Wednesday, September 12, 2007
How to make Unionists comfortable with Irish
An interesting remark from SF’s Francie Brolly on Monday during question time:
I do not accept that the rights of Irish speakers should be subject to consultation.
I have to say, that makes me feel an awful lot better about the impending Irish Language legislation. He continued:
A right is a right.
Indeed it is, the right to life for example is not negotiable. Any “right” to speak Irish is in no way infringed in Northern Ireland, if it were Brolly might have a point. As it is, his comments only serve to cement the feeling amongst Unionists that this is not a rights issue, but a cultural warfare issue.
Michael Shilliday @ 09:21 AM
“I don’t know whether you noticed how poor old Michael ran for the hills when he was challenged on the cost issue - ie the voter registration forms in ten languages in total only cost £1500!”
There is a bit of a flaw in the EONI thinking, though, Oilibhear - if you don’t have a printer on your computer, the putative registree needs to phone the Electoral Office Advice Line to get one sent out - do they have Irish/Ulster Scots/Portuguese/Polish/Latvian/Lithuanian/Cantonese/Mandarin speakers there just waiting on a call?
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 02:11 PMSUILVEN
Many of the 8,000 Chinese people here do not speak the languages of their mother country. If they do however want increased provision, then they should have it.
However people do not normally request or expect services in their own language when outside the country to which that language is indigenous. In this case Irish is native to Ireland and so Irish speakers request such services. The situation is the same all over the world.
Interesting about the fifth taste by the way.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 02:12 PMRG Cuan
“It’s not only census figures we base our data on but also the NI Life and Times survey and last month’s Millward Brown study that found that about 17,000 people use Irish at home. That’s not even taking the many other fluent Irish speakers who do not use Irish in the home into account.”
All of them are self-reporting/assessing and thus problematic as a basis of policy.
The contrast in census knowledge levels and degree of home usage does somewhat undermine the demand argument.
I take it you are referring to the 1999 NILT questions. I haven’t seen the Millard Brown stuff but I’d be interested in reading it if you have a link I’d appreciate it.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 02:38 PMThis is my point six.
‘6. Compulsory registration and social service monoriting of Irish speaking families.’
This is FD’s point.
‘All of them are self-reporting/assessing and thus problematic as a basis of policy.’
According to FG therefore the only way for criteria for recognition to be fufilled would be to move away from ‘self-reporting’ and to some kind of inspection system? Surely confirms my point.
Perhaps I should have mentioned ear tags?
Why is it problematic anyway? are Irish speakers more inclined to tell lies?
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 02:46 PMYou mightn’t hear it too much but Irish is all around you - placenames & surnames (badly anglicised but recognisable nonetheless), the way people speak English, it’s in the soul of the place. There is also a small but thriving and growing Irish language community. There were still native speakers alive in West Fermanagh and South Armagh within the last century and there is still an Ulster Gaeltacht.
Equating it with Chinese or Polish doesn’t cut it and I think you know that.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 02:50 PMFAIR DEAL
Here’s the only info in English i can find on the Millward Brown survey. Overall it’s quite positive, from the perspective of an Irish speaker, linguist, multiculturalist etc.
http://www.northernirelandscreen.co.uk/newspage.asp?id=143&storyID=1293
And it’s actually the Life and Times Survey from 1999 that states that 1% - circa 17,000 - use Irish as the main language of the home.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 03:00 PM“there is still an Ulster Gaeltacht”
But is there a Northern Ireland Gaeltacht?
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 03:01 PMgaelgannaire
The tactic of “people aren’t saying objectionable things so let’s make it up” only displays self-serving prejudices rather than contribute to the debate. Let me speak for myself.
I don’t believe in nor would I support the “compulsory registration and social service monitoring of irish speaking families.”
Policy is better based on firm numbers such as the numbers attending Irish medium schools and those gaining recognised qualifications in it.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 03:06 PMRG Cuan
Much appreciated
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 03:09 PMRG Cuan
“However people do not normally request or expect services in their own language when outside the country to which that language is indigenous”
That is a very sweeping statement have you anything to substantiate it?
Is the provision of services/information in the languages of migrant communities not relatively common? Among migrant communities (first and often second generation migrant in particular) is there not a need for such provision?
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 03:22 PMTá sé in am an fód a sheasamh lom dÃreach anois.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 03:36 PMSUILVEN
But is there a Northern Ireland Gaeltacht?
Not officially, but there are communities in NI in which the primary language is Irish. The Shaw’s Road in Belfast and Carn Tochair in South Derry are the first that spring to mind. There is also a ‘Gaeltacht Quarter’ on the way in West Belfast.
In general however, the Irish language population in NI is geografically dispersed, though there are people who now recognise the need to bring Irish speakers together - http://www.bailegaelach.com
FAIR DEAL
What i meant was that Spanyards, Germans or Mongolians etc do not expect government services in their own language, nor bilingual signage, when they are outside their own country. They do however expect this provision when at home. The same is the case for Irish speakers.
The linguistic requirements of migrant communities should be provided for on the basis of their own needs and demand. All assistance requested must be provided.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 03:39 PMSHAMBO
AontaÃm leat a Shambo. Tá daoine i mbun an ruda faoi láthair.
Amharc Na Gaeil Óga agus http://www.ceithearnacoille.com
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 03:41 PMOK - here’s the maths:
“voter registration forms in ten languages in total only cost £1500!” - so that’s £150 per language. This is probably just the translation cost (although seems cheap and maybe omits the cost of someone tracking down and co-ordinating all the translators). The cost of typesetting and proofing will be higher. If the length of the document is increased then you are talking about a profound increase in cost - entirely dependent on the number of these registration forms printed.
“Life and Times Survey from 1999 that states that 1% - circa 17,000 - use Irish as the main language of the home”. I found the link: http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/1999/Community_Relations/MAINLANG.html
It also shows that 0% aged 18 to 24 use it at home, and only non-protestants speak ulster-scots (also at 1%, with both protestants and catholics at 0%). I think that the sample size is too low to draw any conclusions from this question!
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 03:43 PMRG Cuan
Got you, thanks for the clarification.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 03:50 PMDK
“This is probably just the translation cost (although seems cheap and maybe omits the cost of someone tracking down and co-ordinating all the translators). The cost of typesetting and proofing will be higher.”
It appears from what the electoral office says that they will simply print them off on an ordinary printer rather than incurring the costs of full print runs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6986133.stm
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 03:57 PMAh, but how much on top of the £1500 did this cost?
“The Electoral Office has recently put in place translation facilities for those calling at or phoning its offices who would prefer to use their own language.”
Not that I’m against it, but it would be interesting to know.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 04:11 PMSUILVEN
Ah, but how much on top of the £1500 did this cost?
Not that much when you think about it. There was probably one or two people already employed by EONI who could speak Irish and so no extra cost involved here.Providing for the other languages could involve outsourcing a phone call when needed or making request forms available. This would need to be clarified with the EO of course.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 04:35 PMAs regards language issues my general impression of language activists is they overestimate how much state action led to decline in language use and thus overestimate the benefits of legislative action.
Spot on.
As a side point, may I ask - how many people took an Irish A-level this year?
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 06:13 PMThis reactionary stance of Michael Shilliday is so redolent of all that old Unionist detestation of any extension of new legislative rights that might benefit mainland UK citizens (other than tax cuts for the better off) to that Little Missisippi of these islands that we each call differently yet all call home.
In my borough of Haringey all public offices carry notices in an evergrowing multiplicity of language (including Irish) and yet Michael Shilliday would deny the language rights acccorded to a recent Uzbekhistan resident of Tottenham to a UK citizen using a language much longer in usage, and yet extant and thriving, in these islands than the language he himself uses.
What really is it you seek please, Michael Shilliday, UK rights for all within the UK or “back to Alabamy” ?
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 08:25 PMRory, I haven’t been following this thread since this afternoon, I look at it and the first comment I see implies that I’m a racist. That is a disgusting allegation.
Secondly, I would like you to explain for me PRECISELY which “rights” are being denied to Irish speakers right now in Northern Ireland. The right to life? The right to a fair trial? The right of association? Which one?
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 08:30 PMTo return to the original start of the blog “How to make Unionists comfortable with Irish?”
An interesting question and one on which my views have changed a little.
I have said before on other threads but will repeat by saying that until I went to university I only ever heard Irish spoken on television at IRA funerals or by SF members on getting elected.
I will never forget the every word spoken in Irish is a bullet fired in the cause of Irish freedom by Danny Morrison.
Then at QUB it was used on all sorts of signs and I am sorry I felt it was there at territory marking (I was humiliated as a very naive fresher when I suggested multi lingual signs, that may have helped in my transition from moderate middle class unionist to member of the Prodiban).
I have only ever heard one set of people speaking Irish in “real life” when visiting in hospital.
So I do not start exactly well disposed to Irish.
However, having been looking at this web site for several months (and posting for a few, maybe a few too many for some of you) I have gradually come to the conclusion that a number of posters on this site are interested in Irish for cultural and not political reasons, and have no desire to use Irish as a weapon (I fear Mr. Brolly is not so enlightened).
Herein of course lies the problem. To get greater unionist acceptance the Irish language lobby need to request a relatively modest set of proposals and as I have suggested previously use obviously apolitical spokespersons. RG Cuan has previously demonstrated that they do indeed do this. The problem is that it is the likes of Catriona Ruane who get air time and every word she speaks in Irish probably sets back the cause of Irish (in reaching out to unionists anyway).
The Irish language lobby should not have to do this bending over backwards to unionists but I am afraid as far as unionists see it the Irish language has been gravely damaged by its co-option into the cause of violent republicanism. At a conference in Europe once I fell in with a bloke from RoI who told me quite spontaneously that one of the reasons he hated the IRA was because they had made him ashamed of his language.
I can of course see a further problem because essentially what I am suggesting to people interested in Irish is that they ask for less that they might hope for, or maybe even reasonably expect. Further they have to distance themselves from some a very powerful benefactor (SF). I fear though that SF support for the Irish language is a Midas’s touch whereby the Irish language lobby may well get more money and profile but find that in some ways it is counter productive. Remember that Midas starved to death.
I mean this in no way condescendingly but RG Cuan et al. you do have my sympathy.
A few months ago had you suggested to me that my children be taught Irish at school I would probably have foamed at the mouth and shouted No (and No Surrender) a lot, now I will merely say not yet.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 09:48 PMYou need to understand,Michael, that when you conquer a country it is essential that you wipe out every trace of the native culture otherwise it could be presumed that the old culture was as good as the one which is replacing it (An appalling vista,what?).English people excel at this and would die of starvation abroad rather than learn the ‘foreign’ word for food. Now having gone to such trouble to denigrate and smother Irish, why would you want to assist in it’s revival? The colonists at the coal face that have to mix with the paddies feel this urge to stamp out the original culture even more strongly. Things must be seen in black and white - grey is a sign of weakness and as long as the ‘British’ people here hang on to the apron strings of the ‘mainland’ and delude themselves that they are a valued part of the British nation, they will always sneer at the leprechaun language. This is RACISM and is essential for any colony to survive.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 09:53 PMTurgon,
nice post.
I am quite often asked to not teach Irish but about Irish in state schools.
In contradiction to my own frustration fueled previous post I have always found my audience almost too receptive (now all this kids will have been volunteered by their parents).
For example, people love finding out about surnames and what they mean. Now contary to common belief many many protestant people have a Gaelic surname. I have never ever come across a young person who was not thrilled at learning the meaning of their own family name and its history from a Gaelic point of view. No MacDonald has ever been disapointed that the Mac Domhnalls were Lords of the Isles and that the name means world ruler.
Just a rambling thought. Doesn’t spoil anyones Britishness or nafin.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 10:02 PMIJP
Don’t have the figures in front of me but Irish is the still the second most studied language at GCSE and A Level in the North. Quite a feat saying that only half our students get the opportunity to learn it.
TURGON
Great to hear that you would now consider finding out more about Irish and would think about saying ‘yes’ to your children learning the language.
Spread the word!
Posted by on Sep 12, 2007 @ 10:22 PM
