Nationalism and the Irish Language

T runner

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm curious about this Education Act of 1831... before it was introduced there was no free education in Ireland.. so any Irish that were going to school would have had to come from semi-wealthy families or go through the Church run schools. However this Education Act introduced free education and provided Irish people with a education they could actually use. However the problem being that they couldn't learn in Irish and wouldn't be taught Irish History?

So.. here's my question to you. What was stopping the Irish people who couldn't afford schools in the first place (you mentioned earlier that the Irish speakers were the poor), from continuing to learn Irish through the traditional methods, and also learn English (and other subsequent subjects) which would have practical use in a British run country?

So they would learn English by day and have Irish national school at night time?
Th
e point is that British policy in Ireland was aimed at stopping the use of Gaelic. Banning the use of Irish in national schools would achieve this by reducing the numbers speaking it and by obliterating its use in economic affairs.

You should also note that the printing of books in Irish was forbidden in Law. Irish Nationalism amongst Irish speakers was a necessary reaction to agressive British nationalism if they wished to remain Irish speakers.

The Corinthian

T runner wrote: »

The point is that British policy in Ireland was aimed at stopping the use of Gaelic. Banning the use of Irish in national schools would achieve this by reducing the numbers speaking it and by obliterating its use in economic affairs.

You should also note that the printing of books in Irish was forbidden in Law. Irish Nationalism amongst Irish speakers was a necessary reaction to agressive British nationalism if they wished to remain Irish speakers.

What is the point of such a history lesson, other as a continuation of The Great Irish Myth that all of our woes are due to "800 years of oppression"? What I find hilarious about such historical revisionism is that it skips over the last century, where we managed to make a pigs ear all on our own.

And this is before you ask the question of what relevance does such history have on us today? Regardless of how it declined, is it worth or even possible to keep alive at this stage? Why must we resuscitate a language based upon events from 1710 rather than those of 2010? Other than blind, nationalistic romanticism, what is the relevance of the historical context today?

T runner wrote: »

The state has every right and duty to boost the economies of deprived areas. If it can do this by also preserving an exclusively indiginous language so much the better.

This is potentially a valid reason for supporting the language, but it does not explain why it is necessary to learn the language outside those regions or whether the level of economic support to those deprived areas is appropriate.

T runner wrote: »

You said that teaching Irish was a waste of your time. Presumably this means that you think nobody in your class will benefit from learning Irish. Is this true?

I'm sure they'll benefit if they grow up to earn a living from one of the many bodies out there that are bankrolled by the state to promote the language.

The more I hear the arguments on this topic, the more I am becoming convinced that its support is in reality one grounded in the tax breaks and jobs that artificially keeping the language alive have generated and justified through historical martyrdom.

It's our own little Holocaust industry.

God forbid the language ever became widely spoken, as they would lose all the subsidies and could be expected to stand on their own feet.

#15

T runner wrote: »

You said that teaching Irish was a waste of your time. Presumably this means that you think nobody in your class will benefit from learning Irish. Is this true?

No, not really.

They WILL benefit insofar as they will have some knowledge of a language.

The problem is that the language will be no use to them, as hardly anybody speaks it.

Are you saying that there is nothing I could do with that time that would be more beneficial for the whole class?

T runner

T runner wrote: »

You first please.

Funnily enough I expected you to say that without actually providing anything. :rolleyes:

I think I acknowledged that the famine was unforseen but claimed that the British knew their education and policies towards Irish would inevitably lead to economic hardship for Irish speakers?

Of course the introduction of English as the primary language for social and commercial interactions would put Irish speakers (who chose not to use english) at a serious disadvantage.. Its obvious..

The Irish were so degraded that they didnt know any other farming techniques.
Their degradation was a result of the penal laws (British policy).
The Catholic Irish (80%) owned only 5% of the country's land as a result of these laws. Why did none of the landowners communicate farming techniques to the locals?

I don't know.. Have you checked to see if these landowners actually knew the farming techniques, or rather the overseer for these owners who spent most of their time in England. Its likely that in many cases, overseers were chosen to control assets not based on skills but rather through recommendations and bribery. It would fit the fashion of the time for such setups. So if the overseers weren't particularly skilled and under pressure to continue bringing in the incomes... Then the tenants would suffer.

Throughout the entire Famine period, the British government would never provide massive food aid to Ireland under the assumption that English landowners and private businesses would have been unfairly harmed by resulting food price fluctuations.

Tell me something... Did the British government provide massive food aid to any of their other colonies, or did any of the other colonial powers of the time? Just want to look at things in perspective. You're applying modern political morality to a very different time.

The British government had 4 years to get large amounts of edible food across the Irish sea to avert the great hunger after the second crop failure. They failed.

Failed? They never tried.

The famine was the beginning of the end of the Irish language. In the situation where the British government had put the Irish speaker: speaking Irish meant death.

err, no. I still haven't seen anything where Irish people were killed for speaking Irish.. So, no speaking Irish did not mean death. It meant being left on the outside, and not gaining the benefits of the British colonial society..

The Irish language was dying the moment the first Irish person was employed by any company and asked to speak english rather than Irish. Whether it be a practical concern like the other employees not speaking Irish, or a commercial one like their customers being primarily english speakers.

T runner

T runner wrote: »

So they would learn English by day and have Irish national school at night time?

TBH, I'm asking you.... You're the one that brought this up.

For my own part, I'm surprised that any Irish sons had time to study at all beyond the few basic lessons by the parish priest, since they would be needed to work on the farm, in the mines, etc. So, we're left mostly with girls, and those families with the money to back their son's ambitions to be a doctor or such.

The point is that British policy in Ireland was aimed at stopping the use of Gaelic. Banning the use of Irish in national schools would achieve this by reducing the numbers speaking it and by obliterating its use in economic affairs.

You should also note that the printing of books in Irish was forbidden in Law. Irish Nationalism amongst Irish speakers was a necessary reaction to agressive British nationalism if they wished to remain Irish speakers.

Whatever... Can't you answer the question I asked you rather than going off on a tangent about something else? (Something I've noticed you doing a few times in this thread)

metrovelvet

While it may be true that learning a second language early helps in learning more languages later, there is no sufficient reason why that second language should be Irish other than some poetic misguided reason created a longtime ago and embalmed in a guilty psyche of a people who have been connived into a tenacity of a past yet to be recreated.↲↲The premise that learning Irish will help in learning other languages fails in that people dont really learn Irish in the first place. How does NOT really learning a language after 12 years of studying it help you learn German or French later?

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

While it may be true that learning a second language early helps in learning more languages later, there is no sufficient reason why that second language should be Irish other than some poetic misguided reason created a longtime ago and embalmed in a guilty psyche of a people who have been connived into a tenacity of a past yet to be recreated.↲↲The premise that learning Irish will help in learning other languages fails in that people dont really learn Irish in the first place. How does NOT really learning a language after 12 years of studying it help you learn German or French later?

[Not really directed at you, metrovelvet, you just got me thinking]

I'm 32 years old, and trying to learn Chinese right now. I'm fairly fluent in Irish, decent English, and moderate German.. I'm struggling. IMHO having Irish doesn't help unless you're seeking to learn a language with a similar structure.. although any language with that similar structure would be more useful since it would have practical application.

The point is that Irish has no practical use. Any of the continental languages can be used to get jobs. What does having Irish get you? I've been thinking back over the last 13 years of my working & social experiences and I can't think of one useful application of Irish in that whole time. Hell, its not even that useful for picking up girls..

Although, lets be honest, it is fun to teach "Póg mo thóin" to foreigners.. and learn something similar in their language..

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

The Corinthian wrote: »

What is the point of such a history lesson, other as a continuation of The Great Irish Myth that all of our woes are due to "800 years of oppression"? What I find hilarious about such historical revisionism is that it skips over the last century, where we managed to make a pigs ear all on our own.[

And this is before you ask the question of what relevance does such history have on us today? Regardless of how it declined, is it worth or even possible to keep alive at this stage? Why must we resuscitate a language based upon events from 1710 rather than those of 2010? Other than blind, nationalistic romanticism, what is the relevance of the historical context today?

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.

This is potentially a valid reason for supporting the language, but it does not explain why it is necessary to learn the language outside those regions or whether the level of economic support to those deprived areas is appropriate.

I'm sure they'll benefit if they grow up to earn a living from one of the many bodies out there that are bankrolled by the state to promote the language.

The more I hear the arguments on this topic, the more I am becoming convinced that its support is in reality one grounded in the tax breaks and jobs that artificially keeping the language alive have generated and justified through historical martyrdom.

It's our own little Holocaust industry.

God forbid the language ever became widely spoken, as they would lose all the subsidies and could be expected to stand on their own feet.

I have a feeling that the arguments in this thread on the topic made absolutely no difference to your opinion of the Irish language.

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?

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.

Ive attached a speech made by Rev Boyd in the Belfast Linen Hall in 2006 about the Irish language. That might broaden your views on the value of indiginous languages and show you that where a language comes from may be relevant.

metrovelvet

Deleted User wrote: »

[Not really directed at you, metrovelvet, you just got me thinking]

I'm 32 years old, and trying to learn Chinese right now. I'm fairly fluent in Irish, decent English, and moderate German.. I'm struggling. IMHO having Irish doesn't help unless you're seeking to learn a language with a similar structure.. although any language with that similar structure would be more useful since it would have practical application.

The point is that Irish has no practical use. Any of the continental languages can be used to get jobs. What does having Irish get you? I've been thinking back over the last 13 years of my working & social experiences and I can't think of one useful application of Irish in that whole time. Hell, its not even that useful for picking up girls..

Although, lets be honest, it is fun to teach "Póg mo thóin" to foreigners.. and learn something similar in their language..

I never studied it . My mother was fluent in it at one stage, having learned it when she moved to Ireland from England as an adolescent. My father,born and bred in Dublin couldnt speak a word of it but could spout out Latin with ease. Between the two of them, I learned enough about Irish to know I actively dislike it.I dislike it because it is passive. 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." 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.

T runner

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.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

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.

Herbal Deity

#15 wrote: »

Its not preserving the language though, is it?

As a primary teacher, I'm annoyed that I have to spend around 3 and a half hours teaching Irish every week.

I have 12 foreign-born children in my class, most around 7/8 years old.

The youngest child is from Syria. She is 6 years old. A few weeks before the Christmas holidays, she asked me why we had to learn Irish.

Exact quote: 'teacher teacher, nobody speak this language, why are we doing it?'

I couldn't give her a proper answer.

It was a waste of my time, and hers.

What would you say to a child who asked you why they had to learn their times tables as everyone uses calculators?

The value of a subject has little to do with utility IMO.

However, I will say that Irish as a subject in its current form is useless unless you have very good teachers or attend Gaelscoileanna.

I had the benefit of very good Irish teachers in primary school (English speaking) and then attended a Gaelscoil for secondary. I was fluent within 2/3 months of starting secondary school.

I did Latin for Junior Cert and I feel that a knowledge of Irish made it an immeasurably more worthwhile and fulfilling experience. As Irish has, for example, a genetive case, it was much easier to relate to similar concepts in Latin. Being able to make grammatical and lexical contrasts and comparisons between English, Irish and Latin was fascinating.

I'm kind of waffling here, but my point is really that Irish does have value, or rather would have if it were taught properly.

I think well taught Irish would be a hugely beneficial subject in primary school. In secondary school, I now no longer feel that it is appropriate to have it compulsory for Leaving Cert, and I feel the Junior Cert course should be more along the lines of French and German. (I think English should be made optional for LC also, for similar reasons. I would keep maths compulsory, but that may be my biased view.)

Pragmatically speaking, if the teaching of Irish cannot be brought up to a decent standard, then, as much as I would lament it, I think the emphasis on it could be lessened in primary school and that it could be made optional in secondary school. Children should always have to ask "An bhfuil cead agam dul go dtí an leithris?", however. I think a little bit of Ireland would die if that tradition were done away with.

Herbal Deity

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.

The Corinthian

Herbal Deity wrote: »

What would you say to a child who asked you why they had to learn their times tables as everyone uses calculators?

The value of a subject has little to do with utility IMO.

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?

metrovelvet

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

metrovelvet wrote: »

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.

OT Aside: Actually both languages share the same Verb-Subject-Object sentience structure, AFAIK.

metrovelvet

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

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.

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.

metrovelvet

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

Herbal Deity wrote: »

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.

...


What practical use is there for the study of English literature or History that there isn't for Irish?

The Corinthian

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.

foxcomm

This post has been deleted.

#15

foxcomm wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Where did I say I wanted to destroy the Irish language? Like The Corinthian, I would love if we were a bilingual nation.

I can speak Irish. Can you?

'Our national sport' promotes one type of Irishness.

I have forgotten more things about Irish culture, language and history than you will ever know.

I don't need some narrow-minded individual on the internet telling me I'm not Irish. Throw your slurs at someone else. Thanks.

#15

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.

My point was not whether there is value in studying Irish. Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough.

The main problem I have is that I have to spend more time teaching Irish than Maths or Science.

That is disproportionate.

One hour of Irish per week would be fine with me.

foxcomm

foxcomm wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh, don't be ridiculous.. Personally, its that kind of attitude which drives people away from wanting to learn anything to do with traditional Ireland.

Foxcomm, am I anti-Irish? I played hurling both in primary, secondary, and university level. I'm fluent in Irish. I can sing at least a dozen songs in Irish. I can play the tin whistle quite well, and I'm a pretty decent dancer at ceili.

And I would be quite happy never to do any of them ever again.. It has no bearing on my life in Ireland.. and I can't see it impacting on anyone else either.

#15

The Corinthian wrote: »

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?

Just to clarify, it is about 3 and a half hours per week, not per day. Don't think even the most ardent 'nationalist' could support 3 hours per day of Gaeilge!

#15

I have posted this before, but if anyone wants to look at the time allocation for subjects in primary schools, it is on page 78 of this pdf file.

http://www.ncca.ie/uploadedfiles/Curriculum/Intro_Eng.pdf

In an English speaking school, Irish is language 2 (3 hours 30 mins weekly).

Keep in mind that even though SESE and Arts Education each get 3 hours weekly, both of these subjects contain 3 subjects. So SESE is History, Geography, Science (one hour each). And Arts is Visual Art, Drama and Music (one hour each).

metrovelvet

It would seem to me the only way to have a bilingual nation is to convert all schools to irish speaking.

#15

metrovelvet wrote: »

It would seem to me the only way to have a bilingual nation is to convert all schools to irish speaking.

Probably wouldn't work.
Until adults decide to start using it in their everyday life, in the home, etc, then there will be no revival.

IMHO.

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

It would seem to me the only way to have a bilingual nation is to convert all schools to irish speaking.

Not just the schools, but everything. The reason that people don't want to learn Irish is that there is no practical use for it. So you leave school, where do you use it then? possibly for a short entrance exam to get government service, or be a teacher.. but for anyone that enters business, the media, etc there is no reason to focus any energy in it. Its not going to boost salaries, or increase their chances of landing a job.

A Bilingual country would need to introduce a real need for the language during every day life. There isn't any.

Herbal Deity

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.

metrovelvet

I was thinking of people I know who went to Scuala d'italia, lycee francais,or ramaz. By the time they were 18 they were fluent in italian, french, hebrew even though new york is an english and (spanglish) speaking city.

desertcircus

A few thoughts:

1. Language creating consciousness is a concept known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis; unfortunately for Metrovelvet, it's been discredited since the 1960s when Chomsky started kicking great big holes in it.

2. The arguments put forward by most of the pro-Irish camp in this thread are somewhat damaged by the fact that history remains optional for the Leaving Cert. If we keep Irish compulsory for cultural reasons, then surely knowing about the development of Irish history would be more culturally useful than knowing the eleven irregular verbs.

3. To be honest, I find it a bit offensive that people regard the Irish language as being a cultural necessity for being properly Irish. I don't speak Irish - that doesn't make me any less Irish than someone who does. Speaking Irish makes you no more Irish than I am. And to the person who asked whether an Irish passport makes you Irish: YES. At the very least, it's a reasonably unbiased measure of Irishness, as opposed to someone's ability to instantly alienate themselves from the vast majority of their countrymen and women.

Herbal Deity

One can be pro-Irish without wanting Irish compulsory for the LC.

Also, viewing the Irish language as culturally important doesn't mean that one thinks they are "more Irish" than others for being able to speak it.

metrovelvet

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.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

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.

The only times I truly felt Irish was when I was living in other countries...

#15

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You're preaching to the converted donegalfella! Don't even get me started on religion in schools!!

One correction: Science is allocated one hour per week. Still not enough though.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

#15

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I know.

More Irish than Maths.
More Religious instruction than Science.

Priorities, eh?

metrovelvet

Can you withdraw your child from religion and irish and get them a private tutor for extra math and science on ideological objections?

Herbal Deity

I don't think you can send your child to avail of all aspects of public education besides Irish and Religion. Religion your child can sit out on, but afaik if enrolled in a public school, your child must learn Irish.

You could homeschool them/get them private tuition instead of sending them to school. They might have difficulty getting into NUI universities without a pass in OL Irish in their LC, however.

#15

As Herbal Deity has said, religion is optional.

But they can't escape the ethos of the school.

Irish, AFAIK, can not be opted out of, unless the child has an exemption. At least, not in schools that follow the NCCA curriculum.

Don't quote me on that though.

Wibbs

foxcomm wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well I can trace my family directly back to the 1500's in this country, which few enough can and my DNA is at least a 1000 yrs before that and more than a few members of my family fought and died for this nation while others hid behind their mothers skirts.

I can't speak Irish, have little interest in doing so(mostly because of my experience of those who seek to beat me over the head with it's "cultural importance), have never played GAA of any nature(though am well impressed by hurlers) and can't abide most "Irish" trad music*. Yet you claim I may be less Irish than you?

The best of us lived in a self decided future, mindful of the past, but not pickled uselessly by it. That's how such as those created the conditions for this very state. If a GAAAA playing insular Gaelgoir type is your definition of being Irish then I would happily lay down my claim to it. It certainly wouldn't be my definition. Indeed to define it is to lose it in so many ways.




*save for the pipes and Sean-nós type singing. Must be my actually ancient genetics kicking in :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

foxcomm wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh dear, another armchair nationalist scoring an own-goal for the cause...

#15 wrote: »

Just to clarify, it is about 3 and a half hours per week, not per day. Don't think even the most ardent 'nationalist' could support 3 hours per day of Gaeilge!

Where did I read per day then? My mistake.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but has Irish not experienced a revival in the last 10/20 years?

TBH it is presently impossible to say. One of the problems with measuring the usage of the language is there are no objective, impartial measurement of it. On one side you have laughable metrics such as in the census, where you can 'assess yourself' and on the other hand you have surveys and assessments carried out by various government departments who have vested interests in keeping the numbers up.

I remember, in university, a girl I knew who grew up in the Gaeltacht, who could speak as much Irish as me (which is negligible) but was classified as an Irish speaker. According to her, an inspector would come round and practically coach you along during the language test and then mark you down as a speaker. Who knows what percentage of official figures have been massaged like this as a result.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Herbal Deity

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

*shrug

While I wouldn't oppose change, I don't think it's such a huge issue. Personally, I received a thoroughly excellent primary education. While some parents might have an issue with the teaching of Irish and Catholicism, I think to consider this to be detrimental to the Irish education system to the point of it being an embarassment to the state is a silly notion.

metrovelvet

Herbal Deity wrote: »

*shru

While I wouldn't oppose change, I don't think it's such a huge issue. Personally, I received a thoroughly excellent primary education. While some parents might have an issue with the teaching of Irish and Catholicism, I think to consider this to be detrimental to the Irish education system to the point of it being an embarassment to the state is a silly notion.

While I am not anti religion, I do not think it is the state's place to be teaching it. As for Irish I think the money and time ciuld be spent elsewhere especially on school infrastructure. The playground of the local school looks like something out of auchwitz.