Bringing Irish back into the public domain

magpie · 31-03-2004 10:55am

Yes, I really must make a note to myself to learn some history. Thanks for the advice.

I wonder if in your infinite wisdom you could explain why it is referred to as the irish 'revival' then?

Also, oh wise one, who founded Cumann Na Gael? (sp?) What were the stated motives of this organisation?

Johnmb · 31-03-2004 10:58am

Originally posted by magpie
Yes, I really must make a note to myself to learn some history. Thanks for the advice.

I wonder if in your infinite wisdom you could explain why it is referred to as the irish 'revival' then?

Also, oh wise one, who founded Cumann Na Gael? (sp?) What were the stated motives of this organisation?

That's it? That's the best you can come up with? One organisation? Seriously, read a book, not the basic secondary school book that tries to fit everything in very briefly. There are many books that go into detail about the time period. (BTW, Irish rivival is a general name, not a descriptive term).

magpie · 31-03-2004 11:24am

OK, what about the GAA, Cumann na Ban, na Fianna Eireann?

Perhaps I should read whatever alternative reality history books you've been at. Perhaps you can recommend one. I'm merely going by 'Ireland Since the Famine' and the Joe Lee book, which many people take as the bible for this period. I'm also going by The Sean Farrell Moran biography of Pearse which has a lot on the revival.

Johnmb · 31-03-2004 11:50am

Originally posted by magpie
OK, what about the GAA, Cumann na Ban, na Fianna Eireann?

Perhaps I should read whatever alternative reality history books you've been at. Perhaps you can recommend one. I'm merely going by 'Ireland Since the Famine' and the Joe Lee book, which many people take as the bible for this period. I'm also going by The Sean Farrell Moran biography of Pearse which has a lot on the revival.

Well, mabe you should pay a bit more attention to what you are reading. Firstly, Cumann na Gaedheal was set up to run a "Buy Irish" campaign IIRC. That was economic, not political. Griffiths became political later, and joined with a couple of other organisations to form Sinn Fein, but Cumann na Gaedheal was not political, if it was he wouldn't have bothered scrapping it to form Sinn Fein.
Now for the GAA, set up to promote several sports. Much like the FA and RFU in England. Nothing political about it. Then the IRB got in. Remember that name, the IRB, it stands for the Irish Republican Brotherhood. They had political aims, and they hijacked many non-political organisations to further their own aims.
Cumann na Ban was not an Irish language or cultural organisation, as you would know if you paid attention to the books you have supposedly been reading. Countess Markievicz and friends must have just thought the name sounded cool. It was a female version of the Irish Volunteers, and later joined with the suffragettes.
As for Na Fianna. At last you have mentioned one cultural organisation set up for political aims. But who set it up? Well, there's those 3 letters again, I......R.....B

magpie · 31-03-2004 12:01pm

Now for the GAA, set up to promote several sports. Much like the FA and RFU in England. Nothing political about it

That'll be why nobody in the British Army or Police were allowed to join?

Johnmb · 31-03-2004 12:03pm

Originally posted by magpie
That'll be why nobody in the British Army or Police were allowed to join?

Still not able to pay attention to what you're reading? Note those three very important letters in what I said about the GAA, just to remind you: I.....R.....B

magpie · 31-03-2004 12:07pm

Well, yes it is quite convenient to blame the IRB for subverting the aims of these organisations, but given that the prime IRB movers and shakers were shot in 1916 (Clarke, Pearse et al) it's quite hard to justify these sectarian policies continuing into the 1990s if these views were only subscibed to by a minority.

Johnmb · 31-03-2004 12:17pm

Originally posted by magpie
Well, yes it is quite convenient to blame the IRB for subverting the aims of these organisations, but given that the prime IRB movers and shakers were shot in 1916 (Clarke, Pearse et al) it's quite hard to justify these sectarian policies continuing into the 1990s if these views were only subscibed to by a minority.

This is just sad. Every time you come up with a bull**** claim and it is shot down, you make up something else. Well, let's stick with this. According to the GAA's own history, that ban on security forces occured in 1888. The IRB had effectively taken over in 1887. The IRB have a couple of thousand members (not including those of the organisations it had control of) by 1915. Those killed in 1916 were a small number (albeit, important members). The IRB survived, and maintained it's control of several organisations, amalgamating several into the IRA. If you want to discuss the modern motivation of keeping the ban, then so be it, however that doesn't change the fact that when the GAA was set up, it was not political, it wasn't until the political organisation known as the IRB got involved that political motives for some decisions occured.

magpie · 31-03-2004 12:28pm

The IRB survived, and maintained it's control of several organisations, amalgamating several into the IRA

Ok, so what you are saying is that the GAA was not set up as a political organisation, but it was taken over by IRB membership and its policies were then continued by IRA membership, which explains its sectarian policies existing into the 1990s. So the GAA is a sectarian political organisation run by the IRA then? Now we're getting somewhere...

If you admit that the cultural organisations you mention were taken over by the IRB, and that this influence continued through the IRA until the present, does this not somewhat back up my original point that Irish Language/Cultural Organisations are inextricably linked with republican politics?

Johnmb · 31-03-2004 12:41pm

Originally posted by magpie
Ok, so what you are saying is that the GAA was not set up as a political organisation, but it was taken over by IRB membership and its policies were then continued by IRA membership, which explains its sectarian policies existing into the 1990s. So the GAA is a sectarian political organisation run by the IRA then? Now we're getting somewhere...
I seriously doubt that the IRA has had much power running the overall organisation for quite some time. However, there are many members of the sporting organisation who simply will not change. One classic example is the ban on football and rugby from Croke Park. That can be traced back to politics within sports, and has nothing to do with republican politics, yet they still won't change, even though the organisation that they originally wanted to ban has long since gone.

If you admit that the cultural organisations you mention were taken over by the IRB, and that this influence continued through the IRA until the present,
Three of the four organisations you mentioned no longer exist, so what exactly is it the IRA are presently influencing?

does this not somewhat back up my original point that Irish Language/Cultural Organisations are inextricably linked with republican politics?
No it doesn't. What it does do is show that some insincere people with political motivations are just as capable of causing damage to cultural organisations as they are of causing damage to other organisations. I not only enjoy relearning the language, I also like the other cultural aspects. I am not a republican in politics. I would class myself as a European, and would quite happily pass more political power to Brussels. I have no links with republican politics, yet have many with Irish Language and Cultural organisations (links in that I support them and use their facilities whenever I can).

simu · 31-03-2004 2:08pm

Speaking and learning Irish are, have been and will be overtly political acts. Its revival started as part of the cultural nationalist movement, it is now used as a banner of "Irishness" as a seperatist ideal, and it is the language of choice of Messrs Adams and McGuinness.

This is untrue. I am an Irish speaker, speak it every day and have many friends and family members that do the same - none of them are involved with Sinn Féin or any such thing. As for those that do not come from an Irish speaking background and learn the language, their main motivations are the literature, the sound of the language, the music, speaking another language other than English, curiosity about the language their ancestors spoke and so on - very few of them do so for political reasons.

As for the whole "revival", that was mostly a sham - the founders of this state never took it seriously. People who are speaking Irish today are not doing so because of government policy.

GuanYin · 31-03-2004 2:31pm

Originally posted by magpie
The Irish language was revived as part of a political agenda in the late 19th/early 20th Century, otherwise it would not exist now. Ergo, speaking Irish is a political act. And a sectarian one to boot.

Again untrue, you should really put more effort into researching yor arguments and less into putting your own agendas onto the matter. The Irish language was far stronger in these periods than it is now. It was revived in the educational system perhaps, but perhaps a quater million native speakers existed up until the last century. This is a little under the current population of Iceland, who all speak icelandic, incidently. So by your logic, icelandic should be forsaken in favour of more common norse languages?

The decline in the Irish language is based primarily on a geographical term known as "bright light syndrome" and also the progress in business and trade mediums in this country. This doesn't mean that its forsaken or unwanted, many people from irish speaking areas take alot of pride in their ability to use the language.

Personally, I'm from a non political family in Ireland (due mainly to the fact they didn't live here) and I speak fluent Irish. I couldn't giev a rats ass about the politics involved, I like the language and culture. Its one of the few things left that is non-commercialised in the world.

I don't agree withit being compulsory in schools, nor do I think that the current course is doing the language any favours, but I do believe that there should be incentives to take the language. Wales is a country we could learn alot from in terms of bi-lingualism.

magpie · 31-03-2004 2:57pm

Listen, don't get me wrong. If people want to have irish-language hobby groups, and get together and talk as gaeilge and reminisce about the good old pre-feudal days that's fine by me.

What I object to (and what this thread is about) is the idea that the preservation of irish be an issue for the government. As it stands it is ridiculous that professions like the law require you to pass 2 irish exams, thus neatly preventing anyone from the UK or further abroad from ever practising in Ireland.

I'm actually suprised that the likes of McDowell haven't twigged that the irish language is a good 'keep ireland white' mechanism and insisted all state and semi-state job applicants pass an irish exam. But hang on, we need those pesky foreigners 'cos we don't have enough nurses....

GuanYin · 31-03-2004 3:10pm

A proportion of Irish citizens, no matter how small are native fluent Irish speakers.

Any attempt by the government to throw the Irish language out would be seen as an oppression of this minority group. From a government point of view, it would be handing the vote in those areas to the opposition.

As it stands the language is an official language of the country and any citizen is entitled to request Irish language correspondance in a number of areas.

What you are suggesting, at its most dramatic, is a segregation, oppression and isolation of a minority group in Ireland because you don't like the way they live. If it doesn't effect you, why chould you care. It would effect teh lives of others drastically. Is your niggling annoyance worth more tothe country?

magpie · 31-03-2004 3:16pm

As it stands the language is an official language of the country and any citizen is entitled to request Irish language correspondance in a number of areas.

What you are suggesting, at its most dramatic, is a segregation, oppression and isolation of a minority group in Ireland because you don't like the way they live.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is anybody alive in Ireland today who cannot speak English?

In contrast there are millions who do not speak Irish, so insisting on Irish as a job qualification actively discriminates in favour of a small minority of people. And you're whining about not getting enough government support?

GuanYin · 31-03-2004 3:44pm

Originally posted by magpie
Are you seriously suggesting that there is anybody alive in Ireland today who cannot speak English?

In contrast there are millions who do not speak Irish, so insisting on Irish as a job qualification actively discriminates in favour of a small minority of people. And you're whining about not getting enough government support?

No but are you honestly suggesting that you force all those who choose to speak Irish to speak English instead.

Thats what this is about. As it stands, the only positions where Irish is required are those government jobs where the possability of Irish interaction is high.

If you want to do those jobs, you take into account that you may have to deal with a citizen of this country that was born and raised in an Irish speaking environment, whose first language is Irish and who doesn't want to be forced to speak another language to accomodate you.

These people speak Irish naturally, it is their natural state. To make them speak another language to deal with the government would be a simple discrimination. Hence, if you want to do the job, you have to accomodate them. Its like saying I'll take the job, but I don't want to do this part of it cos I couldn't be arsed.

If the government changes its position, perhaps this might change, but any act would probably be seen as oppression of these people.

Simply put, if you want to do the job, you take the requirements of tough luck.

magpie · 31-03-2004 3:57pm

I think there is only one fair solution, and that is to disestablish Irish as an official language and list it as an 'also spoken' language.

A facility to accomodate those who choose to speak irish for whatever reason can be set up by having limited numbers of gaeilgoirs on standby. Compulsory Irish fluency for state and semi-state positions should be withdrawn thus paving the way for some much needed fresh, international blood in their ranks.

To be fair, the French Government doesn't expect you to be able to speak Breton in order to work there, nor the Spanish Govt expect Basque fluency, so I can't see why Ireland cant get with the programme.

Do you think its a good thing that nobody but Irish people have any chance of getting civil service positions because of the irish rule?

GuanYin · 31-03-2004 4:10pm

Originally posted by magpie
I think there is only one fair solution, and that is to disestablish Irish as an official language and list it as an 'also spoken' language.

A facility to accomodate those who choose to speak irish for whatever reason can be set up by having limited numbers of gaeilgoirs on standby. Compulsory Irish fluency for state and semi-state positions should be withdrawn thus paving the way for some much needed fresh, international blood in their ranks.

To be fair, the French Government doesn't expect you to be able to speak Breton in order to work there, nor the Spanish Govt expect Basque fluency, so I can't see why Ireland cant get with the programme.

Do you think its a good thing that nobody but Irish people have any chance of getting civil service positions because of the irish rule?

What will this achieve?

Will it mean less Irish speakers? Will their rights diminish?

I'd say no in both cases, so you'd still need to keep things as is.

If the best gov rep was one of the ones who didn't speak Irish and someone who was from a native Irish background wanted him, what then?

I say again, if you choose to do a job representing the Irish public, then you choose to take on board all the pros and cons of the job. If learning Irish is a con, well then you have to decide if you want the job or not. What you don't do is go blaming and putting down people who were brought up to speak the language for inconveniencing you.

I'm not a born and bred Irish person and I can speak the language, so why not others? Do you think that Canadian people should all speak english because only 24% speak french? Whould the government just concentrate on English? After all it means many people without french can't get some of the jobs?

Lets look at it this way. Is the amount of extra people applying and getting these jobs if Irish was taken away more or less than the amount of Irish speakers they would be effecting?

The Basque analogy was hilarious by the way.

magpie · 31-03-2004 4:22pm

The Basque analogy was hilarious by the way.

I'm sure the basques would see the funny side too.

Do you think that Canadian people should all speak english because only 24% speak french? Whould the government just concentrate on English? After all it means many people without french can't get some of the jobs?

Speaking of hilarious analagies, this one is a corker. Quebec is a province of Canada in which nearly all the french speakers are concentrated, which conducts its affairs through French, through its own state legislature. There are also many Quebecoises who do not speak english at all. There are no irish people who do not speak english. Speaking irish is merely an expression of preference, not a national or ethnic identity

Maybe if Mayo was designated an irish-speaking, self governing province your analogy might be apt. It could have an all-irish-speaking government. Only problem is from prior experience the people living there would want a United Mayo by annexing the rest of us.

I say again, if you choose to do a job representing the Irish public, then you choose to take on board all the pros and cons of the job.

Using your logic , I say if you want to live in a country where english is the only universally understood language then put up with your minority language not receiving the government life-support mechanism its been on for the last 80 years.

GuanYin · 31-03-2004 4:25pm

Originally posted by magpie

Using your logic , I say if you want to live in a country where english is the only universally understood language then put up with your minority language not receiving the government life-support mechanism its been on for the last 80 years.

Not the same, you are born into an Irish speaking community.

You choose to take a job.

What you want is for alot of people to change their lifestyle to suit a few people who want to do a job, but aren't bothered with one aspect of it.

You can dress it up anyway you like, but thats what it boils down to.

magpie · 31-03-2004 4:32pm

Not the same, you are born into an Irish speaking community.

Yes, but everyone, even those born into Irish-speaking communities, can speak English.

If there was even one person in Ireland who could only speak Irish your argument would hold water, as it is its patently ludicrous.

change their lifestyle

Exactly, it's a lifestyle choice, not an ethnic or cultural issue at all. So stop trying to fob it off like one.

Why aren't governement officials required to learn Travellers' Patois? Its equally valid as irish.

GuanYin · 31-03-2004 4:38pm

Originally posted by magpie
Yes, but everyone, even those born into Irish-speaking communities, can speak English.

Thats not the point, you can't enforce a language on a person. These people were brought up to speak Irish, its their right to speak it.

Originally posted by magpie
If there was even one person in Ireland who could only speak Irish your argument would hold water, as it is its patently ludicrous.

Again, no, Its not about ability its about rights.

Originally posted by magpie
Exactly, it's a lifestyle choice, not an ethnic or cultural issue at all. So stop trying to fob it off like one.

Even if it was a lifestyle choice only and not cultural, it wouldn't make any difference.
Would you force every traveller to live in a brick house?

I'm not fobbing you off, I'mpointing out that you're sore because you didn't get a job. The reason you didn't get a job is because forwhatever reason you don't have the language requirement.

So now you think its everyone elses fault but your own, so you blame all the people who speak Irish saying that they should be made speak english to accomodate you.

Whats to fob? :rolleyes:

magpie · 31-03-2004 4:47pm

So even though I was brought up not speaking Irish having been born intro a non irish-speaking community.... it's called DUBLIN I don't have the same rights/opportunities as someone who was?

Your double standards frankly ****ing amaze me.

Johnmb · 31-03-2004 7:28pm

Originally posted by magpie
So even though I was brought up not speaking Irish having been born intro a non irish-speaking community.... it's called DUBLIN I don't have the same rights/opportunities as someone who was?

Your double standards frankly ****ing amaze me.

I was born and raised in Dublin. Up until I entered secondary school I was fluent in Irish. Even my friends who were not as strong at Irish as me could speak it fairly comfortably. Dublin is not a non-Irish speaking community. The fact that you are so bitter over not getting a job is your problem, but cut out all the bull****. Over the course of this thread, you have made many, many claims, most of which have been outright wrong. The only truthful complaint you have come up with is that you went for a job which you were not qualified to do, yet instead of getting the extra required qualification, you choose to bitch and moan about them. As for everyone speaking English, that is not true. I remember staying in a house in Connemara, where the pre-school children only spoke Irish, and knew no English. The school children only knew the English they learned in school. I've also been told by an acquantance that he didn't become fluent in English until he was in his early twenties and moved to Sligo. He is in his late thirties/early forties now, so we are not talking that long ago, and he didn't seem to think he was an acception. Bottom line, if you want to do a particular job, make sure you have the necessary qualifications to do it. The fact that a lot of those qualification will probably never be used is tough, the same thing happens in many jobs.

magpie · 31-03-2004 8:06pm

he didn't seem to think he was an acception

I take your point about non-english speakers.

|You'll have to excuse my flippancy, but it is the only way I can think of to respond to your sanctimonious, self-righteous little diatribe. You would swear from your tone that I am a semi-literate bricklayer who was turned down for a job as director of Udaras na Gaeltachta.

I also note that despite your rabid conviction in the absolute correctness of your position that you have to resort to slanging personal insults.

David-[RLD]- · 31-03-2004 8:06pm

Originally posted by syke
So now you think its everyone elses fault but your own, so you blame all the people who speak Irish saying that they should be made speak english to accomodate you.

Does he actually think that people who are fluent in Irish should be made speak English just for him and other people who can't speak Irish?

I have one thing to say to that, and it is this:

HA!

magpie · 31-03-2004 8:33pm

Thanks for your contibution David. Your sig speaks volumes more about Irish speakers than I could ever hope to demonstrate.

Maybe your Ceann Comhairle or the Head of the Army Council, or whoever runs this board could ban me now so I don't have to read any more of your drivel.

Suaimhneach · 31-03-2004 9:03pm

Originally posted by magpie
The Irish language was revived as part of a political agenda in the late 19th/early 20th Century, otherwise it would not exist now. Ergo, speaking Irish is a political act. And a sectarian one to boot.

I speak irish by luck. A luck that I am grateful for. Not by a political agenda.

I am not sectarian. Nor will I ever be. The fact that you would tar me with that name on the basis taht I speak Irish shows your ignorance.

Also, regardless of who knows more history or who is better at putting forward an arguement it should be noted that Irish is more than a politcal weapon. Regardless of why it was revived or who in politics is speaking it right now. It is a thing of beauty, much like a lot of other languages and Magpie, you don't have to see that for it to be true.

I understand your point about the government and jobs. But if that is that is law in other countries, to be able to use the national language, why should it be any diffrent here?

Johnmb · 31-03-2004 9:04pm

Originally posted by magpie
I take your point about non-english speakers.

|You'll have to excuse my flippancy, but it is the only way I can think of to respond to your sanctimonious, self-righteous little diatribe. You would swear from your tone that I am a semi-literate bricklayer who was turned down for a job as director of Udaras na Gaeltachta.
I would expect a semi-literate anything to have gotten more information about the subject he wished to discuss correct. If you had even done a bit of reading before stating your "facts" about various aspects of history (from who invited in the Normans and for what, to what various organisations were set up for in the early 20th century), maybe you'd be taken a little more seriously.

I also note that despite your rabid conviction in the absolute correctness of your position that you have to resort to slanging personal insults.
What personal insults? I just drew a conclusion. Most of the claims you made were wrong, and most of them would be known to be wrong by anybody who was knowledgeable of the subjects. The fact that you made them shows you were not knowledgeable of the subject. One has to ask, why would you make such claims if you hadn't studied the subject? The logical conclusion is that you made the claims to support your anti-Irish language agenda. What caused your agenda? Well, your first post points to it being that you were not qualified to get a job you wanted, so you have it in for the qualification that let you down. If it had been maths you failed on you'd probably be on the Mathematics board bitching and moaning about maths being compulsory despite most of it being irrelevant to the every day life of most people. But instead it was Irish that let you down, so you came here, making a load of claims about things you clearly didn't research. It is as simple as that. If the moderators think I was hurling personal insults then I'm sure they'll PM me about it, or ban me. Instead, I reckon they realise where I got my conclusions about your behaviour in this thread from, even if they don't necessarily agree with me.

magpie · 31-03-2004 9:15pm

Thanks again for your stupendously self-righteous, presumptious and franky irrelevant thread JohnMB. In short, before your chief druid bans me for my anti-revolutionary stance:

1) You know **** all about me, I don't presume to make pronouncements on you, so I 'd appreciate if you gave me the same courtesy.

2) In the instance of the job I mentioned, Irish was not a required qualification. I had all the required qualifications in spades, inluding a relevant degree, post graduate qualifications and 8 years experience. Irish was listed as a 'in an ideal world' added extra. The person who got the job was a graduate with 2 years experience who happened to be a gaeilgoir. As was one of the interviewers. Go figure.

3) My bitterness or otherwise should have no effect on your ability to debate the pros and cons of the language. Clearly what your education gained in Gaeilge it lost out in debating protocol.

OK, ban me now please Mr Adams.

I'll see you all in Conradh na Gaeilge, in another life maybe. Don't bother replying to this as I won't be reading it.

Bringing Irish back into the public domain

Comments