"Belfast" vs "Good Friday" agreement

[WolfeTone]

It's discriminatory, and obviously so

Irish language is not a discriminatory tool against Protestants. It is simply nonsense to suggest so. Irish Protestants are as much entwined with the language in their heritage as anyone else. The conflation of the Irish language as a discriminatory tool against Protestants is borne out of ignorance of the language.

what about the other Protestants who had no interest in the language?

What about Catholics who had no interest in the language, of which there are many?

Put yourself in the position of those Protestants and it is obvious why they would see it was a hostile act towards them.

No different to Catholics who abhor the Irish language and hold a hostile attitude to it.
It is not discriminatory. No more thsn French or German.

It's not their language, it's not part of their culture and ethos.

It is their language. They may disassociate from it today, but their ancestors were native and fluent speakers.
It is only out of ignorance and political contrivance that some Protestants view it with hostility.
It is a language, first and foremost. That nationalist Ireland took on the mantle to revive it is great thing. And like I said, there were many Protestant Irish Nationalists and many Protestant Irish Unionist language enthusiasts.
The first cumman of Conradh na Gaeilge in Ulster was established by two Irish Protestant Unionists.
Writers Alice Milligan, a Protestant, committed to the language revival and George A Birmingham, both of Belfast.
Robert Crawford, Unionist politician. I could go on.

Today, Linda Ervine from East Belfast, sister-in-law to David Ervine, is the project leader for 'Turas', an Irish language based organisation which defines itself as aiming to "connect people from Protestant communities to their own history and language".

This conflation of the Irish language as being hostile to Protestants is a political tool used by some Unionists to sow continued division. It is based on nothing but hatred of anything Gaelic.

 

[odyssey06]

Irish language is not a discriminatory tool against Protestants. It is simply nonsense to suggest so. Irish Protestants are as much entwined with the language in their heritage as anyone else. The conflation of the Irish language as a discriminatory tool against Protestants is borne out of ignorance of the language.

What about Catholics who had no interest in the language, of which there are many?

No different to Catholics who abhor the Irish language and hold a hostile attitude to it.
It is not discriminatory. No more thsn French or German.

It is their language. They may disassociate from it today, but their ancestors were native and fluent speakers.
It is only out of ignorance and political contrivance that some Protestants view it with hostility.
It is a language, first and foremost. That nationalist Ireland took on the mantle to revive it is great thing. And like I said, there were many Protestant Irish Nationalists and many Protestant Irish Unionist language enthusiasts.
The first cumman of Conradh na Gaeilge in Ulster was established by two Irish Protestant Unionists.
Writers Alice Milligan, a Protestant, committed to the language revival and George A Birmingham, both of Belfast.
Robert Crawford, Unionist politician. I could go on.

Today, Linda Ervine from East Belfast, sister-in-law to David Ervine, is the project leader for 'Turas', an Irish language based organisation which defines itself as aiming to "connect people from Protestant communities to their own history and language".

This conflation of the Irish language as being hostile to Protestants is a political tool used by some Unionists to sow continued division. It is based on nothing but hatred of anything Gaelic.

Of course it was discriminatory, how could it be otherwise?

It doesn't matter how many Protestants you list, we are talking about the ones who left and why.
What about the Protestants who had no love or connection to the language and were ignorant of it?
It was also a hostile act towards non Protestants too who had no connection with the language.
It's not their language. It's something foisted on them.
It wasn't the language of their parents, the language they thought in, or wanted anything to do with.

It was the act of a state that declared itself as tolerant of one ethos only.
It was not the act of a state which showed the slightest regard for the concerns of Protestants, or those who didn't subscribe to or become people of the book in terms of a Catholic ascendancy.

The conflation of the Irish language with Irish identity did not just extend to being anti-Protestant, but anti other forms of Irishness.
It is not some conspiracy invented by unionists.
It was the founding ethos of the Irish state to define one type of Irishness as legitimate and everything else tolerated at best if not overtly hostile.

Look up the word 'shibboleth'. That's what it was. It was a weapon of the free state to ensure conformity with their narrow vision of Irishness.
And that narrow vision of Irishness was anti-Protestant. Anti many other things too.

 

[Purple]

When we won our independence from Britain we'd been under British/English rule for centuries and so had to make up a version of Irishness which our leaders thought would have existed if we had never been under the English Yoke. That included the Irish Language, and a very Catholic version of nationalism.
Suggesting that the imposition of the Irish Language as a requirement to get a Public Sector job, and many other State jobs, wasn't a barrier which disproportionately impacted on Protestants is completely bonkers.
Remember that the teaching of Irish didn't become compulsory until 1922.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

If Protestants were leaving the Free State, where did they go?

There is no "if" about it.
But you do raise a mildly interesting supplementary - where did they go? Wiki suggests Protestant girls marrying British soldiers and then moving to where they were posted after WoI, can't be too many surely.
As you point out we don't know how many people were leaving NI anyway and that could confuse the arithmetic. After all these were not great times to be in any part of Ireland.
Similarly if you are a Protestant living in the Free State and decide to up sticks, would the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone be your choice? Might as well do it proper, go to GB or even US.

 

[Purple]

An uncle of mine did a walking tour of Rathmines a few years ago. The guide said that the area was 20% Protestant in 1900 but is less than 5% Protestant now. He asked the guide where they all went and was met with awkward silence.

Where they went is a combination of immigration to the UK and being bred out through inter-marriage with Catholics.
When I went to school in the 1980's our history was very much a Catholic = Irish history. The notable exception was the "Good" Protestant, Wolfe Tone.
Protestants were Anglo-Irish, i.e. not really properly Irish.
Catholics were properly Irish. None of us were ever in favour of the Union with Britain and the minute we had the chance to be free we all took it without hesitation. Oh, and Partition was something that was imposed on us by the Brits, not something which was an inevitable consequence of the absolutist polices of Sinn Fein.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

We must distinguish of course with deliberate discrimination against a minority and creating an environment which as a matter of collateral damage they find discriminatory. Irish falls into that category as do other aspects of social policy such as the ban on divorce and subsequently the ban on contraceptives. Home Rule meant Rome Rule and the Free State was in effect the Vatican State.

 

[Purple]

No reason why Irish people of all persuasions cannot unite and govern themselves in one peaceful democratic country instead of this two state power-sharing nonsense.

History is littered with reasons but the biggest one is that they don't want to because the two tribal groups on the island fall into blind tribalism and absolutist positions at the drop of a hat.

 

[Purple]

We must distinguish of course with deliberate discrimination against a minority and creating an environment which as a matter of collateral damage they find discriminatory. Irish falls into that category as do other aspects of social policy such as the ban on divorce and subsequently the ban on contraceptives. Home Rule meant Rome Rule and the Free State was in effect the Vatican State.

So it was aa kind of Institutional Racism. Is that what you are saying? If so I agree with you.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

So it was aa kind of Institutional Racism. Is that what you are saying? If so I agree with you.

Oh no, not the R word
It was a Catholic state for a Catholic people. Protestants couldn't get johnnies (at least not legit)
NI was a Protestant state for a Protestant people. Catholics couldn't play on the swings on Sundays (at least not legit)

 

[Purple]

Oh no, not the R word
It was a Catholic state for a Catholic people. Protestants couldn't get johnnies (at least not legit)
NI was a Protestant state for a Protestant people. Catholics couldn't play on the swings on Sundays (at least not legit)

Okay, Institutional Tribalism. Is that better?

 

[WolfeTone]

Of course it was discriminatory, how could it be otherwise?

Because to discriminate is to unjustly treat a person or persons unfavourably over others. The Irish language does not such thing, whether you were Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim....whatever.
You have conflated Irish language as something that is purely Catholic. It is not. To think that suggests there is mass discrimination today against a host of people of other religions who learn Irish.
Irish language has nothing to do with religion. Far more Catholics had as much detatchment from the Irish language as any Protestant ever did. I know, I went to Catholic school.

we are talking about the ones who left and why.

Yes, and I am saying that the Irish language was not a reason for people to upsticks and leave.
The Free State came into being in 1921. The Government of Ireland Act, 1920, does not even mention the Irish language. Its status as equal standing with English did not emerge until Bunreacht na hÉireann in 1937.
Irish language in 1921, while in decline, was still prevalant in many areas of Ireland with a majority of people in Ireland being one or two (at most) generations away from it being their mother tongue.
That Irish people could not decide to teach Irish in schools to their children to preserve a native language without is causing offence to Protestants says all you need to know about the mindset of those Protestants, albeit I suspect relatively few.

What about the Protestants who had no love or connection to the language and were ignorant of it?

What about the Catholics who had no love or connection to the language?

It's not their language.

Tell that to the Protestants that clearly demonstrate their love and connection to their language.

It wasn't the language of their parents, the language they thought in, or wanted anything to do with.

In many instances, it was. It is a Gaelic language that encompasses different dialects like Ulster-Scots, Connacht and Munster. They are all part of the Gaelic language family tree. It being the language and heritage of Protestants.

It was the act of a state that declared itself as tolerant of one ethos only.

This is not true. Its not as if English was banned or discouraged. The business of government proceeded in English, daily life proceeded in English etc...this is simply not true.
Trying to promote something to preserve something does does not equate to discriminatory policy against anything else unless that policy acts unfavourably to something else. Then that is discrimination.

 

[WolfeTone]

Suggesting that the imposition of the Irish Language as a requirement to get a Public Sector job, and many other State jobs, wasn't a barrier which disproportionately impacted on Protestants is completely bonkers.

It is absolutely bonkers! You are suggesting that Irish was alien to a Protestant family in Galway anymore that a Catholic family? That would be perposterous. What had their religion go to do with it?
As I have pointed out, some of the leading cheerleaders of the Gaelic League and the revival of the Irish language were Protestant. Douglas de hÍde was the founder of Conradh na Gaeilge.

Remember that the teaching of Irish didn't become compulsory until 1922.

Exactly. So a Protestant child going to school in Limerick, or Louth, or Laois, will have the same opportunity, the same requirement, as a Catholic child. Why on earth would Irish be a barrier to an Irish Protestant anymore than an Irish Catholic in the same circumstance?

 

[odyssey06]

Because to discriminate is to unjustly treat a person or persons unfavourably over others. The Irish language does not such thing, whether you were Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim....whatever.
You have conflated Irish language as something that is purely Catholic. It is not. To think that suggests there is mass discrimination today against a host of people of other religions who learn Irish.
Irish language has nothing to do with religion. Far more Catholics had as much detatchment from the Irish language as any Protestant ever did. I know, I went to Catholic school.

This is not true. Its not as if English was banned or discouraged. The business of government proceeded in English, daily life proceeded in English etc...this is simply not true.
Trying to promote something to preserve something does does not equate to discriminatory policy against anything else unless that policy acts unfavourably to something else. Then that is discrimination.

It wasn't merely promoted, it was mandated. It was compelled.
The Irish language is not a badge of Irishness, but that is how the state deployed it.
They were the ones who conflated it, in conjunction with religion and language in their narrow concept of what it meant to be Irish.
To discriminate is also to deploy the power of the state in a manner that is hostile and contrary to how minorities live their lives in a society at a macro level. People who were already living in that society. The policy acted unfavourably to those people.
Enforced conformity.
It was also enforced conformity against those Catholics too. It was intolerant of all other forms of Irishness. That doesn't mean it wasn't discriminatory against Protesants. Such a policy has ripples.

The Irish Free State was a bigoted intolerant one, and that was how it deployed language and religion, in an exclusionist manner.

Of course a language does not have to be any of those things, but it becomes that when deployed in the manner it was in Ireland.

 

[WolfeTone]

There is no "if" about it.

I agree. Its the extent of it that I question. In any case, the Irish language would have had little impact of people upping sticks.

 

[WolfeTone]

The Irish language is not a badge of Irishness, but that is how the state deployed it.
They were the ones who conflated it, in conjunction with religion and language in their narrow concept of what it meant to be Irish.

I do not disagree with this entirely, but my point is that the Irish language being thought in Irish schools was an extremely unlikely motivator for Protestant families to leave Ireland. It makes no sense, save any Protestants that did not identify as Irish in the first place, but rather British. But I hope you are not suggesting that most Protestants in Ireland (26 county) identified as British? They most certainly did not, they identified as Irish. The Irish language being every bit as much as their heritage as anyone else.

 

[odyssey06]

I do not disagree with this entirely, but my point is that the Irish language being thought in Irish schools was an extremely unlikely motivator for Protestant families to leave Ireland. It makes no sense, save any Protestants that did not identify as Irish in the first place, but rather British. But I hope you are not suggesting that most Protestants in Ireland (26 county) identified as British? They most certainly did not, they identified as Irish. The Irish language being every bit as much as their heritage as anyone else.

I think it was a 'push' factor along with religion and economic prospects and social prospects ... for people who were looking at their prospects in the new state. Not saying it was the main factor but part of set.
If you were Anglo-Irish with a foot in both camps, so to speak. Identity isn't just binary... think of a 1922 version of Declan Rice or Eoin Morgan.

Not just that it was taught in schools but that it became a shibboleth for progress in the state's administration and education sector.
It is one thing for it to be part of one's heritage and approached in that manner, another thing entirely for it to be used for that purpose.

Almost more so because the language used day to day was English, did people perceice it blatantly as a loyalty test \ conformity test?
Or perhaps a concern Irish would become the language of day to day administration, and someone trying to pick it up later in life would always be at disadvantage to those with a gra\connection to the language in terms of advancement.

Whether you agree it was discriminatory or not, or whether all Protestants should have seen the Irish language as part of their heritage, in 1922 it was not viewed that way by large numbers of them north and south. And by many Catholics too. Mandating the language politicised it unnecessarily and was a clear signal that the Free State was not putting out any bridges to such people.
That the new state would not be a place where such people had a future.

 

[WolfeTone]

Mandating the language politicised it unnecessarily and was a clear signal that the Free State was not putting out any bridges to such people.

I simply reject this. Irish is a language. A fundamental and intrinsic part of human communication. The Irish language long in decline, not least because of policies that discriminated against it, is part of this country's heritage and culture. It is as much as part of the fabric of the Irish identity and culture as anything else that identifies the Irish identity.

That some, most prominently Irish Protestants, sought to revive their language at the turn of the 20th century is to their credit. Their efforts are paying dividends. While only some 80,000 are native speakers, some 250,000 can speak the language fluently. A further 1.6m claim to be able to speak Irish. Whatever the merits of how well they can speak it, it speaks volumes to me for the regard the language is held in this country - thank you Irish Protestants!

The mindset that objects to efforts, or laws introduced, to support and revive a native language is a closed ignorant mindset.

At the end of the day, the coldhouse for Protestants is gone in the 26 counties, the population increasing by some 86% in last 30yrs. I was brought up as a Roman Catholic, but if I had the option I would have picked Protestant. I think their version of Christianity is closer to the word of JC.

Can the same be said for Catholics in NI? To all intents and purposes yes, but the reason for partition - "Rome Rule" is gone, replaced by remaining in the UK.

 

[WolfeTone]

The 1901 census indicates that nearly 80% of mixed-marriages resulted in any children being brought up as Catholics, even before the Vatican issued Ne Temere in 1907,[2] which meant that children in all mixed-marriages must be brought up as Catholics.

No doubt this is a factor. Although why the stat restricts itself to 15% of 'male' Protestants I'm not sure? Surely the same outcome for female Protestants marrying Catholic men?

In any case, assuming 15% of Protestant population marrying into mixed marriages, it would account for some decline I'm sure - far more than the Irish language being taught at schools invoking Protestant families to upsticks. Although it became compulsory under statute in 1922, Irish was taught in many Irish schools long before then, including Protestant students.

How else would an Irish Protestants like De hÍde or Carson become fluent Irish speakers?

The Catholic Church was the main force driving the ethnic cleansing of our Protestant population after independence.

Perhaps, but it has nothing to do with the Irish language.

When I went to school in the 1980's our history was very much a Catholic = Irish history. The notable exception was the "Good" Protestant, Wolfe Tone.

But you are talking about a Catholic and Protestant history. What has that got to do with Irish language?

You must have been asleep the day aside from the reference to my good self . In my Catholic school history teaching there was little doubt about the greatness of Irish Protestants such as:

Parnell, Emmet, Casement, Douglas de hÍde -first President of Catholic 'coldhouse' Ireland. Maybe one day in the 21st century, there will be a Catholic First Minister in NI? Imagine that?

Sam Maguire, Erskine Childers and his son Erskine Robert (the second Protestant President of Ireland), Thomas Russell, Isaac Butt, William Shaw....

I'm stealing from Wiki now;

"...Other Protestant Nationalist members of [British] parliament were: Sir John Gray, Stephen Gwynn, Henry Harrison, Jeremiah Jordan, William McDonald, J. G. Swift MacNeill, James Maguire, Pierce Charles de Lacy O'Mahony, Isaac Nelson, John Pinkerton, Horace Plunkett and Samuel Young."

The point being, Irish Protestant Nationalism is very much an integral part of Irelands struggle for independence from Westminster rule.

Partition drove a knife through that sentiment.

Partition is the on-going ill on this island - London knows it, Brussels knows it, Dublin knows it, Washington knows it, dogs on the street know it.

Irish falls into that category as do other aspects of social policy such as the ban on divorce and subsequently the ban on contraceptives. Home Rule meant Rome Rule and the Free State was in effect the Vatican State.

That is just lazy whataboutery. As if there was no such thing as a conservative Protestant or Catholic in NI in 2021.

 

[Purple]

I think it was a 'push' factor along with religion and economic prospects and social prospects ... for people who were looking at their prospects in the new state. Not saying it was the main factor but part of set.
If you were Anglo-Irish with a foot in both camps, so to speak. Identity isn't just binary... think of a 1922 version of Declan Rice or Eoin Morgan.

Not just that it was taught in schools but that it became a shibboleth for progress in the state's administration and education sector.
It is one thing for it to be part of one's heritage and approached in that manner, another thing entirely for it to be used for that purpose.

Almost more so because the language used day to day was English, did people perceice it blatantly as a loyalty test \ conformity test?
Or perhaps a concern Irish would become the language of day to day administration, and someone trying to pick it up later in life would always be at disadvantage to those with a gra\connection to the language in terms of advancement.

Whether you agree it was discriminatory or not, or whether all Protestants should have seen the Irish language as part of their heritage, in 1922 it was not viewed that way by large numbers of them north and south. And by many Catholics too. Mandating the language politicised it unnecessarily and was a clear signal that the Free State was not putting out any bridges to such people.
That the new state would not be a place where such people had a future.

Excellent post. Catholic Ireland, one Nation Gaelic and Free, was a cold place for Protestants (West Brits). They had held a dual Irish and British identity for generations but all of a sudden they had to suppress that British identity and embrace a made up version of a Gaelic Ireland that was totally alien to them in order to fit in.

To be blunt there's absolutely no point in arguing this with Wolfie as his opinions on the subject are immutable.

I base my opinions on my reading of Irish history and from speaking to Protestant relatives, most of whose family moved to Northern Ireland between the 30's and 50's, and elderly Protestant friends in South Wexford whose Grandparents remember the foundation of the State. It would seem, from what @WolfeTone is telling us, that their experiences were actually false, and they didn't actually feel the way they remember feeling. Their family members left their country for erroneous reasons.

 

[Purple]

What about Catholics who had no interest in the language, of which there are many?

What about the Catholics who had no love or connection to the language?

Indeed

That is just lazy whataboutery.