08-10-2019, 12:27 PM
** 10-Aug-2019 World View: Generational memory and the future of Ireland
For what it's worth, here's what the CIA World Factbook says:
Why isn't reunification the right word? Wasn't Ireland unified under
English rule prior to 1922?
That seems pretty certain, doesn't it.
Now here we have a problem, because generations don't work that
way. In fact, generations work in the opposite way.
If two ordinary people have a bitter feud in their 20s, then forty
years later, when they're in the 60s, the memories of the feud would
have faded, and the two people will have reconciled. But it works the
opposite way with generations.
If two groups have a generational crisis war during the XX20s, then
forty years later, in the XX60s, the memory of the war may have faded
in the minds of the survivors, but for the generations growing up
after the war, the feud does not fade, but is renewed.
I believe that a significant part of the mechanism is as follows: The
survivors of the war are completely traumatized, and spend the rest of
their lives trying to make sure it never happens again. However, as
their children are growing up, there are inevitably stories about the
war, particularly bitter stories about the atrocities committed during
the war. And, not surprisingly, the children in each group never hear
about the atrocities committed by their parents, but only about the
atrocities committed by the parents of the children on the other side.
After the war, during the Recovery and Awakening eras, one side will
inevitably be economically better off than the other, and that adds to
the renewal of the "feud." In the following decades, the traumatized
survivors try to prevent anything serious from happening, but they're
only marginally successful, and once they're gone, a new full-scale
war breaks out.
With regard to children hearing only about atrocities committed by the
other side, not by the atrocities committed by their own side: One
thing I've noticed repeatedly is that people tell me that their
grandparents fought in WW II but they refuse to talk about it. I
believe that it's because they're ashamed of their own actions,
including such things as rape or torture, which are pretty common on
all sides in a generational crisis war. After all, if you're a
soldier and you see a lone girl, and you know that her brother or
father or uncle has just killed all your friends, why shouldn't you
rape her? What have you got to lose? (Ironically, her brother
killing all your friends is just an ordinary act of war, but you
raping her is a war crime. Go figure.) But of course those become
acts of shame when the war ends, but subjects of discussion when they
were committed by the other side.
FishbellykanakaDude Wrote:> Gaeilge (the Irish language) hasn't been a majority language on
> the island of Ireland for several hundred years,.. but English is
> the most spoken (99%), and
> Gaeilge 36% (although only about 10% are fluent)
> Ulster Scots 0.9% (a variety of "Older" English from 17th century "lowland" Scotland)
> Shelta (Romani "Traveler" speak) 30,000
> Polish (119,526 speakers)
> German (27,342)
> French (56,430)
> Japanese (1,309)
> Mandarin (15,166)
> My Gaeilge sucks, of course. I used to know quite a few low level
> conversational phrases, as well as
> most of the Catholic Mass (in Gaeilge, "An tAifreann"),
> and bits and pieces of little things that I've forgotten
> entirely. I wonder if "Ulysses" by Joyce is available in the old
> language? Right,.. something else to look up.
![[Image: catch-and-release-sign-ireland-multiple-languages.jpg]](https://www.worldatlas.com/r/w728-h425-c728x425/upload/27/08/6d/catch-and-release-sign-ireland-multiple-languages.jpg)
For what it's worth, here's what the CIA World Factbook says:
Quote:> English (official, the language generally used), Irish (Gaelic or
> Gaeilge) (official, spoken by approximately 39.8% of the
> population as of 2016; mainly spoken in areas along Ireland's
> western coast known as gaeltachtai, which are officially
> recognized regions where Irish is the predominant language)
> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications...os/ei.html
FishbellykanakaDude Wrote:> The Loyalists in The North will never relinquish their UK
> affiliation, so the only possibility for real "reunification" (as
> that's NOT the right word, but we'll leave that off for now) is
> for the Loyalists to emigrate "back" to the UK (likely only under
> some variety of duress).
Why isn't reunification the right word? Wasn't Ireland unified under
English rule prior to 1922?
FishbellykanakaDude Wrote:> There WILL be border "controls" between the Republic and Northern
> Ireland, and there WILL therefore be violence at those
> points.
That seems pretty certain, doesn't it.
FishbellykanakaDude Wrote:> But the "New Troubles" won't likely last very long, as (the
> common) people have gotten used to "peace" and will stomp down the
> "violent ones" in short order, probably driving them out of the
> country to hang out with the Basque Militants somewhere in
> Algeria,.. or some such ludicrous situation.
> A "fully Irish" Ireland will have to wait
> for at least 2 generations (44ish years) or more likely 4 or 5
> more generations (88 to 110 years), until the "cultural DNA" has
> attenuated sufficiently.
Now here we have a problem, because generations don't work that
way. In fact, generations work in the opposite way.
If two ordinary people have a bitter feud in their 20s, then forty
years later, when they're in the 60s, the memories of the feud would
have faded, and the two people will have reconciled. But it works the
opposite way with generations.
If two groups have a generational crisis war during the XX20s, then
forty years later, in the XX60s, the memory of the war may have faded
in the minds of the survivors, but for the generations growing up
after the war, the feud does not fade, but is renewed.
I believe that a significant part of the mechanism is as follows: The
survivors of the war are completely traumatized, and spend the rest of
their lives trying to make sure it never happens again. However, as
their children are growing up, there are inevitably stories about the
war, particularly bitter stories about the atrocities committed during
the war. And, not surprisingly, the children in each group never hear
about the atrocities committed by their parents, but only about the
atrocities committed by the parents of the children on the other side.
After the war, during the Recovery and Awakening eras, one side will
inevitably be economically better off than the other, and that adds to
the renewal of the "feud." In the following decades, the traumatized
survivors try to prevent anything serious from happening, but they're
only marginally successful, and once they're gone, a new full-scale
war breaks out.
With regard to children hearing only about atrocities committed by the
other side, not by the atrocities committed by their own side: One
thing I've noticed repeatedly is that people tell me that their
grandparents fought in WW II but they refuse to talk about it. I
believe that it's because they're ashamed of their own actions,
including such things as rape or torture, which are pretty common on
all sides in a generational crisis war. After all, if you're a
soldier and you see a lone girl, and you know that her brother or
father or uncle has just killed all your friends, why shouldn't you
rape her? What have you got to lose? (Ironically, her brother
killing all your friends is just an ordinary act of war, but you
raping her is a war crime. Go figure.) But of course those become
acts of shame when the war ends, but subjects of discussion when they
were committed by the other side.
