English as a universal language

[Sharkith]

I don't know what your driving at Aran. I already said that society and people are dependent on each other. What is thought behind communication is not directly observable and so difficult to study - isn't it just easier to see what is said and how?

As for your last point I have no clue what your driving at. All I did was try to clarify my position. If I was to simply disagree would it not stop the communication? Whereas to clarify and revise allows communication continue.

Personally I found the discussion interesting and useful. Whilst some of it was repetitive I actually think we did come a long way. If you would prefer me to stop I can of course oblige.

[Lairiodd]

My question is, if all of the "West" would have butted out of the mid-east and gone home, I dont mean just millitary but also companies exploiting the countries...

They aren't. The reason that US companies do the oil extraction is that they have the technical skills and frankly, the locals just don't.

The governments of those countries don't want to say this, and anyway, it is easier to re-direct anger towards the US.

Its a fact that the hate towards US in the mid-east must come from some wrongdoings, its not something they suddenly came up with (oh I know lets start hating US today). So its their own fault for butting in all the time instead of concentrating on their own country. Why in the world UK felt the urge to but in as well is beyond me.

If the US decided not to trade with the Middle East, they would be somewhat poorer due to the price of oil increasing (which would actually benefit the oil industry in the US). This would hurt, but wouldn't be a life or death problem. It certainly wouldn't cause mass riots or something. Also, if they really meant it, alternatives to oil would be created reasonably quickly in the US or even just people buying high milage cars.

However, oil is a major source of income for Middle Eastern countries. Their economies would basically go into free fall. There would be (actually is already) massive unemployment but now the governments couldn't buy civil order by supporting that many people on social welfare. It is quite likely that many governments would collapse.

Arguably, one way to "solve" the Middle Eastern problem would be to leave them alone. If the US buys the oil, they are exploiting and if they not to buy the oil, they would be accused of unfairly imposing sanctions.

[Lairiodd]

A language is not intrinsically more useful than another language. In fact there are other languages that would be much more useful and much better than English.

English is actually very useful .

In fairness, if you could pick one language to know, what one would it be ?

Which language is based on Nash equilibrium. This means that the choice is based on what everyone else chooses. It is kinda like "what is the best side of the street to drive on?". The answer is "the same side as everyone else uses".

For languages, this becomes "the language that most others will understand". This slowly pushes one language ahead of the others, which then pushes it even further ahead.

This also applies to OS and is why Microsoft is hard to compete with.

[Lairiodd]

Mathematics is not specifically British although it is certainly part of the general occidental tradition of which Western Europeans and North Americans are a part.

i.e. the name of the language is the same as your country ?

However, we never say 1 English 3 = 4

[Lairiodd]

On a seperate thread, anyone who believes military action in the middle east can ever bring peace has got to be mad.

You are probably right. The thing about war is that you should either not do it or do it properly. If you do it half heartedly, then you can never win.

The thing to remember is that by far the majority of muslims arnt terrorists, they are just people, like you and me, a different colour maybe, a different religion, maybe, they buy bread and milk to feed their children, they go to work, they want to be left in peace. Put yourself in their place, its a point I think Luz made, if you see your babies, your children, your parents shot and/or mutilated, where does that leave you, what opinions do you form?

Correct. The problem is that the answer that they get is "because the US is evil". The don't decide "because all those terrorists are bombing" or "because the government supports terrorists". They can think these things because their is no consequences to being in a country that supports terrorists.

However, it is the fault of the terrorists and their supporters in those governments. Look at lebanon, they are calling for a cease fire. The (let others) launch lots of rockets into Israel and then when Israel reacts they beg the world to save them.

Their government should have to issue a public statement of apology to Israel for failing to contain the rocket attacks from their country or something before the ceasefire is forced on Israel. Also, the ceasefire should be conditional on zero rockets being launched in the future and/or some form of monetary compensation.

If there are no consequences to the letting people fire rockets from your country, then why should they bother to try to stop it ?

[Cryn]

What I said was the language is not suitable as a world language because it owes its dominance to a past that is shameful.

Successful propogation of ANY language has been based partly on cultural or miltary dominance, but also partly on the viability of the language itself. There's an interesting book by Melvin Bragg about the history of English that describes how it became our national language inspite of not being the language of the ruling class.

If you consider French, the other language we were originally talking about, it was not the sole language spoken in France by the indiginous tribes. It owes a lot to the dominance of the Roman Empire.

I'm sure you'd find the same for most languages, and so it doesn't really take us anywhere taking on this "cultural shame" and using it to constrain our actions.

To me it's simple - we should not force our ideas onto people today. English will continue to spread and dominate because it is now an advantage to people to speak it. That's not something to be ashamed of however it came about. It's not something to be proud of either. None of us had a hand in its making.

Now, if we were to take Gandelf's idea forward, we WOULD have cause for shame. Telling French people they have to speak English for our convenience is wrong.

The fact that our ancesters were different to us is a moot point especially since we are still informed by the same rationality that they were. On the one hand that they went of colonising a new world. We however are still continuing that project. The only difference is that today we are colonising it with our ideas about how things ought to be. We are busy promoting our hegemony when we should learn to shut the fuck up and perhaps listen?

I think people oversimplify on this issue.

We are not informed by the same rationality as our ancestors. There are points of similarity but also vast differences. There are also points of similarity between our rationality and that of China, Japan, Russia, Nigeria, Jordan, etc, etc. The increase of trade and cultural exchange over time has not just been a one way process of us dictating ideas to others. We have a rich cultural diversity from being exposed to other cultures and our rationality has naturally not stood still in the face of it.

Spreading an idea is not a bad thing. It is an inevitable part of being human. In some sense, it is the only meaningful activity of human beings. It's how you spread the idea that could be wrong. Doing it by force of arms is clearly (to me) morally indefensible. Doing it through taking advantage of someone else's weakness or ignorance is also morally wrong in my opinion (selling Coca Cola to people who had no idea how addictive and toxic it is, for example). Doing it through bombarding people with a message is also wrong, and that's pretty much the standard approach of any company in the world, regardless of where they are based.

As we operate today, Britain does have things to be ashamed of. Not what our ancestors did, but what we are doing in trade. However, we are not alone, and it is not an activity native to the West. In my opinion, the Islamic religion - not just the extreme end - is using some horrible practices to indoctrinate the young and the poor.

What's more, Britain can be proud of our cultural diversity, because many of us contribute to making it possible. Open mindedness about other cultures and appreciation of diversity is something many of us value. This is not true of many places in the world, and it doesn't happen without continued effort.

It's a shame people like Gandelf make it harder for us to stay rational on such issues, but thankfully most people are more sensible. However, if we accept that our military actions in Iraq are likely to increase sympathy for the terrorist organisations, we might also need to accept that continued terrorist activity against innocents in Britain is going to breed agression against Islam.

[<ankh>]

If the US decided not to trade with the Middle East, they would be somewhat poorer due to the price of oil increasing (which would actually benefit the oil industry in the US). This would hurt, but wouldn't be a life or death problem. It certainly wouldn't cause mass riots or something.

Im not so sure about this as the oil from the middle east is quite important to the rest of the world. It wouldnt benefit the oil industry in the US in other ways than they would be able to raise their prices skyhigh and get away with it. They arent unlimited supply of oil and tbh they cannot supply enough oil to keep up with the demands. I actually think it might cause mass riots as it would increase the cost of everything else too.

Raise the price of oil - and you greatly increase the cost of transporting everything else.

/Ankh

[Gandelf]

I sometimes contemplate how the world would be if we didn't have to use Middle-East oil. A lot (if not all) of the Middle-East's wealth is dependent on the sale of oil to the rest of the world. Bush has already announced that it is the goal of the US to find a viable "home-grown" alternative to Middle-Eastern oil. One alternative which has great potential is the production of liquid fuel from coal dust. They already have the technology to produce it and more importantly, the US has some of the largest coal fields in the world.

Part of the USA's future fight against terrorism may well be to cut off financial support indirectly to the terrorists from sympathetic oil moguls by not buying oil from the Middle-East, but rather manufacturing their own fuel instead.

[Sharkith]

my final point for this thread is simple. Maybe I see shame in this empire and maybe I am one of the few who feels very strongly that throughout its history I could if I had the time establish that there is a theme of shame associated with it alongside all the glory and all that shite. Even in the finctionally different value system of the time.

Maybe? Who knows? Just maybe thats the Irish in me speaking.... if thats the case then I think we remain very different. In fact I am glad I am different because of my origins if this is the way the so called majority of England think.

I still find it hard to reconcile what some of you are driving at with the comments I get day and daily fom a lot of English people I know many of whom readily cite shame and pride in the same breath associated with this empire and the dominance of the language. No matter. You choose to have it how you wish. I will nonetheless decide where I honestly feel I wish to come from and right now I took a big step away from where I traditionally thought I ought to feel welcome.

[Lieva]

hmm.

Imo every country in the planet should feel shame for their past (and unfortunatly - present) actions.
Just because they didn't act the worst in that era is no excuse.
And its good to feel shame as it stops us from making the same misakes that cost lives and freedom in the past.

As a female i often feel shame in the fact i DONT want to work and do not vote. All the women before me suffered much for these simple things i take for granted. This will not change however (i dont like getting up in the morning) but with that shame is understanding. They suffored some nasty nasty things but they did it so i could have a choice.

Does the shame of the british empires actions in the past work with what was achived in the same respect? I dont know - my history is abit bad. However, our actions changed the course of so many places. Some of it bad but i think the majority of it was good.

saying that - watching braveheart. Yes i know that was hollywoods version of it but - if the english people acted like that..then yea i would have joined the scots/irish