English as a universal language

[Sharkith]

You're still simply not getting the underlying point. No one's denying that what happened back then was bad compared to todays standards (although your argument about the holocaust is false in that what the Germans did WAS bad compared to the standards of the time).

Actually in many ways we are arguing past each other. I am maintaining a point that you have not got and in so doing I am not addressing the original point.

Sharkith,

I think you are confusing 2 seperate points, probably caused by my clumsy way of trying to exlpain them.

My original point was that I am not ashamed of the British Empire because no-one knew any better at the time.

That is quite a seperate statement from saying that what they did was wrong, by what we now know.

In judging whether to be ashamed we shouldn't view the actions with hindsight, we should compare the actions to what else was happening at the time.

To judge whether what they did was right or wrong, and what lessons to learn then of course we need to use hindsight.

OK let me state it a bit more clearly whilst keep the post short. Society is nothing more than communications. We don't live in society as such but are part of its environment. In order to communicate there are communication systems that enable us to do so. In communication semantics and forms of thinking get attached historically and act to shape the future ways we see things. My argument is thus:

The dominance of the English language is owed to the past actions of the British imperial system. Imperial systems are a 'shameful' thing (you see Ovi shame in indelibly imprinted on imperialism its an important thing to remember that it was shameful especially by todays standards). Due to this history the lauguage is unavoidably and indebilly imprinted with these associations.

Now this does not mean it can become dissassociated from these connotations and who knows maybe society would decide in the future to set this aside in the interests of a better formed battle group in Dark Age of Camelot although I do doubt it will. To set that association of shame and imperialism aside however changes an important semantic that guards against such old forms of social dominance. A society that does such, and I hope the British society never does, it would effectively be setting aside an element of the memory that imperialism is somehow wrong. So we must continue to guard against trying to promote the language because no matter what you say this society associates an element of shame with its history and the dominance of its language.

All I see here are arguments that endanger that collective memory and I think that is bad and therefore unethical.

OK now to move forward which to some extent Xest has done. We live in a globalised society and the internet has effectively achieved much more than the British empire ever could. A globalised society does not need one language it simply need globalised communication technologies (the mass media and the internet). So society can exist despite the nation state (paradoxically this does not mean nation states are irrelevant of course). In other words imperialism has become irrelevant as a globalising force and we are already in a new social form. Imperialism failed we know that.

Thankfully everyone doesn't need to speak English, after all we have bable fish now.

[Cromcruaich]

One obvious point you'll notice is that when figures of Israeli casualties are quoted they seperate civilian and military casualties, yet when it comes to Lebanese casualties they don't make the distinction and, in the way they present the figure it often suggests that 900 Lebanese civilians have been killed - that's not the case, a good few hundred of those Lebanese at absolute minimum are likely to be militants (Although, who's to say a military death is any less of a tragedy than a civilian death? that's a question for another day though!).

Try this http://www.medialens.org/

[Xest]

Try this http://www.medialens.org/

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

[Ovi]

Imperial systems were not a shameful thing. In it's time The British Empire did not, in my opinion, "deserve or bring disgrace or shame". For me to say I was ashamed of it I would have had to judge it as bringing disgrace at the time, not hundreds of years later. There are many other examples of Imperialism that were disgraceful in their time, but as Empires go the British one was certainly nowhere near the worst, and I can think of few examples that were better.

I also think that very few people who now speak English, certainly as a first language, really think about past associations, obviously though I have no way to know from first hand experience.

As I said before, people live too much in the passed. How many of today's conflicts are caused by age-old disagreements that are best forgiven (Not forgotten!).

I would be less hasty to suggest that Imperialism failed. In it's time it achieved much, but like many other forms of governance or political philosohpy it became obsolete as Civilisation progressed, that is a different thing from saying it failed. Without going back into History and changing things we will never know how succesful it really was, even with Hindsight! Without the British Empire we could have been left with a much worse French Empire, or maybe a much better French Empire, or we could all be stuck in the 19th Century waiting for the world to be kick-started.

A globalised society may not need a global language, but it would certainly make things a lot easier. It can be hard enough to get a point across when you share a common language, let alone if you rely on translations. I am sure if you put this thread through Bable fish it would not convey what the main discussions were about.

There is a very large portion of the internet that I can't understand. To all intents and purposes it may as well not be there for all the good it does me. What is available in English though is of course of great benefit.

At the end of the day I would certainly agree with having a globally recognised language of communication. I am too old for it affect me significantly as it would take generations to filter through, so I really couldn't care less what language was chosen. The sooner it happens the better though, as it's a small step on the way to US of E

[Sharkith]

One question - what do you understand by the term 'imperialism'?

[Ovi]

One question - what do you understand by the term 'imperialism'?

I actually looked up the definition before my last post. The one closest to my interpretation was probably]here[/URL]

[Xest]

There is a very large portion of the internet that I can't understand. To all intents and purposes it may as well not be there for all the good it does me. What is available in English though is of course of great benefit.

Useless statistic #32664363, 40% of web pages are English, the other 60% is a split between all other languages. Interesting that there's another 60% of the internet out there but useless in that you'll never be able to learn every language to ever understand them all

[Sharkith]

I actually looked up the definition before my last post. The one closest to my interpretation was probably]here[/URL]

thats a pretty vague definition but probably better than none. What for example does it mean to extend authority? Hegemony is an old Marxist term and is being used out of context and I would argue inappropriately here.

Hegemony is a form of power in Marx that goes beyond the immediate use of force. This page gives an excellent summary as far as I know it. You can see then that there is for me a finer distinction between imperialism and hegemony and the two terms should not be conflated. They could well be related in imperialism but in a much more subtle way than the above definition allows for - read the link. The two terms are nonetheless really useful to explain our differences I think.

I would prefer thisdefinition for Imperialism:

State policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas. 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....

Your argument is based on the notion that imperialism is a value or is in some way connected to the value system or norms of the time. Your argument needs there to be a connection between imperialism and some civil value and therefore that we are not in a good position to judge in the present because our value system is different. What we are missing is the value system your referring to. Where is it - because it is not in the definition of imperialism itself. There is a value in my view but I am waiting to see what value you wish to see as being conducive to a spirit of imperialism...

Clarify that and we will start to get to why I object so much.

One other thing. If you accept the original definition of hegemony (and its root use is in Gramsci of that there can be no mistake) then you have to accept that both you and Xest are extending the British hegemony in so far as you continue to see the English language as some form of innocous thing that has no history. I emphatically object to the glossing over of history in what your doing.

[Xest]

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?

[<ankh>]

What have the romans ever done for us?

/Ankh