much like flags on lamp posts to mark an area because of the way the Republican movement uses gaelic culture.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:00 PMThe Irish language movement has long had close associations with nationalist and separatist politics going as far back as the turn of the twentieth century. Lisa Goldenberg has claimed “In the final decades of the nineteenth century, the language came to be seen as an important characteristic that distinguished the Irish people from their English rulers….According to OhAdhmaill “it was a natural symbol for Irish nationalists to rally around” . For at least one hundred and twenty years therefore, we can say that the Irish language has been closely identified with and an implicit symbol of nationalist political struggle.
Douglas Hyde, the first President of the Gaelic League in his famous lecture “The Necessity for De-Anglicising Ireland” enunciated a vision of the Irish language and its usage which is explicitly nationalist in its outlook. A close examination of the comments made by Hyde will de-bunk the popular myth espoused by Irish Language enthusiasts that Hyde was a neutral figure on constitutional political questions and that his prime concern was for culture alone. Speaking in 1892 Hyde said “It is a fact and we must face it as a fact, that although they (the Irish people) adopt English habits and copy England in every way, the great bulk of Irishmen and Irishwomen over the whole world are known to be filled with a dull, ever-abiding animosity against her, and right or wrong, to grieve when she prospers and joy when she is hurt” .
As far back as 1892 we can see not only does the Irish language become associated with one particular political position it also comes to represent the expression of a particularly negative cultural view, in this case anti-Britishness. In the context of this discussion it is certainly possible to “fast-forward” to the present time and see how the hostility of nationalists towards the Union and those who support it is still expressed in this form. Thus we can claim with certainty that the use of Irish was from the earliest times of the Gaelic League seen as an implicit expression of anti-Britishness.
Not only did Douglas Hyde express his anti-English sentiment in this way, he also made reference to the position of Ulster Protestants, in terms which can only be described as racist. Speaking at the turn of the twentieth century, Hyde said: “In two points only was the continuity of Irishism (sic) in Ireland damaged. First in the north-east of Ulster, where the Gaelic race was expelled and the land planted with aliens, whom our dear mother Erin, assimilative as she is, has hitherto found difficult to absorb…in spite of the little admixture of Saxon blood in the north-east, this island, is and forever will remain, Celtic to the core”
Although Hyde maintained throughout his time in charge of the Gaelic League that he wished it to remain a non-political organisation, focused purely on culture, it became apparent even at this early stage that the link between the Irish language movement and nationalist politics had become more and more strongly established. By the time of the 1915 Ard-Fheis, when the league passed a motion devoting itself to “solely realising the dawn of a free Gaelic-speaking Ireland”, the link had been firmly and resolutely established. Writing privately in 1918, Hyde was forced to admit that the Gaelic League had become a body “to which no Redmondite and no Unionist can any longer subscribe”
In more recent times the usage of the Irish language has been acknowledged as an implicit endorsement of nationalist political agitation. Goldenberg claimed that the signing ceremony of the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement represented this reality starkly stating, “Although the agreement didn’t contain anything that dealt specifically with linguistic rights, it did address the issue of identity and cultural heritage. In a moment symbolic of a new political era, Irish Taoiseach FitzGerald and British Prime Minister Thatcher signed the Agreement at Hillsborough Castle on November 5th 1985. The Taoiseach signed his name in Irish and part of his speech was in Irish. He declared that nationalists could now hold their heads up high. It was a triumph for constitutional nationalism and simultaneously a devastating moment for unionists. According to Ruane the speech in Irish “symbolised a rejection of British culture and implied an affirmation and legitimisation of the whole history of Irish nationalist rebellion”
The period after the Anglo-Irish Agreement saw a rapid expansion in the provision of Irish medium education. Since 1990, Irish medium schools have been opening at a rate of six to seven per year . According to Gabrielle Maguire, who conducted a survey in 1991 on why parents sent their children to these schools, political motivations are to the forefront: “(It was a) source of motivation and decision. Parents sought a sense of belonging to the Irish nation rather than merely being seen as members of a British province” .
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:06 PMcont…
This comment indicates the clear and present connection between political nationalism and the Irish language which was fomented as far back as the 1890’s and has continued right up until the present time. It is clear from even this cursory glance over the use of Irish for the last 110 years that the promotion and advancement of the language is viewed as part of the struggle towards a United Ireland by nationalists – a struggle that was provided a rallying point in the language, that was conferred legitimacy by the use of the language and that has at its heart the deployment of the language as an explicit rejection of British/Unionist culture. No reasonable person today could attempt to claim that nationalist politics and the promotion of the Irish language are two divisible aims. They are clearly two sides of the same coin.
Goldenberg stated “Politics and the Irish language have become quite inseparable….Whereas previous revivals were largely Protestant and middle-class, it is interesting to note that the latest revival is grassroots and principally among ordinary working-class nationalists. They want to speak Irish because of deeply held beliefs and a sense of identity, rather than out of academic interest”
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:07 PM“It would add to my appreciation of the world and increase my understanding of that darkling, gaelic side of my soul.” Very well put Alan. JoeC - Irish medium education seems to be expanding as quickly as teachers qualify - 32 medium schools or units to date. Ms Ruane just shut a unit (due to the opening of a nearby school) and announced another 3 schools.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:09 PMGinfizz,
Good essay. A bit wasted here but, but good. Fortnight might take a version of that.
I am not going to write an essay in response.
But!
‘They want to speak Irish because of deeply held beliefs and a sense of identity, rather than out of academic interest’
Is there anything wrong with that?
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:14 PMGinfizz - excellent research and presentation. However can you accept that people can have different motivations for wishing themselves or their kids to speak a language ? Some of the Unionist posters here would have loved to have had the chance.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:15 PMA RG Cuan, is dearmad mĂłr Ă chun dĂriĂş a chuir ar comharthaĂ bĂłthair. Tá cuma crĂoch air. NĂl ach leis an aitheantas go bhfuil dĂşchas an Uladh (agus an Oileáin Iarthair) ina iomláine Ă an Gaeilge go mbĂ©adh ascnamh a chothĂş fĂşithi. Leanfaidh comharthaĂ dhátheangach.
(RG Cuan, its a big mistake to focus on roadsigns. It has the appearnce of marking territory about it. It is only with the recognition thatn Irish is a part of the herigate of Ulster (and the British Isles) as a whole that progress will be made. Bilingual roadsigns will follow.)
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:19 PMDewi
When last I looked no-one was proposing that people should be banned from learning Iirsh, what however is being proposed at the present time by activists, who are at least in part motivated by political considerations is to elevate an obliquely nationalist symbol to the level of a co-langauge with English here (and please do not give me a lecture about how this is merely a request for equality, it is clearly not).
The difference between Wales, Scotland and here is that language, political affiliation and religion are so closely knit that to elevate Irish to the status some are calling for would actually have a damaging impact upon community relations here.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:20 PMTo clarify the last sentence of my post above:
In Scotland and Wales, there will be a variety of people with differing political views, religous affiliations, and identities who speak GĂ idhlig or Welsh: that is not the case here and as I have demonstrated above has not been the case on this island for more than a century.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:27 PMThe fifty seven replies that followed my initial post on this thread reflect the validity of it.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:27 PMGinfizz,
I find it odd that you would consider an Anglo-Irish Protestant such as Hyde to be racist against Anglo-Irish Protestants.Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:28 PM“A damaging impact on community relations” OK Ginfizz let’s get specific for my edification - I assume community relations mean interaction between people from the different tribes, of which I presume u r a member of one. How would an ILA effect any relations between you and a member of the other lot ?
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:29 PMThe difference between Wales, Scotland and here is that language, political affiliation and religion are so closely knit that to elevate Irish to the status some are calling for would actually have a damaging impact upon community relations here.
So the unionist position is, then, that in this part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, citizens should have lesser rights as regards culture and identity than in other parts of the UK? Don’t we all pay the same taxes, more or less?
The more unionists come forth with objection after spurious objection to the reasonable demand for language equality with other parts of the UK, the more it seems to those in the Irish language community that this part of the UK will remain a cold house for the Irish Language. In the wider community, people, who may be nationalists, will see this as a signal that the Unionist majority has yet to make space for the Irish identity in the north. This is not because Irish speakers or nationalists are against the British identity and want to see it eradicated - this is a matter of sharing. Who’s afraid of a genuinely shared future?
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:29 PMYes folks, there are bilingual Hungarian/Romanian road signs in areas of Transylvania that are at least 20% Hungarian-speaking. The percentage level used to be 10%. This is a precedent that could be used here.
I haven’t been to Macedonia but as far as i know road signs are not bilingual in Albanian areas of the country. Though many other signs are.
Teaching Irish Gaelic in state system would be a great idea as i’ve met a number of people who attended those schools who would have loved the chance to learn the language of their country. Although i see Gael Gan Náire’s point that Scottish Gaelic might be accepted better.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:30 PMOiliféar,
DĂ©an tusa do rogha rud, dĂ©anfaidh daoine eile rud s’acu fĂ©in, is cuma liomsa fá rudaĂ atá GaeilgeoirĂ eile ag iarraidh. Sin mar atá.
Do your own thing, others will do their thing, I am not bothered about what some activists are asking for. Thats the way it is.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:33 PMGeorge
Douglas Hyde was a County Rosscommon man with no understanding of the Northern Protestant mind-set, ethos or culture. I think his words condemn him out of his own mouth better than anything I could say.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:35 PMGinfiz,
“A damaging impact on community relations”
I too would like an explanation of this old corker.
Mick Fealty,
Sorry about the computer space. I will personally stop soon I promise.
I predict a riot. Apologies.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:36 PMSorry George, should add that whilst I myself am an Anglo-Iirhs Protestant, the majority of Protestants in Northern Ireland are not - they are Ulster-Scots.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:36 PMRG Cuan - you r a man after my own heart - geek is good !
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:37 PMFine. To elevate the Irish language to the status of a co-language with English here will be recieved with near universal hostility by the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. If you are serious about creating a shared future you would be able to recognise such.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:38 PMI repeat in answer to the question re community relations:
In Scotland and Wales, there will be a variety of people with differing political views, religous affiliations, and identities who speak GĂ idhlig or Welsh: that is not the case here and as I have demonstrated above has not been the case on this island for more than a century.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:41 PMOILIFÉAR
Is iomaĂ gnĂ© le ‘gluaisceacht’ na Gaeilge agus dar liom go bhfuil ga le gnĂomh ar an talamh chomh maith le gnĂomh dlĂthiĂşil srl.
Amharc ar an Bhreatain Bheag má tá fianaise uait ar cad is féidir a bhaint amach.
Look at Cymru if you want evidence of what language communities can achieve through peaceful active campaigns.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:42 PMGinfiz,
I fear no unionist hostility. I have experienced it at close hand already. I believe that this hostility to me and my culture is based on bigotry and I do not feel any need to change my life to accomadate it.
I welcome a shared future, but anglicisation I will not tolerate. If that is the price of a shared future I will not pay it.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:45 PMSpoken like a true Sinn Feiner and it is because of attitudes like yours that you will never get an Irish Language Act.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:47 PMGinfizz,
the post is well put together and interesting to read. The main thrust of it appears to be that the revival of the Irish language is a nationalist goal and that it is a political issue.
My question is this: why is that such a massive problem? If it is a nationalist aspiration, is this a reason to prevent it from happening? Alike to saying you (Nationalists) want this to happen so we (Unionists) oppose it.
It appears to me that all you’ve done is link Irish language to nationalism. Big whoop, it’s a legitimate political ideology, we’re entitled to have goals and aspirations.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 01:48 PM
