Should we suppress the Irish language.. ?

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

You don't see the irony in stating that you don't want someone else's identity "forced" on you, then supporting the idea that forcing everyone to learn Irish teaches them "who they are and where they come from"?

Where did I say I support forcing Irish down people's throats?

The world isn't divided into those who say "I want everyone forced to learn Irish" and those who say "Irish should be abolished.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

[Refering to Mandarin] Because it's efficient and highly adaptable to new terms and phrases.

Meh, efficient languages.
Sounds a bit like 1984 where Newspeak is all about making a language as efficient as possible.


Personally, I do think Irish is a beautiful language. Take the word for "bat" for instance. Sciathán leathair
Leather wing. The imagery is so wonderfully poetic.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I don't want an identity forced upon me by anyone, but I sure I'm glad I speak English as my first language.

Then don't accept any language forced upon you. But don't think that Irish should die out because you have a personal issue with it.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Did I say that I define myself 'purely' by my morals and principals?

Seems sort of irrelevant to the discussion. No need to go finding labels for people.

Nah mate, you said:

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I define myself by my principals and morals. You are what you stand for.

Why not add in what else you think defines people if you think that way?

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Why? I'm utterly disinterested in the Irish language, drinking, bodhrans, harps, leprechans, riverdancing or religion. What things do you personally take care to remember, and why?

Grand so, then take no interest in them and allow people who are interested to maintain their interest in the culture and language without talking about how a language should die.

Deleted User wrote: »

Imagine "Father Ted" with Irish subtitles.. "Feic! Ól! Cailíní!"

I heartily endorse this event and/or product.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Where did I say I support forcing Irish down people's throats?

Isn't that what the mandatory teaching of Irish from Junior Infants onward is?
If you're not giving students a choice, then you're forcing it on them. As I pointed out, Irish schoolchildren are forced to interact and learn in Irish from their first day in school. Less useful activities, like reading and writing, are left until much later on.

dlofnep wrote: »

Slutmonkey - Care you comment on why funds were blocked, and shipments of food were blocked on route to Ireland by English authorities? Where Abdülmecid was requested to send one tenth of his original planned funds, so not to upstage the queen's dismal charity? Also, care you comment on the poor funding from Britain to help the Irish deal with the famine?

Didn't I already state that the Government's response to the problem was essentially non-existent? And that they prevented starving people from raiding the food exports (at the request of the landowners)? The government of the time did a similarly small amount for the poor of England at the time, as witnessed by the rise of the Victorian slums.

If you think for ONE moment that Britain's response to the Irish famine was anything other than dismal, then you are living in denial and 100% inaccurate.

As I've already stated previously that their response was non existent, the only "100% inaccurate" "living in denial" posting going on here is from people who refuses to acknowledge that a) The government of the day did not plan a "genocide", b) that wealthy Irish people could have ended the famine at any time they liked. Your response not only fails to accept either of these points, but rails against me for even bringing them up! Which obviously goes to prove one of my earlier points: That the "Those evil brits" agenda is of more importance to people than actual historical fact. The whys and wherefores of History are of no interest to people here, especially when they interfere in the main topic at hand: giving out about the brits.

I like also how you bring up the "hate the brits" cliché to try and strengthen your argument. It has nothing to do with hating the brits. It is documented fact that the Irish language had a setback because Britain had banned Irish in the national schools and Britain's dismal response to the famine resulted in the deaths of the greater population of Irish speakers.

National schools weren't created until 1831. The language was more than on its way to decline at that point as a minority language, and the Catholic Church was actively campaigning against its use. You might also point the finger at such great Irish Patriots as Daniel O'Connell, who also thought the language was a waste of time. But no, it's all the fault of the Brits and their planned famine.

ExoduS 18.11 wrote: »

Would you agree or disagree, that british rule here lead to deaths of many irish people? from famine ages towards 1916?

At what point exactly did I suggest they weren't responsible for killing Irish people during the course of the occupation? What I did point out is that the deaths attributed to them during the famine were actually the fault of profiteering landowners. I also pointed out that the facts surrounding the British invasion and takeover of Ireland aren't as simplistic as we are taught in school.

Which you then tried to turn into a non-attacking post, by posting what you really meant

No, I just used your clear lack of ability in one language as an example that disproves the theory that the government is to blame for the lack of Irish skills in the general population. That you took offence to me using you as an example is beside the point. The truth is that the government does far more, at much greater time and expense, to promote Irish, than it does to teach other, more relevant subjects to our students.

Deleted User wrote: »

How many generations will it take before Irish people start taking responsibility for the state of their language, rather than blaming previous generations who are now long dead!

I wasn't blaming anyone, I was politely incredulous at his saying that the British forced us to learn Irish for generations. I mean, what the hell? Also, I fail to see why Irish is an inferior language simply because a) it's older and less developed due to the small number of speakers, b) it's hard to learn and c) the OP suffered from the terrible state of Irish teaching in this country. Boo ****ing hoo, we all suffered the same, but nobody else is seriously proposing that the language should be forced to die.

What happened to live and let live?

Deleted User wrote: »

I wasn't getting at you, Rather I was adding to what you had said.

As for Live and let live, there are some with chips on their shoulders who can't see beyond their prejudices.

Oh, sorry! Likewise, I wasn't attacking you, I was attacking the op, who is clearly an idiot.

Karsini wrote: »

Does the OP even still post on here considering the thread is 2½ years old?

I have no iidea, I only just discovered the thread myself and couldn't believe what I was reading, heh.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

You said that I shouldn't accept any language forced upon me... I thought you were implying I should reject English too, which of course is my first language. If you're talking about Irish in school, well, we don't really have much choice early on.

I wouldn't really say a language that is the mother tongue of a country is really 'forced' upon people. It just happens to be the day to day language of the country. People will either get with it or remain isolated from the community.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

What gives people pleasure is highly subjective. Some people might find pleasure in chewing razor blades, but that doesn't mean it's useful. The point is that the state is funding the furtherance of the language. If someone likes learning it for pleasure, that's a different story. I say we have a referendum.

Yes, but if it gives people pleasure and they find it a good language, then it is useful. Regardless of how subjective it is, it still can be a useful language, even if you don't think si.
The state is funding a lot of stuff I disagree with, personally I think funding Irish isn't a bad thing although not the way the state is going about it.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

For Heath Ledger's sake, I said language is an indicator of where a person was born. As is their accent for that matter. But neither someone's language nor their accent should define them. You speak of Americans learning Irish, fine, but I doubt they'd trade proficiency in English for it for one minute. Also, for an American to learn Irish is a clear choice. Here, it's state funded.

Don't you dare bring Heath Ledger into this:mad:
A person's language can indeed define them, doesn't always have to be that way but it is still something people can define themselves by.
Why are you bringing up American's trading Irish for English. Why would they? They learned English due to the country they grew up in and Irish due to a belief in their ancestry/a simple interest in the language.

I learned Irish under the funding of the Belgian government. Also learned it under the Brits.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Acknowledging that you were born in a certain country is not the same as defining yourself by that fact. Because of my father's work at the time, I was almost born in Soviet Russia. I'm not sure how long we would have lived there, but had I moved back to Ireland at, say, age 4, I doubt I'd be defining myself by the Russian language or the fact that I had been born there.

Uh, what?
I said some people view others as rootles when they don't define themselves by their birthplace (I should also have put in their culture, forgot to do so)

At any rate, you might be defining yourself by being Russian. I went to school with American kids born in South Africa who viewed themselves as South African.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

And language? Belgians speak French, Austrians speak German, Americans speak English..etc... None of those people could honestly define themselves by their language, and rightly so - the language you speak has nothing to do with 'who you are'. It's just a means of communication. I'm writing in English right now, and had I been born in Spain, I'd be writing in Spanish. English is a great language, because you can say pretty much anything you like, and express yourself to the most nuanced level. It does me fine, and I think the world could do with fewer languages, not more.

Trust me man, the Belgians are wonderfully capable of defining themselves by the language they speak, be it French, Dutch, Flemish or German.
I never lived in Austria or America so can't speak for them. Although I did know Belgians who had never been to America but who defined themselves as American due to their watching of American TV and identifying far more with the American dialect than their own.

You saying you've never met an Irish speaker who defined themselves as such?
I know I have.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Yes, but should that be a choice for the parents or the children? Irish is taught to kids at a very young age, and they wouldn't really be able to weigh up all the pros and cons of taking on the Irish language. And parents might be filled with 'culture' or blind patriotism and forget that the language won't serve their child well in the future when they get out in the world. That's why I think we should remove it from our education system, at least for those early years.

Not really, I accept that parents have choices to make for their kids. Kids can't think for themselves on some issues at such an age. YOur argument on parents being filled with culture and blind patriotism could be used the opposite way. A kid might be better off learning Irish but the parents refuse as they are filled with a following of British/American culture or a blind hatred of all things Irish.

At any rate, I would support kids learning Irish as part of the curriculum until they enter secondary school and then have the choice to make themselves.