The Irish language is failing.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't seem to be able to read. Stating that the Irish who fought for Irish independence are terrorists while people who fought for the British Empire are heroes is bigotry and jingoism when it comes from somebody who incessantly lauds his "Britishness".

That would be more in line with what I'd agree with it to be, but what's that got to do with anything you linked to? Or the failing of the Irish langauge?

Carlos Orange

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't seem to be able to read. Stating that the Irish who fought for Irish independence are terrorists while people who fought for the British Empire are heroes is bigotry and jingoism when it comes from somebody who incessantly lauds his "Britishness".

Plenty of people who fought for Irish independence are terrorists.

psinno

psinno wrote: »

Plenty of people who fought for Irish independence are terrorists.

We'll have to agree to differ on that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

but what's that got to do with anything you linked to?

If you followed the links you'll find he subscribes to the view of British Empire fighters = good; Irish freedom fighters = bad.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But back on topic: you wanted people to be connected with their heritage, he's connected with his heritage. WHat's the problem?

You're mistaking me for somebody else. I couldn't give a fiddler's if the Irish haters connect with "their heritage", although in a good 90% of the cases here they seem to be firmly connecting with a certain part of "their heritage" when they carry on a very English atavistic hatred of Irish culture.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

If you followed the links you'll find he subscribes to the view of British Empire fighters = good; Irish freedom fighters = bad.

I did follow them and I didn't find one mention of British Empire Fighters. Closest he came was when he refered to the Easter Rebellion as a terrorist operation which, by definition, it was - it had very little support. Like it or not, that's what terrorism is defined as. It might not be the tradition viewpoint, but that doesn't mean it's bigoted jingoism.

The others just answer a question and express his own feelings about what his heritage is - why did you link to those?

You're mistaking me for somebody else. I couldn't give a fiddler's if the Irish haters connect with "their heritage", although in a good 90% of the cases here they seem to be firmly connecting with a certain part of "their heritage" when they carry on a very English atavistic hatred of Irish culture.

You say that, but as soon as anyone expresses a lack of a connection with Irish, we automatically get the pro-British rhetorc and scorn from you. Expressing an anti-British sentiment seems to be most important aspect of Irish hertiage to you, to the point I wonder why you're expressing this in a thread about the Irish langauge?

Dan_Solo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah, so opposing bigoted jingoistic British imperialism.

We could say the exact same thing and substitute "Irish" for "British".

Dan_Solo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You don't seem to be able to read. Stating that the Irish who fought for Irish independence are terrorists while people who fought for the British Empire are heroes is bigotry and jingoism when it comes from somebody who incessantly lauds his "Britishness".

Maybe it is.
Then again nobody has said this until you did.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Closest he came was when he refered to the Easter Rebellion as a terrorist operation which, by definition, it was - it had very little support. Like it or not, that's what terrorism is defined as.

By that definition of "terrorism" the British Empire was the biggest "terrorist" organisation in world history, unless you're saying it had more than "very little support" among the natives who suffered from its plunder and dispossession across the world?

At any rate, I reject the claim that the Rising had "very little support" (although I accept you were probably wrongly taught that in school). See this extract from J.J. Lee, Politics & Society 1912-1985 (start on p. 28). Essentially this legendary "opposition" to the Rising was in most cases manufactured by the pro-Unionist and pro-Redmond media in Dublin. Lee mentioned the intense hostility in many parts of working-class Dublin to the British Army, and instances the little-known massacre in North King Street as an example of resistance among Dubliners to the British army during Easter Week: "We tried to get the women and children to leave North King Street area. They would not go. Their sympathies were with the rebels."

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Fair enough, but the question remains: why, as soon as someone expresses a lack of a connection with Irish we automatically got the pro-British rhetorc from you?

"Someone"? You mean one person, a person who has a long record of anti-Irish, anti-republican and pro-British and pro-Unionist rhetoric?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Why is stating that you have unionish or British heritage automaticalyl make you bigoted jingoistic?

Of course, you know this isn't the issue. If Jeremy Corbyn or Ken Livingstone stated their "British heritage" or indeed Protestant Irish republicans from Antrim like John Robb or Jack McDowell declared their "Unionist heritage" this is obviously not a problem. If, however, they were to laud the jingoism of the British Empire and demonise those who resisted it, this dovetailing between their "heritage" and their current views is merely a matter of their being ensconced within their tribal prejudices.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Being anti-British seems to be more important to you than being pro-Irish.

Please desist with the disingenuousness. In the same puerile, feigned style, "being anti-Irish seems to be more important to you than being pro-British".

Dan_Solo

Deleted User wrote: »

"Someone"? You mean one person, a person who has a long record of anti-Irish, anti-republican and pro-British and pro-Unionist rhetoric?

OK so, can you name anybody here who is against compulsory Irish who isn't "anti-Irish, anti-republican and pro-British and pro-Unionist"?
This is a self-defining thing for you I'd imagine...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

By that definition of "terrorism" the British Empire was the biggest "terrorist" organisation in world history, unless you're saying it had more than "very little support" among the natives who suffered from its plunder and dispossession across the world?

At any rate, I reject the claim that the Rising had "very little support" (although I accept you were probably wrongly taught that in school). See this extract from J.J. Lee, Politics & Society 1912-1985 (start on p. 28). Essentially this legendary "opposition" to the Rising was in most cases manufactured by the pro-Unionist and pro-Redmond media in Dublin. Lee mentioned the intense hostility in many parts of working-class Dublin to the British Army, and instances the little-known massacre in North King Street as an example of resistance among Dubliners to the British army during Easter Week: "We tried to get the women and children to leave North King Street area. They would not go. Their sympathies were with the rebels."

Not disagreeing with any of this. But by the definition of the word "terrorism" it was terrorism. What the British Emprie did or didn't do changes no bearing on this and skews off on a massive tangent we don't need to go on.

Also it ridicules the idea of the poster you quoted being "bigoted and jingoistic".

"Someone"? You mean one person, a person who has a long record of anti-Irish, anti-republican and pro-British and pro-Unionist rhetoric?

You did the same thng to a poster called Ricipico in post 1459. But wther you do it once or often, I'll rehrase the question: why do it at all? Why not stick to the topic? Have you any interrest the language at all? If so, what is your opinion on it's future? How is this relevant to you previous posts?

Of course, you know this isn't the issue. If Jeremy Corbyn or Ken Livingstone stated their "British heritage" or indeed Protestant Irish republicans from Antrim like John Robb or Jack McDowell declared their "Unionist heritage" this is obviously not a problem. If, however, they were to laud the jingoism of the British Empire and demonise those who resisted it, this dovetailing between their "heritage" and their current views is merely a matter of their being ensconced within their tribal prejudices.

... but when someone posts about it here, it is?

Please desist with the disingenuousness. In the same puerile, feigned style, "being anti-Irish seems to be more important to you than being pro-British".

Moral high ground doesn't work on me. I still tend to notice the fact that you don't actually counter the points I make, or express any opinion whatsoever on the langauge itself.

LordSutch

British Empire?

How did we get from the failing Irish language to > the British Empire

I presume its you again Fuarnanach trying to stir things up?

Every bloody thread . . . . . .

Speedwell

Don't have a dog in that there hunt, as they say in Texas.

The Randy Riverbeast

LordSutch wrote: »

British Empire?

How did we get from the failing Irish language to > the British Empire

I presume its you again Fuarnanach trying to stir things up?

Every bloody thread . . . . . .

I think it's something to do with the whole if you dont want to speak irish then you hate ireland spiel that usually comes up.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The Danes are thinking of escalating English to an official langauge alongside Danish.

What??? And "forcing" their kids to learn it? What about their human rights?

Dan_Solo

Deleted User wrote: »

What??? And "forcing" their kids to learn it? What about their human rights?

Why don't you tell us about it as nobody else has mentioned human rights in the entirety of this thread thus far?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"Our" indeed.

You're a member of the Royal British Legion and the Orange Order? Or just the RBL? You're definitely on record many times as describing the Irish struggle for independence as "terrorism" - like this gem: "the 1916 rising was a terrorist operation" - and the British Empire as laudable and, if I recall, you're one of the biggest cheerleaders for their Empire every time the annual two-month long poppy war glorifications get going. You also never miss an opportunity to mention your hatred for, well, anything Irish and get upset when people don't say "British Isles" or even when you cannot see the Union Jack flying from Irish ports. You compose posts telling the Irish to "Be British, be proud", as you are of your "Unionist/British" identity.

It all sounds just so, well, desperate.

As someone else once pointed out, you can use Irish to say "tiocfaidh ár lá", but you can also use it to say "ní ghéillfimid".

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why don't you tell us about it as nobody else has mentioned human rights in the entirety of this thread thus far?

I'm not the one banging on about "forcing" Irish kids to learn a particular language while being happy to see them "forced" to learn others. Let them explain their stance; I don't have to.

The government should not base its policy decisions on the fact that some people aren't all that good at something and need to make excuses for their lack of ability by "hating" it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

What??? And "forcing" their kids to learn it? What about their human rights?

The implication here is that you believe that teaching life skills to kids is an infringement of their human rights...?

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not the one banging on about "forcing" Irish kids to learn a particular language while being happy to see them "forced" to learn others. Let them explain their stance; I don't have to.

The government should not base its policy decisions on the fact that some people aren't all that good at something and need to make excuses for their lack of ability by "hating" it.

The stance is simple: let teenagers who have attained an ability to operate in the real world in a certain subject choose whether or not they wish to continue learning it. It's that simple.

The government's policy isn't what's up for debate here, it's the student's choice. We have an education system that should be serving the needs of the student, not that of the langauge.

Dan_Solo

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not the one banging on about "forcing" Irish kids to learn a particular language while being happy to see them "forced" to learn others. Let them explain their stance; I don't have to.

The government should not base its policy decisions on the fact that some people aren't all that good at something and need to make excuses for their lack of ability by "hating" it.

But you brought up human rights, yes? This reply just switches back to talking about "forcing" as if you never said it. Wonder why? Almost as if even you realise it was a pretty rubbish argument to be making and you prefer if everybody ignored it.
So your contention is that people "hate" Irish because they are no good at it? Anything to back this up? Thought not...
I'm happy to see children "forced" to learn one language properly. The one everybody in Ireland speaks. English.

dr.fuzzenstein

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The implication here is that you believe that teaching life skills to kids is an infringement of their human rights...?



The stance is simple: let teenagers who have attained an ability to operate in the real world in a certain subject choose whether or not they wish to continue learning it. It's that simple.

The government's policy isn't what's up for debate here, it's the student's choice. We have an education system that should be serving the needs of the student, not that of the langauge.

+1, Irish is all well and good, but maybe some people want to learn things relevant to the 21st century. Other European languages, computer skills, commerce, law, etc...
There are 2 very clear choices:

1: Irish should feature in education, but to have it compulsory above age 10 really doesn't serve a useful purpose, so leave it up to the individual student if they want to keep learning it. It's usage should remain at it's current level. To think that suddenly Irish would become the main language here is deluded at best.

2: Spend hundreds of millions or even billions to force it on everyone, make it compulsory at all levels of school and university, when dealing with the authorities (county council, social welfare, health service, Irish water, the tax office, the courts, customs and the Gardai for example), compulsory courses and testing for immigrants, all state radio, TV, publications and websites in Irish only as well as giving businesses grants for dealing in Irish ONLY and keep at it for decades until English has become the second language. I'm sure within 2-3 generations, when English only speakers have all died out this can be accomplished. This would hurt commerce and companies would think twice about settling here, especially when takeup for European languages would plummet, besides the difficulties with finding an Irish-Lithuanian interpreter.
You have to think international here, the Ireland of pure Gaelic speakers that exists in splendid isolation and Dev's imagination in the 1940's cannot and will not work in a world that is interconnected and mainly English speaking. Or maybe in a few generations time, because right now everyone can get by on English. But if the whole country is Irish only, everyone will HAVE to learn a few European languages as well (2-3 will do), because everyone speaks English, but no bugger outside Ireland speaks Irish.

Speedwell

I'm just glad there is no Irish language requirement for citizenship. I technically qualify to claim Hungarian citizenship through Dad, but I must apply to the embassy in Hungarian and pass a Hungarian language test. And you know, what, I don't disagree with that. (Why haven't I done it? Because the current state of Hungarian politics can, well you know, PMT.)

Carlos Orange

Speedwell wrote: »

I'm just glad there is no Irish language for citizenship. I technically qualify to claim Hungarian citizenship through Dad, but I must apply to the embassy in Hungarian and pass a Hungarian language test. And you know, what, I don't disagree with that. (Why haven't I done it? Because the current state of Hungarian politics can, well you know, PMT.)

Apparently the situation with Russian in Hungary was quite similar to Irish in Ireland. It was mandatory in school but quickly forgotten afterwards.

Speedwell

psinno wrote: »

Apparently the situation with Russian in Hungary was quite similar to Irish in Ireland. It was mandatory in school but quickly forgotten afterwards.

That's what my father told me. I don't recall Russia trying to eradicate the use of Hungarian altogether though, so Hungarian never had the issues that other languages are having today with trying to undergo a general revival. Not within comparatively recent memory, anyway.

Carlos Orange

Speedwell wrote: »

That's what my father told me. I don't recall Russia trying to eradicate the use of Hungarian altogether though, so Hungarian never had the issues that other languages are having today with trying to undergo a general revival. Not within comparatively recent memory, anyway.

I read somewhere that when I'm from (and where I live,2 different places) Irish hasn't been a working language for more than 5-10% of people since the mid 1700s. Well before Hungarian got official status after the Hungarian Revolution.

Map of extent of Irish as spoken by people over 60 in 1911, so it was mainly in the middle of the 19th century that the language "shifted".
http://www.100objects.ie/wp-content/gallery/empty-cooking-pot/disp-d1n-copy.jpg

LordSutch

Very interesting.

More or less an east-west divide . . . .

DyldeBrill

LordSutch wrote: »

Very interesting.

More or less an east-west divide . . . .

Completely and it all boils down to various different factors. It would have seen its first real decline in late 18th century. Emigration and the Famine had a serious effect on the language. Ireland had 4 million Irish speakers in 1841 and was reduced to 680,000 by 1891. Just goes to show the effect the famine really had on the language as well as other key factors factors that followed suit.

OMD

Deleted User wrote: »

Map of extent of Irish as spoken by people over 60 in 1911, so it was mainly in the middle of the 19th century that the language "shifted".
http://www.100objects.ie/wp-content/gallery/empty-cooking-pot/disp-d1n-copy.jpg

The title on the map says it is "Pre-famine Irish speaking"

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

OMD wrote: »

The title on the map says it is "Pre-famine Irish speaking"

Bit confusing alright. I think it means the people who would have been alive at the time of the famine and were still alive in 1911.

OMD

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Bit confusing alright. I think it means the people who would have been alive at the time of the famine and were still alive in 1911.

I thought that at first also but it says those aged 60 and over in 1911. Someone aged 60 in 1911 was born after the famine.

Eugene Norman

Dan_Solo wrote: »

OK so, can you name anybody here who is against compulsory Irish who isn't "anti-Irish, anti-republican and pro-British and pro-Unionist"?
This is a self-defining thing for you I'd imagine...

Whatever about everybody else Sutch is very much pining for the empire.

LordSutch

What is that ^

Seriously, what is all this Empire stuff about in this thread?



Looking forward to you answer Eugene, although I guess I'll have to wait while Nodin or one of his cohorts (Fuaranach & Co) prime you with the appropriate reply.

Eugene Norman

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why don't you tell us about it as nobody else has mentioned human rights in the entirety of this thread thus far?

Why are people so upset with a minority language. With the very existence of a language? With its teaching in schools, a few placements on signs, a few reservations?

Everywhere else these majoritarian beliefs are rejected as fascistic

Eugene Norman

LordSutch wrote: »

What is that ^

Seriously, what is all this Empire stuff about in this thread?

I'm talking about your self declared identity. The dismissal of 1916 as terrorists would imply that all violence against an empire is illegitimate, that any uprising against British supremacy from anywhere is illegitimate. The United Kingdom was an empire, it just spread.

Eugene Norman

LordSutch wrote: »

What is that ^

Seriously, what is all this Empire stuff about in this thread?



Looking forward to you answer Eugene, although I guess I'll have to wait while Nodin or one of his cohorts (Fuerneach & Co) prime you with the appropriate reply.

I'll answer the second part since you edited it. No idea who the first guy is, don't particularly like many of Nodin's arguments.

Nobody is priming anybody. There is no conspiracy against you. Play the ball not the man.

LordSutch

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I'm talking about your self declared identity. The dismissal of 1916 as terrorists would imply that all violence against an empire is illegitimate, that any uprising against British supremacy from anywhere is illegitimate. The United Kingdom was an empire, it just spread.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE FAILING IRISH LANGUAGE !

see my posts in this thread . . . . . .

No mention of an Empire or 1916.

Dan_Solo

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Why are people so upset with a minority language.

We're not.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

With the very existence of a language?

We're not.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

With its teaching in schools

We're not, so long as it isn't compulsory.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

a few placements on signs

You mean "every" when you say "a few"? Bit of a waste yeah, but nobody's that bothered by that.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

a few reservations?

We're not. So long as it isn't just a big freebie for "professional" Irish speakers.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Everywhere else these majoritarian beliefs are rejected as fascistic

Hang on, so you're saying democracy is fascist, because the majority get what they want?
Congrats on your win playing strawman bingo anyway. Most impressive.

Carlos Orange

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The dismissal of 1916 as terrorists would imply that all violence against an empire is illegitimate, that any uprising against British supremacy from anywhere is illegitimate.

Military uprisings in democracies and without large public support don't seem particularly legitimate to me. Something being illegitimate and a terrorist act are 2 different things though.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The implication here is that you believe that teaching life skills to kids is an infringement of their human rights...?

Nope. I'm just mimicking the behaviour of those who think that teaching a child one language is "forcing" it on them, but teaching the child another one isn't, for no other reason than their own prejudices. They might think they're being rational or consistent, but they aren't.

No-one is perfect, and we all have to have things that maybe we're not so good at and/or don't like so much. I get that, but I'm just pointing out that basing public policy on the fact that some people can't cope with and don't like something isn't a good idea.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The stance is simple: let teenagers who have attained an ability to operate in the real world in a certain subject choose whether or not they wish to continue learning it. It's that simple.

Yes, it is that simple; and if we took that approach to education generally our school leavers would be even more simple.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But you brought up human rights, yes?

No, you did, as did anyone else making the same irrational and emotional line of "argument". They should going on about something being "useless" or "forced on" people just because of their inability and prejudices.

Carlos Orange

Deleted User wrote: »

I get that, but I'm just pointing out that basing public policy on the fact that some people can't cope with and don't like something isn't a good idea.

Basing public policy on an attempt to fulfil some national origin myth or a colonialesque idea of manipulating the countries language isn't either.

Dan_Solo

Deleted User wrote: »

No, you did, as did anyone else making the same irrational and emotional line of "argument". They should going on about something being "useless" or "forced on" people just because of their inability and prejudices.

Well in that case you should have no problem quoting where I was talking about human rights to prove you're not just waffling lies. Should be easy right? It would be awfully embarrassing to not be able to though wouldn't it? You'll probably have to "infer" (a.k.a. lie some more) when you fail utterly to find such a quote, yes?

Dan_Solo

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Whatever about everybody else Sutch is very much pining for the empire.

Oh I see, so when he was referring to lots of people he was just lying and was really referring to one single person.
Got it now. Thanks.

psinno

psinno wrote: »

Basing public policy on an attempt to fulfil some national origin myth or a colonialesque idea of manipulating the countries language isn't either.

Regardless of whether the currently policy makes sense or doesn't, or is well executed or not, your concern is almost certainly driven by your own inability to come to terms with the language. The same can be said of most people making the argument, and can be easily gleaned from the pejorative and emotional language they use - like the post quoted above.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You'll probably have to "infer" (a.k.a. lie some more) when you fail utterly to find such a quote, yes?

When you use this kind of pejorative and overly emotional language, you might think it shows some kind of strength in your argument. But all it shows is weakness. If your case was as strong as you claim you would be able to make it with calm, rational and dispassionate language.

Dughorm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Hang on, so you're saying democracy is fascist, because the majority get what they want?.

On topic, what is the evidence to suggest that the majority do want Irish optional?

Carlos Orange

Deleted User wrote: »

Regardless of whether the currently policy makes sense or doesn't, or is well executed or not, your concern is almost certainly driven by your own inability to come to terms with the language. The same can be said of most people making the argument, and can be easily gleaned from the pejorative and emotional language they use - like the post quoted above.

You don't think giving legal ascendancy to the language of a tiny minority has a colonial tinge to it?

Dughorm

psinno wrote: »

Basing public policy on an attempt to fulfil some national origin myth or a colonialesque idea of manipulating the countries (sic) language isn't either.

Who wants to manipulate here? There isn't a Gaelgóir conspiracy that I'm aware of...

Dughorm

psinno wrote: »

You don't think giving legal ascendancy to the language of a tiny minority has a colonial tinge to it?

Are you suggesting Irish speakers are trying to colonise their own country? Seriously?!!

inocybe

Deleted User wrote: »

No-one is perfect, and we all have to have things that maybe we're not so good at and/or don't like so much. I get that, but I'm just pointing out that basing public policy on the fact that some people can't cope with and don't like something isn't a good idea.

Why is Irish necessary to gain entry to the NUI? And why do kids with dyslexia and ADD get exempted from it, even though they are allowed to take up another language subject in its place.

Carlos Orange

Deleted User wrote: »

If your case was as strong as you claim you would be able to make it with calm, rational and dispassionate language.

What are the rational dispassionate reasons for mandating Irish in schools?