markodaly wrote: » My comment is correct. The Irish written word was never outrightly banned across the entire Island of Ireland. Putting me on ignore does not change this fact.
McMurphy wrote: » The Indos front page has almost entirely been dedicated to attacking the black and tan wankfest the blueshirts had planned. Seriously though, how could FG be so goddam arrogant/ignorant right in the mouth of an election?
pjohnson wrote: » Mark will send a strongly worded letter to then blaming the Normans.
Danonino. wrote: » But, ehhh, it WAS outrightly banned across the entire Island.
markodaly wrote: » The keyword is outrightly banned. It wasn't. Sure, its use in certain contexts and situations was banned and made illegal, such as using it in the Irish Parliament, but there was no law passed that outrightly banned its use in ALL context and All people, nor was holding or writing a poetry book as Gaeligle ever banned as well. That is the trouble with Irish history, a half-truth becomes the actual truth. Like the 'fact' that the Black and Tans came from English prisons, and absolute falsehood.
Danonino. wrote: » People don’t just make up having to hide Irish poetry for ****s and giggles.
Danonino. wrote: » Sorry I edited my post before your reply. If you want to get specific the use of Irish was outright banned including the spoken word up until the 1450s or so. But anyway the main point I was making was that it was legislated and banned in all practical use by law by multiple acts. Now writing or holding a poetry book, true it was never banned. The issue arises when who is to say that book of poetry isn’t rebellious propaganda or legal documents? People don’t just make up having to hide Irish poetry for ****s and giggles.
markodaly wrote: » Sorry, Is there documented cases where this happened?
farmchoice wrote: » ah mark, id have a certain sympathy for you point of view but this ludicrous attempt to down play the obvious English policy of attempting to suppress Irish is nothing short of embarrassing. also it presents you as little more than a fanatic yourself and to a large degree removes the legitimacy of any argument you might have. it really is hard to take you seriously after this. you are very much coming across as the mirror image of that christian brothers version of Irish history.
Danonino. wrote: » ..... Why is it that much of a sticking point? It’s absolutely no secret in anyway that the English Rule wiped the Irish Language through legislation and brute force. There’s literally hundreds of years of legal acts and hundreds preceding those which stretch back to the 1000s. The documented cases you are looking for, is exactly why this conversation started. It’s most likely in the poetry that another poster recommend. I’m positive if you searched you’d find cases where non threatening texts were ‘confused’ for legal documents etc you’d find them. Of course you won’t find any ‘Irish folklore and poetry destroyed in midnight raid’ official court documents because heck we are talking about a system that even in as late as 1882 could see a man hanged for not being able to speak English to defend himself in court. I’ve waffled. Getting caught up on specifics from 500+ years ago. I’ll bow out. I’ll go back to having a tasty coffee and ignoring politics for another few years ha ha
CrankyHaus wrote: » This has been a long thread, have we worked our way through all of the nonsense arguments in favour of this yet? 1. The RIC did not include the RIC Auxiliary Division or the Black and Tans. Yes it did. 2. They were Catholic Irish men so must be commemorated. Why? 3. We need to aknowledge our history warts and all. Okay, here are photgraphs of some atrocities perpetrated by the RIC. 4. Actually no, we need to stop obsessing over our history and move on. How does obessing over the "decent men" of the RIC move us on in any way? 5. It's necessary for reconciliation with the Unionists. They've had pretty much nothing to say on the issue and no Northern Irish Councils were even invited to this farce. 6. Some Irish people support English soccer teams and even listen to English music. Indeed, not sure of relevance to the argument. 7. Many Irish people can't even speak Irish. Indeed, as a result of centuries of British rule. 8. Those opposed to this are bar-stool Republicans. Some may be, many just have a problem with commemorating a force of colonial oppression, certainly the popular opposition to this extends far beyone SF voters. 8. My great-garandaddy was in the RIC and he was a decent man. Ah, the crux of the issue, if you wish to honour him do it yourself and don't expect the country to re-write its history for you.
markodaly wrote: » Firstly, I acknowledge the fact that the ruling class from Britain passed laws in an attempt to subjugate the Irish language in terms of commerce, law and elsewhere on this Island. This I do not disagree with. However, I asked a simple question about a poetry book as Gaeilge. Another poster wrongly stated that such a book was illegal. I challenged them on this and I am still waiting on proof of this claim. One would think, in a thread about history that historical facts should be deemed important.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Mark...the poster never said that 'having a poetry book was illegal'. You are creating myths!
The Rape of Lucretia wrote: » The use of English as the language of Ireland greatly benefits everyone on the island today. It would be to our disadvantage if our native language was Irish. Not that there is anything wrong with it at all, and fine for people to choose to use it as a hobby, and as valid to study and preserve as Latin or ancient Greek. But the transition fro Irish speakers to English speakers is an unalloyed good, and benefit of our historical relationship with Britain, and not an aspect to be regarded as a negative.
CrankyHaus wrote: » This has been a long thread, have we worked our way through all of the nonsense arguments in favour of this yet? 1. The RIC did not include the RIC Auxiliary Division or the Black and Tans. Yes it did. 2. They were Catholic Irish men so must be commemorated. Why? 3. We need to aknowledge our history warts and all. Okay, here are photgraphs of some atrocities perpetrated by the RIC. 4. Actually no, we need to stop obsessing over our history and move on. How does obessing over the "decent men" of the RIC move us on in any way? 5. It's necessary for reconciliation with the Unionists. They've had pretty much nothing to say on the issue and no Northern Irish Councils were even invited to this farce. 6. Some Irish people support English soccer teams and even listen to English music. Indeed, not sure of relevance to the argument. 7. Many Irish people can't even speak Irish. Indeed, as a result of centuries of British rule. 8. Those opposed to this are bar-stool Republicans. Some may be, many just have a problem with commemorating a force of colonial oppression, certainly the popular opposition to this extends far beyond SF voters. 8. My great-garandaddy was in the RIC and he was a decent man.Ah, the crux of the issue, if you wish to honour him do it yourself and don't expect the country to re-write its history for you.
markodaly wrote: » https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=112193905 It is directly inferred in that post.
but a good start would be some 19th century Gaeilge poetry, you know, what we had to hide because our language was illegal
FrancieBrady wrote: » he choose to denigrate and call people 'immature' and huff about 'sinister forces' :rolleyes:
Billcarson wrote: » Bambi wrote: » And The others who decry any glimpse of national sentiment as barstoolism while themselves becoming all dewy eyed for the days of Union when patriotic "ballsy" RIC men bravely turfed peasants out of their homes If they where alive back then they would probably be the informer type scum. What and you'd be one of the rebels? Like all the millions of Irish who weren't. This is the problem with our history, its so intertwined and complex. Unlike other colonial nations, its spread over centuries. We have no idea if 200 years ago our forefathers were agents/supporters of the crown. I mean many of our national heroes weren't even really true Republicans. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/wolfe-tone-republican-hero-or-whig-opportunist I mean we had the idea yesterday that Flanagan was a decent Irish name. like wtf does that really mean when half of our greatest people are anglo irish? as unpalatable as that is. During the famine, there was a large number of people who spoke no English, remnants of the Cromwell purges. They lived in hovels in fields etc on the margins of Irish society. Many were paid/given a ferry ticket by landlords, governments, agents to leave. These were seen by Lady Gregory's husband and people of the time as the last true Gaels. The remnants of an old Ireland. And many even sympathetic people (gregory is qouted as such), were glad to see them gone. Just cause your name is O'Brien it doesn't mean your directly purely descended from the clan. Most people arguing against the outcry are only highlighting the absolute ludicrousness of people going on about a border poll. Its not going to happen if this is whats going to go on. The same thing happened in 1987 when Garett Fitzgerald honored ww1 soldiers. It was a large part of him losing the next election. It should have been done as recommended by Ferriter but still, it goes to show we have a long way to go. Just cause people look at the ideas of romantic irish nationalism and question them, doesn't make them an enemy of the state. And people go on about brexit nationalists and US fly over state patriots with a straight face. We're as nationalist as anybody. And sometimes there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe its only cause they're nationalists in an imperial sense that we don't like. How are people going to react for the civil war. I read on the journal comments more than one comment this morning that pro treaty = west brit. I mean ffs. We have a great history and we can be proud of those who fought the yoke of colonialism for decades. But we need to at least acknowledge if not commemorate many of those quirks we have as a nation. I mean take a walk through Dublin city centre and walk around. One of those quirks is all around, and has directly led to the housing crisis. Post colonial, nationalist, but loving British architecture so much they'd block any development.
Bambi wrote: » And The others who decry any glimpse of national sentiment as barstoolism while themselves becoming all dewy eyed for the days of Union when patriotic "ballsy" RIC men bravely turfed peasants out of their homes If they where alive back then they would probably be the informer type scum.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What you SHOULD be looking for here are historical facts that explain WHY Irish people might be hiding books and artworks in the Irish language. Have a read:https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/irelandHouse/documents/0111-0126_PoliticsOfTheIrishLanguage.pdf
McMurphy wrote: » Deferred not cancelled Flanagan reckons.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » But by your own logic Irish has not being 'illegal' or discouraged foe a hundred years by that logic. So why are most of the country conversing in English the mother tongue of the oppressors? Why are we conversing in English on this very thread who's fault is that - the English?
Billy_Madison wrote: Mr. GormDubhGorm, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What?
weldoninhio wrote: » I'd say there is someone in Charlie Flanagan's office right now thinking "fcuk, what do i do with this now?" while looking at Charlies plans for March 17th this year where Ireland will be commemorating the snakes in 2020 instead of St. Patrick, in the interests of fairness of course.
