Suspend the Loyalists

[Tribesman]

After this weekends widespread violence in the 6 counties ; over 700 shots fired at police and army forces , armed road blocks being set up by terrorists , too many bombs to count , the discovery of a city centre bomb factory : is it time that the Loyalist politicians got the same treatment as the Republicans and are suspended/expelled from government ?
Or are some groups more deserving of special treatment despite the fact that they refuse to declare a ceasefire , refuse to decommision their weapons and state that they will never give up the armed struggle and pursue their objectives through purely peaceful political efforts .

[Papewaio]

I think it is the other side of the coin... the Loyalists are 'Loyal' to Britain... obviously not that loyal to those who represent the government of Britain if they are attacking cops.

[English assassin]

is it time that the Loyalist politicians got the same treatment as the Republicans and are suspended/expelled from government ?

Yes. (Assuming the politicians can be linked to the terrorism. After all we never excluded the SDLP)


Or are some groups more deserving of special treatment despite the fact that they refuse to declare a ceasefire , refuse to decommision their weapons and state that they will never give up the armed struggle and pursue their objectives through purely peaceful political efforts .

No. But some groups are deserving of a big slap in the chops and being told to grow up with all this bloody marching.


Ah. British terrorists are confusing. Here in the US, we just lump them all together in the "Islamic Fascist Freedom-Haters" category

This would be especially ironic for the IRA, who are catholic marxists.

[Adrian II]

Yes. (Assuming the politicians can be linked to the terrorism. After all we never excluded the SDLP)I heard that one of the major reasons for this weekend's screw-up is the lack of leadership in Loyalist circles. It seems the UVF and the Orange (Dis)Orders expected a police crack-down any moment and this is what touched off the violent behaviour of many chapters and individuals. All in all, last weekend must havebeen about the worst pr job imaginable for the Loyalists.

[Tribesman]

Yes. (Assuming the politicians can be linked to the terrorism. After all we never excluded the SDLP)
Since the head of the executive is a member of the order and members of the order were attacking the security forces while still wearing their Orange regalia then yes they can be linked , add that the same happened last week with the Black order in Tyrone , plus the head of the executive initially refused to condemn the usual spate of bomb attacks on schools that mark the start of the new academic year .
Then yes the political leaders can be linked to it .

[Templar Knight]

Bomb attacks on schools? Man what a bunch of knobs.

[Tribesman]

My mistake , while the head of the executive marches with the Orange order , makes an annual address to the order , supports the order , he is not actually a member of it , only of the Apprentices .

Bomb attacks on schools? Man what a bunch of knobs.
Hey it makes a nice change from attacking churches and homes :help:

[English assassin]

members of the order were attacking the security forces while still wearing their Orange regalia

[Paisley on] Probably Fenian infitrators [Paisley off]

There you have NI in a nutshell.

It doesn't quite link the order as an organisation, but on the basis that they created the conditions for the trouble, and that the loyalists are really pushing their luck, fair enough.


All in all, last weekend must have been about the worst pr job imaginable for the Loyalists.

Other than every time Paisley opens his mouth that is (father or son, they are both as bad)

[BDC]

Hit them all with sticks. Deserve nothing less. Possibly deport them to Syria or something as you would do with every other terrorist.

[Don Corleone]

Well, since ShadesPanther appears to be absent from this discussion, let me take the role of defending the Unionists. Don't they have a right to free assembly? Why should certain areas of Belfast be declared 'anti-free speech' zone? I find the marchers to be in poor taste, but so long as they remain peaceful, they have every right to do it. They only became violent when their right to free assembly was revoked.

[Duke Malcolm]

The loyalists attacked the police because they feel that they have been betrayed by their government, who is working closely with the republicans. The Republicans haven't been suspended I think, they just refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance in Westminster to take their seats (while still getting the perks and allowances and offices of MPs). The reason the Stormont Assembly isn't sitting is because the DUP doesn't want to share power with Sinn Fein

[English assassin]

Well, since ShadesPanther appears to be absent from this discussion, let me take the role of defending the Unionists. Don't they have a right to free assembly? Why should certain areas of Belfast be declared 'anti-free speech' zone? I find the marchers to be in poor taste, but so long as they remain peaceful, they have every right to do it. They only became violent when their right to free assembly was revoked.

No, they don't, in fact. There is a legally constituted commission that rules on where marches can go and it ruled against them here. They were perfectly entitled to have a march, just not where they wanted. If they don't want to obey British laws then they can have republic laws as soon as they like.

I don't think there is anything new or controversial in the idea that yes, you can have a rally, but no, you can't have it exactly when and where you like. No one minds when the G8 protestors are told they can have their demonstration 80 miles from the G8 summit after all...

The Orange order marching up and down catholic roads isn't all that far from the KKK announcing it would like the right to march in Harlem.


so long as they remain peaceful, they have every right to do it

That would have been one of the problems with the original route.

[Don Corleone]

Actually, they do allow permits for controversial protests here in the US. The Klan protested out in front of the Holocaust memorial the day it was opened. Native Americans go into Little Italy in New York City and protest Columbus. Do you think Martin Luther King got where he got by only holding marches in black neighborhoods?

To claim that the Catholics are somehow subhuman and cannot be expected to revert from violence due to offensive speech is seriously dehumanizing and marginalizing the Catholics. Even if you're right, then the restrictions should have been put on the Catholics, as they're the ones starting the violence. So long as all the Orangemen are doing is beating drums and talking about how inferior Catholics are (note, no physical violence) they should have the right to do it in any public space, including the street corner in front of the Catholic cathedral in Belfast. If the Catholics cannot control themselves, they should all be put under house arrest.

What's more, the right to free speech is no such thing if it must be justified in certain contexts. I hate that people were going around having "we got what we deserved" protests yesterday, but I would have hated it more if the government came out and said "any day but today". I exercised my right to free speech by driving up to one and telling the assemblage exactly what I thought of them (as well as their parentage, their intelligence and anything else I could think of). Note: no physical violence on their part or mine, we were all within our rights.

Like I said, I think it's pretty small and petty that the UVF and the Orangemen feel a need to go around marching to celebrate a 300 year old victory, but the point is, it should be their right to. That's the thing about rights... if they're qualified for being tasteful, then they're not rights.

[Duke Malcolm]

They should, but the only place they can is the 6 counties and Glasgow. Any ones elsewhere in the UK (as far as I know) have been marred by violence, or simply voted down by the local Council

[Don Corleone]

How can the Local Council vote to grant (or withhold) what should be an absolute right in any modern democracy? IF the Orange order decided to march around St. Peter's Roman Catholic cathedral in Belfast chanting "the Pope is a queer" until they collapsed from exhaustion, they should have that right. Should some Catholic take offense to their speech and answer them, with speech, they're still well within their rights. But if the Catholics respond with violence, then the answer is to imprison the Catholics for engaging in violence, not denying a right to the Orangemen.

Think about it guys... the gist of the argument for even having a parade committe is "You have freedom of speech, but only the freedom to say that which will not offend others". That's no freedom of speech at all.

[Duke Malcolm]

That's Political Correctness, and the sinister of the West fo you...

[Tribesman]

Even if you're right, then the restrictions should have been put on the Catholics, as they're the ones starting the violence.
Yes Don ~:confused: It was the Catholics that wanted to march through a gate that is never opened even for the people who live on the road where the gate is , and of course it was the Catholics who attacked the police for not allowing them to walk through a gate that is welded shut , it was also the Catholics who placed 3 bombs in a infant school, it was masked catholic gunmen marching with the parade that opened fire on the security services . :help:

The Republicans haven't been suspended I think,
Try again Malcolm :book:

[Don Corleone]

Even if you're right, then the restrictions should have been put on the Catholics, as they're the ones starting the violence.
Yes Don ~:confused: It was the Catholics that wanted to march through a gate that is never opened even for the people who live on the road where the gate is , and of course it was the Catholics who attacked the police for not allowing them to walk through a gate that is welded shut , it was also the Catholics who placed 3 bombs in a infant school, it was masked catholic gunmen marching with the parade that opened fire on the security services . :help:


You're mixing issues. I'm arguing for the right of the Unionists (or any other group of obnoxious, offensive assholes) to spout their views in public, i.e. the unrestricted parade routes. When they engage in any of the other activities you mention, such as attacking the police or letting off bombs, they that's not a question of free speech anymore, and they should be arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned... FOR THE CRIMES they committed, but not for what they said.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How can the Local Council vote to grant (or withhold) what should be an absolute right in any modern democracy? IF the Orange order decided to march around St. Peter's Roman Catholic cathedral in Belfast chanting "the Pope is a queer" until they collapsed from exhaustion, they should have that right. Should some Catholic take offense to their speech and answer them, with speech, they're still well within their rights. But if the Catholics respond with violence, then the answer is to imprison the Catholics for engaging in violence, not denying a right to the Orangemen.

Think about it guys... the gist of the argument for even having a parade committe is "You have freedom of speech, but only the freedom to say that which will not offend others". That's no freedom of speech at all.

Don:

Some of the actual Anglos can correct me on this, but I suspect that -- absent a written Constitution such as you and I live under -- there is no basic right to freedom of speech. Such freedom is a hallowed custom in England, but not -- I believe -- codified in any fashion so basic as ours.

Seamus

[_Martyr_]

This weekend has been an absolute disgrace. Loyalism is in shambles and has been clearly exposed as the stubborn petty and criminal element that it is.

These parades have not always been peaceful. Only one thing is certain they ALWAYS lead to violence. Whether that violence be caused by local residents throwing rocks at the marchers or vice versa it doesnt really matter. Both sides have been guilty of it in the past, and the outcome is the same. More violence, more sectarian hatred, a continued cycle. Free speach is not what is in question here. Either is the right to public gathering. What is in question is the right to hold a large scale parade where one wants, especially one of this nature that single handedly continues a circle of violence in a region that is trying to pick itself out of a warzone. The law in NI states that every parade must be granted a license by a parades commission. This commission is completely independent and assess the route planned by the parade and grants that route if they feel that it is appropriate. If it is not appropriate then an alternative is suggested. Should the Saddam loyal Sunnis in Iraq be allowed to parade to one of the gas attacked Kurd or Shia villages and rejoice their "glorious victory"? Should the RIRA be allowed to march down the main street of Omagh? What about some extreme Muslim Fundis in the USA should they be allowed to march around ground zero in NY? Free Speach is a right here which garuntees that you wont be thrown in jail for saying what you say (as long as it doesnt incite people to... yad ayda yada...) it is not a carte blanch to do whatever the hell you want without any limitations and any considerations of the reprocussions.

[Don Corleone]

I don't see how you can call yourself a free country and not have it recognized as a basic right. Notice the word I chose, recgonized. The government doesn't give the people the right to say what they want. The people give the government the chance to exist. This whole idea of we as a people being beholden to the government and we should be thankful for whatever scraps fall off of the table in terms of political rights.... it's sickening. Nobody gives me the right to vote, or the right to work harder and get my family ahead. Even if you use the term as a euphemism, they are 'God given', much the same way insurance companies recognize 'acts of God', even if they're all atheists. The fact is, rights exist because people exist. If you deny or limit the right, then you cannot say you are a representational society. At some level, you're something else.... an aristocray, a platocracy, whatever you want to call yourselves.

Look, I know these guys are offensive. Don't you think having the Klan outside the Shoah memorial the day it opened claiming the Holocaust was a lie was painful? Especially for the survivors who watched family members totured, raped and executed? Free speech isn't easy, if it was, we wouldn't have to remind ourselves of how important it is, it would just be obvious. But the way to deal with difficult or offensive ideas is to hold them up to scrutiny and rebut them, not silence them or limit them.

[GoreBag]

I think you're right, Seamus. In any case, if the "right" to free speech has an exception, then it's not really free speech, but it's also the most you can get out of your "right".

I didn't realise that the conflicts in Ireland were beginning to grow heavy again.

[Don Corleone]

This weekend has been an absolute disgrace. Loyalism is in shambles and has been clearly exposed as the stubborn petty and criminal element that it is.

These parades have not always been peaceful. Only one thing is certain they ALWAYS lead to violence. Whether that violence be caused by local residents throwing rocks at the marchers or vice versa it doesnt really matter. Both sides have been guilty of it in the past, and the outcome is the same. More violence, more sectarian hatred, a continued cycle. Free speach is not what is in question here. Either is the right to public gathering. What is in question is the right to hold a large scale parade where one wants, especially one of this nature that single handedly continues a circle of violence in a region that is trying to pick itself out of a warzone. The law in NI states that every parade must be granted a license by a parades commission. This commission is completely independent and assess the route planned by the parade and grants that route if they feel that it is appropriate. If it is not appropriate then an alternative is suggested. Should the Saddam loyal Sunnis in Iraq be allowed to parade to one of the gas attacked Kurd or Shia villages and rejoice their "glorious victory"? Should the RIRA be allowed to march down the main street of Omagh? What about some extreme Muslim Fundis in the USA should they be allowed to march around ground zero in NY? Free Speach is a right here which garuntees that you wont be thrown in jail for saying what you say (as long as it doesnt incite people to... yad ayda yada...) it is not a carte blanch to do whatever the hell you want without any limitations and any considerations of the reprocussions.

In all these cases, yes! If the RIRA admitted to being the ones to bomb the people during the march, then the police should haul them off and try them. But if they hold an equivalent march and go up and down the street and say "Ha ha, you got what you deserved", or the Sunnis hold a purification rally in a Kurdish village that had previously been gassed..... all of these things are vile and disgusting, and completely and utterly necessary to ensure that you have a functioning democracy. The very fact that NI has a law requiring a parades commission to approve what you intend to say and where you're going to say it.... I would offer as evidence that NI is not a represenational democracy.

[Don Corleone]

And as I said earlier, we had a protest here in Greensboro, NC, yesterday, the 4th anniversery of 9/11, where a bunch of college students held a rally to say we got what we deserved and if we don't restore the Taliban & Saddam, we'll deserve anything we get after that too...

Now, I found it disgusting. You see how worked up I get in the Backroom, imagine how I took this? One of my friends from high school died, leaving behind a wife, an infant, a toddler, 2 parents and hundreds of friends, all of whom miss him badly. I had to listen to these @##holes say everyone in the towers deserved to die and the usual filth that comes out of the far left in this country. But no matter how angry I got, and no matter what I said in response, did I ever wish the police would show up and silence them.

[_Martyr_]

Again, what is at hand is not the right of freedom of speach. Nobody is for one minute denying these people the right to say whatever the hell they want. What is being denied to them is a very specific parade route. They are allowed to parade in the NEXT STREET OVER!! Maybe if you knew more about the situation and looked at it with less idealistic eyes you would have a different opinion.


If you guys are serious about this, then I repeat. Would you allow a large group of Taliban to march right through Ground Zero singing praises to the 9/11 Hijackers and calling for the Destruction of America? Or would you divert their little parade to the nearest possible street where the little group of friendly harmless (only excercising their rights) group of Islamofascists wouldnt be beaten to a bloody pulp by 2 million enraged New Yorkers...?

[Tribesman]

I'm arguing for the right of the Unionists (or any other group of obnoxious, offensive assholes) to spout their views in public, i.e. the unrestricted parade routes.
But there is the threat to public order to take into consideration aswell , if something is a threat to public order then it should be stopped .
Too many times in the past have the commission allowed contentious parades to be allowed with certain restrictions placed upon them , only to see the marchers break the conditions .
While they are complaining about their right to march they are still blocking primary school children from walking down the road to school through the front gate and making them take a large detour and entering across the fields , if you recall the the nice residents and their supporters in addition to the verbal abuse and missile attacks even went as far as throwing explosive devices at the school kids to persude them not to walk where they are not wanted .
So why should the bloody idiots be demanding the right to march wherever they want to ?
As for this part of your earlier post.....If the Catholics cannot control themselves, they should all be put under house arrest.
The thing is it involves putting people under "house arrest" even if they have commited no crime or have any intention of commiting a crime , based solely on their religeon and where they live , how can that equate with any sense of freedom or freedom of speech ?

[_Martyr_]

And as I said earlier, we had a protest here in Greensboro, NC, yesterday, the 4th anniversery of 9/11, where a bunch of college students held a rally to say we got what we deserved and if we don't restore the Taliban & Saddam, we'll deserve anything we get after that too...

Now, I found it disgusting. You see how worked up I get in the Backroom, imagine how I took this? One of my friends from high school died, leaving behind a wife, an infant, a toddler, 2 parents and hundreds of friends, all of whom miss him badly. I had to listen to these @##holes say everyone in the towers deserved to die and the usual filth that comes out of the far left in this country. But no matter how angry I got, and no matter what I said in response, did I ever wish the police would show up and silence them.

Here is the crux of the matter DC, were these student demonstrators allowed to march directly through ground zero? Or where they only allowed to demonstrate outside?

[Duke Malcolm]

Tribesman, from what have the republicans been suspended?

[Don Corleone]

I honestly do not know whether there were any pro-Taliban protests at ground zero yesterday or not. Knowing my country, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

My point is that I'm not unsympathetic. I know it's incredibly offensive (I need to watch my language this time) stuff to have to deal with. I know how angry it can make you to have to hear this stuff. In terms of location, think about how actual Holocaust survivors felt in Washington D.C. when they walked out of the opening and saw a bunch of Klansmen walking around saying they were lying about the holocaust?

Again, I'm not trying to be an idealist on this issue, but I think you've heard everything I've had to say, other than, at the end of the day, I find these Orange parades, childish, moronic, and even sickening. If you're forced to rely on the glorious past of 300 years ago, you're clearly not dwelling in the present or planning for the future.

[Tribesman]

Tribesman, from what have the republicans been suspended?
They were suspended over the allegations of a "spy ring" at Stormont in 2002 .

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't see how you can call yourself a free country and not have it recognized as a basic right. Notice the word I chose, recgonized. The government doesn't give the people the right to say what they want. The people give the government the chance to exist. This whole idea of we as a people being beholden to the government and we should be thankful for whatever scraps fall off of the table in terms of political rights.... it's sickening. Nobody gives me the right to vote, or the right to work harder and get my family ahead. Even if you use the term as a euphemism, they are 'God given', much the same way insurance companies recognize 'acts of God', even if they're all atheists. The fact is, rights exist because people exist. If you deny or limit the right, then you cannot say you are a representational society. At some level, you're something else.... an aristocray, a platocracy, whatever you want to call yourselves.

Look, I know these guys are offensive. Don't you think having the Klan outside the Shoah memorial the day it opened claiming the Holocaust was a lie was painful? Especially for the survivors who watched family members totured, raped and executed? Free speech isn't easy, if it was, we wouldn't have to remind ourselves of how important it is, it would just be obvious. But the way to deal with difficult or offensive ideas is to hold them up to scrutiny and rebut them, not silence them or limit them.

Your arguement here is misguided. To walk through a neighborhood in a mob declaring your superiority when the populace knows that some marchers are carrying weapons and will use them is an outright incitement to violence. People should have a right to peaceful assembly.

You believe in the 2nd ammendment as well? Do you believe that the KKK should be allowed to carry weapons in angry protests declaring their superiority over Blacks in Harlem? You honestly believe that if blacks being forced to watch this march feel threatened and angry themselves it is their fault that the protest turns "violent"? I personally believe that violence isn't only physical.

[Tribesman]

Oh well a third night of it .
And the head of the order refuses to condemn the attacks and says that all the blame lies with the police , the commission and the government :dizzy2:

[_Martyr_]

And Santaclause... dont forget Santa and the elves are to blame as well!

Bloody hell I hope no one gets killed! Its been an absolute miracle that there arent 5 deaths already!

[Ice]

This would be especially ironic for the IRA, who are catholic marxists.

Isnt that an oxymoron? I thought marxism pronounced religion as one of the sources of evil that had to rooted out.

[GoreBag]

Isnt that an oxymoron? I thought marxism pronounced religion as one of the sources of evil that had to rooted out.

As I understand it, Communists follows that doctrine and Marxists don't. My personal experience is that Marxists claim the title in order to pick and choose which parts of Communism they like and exclude the ones they don't. Logical, of course, but a misnomer all the same.

[Duke of Gloucester]

The Orange Order is not a political party, so it has no representatives that could be suspended.

Re-routing marches puts restrictions on where you can go, not what you can say, so it is not a restriction on free speech.

Originally the provisional IRA and hence Sinn Fein were marxist and only ethnically Catholic. They have toned this down over the last two decades in order to broaden their appeal to the Catholic electorate in Northern Ireland.

[GoreBag]

The Orange Order is not a political party, so it has no representatives that could be suspended.

Re-routing marches puts restrictions on where you can go, not what you can say, so it is not a restriction on free speech.

Originally the provisional IRA and hence Sinn Fein were marxist and only ethnically Catholic. They have toned this down over the last two decades in order to broaden their appeal to the Catholic electorate in Northern Ireland.

Ah, like how the KKK now accepts members who aren't Protestant. I actually didn't know that.

[Tribesman]

The Orange Order is not a political party, so it has no representatives that could be suspended. ~D ~D ~D

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Originally the provisional IRA and hence Sinn Fein were marxist and only ethnically Catholic. They have toned this down over the last two decades in order to broaden their appeal to the Catholic electorate in Northern Ireland.

It might also have something to do with the fact that the CCCP went toes up in 1989, and was having trouble nurturing their 5th columns for years before that. ~:) Hard to run a revolution on rhetoric alone.

Seamus

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I honestly do not know whether there were any pro-Taliban protests at ground zero yesterday or not. Knowing my country, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

As far as I know, Don, none were reported. This could have more to do with the fact that the whole area is a hard-hat construction zone.


My point is that I'm not unsympathetic. I know it's incredibly offensive (I need to watch my language this time) stuff to have to deal with. I know how angry it can make you to have to hear this stuff. In terms of location, think about how actual Holocaust survivors felt in Washington D.C. when they walked out of the opening and saw a bunch of Klansmen walking around saying they were lying about the holocaust?

Don is correct here. Protestors in this country are expected to file for the appropriate permit for a march. This request must be enough in advance to allow scivil authorities time to prepare security etc. for the event. Courts will generally rule against a government that denies such a permit unless a "clear and present danger" to the community, or unusually harsh economic hardships would be imposed by the protest in question.

So, the klukkers can march, right through the Black or Jewish neighborhood, wear their guns under their robes (if the locale permits concealed carry and they have the appropriate permit), carry their flags and crosses, and generally parade their ignorance for all to see. Anyone in the crowd or the march who swings at someone else is then arrested, and if such behavior spreads, additional police in riot gear come in to impose order. Should such behavior occur, the community might try to deny subsequent requests pointing to demonstrated danger, and the courts would likely be more receptive. We presume peaceful demonstration until clear proof of compelling danger to the community demonstrates the need for some minimal restriction.

-- Note: I am aware that such a denial may justify the ban on the chosen route imposed in the Ulster example. Such bans are possible here as well, but the community and courts tend to err on the side of Free Speech in all instances, so I am not certain this march would have been denied access to their preferred route in an analogous situation in the USA.

Seamus

[_Martyr_]

Ah, like how the KKK now accepts members who aren't Protestant. I actually didn't know that.


A strange comparison to say the least! The IRA hasnt got much to do with religion, except that the group that it mainly pools from happen to be catholic. Its not a theological conflict, it just happens that the groups involved are of different religions and so it is an easy label set to use. Infact most of the greatest figures and leaders in the history of the struggle for Irish independence have been protestant.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

"Infact most of the greatest figures and leaders in the history of the struggle for Irish independence have been protestant."

from 1798 onwards.
And I doubt it's most.

[English assassin]

We presume peaceful demonstration until clear proof of compelling danger to the community demonstrates the need for some minimal restriction

Ho ho ho. Trust me on this, there is more clear proof of compelling danger caused by NI factions marching through each others back gardens than you could shake a stick at. It happens every bloody year, or it did until the commission out a stop to most of it.

I would say the result of allowing the Orangemen to march where they originally wanted would have been as predictable as (and very similar to) the result of me covering myself in Kit-e-Kat, climbing into the lions' den at London Zoo and kicking Simba in the balls.


Its not a theological conflict

It is for Ian Paisley.

[Don Corleone]

Again, I do not think you should make the premise of suspending one's groups rights, because you suspect another group will engage in an unlawful response.

[_Martyr_]

"Infact most of the greatest figures and leaders in the history of the struggle for Irish independence have been protestant."

from 1798 onwards.
And I doubt it's most.


Your point about 1798? That fenian rising is pretty much the bigining of the modern Irish independence struggle.

Butt, Parnell, Tone, Emmet thats pretty much a whos who of the greatest figures. Depends who you ask I suppose.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

1798 was important because it was the first Irish bid for independence that had a major contribution from Irish Protestants.
It was also the first in the shift away from the most hardcore Gaelic areas to the more Anglicised areas.

These are both significant for your point about Protestants and Irish nationalism. The implications of people of a less native (for want of a better word) cultural persuasion is very important considering the collapse of Gaelic culture in the later 19th and early 20th century: Ireland finally won its independence (sort of) when traditional Irish culture was becoming far less important.

"Butt, Parnell, Tone, Emmet": it does indeed depend on who you ask because there's a pretty big list of Catholics who should be on your who's who of greatest figures list.

[Don Corleone]

Well, Taffy, no offense, but I noticed you didn't offer any Catholics to take their place with the big 4.... you're not suggesting that Eamon deValera or Michael Collins belong in the same group, are you? The UK was already considering how to divest itself of Ireland before they started their campaigns of terror. Sure, they were great early leaders, but if anything, I would argue they slowed down the progress of Irish independence. Gave the hardliners back in parliment too much ammunition.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Don, I'm actually very busy at the moment so I suggest you hit the history books rather than me.
Like I said, there are plenty of them.

[_Martyr_]

1798 was important because it was the first Irish bid for independence that had a major contribution from Irish Protestants.
It was also the first in the shift away from the most hardcore Gaelic areas to the more Anglicised areas.

These are both significant for your point about Protestants and Irish nationalism. The implications of people of a less native (for want of a better word) cultural persuasion is very important considering the collapse of Gaelic culture in the later 19th and early 20th century: Ireland finally won its independence (sort of) when traditional Irish culture was becoming far less important.

I dont mean to sound unkind, but your dates and impression of the period are totally off. The Irish language and culture were destroyed BEFORE 1798, the 17th century is renouned for this. Hedge schools, penal laws and persecution. By the begining of the 1800s the Irish language was for the first time being unravelled and properly written as a sort of liguistic persuit by various linguists many of whom were infact German. Exactly contrary to what you suggest, towards the end of the 19th century Gaelic culture began to emerge MASSIVELY again! Ever here of the Gaelic Revival? Conradh na Gaeilge (The Gaelic League) was set up in 1893 amidst a flurry of Gaelic rivivalist activity with the principle goal of reviving the Gaelic language. The GAA was set up around this time to revive Gaelic sports. Cultural Nationalism emerged. Irish culture went into overdrive around this period, it is a well documented and studied area. Sadly THIS is the point where it became sectarian and polarised, Protestants were pushed out of Nationalist circles because they were Protestant. I know people in Uni who have devoted their lives studying this area of Irish history. My friend, you actually couldnt be more wrong. Seriously, I suggest you read some books on the Gaelic Revival. Its a very interesting period.

[Duke Malcolm]

tribesman, if Sinn Fein were suspended from Stormont for having a spy ring, why should the loyalist parties be suspended for miscellaneous loyalists (those not necessarily of a party) rioting?

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

er, no.

I think you'll find that in the first half of the 19th century the Gaelic language dominated the West of Ireland, admittedly remote and underpopulated compared to the east but still it was widely spoken over a large geographic area.

The Irish language and culture were not destroyed before 1798. The famine and schooling in English really did for it. Compromised? yes. Altered? yes. Destroyed? no.

I have heard of the Gaelic revival etc. it didn't really amount to much in the end did it?
You really are patronising you know that?
I also know people in universities who study this, shocking.

My point was that 1798 was the first anglicised non-Catholic specific uprising for an independent Ireland.

[Don Corleone]

I'm not trying to imply that Catholics weren't patriotic or didn't do a lot of the fighting and dying for Irish independence. But most of the educated class were Protestant. I believe when Emmet & Tone started, you weren't even allowed to hold a seat in parliment if you were Catholic. You weren't allowed to attend Trinity as a Catholic until the twentieth century. It's only natural in what can only be described as an apartheid system of the day, that the leadership roles would be filled by Irish protestants. What's more, the Crown employed the local pastors & bishops to encourage the people to be loyal subjects. Many Catholic fenians were threatened with excommunication. Hard to take a very public role in light of that...

What I find amazing is the dichotomy in Irish aristocratic society of the day. Irish protestants of the day ranged from Robert Emmet to the Duke of Wellington (also an Irish protestant). Must have made for some very interesting ballroom debates back in the day...

[GoreBag]

I think the Gaelic Revival really did so something. Without it, would Gaelic still be spoken at all? Although the number of people who speak the language is dishearteningly low, it is beginning to see a resurgence due to the actions of its supporters. There is now Gaelic television, Gaelic radio, Gaelic newspapers...

As well, the Irish and Scots abroad have begun to delve into their Gaelic roots. North American pursuits in Gaelic are slowly beginning to pick up momentum. Without the romantic interest of the period, none of this would have been possible.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

NeonGod:
All the linguistic experts tend to agree that for a community to be counted as being x language speaking then you need roughly 80% of the population up speaking it. In Ireland those areas are shrinking rapidly. The Gaeltacht areas set up to protect and nurture Gaelic speaking communities often have Gaelic speaking minorities. Those areas were set up in the mid 20th century when these areas were still considered Gaelic speaking communities: they are a tiny proportion of Ireland's land mass.

Gaelic in Scotland is spoken by just over 1% of the population and absolute numbers declined by about 10% (maybe more actually) at the last census. Only about half of Scotland's Gaelic speakers live in Gaelic speaking areas (and that's if you ignore the 80% rule in favour of a simple majority).

Gaelic in Northern Ireland is a mystery(because it's not included in census results) but is supposedly doing quite well.

[Tribesman]

if Sinn Fein were suspended from Stormont for having a spy ring,
Alledged Malcolm , an allegation that has so far despite 3 years of investigation , remains an unproven allegation .

Duke of Gloucester . Sorry if my reply this morning seemed flippant , but I was laughing so much I couldn't post sensibly without being late for work .....So....to the crux of the issue
so it has no representatives that could be suspended.
Do you mean the Orange Order or the Independant Orange Order ? One of them claims to be not political , but does none the less be very involved with politicians and politics . The other is political and is affilated with a political party (though they are shifting towards switching their affiliation to a more bigoted Party)
Or were you making a joke about the "Hero of Drumcree's" political party being thouroughly trounced in the last election as people shift away from the idea of dialouge and compromise ?

There was a rather charming old lady on TV last night , this delightful grandmother was speaking very openly to the cameras as she served up hot cups of tea and some very tasty looking cakes to the protesting Orangemen .
She said that the Orange Orders Politicians were becoming too soft , it was time for some new stronger politicians to take up the struggle for the marchers . What we really need in the Order is great political leaders like BILLY WRIGHT , they would make sure that we were allowed to march . :help:

Are you familiar with the name of that murdering , thieving , hijacking , arms smuggling , drug dealing scumbag ?
Would you describe him as a great political leader ?

But hey , she was only the wife of the Lodge Master , what would she know eh ?

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Billy Wright? seriously?

[GoreBag]

I know, the numbers are painful. Interest, though, is increasing with the increasing support for culturalism. I believe that the numbers will increase both in transported areas and at home in due time.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

NG,
I'm sad to say it but I wouldn't hold my breath.
2 years ago I was speaking to some academics at a conference (whose subject was the Irish language and who were both from "Gaelic speaking areas") and they really were not at all optimistic about the situation. I haven't heard anything to make me believe otherwise since then.

[_Martyr_]

Im not trying to patronise at all. The facts are clear. I have studied this area of history more than I would have liked.


I think you'll find that in the first half of the 19th century the Gaelic language dominated the West of Ireland, admittedly remote and underpopulate compared to the east but still it was widely spoken over a large geographic area.
The Irish language and culture were not destroyed before 1798. The famine and schooling in English really did for it. Compromised? yes. Altered? yes. Destroyed? no.

By the mid 19th century the language was on its last legs. The mortal wound was the damage caused by the Penal Laws (1691 to 1760). These Laws disinfranchised the Irish, encouraging (perhaps "forcing" is a much better word to use in this situation) Catholic Irish to convert to Anglo Protestant Culture and language. In this, the laws were a horrible success. Brutally, all things foreign to the English (ie. Anything Gaelic) were stamped out. Irish was not allowed to be taught in schools, read up on the Penal Laws if you want to know any more detail. To make a long tragic story short, this is the period where the Irish language was destroyed. What was left was a mortally wounded, still breathing but bleading to death language. By the begining of the 19th cnetury a Protestant Clergyman and linguist by the name of William Neilson was one of the first Irishmen to attempt any sort of revival. Note the date here, this is around the time of the United Irishmen uprising. Now please explain to me why on earth this and many other guys like him would try and revive a laguage at the very begining of the 19th century if infact the language was doing well as you seem to claim. Irish speaking parents of this time forbode their sons to speak Irish as it was seen as a huge disadvantage. The language was in its last generation, already below natural critical mass, famine or no famine. Then along came the famine that effectively wiped any last remanants of the language away, but that is not what killed it. Its like putting a bullet in the head of someone who has just been lethally poisoned and has 3 seconds left to live.





I have heard of the Gaelic revival etc. it didn't really amount to much in the end did it?

You must be joking! The cultural revival was one of THE most important chapters in Irish independence. Infact I would say it was the single biggest factor along with the land movement. Seriously, the Cultural Revival went right through to dear old Eamon "Comely maidens dancing at the crossroads" de Valera's continued power of the 1950's, and the effects are still in full view today. The entire Irish Identity is moulded somewhat around the artificial kickstart Irish culture got 125 years ago. Heck, GAA is bigger than ever, and the Abbey is moving to a bigger venue... :dizzy2:

Again, Im sorry if you perceived me as being patronising, its just I am of the very strong opinion that you are a little misinformed on this topic.

[GoreBag]

Well, let's hope Ireland gets its act together and Scotland devolves. I'm sure many a Gaelic institution would follow.

My belief is mostly one of personal experience. I've met people who have an avid interest in the language of their ancestors (members of my family included) and available education in the area, at least in my vicinity, is growing.

[GoreBag]

The entire Irish Identity is moulded somewhat around the artificial kickstart Irish culture got 125 years ago. Heck, GAA is bigger than ever, and the Abbey is moving to a bigger venue... :dizzy2:

That sounds awfully and painfully familiar... sigh.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Gaelic revival not amounting to much:
I was talking about language wise.

As for the language being on its last legs then why do you get estimates for the numbers of Irish speaker being well into double digits of percentage of the population in the 1830s?

Sorry, can't find the original source I was looking for the source on line but all I could find was something quoting 4 million speakers but that sounds a bit high.

[_Martyr_]

Taffty, influences on a spoken language as Im sure you well know have a moderated affect. Language is a dynamic fluid entity that is not controlled by the flick of a switch, but by long processes that will take lifetimes, if not several lifetimes to take effect. People who were born under the Penal Laws (or at least their parents) would have been alive at the start of the 19th century. However, these people would have strongly discouraged, if not forbidden their offspring to speak Irish. Sure, many of them still would have picked it up, but a labguage like that is dead or at least dying.

[_Martyr_]

About those accademics you met at that conference. I'm enclined to agree with them. Irish or any language can not emerge into dominance from such a small position. Especially the way it is taught in schools these days. Its sad.

[Tribesman]

Billy Wright? seriously?
Yes unfortunately , she was full of praise for the UUP and DUP arm in arm initially forcing the march through , but now it seems they want a strong political leader who has no qualms about murdering residents who voice their objections . :embarassed:
But they did look like very nice cakes she was handing out ~D

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

I seriously do believe you about most of the east of the country (possibly not in Wicklow, I'm not sure when that Gaelic holdout went), the middleclasses, the educated etc.

The Penal Laws and their impact:
how many people were formally educated?
how many people were landowners?
how many people could vote at that time?

Then how many people were poor tenant farmers with no education?

by the same argumeny you might expect the Presbyterians to all be church of Ireland now.

I'll try to find what I was thinking of so that I can show it to you, see what you think. Maybe I have the dates wrong.

[_Martyr_]

I dont really understand your last post. Can you rephrase, sorry, its probably my fault. Im a bit tired today.


As for other Protestant sects. Yes, they were also targetted by the COI in that they also had to pay the tithe up till the disestablishment. And they were just as displeased with this as the catholics were.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

I was just saying that the Penal Laws seem to have disproportionately affected the middle and upper classes so, with less of an impact on the uneducated, landless, non-voters, would the poor have had their culture driven out of them as thoroughly as the more wealthy (because I'm sure that the restrictions on voting, land ownership and education in France weren't things that concerned them)?

I would guess that the poor would have been relatively less impacted upon than others and I would also guess that uneducated tenants with no political ambition would have been a huge proportion of Irish society.

By the same token, I was saying, you might expect all Presbyterians to have abandoned their culture wholesale as you say the Catholics had done if the Penal Laws had as large an impact as you say.

On a thoroughly unrelated note, I have read of a version of late Medieval English that was spoken in South East Ireland until the 20th century called Yolla (or something like that), do you know anything about this?

[Duke of Gloucester]

Tribesman, I did not say that the Orange Order was not political; the colour orange is political in NI. I said it was not a political party. (btw I am not sure you are not a little behind the times. Has the order not already switched its support to the DUP.) Who exactly are you suggesting should be suspended from power sharing?

[GoreBag]

On a thoroughly unrelated note, I have read of a version of late Medieval English that was spoken in South East Ireland until the 20th century called Yolla (or something like that), do you know anything about this?

I've never heard of it before, but it seems likely. The same thing happened in Scotland, after all.

[Duke of Gloucester]

It might also have something to do with the fact that the CCCP went toes up in 1989, and was having trouble nurturing their 5th columns for years before that. ~:) Hard to run a revolution on rhetoric alone.

Seamus

I would love to see their accounts, but I'll bet you a small sum they got far more money from Irish American individuals than from the Soviet Union. They certainly haven't been short of money. I stick to what I said before - more votes in being Green, rather than Red.

[Templar Knight]

On the radio it said that the UVF have broken the ceasefire because of the shooting at the riots, while their rivals the UFF are calling for calm.

[Tribesman]

Who exactly are you suggesting should be suspended from power sharing?
Since the DUP have a long history (and its leader an even longer one) of encouraging , glorifying and justifying violence then such a party should be excluded .
The leadership of the PUP still maintain (as they have for the past 8 years) that the DUP is pressuring the UVF to abandon its ceasefire and return to armed conflict .
A return to conflict means the end of the peace process and decades more direct rule . That is the parties policy is it not .

(btw I am not sure you are not a little behind the times. Has the order not already switched its support to the DUP.)
I havn't read any release on the subject by the Order since its announcement on the talks between itself and the UUP/DUP from back in March of this year , have they formally changed their affiliation ?

[Duke of Gloucester]

In an earlier post you described Ian Paisley as a biggot, which he certainly is. His language is intemperate and offensive but I don't think you will be able to give me a recent quote where he advocates violence directly. Any violence mentioned in his speeches is figartive. He certainly has not advocated attacking the police service. Unlike the PUP, the DUP no longer has an explicit link with the UVF, so there could be no justification for suspending him. You can't suspend someone with a democratic mandate just because he is obnoxious.

I have just written a post defending Ian Paisley, which has made me feel ill. I must go and lie down.

[Tribesman]

You can't suspend someone with a democratic mandate just because he is obnoxious.
Of course you can , kick out all the sectarian gits and hand power to the Alliance Party ~;)

I don't think you will be able to give me a recent quote where he advocates violence directly.
Well there is his speech at the Ulster Resistance rally where he tells people to bring down the peace agreement by any means neccesary .
Any means neccesary includes violence does it not ?

Still , he is a great one for quotes isn't he , I love the one where he called the British Queen Mother an evil Papist , not very loyal of him was it . ~D

[ShadesPanther]

damn I missed this thread a few times ~:mecry:

Paisley is a biggot no one could possibly deny that. Yet he uses democratic means and he really does get annoying after a while but he is doing nothing Illegal and he has condemmed these recent events as well as all politicans (although for each one they may or may not be actually condemming it. But I believe that they all are because it is not a thing that benfits either side.)

Anyway the main reason the popel are doing this (or using it as an excuse.) is that many feel that the unionists are being taken for granted or that the nationaists are getting everything done for them they they want by the British Government. Some claim double standards. Basically the Unionists in many places aren't very happy about the way things have been going. But instead of a peaceful method our nation's favourite pastime occurs.


About the parades though. As one police officer put it, both sides of Belfast turned up just to be offended (or something like that)


Of course you can , kick out all the sectarian gits and hand power to the Alliance Party
The Alliance still have sectarians in some shape or form. Basically the assembly will be empty as everyone will be banned.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Martyr:
Irish census 1861:
1 077 087 Irish speakers
3 325 024 non Irish speakers
the west of Ireland:
Connacht: 409 482 speakers, 503 653 non-speakers
Munster: 545 531 speakers, 968 027 non-speakers

so, even after the famine, which disproportionately affected the Gaelic speaking poor in these areas, even after the 60 years from the point you said Irish was a destroyed language, the west still had a large Gaelic speaking population. Even at a time when you can imagine that people would be loathe to admit to speaking Gaelic almost a quarter of the population of Ireland claimed to speak it. You mocked me for being so wrong that it was hilarious yet even in 1861 I would only have been wrong by a little bit.

Why, when you said that the language was destroyed (end of the 18th, start of the 19th century), were many Protestant educational groups investing in teaching through the Irish language?
Why in 1820 did the Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor in Ireland agree to print Irish language school books?
Surely this would not have been needed if nobody spoke the language.

Know what though? I studied this at university too and was very saddened by the attitude you adopted towards me earlier.


And Don, I'll get back to your topic in a while but just remember, you may not think much of Devalera and Collins but they succeeded where those other men failed.

NeonGod: sorry to put such a downer on the prospects of Gaelic, who knows, things could take a turn for the better.
As for Scots being medieval English I would have to disagree. Check the calendar of Venetian papers from the 16th century: you will find a letter from the Venetian ambassador to England or Scotland (can't remember which) who drew a distinction between English and Scots by saying that they were similar but definitely different, like Castilian and Catalan.
The Scots that survives from the middle-ages is different from that of today but is still understandable (in many parts) if you are aquainted with Scots. The medieval English I was speaking about in Ireland is meant to be a very burry Zumerzet(Somerset) sounding beast.

[GoreBag]

Ah. Understood.

On a kind of unrelated note, one can understand Scots if they have a grasp on English and German. A few Gaelic words don't hurt either.

You don't need to apologise for being a downer. It's pragmatism, really. I'm just being optimistic for once.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I would love to see their accounts, but I'll bet you a small sum they got far more money from Irish American individuals than from the Soviet Union. They certainly haven't been short of money. I stick to what I said before - more votes in being Green, rather than Red.

Probably true, in a strict funding sense. American financial support for every effort from the Fenian rising forward was important. The Provos played the "green" card exceptionally well. Many Americans were totally unaware of the marxist tone of that organization until Tom Clancy published Patriot Games. Thought the Provos were enacting the Four Green Fields fight that Makem sang about or continuing the efforts of Pearse and the others. Yet the indirect (and sometimes direct) support from Moscow for all sorts of 5th columns was a staple component of the Cold War. With that gone, a lot of "peoples movements" lost steam.

Seamus

[Duke of Gloucester]

Well there is his speech at the Ulster Resistance rally where he tells people to bring down the peace agreement by any means neccesary .

That was in 1986, wasn't it? Mind you his great hero, Edward Carson was not averse to using violence to further his aims, so he probably still thinks it.


Probably true, in a strict funding sense. American financial support for every effort from the Fenian rising forward was important. The Provos played the "green" card exceptionally well. Many Americans were totally unaware of the marxist tone of that organization until Tom Clancy published Patriot Games.

So true, and not just Americans, many Irish people too. The ironic thing is that actual Catholics probably have more in common with Ian Paisley (sanctitiy of marriage, opposition to abortion, opposition to homosexuality etc.) than they have with Gerry Adams, and Ian Paisley has more in common with the Catholic Church than he has with the British government.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Tribesman:
at least nobody can say the Orange Order bows to political correctness...........

[_Martyr_]

Martyr:
Irish census 1861:
1 077 087 Irish speakers
3 325 024 non Irish speakers
the west of Ireland:
Connacht: 409 482 speakers, 503 653 non-speakers
Munster: 545 531 speakers, 968 027 non-speakers

so, even after the famine, which disproportionately affected the Gaelic speaking poor in these areas, even after the 60 years from the point you said Irish was a destroyed language, the west still had a large Gaelic speaking population. Even at a time when you can imagine that people would be loathe to admit to speaking Gaelic almost a quarter of the population of Ireland claimed to speak it. You mocked me for being so wrong that it was hilarious yet even in 1861 I would only have been wrong by a little bit.

Why, when you said that the language was destroyed (end of the 18th, start of the 19th century), were many Protestant educational groups investing in teaching through the Irish language?
Why in 1820 did the Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor in Ireland agree to print Irish language school books?
Surely this would not have been needed if nobody spoke the language.

Alright Taffy, Im back. Had a bit of an accident, dislocated my kneecap and dip some bad ligament damage, was in hospital for a bit and cant really walk, so havent been able to respond till now.

Lets clarify the two different debates that we are having here. One is to do with the Irish language, and one is to do with Irish culture. Your initial comment was to do with the culture... Lets have a look.


The implications of people of a less native (for want of a better word) cultural persuasion is very important considering the collapse of Gaelic culture in the later 19th and early 20th century: Ireland finally won its independence (sort of) when traditional Irish culture was becoming far less important.

Which is just simply wrong. There is absolutely no denying the Cultural Revival took place. I dont know how I can really make that clearer with repeating myself. My comment, to which I think you have taken great offfence, where I said that you "actually couldnt be more wrong" concerned your implication that Irish culture fizzled away in the late 19th/ early 20th century and then collapsed completely when Ireland got her independence. This was further compounded with your claim that the Cultural Revival had no impact. And to be pretty honest, I stand entirely by that, I am sorry if you took offence, but you simply are incorrect on this matter.





As for the language debate, I really dont see how the census figures you posted prove your point at all. Currently in Ireland, the percentage of people who claim Irish ability is about the 30% mark. Would you say Irish is a strong and vibrant language today? But that is beside the point. I feel you are completely misunderstanding what I am saying. We are not dealing with purely the measure of raw numbers of speakers (who, I might add are still in the minority during the period in question in this case), but the fact that the language was doomed! The Penal Laws hamstrung the Irish society in such a way that the dying out of the language was a near inevitability. Without an extreme Cromwellian or Stalinist approach, and even then, a language is one of the hardest things to wipe out. You can ban a political party, you can outlaw groups and even ideologies, but one thing you cannot directly stop people doing right away is speaking.

The Penal Laws effectively removed the top and middle layers of Irish Society and replaced them with the Ascendancy. When the Penal laws were finally losened in the mid 18th century, more social mobility meant those of the lower classes who aspired to becaming prosperous adopted english as their language. By the time of the United Irishmen revolt, the Irish language was viewed (especially by those that spoke it) as being associated with poverty, economic stagnation and failure. That is the single greatest blow the language has ever recieved. It was a situation where the people who spoke the language didnt want to, it was seen as a hinderence to success, to prosperity, later even to emigration. One must also remeber the extremely low level of formal education available to these masses. Its not the case that they could just go to their local adult-ed centre and start an english evenings course or something like that. They were pretty much stuck with their perceived plight for life, and even trying to spare their offspring the fate would have been extremely difficult for them. Even Daniel O'Connell was against the irish language, even he shared the view that it was backward and represented failure... so strongly engrained was this.

During the period before the famine, the rural population in the West exploded due to the success of the potatoe. And with that, a population of what was seen as underprivaleged Irish speakers. Indeed, almost half of Ireland spoke Irish during the 1830s. But the opperative thing to pick up on that is that it was not at all healthy, infact at this stage it was doomed. Had the relative stability and status-quo continued, the language would have died out due to the increasingly successful peasants adopting english as their language as soon as they possibly had the means or possibilities to (as many did), but as with what actually came to pass, with the opposite of prosperity hitting in the 1840s, the language literally died with the famine stricken million or so who died, or left the Irish shores with the other million or so who emigrated in the period (most of whom eventually learnt english). Those Irish speakers who survived the famine years and the decades after it and hadnt left the country continued forsaking Irish in favour of english, where it was seen that if all else failed, at least America or Britain would be an option for the English speaking.

So the fatal wound to the Irish language was not the famine. The famine merely ended what was already coming to an end. The removal of the Irish identity, upperclasses, independence and sense that Irish was a proud language full of beauty,charm, function and meaning as the Penal Laws managed to, that was what killed the Irish language. The final result took two or three lifetimes to come to pass, and was certainly helped along its way at the end by the potatoe blight, but the root and cause of the decline of the irish language is most certainly the evil set of Penal Laws.

[_Martyr_]

On a thoroughly unrelated note, I have read of a version of late Medieval English that was spoken in South East Ireland until the 20th century called Yolla (or something like that), do you know anything about this?

Doesnt ring a bell. Maybe something to do with the Yeomenry?? ~:confused:

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

No Martyr,

I took offence at you saying I was so wrong it was hilarious.

You have studied the Irish cultural revival and you should know that it wasn't exactly a revival of authentic culture: look at the way that Irish dancing evolved. Or how about the standardisation of traditional sports?
Yeah, an altered tradition inspired revival took place but it is not actually traditional.

I would say that the late 19th/20th century were the end of any actual continuous Gaelic tradition in Ireland as the inverted pyramid age structure of Gaelic speaking areas took its toll and those who actually grew up in a Gaelic cultural environment become an increasingly tiny minority.


As for the language: huge numbers were concentrated in certain areas, unfortunately I do not have the full county by county breakdown but I think the 1861 census proved my point on that (because you know fine well that it wouldn't be a uniform dispersal of Gaelic speakers through Connact and Munster). 60 years after you would have me believe that the Penal laws had destroyed the language.

The health of the language in the 20th century is a joke: people in the census are more likely to claim the ability to speak Irish even if they only have a poor understanding whereas in the 19th century the people were far more likely to deny speaking Irish even if they did speak it.

Despite all this, my point still stands:
1798 was the first time that a major Irish revolt had come out of non-Gaelic and often non-Catholic areas.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Also, are we actually disagreeing on all that much or just the interpretation of it?