A thought:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

One thing that I hear a lot, particularly in discussions of immigration of the legal and illegal sort is that stable states need a single language, and a single common culture. What impresses me about this statement is that this is the precise type of ludicrous insanity that produced the 20th Century world wars. The irony of the 20th Century is that it conclusively has proven that purity of any sort, be it religious (Iran), ideological (the fascists and communists and Ba'athists), or nationalist (Imperial Japan, Fascist Croatia, Milosevic's Serbia) is the most unstable and unworkable focus to build a society on. Human beings are complex, flawed creatures. We cannot by the very nature of a society that blends people who can be very, very different in views but quite sincere in both the views and the inability to comprehend how others see those views in other ways make purity a building-block.

The societies which have endured the longest have *always* been linguistically and culturally complex. The Roman Empire, that favorite society of the Christian xenophobes of 2,000 years later had a total of 150 smaller ethnoi ruled by a dominant culture that blended Hellenistic elements (and the Hellenism of the big monarchies of the Diadochi at that) and Roman (which was itself a blend of Latin, Etruscan, and Greek culture) led by living God-Emperors who drew power from the Legions. One of the smaller religions of the cities of the Eastern half overtook the entire Empire, but that Eastern half kept its institutions intact into 1204.

The Imperial Chinese state has also tended to work best *despite* the tremendous diversity of the states and peoples of the region. The Chinese waged war on giant Turkic confederations long before the Seljuks showed up in Southwest Asia. Like Graeco-Roman culture, Imperial Chinese culture was a blend of multiple elements, and the aristocracy could be very different. In fact the last dynasty was not Chinese in origin at all, but from the Manchu people, who were linguistically very different from the Han Chinese. This Qing Empire was established in the late 17th Century and fell 100 years ago this year.

Too, there's the Ottoman Empire and the Mughal Empire, among the great empires of their time, but the Mughals were from Persian Islamic culture, not exactly related to what was already there in India, and the Ottoman Empire consisted of a complex series of millets, while Ottoman Turkish was Turkish with elements of Persian and Arabic. Last but not least, there are the Habsburg and Romanov Empires (and the Romanov Empire's Soviet successor) where the traditional rivals of the Empires were so-called "prisons of nations." As I see it, perhaps Franz Josef and Alexander III were douchebags, but Hitler and Stalin weren't what I'd call improvements on the dynastic system. Nor was Ataturk really that much better than Abdulhamid II.

The irony here, however, is that the preference is for the culturally homogeneous and unified state. Every time, without fail, that such states are created there is at minimum some degree of ethnic cleansing, because there is no state on the planet where people speak only one language, or where one people or state has formed its culture immune to everyone else. The most culturally puritan state on the planet today is Juche North Korea, the Kim family fiefdom. This may be Under L being a cynic, but I for one doubt that anyone who sees North Korea would want to live there. The idea of the pure state creates violence and bloodshed not because purity in itself is bad, but because reality is too complex for such purity to long endure what it encounters in the real world.

I think that states should use a single language for law and for government, as well as for commercial trade. I do not think that the experience of the 19th and 20th Century with the nation-state speaking one language by one people is all that much an encouragement to extend that to all spheres of life. I think that a state and a society to be healthy *need* that kind of bilingual mesh and ongoing exchange. Purity, if it does not annihilate societies in short times with devastating effects, produces stagnation and warped morality in that society.

The pursuit of purity becomes a slavish obedience to hypocritical tyranny. There is no reason that democracy, where we are all free to be equally full of shit and vote for anyone with whom we agree, should not be able to tolerate or to accept that states are allowed more than one culture.

Comments

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

"ongoing exchange"

That's the thing, if people don't speak a common language there's not much exchange.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I'm sure Cicero and Juvenal would raise an eye at that assertion. As would anyone who has ever heard of the concept of bi-lingualism.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

I have actually heard of bilingual people, but I'm also familiar with people who only speak one language. In Canada many in Quebec only speak French, and much of the rest of Canada has people who only speak English. I'm sure they've all heard of bilingualism, but I doubt it helps them have conversations with each other.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I'm fairly sure that Quebec, being Quebec, doesn't recognize that conversations have two people in the first place. ;P

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

And yet, Canada seems to be doing pretty well, all things considered. It is important for there to be lines of communication (which virtually always exist), but that doesn't mean everyone has to be able to communicate with everyone else.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

They came very close to splitting into two countries.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

the mono-lingualism of that situation was a symptom, not a cause.

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

I don't get why that is such a big deal in this context. Unless you are a Canadian nationalist, why would this bother any of us? If they decided their differences were too great, then they could split. As it is, they chose not to. Either way, there isn't a reason for me to think anyone would have died over it.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

There are plenty of things no one died over that aren't all that good. I have a hard time seeing how the United States splitting wouldn't be a bad thing. Last time it was tried, a very large number of people died to get it back into one piece.

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

to get it back into one piece.

It was that part that got people hurt, not the splitting up part. I don't see how we can justify forcing union between two peoples unless they both feel it is to their mutual benefit. While it might not be a "good" thing (from our perspective) if any given country split up, that isn't really the point. In the US though, multiculturalism works in that all people more or less believe that the benefits of remaining together outweigh the negatives of falling apart -- I think it will continue to be this way for the foreseeable future, regardless of how many people speak Spanish or whatever.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So did the United States, when both countries were following the same religion, same language, same legal system.....hmm...I suppose that means that one-language societies are inherently prone to brutal civil wars by the same logic that Canada's near-split does. As Canada didn't have a civil war.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Canada almost split along language lines, your "same logic" = let me ignore the obvious.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Erm, technically it was originally Francophone, then the British conquered France in the Seven Years' War and imposed their own language on the frogs. So there's nothing bi-lingual about Canada's origins, while Canada never had anything like the US Civil War happen. In terms of present-day First World societies, Canada's like utopia relative to everybody else.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

From a 1967 report on bilingualism and biculturism:

A bilingual country is not one where all the inhabitants necessarily have to speak two languages; rather it is a country where the principal public and private institutions must provide services in two languages to the citizens, the vast majority of whom may well be unilingual

French classes are mandatory in school, the number of years depending on the province. As well all products and signs in Canada must be in both English and French. As a result my spoken French is poor as I never use it but I can read it near perfectly.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Well, I missed that 1967 report. But it's completely irrelevant to what I was saying in the first place, which was that people who don't share a common language can't talk to each other.

And perhaps Canada has changed, it used to be illegal for a store in Quebec to have signs in the window in English.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

In addition, such a country would seem to require police, firefighters, hospital workers, etc to know both languages, so that immigrants from a third country would need to learn two new languages in order to get such jobs.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Actually no, all those workers are on a municipal level and it is not required that they speak both languages. Many do, and interpreters are on hand in these type of industries, but they also have interpreters for multiple other languages too, at least where I live as it is so multi-cultural here. Only federal government services must be provided in both languages under the law. Again, it is not mandatory to speak them to work for them, it's just that a certain number do in order for them to provide the assistance to those that need it.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

they also have interpreters for multiple other languages too,

How many come along on ambulance rides?

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

None. I'm assuming whoever calls 911 is able to communicate to them. If they can't the 911 operator will find someone who can. EMTs simply stabilize. Once the patient gets to the hospital there will be someone available to speak the language needed.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

The requirement for bilingualism keeps a lot of people out of government jobs, including many people whose families have lived in Canada for generations. Language requirements are also used to restrict people's career progression and even to get them turfed out of their existing jobs.

Wordless market places...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... exist in areas where people do not share a common language. People trade with simple gestures. You are right in the sense that there is not "much" exchange. Getting people to cooperate peacefully is the first step toward more and more exchange.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

You may hear it a lot in that context, but it's a secondary consideration.

This brings to mind...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I recall sitting in a restaurant in Germany listening to a business deal between a German and an Italian. They both spoke a third language which I could understand. It is very difficult for Europeans to succeed in business without learning at least one other language.

One of the problems with America is that you can travel great distances without a change of language. One of the reasons I really appreciate San Francisco is the multilingual nature of the population. We have people who speak Spanish, Chinese, Russian, French, Arabic, and even Rednecki. It is a richer environment than one where everyone speaks either English or Rednecki.

Re: This brings to mind...

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

lol at "Rednecki" xD