----"Perhaps the emergence of English as the default global language, given its superior record in human rights and creating less sexist societies,"------
The language has nothing to do with it. As for the British and American record in human rights it is atrocious. Look at the massacres of indigenous Americans. the genocide of Tasmanian aborigenes, the government-inspired famines in India.
The British Empire; where the sun never set and the blood never dried and the only reason the sun never set was that God couldn't trust an Englishman in the dark.
And I am sure the millions of Cambodian and Vietnamese villagers the Americans bombed and napalmed are real placed to know they were part of the 'superior record in human rights'.
Interesting article on global English
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
Please read the entire exchange
Please read the entire exchange.
Colonial empires, often built on war, can both be condemned and compared. The actual track record of the British Empire compares quite favorably with the Russian, French, Spanish, German, Chinesse, and Japanesse. Count the corpses and note the dates. Further, the societies that emerged from the British empire - Canada, Australia, India, the United States - have created and spread more democratic, humane, and less sexist societies. Language and culture have a close relationship.
Obviously, stupid leaders can make stupid decisions in all languages with tragic consequences for everyone involved.
Colonial empires, often built on war, can both be condemned and compared. The actual track record of the British Empire compares quite favorably with the Russian, French, Spanish, German, Chinesse, and Japanesse. Count the corpses and note the dates. Further, the societies that emerged from the British empire - Canada, Australia, India, the United States - have created and spread more democratic, humane, and less sexist societies. Language and culture have a close relationship.
Obviously, stupid leaders can make stupid decisions in all languages with tragic consequences for everyone involved.
-
womblingfree
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:34 pm
Economics could be considered a factor for international trade, but as for the populations of nations the answer is usually more brutal. The Philippines is one example.jotham wrote:Taking your argument (that global languages today were historically established by forced colonization), Spanish should be the global language....But I'm sure the prominence of English is a result of many things, so we may both be right. But I would hesitate to shrug off economic considerations as a total non-factor.
After the 1898 colonisation of the Philippines by the USA the agenda regarding language policy was, “To educate the Filipinos and uplift and civilise and Christianise them to fit the people for the duties of citizenship”.
(Beebe and Beebe, 1981: 322).
This notion resulted in a multivolume report, The Report of the Philippine Commission, 1900. This report chronicled the lack of impact which Spanish had made in three hundred years and also noted the 87 indigenous languages of the Philippines. As a result English was forced onto the population as the common language of the entire population as well as of the government. If you were caught speaking your own language rather than English then punishment of varying degrees was possible. It was the same story in Hawaii and numerous other colonised countries.
Even in post-colonial times the former language policies, which by their nature affect both educational and administrative systems, may give rise to a gamut of social, economic and political inequalities.
You are wrong. They are categorized as of masculine and feminine grammatical gender, which has absolutely to do with neither testosterone nor estrogen. Trust me. No Frenchman, however undeducated, would ever assume that because a male stands among 99 females, and that thay are therefore all grammatically masculine, that these women are now about to start growing beards. Think about it. In Arabic, the Khalifa, non of whom have ever been women, are grammatically feminine. Yet no Arab would ever believe them to have been cross-gendered. In German, a Maedchen, youg woman, is of neutre gender. No German would consider her a hermaprhodite or asexual, or sexless because of it. Let's not be so silly as to confuse grammatical gender with biological sexual traits. That's just plain rediculous.jotham wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong. In French, the word they is necessarily categorized either male or female with ils and elles. If you have a group of one hundred females, they are naturally female — elles. If you have a group of ninety-nine females and one male, however, they are all male nonetheless — ils. English treats them without gender either way.
By the way, in English too the neutral 3rt person singular pronoun is 'he'. An example sentence would be: 'If you see any person roaming around out here, bring him to me.' In this sentence, 'him' is perfectly neutral. Would any intelligent English-speaker conclude that because person is of masculine gender in English, that female persons do not exist?
Same argument.
Re: Bahai and Esperanto
Thank you for sharing those inspiring examples. The Esperanto movement and Bahai faith both have gently tugged individuals toward a saner, more tolerant perspective.
Agreed.
Alas, Esperanto's has had very, very limited influence and shows few signs of emerging as a global language in practice as well as in theory.
In 1993 (not ancient history here), the Italian Ministry of education declared Esperanto an alternative elective beside English and foru other languages. In 2004, Poland joined rank. As for the reasons, should you read the 1993 interministerial decree you'll find that among Italy's reasons is that most Italian students, after decades of experimentation, are still failing to learn English to a level high enough to make it of any use to them. As for Poland's arguments, I'm not sure, though italy's move may have influenced it (my guess). So if Esperanto is dead, why hve some governments recently declared it a new alternative to English in their schools? Now the onus is on you to explain that move.
The Bahai, unfortunately, have long lost any power in contemporary Iranian society and have been brutally persecuted by the ruling theocratic dictatorship.
I've had plenty of Baha'i friends. And from what i understand, it is now the second most accepted faith in Iran despite the persecution, and they are actualy getting respect from non-Bahai friends and neighbours. It is primarily the government and those who know nothing about them who are causing all the trouble. So it would seem that if anything, they're really giving the Iranian authorities a bigger headache than you give them credit for. Luckily for the Iranian government, bahais are required by the very teachings of their faith to be the well-wishers of their government, even if that government persecutes them.Yet this alone would probably merely bolster respect among friends and neighbours.
So let us not underestimate the power of any movement striving for good.
Perhaps the emergence of English as the default global language, given its superior record in human rights and creating less sexist societies, offers some hope for a more humane, tolerant global culture. At least English teachers can do their best in their classrooms.
Would equal opportunity not be part of these human rights? How would English, which would naturally give an advantage to native speakers and those gifted enough to learn it, achieve such equality of opportunity. Certainly an easier langauge would be better for that purpose. And again, as mentionned above, plenty of languages can supercede English in human rights, depending on how we should define it. May you define human rights please, so that we may define this further, since 'human rights' is a term wrought with varying cultural understandings.
Agreed.
Alas, Esperanto's has had very, very limited influence and shows few signs of emerging as a global language in practice as well as in theory.
In 1993 (not ancient history here), the Italian Ministry of education declared Esperanto an alternative elective beside English and foru other languages. In 2004, Poland joined rank. As for the reasons, should you read the 1993 interministerial decree you'll find that among Italy's reasons is that most Italian students, after decades of experimentation, are still failing to learn English to a level high enough to make it of any use to them. As for Poland's arguments, I'm not sure, though italy's move may have influenced it (my guess). So if Esperanto is dead, why hve some governments recently declared it a new alternative to English in their schools? Now the onus is on you to explain that move.
The Bahai, unfortunately, have long lost any power in contemporary Iranian society and have been brutally persecuted by the ruling theocratic dictatorship.
I've had plenty of Baha'i friends. And from what i understand, it is now the second most accepted faith in Iran despite the persecution, and they are actualy getting respect from non-Bahai friends and neighbours. It is primarily the government and those who know nothing about them who are causing all the trouble. So it would seem that if anything, they're really giving the Iranian authorities a bigger headache than you give them credit for. Luckily for the Iranian government, bahais are required by the very teachings of their faith to be the well-wishers of their government, even if that government persecutes them.Yet this alone would probably merely bolster respect among friends and neighbours.
So let us not underestimate the power of any movement striving for good.
Perhaps the emergence of English as the default global language, given its superior record in human rights and creating less sexist societies, offers some hope for a more humane, tolerant global culture. At least English teachers can do their best in their classrooms.
Would equal opportunity not be part of these human rights? How would English, which would naturally give an advantage to native speakers and those gifted enough to learn it, achieve such equality of opportunity. Certainly an easier langauge would be better for that purpose. And again, as mentionned above, plenty of languages can supercede English in human rights, depending on how we should define it. May you define human rights please, so that we may define this further, since 'human rights' is a term wrought with varying cultural understandings.
Re: Please read the entire exchange
Colonial empires, often built on war, can both be condemned and compared. The actual track record of the British Empire compares quite favorably with the Russian, French, Spanish, German, Chinesse, and Japanesse. Count the corpses and note the dates.
Why settle for relative justice when man ought to aim for perfect justice?
Further, the societies that emerged from the British empire - Canada, Australia, India, the United States - have created and spread more democratic, humane, and less sexist societies. Language and culture have a close relationship.
Perhaps, but this has nothing to do with the languagef itself, so much as a shared common language. The fact that these countries shared a common language allowed them to exchange ideas. But this could have been done with Klingon just as easily. The point was not that they had English specifically, but rather that they shared a common language, whatever that language happenned to be. And don't forget, Britain, Canada, Australia and the US all benefitted from colonialsim, thus giving them a headstart at others' expense too. Unless they're a superior race of men?
Why settle for relative justice when man ought to aim for perfect justice?
Further, the societies that emerged from the British empire - Canada, Australia, India, the United States - have created and spread more democratic, humane, and less sexist societies. Language and culture have a close relationship.
Perhaps, but this has nothing to do with the languagef itself, so much as a shared common language. The fact that these countries shared a common language allowed them to exchange ideas. But this could have been done with Klingon just as easily. The point was not that they had English specifically, but rather that they shared a common language, whatever that language happenned to be. And don't forget, Britain, Canada, Australia and the US all benefitted from colonialsim, thus giving them a headstart at others' expense too. Unless they're a superior race of men?
You've done your homework. This is news to me, though i'm not surprised. It fits in with all the other stories I'd seen. The least we can say is that the Americans learnt well from the British, and the British were consistent.womblingfree wrote:Economics could be considered a factor for international trade, but as for the populations of nations the answer is usually more brutal. The Philippines is one example.jotham wrote:Taking your argument (that global languages today were historically established by forced colonization), Spanish should be the global language....But I'm sure the prominence of English is a result of many things, so we may both be right. But I would hesitate to shrug off economic considerations as a total non-factor.
After the 1898 colonisation of the Philippines by the USA the agenda regarding language policy was, “To educate the Filipinos and uplift and civilise and Christianise them to fit the people for the duties of citizenship”.
(Beebe and Beebe, 1981: 322).
This notion resulted in a multivolume report, The Report of the Philippine Commission, 1900. This report chronicled the lack of impact which Spanish had made in three hundred years and also noted the 87 indigenous languages of the Philippines. As a result English was forced onto the population as the common language of the entire population as well as of the government. If you were caught speaking your own language rather than English then punishment of varying degrees was possible. It was the same story in Hawaii and numerous other colonised countries.
Even in post-colonial times the former language policies, which by their nature affect both educational and administrative systems, may give rise to a gamut of social, economic and political inequalities.
Interesting article I read today:
French Angry at Latest 'Intrusion' of English Language
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351560,00.html
French Angry at Latest 'Intrusion' of English Language
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351560,00.html
Critics, including the French government, are adamant: Sebastien Tellier should not perform "Divine" at Eurovision — unless it is in French.
"A song represents the soul of a country," said Marc Favre d'Echallens, who heads a group dedicated to defending French against the growing use of English.
"It appears logical that a song representing France be a French song sung in French," he said, denouncing cultural "uniformity" and the "hegemony" of the English language in the world today.
It's the latest battle in a war France has waged for decades to defend French against the encroachment — some call it the invasion — of the English language....
France's minister for cooperation and Francophonie, or French speakers, issued a strongly worded statement Wednesday reflecting his disapproval.
"When one has the honor of being selected to represent France, one sings in French," Alain Joyandet said. He has urged Tellier and France-3 to consider changing the song....
Tellier was not immediately available to comment on the uproar. However, his producer, Marc Teissier du Cros of RecordMakers, said the singer "is quite amused."
After writing the song in English, Tellier "tried to adapt it in French but it didn't work out," du Cros said.
"For me, this is yesterday's debate," he said. "Today an artist ... has the right to choose the language in which he wants to sing."
Still, Eurovision statistics show English holds sway in the contest, in which viewers pick the winner by phone and text message. English or mostly English songs have won 22 times.
More than half of this year's Eurovision contestants — 25 — will sing in English....
Lawmaker Francois-Michel Gonnot of President Nicolas Sarkozy's governing conservative UMP party, set the nation's indignation in motion, asserting that he has received mail from French-speakers as far away as Vietnam and Africa, urging him to take a stand.
"'Be careful,' they wrote. 'If you, the French, don't defend the French language, who will?'" Gonnot told Associated Press Television News. "France has the will to be a great power, and it relies on its history, a culture and a language that today is spoken by 175 million people across the world."
But, he added, French is a "threatened language."...
Favre d'Echallens said one possible riposte to the "Divine" song would be withholding public funding for France-3 television. He said the broadcaster, by picking an English song, was failing in its public service missions, which he said include an obligation to promote French.
"It is the French who pay (the taxes) ... Maybe the French want to hear a song in French," Favre d'Echallens said.
Maybe.
Parisian Robert Tordjman, 73, said he just hopes Tellier wins for France.
"If it allows him to win the contest, then let him sing in English," Tordjman told APTN. "We'd accept it."
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
That's a pretty high profile ongoing debate in Europe. All countries were forced to use local language at one point.
I never read this thread before - thanks for bumping it Jotham. I'm afraid that you are going to soon have to do some radical ecomomic rethinking as peak oil dwindles away and the Indians and Chinese start to hunger ever more for what you call "excellence" and what's left of the resources though...............
I never read this thread before - thanks for bumping it Jotham. I'm afraid that you are going to soon have to do some radical ecomomic rethinking as peak oil dwindles away and the Indians and Chinese start to hunger ever more for what you call "excellence" and what's left of the resources though...............