The glorious 12th

Imreoir2

blanch152 wrote: »

I think you misunderstood my post as I am not proposing a one size fits all. Rather, I am suggesting an approach that recognises equality of tradition.

A Minority Languages Act may have an overarching approach but it may have differential provisions for different languages. For example, it might provide for road-signs in three languages, but only provide for schools through Irish.

I am not surprised that neither community actually wants a Minority Languages Act, each side is much more interested in securing a victory over the other.

If that is what you are arguing for then there is nothing more than a semantic difference between that and having an Irish Language Act and a seperate Ulster Scots Act that caters for their needs. That you seem to think that this semantic difference is important is something you will really have to explain. The reason that Irish speakers oppose having a Minority Languages Act is that it is fairly obvious that the only reason to insist on a Minority Languages Act is to use Ulster Scots to undermine the demands of the Irish speaking community in a one size fits all approch.

The Irish language does not belong to one community, speakers of Irish come from every background (even supporters of the DUP). I don't know of any Irish speakers who are interested in gaining some sort of "victory" over speakers of Ulster-Scots. If anything there is some sympathy on the part of Irish speakers to the case of Ulster Scots as we can see that they tend to get ignored except when they are being used as a stick against the demands of Irish speakers.

blanch152

Imreoir2 wrote: »

If that is what you are arguing for then there is nothing more than a semantic difference between that and having an Irish Language Act and a seperate Ulster Scots Act that caters for their needs. That you seem to think that this semantic difference is important is something you will really have to explain. The reason that Irish speakers oppose having a Minority Languages Act is that it is fairly obvious that the only reason to insist on a Minority Languages Act is to use Ulster Scots to undermine the demands of the Irish speaking community in a one size fits all approch.

The Irish language does not belong to one community, speakers of Irish come from every background (even supporters of the DUP). I don't know of any Irish speakers who are interested in gaining some sort of "victory" over speakers of Ulster-Scots. If anything there is some sympathy on the part of Irish speakers to the case of Ulster Scots as we can see that they tend to get ignored except when they are being used as a stick against the demands of Irish speakers.

Turning that on its head, if it is only a semantic difference in your eyes, what is the problem with it?

To me, the issue is whether someone wants the trappings and symbolism of a victory over the unionist community (an Irish Languages Act) or just want the practical changes to support the Irish language which can be equally achieved through a differentiated Minority Languages Act.

You only have to look at this and similar threads to see which posters will be out in force celebrating an Irish Languages Act and while boards.ie does not reflect society as a whole, there will be plenty who will be looking to rub Unionist noses in it, but will never speak a word of Irish before or after the Act.

downcow

blanch152 wrote: »

You only have to look at this and similar threads to see which posters will be out in force celebrating an Irish Languages Act and while boards.ie does not reflect society as a whole, there will be plenty who will be looking to rub Unionist noses in it, but will never speak a word of Irish before or after the Act.

exactly

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That must be a first.




Nope, didn't depict it as a territorial battle, just mutual respect for cultures and traditions, appropriately differentiated. Not interested in anyone winning anything, just in middle ground compromises.

The appropriate respect is there (see Irish Government, Conradh Na Gaelige, SF, and others statements) and the cultural weight of each are accepted except in the Unionist community. There is zero respect for the Irish language in the DUP and in a lot of Unionist politics. There are many many famous examples of that.
But yet your main interest in this thread is in challenging those advocating for the Irish Language, not a single argument against our unionist poster...typical?...yep.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The appropriate respect is there (see Irish Government, Conradh Na Gaelige, SF, and others statements) and the cultural weight of each are accepted except in the Unionist community. There is zero respect for the Irish language in the DUP and in a lot of Unionist politics. There are many many famous examples of that.
But yet your main interest in this thread is in challenging those advocating for the Irish Language, not a single argument against our unionist poster...typical?...yep.

Wait a minute, I am proposing a Minority Languages Act, that will include provision for signs in Irish, for Irish schools, for some public services in Irish etc., yet somehow that means I am on the unionist side?

See some sense. You are way off the mark, buddy.

Imreoir2

blanch152 wrote: »

Turning that on its head, if it is only a semantic difference in your eyes, what is the problem with it?

Little enough, but I don't believe that the opperation you are suggesting is what is actually proposed by those who push a Minority Languages Act instead of allowing an Irish Language Act and then actually engageing with the other language communities to see what their needs actually are.

You really have to ask yourself why it is so important that anything but an Irish language act be allowed? Do you really think it is just a meaningless semantic arguement that they are making or is the purpose to frustrate the demands of Irish speakers by trying to trap the Irish language with a bunch of other languages in totally different positions, with a lowest common denominator approch.

FrancieBrady

Imreoir2 wrote: »

If that is what you are arguing for then there is nothing more than a semantic difference between that and having an Irish Language Act and a seperate Ulster Scots Act that caters for their needs. That you seem to think that this semantic difference is important is something you will really have to explain. The reason that Irish speakers oppose having a Minority Languages Act is that it is fairly obvious that the only reason to insist on a Minority Languages Act is to use Ulster Scots to undermine the demands of the Irish speaking community in a one size fits all approch.

The Irish language does not belong to one community, speakers of Irish come from every background (even supporters of the DUP). I don't know of any Irish speakers who are interested in gaining some sort of "victory" over speakers of Ulster-Scots. If anything there is some sympathy on the part of Irish speakers to the case of Ulster Scots as we can see that they tend to get ignored except when they are being used as a stick against the demands of Irish speakers.

There was n'er a woord about Ulster Scots until the GFA and the Ulster Scots Agency ( Boord O Ulster-Scótch - I kid you not! ) was only set up after it, with John Laird deputised to make Ulster Scots as important as Irish.
Fairly clear to me how it is being used for nefarious political purposes.

blanch152

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Little enough, but I don't believe that the opperation you are suggesting is what is actually proposed by those who push a Minority Languages Act instead of allowing an Irish Language Act and then actually engageing with the other language communities to see what their needs actually are.

You really have to ask yourself why it is so important that anything but an Irish language act be allowed? Do you really think it is just a meaningless semantic arguement that they are making or is the purpose to frustrate the demands of Irish speakers by trying to trap the Irish language with a bunch of other languages in totally different positions, with a lowest common denominator approch.

I can only be clear on the argument that I am making, which is for a Minority Languages Act with appropriately different provisions depending on the language.

The first part of the Act would contain general principles about respect for culture, tradition and languages. Then you would have separate parts for each language. Such a structure could allow for other languages to be added over time, or changes to the measures for each language.

There are people outside of the genuine Irish language community who are using the Irish Languages Act for their own political purposes and have no real interest in the language.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There was n'er a woord about Ulster Scots until the GFA and the Ulster Scots Agency ( Boord O Ulster-Scótch - I kid you not! ) was only set up after it, with John Laird deputised to make Ulster Scots as important as Irish.
Fairly clear to me how it is being used for nefarious political purposes.

There you go again, blatantly trying to put down the other side.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Wait a minute, I am proposing a Minority Languages Act, that will include provision for signs in Irish, for Irish schools, for some public services in Irish etc., yet somehow that means I am on the unionist side?

See some sense. You are way off the mark, buddy.

No, you are a proposing an act that will play directly into belligerent stubborn Unionist hands. A fairly blatant crude attempt to draw away and dilute support for Irish.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

There you go again, blatantly trying to put down the other side.

I am putting down an attempt to put down the Irish language. I am an Ulster man, I own, and love the dialects of my people as much as anyone.

There is a huge difference. And your inability to see it is only matched by your delusion that you think we don't know what you are doing.

Imreoir2

blanch152 wrote: »

There are people outside of the genuine Irish language community who are using the Irish Languages Act for their own political purposes and have no real interest in the language.

True, mainly unionist polititions.

There seems to be little enough reason to favour that approch over a stand alone Irish Language Act along with a more general Culture Act. If other language communities, such as Ulster Scots, want to make the case for legislative protections for their language then it is for them to make the case. As far as I am aware they are currently not interested in doing so. They should not be shoe-horned into an act for no other reason than to prevent the existance of a stand alone Irish Language Act.

RobMc59

blanch152 wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There was n'er a woord about Ulster Scots until the GFA and the Ulster Scots Agency ( Boord O Ulster-Scótch - I kid you not! ) was only set up after it, with John Laird deputised to make Ulster Scots as important as Irish.
Fairly clear to me how it is being used for nefarious political purposes.

There you go again, blatantly trying to put down the other side.

Just looking on bbc i player and in the Northern Ireland section there's 3 programmes about Ulster language and dialects which I'm certainly going to have a look at.

_blaaz

RobMc59 wrote: »

Just looking on bbc i player and in the Northern Ireland section there's 3 programmes about Ulster language and dialects which I'm certainly going to have a look at.

Ulster scots has a sister near identical dialect in america,its remarkably inconsistant to say its a dialect there,and a language here?



Kinda like how donegal gaeltacht irish is different to kerry and an rinn one

Imreoir2

_blaaz wrote: »

Ulster scots has a sister near identical dialect in america,its remarkably inconsistant to say its a dialect there,and a language here?

Kinda like how donegal gaeltacht irish is different to kerry and an rinn one

To be fair, the clasification of languages and dialects is a grey area and there is no satisfactory objective metric to make the destinction between one and another. Claims to languagehood or counter claims that a given mode of speach is merely a dialect is almost always a politicised question. Not sure where the quote came from but it is often said that "a language is a dialect with an army and navy behind it".

You often had cases of languages/dialects being suppressed around Europe becasue the government in question wanted to impose their perfered language on the nation as a whole. You had many languages dismissed as regional dialects of the dominant language.

The politicised nature of the issue can be seen in the dismissive attitude some posters have displayed regarding Ulster Scots, though it sholuld be noted that Unionists can often be just as dismissive. That's why I think it's a pity that Ulster Scots is misused in debates about the Irish language. It really has been used by Unionism as an atempt to create a counter point to Irish. It should really be left to develop in its own way in its own time with support for its own needs and not forced into competitions with the needs of the Irish lanugage.

RobMc59

_blaaz wrote: »

Ulster scots has a sister near identical dialect in america,its remarkably inconsistant to say its a dialect there,and a language here?



Kinda like how donegal gaeltacht irish is different to kerry and an rinn one

Slightly off on a tangent but these`s a community in Argentina which speaks Welsh,not sure how that happened!

Junkyard Tom

I predict, within a generation, the northeast will have the highest number of Irish speakers per capita largely due to Unionists' spitefulness when it comes to the historic native language.

Unionists really couldn't have made a bigger balls of normalisation of the North than they have in the last few years - no wonder non-unionists are looking to Dublin and Unification. Keep up the good work Unionism.

downcow

Imreoir2 wrote: »

To be fair, the clasification of languages and dialects is a grey area and there is no satisfactory objective metric to make the destinction between one and another. Claims to languagehood or counter claims that a given mode of speach is merely a dialect is almost always a politicised question. Not sure where the quote came from but it is often said that "a language is a dialect with an army and navy behind it".

You often had cases of languages/dialects being suppressed around Europe becasue the government in question wanted to impose their perfered language on the nation as a whole. You had many languages dismissed as regional dialects of the dominant language.

The politicised nature of the issue can be seen in the dismissive attitude some posters have displayed regarding Ulster Scots, though it sholuld be noted that Unionists can often be just as dismissive. That's why I think it's a pity that Ulster Scots is misused in debates about the Irish language. It really has been used by Unionism as an atempt to create a counter point to Irish. It should really be left to develop in its own way in its own time with support for its own needs and not forced into competitions with the needs of the Irish lanugage.

.....by some unionists. Please don’t generalise.

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I predict, within a generation, the northeast will have the highest number of Irish speakers per capita largely due to Unionists' spitefulness when it comes to the historic native language.

Unionists really couldn't have made a bigger balls of normalisation of the North than they have in the last few years - no wonder non-unionists are looking to Dublin and Unification. Keep up the good work Unionism.

Tom first time I have agreed with you. I think you are exactly on it there. It’s the same reason marches and bonfires are increasing in size. Nationalists have made a balls of it

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

It’s the same reason marches and bonfires are increasing in size. Nationalists have made a balls of it

'False balance' downcow. I'd say most of the (pro)unionist responses in this thread could be filed under false balance so I guess it's to be expected.

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

'False balance' downcow. I'd say most of the (pro)unionist responses in this thread could be filed under false balance so I guess it's to be expected.

I was agreeing with you. The biggest boost the marching bands got in decades was sf setting up residents groups. It was a catalyst for pumping so much energy into the whole band scene.
And I have no doubt the constant attacks on 11th night in last few years has increased interest and attendance.

I do think that the resistance to the Irish language by unionists is probably doing it a favour long term. Culture stuff is strongest when people feel it’s under threat.

If sf formed groups in Cornwall to attack morris dancing I have little doubt morris dancing would mushroom in interest and numbers.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I predict, within a generation, the northeast will have the highest number of Irish speakers per capita largely due to Unionists' spitefulness when it comes to the historic native language.

Unionists really couldn't have made a bigger balls of normalisation of the North than they have in the last few years - no wonder non-unionists are looking to Dublin and Unification. Keep up the good work Unionism.

They have marched up cul-de-sac after cul-de-sac, alienating their own and destroying any last vestiges that they are reasonable people to deal with in the motherland too.

Three times May tried to throw them under the bus and still they can not seem to let go of the 'not an inch' ideology and siege mentality.

Imreoir2

downcow wrote: »

.....by some unionists. Please don’t generalise.

Sure, there are plenty of unionists on the ground who don't engage in this and I don't mean to suggest otherwise. I was speaking about the political leadership of the unionist community, not every unionist on an individual basis.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They have marched up cul-de-sac after cul-de-sac, alienating their own and destroying any last vestiges that they are reasonable people to deal with in the motherland too.

Three times May tried to throw them under the bus and still they can not seem to let go of the 'not an inch' ideology and siege mentality.

Wishful thinking again francie. It’s going to take a bigger bus

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Wishful thinking again francie. It’s going to take a bigger bus

Boris is good with buses.

Honestly, if you are a DUP Unionist you have to be petrified at the minute. If you are not, then there is the reason you keep finding yourself in cul-de-sacs right there.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

... they are reasonable people to deal with in the motherland too.

And as for the other side, they could hardly be called reasonable people to deal with, being absentionists but still taking money out of Westminster. Still, better than the days of them putting bombs in pubs and shops and outside mcDonalds.

Odhinn

janfebmar wrote: »

And as for the other side, they could hardly be called reasonable people to deal with, being absentionists but still taking money out of Westminster. Still, better than the days of them putting bombs in pubs and shops and outside mcDonalds.

Earlier in the thread you claimed it would cost 7 billion for equal treatment of the irish language. Do you have a source for that claim?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

And as for the other side, they could hardly be called reasonable people to deal with, being absentionists but still taking money out of Westminster. Still, better than the days of them putting bombs in pubs and shops and outside mcDonalds.

The conflict/war is over 20 years now jan. Still some people under siege and denying rights to certain sections though. But not for much longer, because those they want to be a part of have decided enough is enough and they are going to be dragged into the modern age, like it or not.

janfebmar

Odhinn wrote: »

Earlier in the thread you claimed it would cost 7 billion for equal treatment of the irish language.

Equal treatment? :rolleyes: The cost of boards.ie giving equal treatment to your posts alone and translating them in to Irish would be at least how much? According to the Irish times, the high cost of external Irish translation - currently €43 per page, is almost twice the €22 average cost. Did you know the EU IS now hiring 62 Irish language translators for its institutions in Brussels and Luxembourg. The recruitment drive is part of a plan to recruit up to 180 Irish language speakers between now and the end of 2021. The seven billion figure for N. Ireland is a guesstimate based on the cost of new signage on roads, streets, public buildings, in hospitals, the extra cost of translating and printing bi-lingual versions of government documentation, forms etc.

If you were working for a company, a private company or a public quoted company like Ryanair - the quickest way to alienate and confuse its customers and bankrupt it would be to print all signage and documentation in Irish as well as English.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The conflict/war is over 20 years now jan. Still some people under siege and denying rights to certain sections though.

You are right there Francie. The greatest right of all is the right to live. And the IRA (some version of the IRA) still denying that right to certain people every now and again. ...the last time being in Derry not too many months ago.

I think if you had the guts to say the paramilitaries were wrong, it would move thins on a bit.