Why do you hate Irish?

Eugene Norman · 09-01-2016 09:02PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Shakespeare, Yeats, Shelley, etc are not very useful to anyone in the modern workplace, no doubt. So you'd ask why are they taught? For a similar reason Irish is taught, cultural reasons. And a couple other subjects.

Some people believe students should be well rounded when they leave school. Others believe they should be trained robots designed to fit into a workplace.

Yes. That's my argument. It's important to read the thread you are responding to.

Shep_Dog · 09-01-2016 09:02PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

1) if you want practically useful language you just need business language English. Thats what is taught in,say Holland. Therefore the argument about usefulness is pointless.

English is our native language, it's natural to be taught about its literary richness. In Holland, English is not their native language.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

2) you've repeated your logical fallacy. You need to explain why Irish language teaching is a myth or based on "faith". Work into your answer the revival of Hebrew.

Compulsory Irish language teaching derives from the 'Gaelic Revival' a cultural redefinition of Irishness created in the 19th century which was used by the nationalist political movement. It whipped up public fervour to reinstate the mythical former greatness of a Utopian Celtic society, culturally and morally superior to the English. Irish people accepted these myths as a matter of faith. However, while they supported secession from the UK, they stopped short when it came to reinstating Irish as our common language as they found English to be quite acceptable for that purpose.

Hebrew was revived as it unified Jews who spoke different languages and they thought it was a good idea.

Eugene Norman · 09-01-2016 09:12PM

Shep_Dog wrote: »

English is our native language, it's natural to be taught about its literary richness. In Holland, English is not their native language.

No it's not. The native language of Ireland is Irish. English came from England. English is also not the native language of India, or the Iroquois or the First Nations of Canada even if that is the most common language now amongst these peoples. Not that English isn't also a part of Irish history but nobody is trying to ban it. ( If the Dutch did replace Dutch with English would a future Dutch man say English was the native language of Holland? I doubt it)

Irish language teaching derives from the 'Gaelic Revival' a cultural redefinition of Irishness created in the 19th century which was used by the nationalist political movement. It whipped up public fervour to reinstate the mythical former greatness of a Utopian Celtic society, culturally and morally superior to the English. Irish people accepted these myths as a matter of faith. However, while they supported secession from the UK, they stopped short when it came to reinstating Irish as our common language as they found English to be quite acceptable for that purpose.

There is no myth. Irish was the actual language of the Irish before English The Gaelic revivalists, unlike modern English language supremicists, didn't want to ban English but to revive Irish in parallel, which is a good deal more liberal than the "leave Irish die" fanatics. And while some Irish language revivalists might have felt culturally superior to England, by and large the English felt culturally superior to the 25% of the world they were oppressing at the time. All anti-imperial movements tried to revive whatever parts of their culture that were salvageable after years of suppression.

Iwasfrozen · 09-01-2016 09:12PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Because that's not education. It's training.

Education in programming, statistics, mathematics, finance and economics are not education? Says who? How well versed are you in the above sciences?

Eugene Norman · 09-01-2016 09:19PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Education in programming, statistics, mathematics, finance and economics are not education? Says who? How well versed are you in the above sciences?

My degree is in physics.

I didn't say I oppose practical training though, but that I believe in teaching what people like you describe as "useless subjects". And, in fact, for most people programming, statistics, mathematics (beyond arithmetic) and finance are not useful unless you end up in related jobs ( for which we have vocational degrees).

but teach them all and teach Shakespeare, and history and "useless languages", and Latin. And history. And irish. Education to the age of 18 should be broad and humanist.

That's education.

Iwasfrozen · 09-01-2016 10:10PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

My degree is in physics.

I didn't say I oppose practical training though, but that I believe in teaching what people like you describe as "useless subjects". And, in fact, for most people programming, statistics, mathematics (beyond arithmetic) and finance are not useful unless you end up in related jobs ( for which we have vocational degrees).

but teach them all and teach Shakespeare, and history and "useless languages", and Latin. And history. And irish. Education to the age of 18 should be broad and humanist.

That's education.

Surely then all subjects should be optional and students can tailor the form of education preferable to themselves?

It doesn't make sense to avoid teaching economics because it's "useless" then teach Shakespear because it is.

Shep_Dog · 09-01-2016 10:15PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

No it's not. The native language of Ireland is Irish.

Irish was an aboriginal language of some people in Ireland. In the present, English is the first language of almost everyone born here and therefore their native language.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

There is no myth. Irish was the actual language of the Irish before English

That was true at a point the past, chosed to represent our mythical Celtic 'civilisation', although other languages were spoken here before Irish. We are now in the present. The 'myth' is the utopian representation of past Irish culture depicted by the Gaelic Revival.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The Gaelic revivalists, unlike modern English language supremicists, didn't want to ban English but to revive Irish in parallel, .

They want to 'reinstate Irish as the common langauge of Ireland'. That's what it says in their mission statement. Firstly, 'reinstate' means they want to bring things back to the the past situation, as you say, when 'Irish was the actual language of the Irish before English'. Then, considering that English is presently our common language, this means replacing English with Irish as our common language. That is their true intent and you'll find it in their consititution and on their web site. Biliingualisim is not mentioned at all in their constitution.

The talk of bilingualism and parallism is just a smokescreen to cover the transitional state before they reinstate the splendid isolated paradise of the original Irish-speaking Celtic Ireland. A kind of Irish-speaking North Korea, but without the H-bomb.

LordSutch · 09-01-2016 10:32PM

Shep_Dog wrote: »

The talk of bilingualism and parallism is just a smokescreen to cover the transitional state before they reinstate the splendid isolated paradise of the original Irish-speaking Celtic Ireland. A kind of Irish-speaking North Korea, but without the H-bomb.

Brilliant

Kiwi in IE · 09-01-2016 10:38PM

The only problem I have with it is that it's compulsory in secondary school and as a leaving cert subject. I have no problem with it being taught as is in primary school, it's a great way to ensure that there is basic knowledge and awareness of the language. However results in primary school will have no impact on third level opportunities and future career options. Not the case for leaving cert, and the fact is that some people simply have no aptitude for, or interest in, learning languages other than their first language. By secondary school most people will have worked out if this is the case or not. Irish bring compulsory at leaving cert level is simply ridiculous.

Maori is part of the primary school curriculum in NZ also, but in high school where subjects and results become more important it is optional.

deepesthole · 09-01-2016 11:09PM

Shep_Dog wrote: »

A kind of Irish-speaking North Korea, but without the H-bomb.

Shouldn't that be a séimhiú-bomb?
I'll get my cota.

deepesthole · 09-01-2016 11:12PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The English language supremicists are quite enraged , however at the mere existence of a non dominant non "useful" language.

I'm sure they are.
Now, where are these "English language supremicists" (well done if that's a deliberate typo BTW!) of which you speak? Pretty much everybody so far has said: Irish? Fine, just don't force us to speak it. You're just strawmanning really.

Wibbs · 09-01-2016 11:19PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

No it's not. The native language of Ireland was Irish.

FYP. Only the most blinkered could believe it still is. English has been heard in early forms in Ireland for what? 600 plus years? Norman French too. Norse for a time(and IIRC a small community of some Dutch type language in the Waterford neck of the woods?). Irish itself while in Ireland for far longer is itself an "import"(as it is in Scotland). It would have arrived in a similar way to English later on. How "native" and "pure" do you want to get? How good is your Old Irish or Bardic Irish? Modern Irish isn't far off the age of modern easily understood English, around the 16th/17th century.

Irish was the actual language of the Irish before English

If you're an actual fluent speaker of Irish today, you'd be hard pressed to understand the Irish language that was here before English showed up. At best it would be like Chaucer in the original spelling and text for a modern English speaker.

Basically, at what point does a time limit(and logic) come in when it comes to deshackling the political and cultural from a language? IMH the very name of the now native language of the country is the major sticking point; English. For obvious and bloody good reasons as their ruling classes and their vassals were right cnuts to us. Hell, as I pointed out earlier they were cnuts to their own*.

Still, time to build a bloody bridge at this stage. Preserve the language where it is wanted, sure, but take it away from it's rural, parochial political twee pigeonhole and deluded BS. Then it might actually have a decent future, because leaving it in the hands of the pseuds with a chip on their cultural shoulder has done it no favours, as history has shown.

deepesthole wrote:

You're just strawmanning really.

Yep. All too common with the Gaeilgeoiri. I've met precious few in my life who didn't pull that kinda thing.

*TBH what has long fascinated me is why the ordinary English people themselves didn't rise up and burn the inbred chinless wonders out of their stately homes for the parasites they were/are. It's truly bloody beyond me. Now Cromwell may have a terrible rep in this neck of the woods, but he had the right bloody idea in his native land. They got soooo close to getting a republic and then later when the French broke out the chopping block they could have followed their lead. Or when the Yanks went "eh no.." But they didn't. I suppose culturally they were so controlled and they came up with a very English compromise, by keeping the trappings of Kings and crap(we need eejits to open things), while removing political power(to a point) and having a government. Practical I suppose, lowers the need for mass beheadings. The French, being French… :-)

Baggy Trousers · 09-01-2016 11:32PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Hmm let me see...because I basically think American and UK culture is basically sh*t?

Kim Kardashian is the major US cultural figure of our time FFS, certainly the person most young Irish people would be familiar with. And a lot of similar people.

Geordie Shore etc, that pretty much sums up much of UK culture.

So yes, I'd like something different to that thank you.

Does a knowledge of Irish keep you immune from all that?

Excessive nationalism is one of many examples of collective narcissism, where the citizens possess an inflated self-love of "their own people," to the exclusion of other human beings, who are equally worthy of having the basic respect which must be afforded to all people.

Kiwi in IE · 09-01-2016 11:34PM

Wibbs wrote: »

IMH the very name of the now native language of the country is the major sticking point; English.

The Americans seem to have solved this problem for themselves. I was on holiday in Italy a few years back and an American asked me where I was from. I told her New Zealand, she gave me an amazed look and asked "Y'all speak American in Austraaaaalia?".

sdanseo · 09-01-2016 11:39PM

The only thing I hate about Gaeilge is the ridiculous way that schools pretend to teach it. In my experience, honours Irish was for the prize few, with no attempt to keep those who genuinely liked it but wanted to study it at honours level at that level. Farmed off to the pass class, where the teacher cared less about the class than her game of tennis that evening, and where learn by rote became a monotonous torture that was below most of us.

If it was taught properly, people would like it more.

Oddly, as well, my éíóú work using AltGr but a doesn't - otherwise I'd have posted a line or so rather than these cúpla focialí. Any ideas?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 09-01-2016 11:50PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

My degree is in physics.

I didn't say I oppose practical training though, but that I believe in teaching what people like you describe as "useless subjects". And, in fact, for most people programming, statistics, mathematics (beyond arithmetic) and finance are not useful unless you end up in related jobs ( for which we have vocational degrees).

but teach them all and teach Shakespeare, and history and "useless languages", and Latin. And history. And irish. Education to the age of 18 should be broad and humanist.

That's education.

There has to be a blend. Lifeskills and interests.

Lifeskills - English and Maths up to Junior Cert, probably Science.
Interests - Everything else including Irish. At this point, you can not force an interest on a student.

But again - the idea that Irish is compulsory because Shakepseare or quadratic equations are compulsory isn't really helping anyone and has a very obvious solution.

Shep_Dog · 10-01-2016 05:34AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Maori is part of the primary school curriculum in NZ also, but in high school where subjects and results become more important it is optional.

Do they teach Maori in all primary schools in the same way as Irish is imposed here? My understanding is that it's optional and that various levels of intensity are tolerated by their education system, from full immersion, to cultural appreciation lessons to none.

Sleepy · 11-01-2016 01:39PM

Hotei wrote: »

That sounds like BS! I'd say you pondered moving for other reasons, and not because your kids were being taught Irish.

Nope, I remember suffering through the subject myself and thought it'd be nice to save my children from having to go through it.

Dughorm wrote: »

I wouldn't think so - I would say the poster is being sincere given his/her irrational attitude to the language displayed in the previous post.

What's irrational about my attitude to Irish? I dislike it as a language. I resent that I was forced to spend so many hours studying it when I had no interest in, or need for, the subject. Seems a perfectly rational attitude to me.

Dughorm wrote: »

I don't agree with your logic here. But it's ironic that using that same logic your post becomes an argument for retaining compulsory Irish! By having that "wasted" time you developed those tetris skills to build your career.... Imagine how good your tetris skills would have been had you taken the same attitude to your English class the Department of Education subjected you to!

LOL, pathetic attempt to use my own argument against me there.

English was a subject I enjoyed and would have selected even if it were optional. It's also one that has benefited me greatly in my career as pretty much every professional career will list "oral and written communication skills" in the job spec. Studying literature helps develop those skills.

If that is your criteria for education then we can never agree! I have never used trigonometry, French or Shakespeare in mine and yet I'm glad I studied them!

Your "global" definition of useful is wrong - it might not be useful to you - any historian would find studying Latin or Classics very useful as an example. Just because something fits a random criteria for usefulness is not a good reason for a subject to be a core subject in my opinion.

Of course it's not necessary for a subject to be useful in order to make it worthy of study. I think it's a fair criteria for mandatory subjects however. We all have different strengths and weaknesses and beyond those core subjects without which we would be preventing future avenues of education, I see no value to forcing everyone to learn the same subjects.

As you say these are your opinions, I have others already expressed, that's why we have a constitution and democracy!

That's an easy statement to make when your opinion represents the status quo. If you had any courage in the validity of your opinion that Irish is a subject worthy of study, however, you'd have no problem with it being optional. As surely, if something is worthy of study, there'll be no shortage of people studying it.

robinmgp · 11-01-2016 05:27PM

whatismyname wrote: »

I don't....?

That is atleast 65 people (whatismyname and the thanks on that post) who have clicked on [Why do you hate Irish?] Even though they like Irish! Stick to the threads you feel comfortable in

Brendan97 · 11-01-2016 05:33PM

I dislike it because the only purpose it serves is to teach other people, it wouldn't be missed much if it was made optional or even got rid of altogether

thattequilagirl · 11-01-2016 05:35PM

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Do they teach Maori in all primary schools in the same way as Irish is imposed here? My understanding is that it's optional and that various levels of intensity are tolerated by their education system, from full immersion, to cultural appreciation lessons to none.

All subjects in primary school are "imposed" - Irish isn't any different. Given the cultural significance of the language and the neurological benefits of being bilingual, I don't see why anyone would object to that. To me, the imposition of Catholicism as a subject in schools is a much bigger problem.

I believe the way Irish is being taught is also changing - children in their first two years only learn orally and writing/grammar doesn't start until first class (I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think it's right)

Sleepy · 11-01-2016 05:53PM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

All subjects in primary school are "imposed" - Irish isn't any different. Given the cultural significance of the language and the neurological benefits of being bilingual, I don't see why anyone would object to that. To me, the imposition of Catholicism as a subject in schools is a much bigger problem.

The neurological benefits of being bilingual would be as easily met through learning a foreign language - and would benefit from the possibility of the child holidaying somewhere that the language is spoken e.g. Spain / France and, as much as the idea seems to upset some of the posters in this thread might actually be of some use to them in later life.

I grew up in a region that was technically Gaeltacht, a couple of neighbours used to scam claim the grant and still, you wouldn't have heard Irish spoken outside of the classroom.

It's simply not of any cultural significance to the majority of us. The most common cultural legacy of Irish being taught in our schools is a shared hatred for an old woman from the Blasket Islands.

I'd agree with you fully on the matter of religion in the classroom though. It's the antithesis of education: indoctrination.

Dughorm · 11-01-2016 07:28PM

Sleepy wrote: »

What's irrational about my attitude to Irish? I dislike it as a language. I resent that I was forced to spend so many hours studying it when I had no interest in, or need for, the subject. Seems a perfectly rational attitude to me.

The fact that you would go out of your way to keep your children away from the language would be one indicator....

Sleepy wrote: »

LOL, pathetic attempt to use my own argument against me there.

All I did was mirror your argument back to you - remember you told me my argument was a reason for optional Irish and I showed you how your argument was a reason for mandatory Irish

Sleepy wrote: »

English was a subject I enjoyed and would have selected even if it were optional. It's also one that has benefited me greatly in my career as pretty much every professional career will list "oral and written communication skills" in the job spec. Studying literature helps develop those skills.

So does History, Geography, Business, Home Economics and many other subjects - there is nothing in English Literature that specifically develops professional "oral and written communication skills".

The key factor here is that you happen to like English as a subject. I studied subjects I had no interest in and did well in them because I didn't have an attitude to them.

Sleepy wrote: »

Of course it's not necessary for a subject to be useful in order to make it worthy of study. I think it's a fair criteria for mandatory subjects however.

In which case we should all study Business because anyone needs to be able to read their ESB bill and might start a business some day... No, I think cultural reasons and the core elements of a liberal education are better criteria.

Sleepy wrote: »

If you had any courage in the validity of your opinion that Irish is a subject worthy of study, however, you'd have no problem with it being optional. As surely, if something is worthy of study, there'll be no shortage of people studying it.

I don't think your suggestion that "if something is worthy of study, there'll be no shortage of people studying it" is remotely realistic and I think you know this. Given the points race people do not choose subjects like Classics, Ancient Latin, Greek, Applied Maths etc.. because they are perceived as difficult even though they are very worthy of study.

Your argument also flies in the face of the bonus points given for HL maths. Why is there a shortage if it is "something... worthy of study"? Despite the incentive, more do HL Irish than HL Maths - what does that say using your logic? Is HL Irish more worthy of study?

Shep_Dog · 11-01-2016 07:34PM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

All subjects in primary school are "imposed" - Irish isn't any different. Given the cultural significance of the language and the neurological benefits of being bilingual,

The Irish language has very little cultural significance for most Irish children and, they're more likely to motivated to learn a real living language used by one of the great nations of the world.

I don't suggest removing Irish from the curriculum, but, for most, one hour a week would be appropriate. They could be taught about the culture of Gaeltacht-dwellers and they could learn the few phrases they'll need to impress their foreign friends.

Dughorm · 11-01-2016 07:36PM

Shep_Dog wrote: »

The Irish language has very little cultural significance for most Irish children and, they're more likely to motivated to learn a real living language used by one of the great nations of the world.

Surely children will be more likely to be motivated to learn whatever is presented to them in a fun and attractive manner?

By suggesting to children that Irish is not a "real living language" all you are teaching them is prejudice.

deepesthole · 11-01-2016 08:58PM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Given the cultural significance of the language to me

FTFY.

thattequilagirl wrote: »

and the neurological benefits of being bilingual,

Any language will do. In fact, much better to learn something as unfamiliar as possible such as Russian, Arabic or Chinese.

Shep_Dog · 11-01-2016 09:01PM

Dughorm wrote: »

Surely children will be more likely to be motivated to learn whatever is presented to them in a fun and attractive manner?

Irish can never be 'fun' or 'attractive', it's a language of misery and oppression. If you make it 'fun' and 'attractive' it wouldn't be Irish any more.

Dughorm wrote: »

By suggesting to children that Irish is not a "real living language" all you are teaching them is prejudice.

Who would need to tell them that? They'll figure it it out for themselves when they go on holidays. Compared, for example, to Englsih, Polish or Spanish, Irish is not a real or living language.

Shurimgreat · 11-01-2016 09:14PM

Thankfully there are some mature, responsible people who believe a key part of our heritage and cultural identity should be preserved and passed on through the education system. Yes some people may not like Irish, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught. If we were to cut out parts of the education system that seem to have no relevance to creating future workplace robots, we'd probably have to cut out 75% and particularly works by Shakespeare, Keats, Shelly, John Donne and so on. Come to think of it, why teach Jane Austin either, I mean what relevance has 19th century English literature to modern times? I'm sure there's plenty more perceived irrelevant cultural aspects we could cut out. Most of Irish history is irrelevant too as are myths like CuChulainn and Fionn McChomhail.

And Patrick Kavanagh, surely tales about rural life in the early 20th century have even less relevance. Maybe we should just teach Maths, English and a couple other subjects. That would make some people happy.

Shurimgreat · 11-01-2016 09:17PM

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Irish can never be 'fun' or 'attractive', it's a language of misery and oppression. If you make it 'fun' and 'attractive' it wouldn't be Irish any more.

Who would need to tell them that? They'll figure it it out for themselves when they go on holidays. Compared, for example, to Englsih, Polish or Spanish, Irish is not a real or living language.

Where do you come up with this nonsense? Of all the reasons not to learn Irish this is the most bizarre and farcical. Clearly you haven't watched Ros Na Run by the way!

Shurimgreat · 11-01-2016 09:19PM

deepesthole wrote: »

FTFY.
Any language will do. In fact, much better to learn something as unfamiliar as possible such as Russian, Arabic or Chinese.

Are you for real? Why not just teach them the language of their ancestors?

Is there anything else of our ancestry and culture you'd like to do away with? St. Patricks day maybe?

Why do you hate Irish?

Comments