|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jul 11, 2019 13:42:00 GMT
I agree with SOTC that some measure of coercion combined with incentive is needed. I believe the far-right party of the 40s Ailtirí na hAiséirghe had a plan for a three year phasing out of English while people would get to grips with Irish. Of course, you can't cite Israel as a model for anything given the rabid anti-Israel sentiment in Ireland. Maybe the masses would be more amenable to the Catalan example, which has all the correct "lefty" creds? I have a slight intuition that a Catholic revival would help the language, but there's not a likelihood of that anytime in the future, it seems. I find it hard to envisage any grand revival of the language on a national scale, but that is not an excuse for not making one's own personal efforts of course. If history teaches us one thing, it's that we can't predict the future so who knows what will happen? Yes, they did have something like that (I forget the details). I just finished reading Architects of the Resurrection by R.M. Douglas which gives the history of this fascinating party. I've also read their newspaper, in the Special Collections of my own library. The fact that they took the Irish language seriously was much of what drew people to Ailtirí (insofar as people were drawn; they had only modest success at the best of times). Apparently, rather than the cúpla focail of most platform speakers, their public meetings would begin with a significant amount of Irish. But their Leader, Gearóid Ó Cuinneagáin, was apparently the only member who had the proficiency in Irish to use it as his primary means of communication.
|
|
|
Post by kj on Jul 11, 2019 13:48:32 GMT
That's a great book - I read it a few years back and must read it again. If I recall from the notes there was either a radio or TV documentary on them I would love to see.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jul 11, 2019 13:59:27 GMT
I was rather amused by the fact that the members objected to An Ceannaire, Gearóid Ó Cuinneagáin, becoming too dictatorial in the latter days of the party-- rather ironic considering the goal of the party was to create a single-party dictatorship in Ireland!
|
|
|
Post by servantofthechief on Jul 11, 2019 17:46:00 GMT
I don't believe the Ethnic Irish are going to be a minority in the near future on this island, ironically enough, because of the sudden influx of massive numbers of foreigners. Not only is it unsustainable, but it's going to provoke a backlash sooner or later, and if the rest of Europe is anything to go by, it'll be a political backlash before its violent. Its happening here far faster than its happened anywhere else in Europe, it's much more of a shock. Hopefully anyway. So retreating to simply preserving Irishness as a cultural tradition for a multiracial state in the future is not only unnecessary, its giving up the fight before its lost.
I will concede that culturally, you can culturally convert other peoples and by that means, sure you could count them as Irish. But this is not an argument that there is not, indeed, a hard connection between culture and ethnicity, indeed its not an argument that there isn't a soft connection. America has been culturally converting the world for decades, but not any of us are American, however. You can't really say ethnicity is based on culture and traditions because we have no means of going back in time and determining which came first, the culture or the ethnicity. At a certain point you're just going to have to 'call it' and go with it. And reason dictates the people existed before the culture that they define and which in turn defines them. I am not against assimilation of non-Irish immigrents into our culture and considering them Irish, indeed, Irish culture was infamous for culturally converting its conquerors, the Norse and then later the Normans. But we genuinely have to be reasonable here, once both of those people had the same religion, there was only the language and the culture barrier to integration, not a racial one which will always make a community distinct from the majority that surrounds it, even if all other factors are equal. These days we're confronted with hard racial barriers that even if we somehow convert them to Catholicism, our language, way of life and so on, will always see themselves as different and will always be seen as different. Thats just a simple reality that will exist in even the best possible outcome of this situation.
Frankly, while I acknowledge handing our enemies swords to beat us with in the terms of dismissing us as racists, nativists, etc, by adopting these lines, is no help, its irrelevant. They're going to do that to us anyway. They do that to Americans who just want to enforce the English Language and encourage Latinos and Mexican immigrants to assimilate. They do that to Trump who is basically Orange Hitler to them, as hyperbolic as that is. And if we don't define this matter on our terms, like I have said in the past, the genuine racists will. That's the sword I'm afraid of giving over to an enemy. The reason right now that the term Ethno-nationalist defines everyone from Cultural Nationalists to White Seperatists and everyone inbetween, is because as a whole, these are the groups that even bother addressing the question of ethnicity at all, even if only in the terms of culture-as-ethnicity. Thats why its such a large umbrella, not because everyone in it is actually remotely close to one another ideologically.
As for the tension between Church and Nationalism, I will concede, it exists today because of the current words and endorsements coming out of the Church leaders regarding being pro-Globalism, and pro-Immigration. But this is not the Church's teaching, nor is it magisterially mandated. I will admit I have not read Pope St. John Paul II's encyclical on the matter, but there is a great deal of difference between deportation as in returning one to their original homeland, or deportation as general exile, or deportation of long standing peoples in order to ethnically cleanse them. Dealing with immigrants here in Ireland, the vast majority of home do not fit the third or even the second definition. Indeed, there is a humane way of encouraging people to leave, and that is what Israel itself did (acknowledging KJ's point that citing Israel as an example might not go over well given the largely anti-Israel sentiment in Left Wing Ireland) namely paying them to leave. Giving each family a lump sum and paying for their departure, as well as preventing illegal immigration into the country and limiting legal immigration to sane limits. Some will definitely not leave even if offered this, I am going to go ahead and state the vast majority of muslims living here probably won't leave, their religion demands them to stay in any foreign country they move to as part of conquest for Islam, albeit a more peaceful variant than violent Jihad. But its been proven to work. Again its a carrot and stick approach. The stick is deporting criminal immigrants as well as those here illegally and forcibly stopping further illegal immigration and making it harder to immigrate here legally, and the carrot is us biting the bullet and taking the economic hit to make it more profitable for immigrants already here to leave back to their own country, or whichever country they want to and can leave to.
Yes its an economic hit, but however many millions it would cost is pocket change when compared to the BILLIONS we have paid to the debt we bought from the Banks in 2008, and the billions more we yet owe that will never be paid off. No one can convince me paying off the immigrants is somehow going to break us financially when this chicanery is still going on.
If this sounds a bit heartless, I apologise, but I have to be realistic here, and the reality is there are forces at work in the world who at the very least, seek to further the mass migration of peoples for the sake of profit, if not outright for the sake of disrupting the harmony of states in Europe. If we want to solve this peacefully, its going to take a strong hand at least in some areas and what I have outlined here, is the bare minimum to guarantee stability in Ireland's future. We are being taken advantage of and effeminacy in the face of base exploitation of our country is just wrong. We have a right to defend our country and we are under attack, just because its not armies with guns and bombs does not change the fact its a form of warfare. A long march is still a march.
Admittedly we are a bit off track from the revival of the Irish language here, but my point stands: All talk of revival of the Irish language and culture is moot if we're not willing to at least tangentially address the elephant in the room, or pretend it can be papered over.
I do, like KJ, believe a revival of Catholicism in Ireland would go a long way to the revitalization of Gaelicization of the country, but apart from our own efforts at personal holiness and encouraging others to do the same, we need to trust in God to help sort out the Church. God knows we need His help.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jul 12, 2019 12:00:12 GMT
Frankly, while I acknowledge handing our enemies swords to beat us with in the terms of dismissing us as racists, nativists, etc, by adopting these lines, is no help, its irrelevant. They're going to do that to us anyway. They do that to Americans who just want to enforce the English Language and encourage Latinos and Mexican immigrants to assimilate. They do that to Trump who is basically Orange Hitler to them, as hyperbolic as that is. And if we don't define this matter on our terms, like I have said in the past, the genuine racists will. That's the sword I'm afraid of giving over to an enemy. The reason right now that the term Ethno-nationalist defines everyone from Cultural Nationalists to White Seperatists and everyone inbetween, is because as a whole, these are the groups that even bother addressing the question of ethnicity at all, even if only in the terms of culture-as-ethnicity. Thats why its such a large umbrella, not because everyone in it is actually remotely close to one another ideologically. I definitely agree with you that accusations of prejudice are thrown around willy-nilly and to a ridiculous degree today-- even among conservatives, and Catholics, and conservative Catholics. It's undoubtedly true that anyone who shows even the mildest tinge of nationalism, patriotism, or particularism of any kind is going to be lambasted as a bigot by a lot of people. There's a kind of hysteria at play, and there has been for decades now. And yet, I do think that distinctions are made-- not by the hysterics, but by the "silent majority", so to speak. Take Nigel Farage and UKIP. Although Nigel Farage has been branded a racist and a bigot countless times, I think the majority of sensible people realize that he's no such thing. That mud has never really stuck. Nor did it stick to UKIP under his tenure. But when UKIP moved more towards anti-jihadism, and something of a fixation with Islam, their electoral fortunes plummeted while Nigel Farage's Brexit Party did wonderfully well. I think there is still a great number, perhaps a majority, of ordinary people who don't take the wilder accusations or bigotry seriously, but who might be put off when there are more credible accusations (even if those accusations might not be fair themselves).
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jul 12, 2019 12:09:17 GMT
As for the tension between Church and Nationalism, I will concede, it exists today because of the current words and endorsements coming out of the Church leaders regarding being pro-Globalism, and pro-Immigration. But this is not the Church's teaching, nor is it magisterially mandated. I will admit I have not read Pope St. John Paul II's encyclical on the matter, but there is a great deal of difference between deportation as in returning one to their original homeland, or deportation as general exile, or deportation of long standing peoples in order to ethnically cleanse them. Dealing with immigrants here in Ireland, the vast majority of home do not fit the third or even the second definition. Indeed, there is a humane way of encouraging people to leave, and that is what Israel itself did (acknowledging KJ's point that citing Israel as an example might not go over well given the largely anti-Israel sentiment in Left Wing Ireland) namely paying them to leave. Giving each family a lump sum and paying for their departure, as well as preventing illegal immigration into the country and limiting legal immigration to sane limits. Some will definitely not leave even if offered this, I am going to go ahead and state the vast majority of muslims living here probably won't leave, their religion demands them to stay in any foreign country they move to as part of conquest for Islam, albeit a more peaceful variant than violent Jihad. But its been proven to work. Again its a carrot and stick approach. The stick is deporting criminal immigrants as well as those here illegally and forcibly stopping further illegal immigration and making it harder to immigrate here legally, and the carrot is us biting the bullet and taking the economic hit to make it more profitable for immigrants already here to leave back to their own country, or whichever country they want to and can leave to. Yes its an economic hit, but however many millions it would cost is pocket change when compared to the BILLIONS we have paid to the debt we bought from the Banks in 2008, and the billions more we yet owe that will never be paid off. No one can convince me paying off the immigrants is somehow going to break us financially when this chicanery is still going on. If this sounds a bit heartless, I apologise, but I have to be realistic here, and the reality is there are forces at work in the world who at the very least, seek to further the mass migration of peoples for the sake of profit, if not outright for the sake of disrupting the harmony of states in Europe. I definitely agree there is an open borders/multiculturalist agenda which is motivated not by humanitarianism but rather from a desire to destroy the nation state and national cultures. I do believe that. It makes this a very complicated issue. But as for the question of whether current Church teaching on immigration is magisterially mandated, well, it's VERY difficult (in my view) to define what teaching of the Church is magisterial and what is not. And so easy (again, in my view) to pass into a la carte Catholicism of the left OR the right. And I fear I have done that in the past.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Jul 12, 2019 20:35:30 GMT
I definitely agree there is an open I/multiculturalist agenda which is motivated not by humanitarianism but rather from a desire to destroy the nation state and national cultures. I do believe that. It makes this a very complicated issue.
But as for the question of whether current Church teaching on immigration is magisterially mandated, well, it's VERY difficult (in my view) to define what teaching of the Church is magisterial and what is not. And so easy (again, in my view) to pass into a la carte Catholicism of the left OR the right. And I fear I have done that in the past. [/quote]
This is a very interesting topic . I am old enough to remember being taught the church teaches infallibly on faith and morals but beyond that we are free to dispute with the views of the Irish Bishops or even the pope on matters of public policy that do not directly touch on the faith. The then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said in the early 2000s that US Catholics could disagree with the abolitionist views of their hierarchy and the papacy and remain good Catholics. Nuclear weapons was another important issue mentioned by Ratzinger from what I recall. Bishops naturally tend to assume their gems of wisdom are the last words on any given subject but we are not obliged to accept such s maximist view of church authority.
This has strayed a lot from the Irish language debate so I will start a thread under the Religion section soon.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Jul 18, 2019 0:01:57 GMT
Although statistics like Israel's use of Hebrew may not be an absolute precedent,it can be generally interesting to notice the parallels elsewhere. A few people that attend the traditional mass here may receive the Clairval newsletter. What struck me about the latest subject (Josef MayrNusser,beatified by PopeFrancis) wasn't just his martyrdom by Nazis or work as a lay-evangelist at a time when only 10% of North Tyrol's residents were regular-mass Catholics,but that he also defied the forced extinction of their particular culture,speaking Tyrolean-German after it was banned for political reasons. The region had had Austrian,Italian and nazi German administration during his life. "In great secrecy they founded a movement called the Andreas Hofer Bund...to defend Tyrolean identity and culture. Josef MayrNusser joined this resistance" Hopefully the beatification will say something to the present citizens,I'd be dismayed to learn that they all speak English now (Tyrol Abú)
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jul 18, 2019 10:14:48 GMT
Although statistics like Israel's use of Hebrew may not be an absolute precedent,it can be generally interesting to notice the parallels elsewhere. A few people that attend the traditional mass here may receive the Clairval newsletter. What struck me about the latest subject (Josef MayrNusser,beatified by PopeFrancis) wasn't just his martyrdom by Nazis or work as a lay-evangelist at a time when only 10% of North Tyrol's residents were regular-mass Catholics,but that he also defied the forced extinction of their particular culture,speaking Tyrolean-German after it was banned for political reasons. The region had had Austrian,Italian and nazi German administration during his life. "In great secrecy they founded a movement called the Andreas Hofer Bund...to defend Tyrolean identity and culture. Josef MayrNusser joined this resistance" Hopefully the beatification will say something to the present citizens,I'd be dismayed to learn that they all speak English now (Tyrol Abú) It always seems a tragedy to me when any tradition is lost, especially a linguistic tradition. This is why I'm not actually that keen on immigrants to a country assimilating to the native culture. They have their own traditions and culture, and it's sad to see them lose this. This is why my preference would be against mass movement of peoples in the first place, and against any knd of multiculturalism. But if we must have multiculturalism, give me "salad bowl" multulturalism over "melting pot" multiculturalism.
|
|