Monday 15 February 2010

Just what has Allister against the Irish language?

Allister is not a blind man – he has, like most observers, noticed that the Hillsborough Agreement "commits to a work programme to action everything outstanding from St Andrews."

"Hence the commitments in St Andrews to the Irish language and the demands for expansion of the north/south bodies and a north/south parliamentary forum and civic forum, as well as a Single Equality Bill, will all now be progressed", he asserts.

And all of these things are presented as 'bad' things … just because.

But 'just because' what? What makes the promotion of the Irish language a 'bad thing' for Mr Allister? He doesn't explain his opposition to it – the reasons seem (to him) to be too obvious to need explaining.

To anybody else, though, Allister's visceral hatred of Irish can only seem to stem from a prejudice bordering on racism. Irish is just a language, a medium of communication. No-one is proposing to outlaw the speaking of English in Northern Ireland, and the incarceration of recidivist Anglophones in re-education camps. There will be no requirement to speak the Irish language to get jobs, education, or anything else. The costs of bilingual signage will be insignificant (and certainly a tiny fraction of the cost of other cultural activities). So what is Allister's problem?

Is it the word 'Irish' that bothers him? The fact that official recognition of that word implies in some way that there is an Irish dimension in Northern Ireland? But Mr Allister should pause for a moment – the very name of the state to which he owes so much allegiance is 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. So the recognition of that Irish dimension is already there! He lives in Ireland – his own state tells him so.

Could his attitude be related to Anglophone chauvinism? Could it be that he hates the mere thought of other languages that English even existing? Does he oppose Welsh and Scottish Gaelic so much? How about Ulster-Scots?

What does Allister think will happen if (when) the Irish language receives official recognition? Does he think that miraculously the scales will be lifted from unionist eyes and they will, upon the mere sight of a street name, realise that they are Irish after all? If so, he has very faith in his co-unionists. Can you not be a unionist if you speak Irish? What about the oft-trumpeted 'economic arguments'? Are they all just a smokescreen?

Unless Allister and his party can explain their opposition to the Irish language in rational terms, the watching world can come to only two conclusions. Either his hatred is entirely irrational – in which case he deserves to be treated like other racists and bigots, and marginalised. Or he does have a 'rational' reason, which is to ensure that, as far as possible, Northern Ireland remains a 'cold house' for anyone who does not aspire to re-make the region as a copy of England.

If this latter reason is true, then he is presumably hoping that those people who wish to see recognition of the Irish dimension will eventually become so demoralised that they will either turn into unionists (highly unlikely) or emigrate (also unlikely).

So, in effect, his opposition to the Irish language will have no impact on the electorate outcome in Northern Ireland, except to antagonise Irish language enthusiasts (some of whom may be from a unionist background), and ensure that they do not vote for his party, or any other unionist party. He is, essentially, just deliberately throwing away potential voters without achieving any counter-advantage at all. That is a very strange political attitude, and one that is largely counter-productive.

It is not for nothing that many nationalists see Allister and his TUV as unwitting allies. Not only do they split the unionist vote, but they help to portray unionism as irrationally racist and bigoted. What unionists see in Allister and his party is simply incomprehensible – he seems to appeal to those who would prefer Northern Ireland to remain in a state of constant political strife, or who would prefer a Northern Ireland in which one half of the population imposes its culture and its political beliefs on the other half. This runs contrary to modern norms of tolerance, diversity and freedom of expression – norms that are taken for granted in the Britain that Mr Allister so desperately wants to remain part of. That makes his position so difficult to understand – in order to remain British, he acts contrary to modern British values.

Politicians like Allister, and parties like the TUV, are difficult to counteract because their stated positions are so out of line with their actual behaviour. At the end of the day their opponents simply have to hope that the electorate will see this and will consign him to political oblivion. His recent political mini-successes do not support this hope, though. But perhaps more patience is needed.

31 comments:

Nordie Northsider said...

'It is not for nothing that many nationalists see Allister and his TUV as unwitting allies.'

Don't say that too loudly, Horseman. They might catch on.

Anonymous said...

Horseman :

I wonder what language the bould Jim thinks is on the Bangor Coat of Arms ? :-)

- Munsterman

New times, New approach said...

Horseman, I think you come very close to answering the question you pose when you say, 'Or he does have a 'rational' reason, which is to ensure that, as far as possible, Northern Ireland remains a 'cold house' for anyone who does not aspire to re-make the region as a copy of England.'

I would not however accuse him of adopting quite so unfriendly an attitude. In his mind the true Brit in N.I. is assailed on all sides. He can trust nobody, true democracy was abolished with the demise of one party rule. Even the party of the protestant superhero, the Rev. Ian, has capitulated in it's willingness to compromise in any way. To him any compromise is a sign of weakness and one which will be seized upon by 'Ulster's' enemies (viz 45% of it's population).
Ask yourself how often one hears Irish spoken on the 'mainland'. Why then should it be spoken in any other part of the United Kingdom?
I feel that he is not so much deliberately offensive and full of hate as he is desperate. Like all of us he knows what road N.I. is on and where that road is increasingly quickly leading to. This is where the signpost in Irish points to and consequently is abhorrent.

But maith fear and more power to his elbow. If he cannot see that he is accelerating by division the death of unionism, then who are we to draw it to his attention?

picador said...

Likewise the DUP should explain their antipathy to the Irish language.

McCausland was on BBC NI News tonight. Not a word did he have to say about the £20 million extra Irish language promotion is to get. Instead he focussed on the £5 million Ulster Scots promtion is to get. Presumably the mioney gor An Ghaeilge represented some kind of defeat.

peteram79 said...

You'll be surprised to know, guys, that I don't agree with you on this one.

Allister's problem with the Irish language is two-fold. One is that taxpayers' money is wasted on it, as no-one but no-one in NI speaks it as a first language (the same goes for Ulster Scots, btw). The second is that it's used as a political tool to annoy unionists by the Republican movement.

I don't see myself as a raving bigot. I'm just back from Paris after watching the Irish rugby team make a horlicks of things and ruin my weekend. I have no problem with being Irish - as you state, Horseman, the clue's in the name!!

But I hate the way that Republicans manipulate the Irish language issue and that it ends up costing me as a tax ayer money. Go ahead and learn Gaelic in your spare time, no problem with that, but not with my hard earned cash. I'd reckon 99.9pc of the unionist tradition and more than a small proportion of the nationalist community would feel exactly the same.

Anonymous said...

Give us another clue!

Anonymous said...

Allister hates the Irish lannguage because it's part of Gaelic Irish culture, not his culture. So he hates it being present in NI just like any other sign of Gaelic Irish culture would annoy him. It makes him feel like a stranger in his own homeland; which is how most Ulster Prods feel about a united Ireland.

Yes, they're born and raised in Ireland but they don't feel any part of the gaelic Irish culture which for most people around the world personifies Ireland and what it is to be Irish.

Allister will make up the excuses about wasted taxpayer money and everything but it's all hot air. Even if the Dublin government paid for Irish road signs in the north, do you think Unionists would agree?

Of course not. They'd feel like strangers in their own province and that's the feeling they hate the most and why they try to suppress gaelic Irish culture.

peteram79 said...

Anonymous

Why would Protestants feel at home with Gaelic Irish cilture? It's not their culture. And while leprechauns, the warriors of the Fianna, folk songs and fiddles in a country pub and pale maidens with red hair may be a popular representation of "Oireland" with gullible tourists, try speaking to southern Irish people under the age of 50 and you'll get pretty short shrift about such an image.

Ireland as an island is changing, becoming more modern, more confident and much more diverse. With it comes a far wider idea of what it is be Irish, not simply the incredibly narrow definition based on Gaelic culture that you espouse. There is absolutely no contradiction in my mind in defining muyself as both fully British and also Irish. If you can't move beyond your idea of what Oirishness is, your hopes of a United Ireland are pretty grim, as there are a million unionists who aren't going away and a couple of generations now in the south who'd regard you as a dinosaur too.

Horseman said...

peteram79,

I am strongly opposed to censorship, but where I perceive racism or blind bigotry at work I will wield my knife. You are coming close to the line with your offensive 'Oirland', etc. Treat this as a last warning - further posts containing deliberately insulting terms will not appear on this blog.

Paddy Canuck said...

"Ireland as an island is changing, becoming more modern, more confident and much more diverse."

...Acceptance of Gaelic in each particular notwithstanding, of course...

Paddy Canuck said...

"They'd feel like strangers in their own province"

Wow, that would SUCK. Imagine how hearing a different language around town would make you feel like you didn't belong! Thank God things like not being represented in government, having your symbols outlawed, councils jury-rigged to exclude you from power, and hearing politicians tell their constituents that hiring you is a bad idea wouldn't give rise to feelings of being a stranger in one's own province, or some people might really be upset. Yeah, support for Gaelic... the ultimate crime, sure.

peteram79 said...

Horseman, please note that I put the first reference in inverted commas, in an attempt to illustrate that I wasn't referring to Ireland, but to an extreme stereotype propagated by those who would impose their idea of what it is to be Irish onto the wider community. I apologise if that wasn't made clear, and I should probably have stuck the second ref in inverted commas too.

Hope this makes things clear. I was born in Ireland and am proud to be Irish. I have no problems with Gaelic culture as a private expression of an important aspect of some people's Irishness. Where my issues lie is with promotion of said narrow definition that "Gaelic Iirish" is the only way of being Irish, and with the squandering of public money on mischievious, political-motivated promotion of the Irish language.

Mack said...

peteram79

I'd reckon 99.9pc of the unionist tradition and more than a small proportion of the nationalist community would feel exactly the same.

Yep certainly. There is probably only a minority who actively desire that a small portion of their taxes are spent on promoting and protecting specifically Irish cultural heritage.

Taken as whole, I imagine the vast majority of NI citizens would like some of their tax pounds spent promoting their cultural heritage (as it applies to each individual - Orange & Green).

What makes NI special - different from England or the south - is that there are two dominant / strong cultures. NI is not unique in this regard (Canada - Quebec, Belgium, Switzerland, Most Spanish states, Patagonia, South Africa etc). The people living their can choose whether NI is special in a good way (like say Canada or Switzerland) or a bad way.

It's depressing the way both sides seem determined to be special in a bad way and block the other. There is no reason why both cultures can not flourish side by side and make Northern Ireland into a great place to live, work, invest and visit.

New times, New approach said...

Mack,
I agree with a lot of what you say. Where I would differ is in the implicit statement of an 'Orange culture'. If such a thing exists, other than in a desire to march up and down (preferably along streets populated by people who share none of their values) in July, then what are it's high-points?
Gaelic culture has contributed substantially in a global context over the last 1400 or so years, from priceless manuscripts such as the book of Kells and the development of a unique musical tradition which the Chieftains have performed throughout the developed world. Listen to the baroque harp music of O'Carolan and you will realize that it's not all jigs and just how exquisite some of that music can be.
Add in artwork like the Ardagh chalice, the Tara brooch and the beautifully decorated 8th century torcs on view in the National museum.
So why shouldn't we wish to preserve such a culture? Admittedly probably only a small proportion of Ulster's inhabitants would care very much about it, but how many British would care a lot about their two world leading universities or the philosophy of Bertrand Russell, the works of Chaucer or the music of Purcell etc? Is that a justification to allow them to wither?
Given a choice between paying taxes for nuclear weapons or to ingratiate ourselves with America by invading one small country after another or instead spending a fraction of a percent of that in keeping elements of our culture alive, then it's an easy choice for me.

Mack said...

New times, New approach


Gaelic culture has contributed substantially in a global context over the last 1400 or so years

I'm not sure global contribution is what matters. Having a strong local cultural identity acts as a buffer against the worst of outside influences (e.g. it can provide an alternative to the worst imported foreign media - tv, magazines, books etc).

Orange culture is a lot newer - as is Protestantism itself. Marching up and down roads mightn't seem important you (but I'm sure you'd be in favour of properly funded, and proudly Irish, St. Patrick's day parades?) - but it is important to many Unionists. And I guess Ulster Protestant culture is deeper than that (e.g. CS Lewis?)..

preferably along streets populated by people who share none of their values

I'm not suggesting that nationalists roll over and allow a return to Orange domination - but if you both work together in terms of facilitating what is culturally important to you, it would make your lives a lot more pleasant and fulfilling.

In a bicultural (note bicultural and not monocultural or mutlicultural) NI - could you trade (hypothetical examples)?

official status for Irish
funded St. Patrick day parades (lead by the Tricolour)
St. Patrick's day an official holiday
More visible support for the GAA - either in terms of funding or in terms of visible support (bunting and the like that we see in the south)

for..

allowing Orange marches to sensitively travel past nationalist areas
Londonderry remaining as the English language name for Derry city (with the Irish Doire having equal _official_ status)?

etc..

Anonymous said...

I'm from Derry, where ratepayers have given the Apprentice Boys grants to parade in the city on occasion in recent years.

Is it an activity that the majority of the city participate in? Not really. About 75% of the town, i.e. the RC population, avoid the town centre like the plague on the 12th August.

The few who do venture in, saddo dissidents whinging, or kids looking for a row, get spat on by bandsmen, year in year out.

Yet the Apprentice Boys take the money when it's offered. Why? Because they pay taxes too, and they're entitled to some of the money in the pot.

The benefit doesn't need to be directly felt by someone for them to acquiesce to it's funding. I'd like to see a list of other "wasteful" cultural exploits that give no obvious economic benefit, such as funding for the arts, that Unionists oppose as vocally as Irish. The list should extend to activities in England, Scotland and Wales too, really, because our taxes are spent there too.

It's be a short list of course. Dislike of Gaelic is fuelled by the same motives as those which spur complaints of children wearing GAA tops when collecting for charity, of the burning of the tricolour on 11th night, of Unionist politicians throwing Westminster's St Patrick's display into the Thames like children, of Dr. Paisley complaining when he saw the Queen wearing Green. Hatred of Irishness is the motivation.

Anonymous said...

Peteram79,

I didn't say Irishness is confined to the gaelic Irish culture. I said the reality is when the world thinks of Ireland that's what they think of; whether Irish people like it or not. People outside of Ireland don't really care so much about us to bother understanding the provincial differences on the island.

Many Ulster Protestants deny being Irish at all so that doesn't help to promote their own distinct Irish culture.

Anonymous said...

As a Canadian who has some first-hand knowledge of the bad problems more then one language can cause, I really think you are on the wrong track with this support of Irish. I think unilingualism is better and being connected to the much wider Anglosphere is GOOD for Ireland. Would Ireland be better off if it was a unilingual Gaelic society? A small place where only its language was spoken, like say Finland? I don't believe so. I also think the money spent on Irish could be put to better use like health care or edcuation or roads, etc. Since there is no realistic prospect of Ireland reverting to Irish I don't see the point in all of this and why antagonize the Unionists needlessly? I would give the same advice to a Scottish separatist about Scottish Gaelic too. Let it go. The English language does not define Scotland (or Ireland). By the way I am no friend or fan of the Orangemen.

Mack said...

Anon

As a Canadian who has some first-hand knowledge of the bad problems more then one language can cause

Could you honestly rank the difficulties you have experienced (Anglophone in Quebec I presume?) - against three or four centuries of intercommunal violence and a barely functioning political system?

Accomodating others is never easy and is not without it's difficulty - it's just much, much better than the alternative.

By the way - there is no movement towards Gaelic unilingualism in Ireland. In the north nationalists want largely symbolic official recognition (which would also be practical for the small number of fluent speakers)..

Mack said...

Anon

Here's another question for ya!

Single cultural societies are almost certainly easier to manage, but you don't live in one. There are only limited means by which your society could become a monocultural one - either one side gives up it's culture, emigrates or they merge into something new.

Would you be willing to give up the English language or emigrate so as to reduce those (minor) difficulties in Quebec?

I suspect this is another one of those issues like taxes - where most people support tax rises - but only for other people!

Paddy Canuck said...

"As a Canadian who has some first-hand knowledge of the bad problems more then one language can cause, I really think you are on the wrong track with this support of Irish."

I should preface my remarks by admitting that, elsewhere, I questioned the need to invest in the Irish language, and had the matter clarified for me, in this particular circumstance. But I don't question, in general, the value of bilingualism.

I don't think you've taken the right lessons from the past 50 years of our history. If we'd enforced unilingualism in the 1960s the way most of the country did prior to the Second World War, we wouldn't have a country now. There's no question the FLQ, RIN and the like would have had a much broader base of support, and the PQ's referendum in 1980 (if not set sooner) would have flown past the post. We would either have had to negotiate Quebec (and possibly francophone regions of Ontario and New Brunswick) out of the federation or faced the real prospect a 20th century civil war in the heart of North America, and all that entails with the neighbours with the itchy trigger fingers. Moderation and respect for the core values of others is what has kept this ship on course -- and the same prescription has been phenomenally effective at bringing down the fever in Northern Ireland as well; that's abundantly clear.

You say you're not a fan of the Orangemen, and yet you advocate instruments that would buttress their notion of the quintessence of Northern Ireland. I don't believe that the Irish language is as important, in a viceral, day-to-day sense, to the average Irish(wo)man as French is in Quebec. Therefore, I don't believe helping Gaelic keep its head above water is going to lead to the same sort of Bill 101 'French-oui, English-non' style legislation as Quebec trotted out in the 70s. (Even if there is, we got through that and today the French language in Quebec is secure and we don't hear stories about apostrophe-s being taken down off business signs anymore.) If we were going to see that kind of extreme, we'd have seen it in the RoI long ago, and we haven't. Bilingualism and biculturalism (multiculturalism) aren't threats; in the modern world, they're the mortar that holds disparate bricks together in a common edifice.

Anonymous said...

You guys have all missed my point particularly Paddy Canuck. My point is that a unilingual country is better off then a bilingual one. (Would Poland be better off if 25% of the population didn't speak Polish? I'm at a loss to see how?) And language becomes a very dangerous situation when it becomes politicalized. The official politically correct line in Canada is that "the non-assimilation of Francophones was an immeasurable gain for Canada". (Pierre Berton. Considered one of the "greatest" (and most P.C.) Canadian 'historians'). In my view it was an immeasurable disaster for Canada endlessly complicating the country, causing disunity and endless problems. Now lets assume the Protestants had been absorbed and assimilated into Irish culture and society by around 1875? Wouldn't that have been better for Ireland then the current situation? Was the non-assimilation of the Ulster-Scots an 'immeasurable gain' for Ireland? I don't see how?

Mack said...

Anon

I agree - a monocultural society is easier to manage. When you have a biculutral society you are still left with the difficulty that it's unlikely that either cultural wants to give up an assimilate. In that case - you can fight it out (either physically, or politically by blocking the other) or work out some way to live together and allow both cultures to flourish.

The cost of protecting two cultures is much, much lower than the cost of two cultures fighting it out for supremacy. Countries that take the bicultural approach tend to be nicer countries to live, work, invest and visit than those where the inhabitants have decided to fight it out (Switzerland or Rwanda for your holidays, or your investment cash?)

Paddy Canuck said...

"You guys have all missed my point particularly Paddy Canuck. My point is that a unilingual country is better off then a bilingual one."

No, we got that. You're missing the point that neither Canada nor Ireland is such a country, so making the observation is pointless. Unionists can't wish away the attachment nationalists feel towards Gaelic anymore than Canadian anglophones can wish French out of Canada. We all have to deal with what's best with regard to what is, not what would be preferable if one A) had a magic wand and B) absolutely no regards for the rights of others to be who they are.

"In my view it was an immeasurable disaster for Canada endlessly complicating the country, causing disunity and endless problems."

Okay, fine... when are you going to give up English and devote yourself entirely to French for the good and unity of Canada? Should we legislate for that? Est-ce que c'est quoi vous voulez dire? Voyez-vous le probleme maintenant, peut-etre?

"Now lets assume the Protestants had been absorbed and assimilated into Irish culture and society by around 1875? Wouldn't that have been better for Ireland then the current situation?"

Wouldn't it be better for Canada if your great-great-grandparents had assimilated into French Canadian society back when they were the majority in the country? Wouldn't you feel better not being who you are today for the sake of national unity?

Paddy Canuck said...

Well said, Mack. Good points.

Anonymous said...

Reply to Paddy Canuck;

You just love to play the role of the self-righteous, tolerant, diversity-loving Canadian liberal don't you? It would seem you have no tolerance for diversity of opinion about diversity though.

Paddy Canuck said...

Anon:

"You just love to play the role of the self-righteous, tolerant, diversity-loving Canadian liberal don't you?"

Yep. I adore it. Thanks for noticing. :)

"It would seem you have no tolerance for diversity of opinion about diversity though."

Having an informed opinion on a subject that one supports against divergent opinions that one understands but rejects as flawed for reasons of logic and, occasionally, sentiment, is not the same thing as being intolerant.

Anonymous said...

FAO Paddy Canuck:

You're making a big mistake comparing Northern Ireland to Quebec as regards languages. In Quebec most people speak French as a first language, in Northern Ireland almost nobody speaks Gaelic as a first language and few even speak it fluently as a second language. In other words Paddy, French in Quebec is an actual real concept which MUST be accommodated, whilst Gaelic in Northern Ireland/British Ulster is merely a political symbol.

Try to look a little deeper in your analysis, or be mistaken for a YANK! LOL

Paddy Canuck said...

"In Quebec most people speak French as a first language"

Well, in Ontario, most people don't, but the province still provides education in French, services in French (not to mention other languages for immigrants, as do most of the major cities), and highway signage in French. It isn't necessarily that frano-Ontarians can't read or understand English; it's about recognizing them as a founding culture in this country. They have bilingual signs in the RoI, but I didn't notice people refusing to speak to me in English or even speaking it much, outside of one pub in Donegal Town. So I don't imagine making that gesture in Derry, Newry, or even Belfast is going to signal the end of civilization of Ulster knows it.

"Try to look a little deeper in your analysis, or be mistaken for a YANK!"

It's my accent, isn't it? :)

Anonymous said...

A uni-lingual country may be "better" than a multi lingual one, but unfortunately Ulster's Unionists don't live in a uni-lingual country.

Do for a drive through Cardiff and you'll see what I mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wales.cardiff.slow.jpg

Or Penzance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Szyld_kornwalijski_w_Penzance.jpg

Or the Highlands.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Mallaig_sign.jpg

Or Douglas.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Douglas_Isle_of_Man_welcome_sign.jpg

All corners of the U.K. are plastered with "offensive" signs in native languages which pre-date English.

Paddy Canuck said...

"All corners of the U.K. are plastered with "offensive" signs in native languages which pre-date English."

...Not to mention other places settled and formerly governed by the UK where other languages predate English... :)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rnrobert/922857610/in/set-72157601047019476/

And yet, oddly enough, putting French on the signs has not somehow robbed Ontarians in general of their heritage... who'd have imagined it?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/muckyporter/1704675125/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lancashire/2851599461/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pewgilist/51194136/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lancashire/2871263194/

Who knows... maybe even Northern Ireland won't be brought down by signs saying "Welcome to Belfast" in Gaelic, either.