PDA

View Full Version : What is most important to preserve?



Frigga
02-24-2010, 12:42 AM
What do you feel is the most important thing to preserve? Is it culture, ethnicity, nationality, or civic liberties? Please give specific reasons for your stance, and please go into detail.

Aemma
02-24-2010, 12:48 AM
Food. Jams, jerkeys and pickles of all kinds. :P

The Lawspeaker
02-24-2010, 12:59 AM
You can't preserve one without preserving the other. Everything is linked together. Our culture flourished because of civil liberties and the idea of freedom sprang from our ethnic background and our culture which values the freedom to express oneself.

If we are to preserve ourselves we better preserve the package as a whole.

Nordish Persephone
02-24-2010, 12:59 AM
Ethnicity and culture/traditions are the most important. Ethnicity being I only care if the person is of European descent or not. Nationality doesn't matter to me at all because I am of course American first and foremost. But I think if I were from continental Europe and was pure one nationality, it would matter to me. There are so few "pure Germans" or "pure Irish" people that in the future they may die out.

Psychonaut
02-24-2010, 01:32 AM
The central animating spirit, from which all manifestations (race, language, religion, culture, etc.) are born, of a people is what I think is most important. Sadly, this is what is most often neglected by so-called preservationists.

SwordoftheVistula
02-24-2010, 01:38 AM
Race/genetics. The one thing that can't be changed with a vote or a few pop culture movies. With all the recent studies on genetically driven behavior, it appears that all the other stuff is even more genetically based than we thought

Grey
02-24-2010, 01:44 AM
What do you feel is the most important thing to preserve? Is it culture, ethnicity, nationality, or civic liberties? Please give specific reasons for your stance, and please go into detail.


All of the above. Culture is the soul of a people, and ethnicity is their collective body. Nemtheanga put it well: "We are born / From the same womb / Hewn from the same stone." Either is meaningless without the other. To maintain either of these, a people needs a "nation" of some sort, at least a designation and a homeland.

Loki
02-24-2010, 01:51 AM
A beautiful belly button.

SwordoftheVistula
02-24-2010, 02:20 AM
Germany, 1700s:

http://www.iovinc.com/assets/galleries/175/german_hunter_sculpture_front.jpg


The US state where I live now, present day:

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/09/28/mn-hunting05_phb_0499212287.jpg


Africa:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39298000/jpg/_39298081_lagos_violence_ap.jpgt

Haiti:

http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/jan2010/4/6/armante-cherisma-haiti-pic-getty-878692025.jpg

Svipdag
02-24-2010, 02:30 AM
Language, culture, and customs. Civil liberties are new. Cultures which have left us wondrous material and intellectual treasures, such as China, had virtually none. Nomadic peoples who had such a strong influence on European history, the kurgan-people and the hsiung-nu for example, had or remembered no homeland. What has survived of these peoples has been vestiges of their languages, their art, and some of their customs.

Sol Invictus
02-24-2010, 02:40 AM
I'm with Asega on this. They are all part of who we are. :)

Grumpy Cat
02-24-2010, 03:05 AM
Culture. And that means everything in culture... language, art, music, literature, cuisine, ideals, laws, traditions and customs. It's the backbone of any society.

Phil75231
02-24-2010, 03:35 AM
I almost agree with AcadianDriftwood that it's the most important thing.

For me, cultures are worth preserving to the extent that it helps individuals be freethinking, happy, provide peace of mind, and at least provide a minimally humane level of prosperity. Let's face it, all cultures and societies have at least a few faults in this regard. Just as The Sabbath was made for man and not man for The Sabbath, so cultures ought to serve individuals and not individuals to serve cultures. To insist on cultural preservation above all else is to make the culture into a quasi-religion.

Absinthe
02-24-2010, 09:58 AM
Dharma. ;)

Poltergeist
02-24-2010, 10:46 AM
Three things: me, myself and I.

Stefan
02-24-2010, 10:49 AM
Identity, all of those things that you've mentioned are ever evolving, but as long as your identity has some basis you are preserving your people. All of those contribute to identity as well. The enemy of self-constructed identity is that of forced outside influence, meaning something you didn't want to change your culture, race, or history significantly, but it did. Identity could be at the individual level, family level, community level, regional level, state or national level, continental level, anywhere you wish to choose to fit the situation. In order to preserve identity you just keep those cultural ideals from dieing, but you could let them evolve. You keep your ancestral roots from dieing out. You keep you as a person or a group from dieing out. Evolution is nice, minimal and accepted influence is nice as well, but the root of it is to keep anything you want progressing.

Frigga
02-24-2010, 04:14 PM
May I ask what you are trying to communicate with these pictures? They have nothing to do with the topic at hand.


Germany, 1700s:

http://www.iovinc.com/assets/galleries/175/german_hunter_sculpture_front.jpg


The US state where I live now, present day:

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/09/28/mn-hunting05_phb_0499212287.jpg


Africa:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39298000/jpg/_39298081_lagos_violence_ap.jpgt

Haiti:

http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/jan2010/4/6/armante-cherisma-haiti-pic-getty-878692025.jpg

The Khagan
02-24-2010, 04:16 PM
What do you feel is the most important thing to preserve? Is it culture, ethnicity, nationality, or civic liberties? Please give specific reasons for your stance, and please go into detail.

Culture and ethnicity are intrinsic. One without the other is mind boggling.

antonio
02-24-2010, 04:39 PM
Culture is a very difuse concept, unless you reject the advantages of progressm and, till now, theres no people in the world that do that. Ethnicity is a far clearer one for a majority, at least till recent years...and far more important, especially when you belong to a race worth to be preserved.

For example, I really liked certain rap songs or groups, specially RATM, but never to the point of made them being part of my culture, but just a contingent generational point of view.

Anthropos
02-24-2010, 05:51 PM
Nationality is not too important unless it is permeated by something that can stand the test of time, and the nation is subject to constant change as it must be. The same goes for ethnicity, even if it is an important contributing factor of identification and culture. Culture is far too lose a concept for me to say that it is what is most important, even if by no means I am denying that there is culture that I think is very important to preserve. Civil liberties are no matter of preservation in my opinion; they have been used and abused for various short-lived purposes ever since they were introduced and I see no intrinsic value in them.

What is most important, I think, is to preserve traditional Christianity, and to readapt culture to it in such a way that culture is also preserved. Naturally, it is not by political means that this should be done; it is on the contrary the concern of the Church, and I am sure it is in her interest to keep any political involvement out of it.

This is actually taking place in Sweden. Sweden was once Orthodox, before the Catholics reformed Christianity, what led to Sweden becoming Lutheran, which in turn led to Protestantic sects, which led to Secularism.

Saint Anna of Novgorod was Swedish. She was married to a Russian Lord and helped spread Orthodox Christianity in Russia. A piece of her relics is now back in Sweden, and as Bishop Dositei said on delivery, 'a day is like a thousand years for our Lord'.


St. Anna of Novgorod (+1050)

Feast days: February 10, October 4

St. Anna, Grandduchess of Novgorod, mother of St. Vladimir the Enlightener of Rus', was born and baptized in the West. She was the daughter of Swedish King Olaf Skötkonung, the "All-Christian King," who did much to spread Orthodoxy in Scandinavia, and the pious Queen Astrida. In Sweden she was known as Princess Indigherd; she married Yaroslav the Wise, Grand Prince of Kiev, in 1016, taking the name Irene. She gave shelter to the outcast sons of British King Edmund, Edwin and Edward, as well as the Norwegian prince Magnus, who later returned to Norway. She is perhaps best known as the mother of Grand Prince Vladimir, the Enlightener of Rus' and Equal-to-the-Apostles, and of Vsevolod of Pereyaslavl, himself the father of Vladimir Monomakh and progenitor of the Princes of Moscow. Her daughters were Queen Anne of France, Queen Maria of Hungary, and Queen Elizabeth of Norway. The whole family was profoundly devout and pious. In Kiev St. Irene-Anna founded the convent of St. Irene the Great-Martyr, and ruled it. She reposed in 1050 in the Cathedral of Holy Wisdom (St. Sophia) in Kiev, having been tonsured a monastic with the name of Anna. Her feast days were established by a sign given to Abp. Euphemius of Novgorod in 1439. On these days we also commemorate the Saints of Novgorod buried in the side-chapel of St. Sophia, namely: St. St. Joachim of Korsun, the first bishop of Novgorod (988-1030); St. Luke the Jew, bishop (1030/1035? -1060; +October 15, 1060); St. Germanus, bishop (1078-1096); St. Arcadius, bishop (1157-1162, 18th September); St. Gregory, archbishop (1187-1193; +May 24, 1193); St. Martyrius, archbishop (1193-1199; +August 24, 1199); St. Anthony, archbishop (1212-1220, 1226-1228; + October 8, 1231); St. Basil Kalika, archbishop (1331-1352; +July 3, 1352); St. Symeon, archbishop (1416-1421; +June 15, 1421); St. Gennadius, archbishop (1484-1504; 4th December); St. Pimen, archbishop (1553-1571); St. Aphon, metropolitan (1635-1648; +April 6, 1653). These saints' relics were buried or transferred into the Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod (except for Saints Herman, Gennadius and Pimen).

Holy Grandduchess Anna, pray to God for us!

Icon: from an Orthodox church in Sweden

Aemma
02-24-2010, 05:59 PM
Culture and ethnicity are intrinsic. One without the other is mind boggling.

I don't think I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Though there is a symbiotic relationship of course, culture can (and does) exist without ethnicity per se. Just take Americans and Canadians for instance: There is such a thing as "American Culture" and "Canadian Culture" but no such thing as American ethnicity or Canadian ethnicity.

I know what you're getting at though Arngrim. There is a relationship that does exist but it can and does take different forms depending on where in the world one lives (New World versus Old World) IMO.

antonio
02-24-2010, 06:01 PM
This is actually taking place in Sweden. Sweden was once Orthodox, before the Catholics reformed Christianity, what led to Sweden becoming Lutheran, which in turn led to Protestantic sects, which led to Secularism.

Saint Anna of Novgorod was Swedish. She was married to a Russian Lord and helped spread Orthodox Christianity in Russia. A piece of her relics is now back in Sweden, and as Bishop Dositei said on delivery, 'a day is like a thousand years for our Lord'.

Nice history! Not this one (as talking about Luteran sects) Woman divorced with four children, head of the German Luteran Church, miss a red-semaphore while driving with 1.54 mg/l of alcohol in blood. WTF? :mad:

antonio
02-24-2010, 06:11 PM
I don't think I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Though there is a symbiotic relationship of course, culture can (and does) exist without ethnicity per se. Just take Americans and Canadians for instance: There is such a thing as "American Culture" and "Canadian Culture" but no such thing as American ethnicity or Canadian ethnicity.

I know what you're getting at though Arngrim. There is a relationship that does exist but it can and does take different forms depending on where in the world one lives (New World versus Old World) IMO.

For Europe and European(including American settlers), in my humble opinion, and without aim of offense to USA fathers of the nation, it was no good at all USA+Canada becoming leaders of the Comtemporary World, maybe just because Far Asia are becoming the true beneficiary of this socioeconomical dramatical shift. Europe are suffering a lot the end of a Europe-centered world.

And there's LatinAmerica too...maybe in a few decades, Brazil+Argentina+Chile...will beat LatinEurope area. In what would be a curious joke of History. :embarrassed

Aemma
02-24-2010, 06:14 PM
For Europe and European(including American settlers), in my humble opinion, and without aim of offense to USA fathers of the nation, it was no good at all USA+Canada becoming leaders of the Comtemporary World, maybe just because Far Asia are becoming the true beneficiary of this socioeconomical dramatical shift. Europe are suffering a lot the end of a Europe-centered world.

And there's LatinAmerica too...maybe in a few decades, Brazil+Argentina+Chile...will beat LatinEurope area. In what would be a curious joke of History. :embarrassed

I can see the points you have raised as becoming the subject of a good thread in and of itself antonio. :)

antonio
02-24-2010, 06:23 PM
I can see the points you have raised as becoming the subject of a good thread in and of itself antonio. :)

Thanks, but I could not see solution at all. Maybe it's simply too late.

Pd. Would you suggest me a good title for the thread? :thumb001:

The Khagan
02-24-2010, 07:13 PM
I don't think I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Though there is a symbiotic relationship of course, culture can (and does) exist without ethnicity per se. Just take Americans and Canadians for instance: There is such a thing as "American Culture" and "Canadian Culture" but no such thing as American ethnicity or Canadian ethnicity.

I know what you're getting at though Arngrim. There is a relationship that does exist but it can and does take different forms depending on where in the world one lives (New World versus Old World) IMO.

True, there are degrees of it, but seeing as America and Canada are generally pretty new, it's hard to differentiate us greatly from our Eurofag counterparts.

I'd say I have an ethnicity, it being Anglo-American.

Aemma
02-24-2010, 07:20 PM
True, there are degrees of it, but seeing as America and Canada are generally pretty new, it's hard to differentiate us greatly from our Eurofag counterparts.

I'd say I have an ethnicity, it being Anglo-American.

Oh we are all attached to some form of ethnicity. Don't get me wrong. I am French-Canadian. You are Anglo-American. My point is some of us are not able to necessarily equate a culture with an ethnicity strictly speaking. Here in the New World we live with qualifiers: something-American or rather American-something, and in Canada it is always something-Canadian. There is no such thing as the ethnicity "Canadian" or the ethnicity "American" but sure as hel we DO have our own cultures.

That's what I was getting at. :)

The Khagan
02-24-2010, 07:27 PM
Oh we are all attached to some form of ethnicity. Don't get me wrong. I am French-Canadian. You are Anglo-American. My point is some of us are not able to necessarily equate a culture with an ethnicity strictly speaking. Here in the New World we live with qualifiers: something-American or rather American-something, and in Canada it is always something-Canadian. There is no such thing as the ethnicity "Canadian" or the ethnicity "American" but sure as hel we DO have our own cultures.

That's what I was getting at. :)

I get ya. I have one gripe though, you speak of American culture on a national level, but nationality is not necessarily intrinsic with culture or ethnicity for that matter. There are huge degrees of regionalism within the new world. The culture of the American South and Cajun areas is a lot different than the North Atlantic seaboard.

I can agree with you on certain points though.

Jarl
02-24-2010, 07:55 PM
What do you feel is the most important thing to preserve? Is it culture, ethnicity, nationality, or civic liberties? Please give specific reasons for your stance, and please go into detail.

Race and language! Body and spirit. The fundaments of culture.

The Lawspeaker
02-24-2010, 08:43 PM
I don't think I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Though there is a symbiotic relationship of course, culture can (and does) exist without ethnicity per se. Just take Americans and Canadians for instance: There is such a thing as "American Culture" and "Canadian Culture" but no such thing as American ethnicity or Canadian ethnicity.

I know what you're getting at though Arngrim. There is a relationship that does exist but it can and does take different forms depending on where in the world one lives (New World versus Old World) IMO.
I disagree with you here, Momma Bear :) I think that the Americans and Canadians became ethnicities in their own right. Take for instance the "Old Stock Americans".

skyhawk
02-24-2010, 09:41 PM
From a very personal point of view...........what is important to me as regards what is most important thing to preserve is your own humanity........humanity used in its context as the ability to empathize.......to recognize others as human beings.To be a moral agent as opposed to being a servant to one or other power/authority.

This may sound hippie-ish ( weak even ).........and I suppose it is but it is something I have little choice about as it is my nature. But at least I have a fair degree of control over it.........unlike cultural shifts or religious affiliations.........or even the state of the nation.

Each to their own I suppose. :)

antonio
02-24-2010, 09:47 PM
From a very personal point of view...........what is important to me as regards what is most important thing to preserve is your own humanity........humanity used in its context as the ability to empathize.......to recognize others as human beings.To be a moral agent as opposed to being a servant to one or other power/authority.

This may sound hippie-ish ( weak even ).........and I suppose it is but it is something I have little choice about as it is my nature. But at least I have a fair degree of control over it.........unlike cultural shifts or religious affiliations.........or even the state of the nation.

Each to their own I suppose. :)

I think cultural shifts or religious affiliations are usually (in absence of fanatism) not rigid enough to prevent people for empathize others. On the other side, thinking the opposite it's at times a clear symptom of the Leftist propaganda exposure I like to note and denounce. :thumb001:

The Lawspeaker
02-24-2010, 10:09 PM
From a very personal point of view...........what is important to me as regards what is most important thing to preserve is your own humanity........humanity used in its context as the ability to empathize.......to recognize others as human beings.To be a moral agent as opposed to being a servant to one or other power/authority.

This may sound hippie-ish ( weak even ).........and I suppose it is but it is something I have little choice about as it is my nature. But at least I have a fair degree of control over it.........unlike cultural shifts or religious affiliations.........or even the state of the nation.

Each to their own I suppose. :)
You have a point here. One of the things that really set us apart from for certain groups abroad (and now also here- take f.i Islam, Judaism, a lot of Africans and several Asian peoples) is our morality. It's a thing that kept/keeps us together as a society. Call it a glue. A nice example of European morality is the existence of a welfare state or our once fair judicial system.

No other people in the world came up with such shining examples of morality.

Anthropos
02-24-2010, 10:26 PM
From a very personal point of view...........what is important to me as regards what is most important thing to preserve is your own humanity........humanity used in its context as the ability to empathize.......to recognize others as human beings.To be a moral agent as opposed to being a servant to one or other power/authority.

This may sound hippie-ish ( weak even ).........and I suppose it is but it is something I have little choice about as it is my nature. But at least I have a fair degree of control over it.........unlike cultural shifts or religious affiliations.........or even the state of the nation.

Each to their own I suppose. :)You have a point here. One of the things that really set us apart from for certain groups abroad (and now also here- take f.i Islam, Judaism, a lot of Africans and several Asian peoples) is our morality. It's a thing that kept/keeps us together as a society. Call it a glue. A nice example of European morality is the existence of a welfare state or our judicial system that used to be the beacon of honesty.


I don't feel the need to protect the Jews from the Muslims or the nutzies or them from each other.

I think that we should put the Jews and Muslims in a single neighborhood along with the rest of the "intruders" (and along with the nutzies). Build a wall around it and make the army guard the premises and arm both Jews, nutzies, the other intruders and Muslims.

I wish them good luck in ridding us from each other.

You may have to chose between empathy and that sponsored ghetto war before we assess your 'morality'.

The Lawspeaker
02-24-2010, 11:00 PM
I feel empathy for those that feel empathy for us. I can't feel any empathy for people whose only wish is to murder us. In this I feel empathy for my kin and for all those that have no wish in taking over our lands, converting us, robbing us blind or slaughtering all of us. (guess now why I don't feel any empathy for those who I want to throw into those ghetto's)

I am not a Christian and I don't turn the other cheek (Christianity's approach in this matter is and has always been utterly senseless).

Eldritch
02-25-2010, 05:57 PM
What do you feel is the most important thing to preserve? Is it culture, ethnicity, nationality, or civic liberties? Please give specific reasons for your stance, and please go into detail.

Quite obviously it's ethnicity (or "race" if you one of us gas-chamberizing Nazis :rolleyes2:) that matters, while everything else follows from that, or alternatively it doesn't.

Loki
02-25-2010, 06:03 PM
Any sort of preservation starts with yourself. If you can't properly take care of yourself, it's kinda futile to think bigger. Do your utmost to improve yourself, be a good person and be someone who has a positive influence on society. In doing so, you will naturally have a desirable impact on your particular demographic.

Loki
02-25-2010, 06:06 PM
I am not a Christian and I don't turn the other cheek (Christianity's approach in this matter is and has always been utterly senseless).

It is not senseless to "turn the other cheek". Sometimes it shows maturity of character and will earn respect from others. It also shows inner strength. On the other hand, nobody respects a selfish little bastard.

skyhawk
02-25-2010, 06:46 PM
Any sort of preservation starts with yourself. If you can't properly take care of yourself, it's kinda futile to think bigger. Do your utmost to improve yourself, be a good person and be someone who has a positive influence on society. In doing so, you will naturally have a desirable impact on your particular demographic.

Yep Loki.............I think what I was trying to get across is that it is fine and natural to have passions and preferences but you can have them and still try to keep your humanity/moral integrity intact.

Germanicus
02-25-2010, 06:59 PM
What is most important to preserve?.......Good question, i have been muling over this for a while.
As you know recently i have been researching my family history, i have found out a great deal, but going back further in time is my goal.
Thus for me the preservation of your family history of who they were and where they came from is an important thing to preserve, for what history your past family has had is your own culture?

Svanhild
02-25-2010, 07:09 PM
I'm afraid that ethnicity and culture/language are on the same level of importance. 1000 English speaking Pakistani in traditional English dresses can never be English. And 1000 English immigrants to India who adopt the Indian language and the Indian culture stop being English. Or German. Or Italian. Or whatever. :wink

Brynhild
02-25-2010, 08:20 PM
While everyone has made valid points on this matter - and it is a grey area in regards to what's important - I would also like to add how important it is to be part of a community with whom you have common interests and ideals. A sense of kin or tribe if you like. It would tie in with personal identity in that if you know the sort of person you are and what you uphold you attract others of like mind.

Community spirit is important, especially in these more troubled times. You see how people band together after a major crisis (at least in Australia I've seen this many times). I think that spirit is lost a lttle more in big cities but you're still able to find them in smaller townships and villages.

skyhawk
02-27-2010, 01:17 AM
I think cultural shifts or religious affiliations are usually (in absence of fanatism) not rigid enough to prevent people for empathize others. On the other side, thinking the opposite it's at times a clear symptom of the Leftist propaganda exposure I like to note and denounce. :thumb001:

No probs antonio..........I would just like to add that IMO it is religious/nationalist/ideological propaganda that prevents many from seeing others as people.
I don't think fanaticism is a pre requisite myself..............fear and ignorance work just fine without it :)

SwordoftheVistula
02-27-2010, 02:08 AM
I'm afraid that ethnicity and culture/language are on the same level of importance. 1000 English speaking Pakistani in traditional English dresses can never be English. And 1000 English immigrants to India who adopt the Indian language and the Indian culture stop being English. Or German. Or Italian. Or whatever. :wink

I'm not so sure about that. Would you say the same about religion? Religion is at least as important as language and dress, and all most countries have changed religion at least once in the past, from paganism to Catholic Christianity, then from Catholicism to Protestantism, then from Christianity to a mostly secular society.

Also in regards to language specifically, the strongest ethnic identity in western Europe is the Irish (followed by Scottish), and yet they all speak English

Anthropos
02-27-2010, 09:22 AM
I'm not so sure about that. Would you say the same about religion? Religion is at least as important as language and dress, and all most countries have changed religion at least once in the past, from paganism to Catholic Christianity, then from Catholicism to Protestantism, then from Christianity to a mostly secular society.

Also in regards to language specifically, the strongest ethnic identity in western Europe is the Irish (followed by Scottish), and yet they all speak English

Language and religion are not comparable like that, and what is even more certain is that it is bad to ask of someone to adher to a certain religion or denomination thereof for him to be accepted as an individual of a given ethnicity. I oppose laws to the effect that 'members of parliament must be Lutherans' and things like that. To the individual, religion must not seem interesting for such reasons. We know that some Jews actually converted because of such laws and social norms (and not because they had a change of mind), and that's a lesson to be learned. Unfortunately, those who are in most dire need to learn the lesson are very reluctant to learn it, and in this connection I am thinking of certain pragmatic 'nationalists' who do not hesitate to make false prophets out of themselves.

Kadu
02-27-2010, 10:01 AM
Also in regards to language specifically, the strongest ethnic identity in western Europe is the Irish (followed by Scottish), and yet they all speak English




Yes, but there's a differentiating element, residual yes, but still existent, the Celtic languages. Of course in the Irish case it was not the only contributing element to the emancipation of Ireland but still it is denotative of the clear difference between it and the UK, namely England.


A good articles on that




Moreover, communication brings knowledge with it. Language conveys the ideas of a people or nation through literary works such as poems or novels, which nationalists can look back on with pride. Indeed, for Herder, the godfather of German nationalism, “Every language bears the stamp of the mind and character of a national group.”3 This is why the study of one’s language “would contribute much toward increasing the knowledge of national characteristics.”4

Other than for sheer means of communication, the different aspects inherent in a language, and – more importantly – how linguistic differences are utilized by nationalists are important indicators of nationalism. Languages differ from one another in structure and similarity, which is why linguistic experts group languages into families such as “romance languages.” Linguistic distinctions “work in two ways: a distinctive language may help to demarcate the ethnic group from other groups, and a common language may facilitate communication and hence coherence within an ethnic group.”5

Language can be used for either assimilation or differentiation, and both tactics can be aided by the degree of structural differences that exist between languages. For nation-builders, efforts to homogenize a language within a state are paramount because the presence of varying languages can be counterproductive. It encourages differentiation, which is antithetical to a state’s goal of uniformity and unity. Unsurprisingly, peripheral nationalists may stress their linguistic differences when attempting to detach their group from the core.


In this context, it is no wonder that nationalists endorse policies that propagate their language. Québécois nationalists logically want greater means of educating the masses in French. Québécois theorist Albert Breton points out, “For the Francophones in North America…language policies have been policies designed to promote the use of the French language in an environment which has been hostile to that language and is growing increasingly so.”6


To be sure, education and the teaching of native languages in schools are useful tools of nationalization. Getting pupils to think of themselves as Basque or Catalan and to speak the language at a young age can do wonders for creating a national identity for the citizenry. As Balsera notes, “The policies that impose a language are inherent in nation-states and stateless nations and form a basic element in the representative of collective identity.”7


Language is essential to nationalist causes for communication, differentiation, and assimilation. Structural differences can either help or discourage a language’s adoption depending upon the degree of uniqueness between two languages. The greater lesson lies, however, in the role of language in a nationalist cause. Exclusion and acceptance are two tactics which can be furthered by the use of language. Encouraging the adoption of a nation’s language helps assimilation, whereas railing against the “foreign” use of one’s language prevents it. It is in this light that the study of linguistic differences between the Basques and Catalans, as well as the wide uses of their languages by nationalists, is presented in the following sections.



Source (http://journalofinternationalservice.org/?p=1185)

Monolith
02-27-2010, 10:23 AM
I echo Asega that everything must be preserved, though not some idealized current or past state of things, but rather the natural dynamics behind it. That said, I do not consider certain modern phenomena, like consumerism and mass migration to be part of this natural dynamics.

Murphy
02-27-2010, 03:40 PM
Christianity in Europe. Lose that and you might as well throw everything else out with it.

antonio
02-27-2010, 05:10 PM
No probs antonio..........I would just like to add that IMO it is religious/nationalist/ideological propaganda that prevents many from seeing others as people.


Well, if you put it that way I have almost nothing to disagree with you. But, dont forget the common case of religious persons being continously attacked on their faith...So, in Public Libraries, Richard Dawkin's books are Religion labeled, if labeling a Philosophical antireligious book as Religious is not a propagandistic attack on the beliefs of people, tell me about one. :thumb001:


I don't think fanaticism is a pre requisite myself..............fear and ignorance work just fine without it :)


Fear and ignorance are under every single case of fanaticism.

antonio
02-27-2010, 05:15 PM
I echo Asega that everything must be preserved, though not some idealized current or past state of things, but rather the natural dynamics behind it. That said, I do not consider certain modern phenomena, like consumerism and mass migration to be part of this natural dynamics.

Many things of past ages were awful and condenable. But it seems that these still remain (more or less healthy) disguised under different forms...whilst all the visual beauty and spiritual inocence of passed days are being conciously undermining if not directly demolished. :mad:

Murphy
02-27-2010, 05:24 PM
I echo Asega that everything must be preserved, though not some idealized current or past state of things, but rather the natural dynamics behind it.That sai d, I do not consider certain modern phenomena, like consumerism and mass migration to be part of this natural dynamics.

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."

~ G. K. Chesterton

skyhawk
02-27-2010, 06:19 PM
Well, if you put it that way I have almost nothing to disagree with you. But, dont forget the common case of religious persons being continously attacked on their faith...So, in Public Libraries, Richard Dawkin's books are Religion labeled, if labeling a Philosophical antireligious book as Religious is not a propagandistic attack on the beliefs of people, tell me about one. :thumb001:

From a personal POV I have no issue with what religion people choose to believe in antonio....it's their decision.......so long as it is not used to justify acts of barbarism/discrimination etc.....which , unfortunately , it has a long and rich history of doing ( still ongoing ). Hence my comments about trying to hang on to your humanity despite the demands of whatever beliefs people may hold.
I'm not a librarian either :D so I can't really comment on how they choose to define which books should go where............it doesn't seem to me to be too outlandish to have Dawkins books in the religious section though..........after all they are about religion.( obviously not the ones concerning Evolution/Darwinism etc )





Fear and ignorance are under every single case of fanaticism.

I agree and disagree with you here mate.........I know a great many people who are not fanatics but who are fearful and/or ignorant of certain things but agree with you that the same things are and have been used to underpin fanaticism.

As this thread is about preservation it is probably not the place to discuss these things in any great depth antonio..........but I would be more than happy to discuss it elsewhere :)

Liffrea
03-01-2010, 04:16 PM
I agree with Loki it starts with you and goes from there.

I view racial preservation as worth while, one can argue over whether it’s important or not, I believe it so. Whilst I’m not a genetic determinist I believe race is influential and central to human being. Having said that I have no real desire to breed, I'm not the type, and certainly not “For The Race” as some would have it, I’m not engaging in some sort of farming. If I have the urge to bring European human life into the world I will…but I probably won’t.

I also think Psychonaut is correct in referring to the spirit behind, rather than the manifestation of itself. Preservation of a culture, a language, a folk lore, a philosophy etc is worthy for posterity, to know and enjoy these things for what thy are, what they represent, but in and of themselves they are just trinkets and ideas, without the creativity behind them they wouldn’t have ever been at all, lose that, lose that will to be and become and it really is the end. Unfortunately I think to many are interested in preserving the “West” and not enough are realising that we are in serious peril of losing our very will to exist, to grow and to create. I love Mozart but I would gladly erase his memory from the world if the alternative was to lose the spark that created Mozart.

Crux
03-01-2010, 05:02 PM
Humans need their own cultures to feel comfortable in, culture is like a soft sofa that you sit in your whole life. Race does not really exist, it only exists in a social way. But really we need to prevent the destruction of ourselves so that one day we can venture to the stars, and maybe then we will cease to be insignificant specs floating on a tiny piece of rock. We are all just cosmic matter anyway, despite what some may think. We are part of the cosmos, the cosmos is always within us, we have yet to see the truth. In the end just try to enjoy life, the rest will come natural.

Tabiti
03-01-2010, 05:24 PM
You can't preserve one without preserving the other. Everything is linked together. Our culture flourished because of civil liberties and the idea of freedom sprang from our ethnic background and our culture which values the freedom to express oneself.

If we are to preserve ourselves we better preserve the package as a whole.
I agree here. We are linked like everything in the nature, even without realize that.
The Europe today wouldn't be the same Europe without any one of the existing nations. However, there should be preservation on two levels - national one and the more global European one. We can help each other without involving into wars and economical dependence. But, we should change our minds first.

Comte Arnau
03-01-2010, 10:18 PM
Language. The moment it fades away, your people disappears as such.

Murphy
03-01-2010, 11:22 PM
Language. The moment it fades away, your people disappears as such.

I think it depends under which situation the language disappears. The Irish for example, most of do not speak Irish, instead they speak Hiberno-English. However, there is a real passion to see the language survive. Perhaps passion is the wrong word.. there is a real desire to see the language survive and be spoken from Galway to Dublin, from Cork to Belfast. People are just too lazy.

The Irish don't speak Irish, but would you say the Irish have faded away because of it?

Comte Arnau
03-02-2010, 01:52 PM
The Irish don't speak Irish, but would you say the Irish have faded away because of it?

If you reread me, you'll notice I said "your people disappears as such". This is not a genocide where people die, this is a transformation. But when it happens, then it is when all the confusions about ethnicity and nationality begin. To me, particularly in Europe, ethnicity and language go hand in hand.

Bridie
03-02-2010, 01:56 PM
With all the recent studies on genetically driven behavior, it appears that all the other stuff is even more genetically based than we thought Indeed.

Anthropos
03-02-2010, 02:04 PM
What 'genetically driven behaviour'? Correlation between a gene and a type of behaviour does not imply that the behaviour is driven by the gene. In more general terms, correlation does not imply causality. It's a commonplace error to assume it does, and many of the scientists who produce such statistics are well aware of that.

Bridie
03-02-2010, 02:10 PM
If you reread me, you'll notice I said "your people disappears as such". This is not a genocide where people die, this is a transformation. But when it happens, then it is when all the confusions about ethnicity and nationality begin. To me, particularly in Europe, ethnicity and language go hand in hand.
It's true that language can greatly influence the speakers' perceptions and interpretations... yet with (much) time, even if a foreign language has been imposed upon a population, that language will change and evolve to be a more accurate expression of the population's own unique mental, emotional and spiritual characteristics. One cannot speak and think in a language and not leave their imprint on it. (Speaking of populations here, not individuals.)

Language is constantly evolving and nothing static at all...

Bridie
03-02-2010, 02:15 PM
What 'genetically driven behaviour'? Correlation between a gene and a type of behaviour does not imply that the behaviour is driven by the gene. In more general terms, correlation does not imply causality. It's a commonplace error to assume it does, and many of the scientists who produce such statistics are well aware of that.Well, I was thinking most specifically of "identical twins" studies that increasingly support the theory that people are more influenced by nature than nurture. Or genetics vs culture, if you like. This is quite a turn around from what behavioural scientists thought prior to the 1980's...

Anthropos
03-02-2010, 02:21 PM
It's true that language can greatly influence the speakers' perceptions and interpretations... yet with (much) time, even if a foreign language has been imposed upon a population, that language will change and evolve to be a more accurate expression of that population's own unique mental, emotional and spiritual characteristics. One cannot speak and think in a language and not leave their imprint on it. (Speaking of populations here, not individuals.)

Language is constantly evolving and nothing static at all...

I agree partially. In the cosmos every thing is in constant change, and language must keep up with that. But that is not all.

The more essential the thing that a word or expression describes the less it changes. The fact that terms originally used for things pertaining to a metaphysical order have undergone change and degradation as to their meaning signifies loss of the knowledge of those things.

Bridie
03-02-2010, 02:32 PM
I agree partially. In the cosmos every thing is in constant change, and language must keep up with that. But that is not all.

The more essential the thing that a word or expression describes the less it changes. The fact that terms originally used for things pertaining to a metaphysical order have undergone change and degradation as to their meaning signifies loss of the knowledge of those things.Sure, but how did those old traditions/perceptions evolve in the first place? They were a consequence of the innate emotional, mental and spiritual make-up of a people (and to a lesser extent, their environment and the way they interacted with it). It is the man that makes the language, and not the language that makes the man at the end of the day. It seems clear to me that a foreign language being imposed on a population has a relatively short-term effect. Eventually, the people will mold it to suit themselves. (Thinking in terms of centuries here.)

Anthropos
03-02-2010, 02:40 PM
Well, I was thinking most specifically of "identical twins" studies that increasingly support the theory that people are more influenced by nature than nurture. Or genetics vs culture, if you like. This is quite a turn around from what behavioural scientists thought prior to the 1980's...

There are exceptions to this though, and the fact is that no two people can behave in the exact same way. To begin with, two different individuals are subjects to different circumstances. What is seen as the same behaviour and not is a matter of interpretation. There are trends in science just as in all other things of the cosmos, but that doesn't mean that change from one trend to another signifies progress.

I once saw a documentary about the supposedly very similar behaviour of identical twins. The details that were singled out as strikingly similar were handpicked in an arbitrary way. Furthermore, there was a case where one of the twins had not had any contact with either parents nor with his twin brother for many years, and in that case they were hardly able to find anything that was similar. In cases where the twins were in a lot of contact their behaviours were not similar, but complementary rather.

Poltergeist
03-02-2010, 02:46 PM
Well, I was thinking most specifically of "identical twins" studies that increasingly support the theory that people are more influenced by nature than nurture. Or genetics vs culture, if you like. This is quite a turn around from what behavioural scientists thought prior to the 1980's...What 'genetically driven behaviour'? Correlation between a gene and a type of behaviour does not imply that the behaviour is driven by the gene. In more general terms, correlation does not imply causality. It's a commonplace error to assume it does, and many of the scientists who produce such statistics are well aware of that.

Genetic determinism - it is the new fashionable ideology. Once you had similar experiments "proving" exactly the contrary, namely, that nurture is everything. I mean, when behaviourism (USA) and Pavlovianism (USSR) were dominant ideological patterns to explain human behaviour. Who knows, maybe in one hundred years there will be experiments "proving" unquestionably that man has no control over himself, that everything is written in the stars, like the old astrologists thought. Maybe this time, unlike in ancient periods of history, such claims will be corroborated with sophisticated astronomical calculations, measurements of the radiation of stars and their impact on the earth etc.

It is funny to see how people like these puppetry theories of human nature and behaviour and fall in for them, despite their shallowness and reductionism (although some of them actually main contain some particle of truth, but by no means all of it). One possible explanation for such preference could be that such "puppetry theories" relieve us of our sense of personal responsability. There must be some relief in seeing oneself only as a helpless toy of the genes, the stars, the environment, the economic forces etc etc. On the other hand, acceptance of such theories might cause in some people certain kind of masochistic pleasure, from feeling themselves totally helpless and totally dominated by some "blind forces".

Bridie
03-02-2010, 02:54 PM
I once saw a documentary about the supposedly very similar behaviour of identical twins. The details that were singled out as strikingly similar were handpicked in an arbitrary way. Furthermore, there was a case where one of the twins had not had any contact with either parents nor with his twin brother for many years, and in that case they were hardly able to find anything that was similar. In cases where the twins were in a lot of contact their behaviours were not similar, but complementary rather.That seems quite contrary to the studies I've read and seen on the issue. I'll see if I can find some of them sometime so you can see what I mean. :)

In any case, if you're still unconvinced that genetics or race has much part to play when it comes to human behaviour, I suggest a trip around the world so you can observe for yourself. ;)

Anthropos
03-02-2010, 02:55 PM
Sure, but how did those old traditions/perceptions evolve in the first place? (1) They were a consequence of the innate emotional, mental and spiritual make-up of a people (and to a lesser extent, their environment and the way they interacted with it). It is the man that makes the language, and not the language that makes the man at the end of the day. It seems clear to me that a foreign language being imposed on a population has a relatively short-term effect (2). Eventually, the people will mold it to suit themselves. (Thinking in terms of centuries here.)

1. The question goes back very far. China is the civilization whose records date furthest back, and it would be interesting to undertake the study of those records. Something that complicates the matter is that we can say rather certainly that oral tradition preceeded written tradition. In other words we do not know. Logical explanation can actually help support the traditional idea that tradition has metaphysical origins.

2. I could agree to that, but it depends a lot on the circumstances. In the present anti-traditional state of the West, any major change could and would most likely have devastating effects. This is already visible in the way that English words and even syntax is adopted without scrutiny, and from such cases one can often demonstrate that one or more meanings or shades disappeared as a result (or that they will disappear if a replacement occurs), that the structure of the language is disrupted, and so on.


In any case, if you're still unconvinced that genetics or race has much part to play when it comes to human behaviour, I suggest a trip around the world so you can observe for yourself. ;)

That's the same logical fallacy again. I already formulated the problem in a general way: Correlation does not imply causality.

(Oh and I have observed for myself. I never said that people are everywhere the same; quite the contrary.)

Bridie
03-02-2010, 03:02 PM
Genetic determinism - it is the new fashionable ideology. Once you had similar experiments "proving" exactly the contrary, namely, that nurture is everything. I mean, when behaviourism (USA) and Pavlovianism (USSR) were dominant ideological patterns to explain human behaviour. Who knows, maybe in one hundred years there will be experiments "proving" unquestionably that man has no control over himself, that everything is written in the stars, like the old astrologists thought. Maybe this time, unlike in ancient periods of history, such claims will be corroborated with sophisticated astronomical calculations, measurements of the radiation of stars and their impact on the earth etc.

It is funny to see how people like these puppetry theories of human nature and behaviour and fall in for them, despite their shallowness and reductionism (although some of them actually main contain some particle of truth, but by no means all of it). One possible explanation for such preference could be that such "puppetry theories" relieve us of our sense of personal responsability. There must be some relief in seeing oneself only as a helpless toy of the genes, the stars, the environment, the economic forces etc etc. On the other hand, there might cause in some people certain kind of masochistic pleasure in feeling themselves totally helpless and totally dominated by some "blind forces".Well, you've misinterpreted me I think. I didn't say that genetics are the be all and end all and that we are totally at the mercy of physiology. But when looking at mass populations, certain social/cultural/behavioural trends do arise. For example, the Maori people developed a war-like culture that is very distinctive from the peaceful culture of the Tibetans. Why? Well, if you've ever known any people from either race, the answer would become obvious...

Poltergeist
03-02-2010, 03:11 PM
Well, you've misinterpreted me I think. I didn't say that genetics are the be all and end all and that we are totally at the mercy of physiology.

No, I didn't interpret your post as one making case for crass genetic determinism. It's just that your mention of "studies on identical twins" reminded me of the extent to which such theories are being popularized these days, a trend which points at some kind of new ideological current.


But when looking at mass populations, certain social/cultural/behavioural trends do arise. For example, the Maori people developed a war-like culture that is very distinctive from the peaceful culture of the Tibetans. Why? Well, if you've ever known any people from either race, the answer would become obvious...

Some peoples can be peaceful at certain periods of history, then become warlike. Or vice versa. Even if "race" and genetics didn't change in the meantime. It all depends on complex intertwining of many factors, mainly of cultural, historical, religious etc nature. Besides, some fashions might have been triggered by some outstanding individuals and then others followed the suit, imitating him etc. We can see this happening in modern times with some cultural trends.

Besides, I know of "identical" (though identical is a terrible misnomer, there are no two identical humans) twins who even grew up under similar circumstances and have quite diverse character.

Anthropos
03-02-2010, 03:20 PM
Besides, I know of "identical" (though identical is a terrible misnomer, there are no two identical humans) twins who even grew up under similar circumstances and have quite diverse character.

Me too.

Bridie
03-02-2010, 03:41 PM
Oh man, I'm so tired now I'll have to go to bed... but I'll just say this quickly first....



Some peoples can be peaceful at certain periods of history, then become warlike. Or vice versa. Even if "race" and genetics didn't change in the meantime. It all depends on complex intertwining of many factors, mainly of cultural, historical, religious etc nature. Besides, some fashions might have been triggered by some outstanding individuals and then others followed the suit, imitating him etc. We can see this happening in modern times with some cultural trends.
Absolutely. And that comparison of races works when focusing on races with reasonably similar characteristics. But in the case of the Maori (whom I'll speak of rather than the Tibetans, since I'm very familiar with them) their warlike culture clearly evolved as a result of their general character and even their body types, rather than environment. By nature they are an aggressive, forthright, bold and territorial bunch... one has to wonder if in both genders there is an excess of testosterone. :D To see them interact always makes me laugh, since in one moment they'll be nearly tearing each other apart with a ferocity that would make you cringe, yet in the next moment saying "Eh bro', want another beer? Sweeeeet!!!" And they're best mates again. This is classic. These Maoris have been born and bred in the Anglosphere within something that vaguely resembles British culture, yet stand in STARK contrast to any other race found in Australia or New Zealand. Is it any surprise that they created a culture that reflected their natural behavioural and physiological tendencies?

Bridie
03-02-2010, 03:53 PM
Besides, I know of "identical" (though identical is a terrible misnomer, there are no two identical humans) twins who even grew up under similar circumstances and have quite diverse character.



Me too. We're speaking of general trends here lads... not specific individuals.

Lenny
03-02-2010, 03:55 PM
Race/genetics. The one thing that can't be changed with a vote or a few pop culture movies. With all the recent studies on genetically driven behavior, it appears that all the other stuff is even more genetically based than we thought
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

Everything else changes to some extent with time, but Race remains - and gives rise to much of the rest anyway.

"[There is an] absolutely pivotal importance of Race in the destiny of all peoples." -William G. Simpson, Which Way, Western Man?

Bridie
03-02-2010, 03:56 PM
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

Everything else changes to some extent with time, but Race remains - and gives rise to much of the rest anyway.
Races change and evolve too. ;)

Anthropos
03-02-2010, 03:57 PM
We're speaking of general trends here lads... not specific individuals.

Statistical correlation that's it; even weaker than full correlation that is. And as I have already pointed out it would be illogical to assume causality even with full correlation.

Anthropos
03-02-2010, 04:03 PM
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

Everything else changes to some extent with time, but Race remains - and gives rise to much of the rest anyway.

"[There is an] absolutely pivotal importance of Race in the destiny of all peoples." -William G. Simpson, Which Way, Western Man?


Races change and evolve too. ;)

It's entirely wishful and delusional to think of race and genes as some kind of changeless fundamentals.

Lenny
03-02-2010, 04:06 PM
Races change and evolve too. ;)
And the Earth was once a ball of lava and will one day perish when the sun runs out of juice. :(

Yes, races evolve, but what is clear : if we jump back 30,000 years -- when Neanderthal-Man was on the ropes -- and we go around the globe we would see the same basic racial stocks as exist today.

Nothing else compares: "Let's preserve a 'culture'!", they say. Let's preserve languages. OK, but none are very old. The English of a mere 700 years ago is incomprehensible today.

Bridie
03-02-2010, 04:10 PM
Statistical correlation that's it; even weaker than full correlation that is. And as I have already pointed out it would be illogical to assume causality even with full correlation.Those who fail to see connections and patterns where they arise are either working to an agenda (in denial) or are just too unintelligent.

In this age of science, it comes as no surprise that you cling to and hide behind conventional scientific formulae to avoid the obvious and to try to score brownie points for your point of view, not even a surprise that you like to attack the structuring of an argument as opposed to the content... but honestly, it doesn't make you any the more convincing.



It's entirely wishful and delusional to think of race and genes as some kind of changeless fundamentals. So why did you use my quote? Difficulties in reading comprehension perhaps?

Anthropos
03-02-2010, 04:14 PM
Those who fail to see connections and patterns where they arise are either working to an agenda (in denial) or are just too unintelligent.

In this age of science, it comes as no surprise that you cling to and hide behind conventional scientific formulae to avoid the obvious and to try to score brownie points for your point of view, not even a surprise that you like to attack the structuring of an argument as opposed to the content... but honestly, it doesn't make you any the more convincing.


So why did you use my quote? Difficulties in reading comprehension perhaps?

Well sweet Broadie I don't have to be borderline like you :P sometimes I qoute something because I agree with it..... don't you ever? Always trying to convince other people are you?

I don't want to assume too much... if that makes me 'unintelligent' to you then so be it... tell me when you're too tired to argue, I'll give you a goodnight kiss. :)

Bridie
03-02-2010, 04:14 PM
And the Earth was once a ball of lava and will one day perish when the sun runs out of juice. :(

Yes, races evolve, but what is clear : if we jump back 30,000 years -- when Neanderthal-Man was on the ropes -- and we go around the globe we would see the same basic racial stocks as exist today.

Nothing else compares: "Let's preserve a 'culture'!", they say. Let's preserve languages. OK, but none are very old. The English of a mere 700 years ago is incomprehensible today.
Even a few short hundred years ago people were physiologically different than they are today. 30,000 years ago, the races that we see today would not have existed.



I don't want to assume too much... You're too afraid to assume anything at all.

Anthropos
03-02-2010, 04:24 PM
You're too afraid to assume anything at all.

Didn't get enough drama today? Seriously, what's wrong?

Bridie
03-02-2010, 04:26 PM
Didn't get enough drama today? Seriously, what's wrong?You're annoying me.

Anthropos
03-02-2010, 04:35 PM
You're annoying me.

Oh yeah? Then get off my back, 'cause I don't care. It's your problem that you feel that way and it was you who made it personal.

Bridie
03-02-2010, 04:41 PM
Oh yeah? Then get off my back, 'cause I don't care. It's your problem that you feel that way and it was you who made it personal.1) I'm not on your back.

2) If you didn't care, then you shouldn't have asked.

3) It was you who got personal with name-calling.

Anthropos
03-02-2010, 05:04 PM
1) I'm not on your back.

2) If you didn't care, then you shouldn't have asked.

3) It was you who got personal with name-calling.

No, haha... let me call your bluff:


Those who fail to see connections and patterns where they arise are either working to an agenda (in denial) or are just too unintelligent.

In this age of science, it comes as no surprise that you cling to and hide behind conventional scientific formulae to avoid the obvious and to try to score brownie points for your point of view, not even a surprise that you like to attack the structuring of an argument as opposed to the content... but honestly, it doesn't make you any the more convincing.


So why did you use my quote? Difficulties in reading comprehension perhaps?

Despite that what I said could hardly be objected to, according to you it means that

1. I have an agenda.
2. I am unintelligent.
3. I hide.
4. I tried to score brownie points.
5. I did not ask for permission to quote you. :D
6. I have difficulties reading.

:rotfl:

Bridie
03-03-2010, 01:58 AM
No, haha... let me call your bluff:



Despite that what I said could hardly be objected to, according to you it means that

1. I have an agenda.
2. I am unintelligent.
3. I hide.
4. I tried to score brownie points.
5. I did not ask for permission to quote you. :D
6. I have difficulties reading.

:rotfl:If you want to interpret it that way, that is your own problem. The only thing that I said for definite is that you hide behind scientific and literary convention.... in this thread anyway. Not always.

Poltergeist
03-03-2010, 11:28 AM
What to preserve, indeed?

Language? It's not threatened anyway, so no real concern (if it were really menaced, then I would be concerned with its survival).

Race/genetics? So beyond contempt that I don't even wish to consider it as any kind of issue.

Culture? It has to be recreated, because much of it seems to have been lost. Thus, recreated, not preserved.

Frigga
03-03-2010, 07:54 PM
It's true that language can greatly influence the speakers' perceptions and interpretations... yet with (much) time, even if a foreign language has been imposed upon a population, that language will change and evolve to be a more accurate expression of the population's own unique mental, emotional and spiritual characteristics. One cannot speak and think in a language and not leave their imprint on it. (Speaking of populations here, not individuals.)

Language is constantly evolving and nothing static at all...

I say look to Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Canada to see how the same language has evolved from "proper" British English, and how that same language in its different expressions is a true window into the soul of those peoples that evolved on far off shores.

Comte Arnau
03-03-2010, 08:44 PM
I say look to Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Canada to see how the same language has evolved from "proper" British English, and how that same language in its different expressions is a true window into the soul of those peoples that evolved on far off shores.

Actually, Frigga, it has evolved more in England itself than in the States, which are still rhotic for the most part. :)

Liffrea
03-03-2010, 08:58 PM
Originally Posted by Ibex
Actually, Frigga, it has evolved more in England itself than in the States, which are still rhotic for the most part.

I don’t know about most, in fact it really rather depends where in England you go. Interestingly non-rhotic accents seem to correlate with the area of Scandinavian settlement. Rhotic accents are concentrated more in the west and south.

Comte Arnau
03-03-2010, 09:11 PM
I don’t know about most, in fact it really rather depends where in England you go. Interestingly non-rhotic accents seem to correlate with the area of Scandinavian settlement. Rhotic accents are concentrated more in the west and south.

Seeing these maps about the loss of rhoticism in English accents in just a few decades, do you think the ones left will reach 2050?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/RhoticEngland.png/220px-RhoticEngland.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/07/RhoticEngland2.png/220px-RhoticEngland2.png

Kadu
03-03-2010, 09:41 PM
Actually, Frigga, it has evolved more in England itself than in the States, which are still rhotic for the most part. :)

I can attest the same for Portuguese Brazilian, as it conserves many archaic elements unexistent here in Portugal.
It seems to be transversal to all countries in the American continent.

Comte Arnau
03-03-2010, 09:44 PM
I can attest the same for Portuguese Brazilian, as it conserves many archaic elements unexistent here in Portugal.
It seems to be a new world trend...

I guess it must be a common thing to all colonized territories. It also happens with Spanish. Even with Catalan, the one spoken in Mallorca retains many traits from medieval Catalan of the Costa Brava. :)

Liffrea
03-04-2010, 10:31 AM
Originally Posted by Ibex
Seeing these maps about the loss of rhoticism in English accents in just a few decades, do you think the ones left will reach 2050?

Probably not, regional accents are, sadly, declining. My local dialect is known as Erewash dialect, apart from a few idioms that remain in local speech it’s largely gone except in more remote areas. The rot set in with the extension of communications and media in the 19th century, remorseless standardisation has increased ever since.

I’m probably more likely to hear “ebonics” (black English) than I am the once common local dialect.

silver_surfer
12-07-2013, 08:02 PM
I think culture should be preserved. Why because Human beings are more than just physical creatures.Culture helps to soothe our minds and make us feel more important than what can be contained within our time on Earth (because the cultures we preserve will live on after our deaths).

Moreover, culture gives us art and poetry and music, things that influence so many people's lives in so many ways, things that often allow us to find solace from physical human suffering.

There are some traditions which should be cast away, and others which could benefit society if they were embraced.

Its kind of like writing a book. You've heard the expression "every great author steals"? We cannot reinvent culture from nothing. Every aspect of culture that you embrace as "modern" is just the latest iteration of something that has been developing for a very, very long time.