Is it no really time to assess how much the irish language costs us all?

Permabear · 24-10-2009 2:14pm

This post has been deleted.

Rebelheart · 24-10-2009 2:29pm

Actually, the 'legitimate' part is your opinion. And therein is the point: what is "legitimate" to you and others here is "illegitimate" to me and others here. Supporting compulsory English and Maths, and their ridiculously abstract and irrelevant syllabi, but opposing compulsory Irish is simply a preference. It has no greater rational merit.

Ziggurat · 24-10-2009 2:30pm

Literacy and numeracy are hardly irrelevant.

Rebelheart · 24-10-2009 2:33pm

Or relevant to the English and Maths Leaving Cert syllabi for that matter.

MysticalRain · 24-10-2009 2:37pm

And that just sums up how utterly ridiculous the arguments from the pro-gaelic lobby have become in this thread.

Rebelheart · 24-10-2009 2:45pm

That you evidently think children should be forced to learn about Jane Austen and trigonometry sums up how utterly ridiculous and intellectually partisan the arguments from the anti-Irish lobby have become in this thread.

Ziggurat · 24-10-2009 2:47pm

I cannot actually find the words to respond to this. You honestly believe that?

Permabear · 24-10-2009 2:51pm

This post has been deleted.

Rebelheart · 24-10-2009 2:56pm

Obviously. Since the day I left secondary school I haven't once had use for any of the formulae which we learnt or the ridiculous poetry and novels we did for the Leaving.

I don't know about anybody else but I knew how to read and do my sums fluently long before I was forced to do Maths and English in the Leaving Cert. The reading and sums I do on a daily basis predate what was on the Leaving Cert syllabi. I did not need to be forced to read prescribed writers and I have yet to find any use for an algebraic equation. Yet, like countless others I was forced to go through all of that rubbish.

MysticalRain · 24-10-2009 2:57pm

As any kid from 5 - 18 years old can tell you, there is more to studying English than Jane Austen. Reading comprehension and basic grammar are vital skills to learn for anybody in this day and age. There is also more than maths than trigonometry as you damn well know, although that particular subject area is an order of magnitude more useful than Irish ever will be. Again, basic numeracy skills are far more vital to the average Irish person than some long dead language. Even stuff like algebra is still useful to me these days.

This thread has clearly descended into parody. The pro-gaelic crowd needs to get their head out of their asses and stop being so hypersensitive. Forcing Irish down people’s throats and leaching off the state are probably the worst ways to promote a language. The sooner people realize that, the better it will be for the language itself.

MysticalRain · 24-10-2009 3:00pm

Well if you had picked a career in engineering, science, computers, you would probably have plenty of use for maths skills. There are a hell of a lot more jobs available in those areas than there ever will be an Irish. I certainly have no use for Irish at this point and probably never will.

25% of the Irish population is functionally illiterate, so there is something very wrong with the priorities of the Irish education system.

Rebelheart · 24-10-2009 3:07pm

It may indeed be a "national priority" according to IBEC and others. It is not a "national priority" or indeed a priority for Seán Citizen who is struggling in school and is not strong in mathematical intelligence. To parody those who are against compulsory Irish, to be forced to sit a maths exam when he is going to work at something far removed from Pythagoras and the like is impeding that student's progress in what he wants to do.

Permabear · 24-10-2009 3:27pm

This post has been deleted.

Grudaire · 24-10-2009 5:15pm

I didn't imply - it's exactly what I said. (although now the Polish section has disappeared, and the pitiful Irish section is left)
I for one do have an issue with that. It's sending a clear message that I'm not valued as a voter, and to be valued I have to use English with them.

Have you read any of my posts? I advise you to read them. I am far more pragmatic than you make out..

And I can't be arsed repeating what I have said for you.

As for the single issue voters, well if you think about it this is a big issue about National Identity to many people. Where FG are virtually the same as many other parties on various issues, this is easily big enough to tip the scales.
For me, I would not accept that someone who goes so much against something I feel strongly about can represent me properly.

Fine Gael are grabbing headlines. Note that they haven't actually laid down any policies in relation to the language.

Furthermore I don't really care who you'll vote for, go start a FG are great thread:rolleyes:

dlofnep · 24-10-2009 5:30pm

To Donegalfella - This might make for interesting reading for you. It's what I received from Fine Gael last year when I contacted them in regards to their Irish language policies.

I personally liked the idea of a "communicating through Irish" subject.

Although as it stands, it's really only paying lip-service, because the majority of Fine Gael activists I've either spoken to, or read topics from - seem to have either a passive or anti-Irish stance. I'm very skeptic about them going through with such a motion.

Permabear · 24-10-2009 6:11pm

This post has been deleted.

dlofnep · 24-10-2009 6:17pm

Perhaps you might contact them and ask them if their policy is still the same? Just for the sake of clarity.

E-mail: vincent@finegael.com

That's the chap who got back to me about it.

I don't want to see wasteful spending either. But in terms of Irish funds, I want to see the funds used better - to fund Gaelscoilenna and the likes.

There is an issue with the curriculum, and this has been addressed. But Fine Gael appear to want to introduce a new Irish class to address this. This would obviously require more funding, would it not?

I don't dispute your figures. I've said for a long time that the educational system needs to be reformed.

According to this paper, FG appear to want to further invest into Irish and add another Irish subject in schools. Surely this is contradictory to your feelings on the topic, and perhaps Fine Gael are not as on the ball about the issue for you as you had thought? Correct me if I'm wrong - or indeed, contact FG yourself and get some clarity on the issue.

Grudaire · 24-10-2009 6:19pm

So its the anti-Irish people who are allowed be single-issue!?:rolleyes:

I think peoples levels of Irish are underestimated, and with a bit of effort people can actually use what they know, and you'll find that people know a lot more than they even think they do.
I think on another note that the Irish have a complex about the language, and thats what's holding the language back...

Permabear · 24-10-2009 6:33pm

This post has been deleted.

dlofnep · 24-10-2009 6:38pm

Would you agree with their increased funding into Gaelscoilenna? (After the economy stabilises)

What sort of funding do you feel the language should receive, and in what areas?

Powerhouse · 24-10-2009 6:52pm

The 30 grand might indeed have been better spent on something else, but there are a few questions which this raises which have not been asked. Is this a genuine or a 'paper' 30k.

That is to say, if those translations had not been done would be in fact have 30k that we do not now have, or is it a calculated amount which does not really reflect the genuine actual cost - in the way that, say, a helicopter trip for a government Minister can be made out to cost 5 grand or whatever even when it is provided by an already existing government agency which would not cease to exist even if your man walked to whatever event was in question? In other words, can a translator earning 30k be sacked if these reports are not translated?

And secondly, only 190 copies of this plan in English were bought - hardly bestseller stuff. If we are looking at public money it would be interesting to know how much the printer charged and consequently how much per copy the English copies cost/generated and if they constitute value for money?

Surely there is an argument for putting such reports on the net and the few genuinely interested parties and other busybodies could view them there or print them off if needed. Obviously if someone in a government department printed one off the cost could be calculated by a journalist at probably about 5k or something, but the average punter can but 500 A4 pages for probably €3.99.

Countless government reports can be purchased in the government publications office - why is there a need for such a public office at all? And why when the internet is there is there a need to have all that material printed? And how much does it cost to pay the salaries of those who man the public office?

Like I said there are many pertinent questions that maybe some down-on-his-luck journalist might profitably follow-up and help us concerned citizens to be concerned because it seems we worry about these things only when they appear in the newspapers.

Powerhouse · 24-10-2009 6:58pm

But this is meaningless because of its subjectivity - if you had a mind to you could argue that any single endeavour in support of any language is wasteful and pointless because it is essentially a qualitiative judgement.

If that (the part underlined) is indeed Fine Gael's position then it precludes them from doing nothing, nor indeed commits them to doing anything. It gives no indication one way or the other about their intentions.

The only thing we can say about FG's intentions is that they will check which way the wind is blowing immediately before deciding on them as they have done with all this leading-nowhere nonsense about abolition of the Seanad, the plan to reimburse the Eircom share-holders, and Kenny's solo-run on the abolition of Irish as a core subject a few years back.

Permabear · 24-10-2009 7:40pm

This post has been deleted.

Powerhouse · 24-10-2009 8:08pm

1) The question here is what FG policy is. I am saying that what is being presented as FG policy here is irrelevant as it is too nebulous and counched in subjective language as to be any realistic guide to what they might do (which of course is what any good policy should be so that you not commited to actually doing anything). I'm not sure why you are saying "is perfectly possible to study policies and their outcomes to arrive at a rational cost-benefit analysis" as that by definition is a retrospective - which is quite distinct to what has been raised here.

However, to go with that for a moment, the problem with such analysis is that you mention the word 'demonstrable' which is a view which will always see language/education policy as failed because it is an area of softer/qualitative analysis where outcomes are more gradual and less given to measurement. How, for example, could you assess the economic benefits of teaching , say, Shakepeare or German when 99/9% of people will never have (direct) recourse to either again in their lives? Yet, money is given to a schools system which does just that.

2) I don't agree with chucking labels at people as you do as it is (ironically considering your constant use of the word 'rational) quite an anti-rational view - surely the political opinions or state of mind of Irish language supporters (even if you could reasonably purport to know them) is irrelevant? However, since we are going down the road of broad brush-strokes it seems just as fair to say that the same often appears to work in reverse - i.e. many who question the spending of money in specific areas regarding the Irish language and present it as rational analysis will when pressed often emerge as opposed to any promotion of the language. That of course is a perfectly valid view as long as they are honest enough to declare it and not try to couch it in amateur economist-speak.

Permabear · 24-10-2009 9:06pm

This post has been deleted.

Powerhouse · 24-10-2009 10:37pm

1) This is the kind of economic illogicality that always dogs these debates. Stopping teaching Irish in schools would not reduce the cost of Irish education one iota as the same number of teachers would be employed anyway. And secondly, if a "demonstrable, tangible, positive outcome" (in the form of school results or a measured ability at a subject) is to decide everything in terms of educational policy then we would also stop teaching subject like Maths (twice as many people do honours Irish as do honours Maths - which genuinely is a compulsory subject unlike Irish) and English literature is schools simply because people do badly at them - we have native speakers of English who cannot take an honours English paper! The idea of dropping subjects people do not do well in because they do not do well in them is interesting. The question is what should be taught in their stead?

2) If these figures are so well hidden and unacknowledged how come you know them? It is widely known that many students are brutal at Irish (as many are at other subjects too - but you hear less about that) but what is less clear is how the policy of compulsory Irish is behind this. The implied notion that a foundation level Irish student who could not "after 14 years of instruction" tell you what 'yesterday' is in Irish will somehow have French pouring out of them because it is optional is as laughable as it is fanciful.

The biggest sacred cow of all is claim that compulsory Irish is the reason so many are brutal at it.

3) Where did I say you were opposed to "any promotion of the Irish language"? I merely adopted the opposing position to you when you decided to generalise about supporters of the Irish language. The stereotypes works both way - that's all I am saying. I have no idea where you fit in and I never attemoted to categorise you at all.

And incidentally who alleges that the language is "thriving"? (This is just straw man stuff you are throwing in)

And "blank cheques"? Where are you getting this from? Government is in fact quite stingy in its support of any cultural initiatives. A weekly Irish language newspaper had to close a few months back because the government would not provide any more funding so the idea that there are blank cheques floating around and that "ongoing demands" for money are met with unthining acquiesence is simply an untruth and should not be presented as anything else.

One final question; since your are "opposed to ongoing demands for blank cheques to fund nebulous schemes that do not ever seem to have brought about any actual benefit" - where do you stand on the continuing subsidisation of the national museum, the national library and the national gallery? Presumably you have no choice given your stated position but to oppose their existence since if "one is arguing for spending millions of taxpayer euros annually one [should] be expected to show a demonstrable, tangible, positive outcome from those policies". The tangible benefit of the national museum (entry is free if memory serves so we don't get even any of that lovely money from it) is not immediately clear to me anyway.

dlofnep · 24-10-2009 10:39pm

I can appreciate your point of view, and I understand that your views are noble in nature - wanting to save funds for other areas in society.

However, across the world - unique aspects of history are being preserved by Governments. Whether it is artifacts, literature or language. Out of Ireland, Britain and the Islands in between alone - there are 5 languages besides English being supported by Governments, at various levels. 5 languages on this tiny area on the edge of the Atlantic. Irish, Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Manx Gaelic and Cornish.

Out of those 5, the two that are fairing the best are the ones who receive the most support from their respective Governments. Irish and Welsh. Irish receiving substantial support is not something new, nor is it unique.

While I appreciate your POV - you must also take into consideration that many people do not want to see Irish gone. I would argue that the majority of the people support Irish being state-supported, at various levels.

The argument of the "amount" of funds allocated to Irish for certain areas is certainly something we could discuss, debate and compromise on. But the entire removal of state-support is not something I would consider and I feel that if Irish was removed from state support today - the Irish people would not be pleased. If you feel differently, that's fine.

I agree on the principle of re-structuring the framework of Irish. I am for making change for the better of the language, and trying new things to promote it. However, I'm personally not interested with what I view to be a defeatist attitude of scrapping the support.

Of course it does. It's human nature to feel a certain attrition to their culture. It's not unique to Ireland. But I have no problem in a cost-benefit discussion. So long as it's fair and balanced. I think the real issue stems in the fact that you believe that Irish speakers should have to read documentation in English. I believe it dilutes the nature of Irish as a first language. We can certainly discuss the amounts of funds allocated in areas that are not Irish strongholds - and increasing funds to where there are - but I will still like to see accessibility for everybody statewide for the language.

What you see as a bottomless pit, others see positive effort. Don't you feel that the issue is entirely subjective based on your own or my own personal views on the language? I would certainly agree that funds are being misused, or allocated to wrong areas. I put forth that the Irish language system in schools needs to be torn down and built up from scratch again. Nobody is more annoyed with the lack of bang for our buck when it comes to the Irish language than me. Nobody is more annoyed with the lack of real progress with the Irish language than me. You're not alone, I assure you.

I don't think we'll ever agree on the topic. We have two polar opposite views. But I think in the name of maturity and respect for other people's opinion - we should certainly discuss the issue and I'm more than happy to discuss it further.

Just my thoughts.

NewDubliner · 24-10-2009 11:05pm

Would you agree to an amendment to the Official Languages Act requiring that all schemes devised under the act have their costs properly accounted for and that the Department of Gaeltact affairs be responsible for collating and publishing the costs imposed by the act?

I think transparency like that would reassure the English-speaking majority that the amounts being spent are reasonable.

dlofnep · 24-10-2009 11:08pm

I would have no problem with that whatsoever. I'm all for accountability for every penny of tax payers, no matter what the issue. Infact, it might even benefit the language movement as we could then decide on where to better spend the said funds.

Aard · 25-10-2009 12:15am

Can any of the pro-Irish tell me that my analogy is incorrect?

Is it no really time to assess how much the irish language costs us all?

Comments