How to revive the Irish language.

Wild Bill

Lot of twaddle about "nationalism" here. (We can be Irish nationalists and still toss Irish into the dustbin of history)

So, let's just vote, OK?

Complete the project of cultural genocide or preserve Irish. Simple choice folks.

At this stage I don't really care much anymore. (And the First National Language is on life support now).

But don't delude yourself that letting Irish die is anything else than the completion of part of the 1500 to 1900 English colonial project in Ireland.

Wild Bill

MysticalRain wrote: »

Mentioning Cromwell in a thread about the Irish language is the equivalent of Godwinning it.

There is a lot to be said for Godwinning :cool:

Historically literate folk will realise that only technology separated the Nazis from countless ethnic cleansers before them.

Modern 'politically correct' exceptionalism is bull.

Agent J

Wild Bill wrote: »

Lot of twaddle about "nationalism" here. (We can be Irish nationalists and still toss Irish into the dustbin of history)

Or in other words. You can't address the points which have been put to you so you try to dismiss them.

Wild Bill wrote: »

So, let's just vote, OK?

Complete the project of cultural genocide or preserve Irish. Simple choice folks.

Hello Loaded question. Go ahead and sort out the referendum then.I'll wait.

Wild Bill wrote: »

At this stage I don't really care much anymore.

Of course you do. You just can't find an actual arguement which doesnt consist of stamping your feet and blaming the Brits so you are trying to pretend you don't care now.

Wild Bill wrote: »

But don't delude yourself that letting Irish die is anything else than the completion of part of the 1500 to 1900 English colonial project in Ireland.

You really have that little faith in Ireland?

Wild Bill wrote: »

There is a lot to be said for Godwinning

There is nothing to be said for Godwinning. Apart from showing a lack of an arguement.

MysticalRain

Wild Bill wrote: »

There is a lot to be said for Godwinning :cool:

Historically literate folk will realise that only technology separated the Nazis from countless ethnic cleansers before them.

Modern 'politically correct' exceptionalism is bull.

Historically literate folk would also point out:

The majority of Irish people adopted English voluntarily without any compulsion. Modern day Irish people still show very little enthusiasm for speaking the language.

The Irish language has it's roots in the language of a previous invader (the Celts) and is a vastly different language to what was spoken in the 1600s.

Using the word "genocide" to describe making Irish an optional subject for the school curriculum does a grave disservice to the real Irish victims of genocide.

Wild Bill

MysticalRain wrote: »

Using the word "genocide" to describe making Irish an optional subject for the school curriculum does a grave disservice to the real Irish victims of genocide.

The English re-conquest and occupation and plantation of Ireland 1500 - 1900 was a story of repeated physical and cultural genocide.

The fact many colonized people bend to the occupier in order to survive is a universal.

It's akin to a child abuse victim.

Denial of the harsh reality of Gaelic Ireland's miserable history doesn't change it.

If the majority today are prepared to ditch Irish (under the guise of abolishing compulsory Irish) so be it.

I really don't care anymore. But I'd still think on balance a vote would go in favour of Irish. I could be wrong.

So let's do it. :cool:

Ambient Occlusion

Banning Irish as a subject is idiocy in it's purest form, suggesting that solution would only to dissatisfy a considerable number of people. Making it an optional subject might be wise, but banning it, no. There are people that do not want to learn and conversely there are many that do.

Reviving it needs social reform and effort from the general public, it's not solely up to the government. The anti-Irish sentiment should be suppressed in the media and discouraged at home. At least with that people in a few generations might be able to judge for themselves without influence whether or not they want to learn the language. Say what you want about freedom of speech, it only serves to be damaging if not restricted slightly.
As many have said, it needs to be revived at a grass-roots level. It's not realistic to expect any of the living generations to have a different stance. If the measures are taken now, I'd say it's damn well possible to bring Irish back from the grave.

Nodster

In my eye's a few generations have judged it - let it go, no point spending a red cent we can't afford floging a dead horse

paddyandy

Nodster wrote: »

In my eye's a few generations have judged it - let it go, no point spending a red cent we can't afford floging a dead horse

You could be right but the floggers have bills to pay and need to continue flogging .

conor.hogan.2

MysticalRain wrote: »

Perfectly true. It also contradicts the original point you tried to make.

It's a slim majority going by the latest opinion polls. So it wouldn't take much for the majority to swing the other way.

No it doesn't. I did not state that a minority of people use it because that is obvious because if you don't know Irish why would you be using resources in Irish?

I would bet a sizable amount of money on it being defeated if there was a referendum if I was a betting man.

conor.hogan.2

MysticalRain wrote: »

The Irish language has it's roots in the language of a previous invader (the Celts) and is a vastly different language to what was spoken in the 1600s.

So? How far do you want to go? It is the language of Ireland for all of its recorded history.

English from 1600 is also vastly different. (neither of these have anything to do with the topic and hand anyway)

Ambient Occlusion wrote: »

Banning Irish as a subject is idiocy in it's purest form, suggesting that solution would only to dissatisfy a considerable number of people. Making it an optional subject might be wise, but banning it, no. There are people that do not want to learn and conversely there are many that do.

It is only recommended by people who want it to actually die (as in not "die" in the sense that people believe will happen if we remove compulsion but I mean actually die)

I wish we could just have a referendum, that would silence a lot of people.

Wild Bill

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

I wish we could just have a referendum, that would silence a lot of people.

And if it doesn't then we could bring in European style laws criminalizing opinions such genocide denial in Armenia or the Holocaust.

In our case the law could criminalize "any attempt to deny, downplay or trivialize the reality and effects of British colonialism in Ireland or to criticize any efforts to repair the damage caused by the cultural genocide of that period".

(We could probably cop some phrases from some of the boards forum charters)

We Irish are way too tolerant I sometimes think!

Cú Giobach

golden lane wrote: »

what i do know....is the irish language, did me no good whatsoever....

and until i see it is gainful to the standard of living for now and the future, i believe it will do nobody else good..........

ps still got cane marks on my hand........for not saying...gurra morra gut........

Yea everything is about money, it's the real meaning of existence.

I've still got cane marks for not doing my homework and talking in class, your point?

Wibbs

FrostyJack wrote: »

Let it die then.

It wouldn't die.

A waste of time and money. Let those who want to speak it, speak it and does that don't, don't.

Those who speak it would still have to be accommodated and that costs money. It would be a lot less of a spend mind you. Personally I don't object to money being spent, it's how it's spent, rather how it's wasted that grinds my gears.

Chinese is a much more important language for children to learn.

No. Though fashionable to the point of meme it's really not. For a multitude of reasons. Just a few might be: It's not an international language, few non Chinese speak it. It's tonal and complex, which makes it harder to pick up. Which "Chinese" do you pick? China's on the up now, but watch this space. I remember Japan being held up as the next big thing and look at it today. Kicking off Japanese classes in schools back then when a similar meme was in place would have been a waste of time(in the biz/financial sense). Irish people are much more likely to emigrate and work in a country with an indo European language.

I don't see the people in the Gaeltacht lighting fires with flint or plowing fields with animals to "keep tradition alive".

So? We're writing in English and I don't know about you, but I'm not sporting doublet and hose as I'm doing so. It's like the earlier Newgrange argument. It isn't one.

Wild Bill wrote: »

And if it doesn't then we could bring in European style laws criminalizing opinions such genocide denial in Armenia or the Holocaust.

In our case the law could criminalize "any attempt to deny, downplay or trivialize the reality and effects of British colonialism in Ireland or to criticize any efforts to repair the damage caused by the cultural genocide of that period".

... and end up looking like a nation of bed wetters. A culture that commits to the idea in law that it's history (nearly always a culturally slanted one) is set in stone and untouchable is not one I'd want to be any part of. Shades of Soviet air brushing of party photographs. Sacred cows are fine wandering the roads of Calcutta, but anywhere else, no thankee very much Ted.

We Irish are way too tolerant I sometimes think!

More like a usually nice mindset of "meh, feck it". We've enough cultural crawthumpers in our midst, we don't need to enshrine their exclusive right to whinge in law. Thank fcuk most of us actually don't bother worrying about such stuff.

Enkidu

MysticalRain wrote: »

The Irish language has it's roots in the language of a previous invader (the Celts) and is a vastly different language to what was spoken in the 1600s.

Again, I know it has nothing to do with the debate, but the spoken Irish of the average person in 1600 was almost the exact same as that spoken today.

Enkidu

deise go deo wrote: »

Was the Fall of Latin as a Lingua Franca not due more to the encrochment of other Linguistic groups in the terrotory's where it had been the Dominant Language, Saxons in England, Franks over the Northern part of the Continent, The Visigoths and Ostrogoths in Italy and Spain? More so than it not being seen as sufficiently culturally detached amongst the population where it had served as a Lingua Franca.

Perhaps there are other examples I am not aware of where a Lingua Franca was rejected because it was seen as overly culturally attached by those who previously used it.

I think you'd really enjoy Ostler's books deise, since you seem to have an interest in the history and sociology of languages. The points you've mentioned are correct and remember I did say that Ostler concluded that English wasn't really all that different. Just that its greater detachment from a single culture may help it last longer than average.

smdylan

what irish means to me? in a word.. focal

my apologies for interrupting the flow of conversation you may continue its pointlessness in its uninterrupted entirety

Interest in History

smdylan wrote: »

what irish means to me? in a word.. focal
my apologies for interrupting the flow of conversation you may continue its pointlessness in its uninterrupted entirety

If you apply the same logical premises to all the contributions, then the conversation will seem pointless. But if you apply two different sets of logical premis, then the exchange is interesting to observe.

The two sets are: Utilitarian and Religious. The Utilitarians point out that the measures to revive Irish are unreal, that they can't work and that they are a waste of resources. The revivalists counter these arguments with what is essentially a Religious belief which is untouched by the utilitarian orguments. And so the two groups always argue at cross purposes.

Caught in the middle are the schoolchildren who cumulatively sit in Irish classes for tens of millions of hours every year, most of whom sit there just as an act homage to the god of the Revival.

Interest in History

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

1 - FG wanted to reduce compulsory Irish.
2 - You are mental if you think teachers agree with that.

Did I say that teachers would support freedom of choice in connection with Irish in the Leaving Cert? I think I said "most educators" by which I meant the thinkers who look at the nature of education itself and at the operation of our system as a whole.

You are right about "teachers". They are under contract to teach the curriculum as it exists and are not free to oppose it. Individually they have invested heavily in Irish in order to get their jobs and are among the beneficiaries of the Revival so they won't rock the boat.

People in Fine Gael tell me that part of Labour's price for forming the government was the dropping of the FG policy to give choice in the Leaving Cert. (About a quarter of the members of the Oireachtas for fifty and more years have come from the education sector, which must have a bearing on the question.)

smdylan

Interest in History wrote: »

If you apply the same logical premises to all the contributions, then the conversation will seem pointless. But if you apply two different sets of logical premis, then the exchange is interesting to observe.

The two sets are: Utilitarian and Religious. The Utilitarians point out that the measures to revive Irish are unreal, that they can't work and that they are a waste of resources. The revivalists counter these arguments with what is essentially a Religious belief which is untouched by the utilitarian orguments. And so the two groups always argue at cross purposes.

Caught in the middle are the schoolchildren who cumulatively sit in Irish classes for tens of millions of hours every year, most of whom sit there just as an act homage to the god of the Revival.

thats a very good point, a point i didnt even consider.
my little brother is dyslexic and yet is still made do Irish with the rest of his class.. he fears tests on the subject so much that he pretends to be sick, as he doesnt want to be ridiculed by his peers as being stupid this is 5th class by the way.. when he enters secondary its unclear if he'll be exempt or not.. when he's having a harder time with one useful language why should his mental "resources" be wasted on one that no one cares about.. especially if its knocking his confidence in himself..

when i was in primary in the late 90's we did irish maybe once a month.. then moving to secondary i was expected to know some foundations of Irish which i was never thought in the first place the two irish teachers i did have in secondary.. one was an obvious alcoholic who had no control over his class.. i gave that motherfudger hell then for my leaving i had a teacher who'd rather shoot the shyt than teach which i had no problem with..

crap i've just added to the discussion oh no's! :O

Interest in History

smdylan wrote: »

thats a very good point, a point i didnt even consider.
my little brother is dyslexic and yet is still made do Irish with the rest of his class.. he fears tests on the subject so much that he pretends to be sick, as he doesnt want to be ridiculed by his peers as being stupid this is 5th class by the way.. when he enters secondary its unclear if he'll be exempt or not.. when he's having a harder time with one useful language why should his mental "resources" be wasted on one that no one cares about.. especially if its knocking his confidence in himself..

when i was in primary in the late 90's we did irish maybe once a month.. then moving to secondary i was expected to know some foundations of Irish which i was never thought in the first place the two irish teachers i did have in secondary.. one was an obvious alcoholic who had no control over his class.. i gave that motherfudger hell then for my leaving i had a teacher who'd rather shoot the shyt than teach which i had no problem with..

crap i've just added to the discussion oh no's! :O

When it comes to a Religious belief, the Faithful find it easy to be cruel. It is in the nature of such belief that worldly matters must not be allowed to intrude upon it. They look on the suffering of the dyslexics as necessary for the Greater Good. (Of course THEY are not suffering...).

But don't be passive. Get any association for sufferers to lobby T.D.s. I believe that Mary Mitchell-O'Connor, T.D in Dun Laoghaire would give a sympathetic ear. But you'd have to be prepared for a prolonged effort to bring about change.

conor.hogan.2

Wild Bill wrote: »

And if it doesn't then we could bring in European style laws criminalizing opinions such genocide denial in Armenia or the Holocaust.

No. It is a referendum. Legal and binding.

But it looks like that was not a serious response, anyway.

Interest in History

smdylan wrote: »

my little brother is dyslexic and yet is still made do Irish with the rest of his class.. .why should his mental "resources" be wasted on one that no one cares about.. ..

I think Mary Mitchell-O'Connor T.D has an interest in this. Her e-mail is public of course: Mary.mitchelloconnor@oireachtas.ie

But to make an impact you would probably have to engage a dyslexis associtaion in making a request for a change in the system.

conor.hogan.2

Interest in History wrote: »

The two sets are: Utilitarian and Religious. The Utilitarians point out that the measures to revive Irish are unreal, that they can't work and that they are a waste of resources. The revivalists counter these arguments with what is essentially a Religious belief which is untouched by the utilitarian orguments. And so the two groups always argue at cross purposes.

Caught in the middle are the schoolchildren who cumulatively sit in Irish classes for tens of millions of hours every year, most of whom sit there just as an act homage to the god of the Revival.

Then you have the people who actually know the situation and reliase we can have Irish and continue to speak English. It is not a black and white either or thing and never has been.

On the schoolchildren point they also sit through Religion class too and pray to the likely non imaginary thing too but this is a democracy and we have a history of Catholicism in this country which most people respect until proven that people do not want it anymore.

Also blaming Irish for Dylexia not being treated well in Ireland, that is not fair. I presume they handled English and other subjects fairly for him but when it came to Irish they deliberately acted like they did not know about Dyxlexia I suppose?

Interest in History wrote: »

Did I say that teachers would support freedom of choice in connection with Irish in the Leaving Cert? I think I said "most educators" by which I meant the thinkers who look at the nature of education itself and at the operation of our system as a whole.

You are right about "teachers". They are under contract to teach the curriculum as it exists and are not free to oppose it. Individually they have invested heavily in Irish in order to get their jobs and are among the beneficiaries of the Revival so they won't rock the boat.

People in Fine Gael tell me that part of Labour's price for forming the government was the dropping of the FG policy to give choice in the Leaving Cert. (About a quarter of the members of the Oireachtas for fifty and more years have come from the education sector, which must have a bearing on the question.)

So a group of people you can not point to and in any way back up your point. Nice!

Teachers can strike and have done before. If any reasonable number opposed compulsion they could oppose it.

People in FG say a lot of things. A lot of FG are/were teachers too. So that has an equal bearing. FG having other options has another bearing on why they would drop their view on Irish so easily when they could have conceded other things to Labour.

Interest in History

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Then you have the people who actually know the situation and reliase we can have Irish and continue to speak English. It is not a black and white either or thing and never has been.

Of course you are right. Of course you can have the two.

But it is the political ideology that creates the rigidity, the either-or-scenario. The ideology is the origen of the demand for uniformity, the "everybody must do it all the time" blanket imposition. "Do this or your school won't get a capitation grant; do this or you won't get into an NUI university; do this whether or not you're struggling with illiteracy or dyslexia.

conor.hogan.2

Nope.

We are living now with both. So we agree. In school you have to do things, shocker. Outside of school there is no "demand for uniformity". Schools in Ireland have to meet Irish law/customs in general and especially if they want grants.

The Dyslexia point is pointless and nothing to do with Irish. Dyslexia was handled terribly in this country for years in all subjects. Do not act like when it came time for Irish things changed. It is a sad fact, still irrelevant to irish, that has been remedied for years now.

Interest in History

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Nope.

..... In school you have to do things, shocker. Outside of school there is no "demand for uniformity". Schools in Ireland have to meet Irish law/customs in general and especially if they want grants.....

The Dyslexia point is pointless and nothing to do with Irish. ...

Demands should be founded on rationalty. And the rationale for a demand made on children in a education system is that it is for their welfare. It's not enough to say 'do it or else', unless all that you want is a barren conformity for as long as you have the pupils under your power. Of course, that is enough for the political ideologue, but it is not to be confused with either education or cultural enrichment. It is also futile, because when the pupil is released from the compulsion he/she immediately jetisons the subject of the unjustified demand.

(An aside: in the Soviet Union you had to pass on exam in Marxism-Leninism in order to get into university. Of course the students despised the whole exrercise.)

About dyslexia: I only know what concerned people tell me and can only quote what they say.

conor.hogan.2

Soviet Union, ok what is the equivalence of Godwinning when it is with Marxism/Communism?

The rationale of compulsory Irish was debated (see the foundation of Ireland and even before that when it was snuck back into education before independence reversing the ban on it).
Read history if you have an interest in it. After this was made then why should we put serious debate into removing its compulsion if there is no strong support for its removal?

The second there is a hint of wide support for its removal then I am all for having a proper discussion and a vote on it.

Dyslexia has nothing to do with irish, it was badly treated with in Ireland in general in all education.

dpe

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Soviet Union, ok what is the equivalence of Godwinning when it is with Marxism/Communism?

The rationale of compulsory Irish was debated (see the foundation of Ireland and even before that when it was snuck back into education before independence reversing the ban on it).
Read history if you have an interest in it. After this was made then why should we put serious debate into removing its compulsion if there is no strong support for its removal?

The second there is a hint of wide support for its removal then I am all for having a proper discussion and a vote on it.

Dyslexia has nothing to do with irish, it was badly treated with in Ireland in general in all education.

Who said anything about removal. Make it optional and "let the market decide", so to speak. You don't need to have a debate about removing the compulsion, you simply let parents and pupils make their own choices. In fact I'd argue the only rationale for making it a public vote is to play the green jersey/guilt card.

Interest in History

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Soviet Union, ok what is the equivalence of Godwinning when it is with Marxism/Communism?

The rationale of compulsory Irish was debated (see the foundation of Ireland and even before that when it was snuck back into education before independence reversing the ban on it). Read history if you have an interest in it....

The second there is a hint of wide support for its removal then I am all for having a proper discussion and a vote on it.

The paralelles with the subject of Marxism-Leninism inthe Soviet education system are these:

• The compulsion for everybody to do the subject reflected the fact that it was a symbol of the regime and rejecting it equated to disloyalty to the regime. It was not a subject based on the needs of the pupils or aimed at their cultural enrichment.
• The 'do-it-or-else' method applied to making the students study it reflected the use of political power over the education system to achieve political conformity.
• The subject had no bearing on the real life in the community and was ditched by the students immediately that it had served their career needs.

As to the historical origens of our Revival, the substantive answer is that we should judge our situation now as it is and not it was hoped for by people in a bygone age. But even then questions were raised. Joe Lee quotes MacNeill the first Minister for Education saying: "You might as well be putting wooden legs on hens as trying to respore Irish through the school system".

Mightymouse vs Dangermouse

Em, out of all this crap the very first post on this thread seems like the right approach!!

Interest in History

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

The second there is a hint of wide support for its removal then I am all for having a proper discussion and a vote on it.

Of course, as long as the position of irish on the school curriculum is rated as a political matter, one would tend to look to votes for or against its position. But if it is rated as an educational metter then disagreements simply would not arise.

If, for example, Irish were put on the curriculum at the start of secondary school and then made a subject of choice for the Leaving Cert, I'd say that this sort of debate would disappear overnight. And in this context I'd quote Adrian Kelly from his book "Compulsory Irish" which surveys its history. He says: "The attempted revival through the education system illustrated the dangers of allowing ideology to win over pragmatism in the formulation of policy". And he also says that the amount of Irish actually learned by students over the years would have been just as much if the subject had been taught as normal and without all the the special elements of compulsion.

FoxT

Enkidu wrote: »

Again, I know it has nothing to do with the debate, but the spoken Irish of the average person in 1600 was almost the exact same as that spoken today.

If that is true, then doesn't it demonstrate that the language is dead?

conor.hogan.2

dpe wrote: »

Who said anything about removal. Make it optional and "let the market decide", so to speak. You don't need to have a debate about removing the compulsion, you simply let parents and pupils make their own choices. In fact I'd argue the only rationale for making it a public vote is to play the green jersey/guilt card.

Removal of compulsory irish.

You should have a debate about removing it from compulsion imo. Removing it otherwise will just cause major problems. If people think the majority want it removed having a debate/vote should not be a problem.

Nah bringing Marxism up is just nonsense. As bad as Godwinning. We do not have an extreme government. Nor have we had one government. So stop talking absolute nonsense.

conor.hogan.2

Interest in History wrote: »

But if it is rated as an educational metter then disagreements simply would not arise.

If, for example, Irish were put on the curriculum at the start of secondary school and then made a subject of choice for the Leaving Cert, I'd say that this sort of debate would disappear overnight. And in this context I'd quote Adrian Kelly from his book "Compulsory Irish" which surveys its history. He says: "The attempted revival through the education system illustrated the dangers of allowing ideology to win over pragmatism in the formulation of policy". And he also says that the amount of Irish actually learned by students over the years would have been just as much if the subject had been taught as normal and without all the the special elements of compulsion.

If we dealt on it purely as education then Irish would remain as is. We have a broad education that is what we have here.

Having compulsory Irish is not about any sort of "revival" (revival is nonsense as I have pointed out and I do not know one Irish speaker who believe in it) There was a revival, it happened and achieved one of its goals (not letting irish die) and the revival movement ended pretty much.

If you were brought up in Ireland you know in primary school all subjects are "compulsory" and in secondary school irish is compulsory but extremely easy to get out of.

Interest in History

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Nah bringing Marxism up is just nonsense. As bad as Godwinning. We do not have an extreme government. Nor have we had one government. So stop talking absolute nonsense.

Ok. Just illustrating a point. So I'll suspend my argument linking compulsion with political ideology.

But now: you give me your explanation on why 17 and 18 year olds are compelled to do Irish in the Leaving Cert? Why do you say it is not allowed as a subject of choice?

Interest in History

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

....Having compulsory Irish is not about any sort of "revival" (revival is nonsense as I have pointed out and I do not know one Irish speaker who believe in it) There was a revival, it happened and achieved one of its goals (not letting irish die) and the revival movement ended pretty much. ....

What then is the current objective ?

Wibbs

FoxT wrote: »

If that is true, then doesn't it demonstrate that the language is dead?

Not really. Take English, one of the biggest international languages(if not the biggest). A language with many more selection pressures for change compared to a "small" local language, yet if you took a time machine back to the 1700's you could chat away with a local Londoner with little enough difficulty. Both of you would have novel words and usage, but the majority of your convo would be fine.

Wild Bill

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

No. It is a referendum. Legal and binding.

But it looks like that was not a serious response, anyway.

If you mean was I serious about criminalizing holocaust denial? No, I'm not.

I'm a free speech kinda guy

GaryIrv93

Many people who voted to keep Irish compulsory were people with just the attitude of ''meh''. Since Irish doesn't affect most people's lives in any way, it makes no difference to the one's who have left school whether it stays compulsory or not. These people or others also may have felt it 'unpatriotic' or a bad example for their kids if they openly expressed 'No', so they just voted 'Yes'. But they're voting with their mouths there, not with their minds. So these particular 'Yes' votes should be deemed invalid if no reason is given.

wilkie2006

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Many people who voted to keep Irish compulsory were people with just the attitude of ''meh''. Since Irish doesn't affect most people's lives in any way, it makes no difference to the one's who have left school whether it stays compulsory or not. These people or others also may have felt it 'unpatriotic' or a bad example for their kids if they openly expressed 'No', so they just voted 'Yes'. But they're voting with their mouths there, not with their minds. So these particular 'Yes' votes should be deemed invalid if no reason is given.

With a user name of GaryIrv93, are you sure that you're not dismissing the language simply because you're doing your Leaving Cert and think it's a bit of a pain in the ar$e at the moment? I think that attitude is every bit as visceral and shallow as the argument* you're dismissing.

* And I don't think that argument, where people say 'meh', even exists. People just grow up a bit and reflect that the Irish language actually is important to culture and to identity.

Interest in History

Enkidu wrote: »

Again, I know it has nothing to do with the debate, but the spoken Irish of the average person in 1600 was almost the exact same as that spoken today.

Your remark is indeed germane to the debate because it brings up the question of what irish is now being taught in the advancement of the Revival.

A number of authorities (Caoilfhionn Nic Pháidín, John harris, NCCA studies) tell of the growing linguistic poverty in the language acquired and being used, including in the Gaeltacht. Anybody who looks at the 'Sraith Pictiúr' booklet produced as prep for the Leaving Cert Pass Irish exam can see the same for themselves. In some instances, it seems to me, the use of the language is almost on the level of pigeon.

wilkie2006

Interest in History wrote: »

. In some instances, it seems to me, the use of the language is almost on the level of pigeon pidgin.

FYP

Interest in History

wilkie2006 wrote: »

FYP

Thanks for correcting 'pigeon' to 'pidgin'.

For a moment I must have thought that we were away with the birds.

conor.hogan.2

*pidgin and not in any way true if you know what pidgin actually means.

conor.hogan.2

Interest in History wrote: »

Ok. Just illustrating a point. So I'll suspend my argument linking compulsion with political ideology.

But now: you give me your explanation on why 17 and 18 year olds are compelled to do Irish in the Leaving Cert? Why do you say it is not allowed as a subject of choice?

Because they are forced. Why are they forced? Because we had this debate around the foundation of the state. Why is it still compulsory? Because people wish it to be left compulsory.

I do not see the problem. The second anywhere near a majority call for its removal as compulsory then I would back a debate on the issue and if it ever got to a vote or even if the teachers decided to remove it I would back that decision.

They are not compelled to do anything, for the most part anyway.

Interest in History wrote: »

What then is the current objective ?

To teach Irish to students in Ireland. Not very well imo but getting a lot better (I do not think Maths is taught particularly well either.)

LordSutch

wilkie2006 wrote: »

With a user name of GaryIrv93, are you sure that you're not dismissing the language simply because you're doing your Leaving Cert and think it's a bit of a pain in the ar$e at the moment? I think that attitude is every bit as visceral and shallow as the argument* you're dismissing.

I realise that your post is directed at GaryIrv, but from my own perspective: If you trawl through this thread you will find that GaryIrv is but one of many voices who disagree with mandatory Irish lessons in school. Reasons vary from some posters just hating the language, some couldn't be arsed to learn it, some think what's the point, its a dead language! and others defend it, but still disagree with the mandatory nature of its "teaching" and needless to say most of us don't converse in Irish anyway, so why is it mandatory in school in the 1st place?.

wilkie2006 wrote: »

* And I don't think that argument, where people say 'meh', even exists. People just grow up a bit and reflect that the Irish language actually is important to culture and to identity.

Culture & identity? Many people would identify themselves as Irish, and they would see themselves as culturally Irish too, but that doesn't mean that they would automatically speak or wish to speak Irish. learning/speaking Irish is but only one small aspect of being Irish, that people may or may not take to.

NoHarm1994

To be honest I feel that we should put the way Irish is thought in Ireland into the hands of the Gealgoirs in Galway, Donegal, Kerry etc...
Irish colleges like Colaiste Lurgan have the right idea at making Irish acceptable and relatable to young people! I went to a course in Lurgan last summer and it completely changed my opinions of the language. I used to be indifferent towards it but now I am quite passionate about making myself as líofa as possible
Irish colleges like these have been responsible for gathering more support for the language in recent years because they have introduced Irish into modern cultures ie Ceol and social networking!

If anyone is interested in joining the only full Irish 'facebook' so to speak have a look at..

http://abairleat.kontain.com/

The site was set up by people in Colaiste Lurgan and is called Abair Leat!

It is also fairly easy to use and is easy on the eye

FrostyJack

Wibbs wrote: »

No. Though fashionable to the point of meme it's really not. For a multitude of reasons. Just a few might be: It's not an international language, few non Chinese speak it. It's tonal and complex, which makes it harder to pick up. Which "Chinese" do you pick? China's on the up now, but watch this space. I remember Japan being held up as the next big thing and look at it today. Kicking off Japanese classes in schools back then when a similar meme was in place would have been a waste of time(in the biz/financial sense). Irish people are much more likely to emigrate and work in a country with an indo European language.

I said it would be better than Irish not it would be the best language to learn. As for China expansion being a meme, I think you better check the latest international financial information, if China doesn't continue to grow the Worlds economy is down the drain so what language you speak will be unimportant. The World economy was never in bed with Japan as it is with China.

So? We're writing in English and I don't know about you, but I'm not sporting doublet and hose as I'm doing so. It's like the earlier Newgrange argument. It isn't one.

I think you misread what I said, I was being sarcastic. I said they don't follow all old customs just the ones they want, like picking and choosing what it is to be Irish.

conor.hogan.2

NoHarm1994 wrote: »

To be honest I feel that we should put the way Irish is thought in Ireland into the hands of the Gealgoirs in Galway, Donegal, Kerry etc...
Irish colleges like Colaiste Lurgan have the right idea at making Irish acceptable and relatable to young people!

Lurgan, run by teachers and students mostly. Camus and other Gaeltachts are quite similar.

LordSutch wrote: »

so why is it mandatory in school in the 1st place?.

We had a debate on whether it should be compulsory around the founding of the state. Until we see wide support for its removal then logically it should remain compulsory?

Nowhere near a majority are wanting it to be removed as compulsory but the second that happens then a debate should happen and whatever is decided is decided. Even if the teachers decided to re-work the curriculum/layout and remove it then that would be fair in my eyes. Neither of these things is looking like so compulsory Irish stays and rightfully so.

dpe

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

We had a debate on whether it should be compulsory around the founding of the state. Until we see wide support for its removal then logically it should remain compulsory?

Bluntly, no. Its education choices by political fiat. The very fact that an education subject should require a vote to change it tells you all you need to know. I can't see any justification for compulsion other than ideology. Its absolutely self-evident that Irish is only "useful" from an education standpoint because the state itself has made it "useful" by making it a requirement for various public sector roles; its a rigged deck. And I'm sorry, but the Soviet example used earlier is very apt, because the thinking behind the flow from subject achievement to advancement within the state apparatus is pretty much identical.