4 ms·

A language is not only letters and words and syntax. It is also a cultural heritage. It is a way of thinking and a way of life codified. > I was wondering rece

by foljs 16y ago

A language is not only letters and words and syntax. It is also a cultural heritage. It is a way of thinking and a way of life codified. > I was wondering recently if it would be interesting to argue that forcibly teaching children a globally useless language for the sake of pleasing the adults who arbitrarily want it saved is a weak form of child abuse. Actually, killing the language and the culture of a child because it is "useless globally" is cultural genocide. And it has happened way too much. Now for people conditioned to think that "evolution" should be applied to human matters, culture, this might not seem much. But go read the experiences of smaller cultures oppressed and eliminated by "global" or local mightier forces, and you can plainly see it's a different kind of holocaust. I want ways of life to change, die and whither organically, by their own cultural momentum. Not by "global forces" and market influence. And surely not by cultural imperialism.

jodrellblank 16y ago
Actually, killing the language and the culture of a child because it is "useless globally" is cultural genocide. I have no problem with that. Culture isn't something which suffers when you kill it, only humans/animals do. Trying to apply the horror that goes with the word "genocide" to killing "a language" isn't a clean argument. Besides, I didn't mean mandate that nobody is allowed to speak it, and thus quickly finish it off, I meant do not mandate the use of it, and if it can't stay in use due to interested people choosing to learn and use it, then let it fade away. But go read the experiences of smaller cultures oppressed and eliminated by "global" or local mightier forces, and you can plainly see it's a different kind of holocaust. It isn't any kind of holocaust unless the people are slaughtered. "Nobody knits jumpers, cooks or speaks in the age old traditional ways anymore, they all sold out to factories and convenience, waah" is not a cause I can work up much sympathy for. If you like cooking, knitting, speaking in those ways then do it. But there's nothing inherently great about traditional ways, so if nobody can be bothered then it's better to leave them to history than to life support them.

by foljs 16y ago

jodrellblank 16y ago

Actually, killing the language and the culture of a child because it is "useless globally" is cultural genocide. I have no problem with that. Culture isn't something which suffers when you kill it, only humans/animals do. Trying to apply the horror that goes with the word "genocide" to killing "a language" isn't a clean argument. Besides, I didn't mean mandate that nobody is allowed to speak it, and thus quickly finish it off, I meant do not mandate the use of it, and if it can't stay in use due to interested people choosing to learn and use it, then let it fade away. But go read the experiences of smaller cultures oppressed and eliminated by "global" or local mightier forces, and you can plainly see it's a different kind of holocaust. It isn't any kind of holocaust unless the people are slaughtered. "Nobody knits jumpers, cooks or speaks in the age old traditional ways anymore, they all sold out to factories and convenience, waah" is not a cause I can work up much sympathy for. If you like cooking, knitting, speaking in those ways then do it. But there's nothing inherently great about traditional ways, so if nobody can be bothered then it's better to leave them to history than to life support them.