Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mkautzm t1_j9sov8l wrote

Reply to comment by The_Linguist_LL in TIL that there are more than 160 endangered languages in the United States alone. In addition to many Native American languages, Cajun French, Eastern Yiddish, and Martha's Vineyard, Hawaii, and Plains Sign Language are all endangered. by afeeney

There is beauty in preserving language, but to suggest the 'only reason to want to decrease it is support of ethnolinguistic genocide' is quite silly and you damage your argument by dismissing them outright.

Taking it to it's extreme, there are major advantages to having one language. Near-universal communication is a very strong selling point. Having that same universal access to information and information-based platforms without having to traverse a second language would be a boon to many. Not having to spend the time in translation would increase information accessibility to many people.

Now, whether or not it's a net good, or what kind of time line that would turn into a net good is a more interesting discussion, but suggestion that there are no reasons to support the idea of a common language is a pretty dishonest argument.

9

Automatic_Struggle t1_j9tg56e wrote

>only reason to want to decrease it is support of ethnolinguistic genocide

Uh, you do know that was a thing though and still is in some places?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_boarding_schools

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/15/algerias-berbers-protest-for-tamazight-language-rights

I say the new current trend of the Russians stealing Ukrainian children and reeducating them is a good modern example of language and cultural genocide.

>but suggestion that there are no reasons to support the idea of a common language is a pretty dishonest argument.

How much knowledge was lost because people decided to force their version of one true common language on people? What stories, legends and medical knowledge are gone because people didn't want to bother to learn another language?

5

mkautzm t1_j9vuxx6 wrote

I'm not suggesting there aren't downsides. I'm suggesting that there are also benefits and that suggesting that there are only evil motives is dishonest. I'm suggesting that the conversation is heavily nuanced, and that there is a balance of harms here that must be considered.

Part of being persuasive and having people take an argument seriously is actually acknowledging all the pieces at play. Otherwise, you will find yourself forever preaching to the choir.

1

Automatic_Struggle t1_ja0lbzw wrote

>I'm suggesting that the conversation is heavily nuanced, and that there is a balance of harms here that must be considered.

People had to fight to preserve their language because someone said it's not worth preserving or why waste tax dollars on teaching a dying language that no one speaks when we could use it to teach something else.

There's no balance of harm to be considered when some countries like the US did it to wipe out cultures and their religion as a form of genocide. Some countries are still doing this because they view their language and cultural traditions as the only proper way of doing things.

1