> I don't understand this comment. It makes absolutely no claims about the definition of a creole, and it makes no claims about how English doesn't conform to t

> I don't understand this comment. It makes absolutely no claims about the definition of a creole, and it makes no claims about how English doesn't conform to that definition. It just talks about "squinting" at languages, mentions black Americans for no particular reason, and accuses anyone who would argue that English is a creole of being "disingenuous" for trying to reverse the "legitimazation." > It's like the perfect troll comment. Makes no argument, implies anyone who would disagree is probably racist, and uses black Americans as a comparison for no particular reason.* I don't think you're engaging with the author's point: it is _precisely_ that the study of Creole languages wasn't a top-down predetermined "this is the definition of something, and we're studying it" program, but arose after the fact to label the work of a school of linguistics. > Is your argument that considering English a creole lets English people off the hook for something? > If I'm missing your point, what was it? The point is that the author assumes that concepts arise by labelling the results of historical processes, but ultimately our goal is to describe a historical process. It's not warranted to jump to speculating about "western rhetoric" or "modern argument", which doesn't substantially engage with the OP. Nor is it warranted to speculate that the author "implies anyone who would disagree is probably racist".