Cody Pomeray wrote: » It is appropriate that young people be instilled with a sense of national identity. The Irish language curriculum at second level provides awareness of Irish in its linguistic form, and also its social/ historical context. As a community, I think it important that young people understand their social history, and that the community be allowed to establish and maintain its national character.
The community is free to grant 'opt-outs' for people who do not wish to undertake these studies. Ultimately what we're talking about here is what society wants for itself - what ideas and awareness society wants from its children as they emerge from school. For me, I would include a sense of belonging to a community of people deeply rooted in their own cultural identity, but I accept that not everybody wants this.
I think it is appropriate that Irish be a requirement for entering third level education, whether that be for actuarial studies or zoology. It has nothing to do with the individual course - it comes from an observation that education has an essential role to play in maintaining national identity and culture.
Cody Pomeray wrote: » 2. The European Court has consistently held that education has an essential role to play in the national policy of maintaining national identity and culture, and that a requirement to possess competence in the Irish language is a valid requirement taken in light of educational pursuits (Groener v Minister for Education).....It is appropriate that young people be instilled with a sense of national identity.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Fallacy and strawman. Fallacy - langauge is not the only way to install a sense of national identity.
it's a massively overrated concept and one that the kds should be allowed to value for themselves. Wny not mandartory history? Same effect.
Surely the kids themselves should have a say in this? If you're not going to talk to and listen to them and accept their viewpoints, then they are little more than pawns and using them for a personal cause is borderline abusive.
What absolute bull****. You don't need a sense of national identity to build or design a ****ing machine. Do you really think it gives a ****
BognarRegis wrote: » To provide pupils with an appreciation of the Irish language should not take over a decade of daily lessons. A simple laminated card with 'cupla focal' would be sufficient for most people's needs.
Speaking Irish is not a core part of our national identity.
Iwasfrozen wrote: » Cody is this you?http://ugc.abairleat.kontain.com/video/20120225/prod_28b1ac44-8507-4423-a4b3-871a1da0a511/tb_640x480.jpg
Cody Pomeray wrote: » is that a meme or something, i don't get it.
Christy42 wrote: » The same argument could replied to History (an example) which I would argue should be put way ahead of Irish in terms of importance to our culture.
32,792 of the over 300,000 secondary students in the system skipped the subject this year.
old hippy wrote: » "Gaels! It delights my Gaelic heart to be here today speaking Gaelic with you at this Gaelic feis in the centre of the Gaeltacht. May I state that I am a Gael. I'm Gaelic from the crown of my head to the soles of my feet. . . . If we're truly Gaelic, we must constantly discuss the question of the Gaelic revival and the question of Gaelicism. There is no use in having Gaelic, if we converse in it on non-Gaelic topics. He who speaks Gaelic but fails to discuss the language question is not truly Gaelic in his heart; such conduct is of no benefit to Gaelicism because he only jeers at Gaelic and reviles the Gaels. There is nothing in this life so nice and so Gaelic as truly true Gaelic Gaels who speak in true Gaelic Gaelic about the truly Gaelic language."
Cody Pomeray wrote: » Fallacy- I do not say it is 'the only way to instill a sense of national identity'. Irish incorporates Irish history both via the Stair na nGaeilge module and via the literary element. I would be fully in favour of adding a greater emphasis on national history and intellectualism, just as is a feature of other countries' educational system - France, most famously. It's not a personal cause, it's society's cause. The people make their own community. They - and not you, and not I - get to decide what values they want to instill in the next generation. I would favour an awareness of the context of Ireland's rich cultural traditons as one aspect of developing future generations of bright, intellectually liberated young people.Every advancing generation must be 'steered' by the community. We don't just leave our children in the fields like farm animals and say 'they will learn what they want to learn'. No, we provide them with all the valuable resources we hold dear, and let them do as they wish when they become adults themselves. And this is where the conversation ends. I can't communicate with you if you speak in asterisks or deliberately attempt to misrepresent what I am saying. I have consistently said that Irish is not a course entry requirement to most courses, and this is as it should be. It is a matriculation requirement because of its role in maintaining Irish identity. You persistently refuse to engage with that point, preferring instead the above strawman. There is a major problem with how the language is taught, with a heavy handed emphasis on grammar and declensions. The structure is rigid in a way that does not reflect the spoken reality in places where Irish is a living language. I'm not defending the curriculum, I'm defending Irish instruction as a valid means of self-awareness. There is no society on the planet where children choose their own identities from scratch. Always, they are 'directed' through parental, educational, peer and social influence. Some characteristics are persuaded to the fore, some characteristics are persuaded into the background. Spoken Irish, along with a greater appreciation for Irish intellectual and cultural mores can be, and I suggest ought to be, allowed to re-establish themselves.
The_Gatsby wrote: » Why is it that people in Ireland start learning Irish at the age of 5 and most never learn to speak it fluently? In Europe they do pretty much the same with English and most Europeans can hold a decent conversation in English.
Iwasfrozen wrote: » Ah "society," excusing the denial of human liberty since circa 10,000 BC.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » If it's not fallacy, then why this over-empasis on the langauge? And in term of school, it is langugage: history is a completely sepearte subject. And, to go one step further, if it really was a good idea to force a sense of national pride on every young adult in the country, history would be the way to do it - not langauge.
It is not a societal cause - it is a personal one. Most people who do not abide Irish would certainly not entertain it being society's choice.
65% felt that more subjects should be taught through Irish in primary schools to encourage children to use the language more often. And amongst the age group 15-24, 79% thought more subjects should be taught through Irish in primary schools. In other question about the Leaving Certificate 61% thought that Irish should be compulsory up to Leaving Certificate Level. Many of these were in favour of this for reasons of preserving our cultural heritage as well as for the official status of the language. And amongst the age group 15-24, 65% thought that Irish should be compulsory to Leaving Certificate Level.
They will continue to stand up and oppose the values that you wish to force aupion them. And rightfully so - unless you want sheep.
Rubeter wrote: » A social animal scoffing society, giggle.
Caonima wrote: » I had awful Irish teachers for most of school, both primary and secondary, and I even lived on the edge of a gaeltacht (which the spellchecker tells me should be 'heartache'). What hope did I have? Coming from an Irish non-gaelic-speaking family, I could only learn what was presented to me, and that was sod all. Irish education system failed me, as it did with thousands of others. I'm not bitter, though; I could care less. I'm almost fluent in Chinese now, anyway.
Iwasfrozen wrote: » Nothing wrong with "society" just don't use it as an excuse to compel your views on others.
HansHolzel wrote: » You mean you couldn't care less.
Caonima wrote: » The best works of literature in Ireland were written in English
Cody Pomeray wrote: » How do you know, if you don't speak Irish?
Caonima wrote: » Translation, usually.
Aineoil wrote: » So much wealth and beauty of a language gets lost in even the best translation.
Caonima wrote: » Granted, of course. The subtleties, nuances, turns of phrase, history, meaning... it can get chewed up. But I'm pretty sure, without having to make a list, that a significant majority of people on here would admit, unbiased, that Ireland has produced its best literature in the English language. There's something to be proud of in that.
Rubeter wrote: » That's kinda what society is, getting people to "toe the line". It's how a social species works, some are left out of the loop but it is better for the society/group/species as a whole, that's how it evolved in the first place.
Iwasfrozen wrote: » No no no no no, any and all literature written in the language of the oppressor is worthless compared to that of our native gaelic sons. Yeats, Keats, Joyce and Wilde were all nothing but west Brit imperialist enablers.
Caonima wrote: » Language of the oppressor? I think creating something as timeless as literature should transcend human errors like war and invasion. You've just trashed four of our greatest sons, and they are ours, with what you said. I'm assuming, of course, that you're pulling my leg here. :cool:
Iwasfrozen wrote: » Of course I'm pulling your leg? How else would you toe the line like Rubeter gleefully thinks we should?
