There will always be an English.

I wrote an essay in university about the “Cultural Legacy of the British Empire”, and this article in Foreign Policy comes to the same (largest) conclusion that I did, albeit from a different angle.

The English language (in various forms) is overtaking the other largest cultural artefact of the B.E., football (soccer). There are already far more Indians speaking English than there are Brits, full-stop, and the numbers continue to rise worldwide. I won’t rehash the linked article, but I wanted to make a point about it’s conclusions as to the cause of this.

The article mentions a linga franca, and English is certainly that for the foreseeable future. I contend, however, that the reason this is so is because of the historical accident that the two succeeding world-spanning empires both spoke English (or near enough in the case of the Americans).

The 350 million or so Indians who speak English don’t do so because of America; neither do any of the Anglophone African countries, the former Dominions (Australia, Canada & New Zealand), or even the USA itself. The USA is itself a legacy of The British Empire 1.0, one which absorbed most of the potential of the U.K. and created a continental power that stepped into the colonial power vacuum after WW2.

If anyone can find a contrary example I’ll stand corrected, but I do not believe that there has ever before been two successive empires that spoke the same language, certainly not any big enough to have more than regional influence.

One million words (the number of them now supposedly in the the English language) is a hell of a lot, and that number goes a long way to explain the appeal of English. It’s a mongrel language which takes the best from other languages to cover new concepts. Just like biological mongrels, this hybridization keeps it strong and healthy. I don’t think any of my “words” have made it in yet, but there’s obviously room…

Oh, treasure the use of the weaseling phrase that never quite says what you mean...

I didn't think I had much to say about the ongoing Sotomayor foolishness in the US, but never say never...

In fact, today's post has more to do with the spinelessness of politicians than the judicial activism that runs unchecked in the US (see the post by Steve Setzer about 2/3 down the page here), although that too is something that is of concern to anyone who claims to believe in representative democracy.

In a letter to supporters, the Georgia Republican said that his words had been "perhaps too strong and direct" last week when he called Sotomayor a reverse "racist," based on a 2001 speech in which she said one would hope the rulings of a "wise Latina" with a breadth of life experience would be better than those of a white male without similar experiences. Gingrich's remarks created a furor among Sotomayor's backers and caused problems for GOP figures who have been pushing to bring more diversity to the party.

Gingrich conceded that Sotomayor's rulings have "shown more caution and moderation" than her speeches and writings, but he said the 2001 comments "reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system — that everyone is equal before the law."

 

"Too strong and direct" eh? If that's what you really think and you want to make any claim to being a leader, or at least someone with actual principles, bloody well say it. I've seen left-ish defenders of Sotomayor talking about "context", but it's a red herring. She said what she said, and he said what he said. I have no respect for anyone who won't back up what they say, or if necessary, admit it was stupid/uninformed, etc. Qualified retractions are embarrassing and disingenuous, because it means that you're not willing to take the heat for what you really think.