Top-down language
It has always amused me that some, like the Académie française, are of the opinion that language is a top-down, rather than bottom-up phenomenon. Iran's Ahmadinejad is the latest to get into the game. Sullivan says, "Stuff like this must surely help the younger Persians to take him unseriously." I agree, though it would be good to hear from some of them directly.
Although I do not share Lizard's libertarian opinions about laws and guns, I do agree with the author of Applied Misanthropology when he states: "The ability to adapt words and concepts from other cultures makes you stronger, not weaker." He cites the example of Japan, which beginning in the 19th century has been voraciously devouring foreign ideas, words, and practices. And yet it clearly isn't in any danger of losing its distinctive culture. It lost its old feudal culture, certainly, but what with video games and anime and ramen it certainly seems to be holding its own in modernity.
I think cultural protectionism is silly and ineffective (but then I'm a member of a pretty dominant culture and a speaker of a pretty dominant language, so perhaps this sentiment is self-serving). Governments or government-sponsored agencies trying to tell people what words to use for things seems like the worst kind of statist paternalism imaginable. (OK, probably not the worst, but pretty intrusive and annoying.)
Although I do not share Lizard's libertarian opinions about laws and guns, I do agree with the author of Applied Misanthropology when he states: "The ability to adapt words and concepts from other cultures makes you stronger, not weaker." He cites the example of Japan, which beginning in the 19th century has been voraciously devouring foreign ideas, words, and practices. And yet it clearly isn't in any danger of losing its distinctive culture. It lost its old feudal culture, certainly, but what with video games and anime and ramen it certainly seems to be holding its own in modernity.
I think cultural protectionism is silly and ineffective (but then I'm a member of a pretty dominant culture and a speaker of a pretty dominant language, so perhaps this sentiment is self-serving). Governments or government-sponsored agencies trying to tell people what words to use for things seems like the worst kind of statist paternalism imaginable. (OK, probably not the worst, but pretty intrusive and annoying.)
Comments
Yes, cultural dynamism BY ITSELF isn't wrong. The only problem is the juxtaposition of this with power politics, which inevitably happens.
To cite one example, the use of traditional natural remedies is PROHIBITED the moment a pharmaceutical patents a product based on these remedies.
To cite an even worse example - the use of whiskey and smallpox to undermine Native American cultures, leading to the slow erosion of Native American lands. In some cases, not even so slow.
The fact is, cultural dynamism is terribly difficult to differentiate from domination through culture. The former strengthens, the latter does nothing to enrich us collectively, and indeed makes us all poorer for wiping out a culture.