Akhav

Ahab

2 notes

Anonymous asked: "In other words, Esperantists argue for a homogenization of world culture, for a world which is obligingly accessible for white people and white culture, and for a world which caters to white need for convenience." Do you see the irony of making that statement in English, which has done all of these things in practice and not just as a hypothetical theory? And does that make English even more racist and pro-genocide?

No, I don’t see the irony in making that statement in English.

English is my first language - like many immigrant parents, my father didn’t want to risk hindering my development by teaching me Spanish - another colonial language, which his great grandparents opted to teach their children and not their indigenous language, because they didn’t want to hinder their development.

The reality is that people will do what they have to do to survive (or what they think they have to do - research of course now shows there are cognitive benefits for children raised bilingually).

That is why I am opposed to Esperanto - I don’t want parents to have another reason to not teach their children their own language and the language of their grandparents. 

The English language itself is not inherently racist or pro-genocide - what is racist and pro-genocide is the white supremacist mythology which brought the English language to its current state of hegemony. Likewise Esperanto is not inherently racist - I learned Esperanto and continue to learn it occasionally when I’m in the mood - but the movement behind it is racist and espouses a similar white supremacist mythology to the one which allowed for the current state of hegemony of the English language - one which states that linguistic diversity is a problem (“la lingva problemo” i.e., the language problem) which must be solved (“la fina venko” i.e., the final victory) and which claims neutrality despite being very obviously Eurocentric (Mi trinkas la viskion).

Filed under racism genocide marginalized languages minority languages language extinction esperanto white supremacy eurocentrism english

19 notes

Against Esperanto and International Auxiliary Languages

Well while I can’t say I agree with everything you say, your responses have been thought provoking. Aside from my views on the Esperanto movement, I’ll always promote Esperanto as a linguistic tool, because it is in fact easier than most natural languages, for speakers of any tongue. While I will admit that speakers of languages from other linguistic families around the world obviously don’t have the same advantages as native speakers of indo-european languages, the agglutinative nature of Esperanto makes it much easier than other types of languages, by sheer virtue of the fact that vocabulary acquisition is much more rapid than in other languages. China has one of the higher populations of Esperantists, despite their linguistic disadvantage. With that being said, I do agree with you that Esperanto is not neutral and is an impractical choice for a lingua franca. “Racist and pro-genocide” though? That’s just inflammatory. 

Saying that the movement is pro-genocide implies that they support slaughtering entire cultures, and not in the figurative “oh you’re assimilating us into a predominantly white society, our culture is slaughtered!” way, in the mass death way. By striving to create intercultural communication across the world, are they inadvertantly striving to smother local cultures? That is something that one could debate for days without a clear answer, but the fact that the question needs asking suggests plausibility, and I acknowledge your point there. Perhaps a lingua franca isn’t feasible, and if it is, perhaps it isn’t right to pursue. 
However, that is not genocide by any stretch, and in your word choice you’ve taken a legitimate argument about the ethics of the Esperanto movement and turned it into openly uninformed antagonism in the eyes of the Esperantists (of which there are quite a few) who have read your posts on the issue. Because of your poor execution, instead of a discussion centered around the possible need for a radical reevaluation of the purpose and goals of Esperanto (for instance, I think it should be required in primary/elementary schools with natural languages required in levels of education higher than that, and no required focus on Esperanto past the first levels. I believe Tim Morley expounds on that in a Tedx talk if you’re interested), it has become a passing phase of outrage that will have no effect whatsoever a week from now.

Forgive the “notepaper” format but if there’s a more effective way to send long messages on Tumblr I don’t know it. 

— iscottles

Esperanto is only easier to learn for people who speak Indo-European languages. Its grammar, script and lexicon are completely foreign to anyone who doesn’t speak an Indo-European language, and while I concede that agglutination can in some instances make vocabulary acquisition easier, this too is drastically limited because different cultures don’t all share their understandings of the same concept - e.g., the Esperanto word for hospital is “malsanulejo”, mal-sanu-lejo, which literally translates to “un-health-place” or “sick-place”. This corresponds to the literal translation of the word for hospital in almost every Germanic and Slavic language (Swedish “sjukhus” (sick-house), Dutch “ziekenhuis” (sick-house), Serbo-Croat “bolnica” (injury-house), etc) but wouldn’t be entirely obvious to someone whose language renders the word for hospital as “healing house” (Thai) or “medicine building” (Mandarin), i.e. someone whose culture emphasizes the healing aspect of a hospital over the fact that lots of sick or injured people go there. Things get much, much hairier when you’re dealing with more abstract concepts, which is one of the reasons translations of religious and philosophical texts can be so contentious - in fact, it’s one of the reasons why certain words go untranslated in philosophical texts (think: Schadenfreude, logos, connaissance de soi, savoir de soi, gedankenexperiment).  

Linguistic disadvantage can be overcome - virtually every imperialist language including English has proven that (and the Chinese have a particular advantage in learning Esperanto seeing as the Chinese government has been funding and promoting Esperanto language education since the 80’s) - that’s hardly my point. In harping on the linguistic and cultural biases of Esperanto the point I hope to drive home is that the language itself alienates people who don’t speak Indo-European languages. If you agree that Esperanto is Eurocentric, then why would you continue to promote its use as an international auxiliary language? Do you not see how that would be alienating to someone who isn’t European, particularly someone whose people have been subjected to colonization and continual reinforcement over the centuries that their ways of doing things, their spiritual traditions, their understandings of the world, their philosophical traditions, and even their languages are inferior to European ways of doing things, European spiritual traditions, European understandings of the world, European philosophical traditions and European languages? Do you not see how it would be alienating for people to be made to learn a language unrelated to their own which bears striking resemblances to the languages of people who brutalized and massacred their ancestors (and banned their languages) and who continue to brutalize them by way of multinational corporations, parasitic trade agreements, debt and military force (either overt or by proxy) if things get out of hand? If you insist that an international auxiliary language is even necessary, then be the one to scrap Esperanto and create something truly neutral, made from an a priori vocabulary with a more analytic (isolating) grammar which avoids traits commonly associated with imperialist or colonialist languages. It’ll be harder for you and for Europeans to learn, but at least you’ll be able to sell the neutrality point with a straight face and you won’t be upholding the virtues of European cultural hegemony. 

As far as genocide goes, listen closely. If you walk away having learned only one thing from this post, let it be this:

Most genocide doesn’t occur in concentration camps. 

Most genocide is slow, painful and violent. It takes place over the course of generations, generations which are forced to live with the constant reinforcement of the myth of their own inferiority, forced to contend with impossible conditions which almost always include some form of economic violence, which is real violence - the kind that results in real death and real suffering for real people. When this occurs systemically, on a large scale - as indigenous people everywhere in the world face - it does actually result in “mass death”, which, coupled with overwhelming pressures to assimilate, results in the gradual erasure of culture - i.e. genocide. The difference between this kind of genocide and the genocide that you’re referring to is that the kind of genocide you’re referring to is a conspiracy devised by a few people enabled by a supremacist cultural mythology. The kind of genocide I am talking about, the kind that is most common and most dangerous because it happens so quietly by comparison, is a conspiracy devised and executed by entire cultures. Language plays an important role in that conspiracy, as language is the primary vehicle of enculturation. 

The aims of the Esperanto movement are at odds with linguistic and cultural diversity, and that Esperanto, if adopted globally, would inevitably supplant local languages in the same way imperialist languages have. In virtually every instance, the emergence of a lingua franca signals the demise of local languages - from English, to Swahili, to Mandarin to Latin to Tagalog to Spanish - and with the language dies the culture. Today 80% of the world speaks 1.1% of its languages. At the current rate, roughly 40% of the languages still spoken will be extinct in 10 years. Those rates are the rates of a world where Esperanto has not reached global prominence, where the UN has not recommended that its member states create Esperanto education programs, where people have not yet been given another reason to teach their children the languages of their parents and grandparents. 

I don’t personally give a fuck if Esperantists feel antagonized about my use of language and how I may have averted a re-evaluation of the language by being honest: the language doesn’t need to be re-evaluated, it needs to be shelved. If you know this to be true and you proceed to advocate for the widespread use of Esperanto, you are advocating genocide - sometimes the truth hurts, and I don’t care to pussyfoot to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings. All i can tell you is that if you are passionate about language and language diversity then learn natural languages, particularly those of your ancestors, particularly those which are marginalized, and support and encourage others to do the same. Focus on yourself, focus on your own community and your own people - the closer the better. The most valuable linguistic tool you can have is an appreciation and respect for the diversity of human languages… the understanding that it’s not a problem or an obstacle which needs to be overcome, but one of the keys to our success as a species. It allows for variance in cultural practices, in experience, in thought, in food, in music, in art. Learn Esperanto if you will, but don’t advocate its widespread international adoption. The Esperantos before it have done enough damage. 

Filed under esperanto genocide white supremacy lingua franca language extinction indo-european european eurocentrism imperialism neo-colonialism iscottles

1 note

Anonymous asked: Do you think a person can learn Esperanto without being racist?

Sure, why not? 

0 notes

iscottles asked: Forgive the disjointedness but there's a character limit to work with. Is your issue with Esperanto simply the idea of a lingua franca being oppressive to local cultures, or that it is eurocentric? Also, as for the eurocentricness, you can hardly blame modern Esperantists for lexical decisions made over 100 years ago. I disagree with you about the syntax, though. I could be mistaken, and correct me if I am, but doesn't the accusative (-n) suffix allow for deviation from your native syntax?

Lingua francas are generally harmful to local cultures and local languages, particularly when they are completely unrelated to the local language culturally and linguistically, and especially when they are imposed by a colonial power. Consider the impact of Tagalog being adopted as the national language of the Philippines on other Filipino languages, or the prestige status given to English in Sweden and the impact on Swedish language literacy, or perhaps even more candidly, the impact on Latin on the languages of Western Europe. I know Esperantists say they don’t want to impose their language on anyone but they’re not kidding anyone (at least not me) - roughly every two years the World Esperanto Association (UEA) petitions the UN to recommend that its member states require the teaching of Esperanto in their schools and expand local Esperanto education programs. 

The accusative suffix is inconsequential - theoretically it allows for more free word order, but colloquial Esperanto is faithful to SVO word-order. Remember - grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive. 

I can assure you, Esperanto is quite irrefutably Indo-European in syntax. It is rendered in the Latin alphabet, its lexicon is overwhelmingly Indo-European (mainly drawing from Latin, other Romance languages, Germanic languages, Greek, and some Slavic languages) with very few deviations (which themselves seem contrived, and ironically in most cases alternate Indo-European forms exist - e.g. boaco, reindeer, from Northern Sami, boazu, alt. rangifero, from Latin, or norda cervo, “northern deer”, also Latin). Its grammar consists of definite articles, conjugation of verbs to indicate present, past, and future tenses, conditional and jussive moods, declination of nouns to indicate plural and accusative case, compound tenses, noun-adjective agreement, compound tenses, and numerous, numerous other features which in concert produce something which sounds totally alien (or at least European) to the ears of anyone who doesn’t already speak an Indo-European language. The cherry on top is the fact that most idiomatic expressions in Esperanto are European in origin. To call that neutral is truly exemplary and typical of white supremacist Esperantist bullshit. 

And yes, of course I can blame modern Esperantists for upholding those Eurocentric lexical decisions made 100 years ago. Modern Esperantists are the ones billing Esperanto as a “neutral” and truly international language when it is clearly a European language, both in origin and in appearance (do they think people are stupid? I mean, the first sentence you learn in most Esperanto courses is “La birdo estas bela”. That sentence is about as neutral and international as the European Union). Modern Esperantists are the ones who can stop perpetuating this racist and uninformed myth that Esperanto is more easily learned than any other natural language (tell that to a native speaker of Mandarin, Japanese, Lao, Arabic, Tamazight, Telugu, Malayalam, Amharic, Tegrina, or any other non-Indo-European language rendered in a non-Latin script).

In fact, for that matter they can also stop upholding this insane notion that there exists something called a “language problem” which must be solved, and that it can be solved by imposing another European language on the world. Despite the intentions of individual Esperantists and how much they talk about language diversity and language preservation nowadays, the reality is that minority languages are marginalized enough as it is by national languages, and that no language is neutral. All languages acquire a certain status within the communities they are used in, and like it or not an international language will inexorably become one of commerce. Coupled with the ever-expanding purview of globalization, international capitalism and neo-imperialism (which are all basically the same thing), and people will increasingly see less value in learning the languages of their parents and grandparents in their effort to get by in the world. To kill a culture, you start with the tongue. 

So anyway, to conclude, Esperanto is racist both by design and as a movement. 

Filed under esperanto racism genocide white supremacy international auxiliary languages lingua franca cultural imperialism globalization eurocentrism language grammar indo-european UEA World Esperanto Association neo-imperialism international capitalism la birdo estas malbela

805 notes

Jez: Elena is my one true soulmate.
Mark: It’s remarkable, isn’t it, that out of the three billion adult women in the world, your one true soulmate happens conveniently to live in the same block of flats as you, rather than, say, in a village in Mozambique.
Jez: Who knows how these things happen. There are powers at work beyond our understanding.
Mark: No there aren’t.

(Source: jellineck, via ontheinsideimamuppet)

0 notes

Anonymous asked: Why do you find the Esperanto movement to be racist and pro-genocide?

The Esperanto movement is racist and pro-genocide because it considers the fact that people speak different languages to be a problem (la lingva problemo - the language problem), and that the solution to this problem is to have everyone learn Esperanto as a second language (the realization of this aim is called by Esperantists la fina venko - the final victory). Esperanto is unquestionably Eurocentric, both lexically and grammatically. For instance, it employs subject-verb-object word order, uses suffixes to denote femininity in words (meaning the default is masculine) and the bulk of its vocabulary is unquestionably Indo-European in origin. 

Esperantists constantly promote their language as being “easier” to learn than natural languages. This is only true if the learner’s native language is Indo-European, non-tonal and written with the Latin script. 

If adopted internationally Esperanto would inevitably come to be an important vehicle of globalization (as the English language has been), it would supplant local languages, particularly those languages which have no literary traditions and it would lead to an erosion of local culture. 

In short, Esperantists consider language diversity to be a problem and they consider that the solution to that problem is to have everyone learn their European styled language as a second language. In other words, Esperantists argue for a homogenization of world culture, for a world which is obligingly accessible for white people and white culture, and for a world which caters to white need for convenience. 

If that doesn’t sound racist and pro-genocide to you, I don’t know what does. 

Filed under esperanto globalization racism genocide la fina venko la lingva problemo white supremacy homogenization euro-centrism

0 notes

holmesguy asked: Sorry, Askbox is bad for conversations. As for the photo being a "tacit endorsement of Maoism" when it lacks commentary, I just don't agree. What's a photo of an old Bible an endorsement of? Man's search for meaning? Philosophy? Torture? Fiction? Medieval bookbinding?--To me, an image without preface is just another object. Its existence could inspire hate or fear in me, but I can't blame it for existing, nor could I blame someone for making its existence visible with or without comment.

I’m not against Esperanto as a language - I find it to be ugly and awkward sounding to be sure but my main concern is with the Esperanto movement, which on the whole I find to be racist and pro-genocide. I was learning the language for a while only because I love learning languages and Esperanto is a language - in the same way I am learning Hebrew although I do not support the state of Israel. I am very careful to mention that when it somehow comes up in conversation (particularly with people who have been directly affected by the state of Israel, of which there are many where I live).

As I said before - the endorsement to me was evident from the visual economy of the photograph (mainly the body language and the position of the book in relation to Tom Green) and the commentary which resembles that of a child at show-and-tell. If the book in the picture were the bible it wouldn’t be unreasonable of me to assume that the OP and everyone who reblogged were Christians or at the very least friendly enough towards Christianity to not feel the need to qualify the picture. Imagine if instead the book in the photo were a copy of Mein Kampf (cliché, I know, but still relevant). Naturally context is important, but the responsibility to create the context ultimately falls on the poster.  

It’s easy to dismiss something as just another object if it doesn’t affect you in a very intimate way - if your family were Tibetan, Hui, Tajik, Salar, Uyghur, Kazakh, Dongxiang, or swallowed up by the Khmer Rouge purges in the 70’s, I suspect you might feel differently. That is why the qualification is necessary. Not everyone is capable of intellectualizing their trauma.

Filed under esperanto maoism racism genocide qualification

212 notes

We're not the fortunate ones.: I am not the oppressor.

airinmylungs:

My white skin does not make me the oppressor. I wasn’t the one who colonized Africa. I never bought and sold African-Americans in slavery. I never opposed integration, or worked against the civil rights movement. Oh, but other people of my skin color did, and so suddenly it’s on me?

No.

I…

The benefits afforded to you and I by the color of our skin and the benefits afforded to us by the color of the skin of our ancestors gives us an unfair advantage in life. That means that whenever we apply for a job, appear in court, or find ourselves opposite a person of color in virtually any social or legal transaction in a Western nation, we have the upper hand. That is undeniable, irrefutable fact, available to us in the form of hiring statistics, incarceration statistics and a near infinitude of academic studies and research. 

None of that has anything to do with our intentions or desires, nothing to do with how we see people of color or your life’s experience. It remains fact even if you have the very best of intentions, no matter how much you are opposed to it and no matter how mindful you are to route out racist notions and precepts you learned over the course of your life. But what if you haven’t done all that?

Let’s talk about that for a moment. 

All Western nations have a culture which appeals to the sensibilities, prejudices and expectations of white people. That is the same culture which affords you such privilege on the basis of your whiteness, and naturally your acquisition of that culture will reflect that. That means that if you don’t do the work you need to do to route out those racist notions (i.e. admitting your privilege, reading and listening to the experiences of people of color and doing a great deal of introspection), you will be complicit in the spreading of those racist and white supremacist notions to future generations. If that alone doesn’t make you an oppressor, I don’t know what does.

Finally, it is not your place as a white person, as a member of a group of people afforded so much privilege that they can not fathom what it is like to experience systemic social and economic violence and injustice, to tell people of color how to respond to you. For the last few hundred years your people have actively enslaved them, committed genocide against them, fetishized them, filled your prisons with them, killed their children in the streets in cold blood and promulgated a mythology which places white people on a pedestal while seeing people of color as at best second class citizens and at worst (and more commonly) subhuman.

Of course they are going to look at you wearily, and of course they are going to raise eyebrows at your selfish pleas for understanding when you understand so little yourself. 

Filed under white privilege racism people of color poc genocide