Irish immersion

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As it happened the Irish Free State cut funding for many areas on the Irish west coast where Irish was spoken because it could no longer afford the expense that the British state put into it.

That's being uncharacteristically kind towards De Valera et al given that one of the main reasons they couldn't afford to keep up the previous levels of state spending in such areas was their own exceedingly conservative attitude towards economic policy and the role of the state; are you feeling alright?

But, yes, the big killer of minority languages is often rural depopulation. One reason why government programmes aimed at saving or preserving minority languages (nearly?) always fail (and so turn into employment rackets for middle class speakers of said minority language with depressing regularity) is because this is rarely taken into account or even really understood.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

As it happened the Irish Free State cut funding for many areas on the Irish west coast where Irish was spoken because it could no longer afford the expense that the British state put into it.

That's being uncharacteristically kind towards De Valera et al given that one of the main reasons they couldn't afford to keep up the previous levels of state spending in such areas was their own exceedingly conservative attitude towards economic policy and the role of the state; are you feeling alright?

But, yes, the big killer of minority languages is often rural depopulation. One reason why government programmes aimed at saving or preserving minority languages (nearly?) always fail (and so turn into employment rackets for middle class speakers of said minority language with depressing regularity) is because this is rarely taken into account or even really understood.

Well, yes, although the real blame goes on Cosgrave and Ernest 'not at all a fascist sympathizer' Blythe not De Valera, who at least encouraged industrial development (lol) in such areas.

Completely agree on the second bit, of course. EDIT: I should add that the free state were often all in favour of rural depopulation despite a lot of rhetoric in opposition. Especially under Cosgrave, emigration was accepted as the only solution to rural Ireland's economic woes. And lets not mention certain things which were done in the name of 'economic development'. What's interesting is that the government seemed barely aware of the contradictions between the goal of 'developing a modern economy' and the 'Irish Ireland' of their rhetoric. I blame romanticism.

[politicus]

Irish independence happened a century too late to save the language from anything other than utter marginality.

The victorious nationalists never made a full commitment to the language cause, it was always very half hearted and symbolic. If they had gone all in with in the 20s and 30s and de facto mad Irish the sole official language of their new nation state there would have been a (slim) chance.

This would have meant, in effect, firing and replacing the whole root and branch of the civil service (which went mostly unchanged after independence) and the professions, including teachers, in the name of linguistic preference. This would have been a massively unpopular policy whose main obvious goal would be convincing the skeptics that the Irish free state was a plot to transform Ireland into a Gaelic, Catholic, Romantic nationalist state... and for what?

But no, you repeat hoary nationalist tropes that a moment's reflection would have revealed the fallacy. As it happened the Irish Free State cut funding for many areas on the Irish west coast where Irish was spoken because it could no longer afford the expense that the British state put into it.

I never claimed it would have been a good thing, just that there would have been a small chance to do it if they had went all in. Status is crucial for language survival and if it had been clearly marked that to get to the top you would need to be proficient in Irish that would have made a difference. Most of the leaders weren't fluent (or even proficient ) Irish speakers themselves and had an ambivalent attitude towards gaelisation of the civil service and educational system.
It would have taken a different level of radicalism, almost fanaticism, to accomplish it. Irish nationalism has a reputation of radicalism, but in reality the Free State leaders were fairly pragmatic on language issues. With the widespread apathy in the general population (incl. the Gaeltacht) regarding language revival it would likely have taken an authoritarian government to accomplish a language change.

Your example of spending cuts in Western Ireland is a rather strange thing to mention, since it basically proves my point regarding less than full commitment.

[Oakvale]

The substance of oakvale's criticism of these folks is actually by and large quite correct, but– and I realize that saying this out loud will probably brand me as a soft-brained ubersentitive SJW or something, but what-the-f**k-ever– I cannot think of a case where that sort of "drive 'em into the sea!" rhetoric is really ever appropriate or even funny.  And even if there was such a case, it certainly wouldn't be this.

Would you prefer I'd simply posted "Ugh Irish language advocates"? It amounts to the same thing, I just exaggerated with some colourful imagery. Off a cliff?

e: Down a well.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Irish independence happened a century too late to save the language from anything other than utter marginality.

The victorious nationalists never made a full commitment to the language cause, it was always very half hearted and symbolic. If they had gone all in with in the 20s and 30s and de facto mad Irish the sole official language of their new nation state there would have been a (slim) chance.

This would have meant, in effect, firing and replacing the whole root and branch of the civil service (which went mostly unchanged after independence) and the professions, including teachers, in the name of linguistic preference. This would have been a massively unpopular policy whose main obvious goal would be convincing the skeptics that the Irish free state was a plot to transform Ireland into a Gaelic, Catholic, Romantic nationalist state... and for what?

But no, you repeat hoary nationalist tropes that a moment's reflection would have revealed the fallacy. As it happened the Irish Free State cut funding for many areas on the Irish west coast where Irish was spoken because it could no longer afford the expense that the British state put into it.

I never claimed it would have been a good thing, just that there would have been a small chance to do it if they had went all in. Status is crucial for language survival and if it had been clearly marked that to get to the top you would need to be proficient in Irish that would have made a difference. Most of the leaders weren't fluent (or even proficient ) Irish speakers themselves and had an ambivalent attitude towards gaelisation of the civil service and educational system.
It would have taken a different level of radicalism, almost fanaticism, to accomplish it. Irish nationalism has a reputation of radicalism, but in reality the Free State leaders were fairly pragmatic on language issues. With the widespread apathy in the general population (incl. the Gaeltacht) regarding language revival it would likely have taken an authoritarian government to accomplish a language change.

So why not talk about something which actually had a chance of happening?