|
 |
My English teacher really hates Esperanto | ||
 Language Learning Forum : Esperanto |  | |
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7158 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes  20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 129 of 194 19 November 2007 at 7:32pm | IP Logged | ||
|
Perhaps because it may be easy for someone to abuse the good intentions of Esperanto's ideology. The evolution of Marxism to Maoism and Leninism are examples of hijacking ideology.
The thing with fraternization is that it can happen irrespective of language. For example, just because no natural language has the explicit link to an ideology of goodwill and world peace doesn't mean that speakers of natural languages are all war-mongerers or are immune to the joys of fraternizing. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Sprachprofi Nonaglot Senior Member Germany learnlangs.comRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 6472 days ago 2608 posts - 4866 votes Speaks: German*, English, French, Esperanto, Greek, Mandarin, Latin, Dutch, Italian Studies: Spanish, Arabic (Written), Swahili, Indonesian, Japanese, Modern Hebrew, Portuguese | Message 130 of 194 20 November 2007 at 4:31am | IP Logged | ||
Zamenhof wrote in 1906:
A language doesn't turn people into angels, but it does contribute to understanding. If you speak the same language as somebody, you will find it harder to think of him as sub-human or worth killing, and there's more of a chance that you two will talk and become friends, shattering the lies told by warmongers. This applies to all languages used internationally of course, but I find it applies particularly to Esperanto because of its neutrality, making people really feel like they're on the same level, as opposed to one speaking his native language and the other struggling to speak that language, too. (And no, Zamenhof being a Polish Jew shouldn't influence anybody except racists, since he didn't give any advantages to Polish people or Jews in Esperanto, e. g. there's only one Polish word root I know of, and since he renounced all rights to the language, the first thing ever to be under copyleft.) Edited by Sprachprofi on 20 November 2007 at 4:37am 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Art Newbie Russian Federation Joined 6536 days ago 24 posts - 24 votes Speaks: Russian* | Message 131 of 194 20 November 2007 at 7:27am | IP Logged | ||
Argh! Very interesting concept. I think you can enlight me on the subject of civil wars and why people speaking one language in one country are at war? Also, I want to be enlighted about the situation on North and Sourth Korea and how one common language make those countries mutual friends. Or China and Taiwan. Or the latest bloodshed example with sectarian violence in Iraq where people are speaking one language and are mad at each other. Edited by Art on 20 November 2007 at 7:29am 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Sprachprofi Nonaglot Senior Member Germany learnlangs.comRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 6472 days ago 2608 posts - 4866 votes Speaks: German*, English, French, Esperanto, Greek, Mandarin, Latin, Dutch, Italian Studies: Spanish, Arabic (Written), Swahili, Indonesian, Japanese, Modern Hebrew, Portuguese | Message 132 of 194 20 November 2007 at 7:58am | IP Logged | ||
|
You willfully misunderstand me. I explicitly said that speaking the same language doesn't mean there will always be peace, but it does help, because then you have the option of talking to the enemy, seeing he's no less intelligent than you and maybe get a more balanced opinion of what's going on.
In the past, aggressors (from the Ancient Greeks to the Spanish conquerors to the Nazis) often argued that they were bringing civilization to the uncivilized, that the people they attacked and the civilizations they destroyed were not worth existing, and their supposed lack of a real language has been cited as evidence of their culture's inferiority, in the case of Africans and the deaf even the scientific circles argued about whether they were humans at all because of that, or just some advanced form of ape... Language has been a defining criteria for what is human and what is civilized. But even disregarding that, you have to admit that if you can talk to a foreigner and understand him, that undermines anybody's attempt to claim that foreigners are less intelligent or vicious, and it makes it so much more likely that you'll hear the other side of the story about why you're at war. The leaders of wars between people with the same language need to give "actual reasons", they can't just play on people's fear of the unknown. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7158 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 133 of 194 20 November 2007 at 8:20am | IP Logged | ||
|
The bleak part is that if someone wants to go to war, he or she will do so and find other reasons. The disintegration of Yugoslavia is an example. While most Croats, Bosnians and Serbs spoke variants of the same dialect, they all found reasons to fight each other anyway. If anything, the notion of a common language in Yugoslavia was abused and caused many headaches.
The notion of a common language (or even languages that are very similar) can be used to justify domination or invasion. Hitler used such justification to expand Germany's borders before World War II by invading Czechoslovakia (ostensibly to help the Sudeten Germans in northern Bohemia) and annexing Austria (hey, they're all Germans and they all speak the same language, right?). Having a common language doesn't necessarily mean a deterrent to invasion or peaceful tolerance of different cultures any more than having diverse languages encourages misunderstanding and war. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Art Newbie Russian Federation Joined 6536 days ago 24 posts - 24 votes Speaks: Russian* | Message 134 of 194 20 November 2007 at 8:25am | IP Logged | ||
|
Sprachprofi, you didn't answer my question. How one language helps the situation in two Koreas and in Iraq and how Esperanto can help in those parts of the world? Taking about Iraq -- tell me, how a sunni can understand a shiah when they are speaking one language and bring 'balanced opinions' about two branches of the religion to each other? :)
Also, tell me how willingly arabs are accepting Esperanto. Tell me some statistics of the Esperanto movement in Saudi Arabia and that _you_ are planning to visit Saudia Arabia to teach Esperanto. :) (Iran doesn't count, they are not arabs). If you are talking about neutrality and peace that means that you have an ideology. So, Esperanto does have an ideology, the 'neutral' ideology. But how an ideology can be neutral? :) Edited by Art on 20 November 2007 at 8:30am 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| frenkeld Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 6945 days ago 2042 posts - 2719 votes Speaks: Russian*, English Studies: German | Message 135 of 194 20 November 2007 at 8:37am | IP Logged | ||
A moot question, since no one seems to be forcing it down their throats at the moment. On the other hand, how willingly are they accepting English? And do they see it as a neutral language? Edited by frenkeld on 20 November 2007 at 8:48am 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Sprachprofi Nonaglot Senior Member Germany learnlangs.comRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 6472 days ago 2608 posts - 4866 votes Speaks: German*, English, French, Esperanto, Greek, Mandarin, Latin, Dutch, Italian Studies: Spanish, Arabic (Written), Swahili, Indonesian, Japanese, Modern Hebrew, Portuguese | Message 136 of 194 20 November 2007 at 8:58am | IP Logged | ||
|
Art, stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed that Esperanto would help bring peace to countries that already speak one language. Esperanto by definition is for communication between people that don't speak the same language, it doesn't even want to be anything else.
There are Arabs that speak Esperanto, enough for the planning of a peace meeting where Israeli and Arab youths will talk together in Esperanto, though certainly there are not as many Esperanto speakers there as in Iran. However, I have no intention of visiting the Middle East - and why should I. How does this relate to the topic anyway? If wishing for worldwide peace and understanding (not necessarily to the point of pacifism) is an ideology, then Esperanto has an ideology. However, it's not an ideology in the sense that Communism or Capitalism are ideologies, as this wish for peace is shared by people of the most different political beliefs (and all religions, as a matter of fact). It's something that the vast majority of the world's population already believes in, no matter where they come from or what else they believe in, hence it can claim to be neutral. You don't seem to be able to stay with a point and argue it, instead going wildly off topic interjecting something about me going to Saudi Arabia... I don't think we're going anywhere, so I'll stop replying to you. 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
