If the UK asked Ireland to rejoin the Union, how would you vote?

Jawgap · 26-09-2014 10:00pm

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Well yes. They made the language die out & so to Irish people it's not like learning your native language it's like learning a foreign language, which is a pain in the arse.

It depends on how you get people to engage with the language - it's not rocket science.

Btw - how can you learn your native language - if it's your native language then surely you've grown up with it?

Nodin · 26-09-2014 10:04pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Really? Does the National Museum know about this? Because their exhibit on the Gaelic League and the Gaelic Revival seems not to indicate the stigma you suggest. Maybe you should give them a call?

Incidentally, how was the Gaelic League '
treated in the first 30 or so years of its existence when the island was part of the UK?

Your argument seems to be that the existence of an organisation for a particular thing denies the existence of elements against it. I'd suggest thinking that through again.

Jawgap · 26-09-2014 10:22pm

Nodin wrote: »

Your argument seems to be that the existence of an organisation for a particular thing denies the existence of elements against it. I'd suggest thinking that through again.

No, I'm saying the exhibit on the top floor of the national museum in Collins Barracks makes no reference to any attempts to suppress the Gaelic League and Gaelic Revival - you seem to think there were, hence my suggestion you call them and have he exhibit corrected.

Nodin · 26-09-2014 10:25pm

Jawgap wrote: »

No, I'm saying the exhibit on the top floor of the national museum in Collins Barracks makes no reference to any attempts to suppress the Gaelic League and Gaelic Revival - you seem to think there were, (..................)

I said that? Where?

Iwasfrozen · 26-09-2014 10:33pm

No to reject rejoining the Union

The language can be useful in the sense of marketing. Tesco is a good example of this, or the tourist market. Apart from that it's hard to see any benefit of it or how our lives would be any different if the language disappeared.

kingchess · 26-09-2014 10:40pm

[QUOTE=Fratton Fred;92367806

A Sassanach in Scotland referred originally to English speakers, rather than the actual Englis

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Because English is a relatively new language that evolved from several other languages as various different tribes in what is now England merged in to one.

a Sassanach referred to a Saxon originally-later referring to english speakers. and English did not evolve from the Pictish language,which was a Celtic language related to Welsh-the English language itself is Germanic and came to England with the Angles,Saxons and Jutes and evolved into modern English.

Jawgap · 26-09-2014 10:41pm

Elements against it / attempts to sir press it......

Nodin wrote: »

Your argument seems to be that the existence of an organisation for a particular thing denies the existence of elements against it. I'd suggest thinking that through again.

I suspect you're about to get all pedantic now - how unsurprising.

Nodin · 27-09-2014 4:52am

Jawgap wrote: »

Elements against it / attempts to sir press it......
.

Surely you can come up with a quote?

Jawgap wrote: »

I suspect you're about to get all pedantic now - how unsurprising.

It's logic.

Jawgap · 27-09-2014 8:31am

Nodin wrote: »

Surely you can come up with a quote?

I already did, and to be honest I'm quite surprised that someone who seems so dogmatic in their belief that independence is best the form for the republic to take isn't familiar with what our National Museum has to offer and with the history of the Gaelic League, especially given it's influence on the development of our Constitution?

I guess there isn't a Wikipedia article on it?

Nodin wrote: »

It's logic.

......that is one thing it is not.

Lucy and Harry · 27-09-2014 9:40am

Well we wont be joining the British Empire again so that's that.You only have to do History in school to know why most are against it.
America and Israel are not wanting to give up hard fought Independence either.

Chance The Fapper · 27-09-2014 9:42am

Lucy and Harry wrote: »

Well we wont be joining the British Empire again so that's that.You only have to do History in school to know why most are against it.
America and Israel are not wanting to give up hard fought Independence either.

Israel and hard fought independence don't really make sense in a sentence together

Lucy and Harry · 27-09-2014 9:46am

They also fought British who were in charge at the time.They fought them 1st.Then the Arabs.Everybody wants their own country and piece of land.

AnLonDubh · 27-09-2014 11:06am

Jawgap wrote: »

Well what happened post independence? Was there still systematic destruction from then on when we had full control of education and language policy.

No of course not. However setting up schools to attempt to teach second language users is largely fighting a losing battle when native speakers abandon the language and this continued to occur even after the British left, due to the economic realities Ireland which did not magically evaporate on independence.

Also the Irish language had a stigma as backward among bilinguals and monolinguals in the countryside. The emergence of the Gaelic league doesn't counteract that. In fact read any account of the Gaelic league (Douglas Hyde's own biography is a good example) and you will read that that stigma was one of the major factors the league attempted to counter.

Slot Machine · 27-09-2014 11:52am

I'd have to say no. I'm not fond of the politics of the UK and I'm an unapologetic Euro federalist.

Jawgap · 27-09-2014 12:23pm

AnLonDubh wrote: »

No of course not. However setting up schools to attempt to teach second language users is largely fighting a losing battle when native speakers abandon the language and this continued to occur even after the British left, due to the economic realities Ireland which did not magically evaporate on independence.

Also the Irish language had a stigma as backward among bilinguals and monolinguals in the countryside. The emergence of the Gaelic league doesn't counteract that. In fact read any account of the Gaelic league (Douglas Hyde's own biography is a good example) and you will read that that stigma was one of the major factors the league attempted to counter.

Do you have anything to back any of that up?

My reading of it is that when the Gaeltacht Commission Report was submitted to the Executive Council and subsequently discussed in the Dail there was significant optimism, initially.

To quote Frank Fahy speaking in the 5th Dail about the Commission's Report....

The findings of that Commission were hailed with delight by those who stand for an Irish Ireland; they were welcomed by the Gaelic League; they were welcomed by Councils in the Gaeltacht, and if measures were adopted in accordance with the recommendations of that Commission there would indeed be hope.

One of the reasons the Gaelic League wound down it's activities post-independence was because they felt the government was better placed to continue the revival of the language.

The Gaeltacht Commission's Report contained over 80 recommendations that went way beyond simply setting up schools - only about 14 were ever adopted and implemented - are we now blaming the Brits for our own government's inability or unwillingness to implement measures identified as useful 5 to 6 years after independence?

By the way, while it is true that the National School system introduced by the British administration wilfully neglected Irish, this only lasted until 1879.

From that year forward the teaching of Irish outside ordinary school hours was permitted.

In 1900 the new school programme introduced allowed teachers to arrange the education provided publicly to suit the needs of the localities in which the schools were situated. It specifically allowed for Irish to be taught as an optional subject during ordinary school hours and as an extra subject for fees, outside of the school day.

In 1904, the Commissioners of National Education approved a bilingual programme for use during ordinary school hours in Irish Speaking districts. The circular letter initiating it said it was intended to promote a thorough acquaintance with the Irish language.

But, yes in something as complicated as the decline of the language let's lay all the blame at the feet of the Brits - it's the best way to absolve ourselves from any responsibility :rolleyes:

R P McMurphy · 27-09-2014 1:11pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Do you have anything to back any of that up?

My reading of it is that when the Gaeltacht Commission Report was submitted to the Executive Council and subsequently discussed in the Dail there was significant optimism, initially.

To quote Frank Fahy speaking in the 5th Dail about the Commission's Report....

One of the reasons the Gaelic League wound down it's activities post-independence was because they felt the government was better placed to continue the revival of the language.

The Gaeltacht Commission's Report contained over 80 recommendations that went way beyond simply setting up schools - only about 14 were ever adopted and implemented - are we now blaming the Brits for our own government's inability or unwillingness to implement measures identified as useful 5 to 6 years after independence?

By the way, while it is true that the National School system introduced by the British administration wilfully neglected Irish, this only lasted until 1879.

From that year forward the teaching of Irish outside ordinary school hours was permitted.

In 1900 the new school programme introduced allowed teachers to arrange the education provided publicly to suit the needs of the localities in which the schools were situated. It specifically allowed for Irish to be taught as an optional subject during ordinary school hours and as an extra subject for fees, outside of the school day.

In 1904, the Commissioners of National Education approved a bilingual programme for use during ordinary school hours in Irish Speaking districts. The circular letter initiating it said it was intended to promote a thorough acquaintance with the Irish language.

But, yes in something as complicated as the decline of the language let's lay all the blame at the feet of the Brits - it's the best way to absolve ourselves from any responsibility :rolleyes:

Well what would you say was the predominant cause in 'the decline of the language'. There may be a number of factors but in your opinion the main one is ...

kingchess · 27-09-2014 1:20pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Do you have anything to back any of that u

By the way, while it is true that the National School system introduced by the British administration wilfully neglected Irish, this only lasted until 1879.

From that year forward the teaching of Irish outside ordinary school hours was permitted.

In 1900 the new school programme introduced allowed teachers to arrange the education provided publicly to suit the needs of the localities in which the schools were situated. It specifically allowed for Irish to be taught as an optional subject during ordinary school hours and as an extra subject for fees, outside of the school day.

In 1904, the Commissioners of National Education approved a bilingual programme for use during ordinary school hours in Irish Speaking districts. The circular letter initiating it said it was intended to promote a thorough acquaintance with the Irish language.

But, yes in something as complicated as the decline of the language let's lay all the blame at the feet of the Brits - it's the best way to absolve ourselves from any responsibility :rolleyes:

maybe that part of your answer would be the main cause??:cool::rolleyes:

tipptom · 27-09-2014 1:22pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Do you have anything to back any of that up?

My reading of it is that when the Gaeltacht Commission Report was submitted to the Executive Council and subsequently discussed in the Dail there was significant optimism, initially.

To quote Frank Fahy speaking in the 5th Dail about the Commission's Report....

One of the reasons the Gaelic League wound down it's activities post-independence was because they felt the government was better placed to continue the revival of the language.

The Gaeltacht Commission's Report contained over 80 recommendations that went way beyond simply setting up schools - only about 14 were ever adopted and implemented - are we now blaming the Brits for our own government's inability or unwillingness to implement measures identified as useful 5 to 6 years after independence?

By the way, while it is true that the National School system introduced by the British administration wilfully neglected Irish, this only lasted until 1879.

From that year forward the teaching of Irish outside ordinary school hours was permitted.

In 1900 the new school programme introduced allowed teachers to arrange the education provided publicly to suit the needs of the localities in which the schools were situated. It specifically allowed for Irish to be taught as an optional subject during ordinary school hours and as an extra subject for fees, outside of the school day.

In 1904, the Commissioners of National Education approved a bilingual programme for use during ordinary school hours in Irish Speaking districts. The circular letter initiating it said it was intended to promote a thorough acquaintance with the Irish language.

But, yes in something as complicated as the decline of the language let's lay all the blame at the feet of the Brits - it's the best way to absolve ourselves from any responsibility :rolleyes:

The Brits as you like to call them systematically killed of the Irish language but we are somehow responsible for that?WOW

Iwasfrozen · 27-09-2014 1:40pm

No to reject rejoining the Union

tipptom wrote: »

[/B] The Brits as you like to call them systematically killed of the Irish language but we are somehow responsible for that?WOW

The British definietly had a hand in the languages demise (I don't think they systematically killed off the language) but it is the Irish people who in general refused to learn the language in modern times.

gormdubhgorm · 27-09-2014 2:41pm

I voted no.
But I would vote Yes if England would promise to keep Ryan Tubridy

gormdubhgorm · 27-09-2014 2:52pm

tipptom wrote: »

[/B] The Brits as you like to call them systematically killed of the Irish language but we are somehow responsible for that?WOW

We are responsible for it. In the late 19th Century Irish became the language associated with that of the poorer classes. English became the language you had to speak to improve your status in life.

If Ireland were serious about their language websites like boards.ie would be as Gaeilge predominately.

Also the Gaelic League tried to revive the Irish language similar to what Hungary did in the revival of Hungarian.
But the GL failed miserably in this goal. I think it is because it was not spoken in daily life. Learning Irish is/was based on rote learning. This is no way to learn a language.

Worse still there is a snobbery about people who speak irish fluently outside the gaeltacht. The reason for this because the upper-middle class go to all-irish schools outside the gaeltacht. The people who have a snobbery about speaking Irish grammatically etc do not encourage those who do not have as high a standard in Irish as they do.

tipptom · 27-09-2014 3:34pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

We are responsible for it. In the late 19th Century Irish became the language associated with that of the poorer classes. English became the language you had to speak to improve your status in life.

If Ireland were serious about their language websites like boards.ie would be as Gaeilge predominately.

Also the Gaelic League tried to revive the Irish language similar to what Hungary did in the revival of Hungarian.
But the GL failed miserably in this goal. I think it is because it was not spoken in daily life. Learning Irish is/was based on rote learning. This is no way to learn a language.

Worse still there is a snobbery about people who speak irish fluently outside the gaeltacht. The reason for this because the upper-middle class go to all-irish schools outside the gaeltacht. The people who have a snobbery about speaking Irish grammatically etc do not encourage those who do not have as high a standard in Irish as they do.

Our failure to revive the Irish language is completely after the fact,we would be having this conversation in Irish but for the British and that is a fact but some people on here would try and convince you that the British were never in Ireland at all and all this old stuff is all our own fault.

It just suits the revisionists,the self haters,Unionists and the fundamentalist warring Irish language factions to steer it away from that fact.
By the way, completely agree with you on the rote learning.

DLMA23 · 27-09-2014 3:39pm

tipptom wrote: »

revisionists,the self haters,Unionists

Lot of that around here so it seems :rolleyes:

Jawgap · 27-09-2014 3:42pm

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Well what would you say was the predominant cause in 'the decline of the language'. There may be a number of factors but in your opinion the main one is ...

I think people who use the crude measure of the number of speakers think the language is in decline......and I think the internecine politics of the 40+ quangos involved in promoting the language and Irish culture mean that there is an interest in creating the idea of a language in peril - if it wasn't then wouldn't they be out of a job?

Up until recently I had to work in the language and found it's death to be greatly exaggerated.

As for the number one factor - I don't know - I'm not a cultural historian by training, but at a guess I'd say Blythe's refusal to fund instruction through Irish - the irony being he was a committed member of the Gaelic League, and what's keeping it from blossoming is the politicisation of the act of speaking it.

kingchess wrote: »

maybe that part of your answer would be the main cause??:cool::rolleyes:

No from 1879 the education system permitted Irish to be taught - so if you take that as the starting point we've had 125 years to resurrect the language.

The Gaelic League was founded over 110 years ago and the State over 90 years ago - hasn't there been ample time to do something meaningful to promote the language?

tipptom wrote: »

[/B] The Brits as you like to call them systematically killed of the Irish language but we are somehow responsible for that?WOW

Well looking at the documents I'd suggest the British administration's attitude from the mid-19th C on was more disinterested neglect, before moving to tolerance, then mild encouragement.

Yes, the Brits (as I like to call them) might have helped the language on it's way down, but we are responsible for resuscitating it.

DarkyHughes · 27-09-2014 3:42pm

Are people voting yes mad? We'd be treated like dogs by the British Army because no doubt this would cause massive support & recruits for the dissident IRA's (who I don't support but would if we voted yes) even more so than the Provos (who I did support) had. It would create a civil war that made the 1922-23 one which was the bloodiest conflict in modern Irish history look like a picnic.

tipptom · 27-09-2014 3:46pm

DLMA23 wrote: »

Lot of that around here so it seems :rolleyes:

Nodin · 27-09-2014 3:49pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Do you have anything to back any of that up?

My reading of it is that ...........

...not the Brits fault, paddy is to blame. I think we got that by now, thanks.

Jawgap · 27-09-2014 3:52pm

Nodin wrote: »

...not the Brits fault, paddy is to blame. I think we got that by now, thanks.

Maybe read what's written instead of what you wish was written......

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, the Brits (as I like to call them) might have helped the language on it's way down, but we are responsible for resuscitating it.

Jawgap · 27-09-2014 3:56pm

Nodin wrote: »

...not the Brits fault, paddy is to blame. I think we got that by now, thanks.

BTW - feel free to respond to any of my postings in Irish - I'm quite happy to work through that medium.......

.......scríobh as Gaeilge más fearr leat

Nodin · 27-09-2014 3:56pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Maybe read what's written instead of what you wish was written......

No, you're trying to shift blame, oul flower. Christ knows why, but you are.

If the UK asked Ireland to rejoin the Union, how would you vote?

Comments