"What we lose is essentially an enormous cultural heritage, the way of expressing the relationship with nature, with the world, between themselves in the framework of their families, their kin people," says Mr Hagege.
In this article the BBC discusses dying languages. Is it a problem that languages die? Are languages like endangered species that we must protect from the global warming of English? And let us not forget that more people in the world speak Spanish and even more Mandarin ... but still.
I don't like treating any group of people like a museum exhibition to be preserved, put into a little terrarium out in the jungle and not disturbed by the (presumably less genuinely human) modern people. Is that not as dehumanizing as the post-enlightenment tendency to call these people 'primative'.
Fredrik Lindström (a Swedish TV-personality who has a PhD in nordic languages, whose TV shows always have to do with the oddities of language) did a TV show in Sweden where he sat down and had coffee with older members of a remote community who can still speak a dialect of archaic Swedish. Their dialect is completely unintelligable to modern Swedes.
They talked about gardening, about family history, who married who, who had which farm. And suddenly he changed the topic to politics. They answered him in modern Swedish without thinking. They were supposed to be speaking their 'language' but they didn't know how to speak about current issues in that language because it's not a current language.
There is no such thing as non-organic linguistic preservation. It doesn't work. When you try to preserve you end up killing more quickly. Either the language will adapt - most often by loaning words and melting into other languages, or it will die.
Let us not forget that languages have a given function: that we can speak with other people. If the only people you need to speak with are your local relatives and fellow villagers then Cornish will do. If you need to speak to people all over the world at a moment's notice I'm sorry, but a single global language serves that function much better, as much as the linguists in their laboratories would like to think otherwise.
Don't start a translation agency any time soon - they too may become passé.
I don't think that the death of a language (as sad as it is, and it is sad) annihilates a culture any more than the death of a generation of people - and that is something we cannot stop. My language is very different from my grandparents, but they are mutually intelligable. Their culture, however, would be virtually unintelligable to my children. A culture died. People died. But they were modern westerners and not naked natives in the jungle, and so there was no hand-wringing among the linguists.
Life is change, evolution, moving on. The forrest is the forrest, but there are different trees now than there were five hundred years ago. And different languages, even in the jungle.
Congratulations to the UK for creating a Supreme Court. Until now, the highest court of appeals was the House of Lords - or actually a small group of Lords called the Law Lords.
Lord Phillips said: "This is the last step in the separation of powers in this country. We have come to it fairly gently and gradually, but we have come to the point where the judges are completely separated from the legislature and executive.
What about the separation of the legislative and executive branches? Surely they ought to be separate as well?
Just because you have a queen doesn't mean you have a separate executive. "Her Majesty's Government" are all MPs. So, Lord Philips, as much as you are to be congratulated, I beg to differ that this is the last step. It's the penultimate step.
The next step may take another century, but it will come. And that step is to allow an elected official, a commoner, a mere mortal, to represent a country that prides itself on its people more than some ahistoric fairytale version of its past - i.e. the monarchy.
The suspicious death of a Census worker in Kentucky has led to increased focus on whether anti-Census conspiracies that have floated since the beginning of the Obama administration could lead to violence.
Some of these paranoid conspiracies been endorsed by Republican officials or prominent media figures; others only percolate on the internet.
One of the most infamous Census conspiracy theories was spread by Rep. Michele Bachmann -- that the census would lay the groundwork for World War II-style internment camps.
Bachmann, along with other conservative Republicans was concerned that ACORN would be working the Census anti-tax activist Neal Boortz thinks the Census is being used to take away your property and give it to the "moochers."
Some fringe conservatives think President Obama's in-school census kits are a way of indoctrinating children. Just like Hitler.
The American Daily Review suggests that the Census GPS is a way to help United Nations personnel round people up after Obama lets foreign troops control the country
Many times I have spoken out against the religious right. Much of what I say about them comes from my own long experience as part of their community. But what are these people really saying? What do your neighbors and colleagues who call themselves evangelicals listen to on Sundays? We'll start off with Pat Roberson who is about as main-stream as they come. He started the 700-club, and went on to run for president. Here's what he has to say about the peace process in Israel:
The UN hates Israel. Most of the leadership is Arab. The EU has been opposed to Israel all along. Russia has been doing deals with Iran and Syria and shipping them weapons. And the US has been the only protector of Israel.
Fact check: Israeli's used to call Russia 'our second homeland' because of the support the USSR gave to the creation of Israel. France was the vacation destination of choice for Israelis for much of the 50's, 60's and 70's - which is why French culture and architecture are among the greatest influences in Israeli culture and architecture - but apparently that's because the 'Europeans' hate the Jews. But what are facts when measured against Pat Robertson?
He continues...
That's going to be the final battle ... and all of the nations -- the UN, the EU ( the European Union), Russia and the USA -- the so-called quartet -- are going to be moving in power against the Jews to force them into an untenable peace.
...
It looks like we're heading down the so-called road map as hard as we can go, driven by the Arabs, driven by the Russians, driven by the Europeans, driven by the United Nations, all saying, "Let's put the squeeze on tiny, little Israel." And God, Himself, is going to fight for Israel.
All I can say is that there are two tragedies here: one is that Pat Robertson has a lot of listeners who are convinced by this fear-driven xenophobic zealotry. But the greatest tragedy is that someone like Pat Robertson would ever be given a platform to spread such sulfurous vile poison. You can pick up copies of Pat Roberson's books at just about any Christian bookshop, especially the ones inside the doors of your average evangelical church.
Most conservative evangelical Christians are appalled by Robertson's hateful and literally murderous words, and it's time for them to say so. To their credit, the World Evangelical Alliance and the National Association of Evangelicals have already denounced Robertson's words. When will we hear from some of the groups from the "Religious Right," such as the Family Research Council, Southern Baptists, and other leaders like James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and Chuck Colson?
Let's look just a bit off the beaten path then. I googled. I didn't have to go far, but to be fair if you want to find the worst of the worst it's usually only one or two searches away, so that doesn't prove that the below is mainstream.
Paliban Here's a site that started during the 2008 presidential campaign in support of Palin. It's called the Paliban - presumably a combination of Palin and Taliban. They have a link to another such site called Palintology.
The content is not easily distinguished from the Taliban either. Their agenda is "Christian Reconstruction -- that is, the stealthy, oft-unnoticed movement in America (and other nations) toward Christian theocracy".
They write,
"Here's a place to ... help others understand why "religious tolerance" is unGodly (unless it's tolerance of Christianity), and why it's so very important to put Christians in power. Only then can we become the Christian Nation we were always meant to be!"
The idea that we need Christians in power to surreptitiously take over is actually something you will hear from just about any Evangelical. It's just as much a Rick Warren phenomenon as a Jerry Fallwell phenomenon. It has always been a small victory when a Christian gets into the White House or the Senate. I mean, if you really don't think this stuff is representative of Evangelicalism consider how many theocratic agendas there are in the mainstream: outlawing abortion, using tax incentives to pressure people to marry, the illegality in many states of gay marriage, teaching abstinence instead of giving real sex education and providing contraception ... evangelicals secretly revel.
We truly feel sorry for Mr. Montalban. He suffered horribly in his later years, confined to a wheelchair. Now, he will spend eternity in Hell, all because he listened to Catholic priests who told him it was OK to pretend to be a wizard on TV, as long as he didn't practice witchcraft "for real", and that it was OK to worship Mary and eat Jesus crackers instead of giving his life to Christ.
Catholics eat Jesus crackers ...well, they are at least consistent; they don't like religious tolerance, and this is anything but tolerant. But the real golden nugget is next.
This is completely outrageous, and deserves the condemnation of every Christian from coast to coast. A man's relationship with his daughter is a sacred thing, so where does the California police state get off persecuting man for arranging a marriage for his daughter...? The Bible is crystal clear on this, a daughter is the property of her father.
Consider, for example, Exodus 21:7:
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
If a man can sell his daughter into slavery, then surely he can sell her into marriage, which is a far more desirable state of being!
... The only way to put an end to this unconstitional and unbiblical governmental meddling in places where it does not belong, such as the bridal chambers of 14 year old girls, is to support Evangelical candidates for office such as Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
I hope that all persons who revere Jesus and the Bible will unite and to defend this man for exercising his God given right to sell his daughter's maidenhead to the highest bidder willing to take her as a wife.
This is pretty far-out, and I don't know a single person who would agree with this. But how far is this really from Pat Robertson? Pat Robertson pushes a facts-optional fundamentalist agenda aided by conveniently selected and irreparably misconstrued Old Testament passages. If you asked Pat Robertson to explain to you through biblical exegesis why gay people should not be allowed to marry or why we should be teaching abstinence he would turn to the same Old Testament books as the Paliban writer. And let's be honest, their exegesis has exactly the same tone.
There is no difference. The blatant and unashamed racism of Robertson's 'prophecy' (that's what he calls it) painting all Arabs, all Russians and all Europeans as antisemites is no different from the misogyny of this Paliban writer. These people need to shut up, and American evangelicals need to stop selling their books, stop buying their CDs and stop listening to their sermons. If you wouldn't let the second writer sell books in your church then you shouldn't allow Pat Robertson's or James Dobson's books either. If you wouldn't go to a church where the second writer's vile filth is preached, why do you sit by silently when your friends and family talk about how the end times are upon us, or about how rediculous Catholics are?
There's a traditional Swedish folk song that goes:
Who can sail without wind? Who can row without oars? Who can part with his friend without shedding tears?
Obama has the opposite problem. There is a strong wind blowing - the hurricane of anger the American people are feeling towards Wall Street and a corrupt system that allowed the economy to go to the dogs. The Republicans have harnessed this wind - and are sailing around in no particular direction, trying to figure out where the rudder is. Meanwhile Obama is sitting put in the White House hoping things might settle down.
Ok, I'm all for conciliatory talk. Let's face it, if Ariana Huffington or Keith Olberman were running the Democratic Party then we would never have a single congressman let alone a president. But when the wind is blowing, it's time to hoist a sail and use what you're given.
This summer, we've seen one possible pathway for the nation's angry populism -- one that exhibits many of the worst behaviors of disgruntled Americans throughout history. The birthers, deathers, town hallers and tea-baggers are paranoid and irrational and more than a little racist.
This of course begs two questions: if the Democrats were to offer an an alternative narrative for the expression of this anger would it necessarily dessintigrate into the kind of furious and incoherent mess that the Republicans are currently creating? And if we think that would be detrimental to our cause, would we really want to do that?
Let's take thes second question first. Most people on the left are agreed that the best way to fight the tea-party kristallnacht-esc movement of the right is just to expose it. There are strong arguments that just exposing the right helped Obama win the presidency. So perhaps the extreme Republicans are the most effective allies we have. Would, then, an angry take-no-prisoners left have the equivalent effect for the the right?
No. It would be worse. When the left gets mad as heck and starts screaming the US has a knee-jerk reaction to shut them up quicker than a gay-pride parade in Saudi Arabia. Remember the 2004 election cycle? Lots of angry protesters. Did we get anywhere?
But that doesn't mean that Obama shouldn't do something to harness the anger and outrage. Back then it was about Iraq - it was anger and hatred of basically one man, George Bush. It was therefore primarily political. The list of the guilty when it comes to the financial collapse contains just as many Republicans as Democrats. It's not primarily a political anger. Which is why it's possible to catch some of the populist wind-force (there's that analogy again) and still not be blown off course. It's possible to give that dissatisfaction a constructive direction and not let it spiral into the sulfurous pit of demonic rage that we're seing currently.
Actually the fact that the anger is being so inarticulately expressed by the right ought to indicate to us that it only the left has the ability and the moral clarity to turn that energy into something positive. Congratulations, President Obama, on getting back in the Health Care game and addressing Congress. Nice to have you back. You took the fight to them. Now let's tap into the anger and frustration people feel about the financial system, and make some actual change and reform.
I'm starting to wonder if the United States needs to hire some consultants to come in and fix this mess. How's that for unorthodox? Foreigners.
It gets worse. I think the consultants need to be ... the English.
Mark Mardell is the BBC's North America editor. He has a blog about America. He is about as English as they come, and looks a bit like Uncle Vernon in Harry Potter. But he's got us figured out.
Mr Walker's [the restaurant owner] analysis is interesting too. Social equality, he says, has been achieved - a black man with money can walk in anywhere - but Mr Obama is looking to promote economic equality, and that is what some whites cannot stand, and call socialism.
Yes, that is exactly what the problem is. That is the elephant in the room (see my last post). The "founding fathers"(who are consistently misquoted and misunderstood) were business-owning, land-owning aristocrats and entrepreneurs who were angry because of the ECONOMIC unfairness of the colonial government. But you would never know that if you listened to the current-day account. Instead they were supposedly fighting for abstract rights only.
Actually it was all about - basically only about - economic rights, but since the "founding fathers" were gentlemen who never were going to starve or go homeless the economic rights being discussed were about taxation. Rich man's problems.
That's what America has lacked, that's what the left has failed to give us: a narrative about how the economic inequality in America is a problem that is worth solving; that we have the both the right and the ability to solve. The poor men are still fighting the rich man's battles - battles that were never theirs, and which cause them to neglect their own best interest. It's Joe the Plumber. He's never going to be one of the people who are at all affected by Obama's tax policy. But he doesn't understand that. It's like the confederate soldier dying for his 'rights'. What rights? He didn't even own a cotton field or slaves. But he died for the people who did.
From what I can tell, the violent resistance to civil rights in the 50's and 60's in the southern US was more about economic interest than race. The white men didn't want to have to compete with black men to become foreman or manager. I think that whole thing cooled down not because the white men saw the error of their ways but because they figured out that even with civil rights reformed they would still be sitting comfortably ontop of the best jobs some fifty years later.
That is what is so distressing to them now. Maybe the country might possibly be willing to admit 'economic equality' into the pantheon of golden ideals currently populated by such notions as 'freedom of speech' and 'right to bear arms'.
Watch this video if you have time. I never feel prouder to be an American than when I see intelligent articulate people display this kind of cunning and sense of irony. Amazing.
Ok here's the thing with the health care debate...
Competition The democratic talking point is that a public option (which I want) would make for competition on the market place. Um ... no it wouldn't. The government can't be a fair competitor ever. They make the rules and can move the goalposts. There are ways of breaking up monopolies and ensuring competition. It's called anti-trust.
This is a loosing argument. No one believes that the government can compete. Competition is either not happening as it is, in which case it's an anti-trust matter, or it isn't working and we need to add something other than competition. A public option is the latter. So this talking point is defunct. A bad argument in favor of a good cause is a terrible burden for the cause. Flies in perfume. It's in the bible.
Attractive alternatives Another thing that Rachel Maddow brings up in this clip above is that the far-right argument on health care is incoherent, and that the Republicans have nothing whatsoever to offer in the form of alternative solutions. Then she - very rightly! - points out that all the anger being poured out in this debate is misplaced anger which ought to be directed towards the health insurance and drug companies and other corporations that are running our country into the ground. Yes. That is where the anger should be directed.
But the problem is that liberals in the US has never provided the people with a single, coherent alternative to the right-wing's narrative. There is no national rich-man-exploits-poor-man narrative as an alternative explanation for why people are suffering.
The Republicans are offering no viable alternative to the health care reforms that the democrats are currently proposing. Liberals in the US has never offered a viable alternative narrative to the conservatives' "the government is going to take all my money and turn my kids into atheists" narrative.
I understand that a large contributing factor was the cold war and fear of communists. Exploitation is a decidedly communist word. And don't even get me started on proletariat. But surely people as smart as Obama and the people who put him in power could make a concerted effort to change the narrative now? It's the elephant in the room but as long as the left is too scared to talk about it they lack credibility.
Here's a checklist, Mr. President, if you're listening. The new narrative must meet these criteria:
1. It must be first and foremost about liberty and freedom. You're nothing in America if you're not a freedom fighter. This is a fight of democracy against its foes.
2. This cannot be weighed down by the tired and self-pitying rhetoric of the US union movement. The United States deserves much better unions than it has. They have failed us. It's a long story. Just don't go there. Protectionism is particularly dreadful, Mr. "don't send my job overseas". That's not what you need to complain about right now.
3. The Federal Reserve is just as hated on the right as on the left. Find common scape-goats and scape the heck out of them. I'm not sure whether they have anything to do with it, but that doesn't matter.
4. Americans hate people who don't take responsibility for themselves. If you can't pull yourself up by your own bootstraps you don't deserve to have boots. Paint the culprits as free-loaders. Remember how much white people hate black mothers on welfare? What if they could hate health insurance and drug corporations just as much? It can't be about jealousy because American's won't allow themselves to feel jealous. It has to be about scorn for the lazy and complacent.
