4 ms·

First off, I disagree that a common language means a common culture. There are a lot of distinct cultures that share a language. Personally I don't care that m

by jnky 10y ago

First off, I disagree that a common language means a common culture. There are a lot of distinct cultures that share a language. Personally I don't care that much about the ease of doing business. Rather, I think standardizing on a language would have a real benefit for humanity as a whole. Apart from practical considerations, think about how often people from other countries are somewhat dehumanized as an "other" or "the enemy" without you being able to get a view of the situation from the other side of the fence because of the language barrier. I'm wondering for instance if the Cold War could have happened in a world where both parties share a language while being connected over the Internet. Also, congrats on the unnecessary Nazi comparison.

coldtea 10y ago
>Also, congrats on the unnecessary Nazi comparison. Not meant to offend (didn't even knew the parent was German at the time, thought I was an American), but it wasn't an gratuitous reference either. It's not like someone in an internet forum calling someone a "nazi" because they disagree with them or anything. I legitimately believe that there are plenty of legitimate lessons to be learned (to avoid, of course) from the Nazis, as WWII and the Holocaust is the single most deadly and morally disastrous event of the modern era. And these kind of schemes for "one global government" / "one common language" etc, do have parallels and historical precedents on ideas such that of the Third Reich. An occupied, German speaking Europe, if not world, was indeed one of their stated goals.
- jnky 10y ago
  > Not meant to offend (didn't even knew the parent was German at the time, thought I was an American), but it wasn't an gratuitous reference either. It's not like someone in an internet forum calling someone a "nazi" because they disagree with them or anything. The comment you took your quote from already mentioned that I'm German. That's alright though. I'm not "offended" by the Nazi comparison because of my German heritage. I just wanted to highlight what I perceived to be needless hyperbole that inevitably derails the discussion about the idea at hand by way of Godwin's Law. > I legitimately believe that there are plenty of legitimate lessons to be learned (to avoid, of course) from the Nazis, as WWII and the Holocaust is the single most deadly and morally disastrous event of the modern era. Agreed. > And these kind of schemes for "one global government" / "one common language" etc, do have parallels and historical precedents on ideas such that of the Third Reich. An occupied, German speaking Europe, if not world, was indeed one of their stated goals. Your argument is basically: "The Nazis did X, hence we should never do X - for all X". I think this is a fallacy. There has to be difference between subduing Europe/the world and proposing to standardize language as a tool of communication for greater peace and more collaboration. I don't think choosing a standard language is any more sinister than choosing standard units of measurement or base 10 numbers.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >The comment you took your quote from already mentioned that I'm German. Hmm, you're right, kind of read past that! I was still thinking I'm replying to an American as in my first comment. >Your argument is basically: "The Nazis did X, hence we should never do X - for all X". I think this is a fallacy. That would a fallacy indeed, as the Nazis also did some good stuff (cheap cars, some good welfare laws IIRC, etc), and also neutral stuff. But I didn't say that for "all X" -- only for specific X which I, for one, think are of the Nazi's bad heritage -- "one global monoculture" I'd say is one of these, even if the culture is the English one. >I don't think choosing a standard language is any more sinister than choosing standard units of measurement or base 10 numbers. I guess our difference is mostly in how important we see language as part of culture and/or how sensitive we are to mightier cultures/languages taking over others. For me losing a language would be as bad as losing a country's literary corpus -- that is, a huge part of the culture (where another might consider the whole literary corpus as something to be dispersed with, or not a big deal if it just survives translated or even forgotten). On the other hand, something like "units of measurement" I agree are inconsequential -- and could be unified without much impact.
    - jnky 10y ago
      > I guess our difference is mostly in how important we see language as part of culture and/or how sensitive we are to mightier cultures/languages taking over others. I think you are absolutely right, in that this is the key difference between our respective opinions. I nonetheless enjoyed the surrounding discussion.
- pluma 10y ago
  Yes, and it was definitely one of the more looney parts of their world domination plan. The end goal of Lebensraum was not making everyone German, it was making everything more accessible to Germans. It was a racist ideology (in the real, actual sense of racism, not the conspiracy theory academia is being haunted by in the US at the moment). Untermenschen you teach German are still Untermenschen -- they just make better servants because they understand your language. Saying the idea of one global language is reminiscent of Nazi Germany is either gratuitous or belies a fundamental lack of understanding of just how dangerous the Nazi mindset was. I too believe there is much to learn about our history to avoid making the same mistakes again but if you want something to worry about with regard to re-creating a Third Reich situation consider these two things happening in the US right now: 1. A resurgence of jingoism and ultra-nationalism (from dehumanizing civilian casualties in drone strikes all the way to Trump's treatment of Muslims). 2. Racism and sexism becoming socially acceptable under the guise of "intersectionality" (partially as a reaction to actual historic injustice and religous fundamentalist attitudes to gender roles).
krapp 10y ago
The Nazi reference was unfortunate, but coldtea does bring up a valid point. Languages tend to become dominant because of military conquest or cultural hegemony, not because people want a language other than their own to be the lingua franca. English dominates the West because of the British Empire and because the US was able to exercise overwhelming cultural and economic power after World War 2. Any discussion of "standardizing" the world on a language has to take into account how often attempts to do so have been employed as cultural genocide by colonizing powers, explicitly to separate native people from their culture. To attempt to answer your original question, "why are we putting up with other languages anyway," we don't "put up with" them, because languages other than English are not a burden. Other languages persist because no one has forced their extinction yet. And even if you "preserve" other languages, having a lingua franca means that eventually native languages will die out because they're simply no longer useful. How many Irish people actually speak Irish? How useful is Japanese outside of Japan? When those languages do die out, as they probably will, what will be lost when all of their literature and cultural referents are translated into English? I'm not saying having a global common language wouldn't be good for a number of reasons, only that that commonality necessarily comes with a price not everyone is willing to pay.

by jnky 10y ago

coldtea 10y ago

>Also, congrats on the unnecessary Nazi comparison. Not meant to offend (didn't even knew the parent was German at the time, thought I was an American), but it wasn't an gratuitous reference either. It's not like someone in an internet forum calling someone a "nazi" because they disagree with them or anything. I legitimately believe that there are plenty of legitimate lessons to be learned (to avoid, of course) from the Nazis, as WWII and the Holocaust is the single most deadly and morally disastrous event of the modern era. And these kind of schemes for "one global government" / "one common language" etc, do have parallels and historical precedents on ideas such that of the Third Reich. An occupied, German speaking Europe, if not world, was indeed one of their stated goals.

jnky 10y ago
> Not meant to offend (didn't even knew the parent was German at the time, thought I was an American), but it wasn't an gratuitous reference either. It's not like someone in an internet forum calling someone a "nazi" because they disagree with them or anything. The comment you took your quote from already mentioned that I'm German. That's alright though. I'm not "offended" by the Nazi comparison because of my German heritage. I just wanted to highlight what I perceived to be needless hyperbole that inevitably derails the discussion about the idea at hand by way of Godwin's Law. > I legitimately believe that there are plenty of legitimate lessons to be learned (to avoid, of course) from the Nazis, as WWII and the Holocaust is the single most deadly and morally disastrous event of the modern era. Agreed. > And these kind of schemes for "one global government" / "one common language" etc, do have parallels and historical precedents on ideas such that of the Third Reich. An occupied, German speaking Europe, if not world, was indeed one of their stated goals. Your argument is basically: "The Nazis did X, hence we should never do X - for all X". I think this is a fallacy. There has to be difference between subduing Europe/the world and proposing to standardize language as a tool of communication for greater peace and more collaboration. I don't think choosing a standard language is any more sinister than choosing standard units of measurement or base 10 numbers.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >The comment you took your quote from already mentioned that I'm German. Hmm, you're right, kind of read past that! I was still thinking I'm replying to an American as in my first comment. >Your argument is basically: "The Nazis did X, hence we should never do X - for all X". I think this is a fallacy. That would a fallacy indeed, as the Nazis also did some good stuff (cheap cars, some good welfare laws IIRC, etc), and also neutral stuff. But I didn't say that for "all X" -- only for specific X which I, for one, think are of the Nazi's bad heritage -- "one global monoculture" I'd say is one of these, even if the culture is the English one. >I don't think choosing a standard language is any more sinister than choosing standard units of measurement or base 10 numbers. I guess our difference is mostly in how important we see language as part of culture and/or how sensitive we are to mightier cultures/languages taking over others. For me losing a language would be as bad as losing a country's literary corpus -- that is, a huge part of the culture (where another might consider the whole literary corpus as something to be dispersed with, or not a big deal if it just survives translated or even forgotten). On the other hand, something like "units of measurement" I agree are inconsequential -- and could be unified without much impact.
  - jnky 10y ago
    > I guess our difference is mostly in how important we see language as part of culture and/or how sensitive we are to mightier cultures/languages taking over others. I think you are absolutely right, in that this is the key difference between our respective opinions. I nonetheless enjoyed the surrounding discussion.
pluma 10y ago
Yes, and it was definitely one of the more looney parts of their world domination plan. The end goal of Lebensraum was not making everyone German, it was making everything more accessible to Germans. It was a racist ideology (in the real, actual sense of racism, not the conspiracy theory academia is being haunted by in the US at the moment). Untermenschen you teach German are still Untermenschen -- they just make better servants because they understand your language. Saying the idea of one global language is reminiscent of Nazi Germany is either gratuitous or belies a fundamental lack of understanding of just how dangerous the Nazi mindset was. I too believe there is much to learn about our history to avoid making the same mistakes again but if you want something to worry about with regard to re-creating a Third Reich situation consider these two things happening in the US right now: 1. A resurgence of jingoism and ultra-nationalism (from dehumanizing civilian casualties in drone strikes all the way to Trump's treatment of Muslims). 2. Racism and sexism becoming socially acceptable under the guise of "intersectionality" (partially as a reaction to actual historic injustice and religous fundamentalist attitudes to gender roles).

krapp 10y ago

The Nazi reference was unfortunate, but coldtea does bring up a valid point. Languages tend to become dominant because of military conquest or cultural hegemony, not because people want a language other than their own to be the lingua franca. English dominates the West because of the British Empire and because the US was able to exercise overwhelming cultural and economic power after World War 2. Any discussion of "standardizing" the world on a language has to take into account how often attempts to do so have been employed as cultural genocide by colonizing powers, explicitly to separate native people from their culture. To attempt to answer your original question, "why are we putting up with other languages anyway," we don't "put up with" them, because languages other than English are not a burden. Other languages persist because no one has forced their extinction yet. And even if you "preserve" other languages, having a lingua franca means that eventually native languages will die out because they're simply no longer useful. How many Irish people actually speak Irish? How useful is Japanese outside of Japan? When those languages do die out, as they probably will, what will be lost when all of their literature and cultural referents are translated into English? I'm not saying having a global common language wouldn't be good for a number of reasons, only that that commonality necessarily comes with a price not everyone is willing to pay.