The globalisation of English

[World_Anonymous]

In my opinion, we need to stop the globalisation of English. English is the language of the USA and the British Commonwealth, not the language of China, not the language of Germany, not the language of Japan, etc. These countries should not require students to learn English. If you want to learn another language, more power to you. But it should not be a requirement to learn a language that is not your own, it should be encouraged, but not a requirement. We need to stop this rapid globalisation, like the EU (and abolishing the EU), we need to reestablish the cultures of countries, because each country has its own identity, and no one country, like the USA or Britain, etc, should be leading the free world. We all need to work together, but we all need to keep our cultures alive, each one, respectively.

 

 

 

I'd like to hear your opinions after my somewhat lengthy rant.

[superson]

Well, there ought to be some language that a lot of people know, so that people in different areas can easily communicate.

 

 

 

That's my opinion, and there is no reason why it should be English, but no reason why it should be any other language either.

[Lenin64]

I feel the same way about the Spanish invasion of America (language, mind you, not the people- connected, but not what I mean). Get frikkin' used to it. It's not going to go away. Besides, the world needs a universal language. Have you any idea how much easier that would make everything?

[Rebdragon]

We need to stop this rapid globalisation, like the EU (and abolishing the EU), we need to reestablish the cultures of countries, because each country has its own identity, and no one country, like the USA or Britain, etc, should be leading the free world.

 

Globalization is a good thing. Globalization saves lives in developing countries, and encourages growth in all. By uniting the world with one language (English, Mandarin Chinese, Spanish, to name a few) globalization becomes that much easier, and the entire world population benefits from it.

 

 

 

Oh, and just so you know, the traditions and cultures of most developing countries are what is killing them- the tradition of having many children for insurance [bIG problem], many religious traditions that hinder growth, too much focus on agriculture, bribing systems [Kenya], a lot of it needs to be fixed and modernized for the sake of these people.

 

 

 

But hey, if you prefer culture over human lives and development, more power to ya.

[World_Anonymous]

We need to stop this rapid globalisation, like the EU (and abolishing the EU), we need to reestablish the cultures of countries, because each country has its own identity, and no one country, like the USA or Britain, etc, should be leading the free world.

 

Globalization is a good thing. Globalization saves lives in developing countries, and encourages growth in all. By uniting the world with one language (English, Mandarin Chinese, Spanish, to name a few) globalization becomes that much easier, and the entire world population benefits from it.

 

 

 

Oh, and just so you know, the traditions and cultures of most developing countries are what is killing them- the tradition of having many children for insurance [bIG problem], many religious traditions that hinder growth, too much focus on agriculture, bribing systems [Kenya], a lot of it needs to be fixed and modernized for the sake of these people.

 

 

 

But hey, if you prefer culture over human lives and development, more power to ya.

 

 

 

I just think each country should be concerned with itself, and only itself. Forcing countries to spend money in other countries, like through the UN, is criminal to national sovereignty. The USA should not be in the UN, and neither should other countries. Each country should be for itself, with allies of course, but not in the way like how the USA restricts Israel from bombing the hell out of Iran with their nuclear weapons. If Israel has carefully considered all the pros and cons of bombing Iran, and chooses to, then they should be able to.

[Nom]

Lol @ the nuclear weapons statement. Would you stand by and let someone go all loose cannon with weapons that could destroy the whole planet? That's where your own argument comes in, countries acting in their own best interests. Staying on the map is a pretty high priority.

[warri0r45]

I think globalization overall is beneficial. It promotes increased trade, diplomacy, cooperation and being able to understand other societies and share ideas to progress as a whole (imagine trying to do something like the human genome project without international cooperation). As for one language for all, I think there is a reason why it should be english - if I'm not mistaken it's already the most widespread (note - most widespread, not most spoken).

 

 

 

but yeah, keep all the nice cultural things so long as they aren't a hinderance.

[World_Anonymous]

I think globalization overall is beneficial. It promotes increased trade, diplomacy, cooperation and being able to understand other societies and share ideas to progress as a whole (imagine trying to do something like the human genome project without international cooperation). As for one language for all, I think there is a reason why it should be english - if I'm not mistaken it's already the most widespread (note - most widespread, not most spoken).

 

 

 

but yeah, keep all the nice cultural things so long as they aren't a hindrance.

 

 

 

I'm not saying to lock people in their countries, but the government has no business trying to promote other languages. And there should be no international language, we all have different languages and cultures, it's called diversity, and it's a beautiful thing. Imagine how boring it would be if we were all the same.

[indy500fan]

First languages:

 

Mandarin Chinese 13.69%, Spanish 5.05%, English 4.84%, Arabic 3.23%, Hindi 2.82%, Portuguese 2.77%, Bengali 2.68%, Russian 2.27%, Japanese 1.99%, Standard German 1.49%, Wu Chinese 1.21% (2004 est.)

[Giordano]

[hide]

We need to stop this rapid globalisation, like the EU (and abolishing the EU), we need to reestablish the cultures of countries, because each country has its own identity, and no one country, like the USA or Britain, etc, should be leading the free world.

 

Globalization is a good thing. Globalization saves lives in developing countries, and encourages growth in all. By uniting the world with one language (English, Mandarin Chinese, Spanish, to name a few) globalization becomes that much easier, and the entire world population benefits from it.

 

 

 

Oh, and just so you know, the traditions and cultures of most developing countries are what is killing them- the tradition of having many children for insurance [bIG problem], many religious traditions that hinder growth, too much focus on agriculture, bribing systems [Kenya], a lot of it needs to be fixed and modernized for the sake of these people.

 

 

 

But hey, if you prefer culture over human lives and development, more power to ya.

[/hide]

 

 

 

I just think each country should be concerned with itself, and only itself. Forcing countries to spend money in other countries, like through the UN, is criminal to national sovereignty. The USA should not be in the UN, and neither should other countries. Each country should be for itself, with allies of course, but not in the way like how the USA restricts Israel from bombing the hell out of Iran with their nuclear weapons. If Israel has carefully considered all the pros and cons of bombing Iran, and chooses to, then they should be able to.

 

LOL, its called WWI + WWII + Everything before that.

[Rebdragon]

I just think each country should be concerned with itself, and only itself. Forcing countries to spend money in other countries, like through the UN, is criminal to national sovereignty. The USA should not be in the UN, and neither should other countries. Each country should be for itself, with allies of course, but not in the way like how the USA restricts Israel from bombing the hell out of Iran with their nuclear weapons.

 

Tell me, what on earth have you learned about globalization and the economics of it? You're pretty much going against every basic globalization concept ever formed in that post.

 

 

 

But just for the hell of it, I'll humor you on your point about "forcing countires to spend money in other countries being [evil]". Ever heard of something called "the vicious cycle"? Out of courtesy, I'll assume that you do, but explain it anyways. Basically, the vicious cycle goes as such:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This cycle kills millions upon millions of lives by hindering the growth of third world countries. But interestingly enough, there is an out- foreign investment, something you seem to shun. Through bank loaning, foreign direct investment, and foreign portfolio investment, developing countries can become developed, as is evident by the economic enhancement of the four Asian tigers.

 

 

 

Now, tell me again, why are you against globalization and the saving of the lives of people in developing countries? Why are you so much for dividing the world and the humans on it?

[World_Anonymous]

Because generalising and covering cultural identities kills the world. Our history, even the bad, is surrounded by examples of different cultures, abolishing that is just wrong. I still am against the UN. Socialist Canada and the UK can go have a blast and spend tax money in third-world countries, but the USA does not need to do that, because that violates national sovereignty, and is a waste of American money that should be spent in America!

[warri0r45]

I think globalization overall is beneficial. It promotes increased trade, diplomacy, cooperation and being able to understand other societies and share ideas to progress as a whole (imagine trying to do something like the human genome project without international cooperation). As for one language for all, I think there is a reason why it should be english - if I'm not mistaken it's already the most widespread (note - most widespread, not most spoken).

 

 

 

but yeah, keep all the nice cultural things so long as they aren't a hindrance.

 

 

 

I'm not saying to lock people in their countries, but the government has no business trying to promote other languages. And there should be no international language, we all have different languages and cultures, it's called diversity, and it's a beautiful thing. Imagine how boring it would be if we were all the same.

 

 

 

I think taking your position to the extreme would promote tribalism and war. My position would be to embrace globalization yet keep diveristy. Don't think it can be done? Come to Australia or some other culturally diverse nation - we've got a diverse cultural make-up yet that diversity comes under the unifying banner of who we are as a nation. Why can't the same be done globally? Diveristy and unity is part of who we are as a species. To me, denying unity promotes divisiveness in the form of racism, nationalism, religious intolerance, etc (or to sum those things up in a word, tribalism).

[Lionheart_0]

:shame: We need to unite the ENTIRE earth under one banner, at least I feel that way. If we can get more people to understand each other, it wont matter about cultures or religions because everyone can understand why people in different parts of the world act differently.

 

 

 

Think about it: If everyone was united, there would be no more war, there would be no more spending money on foreign countries as there is a single money poll to draw from.

 

 

 

Of course this idea is not perfect, but I would like to think one day this could work.

 

 

 

Yes I am purposing a dictatorship/ president of the world kind of society, but thats the only way I see it working out.

[Rebdragon]

Because generalising and covering cultural identities kills the world. Our history, even the bad, is surrounded by examples of different cultures, abolishing that is just wrong. I still am against the UN. Socialist Canada and the UK can go have a blast and spend tax money in third-world countries, but the USA does not need to do that, because that violates national sovereignty.

 

Since you for some reason are choosing to stick your fingers in your ears instead of examining the pros and cons of globalization and a universal language, I have a simply inquiry: what about a universal language is telling you that all culture will die? Yes, there will be less them and us (which, I would conjecture, is the cause of nearly all conflict in the world), but the fact that everyone can speak a certain language doesn't mean that individual cultures are all going to instantaneously meld together. That, and how the heck is saving human lives "killing the world" :-s ?

 

 

 

And what do you have against the USA promoting globalization and the welfare of other human beings in developing countries... are you another one of those "anti-USA" brainwashed kids or something? If anything, you should be laughing that the fact that the USA provides the least foreign aid:GDP ratio of any other developed country*, not telling them to do less than they already do.

 

 

 

*

 

[World_Anonymous]

I think taking your position to the extreme would promote tribalism and war. My position would be to embrace globalization yet keep diversity. Don't think it can be done? Come to Australia or some other culturally diverse nation - we've got a diverse cultural make-up yet that diversity comes under the unifying banner of who we are as a nation. Why can't the same be done globally? Diversity and unity is part of who we are as a species. To me, denying unity promotes divisiveness in the form of racism, nationalism, religious intolerance, etc (or to sum those things up in a word, tribalism).

 

 

 

Tell that to China, their English speakers make up a population greater than the sum of all native English speakers.

[Nenga]

We have the same problem in america. To graduate high school you are required to learn another language, so it's not just america or britan that tries to do this. If people immigrate over to america we are expected learn their language and speak it over our own.

[World_Anonymous]

And what do you have against the USA promoting globalization and the welfare of other human beings in developing countries... are you another one of those "anti-USA" brainwashed kids or something? If anything, you should be laughing that the fact that the USA provides the least foreign aid:GDP ratio of any other developed country*, not telling them to do less than they already do.

 

 

 

I'm a pro-USA, pro-Constitution American. I'm anti-War in Iraq, not a Isolationist, but someone who is for the USA to stop policing the world!!

[Lenin64]

And what do you have against the USA promoting globalization and the welfare of other human beings in developing countries... are you another one of those "anti-USA" brainwashed kids or something? If anything, you should be laughing that the fact that the USA provides the least foreign aid:GDP ratio of any other developed country*, not telling them to do less than they already do.

 

 

 

I'm a pro-USA pro-Constitution American. I'm anti-War in Iraq, not a Isolationist but someone who is for the USA to stop policing the world!!

 

Well, it's a tough job, but somebody's gotta do it. Why not us? heck, there should even be a nation that is pretty much nothing but a world police, the entire country as a military training grounds, barracks, etc...with me as Commander in Chief, of course. I'm currently accepting resumes for people to be my Cheney. Any takers?

[warri0r45]

I think taking your position to the extreme would promote tribalism and war. My position would be to embrace globalization yet keep diversity. Don't think it can be done? Come to Australia or some other culturally diverse nation - we've got a diverse cultural make-up yet that diversity comes under the unifying banner of who we are as a nation. Why can't the same be done globally? Diversity and unity is part of who we are as a species. To me, denying unity promotes divisiveness in the form of racism, nationalism, religious intolerance, etc (or to sum those things up in a word, tribalism).

 

 

 

Tell that to China, their English speakers make up a population greater than the sum of all native English speakers.

 

 

 

What exactly is that relevant to?

[Rebdragon]

-_-".

 

 

 

Disregarding my points, instead of intelligiently responding to them and backing up your side of the argument, is not a proper way to debate. Either respond to my points, instead of nit-picking random things out, or stop pretending like you're right. There is literally nothing for me to respond to in that post that has anything to do with my arguments at all, and it leaves me with no way to respond.

 

 

 

So please, for the sake of the debate, actually respond to my [or at least someone's] post in it's entirety, with facts and intelligient opinion to back up your stance, or just stop this. It's not getting us anywhere, it's meaningless.

[Lenin64]

I think taking your position to the extreme would promote tribalism and war. My position would be to embrace globalization yet keep diversity. Don't think it can be done? Come to Australia or some other culturally diverse nation - we've got a diverse cultural make-up yet that diversity comes under the unifying banner of who we are as a nation. Why can't the same be done globally? Diversity and unity is part of who we are as a species. To me, denying unity promotes divisiveness in the form of racism, nationalism, religious intolerance, etc (or to sum those things up in a word, tribalism).

 

 

 

Tell that to China, their English speakers make up a population greater than the sum of all native English speakers.

 

 

 

What exactly is that relevant to?

 

he probably meant to quote the post with all the percentages of languages spoken. Or he's trying to support your argument by saying China is diverse in languages, but retains its identity as Chinese culture.

[World_Anonymous]

I think taking your position to the extreme would promote tribalism and war. My position would be to embrace globalization yet keep diversity. Don't think it can be done? Come to Australia or some other culturally diverse nation - we've got a diverse cultural make-up yet that diversity comes under the unifying banner of who we are as a nation. Why can't the same be done globally? Diversity and unity is part of who we are as a species. To me, denying unity promotes divisiveness in the form of racism, nationalism, religious intolerance, etc (or to sum those things up in a word, tribalism).

 

 

 

Tell that to China, their English speakers make up a population greater than the sum of all native English speakers.

 

 

 

What exactly is that relevant to?

 

he probably meant to quote the post with all the percentages of languages spoken. Or he's trying to support your argument by saying China is diverse in languages, but retains its identity as Chinese culture.

 

 

 

No, he said countries are able to globalise but also retain their identity, and obviously China isn't if English is a requirement there to learn.

[warri0r45]

I think taking your position to the extreme would promote tribalism and war. My position would be to embrace globalization yet keep diversity. Don't think it can be done? Come to Australia or some other culturally diverse nation - we've got a diverse cultural make-up yet that diversity comes under the unifying banner of who we are as a nation. Why can't the same be done globally? Diversity and unity is part of who we are as a species. To me, denying unity promotes divisiveness in the form of racism, nationalism, religious intolerance, etc (or to sum those things up in a word, tribalism).

 

 

 

Tell that to China, their English speakers make up a population greater than the sum of all native English speakers.

 

 

 

What exactly is that relevant to?

 

he probably meant to quote the post with all the percentages of languages spoken. Or he's trying to support your argument by saying China is diverse in languages, but retains its identity as Chinese culture.

 

 

 

No, he said countries are able to globalise but also retain their identity, and obviously China isn't if English is a requirement there to learn.

 

 

 

What's stopping them from retaining their culture? If you were forced to learn a language, would that stop you practicing your culture? Your argument seems to fail - many immigrants to Australia, if not the overwhelming majority, must learn english (for obvious reasons) yet retain their culture dispite doing so.

[World_Anonymous]

Yes, you should be required to learn that language if you're immigrating there, but why be required to learn if you're not? A culture can survive with that kind of requirement, yes, but it's also hurting the English culture in my opinion, by requiring the globalisation of a culture that belongs to those within the USA and British Commonwealth.