4 ms·

A lot of people in India can write in Hindi or English, but not the local language. They don't bother to learn how. For example my fiancée is a native Telugu sp

by xyzzy4 10y ago

A lot of people in India can write in Hindi or English, but not the local language. They don't bother to learn how. For example my fiancée is a native Telugu speaker but she can't write a word in it. There's also a very significant amount of people who can't read or write in any language. It would make using the Internet very difficult.

FraaJad 10y ago
Hindi is a local language. Those who can't write/read their own mother tongue are the product of the aforementioned linguistic apartheid where the city bred kids (I am one) attend a CBSE/ICSE curriculum that actively discourage non-Hindi/English languages.
- witty_username 10y ago
  Linguistic apartheid is a pretty loaded term, they aren't teaching one's mother tongue, which, to me is like any other subject. You can still learn it elsewhere. It may be discrimination but apartheid is an exaggeration.
- markdown 10y ago
  > Those who can't write/read their own mother tongue are the product of the aforementioned linguistic apartheid You have two options: a. Teach them a language they can use almost anywhere on the planet. A language that documents most of the planets knowledge. b. Teach them a language they can use in their geographical district and almost nowhere else. The powers that they'd be better served by (a). You might think (b) would have been a better choice, but implying that (a) is akin to apartheid is ridiculous. If I'm forced to use the word "apartheid" to label one of those, I'd point to (b). To teach the poor of india a language that handicaps them compared to humans of the planet who take path (a) is to limit their opportunities and keep them "in their place" in their little geographic corner of the world.
  - FraaJad 10y ago
    I can see this argument coming from someone who is privileged enough to move outside their ancestral domicile. Most people, even those born in the richest country in the world, seldom move outside their state. If I were to be treated like a second class citizen in my own place of birth because some languages give a small percentage of the population "world mobility", I would choose carefully.

by xyzzy4 10y ago

FraaJad 10y ago

Hindi is a local language. Those who can't write/read their own mother tongue are the product of the aforementioned linguistic apartheid where the city bred kids (I am one) attend a CBSE/ICSE curriculum that actively discourage non-Hindi/English languages.

witty_username 10y ago
Linguistic apartheid is a pretty loaded term, they aren't teaching one's mother tongue, which, to me is like any other subject. You can still learn it elsewhere. It may be discrimination but apartheid is an exaggeration.
markdown 10y ago
> Those who can't write/read their own mother tongue are the product of the aforementioned linguistic apartheid You have two options: a. Teach them a language they can use almost anywhere on the planet. A language that documents most of the planets knowledge. b. Teach them a language they can use in their geographical district and almost nowhere else. The powers that they'd be better served by (a). You might think (b) would have been a better choice, but implying that (a) is akin to apartheid is ridiculous. If I'm forced to use the word "apartheid" to label one of those, I'd point to (b). To teach the poor of india a language that handicaps them compared to humans of the planet who take path (a) is to limit their opportunities and keep them "in their place" in their little geographic corner of the world.
- FraaJad 10y ago
  I can see this argument coming from someone who is privileged enough to move outside their ancestral domicile. Most people, even those born in the richest country in the world, seldom move outside their state. If I were to be treated like a second class citizen in my own place of birth because some languages give a small percentage of the population "world mobility", I would choose carefully.