Nationalism and the Irish Language

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.

T runner

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

So they would learn English by day and have Irish national school at night time?
Th
e point is that British policy in Ireland was aimed at stopping the use of Gaelic. Banning the use of Irish in national schools would achieve this by reducing the numbers speaking it and by obliterating its use in economic affairs.

You should also note that the printing of books in Irish was forbidden in Law. Irish Nationalism amongst Irish speakers was a necessary reaction to agressive British nationalism if they wished to remain Irish speakers.

The Corinthian

T runner wrote: »

The point is that British policy in Ireland was aimed at stopping the use of Gaelic. Banning the use of Irish in national schools would achieve this by reducing the numbers speaking it and by obliterating its use in economic affairs.

You should also note that the printing of books in Irish was forbidden in Law. Irish Nationalism amongst Irish speakers was a necessary reaction to agressive British nationalism if they wished to remain Irish speakers.

What is the point of such a history lesson, other as a continuation of The Great Irish Myth that all of our woes are due to "800 years of oppression"? What I find hilarious about such historical revisionism is that it skips over the last century, where we managed to make a pigs ear all on our own.

And this is before you ask the question of what relevance does such history have on us today? Regardless of how it declined, is it worth or even possible to keep alive at this stage? Why must we resuscitate a language based upon events from 1710 rather than those of 2010? Other than blind, nationalistic romanticism, what is the relevance of the historical context today?

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.

This is potentially a valid reason for supporting the language, but it does not explain why it is necessary to learn the language outside those regions or whether the level of economic support to those deprived areas is appropriate.

T runner wrote: »

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?

I'm sure they'll benefit if they grow up to earn a living from one of the many bodies out there that are bankrolled by the state to promote the language.

The more I hear the arguments on this topic, the more I am becoming convinced that its support is in reality one grounded in the tax breaks and jobs that artificially keeping the language alive have generated and justified through historical martyrdom.

It's our own little Holocaust industry.

God forbid the language ever became widely spoken, as they would lose all the subsidies and could be expected to stand on their own feet.

#15

T runner wrote: »

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?

No, not really.

They WILL benefit insofar as they will have some knowledge of a language.

The problem is that the language will be no use to them, as hardly anybody speaks it.

Are you saying that there is nothing I could do with that time that would be more beneficial for the whole class?

T runner

T runner wrote: »

You first please.

Funnily enough I expected you to say that without actually providing anything. :rolleyes:

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?

Of course the introduction of English as the primary language for social and commercial interactions would put Irish speakers (who chose not to use english) at a serious disadvantage.. Its obvious..

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?

I don't know.. Have you checked to see if these landowners actually knew the farming techniques, or rather the overseer for these owners who spent most of their time in England. Its likely that in many cases, overseers were chosen to control assets not based on skills but rather through recommendations and bribery. It would fit the fashion of the time for such setups. So if the overseers weren't particularly skilled and under pressure to continue bringing in the incomes... Then the tenants would suffer.

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.

Tell me something... Did the British government provide massive food aid to any of their other colonies, or did any of the other colonial powers of the time? Just want to look at things in perspective. You're applying modern political morality to a very different time.

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.

Failed? They never tried.

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.

err, no. I still haven't seen anything where Irish people were killed for speaking Irish.. So, no speaking Irish did not mean death. It meant being left on the outside, and not gaining the benefits of the British colonial society..

The Irish language was dying the moment the first Irish person was employed by any company and asked to speak english rather than Irish. Whether it be a practical concern like the other employees not speaking Irish, or a commercial one like their customers being primarily english speakers.

T runner

T runner wrote: »

So they would learn English by day and have Irish national school at night time?

TBH, I'm asking you.... You're the one that brought this up.

For my own part, I'm surprised that any Irish sons had time to study at all beyond the few basic lessons by the parish priest, since they would be needed to work on the farm, in the mines, etc. So, we're left mostly with girls, and those families with the money to back their son's ambitions to be a doctor or such.

The point is that British policy in Ireland was aimed at stopping the use of Gaelic. Banning the use of Irish in national schools would achieve this by reducing the numbers speaking it and by obliterating its use in economic affairs.

You should also note that the printing of books in Irish was forbidden in Law. Irish Nationalism amongst Irish speakers was a necessary reaction to agressive British nationalism if they wished to remain Irish speakers.

Whatever... Can't you answer the question I asked you rather than going off on a tangent about something else? (Something I've noticed you doing a few times in this thread)

metrovelvet

While it may be true that learning a second language early helps in learning more languages later, there is no sufficient reason why that second language should be Irish other than some poetic misguided reason created a longtime ago and embalmed in a guilty psyche of a people who have been connived into a tenacity of a past yet to be recreated.↲↲The premise that learning Irish will help in learning other languages fails in that people dont really learn Irish in the first place. How does NOT really learning a language after 12 years of studying it help you learn German or French later?

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

While it may be true that learning a second language early helps in learning more languages later, there is no sufficient reason why that second language should be Irish other than some poetic misguided reason created a longtime ago and embalmed in a guilty psyche of a people who have been connived into a tenacity of a past yet to be recreated.↲↲The premise that learning Irish will help in learning other languages fails in that people dont really learn Irish in the first place. How does NOT really learning a language after 12 years of studying it help you learn German or French later?

[Not really directed at you, metrovelvet, you just got me thinking]

I'm 32 years old, and trying to learn Chinese right now. I'm fairly fluent in Irish, decent English, and moderate German.. I'm struggling. IMHO having Irish doesn't help unless you're seeking to learn a language with a similar structure.. although any language with that similar structure would be more useful since it would have practical application.

The point is that Irish has no practical use. Any of the continental languages can be used to get jobs. What does having Irish get you? I've been thinking back over the last 13 years of my working & social experiences and I can't think of one useful application of Irish in that whole time. Hell, its not even that useful for picking up girls..

Although, lets be honest, it is fun to teach "Póg mo thóin" to foreigners.. and learn something similar in their language..

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

The Corinthian wrote: »

What is the point of such a history lesson, other as a continuation of The Great Irish Myth that all of our woes are due to "800 years of oppression"? What I find hilarious about such historical revisionism is that it skips over the last century, where we managed to make a pigs ear all on our own.[

And this is before you ask the question of what relevance does such history have on us today? Regardless of how it declined, is it worth or even possible to keep alive at this stage? Why must we resuscitate a language based upon events from 1710 rather than those of 2010? Other than blind, nationalistic romanticism, what is the relevance of the historical context today?

The point of the history lesson is to clarify exactly how any association between Gaelic speaking areas and nationalism occurred which has been misrepresented by some posters in this thread. The linguicide of the language is the reason why Gaeltacht's only exist in only the poorest areas of the country. I am correcting some erroneous historical assertions made on this thread. Historical assertions that did not offend you. Evidently history is more relevant to you on this topic when it suits your side of the argument.

This is potentially a valid reason for supporting the language, but it does not explain why it is necessary to learn the language outside those regions or whether the level of economic support to those deprived areas is appropriate.

I'm sure they'll benefit if they grow up to earn a living from one of the many bodies out there that are bankrolled by the state to promote the language.

The more I hear the arguments on this topic, the more I am becoming convinced that its support is in reality one grounded in the tax breaks and jobs that artificially keeping the language alive have generated and justified through historical martyrdom.

It's our own little Holocaust industry.

God forbid the language ever became widely spoken, as they would lose all the subsidies and could be expected to stand on their own feet.

I have a feeling that the arguments in this thread on the topic made absolutely no difference to your opinion of the Irish language.

You believe it is of no use to anyone--the same arguments made by the British when Irish was the majority language. Is this a real argument or just one which has been carried through the years to attack a language?

As you may be aware there is a huge increase in the amount of children attending Irish speaking schools in non Gaeltacht areas. There seems to be a wish among many Irish people that their children will speak it and the language be preserved.

Ive attached a speech made by Rev Boyd in the Belfast Linen Hall in 2006 about the Irish language. That might broaden your views on the value of indiginous languages and show you that where a language comes from may be relevant.

metrovelvet

Deleted User wrote: »

[Not really directed at you, metrovelvet, you just got me thinking]

I'm 32 years old, and trying to learn Chinese right now. I'm fairly fluent in Irish, decent English, and moderate German.. I'm struggling. IMHO having Irish doesn't help unless you're seeking to learn a language with a similar structure.. although any language with that similar structure would be more useful since it would have practical application.

The point is that Irish has no practical use. Any of the continental languages can be used to get jobs. What does having Irish get you? I've been thinking back over the last 13 years of my working & social experiences and I can't think of one useful application of Irish in that whole time. Hell, its not even that useful for picking up girls..

Although, lets be honest, it is fun to teach "Póg mo thóin" to foreigners.. and learn something similar in their language..

I never studied it . My mother was fluent in it at one stage, having learned it when she moved to Ireland from England as an adolescent. My father,born and bred in Dublin couldnt speak a word of it but could spout out Latin with ease. Between the two of them, I learned enough about Irish to know I actively dislike it.I dislike it because it is passive. Unless I have been misinformed, and I am open to correction, the subject is not the center of emotional agency, that it is not a case of "I am sad" but a case of "There is a sadness on me." And if you accept that language creates conciousness, that it creates our realities, which I largely do, I would prefer my conciousness not to be created in such a way.