English as a universal language

[Lieva]

At least the British military know how to tie shoe-laces properly. None of this criss-cross nonsense!

I believe the Ghurkas used to infiltrate enemy camps at night and feel if sleeping soldiers' shoe-laces were criss-cross or straight. If they were criss-cross, then they were the enemy and would have their throats slit whilst they lay sleeping.

The Ghurkas were elite!

Edit: In fact, my Grandad fought alongside the Ghurkas in Burma during the war.

they were used in 'carry on up the kyber' i think...

[Kallima]

In my opinion, there is remembering the past in a constructive manner to avoid repeating mistakes, and there is remembering the past destructively preventing you making the best of the present. Too often people remember the past actions of others to justify continuing a grudge by doing harmful things themselves. Whatever the past rights or wrongs, it generally just continues a destructive cycle.

If you should avoid a language because of the actions of people who are dead who spoke that language, the same does apply to mathematics, science, and a plethora of other things. If you want a real ethical question, then if a medical treatment was developed by forcing people to be experimental subjects should you refuse to use it? Do you let a child die in pain because the cure was developed by immoral methods? You would of course have a perfect right to refuse treatment yourself, but that in no way changes the past for the better.

Realistically, the world has in past times often been a fight for survival. The languages we have now are probably all languages that have survived by methods we would now regard as dubious. If we need a common second language (and that in no way requires people to lose their culture by giving up their own first language) we either do it the easy way by using an already commonly spoken language or we make one up. Esperanto is the most widespread constructed language. I had a go at learning it as a child for idealistic reasons. Couldn't really find anyone to speak it with so I gave up. Its been around since 1887 so I think the chances of people suddenly deciding to use that as a global communication language are slim.

[Xest]

Ghurkas were used bloody everywhere, in fact I'm not sure we have a native British army

They were definitely used in the Falklands, and they're deployed in Iraq right now.

[Sharkith]

Mm, still not quite with you, 'shame expressed in communications', by that you mean something different than people communicating about the emotion of shame?

Shame gets attached to communications about for example how the Ghurkas have been treated today. Essentially the point is that whilst there will most likely be people who feel this shame we can not really know how many or what it means to them. Rather than worry about 50 odd million individual's views and feelings of shame or not in relation to the topic it is more productive to follow the code of shame and look to see how it became established and associated with the British empire.

Sure when talking of shame people will be referring to a real emotion. But I am with Ovi on this - we can never really know the full measure of those associations so the approach I adopt is to set aside any concern about those and simply follow the code to see where it comes from what it is associated with and how it is used with reference to the British empire.

The method is similar Koselleck (See herefor the reference) except how I use it is in association with a very well known theory of society. I have a draft paper on the origins and form of "quality of life" as a concept at the moment. Shame would be interesting but would be slightly outside my field.

Shark

edit: and I agree with Kallima and Xest - the morality of wether or not it is a good thing is an entirely different and very tough issue to decide on. I am certainly not one to be able to work on that kind of argument though.

[Ovi]

[quote="Sharkith"]

As for Ovi's comments - I think if I had the old Hansard records I would find associations of guilt and shame with slavery easily enough - even in the values of the time. The fact that the law changed shows that there must have been some considerable debate - I just cannot put my hands on the records because well I am on annual leave and the library is in work! ]

I think you missed the main point. The British Empire was one of the first to change. Being last to change would have been shameful, not changing would have been even more shameful. Being the first, and then pushing for others to change, imo shows that The Empire was more willing to change than most of it's contemporaries, far from a reason for shame.

As to being ashamed about the treatment of The Ghurkas, that is a shame of today, not of the empire. I am guessing they are one group that has been treated worse as standards have got better. I couldn't really tell you since I don't know too much about their treatment in the past.

This discussion has actually made me realise one other thing which I do find a little disturbing. From Elizabeth I to Just before WW1 I never had any formal educational teaching. There was plenty from 1066 up until Elizabeth I, and then from just before WW1 onwards, and yet it missed a great chunk of really important stuff over 300 years.

[Aran_Thule]

I can see your point Crom but in my view society is not composed of people but communications and so there is little to be gained in asking persons.

Surely you are discussing with persons now so by that comment why are you arguing here?

[Craft]

on the Ghurka thing, we use them in the British Army as aGuerilla specialists as well as tough little bastards when the time comes and they get the job done

[Sharkith]

Surely you are discussing with persons now so by that comment why are you arguing here?

In order to discuss what are we using? Communication. Society is composed of those communications and only those communications. People are not 'in' society they are part of its environment. Persons are indispensible to society because without them it would not exist. In some ways society is less than the sum of its parts .

Now to respond directly to your question. Here I am interacting through the medium of the forums with you guys. I started to argue because I felt that what was being said was that our society should drop something that I felt was vital to that societys memory of its empire. I discovered that in fact I am probably the only one here who sees shame in that empire. I would say that this is something definitely worthy of discussion would you not?

This does not mean I am here and now studying that society because technically in the here and now I am alongside you guys as an observer using the communications available us to debate. Society provides those codes by organising them and remembering them. That they are in English is a moot point. Beyond us there might be other observers that either pick up these interactions or don't the discussion is most likely to pass away rather than become a major theme for either politics or the economy for example. In other words the theory of society frees us up to talk because our society will continue to exist despite what we say on an internet forum.

Ovi - just because there is a ';code' of shame attached to the empire does not mean there could also be 'codes' of 'honour' and 'reason'. It is a remarkable phenomena that this empire survived and changed through the enlightenment. Truly remarkable and something that I discovered as I engaged in the discussion here as well. You said you objected to my generalisation - in fact all I was saying is this theme is an important one that we need to sustain. Like I said I am certain that if we had the documents we will find it has a history. It would be a deep error to assume that this was the only theme associated with the empire.

You see thats the beauty of this theory. We are right now being observed in ways we cannot even imagine because we are limited in what we can see. Google for example picks up the codes we use and references them for others. Others can come and browse and see what we are saying. They can see our errors and our logical mistakes. The codes remain part of the archive of social communication. The systems we exist alongside are elegant systems that enable us to experience meaning. It is something I find deeply fascinating. Its why I love my job.

[Lieva]

Now to respond directly to your question. Here I am interacting through the medium of the forums with you guys. I started to argue because I felt that what was being said was that our society should drop something that I felt was vital to that societys memory of its empire. I discovered that in fact I am probably the only one here who sees shame in that empire. I would say that this is something definitely worthy of discussion would you not?

ahh sum up
can you do the others too please

[Aran_Thule]

In order to discuss what are we using? Communication. Society is composed of those communications and only those communications. People are not 'in' society they are part of its environment. Persons are indispensible to society because without them it would not exist. In some ways society is less than the sum of its parts ]
But you cant get communication without people so i cant see the point of your argument.
By saying society is down to communication rather then the people you give the impression that what is spoken is more important then the thought behind it.
"i think therefore i am" is an educated persons outlook, "i talk therefore i am" is a forum troll <grin>

Now to respond directly to your question. Here I am interacting through the medium of the forums with you guys. I started to argue because I felt that what was being said was that our society should drop something that I felt was vital to that societys memory of its empire. I discovered that in fact I am probably the only one here who sees shame in that empire. I would say that this is something definitely worthy of discussion would you not?

Initial discussion is one thing but rephasing and altering your stance to put your point across when others have already stated they disagree is pointless.
All that happens is the argument goes in circles with no progress, surely its better to agree that you disagree and move onto something else.