3 ms·

English is the most international language because of war, expansion and domination. It could be any other language whose "countries" won. The major currency i

by re-thc 4y ago

English is the most international language because of war, expansion and domination. It could be any other language whose "countries" won. The major currency is USD... Most English speaking countries are of British origin... Non-English speaking countries trade with the largest partner(s), which are of English origins... I don't think it's the features of the language that are at play here.

jacquesm 4y ago
> English is the most international language because of war, expansion and domination. That's one perspective. Another is trade. Trade is what caused my parents to learn English in the 40's and the 50's because it made them more employable.
- re-thc 4y ago
  It goes back to the same origins. Why do you trade? There has to be something to gain. Often that is a result of this act of war, expansion and domination. Sure we can assume we just want to trade peacefully. History has said otherwise. We want to trade with the biggest trading partners and a lot of them grew by raiding others.
  - Quarrelsome 4y ago
    you may also war because you trade though. Opium war is a good example of that where the war is inspired by difficulties trading.
    - re-thc 4y ago
      Was that really the reason? What difficulty? They created this difficulty to find a chance to invade. There was a clear plan to create an addiction and even as it was banned to smuggle more and more into the country. A lot of things don't happen by chance. So does a certain country not actually have "weapons of mass destruction" etc.
      - Quarrelsome 4y ago
        The war came about through a trading inefficiency. The Chinese markets at the time (still holds relatively true today) was a selling market, not a buying market. They weren't interested in European goods. So European trading vessels would have to stock up on silver as currency, and sail to China to trade the silver for desirable goods such as porcelain and silks. European merchants didn't like this because its far more efficient to profit on every leg and the first leg of hauling silver was a loss with a mostly empty hold, so were seeking a product to sell to the Chinese market that would have pull that they could fill cargo holds with. Due to their lack of scruples, they discovered that opium was such a product and set in motion the very events that still plague us to today of growing opium across Asia to sell to China. As a flood of cheap opium entered the market through the criminal gangs at the time (who were buying the opium through profitable liaisons with the British) the Chinese authorities set about cracking down on the trade in the interests of its people. Eventually this brought them into conflict with the British and in interests of keeping the ports open to the opium trade the first of two opium wars was declared. The wikipedia article probably puts it better than I have [1]. > They created this difficulty to find a chance to invade. If they were seeking to invade then European possessions in China would have been significantly greater than Hong Kong given the weakness of the Qing dynasty over the course of the 19th century (although it would have still been a significant challenge given the might of China's manpower at the time). The British were a brutal force but in a similar fashion to today's US hegemony they were not always primarily motivated by conquest and annexation, wealth was more of a primary motivator. So its much like US foreign policy today which is typically flexed to promote interests relevant to American GDP. It remains ugly when its flexed but its arguably a kinder aim than that of a fully imperialistic force such as say: the Mongols of the 14th and 15th centuries. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
        re-thc 4y ago
        Right, because we're going to believe Wikipedia + a recount of events that don't even include any insights into the actual plans of e.g. the British empire at the time. Think about why the British even introduced Opium to China and who controlled most of the production. Do you really believe they weren't plotting anything here? > If they were seeking to invade then European possessions in China would have been significantly greater than Hong Kong given the weakness of the Qing dynasty over the course of the 19th century There are lots of ways to invade. It doesn't have to be via military might. It can be via the church, opium as we're discussing here or other factors before the actual fight. > but in a similar fashion to today's US hegemony they were not always primarily motivated by conquest and annexation Are we rewriting history here? What happened to Vietnam, Iraq, etc etc? More like the media tries to paint it another way. You're free to not believe in it. I doubt it's all for the GDP.

by re-thc 4y ago

jacquesm 4y ago

> English is the most international language because of war, expansion and domination. That's one perspective. Another is trade. Trade is what caused my parents to learn English in the 40's and the 50's because it made them more employable.

re-thc 4y ago
It goes back to the same origins. Why do you trade? There has to be something to gain. Often that is a result of this act of war, expansion and domination. Sure we can assume we just want to trade peacefully. History has said otherwise. We want to trade with the biggest trading partners and a lot of them grew by raiding others.
- Quarrelsome 4y ago
  you may also war because you trade though. Opium war is a good example of that where the war is inspired by difficulties trading.
  - re-thc 4y ago
    Was that really the reason? What difficulty? They created this difficulty to find a chance to invade. There was a clear plan to create an addiction and even as it was banned to smuggle more and more into the country. A lot of things don't happen by chance. So does a certain country not actually have "weapons of mass destruction" etc.
    - Quarrelsome 4y ago
      The war came about through a trading inefficiency. The Chinese markets at the time (still holds relatively true today) was a selling market, not a buying market. They weren't interested in European goods. So European trading vessels would have to stock up on silver as currency, and sail to China to trade the silver for desirable goods such as porcelain and silks. European merchants didn't like this because its far more efficient to profit on every leg and the first leg of hauling silver was a loss with a mostly empty hold, so were seeking a product to sell to the Chinese market that would have pull that they could fill cargo holds with. Due to their lack of scruples, they discovered that opium was such a product and set in motion the very events that still plague us to today of growing opium across Asia to sell to China. As a flood of cheap opium entered the market through the criminal gangs at the time (who were buying the opium through profitable liaisons with the British) the Chinese authorities set about cracking down on the trade in the interests of its people. Eventually this brought them into conflict with the British and in interests of keeping the ports open to the opium trade the first of two opium wars was declared. The wikipedia article probably puts it better than I have [1]. > They created this difficulty to find a chance to invade. If they were seeking to invade then European possessions in China would have been significantly greater than Hong Kong given the weakness of the Qing dynasty over the course of the 19th century (although it would have still been a significant challenge given the might of China's manpower at the time). The British were a brutal force but in a similar fashion to today's US hegemony they were not always primarily motivated by conquest and annexation, wealth was more of a primary motivator. So its much like US foreign policy today which is typically flexed to promote interests relevant to American GDP. It remains ugly when its flexed but its arguably a kinder aim than that of a fully imperialistic force such as say: the Mongols of the 14th and 15th centuries. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
      - re-thc 4y ago
        Right, because we're going to believe Wikipedia + a recount of events that don't even include any insights into the actual plans of e.g. the British empire at the time. Think about why the British even introduced Opium to China and who controlled most of the production. Do you really believe they weren't plotting anything here? > If they were seeking to invade then European possessions in China would have been significantly greater than Hong Kong given the weakness of the Qing dynasty over the course of the 19th century There are lots of ways to invade. It doesn't have to be via military might. It can be via the church, opium as we're discussing here or other factors before the actual fight. > but in a similar fashion to today's US hegemony they were not always primarily motivated by conquest and annexation Are we rewriting history here? What happened to Vietnam, Iraq, etc etc? More like the media tries to paint it another way. You're free to not believe in it. I doubt it's all for the GDP.