08.03.06
Can we do without Irish?
Since the Richard thing is still going around in my head I read his original post today. It is actually quite thought provoking although I’d have to think a bit more where I come down on it (to be honest, while I find all terribly quaint and romantic to hear Irish spoken it is a big fat waste of money using up so much educational time on it with such pathetic results). Anyway, parts of the post, like this:
“The conflating of Irish language and Irish heritage traps us in the idea that the oldest most primitive forms of heritage on this island are somehow the authentic ones. They’re of marginal value only, but no more. The great contributions of Irishmen and women were almost uniformly made through English or in the greater traditions of Western civilization.”
reminded me of this column I read in The Irish Times last week. Some quotes:
“Barry Raftery, professor of Celtic archaeology at University College Dublin, admits an enormous problem in justifying his subject: there is no archaeological evidence for a Celtic invasion of Ireland. Squaring that awkward fact with loose talk of a Celtic Tiger, Celtic crosses, Celtic soul, Celtic rock and Celtic art is a difficult task for contemporary cultural understanding as well as for archaeological theorising…..
But Cunliffe cautions against “two comfortable old myths”. The first is that that there was a “coming of the Celts” – either to Britain or Ireland. The assumption that culture must arise from invasions comes from mindsets laid down during the 18th and 19th centuries, when imperial and colonial experience, together with the dominance of classical studies within the educational system, saw invasion and colonisation as the sole begetters of change. “Invasionism” has since given way to a diffusionism based on economic, migratory and cultural communication as the best way to explain these commonalities. The second myth is that there was a pan-Celtic Europe counterposed to the dominant Mediterranean Greek and Roman cultures at the time. That there might have been such a commonly recognised civilisation arises from the way in which the classicals’ use of the word Celts to describe peripheral barbarians was taken up by philologists studying European languages, also in the 18th and 19th centuries. They classified them into a single family tree of Indo-European languages.
The Celtic languages were finally included in this schema in the 1830s and 1840s, coinciding with the development of nationalist ideologies here and elsewhere in Europe. The habit of inferring racial characteristics from language use comes from then and was freely drawn on by Irish nationalism and its antagonists over the next hundred years. While Matthew Arnold counterposed Celtic creativity and imagination to its lack of capacity for self-government in an uncompromising unionism, nationalists from Devoy to Pearse made Celt and Gael synonymous, creating a binary counterposed to the Anglo-Saxon Gall or foreigner in their demands for independence.
As Vincent Comerford writes in his illuminating study of how Ireland was invented (Arnold 2003), “the same tendentious and frequently self-contradictory ‘essentialising’ process was being applied or had been applied to other nationalities, so that by the early 20th century, Europe was awash with rhetoric implying that each nationality had its own distinctive ‘nature’, a condition generally conveyed by the term ‘race’….
..Comerford points out that “nowhere is nation-invention more in evidence than in the matter of origins”. It can be a political minefield. Furious accusations of post-colonial anglocentricity greeted the publication in 1999 of Simon James’s The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention (Firebird). It argued that they are a recent and bogus invention, since no one in Britain or Ireland called themselves Celtic before 1700 and the notion that they were so arose from the early 18th century scholar Edward Lhuyd’s coining of the word from his comparative study of Irish, Welsh, Cornish and Breton.
James says it is folly to see such new perspectives as an English imperialist attempt to divide and rule a devolving Britain. Rather is it a “post-colonial emphasis on multiculturalism and the celebration of difference between cultures”.
Richard Waghorne said,
August 3, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Sarah,
That’s a very thoughtful and informative post, more so, I dare say, than my original. I confess I’d missed that column and I’m glad to see it. There was a discussion in the common room in UCD on Tuesday about this sort of thing actually. (Academics like to pretend they don’t read the Sunday Independent, but I don’t think they’re fooling anyone.) I gather that there’s quite a bit more work along those lines on its way, though it’s well beyond my competence to judge the detail of linguistic lineage and that sort of thing. What’s struck me reading your post and from Tuesday was the thought that perhaps our linguistic and cultural narratives might be about to undergo the sort of revision that happened in history departments a generation or so ago. Irish Studies, in particular, is an absolute political minefield already and I know that more than a few people think it could suffer an injection of outside scepticism towards some of the political and philosophical premises.
None of this has much if anything to do with my piece admittedly, which was a rough ten minute job before lunch one day, but it’s interesting to imagine the lie of the land intellectually if some of the people you mention above would be able to reframe some of the debates.
Gavin Mendel-Gleason said,
August 3, 2006 at 12:45 pm
I’m really glad you wrote this article as I think the effect of the “invasion of the celts” is something that historically has not been looked at with enough skepticism.
On the linguistic front, we know that there are features that are unique to goidelic and brythonic languages and much of its syntax is not very indo-european. On the cultural front, much of what we concider to be Celtic culture is actually extrapolated from ireland since ireland is the only “celtic” culture that had an extensive historical literature.
However whether or not Irish is something that is intrinsic to the Irish people historically should be disregarded in the discourse about the Irish language. The fact is that most Irish people associate the language with their heritage and most people (some 70%) would like their children to be fluent. It is a marker of identity and in so far as it is, it is culturally very important irrespective of archeological and historic findings.
“to be honest, while I find all terribly quaint and romantic to hear Irish spoken it is a big fat waste of money using up so much educational time on it with such pathetic results”
While I agree that it is a big fat waste of money to get such pathetic results I think we need to ask why the results are so pathetic. There are many countries in which foreign languages are taught over similar time periods ( 12 or so years ) where the results are *not* pathetic.
Richard Waghorne said,
August 3, 2006 at 1:04 pm
“However whether or not Irish is something that is intrinsic to the Irish people historically should be disregarded in the discourse about the Irish language. The fact is that most Irish people associate the language with their heritage and most people (some 70%) would like their children to be fluent. It is a marker of identity and in so far as it is, it is culturally very important irrespective of archeological and historic findings.”
That’s a fair point. My question would be what metrics are most appropriate. There’s an arguable distinction between a desire to be fluent or for your children to be fluent and actually feeling strongly enough to do something to realise either. For instance, I expect most parents, presumably no less than 70%, would want their children to be fluent in a continental language.
What makes me wonder how committed the country actually is to reviving the language in any meaningfull sense is the fact that it’s a fairly small minority who feel strongly enough to go the extra mile, like speaking it while out and about or in the home. They’re out there certainly, but they’d be less than seventy percent. And there seems to be a bit of projection at work. Parents are glad for their children to pick up the cupla focail, but I’d say it’s a fair bet there are roughly as many adults at the Alliance or the Goethe Institute of learning continental languages in the evening that there are people learning Irish. Again, it’s not that it isn’t happening, it’s just that when it come to deciding how to spend time and money far fewer people follow through on their expressed desire than pollsters might suggest.
By the way, I do think it’s important to discern the centrality of marginality of Irish in our history and culture. If it’s possible to be well appraised of our historical and cultural achievements, first hand or as close as possible, without needing Irish (as I’d suggest it is), then it makes me wonder whether the language, far from being the key to our heritage, sidelines much of it. Or rather, as the language itself is neutral, whether perhaps those approaching Irish history and culture with the assumption that the real stuff happened in Irish are missing much of what they’re trying to recover.
Billy Waters said,
August 3, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Irish died on the table. It is a beautiful language but it isn’t taught as culture but as punishment and in a torturous manner. I lived the Gaeltacht and French College but whe I got back to school Peig was still running around being an aul wan.
It isn’t the lingua franca of the people and it has no use apart from lamenting the loss of it.
More people speak Polish or Chinese than speak Irish as a mother tongue in Ireland.
Irish RIP. Rise If Possible.
Keith Gaughan said,
August 3, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Hi, Sarah. I was one of those who already responded to Richard’s piece, writing what I thought was a well reasoned and fair rebuttal of his original post. Linguistics is something of a hobby of mine, and has been for the past ten years, and though my degree is in computer science, I seriously contemplated studying linguistics instead. When you’ve a hobby like that, you tend to pick up a thing or two. I’ll deal with points as they come up
Barry Raftery, professor of Celtic archaeology at University College Dublin, admits an enormous problem in justifying his subject: there is no archaeological evidence for a Celtic invasion of Ireland.
That’s true. Very true. But the concepts of the Celts as a nation was accepted as troublesome from the start.
Firstly, none of the peoples bundled under that label ever used it to describe themselves.
Secondly, it implies some kind of political unity that never existed: I’m pretty sick of the fanciful notions some people come out with of a “Celtic Empire” stretching from Ireland in the west to Galicia in the East. However, the archeological record does support a cultural and linguistic continuum stretching across Europe. The reason *why* this exists and why this is relevant in the Irish case I’ll come to in a bit.
Thirdly, an invasion implies vast numbers, but genetics confirm that. Instead what you find is that the genetic substrate of this island is mostly pre-Indo-European (like the Basques and Saami). On the other hand, Gaelic is very much and Indo-European language, so how did a bunch of non-Indo-European people end up speaking an Indo-European language?
It’s simple. What’s commonly referred to as “Celtic” was a cultural continuum, similar to what we have today in the West: lots of people with diverse genetic backgrounds who, over time, picked up cultural and linguistic artifacts from their neighbours: it was an invasion of memes, not of people. The same thing is thought to have happened in Ireland: a small number of Gaels left Europe and travelled to Ireland, and their culture and language propagated throughtout the island over time.
Fourthly, remember that this is about Gaelic culture, not Celtic culture. Unlike Celtic culture, we’ve a pretty good handle on the origins of Gaelic culture at this point. Bringing in anything celtic only helps to muddy the waters.
They classified them into a single family tree of Indo-European languages.
And to some extent, they were correct, and in some cases not. In the case of the modern Goidelic and Brythonic language, it worked, and worked quite well.
Where I took umbrage with the particular paragraph of Richard’s you quote is with his use of the term “primitive” and with the sentence “The great contributions of Irishmen and women were almost uniformly made through English or in the greater traditions of Western civilization.” The former implies a preconception of Irish gaelic culture that’s borne out in the latter statement, which itself implies a distinct lack of familiarity with anything written, composed or created in this country before 1840, as many, myself included, pointed out.
It’s also not nice having things you love tossed aside like that.
To respond so some of Gavin’s comments:
On the linguistic front, we know that there are features that are unique to goidelic and brythonic languages and much of its syntax is not very indo-european.
I’m a bit puzzled as to where you’re coming from. Many of the features peculiar to Irish, for example, came about between the Ancient Irish and Old Irish period. What particular features are you talking about?
On the cultural front, much of what we concider to be Celtic culture is actually extrapolated from ireland since ireland is the only “celtic” culture that had an extensive historical literature.
I don’t think you’re really giving archeologists enough credit here. Initially, when the Celtic theory was first put forward, yes, the extensive body of Irish (and Welsh, and Gaulish, but especially Irish) was used. But that’s akin to comparing drilling holes in a patient’s skull with modern-day brain surgery. But it did profit to some extent: we’re as sure as one can be that culturally and linguistically we’ve a lot in common with the Gauls, but we’re less sure about the likes of Celtiberian and others.
It is a marker of identity and in so far as it is, it is culturally very important irrespective of archeological and historic findings.
Very true: your culture is whatever you and those around you want it to be. So long as something is held by enough people as an integral part of their cultural heritage, it’s part of their cultural heritage.
While I agree that it is a big fat waste of money to get such pathetic results I think we need to ask why the results are so pathetic.
We all know the problem: a language needs to be spoken to be understood. Once you’re comfortable expressing yourself in it, you can learn the minutae of roughly how it works. I learned French that way, and I picked up a fair bit of Spanish that way too. Irish, on the other hand, it taught precisely backwards. It’s taught the way Latin used to be taught, and I’ve a sneaking suspicion that it way because of Latin. Of course, focusing in on details rather than giving people the big picture first is hardly a way to endear somebody to something. Is it any wonder the traditional methods have failed, and that gaelscoileanna, which teach the language the right way finally work?
Keith Gaughan said,
August 3, 2006 at 2:54 pm
@Richard:
What makes me wonder how committed the country actually is to reviving the language in any meaningfull sense is the fact that it’s a fairly small minority who feel strongly enough to go the extra mile, like speaking it while out and about or in the home. They’re out there certainly, but they’d be less than seventy percent.
The reason people don’t go the extra mile is the same reason why don’t exercise or eat healthily: people rationalise that it’s ok to do it this once and they can always do it right tomorrow. Only that tomorrow never comes. It’s the same reason why people don’t know their neighbours all that well or really think of who they’re voting for, and so on.
You and I are exceptions to this rule to some extent. We both take the time to think about these things. But most people feel they have neither the time nor the luxury to do so.
And there seems to be a bit of projection at work.
There always is. My family on my father’s side was dirt poor, but well respected as hard workers and good people. When my father’s siblings had children, they made sure their children got the chance they never did. None of us were coddled, but we were given whatever chances our parents’ could give us, and there’s not one of my extended family poor or doing work they don’t love. That’s projection: it can be good and it can be bad.
Parents are glad for their children to pick up the cupla focail, but I’d say it’s a fair bet there are roughly as many adults at the Alliance or the Goethe Institute of learning continental languages in the evening that there are people learning Irish.
But that’s not so much an argument against the continued support of Irish as it is against a certain kind of laziness.
Again, it’s not that it isn’t happening, it’s just that when it come to deciding how to spend time and money far fewer people follow through on their expressed desire than pollsters might suggest.
The growth in gaelscoileanna runs counter to that.
By the way, I do think it’s important to discern the centrality of marginality of Irish in our history and culture. If it’s possible to be well appraised of our historical and cultural achievements, first hand or as close as possible, without needing Irish (as I’d suggest it is), then it makes me wonder whether the language, far from being the key to our heritage, sidelines much of it.
The same statement could be said about English. The problem with this point of view is that it needlessly disregards cultural works in the Irish langauge, which made up the vast bulk of our cultural output before the mid-19th century. You really can’t be appraised of that without a knowledge of the language they were produced in, as any translator or philologist will tell you.
Or rather, as the language itself is neutral, whether perhaps those approaching Irish history and culture with the assumption that the real stuff happened in Irish are missing much of what they’re trying to recover.
But few hold that opinion. I’m baffled as to where you got it. Disregarding our cultural output in English is equally as foolhardy as doing the same with Irish. Why abandon either?
Keith Gaughan said,
August 3, 2006 at 2:55 pm
More people speak Polish or Chinese than speak Irish as a mother tongue in Ireland.
More people speak Spanish or Mandarin in the world as a whole than English, but you seriously wouldn’t consider that we should abandon English for one of them, would you? I thought not.
brian thomson said,
August 3, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Hi,
I’m a Scot living in Dublin, and I find it interesting to compare the situation in Scotland with that in Ireland. The whole question of “Scottish Studies” doesn’t seem nearly as politicised over there, especially when it comes to language. You need look no further than the Glencoe Massacre (1692), and the Highland Clearances following the last Jacobite rebellion (1745), to know that the Scottish had many reasons to reject anything and everything English, but by the late 18th century the likes of David Hume, Adam Smith, James Watt and Robert Burns were leading by example in British society. Later you had the likes of William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), William Ramsay, and Alexander Fleming keeping up the Scottish involvement in the Industrial Revolution.
I can’t help imagining things could have been very different in Ireland, had the Irish taken as much of a long-term, outward-looking view of things in the 18th century, rather than expending their energy on religious and sectarian conflict, and abortive rebellions (1798, 1803, 1848, 1867… 1916?).
I’ve also wondered about a connection between the Irish language and Catholicism – as a reaction to the “English” Protestantism. How much of a role does religion play in the promotion of the Irish language?
Dave said,
August 3, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Burns were leading by example in British society. Later you had the likes of William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), William Ramsay, and Alexander Fleming keeping up the Scottish involvement in the Industrial Revolution.
I can’t help imagining things could have been very different in Ireland, had the Irish taken as much of a long-term, outward-looking view of things in the 18th century, rather than expending their energy on religious and sectarian conflict, and abortive rebellions (1798, 1803, 1848, 1867… 1916?).
There were plenty of Irish people in that period who made significant contributions to the world of Science and Engineering, Boyle, Boole would be two that spring to mind. They were of course quite ‘Anglo-Irish’ but I’m completely at odds with the idea that we’d be better off if we were like Scotland. I can’t agree at all.
Keith Gaughan said,
August 3, 2006 at 4:22 pm
@Brian: The great difference between Scotland and Ireland is that one ended up in the UK more or less by its own free will, whereas the other was forced in.
The real problem isn’t Catholic vs. Protestant: that’s quite a recent phenomenon, and you only have to look at the shoddy way Irish Presbyterians were up until the end of the 19th century for evidence of that. No, fundamentally the difference is that the Scots were never actually disenfranchised whereas the Irish were. And from that comes much of the Irish rejection of all thing English, even if it’s quite half-hearted these days.
@Dave: You can add Hamilton to that list too, and many others.
Billy Waters said,
August 3, 2006 at 5:51 pm
What is the jackanory with the “would you…thought not” caper?
Abandoning English for another language isn’t possible. But I do think that learning Chinese, bizarro as it sounds would be smarter than learning Irish.
We are from a country who banned sweets from England and tried to make our own cars. Forced Irish is from that era. None of those initiatives worked and we should have the foresight and grace to say we had a national language, for whatever reason it died and what are you lads talking over there lets have a go.
The botched teaching of Irish botched our language skills for more useful languages and limits our interaction with the rest of Europe. Its a red herring to say we should revive it. Its dead. Someone should call it.
Fachtna said,
August 3, 2006 at 5:59 pm
@Brian, look up why Scotland is called Scotland, and why it is they were resided there… Maybe your right there’s a connection with the Roman Catholic influence together with Irish, the teachings of St. Kevin are about love, forgivness,and rewards, and not the selfloathing, retrebutive, damning version as Béarla
@Richard You’re not fooling anyone either
simon said,
August 3, 2006 at 7:39 pm
@ Brian William Thomson was actually from Belfast there is a statue to him next to the physics department of Queens at the entrance to the botanic gardens. whether he wass Irish or Scotish is a politcal question.
Also tyndall explained why the sky was blue, Walton is the only irish winner of the nobel prize for physics. But possibly one of the biggest scientist we have ever produced was possibly Susan Jocelyn Bell. However she didn’t get the noble prize for her work for reasons that may be obvious her supervisor got it instead. http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/whos_who_level2/bell.html
But that is outside the time we are talking. Also outside the topic so I will just duck away now.
EWI said,
August 3, 2006 at 9:04 pm
The whole question of “Scottish Studies” doesn’t seem nearly as politicised over there, especially when it comes to language. You need look no further than the Glencoe Massacre (1692), and the Highland Clearances following the last Jacobite rebellion (1745), to know that the Scottish had many reasons to reject anything and everything English, but by the late 18th century the likes of David Hume, Adam Smith, James Watt and Robert Burns were leading by example in British society. Later you had the likes of William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), William Ramsay, and Alexander Fleming keeping up the Scottish involvement in the Industrial Revolution.
As noted by others (re: Boyle), there’s ‘Irish’ and then there was ‘Irish’. There’s a number of quite different identities subsumed into “Scottish” (even today).
I can’t help imagining things could have been very different in Ireland, had the Irish taken as much of a long-term, outward-looking view of things in the 18th century, rather than expending their energy on religious and sectarian conflict, and abortive rebellions (1798, 1803, 1848, 1867… 1916?).
Not the Irish at fault, there.
I’ve also wondered about a connection between the Irish language and Catholicism – as a reaction to the “English” Protestantism. How much of a role does religion play in the promotion of the Irish language?
None (see: Hyde, or other Protestant Gaelic language activists). There is a maority identity in Ireland which identified itself once upon a time as Gaelic and Catholic, in direct opposition to the Anglophone, Protestant waves of invasion of the middle of the last millenium onwards.
EWI said,
August 3, 2006 at 9:07 pm
The botched teaching of Irish botched our language skills for more useful languages and limits our interaction with the rest of Europe. Its a red herring to say we should revive it. Its dead. Someone should call it.
I agree entirely with this poster that the State has botched it mightily. If it’s to survive, it’s up to the people ourselves to achieve (look at how the Welsh have succeeded in such admirable fashion, without the support of London).
EWI said,
August 3, 2006 at 9:23 pm
Dickie:
What’s struck me reading your post and from Tuesday was the thought that perhaps our linguistic and cultural narratives might be about to undergo the sort of revision that happened in history departments a generation or so ago.
Well, revisionism can be a good thing so long as it’s honest. The new public scepticism towards the edicts of the Roman Catholic Church is welcome as being long overdue, for instance.
By the way, I do think it’s important to discern the centrality of marginality of Irish in our history and culture. If it’s possible to be well appraised of our historical and cultural achievements, first hand or as close as possible, without needing Irish (as I’d suggest it is), then it makes me wonder whether the language, far from being the key to our heritage, sidelines much of it. Or rather, as the language itself is neutral, whether perhaps those approaching Irish history and culture with the assumption that the real stuff happened in Irish are missing much of what they’re trying to recover.
Whereas someone who approaches with the assumption that the only things that ever happened of note in this country occurreed in English is…? Do recall the (possibly apocryphal) tale of the Old English lords of the Pale who had to ask one of their number to translate a missive from the English King into Gaelic for them; and the Statutes of Kilkenny don’t paint a picture of an English tongue that was predestined to gain dominance in this country.
Sarah:
..Comerford points out that “nowhere is nation-invention more in evidence than in the matter of origins”. It can be a political minefield. Furious accusations of post-colonial anglocentricity greeted the publication in 1999 of Simon James’s The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention (Firebird). It argued that they are a recent and bogus invention, since no one in Britain or Ireland called themselves Celtic before 1700 and the notion that they were so arose from the early 18th century scholar Edward Lhuyd’s coining of the word from his comparative study of Irish, Welsh, Cornish and Breton.
Nevertheless, there are strong common linguistic and cultural roots clearly in evidence. Absent a strong central authority, they have as much right to be labelled a ‘people’ as modern Americans. The narrative that “there’s no such person as an Irishman” is just as obnoxious to common sense as notions of racial purity – the answer lies in between, as with most nations we identify today.
EWI said,
August 3, 2006 at 9:24 pm
@Richard You’re not fooling anyone either
Now, now. He hasn’t called anyone a peasant yet in this thread, now has he?
copernicus said,
August 3, 2006 at 11:35 pm
This is classic. Dickie knows he’s gone waaaaay too far and engendered a greater deal of opprobrium and disgust than he realised he’d be able to deal with and is now attempting to come over all sweetness, light and chin-strokingly engaged.
He’ll break out soon enough and pull another of his typical acts of low villainy. Ignore this intellectually disreputable muppet for your own sakes.
brian thomson said,
August 3, 2006 at 11:49 pm
@Fachtna – yes, we know who the Scotti were, but they were only a small addition to an existing population, not a Celtic settlement of an empty country. The Pict and Briton peoples didn’t go away, they were converted and conquered by the Scotti, Anglo-Saxon and Viking invaders. The idea that “Scotland was founded by an Irish tribe” is a fallacy.
@simon “William Thomson was actually from Belfast”… yes, born in Belfast, to a Scots Irish family, educated in Glasgow, and he did his main work in Cambridge and Glasgow. Is where one is from more important than where one is going?
@Keith: “No, fundamentally the difference is that the Scots were never actually disenfranchised whereas the Irish were.”
Eh? Disenfranchisement was exactly what the Highland Clearances (after 1762) were about: no land = no say in the community. It led to mass emigration, starting with Ulster (the “Scots Irish”), later the USA & Canada.
“The great difference between Scotland and Ireland is that one ended up in the UK more or less by its own free will, whereas the other was forced in.”
The Acts of Union (1707) were signed by Scotland under financial duress (to relieve sanctions), and there were more rebellions until 1745, which were punished harshly. Free will?
The fact that Scotland eventually accepted being part of the United Kingdom, despite this mistreatment, is an important point I was trying to make. A few nutters aside, the smart people accepted the political reality, and got on with more important things. (Yes, there are more important things than having “yer own folk” running the government!) Scotland was pretty much left alone, on a local level, by the 19th century, and did well out of the political reforms happening in London.
None of this is intended as criticism of Irish History! It’s all in the past. It’s just interesting to note the differences, and the progress Scotland made after the conflict stopped. We paid a different kind of price for that, but (despite MacDiarmid et al and “Synthetic Scots”) I don’t see the same state-sponsored politicization of culture, especially language – which is the topic here.
EWI said,
August 4, 2006 at 12:20 am
Eh? Disenfranchisement was exactly what the Highland Clearances (after 1762) were about: no land = no say in the community. It led to mass emigration, starting with Ulster (the “Scots Irish”), later the USA & Canada.
Wrong Scots. Lowlanders, not Highlanders.
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
August 4, 2006 at 12:22 am
Billy Waters,
Have you ever, for a moment even, considered that students no longer have to learn ‘Peig’ in school and that your views on the Irish language our out of step with most young people today? Surely not??? For if you were taught Irish badly in school- God know how many years ago- we must all have been??? Your views on the language are pathetic. Get a life!!! Do you ever talk to young people???
EWI said,
August 4, 2006 at 12:31 am
The Pict and Briton peoples didn’t go away, they were converted and conquered by the Scotti, Anglo-Saxon and Viking invaders.
I believe it’s been fairly well established by this stage through DNS testing that whatever else happened to the Britons/Welsh in what is now the English Home Counties, they weren’t “converted”.
EWI said,
August 4, 2006 at 12:32 am
Mar a bhà – DNA testing, of course.
fatmammycat said,
August 4, 2006 at 1:26 am
Ba maith lom ag caint os Gaeilge, and I have no problem to exchange cupla focail with other folk either. To say a huge part of our culture is dead is as tiresome as it is incorrect. Maybe it takes more time and more effort to remember and learn our celtic tongue, but it is not something that should be disregarded. Puedo hablar otro iodmas tambien.
fatmammycat said,
August 4, 2006 at 1:31 am
Possibly minus the r in habler, but like I said I can speak it not write it. No fadaghs either.
simon said,
August 4, 2006 at 9:53 am
Is where one is from more important than where one is going?
a bit of a philosophic question there.
Sarah said,
August 4, 2006 at 10:14 am
good heavens that one took off didn’t it? Much studying of these comments for me to do.
I will make one observation: I think David McWilliams covered very nicely the trend towards the Gaeilscoilleanna – might hunt out a link to his views later. But one thing is clear: where Irish is doing well it is completely independent from any coercive element. Making people learn something that they know has no practical value encourages them to unlearn it. If they choose to learn it there is a much better success rate. I think the Gaeilgoiris should be far less defensive of the compulsory element in the schools. Drop it or give it far less time – maybe one class a week instead of five.
And Darren, take it easy there. We’ve had a rough week in blog land.
I think the Celtic stuff is fascinating – we invented a romantic myth of ourselves. I remember from my History of Legal Studies learning about the similar words in old Irish and Sanskrit.
I think Richard is on the nail when he asks a bit more about that 70% figure. Yeah, they’d “like” their children to be fluent. But you know, I’d like to go to India for 6 months and do yoga and medidate. Maybe in 20 years. Liking something to be the case and be willing to do what it takes to make it happen are completely different things. Waving the 70% figure is not sufficient justification for the ENORMOUS expense in both time and money that goes into shoving Irish down our throats. Speaking Irish is very nice, but its an optional extra, not a core value.
Sarah said,
August 4, 2006 at 10:23 am
one more thing…this business of the Celts…I definitely find favour with this notion of our “celticness” (?) being invented. People accuse religion (or in Mel Gibson’s case the Jews
) of being the cause of wars. But the fact is that nationalism is the cause of the wars. This Celtic business contributed to our nationalism – and from it what appears – is simply fake. They were the Anglo-Saxons so we had to be something else?
tom said,
August 4, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Although splitting everyone up into various groups makes for nice simple history, the reality is presumably much more muddled.
It’s completely anecdotal in a scientific sense but I love the Cheddar Man story – on extracting DNA from a 10,000 year old skeleton found in Cheddar Gorge scientists discover he has living descendants right there in the village. I think this is a useful counterpoint to the usual “Saxons pushing out Britons” story. Genetically, some of them at least weren’t either.
Keith Gaughan said,
August 4, 2006 at 12:26 pm
@Brian: “Eh? Disenfranchisement was exactly what the Highland Clearances (after 1762) were about: no land = no say in the community. It led to mass emigration, starting with Ulster (the “Scots Irish”), later the USA & Canada.”
Yes, and if I remember correctly, that was something the Scots did to themselves. It’s a convenient fiction amongst some in Scotland that it was a form of “ethnic cleansing”, but the landlords doing the clearing were vastly more often than not kin of the cleared.
And as EWI said, the Ulster Scots were originally lowlanders, not highlanders.
“The Acts of Union (1707) were signed by Scotland under financial duress (to relieve sanctions), and there were more rebellions until 1745, which were punished harshly. Free will?”
And ask yourself how Scotland ended up in that position in the first place. Don’t confuse the bailiff with the thief.
@Billy: “Abandoning English for another language isn’t possible.”
It is, it’d just be stupid. And that’s my point. I was pointing out how fatuous your comparison was. Just as there’s little to be gained by “abandoning” Irish for some other language. A language is only really dead if it stops being used, and Irish hasn’t quite reached that point, and the continued existence of Irish is not at the expense of any other language.
I agree though that forced Irish–in fact, forcing any language–was an idiotic public policy and did the language more harm than good. We’ve all experienced that. However, failed and harmful teaching methods are not an indictment against the langauge itself: if, in spite of everything we still hold the language in esteem, it ought to be supported just as any other of the languages spoken here is, without exception.
@Sarah “But one thing is clear: where Irish is doing well it is completely independent from any coercive element.”
And that’s a good thing.
“Making people learn something that they know has no practical value encourages them to unlearn it.”
Now, if fairness: that accusation can be levelled against much of what gets taught at second level. But the great difference is in the teaching methods used.
“I think the Gaeilgoiris should be far less defensive of the compulsory element in the schools. Drop it or give it far less time – maybe one class a week instead of five.”
I agree with the first sentence, but the second’s another case. It and English (and I’d advocated splitting English into Language and Literature) should be treated just the same as any other language at second level.
“we invented a romantic myth of ourselves”
No, we didn’t, but the myth was used by us where it was politically advantageous, and similarly against us.
“This Celtic business contributed to our nationalism – and from it what appears – is simply fake. They were the Anglo-Saxons so we had to be something else?”
As I said, bringing up the whole “Celtic” thing is a bit of a red herring. It’s largely–but not totally–invented as a convenience. But our cultural identity as Gaels, which we share with the Manx and Scots, is another story entirely and far more pertainent.
Sarah said,
August 4, 2006 at 1:25 pm
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
good points.
eoin said,
August 4, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Brian,
After a ten minute crash course in Scottish history courtesy of Wikipedia I feel able to offer a few pointers as to why the Irish didn’t embrace empire as enthusiastically as the Scots.
Although there are similarities in our respective paths to empire, massacres, Cromwellian invasions, Acts of union, etc, it is undoubtedly true that the Scottish relationship with London was far more akin to an alliance than the Irish one. For one thing Scottish monarchs sat on the English throne. Scotland and England shared an Anglo-Norman ruling class (Robert the Bruce was actually related to Edward 1), and crucially there was no Scottish equivalent of the Flight of the Earls in 1601 when Ireland’s native aristocracy and its leadership was lost for good.
This lower political status within the imperial setup meant that Ireland was treated very differently. Tom Devine’s Scotland’s Empire 1600-1815 details how positive the experience of empire was for Scottish Industry, “Between 1700 and 1750 home industries increased their output by seven per cent, export industries by seventy-six per cent; between 1750 and 1770 (which we may regard as the runway for the industrial ‘take-off’) by another seven per cent and eighty per cent respectively.” By contrast Ireland’s infant industries during the same period were strangled at birth with punitive taxation and starved behind high tariff walls. The Penal Laws (1691-1794) excluded the Catholic majority from Education, public office and the armed forces. The potential Irish Catholic equivalents of David Hume, Adam Smith, James Watt and Robert Burns had no St Andrews or Edinburgh to attend until the founding of UCD in the mid 19th century. All this meant that Scotland was in a position to reap the fruits of Empire in a way that was literally impossible for the vast majority of Ireland’s population.
“The fact that Scotland eventually accepted being part of the United Kingdom, despite this mistreatment, is an important point I was trying to make. A few nutters aside, the smart people accepted the political reality, and got on with more important things (Yes, there are more important things than having “yer own folk” running the government!) ”
In Ireland the smart people could see that political reality was what was stopping them from getting on with more important things, geddit?
To hammer the point home look at the very different experiences of Ireland and Scotland in the Potato Famine of 1845-1853. The Highland Clearances left Scotland with the same timebomb that Cromwells “to Hell or to Connaught” edict had left Ireland, a peasant class existing on marginal land with potatoes as their staple crop, but while the Irish lost 1 million through starvation alone the Scots came out a lot better. Government relief efforts were better organised, landlords were less callous, and crucially those displaced could go to the Industrial powerhouses of Aberdeen and Glasgow rather than America. Scotland suffered a setback, Ireland lost everything
It’s not just me and Germaine Greer who think this way either. Mr Empire himself Niall Ferguson said in an interview recently (Can’t find it on the net so you’ll have to take my word for this) that while he had always assumed that the Irish were whingers like the SNP with nothing to complain about except their own laziness, he had latterly come to realise that the Irish experience of Empire was qualitatively different to that of the Scots.
Sarah
I agree with you
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
August 4, 2006 at 1:51 pm
fatmammycat,
Press the “Alt Gr” button- beside the spacebar- and the letter to do a fada.
“But one thing is clear: where Irish is doing well it is completely independent think the Celtic stuff is fascinating – we invented a romantic myth of ourselves. I remember from my History of Legal Studies learning about the similar words in old Irish andfrom any coercive element. Making people learn something that they know has no practical value encourages them to unlearn it. If they choose to learn it there is a much better success rate. I think the Gaeilgoiris should be far less defensive of the compulsory element in the schools.”
It isn’t that we are defensive of compulsory Irish, its that most of us agree with it. I understand how most older people have bad memories of Irish in school, but I’m 25 and from a generation-the Popes Children as David McWilliams calls us- that never had to learn ‘Peig’ in school, Irish never was “forced down our throats”. We had to do it like we had to do Maths and English. Also, we actually read and wrote about topical subjects in school like immigration, the North, the Celtic Tiger etc. The emphasis should be on oral Irish, but the fact that a majority of people in the 15-24 age category in both polls on this question were in favour of its being compulsory reflects the change some years ago. Instead of dwelling on the glass being half empty I like to think of it, forgive me, of being half full. I want to replicate the number of people who love Irish, and I believe that making the emphasis- throughout school- on oral Irish (in conjunction with e.g the growth of TG4) will make the language grow big time.
“And Darren, take it easy there. We’ve had a rough week in blog land.2
If Billy insists on telling me my language is dead I will insist on telling him to get a life.
fatmammycat said,
August 4, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Go raibh mile máith agut, Darren.
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
August 4, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Tá fáilte romhat.
Here’s an interesting discussion I’m having with myself in answer to a thread that Máirtin O’ Muilleoir started on his blog a couple of days ago. I don’t like SF (or any party in Ireland) and I don’t read Daily Ireland- although I do read Lá. However, I’m willing to discuss issues about Irish with most people. You would think that more people e.g. Shinners and Máirtin himself would have responded to it. Then again its only a new blog. By not answering to my questions Máirtin is showing himself to be a hyprocite, although he could prove me wrong my fixing the ironies in his newspaper group. (Its mostly in English by the way.)
http://apublishersblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/polasa-rachadh-i-bhfeidhm-ar-phobal.html
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
August 4, 2006 at 8:42 pm
“(Its mostly in English by the way.)”
i.e. the thread.
Sarah said,
August 4, 2006 at 8:52 pm
sigh, Darren, see, this is the essence of the whole discussion. Condemning a language is not equivalent to condemning a person IMHO. What defines nationhood? It can’t simply be language. People who speak the same language can come from completely different nations.
You speak Irish, you speak English. You may speak other languages. None of which are “your’s” – they are simply tools that you use to communicate. They don’t define who you are. Anyone can learn a language. The fact that you may speak French doesn’t make you French. So for all the tosh, the fact that you speak Irish doesn’t make you anymore Irish than me.
True, the fact that you are so committed to the Irish language tells us something about you, but nothing definitive or remotely indicative of who you are as a person.
Irish is not dead in so far as it spoken. But it’s on a life support machine. It’s only spoken as an end in itself, not because it has any actual use, other than making people like you feel a bit superior to the rest of us. Whatever life Irish still has is there by artificial means. You may not like that, but it’s true. If you lost the ability to speak Irish tomorrow you could function without the slightest impairment. The entire nation could too.
You may feel that you have lost something of your soul, but as a nation, we’d still be fine, and we’d still be Irish.
You would still be Darren, and Billy would still be Billy and he doesn’t need to get a life. The Irish language needs life. But it ain’t going to draw a natural breath again. It hasn’t done so for a very very long time.
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
August 4, 2006 at 9:47 pm
I don’t think I’ve ever read such mix of good points and complete rubbish at the same time!
“sigh, Darren, see, this is the essence of the whole discussion. Condemning a language is not equivalent to condemning a person IMHO.”
Well IMHO opinion you are wrong. I know that most/virtually all people who think that the Irish language is dead are not condemning Irish speakers but are condemning the language or the failure of us to speak it more. However, when people say that “noboby speaks Irish” or that “Irish is dead” they are saying, if unconsciously, that Irish speakers are nobodies and that, well, we live in some sort of dead vacumn when we speak Irish. Good one!
“What defines nationhood? It can’t simply be language. People who speak the same language can come from completely different nations.”
Yea, I never said otherwise.
“You speak Irish, you speak English. You may speak other languages. None of which are “your’s” – they are simply tools that you use to communicate. They don’t define who you are. Anyone can learn a language. The fact that you may speak French doesn’t make you French. So for all the tosh, the fact that you speak Irish doesn’t make you anymore Irish than me.”
Yea, I never said I was. I find it fairly retarded that I have to point out that I use the term “my language” in the sense that it IS mine as much as it is yours or anyone else’s- including- yes even including (sigh) – whether they are Irish or not.
“True, the fact that you are so committed to the Irish language tells us something about you, but nothing definitive or remotely indicative of who you are as a person.”
I agree. It shows an aspect of my culture, like your writing shows that you like writing but does not remotetly ididicate who you are as a person either
“Irish is not dead in so far as it spoken.”
So its not dead then agreed.
“But it’s on a life support machine. It’s only spoken as an end in itself, not because it has any actual use, other than making people like you feel a bit superior to the rest of us.”
Thats a rather weird thing to say.
“Whatever life Irish still has is there by artificial means. You may not like that, but it’s true.”
Please elaborate.
“You would still be Darren, and Billy would still be Billy and he doesn’t need to get a life. The Irish language needs life. But it ain’t going to draw a natural breath again. It hasn’t done so for a very very long time.”
I would really like you to elaborate on the last sentence. I think I know what you are going to say, but I’d like to hear it anyway.
Sarah said,
August 4, 2006 at 10:06 pm
I’ll take the last two together…
Irish, as she is spoke, is artificial, because it is completely unnecessary. In evolutionary terms it’s an appendix or something. It’s spoken in
a)schools where there is no choice
b)Gaelteachts (and even there its running out of steam) where there are grants and Irish schools to keep the local economy running (in order to help support a) above)
c) Gaelscoilleanna where it is voluntary but very much in the organic food category. It’s something a certain class of people think is appropriate to do.
(see McWilliams for more on this)
d) It’s used on public documents and road signs because its the law
e) Politically – I believe the IRA found it very useful in the Maze because the prison wardens couldn’t understand it. To the extent that the Loyalist prisoners learned it too. In fact, this may be the most useful reason why Irish HAS been spoken here in the last 30 years
f) Academics
g) and I suppose the like of yourself, and indeed some relations I can think of. People who are genuinely fond of the language and enjoy speaking it and want to pass it on. But you know, that’s very nice but its a hobby. A very cultural one. But, why do the rest of us have to get dragged in? (this is where the superiority comes in – why does Billy have to get a life because he doesn’t like your hobby?)
The point is that no one actually needs Irish – not even to be a guard. Language was the great evolutionary leap for humans. It allows us to learn other greater skills which drive us on and on, whether that be to further progress or extinction. Once a language outlives its usefulness and gets subsumed by others, it dies. Latin is still spoken in posh schools and the occasional religious ceremony but its dead. Irish is still spoken but its all pretence. Its core need as a language is defunct.
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
August 4, 2006 at 10:40 pm
“I’ll take the last two together…
Irish, as she is spoke, is artificial, because it is completely unnecessary.”
No, its spoken because it gives one a different view of the world, a world that is seen, discussed, and talked about through Irish- which cannot be experienced through English or any other language. Linguists, and I believe many sociologists, will tell you that people that speak different language view the world differently. Thats not to say that any language is better than another. All languages are bland unless they are spoken without spirit. I love the spirit in Irish, the way I can express myself in it unlike I can in other languages (namely English because I can’t speak any others, although I have a bit of French).
Although some people use the language for political reasons, and some people are just arrogant that they can speak a different language, most of us like expressing oursleves in Irish and because of that, it we are certainly not being artificial.
“In evolutionary terms it’s an appendix or something.
It’s spoken in
a)schools where there is no choice”
Why do many kids in Gaelscoils, outside of the Gaeltacht, speak Irish to one another after school? Are they being artifical to impress their parents?
“b)Gaelteachts (and even there its running out of steam) where there are grants and Irish schools to keep the local economy running (in order to help support a) above)”
Your assertion that Irish is running out of steam is an example of intellectual arrogance that, I bet, you have got from never spending much time in the real Gaeltacht. A lot of people, although not you perhaps, know that there is the real Gaeltacht and the official Gaeltacht. It most certainly is not running out of steam in the real Gaeltacht.
Are all schools run to support their local economy’s?
“c) Gaelscoilleanna where it is voluntary but very much in the organic food category. It’s something a certain class of people think is appropriate to do.
(see McWilliams for more on this)”
Yea, their called Hi-Cos (Hibernian Cosmopolitans) according to David McWilliams, and would certainly not like being labelled as “a certaiin class of people” in an “organic food category”.
“d) It’s used on public documents and road signs because its the law”
Because we choose to elect our politicans to do so.
“e) Politically – I believe the IRA found it very useful in the Maze because the prison wardens couldn’t understand it. To the extent that the Loyalist prisoners learned it too. In fact, this may be the most useful reason why Irish HAS been spoken here in the last 30 years”
Why? So Loyalists could find out where IRA members lived so they could kill them?
“f) Academics”
Its spoken by some academics, some of whom view it as an academic subject and some, I’d say most in Ireland, who see it as a living part of their life in how they express themselves.
“g) and I suppose the like of yourself, and indeed some relations I can think of. People who are genuinely fond of the language and enjoy speaking it and want to pass it on. But you know, that’s very nice but its a hobby. A very cultural one. ”
You can enjoy your hobbies through Irish, but I find it strange to think that a language can be a hobby, except to some nerdy academics.
“But, why do the rest of us have to get dragged in? (this is where the superiority comes in – why does Billy have to get a life because he doesn’t like your hobby?)”
Why do you have to get dragged in? You started a thread on Irish, and I joined in.
If Billy thinks that Irish is dead, or that nobody speaks, it he is missing out on getting to know a lot of people in the country. Now, he does not have to speak Irish to them but to deny that they exist is to deny the very existence of a lot of people and is sad. Therefore I told him to get a life.
“The point is that no one actually needs Irish – not even to be a guard. Language was the great evolutionary leap for humans. It allows us to learn other greater skills which drive us on and on, whether that be to further progress or extinction. Once a language outlives its usefulness and gets subsumed by others, it dies. Latin is still spoken in posh schools and the occasional religious ceremony but its dead. Irish is still spoken but its all pretence. Its core need as a language is defunct.”
Your view of what a “core need” is different to mine. I agree that Irish is not needed- by your definition- in most spheres in Ireland. However Irish speakers will continue to express ourselves through Irish and to have State services for us etc. whether we conform to your capitalist outlook of the world or not.
John Mortell’s blog » Blog Archive » Irish Language: RIP? said,
August 6, 2006 at 6:41 pm
[...] There’s an interesting discussion going on here on Sarah Carey’s which follows this on Richard Waghorne’s blog. [...]
Sarah said,
August 7, 2006 at 12:41 pm
” I love the spirit in Irish, the way I can express myself in it “. I fully accept this. What I will never understand is the insistence on compulsion. Have your spirit, have your expression. But why make it law? That only kills people’s affection for it. Make it voluntary. What’s the problem with that?
EWI said,
August 9, 2006 at 11:36 am
Latin is still spoken in posh schools and the occasional religious ceremony but its dead. Irish is still spoken but its all pretence. Its core need as a language is defunct.
The original blogger who started all of this has frequently blogged espousing Latin, it needs to be said, and applying ra line of reasoning which he neglects to likewise apply to the Irish language. This is hypocrisy, and revealing of the true motives at play here.
solasdubh said,
August 10, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Sarah – in response to your last comment.
Many people who like/enjoy using Irish presumably wish to extend that feeling of satisfaction (with the language) accross the country. Seeing as most people in the country support the government spending money on Irish (75% want it to spend more than it is currently doing so), teaching the language seems the most efficiant way to expose the next generation to the language. Now, you could say that Irish shouldn’t be compulsury – that everyone should have the option of using it. However, I live in the north. Only a minority of schools up here opt to offer Irish to students, and few students choose to take it to any vaguely high level (this can largly be explained by the political stereotypical perception of the language north of the border, with the republican movement). The present situation gives us some people who like the language, and alot of others just imagining what it would be like to have learnt it at school.
Somebody mentioned that there were more Polish and Russian speakers in Ireland than there there were Irish speakers. Ignoring the census (which prooves occassionly to be obscured, especially on the topic of the Irish language), there are still more genuine Irish speakers (c. 104,000), who use the language on a daily basis, in this country, than either Polish (40,000), Russian (30,000), or Chinese (60,000). This figure is still ignoring the many people accross the country with a passive comprehension of the language (largely, of course, due to the achievements of the education system in the south, despite that system’s many failings). I turn on my TV, and I can from time to time choose to watch a programme in Irish. I cannot do so in any other language other than English, which I speak already. Turn on your radio, and you may be able to listen to R na G, or even R na Life – Irish stations, broadcasting in Gaelic, and ocassionly commenting on life here in Ireland. Unfortunately these services are not currently available through the medium of any other minority languages, at least not to the same scale anyway. I walk into town here in Belfast, and I can purchase the Irish language newspapers in certain shops. But, I’ve never seen any newspapers in any newsagents written in Chinese, or Polish, or Russian, or in fact any other language, other than English or Irish – which I speak already. Some people say that the government should start to provide services through the medium of Polish, Russian, Chinese etc. instead of Irish. My answer to that would be that Irish is a minority language under pressure here in Ireland. If the language dies here, it’s gone, its finnished, slán go deo, sin deireadh an scéil. To my knowledge neither English, nor Russian, nor Polish, nor Chinese, are currently indangered languages, that could go to their graves in the next comming decades. In my personal opinion, this country has a responsibility to protect and promote the language. And to ensure that it thrives in the future.
That said, the cuurent situation could change, and Irish could find itself at some point in the future being at number three numerically. Yet Irish should still not be thrown away. It has cultural historical relavance (which I’m not going to go into) to every area of the country. Indeed, there are Irish speakers scattered accross the country. The Irish language is under increasing pressure in the Gaeltacht, but even there, there are signs of big change to come.
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
August 12, 2006 at 9:21 pm
“The Irish language is under increasing pressure in the Gaeltacht, but even there, there are signs of big change to come.”
I was up in An Bun Beag/Bungeg in Gaoth Dobhair after Easter. Situated there is one of the most popular niteclubs in Donegal, and I actually heard an ad for it on the radio passing through Derry on the bus. My friend and I didn’t go to the club (blame my friend) but we were in the bar of the hotel until about 10.00. It was full of young people- about 100- in the 23-35 age group and they were ALL speaking Irish. The previous night we were in Teach Jack in Bun an Inbhir and the situation was the same across all age groups, although it was strongest in Sea View. I may be going off point, but I don’t respect any arguments I hear about Gaeltacht areas getting (mostly relatively small) grants like for the Industrial Estate in Gaoth Dobhair if it helps young people stay in the area and is beneficial to the language.
I challenge you Sarah to go up there- particualy when the area is not saturated with mostly English speaking tourists- and tell me the language is going out of steam. The situation is the same in South Connemara, West Dingle and Ráth Cairn, to name the other biggest Gaeltachts.
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
August 12, 2006 at 9:30 pm
http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2005/11/20/enda-kenny-and-irish-language/#comments
If you feel strongly about it write an article or something. We’re just going around in a circle otherwise.
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
August 13, 2006 at 1:37 am
I am on the net go déanach again anocht…
“Seeing as most people in the country support the government spending money on Irish (75% want it to spend more than it is currently doing so)”
I fully believe that most Irish people want Irish to be promoted better. Fergus O’ Dowd has said a lot of great-and strange- things over the last year about Irish. I accept that his heart is in the right place- well I don’t know him but maybe it is! However, he can be a very bad rep. for Irish for Fine Gael, and you should keep that in mind over the debate about Irish for the L. Cert!
However, one thing that he said in the Dáil a few months ago was that there should be an audit on Irish language organisation. I fully accept this. I told my comrade, Pádraig (who is the best person promoting Irish in the country) this and he totally agrees- money should only go to groups that are promoting Irish effectively.
Pádraig, for example, represents Port Láirge Le Gaeilge (Waterford with Irish), on behalf of them with Eamon O’ CuÃv and the relevant departments. He is not doing so because Waterford is his neighbouring county, but because they have a shop/siopa! He doesn’t represent Conradh na Gaeilge or any else like that in Cork for the sake of it!!!
Money should be spent more, as Dinny McGinely also said at the FG Ard Fheis, on marketing Irish.
If I had the power, I would slate a lot of the money going to Irish organisations and groups and give it to others. I am in favour of more money being spent, gan amhras, but only if it is being spent effectively.
Imagine, for example, if there were busse’s like these throught the country?
http://www.gael-taca.com/images/bus.jpg
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
August 18, 2006 at 10:49 pm
“adding unnecessary complexity to road signs”
I’ve just noticed this out of your article.
That Irish has commanded an inferior position on our road signs for generations has fed that argument both consciously- and more often unconsicously- that it is an inferior language. It is probably the greatest single example of Govt neglect of the language and is, I’m sure A.J Murphy would agree, an example of killing the language by stealth.
In other countries with two languages they can cope very well with bilingual signage. How is is it adding complexity????
Your argument is relation to signage is actually disgraceful, and I would actually give up coming on your site if I thought that you did not make you comment out of innocence.
Whatever about translating documents like annual reports, I have NO respect for the argument that there should not be comhstádas/equal status on our signage….
Jean Garnier said,
October 16, 2006 at 6:34 pm
Dia dhuit, salut à tous,
(Gabh mo leisthscéal, nÃl mé cinnte an bhfuil mo chuid Gaeilge ceart…)
Más é do thoil é, ná bÃgà cantalach! Bhoil, tá mé Francach agus sÃlim gur Gaeilge teanga iontach, mar sin féin!
Alors bon vent, et pour les anglophones, God bless Ireland!
Jean Garnier said,
October 16, 2006 at 7:00 pm
J’oubliais, nÃl Gaeilge marbh anois, restez cool. That’s Europe of diversity!
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
October 16, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Irish is cool, but a lot of people see themselves as uncool and hence don’t see anything cool about communicating in Irish themselves.
Jean Garnier said,
October 16, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Don’t fall into dispair! I know the topic has become sensitive in Ireland (actually I can see it through forums on the Internet), but I think the pro-Irish should avoid to take the bend of a too much controversial attitude : whereas the language used to be a goal to be fought for against imperialism in the past, now the worst that could happen to it would be to get on most of the Irish’s nerves! Wouldn’t be possible to make the learning Irish light, fun, fascinating…? Let Ireland be imaginative! Aren’t there any good ideas to pick up? In Wales, for instance, or elsewhere in Europe?
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
October 16, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Yes there are. Wales and Canada are excellent for bilingual policy, and we actually look to these countries most in relation to our Official Languages Act. Also, our Language Commissioner knows their respective Language Commissioners. The Candadian Langauge Commissioner was actually only in Ireland last week!!!
The biggest thing that is f*cking things up at the moment is the extremist end of the Irish langauge movement. I am glad that they have been indentified in the current language debate about Irish for the L. Cert. Now we know who to deal with, and who has to be dealt with.
FG will be bringing out a range of policies on the language over the next few months. I think they are waiting for the Govt. statement on the language though, which should have come out a few months ago I believe.
Ive actually been working with Cllr. Naoise O Muirà from FG a lot in respect of who are the good and bad Irish language organisation and groups. Yous had better refer to us in your statement!!! For someome who doesnt even like FG overall Ive actually probably had more input into their research ó thaobh na Gaeilge than anyone else
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
October 16, 2006 at 11:37 pm
“Wales and Canada are excellent for bilingual policy”
I should change that. I know there are still some problems in Wales regarding bilingual policies. Both Wales and Canada have a lot of experience though.
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
October 17, 2006 at 3:41 am
Here’s an article about my organisation from the Sunday Times last year. They only put it up on the net recently for some reason!!!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2098-1639173,00.html
Jean Garnier said,
October 17, 2006 at 9:02 am
Nice article showing precisely the Irish paradox! The majority still wants the practice of Irish to grow up but roughly refuses the changes that are made for it.
Nevertheless I think one’s must always distinguish social & general measures (which are good) from coercion to individuals (which is the beginning of bad attitude).
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
October 17, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Yea, we aren’t pushing for that law though. I spoke to the Minister for Environment about it and he said only the Councils- in the development plans- have the power to do that.
We made a presentation to the Special Planning Committe in Dublin City Council a few months ago on it. The policy is in place in Galway City Council and Shannon Town Council. As of last week 213 Irish names are is use in developments throughout the country through us. When you add the developments from Galway, Clare and the developments we don’t know about we could say that there are over 400 developments in Ireland named in Irish. Thats good for a small island where the building industry has only got big in the last 10 years.
Jean Garnier said,
October 20, 2006 at 8:51 am
Well, that’s a nice step. But is it the whole schedule? Are there any others nationwide planned measures (social, in particular) ?
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
October 20, 2006 at 9:06 am
There are other initiatives that are marketing the language.
Re: social measures: I know that there are arguments for social housing in the Gaeltacht because the situation at the moment is that many young people have to leave the areas because they cannot afford to buy a house.
There are pubs etc. outside of the Gaeltacht where Irish is mostly used. But there aren’t enough of them and the marketing isnt being done properly so even if there was they wouldn’t get loads of business.
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
October 20, 2006 at 9:09 am
There are loads of things happening nationwide regarding the language. Ironically, most Irish people are getting impatient with the Irish language movement because they want more to be done.
shane connolly said,
January 29, 2007 at 1:15 pm
hi guys im 13 and despise irish. ever since i was in first class i despised it i asked why we were learning it and what good it wood ever be. some people actually believe it will be revived it wont your idiots if you think that. the only way it would is if perants speak it to their children at home as a first language all the children who learn it hate it. it should not be compulsary for the leaving cert if it wasnt you could study another subject. so what i really want to say is i have started a petition on it. i need 1000 signatures and have 570 already will you help me if you want to call my house phone on 4902625 or my mobile on 0879129041 i can post you an official piece of paper which you can sign an send back or i can send you one to get people to sign thanks guys
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
January 29, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I think I remember reading about your petition on another website. Its been going for a year of two now hasn’t it?
Why do you need 1000 signatures?
Over 11,000 people have already signed the Glór na nGael petition saying that it should be required for the L. Cert- even though most people, like myself, find their tactics distasteful and have not done so.
Three opinion polls asking young people in the 15-24 age group all said that a majority are in favour of it being required. I know there are people like you out there, but you are in a minority these days a chara.
http://www.petitiononline.com/gaeilge