The Status Of Irish.

Oasis_Dublin

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

You can argue it will die out without compulsion but that means people are not open to learning it.

That's not necessarily true. I was "forced" to learn Irish but I was still very much open to doing.

deise go deo

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

See this is the crux of the issue. You cannot claim people are open to learning it and then at the same time insist it must be compulsory. That's a complete logical fallacy.

No it isent, Do you think people are not open to studying English or maths?

You can argue it will die out without compulsion but that means people are not open to learning it.

I dont thing it will die out if compulsion is droped, The current system dose nothing to promote the language, But droping Compulsion will not promote the language as had been suggested by FG

If it was taught better I genuinely don't think we'd see a large difference in its general use.

From my perception, Most people I have met who are activly intrested in Irish are those who for whatever reason have a decent grasp on the language, I think that there is a causational link between knowing the language and being interested in and using it. Therefore the more people that know it the more that will use it.

1. Make every primary school a Gaelscoil. All subjects to be taught in the medium of Irish. No exceptions. Within a generation or two everyone would be fluent. Even if they stopped studying Irish at second level you basically can't forget a language.

I still think English would be the main medium used for official business but peopel would speak Irish day to day and that's all that really matters.

I dont think that it is practically possible to just make every school a gaelscoil. The pool of teachers confident enough to teach Entirly through Irish is too small, If teachers had to teach through a language they were not fullt confident in then I think there would be a drop in standards.
Instead of this I think that the Gaelscoil movement should be allowed to grow naturally so that the pool of competent teachers could grow with it.

As for your point that you basicly cant forget a language, You can, very quickly if you dont use it reguarly.

2. Go with my idea of a non-exam conversation class. Wouldn't get the same results as point one but woulkd give people more confidence and encourage a positive image of the language.

I dont see why not having exams would make any significant difference, I know that the way the system runs now that the Exams are a barrier to effective learning, but that is due to the set up of the Curriculum rather than to the existence of the exams, I dont think that Exams, if managed properly need be a barrier to effective learning.

The obvious problem with point 1 is people objecting, our immigrant population who are already slowing down classes by not being able to speak English, the amount of fully fluent Irish teachers and the whole incompatibility of the concept with a united Ireland, which will be a talking point over the next few decades.

The first point about immigrents is not a problem, the whole Idea if immersion learning is that the language is picked up quickly by people who dont know it, I dont see why there would be a difference between the learning of Irish in an immersion enviroment by a native Polish speaker and a native English speaker.
The second point is valid.
The third point need not be a problem, there are neumerous ways to deal with the Issue of the Orange community, I dont see why they would have a problem with Irish as long as it was clear that it wouldent be forced on them.

So really your only option is point 2. Every other method is doomed to failure.

It has yet to be shown why.

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

there are neumerous ways to deal with the Issue of the Orange community,.... I dont see why they would have a problem with Irish as long as it was clear that it wouldent be forced on them.

In order to avoid your compulsory/forced Irish lessons, would it be necessary to prove family membership of an Orange Lodge? Could people from the South claim this concession too?

deise go deo wrote: »

I dont thing it will die out if compulsion is droped, Compulsion will not promote the language as had been suggested by FG.....I dont think that it is practically possible to just make every school a gaelscoil. The pool of teachers confident enough to teach Entirly through Irish is too small,

So let's remove compulsion, allow families to decide if they wish to learn Irish and then focus scarce resources on those who do. OK?

deise go deo wrote: »

It has yet to be shown why.

You have yet to show any advantages to compulsory Irish lessons for everyone.

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

In order to avoid your compulsory/forced Irish lessons, would it be necessary to prove family membership of an Orange Lodge? Could people from the South claim this concession too?

Well. for a start. I dont personally think making every Primary School a Gaelscoil is practicle, Not yet anyway, The pool of teachers able to teach entirly through Irish is too small IMO,

In the hypothetical suition that all Primary schools were Gaelscoils then To deal with the Orange Comunity, I would suggest that Where there was demand for English Medium Education then it should be facilated by the state in the Same way Gaeilscoilleanna are now,
I think its reasonable to expect there to be demand for English Medium Education in Orange areas, so those Areas would have English Medium Education.
If there was sufficent demand for English medium education in areas of the south then It could be worked on the same basis.

Thats just one potential solution to a hypotethical situation though.

Dannyboy83

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

That's not necessarily true. I was "forced" to learn Irish but I was still very much open to doing.

That is a contradiction.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forced
FORCED: compelled by force or necessity : involuntary <a forced landing>


If you were open to doing Irish, then you were not forced to do it.
It's binary.
It was either voluntary or involuntary.


So Bottle of Smoke is correct

BottleOfSmoke wrote:

You can argue it will die out without compulsion but that means people are not open to learning it.

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

If there was sufficent demand for English medium education in areas of the south then It could be worked on the same basis.

LOL

You support compulsory Irish lessons for all school children, yet you have not produced any arguments or facts supporting why this should be the case. You accept that compulsory lessons will not promote Irish. You say you want to make Irish langauge lessons compulsory, but you say you don't want to force people to speak Irish. Quite how people can be forced to engage in learning Irish without being forced to speak the langauge is something you must explain.

The contradictions just keep piling up.

Dannyboy83

deise go deo wrote: »

No it isent, Do you think people are not open to studying English or maths?

But do you not see - you are trying to make a distinction which doesn't exist.

I don't know anyone who has retained Secondary Level Maths or English without desire or necessity.

I studied Honours Maths at Leaving Cert level and Computer Science at University.
I do not know any individual who has retained any of the Leaving Cert Honours Maths Syllabus without either desire or necessity e.g. required for employment.
I do not know any individual who retained Calculus, Discrete Maths, Advanced Statistics from the university CompSci syllabus. I haven't and I've been in industry for years. I neither desired nor required it.

The same for English.
I don't know anyone who reads poetry or Shakespeare without desire or necessity.

The same for Irish.
I don't know anyone who speaks the language, without desire or necessity.


The level of desire is open to debate, however, the level of necessity is undeniable. For Maths and English.

The same cannot be said of Irish for the vast majority of Irish citizens. This is why over 2.4 million Irish people, according to the 2006 CSO figures, claim they cannot speak it, despite 12 to 14 years of education.

With only 62,000 native speakers, that is not going to change. That's less than the population of Tallaght!!
Can you imagine the Tallaght dialect being compelled upon people the length and breadth of the country?

Bottle_of_Smoke

deise go deo wrote: »

No it isent, Do you think people are not open to studying English or maths?

A lot of people aren't - I've stated before I don't think they should be compulsory at leaving cert. I liked maths and would have done it anyway but I would have dropped english if I had the choice.

I dont thing it will die out if compulsion is droped, The current system dose nothing to promote the language, But droping Compulsion will not promote the language as had been suggested by FG

Ok you can argue dropping cumpulsion won't promote the language - but you therefore can't argue most people are open to learning it - if that were the case it would not need to be compulsory.

From my perception, Most people I have met who are activly intrested in Irish are those who for whatever reason have a decent grasp on the language, I think that there is a causational link between knowing the language and being interested in and using it. Therefore the more people that know it the more that will use it.

I would be inclined to think you have the causation link backwards - in that those who have an interest are more likely to end up knowing it. Hopefully I'll be one of those myself in time.

As for your point that you basicly cant forget a language, You can, very quickly if you dont use it reguarly.

not if you used it as your main learning language at an early age. IF you didn't use it you might become a bit rusty but spending 2 weeks in a gaeltacht would bring it all back.

I dont see why not having exams would make any significant difference,

The resentment factor would be gone - it wouldn't take study time away from other subjects. I know in my school Irish was one of the most hated classes - my way it would be a class you'd look forward to because it would be relaxed with no exam. Like religion class for example(in 2003 that wasn't examined in my school)

I know that the way the system runs now that the Exams are a barrier to effective learning, but that is due to the set up of the Curriculum rather than to the existence of the exams, I dont think that Exams, if managed properly need be a barrier to effective learning.

Impossible. Having an exam = pressure. My idea of a relaxed atmosphere would be rendered pointless.

The first point about immigrents is not a problem, the whole Idea if immersion learning is that the language is picked up quickly by people who dont know it, I dont see why there would be a difference between the learning of Irish in an immersion enviroment by a native Polish speaker and a native English speaker.

It is currently a problem - many teachers have claimed they are stretched because they have to spend classtime helping the students who don't have perfect english.

Would be even more difficult with Irish because the kids would speak polish in their family home - be exposed to english playing with their mates and then have to do Irish at school. I guarantee you the vast majority of polish kids do not go to gaelscoil

The second point is valid.
The third point need not be a problem, there are neumerous ways to deal with the Issue of the Orange community, I dont see why they would have a problem with Irish as long as it was clear that it wouldent be forced on them.

You skimmed over this earlier in the thread - suggesting kids in orange areas learn Ulster Scots instead or have a choice. Though this is ludicrous because if it was one country Irish people could claim discrimination if they were forced to do Irish and Ulstermen weren't - and they'd win in court too. Furthermore in the north the use of Ulster Scots speakers are evenly split between the nationalist and unionist communities. It is in fact a living dialect.

Oasis_Dublin

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

That is a contradiction.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forced
FORCED: compelled by force or necessity : involuntary <a forced landing>


If you were open to doing Irish, then you were not forced to do it.
It's binary.
It was either voluntary or involuntary.

I never signed up to Irish and there is no way I could have stopped doing it in Primary School, when I absolutely hated it. I was still forced to do it in Secondary School but by 5th or 6th I had great respect for the language. By being "forced" to do it, I gained a respect for the language.

cyclopath2001

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I never signed up to Irish and there is no way I could have stopped doing it in Primary School, when I absolutely hated it. I was still forced to do it in Secondary School but by 5th or 6th I had great respect for the language. By being "forced" to do it, I gained a respect for the language.

This may help you come to terms with what happened to you:

Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, essentially mistaking a lack of abuse from their captors as an act of kindness.

Oasis_Dublin

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

This may help you come to terms with what happened to you:

I'm quite certain that that is not Stockholm Syndrome! I wasn't held prisoner by the language! I was forced to go to school like every other 10 year-old Irish child! Ar aon nós, some MUSE
v=XPYLIy3FWpk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPYLIy3FWpk

Coeurdepirate

I'm glad it's compulsory. I'm in 5th year doing HL Irish and I love it, although if I was given the choice I'd probably have chosen something else simply because Irish is so hard.

cyclopath2001

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

I'm glad it's compulsory. I'm in 5th year doing HL Irish and I love it, although if I was given the choice I'd probably have chosen something else simply because Irish is so hard.

At least you like the language, but it's so sad that an opportuniy has been missed for you to choose a more useful language to help you in your future career, which, sadly, is likely to be in another country.

Cú Giobach

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

This may help you come to terms with what happened to you:

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

At least you like the language, but it's so sad that an opportuniy has been missed for you to choose a more useful language to help you in your future career, which, sadly, is likely to be in another country.

Haters Gonna Hate.

dkin

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

I'm glad it's compulsory. I'm in 5th year doing HL Irish and I love it, although if I was given the choice I'd probably have chosen something else simply because Irish is so hard.

You obviously have an interest in and an aptitude for the language as you are studying at honours level. You like learning it as learning a foreign language is intrinsicly enjoyable, it is not an appeal unique to Irish. I know that if I studied Irish I would enjoy the experience as it is an enriching one. However there are many rewarding learning experiences in the world and the education system has to choose from amongst this menu of choice a smaller subset that forms the syllabus. The motives and objectives underlying these choices are important. Therefore what are the objectives and motives underpinning compulsory Irish?

Objective: Increase the population of Irish speakers
The system has had 90 years of failure in this regard and is unlikely to change. According to many on this thread the curriculum of Irish is not student friendly. However if you want to produce new Irish speakers you need to keep standards very high in order that the integrity of the language is maintained, there is no point producing Irish speakers who converse in some form of gramatically incorrect pidgin Irish. Many of the reforms proposed here especially those promoting a greater emphasis on spoken Irish run this risk. This is because learning a language especially one as little spoken as Irish is extremely difficult. I've heard reports that the new aural exam is considered too easy by native irish speakers, is this really the direction we want to go in?

The argument put forward is that everyone in Ireland used to speak Irish and we should for historical cultural reasons try to reintroduce Irish. I'm sorry but I don't consider this a good enough reason. English is perfect for my everyday usage everyone speaks it, it is the universal langauge of this country and the dominent language around the world. Irish as far as I'm concerned is a cultural legacy we should try to save by protecting the gaeltacht areas. I resent the cultural stereotype of the pure Irishman who is a fluent gaelgoir, plays GAA, sings and dances. Those who think they have a greater claim to the moniker 'Irish' than those of us who don't speak Gaelic are elitest. Yet this worldview appears to be official state policy as the state feels every Irish person should be able to speak Irish regardless of interest.

deise go deo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The level of desire is open to debate, however, the level of necessity is undeniable. For Maths and English.

Can you tell me what is necessary to know for the average person in the LC Maths or English Classes?
Why are they more justified as Compulsory subjects than Irish?

A lot of people aren't - I've stated before I don't think they should be compulsory at leaving cert. I liked maths and would have done it anyway but I would have dropped english if I had the choice.

Ok, I can understand that but I disagree with you, Personally I think it important that those subjects remain compulsory.

Ok you can argue dropping cumpulsion won't promote the language - but you therefore can't argue most people are open to learning it - if that were the case it would not need to be compulsory.

Not so, There is a difference between being open to learning Irish and choosing it as an option for the LC, dont forget that if Irish was optional there would be people who were open to Irish and did want to learn it not choosing it because it clashed with another option they wanted, Same happened to me, There were subjects that I wanted to do that I couldent do because of how the timetable was organised. And thats before you realize that choosing subjects for the LC has less to do with what you want to learn than it dose with getting points.

I would be inclined to think you have the causation link backwards - in that those who have an interest are more likely to end up knowing it. Hopefully I'll be one of those myself in time.

I dont think so, Think about it, several of the country's Gaelthachts are week, ie You dont need Irish to get by there, yet most people do know Irish and therefore it is used far more than in other areas.
Many people living in the gaelthacts, had they been born somewhere else would not know Irish and most likely not be actively interested in it. Their knowledge of Irish promotes Interest in it for them.

not if you used it as your main learning language at an early age. IF you didn't use it you might become a bit rusty but spending 2 weeks in a gaeltacht would bring it all back.

If Irish is the main language of the home, then it is likely that the person would use it often enough to remember it because of talking to family members, If it was learned in a primary gaelscoil then it is likely that 20 years without use would see a drastic decline in the persons ability to speak the language, should they want to learn it again then it would be much quicker than learning a new language but it would need to be learned again.

The resentment factor would be gone - it wouldn't take study time away from other subjects. I know in my school Irish was one of the most hated classes - my way it would be a class you'd look forward to because it would be relaxed with no exam. Like religion class for example(in 2003 that wasn't examined in my school)

I never looked forward to Religion, It just seemed pointless to me, it not having an exam certainly dident do anything in terms of promoting it as a subject, I dont think exams are the root of any resentment for the subject and I dont think removeing exams are a solution to the problem, I exams were a barrier to learning Irish then they would be a barrier in other subjects too.

Impossible. Having an exam = pressure. My idea of a relaxed atmosphere would be rendered pointless.

The way the system works now there is pressure to rote learn answers(weather they are even understood or not) That is not effective, but i dont think that Exams are a barrier to learning when the curriculum is layed out properly.

It is currently a problem - many teachers have claimed they are stretched because they have to spend classtime helping the students who don't have perfect english.


Would be even more difficult with Irish because the kids would speak polish in their family home - be exposed to english playing with their mates and then have to do Irish at school. I guarantee you the vast majority of polish kids do not go to gaelscoil

Indeed it could be a challenge, but not an insurmountable one, Other countries deal with the issue if immegrants coming into the education system with out the language of the education system, and In Ireland the vast majority of pupils in the gaelscoils start without any Irish, but the way the system is run, ie an immersion enviroment, the language is picked up quickly and the student can perform just as well as their peers over time, as can be seen from the gaelscoileanna, despite having to teach the childern a new language they tend to do as well if not better than the national average in terms of results.

I know that the vast majority of polish kids dont go to gaeilscoils, There arent that many gaelscoils in Poland:p

The vast majority of irish kids dont go to Gaelscoils. But some Polish kids do go to Gaelscoils and get on fine.

You skimmed over this earlier in the thread - suggesting kids in orange areas learn Ulster Scots instead or have a choice. Though this is ludicrous because if it was one country Irish people could claim discrimination if they were forced to do Irish and Ulstermen weren't - and they'd win in court too. Furthermore in the north the use of Ulster Scots speakers are evenly split between the nationalist and unionist communities. It is in fact a living dialect.

I did skim over it, the reason being that i havent spent much time thinking about the Issue, I dont know much about ulster scots other than in linguistic terms it seams to be greater than a dialect of English but less than a language in its own right. I do know that it seams that it is spread evenly accross the community, being nationalist or unionist dosent seem to affect weather or not it is spoken by someone.

As for taking the state to court, on what grounds? There is nothing which says the state has to give people a choice as to what language education is provided through, If there was there would be a lot more Gaelscoils.

In any case, I dont support the Idea of making all schools Gaelscoileanna, and we are talking about a hypothetical situation, one which I believe could be resolved quite easily should it arise.

I resent the cultural stereotype of the pure Irishman who is a fluent gaelgoir, plays GAA, sings and dances. Those who think they have a greater claim to the moniker 'Irish' than those of us who don't speak Gaelic are elitest.

Dosent a stereotype need to be a widely held view? I think you would struggle to fill a room with people who hold that particular view, I certainly havent come across it, and I know quite a few Irish speakers.

Dannyboy83

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Haters Gonna Hate.

So why compel them?

Dannyboy83

deise go deo wrote: »

Can you tell me what is necessary to know for the average person in the LC Maths or English Classes?

No, I can't.
This is precisely the point I was making.
It's not necessary.
People only retain them based on desireor necessity.

Leaving Cert Maths is a pre-req for a certain large set of subjects.
Leaving Cert English is a pre-req for a considerably smaller set of subjects.
Leaving Cert Irish is a pre-req for a lilliputian set of subjects (and the barrier in the vast majority of applications is an artificial, legally enforced one)

Why are they more justified as Compulsory subjects than Irish?

The answer to this is easy.

The set of subjects where Maths is a pre-req/NECESSITY/ is titanic compared to Irish.
Irish only has significance in the majority of case because of an artificially enforced barrier (i.e. legislative preclusion not knowledge/competence).

Did I need Hons Leaving Cert Maths in Computer Science?
Yes, I did. Would still say the LC syllabus is wide open for reform.
Hons English? Somewhat, could have got by without it, but it was very useful at times.
Hons Irish? Never. Has been utterly useless. I didn't enjoy learning it, and feel like a foreign people with a foreign culture forced their language on me.
(Polish/Russian/French/German - have come in very handy at times, but I didn't resent them, I chose them.)

My Pal who became a guard.
Maths? Nope
English? Nope
Irish? Yes, LOL
Following this debate, I recently asked him how many times he has used it since he became a guard.
Answer: Zero. :rolleyes:

He told me there were valuable law enforcement matters he could have learned instead of studying Irish - so the madness continues after school.
Not so long ago, they were hiring foreign people who speak Polish/Russian/Mandarin due to necessity, yet there are no Irish people available to fill the positions.

It's banama republic stuff.

Cú Giobach

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

So why compel them?

In light of the context and meaning of the comment I gave (as per the internet meme) I shall ignore your question.

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

I never looked forward to Religion, It just seemed pointless to me, it not having an exam certainly dident do anything in terms of promoting it as a subject,

Do you think Irish should have a higher status than religion?

RandomName2

deise go deo wrote: »

Dosent a stereotype need to be a widely held view? I think you would struggle to fill a room with people who hold that particular view, I certainly havent come across it, and I know quite a few Irish speakers.

I think that you will find that this national stereotype is the reason for Irish being our first language, enforced within the apparati of the state and made mandatory in schools. It was seen by rebels as the main way in which to forge an Irish identity.

Promotion of other quintessential Irish characteristics such as GAA (which was also artificially generated.... that is, that it had died out, and owed its life to cultural nationalism that had, at its heart, the concept of rebellion).

However, the Catholic Church was the main focus of the concept of Irish identity; the most meaningful reason for independence, and also something that hadn't actually died out on the island. It enabled a polarised version of 'bad prods, good Catholics' that clung on with remarckable tenacity, even making its way up into Northern Ireland where the unionists adopted the opposing view of 'popish rebels, good Protestants'.

Speaking Irish at the crossroads whilst doing a bit of Irish dancing on your way back from Mass in order to keep yourself fit for a bit of GAA was the national identity which De Valera chose for Ireland, and the Irish by-and-large went along with the backward views of Fianna Fail.

The ban on foreign games is now removed, the Catholic Church is in full retreat, is it about time that a more leveled approach was taken to Irish than maintaining it as a fake standard of national identity?

(Or perhaps it should become mandatory that every Irish male have a pint of Guinness every day, or face the prospect of losing his job, which if he has one will invariably involve labouring in docks or construction yards)

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Do you think Irish should have a higher status than religion?

I think religion should be dropped as a subject and replaced with a philosophy/morality subject.

Yes, I think Irish should and dose have a higher status than this.

I think that you will find that this national stereotype is the reason for Irish being our first language, enforced within the apparati of the state and made mandatory in schools. It was seen by rebels as the main way in which to forge an Irish identity.

Forge an Irish Identity, It was seen as a part of an Existing Irish Identity, Unless you think that Irish people before then were the same as British people.

Yes, Irish is seen by many as an important part of Irish identity, that dosent mean that Irish speakers look down on Non-Irish speakers for not speaking Irish, I have never come across such an opinion being held by the Irish speakers I have met.

Promotion of other quintessential Irish characteristics such as GAA (which was also artificially generated.... that is, that it had died out, and owed its life to cultural nationalism that had, at its heart, the concept of rebellion).

Artificially generated? How is formalizing rules for a game artificial? Dose that mean that all modern field games are artificial?

However, the Catholic Church was the main focus of the concept of Irish identity; the most meaningful reason for independence, and also something that hadn't actually died out on the island. It enabled a polarised version of 'bad prods, good Catholics' that clung on with remarckable tenacity, even making its way up into Northern Ireland where the unionists adopted the opposing view of 'popish rebels, good Protestants'.

You do realize that the Church and the Rebbles were never on the same side? The Church threatened to Excommunicate anyone found to have taken up arms against Britain.

Not to mention that the Founders of Irish republicanism were protestant and one of the core principles of it was uniting people of all creeds in a free Irish state.

This Bad Prods, Good Catholics idea was a non entity in the 20's, Irish republicans had a much more real Enemy to focus their attention on, The British State,

Speaking Irish at the crossroads whilst doing a bit of Irish dancing on your way back from Mass in order to keep yourself fit for a bit of GAA was the national identity which De Valera chose for Ireland, and the Irish by-and-large went along with the backward views of Fianna Fail.

And has nothing to do with modern Ireland or the Irish speaking population, these things happened 50 years ago, DeV, and his vision of Ireland have nothing to do with the Irish language today. Let it go.

The ban on foreign games is now removed, the Catholic Church is in full retreat, is it about time that a more leveled approach was taken to Irish than maintaining it as a fake standard of national identity?

Fake? I wounder how many people would agree with you, People certainly dont seam to mind Irish in my experience, there is no campaign to have it removed, there are no organisations or political parties that have come out against the Language, If people are against it as you contend, then why is this?

(Or perhaps it should become mandatory that every Irish male have a pint of Guinness every day, or face the prospect of losing his job, which if he has one will invariably involve labouring in docks or construction yards)

:rolleyes:
You might think that Irish is linked to backwardness, but that is your opinion, and an uninformed one at that. You claim the existence of a stereotype that Irish speakers are Elitist snobs? Rubbish, You have been making nothing but unsubstantiated claims and ridiculous generalizations.

You have a problem with Irish, Fine, You want it to be dropped, then do something about it, but I would advise that you come up with a better argument than that.

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

I think religion should be dropped as a subject and replaced with a philosophy/morality subject. Yes, I think Irish should and dose have a higher status than this.

Why should speaking Irish have a higher status than posessing religious education and morality?

deise go deo wrote: »

Unless you think that Irish people before then were the same as British people.

Surely what matters is what Irish people are like today....they speak English, watch British TV, American movies, go on holiday in Spain and they mostly don't live in Gaeltachtanna harvesting seaweed. Other than accent, they're very similar to the British that you detest.

deise go deo wrote: »

and his vision of Ireland have nothing to do with the Irish language today.

Indeed.

deise go deo wrote: »

there is no campaign to have it removed, there are no organisations or political parties that have come out against the Language,

Much worse - there is massive indifference towards speaking Irish. FG has seen the massive waste involved and its modest proposals at reform have been stoutly rejected by CnAG, desperately anxious to protect its grip on the education of our children.

deise go deo wrote: »

You have a problem with Irish, Fine, You want it to be dropped, then do something about it, but I would advise that you come up with a better argument than that.

So, let's not drop Irish, let's make it an optional subject for those who wish to learn it.

You still have not presented any evidence demonstrating an advantage to Irish compulsory lessons fo all.

Grudaire

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Surely what matters is what Irish people are like today....they speak English, watch British TV, American movies, go on holiday in Spain and they mostly don't live in Gaeltachtanna harvesting seaweed. Other than accent, they're very similar to the British that you detest.

Maybe they should, there's money to be made in seaweed (look at the Spa's that are now offering seaweed baths), and it's supposed to be quite a healthy food...

...oh wait, this has nothing got to do with anything.

cyclopath2001

Cliste wrote: »

...oh wait, this has nothing got to do with anything.

Neither has forcing people to learn a langauge that has nothing to do with their way of life.

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Why should speaking Irish have a higher status than posessing religious education and morality?

Separation of Church and state, I dont have a problem with morality being tought. If you read my post you will see that.

Surely what matters is what Irish people are like today....they speak English, watch British TV, American movies, go on holiday in Spain and they mostly don't live in Gaeltachtanna harvesting seaweed. Other than accent, they're very similar to the British that you detest.

You really have quite an igonerent view of the Gaelthachts,
Why the unfounded allegations Cyclopath? Do you always resort to such cheap shots? I dont detest the British, Please stop trying to troll this thread.

Much worse - there is massive indifference towards speaking Irish. FG has seen the massive waste involved and its modest proposals at reform have been stoutly rejected by CnAG, desperately anxious to protect its grip on the education of our children.

FG's claimed that their policy would promote the Irish language, CnaG showed that it wouldent, FG have since withdrawn that policy and are working on a new one, its supposedly going to be based on the Finish education system. I dont know what plans they will have for Irish in it.

CnaG dont have any grip on Education, They are an Irish language organisation, their interest is in promoting Irish not on controlling the Education system, They are fully entitled to put forward their ideas on the best way for Irish to be handled in the Education system, as are you.

So, let's not drop Irish, let's make it an optional subject for those who wish to learn it.

You still have not presented any evidence demonstrating an advantage to Irish compulsory lessons fo all.

The Future of languages in Irish Education

The accepted best practice in the EU is a Mother tongue +2 system, Teaching languages is a vital part of any eduction system, If we are going to teach Languages I think it would be ridiculous not to teach our own.

Again it goes back to the Domino effect of reducing the status of Language learning in Schools, English on its own is not good enough, In Britain Language learning was made optional, and had disastrous results, I dont want Ireland to follow along that path.

In political, economic
and socio-cultural terms the sustainability of both versions of the European project depends on
Europeans learning one another’s languages. This is not simply a matter of being able to communicate
in order to do business. Europe’s much-vaunted “unity in diversity” can be validated only through
first-hand experience, and that is possible only if as many individuals as possible have at least
partial linguistic access to societies and cultures other than their own. This obvious fact is
acknowledged in numerous declarations of the Council of Europe and the European Union; it also
underlies the European Commission’s doctrine of “mother tongue plus two”,

RandomName2

deise go deo wrote: »

I think religion should be dropped as a subject and replaced with a philosophy/morality subject.

Yes, I think Irish should and dose have a higher status than this.


Forge an Irish Identity, It was seen as a part of an Existing Irish Identity, Unless you think that Irish people before then were the same as British people.

Yes, Irish is seen by many as an important part of Irish identity, that dosent mean that Irish speakers look down on Non-Irish speakers for not speaking Irish, I have never come across such an opinion being held by the Irish speakers I have met.


Artificially generated? How is formalizing rules for a game artificial? Dose that mean that all modern field games are artificial?


You do realize that the Church and the Rebbles were never on the same side? The Church threatened to Excommunicate anyone found to have taken up arms against Britain.

Not to mention that the Founders of Irish republicanism were protestant and one of the core principles of it was uniting people of all creeds in a free Irish state.

This Bad Prods, Good Catholics idea was a non entity in the 20's, Irish republicans had a much more real Enemy to focus their attention on, The British State,

And has nothing to do with modern Ireland or the Irish speaking population, these things happened 50 years ago, DeV, and his vision of Ireland have nothing to do with the Irish language today. Let it go.

Fake? I wounder how many people would agree with you, People certainly dont seam to mind Irish in my experience, there is no campaign to have it removed, there are no organisations or political parties that have come out against the Language, If people are against it as you contend, then why is this?


You might think that Irish is linked to backwardness, but that is your opinion, and an uninformed one at that. You claim the existence of a stereotype that Irish speakers are Elitist snobs? Rubbish, You have been making nothing but unsubstantiated claims and ridiculous generalizations.

You have a problem with Irish, Fine, You want it to be dropped, then do something about it, but I would advise that you come up with a better argument than that.

I never really have got the handle of multi-quotation so I'll just quote the whole block.

First, it wasn't a part of the existing Irish identity as nobody actually spoke it. It wasn't regulated, within education or any service, and records show that hardly anybody knew it - its speakers were mostly confined to Galway by 1891, and nobody terribly cared either way, at least from a political point of view.

Towards the beginning of the 20th century nationalism was in full flow across Europe, along with existentialist philosophy, questions concerning democracy and sovereignty, the rights of the proletariat and the fate of empires.

These various strains of thought came to bear upon Ireland. Cultural revival was par-for-the-course at this time: a 'rediscovery' of what your national identity meant. The Gaelic League was at first a meeting of minds between artistic literati focused upon exploring Irish cultural past.... before it was infiltrated and taken over by the Irish Republican Brotherhood, at least.

Because part of this philosophical zeitgeist I mentioned was the anxiety that formed the metaphorical elephant in the corner of the room: what is the rationale for a struggle of independence?

The answer provided by the times was that there had to be a difference between you and those you wanted to break away from. Without an indigenous language the 'Ireland for the Irish' campaign didn't seem to have enough bite.

And, of course, nobody played Gaelic Games until they were invented (I mean reintroduced) by cultural nationalists and the Catholic Church. The visible overlap with the nationalist campaign came with parading with sliters (if that's how you spell it) instead of rifles. Kindof a funny one... sorry I digress.

However much of what happened culturally in Europe had no real importance in of itself in the period 1880-1910. There was a melting-pot of ideas where it was impossible to predict which ones would come to prominence (just look at the trend in intelligentsia thought in Russia at the time! Democracy FTW!)

So you have the catalyst of the First World War and all bets are off. No Home Rule, no Ulster rising, no closure. Instead, bloody pandemonium at the front and eventually, at home. Home Rule as a pacifistic identifier for Irish politics went out the window. Indeed, so much was there an absence of identity that the revolutions had to call themselves Sinn Fein and put up with Arthur Griffith and his embarrassing ideas concerning 'Dual Monarchy' that the republicans had no interest in. Griffith's Sinn Fein had been one of those vary many ideas produced in the 1880-1910 slot that had emerged and disappeared almost instantaneously (although people remembered the name).

Anyway, with independence came about through straightforward political pressure (couple with not so straight-forward social/military pressure) rather than anything generated specifically by cultural concerns. Nevertheless, the Free Irish Staters took it upon themselves to use Irish to distinguish themselves visually, rather than ideologically, from the former Westminster administration. It wasn't pragmatic to rename the President, 'An Taoiseach' (apart from the fact that it was a little silly to call your head of state a president when your country was quite clearly still in the Commonwealth) but was an important gesture in terms of nationalism.

The same with the construction of the Constitution and the inclusion of the Irish language as the first language of the state.

Same with the necessity of public servants learning Irish.

And the same with Irish being a mandatory subject in the JC and LC.

Not that any of that actually halted the decline of the language (Gaeltacht areas became more densely concentrated which was a good thing, although absolute levels of speaks had fallen considerably by 1936).

However, my point was that the political status that the Irish language currently holds - and has always held since the independence of this country, is primarily due to the expedient desire to create a nationalistic symbol of the language. This seems, to me, to be a poor reason not to assess the merits of the legislation surrounding it.

As I said, if the GAA were prepared to abandon Rule 21, 27 and 42, why can't we have some reform of the political status of the Irish language?

deise go deo

RandomName2 wrote: »

First, it wasn't a part of the existing Irish identity as nobody actually spoke it. It wasn't regulated, within education or any service, and records show that hardly anybody knew it - its speakers were mostly confined to Galway by 1891, and nobody terribly cared either way, at least from a political point of view.

Lots of people spoke Irish before Independence, The British State was even forced to acknowledg it before independence, Letters addressed as Gaeilge had to be delivered etc.

These various strains of thought came to bear upon Ireland. Cultural revival was par-for-the-course at this time: a 'rediscovery' of what your national identity meant. The Gaelic League was at first a meeting of minds between artistic literati focused upon exploring Irish cultural past.... before it was infiltrated and taken over by the Irish Republican Brotherhood, at least.

The Gaelic League was not taken over by the IRB, That was the GAA, The Gaelic league did form part of the Movement for Independance, With many people attending its classes later going on to join the IRA/Cumman na mBan

Because part of this philosophical zeitgeist I mentioned was the anxiety that formed the metaphorical elephant in the corner of the room: what is the rationale for a struggle of independence?

There were plenty of other reasons for independance at the time, The language as a marker of Identity was not among the biggest of them, you must realize that the Famine and the Fenians were still in living memory at the time.

The answer provided by the times was that there had to be a difference between you and those you wanted to break away from. Without an indigenous language the 'Ireland for the Irish' campaign didn't seem to have enough bite.

Not really, The Irish language was a natural part of any such argument, ie the people puting forward the Argument dident use Irish to gain more support for themselves but because they believed that Irish was and Is an Important part of Irish identity.

And, of course, nobody played Gaelic Games until they were invented (I mean reintroduced) by cultural nationalists and the Catholic Church. The visible overlap with the nationalist campaign came with parading with sliters (if that's how you spell it) instead of rifles. Kindof a funny one... sorry I digress.

Formalized would be a better word, Same could be said of Soccer and Rugby, nobody played them before they were 'invented' but that isent very relevant to anything.
The Irish Voluenteers paraded with Hurleys(The ball is called a Sliothar) because they dident have enough Rifles, and if they did parade with Rifles the RIC could have tryed to seize them, an event which wold not have ended well for anyone.

So you have the catalyst of the First World War and all bets are off. No Home Rule, no Ulster rising, no closure. Instead, bloody pandemonium at the front and eventually, at home. Home Rule as a pacifistic identifier for Irish politics went out the window. Indeed, so much was there an absence of identity that the revolutions had to call themselves Sinn Fein and put up with Arthur Griffith and his embarrassing ideas concerning 'Dual Monarchy' that the republicans had no interest in. Griffith's Sinn Fein had been one of those vary many ideas produced in the 1880-1910 slot that had emerged and disappeared almost instantaneously (although people remembered the name).

SF was used because that name was associated with the Rising by the people and the name its self was quite apt for the movement. Dual monarchy was the notion put forward by Griffith before the Rising and was based on Austria.
It was droped after the rising. I dont see how this has anything to do with an absence of Identity,
The Irish Volunteeres were associated with the IPP before the Rising, for obvious reasons the IPP was not going to allow the main figures in the IV after the rising to take part in the IPP so a new political vechical was needed, SF was already associated with the Rising and was always a more extream nationalist party than the IPP so SF were the obvious choice.

Anyway, with independence came about through straightforward political pressure (couple with not so straight-forward social/military pressure) rather than anything generated specifically by cultural concerns. Nevertheless, the Free Irish Staters took it upon themselves to use Irish to distinguish themselves visually, rather than ideologically, from the former Westminster administration. It wasn't pragmatic to rename the President, 'An Taoiseach' (apart from the fact that it was a little silly to call your head of state a president when your country was quite clearly still in the Commonwealth) but was an important gesture in terms of nationalism.

First off, why do you think it wasent pragmatic? Secondly, this dident happen anyway, the President is known by the term Uachtarán na hÉireann not An Taoiseach. That dident come till later,

The Free state disent have a president till after DeV wrote the New constution, before that there was a representative of the King, The King being head of the Free state at the time. DeV used the Abdication of the King as an opportunity to write the monarch out of the Constitution, Incedintaly Ireland was Declared a Republic in 1949 because when the Prime minister of the Free state,(FG at the time) was on a state visit to Canada the Canadians angered him by refusing to include the President in a tost to the King, the Canadians argued that by tosting the King the Irish head of state was included by default, This prompted the Prime Minister to declare that Ireland was leaving the Commonwealth.

The same with the construction of the Constitution and the inclusion of the Irish language as the first language of the state.

Same with the necessity of public servants learning Irish.

And the same with Irish being a mandatory subject in the JC and LC.

Not that any of that actually halted the decline of the language (Gaeltacht areas became more densely concentrated which was a good thing, although absolute levels of speaks had fallen considerably by 1936).

However, my point was that the political status that the Irish language currently holds - and has always held since the independence of this country, is primarily due to the expedient desire to create a nationalistic symbol of the language. This seems, to me, to be a poor reason not to assess the merits of the legislation surrounding it.

Did you never concider that the people who formed the State might have actually believed that Irish was an important part of Irish Identity and should be promoted as a result. There were Irish enthusiasts on both sides of the political devide, Richard Mulchay for the Free state and DeV for FF for Example. These people actually wanted to promote Irish, not just use it as a political symbol.

As I said, if the GAA were prepared to abandon Rule 21, 27 and 42, why can't we have some reform of the political status of the Irish language?

Because there dosent seam to be any desire for the status of the Irish language to be Reformed, The Only lobby group with regards the Irish language is CnaG, They have been quite successful in putting their point across and showing the way twords best practice for promoting the language,
I have yet to see a group calling for Irish to be abandoned, Well thats not true, I did come across a website a few months ago, but it was several years out of date and there never seamed to have been much activity there.

You want there to be reform of the Status of Irish, and by this I assume you mean a downgrading of the Status of the Irish language by the State, but if this was to be done surely there should first be demand for it to happen.

RandomName2

deise go deo wrote: »

Lots of people spoke Irish before Independence, The British State was even forced to acknowledg it before independence, Letters addressed as Gaeilge had to be delivered etc.

Lots of people apart from the fact that there wasn't a majority in any of the 32 counties apart from Galway. In urban areas it was non-existent. Also, it had negligible indigenous political force attached to it: the reason for there still being Irish speakers was because they were in the back-of-beyond! (No offense, the west of Ireland was very much off the beaten track, depopulated by The Famine, emigration, and subsequent food crises, underdeveloped and not a very easy place to live).

If any official letters were demanded as gaeilge it would be by a political figure, doing it on principle or for publicity, who would have been able to speak English perfectly well (a bit like today, really).

deise go deo wrote: »

The Gaelic League was not taken over by the IRB, That was the GAA, The Gaelic league did form part of the Movement for Independance, With many people attending its classes later going on to join the IRA/Cumman na mBan

Nope, was taken over by IRB, reason for Hyde leaving.

deise go deo wrote: »

There were plenty of other reasons for independance at the time, The language as a marker of Identity was not among the biggest of them, you must realize that the Famine and the Fenians were still in living memory at the time.

Famine and Fenians...? Not really. Root causes, perhaps but didn't have much relevance here. Self determination was the cornerstone of the argument for some sort of rule independent of the UK, but other than that the ideas were in flux when the guiding light of the Home Rule League seemed to falter.

deise go deo wrote: »

Not really, The Irish language was a natural part of any such argument, ie the people puting forward the Argument dident use Irish to gain more support for themselves but because they believed that Irish was and Is an Important part of Irish identity.

A bit of both.

deise go deo wrote: »

Formalized would be a better word, Same could be said of Soccer and Rugby, nobody played them before they were 'invented' but that isent very relevant to anything.
The Irish Voluenteers paraded with Hurleys(The ball is called a Sliothar) because they dident have enough Rifles, and if they did parade with Rifles the RIC could have tryed to seize them, an event which wold not have ended well for anyone.

Same couldn't be said of soccer or rugby. Totally different (unless Rugby was established by the Anglican Church... but I doubt it). Correct about IV

deise go deo wrote: »

SF was used because that name was associated with the Rising by the people and the name its self was quite apt for the movement. Dual monarchy was the notion put forward by Griffith before the Rising and was based on Austria.
It was droped after the rising. I dont see how this has anything to do with an absence of Identity,
The Irish Volunteeres were associated with the IPP before the Rising, for obvious reasons the IPP was not going to allow the main figures in the IV after the rising to take part in the IPP so a new political vechical was needed, SF was already associated with the Rising and was always a more extream nationalist party than the IPP so SF were the obvious choice.

Always was a more extreme party? It didn't exist! Only ever competed in one by-election (poorly). Sure, the Rising was mislabeled, but there were specific reasons for going along with that mis-labeling. Actually you aren't really contradicting me here.

deise go deo wrote: »

First off, why do you think it wasent pragmatic? Secondly, this dident happen anyway, the President is known by the term Uachtarán na hÉireann not An Taoiseach. That dident come till later,

The Free state disent have a president till after DeV wrote the New constution, before that there was a representative of the King, The King being head of the Free state at the time. DeV used the Abdication of the King as an opportunity to write the monarch out of the Constitution, Incedintaly Ireland was Declared a Republic in 1949 because when the Prime minister of the Free state,(FG at the time) was on a state visit to Canada the Canadians angered him by refusing to include the President in a tost to the King, the Canadians argued that by tosting the King the Irish head of state was included by default, This prompted the Prime Minister to declare that Ireland was leaving the Commonwealth.

The Prime Minister (Taoiseach) was known as President (... of the Dail?) for a while.

deise go deo wrote: »

Did you never concider that the people who formed the State might have actually believed that Irish was an important part of Irish Identity and should be promoted as a result. There were Irish enthusiasts on both sides of the political devide, Richard Mulchay for the Free state and DeV for FF for Example. These people actually wanted to promote Irish, not just use it as a political symbol.

Well, yes. I never thought that DeV was insincere. It was both in line with their personal views and their political agenda. Not that it made any logical sense to make it law in Leinster... or even Munster really. Part of the draconian measures produced by an aggressive ultra-conservative government. I always think it is a blessing that Fianna Fail didn't do away with the democratic system altogether (but then again they almost always maintained an absolute majority so... realistically there wasn't much need... but even so...)

deise go deo wrote: »

Because there dosent seam to be any desire for the status of the Irish language to be Reformed, The Only lobby group with regards the Irish language is CnaG, They have been quite successful in putting their point across and showing the way twords best practice for promoting the language,
I have yet to see a group calling for Irish to be abandoned, Well thats not true, I did come across a website a few months ago, but it was several years out of date and there never seamed to have been much activity there.

You want there to be reform of the Status of Irish, and by this I assume you mean a downgrading of the Status of the Irish language by the State, but if this was to be done surely there should first be demand for it to happen.

I don't know of many people... or any that I can think of that want to abolish Irish. That would be an abomination, imo.

Downgrading, yes. It is the only way to remove the current discriminatory system that is in place. Most people that I know would have liked the option about whether or not they wanted to do Irish (most hated it due to the system in place). One or two of them had to repeat Irish due to the fact that they were excluded from certain civil service jobs due to the fact they only took Ordinary Level Irish. Happy days!

Cú Giobach

RandomName2 wrote: »

Lots of people apart from the fact that there wasn't a majority in any of the 32 counties apart from Galway. In urban areas it was non-existent. Also, it had negligible indigenous political force attached to it: the reason for there still being Irish speakers was because they were in the back-of-beyond! (No offense, the west of Ireland was very much off the beaten track, depopulated by The Famine, emigration, and subsequent food crises, underdeveloped and not a very easy place to live).

So because the quite large Irish speaking population was in the West of Ireland and other "out of the way" places you can say
"it wasn't a part of the existing Irish identity as nobody actually spoke it."
Am I missing something here.