English as a universal language

[Lairiodd]

... so pushing values, rather than letting them spread on their own, is a risky proposition.

However, that is also a value. Maybe we could call it a meta-value. It is a value that allows other values to exist.

If a culture/nation wants us to respect their values, shouldn't the first thing we require is that they agree to respect ours in exchange. We will let you live your life and in exchange you let us live ours.

Definately, if a country wants us dead/enslaved then we shouldn't just reply "well they are entitled to their opinion and the right to build up an army".

There is a need to draw a line. Saying that all countries are equal is an insult to those who are tortured to death at the hands of an oppressive regime. Do people really think that peaceful democracies which have proper law and order are equivalent morally to a dictatorship where the people are terrified of the government?

[Sharkith]

Diversity for the sake of diversity seems like an empty goal. ....so pushing values, rather than letting them spread on their own, is a risky proposition.

first of all I agreed with everything you said. these bits where the most important. To Ovi, its late if you re-read my post and links you will see that the British empire survived the enlightenment which is a unique thing historically. The empire survived what was basically an economic and cultural revolution. The old British empire was discontinuous from the new however essentially the values you are currently promoting are the same values as the new British empire.

I have to fundamentally disagree that the old British empire is continuous with the new. The empire was reborn and the American Revolution paved the way for that. As for the roots of shame perhaps it is better placed with the old. Personally I disagree and I can give you examples where the new empire was fundamentally as violent as the old. That would bring us back to hegemony though.

Enough for now. Re-read what I posted in some of this we agree what remains is to sort out more accurately the differences.

[Lieva]

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

yea but my poor brain cant keep up

[Ovi]

I wouldn't say the Empire was reborn, it evolved and changed, but to say it was reborn implies a specific time of momentus change, instead of the gradual moving towards new values, which is what really happened.

I also don't think The Age of Enlightenment was the start. The English civil war was closer to the real start of the change of values. To quote from the Age of Enlightenment link "However, prominent Enlightenment philosophers such as Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and David Hume questioned and attacked the existing institutions of both Church and State.", which is actually what the English Civil War was about.

I think the one part which shows where we differ is "As for the roots of shame perhaps it is better placed with the old. Personally I disagree and I can give you examples where the new empire was fundamentally as violent as the old." You are clearly implying that violent acts are shameful, whereas at the time even up until WW2 violence to solve disagreements was fairly typical and common. It was far from grounds to call the actions shameful.

Even today, violence in itself is rarely seen as shameful, which is why we still have so many armed conflicts going on.

[Heta]

yea but my poor brain cant keep up

my time can't keep up, way to much typed in this post to read it

[Gandelf]

Perhaps we should looks at the forming of empires and their decline as a natural cycle/rhythym of human nature? That way, we can avoid pointing the finger at certain races/nations. If it's in man's nature to conquer, then we are equally guilty for some of the atrocities that have come out of empire building. Conversely, we are all equally worthy of praise for some of the humanitarian initiatives that came out of empire.

Even on a personal level, there are people who are very much into empire building, for example in a company where one person dominates and pushes to climb the ladder and take control of departments and maybe even a whole company. Fair enough, on this scale people don't use guns and military might to subdue others, but psychologically, through bullying etc. some people do cause harm, mentally and in some cases physically, through domination of others.

So it's human nature. It happens on both the very large and the very small scale. We are all tarred with the same brush.

[Sharkith]

I wouldn't say the Empire was reborn, it evolved and changed, but to say it was reborn implies a specific time of momentus change, instead of the gradual moving towards new values, which is what really happened.

I also don't think The Age of Enlightenment was the start. The English civil war was closer to the real start of the change of values. To quote fro mthe Age of Enlightenment link "However, prominent Enlightenment philosophers such as Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and David Hume questioned and attacked the existing institutions of both Church and State.", which is actually what the English Civil War was about.

I think the one part which shows where we differ is "As for the roots of shame perhaps it is better placed with the old. Personally I disagree and I can give you examples where the new empire was fundamentally as violent as the old." You are clearly implying that violent acts are shameful, whereas at the time even up until WW2 violence to solve disagreements was fairly typical and common. It was far from grounds to call the actions shameful.

Even today, violence in itself is rarely seen as shameful, which is why we still have so many armed conflicts going on.

Ovi lets not bring up new issues here.

You have yet to answer my direct point. Simply stated your arguement was that you feel no shame for the British empire and this position was justified with reference to the fact that we have a different value system and therefore are in no position to criticise the empire as it was.

I have shown that in fact there was a change of values but that this change directly affected the British empire and that in fact the change of vlaues (from the enlightenment) is exactly the identical value system we have today. If we have the same values that the empire was continued upon then how can we be criticising it from a different set of values?

Answer that point.

My next point is as follows. The enlightenment brought with it the realisation that populations cannot solely be controlled by force alone and that in fact one can dominate through ideology and ideas. This is where hegemony comes in. We know for example that the British empire's attitude towards India and other colonies shifted from one of direct military dominance to one of a order where the British supported those with similar 'values'. "Inside every Indian there is a white man looking to get out" and all that kind of thinking. I put it to you that this became the new form of control after the enlightenment. Its not totally clean historically but I am trying to avoid giving you the full essay - the forum doesn't allow me to go ahead and construct the arguments.

In other words you and I and many of us here are simply agents of the enlightenment and all we do is reinforce that cultural hegemony.

Where the violence comes in is in the symbollic destruction of conceptual thought process that no longer fit within our view of rationality. Thats a symbolic violence. Language hegemony is simply one form of that.

kind regards

Sharkith

[Cromcruaich]

Doesn't seem particularly impartial Crom and a couple of weeks out of date?

Problem with news is that to report it accurately it takes a bit of evaluation of the sources. And as to its imartiality, i'm unsure, but it follows on from a point you made about history, you look at all the sources you can and try and pick out on which path the truth lies.

What makes you think it isnt impartial by the way?

In anycase I wouldnt trust any of the main media sources to be impartial, especially the newspapers and satellite tv stations.

[Xest]

Problem with news is that to report it accurately it takes a bit of evaluation of the sources. And as to its imartiality, i'm unsure, but it follows on from a point you made about history, you look at all the sources you can and try and pick out on which path the truth lies.

What makes you think it isnt impartial by the way?

In anycase I wouldnt trust any of the main media sources to be impartial, especially the newspapers and satellite tv stations.

Most the figures it quotes are from sources with bias that was the main thing, it also states it has a mission of revealing human rights violations and such - a truly unbiased media outlet would need no such mission.

Whilst I applaud the Red Cross for the good work they do, the Red Cross along with many other humanitarian organisations are themselves often guilty of overstating civilian casualties and human rights violations to bring public attention to their cause. This is along the same lines as earlier in the discussion where Lairiodd and Quinlan pointed out how enviromentalist groups do the same with regards to global warming. The Red Cross was listed as one of their sources.

Now I'll accept that I could have an incorrect view of the situation and hence they could be right but their reports did have an anti-Israeli feel to them. If they really are interested in highlighting media lies, why do they have nothing about the recent articles on Reuters which have been produced by someone with a heavy Hezbollah bias to the point where he has been proven to have edited multiple photos which have been published?

You're right about mainstream media for sure, as I say I think blogs are one of the best ways forward in getting the truth as there you have more of a chance of getting information from someone who isn't shadowed by a Hezbollah/Israeli media spindoctor, although they have their own biases often, by reading as many as possible you can form a much better picture - it's like the laws of probability really, the more samples you have the more accurate your result is likely to be.

[Ovi]

I have shown that in fact there was a change of values but that this change directly affected the British empire and that in fact the change of vlaues (from the enlightenment) is exactly the identical value system we have today. If we have the same values that the empire was continued upon then how can we be criticising it from a different set of values?

My point is that the values in the time of the Empire, even after the "Age of Enlightenment", are different than the values today. I have shown some examples of where values are different.

I think you place too much store in the "Age of Enlightenment", and it's effect on values. From what I can see The Enlightenment was more about changing the way people think, more specifically encouraging people to think for themselves, than actually setting any particular values. Of course, once people start to think for themselves that will lead to a change in values, but it didn't, in itself, introduce a fixed set of values.

In fact because it encouraged thinking it probably had the opposite effect, values were more likely to be challenged, changed, and evolve, and therefore were certainly not a fixed set.

The very fact that you mention that by-and-large the methods of control changed after this period shows that The British Empire did change in accordance with the values of the time. It realised that it was doing wrong, against the new values that were becoming important, and changed. Hardly a shameful act, it would have been shameful to pretend that it was right and that it shouldn't change.

If by the fact that I try to think for myself, and encourage others to try and do the same, then I guess I am an agent of the enlightenment. I disagree that encouraging the use of English (or any other language) as a second language to aid global communication would be a form of hegemony though, unless of course we consider the dominance of The Human Race over itself as hegemony?

Remember the choice of language was not about affecting any other change in culture than allowing easier global communuication through a second language, if it wasn't already spoken as a main language. English was proposed as a suitable candidate due to it's current wide-spread use, a further consequence of which is that it will effect a change in the fewest nations.

Chinese being another strong candidate would affect more nations but fewer people. This would also suffer from the fact that otehr countries would possible have an objection to Chinese for historical reason, Japan being the main one to spring to mind.

The other languages that could be considered candidates (French, Spanish, German etc) would all suffer to a similar extent from the issues associated with English.