Nationalism and the Irish Language

thebman

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Only NUIs, not any IT. UCD, UCC, NUIG, NUIM, RCSI and NCAD being the main ones.

says on citizens info website:

Institutes of technology

Level 8 (Honours Degree) courses: students generally require a minimum of grade C in 2 subjects at Higher Level and grade D in 4 other subjects, including maths and Irish/English.

Levels 6 and 7 (Higher Certificate and Ordinary Degree): students require 5 grade Ds, including maths and Irish/English.
Colleges of education

Colleges of education require a minimum of 3 grade Cs on Higher-Level papers, including Irish, and three grade Ds, including maths and English.

I guess that probably means English or Irish though.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/education/third-level-education/applying-to-college/application_procedures_and_entry_requirements

I oppose this personally, but at the same time don't consider it to be a huge injustice.

Learning a language other than one's mother tongue is worthwhile as far as I'm concerned, and the state are as entitled to make it a compulsory part of primary education as they are with maths or english. Sure some parents might want their children to aspire to emigrate or work in an international call centre (:pac:), and a different language might be more beneficial in these cases, but that doesn't mean the curriculum should be altered to accommodate them.

Its to work in any position in a number of other countries not just a call centre in Ireland. I've actually had more conversations with people in French in Ireland than in Irish so I don't see the point of learning Irish, never have TBH.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Herbal Deity

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

As if. French and German are some of the most widely spoken languages in Europe. In an increasingly unified Europe our exposure to people who speak these languages is constantly growing, be it because of business or pleasure.

As I said earlier, English is the lingua franca of Science and Business. In an increasingly unified Europe, English is becoming more and more prominent and the need for native English speakers to learn other languages to communicate with people of different European countries is becoming less and less.

I can't see a use for French besides emigration and something like a call centre. This might be cynical, but emigration isn't something the education system should be encouraging.

Learning European languages isn't really as practical as some people might think.

Herbal Deity

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No one gains fluency without effort and immersion.

No one comes out of an English speaking primary school fluent in spoken Irish. What makes you think this would be different for French?

People on the continent are only fluent in English because of the huge amount of exposure they have to English speaking media. (similar to the way so many Irish teens speak with Americanisms, and sometimes borderline American accents)

Teaching a language other than one's mother tongue gives children education on a different linguistic structure and an awareness that the English language is only one way to express ideas. You can't really teach fluency. As we don't have constant exposure to French or German speaking media, Irish children are never going to attain the same level of fluency in a language taught to them at school as those on the continent unless they make a lot of effort - and many do at second level.

thebman

Herbal Deity wrote: »

As I said earlier, English is the lingua franca of Science and Business. In an increasingly unified Europe, English is becoming more and more prominent and the need for native English speakers to learn other languages to communicate with people of different European countries is becoming less and less.

I can't see a use for French besides emigration and something like a call centre. This might be cynical, but emigration isn't something the education system should be encouraging.

Learning European languages isn't really as practical as some people might think.

Day to day businesses in many of those countries would be done in their native language. Even if it isn't, if you go for a job and you don't speak French in France or German in Germany, the person that does has an advantage over you in his application IMO.

Eliot Rosewater

I think your taken a very tunnel vision approach to the issue Herbal Deity. Having a language that is of practical value will open more doors than a call center. Business will be keen to have multi-lingual workers. When it comes to sending a group over to France on a business trip, they're going to want people who will at least be able to order dinner. And it will obviously make a good impression.

And saying "oh sure they're learning English" is really just passing the buck imo.

Either way, what myself a few others are advocating is freedom of choice for the parent. It shouldn't matter whether or not you think French is useful when it comes to my child's education.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

thebman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Half the content on TG4 isn't even in Irish

They do have the best movies of the Irish channels though.

Herbal Deity

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think your taken a very tunnel vision approach to the issue Herbal Deity. Having a language that is of practical value will open more doors than a call center. Business will be keen to have multi-lingual workers. When it comes to sending a group over to France on a business trip, they're going to want people who will at least be able to order dinner. And it will obviously make a good impression.

And anyone who's done second level French will be able to do this.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Either way, what myself a few others are advocating is freedom of choice for the parent. It shouldn't matter whether or not you think French is useful when it comes to my child's education.

What about those who think German or Spanish are more useful than French? What about those who don't think that maths is very important?

It's a nice idea, having schools with different subjects so that parents could have a greater choice, and were this practical, I would give it consideration, but with class sizes so large, the resources just simply aren't there.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But they don't...

Whether French or German are taught in primary school or not, children won't gain fluency in either unless they take frequent trips to France or Germany or are made watch French or German TV frequently.

thebman

Herbal Deity wrote: »

What about those who think German or Spanish are more useful than French? What about those who don't think that maths is very important?

Can you find a parent that doesn't want their kid to learn maths?

I'd consider such a parent irresponsible given the number of careers that require maths.

How many careers require Irish even including academic and research that make it worthwhile making it a compulsory subject?

Why is it compulsory, why is it so important?

Answer it isn't unless you consider it as a key part of Irish culture which I don't. cultural evolution of Irish culture seems to show Irish is being used less and less despite the compulsory learning not more and more. At what point do we decide that the current system isn't working and we are all wasting our time?

Herbal Deity

In short, because I don't believe education should be about careers or utility in everyday life after school.

This was all discussed quite extensively earlier in the thread.

aDeener

eleanoroosevelt wrote: »

I posted on this thread around the start of it. I came back to it tonight and was pleasantly surprised by all the interesting debate and varied viewpoints expressed since I last posted.
Some posters got very passionate about the issue at hand, this is really fantastic to see. My opinion remains the same as in my earlier post- Irish should'nt be compulsory because people rebel againest things forced upon them, like mass or the catholic church- How many people attend mass today? If you force people to do something enough, they'll grow to loathe it. (as illustrated in this forum)
The way in which Irish was hammered into schoolchildren was the product of a young republic. After years of oppression we got freedom, we struggled to create a free state for ourselves, and so idealistic Ireland was born.
We were a young country newly given independence and like a child growing up, we made mistakes along the way. We succumbed to the oppression of the church, we battered Irish into children. In gaining our freedom we then proceeded to rob freedom from our people. Our nation of roaring nationalists became a nation of supressed mice.
Women were shipped off to hellholes of laundries, a new kind of fake nationalistic pride instilled in the people, and G.A.A. became suddenly a big part of being Irish- the organisation itself had only been established in the early 20th century. We were so used to being oppressed by England we knelt down before our new oppressor- the catholic church.
Compulsory irish was part of this oppression. I love Irish but it shouldn't be forced on those who don't. I feel its an important part of our past, it will flourish if it wasn't taught in such a dreadful way, or made compulsory. If we took Irish out of schools it's popularity would soar because it wouldn't be forced on us.
My main point is how wonderful it is that our nation of once supressed mice is finally speaking out about these issues. The heated debates on this thread, people being unashamedly vocal, this is refreshing to hear from a nation who once condoned clerical abuse and oppression and were silent for so long. Whatever the viewpoints of people on this thread it's just great to see people being vocal about these issues which are so very important for our future! Hopefully this is the Ireland of the future.

really begorrah and here was me thinking 2009 was the 125th anniversary celebrations

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Herbal Deity

I suppose I do. I support the idea of the nation state, and an education system reflecting nationalist ideals is present in every nation state, including Ireland.

The problem with Irish nationalism is that it is a bit of a grey area as to what it actually entails. Indeed, the word "nationalist" tends to be associated with the rabid, anti-British "800 years" crowd.

I think national identity is valuable and that learning the Irish language, whether one comes out of it with cupla focal or attains fluency, is important to this.

Interestingly, I was reading through Wikipedia, and found these snippets on the French language and France:

The French nation-state, which appeared after the 1789 French Revolution and Napoleon's empire, unified the French people in particular through the consolidation of the use of the French language. Hence, according to historian Eric Hobsbawm, "the French language has been essential to the concept of 'France', although in 1789 50% of the French people didn't speak it at all, and only 12 to 13% spoke it 'fairly' - in fact, even in oïl language zones, out of a central region, it wasn't usually spoken except in cities, and, even there, not always in the faubourgs [approximatively translatable to "suburbs"]. In the North as in the South of France, almost nobody spoke French."[7] Hobsbawm highlighted the role of conscription, invented by Napoleon, and of the 1880s public instruction laws, which allowed to mix the various groups of France into a nationalist mold which created the French citizen and his consciousness of membership to a common nation, while the various "patois" were progressively eradicated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_French

Linguistically, France was a patchwork. In 1792, perhaps 50% of the French population did not speak or understand French. The southern half of the country continued to speak one of the Occitan languages (such as Provençal) and other inhabitants spoke Breton, Catalan, Basque, Dutch (West Flemish), Franco-provençal, Alsatian and Corsican. In the north of France, regional dialects of the various langues d'oïl continued to be spoken in rural communities. France would only become a linguistically unified country by the end of the 19th century, and in particular through the educational policies of Jules Ferry during the French Third Republic. From an illiteracy rate of 33% among peasants in 1870, by 1914 almost all French could read and understand the national language, although 50% continued to understand or speak a regional language of France (in today's France, only an estimated 10% still understand a regional language).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_nineteenth_century#Language

I'm not necessarily making a big point here or anything, just highlighting that our Irish policies aren't hugely different to France's French policies 200 years ago.

The Corinthian

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I'm not necessarily making a big point here or anything, just highlighting that our Irish policies aren't hugely different to France's French policies 200 years ago.

Fair point. However, the only problems I would see with this are that a) what worked 200 years ago is not necessarily viable today, and b) it's not working.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

"Have" being completely different to "can give" makes that a strawman argument.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nice strawman again trying to equate Irish to being anti-EU. The EU ofcourse has a very common sense attitude to preserving diversity in culture and language.

German and French are available in almost all secondary schools. Are you saying that the standard of these subjects taught in Irish secondary schools is not sufficient for people?

The reason Australia is popular at the moment is ofcourse because the world wide recession did not hit as hard there as in Europe. People are not going to Germany and France because there simple is no work there even for fluent speakers.

Your dleiberate attempt to distort things by blaming compulsory Irish for decisions made by people based on simple economics shows how little integrity is in your argument against the Irish language.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Strawman again!

Yes, "gifted" children may have their school decided by their proficiency at music. That is equivalent to the decision to send a child an Irish speaking school.

The decision to get a child music lessons is minor compared to go the whole hog and have them educated at music conservatory.

Similarly the decision to get a child music lessons is minor compared to the decision to send a child an Irish speaking school. Your claim that they are equivalent is rubbish.

Parents do not take these important decisions likely. Your implication that they dont know why they are sending their children to Irish schools is patronising and arrogant.

No, she wants to help her son do well in school. There's a big difference there, which you are ignoring. She probably doesn't give a hoot about whether he speaks a word of Irish outside the classroom, as long as he gets good marks.

But youve already said the parents dont know why they are sending their children to these schools! Chasing your tail again?

The fact that she has made the important decision to educate her child in Irish strongly implies she wants her child to have Irish. But ofcourse you dont agree with her decision so you arrogantly assume she is stupid.

Do you believe that decisions about how to educate a child should be made by parents and educators, or by politicians?

Correct. But in this country, parents don't have a right to decide that their children should not learn Irish. Do you want to deny parents the right to choose what is best for their children? Please give a simple yes or no answer to that question.

Do you agree with compulsory education? Yes? Some parents might think their child is better off working in a family business from a younger age. Do you want to deny parents the right to choose what is best for their children? Please give a simple yes or no answer to that question.

My answer is Yes (in certain circumstances) (to clarify your ridiculous question)

Many children of recent immigrants now attend school in Ireland. Most of them speak Polish/Latvian/Lithuanian/etc. as their mother tongue. What they need is instruction in English—the language that is actually used in the country—but we have the bizarre spectacle of three and a half hours a week of language instruction being consumed by mandatory Irish. If you can't see why this is utterly silly and counterproductive, I don't know what to say to you

But they are getting instruction in English?
Most of the immigrants are here a few years now. If extra instruction is needed it could be achieved after hours or by making a little time from all the subjects.

thebman

Herbal Deity wrote: »

In short, because I don't believe education should be about careers or utility in everyday life after school.

This was all discussed quite extensively earlier in the thread.

Thats fine but that is a perfect reason to have it optional IMO.

It isn't a language in widespread use and is of limited appeal so should not be compulsory for leaving cert. at least.

Not arguing don't offer it, just don't have it compulsory especially not for entering any college in Ireland, NUI or otherwise unless relevant to the course obviously

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

There is no extra help for immigrants learning Irish. The money for private tutors comes out of their own pocket.

Herbal Deity

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Actually, I wouldn't necessarily oppose that. Some degree of compulsory exposure to the Irish language would satisfy me.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's not statistically insignificant in the slightest.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Surely immigrants should be considered aberrations in the system.

Also, why would it be folly to expose them to 3 and a half hours of Irish, but not French?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

These days, I don't think Mr. and Mrs. Murphy are either.

Herbal Deity

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Firstly, Ireland is a nation state and thus it is going to promote a certain level of nationalism. I feel that some degree of Irish history should be compulsory also, for nationalistic reasons. Perhaps you disagree with the concept of Ireland as a nation state, and as I said earlier, that's fair enough, but that's a much larger debate.

Secondly, what model do you propose that would facilitate choice? Do there exist the resources to do so? Class sizes are very high and when it comes to choosing subjects at second level, many schools offer extremely limited options.

Offering lots of choice is nice in theory, but not practically realisable.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Again, you appear to oppose the idea of Ireland being a nation state, that the Irish state and the version of Irish culture which it promotes is an instrument of unity among Irish peoples.

Personally, I'm not hugely enamoured with the idea of excessive globalisation or multiculturalism. I think there should be a small degree of compulsion to conform to benign nationalist ideals in sovereign states, language being the most obvious one.

Eliot Rosewater

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Firstly, Ireland is a nation state....

Sorry but I just don't care about Ireland as a nation state. The premise is that we are somehow homogeneous on the basis that we were born on the same island. Yet I have more in common in terms of culture with some people in the Americas than I do with my next door neighbor. Despite this most glaring fact I am told that I should be proud of where I'm from, culturally.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I feel that some degree of Irish history should be compulsory also, for nationalistic reasons.

If history is being taught for "nationalistic reasons" its going to be nothing more than a biased propaganda tool of every 800 years patriot who can get a handle on some aspect of the education system.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Secondly, what model do you propose that would facilitate choice?

Much the same as the current system - just drop the compulsory aspects. Ending the current system where the government dictates curricula would be too big a leap for a people that are used to being told whats good for them. Different schools would offer a different ranges of courses. In all likelihood you wouldn't even have to make English and Maths compulsory. A school which offered neither wouldnt be slow in folding.

In the "free" system utility will generally dictate subject choice. Maths and English will almost always be chosen due to their wide scope. Entry requirements for Universities will probably form the standard. Most schools these days have a pseudo-compulsory policy towards French and German, solely, I believe, because of University entry requirements.

And obviously if a student really likes a particular subject despite it having no benefit for his career he will choose it, as I did for my Leaving Cert. And this is what the Irish lobby is afraid of: if Irish is made voluntary the harsh reality that only a tiny percentile of students want to study it will be made known.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I think there should be a small degree of compulsion to conform to benign nationalist ideals in sovereign states, language being the most obvious one.

Compulsion is rarely benign, and in this case it certainly isnt. The opportunity cost, and the normal cost, of Irish has been absolutely enormous. And lets not start on the insular mindset of some Irish people as a result of petty nationalism.

Grudaire

Hmmm, just dipping in again briefly to say that this thread is still following the same pattern, and I'm dissapointed at how the abitrator of disputes on the thread thanks the following biast, and untrue post:

Valmont wrote: »

These days, I don't think Mr. and Mrs. Murphy are either.

Which I now must refute by saying that the increasing popularity of the gaelscoilanna does contradict said statement (Although I do realise that a minority are involved yadda yadda).


I think people need to step back a bit, and appreciate the language (and on the same note appreciate the limitations of it). But the Irish language goes hand in hand with Irish culture. Take for example the city "LondonDerry" a blasphemous Unionist version of "Derry" which is in itself a English 'translation' of "Doire" which is the Irish word for "Ash Grove".

Anyway Slán

Herbal Deity

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Sorry but I just don't care about Ireland as a nation state. The premise is that we are somehow homogeneous on the basis that we were born on the same island. Yet I have more in common in terms of culture with some people in the Americas than I do with my next door neighbor. Despite this most glaring fact I am told that I should be proud of where I'm from, culturally.

You oppose nation states. Fair enough.

It's been a successful model for many European countries in the last 200/300 years, and it's not necessarily as restricting as you make it out to be.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

If history is being taught for "nationalistic reasons" its going to be nothing more than a biased propaganda tool of every 800 years patriot who can get a handle on some aspect of the education system.

Well, positions of power can be abused, nothing new about that, but that isn't an inherent flaw in nationalism.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Much the same as the current system - just drop the compulsory aspects. Ending the current system where the government dictates curricula would be too big a leap for a people that are used to being told whats good for them. Different schools would offer a different ranges of courses. In all likelihood you wouldn't even have to make English and Maths compulsory. A school which offered neither wouldnt be slow in folding.

In the "free" system utility will generally dictate subject choice. Maths and English will almost always be chosen due to their wide scope. Entry requirements for Universities will probably form the standard. Most schools these days have a pseudo-compulsory policy towards French and German, solely, I believe, because of University entry requirements.

And obviously if a student really likes a particular subject despite it having no benefit for his career he will choose it, as I did for my Leaving Cert. And this is what the Irish lobby is afraid of: if Irish is made voluntary the harsh reality that only a tiny percentile of students want to study it will be made known.

I don't think you've really thought this through enough.

If the government doesn't dictate curricula, then how does it decide which schools to fund?

In the absense of an examination such as the Leaving Cert (which cannot exist without standardised curricula), how can universities admit students fairly?

Location is very important to schools. Do you think it is practical for there to be multiple different schools with different curricula in each locality?


I sense that your political leanings tend towards some form of anarchy, am I correct?

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Compulsion is rarely benign, and in this case it certainly isnt. The opportunity cost, and the normal cost, of Irish has been absolutely enormous. And lets not start on the insular mindset of some Irish people as a result of petty nationalism.

We're one of the most successful countries in the EU. What has the Irish language really done that's hindered us hugely?

O'Morris

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Sorry but I just don't care about Ireland as a nation state.

An Irishsceptic.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Despite this most glaring fact I am told that I should be proud of where I'm from, culturally.

National pride is not so much about being proud of your country - it's more about taking pride in your country. It's akin to a man taking pride in his work. A company or football team with a strong sense of identity and a strong sense of pride is more likely to outperform a company or football team without those things. I think the same is true of countries.

thebman

Herbal Deity wrote: »

We're one of the most successful countries in the EU. What has the Irish language really done that's hindered us hugely?

Well thats quite the statement to make. I'm not certain we are one of the most successful countries in the EU at the moment.

Our infrastructure is a shambles due to lack of investment, what exactly has all the funding that went to Irish done to help make Ireland more successful.

TBH I don't see it. The people that speak it now mostly would have spoken it even if it was not compulsory to study the language IMO. Everyone else has the few words they can say in Irish and they rarely if ever say them.

O'Morris wrote: »

National pride is not so much about being proud of your country - it's more about taking pride in your country. It's akin to a man taking pride in his work. A company or football team with a strong sense of identity and a strong sense of pride is more likely to outperform a company or football team without those things. I think the same is true of countries.

Is their any evidence linking pride in ones country to performance in sports or companies?