Monday 17 October 2011

Do Unionist politicians understand what British means?


There was a furore in the Northern Ireland Assembly last week when SDLP MLA Dominic Bradley was censured following a spat involving the Irish language.

Bradley was in the process of asking a question in Irish (which he was going to translate to English), when he was interrupted by David McNarry of the UUP (you can read the transcript here).

McNarry is an extremist when it comes to Irish, having tried to ban the language in the Assembly a number of years ago.

Bradley objected to being barracked by McNarry, but instead of being allowed to carry on he was asked to sit down by the Deputy Speaker, Roy Beggs. He refused and was later sent a letter by the main Speaker, Willie Hay, saying he would be denied speaking rights for an unspecified period.

The sorry episode is another example of hostility to the Irish language among Unionist politicians. It shows that they oppose the language even when spoken by peaceful constitutional nationalists like the SDLP.

All bases are covered in Stormont when it comes to the language. If it's a few words of Irish at the start of a speech it's tokenism, if it's half in Irish and half in English it wastes time and if simultaneous translation was proposed that would be waste of money. The message is clear - no Irish speakers about the place.

Antipathy to the Irish language has been a feature of British politicians in Ireland since the Middle Ages, so this is not something new.

Various reasons are given by today's Unionist parties for their hostility to Irish, one of which is that it is a threat to Northern Ireland's Britishness, an argument that has been made by people in the DUP, UUP and TUV.

These parties' entire world view is defined by being British. They are British in the same way that Americans are American or Danes are Danish, yet many of them don't seem to understand what 'British' actually means.

British, by definition, incorporates cultures and characteristics that are indigenous to or have developed in the United Kingdom. We are told that it is an inclusive, 'umbrella' term which covers English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish identities. It allows people to be English and British, Scottish and British, Welsh and British etc.

The Unionist parties say that Northern Ireland is British, which is why they often have images of the six counties covered in the Union Jack, so that means that cultures indigenous to Northern Ireland are also British (this also holds for the rest of Ireland for people who use the term 'British Isles').

Scots and Welsh people complain that many in England use the word 'British' when what they really mean is English. It seems that many Unionist politicians in the North think the same too.

If they believe Northern Ireland is British, they have to accept that the Irish is a British language in the same way as Unionists in Scotland and Wales say their indigenous languages are. In fact, compared to the respect shown to Scottish Gaelic and Welsh in Britain, Unionist opposition to the Irish language is downright anti-British.

Of course, the above definition of Britishness is the de jure one. The de facto definition has been different - culturally and politically, Great Britain can often seem like Greater England.

In terms of language, one thing is clear, the Union has been a complete and utter disaster. Manx, Cornish, Channel Island French and Irish (in the parts of Ireland that remained in the UK) have been wiped out as community languages, Scottish Gaelic is at death's door, Scots has been ridiculed and marginalised while even Welsh is under severe pressure from English in its heartland.

The de facto definition of Britishness promoted in Britain and Ireland until recent decades was Englishness, essentially. Things have changed in Scotland and Wales, and some people in Northern Ireland like the UUP's Basil McCrea have too , but it's about time other Unionist politicians realised that English and British are not the same thing.

www.twitter.com/colmobroin

6 comments:

  1. "Of course, the above definition of Britishness is the de jure one."

    I ndáirire? cad é an "ius", má tá?

    An Bhreatain? Nach úsáidtear an t-ainm sin i leaba An Ríocht Aontaithe na Breataine agus Thuaisceart na hÉireann? ( Tá sé níos giorraide, an dtuigeann tú ).

    Sílim nach bhfuil an tAontachtaí ach ag maíomh go mbaineann sé leis an aontacht seo. Sé an coincheap is tabhachtach, ní na focail a chaitear leo go sleamchúiseach.

    "The de facto definition of Britishness promoted in Britain and Ireland until recent decades was Englishness, essentially"

    I ndáirire?

    Chomh Breatainach agus....Churchill? LeathMheiriceánach,,,,Tony Blair? Albanach,,,,Gordan Brown? Albanach.....Ramsey McDonald? Albanach..... Lloyd George? Breatnach.......An Ríora reatha? Gearmánach....Liam Rí? Ollainneach.....Liam Concasach? Francach.


    Fearn

    ReplyDelete
  2. GRMA don trácht a Fhearn.

    An sainmhíniú de jure ná an ceann a liútar go minic, féiniúlacht a chlúdaíonn Sasanaigh, Breatanaigh, Albanaigh, Éireannaigh Thuaisceartacha (!?).

    Fianaise don sainmhíniú de facto ná an cos ar bolg a imríodh ar an nGaeilge, Breatnais, Coirnis, Gaidhligh agus Albainis - gach teanga seachas Béarla. Ó thaobh na polaitíochta ní Sasanach a bhí i ngach ceannaire ar an Ríocht Aontaithe ach tá 85% den daonra agus an cumhacht ag Sasana.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sé do bheatha, a Choilm.

    ACH, ciallaíonn "de jure" = de réir dlí, agus d'iarr mise cad é an dlí a bhfuil tú chuige. Déanaim amach gur beag duine, an Breataineach féin, a thuigeann cad is brí don ainm sin: focal a tharraing siad ón stair is a d'fheil don aontacht phoilitiúil idir Sasain agus Albain in 1707, agus fiú do aontacht an ríora, 1603. Tá said ag cur leis an bhrí ó shoin, agus gach duine a bhaint a bhrí de facto, "mar atá" as. Mar sin is doiligh argóint a bhunadh ar an fhocal seo cionn is nach bhfuil daoine ar aon aigne cad is ciall dó.


    Maidir leis an teangacha, ní thuigim an pointe agat. Tá tú a rá go raibh gach teanga thíos ach teanga na Sasanach, agus de bharr sin, bhí an Sasanach thuas. ACH, bhí an Sasanach chomh géar ar a chanúintí fhéin is a bhí sé i leith teangacha eile .i. ní raibh cead acu i gcumhacht. Agus má tá an Sasanach i gcoinne an tSasanaigh, ní hé an Sasanach a bhfuil rith an achair aige, ach Sasanach fé leith .i. níl an chumhacht ag cine ach ag buíon, agus mar a luaigh mé, bhí daoine nach Sasanaigh iad, ar an bhuíon sin.

    Aon scor ar bith, nach chuig an Aontachtaí atá tú? Is cuma cad iad na miotais a chumann sé ina thaobh féin,( cumann gach cine miotais ina dtaobh féin ), is maith leis an Aontachtaí bheith i nead an Bhreatainigh. Sin é é.


    Fearn

    ReplyDelete
  4. So, if they feel so British they should learn to speak British. That's a Celtic language by the way. As the language of the ancient Britons is lost they could settle for something
    Brythonic: Cymric,Cornish or Breton.
    Go on lads, if yer really proud of being British! Learn a Celtic language today!

    ReplyDelete
  5. A Fhearn, nuair a dúirt mé 'de jure' ní raibh an bhrí docht dlíthiúil i gceist agam. An bhrí 'oifigiúil' a bhí á chíoradh agam, an bhrí a luann Aontachtóirí. Is cinnte go ndearna uasaicme Shasana imeallú ar chanúintí Béarla, ach bhí siad níos déine ar theangacha eile - fad is eol dom níor cuireadh cosc dlíthiúl ar dhaoine canúintí Béarla a labhairt nó ní raibh bata scor ann dóibh ach an oiread. Is féidir le gach dream sainmhíniú a dhéanamh ar a bhféiniúlacht fhéin, ach tá fimíneacht i gceist le seasamh na nAontachtóirí i leith na Gaeilge.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "ach tá fimíneacht i gceist le seasamh na nAontachtóirí i leith na Gaeilge. "

    M'anam, ach go bhfuil na céadta de mhíle in Éirinn a bhfuil an ráiteas sin fíor ach nach Aontachtaithe iad.

    Maidir le bataí scoir, ba áis foghlama iad a bhí in úsáid ar fud na hEorpa ó am go céile. Níor chuireadh d'iachaill ar éinne a n-úsáid in Éirinn ach le toil na múinteoirí agus na dtuismitheoirí.

    Fearn

    ReplyDelete