Why can nobody speak Irish?

An Coilean · 19-09-2013 10:11AM

BognarRegis wrote: »

...which contradicts his aspiration to freedom, in education, for all Irish people. That is the point.

It's this flawed, contradictory and unrealistic idealism that is compromising the health of the Irish language.

I would suggest that you just don't understand the freedom that Pearse was talking about, in education he was primarily concerned with the freedom of the school and teacher, freedom to develop the abilities of their pupils based on their own abilities and their own circumstances, what he saw as a lack of freedom was the rules and regulations imposed from above. Pupils were expected to conform to a type, 'And what a type' A teacher could endever to give their students a real education, to foster the innate abilities of the child and instill in them a love of learning, but as Pearse saw it, to do so in the 'English-Irish' education system of the time would harm their performance against the set expectations of the board, and would thus harm enrolment fees (This was before free education).

Pearse, in my estimation would not have seen Irish being made compulsory in some ar all schools as a denial of freedom, freedom from education was not what he ment, what he wanted was the freedom for teachers to teach in their own way and to focus on developing their students without having to conform to a type imposed from above. He was above all concerned with what was on the curriculum, and the freedom of teachers, and schools to teach the curriculum, and indeed to freedom of students to develop their own abilities within that curriculum rather than what subjects would be taught.

Pearse saw the education system as it was in his time as a machine, famously, as a 'murder machine', that was in the business of producing 'things' rather than people, people have loyalties and emotions, things do not. Things can be baught and sold. He was less concerned with the structure of education or what subjects were compulsory or not, but rather with the sprit, he belived education should be more likened to nature, that pupils should be allowed to grow and develop, rather than 'Grinded' and 'Finished'.

LordSutch · 19-09-2013 10:27AM

I just wonder will Scotland follow the Irish example and make Scots-Gaelic mandatory in all their schools? If they break away from the rest of the UK (independence referendum 2014)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 19-09-2013 11:19AM

An Coilean wrote: »

Pearse, in my estimation would not have seen Irish being made compulsory in some ar all schools as a denial of freedom, freedom from education was not what he ment, what he wanted was the freedom for teachers to teach in their own way and to focus on developing their students without having to conform to a type imposed from above. He was above all concerned with what was on the curriculum, and the freedom of teachers, and schools to teach the curriculum, and indeed to freedom of students to develop their own abilities within that curriculum rather than what subjects would be taught.

Pearse saw the education system as it was in his time as a machine, famously, as a 'murder machine', that was in the business of producing 'things' rather than people, people have loyalties and emotions, things do not. Things can be baught and sold. He was less concerned with the structure of education or what subjects were compulsory or not, but rather with the sprit, he belived education should be more likened to nature, that pupils should be allowed to grow and develop, rather than 'Grinded' and 'Finished'.

This then would be a bit of a contradiction: because what you talk about is freedom in education - whether you or correct in Pearse's attitude or not. And having students and teachers with "feeligns and emotions" and being able to "develop their own abilities within that curriculum rather than what subjects would be taught" is not possible whie imposing what subjects would be taught.

Rubeter · 19-09-2013 11:40AM

Grayson wrote: »

So you're saying Pearse was a bit of a bigot then. favoring freedom whilst imposing his own will. Actually that makes sense.

And yes, Irish is imposed. It has no actual value and serves no purpose except for a political agenda. I know someone who hated it so much they burned Peigs book on her grave.

Book burning, the sign of an enlightened mind. :rolleyes:

uncle_mick · 19-09-2013 11:46AM

ABajaninCork wrote: »

I'd like to learn to speak Irish...

me too , in fact its something I fully intend to do , language is one of the core parts of national identity the world , I find the attitudes of anti gaeilge folk plain weird

Iwasfrozen · 19-09-2013 12:03PM

Muff Richardson wrote: »

um no. grab that big fat heavy book thing that's holding the door open, it's a dictionary. Try to get a decent grasp of the English language before you give Irish a stab by the way.

If something is being imposed on you it's still being imposed whether you enjoy it or not.

sigmundv · 19-09-2013 01:38PM

A little quote from the Wikipedia article about Peig Sayers:

From 1960 the Irish population was urbanising, a process that led to the "Celtic Tiger" economy in the 1990s, and Peig's tales of woe in rural surroundings confirmed to many students that Irish was a language of poverty and misery, while English was considered the language of science and commerce.

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

This is for me the biggest challenge minority languages have; they are often seen as languages of poverty and backwardness, which leads people to feel that they will have better opportunities in the world by adopting a minority language. What people do wrong, however, in my opinion, is that they forsake the minority language altogether. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Being bi- or tri-lingual is a big advantage.

An Coilean · 19-09-2013 03:35PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This then would be a bit of a contradiction: because what you talk about is freedom in education - whether you or correct in Pearse's attitude or not. And having students and teachers with "feeligns and emotions" and being able to "develop their own abilities within that curriculum rather than what subjects would be taught" is not possible whie imposing what subjects would be taught.

It was claimed that he contradicted himself, but it is more likely that they think that a subject being compulsory contradicts what they believe to be freedom in education than what he believed to be freedom in education.

Unless you have a clear concept of what he ment when he talked about freedom in education, I don't think you can make a claim that a subject being compulsory contradicts it. As far as I can see nobody here has shown that the freedom in education he talked about is contradicted or prevented by certain subjects being compulsory.

It seems to me that people are taking a few lines from his writings on Education because they seem to suport their own prior standpoint, without actually looking into his writings properly to see what his arguments and beliefs actually were, or they are trying to discredit him again without taking the time to actually read up enough on his taughts on education to fully understand what they are actually trying to discredit.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 19-09-2013 03:44PM

An Coilean wrote: »

It was claimed that he contradicted himself, but it is more likely that they think that a subject being compulsory contradicts what they believe to be freedom in education than what he believed to be freedom in education.

Unless you have a clear concept of what he ment when he talked about freedom in education, I don't think you can make a claim that a subject being compulsory contradicts it. As far as I can see nobody here has shown that the freedom in education he talked about is contradicted or prevented by certain subjects being compulsory.

It seems to me that people are taking a few lines from his writings on Education because they seem to suport their own prior standpoint, without actually looking into his writings properly to see what his arguments and beliefs actually were, or they are trying to discredit him again without taking the time to actually read up enough on his taughts on education to fully understand what they are actually trying to discredit.

Fair enough, but I'm basing it on what you wrote about him, so if I'm wrong in what he said, so are you.

But it's the last but that's important: trying to encourage someone to develop their own abilities while putting restrictions on those abilities is a contradiction, if he did indeed day that. Adding the words "within the curriculum" doesn't really change that - it, in fact, reinfoces the restriction.

Fighting Irish · 19-09-2013 03:45PM

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.

Is it the way Irish is taught? I didn't grow up in Ireland so I'm curious to know why so many people seem to have difficulty with it, given that it's taught at such a young age.

Because we know there's no real use to it other than taking the piss with other Irish people when you go abroad

An Coilean · 19-09-2013 04:48PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Fair enough, but I'm basing it on what you wrote about him, so if I'm wrong in what he said, so are you.

Well, I could write about him till the cows come home, you would still need to read what he himself wrote to gain any kind of insight into what his beliefs actually were.

But it's the last but that's important: trying to encourage someone to develop their own abilities while putting restrictions on those abilities is a contradiction, if he did indeed day that. Adding the words "within the curriculum" doesn't really change that - it, in fact, reinfoces the restriction.

From my reading of his writings, it seems to me that he was not concerned about what the subjects taught would be, but that the teacher would have the freedom to teach them as they saw fit, ie the denial of freedom would not be saying that you have to teach Irish, but in saying that the child has to learn these five poems, and answer these questions on the first chapter of this book and compare this text to that text. He saw the denial of freedom as the essential straghtjacket that teachers were put into by the material they had to teach as imposed from above. Freedom as he saw it was to be able to teach the subject as best suited the teacher and pupil, ie to teach it through music and song, if the child had an apititude in that direction, or through stories and history if their interest was in that, or if they were interested in fishing, teach it to them through learning about that.
In essence, the freedom he was talking about as I understand it was not so much focused on what subjects the pupil would learn but on how they would learn it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 19-09-2013 04:58PM

An Coilean wrote: »

Well, I could write about him till the cows come home, you would still need to read what he himself wrote to gain any kind of insight into what his beliefs actually were.

From my reading of his writings, it seems to me that he was not concerned about what the subjects taught would be, but that the teacher would have the freedom to teach them as they saw fit, ie the denial of freedom would not be saying that you have to teach Irish, but in saying that the child has to learn these five poems, and answer these questions on the first chapter of this book and compare this text to that text. He saw the denial of freedom as the essential straghtjacket that teachers were put into by the material they had to teach as imposed from above. Freedom as he saw it was to be able to teach the subject as best suited the teacher and pupil, ie to teach it through music and song, if the child had an apititude in that direction, or through stories and history if their interest was in that, or if they were interested in fishing, teach it to them through learning about that.
In essence, the freedom he was talking about as I understand it was not so much focused on what subjects the pupil would learn but on how they would learn it.

But again, freedom within said restrictions, is not freedom. He already has a set idea what the child should be learning because it's important to him. Dressing this up as givign the teachers freedom within the confines of the subject is not really giving the student freedom at all - because you've already placed a restriction on them "learnign their full abilities" as it was put earlier.

BognarRegis · 19-09-2013 06:46PM

sigmundv wrote: »

What people do wrong, however, in my opinion, is that they forsake the minority language altogether.

Who are you to tell the majority English-speaking population that they are 'doing wrong' by not learning Irish?

For most of us, it's actually a foreign language. We have no more reason to learn Irish than we do to learn Farsi or Japanese.

An Coilean · 19-09-2013 07:10PM

BognarRegis wrote: »

Who are you to tell the majority English-speaking population that they are 'doing wrong' by not learning Irish?

For most of us, it's actually a foreign language. We have no more reason to learn Irish than we do to learn Farsi or Japanese.

Irish is not the mother tounge of most Irish people, but it is not in any sense of the word 'foreign'. Many people find that fact alone to be a good reason to learn it.

An Coilean · 19-09-2013 07:14PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But again, freedom within said restrictions, is not freedom. He already has a set idea what the child should be learning because it's important to him. Dressing this up as givign the teachers freedom within the confines of the subject is not really giving the student freedom at all - because you've already placed a restriction on them "learnign their full abilities" as it was put earlier.

You will have to explain more clearly why a subject being compulsory restricts a child from learning to their full ability. Saying it does not make it true, and I can't say I have ever come accross any research that would suggest it.

If you do have research that supports the claim, please share it, otherwise, perhaps you should rethink it, god knows there are enough evidenceless claims floating about around education.

BognarRegis · 19-09-2013 08:30PM

An Coilean wrote: »

Irish is not the mother tounge of most Irish people, but it is not in any sense of the word 'foreign'. Many people find that fact alone to be a good reason to learn it.

Many do, but most of us do not.

BognarRegis · 19-09-2013 08:33PM

An Coilean wrote: »

You will have to explain more clearly why a subject being compulsory restricts a child from learning to their full ability.

What kind of lesson is learned when a child is forced to learn a language they do do wish to learn and when they are made to feel shame for not speaking Irish?

That is what has been happening for over 80 years.

It is not education, it is abuse in the name of 'preserving Irish'.

The evidence is all around you.

Muff Richardson · 19-09-2013 08:56PM

BognarRegis wrote: »

What kind of lesson is learned when a child is forced to learn a language they do do wish to learn and when they are made to feel shame for not speaking Irish?

That is what has been happening for over 80 years.

It is not education, it is abuse in the name of 'preserving Irish'.

The evidence is all around you.

was the so called 'abuse' that you suffered whilst learning Irish repeated strong blows to the cranium over a long period of time? because it would explain the utter sh*te you are spewing out...

keep posting though, you are funny

you've outdone yourself with this gem

BognarRegis wrote: »

We have no more reason to learn Irish than we do to learn Farsi or Japanese.

:D:D:D:D

Iwasfrozen · 19-09-2013 08:59PM

sigmundv wrote: »

This is for me the biggest challenge minority languages have; they are often seen as languages of poverty and backwardness, which leads people to feel that they will have better opportunities in the world by adopting a minority language. What people do wrong, however, in my opinion, is that they forsake the minority language altogether. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Being bi- or tri-lingual is a big advantage.

Being bilingual in a useful language is useful. Irish is not a useful language.

An Coilean · 19-09-2013 09:01PM

BognarRegis wrote: »

they are made to feel shame for not speaking Irish?

What are they ashamed of?
Tell me, do you feel shame for not speaking Irish?

An Coilean · 19-09-2013 09:03PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Irish is not a useful language.

Not sure what you mean by this really, plenty of people use Irish. Personally I find it quite usefull, you don't obviously, but that is hardily surprising given that you dont have Irish.

Iwasfrozen · 19-09-2013 09:04PM

Muff Richardson wrote: »

was the so called 'abuse' that you suffered whilst learning Irish repeated strong blows to the cranium over a long period of time? because it would explain the utter sh*te you are spewing out...

keep posting though, you are funny

you've outdone yourself with this gem

you can disagree with him but don't get personal.

An Coilean wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by this really, plenty of people use Irish. Personally I find it quite usefull, you don't obviously, but that is hardily surprising given that you dont have Irish.

What is the comparative utility of learning Irish over another language?

marzic · 19-09-2013 09:16PM

Its just not possible to express the same emotion ass gaeilge, see?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BjKVq9YsU0

BognarRegis · 19-09-2013 09:24PM

An Coilean wrote: »

What are they ashamed of?
Tell me, do you feel shame for not speaking Irish?

No I don't. Not at all. I'm Irish. Like most people, speaking Irish is irrelevant to me and my sense of cultural identity. We are English-speakers and proud of it.

The system has tried, since the foundation of the state to make children ashamed for not speaking Irish and to elevate Irish-speakers as somehow culturally superior to the rest of us.

Can you imagine the resentment that causes?

If you could, then you would understand why we don't speak Irish.

Oakboy · 19-09-2013 09:35PM

Garzard wrote: »

For me personally it was because Irish has no relevance in this day and age, coupled with the fact that it was a always taught terribly and a dull subject. Having it compulsory also made me resent it hugely - I never wanted to learn it from the start.

I note, once again, that the usual anti-Irish bigots have thanked this post. Amazing, the chip that is on their shoulder over something that has no relevance to them. But then again it is part of their "culchurrrr" to hate everything and anything Irish.

Iwasfrozen · 19-09-2013 09:45PM

Oakboy wrote: »

I note, once again, that the usual anti-Irish bigots have thanked this post. Amazing, the chip that is on their shoulder over something that has no relevance to them. But then again it is part of their "culchurrrr" to hate everything and anything Irish.

It has everything to do with us.

We had to learn something we didn't like in school and being denied more valuable subjects.
Our kids and/or future kids will have to/had to learn the language in school without any input from us.
We are inconvenience by Irish signs for example on the road or on the Dart
And worst of all our taxpayers money is going towards this cultural farce.

But you know if it wasn't for 1 and 2 I actually wouldn't care about 3 and 4 very much.

Carlos Orange · 19-09-2013 10:11PM

Oakboy wrote: »

I note, once again, that the usual anti-Irish bigots have thanked this post. Amazing, the chip that is on their shoulder over something that has no relevance to them. But then again it is part of their "culchurrrr" to hate everything and anything Irish.

Did you really just reply to a post from 1583 posts ago and characterise all 211 people who thanked it as bigots?

I'm sure pretty soon we can close this one up and get started on the "Why can nobody speak English?" thread.

19-09-2013 10:44PM

LordSutch wrote: »

I just wonder will Scotland follow the Irish example and make Scots-Gaelic mandatory in all their schools? If they break away from the rest of the UK (independence referendum 2014)

As a nation, Scotland would be divided up between the descendants of mainly Irish & Viking plus others, as such the Scots in the south-east of the country would want nothing to do with Gaelic! In the north-west it'll probably be welcomed with open arms.

Iwasfrozen · 19-09-2013 10:46PM

Deleted User wrote: »

As a nation, Scotland would be divided up between the descendants of Irish & Viking settler, as such the Scots in the south-east of the country would want nothing to do with Gaelic! In the north-west it'll probably be welcomed with open arms.

I doubt it. Most people in Ireland are descended from native Irish and still don't care about Irish gaelic.

Oakboy · 19-09-2013 11:06PM

psinno wrote: »

Did you really just reply to a post from 1583 posts ago and characterise all 211 people who thanked it as bigots?

I'm sure pretty soon we can close this one up and get started on the "Why can nobody speak English?" thread.

Nope, I most certainly did not. Way to read what you want to read. I said the usual bigots thanked it, the bigots were in the midst of the others and these are the unionist bigots who have no interest in Irish culchurrr only so far as to bash all aspects of it as that is all their culchurrr appears to comprise of.

Why can nobody speak Irish?

Comments