Making Ireland British: is the project nearing completion?

[diy01]

And I hope I haven't offended anyone with the 'Making Ireland British: is the project nearing completion?' line. It's not intended as a pejorative phrase.

Merely a recognition of the fact that the British (and Dublin Castle) records over the centuries are absolutely FILLED with references to the need to subdue the 'degenerate' or 'wild' Irish. To do this was to remove the differences in terms of language, dress, names (anglicised forms), customs etc as much as possible in favour of English norms.

So in that sense, it was an ongoing project.

[Thranduil]

How did this come about, in your opinion? How did a very small minority (in terms of language) manage to dominate the country and impose their will? And why wasn't there an effective response? Why were the Irish (read: native Irish (1641 etc) or Irish nationalist force) on the losing side of almost every domestic conflict in the period 1600-1900?

We tended to find ourselves facing some of the best equipped armies in Europe, ie Cromwell, William III, Elisabeth's armies in Ireland, redcoats in 1798 - these were all supplied with the latest state of the art weapons. Even Strongbow had castle, siege technology as well as heavily armoured knights. We on the other hand generally had swords when they had muskets (1640's) or pikes when they had rifles (1798). Then there is the fact that we were an island nation and 'Brittania rules the waves' how to get weapons from abroad in? How to pay for them? With a few mostly half hearted exceptions at specific times we had no allies in Europe, even those nations who competed with each other for our wild geese (Spain, France) had the disincentive that if we won our independence and freedom the flow of mercenaries would stop. An island has a very high specific defence capacity but this works both ways, it is harder to invade and take over but once an invader becomes entrenched it is harder to drive them out.

Seems like low expectations to me. Why do you think Irish was largely sacrificed on the way to a 'free state' when the Poles, Finns and many others didn't have to do the same with their respective languages. Was it because of the emerging dominance of English at the time? Was it because those other nations weren't up against the British Empire?

Our own native trusted 'leaders' ecouraged the demise of the language, the RC Church especially in the 19thC spurned the language, hedge schools concentrated on English prior to that, even Daniel O'Connell had a go. The death knell for the language was more insidious i think, it couldn't die while it was the only our English enemies who wanted it to, it took the conversion of our own would-be trusted 'leaders' to the anti-Irish side to achieve it, plus the great disasters such as the 'famine' uprooted Irish speaking communities, psychologically i would say the language then became associated with failure and death (and records at the time reveal a certain glee among the British upper class that the famine was targetting Gaelic culture). Another major factor is that we lost our aristocratic custodians of our native ways in the 17thC, our new 'aristocracy' was English and had little or no allegiance to those ways, this did not happen in those other countries (for the record it kind of did happen in Wales), with a foreign hostile aristocracy and landlord system the route to success/survival was guarded and speaking Irish (or rather not speaking English) was not desirable from that point of view.

So in that sense, it was an ongoing project.

It has been achieved to all intents and purposes. The agenda of some which is geared towards stamping out the remaining isolated communities of Irish speakers is not related to making us 'British' however, it's part of an offensive being waged on culture, religion, nationalism throughout the world generally, from what i can see it's about erasing identity itself and homogenising greater humanity as far as possible.

[diddleydoo]

Yes. They generally remark on the similarities. As if they are in the same country. The main difference was rural Ireland. Population density differences more pronounced.

I'm sure. I've heard it too. That's not exactly a positive thing, though is it? When people assume that Ireland has always been English speaking. I wouldn't consider it so, anyway.

No it's not a positive thing and I'm always at pains to explain to people thet Irish is indeed a totally different language. But it's just the way things are. I was responding to your comment that foreigners are surprised that the Irish don't speak Irish. I reckon more people think that our English dialect IS Irish than otherwise.

No, but you mentioned the riot in 1995. And the expected differences in behaviour. The riot was the work of a small section of skinheads linked to Combat 18 and loyalists in NI. Not exactly representative.

If you're willing to break down a nation into enough small "exception" groups then you'll never find a difference between any countries.

I remember reports during the World cup in Italy where Irish fans were all kept for a period of time in some kind of "pen". Instead of getting rowdy or fighting with the police, they started going "Baaa". The Italian police saw the funny side of it and they were let go. Or something to that effect, the exact details escape me at the moment.

Contrast this to the disgraceful behavior of the English fans during the world cup in Germany..... I can tell you one thing, the Swiss were VERY happy that England didn't qualify for the European championship last year.

Was Romansch ever spoken throughout present-day Switzerland in the way Irish was spoken throughout Ireland? Are they really comparable? (Do you know? I don't.)

To be honest, I don't know. I don't think so because Switzerland is a federation of many parts and most joined at different times. The "original" three counties were relatively rich in "reto-Roman" I think, but the counties which came later weren't.

I don't see it that way. Does "Americanisation" rub you the wrong way? I still think you are attaching negative connotations to these terms almost reflexively.

I'm not necessarily attaching any negativity to it. I'm simply commenting on the "us vs them" mentality of it all.

How did this come about, in your opinion? How did a very small minority (in terms of language) manage to dominate the country and impose their will? And why wasn't there an effective response? Why were the Irish (read: native Irish (1641 etc) or Irish nationalist force) on the losing side of almost every domestic conflict in the period 1600-1900?

As to why the Irish lost any domestic conflict, that's easy. Military power. The Irish were simple not in a position to defend themselves on a military basis. Cromwell's attacks on Dundalk are a prime example of this. So this raises the question of "How do you get your land back if you can't do it by force?".

Seems like low expectations to me. Why do you think Irish was largely sacrificed on the way to a 'free state' when the Poles, Finns and many others didn't have to do the same with their respective languages. Was it because of the emerging dominance of English at the time? Was it because those other nations weren't up against the British Empire?

It's not expectations. It's the way things were. Given the choice between abandoning your language or being wiped out (Bear in mind millions of Irish dies during the famine. MILLIONS) the choice seems pretty clear to me. The only expectation is to be able to survive.

That's what fascinates me when it comes to this topic. The speed with which the linguistic landscape in Ireland changed so rapidly. It seems unparalleled when you consider the number of speakers (from a peak of 4 million...to 40,000...or to go back further and in percentage terms...from 100% to 1%) and the size of the territory. The length and breadth of the island plus dozens of offshore island communities.

It happened so fast because it was ultimately a choice made. Irish as a language was tolerated (as I have mentioned before) for a long time but real change required (due to the linguisitic barriers erected by the ruling class) a different approach.

Cromwell doesn't really come into it, if you ask me. Ireland was still mostly Irish-only speaking during Cromwell's time.

But it's a good example of the inability of Ireland to rid itself of it's oppressors through pure military action. This inability requires different choices.

And I appreciate you providing it.

My only gripe is that you still haven't explained why you think Ireland isn't more British-influenced than ever before. I've at least tried to provide examples.

Our constitution. Lack of monarchy. Much reduced "Yob culture". Lack of imperialist thinking. We're euro-centric. Different currency. Neutral country. Our "cuteness" (bending the laws). Our ability to self-deprecate. Our passionate unwillingness to accept the "ruling class" mentality. And yes, our language.

Vancouver. So I know a thing or two about living next door to a larger, more powerful and more influential neighbour. The biggest dog of them all.

I can say though, hand on heart, that I find the differences between Ireland and Britain to be LESS than the differences between Canada and the US. As the inscription reads at one of our border crossings (The Peach Arch): "Children of a common mother dwelling together in unity". So considering our histories and the history of the continent, one would expect loads of similarities to begin with.

That may be but has in itself nothing to do with the discussion. And with WHICH part of America do you feel dissimilar. America is far more diverse than Britain.

Ireland has the added 'bonus' of fairly strong American influence (don't we all?) in addition to the British influence. That's another difference.

So that's my take on it.

Well everywhere has an American influence. It's normal. Television, economics, Hollywood..... They're everywhere.

I'm not disputing that Ireland has been significantly influenced by Britain. That's clear for all to see. But I don't really understand the question you're asking: It's as if you feel there's some subversive force in Ireland trying to further equalize the Irish and British cultures. Having said that I saw on the RTE website yesterday something about Jane Goody's cancer and I immediately thought of this thread. Why the Fuçk is anything whatsoever about that idiot doing on an Irish (state-owned) website. Maybe you have a point with creeping media influence.

As to whether RTE has some kind of ulterior motive, I find it hard to credit them with even enough intelligence for something like that.

Shane.

[diddleydoo]

Our own native trusted 'leaders' ecouraged the demise of the language, the RC Church especially in the 19thC spurned the language, hedge schools concentrated on English prior to that, even Daniel O'Connell had a go. The death knell for the language was more insidious i think, it couldn't die while it was the only our English enemies who wanted it to, it took the conversion of our own would-be trusted 'leaders' to the anti-Irish side to achieve it, plus the great disasters such as the 'famine' uprooted Irish speaking communities, psychologically i would say the language then became associated with failure and death (and records at the time reveal a certain glee among the British upper class that the famine was targetting Gaelic culture). Another major factor is that we lost our aristocratic custodians of our native ways in the 17thC, our new 'aristocracy' was English and had little or no allegiance to those ways, this did not happen in those other countries (for the record it kind of did happen in Wales), with a foreign hostile aristocracy and landlord system the route to success/survival was guarded and speaking Irish (or rather not speaking English) was not desirable from that point of view.

While I agree that it was not possible for the English alone to wipe out the Irish language, I think we differ as to the necessity to use words like "insiduous" or "anti-Irish". I do have to say, however, that I'm only moderately schooled on the period but I for one would tend to see the choice of jettisoning Irish for English as a regrettable but necessary one.

I also got the impression from my limited reading on the subject that the Famine was an important factor in much of the change that followed.

Shane.

[diy01]

Good post Shane. I don't have much to add to it. Pretty good thread overall.

It's not expectations. It's the way things were. Given the choice between abandoning your language or being wiped out (Bear in mind millions of Irish dies during the famine. MILLIONS) the choice seems pretty clear to me. The only expectation is to be able to survive.

Yep.

It happened so fast because it was ultimately a choice made. Irish as a language was tolerated (as I have mentioned before) for a long time but real change required (due to the linguisitic barriers erected by the ruling class) a different approach.

It would seem so.

Our constitution. Lack of monarchy. Much reduced "Yob culture". Lack of imperialist thinking. We're euro-centric. Different currency. Neutral country. Our "cuteness" (bending the laws). Our ability to self-deprecate. Our passionate unwillingness to accept the "ruling class" mentality. And yes, our language.

Good points.

And with WHICH part of America do you feel dissimilar. America is far more diverse than Britain.

The further south you go, the more alien it seems. To look at it another way, the Pacific Northwest (Washington State and Oregon) are the areas of the US which I find least foreign. Although the change in accent is noticeable as soon as I cross the border. But that part of the US is most 'familiar'. Also in terms of scenery and climate.

It's as if you feel there's some subversive force in Ireland trying to further equalize the Irish and British cultures. Having said that I saw on the RTE website yesterday something about Jane Goody's cancer and I immediately thought of this thread. Why the Fuçk is anything whatsoever about that idiot doing on an Irish (state-owned) website. Maybe you have a point with creeping media influence.

Not a subversive force, just that I feel sometimes that Ireland is sleepwalking into some sort of British-EU maze in which it will never escape from, once inside.

[Cael]

I just spent a month in Wales amd I can certainly say that Wales is much more confident in its culture that Ireland is. Even in South Wales, which is nearly all English speaking, you see the Welsh language everywhere, and not just in public signage. High street shops have bi-lingual sinage and the local free advertisers are half in English half in Welsh.

[diddleydoo]

Good post Shane. I don't have much to add to it. Pretty good thread overall.

Cheers. We've come a long was from

I think you're out of your depth here. You aren't making much sense.

I thought the chance was lost back there.

Not a subversive force, just that I feel sometimes that Ireland is sleepwalking into some sort of British-EU maze in which it will never escape from, once inside.

When I look at some of the more militant pro-Irish people out there I'm no longer sure which direction is best.

I really think the people of Ireland (on average) have moved past the constant need to measure ourselves versus the British. I've mentioned this before in the thread and it's something I've really noticed happening over the last 10 years. Being abroad and flying home 2-3 times a year gives you a different view on the changes happening. It's like a child growing up. Parents only see very small changes day to day but foreign relatives see huge 6-month jumps.....

The EU is a totally different kettle of fish altogether. Funnily enough, I would have thought that a "britishisation" and a "EU-isation" would not have too much in common.

It's nice to have a good exchange of ideas even if the first few exchanges were a bit shaky....

Having said that, I'm not an expert, I'm just someone willing to give my opinion.

Shane

[Cael]

I really think the people of Ireland (on average) have moved past the constant need to measure ourselves versus the British. I've mentioned this before in the thread and it's something I've really noticed happening over the last 10 years. Being abroad and flying home 2-3 times a year gives you a different view on the changes happening. It's like a child growing up. Parents only see very small changes day to day but foreign relatives see huge 6-month jumps.....

So why are the Irish still building housing estates and blocks of flats and giving them names like Eton View, Kempton Park, Buckingham Drive, Huntington Lodge, etc. etc.

[Schuhart]

Interesting thread, which is not a million miles away from some thoughts I was having on another thread about the extent to which many Irish people effectively see London as their capital.

Just to flesh that out a little, what I was getting at was a suggestion that we should actually encourage concentration on Dublin so that it might develop (on a smaller scale, obviously) the kind of opportunities available in London sparks opposition. Emotionally, some folk seem more comfortable with Irish graduates converging on London than on Dublin. In some way its not a threat, as if they accept London is their natural centre of gravity.

Given the choice between Dublin and London, many would actually choose London. And, with the Government decentralisation programme, we saw an overwhelming consensus in favour of dismantling the capital of the Irish State. Why do we need it? Sure that's what London is for.

So, indeed, its no surprise that young men from Westport see joining the British Army as just a doorway to an interesting career. Why should they see a problem with taking an Oath of Allegiance to the British Monarch? The only problem is that Munster, Leinster and Connacht don’t return any Members to the Westminster parliament. They have to send them to some irrelevant institution with a funny Oirish name that meets in Dublin, of all places. But I'm sure we could change that, if we only had the courage to say what we really believe in.

[Spence]

Interesting thread, which is not a million miles away from some thoughts I was having on another thread about the extent to which many Irish people effectively see London as their capital.

Just to flesh that out a little, what I was getting at was a suggestion that we should actually encourage concentration on Dublin so that it might develop (on a smaller scale, obviously) the kind of opportunities available in London sparks opposition. Emotionally, some folk seem more comfortable with Irish graduates converging on London than on Dublin. In some way its not a threat, as if they accept London is their natural centre of gravity.

Given the choice between Dublin and London, many would actually choose London. And, with the Government decentralisation programme, we saw an overwhelming consensus in favour of dismantling the capital of the Irish State. Why do we need it? Sure that's what London is for.

So, indeed, its no surprise that young men from Westport see joining the British Army as just a doorway to an interesting career. Why should they see a problem with taking an Oath of Allegiance to the British Monarch? The only problem is that Munster, Leinster and Connacht don’t return any Members to the Westminster parliament. They have to send them to some irrelevant institution with a funny Oirish name that meets in Dublin, of all places. But I'm sure we could change that, if we only had the courage to say what we really believe in.

Wow (and I genuinely mean this) but that post is so far from reality as to be strikingly stupid. Do you actually know any Irish people, and I mean Irish people that don't move in certain millieu's that might be known after certain pejorative terms (indeed, the majority of the population) ?