Protestants should not learn Irish

GaelMise

A senior Orangeman has warned Protestants against learning the Irish language.

Belfast County Grand Master George Chittick made the call at a loyalist protest in north Belfast.

Mr Chittick told a crowd of about 500 people on the Woodvale Road: "A word of warning to Protestants who go to learn Irish ... it's part of the republican agenda.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-26000146

This statement from the Orange Order Grand Master comes after the recent growth of interest in the Irish Language amongst Protestants in East Belfast, first with a growing attendance at Irish classes in the area and more recently with the opening of a new Irish language centre in East Belfast.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-25654557

Linda Ervine, wife of former PUP leader Brian Ervine, and development officer at the new Irish Language centre had this to say about the comments from the Orange Order Grand Master

I'd love him to come and visit our centre because I think it would be a real wake-up call for him.

You come into our classroom and you have members of the DUP, members of Alliance, members of the UUP, members of the PUP all learning Irish.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-26004137

Grand Master Chittick has claimed that republicans have made the Irish language 'political' in recent times, something that it was not in the past.

Certainly Irish has been made a political issue in the north recently, but not by republicens, but rather by the Council of Europe, an investigation team looking into how the British state and the NI assembly have been working to implement the European charter for Regional or Minority languages, was very critical of the lack of progress that has been made in relation to Irish, especially in relation to the ongoing ban on using Irish in the courts in the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-25750658

Personally I think that the one trying to make the Irish language a political issue is not republicens, but rather Grand Master Chittick himself.

Celly Smunt

I think irish should be optional whether catholic or protestant, north or south.

Institutionally speaking.

Dr.Tank Adams

What a load of cr*p, people can learn whatever the hell they want to learn, they certainly don't need the permission of a member of the socially upstanding Orange Order... It's funny how the Unionists turned against Irish, back at the north foundation the attitude was completely different, I remember seeing a picture of Carson with a banner behind him written in Irish.

Sand

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

What a load of cr*p, people can learn whatever the hell they want to learn

That is apparently the view of the Orange Order themselves.

Case closed. Everyone agrees.

The Irish language is not political of course, but promotion of the Irish language as a cultural/national difference from the UK has been part of the bedrock of Irish republicanism since the late 1800s. Gerry Adams doesn't speak Irish to reach out to the 0.8% of people who can understand it, but rather to make a political point. And the Republic doesn't have an enforced regime of Irish because there's any great practical use or demand for it. Again, its to make a political point. Hence some figures are going to be (irrationally) suspicious of it, just by association.

I don't think there is anything here to suggest there is some slow burning plot to take over East Belfast via the Irish language in this case though. But they could do without the headlines given the location they find themselves in and the visits of people like Patrick Magee.

GaelMise

Sand wrote: »

the 0.8% of people who can understand it

67.3% of statistics on the internet are wrong you know.

tdv123

Sand wrote: »

That is apparently the view of the Orange Order themselves.

Case closed. Everyone agrees.

The Irish language is not political of course, but promotion of the Irish language as a cultural/national difference from the UK has been part of the bedrock of Irish republicanism since the late 1800s. Gerry Adams doesn't speak Irish to reach out to the 0.8% of people who can understand it, but rather to make a political point. And the Republic doesn't have an enforced regime of Irish because there's any great practical use or demand for it. Again, its to make a political point. Hence some figures are going to be (irrationally) suspicious of it, just by association.

I don't think there is anything here to suggest there is some slow burning plot to take over East Belfast via the Irish language in this case though. But they could do without the headlines given the location they find themselves in and the visits of people like Patrick Magee.

What the hell are you talking about what political points does it make?

kabakuyu

Protestants have had a great history and tradition in the use of the Irish language and most right thinking people will ignore the Grand wizard of the OO.

The Corinthian

GaelMise wrote: »

67.3% of statistics on the internet are wrong you know.

What does that 67.3% represent exactly and if it's measured using self-assessment? My understanding is that once you take out those who speak a certain level of the language because they need it for work (e.g. Irish teachers), there aren't a huge number who use it on a daily basis.

GaelMise

The Corinthian wrote: »

What does that 67.3% represent exactly and if it's measured using self-assessment? My understanding is that once you take out those who speak a certain level of the language because they need it for work (e.g. Irish teachers), there aren't a huge number who use it on a daily basis.

Seems like a rather odd metric to use. Why should we deduct the number of Irish speakers who use Irish as part of their work? Should we apply the same criteria to other languages? How many English speakers are we left with if we deduct the number who use English for work? Would such a figure tell us anything of any significance for the language? I don't really think so.

The Corinthian

GaelMise wrote: »

Seems like a rather odd metric to use. Why should we deduct the number of Irish speakers who use Irish as part of their work?

You don't think it creates a false measure of the language's use? Especially if it is likely that the only reason it is spoken at all is for that work.

Should we apply the same criteria to other languages? How many English speakers are we left with if we deduct the number who use English for work?

Probably 99% of them, because that would be the spoken language outside of work, in day-to-day life. In reality, many who use the Irish for work reasons, don't actually use it much or at all outside of work.

Would such a figure tell us anything of any significance for the language?

It would probably tell us more accurately the general health of the living language and if it was widely spoken, or only artificially kept alive through government intervention.

Otherwise, we run the risk of lulling ourselves into a false sense of security, that 67.3% of the population speak it on a daily basis, which most Irishmen and women would raise an eyebrow upon hearing, in fairness. Which is fine for those on the gaelgore gravy-train, until those supports are slowly cut and with them the real reason for most Irish speakers out there.

Sometimes I honestly think that gaelgores are more interested in keeping the tax breaks, grants and jobs gravy-train going, than the long-term well-being of the language.

Qualitymark

Actually what would really be annoying to nationalists would be if Protestants learned Irish very well and spoke it at all opportunities, made it their own

GaelMise

The Corinthian wrote: »

You don't think it creates a false measure of the language's use? Especially if it is likely that the only reason it is spoken at all is for that work.

Probably 99% of them, because that would be the spoken language outside of work, in day-to-day life. In reality, many who use the Irish for work reasons, don't actually use it much or at all outside of work.

It would probably tell us more accurately the general health of the living language and if it was widely spoken, or only artificially kept alive through government intervention.

No, I don't. If anything the sole purpose of doing it seems to be to distort the numbers to show less people speaking Irish than actually do.

Doing the same in the case of English would drasticaly distort the figures for the number of English speakers in Ireland, and would give an impression that the numbers speaking English are substantially lower than they are in reality. It would have this effect on any language you apply it to, that is why such a metric is not used for any language anywhere in the world.

Otherwise, we run the risk of lulling ourselves into a false sense of security, that 67.3% of the population speak it on a daily basis, which most Irishmen and women would raise an eyebrow upon hearing, in fairness. Which is fine for those on the gaelgore gravy-train, until those supports are slowly cut and with them the real reason for most Irish speakers out there.

Who said anything about 67.3 percent of the population speaking anything on a daily basis, perhaps you should read the post before you quote it.

Sometimes I honestly think that gaelgores are more interested in keeping the tax breaks, grants and jobs gravy-train going, than the long-term well-being of the language.

I don't doubt that you think that, but that says more about your own prejudices than anything about the Irish speaking community.

The Corinthian

GaelMise wrote: »

No, I don't. If anything the sole purpose of doing it seems to be to distort the numbers to show less people speaking Irish than actually do.

Doing the same in the case of English would drasticaly distort the figures for the number of English speakers in Ireland, and would give an impression that the numbers speaking English are substantially lower than they are in reality. It would have this effect on any language you apply it to, that is why such a metric is not used for any language anywhere in the world.

That doesn't even make intuitive sense. Can you explain how the effect you describe would even work?

Who said anything about 67.3 percent of the population speaking anything on a daily basis, perhaps you should read the post before you quote it.

Fair enough, so 67.3% 'understand' it - whatever that means in practical terms, because from what I can gather most data is based upon simplistic self-assessment in the census, and/or from government departments with a vested interest in keeping the numbers up.

I don't doubt that you think that, but that says more about your own prejudices than anything about the Irish speaking community.

If you say so. Let's come back to this when after Irish loses it's mandatory status in terms of prerequisites for jobs, or in education and the tax breaks and grants are slowly reduced, and see how healthy the language is then.

But by then, I expect, you'll have your pension, so you'll be all right Jack.

Qualitymark wrote: »

Actually what would really be annoying to nationalists would be if Protestants learned Irish very well and spoke it at all opportunities, made it their own

And took over the galegore gravy-train too

GaelMise

The Corinthian wrote: »

That doesn't even make intuitive sense. Can you explain how the effect you describe would even work?

It does'nt make intuitive sense? Try thinking about it. Apply the criteria to English, would that give a more accurate figure for the number of English speakers? Or would it distort the number of English speakers to make it seem like there were substantialy less English speakers than there actually are?

If applying such a criteria gave a more rather than a much less accurate impression of the number of speakers of a language, why do you think you will not find such a method not being used, in Ireland or anywhere else? It has no basis.

I think you know that the effect of applying such a criteria would be to distort the figures to make it seem there are much less Irish speakers, and I think that is exactly why you want such a criteria applied.

Fair enough, so 67.3% 'understand' it - whatever that means in practical terms, because from what I can gather most data is based upon simplistic self-assessment in the census, and/or from government departments with a vested interest in keeping the numbers up.

Seriously, go back and actually read the post.

If you say so. Let's come back to this when after Irish loses it's mandatory status in terms of prerequisites for jobs, or in education and the tax breaks and grants are slowly reduced, and see how healthy the language is then.

How healthy would any language be if employment in that language was compleatly undermined in such a way?
Not very, but I expect you already know that, and it would not surprise me in the slightest if that is the reason you are suggesting it.

The Corinthian

GaelMise wrote: »

It does'nt make intuitive sense? Try thinking about it. Apply the criteria to English, would that give a more accurate figure for the number of English speakers? Or would it distort the number of English speakers to make it seem like there were substantialy less English speakers than there actually are?

If you applied that criteria, of including people who use a language for work, then you would end up with a very inaccurate figure. For example, English is a very important language professionally, in non Anglophone nations, in areas such as teaching, business and IT. It's also the most common second language in the EU; 51% of the population. Yet, it only accounts for 13% of native speakers - same number as Italian, and less than German (16%).

If we want to use that as a measure of how many people speak a language, then I suspect that we'd end up with silly figures such as 50% of Irish people speak French, or 30% speak German, when in reality most can string together a few phrases from what they remember from school.

If applying such a criteria gave a more rather than a much less accurate impression of the number of speakers of a language, why do you think you will not find such a method not being used, in Ireland or anywhere else? It has no basis.

Well, we probably need to agree on what you mean by speakers. Your statistic, for a start, was for those who understand the language, not speak it. If you mean 67.3% can make out cúpla focal, I'm not sure how you could call that an accurate measure of Irish speakers.

I think you know that the effect of applying such a criteria would be to distort the figures to make it seem there are much less Irish speakers, and I think that is exactly why you want such a criteria applied.

Because the criteria you're suggesting makes no sense and is designed only to bloat the numbers to appear greater than they are in reality.

Seriously, go back and actually read the post.

I did. Did you?

How healthy would any language be if employment in that language was compleatly undermined in such a way?

Thing is, it can't be undermined that way if it is the lingua franca or business language. If it can, you really have to ask yourself honestly how healthy the language is to begin with.

GaelMise

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you applied that criteria, of including people who use a language for work, then you would end up with a very inaccurate figure. For example, English is a very important language professionally, in non Anglophone nations, in areas such as teaching, business and IT. It's also the most common second language in the EU; 51% of the population. Yet, it only accounts for 13% of native speakers - same number as Italian, and less than German (16%).

If we want to use that as a measure of how many people speak a language, then I suspect that we'd end up with silly figures such as 50% of Irish people speak French, or 30% speak German, when in reality most can string together a few phrases from what they remember from school.

You do not accept then that if you excluded people who speak English for work from the number of English speakers in Ireland that you would massivly distort the number of English speakers?

You can make all the nonsense claims you like, the fact remains that the kind of metric that you are suggesting is not used. And there is a reason for that. The reason is that it would massivly distort the figures. Accept that or don't. But I really see no reason to continue a discussion with someone that seems intent on distortion and misinformation.

Well, we probably need to agree on what you mean by speakers. Your statistic, for a start, was for those who understand the language, not speak it. If you mean 67.3% can make out cúpla focal, I'm not sure how you could call that an accurate measure of Irish speakers.

Because the criteria you're suggesting makes no sense and is designed only to bloat the numbers to appear greater than they are in reality.

I did. Did you?

I'v asked you several times by now to go back and read the post where I mentioned 67.3%. You have obviously not done so, I'll suggest one more time that you GO BACK AND ACTUALLY READ THE POST. If you do, you will see why it is so obvious that you have not done so thus far.

Thing is, it can't be undermined that way if it is the lingua franca or business language. If it can, you really have to ask yourself honestly how healthy the language is to begin with.

Nonsense, any language can be undermined that way, there are plenty of examples of this. Our own history is a prime example. Irish was the undisputed lingua franca of this Island for hundreds of years, over which time it was in the prime of health.
But it was progressivly marginalised over time until we got to where we are today. The same process has been excersised with varying degrees of brutality many times around the world.

The success of otherwise of such a project has little to do with the 'health' of the languages being attacked. It has more to do with how vigorously they are attacked and over what lenght of time.

The language shift from Irish to English is often presented as a natural thing that was done by the choice of the Irish people.
This is a long way from reality. I am unaware of a single example of a language shift that was not carried out in a context of immense and often brutal pressure. Certainly our own history of language shift was one that was driven forward under immense pressure.

The Corinthian

GaelMise wrote: »

I'v asked you several times by now to go back and read the post where I mentioned 67.3%. You have obviously not done so, I'll suggest one more time that you GO BACK AND ACTUALLY READ THE POST. If you do, you will see why it is so obvious that you have not do so thus far.

I read the post, and have already said so. You quoted the figure in response to Sand's claim of 0.8% "who can understand" the language. As such, either you were correcting him with the correct statistic for "who can understand" or it's some random statistic that sounds good, for the purposes of attempting to mislead.

For the last few posts, I've been working on the basis of the above. If you've not realized this, I suggest you re-read my posts, slowly.

Nonsense, any language can be undermined that way, there are plenty of examples of this.

Then give one or two, outside of Ireland; where removing financial and legal supports for a popularly spoken language results in that languages being "completely undermined". That is what we're discussing, not how English supplanted Gaelic Irish 150 years ago, or so (which, incidentally also ignores the odd century where we've failed to make any real dent in reversing this).

Our own history is a prime example. Irish was the undisputed lingua franca of this Island for hundreds of years, over which time it was in the prime of health. But it was progressivly marginalised over time until we got to where we are today. The same process has been excersised with varying degrees of brutality many times around the world.

Sure it was, and before that it was an earlier form of Irish and before than an even earlier form. Or in Britian, Latin was once the undisputed lingua franca and before that a form of Gaulish was.

But we're not talking about how or why it lost it's undisputed position - we're talking about how some would like to present manipulated statistics of how healthy the language is.

That I propose, is due to vested economic interests, who are more interested in keeping the language on well paid life support with the state perusing policies that maximise their profit, rather than truly promote the language as a living one.

The 'Gaelgores' are frankly the language's worst enemy; they will lead it down a slow and ignominious death as they squeeze every last penny they can from it.

GaelMise

The Corinthian wrote: »

I read the post, and have already said so. You quoted the figure in response to Sand's claim of 0.8% "who can understand" the language. As such, either you were correcting him with the correct statistic for "who can understand" or it's some random statistic that sounds good, for the purposes of attempting to mislead.

Sand gave a figure of .8% A figure that clearly was made up on the spot, and has no basis in fact.

I highlighted this by saying that ''67.3% of statistics on the internet are wrong you know''.

How you managed to take from that sentance that I was claiming that 67.3% of people in Ireland have some ability to speak Irish I do not know, the only possible way I can see is if you go as far as 67.3, jumped to conclusions and didn't bother to read the rest of the sentance.

Then give one or two, outside of Ireland; where removing financial and legal supports for a popularly spoken language results in that languages being "completely undermined". That is what we're discussing, not how English supplanted Gaelic Irish 150 years ago, or so (which, incidentally also ignores the odd century where we've failed to make any real dent in reversing this).

What we are talking about is the supression of a language by removing its status in society and imposing another in its place. Our own history is a perfect example of this, Irish was the lingua franca of the Island, until its status was removed and English was imposed in its place. This resulted in a long process of marginalisation and language shift that has resulted in what we have today.
Wales is another good example of the same prossess.

Many of the former eastern bloc countries suffered a similer experiance when their languages were suppressed and Russian was imposed in their place. Fortunatly for them, the Russian presence only lasted for around 80 years at most, and as such did not have enough time fo the suppressed languages to be completely undermined, but even so all of those countries did progress along in the process of their languages being undermined while the USSR had control, with some being affected more severely than others by the time they eventually got away from Russian dominance. Belarus for example was particularly badly affected.

Its a process that has been carried out quite commonly, huge numbers of native languages in North America have suffered, and continue to suffer as a result of the same process, English instead of Russian being the language being impossed in their case.

Sure it was, and before that it was an earlier form of Irish and before than an even earlier form. Or in Britian, Latin was once the undisputed lingua franca and before that a form of Gaulish was.

Well no, actually in Britain, you had various branches of insuler celtic languages, until the Romans came and Latin was imposed on the tribes that were 'Romanised'. But it was not a lingua france, the local languages managed to maintain themselves, though they were influenced to an extent by latin.

That latin influenced local language was then later suppressed in England after the fall of the Roman Empire by the Saxons who invaded. The latin influenced local language survived in Wales and developed into modern Welsh over time.

But we're not talking about how or why it lost it's undisputed position - we're talking about how some would like to present manipulated statistics of how healthy the language is.

Well we are actually, we are at the tail end of a language shift that was initiated several hundred years ago, and the reasons for implementing that language shift were quite clear. The issue now is, should our independant government continue to implement policies that continue to suppress the Irish language and further that language shift from Irish to English, or should it implement policies that do not suppress the Irish language?

That I propose, is due to vested economic interests, who are more interested in keeping the language on well paid life support with the state perusing policies that maximise their profit, rather than truly promote the language as a living one.

Go on then, lets say for a moment that I accept what you are saying.
If I do, it follows that what is being done, and what is being proposed is actually against the interest of the future of the language.

Ok, so if what is being done is not in the interest of the language, what would be? What should be done to 'truly promote the language as a living one'?

Next of course you will have to show evidence for why your proposal would work, and why what is currently being done is not in the interest of the language. If what you are saying is true, then you should be able to back it up. So back it up.

Good luck proposing a credible method of promoting the living language while at the same time activly limiting the spheres in which its speakers can actually use it. That will be one hell of a circle foy you to square.

This notion that those who most stridently oppose the language somehow have the languages best interest at hart is an amusing one if nothing else.

The 'Gaelgores' are frankly the language's worst enemy; they will lead it down a slow and ignominious death as they squeeze every last penny they can from it.

:D:D
Again, lets see the evidence.
Personally I think the Irish language is in far better hands now than if you had your way.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Well if it brings people from both side of community together why not? Dissent and unrest suits some groups so they will do their best to maintain it by driving wedges between people.

The Corinthian

GaelMise wrote: »

Sand gave a figure of .8% A figure that clearly was made up on the spot, and has no basis in fact.

Clearly in your opinion.

I highlighted this by saying that ''67.3% of statistics on the internet are wrong you know''.

I see; you made it up. No it wasn't clear that your statistic was invented. I'll just presume you're inventing your facts in future then.

What we are talking about is the supression of a language by removing its status in society and imposing another in its place.

No, we're not. We're talking about the present day and the future, not the past.

Go on then, lets say for a moment that I accept what you are saying.
If I do, it follows that what is being done, and what is being proposed is actually against the interest of the future of the language.

Yes. If the intention is for a linguistic clique to maintain a position whereby they take advantage of grants, tax breaks and jobs, then it is in their interests that the language remains popular enough to assist, but not so popular that those artificial means of promoting it are removed.

Instead, the history of the State with regards to the language has been about perpetuating policies that have produced a cúpla focal population, with only a minority able to speak to any serious degree. This is what speaking Ireland means to the majority of people in Ireland:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTNBmFveq2U

And slowly, but surely, numbers have almost certainly been decreasing - I say almost certainly, because accurate measurement is almost impossible to make, between self-assessment and surveys run by groups and bodies with vested interests in the results.

But slowly, but surely, the artificial props are being removed; you don't need Irish to pass your LC, as with my mother's generation, or to get into an NUI college as with mine. It is being removed as a requirement for many professions and even it's mandatory status in education is unlikely to remain much longer. Document translation is already being less and less adhered to at a local government level and this trend will likely continue.

Why? Because these policies simply failed to promote Irish as a living, spoken language. The Gaeltachts are shrinking, not growing. The numbers are, over the long run, dropping, not increasing. The few success stories there have been were voluntary, urban examples of people taking up the language, not because they were paid or forced to.

Such financial and legal 'incentives' are defended only by those who profit from them.

Ok, so if what is being done is not in the interest of the language, what would be? What should be done to 'truly promote the language as a living one'?

I don't need to give a solution to the problem to prove my point, only demonstrate that the present solution isn't working.

:D:D
Again, lets see the evidence.
Personally I think the Irish language is in far better hands now than if you had your way.

I would ask you if you or your family profit from incentives designed to promote the language, but we already established that you have no problem inventing facts.

GaelMise

The Corinthian wrote: »

Clearly in your opinion.

I see; you made it up. No it wasn't clear that your statistic was invented. I'll just presume you're inventing your facts in future then.

Sigh, I expected an answer like this. Given that you are not interested in a reasonable discussion, I will preserve my sanity and leave now.

FifaPlaya

Don't Unionists speak Scots?

The Corinthian

GaelMise wrote: »

Sigh, I expected an answer like this. Given that you are not interested in a reasonable discussion, I will preserve my sanity and leave now.

So, you finally claim that you were being 'sarcastic' all along, and your statistic invented, despite not doing so for multiple posts even though it was clear I was taking your statistic at face value. Now you're leaving in a huff because the honesty of this has been questioned.

Convenient :rolleyes:

mackerski

The Corinthian wrote: »

I see; you made it up. No it wasn't clear that your statistic was invented. I'll just presume you're inventing your facts in future then.

Looks like we can add one more to the tally of people who don't speak English...

Dickie10

what about the scots irish around Ballycastle, they speak their own scots gaelic dialect and are protestants. the welsh are mostly protestant and speak welsh gaelic, and there is still some Cornish spoken in south west England. point is all these langauges were present well before protestanism in british isles. actually northern England and southern England ghad totally different dialects until 18 th century. its a a bit like saying all nationalists are catholic when Irelands two great freedom fighters were protestants!

GaelMise

The Corinthian wrote: »

So, you finally claim that you were being 'sarcastic' all along, and your statistic invented, despite not doing so for multiple posts even though it was clear I was taking your statistic at face value. Now you're leaving in a huff because the honesty of this has been questioned.

Convenient :rolleyes:

I would contend that the statement '67.3% of statistics on the internet are wrong you know' is quite obviously sarcastic.
It is a comment that is quite often presented in responce to clearly baseless figures used in internet discussions.

Now perhaps you are a rather innocent individual and did not get the sarcasm. But even if that is the case, and you honestly believed that I was presenting the claim that '67.3% of statistics on the internet are wrong' as being factual, it does not explain why you misrepresent that as my claiming that 67.3% of Irish people speak Irish.
Lets not forget that I did not let this misrepresentation pass, I did draw your attention to your error on numerous ocasions and asked you to look more closely at what I had originally posted.

All of this leads me to susspect that you are not such an innocent individual after all and that you misrepresentation of my post was as a result od dishonesty on your part rather than stupidity.

But I suppose its acedemic, either stupidity or dishonesty on your part, I am not interested in continuing a discussion with someone whom I believe has absoutly no interest in discussing the topic in anthing like a reasonable manner.

FifaPlaya

Dickie10 wrote: »

what about the scots irish around Ballycastle, they speak their own scots gaelic dialect and are protestants. the welsh are mostly protestant and speak welsh gaelic, and there is still some Cornish spoken in south west England. point is all these langauges were present well before protestanism in british isles. actually northern England and southern England ghad totally different dialects until 18 th century. its a a bit like saying all nationalists are catholic when Irelands two great freedom fighters were protestants!

Spot on Dickie10. Protestants here must learn Irish in school so I really don't see any problem. I don't get the point of the thread either.

The Corinthian

Dickie10 wrote: »

what about the scots irish around Ballycastle, they speak their own scots gaelic dialect and are protestants. the welsh are mostly protestant and speak welsh gaelic, and there is still some Cornish spoken in south west England. point is all these langauges were present well before protestanism in british isles. actually northern England and southern England ghad totally different dialects until 18 th century. its a a bit like saying all nationalists are catholic when Irelands two great freedom fighters were protestants!

I think, like many things in these sort of situations, it comes down to how it's interpreted in the modern context, rather than what it was originally or meant to be. For example, the whole point of the tricolour was to represent peace (white) between the nationalist (green) and loyalist (orange/gold) communities. Not exactly seen as that now, is it? Same with the term British; technically we're all British as we live in the British Isles. Problem is that when creating the union, they used the wrong word, they actually should have called the country Albion.

GaelMise wrote: »

I would contend that the statement '67.3% of statistics on the internet are wrong you know' is quite obviously sarcastic.

You may claim this, but I've heard enough crazy statistics on the subject that such a claim could be said by someone with a straight face.

Even so, it was clear that I was treating it at face value. Why did you not attempt to correct me? Telling me to read your post hardly does that. So why did you remain silent?

Sorry, but what you're saying doesn't add up. Not that it matters, because this tangent has allowed you to squirm out of the rest of the discussion, which I suspect was your intention. So why don't you go make yourself a few more pieces of silver out of the aul Gaeilge now?

GaelMise

The Corinthian wrote: »

Even so, it was clear that I was treating it at face value. Why did you not attempt to correct me? Telling me to read your post hardly does that. So why did you remain silent?

I did not remain silent, I directed you back to the post that I actually made, repeatedly. And I am still discussing it with you, hardily silent by any measure.
Even if you claim that you honestly took it to mean that I was claiming factually that 67.3% of statistics on the internet are wrong. That still does not explain why you took it up as my saying that 67.3% of people speak Irish.
So, how did that happen?

The Corinthian

GaelMise wrote: »

I did not remain silent, I directed you back to the post that I actually made, repeatedly.

I already pre-emptively responded to that, but you appear to have ignore that I did and snipped it out. Was that sarcasm too?

And I am still discussing it with you, hardily silent by any measure.

That's not what I was referring to; you were silent about my apparent misunderstanding, so please stop changing the subject.

Even if you claim that you honestly took it to mean that I was claiming factually that 67.3% of statistics on the internet are wrong. That still does not explain why you took it up as my saying that 67.3% of people speak Irish.
So, how did that happen?

I did that at the beginning, then corrected myself.

All of which, takes us further away from the rest of the discussion, which you're avoiding like the plague.

IrishProd

The Corinthian wrote: »

technically we're all British as we live in the British Isles.

:rolleyes:

Technically because Ireland is culturally and geographically different to Britain we are not.

Ah sure let us call New Zealand and Australia the Kiwi Isles, while we are it.

By your logic Canadians are American because they live in North America. Good luck with explaining that to them.

Completely daft.....:cool:

The Corinthian

IrishProd wrote: »

Technically because Ireland is culturally and geographically different to Britain we are not.

I see you didn't actually bother to read the rest of what I wrote on the subject:

The Corinthian wrote: »

Problem is that when creating the union, they used the wrong word, they actually should have called the country Albion.

What I was doing was illustrating the difference between how things are commonly perceived and how they, if one were pedantic, should be perceived. Pedantically speaking the British Isles are an archipelago of islands, of which the two largest are Albion (later referred to Great Briton) and Hibernia.

Problem is, the origin of the terms and what the should mean are irrelevant now, just as the original meaning of the tricolour has become irrelevant. British no more means what it originally was meant to any more than the tricolour represents both nationalist and unionist communities. It is how they are perceived that matters and this perception has deviated radically from the original intention for whatever reason.

But perhaps such concepts are a bit complicated for you? Not black and white enough?

oscarBravo

IrishProd wrote: »

By your logic Canadians are American because they live in North America. Good luck with explaining that to them.

Interestingly, on a recent visit to Chile, the locals were often puzzled by references to "America" - they think of themselves as Americans. You need to explicitly refer to los Estados Unidos to avoid confusion.

Carry on.