Nationalism and the Irish Language

Valmont

I have been grappling with this issue for a while and have had many interesting discussions about it with work-mates.

Why exactly does the state sponsorship of the Irish language amount to nationalism? If it does, in what context is it a bad thing? I'm confused as the answer is open to different interpretations depending on what definition of nationalism is used.

Is the teaching of Irish history also nationalistic in nature? If we have an obligation to learn about the events and time periods that lead to the establishment of the Irish republic, why not an equal obligation to the Irish language?

Sorry I don't have really have my own opinion to contribute but I am still trying to figure out where I stand on the issue. Thanks.

Bigdeadlydave

Well yes it is nationalistic. The government is attempting to promote Ireland and its history, to give us something that is unique, and an understanding of the past is essential imho. Personally I think nationalism is a good thing, although many people have exploited nationalist sentiment to carry out actions that further their own agendas. Its like everything, when its taken to extremes its bad.

Valmont

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

Its like everything, when its taken to extremes its bad.

Do you think that spending lots of public funds on Irish is an extreme form of nationalism? Bearing in mind that there are no tangible benefits to the economy from promoting such a program.

Bigdeadlydave

No, by extreme I meant bombings etc....

eleanoroosevelt

Irish people lost alot of their nationalism in latter years. This is a pity and Irish being compulsory is a negative thing because when people are forced into something, they rebel againest it. People have to want to learn Irish, want to appreciate their cultural heritage and we need to desire to express ourselves as through our irish identity. You can't force nationalistic pride upon people, it develops over time and due to circumstances.
Personally I would like to see irish people proud of their language and proud of their history. We need not to glorify violence as the anwser to problems we see as beyond our control. I do think pride of our language and pride of our cultural heritage go hand in hand.

Valmont

Why is Irish taught compulsorily? Is there an officially stated purpose for the entire endeavor?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In my peer group I find there is an unquestioning acceptance of Irish as a compulsory subject. Even suggesting that Irish is a waste of valuable class time that would be better spent on other subjects seems to be a faux pas. When I have pressed people to explain its value to me, I have yet to receive anything more than "it's a very important part of our culture" and "it teaches language skills". This whole topic has been driving me mad the last few weeks.

foxcomm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

I find the "preservation of culture/heritage" argument to be mostly ridiculous. People can be amazingly selective in what they consider their heritage when arguing that point. How many of your peer group have read an Irish author in the last year? How many ever? How many of your peer group have explored a bit of Irish mythology lately?

In my case the answer is very few. Which is highly disappointing as Irish literature written in English has certainly had a more profound international impact than the Irish language or G.A.A. So when I hear the "preserve your culture" argument I sigh because the people making usually make no attempt to engage in modern Irish culture such a literature. Its just conservatism, nothing more.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

muinteoirTomas

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I find the "preservation of culture/heritage" argument to be mostly ridiculous. People can be amazingly selective in what they consider their heritage when arguing that point. How many of your peer group have read an Irish author in the last year? How many ever? How many of your peer group have explored a bit of Irish mythology lately?

In my case the answer is very few. Which is highly disappointing as Irish literature written in English has certainly had a more profound international impact than the Irish language or G.A.A. So when I hear the "preserve your culture" argument I sigh because the people making usually make no attempt to engage in modern Irish culture such a literature. Its just conservatism, nothing more.

Ok, I may be biast 'ach a mhalairt!' I absolutely persevere in buying Irish as much as possible - in every way; including Irish authors, we have a lot of them to choose from and a wide variety of genres.

As I said, my reply might be biast as to 'how many of your peer group have explored...' - all my friends have, but I'm a primary teacher and we took the OPTIONAL course in college of Gaeilge.

This debate on comp. Irish will go on forever it seems, but as someone who has studied the reasons for it, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages if you only even look at it from a purely learning experience: Chidlren who study Irish before a 3rd modern language in secondary school find the 3rd language much easier to acquire - proven fact (source the iilt website) - will get definate link from college notes later.

Moreover, it is actually Europe who are applauding Ireland for ensuring that Irish is taught - the European average is Mother tongue + 2 other languages, which is what we are doing - either Irish or English as mother tongue + 1 modern language in secondary school = 3 languages; european average satisfied.

I was not raised any where a gaeltacht, neither of my parents have brilliant Gaeilge but I absolutely couldn't imagine what my life would be like without Gaeilge! It is such part and parcel of my day, my life that I genuinely can't imagine what it would be like not to have it, and I thank God that I do!

I truly believe that it is the teachers who should be apraisled in concerns the Irish and more importantly, their ATTITUDES towards the language.
When I was in primary and secondary school, I had brilliant Irish teachers who seriously loved the language, and they instilled that in me to this day. I hope that I am instilling that in my pupils. It really is the attitude of people that has to change and this starts in the schools - primary, secondary is too late.

As to the original statement on the forum, of course the promotion of the Irish language is linked to nationalism, but as you so rightly said, it depends on your defination of nationalism. Being proud of your country and looking to its past, present and future welfare merits an investment in Irish! The true meath na Gaeilge - decline of Irish - is relatively new (the last 150 + years) if you think that Gaeilge has been spoken for thousands of years, another reason to be proud of it - Irish is one of the oldest languages still in use today, I can't remember exactly from my history of Irish lectures but I think it is around 3500 years old, although it has gone through some changes (as all languages have), the root of the language is the oldest in world still spolen today!

Open the forum to a bit more discussion, eh!
None of the above was intended to offend, I was merely giving my opinion and experience.

Wibbs

muinteoirTomas wrote: »

Irish is one of the oldest languages still in use today, I can't remember exactly from my history of Irish lectures but I think it is around 3500 years old, although it has gone through some changes (as all languages have), the root of the language is the oldest in world still spolen today!

That's a dubious claim and not really a helpful one IMHO. It's an indo european language, like latin, greek, french spanish english etc. It's not the oldest still spoken in the world. Hebrew would be older, as would Chinese to name but two. Not to mention Kalahari bushmen language which appears to have had little outside influence for a very long time.

It's not even the oldest in Europe. Basque/Euskara is far far older. It's not an indo european language for a start. Plus as you say it has changed over time like all languages. Could you understand old Irish? I'd warrant about as much as I could understand old English. If you look at how languages do evolve one could equally claim that modern Italian is "new" latin(as is Spanish) and ancient greek isn't that much removed from modern. While it's good to keep languages vital and alive, the claim of great age does little to help again IMHO.

As to the original statement on the forum, of course the promotion of the Irish language is linked to nationalism, but as you so rightly said, it depends on your defination of nationalism. Being proud of your country and looking to its past, present and future welfare merits an investment in Irish!

And that's fine and dandy. My issue with it is how the notion of irishness and the language became interlinked and how it has been forced down peoples craws and badly. When the British left, a lot of what was considered english/west brit was excised and not always usefully. Many institutions and ideals that didnt follow the new "Irish" ideal got left behind. IMHO a good example of this is the natural history museum. It's pickled in aspic. A late Victorian/edwardian museum. A museum of a museum indeed. No new exhibits or precious few since the foundation of the state. Georgian buildings didnt even have preservation orders on them until the late 80's as they were another example of the "english" past. This went for the school curriculum too. Subjects/pursuits that were considered too "english" were dropped in favour of "irish" ones(and Irish Catholic ones too). The language was propped up on the back of that. Especially outside of (union) jackeen Dublin. There was a time not so long ago that attending trinity college was considered not exactly ok.

I have no issue with the Irish language itself. It is but a means of communication and like all such have value. I have an issue with the notion of it being forced upon us, I have an issue with the resources that have been wasted on its promotion(and it was wasted as we're not conversing in it now), and I have an issue as to what we lost in this headlong rush to create a future while possibly losing much of a past we're not comfortable with. IMHO it will live and grow and thrive as a vital language only if the Irish people wish it and use it and not pay lip service to it.

foxcomm

This post has been deleted.

thebman

Its called cultural evolution. Irish is irrelevant. It may be nice to some but its a niche overall.

You can't argue most speak it as most don't, cultural evolution.

Not speaking it does not make one not Irish as some would scream like lunatics. Its a language and was once part of our culture but is Irish is irrelevant to most and can't really be claimed to be culturally important IMO.

For one thing, cultures should be allowed to evolve, anything else is forcing things on people that they don't want to know. You could argue the same was done with English but we that was the past and we are where we are and Irish isn't a part of that for most.

Leave it to the niches and let those who want to learn it, learn it. The rest of us will get by fine without it IMO.

silverharp

As a parent I am firmly in the camp that the only consideration should be the interests of the child. I'm sure everyone remembers from school that there was always 5 or 6 kids that would have been struggling so instead of them getting extra tuition in the 3Rs they were given an extra opportunity to fail at something. Great for child development eh!

One of the posters mentioned the advantages of learning a language early, which is true but it doesnt give any weight to the argument that it should be Irish. Surely the answer should have been more gael schools which there seems to be demand for and more schools that offer continental languages in primary school.

In my own case my son is going to the German school in Dublin as he is bilingual, and to be honest I will resent the fact that he will have to learn Irish as it will displace an educational choice which I am in a much better place to make compared to some suit in the dept of education.

metrovelvet

I fully agree with you silverfish. Id much rather my son learn German, French, even Latin than Irish. Hes not even Irish. They should hold a referendum on forced Irish. Its not right. If it were the nations fist language you wouldnt have to go to school to learn it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

foxcomm wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As donegalfella pointed out, try like that journo to get through the day in this country purely in Irish. Outside of small enclaves of the language, you simple can't. The 25% on the census is down to some weird Irish embarrassment about the language. They've bought into the idea that it makes them less "Irish" if they can't speak it so they quite simply lie when they tick the box.

Being irish is not about speaking a language, its more about your attitude towards your own country and its promotion through its games, language and culture.

Cool. I just have an issue with the conceit of the "irish" culture largely forced upon us and indeed somewhat invented too.

and to solve your problem with teaching irish in school, get an 'F' in protest. I don't see the point in teaching French, Accountancy, Woodwork, Technical Drawing, Chemistry, Physics etc as I never planned to use any of them..

Again as donegalfella points out, they're not compulsory. From a purely practical standpoint you can't really argue that Irish is more useful than any on that list.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I fully agree with you silverfish. Id much rather my son learn German, French, even Latin than Irish. Hes not even Irish.

AFAIR if he's not Irish he doesnt have to learn it.

They should hold a referendum on forced Irish. Its not right.

I'd say like the census, people would chose to keep it out of some sense of cultural duty. God forbid they'd actually speak it mind.

If it were the nations fist language you wouldnt have to go to school to learn it.

Yep and even with that, you would expect that by learning people would speak it and they quite simply dont.

donegalfella wrote: »

More than 3 percent do indeed claim (notably on census forms) to be able to speak "some Irish." But how much weight should we give to the standard "cupla focal"? I can order a beer in German, and I can ask for directions to the train station and the post office—but I would never dream of claiming that I can "speak German."

Very much so. Most new irish speakers aren't fluent. Or at least its not their native language. Kinda like if I moved to France and learned French it wouldnt be my native language. In many ways Irish may become more and more an invented language.

Hundreds of thousands of Irish people do not play GAA sports, attend GAA games, or know much of the Irish language. Does that mean they're not really "Irish"?

For many of your GAA/Gaelgoir types this is what they feel. Not all I grant you, but enough do feel this way.

Wibbs

Further to the fluency issue. If you read the link donegalfella posted. The chap trying to get by just using Irish. He learned it from his granny. His granny who learned it "90 years ago as a weapon in the struggle for an Irish republic". She then taught him. Cool, but do not tell me that is some unbroken line back to the "real" language. For all his efforts, in many ways he is speaking like a foreigner in his own country using a somewhat invented language. Like if I lived in France for 30 years. I would be fluent yes, but any French man or woman would spot I wasn't a local. I wouldn't be French.

He mentioned he saw hope in the kids of the Irish schools. Hopefully that will create a new vital language from the old. Cool if it does. Though people forget that such schools were common enough in the past. My mother was schooled in Irish in secondary school. As was an uncle(This was in Dublin too). Neither have any Irish now. They left it behind like many other subjects they never needed in adult life. It seemed to go out of fashion for a while. Maybe today with TG4 and media like that it will take hold more.

metrovelvet

Dont the schools get extra money per pupil for Irish? How can so many people study it for 12 years and not speak it?

foxcomm

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

Many people speak English who are not threatened by this. They speak English as their native language and call themselves american, australian, canadian without feeling the foundations of their identities quake. They each have their own versions of english, just as the irish do.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

Valmont wrote: »

I have been grappling with this issue for a while and have had many interesting discussions about it with work-mates.

Why exactly does the state sponsorship of the Irish language amount to nationalism? If it does, in what context is it a bad thing? I'm confused as the answer is open to different interpretations depending on what definition of nationalism is used.

Is the teaching of Irish history also nationalistic in nature? If we have an obligation to learn about the events and time periods that lead to the establishment of the Irish republic, why not an equal obligation to the Irish language?

Sorry I don't have really have my own opinion to contribute but I am still trying to figure out where I stand on the issue. Thanks.

The historical reason why nationalism has been associated with the Irish language was a result of a deliberate sustained attack on it by the British state over hundreds of years.

Speaking Irish alone put you directly in conflict with the ruling government. If you wished to speak Irish you had to be an Irish nationalist: more to survive against agressive British nationalism than anything else.

The location of Irish speakers in the poorest, most infertile and economically disadvantaged areas of the country are consistant with this. British policy meant that with few excwptions if you spoke Irish then you and your children would be poor.

Supporting these disadvantageous areas with grants serves both to help boost the local economy and to support a language spoken for millennia here which should be of interest to us on many different levels.


I would view the governments attitude as more pragmatic than nationalistic.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The Irish Times still was at that time a very biased pro-British paper.
Their position was anti-Irish/Irish language. An article agreeing with this position is hardly suprising or credible.

By putting the word "Irish" in scare quotes, are you implying that the 97 percent of us who don't speak the language are somehow more authentically or legitimately Irish than the 3 percent who do?

How do you define Irish? Holding an Irish passport?

If you dont define everyone holding an Irish passport as equally Irish then would you say a hurling playing, Irish speaker from the Glens of Antrim is more or less Irish than a Unionist journalist from Dublin who feels he is "British"? Or would they hold exactly the same amount of Irishness?

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Actually, the national insecurity process is naturally more evidenced in people who believe Irish culture to be inferior and that it demeans them.

This insecurity (inferiority) complex is best evidenced by the illogical use of the word "Irish" to describe something as stupid. People who use the word this way are actually demeaning their own country--even their own children.

Fixing the particular "Irish" situation is not possible as it was caused not by stupidity but by the fact that we are Irish. Thus other cultures and nations are always superior. This insecurity is obviously prevalent in Irish people prone to demaning the culture rather than those being more positive about it.

The Corinthian

T runner wrote: »

Actually, the national insecurity process is naturally more evidenced in people who believe Irish culture to be inferior and that it demeans them.

Unfortunately some of it is inferior and demeans us. Bare in mind, much of this supposed 'Irish culture' we have is an invention of the 19th and early 20th century revival, of an idealistic agrarian society that saw "comely maidens dancing at the crossroads". Few people in any country would aspire to such provincialism.

Yet the reality is that culture changes, it evolves, and what it means to be Irish has changed dramatically in even my lifetime. We lived in a priest-ridden society, referred to as "White Africa" by other Europeans, due to our economic backwardness - which in turn was blamed on "800 years of oppression", a line that was drummed into us from an early age - I defy anyone to read an Irish school history book from the period and not admit that the entire thing drips with anti-English propaganda.

But culture changes, and the "800 years of oppression" line simply did not wash as an excuse after 70 years of independence and obvious economic mismanagement, and bit by bit, from the late eighties onward we began to invent a new culture to replace the culture that had been invented a century ago. Fianna Fail even dropped the bit where it wanted to promote everyone returning to the land in their stated aims.

Personally, and I've said this before, I would love for Ireland to be truly bilingual, between Irish and English. Yet in almost a century of independence, we have abjectly failed (all on our own) to achieve this and at this stage we have to ask the hard question of whether this is even possible any-more or if we are simply keeping the language on a life support for the benefit of a minority who's income is dependant on the translation of documents that no one reads and TV shows that few watch.

While I object to the backlash reaction against the language as being emotional and counter-productive, I've frankly seen little positive contribution from the Galegore camp, that seems to simply want to perpetuate a failed strategy and offers no realistic alternative. Rather than do this, there appears to be a need to take a defensive stance, labelling anyone who does not feel nostalgia for Peig Sayers as a Sasanaigh.

Irish culture is changing. There is absolutely nothing that the Galegores can do to stop this. But if they, or anyone else who loves Irish, genuinely wants to keep it alive or see it flourish, then they need to come up with a new solution rather than cling to the old, failed ones. Otherwise, bit by bit, it will die.

Wibbs

The Corinthian wrote: »

Unfortunately some of it is inferior and demeans us. Bare in mind, much of this supposed 'Irish culture' we have is an invention of the 19th and early 20th century revival, of an idealistic agrarian society that saw "comely maidens dancing at the crossroads". Few people in any country would aspire to such provincialism.

Very much so. It's not often talked about or acknowledged but much of that culture was objectively inferior, insular, parochial and backward. Much wasnt of course and that hopefully will be preserved and improved upon. I also agree that it was largely an invention and a relatively late one at that(or an import). You see it in Irish trad music too. The fiddle, tin whistle, guitar etc were all imports. This isnt a bad thing as it extended and evolved the range of music that could be played, but any notion of its antiquity or inherent "irishness" has to regarded with suspicion. Its a cultural invention. Much like the idea of some unbroken line of the Irish language going back 1000's of years.

sold

Many Irish "Nationalists" consider that real Irish people are the catholics born in Ireland. But one of the greatest Irish speakers was Douglas Hyde.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Actually there are very few countries that posses cultural homogeneity and most are sub-decided into various regions with their own distinctive traditions, cultures and even languages.

metrovelvet

I asked on the edu forum if foreign national children were forced to learn irish. Someone replied that it depends on what age they come into the country. But what about all the foreign nations who are born here but denied citizenship through lack of historical blood parentage? Are these kids still forced into a nationalistic project used to forge an identity their birth nation denied them?

I also find it odd that ehen there is a foreign film is in tnag the subtitles are in english, not Irish.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

I asked on the edu forum if foreign national children were forced to learn irish. Someone replied that it depends on what age they come into the country. But what about all the foreign nations who are born here but denied citizenship through lack of historical blood parentage? Are these kids still forced into a nationalistic project used to forge an identity their birth nation denied them?

I was born abroad, but lived in Ireland most of my life and have always had Irish citizenship. For me I had to study Irish throughout and would have also needed a pass in Irish to get into an NUI university except I was exempt due to being born abroad. Once I realized this I essentially dropped Irish, regardless of the rules. I wish I could say I regretted this, but the reality is that I would not have learned anything more than enough to pass the Irish exam, rather than actually speak the language.

I believe that the Irish requirement for NUI has been dropped and think that if you have not done primary school in Ireland you may be exempt, but I cannot say for certain.

I also find it odd that ehen there is a foreign film is in tnag the subtitles are in english, not Irish.

This is because, as with the 'Northern question' we only really pay lip service to the language. It is probably one of the reasons, but not sole, why it has died a death - we just threw money at it to keep the Galegores in jobs and otherwise ignored it without seriously tackling the issue of its decline.

metrovelvet

Citizens born abroad are exempt from the exam. What about native born children not citizens?

T runner

T runner wrote: »

The historical reason why nationalism has been associated with the Irish language was a result of a deliberate sustained attack on it by the British state over hundreds of years.

Ahh no. Nationalism is associated with the Irish langauge for two reasons.

One the Irish people themselves using Irish because no English person and quite a lot if Irish people didn't speak it. Which served as a way to keep their conversations more private from external listeners. A practical use of the language.

Secondly, the propaganda that the government has put forward since the establishment of the state. Its amazing the half-truths that the government has introduced into our schools in teaching Irish History. So many twists to encourage the belief of the downtrodden Irish person, and the malignant English aristocracy. It was only as an adult and speaking to my parents (both teachers) that I learned just how much crap we're spoonfed about Irishness.

Speaking Irish alone put you directly in conflict with the ruling government. If you wished to speak Irish you had to be an Irish nationalist: more to survive against agressive British nationalism than anything else.

Rubbish. Look at the world. English for the most part is the commercial language of choice. Just as it was in Ireland. People who refused to speak English missed out on the business & educational opportunities that the British Empire provided to Irish citizens. Its the same to this day... If you choose to speak Irish in Ireland, and refuse to use english, you will miss out on opportunities in life. That is your choice. Not some external factor seeking to crush you.

The location of Irish speakers in the poorest, most infertile and economically disadvantaged areas of the country are consistant with this. British policy meant that with few excwptions if you spoke Irish then you and your children would be poor.

Or perhaps its because the english developed these other areas, and the Irish living in those areas saw the advantage in learning and using english? Whereas the less developed areas, didn't have as much english presence and any degree of incentive to use English..

Supporting these disadvantageous areas with grants serves both to help boost the local economy and to support a language spoken for millennia here which should be of interest to us on many different levels.

I would view the governments attitude as more pragmatic than nationalistic.

My family is from near Oughterard.. I was brought up speaking Irish, and learned English when I went to school. The Irish I learned as a child was different from the Irish taught in the schools, and that caused serious issues with changing the manner of speaking and understanding. The manner of Irish that remains in those areas is not "pure" anymore. Its a bastardised form, and changes depending in which region you visit. Better yet, the amount of English and Irish that is used together is amazing. And now i'm in my 30's and do I speak Irish anywhere? Nope. No need. Do I know it? Its floating around in my head somewhere. But I see no real reason to have it. And IMHO it has zero relation to being Irish.

I found it so funny when I was in Asia. You've got chinglish in China, Singlish in Singapore, and we've got... what? Irish.. The practical usage of modern Irish is mixed with English.

Also I can't really see where you're getting this millennia from..

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and particularly after the repeal of the Penal Laws, Irish people themselves came to identify English with modernity, cosmopolitanism, and economic progress. The nationalist story is that the British "forced" everyone to speak English, but the reality is that the Irish themselves eagerly embraced English as a prerequisite for membership in the middle classes.

The population had decreased by 1.5 million after the great famine almost ALL of which were exclusively Irish speakers. Although making up 80% of the population Irish speakers were almost all peasants. If you wanted any job-even a simple labourer-the job would go to an English speaker first. Speaking English was not a prerequisite for entry to the middle classes it was a prerequisite for life.

This situation arose as a direct result of deliberate British policy which was nothing short of attempted linguicide.

Identity is a matter for individual choice, not state mandate. If you want to identify being "Irish" with wearing Aran jumpers, playing hurling, going to Mass, and speaking an anachronistic language, that's up to you. But you don't have the right to foist that cultural homogeneity on everyone else

Does the state mandate wearing Aran jumpers, playing hurling, going to Mass?

Ofcourse not, but you clearly need exaggeration to create a point that doesnt exist.

The state has every right and duty to boost the economies of deprived areas. If it can do this by also preserving an exclusively indiginous language so much the better.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

#15

T runner wrote: »

The state has every right and duty to boost the economies of deprived areas. If it can do this by also preserving an exclusively indiginous language so much the better.

Its not preserving the language though, is it?

As a primary teacher, I'm annoyed that I have to spend around 3 and a half hours teaching Irish every week.

I have 12 foreign-born children in my class, most around 7/8 years old.

The youngest child is from Syria. She is 6 years old. A few weeks before the Christmas holidays, she asked me why we had to learn Irish.

Exact quote: 'teacher teacher, nobody speak this language, why are we doing it?'

I couldn't give her a proper answer.

It was a waste of my time, and hers.

#15

foxcomm wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Being Irish has nothing to do with promoting Ireland through games, language and culture. If an Irish citizen wants nothing to do with those things, thats their choice and they are as Irish as anyone else.

As a non-GAA member I have always been disgusted by the GAAs promotion of narrow-minded Irishness.

T runner

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh no. Nationalism is associated with the Irish langauge for two reasons.

One the Irish people themselves using Irish because no English person and quite a lot if Irish people didn't speak it. Which served as a way to keep their conversations more private from external listeners. A practical use of the language.

That is incorrect the vast majority of Irish people spoke Irish exclusively immediately before and after the famine that is a fact. Saying they chose to speak Irish to keep from prying ears is therefore ridiculous.

Secondly, the propaganda that the government has put forward since the establishment of the state. Its amazing the half-truths that the government has introduced into our schools in teaching Irish History. So many twists to encourage the belief of the downtrodden Irish person, and the malignant English aristocracy. It was only as an adult and speaking to my parents (both teachers) that I learned just how much crap we're spoonfed about Irishness.

No offence but can you please try and use arguments other than <<my parents told me and they would know>> to back up your arguments?
We recently published a book of my grandmothers posthumously containing several essays in Irish and English some of which are on the subject we are discussing. My extended family are all bilingual one of which was head of education through Irish in a national broadcaster for many years. Does this mean that for this reason what Im about to say carries more weight than what you said?

OK.

The Education Act in 1831 established state primary schools through the exclusive medium of English. Irish was not tolerated in these schools.

If you wanted to learn through Irish you had to learn illegally in a hedge.
The intention of this policy is not to give Irish people the oppurtunity to benefit from the Anglosphere. The intention is to obliterate Irish.


It was an excellent (although evil) plan by the state. If you wanted to remain Irish speaking you would not be educated and economics might eventually get the better of your integrity as the language lost its power. The fact that the economic consquences came in the form of the great famine where almost all the 1.5 million were lost could not have been forseen. The fact that the burden of economic consequences fell exclusively on Irish speakers was invisaged.

The 90% generational emigration in Irish speaking areas (to English speaking colonies) meant that English was now also more necessary for personal reasons. This hastened the demise.
The very fact that you spoke Irish did put you at odds with the British state. This is the root of the association of Irish with nationalism. The British reasons being a selfish imperial one namely understanding what the locals were on about created more insecurity than it solved. (although the famine saved them)

#15

muinteoirTomas wrote: »

This debate on comp. Irish will go on forever it seems, but as someone who has studied the reasons for it, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages if you only even look at it from a purely learning experience: Chidlren who study Irish before a 3rd modern language in secondary school find the 3rd language much easier to acquire - proven fact (source the iilt website) - will get definate link from college notes later.

As an educator, you should know that all bilingual children find it easier to acquire a third language. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether their second language is Irish, Bengali, Arabic, Swahili or Welsh.

Moreover, it is actually Europe who are applauding Ireland for ensuring that Irish is taught - the European average is Mother tongue + 2 other languages, which is what we are doing - either Irish or English as mother tongue + 1 modern language in secondary school = 3 languages; european average satisfied.

The difference is that Europeans like to use the languages that they are taught in school. Germans love to practise their English when they get the opportunity. Do Irish people love to speak Irish outside of school hours?

Obviously, no.

It really is the attitude of people that has to change and this starts in the schools - primary, secondary is too late.

No it doesn't.

English did not become popular because primary teachers started teaching it well. Wider society has to begin using a language first. Schools consolidate and promote this, but they do not start the process.

There has been a considerable amount of research on the language shift in Ireland.

This is not comprehensive by any means but its a decent starting point.

http://www.uni-due.de/IERC/

T runner

#15 wrote: »

Its not preserving the language though, is it?

As a primary teacher, I'm annoyed that I have to spend around 3 and a half hours teaching Irish every week.

I have 12 foreign-born children in my class, most around 7/8 years old.

The youngest child is from Syria. She is 6 years old. A few weeks before the Christmas holidays, she asked me why we had to learn Irish.

Exact quote: 'teacher teacher, nobody speak this language, why are we doing it?'

I couldn't give her a proper answer.

It was a waste of my time, and hers.

Just because you feel it is a waste of your time, doesn't mean it will be a waste of her time or any of the other children in your class for that matter.

People have been saying Irish is a waste of time since the education Act of 1831. By God the English taught us well!

T runner

T runner wrote: »

The population had decreased by 1.5 million after the great famine almost ALL of which were exclusively Irish speakers. Although making up 80% of the population Irish speakers were almost all peasants. If you wanted any job-even a simple labourer-the job would go to an English speaker first. Speaking English was not a prerequisite for entry to the middle classes it was a prerequisite for life.

I'd like to see some references which prove the part in bold.

This situation arose as a direct result of deliberate British policy which was nothing short of attempted linguicide.

Personally, I'd view it as bad planning and farming methods in addition to the shortsightedness of the landowners. If the British Empire truly wished to have killed off the Irish speakers they could have thrown them in concentration camps, and killed them off easily. Nobody would have stopped them.

The state has every right and duty to boost the economies of deprived areas. If it can do this by also preserving an exclusively indiginous language so much the better.

I'd rather the money be spent on better facilities for schools across the country thus providing the infrastructure by which everyone could benefit...

#15

T runner wrote: »

Just because you feel it is a waste of your time, doesn't mean it will be a waste of her time or any of the other children in your class for that matter.

Well, 12 of my kids need English language support. To help them integrate into the country and all that nonsense.

I'm willing to bet that they would benefit much more if I could use those 3 and a half hours to work on their English language skills.

People have been saying Irish is a waste of time since the education Act of 1831. By God the English taught us well!

Less of the condescending comments please.

Irish (and I can speak it myself) is obviously not a waste of time if one lives in a Gaeltacht or needs to use it everyday. Seeing as that does not apply to the majority of children in this country....

What would be wrong with making Irish optional?

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not at all, but handy to misrepresent when you cant refute the arguments.

The Education Act of 1831 which established primary state education exclusivley through the minority language of English (deliberately marginalising Irish) also cant be refuted.

Education was not available through Irish only by illegal hedge schools.

If you wished to continue speaking Irish you were immediately anti-state.
Ergo the association of the Irish language with nationalism was as a direct result of British policy towards the Irish language in Ireland.

T runner

#15 wrote: »

Well, 12 of my kids need English language support. To help them integrate into the country and all that nonsense.

I'm willing to bet that they would benefit much more if I could use those 3 and a half hours to work on their English language skills.

You said that teaching Irish was a waste of your time. Presumably this means that you think nobody in your class will benefit from learning Irish. Is this true?

T runner

T runner wrote: »

That is incorrect the vast majority of Irish people spoke Irish exclusively immediately before and after the famine that is a fact. Saying they chose to speak Irish to keep from prying ears is therefore ridiculous.

No more ridiculous than your assertion of the majority of Irish people speaking Irish exclusively...

No offence but can you please try and use arguments other than <<my parents told me and they would know>> to back up your arguments?
We recently published a book of my grandmothers posthumously containing several essays in Irish and English some of which are on the subject we are discussing. My extended family are all bilingual one of which was head of education through Irish in a national broadcaster for many years. Does this mean that for this reason what Im about to say carries more weight than what you said?

hmm... I mentioned my parents once in the whole thread.. :rolleyes: - Care to actually disprove what I said?

The Education Act in 1831 established state primary schools through the exclusive medium of English. Irish was not tolerated in these schools.

If you wanted to learn through Irish you had to learn illegally in a hedge.
The intention of this policy is not to give Irish people the oppurtunity to benefit from the Anglosphere. The intention is to obliterate Irish.

err, no. The intention was to make English the most common and used language in a colony within the British Empire.. Ireland was part of the Empire, you know? The British like any empire sought to conform its citizens within certain boundaries. Look at the problems which are occuring in most European countries with multiple nationalities. The countries with the biggest problems are the ones where the foreign immigrants keep themselves apart from mainstream society. The use of language is a prime example of how this is done, and its hardly healthy for any empire.

Its common sense actually. Seriously. Step back for a moment and consider what is needed to keep an Empire together..

It was an excellent (although evil) plan by the state. If you wanted to remain Irish speaking you would not be educated and economics might eventually get the better of your integrity as the language lost its power. The fact that the economic consquences came in the form of the great famine where almost all the 1.5 million were lost could not have been forseen. The fact that the burden of economic consequences fell exclusively on Irish speakers was invisaged.

The 90% generational emigration in Irish speaking areas (to English speaking colonies) meant that English was now also more necessary for personal reasons. This hastened the demise.
The very fact that you spoke Irish did put you at odds with the British state. This is the root of the association of Irish with nationalism. The British reasons being a selfish imperial one namely understanding what the locals were on about created more insecurity than it solved. (although the famine saved them)

Tell me something.... IF the majority of those who died were Irish speakers... then surely the majority of Irish who left Ireland to go to the US, and other countries would also be exclusively Irish speakers. Why then don't we have regions within the US where people speak Irish exclusively?

T runner

T runner wrote: »

Not at all, but handy to misrepresent when you cant refute the arguments.

The Education Act of 1831 which established primary state education exclusivley through the minority language of English (deliberately marginalising Irish) also cant be refuted.

Education was not available through Irish only by illegal hedge schools.

If you wished to continue speaking Irish you were immediately anti-state.
Ergo the association of the Irish language with nationalism was as a direct result of British policy towards the Irish language in Ireland.

I'm curious about this Education Act of 1831... before it was introduced there was no free education in Ireland.. so any Irish that were going to school would have had to come from semi-wealthy families or go through the Church run schools. However this Education Act introduced free education and provided Irish people with a education they could actually use. However the problem being that they couldn't learn in Irish and wouldn't be taught Irish History?

So.. here's my question to you. What was stopping the Irish people who couldn't afford schools in the first place (you mentioned earlier that the Irish speakers were the poor), from continuing to learn Irish through the traditional methods, and also learn English (and other subsequent subjects) which would have practical use in a British run country?

T runner

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd like to see some references which prove the part in bold.

Deleted User wrote: »

and quite a lot if Irish people didn't speak it

You first please.

Personally, I'd view it as bad planning and farming methods in addition to the shortsightedness of the landowners. If the British Empire truly wished to have killed off the Irish speakers they could have thrown them in concentration camps, and killed them off easily. Nobody would have stopped them.

I think I acknowledged that the famine was unforseen but claimed that the British knew their education and policies towards Irish would inevitably lead to economic hardship for Irish speakers?

Regarding the famine the French sociologist, Gustave de Beaumont, visited Ireland in 1835 and wrote:

"I have seen the Indian in his forests, and the Negro in his chains, and thought, as I contemplated their pitiable condition, that I saw the very extreme of human wretchedness; but I did not then know the condition of unfortunate Ireland...In all countries, more or less, paupers may be discovered; but an entire nation of paupers is what was never seen until it was shown in Ireland."

The Irish were so degraded that they didnt know any other farming techniques.
Their degradation was a result of the penal laws (British policy).
The Catholic Irish (80%) owned only 5% of the country's land as a result of these laws. Why did none of the landowners communicate farming techniques to the locals?

Throughout the entire Famine period, the British government would never provide massive food aid to Ireland under the assumption that English landowners and private businesses would have been unfairly harmed by resulting food price fluctuations.

The British government had 4 years to get large amounts of edible food across the Irish sea to avert the great hunger after the second crop failure. They failed.

The famine was the beginning of the end of the Irish language. In the situation where the British government had put the Irish speaker: speaking Irish meant death.