|
re. .0
<He says British authorities are trying to suppress the Irish language
<and, by extension, the culture.
In times past, when trying to enlighten British noters in the E_F file,
especially about the genocidal policies that their government is perpetrating
against the people in the north of Ireland, I often found it amusing the way
the British noters would without fail, (as if invoking a "talisman" of some
sort), attempt to divert notes containing any cogent facts or information,
(about said genocidal policies in the north of Ireland) down the rathole of
LANGUAGE.
They would NEVER talk about the FACTS in the article, just note after note
about "the language" used in the note: "The article wasn't delivered
"properly", (Whatever that means!); "Not enough proof - it wasn't in the Sun";
The "language" used was not up to BRITISH CENSORSHIP "Standards", (I would
certainly hope NOT!); and of course, it was always so much easier for British
noters to revile the facts presented in that forum as "fighting words",
rather than talk about the content presented, (even when the facts presented
may have even come from a British source, like the Times), etc., etc.
Ad nauseum.
There is a definite, inbred reason why the British do this.
Those of us who have been fortunate enough to have seen the north of
Ireland firsthand, and who recognize the: "Big Lie" about that FAILED STATELET;
the hysterical, paranoid censorship, (even of Playboy magazine, no less! Not
for the 'naughty bits' either!!); and the Orwellian, nightmarish behaviour of
the British government/military in that *Experimental Lab for Urban Counter-
Insurgency Tactics & Killing Fields for State-Sponsored Terrorism* (a.k.a.
Northern Ireland), can see through this deceptive manipulation of LANGUAGE.
And, judging by the article below, more and more Americans are catching on to
the diseased, aberrant, homicidal policies of the British government, that's
hidden behind the mask of such *innocent language* as: "security" forces,
"detainees", and "plastic bullets". ("plastic" bullets don't hurt people,
Do they??!)
While this article was written by an American for an American audience,
and is not about the Irish language per se, it does touch upon the heart of
the matter in Jen's base note: The English have tried to destroy the Irish
language (and to be sure) the culture as well, by imposing and enforcing their
native tongue upon yet another race of people. (How many other places in the
world have we seen this done by the British?!!). And since the Irish have
bravely resisted such efforts for so long, the brutal repression and genocidal
policies have been, (geometrically?) proportionally "well laid on". (As they
used to say when talking about "administering" the lash to the Irish.)
I have circled one paragraph near the end of the article with asterisks,
because it really tells the truth and should remove ANY DOUBTS held
by Feilim O hAdmaill in the first note as to the motive of why the British
government is doing this.
Same Language, Different Worlds
by Paul R. Reid
Boston Sunday Globe (3/19/89)
There is a trap that snares most American observers of Northern Ireland:
Language. For most Americans, language is the cultural pale beyond which they
are unwilling to venture. When we hear a foreign language we are on notice that
we are dealing with a different culture, but when we hear English we breathe
relief and assume that there is a shared cultural bond. The assumption fails
the Northern Ireland test.
Northern Ireland is a foreign country -- or part of a foreign country,
actually part of two foreign countries. The United States, Britain and Ireland
all share a common language, which muddies the waters for those trying to make
sense of what is happening there. The words are the same but they define vastly
different cultures.
Northern Ireland's disputants address each other in English and that
should bode well for communication at some level. But listen. There are as
many languages disguised as English as there are facets on the political prism.
Every participant employs unique lexicon to articulate what is ideologically
significant to him. Every word is freighted with political content, every
phrase a complex web, a weapon for the combatants and a source of peril for
observers.
You need an English dictionary: Is it Londonderry or Derry, free state,
Erie or the Republic? Is it Ulster or the six counties? The words are not
value-free. Do the British rule or do they govern? Is it Brit or British,
Protestant or prod, Catholic or papist? There are no neutral phrases.
The American journalist in Northern Ireland must choose words carefully.
the political content inherent in virtually every expression, however, ensures
that the choice is bound to lend credence to somebody's position. When the IRA
blows up a schoolbus, is it an IRA action or an IRA atrocity? For that matter,
is it the "outlawed" IRA or just plain IRA? It depends on who issues the press
release.
The British will speak of "a criminal act committed by members of the
outlawed IRA." A Republican would refer to the same act as a "military action
by IRA regulars." Is it criminal or political? When network anchors refer to
the "outlawed" IRA, they are toeing the British line, whether they know it or
not (radio commentators during World War II certainly didn't refer to the
French resistance as the "outlawed" French resistance). A shared language,
however, allows seemingly innocuous expressions to skip unscrutinized into
everyday use.
Even capitalization is a function of political proclivities. It's "unionist"
in Dublin, But "Unionist" in Belfast. It is likewise with loyalist, Republican,
nationalist, unionist, loyalist -- how the terms are used, with how much
content, varies from county to county, farm to farm, from street to street.
This is paradox, the antithesis of the paradigm of order within which
most Americans live and most American journalists operate. Two people speaking
the same language will at least be able to communicate in the United States,
but not in Northern Ireland. Optimistic cosmology holds that order will follow
chaos, but not in Northern Ireland. The seeming strength of cultural ties and
the seeming university of language serve to give the observer of Northern
Ireland a false sense that what is so here must be so there. But the language
is different and the cultural bonds between both Ireland and Britain and the
United States are less strong than we think: We celebrate our English heritage
by wearing London Fog coats and toast our Irish roots each March 17th.
Then we settle back and express shock that people just like us -- the
Northern Irish -- tolerate "an acceptable level of violence." For us there is
an acceptable level of highway carnage, but not of political violence. We
assume, therefore, that the same must hold true in Northern Ireland. They speak
our language, after all.
But they don't. Perhaps if we remember that the people of those isles
produced masters of language such as Churchill, Toynbee, Yeats and Shaw, the
linguistic labyrinth will be more readily negotiated. The Irish and English
saw early on the utility of words as weapons, honed those weapons to effect
and can unsheathe phrases with the fluorish of swordsmen. When it comes to the
strategy and tactics of political dialogue these people have it all over us
Yanks. They weave words together, we hammer them. The lubricity of their
language is masked by its commonplace ring. Their English is not our English.
*****************************************************************************
* The British have spent 300 years trying to suppress Gaelic in Ireland, *
*which serves as testimony to their respect of language's power in defining *
*culture. University of language is a prerequisite to assimilation. *
*Republicans in Northern Ireland may speak English now, but it's not the same
*language the British speak -- or that we speak. They're not assimilated and
*the English they speak bears witness. The British made language a weapon; *
*the Irish have sharpened it to deadly effect. *
******************************************************************************
Americans should remove their cultural blinders and take note.
End of Article.
----------------
Paul R. Reid is a columnist for the Transcript newspapers.
Damn right they're trying to destroy the language.
|
|
As I've raised a few other questions on language and broadcasting
in this note, I can't pass this one by.
First, I have to say that don't forget that there are Celts that are
British and because of this ambivalence I find note .2 more than
a little offensive. I don't endorse Gov't policy in NI, can't speak
for others, but the Gov't only had 30% of the electorate in the last
election.
My initial reaction is, even if the government� withdraws education,
suppresses official use of a language and discriminates against it in
the workplace, what's stopping you setting up alternative education
centres? Performing plays in gaelic? Holding poetry readings?
As I said in a previous note, my grandparents were beaten in school
for speaking Welsh, and forced to wear a sign around their necks saying
"Not Welsh". All part of the (then) gov't policy on language in
schools.
90 years on and:
o Parents have the option to choose a Welsh school where all
education is conducted in Welsh.
o Welsh is an official language, with most road signs, documents
bilingual. Legal proceedings may be conducted bilingually.
o There are thriving TV and radio channels broadcasting in Welsh.
o There are 250,000+ speakers and growing. A new celtic language
institute (includes Catalan!) opened in North Wales near Bala
this year.
How is it that Welsh survived and spoken Cornish was lost?
Perhaps this has been accomplished by the people forcing change on
central governments through organisations that are essentially
non-political (Iaith, Urdd etc).
It's all very well for US contributors to cry "Look at the Bully Brit
Govt" suppressing the Gaelic. God knows I'm no supporter of Maggie
and her lapdogs, but this time it's got s*d all to do with them.
If you *let* your language die, it's your own fault. It's certainly
my fault that I can't speak my own language very well - I've had plenty
of opportunity to learn.
(Let's have a little more reason with the emotion.)
regards,
Colin
|
|
Well, seeing as I've created quite a stir, I really should try to
put in more of the article. As I said it is quite long, but to
get "both" sides, you really do need to read on.
It will probably take a couple more entries to finish it.
I really can't form a good opinion. Being a fairly well educated
American, I know a few things.....one of which, is how little I
know. When I visited Ireland, I did here some people speaking
Irish & it sounded beautiful...almost lyrical. As with many things
in our modern world though, people don't seem to have the time or
energy to learn what they don't "absolutely need to survive."
Anyway, on with the article
" Results of a survey - A recent survey taken in the town of Twinbrook,
O hAdhmaill said, indicated that 70% of the households surveyed
would like to learn Irish if given the opportunity; 55-65% of parents
would like their children to attend a school where all subjects
were taught in Irish.
Contrary to O hAdhmaill claims, Education Minister Mawhinney says
ther is little demand among Northern Irelanders to learn Irish -
and he doesn't feel it's the state's role to create a demand, only
respond when it arises.
Still, a stack of newspaper clippings provided by O hAdmaill indicates
that the issue stimulates strong anti-government feeling. The stories
describe the considerable uproar which arose when Mawhinney proposed
a new curriculum which would have made it impossible to study Irish
without first studying English and a foreign language.
Mawhinney concedes he was forced back down - I listened to them.
I said, "Fine." He says he was only trying to ensure that Irish
students keep pace with the European counterparts by taking French,
German, or Spanish. "Catholic children in Northern Ireland should
not be put at a disadvantage."
Mawhinney says that fewer than 1% of the people of Northern Ireland
are fluent in Irish, which he says proves lack of demand. If people
were truly interested in learning it, he said, they would press
harder for its inclusion in the public school curriculum.
As it is, he said, Irish is offered in the Catholic shools, which
95% of Northern Irish children attend and which do receive state
funding - "so that doesn't sound like suppression."
He also rejected O hAdhmaill's other charges. "I'm glad you rang,"
he said "because I fear you were being sold a bill of goods."
It would be impractical for Irish to be spoken in the courts or
legislature, he said, since so few people understand it. And, he
said, children christened with Irish names may in fact be registered
that way with the state, as well as with the universities.
As for radio and TV broadcasting, he said, those policies are not
up to the state. Contrary to what most Americans believe, he said
the British Broadcasting Company is not run by the state but by
a board of independent businesses.
In the matter of illegal Irish street signs, the number of people
who erect them is small and does not represent the majority's wishes.
In short, said Mawhinney, the language is being used by a few as
a political weapon against the state.
OhAdhmaill admits that most of the people who wish to learn Irish
are Catholic, but he insists that the issue transcends politics
because Irish is the original language of both sides.
"We think that the Irish language and culture could be one of the
unifying things," he said. "There are a lot of people talking bout
the differences between us and, in fact, the Irish language is often
seen by unionists as a difference. What we say is that there's
a lot of commonality between us and if we look far enough back in
our history, we can see this heritage."
*******************************************************
There's still quite a bit of the article left....I'll have to save
it for another day. I do think this section raises two interesting
points though. Global competitiveness is getting more and more
visibility. American students are strongly encouraged to take Spanish
because of the tremendous number of people in the world who speak
it. As a matter of fact, I heard an interesting stat, but can't
remember the exact numbers. Basically, it said that by the year
2000 as many DEC employees will be able to speak Spanish as English.
The other interesting thing is the concept of teaching in school
those subjects that are 'popular' or in demand. Surely, few high
school students were clamouring for abstract geometry or midevil
history, but we had to take them.
Just a thought....
|