English as a universal language

[Sharkith]

Sharkith, do you also look down on the Greeks for the spreading of mathematics as we know it? The Italians for the Romans spreading things ranging from sanitary systems through to roads? The old Germanic tribes and the Norse invading the British isles and their influence on the English language in the first place also?

Is it just that the British empire was more recent and you don't feel it's okay to let it go yet or do you find shame in just about everything around you that has some roots in a violent history or is it something else altogether?

Like I said above identify the value system that supports the political phenomenon called imperialism then we have a discussion. Simply firing off some half baked notion of 'spreading things' like mathematics and sanitary systems is not enough (That is kind of a cheap shot imo and a bit lame). After all is that why the Romans built an empire to bring good toilets to the rest of the known world ? I didn't think you were that stupid Xest. Were the reasons the Romans built an empire the same as the British? Where the values the same?

You see your the one who is saying we are in no position to judge by our value system and yet you haven't even had the courtesy to clarify the values that were existing at the time that supported the notion of political and military dominance in the form of imperialism.

edit: or are you avoiding the real issue here?

[Ovi]

That definition starts off almost exactly as the definition I gave, with hegemony replaced for probably better terms. Hegemony probably doesn't fit, but of the definitions I had seen that was closest to my interpretation of it.

The definition you gave adds a little more, "Because imperialism always involves the use of power, often in the form of military force, it is widely considered morally objectionable, and the term accordingly has been used by states to denounce and discredit the foreign policies of their opponents....".

I would argue that the "morally objectionable" part is again putting today's values against historical actions. The other part of interest is "used by states to denounce and discredit the foreign policies of their opponents....", as that is exactly how it is most often used in reference to the British Empire, in an effort to denounce and descredit what it did.

Of course Imperialism isn't a value system. I am not referring to a specific value system. The values that apply are the general values of the world (More specifically Europe I guess) at that time.

The English language of course has history. What I am trying to say is that whatever it's history we should look at it's current position and, IF it is the right choice, make use of it globably moving forward without dwelling on what it meant (Past tense).

The language itself was not responsible for anything that happened. I don't feel that this view is glossing over history, it is simply putting history where it belongs, in the past!

The English language itself comes from the fact that Britain was invaded by a number of different peoples including, Romans (Italian), Vikings (Danish), Angles (German), Saxons (Germans again), Jutes (More Germans), Normans (French). The country and the language are even named after an invading Germanic tribe

So the country that has suffered most for the English language is probably England itself, but we don't have aproblem using the language.

[Lairiodd]

Like I said above identify the value system that supports the political phenomenon called imperialism then we have a discussion. Simply firing off some half baked notion of 'spreading things' like mathematics and sanitary systems is not enough (That is kind of a cheap shot imo and a bit lame). After all is that why the Romans built an empire to bring good toilets to the rest of the known world ? I didn't think you were that stupid Xest. Were the reasons the Romans built an empire the same as the British? Where the values the same?

The leaders of Rome did it for the power. But, I'm sure that they felt they were spreading civilisation too.

Countries are not like a person, they are made up of lots of people and lots of views. A democracy (and Rome was sorta democratic for the rich) gives all those factions some say in what the country does.

Even if the leaders did it for power, people would have supported it to make their lives safer/easier.

You see your the one who is saying we are in no position to judge by our value system and yet you haven't even had the courtesy to clarify the values that were existing at the time that supported the notion of political and military dominance in the form of imperialism.

edit: or are you avoiding the real issue here?

I think Xest was pointing out somethings that are unquestionably improvements that were spread.

The social structures that include things like capitalism are unquestionably "better" than other system. These were spread also by the British expansion.

Ironically, another element of that package of values, equality, says that you should treat everyone equally. The example being that Britian was a "nation of shopkeepers" where all people were treated similarily when doing buisness.

Multiculturalism takes that to the extreme and says that all cultures should be treated the same. I am not so sure on that one, IMO, multiculturalism should not be unconditional, those other cultures should have to respect/accept multiculturalism itself before they get the benefits, i.e. they will only be considered civilised if they act that way. "We recognise your right to exist" should be a requirement before countries are given any respect.

[Lieva]

What have the romans ever done for us? ]/Ankh[/B]

sexeh males in short skirts...
ala gladiator...

[Lieva]

kids what you doing here.....??
FH diskussions are so .....simple i whine on you and you whine back....this is to much i cannot read all sorry.

tis a bit hard going aye
i pick out the good stuff (ala the stuff that doesnt confuzzle the heck outa me) to reply to

[Sharkith]

Essay warning - you asked for it

So the country that has suffered most for the English language is probably England itself, but we don't have aproblem using the language. ]

nice point and probably right the reason why you don't have a problem using the language is possibly also because its part of the old British global hegemony.

Of course Imperialism isn't a value system. I am not referring to a specific value system. The values that apply are the general values of the world (More specifically Europe I guess) at that time.

Thanks Ovi I think this debate is moving forward now. OK but lets hold the notion of hegemony as different but possibly closely related to imperialism. We need that to explain the language phenomenon and the aftermath of imperialism.

As for the clarification of supporting value systems I am afraid you just have not gone far enough. How do we know for example that the "general values of the world" back then are any different to what they are now. Certainly the world was not the global world it is today - that is undeniable.

The British empire began with the subjugation of the people at home the Scottish, Irish and Welsh. Imperialism is based on the old hierarchical notion of a society where the rulers (property owners) rule the propertyless. Remember in Britian the vote was not widened until well after the French revolution. This time line is a nice summary of the origins of the British Empire. The value system then is a very old value system where aristocratic classes dominate the political apparatus and were we all would certainly have known our place.

For me the vital thing is that the value system that was eventually to emerge to oppose this form of imperialism and even to transform it began with the enlightenment (check reference) whose values was eventually to be realised through the effects of the (United Irishmen at home) and their correlate the French Revolutionin the form of civil society and eventually they were to find expression in the aggressive militarism of Napoleon. With Napoleon we have the beginnings European imperialism which took the form of Nationalistic imperialism. The British empire predates all of this but was eventually to be transformed by it. This is why it was so unique.

Already Ovi you can see that your assumption that there was a single system of world values is readily challenged by a cursory glance through history.

So if we were to begin with the emergence of the British Empire in monarchy and the subjugation of the Scots and Irish we could ask was there ANYTHING like it at the time? Probably. Was it compatible with a world value system? No. Only with the enlightenment do we find the potential for a world system of common values. Have those values been replaced today? Emphatically not. Although they are in the process of being challenged. So your whole argument gets dismantled in the very thing you base it on which is that we have all gone through a profound change of values and that those are no longer appropriate for the evaluation of the empire.

There was no world system of values when the British empire emerged. In fact the British empire was done for one thing only - dominance wealth and the securing of goods for the betterment of the elite at home. It emerged against a backdrop of merchantilism and eventually helped to to gave birth to consumerist captilism. The British empire was transformed through events in Europe, the enlightenment, the French and Industrial revolutions. These are the things that give our society its values and those values have not as yet been replaced. With this change the Empire becomes a project connected to the spread of enlightenment values (cultural hegemony). Anthropology as a discipline owes its whole inheritance to the power of one society to observe another as a savage.

So the claim that we cannot evaluate the British empire because our values are profoundly different is exactly what Ambs said earlier partially a straw man.

Historically the empire might have began with a very different purpose and underpinning value system. But it existed throughout the enlightment and through the emergence of our so called 'modern' society. Its purpose was transformed against a backdrop of even bigger global changes. On the one hand we agree it was shameful (associated with the sheer militaristic dominance of the old empire) and on the other we remain convinced it achieved a lot. This latter sentiment is nothing more than the enlightenment speaking through us. in that we might still praise English as a language but we then remain nothing more than the agents of the enlightenment. We are the agents of what remains of the empire.

Sharkith

p.s. Lairr: Personally I am not familiar with Roman history but as far as I know the reasons for their empire was simply to glorify Rome and its society. Very very different reasons to those associated with the emrgence of the British empire which began with the insecurity of the English.

[naic]

Jesus Christ guys!

[Cryn]

The reasons for Roman expansionism depend on what point of Roman History you look at. It's also worth considering that there may not have been a single overiding reason at most points in history, but rather a collection of drivers, such as opening/exploiting new markets, securing resources and making political capital.

I would think British expansionism and other imperialistic efforts might have similarly complex motivators.

Diversity, its fostering and preservation, is a very sticky subject, I think. People look for one simple answer, but I think there's no single answer that fits across the range of situations. Diversity for the sake of diversity seems like an empty goal. Having said that, one man's "decent toilets" is another man's "shitting in your house, rather than as nature intended in a hole outside" so pushing values, rather than letting them spread on their own, is a risky proposition.

[Ovi]

It's getting late and I'm tired, so only a quick rely now. I may well have more to post tomorrow

Firstly when I say "general values of the world", I don't assume a single system of values. Far from it in fact. The other thing is that the values were constantly changing, as you have said. All the while I think the British Empire stayed within the bounds of the time.

The best example I can give now is the timeline you linked. If you read down the "Empire" column you will notice that there was a significant amount of fighting between the French, British & Spanish, as well as some other European powers. Most of this fighting was over colonies in one place or another. These are the kind of values I was refering too, the values that almost every European country was exhibiting.

The fact that it was considered right at the time to Annex foreign territories for the use of the Empire, everyone else was doing it.

As far as the government at the time was concerned we had to compete with the other European powers, we had to do our own Colonising and land grabbing to keep our position as a major trading / military power in the world. You should remember that all through history we have fought with the French, and to a lesser extent the Spanish. We couldn't allow them to become more powerful than us, if only because of our insecurities.

The only reason we are talking about the British Empire now and not one of the others is that we did it more successfully. Would any of the others have been better for the countries they controlled? From their records in the countries they did control the answer would almost certainly be no.

Values were emphatically very different then. How many countries allowed everyone to vote? How many allowed Women an equal vote? Today in most countries that share our values women are considered equal to men, (at least in any legal sense). 100 years ago women couldn't vote, much less 300 years ago. That is just one example of where values have changed dramatically.

I would say that ww2 was a big milestone in the formation of the worlds values. It's no coincidence that the begginings of the EU formed shortly after, in order to try to ensure that the countries of Europe never again got involved in large scale conflict.

I wouldn't include the subjugation of the Scots and Irish in the forming of the British Empire. Although they probably really are the start, there was a more immediate insecurity where they were concerned, they were (particularly the Scots) on our doorstep. There almost certainly are behaviours in those respects that are less than ideal, although they weren't entirely one-sided either.

[Ovi]

tis a bit hard going aye
i pick out the good stuff (ala the stuff that doesnt confuzzle the heck outa me) to reply to

It's the first decent debate I've had for ages .... it's all good stuff!