Nationalism and the Irish Language

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The main beneficiaries of this protectionism were ofcourse English absentee landlords, not the Irish.
None of these farmers owned any of the land they worked on or had any rights to it or capital improvements on it. All the foodstuffs for bread were exported to Britain even during the famine with 6 million in rent going to English landlords in this period.

Most of the deaths occurred after the first year of blight. Again the British had plenty of time to get relief to the famine areas but failed.

It seems incredible that Ireland was politically part of the richest country in the world at that time and yet lost so many people.
But blaming the government or British policy in Ireland for this is unfair. The fault clearly rests with the powerless and rightless serf farmers and their families--another case of the great Irish myth.

T runner wrote: »

The point of the history lesson is to clarify exactly how any association between Gaelic speaking areas and nationalism occurred which has been misrepresented by some posters in this thread. The linguicide of the language is the reason why Gaeltacht's only exist in only the poorest areas of the country. I am correcting some erroneous historical assertions made on this thread. Historical assertions that did not offend you. Evidently history is more relevant to you on this topic when it suits your side of the argument.

We can both cite great big slabs of history in this thread, but it does not mean that they would be relevant to the discussion, which is the relevance of the Irish to modern Irish culture.

You believe it is of no use to anyone--the same arguments made by the British when Irish was the majority language. Is this a real argument or just one which has been carried through the years to attack a language?

I never said that and indeed have said it is of use to at least one demographic; those who profit from the languages subsidies and tax breaks.

Furthermore, my principle argument has not been one of necessarily giving up on the language and have already stated that I would like to see Ireland a truly bilingual nation, but that we need to assess this outside of the blinkered, crypto-religious prism of historical nationalism and view it for what it is today. This may mean that it is beyond help, but I also think it is more likely to get us a practical strategy if it is not.

To date, other than the protection of minority rights (which is a valid reason, although the price is debatable) the only other argument you have given is historical. That's just not good enough.

As you may be aware there is a huge increase in the amount of children attending Irish speaking schools in non Gaeltacht areas. There seems to be a wish among many Irish people that their children will speak it and the language be preserved.

The principle reason I have heard for people wanting to send the children to Irish speaking schools in recent years is because they will often have better teaching in other subjects rather than Irish. The population has also increased and resources for schools are stretched - Irish schools get preferential treatment in this regard and this too is a probable factor. In short, it is purely speculative for you to trot out the claim that any (unconfirmed) increase is due to a greater interest in the language, let alone sustainable.

It's like trying to claim, as you used to hear, that more students doing their LC was a sign of uptake in Irish speaking, rather than their need to maximize their points for university. You will really need to give more believable evidence of it's resurgence. After all, when TnG was first launched, this too was often cited as evidence of the language's resurgence, yet the decline continues.

You've really offered little here other than the same old "800 years of oppression" diatribe. Without any significant change in strategy, all you are proposing is a continuation of a policy that has failed since the formation of the State and this inevitably will mean the decline will continue - this is the thing that genuinely I do not understand of those who claim to love the language, how they are stubbornly letting it die while wrapping themselves in the tricolour.

All you can see is what happens hundreds of years ago and fail to learn the lessons of the last century. And unless you can do that, Irish as a language will eventually die.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Unless I have been misinformed, and I am open to correction, the subject is not the center of emotional agency, that it is not a case of "I am sad" but a case of "There is a sadness on me."

You can say it either way.

Literally:
"Tá mé brónach" = "I am sad"
"Tá brón orm" = "There is a sadness on me"

The latter would be more traditional and natural IMO. Irish is a very poetic, idiomatic language.

I don't know how someone could actively dislike a language. That makes no sense to me really.

metrovelvet wrote: »

And if you accept that language creates conciousness, that it creates our realities, which I largely do, I would prefer my conciousness not to be created in such a way.

Be honest, you don't really know enough about linguistics or psychology, nor have you studied Irish in enough depth to make that statement.

I can accept that there are many valid reasons someone wouldn't be overtly enthused at the idea of learning the Irish language or their children doing so. But what you've said above is rather outlandish and silly tbh.

I didnt realise I needed an MA in psycholinguistics to decide that. I dont like the way it sounds either, it sounds like Hebrew to me and that doesnt sound nice either.
How can you seriously say time tables are impractical?

We had to learn logo and basic computer languages in primary school as well as disect a feotal pig. Now those are impractical, way more useless than Latin (which I dont entirely agree is useless).

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is a poor analogy. People still have to do their own calculations whenever calculators are not about.

Latin (which you mentioned) in itself is also useless, yet it is still at the root of a large portion of all European languages, as well as numerous other fields that use the language, such as medicine. Ironically it's also evident in Irish, which borrowed from vulgar Latin.

There is no comparable utility in the case of Irish. It's only use in modern Ireland is purely artificial, with compulsory tests that people cram for and them promptly never use the language again or texts or TV/radio programmes that are already available in English.

However it's not simply a question of whether it should be taught, or even if it should be compulsory, but the sheer resources that are being pumped into it, often with abysmal results. As #15 previously posted, three and a half hours per day in primary school constitutes well over half of lessons - everything else is assigned a combined minority of the school day.

Am I alone in thinking that this is insane? And, to add insult onto injury, is even more so as it does not even work?

Its a bit like a very expensive project to force everyone to learn the uileann pipes and sanos dancing and live in a thatched roof.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Am I just being a silly idealist in my thinking that, at least until 3rd level, education should be about a very broad range of subjects taught merely for the value of teaching something, regardless of it's utility or lack of?

Among the things which I've learned in my life which I have absolutely zero use for are Latin, Irish, History, Geography and analysis of English literature. However, I value the academic wealth that studying these subjects has bestowed on me. My mind would be immeasurably poorer if I could not list the declension of mensa, if I could not speak Irish or if I didn't understand the themes and ideas in the work of Shakespeare or the poetry of Sylvia Plath.

I should point out that this isn't so much an argument for why it's not a big deal that Irish is compulsory, but rather that Irish is no more useless than many other subjects.

I think that those who scoff at the idea of Irish having any use whatsoever are as bad as the Gaelgóirí who get offended at the mere suggestion that Irish might not be as important as they think. Compromise is what's needed.

Though I dont use algebra I still think it is practical to teach it so that people havd the choice and basics to study other things. I also see practical uses un every other subject you mention.

Irish should bd optional and divorced from nationalism, especially as it is unfair to foce nationalistic agendas in children who are denied citizenship in Ireland despite being born here.

If Irish is compulsory then so should Latin be, as we are part of Europe now.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Am I just being a silly idealist in my thinking that, at least until 3rd level, education should be about a very broad range of subjects taught merely for the value of teaching something, regardless of it's utility or lack of?

I actually agree with you. One of the strengths (at least at secondary level) of the Irish educational system is that it is broad and does not seek to specialize as quickly as you get in the UK or on the continent.

What I have principally questioned is the insane resources being put into the language without result, and it's treatment as some form of holy (brown) cow by the "800 years of oppression" brigade.

I think that those who scoff at the idea of Irish having any use whatsoever are as bad as the Gaelgóirí who get offended at the mere suggestion that Irish might not be as important as they think. Compromise is what's needed.

Again I agree and previously stated that the knee-jerk anti-Irish reaction is not a good one. However the reality remains that we pump a huge amount of resources into a language, for dubious benefits and little or no return. Unless we dispassionately look at those benefits and that return, unless we question why and how we are doing this then this debate will continue to be repeated until the the numbers who actually use it are so small that we'll just have to admit that it's over.

Arguments such as those by T runner really don't help the language. They're caught in a time warp where it's still 1916 and the last century of mismanagement by us never happened. The language has declined to appalling levels in the last century, since independence. If it can even be saved at this stage, things need to change because it will not survive another.

And the first step in that process it to coldly take stock. Even if we don't like what we find.

I think a bilingual nation is a silly goal at this stage.

Gaelscoileanna continue to thrive, and the demand for them has been increasing in recent years.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but has Irish not experienced a revival in the last 10/20 years? Perhaps not people actively speaking it, but people embracing it, sending their kids to Gaelscoileanna and acknowledging that it is a good thing?

I have heard that people who attended Gaelscoileanna in Dublin in the 60s/70s were generally only from Irish speaking families, and were teased by kids in other schools. Nowadays, students from non Irish speaking families and even foreign nationals attend Gaelscoileanna, they're highly respected and doing all one's subjects through Irish is seen as laudable by outsiders.

I think Irish is declining in terms of everyday use (outside schools), and yet increasing in terms of general fluency.

I think Ireland is very confused about things. You have people all over the world who have Irish passports who may have only been here once or twice and people born here and living here who the people of Ireland decided that doesnt mean youre irish either.