Print this post Print this post

Language, Nation, & Race

1,845 words

The Lord’s Prayer in Scottish Gaelic

In 1766, English writer Samuel Johnson penned a letter to William Drummond, an Edinburgh bookseller, regarding the translation of the Bible into the “Erse or Gaelic language” as biographer James Boswell put it in The Life of Samuel Johnson (1791).

Certain members of “the society in Scotland for propagating Christian knowledge” (undoubtedly meaning the Society in Scotland for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge (SSPCK), opposed translation of the Bible into Scottish Gaelic because it would be contrary to national unity. 

The linguistic background is a little complicated; Boswell does not go into it.

Johnson was English; he often made prejudicial comments about the Scots that both reflected his actual views and his argumentative nature and love of controversy.

Boswell, an attorney, was Scottish. In fact, his university degree was in Continental civil law because, unlike England, Scotland had, and retains to this day, an uncodifed, mixed civil law system in which common law still plays a role.

Three distinct languages are involved. English is one.

Scots, the vernacular language of the northern, southern, and eastern Lowlands since medieval times, as well as of Northern Ireland, is another. Of all the Germanic languages, it is the one most closely related to English. Further complicating the picture is the existence of numerous Scots dialects, not to mention major linguistic variations such as Scottish English and Anglicized Scots. In Boswell’s day, most upper and middle class Scots such as himself, David Hume, and Adam Smith, spoke English, or slightly Scotticized English.

Finally, there is (non-Germanic) Scottish Gaelic, a member of the Gaelic or Goidelic subgroup of Celtic languages, spoken in the Northwest Highlands and Islands of Scotland.

Interestingly, neither Google Translate nor Microsoft’s Bing Translator contain entries for “Scots,” “Scottish Gaelic,” or “Scottish.”

When Johnson learned of the opposition to translating the Bible into Gaelic, he weighed in on the issue by writing his letter to Drummond.

Ironically, Johnson, a committed Christian who was Anglican not Presbyterian (the dominant Christian denomination in Scotland), pro-English not Scottish, and Tory not liberal, favored the translation.

His first motive was religious: obedience to the “will of God” is necessary for happiness, and knowledge of God’s will is necessary for such obedience.

“I did not expect to hear,” he wrote, “that it could be, in an assembly convened for the propagation of Christian knowledge, a question whether any nation uninstructed in religion should receive instruction; or whether that instruction should be imparted to them by a translation of the holy-books into their own language.”

While “Papists” have “denied to the laity the use of the Bible,” this was less condemnable than refusal to translate the text for “motives purely political.” “The blackest midnight of popery is meridian sunshine” by comparison; Catholic practice was at least grounded in arguments involving “the care of souls.”

To perpetuate ignorance of Christianity would be a “crime” surpassed only by “the practice of the planters in America [slavery], a race of mortals whom no other man wishes to resemble.”

This raises the issue of black-white racial differences and Johnson’s attitude toward them.

Briefly, a freed Jamaican slave named Francis Barber was Johnson’s manservant and lived with him until he died. Johnson financed Barber’s education in England and left a monetary bequest to him in his will. Johnson was sharply criticized by friend and biographer Sir John Hawkins for his “ostentatious bounty and favor to negroes.”

Johnson desired that Barber should move to Johnson’s hometown in rural Staffordshire, which the man did following the writer’s death in 1784. There Barber married a white woman (I believe she was white) and had children by her; his descendants supposedly still farm in the area today.

By way of comparison, I have read—directly from his personal papers, not secondary sources such as biographies—virtually everything Benjamin Franklin, the ostensibly liberal descendant of Massachusetts Bay Puritans, had to say about blacks and Indians. He was much more of a racialist than the anti-Puritan, anti-Whig, anti-American (re the Revolution), Tory Anglican Johnson. The two men were contemporaries, Franklin being but three years older.

Indeed, as the feud between England and America intensified, Franklin, an American representative in England who all his life had been an English patriot and Empire loyalist, and whose son William remained a prominent Loyalist throughout the Revolution, was compelled to respond to English attacks on slavery in America, which were common. (In a pamphlet, Johnson himself sneered, “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?”)

In reading most of what Franklin said about race and Jews, I discovered that contemporary historians routinely cherry-picked his writings. They did not present an objective account of his views. I think the same thing is true of Abraham Lincoln, although I have not personally verified it in his case.

This is the kind of unexpected thing you sometimes learn when you turn directly to original sources such as The Papers of Benjamin Franklin or Boswell’s The Life of Samuel Johnson rather than relying solely upon recent secondary academic or journalistic sources. One must guard against being led down the garden path when there is so little margin left for error.

It is especially important to take such precautions before basing key hypotheses about white decline on sweeping generalizations about Christianity, Puritanism, the Enlightenment, abolitionism, capitalism, or what have you.

Is Language an Adequate Proxy for Race?

The bulk of Johnson’s letter to William Drummond, however, focused on language, not religion. He informed Drummond that he possessed an exceptional “zeal for languages.”

I am not very willing that any language should be totally extinguished. The similitude and derivation of languages afford the most indubitable proof of the traduction of nations, and the genealogy of mankind. They add often physical certainty to historical evidence; and often supply the only evidence of ancient migrations, and of the revolutions of ages which left no written monuments behind them.

This is a very perceptive observation for the time.

Population geneticist L. L. Cavalli-Sforza in The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) and other works wrote extensively about language in very similar terms, though with the benefit of vastly increased scientific knowledge.

Cavalli-Sforza pointed to numerous associations between the evolution of human populations and the evolution of languages, while carefully noting important distinctions as well. A relationship does exist, as Johnson perceived.

Unfortunately, language preservation and glorification became a fetish for liberals and Romantics in the late 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. Whites used language instead of race as a proxy for collective identity.

Today, the anti-white European Union and genocidal governments continue to fetishize language preservation, indeed foster fragmentation, while actively destroying the white populations that speak them!

Governments are comfortable doing this because language is not an adequate proxy for race; linguistic preservation does not equal racial preservation. Thus, blacks, Jews, and Muslims from various countries have learned European languages and, from a linguistic point of view, become members of our community.

Nor will the efforts by some on the right to make mastery of European languages by newcomers mandatory assist in racial preservation. It will have the opposite effect.

“English Only” and similar initiatives are presented as being somehow “racist” by the Left and pro-white by certain elements of the Right. But, in a multiracial society, linguistic differentiation works to keep races apart, thereby mildly retarding the pace of miscegenation and cultural assimilation.

Wealthy Jewish businessman Ron Unz understands this—it is why he supports pro-English initiatives. (Unz, the publisher of The American Conservative, is a major financial backer of Wikipedia.)

A final objection to fostering linguistic fragmentation and differentiation among Europeans is that it multiplies and exacerbates petty nationalism of the kind that has so harmed white racial consciousness and solidarity.

To promote three languages in a nation as small as Scotland (Gaelic, Scots, and English), or two types of written Norwegian in Norway (Bokmål and Nynorsk), is racially counterproductive. It destroys a sense of unified identity, or even our ability to communicate with one another.

Johnson, however, did not blindly endorse language preservation or fragmentation. He did not favor the continuance of “every language, however narrow its extent, or however incommodious for common purposes.”

Rather, preservation was important only until a marginal language such as Gaelic had been “reposited in some version of a known book, that it may be always hereafter examined and compared with other languages, and then [emphasis added] permitting its disuse.”

Thus, he believed publication of the Bible in Scottish Gaelic would preserve the language “for the purposes of learning”:

When the Highlanders read the Bible, they will naturally wish to have its obscurities cleared, and to know the history . . . When they once desire to learn, they will naturally have recourse to the nearest language by which that desire can be gratified, and  . . . must learn English.

In other words, he came down on both sides of the issue: the Bible should be published in Gaelic, but Gaelic should, and probably would, die out in daily use!

And this is essentially what happened.

The Scottish Gaelic Bible was eventually published in two parts, the first in 1767 and the second in 1801. Which was published first? The New Testament, of course. The complete Scottish Gaelic Bible with the Old Testament included finally appeared in 1801 as Am Bìoball gu Gàidhlig.

The appearance of this Bible was crucial to the gradual emergence of orthodox literary Scottish Gaelic in the 18th century, and the standardization of grammar and spelling in the 19th.

The essentially new (i.e., written) Scottish Gaelic thus created survived for nearly a century, until the gap between spoken Gaelic and standard orthography became too extreme in the 1960s.

By then, the center of gravity of Gaelic speaking had moved from the southern Highlands to the Hebrides, and mass media such as television had marginalized it further. By 1991, an estimated 1.4% of the Scottish population spoke Gaelic.

Distribution of Scottish Gaelic in 2001

English is the official language of the United Kingdom, of which Scotland is a part.  It is the principal language of government, education, law, and the media in Scotland.

Still, a majority of the indigenous population in thinly-settled areas of the Outer Hebrides, Skye and some of the Inner Hebrides, and townships of the northwest coast, together with isolated groups throughout the Highlands, continued to speak Gaelic in 1991. Gaelic-speaking communities also existed in Scottish cities.

As the liberal zeal for language fragmentation among white Europeans would predict, Scots and Scottish Gaelic are officially recognized autochthonous languages of the European Union.

Near the end of his letter, Johnson made a general observation that turned out to be wide of the mark: “Knowledge always desires increase; it is like fire, which must first be kindled by some external agent, but which will afterwards propagate itself.”

With the rise and triumph of Communism and other forms of Leftism, which systematically censor and suppress knowledge, and to which intellectual freedom is anathema, the gears of progress ground into reverse, and Darkness and ignorance settled over a dying West.

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)

7 Comments

  1. Sandy
    Posted December 18, 2012 at 3:19 am | Permalink

    Most Christian of Johnson to provide for his slave even in death but sadly the slave didn’t pick up the Christian message of kind after its kind.

  2. Armor
    Posted December 18, 2012 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    AH: “To promote three languages in a nation as small as Scotland (…) is racially counterproductive.”

    Not if “linguistic differentiation works to keep races apart”.

    “Today, the anti-white European Union and genocidal governments continue to fetishize language preservation”

    In France, the genocidal government is still trying, with lots of Jewish help, to kill what’s left of non-French local indigenous European languages, no matter what the European Union says. The European Union has been no help to linguistic activists in France. I doubt it is any different in a centralist country like Greece. At the opposite, a country like Norway doesn’t need any EU interference to help the Lapps stick to their own language.

    • Andrew Hamilton
      Posted December 18, 2012 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

      I made a distinction between languages that keep whites apart, and languages that keep races apart.

      Whites have enormous linguistic differences that make it difficult for them to think, act or communicate as one on a global or even intra-European level. Even the European Union must maintain an extremely complex system of translators and interpreters in order to function—and I’m referring only to the indigenous Indo-European languages, not everything they’ve imported.

      Activists and even scholars in different European nations are Balkanized because of language. But Jewish organizations network cross-culturally with ease, manipulating the divided peoples.

      With regard to Norway, I wasn’t referring to Lapps; Bokmål and Nynorsk developed as a cultural phenomenon among white Norwegians in the 19th century. Nynorsk was devised by liberal nationalists and Romantics.

  3. Giuliana
    Posted December 19, 2012 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    You have seen nothing until you know the linguistic nonsense in Spain, where I live, although I’m italian.
    The electoral system in Spain has made minoritary regional parties indispensable for the nation’s governability most of the time since democracy was restored, and those nationalist/regionalist parties have made that languages that were dying natural and respectably some decades ago, like the basque, the galician, and -less rapidly, but clearly another terminal ill too- the catalan language have been artificially «resurrected» and imposed to the population; in Catalonia they have even banned castillian spanish from schools. Can you imagine english being banned from scottish schools? The results: the catalan goverment is planning to ask in referendum the independence of Catalonia.
    Some people will say that those languages there were always alive until Franco’s dictatorship tried to wipe them, but that’s not true: those languages, especially basque and galician were spoken only by the peasants, my husband’s grandfather was from Bilbao, and he was rather «proud» of beig able to understand basque. I remark «understand», since he never spoke ir, nor his parents or his grandparents. My husband’s grandfather managed to understand basque because he had agriculture business and needed to talk with peasants in small villages on the mountains, but he always spoke in spanish and peasants responded then in basque.
    I have talked to other people about this subject and in Galicia is the same; this anecdote was the habit in the Spain of the 20s and 30s of the XX century (as it is nowadays in Italy, where you have to go to some village in the Alps, to hear piamontese, for instance). Only in Catalonia the catalan language was common in Barcelona and other important cities, but it was in clear recession. not by imposition of any dictator, but because people was using castillian spanish more and more every day for business, travel, study, and to relate with the millions of emigrants from other zones of Spain who were attracted by the industrial development of Catalonia.

    So, I’m seeing it in the country I consider my «other» homeland: language diversity fragments a nation, divides peoples and races, but the «funny» thing is that the big nationalist parties her in Spain are christian right-winged parties!

  4. M.A
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    I speak Irish Gaelic(Erse)although it is not my first language.I can read Scots Gaelic without any difficulty but the spoken language I can only follow with a great deal of concentration.Even then I get only the bones of what is being said,not the subtle details.

    Both languages are effectively dead , preserved only artificially and with a great amount of subsidy.Sad yes but perhaps inevitable due to the dominance of English.

    Mind you,a large percentage of the Welsh still speak their own language so preservation of a kind is possible.

  5. Andrew Hamilton
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the first-hand reports about the language situation in Spain and about Irish and Scottish Gaelic. I find such little-known, never-reported information highly educational.

    In Tony Palmer’s documentary about actor Richard Burton, a native Welsh speaker who did not speak English until he started school, Burton tells a story about visiting his father in a hospital in Wales. The two staff members on duty at the time were unable to get any information out of the old man because he had spoken only Welsh. “They were English,” Burton said. Then he paused and backtracked. “We called them English. Actually, I think they were Welsh, but spoke only English.” That was a display of how ethnicity and language are often conflated, psychologically.

    The conservative in me instinctively desires to preserve every native European language as authentic, living languages. For example, I like Enya’s music very much (her heavy use of synthesizers and electronic layering doesn’t bother me), and one of the intriguing things about it is that she sings in English, Irish Gaelic (her native tongue), and Latin.

    However, the bigger conservative in me is fixated on saving the race. If overly-lush linguistic diversity gets in the way of that, it has to go.

    Mind you, my view of our situation is not that we’re miles upstream from approaching disaster—the first planned genocide of any race—but that we’re already at the lip of the cataract . . . assuming we haven’t already plunged over it.

  6. M.A
    Posted December 21, 2012 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    I agree Mr Hamilton.I too would happily sacrifice all languages to preserve the race.

    If that meant we all spoke only English or German or French or Italian then so be it.

  • Video of the Day:

  • Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    The Lightning and the Sun

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    An eagle with a shield soaring upwards

    A Life in the Political Wilderness

    The Fourth Political Theory

    The Passing of the Great Race

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    The Prison Notes

    It Cannot Be Stormed

    Revolution from Above

    The Proclamation of London

    Beyond Human Rights

    The WASP Question

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Jewish Strategy

    The Metaphysics of War

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    The French Revolution in San Domingo

    The Revolt Against Civilization

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Archeofuturism

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance