Irish speakers a new elite

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

HERE

Thats it, if they dont suit--question their aethenticity. Any comments now?

My arguments don't concern parents who want their children to learn Irish, and who would enroll them in the subject even if it was not mandatory. I'm concerned about the parents who don't want their children spending time on Irish, but who are forced to do so through state compulsion.

On the contrary your argument was that the subjects Maths and English were OK to be compulsory because large numbers of parents wanted this.

You dont seem concerned about the parents who may not want their child to have compulsory mathematics or English. Why not?
Your argument has more to do with what you think disquised as what the parents want or dont want.

Read what I've written again. It is up to educators and parents to decide what children should learn, not lobbyists, special-interest groups, and legislators.

And you have excepted Maths and English for reasons which should except Irish but suprise suprise (in your rulebook) dont

A majority of parents may want their children to receive sex education in school, too. But what of those who don't? Should they be allowed to opt out? Or should they be told, by the Department of Education: No, sorry, sex education is mandatory for every child in Ireland. You don't get a choice.

A lot of people may want their children to learn Maths. But what of the parents who feels that endless months learning thoerems will be of no benefit to their child? What of the parents who dont want to learn maths?

I have given you a great deal of accurate historical information, both here and in other threads, about the association of Irish nationalism with the Irish language. You have ignored it, and now accuse me of irrationality. I'm not going to repeat myself again.

No you havent!! You have claimed that Irish revival was the results of the actions of a group of fascist protestant nationalists. That is like saying that "Braveheart" was responsible for the current resurgence in Scottish nationalism. No doubt in a hundred years cart before horse revisionists like yourself will be blaming the current revival on the inventore of Gaelscoils!

After it was pointed ouit to you that actios like the relocation of Irish speakers to Connaught under Cromwell, the Penal laws, the banning of Irish teaching in national schools and the banning of publications in Irish meant that the language would not survive under British rule and the Irish language speakers were subsequently associated with nationalism.

You actually defended these actions showing that you dont regard British nationalism as an abomination.

The Irish language does not need to be associated with nationalism any more as in both ROI and NI the language is not under state attack.

Again you ignore compulsory Swedish in Finland, compulsory Welsh in Wales. Are the Finnish and Welsh governments guilty of abominable nationalism? (Please dont ignore the tough questions this time)

Where is the diverse, multilingual curriculum in this country? At primary level, the age at which children are most receptive to languages, there is no option to study French, German, Spanish, Italian, and so on. Here is the Irish primary school language curriculum:

Irish.

The choice? Take it or leave it take it.

You have to love the "diversity" there.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

You cant learn every language in primary school.
Two languages is twice as good as the one that you are advocating.

johnxxx

I agree

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Baboushka

donegalfella wrote: »

My arguments don't concern parents who want their children to learn Irish, and who would enroll them in the subject even if it was not mandatory. I'm concerned about the parents who don't want their children spending time on Irish, but who are forced to do so through state compulsion.

Your arguments concern nothing other than the need to push your own prejudices on other people. Why dont you give us the precise numbers of parents who dont want their parents to learn Irish? And show us what efforts they have made to have their way. From what I can see you are just standing alone screaming aloud and pretending that there is army of people ready to support you. The suurvey "The Irish Language and the Irish People" 2009, showed that 93% of the people support the language. Accept it.

sceptre

T runner wrote: »

HERE

Thats it, if they dont suit--question their aethenticity. Any comments now?

There's no citation or verification for that figure. Wikipedia has two strengths - the relative ease of availability of the information and the requirement for reliable citations for that information to be worth something (and those two things together are what make it great). That figure is just lobbed in by someone who didn't bother including a source for a contentious figure. It's worth nothing, it's bothering people that you're using it with no verification despite reasonable requests - hence stop using it as a basis for anything until you have something that's worth something (pretty much any report would probably do). Move on without it as it's now put every figure in doubt that you've suggested as a fact.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

With reference to your "tough questions," I have answered all of them before, here or elsewhere, and I'm not going to waste my time going over the same ground for the umpteenth time. I'll note that at this stage, your arguments effectively involve presenting the same material over and over again—ignoring the fact that all of it has been rebutted at one point or another. But simply repeating discredited arguments doesn't give them any more validity than they had the first time around.

Please show us where you have discredited this argument here or on any other thread.

You have never rebutted on this thread or any other your biased analysis that compulsory Irish in Ireland amounts to abominable nationalism but compulsory Swedish in Finland doesnt, and neither does compulsory Welsh in Wales.

You havent rebutted it because you cant. You are avoiding it now because clearly you have no answer for it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

sceptre wrote: »

There's no citation or verification for that figure. Wikipedia has two strengths - the relative ease of availability of the information and the requirement for reliable citations for that information to be worth something (and those two things together are what make it great). That figure is just lobbed in by someone who didn't bother including a source for a contentious figure. It's worth nothing, it's bothering people that you're using it with no verification despite reasonable requests - hence stop using it as a basis for anything until you have something that's worth something (pretty much any report would probably do). Move on without it as it's now put every figure in doubt that you've suggested as a fact.

I notice you are not a moderator on this forum but you seem to be giving me an order. I dont understand what I have done wrong. I have not given misinformation nor has it been corrected.

Ive seen Wikipedia used as a reference hundreds of times on this forum and on boards. Only one person has been "bothered" by this statistic and he has made his point although he could not himself supply evidence to refute the figures as is the normal mode of argument on this forum, or it was up till now.

Let anyone refute the figures if they can.Let people decide for themselves as theyve always done.

The reason you ahve given is that "Move on without it as it's now put every figure in doubt that you've suggested as a fact".

Im willing to live with this if thats OK with you? If you could tell me where i have broken the rules (if you think I have), and why I am getting special treatment when using Wikipedia is more than common?
(Perhaps its someone else who's requests are getting special treatment?).

Sleepy

@ T Runner - even without disputing your questionable figures I've refuted your analysis of them in a rational manner. I notice you completely disregarded the post. If you can't counter the argument, concede the point rather than just trying to shout louder.

Sleepy wrote:

T Runner wrote:

The amount of parents who are educating their children (33%) through Irish in more than one subject is evidence that Irish parents want their children to learn Irish.

Or one could interpret the rise in the popularity of gaelscoileanna as evidence that Irish parents don't want their children in a classroom with children who don't have English as their first language or are playing the system by putting their children in a position where they should be guaranteed high marks in at least one subject and a top up percentage in all others.

33% of all Irish pupils have been voluntarily enrolled in schools to learn at least 2 languages through irish.

That's a bit of a facetious argument. 7.4% of Irish children attend Gaeltacht or Gaelscoil schools. There's no proof that the other 22.6% of Irish children studying a second subject through Irish (I'm guessing/hoping it's most like Religion or something else relatively unimportant) are doing so at their parents behest. Most of us parents don't have the luxury of choosing where to educate our children, we put them in the best school we can find within a reasonable commute of our homes that we can get them into. Many parents are going to the lengths of having to christen their children in a religion they've no time for just to ensure they'll have a fair shot at a good school. For me, and I presume many others, disliking the notion of Irish creeping across the sylabus and eating into another subject's time would be pretty unlikely to be considered a big enough issue to rule out an otherwise good school for.

Sleepy

Missed the "Admin" under sceptre's name T Runner?

T runner

Sleepy wrote: »

Missed the "Admin" under sceptre's name T Runner?

I actually missed the "politics" under "Admin" but same difference I guess...

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You can start arguments that are not germane to this thread but you cant finish them.....see below.

You have repeatedly made the argument that compulsory Irish in schools is a product of abominable nationalism. You have never linked this as germane to this particular thread. Pointing out that this is practiced in other countries like Finland and Wales clearly means that there may be other reasons for it rather than Irish nationalism.

On the otherhand If you feel the argument that the Irish language revival is nothing more than a nationalist abomination is germane to this thread then you must concede that the rebuttal of this argument is also germane. You cant have it both ways..........

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

sceptre

T runner wrote: »

I notice you are not a moderator on this forum but you seem to be giving me an order.

Please re-read the section to the left of my profile where Politics is listed. I've been a moderator on this forum for roughly the last six years without a gap (apparently not a very good attention-seeking one). Moderators are also conveniently listed at the bottom right of the screen in the main Politics forum. I don't interfere as a moderator for fun.

(Perhaps its someone else who's requests are getting special treatment?).

No. And you should really know far better than that but obviously you're not familiar with me being a moderator so I can at least understand why you'd make that error. PM me if you like for further clarification on my long-standing policy of anti-idiocy as the overriding basis for decisions.

If you have an issue with the instruction in the above post or any other moderation decision, the first port of call is to take it up with the moderator in question by PM (the second is with the category mod and the third in this case would be with a different (ie not me) admin on Help Desk). That's clearly outlined in the forum charter and the dispute resolution procedure (which is also linked from my sig below). Not to argue it out on-thread (see charter). Please follow the established procedure rather then derailing the thread. That's a PM to me if you have issues with the request. As always, I am all ears and I'm not overly ogreish - my aim is for reasonable discussion where fact-claimed figures emanate from more than hats for a fairer forum for all.

On-topic contributions in the thread please, folks.:)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So it's all right to impose the canon of English literature on children, but not all right to impose Irish?

Speaking only for myself, I think my life has been more enriched by my experience of the Irish language in school than by my experience of English-language poetry.

But perhaps I have the wrong kind of mind. Caoineadh Airt Uí Laoghaire resonates more with me than does Upon Westminster Bridge. [Although I admit that some of the less pious work of John Donne resonates with me, too: "License my roving hands..."]

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is incorrect. I was asked for a source for that statistic in post 70 and replied in post 79 with the source. I have not being asked for a source until the above untruthful statement.

PLAY FAIR. DO NOT DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENT ME AGAIN.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So you assume without any reasoning that compulsory Welsh and Swedish in these countries is due to nationalism. Language preservation, revival = abominable Nationalism in your book.

Ofcourse the fact that it is the minority Swedish language that is a compulsory in Finnish schools highlights the idiocy of your ridiculous hypothesis.

Finnish nationalism is responsible for preserving the Swedish language in Finland? Always enjoy watching you tying yourself in knots defending your crooked stances. Always good for a laugh!!!!!!

Grudaire

Right, the below come with translation, which is translated to the best of my ability!

Tá a lán snáth faoin ábhar seo faoi láthair, bhí ionadh orm na daoine céanna ag spocadh an các céanna anseo arís! (Tá sé sin dírithe ar an snáth i Humanities!)

Ar dtús báire caithfidh mé a rá gur aontaím, agus aontaíonn gach duine san snáth i dTeach na Gealt, nach bhfuil múinín againn san mata atá ann. Ach ag an am céanna is rud maith é an athrú meon atá ag tarlú faoi láthair. Ar feadh na blianta fada, ba í an Gaeilge teanga an 'rabble' (focal ón céad leathanach ). Bhí baint ag an focal le bochtannas i measc an phobal. is maith an rud é go bhfuil an meon sin imithe. Don teanga, agus dun tír

Agus fós ní aontaím leis an cinne a rinne tú ar an snáth sin donegalfella!

There's a lot of threads on the topic at the moment, I was amazed to see the same people spouting the same crap here! (aimed at the thread in Humanities in particular there!)

Firstly I have to say that I, and everyone on the thread in Teach na Gealt agree that the maths that used isn't great. But at the same time it is good the change of mindset/opinion thats happening. For many years Irish was the language of the 'rabble' (Word taken from the first page here ). The word was associated with poverty in peoples minds. It's a good thing that that attitude is gone, for the language and country.

Also, I still disagree with your decision on that thread donegalfella

Sleepy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Speaking only for myself, I think my life has been more enriched by my experience of the Irish language in school than by my experience of English-language poetry.

From that post I think it's fair to say that you'd have studied the subject if it wasn't compulsory?

Now, lets look at things in a more practical manner. You're comparing one element of your English language education against your entire experience of the Irish, not really a fair comparison so lets balance the scales and ask was your education in English more enriching than your education in Irish?

Without English, you wouldn't have been capable of attaining a third level education. Without Irish, you'd simply have been denied access to it by fellow proponents of it's use as a matriculation subject.

Without English, you wouldn't be able to post so eloquently to boards. Without Irish you'd manage that just fine.

Without English, you'd be unemployable outside of manual labour / unskilled work. Without Irish, you'd get on just fine.

So, from where I'm standing, your life has benefitted far more from having been educated in the English language, than it has from being educated in the Irish.

T Runner wrote:

Always enjoy watching you tying yourself in knots defending your crooked stances. Always good for a laugh!!!!!!

I know this was aimed at donegalfella but... seriously?

You avoid any post you can't argue against (even if they're posted twice for your benefit).

You openly challenge an admin when receiving a mod request for reference for things you post as FACT! in the hope that upper case and bold will somehow heighten your argument.

You repeat the same arguments over and over again, even when they've been refuted or shown to be farcical.

And you say donegalfella's defending a crooked stance?:rolleyes:

Now, back on topic, why would Wales force it's students to learn Welsh and the Finns teach Swedish in their schools?

I'd consider donegalfella's answer of nationalism to be correct in the case of the Welsh but looking at Wikipedia, they at least seem to have more common sense about it than we do since it's optional at A level:

wikipedia.org wrote:

Under the National Curriculum, schoolchildren in Wales must study Welsh up to the age of 16 and many choose to continue with it in their A levels and college years

While I'd like to see Irish being replaced with a more worthwhile subject from junior infants up, removing it's compulsory status for Leaving Cert and college matriculation for non-Irish language courses would be a compromise I'd settle for.

As to why Swedish language education is compulsory in Finland, there's a rather more logical explanation than simply the minority of Finns who speak Swedish due to historical reasons. For a start nobody has argued the benefits of teaching children a second language at an early age, just whether or not it's worthwhile doing this with a dead language. Swedish is still spoken in the modern world and in a country which is of major importance to Finland.

They're neighbouring countries, with Sweden accounting for over 10% (or 6 billion in 2008) of external trade (http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_kotimaankauppa_en.html).

So, there's another of your arguments debunked. Will you be ignoring this post too?

Scofflaw

This thread should not be treated as an opportunity to rehash discussions held elsewhere, or to oppose decisions made elsewhere (that's you, Cliste), or to attack other posters.

This is the second thread warning in a brief period - the thread will be locked if things don't improve.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

Sleepy wrote: »

From that post I think it's fair to say that you'd have studied the subject if it wasn't compulsory?

I really don't know. It would have depended on the options. For example, I would not have sacrificed any of my science subjects for the opportunity to take Irish.

Now, lets look at things in a more practical manner. You're comparing one element of your English language education against your entire experience of the Irish, not really a fair comparison

It's not an unfair comparison: I learned most of my English at home, but just about all of my Irish at school (supplemented later by Gaeltacht experience).

so lets balance the scales and ask was your education in English more enriching than your education in Irish?

That's what I class a "leg of the chair" question: which of the legs is most important?

Without English, you wouldn't have been capable of attaining a third level education. Without Irish, you'd simply have been denied access to it by fellow proponents of it's use as a matriculation subject.

Not quite true: I could have pursued studies through Irish in Galway, or I could have matriculated without Irish to Trinity. But this is nitpicking. But while we are picking nits, I can point out that in my day, when I were a lad, it was also necessary to pass at least one of Latin or Greek in order to matriculate. It never occurred to me to resent Irish, or think it an imposition on me, but I really hated Latin.

Without English, you wouldn't be able to post so eloquently to boards. Without Irish you'd manage that just fine.

I hope that you don't consider posting here to be a major life achievement.

Without English, you'd be unemployable outside of manual labour / unskilled work. Without Irish, you'd get on just fine.

I think that is overstated.

So, from where I'm standing, your life has benefitted far more from having been educated in the English language, than it has from being educated in the Irish.

We are back to legs of chairs. My happy life is the result of many things (including luck). I honestly cannot break it down and ascribe weightings to the various factors. I am a fusion of my life's experiences.

donegalfella wrote: »

Have I argued that the canon of English literature should be "imposed" on anyone? I don't believe that at all. In fact, I'd favour dividing the subject into English language and English literature. The latter certainly should not be "imposed" on anyone who resents it or doesn't have the ability for it.

I made the comment you quote above in response to poster Rebelheart, who stated: "I have yet to meet somebody who feels their life is enriched from being forced to endure those manic wasters like Wordsworth, Keats and all the rest." Since I have met many people who have felt such cultural enrichment, to suggest they don't exist is nonsensical. (In fact, Rebelheart's hostility toward English-language poetry would seem to be the exception, not the rule.)

It was not unreasonable to infer from your defence of English poetry that you see a case for including it in the school programme, and that young people should be exposed to it because it is good for them. [See? I know how to use litotes.]

Your clarification is welcome. But I don't expect to see you rail so strongly and consistently against the compulsory study of a subset of English literature as you rail against the compulsory study of Irish.

My experience has been quite the reverse; but that just demonstrates the need for a flexible, responsive educational system that can be tailored to the requirements and interests of each child. Again, we come back to my point that it is students, along with their parents and educators, who should determine which subjects should be studied—not politicians in Dáil Éireann.

The constitution does indeed give parents primacy in the education of their children, so you can have that. What it does not give them is primacy in organising the state's provision for assisting them to educate their children. And, as a matter of practicality, the extent to which the system can be tailored to the requirements and interests of each child is necessarily limited.

I do not take a strong position on compulsory Irish in schools. I think the language is in terminal decline, and that saddens me. But I am also saddened by the strongly negative attitude I see here towards the language and the associated cultural values.

I do not buy wholly into the economic arguments for deciding school programmes. Yes, of course our schools should support the economy, and they should support students by preparing them for participation in economic life. But they should do more than that. They should affirm social values and enrich individual lives. Much, perhaps most, of what we learn in school is not used directly in earning a living later on. For example, I really enjoyed my science studies in school, but never applied my knowledge of physics or chemistry in any job I ever had. But I am pleased that some understanding of physics and chemistry is part of my makeup, and think my life is the better for it.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You claimed that I was repeatedly asked for a source for the statistic. I was asked once and supplied my source.

YOU DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTED ME. PLAY FAIR

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

Sleepy wrote: »

I know this was aimed at donegalfella but... seriously?

Yes, he claimed that compulsory Swedish in Finland was the result of Finnish nationalism.

You avoid any post you can't argue against (even if they're posted twice for your benefit).

If I havent answered any of your posts it is because I have answered them already, do not think they are worth replying to, havent seen them. I dont have time to answer every single post thats the truth. It is certainly not because I have no answer to the reply.
This is not the first time you have made comments like this. Stick to comments that somehow relate to my posts please.

You repeat the same arguments over and over again, even when they've been refuted or shown to be farcical.

Your posts are expert at SAYING an argument is refuted but extremely poor when it comes to the actual refuting.

Now, back on topic, why would Wales force it's students to learn Welsh and the Finns teach Swedish in their schools?

I'd consider donegalfella's answer of nationalism to be correct in the case of the Welsh but looking at Wikipedia, they at least seem to have more common sense about it than we do since it's optional at A level:

As to why Swedish language education is compulsory in Finland, there's a rather more logical explanation than simply the minority of Finns who speak Swedish due to historical reasons.

For a start nobody has argued the benefits of teaching children a second language at an early age, just whether or not it's worthwhile doing this with a dead language.

Thats a strawman. Finland, Wales, Ireland have the following in common. Compulsory language . You are effectively saying that nobody is arguing against compulsory languages just compulsory dead languages (as you see it.)
Thats clearly not the case.

Swedish is still spoken in the modern world and in a country which is of major importance to Finland.

They're neighbouring countries, with Sweden accounting for over 10% (or 6 billion in 2008) of external trade (http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_kotimaankauppa_en.html).

But from the same source it appears Russia and Germany are of far greater importance to Sweden. How did you miss that?

It the Finnish were using the logic you claimed they are then Russian would be the compulsory language.

Finland Swedish is taught in Sweden not because of nationalism not because of trade reasons, but because Swedish has been spoken there for hundreds of years and a recognition that the minority languages and cultures need to be resoected appropriately.

So, there's another of your arguments debunked. Will you be ignoring this post too?

Again you are better at claiming an argument is debunked than actually debunking it.

If you attempt strawman arguments or try "dead language" arguments with antagonistic motives (youve done both in your post) I will be adding you to my ignore list. Up to you.

Baboushka

donegalfella wrote: »

Ironically, I'm arguing that language and cultural identity should not be pushed on other people.

So you refuse to provide any of the evidence that I have asked you for and yet you criticise others for the same. Hypocrisy is a common word in the English language. You should understand it.

The survey you cite actually reported that 40.3 percent of people want to see Irish revived, 52.9 percent want to see it preserved, and 6.7 percent want to see it discarded. In other words, almost 60 percent of people have given up on the project of language revival—and yet 100 percent of Irish-born children are still forced to study it in school.

No, only 6.7% of the people have given up on the language. The survey is available in English so you should understand it. Over 90% of the people are in favour of "at least" preserving the language which cannot be done without teaching it.

By the way you are wrong on the 100% as there are exemptions but you clearly dont let facts get in your way. You clearly have not read the full survey.

Now I will ask you again:

How many parents do not want their Children to learn the Irish language?
What have they done to try and achieve their objective?
Is the number any greater than the number who dont want their kids to learn the other mandatory subjects?

Until you can back up what you say then you are not speaking up for these parents, you are simply exercising your own prejudices and claiming to be concerned for these parents despite that you cannot prove that they exist and you cannot prove that they are any greater in number than the parents who are opposed to their kids learning any of the other mandatory subjects.

There is evidence to support the increases popularity of the Irish language.

Scofflaw

This isn't a thread, but an argument. Closed.

If people really want the thread reopened, or to start a new thread on the same subject, please request by PM, but be aware that I would then operate a zero tolerance banning policy for squabbling.

moderately,
Scofflaw