A diverse culture, as in India, includes a vast number of religions, rituals, festivals, beliefs, Gods and languages. People try to preserve their own culture and thus keep the country "colourful" and diverse. I ask why is this even needed? I understand if people want to preserve artifacts and monuments and their property. I understand if people want to preserve their books and libraries, but culture was supposed to go on. Each new discovery sends a wave of excitement in those who understand how well it could be used. Every great book that is written has the potential to inspire thousands and millions of people. Each speech delivered effectively can make the minds of people take a u-turn. And yet, our efforts to preserve our culture doesnt let this happen. What is human that resists change for the better? What is culture that comes in way of development? And what is language that hinders communication? I dream of a world in which i can communicate with any person in any corner of the world as easily as i do with a person in my locality speaking the same language as i do, I dream of a world where the news of every discovery and every invention is received by every person who is interested in knowing and a world where any book could be read by any one. Delivering speeches to people who do not understand the language has no meaning behind it. I feel it is necessary we break down these foul barriers to progress and head towards development at full speed. Today, the case is like a beggar feeling very happy in knowing that his great-grand father was one of the richest persons in his locality. I do not intend to hurt anyone's feelings for their culture, but trust me, every person thinks his/her own culture is the best (if at all one cares for it!). One guy writes on all the benches in my college that "the best way to save the motherland and the GREATEST culture is to separate Telangana from Andhra Pradesh." When development comes into picture, all such things seem to be trivial. I wonder what the world would look like if all people were in to contribute to overall development. Your views?
I like the idea of a single culture like this. I would like to see a moderation of culture everywhere, tending toward a universal one, with emphasis on respect for the individual person.
You don't seem to understand that language is part of culture. Each language contains thousands of clues to the development of its people's culture. Why do the Germans consider the sun feminine and the moon masculine, when virtually every other Indo-European language assigns them to the opposite genders? Why does Chinese have no verb tenses--could this have something to do with a culture that has survived more-or-less continuously for several thousand years, so the concept of time isn't as critical to Chinese people as it is to us, who overthrow each other's governments (and even our own) every couple of centuries and start over? Many of the compound-words in English were coined by Shakespeare, and the particular manner of their compounding carries echoes of his observations of medieval English culture. They're very difficult to translate without replacing the references with those of another people. Why do speakers of Japanese, Italian and Spanish feel comfortable with languages in which every word has so many syllables that it has to be spoken at machine-gun speed in order to finish a sentence before lunch? Speakers of English, French and Chinese utter so few syllables that we can speak slowly enough to be much more easily understood by students and tourists. Most of the languages we're familiar with use the subject-verb-object syntax, which to our way of thinking is the way the world works. Japanese uses a topic-description syntax, which is perfect for composing zen koans. Languages that develop in warm climates have lots of vowels so people can cool themselves by exhaling. In cold climates they're overloaded with consonants to conserve body heat. Hawaiian has (to my knowledge) the smallest inventory of phonemes of all languages: A E H I K L M N O P U W ' (glottal stop). This is because for centuries they spent considerable time shouting to each other between canoes on the open ocean and the sounds had to be easily recognizable. Do you really want to lose all this culture?
It's interesting that you would ask about culture, seeing as how language has a strong correlation to it. I see culture as I see language. There are proponents who insist on abiding by documented spelling and grammar, and there are other proponents who insist on changes and adaptations. Languages interact with other languages, and that interaction is affected by political power, economics, etc. I think the tug of war between the "originalists" and the "futurists", if I may use those terms, IS the culture, and it's very much complicated by the rest of the world.
India's kind of analogous to Europe, I guess. It's got a common tradition that gives the whole place a distinctive style and tone, but many different languages and cultures in different localities. One big difference is Hindu tradition whose caste distinctions compete with linguistic and ethnic identification and represent many Indians' primary social identification. So the territorial cultural and linguistic differences never seem to have resulted in quite the kind of nationalism that arose in Europe. I'm not convinced that change is always for the better. In the case of language unification, there seem to be good arguments both ways. The thing is, languages provide the words, and hence many of the concepts, that people use to conceive, describe and manipulate our common world. It's rare that we can just translate one language into another word-for-word, without losing a lot of the original meaning and inserting new connotations and new implications that might have not been present in the original. I think that a good argument can be made both for preserving linguistic differences and for eliminating them in favor of a single common language. Of course the latter implies that we can all agree on what that common language will be. Perhaps the best way forward is to promote childhood bilingualism, with children learning both their local language and a second common worldwide language such as English. India seems to perhaps be already headed in that direction, which might turn out to be the best of both worlds. Indians will still be able to communicate with each other and with the rest of the world, but they will continue to possess their own distinctive conceptual resources and the rather different ways of looking at and expressing things that might be implicit in them. And again, as I suggested up above, this is a problem that the Europeans face as well.
The method you are suggesting again involves a language that is not understood by all. Though overall communication might be possible, the people who know a different language will definitely have an advantage of being able to comprehend texts the others cant. The problem with multiple languages hindering communication is easily solved, but the problem of unavailability of ancient literature still remains unchallenged. If we could all speak to each other and all books could be translated to the common knowledge without losing out on the actual meaning of the texts, the existence of multiple language will pose no problem.
@Fraggle Rocker I really have no issues with the existence of diverse cultures if they do not interfere with the free flow of information. If, somehow, the ancient wisdom captured in their texts could be accessible and comprehend-able by the rest of the world, the new developments be communicated as well and if one could speak to anyone on earth freely, i sure wouldn't want to lose all this culture.
Explain something: On the one hand, you focus on ancient wisdom and seem to suggest that it is something good. On the other hand, you argue against that ancient wisdom in your OP - ??
@wynn i just want knowledge to be accessible. Its like, if i have enough money to pay my fees, and lead a humble life, i wouldn't mind keeping a little extra. In this case, my primary requirement is that i should be able to communicate and read with all and all that i want. If there is a way to preserve culture along with that, its like "Sone pe Suhaga." To justify "What is human that resists change for the better? What is culture that comes in way of development? And what is language that hinders communication?" When you can meet the requirements and still keep culture alive, it becomes "the better." If culture does not come in way of development but orients itself in order that progress takes place, it is not coming in way way of development and when all can speak the same language, well, nothing could be better. But if the primary requirements are not met, then i am still against all that anyone would want to preserve because they are "beautiful." You can decorate your house with artifacts, and it sure is a good thing, but that you can do, when you have a house to decorate.
The internet? English? It's far from perfect, but isn't it close to your ideal? Is English your native language? Are you multilingual? In any case, you are communicating perfectly, and I feel confident that we can reach an understanding, within reason, if not only on the definitions of words and perhaps common experiences. I, on the other hand, would be seriously disadvantaged if you were to engage me in a language I don't speak. As for One World, One People - I'm all for it, insofar as we are not pointing nukes at each other, or constantly harassing each other by more subtle tactics. On the other hand, I feel something has been lost when I see pristine forests, where humans have lived for ages - replaced by asphalt and international restaurants, where the guy that was next in line to be the village medicine man is now standing behind the counter wearing a ridiculous paper crown that says "1,000,000 served."
@ Aqueous Id Yup, english and the internet do serve the same purpose, but in a much smaller way. Maybe in future, we could see this same thing(s) emerge as answers to our needs. There are still schools with their medium other than english, where, english is either not taught or given the least importance. Moreover, a simple switch to english wouldn't serve the purpose.As Fraggle Rocker has rightly pointed out, even just translating the ancient texts literally could result in a great loss of its meaning...the poetry in one language cannot so easily be translated to any another language without compromising on its beauty... but at least more things are being accessible now. Some real good attempts like Google Translate are real help. I've used it a couple of times and it does work. Perhaps, the internet is our answer in the making! Thanks for your views Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
@wynn This transition (if there ever is) requires voluntary support from tout le mond. And i dont see how my, or anyone's for that matter, joining or creating political parties can be of help. And, the point of this discussion simple is to try and come up with better ideas Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
