"Belfast" vs "Good Friday" agreement

Singing it in Irish was part of the makey-up Irishness we invented after Independence in order to create a non-British national identity.

Not wanting to go down the rabbit-hole of Irish identity, or 'non-British' identity, but there was nothing "makey-up" about it all.
A mere 50yrs before partition (1970's in our time) there was still a near 1m native Irish speakers on the island. 50yrs before that, a near 4 million speakers.
Many of those who led the charge for Irish independence were native speakers and many more were inspired to take the fight for independence as a consequence of seeing their native language, their culture and heritage in decline.

Nothing "makey-up" about it all.
 
I don't think it would have a snowball's chance in hell of gaining popular support. The majority in Northern Ireland might eventually support it but not in this country.

After that, we all just get on with the normal business of managing our social and economic affairs through normal parliamentary affairs.

Whats not to like?
I read that the first time as, "After that, we all just get on with the normal business of managing our social and economic affairs through normal paramilitary affairs.".
 
We'll have to agree to disagree.
The fact remains that the song was written in English.
 
May I ask, why you would think that? I'm pretty sure the vast majority in this country are in favour of a UI.
They are in favour of a UI but I don't think that holds if it requires membership of the Commonwealth, the Union Flag in the corner of our flag, the British Monarch as our head of State etc. That's why the specifics are important. The principle of a UI has been established with the GFA so there's no need for a vote based on a vague aspiration.
 
The fact remains that the song was written in English.

I'm not disputing that at all. Why wouldn't it be written in English? A language profoundly part of our culture and identity.
What I dispute is the notion that the Irish language was being used as part of some concerted effort to "makey-up" an Irish identity.
 
It was part of it but when I was in school we learned a very one-eye's version of Irish history. The political, cultural and civic contribution made by the Protestant Anglo-Irish was largely ignored.
 
when I was in school we learned a very one-eye's version of Irish history. The political, cultural and civic contribution made by the Protestant Anglo-Irish was largely ignored

I don't dispute that, but what you are talking about is more about bad teaching of history rather than anything else.
The exclusion of culture and civic contribution is not restricted to Protestant Anglo-Irish.
Sport, music, art, science, business were also broadly ignored and if I understand correctly still are. It seems only what is happening is the political and military arena is fit for purpose.
Where is the recognition for Éamonn Coughlan? Putting a bankrupt economic basket case back on the international map. Barry McGuigan, a world champion fighter (his fight against Pedroza was a masterclass performance. That Pedroza was also a magnificent champion made the fight so special) in the midst of civil strife NI rose above it uniting friend and foe. NI football team in Espana 82, Jacks Army, Kerry football of the 1970's and '80s. Kilkenny hurlers. The Chieftains, U2, Christy, Phil Lynott, Dubliners, Undertones, etc, etc

These are people, the events, that transcend the normal humdrum of ordinary life and propel our sense of pride in who we are and where we come from, this is our identity and culture every bit as much as anything or anybody else. The propelling of Gaelic culture above almost everything else is just bad teaching, derived from bad policy makers.
 
It was part of it but when I was in school we learned a very one-eye's version of Irish history.
That was also my experience
The political, cultural and civic contribution made by the Protestant Anglo-Irish was largely ignored.
Parnell, Douglas Hyde, Yeats were certainly well covered where I went to school. Looking back a little further Grattan, Castlereagh, Emmet and of course above all our friend's name sake.

I am sorry you feel that your schooling failed you but I think you are overcompensating here and becoming just a little cranky with it.
the makey-up Irishness we invented after Independence in order to create a non-British national identity.
 
Parnell, Douglas Hyde, Yeats were certainly well covered where I went to school. Looking back a little further Grattan, Castlereagh, Emmet and of course above all our friend's name sake.
I certainly remember covering poets but not in my history class. Grattan and Castlereagh didn't get much coverage and certainly not in the context of their Anglo-Irish identity.
We covered writers and poets in English class, though strangely ignoring the most successful Irish writer ever, Bram Stoker.

We didn't learn anything about Irish people who took the Kings Shilling and went around the world cracking heads for the Crown. The history I learned ignored the reality that for generations a sizable proportion of people here, possibly the majority, considered themselves British. My family certainly wasn't in that group but many were. Maybe if my family weren't dirt poor they would have embraced the status quo as well.
I am sorry you feel that your schooling failed you but I think you are overcompensating here and becoming just a little cranky with it.
I'm just a little cranky for lots of reasons.
 
Every nation has its "creation myths" - we emerged for a misty bog with Clannad playing, pure born celts spontaneously spawned, thereafter we fought to overthrow the evil empire next door in a job not yet finished.

The Brits had their magnificent empire on which the sun never set, before either scramling into a Spitfire to save humanity or exhibiting 'Blitz spirit'.

Both are fairytales, both have bits of truth. I wouldn't go beating ourselves up over the lack of purity of our myths - in fact purity leads people down the racist route. Overall I think its fair to say we were badly served by the British empire - they were happy enough to let millions of us starve or get displaced after all - and while our little country has never been perfect in its 100 years to date it has improved quite a bit in the last 50 (thank you EU), of that we should be proud and there'll be no hankering back to the (fairly battered) UK. A modern European nation that will welcome all from the 6, and if that's not good enough then there's always the boat. Accommodation and welcome, but not tail wagging dog.
 
We covered writers and poets in English class, though strangely ignoring the most successful Irish writer ever, Bram Stoker.
I'm fairly sure that the most successful Irish writer ever, in terms of single volume sales at least, was Eamon Dunphy.
 
Actually, I think this is the most interesting question in Irish history, and its not just a matter of history, what part of the Irish people considered themselves British or not and how that changed over time. Maybe we can open a thread on that at some point.
 
I'm fairly sure that the most successful Irish writer ever, in terms of single volume sales at least, was Eamon Dunphy.
I think Bram Stoker might pip him on that. Certainly when it comes to TV and Movie adaptations.
 
I dunno, 33 pages of this... have you the energy?
 
We can't hold a commemoration for the former police force of this Island. Now it's being held in London. The Shinners won't attend a commemoration for two Gardaí murdered by the IRA. It speaks volumes about the gulf between our supposed aspiration to have a united Ireland and the reality of what would be involved.
Mick Clifford has a good take on it here.
 

Funny how our friends across the pond forget they were invaded by the Italians, Germans, Norwegians and French (AKA the Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Normans) not to mention having to go to the Dutch to see if they could borrow a Prince to make him King.

Converse of that is that St Patrick would probably be a British citizen if he was alive today.
 
They forget that they were conquered by the French. They choose to call them the Normans but they were French. They spoke French and had lived in France for over a hundred years. They forget that Richard the Lionheart was French, spoke French and only spent two years of his life in England. Their fans go to football and rugby matches dressed as Crusaders (which would be like the Germans going dressed as the SS) but the red cross on a white background is what the French wore. The English wore a white cross on a red background.
Yes, the Brit's are brilliant at historical selectivism. We should take a leaf out of their book because our version creates more division and disunity.