Sinister Cultural Marxist
22nd June 2011, 18:42
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/africa/2011/06/201162263012392978.html
If the State does not protect the right to use minority languages, then doesn't the local population have a right to revolt? In the video, berbers say they are joining the "Rebellion" in Libya because Gaddafi went out of his way to promote Arabic and marginalize their language. They hope that they will have more voice in the next government. But, of course, this wouldn't be the first government who instituted such a policy.
The war against Native American culture caused the loss of many languages here in America (of course, it didn't stop the US from later using said Native American languages when it suited them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker)). Indigenous tongues are under threat in many parts of Africa and Latin America. In China, Mongolians, Turks and Tibetans have been brought out to protest quite often in defense of their languages. One of the reasons Bangladesh fought for independence from Pakistan of course, was in protection of the Bengali language against Urdu dominance, while language issues nearly tore India apart before the government compromised (though many smaller languages are still under threat in both countries).
Don't members of the minority have every right to come out and protest, or even revolt in defense of their cultural heritage? I do think having common languages is more efficient and tends to bring people together, but this desire to provide common means of communication should never trump people's cultural self-determination. One of the strong points of the early USSR was its emphasis on cultural self-determination under a common collective political body. Some leftist governments around the world, such as Bolivia, have been quite good in stressing this point too. But sometimes it gets lost in amongst other issues.
If the State does not protect the right to use minority languages, then doesn't the local population have a right to revolt? In the video, berbers say they are joining the "Rebellion" in Libya because Gaddafi went out of his way to promote Arabic and marginalize their language. They hope that they will have more voice in the next government. But, of course, this wouldn't be the first government who instituted such a policy.
The war against Native American culture caused the loss of many languages here in America (of course, it didn't stop the US from later using said Native American languages when it suited them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker)). Indigenous tongues are under threat in many parts of Africa and Latin America. In China, Mongolians, Turks and Tibetans have been brought out to protest quite often in defense of their languages. One of the reasons Bangladesh fought for independence from Pakistan of course, was in protection of the Bengali language against Urdu dominance, while language issues nearly tore India apart before the government compromised (though many smaller languages are still under threat in both countries).
Don't members of the minority have every right to come out and protest, or even revolt in defense of their cultural heritage? I do think having common languages is more efficient and tends to bring people together, but this desire to provide common means of communication should never trump people's cultural self-determination. One of the strong points of the early USSR was its emphasis on cultural self-determination under a common collective political body. Some leftist governments around the world, such as Bolivia, have been quite good in stressing this point too. But sometimes it gets lost in amongst other issues.