After Sam Hedin come the nomads or tinerans:
"The Aenean intellectual community took little serious interest in the undercultures on its own planet." (p. 108)
Bad. However, the text continues:
"Despite the centuries, Dido still posed too many enigmas which were more fascinating and professionally rewarding." (idid.)
Well, ok. You can't do everything. Nevertheless, scientists and academics specialize. Any university, like the one in Nova Roma which attracts out-system students, should consist of departments addressing xenobiology, sociology, anthropology etc. If the subcultures have been ignored, then someone is going to see a wide-open field for research with potential for many research assistants, Ph.D.'s, publications and academic careers. Ivar Frederiksen, already a hereditary member of the University, should encourage Aenean Subculture Studies when he becomes Firstman of Ilion especially since he has learned by direct experience that the tinerans need both understanding and assistance.
44 comments:
I find the degree of cultural separatism on Aeneas rather puzzling. This is a society which was founded by researchers and has always had instant communications, antigravity and (nearly free) fusion power.
That setting would produce strong pressures for uniformity.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: That is a good point, and touches on a possible weakness in the plot. I can only suggest that some who settled on Aeneas may have deliberately preferred to separate themselves as much as possible from the dominant culture--and found means of making that practical.
Paul: Assuming that FTL is possible and the existence of thousands of intelligent races, I can see many, even most human scholars being far more fascinated by other races than their own species. And this bit from John Ridenour's reflections from "Outpost of Empire" (GALAXY, December 1967, pages 17-18) is telling: "And the entire answer that can be given to this appeal thus far is me. One man. Not even a Naval officer--not even a specialist in human cultures--such cannot be gotten, except for tasks elsewhere that look more vital."
I agree, the Empire needed more experts in human cultures. And universities like that of Nova Roma on Aeneas should pay more attention to training such scholars.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: the problem with that is intergenerational.
Eg., back in the 19th century, being Amish was no big deal unless there was a war and you got persecuted for being a religious pacifist.
Because, day to day, the Amish lived about the way most farmers did... and most people were farmers. While they were socially somewhat separatist, so were a lot of other sub-groups.
This has, to put it mildly, changed.
Likewise, ultraorthodox and Hassidic Jews weren't a big deal in the Pale of Settlement in Russia in the 19th century.
This has also changed.
Both groups are losing more and more of each generation of their (rather abundant) younger generation, and the rate of loss is accelerating.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I can see that: because the attractions and possibilities offered by the dominant culture, bad, good, indifferent, will more and more appeal to younger generations of Amish and ultra-Orthodox Jews. And so on for other, analogous sub-groups.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: precisely. That's not a completely new phenomenon -- note how Latin replaced other languages throughout most of the western, southern and central parts of the Roman Empire.
By the later Imperial period, there was really an astonishing level of uniformity in language and material culture (clothes, pottery, buildings).
But it happens faster these days. The way English supplants immigrant languages in the US, for example -- generally that used to take 3-4 generations for large groups, and it now takes only 2 on average.
Given the tech level, I'd expect -planets- to be fairly culturally uniform in the Technic history, eventually.
Differences -between- planets are credible, because of the much slower communications.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Re cultural unity of the Roman Empire: You certainly made that very convincing in the draft version of TO TURN THE TIDE! I hope to read the final version when it comes out next year.
But, some people do worry the uncontrolled influx of illegal immigrants, due to criminal "Josip's" abandoning of the borders, endangers whatever linguistic and cultural unity the US has.
Yes, the slowness of communications and travel in the Technic stories makes the development of sub-cultures more plausible.
Ad astra! Sean
"The way English supplants immigrant languages in the US, for example"
My paternal ancestors were German speaking Mennonites. About the late 1870s my Great-great-grandfather migrated with wife & children from Crimea to Manitoba. In 19 0 something my grandfather homesteaded in Alberta. The community there was predominantly German speaking, but my father's formal schooling was in English. He said the attitude in the area when he was growing up was that to be Canadian you spoke English. My mother grew up in Montreal & Ottawa, mostly speaking English, so all their children ended up English speaking.
Kaor, Jim!
Were those ancestors among the Germans Catherine II invited in and settled on lands she granted to them along the Volga River? I recall reading of how Stalin exiled the Volga Germans en masse to Siberia in THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO.
I did wonder why your great great grandfather left Tsarist Russia in the 1870's.
And I agree with that Englishing of immigrants Canada and the US stressed in saner days!
Ad astra! Sean
I'm unclear on where my paternal ancestors were before that G'G'grandfather, but they might have included some Germans who migrated to Russia under the rule of Catherine II. They might be people who moved east into Russia somewhat later.
As for why my G'G'grandfather decided to go to Canada: I do have the impression there was some ethnic dislike between the German speakers & Russian speakers long before WWI. IIRC those German immigrants were forbidden to try to convert Russians from Russian Orthodox to whatever variety of Christianity the Germans followed. This tended to minimize mixing of the ethnicities, which would tend to result in hostility.
My G'G'grandfather might have just been a younger son who couldn't find land to farm in Russia and when he heard about open land to homestead in Canada decided to go there.
As for the 'Englishing': I see considerable merit in making sure there is a language that everyone in the country understands.
Suppressing the other languages is another matter. One of the justified complaints against the Residential Schools for First Nations children is that the children were punished for speaking their native language.
Punishment for being different? Dreadful. I was told not to write with my left hand and now do so as an act of civil disobedience.
Society is enriched by bilingualism, multilingualism and multiculturalism. Esperanto could be learned as a SECOND language by everyone everywhere. I am sure that such measures will be agreed and adopted in a world where there is difference without division and unity without uniformity. If we survive, then we will build something better.
Kaor, Jim!
Got it, those more distant ancestors might or might not have been among Catherine II's Volga Germans.
Considering what human beings are like, I can see ethnic/religious tensions between Orthodox Russians and mostly Lutheran Germans.
That's not an unusual phenomenon, younger sons seeking their fortune elsewhere. I've read of it becoming harder for Amish younger sons setting up their own farms.
I agree on it being bad to use forcible suppression of languages. Better to leave it to time and gradual cultural immersion.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
Except large nations need unifying factors if they are to survive and prosper. A common language, culture, history, etc., helps to achieve that.
I am not so optimistic as you are about the value of multilingualism and "multiculturalism." Over and over in history such things have too often fostered strife, disunity, wars and civil wars, etc. The bloody breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990's being a recent example.
We don't need Esperanto for a global second language. English has, de facto, that role. And I see no likelihood of any kind of political unification of the world being achieved soon. Unless some Napoleon type conquers the world.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
A nation needs a common language. Esperanto would be a second language. English is not taught as a universal second language. All that we can say about what is going to happen soon is that it is unpredictable but will definitely involve great change whether good or bad. A political federation (maybe rather than a unification) can be something to aim for rather than to predict soon.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Again, I see no need for Esperanto when English has been adopted by so many millions of people around the world as their second or even primary language. Recall how Stirling discussed that!
I am sure of one thing, any political unification (or even a federation) of the world is not going to be quick, easy, or peaceful! Most likely it will be slow, chaotic, muddled, and bloody. Not good, but it's how humans are most likely going to behave.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Again the idea behind Esperanto is that an international language would be taught as a second language in every school in every country. Everyone would be bilingual if they wanted to be. Every country would have its national language. Everyone would be able to communicate wherever they went in the world. The Curse of Babel would be lifted. That is not the case with English or any other language at present.
Anyone with linguistic interests would still study and learn other national languages if they wanted to. Nothing would be lost. A lot would be gained. If you argue that English currently serves the purpose of Esperanto, then you do not understand the purpose of Esperanto and we discuss it at cross purposes even though we are both using English.
Paul.
As for languages: all languages are roughly equal -- that is, they're all capable of equivalent semantic efficiency.
So the only real objective in language policy should be efficiency, reducing daily friction on the "least effort" principle.
Learning a language (particularly as an adult) takes a lot of time and effort. Why bother if Language X is sufficiently widespread that you can get by with it in most places?
When people lived most of their lives with few contacts outside their immediate neighborhood, a vast multiplicity of languages was tolerable and the lack of communications assured it, because it made local dialects diverge.
This is no longer the situation.
So, is it a "tragedy" when small languages vanish? In a word... no. Hell no. That's sentimentality and gibberish. It's an -advance- because it reduces the friction factor in communication.
Paul: we don't need Esperanto.
Which is, incidentally 'easy to learn' only for speakers of Indo-European languages, and not all of them.
We have English, which is understood by an unprecedented percentage of the world's population, one which is constantly increasing as communications become easier.
It's already as close to a universal second language as we've ever gotten, and becoming constantly more so. If Russians talk business with Indians, they probably do it in English. If Indians negotiate or interact with Chinese, they probably do it in English.
Would it be bad if English (or, hypothetically, some other language) replaced all others?
No. My ancestors spoke, among other things, Lallans, Gaelic and Beothuk. I don't, and am none the worse for it. Least effort, and let the water run downhill.
And this is the overall tendency. Eg., many universities all over the EU don't merely teach English, they teach -in- English. If two people who grew up speaking different languages in Africa marry, they're most likely to speak English to each other and to their children -- so there are far more native English-speakers in Africa now than there were during the colonial period. The runner-up is French.
People in general don't speak more languages than they need to do. That is just common sense.
Big good, small bad. Lumping good, splitting bad.
Kaor, Paul!
And Stirling's comments refutes your advocacy of Esperanto, so why bother with it when English already provides the functions you hope for it?
I can easily see English possibly morphing into something like the Anglic we see in the Technic stories. It might even be called "Anglic"!
Ad astra! Sean
I think it is necessary to clarify what Esperanto was meant to be in the first place because people say, "English is now what Esperanto was meant to be," without knowing what Esperanto was meant to be. They then switch to: "But nothing could be what Esperanto was meant to be!" One of my brothers-in-law just kept switching between these two incompatible positions. Every time I answered one, he reverted to the other. But some people are contrary just as a bad habit.
I can mount some defences of Esperanto:
I have been told that Japanese find it easier than other European languages;
it it politically neutral;
it is a living (albeit minority) language - people can go on holiday with it and it has translations of Shakespeare and the Bible as well as its own poetry and fiction;
it can summarise complex ideas in portmanteau words composed of affixes.
However, I accept that life has moved on and that whatever happens with language(s) internationally will probably just happen and not be planned.
Kaor, Paul!
Exactly, life has moved on and English has taken the place you hoped Esperanto would occupy.
Incidentally, Robert Hugh Benson's novel LORD OF THE WORLD shows Esperanto being used.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
My advocacy was not refuted. English has not yet taken the place that I hoped Esperanto would occupy. Esperanto was not meant to be merely a widespread second language but a universal one. You have not yet understood what I did explain about the original purpose of Esperanto.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The fact still remains English is well on the way to becoming that universal language. Far more so than Esperanto has ever achieved!
As Stirling stressed, far more people are vastly more likely to learn English in Africa, for sound practical reasons, than Esperanto.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yes, I know. But there is still the idea of a universal second language which would have to be adopted by schools throughout the world, not just continue to spread the way English is doing. People learning English for practical reasons is perfectly legitimate and is something other than the idea of a universal second language for the specific purpose of international communication.
If maybe eventually English or its descendant (Anglic) is adopted as a genuine universal second language, then Zamenhof's purpose in creating Esperanto will have been achieved although through one of the national languages rather than through his artificial language.
Of course we don't need Esperanto as such but it would be very helpful to have a universal second language which would have to be taught by international agreement in all schools. The mere spread of English or any other language is not achieving that.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
What Stirling and I have been trying to say is that English is becoming that universal language. And by gradual, organic means. Stirling even mentioned how schools in Europe are adopting English to teach in.
Now, unless China conquers the world and forces everyone to learn Chinese, I don't see that gradual spread of English being reversed.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
English is not becoming the universal language. That will need an agreement between all schools in the world to teach one language as a second language. When the world as a whole is ready to take such a step, then it may well not be English that is considered appropriate for this purpose even if it remains in widespread use for other purposes.
Paul.
Paul: English is not a -universal- second language.
It is, however, closer than any other language to that status and closer than any other language in the last millenium or so ever -has- been.
Eg., it's an -official- de jure language in 52 countries and 20 non-sovereign entities, and used very widely in many more.
This is, as the saying goes, 'close enough for government work'. Nor is there any sign of a reversal of this trend to expansion.
Eg., there are 128 million English-speakers in India, vastly more than there were in 1948.
I was in India a few years ago at a friend's wedding, and every third building in Bangalore seemed to be advertising English-lessons.
The Indian family concerned (upper-middle-class professionals from northern India, originally) -all- spoke English, as far as I could see. Certainly every one I talked to did, including children as young as seven or eight.
When they talked to the locals (mostly Karnataka-speakers) they did so in English... and many of the locals were as fluent as they.
My friend the bride came from a Russian-speaking family; she and her husband and their children talk English to each other mostly. The children are native English-speakers, with a limited command of some Hindi, which they use with their grandparents.
I think that we have covered the whole topic by now. No language, not even English, is yet fulfilling the original purpose of Esperanto. However, if and when governments/educational authorities/decision-makers agree on a policy for an international second language, then it looks like English could well win by default. At least that is the current tendency but then that is all that we have to go on.
Kaor, Paul!
What I'm wondering why you seem so resistant to English becoming that "universal" language when it is becoming in so many ways that kind of language.
And, once a "critical mass" of English speakers has been reached worldwide, the kind of official action you spoke of will be taken in even more countries than the ones cited by Stirling.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: that's a high probability but not a done deal. The next couple of generations are likely to be... ah... 'active'. And unlikely things do happen.
Sean,
Resistant? I think that the Esperanto project makes perfect sense although I acknowledge that it has not taken off for reasons including chauvinism from nationalistic governments. I could ask the same question the other way round: why so much hostility to the perfectly reasonable proposal of a neutral international second language?
English is associated in many minds with colonialism, chauvinism and Americanism. I heard of a native Irish speaker who, when in France, spoke French and refused to speak English - although obviously he would not have been able to do that in every other country.
De facto English is widely spoken now but what will people, all people, want to do in the future? Arguing that the language that you and I speak is the one that everyone should speak is not the way to conduct any kind of diplomacy. But all that this shows is that the world is full of conflict and discord and we knew that already.
Paul.
I knew a political campaigner who said, "Compromise? Of course we must compromise! I am a republican but I want more Queens in my wallet. That's compromise! I speak and write in the language of the oppressors, English. That's compromise!"
In India, English is relatively "neutral" -- non-Hindi-speakers have always bitterly resisted attempts to use Hindi as the -lingua franca- instead, for example.
Paul: Esperanto might make perfect sense if human beings were logical and rational... which, generally speaking, they're not.
Kaor, Paul!
Sorry no, my view is thinking like that about English as "colonialism, chauvinism, and Americanism" is quaint and 1960's antiquated. That still does not change the fact of how widely used and popular English is.
Why on Terra should I care about Esperanto? What need is there for it if English is doing the job its devotees hoped for it? In fact I've been wondering if there are more passionate fans of Tolkien's Middle Earth legendarium who speak his invented "Elvish" than people using Esperanto.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Sorry but of course there are people around the world who think like that about colonialism etc now and of course that does not change how widely used English is.
English is not doing the job that Esperantists hoped Esperanto would do. Of course you do not need to care about Esperanto. I can set out why I think that it is a good language and a good idea but quite clearly not everyone agrees with that. I doubt more people speak Elvish. Esperanto is in use as a living language between some people who use it to meet internationally. Why all this hostility to what is at the very worst a harmless idea?
Paul.
Paul: I'd say it's 'impatience' rather than hostility. As I said, it's a perfectly logical idea... which is one reason it never had a chance of becoming practical.
As for "colonialism", Europeans did not invent empires in 1492. There's nothing special about the European colonial empires except their size.
As the saying goes, there's a difference between oppressors and oppressed... and it's a word ending in "-ty"... but it ain't 'morality.
It's 'opportunity'.
The significant difference is power; if the oppressed weren't weak, they'd be the oppressors.
I felt that the hostility was in the tone of some of Sean's responses! I felt that I had backed off from arguing a case but the argument was still going on. I think we have threshed it out by now. Some time in the future, hopefully, there will be international agreements about how best to communicate and people then will discuss what is best for them to do then in the light of circumstances that we do not know about yet. In fact, it will be a big change of circumstances just for that kind of discussion even to get started.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm sorry if I seemed "hostile," which was not my wish. I admit to the impatience, because of frustration with your advocacy of Esperanto, because of believing that to be hopelessly impractical. English is, after all, well on the way to becoming de facto a "universal" language.
Also, I get irked at what seems endless bashing of America, the UK, and Europe. Esp. when I recall how grotesquely badly so many of the post-colonial nations have turned out. Very often far worse than the wicked colonialists!
Official action will be taken if a critical mass of English speakers comes to exist in many nations, giving English de jure status.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And yet again a neutral international language would be a good idea but is extremely unlikely to be implemented any time soon. Longer term - either we cease to blunder or we go under. I think that business as usual is no longer an option.
Having wielded so much power for so long, the US, the UK and Europe need to heed any criticisms that come their way instead of just counter-criticizing! "The wicked colonialists." Surely at least some of what was done was indeed wicked?
Paul.
Paul: given current trends... if continued eventually everyone will speak English, and a large majority will speak it as a first language.
I agree. If that happens, then the problem of international communication will have been solved.
Current trends do not always continue or, if they do, do not necessarily go all the way.
I once saw figures for members of the Jesuit order in Ireland. Over a matter of decades, it had gone from something like 500 to something like 200 with many of the latter elderly. That trend, if continued, means that there will be none very soon. But I question whether the decline will go all the way - apart from the possibility, however remote, of new factors that could reverse the trend.
But that would still leave us with very few non-English speakers and very few Jesuits, respectively.
If present trends continue, then English will dominate. If there is ever a global debate about what would be the best option for a neutral international language, then, by definition, that debate would review the whole issue and consider alternatives - although I have no confidence about what the outcome would be and it is certain that a massive lobby would argue that English, even if not neutral, was already a de facto international language.
Paul: you're right about trends -- which is why I said "if"... 8-).
Kaor, to any interested!
Besides the linguistic discussions in this combox, about English and Esperanto, there was some discussion about some kind of world gov't for Earth. Which leads me to thinking one or two points can be made using Poul Anderson and Gordon Dickson's Hoka stories. The text quoted here came from "The Sheriff of Canyon Gulch (EARTHMAN'S BURDEN, Gnome Press, 1957, page 4): "--apparently incredibly fortunate historical development was, of course, quite logical. The relative decline in politico-economic influence of the Northern Hemisphere during the late twentieth century, the shift of civilized dominance to a Southeast Asia-Indian Ocean region with more resources, did not, as alarmists at the time predicted, spell the end of Western civilization. Rather did it spell an upsurge in Anglo-Saxon democratic and libertarian influence, for the simple reason that this area, which now held the purse strings of Earth, was in turn primarily led by Australia and New Zealand, which nations retained their primordial loyalty to the British Crown. The consequent renascence and renewed growth of the British Commonwealth of Nations, the shaping of its councils into a truly world--even interplanetary--government, climaxed as it was by the American Accession, has naturally tended to fix Western culture, even in small details of every day life, in the mold of that particular time..."
This partial extract from the EMPLOYEES ORIENTATION MANUAL of Adalbert Parr, Chief Commissioner of the Cultural Development Service of the United Commonwealths, is astounding. At first it boggles the mind to think of the Commonwealth evolving into a world gov't. Then I recalled arguments I've seen made that Anglophone nations like the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, etc., have more in common with each other than with the rest of the world. Thus it would make sense for the Anglosphere to seek closer ties with each other. Such an alliance, if it included the US, would come close to being the core of a true world federation.
A real world United Commonwealths??? Amazing!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment