|
In
the north of Ireland today the conflict over cultural
identity remains a central feature of life with few
signs of a unifying identity or consensus emerging.
Such an identity or consensus if it were to arise
could help to break down the deep social and religious
divisions that exist and help forge a new political
identity. In that context it’s interesting to
look at how the Irish language and Ulster Scots language/cultural
revivals have developed and been perceived in this
society. The Irish language has gone from strength
to strength since the sixties and is clearly dynamic
when you consider the growth of the Irish language
school sector. Unionists see the language revival
as being politically inspired and as having a definite
republican agenda. Nationalists on the otherhand see
the Ulster Scots movement as a political reaction
by unionists to own a language that they feel emphasises
their non-Irishness. It’s unfortunate in my view
that the cultural commonalties that both languages
offer have not been built upon and developed. The
simple fact is that they belong to all the people
here and are not the preserve of any one community.
Proportioning
blame for this situation may not be helpful or constructive.
Indeed a new look at these minority and marginalised
languages should see them as not having to be in competition
with each other but instead as needing the mutual
support of each other in order to stay alive against
the development of monoculture on the island of Ireland.
A
new look at the language question today should in
my view involve Unionists beginning to realise that
there is no reason to regard learning the Irish or
Gaelic language as a denial of a sense of British
identity. For instance, Gearoid O Caireallain, former
President of Conradh na Gaeilge, has expressed this
understanding in relation to the language:
‘There
is hardly any recognition of the fact that there
was a time when it was mostly Protestants who promoted
the language and there was a time when Irish wasn't
seen to be in the ownership of one particular nationality.
In Scotland in the Western Isles, it (Gaelic) is
spoken equally happily by both those who see themselves
as Protestant from the northern islands and Catholics
from the southern islands - for people in the Western
Isles of Scotland it doesn't conflict with their
sense of Britishness.’
History
teaches us that it was invading Gaels from Ulster
who brought the Gaelic language to Scotland in the
fifth century AD and it survives to this day in parts
of Scotland. Indeed, the name Scotland comes from
the Latin word ‘Scotti’ meaning Gaels from
Ireland. Irish Gaelic and Scottish Gaelic is essentially
the same language. Continuing to emphasise this Scottish
connection may in fact make the language more attractive
to unionists as it takes it outside a solely Irish
context.
This
Scottish connection is again reflected in the Ulster
Scots language. It should be understood that it is
a variant of the Scots language which itself is derived
from an earlier dialect of Anglo-Saxon. It is not
a Celtic language unlike Gaelic, Welsh and Cornish.
Indeed, in Ulster and Ireland today, the presence
of older words in the English spoken here which have
disappeared from Standard English is part of the unique
linguistic heritage of this part of the world. That’s
something Irish, N.Irish people should be proud of
rather than viewing their speech as being not quite
as desirable as that of supposedly educated English
speech. In Scots/Ulster Scots we also see the influence
of both Scottish Gaelic and Irish Gaelic. James Fenton,
a native speaker of Ulster Scots who grew up in the
townlands of Drumadarragh and Ballinaloob and author
of an excellent book on Ulster Scots called the Hamely
Tongue, has said:
‘The
Ulster Scots tongue in its contemporary form is
a blend of what remains of the original Scots (a
fairly substantial part), dialectal influences from
other parts of Ulster and elsewhere, a considerable
input from local Irish speech and locally coloured
but ever - encroaching ' proper' English.’
Today
there is a greater struggle to keep Ulster Scots alive
than is the case with Irish because much of its vocabulary
is tied to the old ways of farming and living in Ulster
and there are I believe a number of additional problems
which need to be faced by what has become known as
the Ulster Scots movement. Firstly, I do not believe
it is helpful to have at the forefront of the main
government funded Ulster Scots language bodies high
profile unionist figures. There is, it has to be said,
no comparable situation as far as the Irish language
is concerned. Secondly, a credibility problem has
arisen in that the same people have never been heard
speaking Ulster Scots. This inevitably leads to claims
that the language is non- existent. As Seamus Mac
Seain, a writer with the Irish Language newspaper,
La, has pointed out:
‘There
are people in the Ulster Scots movement who can’t
speak a word of it. If someone around here were
to go about pushing the Irish Language, making all
sorts of demands, and couldn't speak a word of it,
people here would say what do you think you're at.’
Also
claims by Lord Laird of the Ulster Scots Agency that
there are two nations in Ireland- an Irish one and
a Scottish one- is in my view far fetched and not
helpful in building cross community support. It is
also an unfair statement given that according to the
Agency itself many native Ulster Scots speakers are
from a nationalist catholic background. I have no
doubt that many people within the unionist community
have an affinity with Scotland and that should be
respected, but to imply that this is driving a separatist
movement is deeply questionable. The Ulster Scots
tongue it should be remembered is also spoken in the
Laggan district in Co.Donegal and the Irish Government
has recently made moves in recognising the importance
of the language. Ulster Scots, I believe, should not
go into an enclave and become a badge of identity
for the Unionist community in opposition to developing
a more contemporary and inclusive identity. The language
though it has to be stressed is spoken in parts of
Ulster and James Fenton's book is an excellent and
enlightening introduction to anyone unfamiliar with
Ulster Scots
Ulster
Scots should also have an appeal for republicans too.
Aside from the Irish Gaelic influence, Ulster Scots
poets known as the Rhyming Weavers in the 18th and
early 19th century wrote in support of the 1798 rising
of the United Irishmen and the American Revolution.In
fact, one of the main reasons for preserving Ulster
Scots is this literary heritage. It is a primary historical
source giving us an insight into the past and the
meaning of words and how people thought and lived
at the time. It can also give people more pride in
the way they speak and knowledge of the Scots words
they use in their speech.
There
are ways in which the Irish language community could
help to open the language up more to the unionist
community. Exploring the Gaelic relationship with
Scotland as I’ve said is is one. The Colmcille
Initiative and the Ultach Trust have done good work
in this area. Interchanging the term the Irish language
with Irish Gaelic or Gaelic might help to break down
some of the perceived ethnocentrism of the term. Also
looking further afield to Nova Scotia, which was in
turn settled by Scottish Gaelic speakers in the late
18th and early 19th century, novel initiatives have
taken place there in recent years to develop their
Gaelic heritage. They have tried to make their Gaelic
language and cultural roots vibrant and alive again.
These links or relationships could therefore help
broaden the language’s appeal. Gaelic initiatives
can also be seen today in the Isle of Man in relation
to Manx Gaelic. Through various cultural projects,
exploring the fact for instance that many of our placenames
are derived from Irish Gaelic, unionists may develop
an empathy with the language. An understanding should
also be made with the unionist/protestant community
that the term, the Irish language, simply means the
indigenous language of the island of Ireland. This
can help therefore to remove the connotations of nationalism
from the term.
It
is important in all of this to see how politics can
remove a genuine appreciation of our linguistic heritage.
Language can certainly be used to divide people and
sometimes language movements encourage cultural apartheid
in order to maintain sectarian divisions .We must
therefore reject cultural fundamentalism. My view
is that one way in which these languages can continue
to grow is through finding and exploring a new cultural
centre that would show how Irish Gaelic, Scottish
Gaelic, Ulster Scots and Hiberno- English have interacted
with and influenced each other. This could involve
a variety of new cultural projects. It should be recognised
that learning and appreciation of Ulster Scots can
be enhanced through supplementing it with knowledge
of Irish or Gaelic. Likewise a learner of Irish will
benefit from supplementing their learning through
knowledge of the vocabulary and idioms of Hiberno-English
(works by Sean O Casey, John Synge and Roddy Doyle
provide a flavour) and Ulster Scots. There are areas
where these languages can complement and enrich each
other. Imagining new creative initiatives where this
could be developed could lead to exciting and invigorating
cultural development. We should see these languages
anew, not as a language in struggle against British
or even as some Ulster Scots would put it Irish imperialism
but instead, as language and cultural movements playing
their part in resisting the monoculture and homogenisation
which threatens local, regional and broader cultural
identities.
People
should not reject minority cultures and languages
because they are not seen as economic or because the
media and a particular form of globalisation have
little time for these cultures. People who devote
their time to learning a minority language are taking
a stand in a world which threatens diversity. They
are expressing what is unique about them and their
experience and their sense of who they are. Many,
on the otherhand, would rather conform and lose the
particularities and riches of their own cultural importance.
A
new imagining of the future - who we want to be -
is very important because that image influences our
actions in the present and often that image will materialise
in the future. The image that we form of the future
is as important as the way we interpret the past.
The choice is either to continue with the same old
failed game of division and mistrust or to build new
relationships and find new creative ways of moving
forward and creating something that will have value.
We should not forget the languages and cultures of
the minority ethnic communities as well. Exciting
and exhililaring art, music and cultural projects
have come about through this fusion of multiculturalism.
At the Indian community centre in Belfast I read that
in the ancient Hindu language Sanskrit evidence of
a relationship with the Irish language in some of
its words can be found. Wouldn’t it be an exciting
project to explore this relationship in some cultural
form? Therefore, the way forward is to build commonalties,
to stop the strife that makes culture the new arena
in which the conflict is being fought. Its continuance
will only bring about a cultural loss and we will
all be the poorer for it. If, on the otherhand, building
a new sense of cultural identity were successful,
it could help to create a better and more diverse
society where people could feel comfortable with and
benefit from the cultural riches that are clearly
in evidence and which would be of real potential for
society as a whole.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
