Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What's the definition of "White Irish" and "White Other" on ethnicity forms?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    goose2005
    Registered Users Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    Our country is less than 100 years old, so it couldn't refer back beyond that.

    our country is thousands of years old


  • Options
    #33
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    I never find that foreigners care about that as much as Irish people who don’t like the Irish language. If anything they wonder why we don’t teach it better. Why we don’t know it or speak it. Plenty of countries have dual languages, and plenty of those languages are not that useful.

    It’s a constitutional issue btw, nothing to do with the census.
    The kind of person in my example is not a foreigner (born here of Polish parents) but they are not "ethnic Irish" either. In some ways they might be in a similar position to the nordies ie they may or may not be fully invested in all the aspects of Irish culture and language. So that person may well be "an Irish person who hates Irish". To some extent your culture is handed down through your family, and to some extent from the surroundings in the place you are reared.
    I agree mandatory Irish language is a political issue, but any possible political change starts with lobbying, and statistics are used at that stage.


    You'll see a similar process now with divestment of schools from RCC patronage. Census might show that 50% or less families in an area identify as catholics, but 90% of state funded national schools are RC. That spurs a process whereby the local parents are asked what they want to do going forward. But the census results by themselves do not cause a change of patronage. They are only used as a rough guide.


  • Options
    #34
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    recedite wrote: »
    The kind of person in my example is not a foreigner (born here of Polish parents) but they are not "ethnic Irish" either. In some ways they might be in a similar position to the nordies ie they may or may not be fully invested in all the aspects of Irish culture and language. So that person may well be "an Irish person who hates Irish". To some extent your culture is handed down through your family, and to some extent from the surroundings in the place you are reared.
    I agree mandatory Irish language is a political issue, but any possible political change starts with lobbying, and statistics are used at that stage.

    What I am saying is that the immigrants and their descendants are not hostile to Irish, often quite the contrary. Is there any evidence that this is so? Hostility to Irish tends to be one of those cultures that is in fact "handed down through your family", often from people who were pro Empire etc back in the deep past.

    You'll see a similar process now with divestment of schools from RCC patronage. Census might show that 50% or less families in an area identify as catholics, but 90% of state funded national schools are RC. That spurs a process whereby the local parents are asked what they want to do going forward. But the census results by themselves do not cause a change of patronage. They are only used as a rough guide.

    The two are not remotely similar. The latter is for instance a constitutional issue, Irish is an official language. The RCC is not protected by the constitution. So to not get Irish taught in schools you need a constitutional change on the Irish language and theres no political will for that. In fact I never hear of any such hostility really outside the internet.


  • Options
    #35
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    The two are not remotely similar. The latter is for instance a constitutional issue, Irish is an official language. The RCC is not protected by the constitution. So to not get Irish taught in schools you need a constitutional change on the Irish language and theres no political will for that. In fact I never hear of any such hostility really outside the internet.
    In fact both are mentioned in the Constitution.
    Those in favour of public funding of segregated denominational education cited the wording in the Constitution saying the state will "provide for" free primary education as opposed to just "provide" to justify the state subcontracting out education to Christian Brothers and nuns in the past. And even though the public appetite for CB schools has since fallen off a cliff, the religious control of public education is still a dominant force.


    Its not an argument I would buy myself. Nor would I buy the argument that having the Irish language as an official state language translates into a requirement to make it a mandatory subject in the curriculum.


    Even if it did, the constitution can be changed, if it is the will of the people. Which takes us back to lobbying and the use of statistics.


    BTW I don't accept that being against mandatory Irish means I am hater of all things Irish. We have to be realistic, there are schools dropping core subjects like history so they can offer up new subjects like coding. There just is not enough space in the timetable for every subject.

    When you make something mandatory, you are taking away people's choices, which means you are taking away their freedom. That should not be done unless there is a very good reason.


  • Options
    #36
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    recedite wrote: »
    In fact both are mentioned in the Constitution.
    Those in favour of public funding of segregated denominational education cited the wording in the Constitution saying the state will "provide for" free primary education as opposed to just "provide" to justify the state subcontracting out education to Christian Brothers and nuns in the past. And even though the public appetite for CB schools has since fallen off a cliff, the religious control of public education is still a dominant force.

    Thats not mentioning the RC specifically. It can justify government subsidies to some private schools, I suppose. There was a specific reference to the RC until the 70's.

    Its not an argument I would buy myself. Nor would I buy the argument that having the Irish language as an official state language translates into a requirement to make it a mandatory subject in the curriculum.


    Even if it did, the constitution can be changed, if it is the will of the people. Which takes us back to lobbying and the use of statistics.

    The will of the people is expressed through the democratic process not through the census, the fact that people might over-estimate their usage of Irish in the census won't change the constitutional position. You may be right that the teaching of Irish doesn't have to be mandatory but if so then English also would have to be non-mandatory, as both have equal status. How would you feel about some schools only teaching through Arabic?

    BTW I don't accept that being against mandatory Irish means I am hater of all things Irish. We have to be realistic, there are schools dropping core subjects like history so they can offer up new subjects like coding. There just is not enough space in the timetable for every subject.

    When you make something mandatory, you are taking away people's choices, which means you are taking away their freedom. That should not be done unless there is a very good reason.

    Being an official language probably is a good enough reason, as in most countries will teach their official language.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    You may be right that the teaching of Irish doesn't have to be mandatory but if so then English also would have to be non-mandatory, as both have equal status. How would you feel about schools only teaching through Arabic?
    Obviously I would be against mandatory Arabic, unless I lived in a country where Arabic was the normal day to day language, or even the lingua franca. As English is here.


  • Options
    #38
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    recedite wrote: »
    Obviously I would be against mandatory Arabic, unless I lived in a country where Arabic was the normal day to day language, or even the lingua franca. As English is here.

    I’m beginning to think you can’t read. I didn’t say mandatory Arabic.


  • Options
    #39
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    I’m beginning to think you can’t read. I didn’t say mandatory Arabic.
    You said "only teaching through Arabic". That's even worse.

    Whats your point, that English is a foreign language imposed and maintained by a colonial oppressor?
    I think we're done here.


  • Options
    #40
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    recedite wrote: »
    You said "only teaching through Arabic". That's even worse.

    I said some schools teaching only through Arabic. If there are no mandatory or official languages that’s possible. My guess is you want to keep one official language but not the other, however constitutionally
    Whats your point, that English is a foreign language imposed and maintained by a colonial oppressor?
    I think we're done here.

    I’m not. First please do not engage in strawman arguments. I never said anything about English, and I am not a gaelgoir.

    Secondly you are leaving because you’ve been fairly rigorously schooled on the constitutionality of removing the Irish language from schools.


  • Options
    #41
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    You may be right that the teaching of Irish doesn't have to be mandatory but if so then English also would have to be non-mandatory, as both have equal status.
    I don't think that follows.
    A subject is made mandatory because it is deemed an important knowledge asset in life, not because it has a particular constitutional status. Maths is mandatory, but where does it get that status from? Simply because it is deemed to be an important thing to know.



    Having said that, I could imagine lawyers lining up on both sides of the argument, just like they have done in the "provides for" wording as mentioned earlier. Once that happens, political inertia usually sets in and no changes can occur.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement