4 ms·

Zamenhof’s optimism isn’t as universally admired as you suggest. First of all, the Yugoslav wars stand as bloody proof that even if neighbors can understand eac

Zamenhof’s optimism isn’t as universally admired as you suggest. First of all, the Yugoslav wars stand as bloody proof that even if neighbors can understand each other and speak more or less the same language, they can just find something else to fight over. Secondly, Zamenhof was still writing from an Enlightenment-era framework that saw language diversity as a problem, something to systematize away. In our modern era, there is a lot of support for preserving indigenous cultures, and some of Zamenhof’s views can be shocking today. Starting in the 1970s the Esperanto movement tried to hitch its wagon to the language-diversity movement, but this attempt has been rather half-hearted, plus World Esperanto Association is obliged by statute to be politically neutral, so it can’t comment on the most common instances of language discrimination (i.e. when a strong centralized state cracks down on the minority peoples within its borders). I have been out of the Esperanto movement for quite some years now, but among the most active Esperantists who attended the annual European congresses frequently and tried to maintain a social life in the language, Zamenhof was not someone anyone ever thought about much. Those super-idealistic Esperantists who praised Zamenhof and banged on about world peace, were seen as weirdos and a target of mockery.

peatmoss 6y ago
> Zamenhof’s optimism isn’t as universally admired as you suggest. Where did I say say his optimism was universally admired? I think I made it clear that I admire his optimism, and think it worthy of admiration :-) > some of Zamenhof’s views can be shocking today. That's fine, having admiration for his work and those views of his that I feel have merit don't mean I need to accept absolutely everything the man believed. > Those super-idealistic Esperantists who praised Zamenhof and banged on about world peace, were seen as weirdos and a target of mockery. That may well be true, but this feels like an ad-hominem argument: "the cool kids are so over Esperanto and world peace. You want to be cool, don't you?" You have critiques of Esperanto and maybe even the idealism that I find endearing. That's fine. Those critiques are valid. I still maintain Zamenhof added more to the world than the critics.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  > Where did I say say his optimism was universally admired? My mistake. I wished to say that he isn’t so universally admirable. That is, what you see as constructive in his ideals and aspirations, other people today might find destructive. > That may well be true, but this feels like an ad-hominem argument Well, human beings are social animals, so ad hominem arguments are perfectly valid here. If something feels cringe to a large group of people (even to most of those who one would have expected to be sympathetic), then it can fairly be called cringe. Also, these idealistic, Zamenhof-lauding green-star-flag-waving world-peace types were infamous for often having the least ability to actually converse in Esperanto. They would be visible at congresses, but in a way they were least involved in the actual Esperanto community. You'll also find plenty of arguments that those people actually hold Esperanto back from appealing to outsiders and getting more people involved.
claudeganon 6y ago
>Secondly, Zamenhof was still writing from an Enlightenment-era framework that saw language diversity as a problem, something to systematize away. The anarchist philosophy that was responsible for the global spread of Esperanto was far more complex than this and rooted in a rejection of reductive, Darwinist cultural formulations that were coming to prominence at the time. The idea was to preserve local autonomy, while providing a universal medium for exchange, such that communities could develop their own unique cultural systems and permutations thereof, but still have recourse to share them in a mutally beneficial way with others. Esperanto was widely popular in Japan under this rubric, for example: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23357508 https://www.jstor.org/stable/23357508 It was likewise suppressed by authoritarian regimes on the left and right for its encouragement of this eclecticism.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  > The idea was to preserve local autonomy... Maybe some early Esperanto disseminators were like this, but Zamenhof himself hoped that Esperanto (or at least something like it) would eventually replace all local languages.
pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
Every now and then comments like this one pop up (or even a bit more frequently than the way that sounds). But it's hard to understand how they get written up and posted. It only makes sense if you assume the author has dozed off halfway through the comment they meant to reply to, woke up, and banged out a response anyway.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  I thought so too, but after rereading both comments, he does respond to a rather central point > has coalesced a community infused with something of the “let’s build” optimism with > among the most active Esperantists who attended the annual European congresses (...) Those super-idealistic Esperantists (...) were seen as weirdos Thus saying that such a community has in fact not coalesced.
Viliam1234 6y ago
What is so great about having many different languages? It is sad when cultural heritage is lost because it was written in a language no one speaks anymore. But this problem is caused by having many different languages. In a parallel reality, where the culture spoke the same language as other countries, the cultural heritage would not be lost. It is sad when a group of people is discriminated or has fewer oportunities, because they cannot use their language. But again, in a parallel reality, where these people didn't grow up speaking a different language, the problem doesn't exist. If you could magically change the world so that it would have 10× more languages, 10× more scripts, and 10× more USB connector types, would it make the world a better place? If not, then why changing it in the opposite direction wouldn't make it better? When a language disappears today, it is bad because we lose information, and because the last users of the language have a problem communicating. But if you could magically change the past to replace that language by English centuries ago, there would be no lost information and no suffering users. And if we could agree on a common language today, we would be magically changing the future just like that. (Esperanto gives the additional advantage of being more regular.)

peatmoss 6y ago

> Zamenhof’s optimism isn’t as universally admired as you suggest. Where did I say say his optimism was universally admired? I think I made it clear that I admire his optimism, and think it worthy of admiration :-) > some of Zamenhof’s views can be shocking today. That's fine, having admiration for his work and those views of his that I feel have merit don't mean I need to accept absolutely everything the man believed. > Those super-idealistic Esperantists who praised Zamenhof and banged on about world peace, were seen as weirdos and a target of mockery. That may well be true, but this feels like an ad-hominem argument: "the cool kids are so over Esperanto and world peace. You want to be cool, don't you?" You have critiques of Esperanto and maybe even the idealism that I find endearing. That's fine. Those critiques are valid. I still maintain Zamenhof added more to the world than the critics.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
> Where did I say say his optimism was universally admired? My mistake. I wished to say that he isn’t so universally admirable. That is, what you see as constructive in his ideals and aspirations, other people today might find destructive. > That may well be true, but this feels like an ad-hominem argument Well, human beings are social animals, so ad hominem arguments are perfectly valid here. If something feels cringe to a large group of people (even to most of those who one would have expected to be sympathetic), then it can fairly be called cringe. Also, these idealistic, Zamenhof-lauding green-star-flag-waving world-peace types were infamous for often having the least ability to actually converse in Esperanto. They would be visible at congresses, but in a way they were least involved in the actual Esperanto community. You'll also find plenty of arguments that those people actually hold Esperanto back from appealing to outsiders and getting more people involved.

claudeganon 6y ago

>Secondly, Zamenhof was still writing from an Enlightenment-era framework that saw language diversity as a problem, something to systematize away. The anarchist philosophy that was responsible for the global spread of Esperanto was far more complex than this and rooted in a rejection of reductive, Darwinist cultural formulations that were coming to prominence at the time. The idea was to preserve local autonomy, while providing a universal medium for exchange, such that communities could develop their own unique cultural systems and permutations thereof, but still have recourse to share them in a mutally beneficial way with others. Esperanto was widely popular in Japan under this rubric, for example: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23357508 https://www.jstor.org/stable/23357508 It was likewise suppressed by authoritarian regimes on the left and right for its encouragement of this eclecticism.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
> The idea was to preserve local autonomy... Maybe some early Esperanto disseminators were like this, but Zamenhof himself hoped that Esperanto (or at least something like it) would eventually replace all local languages.

pwdisswordfish4 6y ago

Every now and then comments like this one pop up (or even a bit more frequently than the way that sounds). But it's hard to understand how they get written up and posted. It only makes sense if you assume the author has dozed off halfway through the comment they meant to reply to, woke up, and banged out a response anyway.

im3w1l 6y ago
I thought so too, but after rereading both comments, he does respond to a rather central point > has coalesced a community infused with something of the “let’s build” optimism with > among the most active Esperantists who attended the annual European congresses (...) Those super-idealistic Esperantists (...) were seen as weirdos Thus saying that such a community has in fact not coalesced.

Viliam1234 6y ago

What is so great about having many different languages? It is sad when cultural heritage is lost because it was written in a language no one speaks anymore. But this problem is caused by having many different languages. In a parallel reality, where the culture spoke the same language as other countries, the cultural heritage would not be lost. It is sad when a group of people is discriminated or has fewer oportunities, because they cannot use their language. But again, in a parallel reality, where these people didn't grow up speaking a different language, the problem doesn't exist. If you could magically change the world so that it would have 10× more languages, 10× more scripts, and 10× more USB connector types, would it make the world a better place? If not, then why changing it in the opposite direction wouldn't make it better? When a language disappears today, it is bad because we lose information, and because the last users of the language have a problem communicating. But if you could magically change the past to replace that language by English centuries ago, there would be no lost information and no suffering users. And if we could agree on a common language today, we would be magically changing the future just like that. (Esperanto gives the additional advantage of being more regular.)