Stormont power sharing talks

blanch152 wrote: »

Because the revival of Ulster Scots is some twenty years behind the revival of Irish. The only difference between them is that one revival of a dead language began before the other.

Well then, there isn't parity.
Ulster Scots will need it's own dedicated resources and it's own act.
No objection to that here.

What I do object to, and the point you won't adress, and the reason the Stormont power sharing executive is suspended is the continual blocking of rights that every other party wants by misuse of petitions of concern and pure stubbornness. i.e. the Never Never Never culture that we have seen since the GFA.

A party pretending to be democrats. The DUP.

Time is up on the charade, and rightly so.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well then, there isn't parity.
Ulster Scots will need it's own dedicated resources and it's own act.
No objection to that here.

What I do object to, and the point you won't adress, and the reason the Stormont power sharing executive is suspended is the continual blocking of rights that every other party wants by misuse of petitions of concern and pure stubbornness. i.e. the Never Never Never culture that we have seen since the GFA.

A party pretending to be democrats. The DUP.

Time is up on the charade, and rightly so.

A Minority Languages Act doesn't have to give the same resources to each language, where did anyone say it had to? The issue is the mutual recognition of each culture under the same united umbrella rather than a partisan sectarian division of different Acts.

blanch152 wrote: »

Of course they are part of our culture, just as other minority pursuits are part of our culture. What we are discussing is the significance of that part. I can assert fairly confidently that the Irish language forms a minor part of modern-day Irish culture, but occupies a significant part of Irish heritage. Pretty accurate representation of the facts.

It's a minor part of the culture to 'you'. And as I have said to you earlier, 'so what' if that is what you feel about it.

blanch152 wrote: »

Because the revival of Ulster Scots is some twenty years behind the revival of Irish. The only difference between them is that one revival of a dead language began before the other.

The census of 1911 iirc showed 1/3 Irish language speakers on shankil road Belfast
(Have fun finding any reference to Ulster Scots then)

The Ulster Scots is a part of English with funny spelling,and different words (like how we say say lack for girlfriend in Waterford)
Do you think we can start up a new language for Waterford??

The Irish language is a stand alone language....the fact you seem to wish to spend your day attempting to convince people there the same thing,while wailing against all the evidence that Irish is irrelevant to modern culture is baffling

Perhaps the only place where I've seen anything remotely approaching Ulster Scots in day to day use is 4chan..,,...but you've made strange allies there

blanch152 wrote: »

You keep missing the point of the word "significant". I didn't say the Irish language had no place, I said it have no significant place.

So what's the harm in having an Irish language act so??

You seem dead against this earlier dispite claiming to like Irish culture....seems like you want to butter both sides of your toast?

blanch152 wrote: »

A Minority Languages Act doesn't have to give the same resources to each language, where did anyone say it had to? The issue is the mutual recognition of each culture under the same united umbrella rather than a partisan sectarian division of different Acts.

So you want a act (which you don't want

)....to slightly discrimate against one thing Vs another which you want to include both in the act????

That's like something a school child would dream up tbh

blanch152 wrote: »

A Minority Languages Act doesn't have to give the same resources to each language, where did anyone say it had to? The issue is the mutual recognition of each culture under the same united umbrella rather than a partisan sectarian division of different Acts.

Like the flying of both flags was a mutual recognition of both identities? How did that one go?
They (the DUP and it's rabble) wrecked the joint, is how it went.

The issue is not mutual recognition, it is the constant erection of roadblocks to rights already agreed to and rights available to every other citizen in the UK and Ireland.

There was no mention of Ulster Scots in 2007 by the party leader but plenty of 'partisan' triumphalism about Unionism and an attempt to describe this as being 'sponsored by SF' and to be defeated because of that.

Please stop with the disingenuous portrayal of this as being anything to do with the DUP seeking mutual recognition.

LeinsterDub

tomwaterford wrote: »

It's only pushed as a means to devalue and take the piss outta the Irish language,by those opposed to Irish culture

Irish ==Ulster Scots.

How have i devalued or took the piss out of Irish . Am i opposed to Irish culture now?

tomwaterford wrote: »

So you want a act (which you don't want )....to slightly discrimate against one thing Vs another which you want to include both in the act????

That's like something a school child would dream up tbh

Oh no, if it was left to me there would be no Act either North or South, but it is not left to me.

What I am saying looking in is that the only possible solution to the usual problem of two entrenched sectarian sides in the North squabbling over something that is rich in symbolism but poor in actual significance is an umbrella Minority Languages Act that deals with both resurrected languages/dialects.

Nothing inconsistent to my usual plague on both their houses.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

A Minority Languages Act doesn't have to give the same resources to each language, where did anyone say it had to? The issue is the mutual recognition of each culture under the same united umbrella rather than a partisan sectarian division of different Acts.

And there's the issue. Ulster Scots isn't an expression of culture. It's a rebuttal to Irtish culture.

steddyeddy wrote: »

And there's the issue. Ulster Scots isn't an expression of culture. It's a rebuttal to Irtish culture.

In exactly the same way, the revival of Irish in the North (of what was then a dead language with the Ulster dialect having died out) was a rebuttal of British culture.

It is terrible to see two sides expressing their culture in such negative terms.

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh no, if it was left to me there would be no Act either North or South, but it is not left to me.

What I am saying looking in is that the only possible solution to the usual problem of two entrenched sectarian sides in the North squabbling over something that is rich in symbolism but poor in actual significance is an umbrella Minority Languages Act that deals with both resurrected languages/dialects.

Nothing inconsistent to my usual plague on both their houses.

Giving into unionist bigotry has never done this country any good. So a plague on unionist bigotry (religious and cultural) and supremacy ( religious and cultural) imo.

Just look at how normal things could be (e.g. this years marching) when you face it down.

Professor Moriarty

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Irish ==Ulster Scots.

How have i devalued or took the piss out of Irish . Am i opposed to Irish culture now?

To paraphrase: Náisiún gan teanga, náisiún gan anam. How can you equate the significance of a language that represents a core element of cultural and national expression with a dialect? Especially in the context of centuries of cultural, national and religious oppression. Can you not see how that would matter to a community trying to reassert itself? Can you not see how demeaning it is to compare that community's language to a dialect? Should it be such a major problem for the other community to recognise the importance of that language in the spirit of reconciliation?

Chips Lovell

The tragedy of Northern Irish politics is that the two communities up there have more in common with each other than they do with anyone else, but are so consumed with mutual enmity that they're incapable of seeing this.

One of those commonalities is a shared obsession with defining yourself in negative terms (i.e. what you're not)..

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The tragedy of Northern Irish politics is that the two communities up there have more in common with each other than they do with anyone else, but are so consumed with mutual enmity that they're incapable of seeing this.

One of those commonalities is a shared obsession with defining yourself in negative terms (i.e. what you're not)..

None of the other parties that support an Irish Language Act (The SDLP, Alliance, SF) have a problem with recognising the place of Ulster Scots.

I would say that one of the continuing tragedies of Ireland as a whole is not recognising pure unadulterated bigotry and supremacy when it rears it's head.

Anyone could see the effort made by nationalists on this island to be inclusive around 1916, and commemorations of WW1 for instance.
What did we get from the the leader of the DUP = belligerence and intolerance.

QED for anyone who wants to see.

Professor Moriarty

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The tragedy of Northern Irish politics is that the two communities up there have more in common with each other than they do with anyone else, but are so consumed with mutual enmity that they're incapable of seeing this.

One of those commonalities is a shared obsession with defining yourself in negative terms (i.e. what you're not)..

Do you think that the preservation and promotion of Irish is intended to be negative?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Do you think that the preservation and promotion of Irish is intended to be negative?

Yes, Ulster Irish as a distinct dialect died out in the 1970s. So there is no preservation involved and the promotion is an expression of a denial of their British heritage.

The Irish Language Movement up north revived the language using mostly a Donegal dialect in an expression of non-Britishness, a negative origin for the move for an Irish Language Act today. All that is said by nationalists about Ulster-Scots today could equally have been said by unionists about the state of the Irish Language in the North during the 1970s.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

None of the other parties that support an Irish Language Act (The SDLP, Alliance, SF) have a problem with recognising the place of Ulster Scots.

I would say that one of the continuing tragedies of Ireland as a whole is not recognising pure unadulterated bigotry and supremacy when it rears it's head.

Anyone could see the effort made by nationalists on this island to be inclusive around 1916, and commemorations of WW1 for instance.
What did we get from the the leader of the DUP = belligerence and intolerance.

QED for anyone who wants to see.

I find it difficult to take this post seriously when the Sinn Fein shop is selling Provisional IRA badges.

What does need to be done, and we in the South are as guilty as anyone, is that we need to set a lead by embracing the British aspects of our heritage and culture and acknowledging the positive aspects of the British influence on us. After all, we are the ones who are supposed to be attempting to persuade people of the inclusive nature of a united Ireland.

Professor Moriarty

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, Ulster Irish as a distinct dialect died out in the 1970s. So there is no preservation involved and the promotion is an expression of a denial of their British heritage.

The Irish Language Movement up north revived the language using mostly a Donegal dialect in an expression of non-Britishness, a negative origin for the move for an Irish Language Act today. All that is said by nationalists about Ulster-Scots today could equally have been said by unionists about the state of the Irish Language in the North during the 1970s.

Could the Unionists have called Irish a dialect? Seriously?

Why should Nationalists not assert their Irish heritage? Do Unionists not assert their British heritage? Isn't that assertion an expression of non-Irishness?

Unionists have very visible ways of expressing their heritage. Much more so than Nationalists. Why would you deny Nationalists this relatively unobtrusive expression of identity?

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

One of those commonalities is a shared obsession with defining yourself in negative terms (i.e. what you're not)..

That is the preserve of union/loyalists. 40% of people in the north describe themselves as 'British Only' despite not having lived in Britain for centuries, that is nothing more than asserting that you're not Irish.

blanch152 wrote: »

I find it difficult to take this post seriously when the Sinn Fein shop is selling Provisional IRA badges.

What does need to be done, and we in the South are as guilty as anyone, is that we need to set a lead by embracing the British aspects of our heritage and culture and acknowledging the positive aspects of the British influence on us. After all, we are the ones who are supposed to be attempting to persuade people of the inclusive nature of a united Ireland.

Where you living on another planet during the 1916 and WW1 commemorations?

Seriously, there needs to be some realism here.

We do recognise the heritage left behind by the British and the good they did. But they have be called out for the bad stuff too.

And you are the one going on about 'parity of esteem' and 'inclusiveness' but you cannot yet handle or recognise the simple fact that SF have never seen anything wrong about the goals of the IRA. Nor their supporters.

Although I see you are no longer using the silly 'terrorist' tag so that maybe a start.

Chips Lovell

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

That is the preserve of union/loyalists. 40% of people in the north describe themselves as 'British Only' despite not having lived in Britain for centuries, that is nothing more than asserting that you're not Irish.

Don't most people from the UK describe themselves as "British"? Was there even a box to tick that said "UnitedKingdomish"?

blanch152 wrote: »

acknowledging the positive aspects of the British influence on us.

Which were?

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Don't most people from the UK describe themselves as "British"?

I'm confident the vast majority of people who live in Wales would describe themselves as Welsh, the same for Scotland, but in Ireland (or NI as they'd call it) a large majority of Unionists describe themselves as 'British Only'. This is a rejection of identifying with the place they live and the Irish who live there.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Which were?

Am I allowed post a Monty Python clip in response?

Chips Lovell

blanch152 wrote: »

Am I allowed post a Monty Python clip in response?

No.

blanch152 wrote: »

I find it difficult to take this post seriously when the Sinn Fein shop is selling Provisional IRA badges.

What does need to be done, and we in the South are as guilty as anyone, is that we need to set a lead by embracing the British aspects of our heritage and culture and acknowledging the positive aspects of the British influence on us. After all, we are the ones who are supposed to be attempting to persuade people of the inclusive nature of a united Ireland.

Hers your problem
Your viewing since SF. Is promoting an Irish language act it's a bad thing??

No matter what nationalist party is pushing it dup/loyalists will oppose it

So your running to loyalists,a culture whose soul purpose is to degenerate Irish culture (making up a language to take the piss outta irish FFS)

The fact you feel safer with these as allies,while claiming to love Irish culture (but not wanting any language act for Irish in Ireland :rolleyes: )

Your are either A: so blinded by anti republican sentiment that your judgement is blinded to loyalists/Ulster Scots :rolleyes: culture (Google July 11 bonfire for example)

Or B....your not such the fan of Irish culture as you perceive yourself to be...perhaps explains your instranginence and wanting to run down and dismiss the Irish language at every available opportunities

Presumably we were going to get the 'What did the Romans Ever Do For Us' clip.

While it is great comedy it does rather ignore the fact that invaders do not do things in invaded territories for altruistic reasons.
Rather they build infrastructure and the economies in order to make it easier for them to exploit.

Michael Palin, (one of the MP sketch team) did a great hurt/quizzical look to the camera when he didn't hear what he wanted to hear about what Britain did for the Indian part of the empire on a travel programme a while ago.

The irony was fantastic.

Red_Wake

tomwaterford wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

I find it difficult to take this post seriously when the Sinn Fein shop is selling Provisional IRA badges.

What does need to be done, and we in the South are as guilty as anyone, is that we need to set a lead by embracing the British aspects of our heritage and culture and acknowledging the positive aspects of the British influence on us. After all, we are the ones who are supposed to be attempting to persuade people of the inclusive nature of a united Ireland.

Hers your problem
Your viewing since SF. Is promoting an Irish language act it's a bad thing??

No matter what nationalist party is pushing it dup/loyalists will oppose it

So your running to loyalists,a culture whose soul purpose is to degenerate Irish culture (making up a language to take the piss outta irish FFS)

The fact you feel safer with these as allies,while claiming to love Irish culture (but not wanting any language act for Irish in Ireland :rolleyes: )

Your are either A: so blinded by anti republican sentiment that your judgement is blinded to loyalists/Ulster Scots :rolleyes: culture (Google July 11 bonfire for example)

Or B....your not such the fan of Irish culture as you perceive yourself to be...perhaps explains your instranginence and wanting to run down and dismiss the Irish language at every available opportunities

Do you actually believe that Unionists make up their entire culture to denigrate, what you perceive, as Irish culture?