How to Tear Your Nation Apart in One Easy Step
Read the article this discussion is about
- pseudoerasmus
- pseudoerasmus
- pseudoerasmus
- rkhen
- rkhen
- rkhen
- pseudoerasmus
- GeorgeP_6
- pseudoerasmus
- GeorgeP_6
This archived discussion is "read only".
« Previous 1 2 Next »
» pseudoerasmus - I think the author of the article, so much more the linguist tha
I think the author of the article, so much more the linguist than a political or economic analyst, is awfully naive about certain developments, especially in Mexico.While it's pretty obvious that the government in Mexico City have been stupid & insensitive in not presenting speakers of Amerindian languages in negotiations with the rebels in Chiapas, you are missing two pieces of information -- (1) the cadres, as opposed to the rank-and-file of the guerrillas, are white and mestizo Mexico City intellectuals who speak Spanish; and (2) language has not been, as far as I know, an issue for the Chiapas rebels. The issue has all along been land and poverty. These Indians were theoretically granted land titles at the time of the revolution, but these promises have yet to be honoured. Chiapas and environs remain one of the few places in Mexico were the pre-revolutionary power structure remains still in effect.
But this is not for a lack of huge central government largesse in the area. The PRI has built there miles and miles of roads, bridges, high-tech hospitals, a new airport, and even a huge opera house -- none of which benefit the Indians because these projects don't address their needs. (It's also well established that in the 1994 election campaign, as part of its rather tentacular and corrupt generosity, the PRI was channelling funds to the Zapatista group. Rather surreal.)
Mexico’s autocratic language policies have caused her people, her economy, and her political health untold grief.
Oh come on. How is this so today, or in the 20th century? At most 8% of Mexico's population are native speakers of Amerindian languages, and perhaps 3% of that monolinguals.
....the US will soon enjoy its own Chiapases unless better Americans prevail.
I'm afraid to say it, but this is kind of silly.
I believe extending language rights to non-Hispanophone Mexicans would go a long way toward bringing something more like responsible government to that country.
How???? Problems of corrupt & unaccountable government in Mexico is a giant, multifarious issue wholly unrelated to the question of minority languages. Most Mexicans don't even come into contact with Indians, for Christ's sake.
Ironically, if the experiences of other nations serve, it would also prompt many non-Hispanophones to learn Spanish. (Weird but true.)
Weird and false. Besides, say, Guatemala and Peru, where are native languages spoken on a wide basis in Latin America? Even in those countries, the native languages have many speakers only because Indians are numerous. Europeans and mestizos generally don't speak the native languages.
-- posted by pseudoerasmus
» pseudoerasmus - Tagalog
It is my understanding that Tagalog is much less successful as a unifying national language than Bahasa Indonesia, around which a consensus to speak it has formed.-- posted by pseudoerasmus
» pseudoerasmus - By the way, what is the big deal about Québec if it were let go?
By the way, what is the big deal about Québec if it were let go? As long as it remains integrated as part of North America's larger economy, I don't see what the disaster might be that everyone so fears.-- posted by pseudoerasmus
» rkhen - Thanks for the input, George
Yes, it's happening in many corners of the world. Language makes a good weapon, because it can be presented as "logical" to suppress multilingualism. However, I have yet to encounter a society that has successfully suppressed language minorities, or a movement to do so that isn't really based in much uglier assumptions.Nice to see you again, George.
-- posted by rkhen
» rkhen - Can language be separated from race and culture?
As I've said elsewhere, Alex, I don't believe it can. I'm aware that Mexican First Peoples have not made an issue of their language, but they clearly have made an issue of their desire to remain a distinct people. That distinctiveness includes their language.It is frankly unimaginable that any government that purports to be responsive and responsible, and which governs a nation with such large language minorities, not only refuses to recognise those langauges, but can't even scare up a minor bureaucrat who can communicate in those languages in a crisis situation.
I reiterate that 700 words are clearly not enough for an in-depth analysis of Mexican history and government. Such was not my intent. Rather, I have presented a linguist's analysis of events in that nation. And my conclusions are that, from a linguistic perspective, the Mexican government has one heck of a lot to answer for.
Thanks for your word, Alex, and your observation on Tagalog.
-- posted by rkhen
» rkhen - The big deal with Québec
This is the big deal with Québec separation:1) Québec is the cradle of Canadian civilisation, is essential to the Canadian identity and to Canada's national health. Canadian survival thus far can be attributed to the Québécois presence in our national life, and I believe Canada will not survive long without them.
2) The people of Québec want to preserve their language and culture. I want the people of Québec to preserve their language and culture. They cannot do so outside of Canada.
3) Speaking as a British Columbian, I must say that I find your "larger North American economy" a tremendous disappointment. Basically, Canada sold off a huge chunk of its sovereignty and its self-respect, and the returns have been questionable indeed. I would like to see my nation withdraw from the American "co-prosperity sphere." However, this is not the proper forum for a discussion of non-linguistics-related politics, so I will limit my observations to this: being part of the "larger North American economy" (in other words, an American colony) is precisely the opposite of what Québec separatists are selling Québec voters, but I believe that's precisely what they will get if the separatists prevail.
That, in a nutshell, is the big deal with Québec separation.
-- posted by rkhen
» pseudoerasmus - I don't even understand what the point of the article is.
I don't even understand what the point of the article is. Without multingualism, doom? Is that the point? Why should western Canadians, who have no need or desire to learn French, learn it? Why on earth should a Mexican learn an aboriginal language?However, I have yet to encounter a society that has successfully suppressed language minorities...
Well, many have come close enough. Japan, Britain, France, Germany, etc. have few language minorities; and the speakers of minority languages invariably speak the dominant language. Why shouldn't it be this way?
Almost all countries deal with ethnic and language problems by one of four ways:
1. Imposing one tribe's or group's language on the others.
2. Adopting the colonial language (French, English, etc.) as the lingua franca for business and government.
3. the Indonesian solution: adopting some artificial lingua franca
4. Accomodation through bi- or multilingualism.
It seems to me, #3 is infeasible in most instances, #4 is limited to Switzerland as the only truly successful case, and #2 has a mixed record. #1 seems to be the predominant method of solution throughout history and throughout the world today. If none works out, there is separation.
Don't you think sometimes separation is the only way? What would you have advised Greeks and Turks to do in the 1920s when they exchanged populations? To learn each other's languages? Does it really matter if Walloons and Flemings separated? (Belgium is after all just a fiction of the Treaty of Utrecht...)
I'm aware that Mexican First Peoples have not made an issue of their language, but they clearly have made an issue of their desire to remain a distinct people.
Have they? Indians, at least in Chiapas, have not made anything an issue except for poverty and underdevelopment. In fact, nothing prevents them from being a distinct people -- they're already pretty bloody distinct and isolated. (I had rather thought that WAS the problem -- they're too distinct and isolated from the mainstream of Mexican society.)
It is frankly unimaginable that any government that purports to be responsive and responsible...refuses to recognise those langauges...
What does "recognition" entail? Frankly, given that these Indian languages persist quite well on their own, I see no need for "recognition". What should happen is that Amerindian monolinguals should learn Spanish -- for their own good.
Re: Canada
What is "Canadian civilisation"? (Don't be offended. I titter at the phrase "American civilisation" as well.)
Canadian survival thus far can be attributed to the Québécois presence in our national life, and I believe Canada will not survive long without them.
What does this mean exactly? That the rump Canada (sans Québec) would be swallowed up by the United States? That would seem unlikely. My understanding is that the western Canadian provinces are pretty sick of the eastern ones anyway.
I'm all for Québec independence, only because I feel that the more separate countries, the merrier. Does it really matter in this day and age where is a unified Canada or a Canada and a Québec. Does it matter whether Scotland and Wales and Catalonia and Flanders go "free"?
I must say that I find your "larger North American economy" a tremendous disappointment....being part of the "larger North American economy" (in other words, an American colony) is precisely the opposite of what Québec separatists are selling Québec voters, but I believe that's precisely what they will get if the separatists prevail.
In what sense is Canadian sovereignty jeopardised by the large level of U.S. direct investment in Canada? Canada has a famously indpendent foreign policy, does it not? Anyway, much of the economic doldrums Canada has experienced has little to do with NAFTA or with integration into the larger North American economy; rather they're the fault of your own federal government's tightwad fiscal & monetary policies.
I would like to see my nation withdraw from the American "co-prosperity sphere."
Rather shrill verbiage, I should think. Do you know what might happen to a little country like Canada if it went autarkic?
-- posted by pseudoerasmus
» pseudoerasmus - Well, those 5% or so of the Finnish population who are Swedish s
Well, those 5% or so of the Finnish population who are Swedish speakers just might have taken up arms had it not been Finland's policy of two official languages! Anyway, has Finland truly a bilingual policy? Are all official documents in both Finnish and Swedish?-- posted by pseudoerasmus
» GeorgeP_6 - Here's my Finnish acquaintance's reply to questions...
posed by Pseudoerasmus:> Author: pseudoerasmus
>
> I don't even understand what the point of the article is. Without
> multingualism, doom? Is that the point? Why should western Canadians,
> who have no need or desire to learn French, learn it?
In Finland all schoolchildren have to study "the other domestic". In
fennophone schools students start taking Swedish in the 7th grade and it
continues all the way through high school and many take some swedish in
college. In svecophone schools they start taking Finnish already in the
5th grade. Most students in all schools start taking English in the 3rd
grade.
Maybe only 6% of Finns speak Swedish natively, and many if not most of
them speak Finnish fluently. Moreover, the Swedish-speaking population
is concentrated on the coast-line of Finland. So many Finnish-speakers
ask the same question: why must I study Swedish even if I have no need
or desire to learn it.
The purposes of forcing all schoolchildren to study the other domestic
language are:
1. National unity. The government doesn't want Finland to split into
two ethnic groups that don't speak each other's language. Even
though that is a rather remote possibility at the moment, some
local animosity and even violence exists between the language
groups.
2. Enforcing the Constitution. The Finnish constitution guarantees
state services in Finnish and Swedish to all citizens everywhere in
the country. Thus all state officials must speak both languages
rather fluently. Even though this rule is not always strictly
enforced, it would become completely unenforceable if everybody
were monolingual.
3. Nordic cooperation. Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland
are in close economic and political relations. Swedish is
understood everywhere except Iceland. So Finnish-speakers have more
job opportunities by learning Swedish.
Even though I understand the rationale laid out above, I still think it
would be better to make the other domestic language optional and
replaceable with some other foreign language.
> Why on earth should a Mexican learn an aboriginal language?
The real reason the Swedish language has such a strong status in Finland
is historical. For six centuries Finland was a province of Sweden, and
even during most of the Russian rule (1807..1917) Swedish was the
official language in Finland even though 85% of the people spoke
Finnish. (The situation was very much analogous with that in Ireland in
the 19th century.)
> Well, those 5% or so of the Finnish population who are Swedish
> speakers just might have taken up arms had it not been Finland's
> policy of two official languages! Anyway, has Finland truly a
> bilingual policy? Are all official documents in both Finnish and
> Swedish?
When Finland's Constitution was drafted, most politicians had received
their education in Swedish. The novelty then was rather the adoption of
Finnish as an official language.
Yes, all state documents are available in both Finnish and Swedish. You
have the right to get all state and court services in either language.
However, that doesn't apply to cities, which may be mono- or bilingual
depending on a census-based rule. So there are completely svecophone
cities and completely fennophone cities. In addition, one city in
Lapland, where virtually everybody speaks Lappish natively, has an
exceptional right to use Lappish (Saami) as language of government.
The schools (from preschools to high-schools) are all monolingual. Only
in bilingual cities are there schools for both language groups. Most
universities are monolingual as well.
The roots of Finland's independence are very much in the language
question. Finland, which was an autonomous Grand-Duchy under the Russian
Emperor, was being targeted by the influential Panslavist movement in
Russia who wanted to remove Finland's special status. One of their most
hated programs was the adoption of Russian as the only permitted school
language around the turn of the century. So while the Americans cherish
the freedom of speech and religion for historical reasons, Finns
generally understand the role of language in every person's identity. So
Finns grant elementary public school education in _any_ language as long
as twelve pupils speak the language. So I hear that there is a school in
the middle of Finland where there is a Vietnamese class.
The Swedish-speaking minority is gradually diminishing in size because
of cross-marriages and bilingualism. Some Swedish-speakers are resentful
because of it, but I don't think that counts as a flaw in the
governmental language policies.
Marko
--
Marko Rauhamaa mailto:marko.rauhamaa@iki.fi http://www.iki.fi/pacujo/
Suomenkielinen esperantokurssi http://www.iki.fi/pacujo/esperanto/kurss...
Free Esperanto Course http://www.iki.fi/pacujo/esperanto/cours...
-- posted by GeorgeP_6
« Previous 1 2 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.