NationStates

Celritannia wrote:

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:The "law promoting the English language" equivalent is Ulster Scots, which most Irish republicans dismiss as "not a real language" (which is what some English commentators say about the Scots language (it hasn't even been two years since the Scots Wikipedia debacle)) and ridicule. For those not in the know, the two groups don't get on because when the ancestors of the Protestants were (in many cases forcibly) resettled in Northern Ireland the Irish tried to murder them and ally with the people who had sent them there in the first place. This is usually dressed up with talk of "800 years" or "English colonialism" but this is what it actually comes down to when you look at it objectively.

This is seriously an oversimplification of the situation.

Although the colonists to the Ulster plantations were mainly from Scotland, so it was Brotish colonialism, not English colonialism.

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:

The Nihilistic view wrote:
1/3rd of English is French.

As I alluded to in my post. You're like a right-wing Celritannia.

Vassenor wrote:

Aymes wrote:Besides, as I said, demonstrators are being literally bussed in from the Republic of Ireland. Surely it can’t be that popular of a law if the organizers are having to do that.

You mind proving that?

Heloin wrote:There is no need to promote the English language, it’s the most spoken language on earth and 3rd most spoken as a first language.

You’re not very familiar with Irish history either I take it.

Aymes wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
You mind proving that?

I’m quoting an article that someone else here provided.

Heloin wrote:There is no need to promote the English language, it’s the most spoken language on earth and 3rd most spoken as a first language.

I didn’t say there was. I just said that if an attempt was made, it would be derided as poisonous nationalism. Funny how it isn’t when it’s the Irish language.

You’re not very familiar with Irish history either I take it.

It doesn’t matter. Protestors are being bussed in from another nation to protest for something that won’t effect them other than satisfying their political beliefs.

Aymes wrote:

Heloin wrote:There is no need to promote the English language, it’s the most spoken language on earth and 3rd most spoken as a first language.

I didn’t say there was. I just said that if an attempt was made, it would be derided as poisonous nationalism.

Funny how it isn’t when it’s the Irish language.

You’re not very familiar with Irish history either I take it.

It doesn’t matter. Protestors are being bussed in from another nation to protest for something that won’t effect them other than satisfying their political beliefs.

The Nihilistic view wrote:

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:As I alluded to in my post. You're like a right-wing Celritannia.

And you're a Northumbrian Celritannia....

Celritannia wrote:

The Nihilistic view wrote:
And you're a Northumbrian Celritannia....

I am everyone, and everyone is me.

Vassenor wrote:So what makes recognising the Irish language inherently harmful to society such that it must be opposed at every turn like this?

Heloin wrote:Yeah, cause it’d almost certainly be absolutely racist.

Aymes wrote:

Vassenor wrote:So what makes recognising the Irish language inherently harmful to society such that it must be opposed at every turn like this?

I didn’t say any of that, I just don’t get the point of it.

Heloin wrote:Yeah, cause it’d almost certainly be absolutely racist.

As predicted.

So why is it not poisonous nationalism when it’s for the Irish language?

Vassenor wrote:So because you don't get it it must not happen?

Aymes wrote:

Vassenor wrote:So what makes recognising the Irish language inherently harmful to society such that it must be opposed at every turn like this?

I didn’t say any of that, I just don’t get the point of it.

Heloin wrote:Yeah, cause it’d almost certainly be absolutely racist.

As predicted.

So why is it not poisonous nationalism when it’s for the Irish language?

Aymes wrote:

Vassenor wrote:So what makes recognising the Irish language inherently harmful to society such that it must be opposed at every turn like this?

I didn’t say any of that, I just don’t get the point of it.

Heloin wrote:Yeah, cause it’d almost certainly be absolutely racist.

As predicted.

So why is it not poisonous nationalism when it’s for the Irish language?

Heloin wrote:Even ignoring the history of repression and colonialism which you insist on doing how does laws protecting the long declining Irish language in a part of Ireland in any way negatively affect anyone?

Aymes wrote:

Vassenor wrote:So because you don't get it it must not happen?

I don’t think I said that either.

The Nihilistic view wrote:Protecting tradition and culture, I'd say is a conservative thing so there shouldn't really be a problem for an Irish language act and I've never had one.

As for an English one what is the point? It's not in decline and under threat as a living part of our history and culture.

Heloin wrote:I point again to the giant hundred metre letters on the hill that say Irish History. If you wish to treat the Irish language with disdain then learn why the language that was set on it’s path of decline by English colonialism.

Aymes wrote:

Heloin wrote:I point again to the giant hundred metre letters on the hill that say Irish History. If you wish to treat the Irish language with disdain then learn why the language that was set on it’s path of decline by English colonialism.

So nationalism is poisonous unless promoted by nations that are victims.

Heloin wrote:

Aymes wrote:So nationalism is poisonous unless promoted by nations that are victims.

No, nationalism is disgusting when used to promote superiority. When used to protect groups actively attacked or historically repressed then it can be a force of good. While I find you’re gross oversimplification of nationalism off my greater question is why you view protection of the Irish language with disdain.

Aymes wrote:

Heloin wrote:No, nationalism is disgusting when used to promote superiority. When used to protect groups actively attacked or historically repressed then it can be a force of good. While I find you’re gross oversimplification of nationalism off my greater question is why you view protection of the Irish language with disdain.

As I’ve said, several times; I just don’t get the point of it.

A huge majority of people don’t even speak it, and even those that are familiar with it choose not to.

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:

Heloin wrote:You’re not too familiar with Irish history I take it.

Do we speak French? No, we speak English. Therefore you cannot talk about 'why?', insinuating that it is the fault of outside rule, without keeping in mind that the same thing happened in England and we still speak (a blighted form of) English.

Ifreann wrote:

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:Do we speak French? No, we speak English. Therefore you cannot talk about 'why?', insinuating that it is the fault of outside rule, without keeping in mind that the same thing happened in England and we still speak (a blighted form of) English.

The same thing very much did not happen in England, unless your understanding of the periods of history in question is no deeper than "conquered by foreigners".

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:

Ifreann wrote:The same thing very much did not happen in England, unless your understanding of the periods of history in question is no deeper than "conquered by foreigners".

Yes, if anything it was worse in England.

Mtwara wrote:If you think about reviving a language from a purely economic point of view then I'm not sure it makes sense. The world speaks English, what do you need a language nobody else uses for?

But very few things are purely economic.

Ifreann wrote:

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:Yes, if anything it was worse in England.

Clearly not, as you still speak English.

Chan Island wrote:

Mtwara wrote:If you think about reviving a language from a purely economic point of view then I'm not sure it makes sense. The world speaks English, what do you need a language nobody else uses for?

But very few things are purely economic.

Ultimately language comes down to a question of national identity. Many countries are proud to be their own countries (obviously) and their language is one of the main expressions of that difference with the rest of the world.

Whether it's practical or not is an entirely different question, and one I won't wade into.

Ifreann wrote:Clearly not, as you still speak English.

He means pre-William the Conquerer times.

Ifreann wrote:

Chan Island wrote:
Ultimately language comes down to a question of national identity. Many countries are proud to be their own countries (obviously) and their language is one of the main expressions of that difference with the rest of the world.

Whether it's practical or not is an entirely different question, and one I won't wade into.



He means pre-William the Conquerer times.

Yes, I assumed that he was referring to the Normans. Clearly it was not more difficult for the English to keep their language under the Normans than it was for the Irish to keep our language under the English, as the English are not speaking French.