That sounds awfully and painfully familiar... sigh.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Martyr_
Printable View
That sounds awfully and painfully familiar... sigh.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Martyr_
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
I've never heard of it before, but it seems likely. The same thing happened in Scotland, after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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.
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 ?
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.
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
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)
The Alliance still have sectarians in some shape or form. Basically the assembly will be empty as everyone will be banned.Quote:
Of course you can , kick out all the sectarian gits and hand power to the Alliance Party
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
Seamus
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.Quote:
Well there is his speech at the Ulster Resistance rally where he tells people to bring down the peace agreement by any means neccesary .
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.Quote:
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.
Tribesman:
at least nobody can say the Orange Order bows to political correctness...........
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Doesnt ring a bell. Maybe something to do with the Yeomenry?? ~:confused:Quote:
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?
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.
Also, are we actually disagreeing on all that much or just the interpretation of it?