Nationalism and the Irish Language

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nonsense. Being obsessed with TV, movies, and eating out makes us indistinguishable from everybody who has access to these things.

The facts are that people want to preserve Irish and want ther children to learn it. There is no popular support for the state withdrawing its policy of encoraging cultural diversity in Ireland and rightly so.

Donegalfella, as a Unionist you might yearn for the day when Ireland is part of the UK again. However, to state that Irish are culturally indistinguishable from Americans and British would not get agreement from the vast majority of peoples living in any of those nations. Saying that is as pertinent as your comment about how the teaching of history in the ROI caused the troubles in NI. As you would say yourself. Nonsense

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No there are plenty of atheists (of which I am one.) and people of other religions in Irteland and other countries in the world.

TBH your not really in a position to comment on religion in Ireland given your complete misunderstanding of the most recent troubles in NI.

You are a unionist though, you would prefer that all of Ireland was in union with Britain? Do you deny it?

You have indicated in many posts your political preferences. Some of the irrational ones where you allege that the British States banning of Irish in national schools and Irish publications were not intended to harm the Irish language. Your defending of the penal laws, your denial of any British culpability for the loss of 1 million lives from 1845-1848. Your implying that the troubles in Northern Ireland were actually caused by the teaching of history in the ROI. Your utter detestation of Irish nationalism while excusing British nationalism.

metrovelvet

Are you really going to let your enemy,and not even an enemy, define you? Why give them the power?

shayno90

I have to question the motives for Donegalfella starting this thread. Obviously his bashing of nationalism and gaeilge has some sinister undertones which reflect the unionist viewpoint of irish culture, worshiping the crown and how we should fully immerse ourselves into british culture. Im sure you are reading the Irish history books with rose tinted glasses and believe that under British rule Ireland didn't suffer as country. You should be up on a pulpit with Paisley preaching about the demons of the nationalism cause and how we should reject traditional aspects of Irish culture (or as you might refer the Fenian language).

It is difficult to respect your point of view when it is clearly biased towards a unionist viewpoint and you hide this behind facts and figures, so if you any self- respect at least admit what your real motives are for attacking the language.

I am glad that someone like you is not in a position of power as you clearly want to erode Irish culture and have Ireland become an homogenous nation that would fit nicely into the Commonwealth nations where those countries lack a true identity. Your arguments are quite confrontational and have sectarian undertones which is quite disturbing to say the least!!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

shayno90 wrote: »

I have to question the motives for Donegalfella starting this thread....

Before you say something check that its actually true. Going to the first page of this thread its clear Valmont actually started it.


I don't like the progression this thread has taken (I preferred going around it circles, and thats saying something). What shayno90 and T Runner have effectively said is "if your not with me your against me." Ive heard it before. I might suggest that some part of Irish nationalism is irrational, and I'm labeled variously a Unionist or a West Brit. The Unionist insult is funny because those who throw it clearly cant see outside the box: they cant even imagine life without nationalism. If you're not allied to Ireland then you must be allied to Britain.

Can't ye see that is doesn't matter? My basic demands of my country are that is leaves me alone somewhat and that I'm protected from it encroaching upon my human rights. Ill engage in what culture I like, not what culture some lobby groups on Kildare Street tell me is mine.

silverharp

shayno90 wrote: »

I have to question the motives for Donegalfella starting this thread. Obviously his bashing of nationalism and gaeilge has some sinister undertones which reflect the unionist viewpoint of irish culture, worshiping the crown and how we should fully immerse ourselves into british culture. Im sure you are reading the Irish history books with rose tinted glasses and believe that under British rule Ireland didn't suffer as country. You should be up on a pulpit with Paisley preaching about the demons of the nationalism cause and how we should reject traditional aspects of Irish culture (or as you might refer the Fenian language).

It is difficult to respect your point of view when it is clearly biased towards a unionist viewpoint and you hide this behind facts and figures, so if you any self- respect at least admit what your real motives are for attacking the language.

I am glad that someone like you is not in a position of power as you clearly want to erode Irish culture and have Ireland become an homogenous nation that would fit nicely into the Commonwealth nations where those countries lack a true identity. Your arguments are quite confrontational and have sectarian undertones which is quite disturbing to say the least!!

I know DF can well defend himself but as someone who had a nationalist upbringing, I agree with his point of view in this thread. You'd be better served attacking the posts and not questioning the poster which to be honest seems like a route that someone losing an argument would take?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

theredletter

Pfft.

At the end of the day Donegalfella has a basic grasp of the sociolinguistic timeline of the decline, and then the resurgence, of the Irish language. His attitude towards the language is flawed and lacks basic common sense. An obviously intelligent fellow, but doesn't really understand how the Irish language system operates. I know a lot of Irish language activists who share some of your opinions, believe it or not, because at the end of the day a language is a language. Irish people are not a Celtic race, biologically, we have created this culture. Did you know that the Céilí band, in itself a uniquely 'Irish' concept, wasn't really developed until the foundation of 2RN. You can speak Irish and be a unionist, you can speak English and be a nationalist. A language is a bloody language.

Some of Donegalfella's points, however, weren't exactly true, particularly in relation to the standardisation of the language in the 1950s. Blasting others for their apparent lack of knowledge of the language rings false, as the user obviously has been misguided in terms of sociolinguistics himself.

Donegalfella and some people on this topic is what is wrong with the Irish language today. Many people can't accept that the Celticisation of Ireland succeeded in many other ways. We have bilingual services, an 'Irish' culture, a very distinct English dialect etc. We have created an identity that is not English without a complete language shift. GAA, for example, is our most popular sport. Who'd have thought that back in the late 19th century? We've managed to maintain our traditions and our heritage in other ways. The Irish language is just one area. I speak Irish, but I listen to bass and drums. I speak Irish, but I don't play GAA. I speak Irish, and I'm not a 'practicing' Catholic. I speak Irish, but I couldn't give a **** what's going on in Northern Ireland. I speak Irish, and the government will continue to line the pockets of those who do for the foreseeable future. Again.

Na, na, na, na, na.

shayno90

What shayno90 and T Runner have effectively said is "if your not with me your against me."

Nope, Im only supporting the Irish language.


" My basic demands of my country are that is leaves me alone somewhat and that I'm protected from it encroaching upon my human rights"

You'd swear it was dictatorship controlling you, you are really exaggerating your point claiming having to learn Irish infringes your human rights, ask the U.N. to intervene


"That's right. By day I wreak untold damage on Irish culture by posting on this Internet bulletin board; by night I break into thatched cottages, unravel Aran jumpers, and steal Irish dancing shoes."

Don't forget marching your way down the road

Donegalfella, the problem I have with your argument is that you insinuate that gaeilge is strongly linked to negative aspects of republicanism and your argument is drifting towards a nationalist versus unionist one which is not the point of the thread.

T runner

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Before you say something check that its actually true. Going to the first page of this thread its clear Valmont actually started it.


I don't like the progression this thread has taken (I preferred going around it circles, and thats saying something). What shayno90 and T Runner have effectively said is "if your not with me your against me." Ive heard it before. I might suggest that some part of Irish nationalism is irrational, and I'm labeled variously a Unionist or a West Brit. The Unionist insult is funny because those who throw it clearly cant see outside the box: they cant even imagine life without nationalism. If you're not allied to Ireland then you must be allied to Britain.

Can't ye see that is doesn't matter? My basic demands of my country are that is leaves me alone somewhat and that I'm protected from it encroaching upon my human rights. Ill engage in what culture I like, not what culture some lobby groups on Kildare Street tell me is mine.

Im sorry but some fairness is necessary here. Me and many others have been labelled nationalists for the only reason that we support the Irish language.

A lot of my argument on this topic has resolved around other countries (Finland, UK) attitude to local languages to show that nationalism is not the only reason for reviving languages. Cultural and linguistic diversity is a valid reason and one which is supported by the EU and UN amongst others.


Donegalfella and others have argued that the Irish languages decline has been purely natural. When I pointed out that other factors which may have made this decline rather more unnatural included the British states banning of Irish in National school and the banning of publications in the Irish language.

For pointing this out I was unreasonably accused of playing the 800 years of oppression card, whatever that is.

Now if I am being accused of being a nationalists for pointing out that British policy may have been aimed at undermining the Irish language and may have resulted in Irish speakers of that era ending up with a seperatist ideology then surely it is faie game to accuse Donegalfella of being unionist for defending Britains policies in regards the Irish language and the famine.

They ahve also made the claim that the only reason there is any interest in Irish now is due to "a few protestant nationalists" i.e Gaelic literary revival. This type of selective historical cherrypicking is akin to people in the future claining that the roots of current Scottish nationalism revival was "Braveheart". Again for pointing this out I got painted with the 800 years of opprerssion brush.


It all goes back to what to what the OP said about the definition of nationalism.

That is one thing this thread has not explored. What does Irish nationalism actually mean? Is it different from patriotism for instance?
Do we need to seperate cultural and political nationalism on thisd thread? Does nationalism imply anti-Britishness? etc.
People seem to be confusing cultural nationalism with political nationalism here.



Most people might see it as wanting

T runner

shayno90 wrote: »

Donegalfella, the problem I have with your argument is that you insinuate that gaeilge is strongly linked to negative aspects of republicanism and your argument is drifting towards a nationalist versus unionist one which is not the point of the thread.

I agree with this and this has strenghtened my opinion that Donegalfella is a unionist who is anti-Irish language because he sees it as a branch of nationalism.

He is entitled to have supra-national loyalties unless it actually drives him to treason.

But if Donegalfella attempts to slam the Irish language and supporters as a nationalist pipe dreaming - (nationalists being anything from those who like Irish to those who are happy that ROI is a sovereign nation to IRA members apparently---all are the same in his eyes) then he must accept that his politics are fair game for determining his contrary positions

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sorry but that sounded like a threat Donegalfella. I cant tell if that was moderation or not becuase you post so much and are so opinuionated on thses subjects.

You have accused me of nationalism many, many times.

This is blatant hypocrisy I am afraid.

The Corinthian

T runner wrote: »

You have accused me of nationalism many, many times.

He actually accused you of a particular, blind, idiotic type of nationalism. And in fairness you gave him plenty of ammunition for this.

Having read through this thread, I'd have to say that donegalfella has been more than patient with you. The position he's put forward has been highly critical of many of the sacred cows of Irish identity, but at no point has he suggested anything close to an affinity with union with Britain. I could challenge you to show where he has, but we both know that would go nowhere.

Calling him a unionist is simply your invention; either to discredit him or because you genuinely define anyone who questions these aforementioned sacred cows. I have no idea which as the anonymity of the Internet precludes me from carrying out psychiatric tests.

You're fortunate that I don't moderate here. I saw you post on other threads (without engaging in them myself) a while back and while your capacity to confuse pomposity with intellectualism was entertaining at the start, it has become counter-productive for the grown-ups. For me that's more trouble that it's worth, so I'd have banned you ages ago.

So I suggest that you take care in the accusations you make, as while donegalfella may be a nice guy, the other moderators of this forum may be less tolerant of your freshman debating style.

Apologies to the other posters and moderators for the above.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Grudaire

As per usual this thread has decended (further..)

The Corinthian wrote: »

I did not dispute that Irish remains part of Ireland's identity, only the assertion that it is a key part of Ireland's identity - or if it is a key part, it certainly is not one as intended.

And I disagree with that, thus is a clash in opinion. I think the language has influenced the country immensely, and while a minority can speak it, an a smaller minority do speak it, I think that a majority do support it (And I have yet to see evidence to the contrary, study after study shows that support for the language is still strong [Although methods of promotion have a lesser fan base])

The Corinthian wrote: »

And Peig. None of us will ever forget Peig. And trust me, we try.

Off topic question: I was under the impression that you didn't study Irish?

Also I never had to study Peig We read about Diarmad running off with Gráinne and making a woman of her (Exact words! "Agus rinne sé bean dí"! )

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's the crazy thing; how can we turn the country into a truly bilingual nation, when those promoting Irish seem to be in denial about it?

Well now that's not been your argument, or point at all throughout the debate has it? I think we'd need a new forum to discuss that

Eliot Rosewater

theredletter wrote: »

Donegalfella and some people on this topic is what is wrong with the Irish language today.

Let me get this straight: your blaming problems with the Irish language on those who dont have anything to do with it? Quote of the thread for sure!

theredletter wrote: »

You'd swear it was dictatorship controlling you, you are really exaggerating your point claiming having to learn Irish infringes your human rights, ask the U.N. to intervene

Perhaps I didnt contextualize enough. I wasnt talking about Irish, I was talking about what I demanded of a state. I was trying to contrast this with what others here demand of the state: they want an institution that will define what being Irish means and then make the populace engage with this "Irish culture". The problem with this is that a) one cannot define one culture for a whole county. Everyones different. b) The culture promoted by the government will be based on nationalistic self interest and what lobbyists want.

T runner wrote: »

Me and many others have been labelled nationalists for the only reason that we support the Irish language.

Given that the basic reasoning behind compulsory Irish is nationalism I would say that that conclusion wasnt inaccurate.

The Corinthian

Cliste wrote: »

And I disagree with that, thus is a clash in opinion. I think the language has influenced the country immensely, and while a minority can speak it, an a smaller minority do speak it, I think that a majority do support it (And I have yet to see evidence to the contrary, study after study shows that support for the language is still strong [Although methods of promotion have a lesser fan base])

Please note what I said - "is a key part". It may well have been a key part, it also may be a part, but it is difficult to justify it as a key part of Irish culture today, especially if you accept that it actually plays little or no part in the lives of the majority in Ireland from the moment we leave school. That's simply not a key part.

Off topic question: I was under the impression that you didn't study Irish?

I did, until I discovered that I was exempt from it as a requirement for university and so quickly dropped it.

Peig, for me, was an excellent example of what is wrong with how the language is promoted. An absolutely, mind numbingly boring text, where killing a pig was the highlight, completely out of touch with the society it sought to influence. It's not that it was historical or even that it was in another language - even in English it would have bored us all to tears. At least Suetonius made Latin more interesting.

Well now that's not been your argument, or point at all throughout the debate has it? I think we'd need a new forum to discuss that

I've said from the onset that I would like to see Ireland as bilingual - both English and Irish. However, while I would like to see this, I would not want to do so at infinite cost.

I also believe that a large part of the language's continued demise is down to, in part, the fantasy by many (but not all) galegores who have a tendency to claim there's a revival every few years, regardless of the fact the numbers continue to decline and rather than look at the mistakes of the past century, somehow skip over this and blame the languages decline on "800 years of oppression".

Added to this there is also the rather distasteful reality that even if much of the promotion of the language is money down the drain, there are definite vested interests in Ireland, who make a living or receive incentives to perpetuate these failed strategies.

If people really want to save the language, we must coldly look at first whether we actually can. It may be too late. If we can, we have to accept that it is our own fault it is where it is, our own fault the majority has little interest in it or are even openly hostile to it and adopt a fresh and practical approach. And finally, to wash away this culture of jobs for the bhuachaillí that serves only to perpetuate a failed approach, breed resentment from those paying for them (the tax payer) and use up resources that could be actually used to save the language.

Otherwise, these debates will resurface time and time again, until some day in the future they will be moot.

T runner

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Given that the basic reasoning behind compulsory Irish is nationalism I would say that that conclusion wasnt inaccurate.

First of all can you substantiate your statement that the basic reasoning behind compulsory Irish is nationalism?

Secondly do you mean political or cultural nationalists? A majority of the population of this Island would be political nationalists whereas a minority would be cultural nationalists.

In any event I do not agree that even if the basic reasoning behind compulsory Irish was nationalism that this is a reason for people to label me or anyone who supports Irish a nationalist.

Eliot Rosewater

T runner wrote: »

First of all can you substantiate your statement that the basic reasoning behind compulsory Irish is nationalism?

Its not that hard. People here have said that Irish should be compulsory as it is part of our culture/heritage. Surely that is "devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation", which is Answers.com definition of nationalism?

T runner wrote: »

Secondly do you mean political or cultural nationalists?

Nationalism is in my experience an all-in-one ism. I dont know what you're dividing it up for. And even if were one to divide it up, your next declaration:

T runner wrote: »

A majority of the population of this Island would be political nationalists whereas a minority would be cultural nationalists.

is totally wrong in my experience. The modern generation has gotten over the past a lot, and no longer holds an innate bitterness or grudge towards those born in Britain. However these people will still insist on preserving Irish culture through compulsory Irish etc.

T runner wrote: »

In any event I do not agree that even if the basic reasoning behind compulsory Irish was nationalism that this is a reason for people to label me or anyone who supports Irish a nationalist.

You support nationalism, yet your not a nationalist? This is getting ridiculous.

metrovelvet

T runner wrote: »

Sorry but that sounded like a threat Donegalfella. I cant tell if that was moderation or not becuase you post so much and are so opinuionated on thses subjects.

You have accused me of nationalism many, many times.

This is blatant hypocrisy I am afraid.

You so much as accused him if treason.

metrovelvet

Maybe it should be compulsory thatwe all dye our hair red and wear kelly green.

Wibbs

The last two pages are a damned good example of why I have a suspicion of many who promote the Irish language. Its the same old circular argument I've seen and heard time and time and time again. The inference of not being "Irish" enough, of being a west brit, the claim of more speaking it than do, the fluency of same and the massaging of the figures for support of it etc.

The example of GAA and its popularity is a good one actually. GAA is massively popular and if as many spoke Irish as supported GAA we would have a far better stab at an actual working language as opposed to the cultural museum piece it largely is.

The English have been blamed for its loss, well they havent been around for the guts of 100 years, so who is to blame for the fact we're not writing as Gaelige? That argument holds no water anymore. There's a point in every persons life were they stop blaming their ills on their parents. Its a good judge of maturity. While Britain is not our parent, the idea still holds. Build a bridge and get over it.

Why would I not learn it? One reason is because of those who I've met who tend to speak it use it as a cudgel, not a means of communication. The worst of these Ive found are the "new" Irish speakers. The actual native speakers I've known tend not to be like this at all(they note this too). I suppose its like late in life religious converts, they tend towards a holier than thou vibe. Hopefully if it does take off again due to the kids actually speaking it outside school hours then that guff will go with it.

T runner

The Corinthian wrote: »

He actually accused you of a particular, blind, idiotic type of nationalism. And in fairness you gave him plenty of ammunition for this.

No he didnt and no I didnt. I was accused of nationalism becuase I pointed out that the British ban on Irish in national school and in publishing was evidence that the demise of Irish was not as natural as you and he insisted.

Having read through this thread, I'd have to say that donegalfella has been more than patient with you. The position he's put forward has been highly critical of many of the sacred cows of Irish identity,

How could the documented fact that Britain did ban Irish in National school and in publishing possibly be construed as a sacred cow by anyone who is thinking rationally?

Donegalfella also claimed that the history taught in ROI/Free State was responsible for the recent troubles in Ulster. What sacred cow was he criticising here? Do you agree with this?

but at no point has he suggested anything close to an affinity with union with Britain. I could challenge you to show where he has, but we both know that would go nowhere.

And thank you for bacling up all your above assertions with quotes and proof. Do as I say not as I do eh?

Calling him a unionist is simply your invention; either to discredit him or because you genuinely define anyone who questions these aforementioned sacred cows.

Defending British policy in Ireland during the famine, Britains ban on the Irish language, blaming the troubles in the North on the ROI history curriculum seems to smack of an irrationality usually caused by an underlying political ideology. Unionism would have seemed to be the likely candidate.

I have no idea which as the anonymity of the Internet precludes me from carrying out psychiatric tests.

I would hope for the sake of the reputation of Irish psychiatrists that more than the internet precludes you for making psychiatric tests.


Always can count on you for the snide/slithery insult.

You're fortunate that I don't moderate here.

Teeth are chattering.

I saw you post on other threads (without engaging in them myself) a while back and while your capacity to confuse pomposity with intellectualism was entertaining at the start, it has become counter-productive for the grown-ups.

Grown ups who use snide insults and antagonism as a means of argument for example?
Also, looks like you changed your mind about the psychiatric evaluation.

For me that's more trouble that it's worth, so I'd have banned you ages ago.

I guess Im lucky that they put a man of your stature as UbenFuhrer of the Mickey Mouse forums then.

So I suggest that you take care in the accusations you make,

Youre not a moderator on this forum therefore not in a position to tell me what to do or not to do.

while donegalfella may be a nice guy, the other moderators of this forum may be less tolerant of your freshman debating style.

They may also not be tolerant of some maverick moderating and telling them how to moderate their forum.

Would you allow back seat moderation on any of your forums?

Yet you see fit to backseat moderate on this forum.

Another case of do as I say not as I do, eh?

Im not surprised.

T runner

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Its not that hard. People here have said that Irish should be compulsory as it is part of our culture/heritage. Surely that is "devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation", which is Answers.com definition of nationalism?

But you said the reason behind compulsory nationalism. It is the reasons of the government of the time bringing it in and the current government that are relevant not a few posters on this thread.

The modern generation has gotten over the past a lot, and no longer holds an innate bitterness or grudge towards those born in Britain.

But whos talking about an innate bitterness or grudge? People wanting a united Ireland dont hate Britain. And were talking probably about a majority of people wanting a united Ireland through peaceful means. Does that make tehse people nationalists? I doubt it.

You support nationalism, yet your not a nationalist? This is getting ridiculous.

I support the Irish language. This does not make me a nationalist.

Eliot Rosewater

T runner wrote: »

It is the reasons of the government of the time bringing it in and the current government that are relevant not a few posters on this thread.

I think that the government brought it in because of nationalism. I think that the government keep it because of nationalism of some of the populace, the reluctance of governments in general to change the status quo and the interests of Irish language lobbyists. It think that the reasoning is solely nationalistic.

If you think that is wrong then you tell me why Irish was made compulsory and why it is still compulsory.

T runner wrote: »

And were talking probably about a majority of people wanting a united Ireland through peaceful means. Does that make tehse people nationalists? I doubt it.

I assumed you knew what a nationalist was. You clearly don't.

Out of interest, what do you think nationalism is?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

And whats all this concentration on natural or unnatural decline of the language? OK let's agree that it was a forced decline, you cant argue that its promotion has been approaching "natural" either. It has been just as forced and unlike the decline not nearly as successful.


I suspect it boils mostly down to the fact that english is an incredibly useful language. Even the places irish people emigrated to were english speaking. I further suspect of we had been a say Finnish protectorate and they left 100 years ago we would all be speaking Irish today. English was and is endemic in media, business and our lives.

Bigdeadlydave

Maybe a fair compromise would be to have Irish compulsory up to the Junior Cert, then have it optional for the leaving cert but have it incentivised the same way they are talking about having honors maths? Because as we all know its the leaving cert that actually matters.
And just to say I can see how both parties above feel they have been insulted. IMHO the "800 years card" was brought into this debate unnecessarily.
I think that some posts here are giving off the vibe that if you are for Irish your an IRA head, and if you are against Irish you are a die hard unionist. Its not fair to label anyone here anything. Personally I am apolitical and have never voted.

Herbal Deity

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So you don't agree with the concept of the nation state...

donegalfella wrote:

In a country obsessed with British football, soap operas, music, and talent contests, American movies, Chinese and Indian food, and imported clothing from Asia, nationalists need something quintessentially Irish to cling to. As the poster above said, if he didn't speak Irish, he would feel culturally indistinguishable from a Briton or an American. So we need Irish to give us the comforting illusion of being different and special.

EXACTLY!!

Seriously, not being sarcastic here, this comforting illusion is very important. It's a fundamental tenant of the nation state.

National culture in any nation state is at least partially manufactured. I gave the example of France and the French language earlier. The vast majority of France did not speak French 200 years ago.

When taken to extremes, it becomes akin to Fascism, and obviously that is not ideal, but then again, nothing taken to extremes is good.

IMO a common sense of identity fuels productivity, work ethic, respect for other citizens, less antisocial behaviour etc.

It doesn't have to impinge on personal freedom and choice excessively. It's similar in nature to something like the smoking ban. I don't think complete libertarianism would work very well. The key is to strike a balance between nationalist and libertarian policy.

Has the Irish state gotten this balance right? Oh God no. Is this a reason to completely scrap nationalism and everything associated with it? Of course not, policies simply need be revised. Language has always been an important cultural feature in nation states. I don't believe we'll ever be a fully bilingual state, but do I think that more fluent speakers will emerge in coming years and I think Irish does have an important role to play in the future of the Irish state and Irish identity.


Also, as an aside, while I completely agree that other posters accusing you of unionism to be completely out of line, you insinuated earlier that those who do not fully back multiculturalism and globalisation to be xenophobic. That is equally completely out of line and in no way conductive to to civil debate as far as I am concerned.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

I dont think that a sense if national identity necessarily creates xenophobia. But what happens is that a cheap and quick way to form a community is through shared hatred and when this method is employed to form the community you have unsavory outcomes. When you use healthier methods then the results change. Ireland felt dhe needed an enemy in her own invention. As such, an example of the necessity of demons.

Bigdeadlydave

It's easy to cherry-pick, isn't it? A common sense of identity can also fuel less savory things: Racism, xenophobia, terrorism, even genocide.

I think this is a perfect example of how this thread has degenerated and become quite ridiculous.
I could say that no common sense of identity could lead a person to become increasingly isolated and even develop into a serial killer! Nothing in life has a solely positive outcome, but countering an argument about how speaking/having Irish as part of a common identity could lead to genocide? I mean come on!

Bigdeadlydave

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

I think this is a perfect example of how this thread has degenerated and become quite ridiculous.
I could say that no common sense of identity could lead a person to become increasingly isolated and even develop into a serial killer! Nothing in life has a solely positive outcome, but countering an argument about how speaking/having Irish as part of a common identity could lead to genocide? I mean come on!

Not really, at the end of the day it would depend on the people who are fueling the drive, and their motives... A renewal of hatred for the British would be a plausible response depending on how a program was introduced, promoted, and maintained.

The point is that it could swing either way. A common sense of identity is a very... flexible concept.. depending on who's involved.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Herbal Deity

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really, at the end of the day it would depend on the people who are fueling the drive, and their motives... A renewal of hatred for the British would be a plausible response depending on how a program was introduced, promoted, and maintained.

The point is that it could swing either way. A common sense of identity is a very... flexible concept.. depending on who's involved.

Of course it is. But there is not one political system in existence that totally mitigates against corruption and/or dodgy agendas being pushed.

I thought this sentence in my last post covered that:

Herbal Deity wrote:

When taken to extremes, it becomes akin to Fascism, and obviously that is not ideal, but then again, nothing taken to extremes is good.

I wasn't cherry picking at all. I thought it was quite clear that what I was saying was nationalism is a bad thing when taken to extremes, but that because of the positive results of nationalism, it is a valid policy to pursue.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

junder

republicans have used the Irish language to fuel the idea cultral supority to the protestant cutral identy here in northern ireland, it became a weapon and as a result insured most unionists/loyalists would not tpuch the language with a barge poll, much is made of the likes of gusty spence speaking irish, however the reality was the reason why he and others learnt irish was so the could understand what republicans in other cells were talking about and not for some misty eyed desire to get intouch with irish roots

Herbal Deity

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Agreed. The prevalance of English is even beginning to threaten the likes of French in France, with preservation laws already in force.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not so sure that these are in the majority, however.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's a fallacy. I don't know what it was like when you were in school, but the depressing reality is that most students these days don't pick subjects due to interest or because they think it will be useful, but because of how likely they are to do well in it. Honours Irish is a very hard paper. Were the Irish LC exam similar to the French or German LC exam, you can bet that it'd have much more doing it at honours level.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Herbal Deity

No, it's an objectively much harder exam than French or German, which it should be closer to.

It's not exactly a walk in the park for those in Gaelscoileanna, I can't even begin to think how those not immersed in an Irish speaking environment cope with it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

Herbal Deity wrote: »

No, it's an objectively much harder exam than French or German, which it should be closer to.

By what measure is it an objectively much harder exam than French or German? I'm not saying you're wrong, you actually may be correct, just curious to know.

Even so, given donegalfella's figures (as well as the fair point that you cannot compare them on a level of complexity given Irish is taught for so much longer) you do have to ask yourself if an odd 14k students are at the level of sitting the honours Irish paper, this must mean that there are hundreds of thousands of near fluent speakers in Ireland at this stage. There's not though.

TBH, I do think there's been enough Irish bashing at this stage and the message that the language is in serious decline should have hit home by now (assuming one does not live in De Valeran fantasy land).

The big question is what to do next? Can the language be saved (and if it can I do believe it should be)? If so how? What realistically needs to change.

metrovelvet

Why should it be saved?

Wibbs

Herbal Deity wrote: »

No, it's an objectively much harder exam than French or German, which it should be closer to.

It's not exactly a walk in the park for those in Gaelscoileanna, I can't even begin to think how those not immersed in an Irish speaking environment cope with it.

I have to agree with Herbal Deity on this point. Casting my mind waaaaay back to when I did French for the leaving. Honours French was less involved than honours Irish. The pass Irish paper was more like the honours French as far as the level of fluency that was required. then again this was back in the 1700's so things may well have changed

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Why should it be saved?

Because as a language, with its history and literature, it does merit conservation. Because the being bilingual is a positive thing for any nation or culture. Because it is still spoken, albeit daily by a tiny minority, within our society. And ultimately because while it may no longer be as key to Irish culture as it once was, it is still part of it.

This does not mean that we should keep it alive for the sake of keeping it alive, especially with the level of resources that have been employed and squandered to date. Nor does it mean that it should necessarily be forced upon people as it has been since independence - without success. Or that we should try to keep it alive if it has already gone beyond the point whereby it can be saved.

However, there is enough merit in preserving it, if we can, are not too late and as long as we accept that there are limits to how far we should go to do so.

BennyLava

I have always thought that the best way to help promote the Irish language is to let people choose to learn it, making it a compulsory subject in secondary school is counter productive
Generally ,in my opinion, teens, with their developing sense of individuality are more prone to reject been forced to learn a subject, relatively few of them can see any practical use for,

A better way of increasing and improving the development of Irish, would be to expand the gaelscoil method and conduct all primary school education through the medium of Irish (kids are natural sponges at this age), then when they go to secondary school, let Irish be an optional subject

I guarantee that, over the course of a few years, the usage of Irish would increase among young people (a means of communication most adults won't be able to understand) as well as an increase in the proficiency of said speakers