LL-L: "Place names" LOWLANDS-L, 05.APR.2001 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

=======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 05.APR.2001 (04) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic, Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: Criostoir O Ciardha [paada_please at yahoo.co.uk]
Subject: LL-L: "Place names" LOWLANDS-L, 05.APR.2001 (02) [E]

A chairde,

Thanks to Ian for his reciprocation. He raises a
number of crucial sociolinguistic points with regard
to Ulster-Scots and its place as a language of Ireland
and these islands.

> Nobody has satisfactorily defined exactly 'who' the
> Ulster Scots are...

Indeed. This is striking as one discusses the language
with people in the Six Counties and Ireland as a
whole. Sadly, there is a misconception that "Ulster
Scot" is merely a synonym for a Unionist inhabitant of
the Six Counties, with the qualifier perhaps that she
or he may have a Scottish surname and so be descended
from the Scots of the 1610 Plantation of Ulster (in
which - for the benefits of subscribers unfamiliar
with Irish history - the region was colonised by the
British State, with large numbers of Scots, English,
Welsh and even some Cornish given tracts of land).
This is of course linguistic error. I would define an
"Ulster Scot" to be anyone who speaks the Ulster Scots
language in the nine counties of Ulster, irrespective
of their religion, their background, and their
political persuasion. They may hold other identies
along with this - they may be Irish-speakers, too, or
they may consider themselves British, Irish, or
whatever.

This is important. Languages are not political,
although they are frequently misappropriated as such.
Both Ulster-Scots and Irish suffer from this:
Ulster-Scots is often crudely stereotyped as "the Prod
language" and Gaelic as "the Taig language". Further,
promotion of either risks the user being identified as
loyalist or republican respectively.

We need objective definitions of language in Ireland,
and this will take a great effort on our part as Irish
and British peoples to reject our prejudices and try
to get others in our communities to discharge theirs,
too. There needs to be a discouragement on the part of
the main political parties - Sinn Féin, the Ulster
Unionist Party (UUP), the SDLP, the DUP, the PUP,
Alliance, the Womens' Coalition, Fianna Fáil, Fine
Gael, the Labour Party, the Worker's Party, the UKUP
and whoever else - to denigrate one language in favour
of the other. The Good Friday Agreement speaks of the
"cultural wealth of the island of Ireland" and that is
what both Ulster Scots and Irish represent (and
English, Mandarin, Hindi, etc., too).

Perhaps terms such as "Ulster-Scots-speaking" might be
an elliptical way to get around political prejudices.
Nationalists and republicans do not on the whole seem
to feel threatened by Ulster Scots. In the Derry
phrase, the attitude of one of "fair play to yous" -
Irish "maith shibh". Most nationalists and
republicans, however, have great difficulty getting to
grips with what Ulster-Scots is. Is it a dialect of
English? Is it a separate language? Do we speak it?
Are we speaking it now? Is it some form of Gaelic? Did
we speak it once? I recall overhearing a discussion
about Ulster Scots between two of my republican
friends: one said he heard that "Ulster Scots is just
the language we're speaking now, normally, without
trying to speak different [sic]." the other couldn't
understand this and she wanted to know more. I told
them both that Ulster-Scots is a language of Ireland,
descended from Scots. I myself wasn't sure how to
proceed after that - after all, *is* Ulster-Scots a
variant of Scots or do Ulster Scots consider it their
ethnic language? It is very confusing.

As I have stated before, it is probable that many
nationalists and republicans speak Ulster-Scots now
without realising it. It is certain that Ulster-Scots
developed as the mother tongue of a vast portion of
the nine counties of Ulster regardless of religious or
political persuasion between 1610-2001. That part of
Ireland's heritage needs to be reclaimed, just as it
needs to said that Irish was not "the Catholic
language" but also the tongue of Protestants and
Dissenters too - and Scots Gaelic came over with the
Planters and lingered with them, influencing Ulster
Irish as well. Language rarely respects human faults
such as prejudice and ignorance. As we have ground
further and further into our ruts of misperception, a
cynical kulturkampf against Irish history has sought
to fabricate a view wherein there is a "Catholic
history" and a "Protestant and other history" - in the
Catholic history, the language is Irish; in the
Protestant one, it is English or, in extremis,
Ulster-Scots. This is patently absurd, a kind of
historical apartheid. Moreover, it never happened. But
if we continue to let the present political cleaving
cleave also the past, we only have ourselves to blame.
Histories only seclude themselves if we are too lazy
to encourage them into their rightful open.

> or 'what' Ulster Scots areas are, yet.

I appreciate your description, Ian, but it is of
little use here on this list. We are the converted to
be preached to. If Ulster-Scots is to be understood,
displays and maps need to be put in prominent places;
books hewn of political bias need to be written and
distributed to libraries; school cirricula need to
make mention of it; it has to be made to feel, as
Irish does, a living and breathing part of
Irish/British culture, vital and tangible; its history
has to be easily explainable for propogation in pub
and parish; its esteem has to be raised independently
of political connotation. I am sure you have already
laboured for these and I commend your efforts.

There is much ignorance on the part of both
communities toward cross-cultural aid. Perhaps it
would be useful to set up some sort of media event or
splash daring spectacular encouraging people to
recognise both Ulster-Scots and Irish. To this end,
there needs to be much more co-operation between Irish
speakers and the Ulster-Scots community. I for my part
promote acceptance of Ulster Scots and its place as a
language of Ireland, although I am rare. The political
split is too readily tearing out the stitches, gaping
the wound. I will be candid and say that many aspirant
Irish speakers view Ulster-Scots as a threat to
perceived "resource allocation" (e.g. financial aid,
grants, etc.) - would it not be logical for all
organisations were for the two tongues to co-ordinate
their efforts, work together, unite, for culture's
sake?

Further, I am sure the Lowlands-L community and the
Celtic League would be of great help in bringing this
co-operation about and in general providing the
encouragement and reassurance that tentative
cross-community projects require.

> This is an extremely fair assessment. It all comes
> down to the central
> issue that there is no substitute for research, and
> there is no doubt
> that activists would be well advised to switch from
> concentrating on
> lobbying to concentrating on research.

I would be delighted to help with the promotion of
Ulster-Scots in my community, although I am
ill-qualified to provide classes or anything like
that. This is another reason for co-operation between
Gaelic organisations and their Ulster-Scots
counterparts: pooled provisions and shared
dissemination. I agree that research is vital and I
would like to offer my help in any way I can to Ian
and the Ulster-Scots Board. My hope is that
Ulster-Scots activists would likewise help the
promotion of Irish too.

> a lot already have a
> good passive
> competence in Scots, they simply don't realize it!

Absolutely. And this is where huge media spectacular
that attract attention get people thinking. No-one
should be scared of "language treachery" here in
Ireland - to speak Irish does not mean you are an IRA
supporter, just as speaking Ulster-Scots does not mean
one wanders the streets screaming kinship with the
UDA. Divorce from political symbolism is the key - on
the part of both languages.

What do other Lowlanders think?

Go raibh maith agus ag cabhair do chomharsa,

Críostóir.

==================================END===================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
=======================================================================
 * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
=======================================================================