Do you need language to maintain your culture?

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=#9933ff][font=lucida calligraphy]I was having this arguement/ discussion with my friend from Quebéc about how you don't need language to maintain your culture and he's claiming that you do need language to maintain your culture. Which to me is an insult because I'm Irish American and to my knowledge Gaelic which is an Irish language is virtually unknown to most people of Irish decent not living in Ireland.

So now I have to ask the rest of you all. What do you think? Can you have a cultural heritage without being able to speak your ancestral tongue?[/color][/font]

[Retribution]

[font=Arial]I wouldn't say language is absolutely necessary to maintain culture, but it is certainly a major part of it. And surprisingly enough, that's all I've really got to say on this.[/font]

[MadHatter]

I agree with Retribution. Even if you did not have the language what about tradition and all of the other things that go along with it? That person has to think about that too.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='MadHatter']I agree with Retribution. Even if you did not have the language what about tradition and all of the other things that go along with it? That person has to think about that too.[/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff][font=lucida calligraphy]Yes, but in order to understand why that person isn't considering that fact you have to understand that Quebec has been threatening to seperate from the rest of Canada since World War Two. And their main reasoning for seperation was to preserve their heritage and recent primiers have claimed that in order to preserve their heritage they have to preserve their language.

I'd get into more detail, but it's nearly two in the morning and I have things to do. If anyone from Canada wants to try and explain thise idea go right ahead.[/color][/font]

[James]

[color=#606060]I think it probably depends on the context.

If we're talking about a language that people still predominantly speak...that's one thing. If we're talking about an older language that isn't widely used anymore, that's another.

I mean, in both cases language is important to culture. I think the two are intrinsically linked.

However, culture is more than just language. Culture changes and evolves over time - I don't view it as being entirely static.

Physical traditions, beliefs, politics, arts and other things are important contributors to culture (whether national or otherwise).

In Quebec's case, it's a tough one to answer. I suppose I could see both sides to it.

The only footnote I'd add here is that you don't need to separate in order to perserve your heritage.

For many years Western Australia resisted Federation here - they rejected the early proposals and ever since they have pretty much viewed themselves as quite separate to the rest of Australia. They have never really been as involved in Federation as the other states were.

However, you'd really have to ask the question: what advantage would independence bring in that case?

In WA's case...well, there wouldn't really be many advantages. WA - like all Australian states - receives money from federal taxes. It also obviously qualifies for ADF protection and so on - there are numerous advantages to being part of a federation, as opposed to splitting off (especially if your population is small).

But yeah, I am not familiar with Quebec's case. We'd need someone from that area to tell us what they think. :catgirl:[/color]

[spy46]

based on history ect, this is what i see that the QC problem is.

they owe canada alot of money, in fact they owe so much, that every town/city could be stripped and it would just cover what is owed.

alot of their leaders have been saying for over .... 100 years? that they are special, that they are better than every one else in canada and other things like that.

in 1995 there was a vote from all of canada of should they leave, the vote was 80% for them to leave.

how ever, they wanted to keep the canadian $ as their own, and they did not want to pay the rest of canada back.

there is also the fact that, about 80% or more of QC is actually owned by 2 or 3 first nations tribes, so if they did seperate, it would actually be a very small strip of land about the size of manhanton (sp) that the quebeckers would get.

but im getting off topic here.

for what ever reason, they seam to think that they dont need any one, but they are too icolated and small to actually support them selves, they would have to make their own $ that would be worthless, they would need to make international deals of their own, they would then need to train their own army because any thing that belongs to the government of canada, would not stay in their sorry excuse of a nation.

in quebec city, they actually have a police force, that will fine you if you have a shirt that was in english, if you were a part of a company you would have to have it in french ONLY! not both like you do in the rest of canada.

other languages thats a different story.

to date they are still a part of canada, if you want more info on this look up the quebec referendum (sp) of canada, that should help you out more than i can.

but over all, the rest of canada is sick of hearing them cry about how they are opressed (sp) and what not when we bend over backwards to support them, more than we should.

Note: i live in canada B.C. and this is a part of my nations history but i dont know 100% of this story, but over all a peoples language does not make the culture, its what ever traditions you have and keep that make you a culture.

[Boo]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]And surprisingly enough, that's all I've really got to say on this.[/font][/QUOTE][size=1]Dun, dun, dun. There are strange powers at work.

Cultures are silly, anyway. People are too uptight about maintaining cultures.
[center][spoiler][b][color=red]They are obsta[/color][color=white]cles to world peac[/color][color=blue]e and global Utopia[/color][/b][/spoiler]![/center] Moo, it's not a matter of thinking [i]outside of the box[/i], it's a matter of [i]not thinking [b]in[/b]side of the box[/i]. Moo, again! Anyway, on the subject of languages. Languages change too much over time, anyway, so the idea of maintaining them is pretty laughable. But a lot of things in cultures are based on language. I can't imagine the Dutch culture without our silly proverbs and stuff.

Now, there is my fine contribution to the topic.

Hey, did anyone notice that [i]contribution[/i] looks a lot like [i]retribution[/i]? Dun, dun, dun! I told you strange powers are at work.[/size]

[Gavin]

[SIZE="1"]Chibi, one little thing, Irish [I]as Beárla[/I] or [I]in English[/I] is always Irish, not Gaelic, [I]as Gaelige [/I] or [I]in Irish[/I], it's always Gaelige. I don't know why but when people use the term Gaelic it's always bothered me, sort of like Engrish if you know what I mean.

Anyway, to get back to the argument, I think while speaking your native tongue, if you have one that is, is part of maintaining a culture, it isn't the be all and end all of one. Other things like music and customs are just as important, maybe even more important because they can be more easily assimilated by others who are either outside the culture, or away from it.[/SIZE]

[spy46]

well to use sterio types, this could be counted for a cultural thing.

americans have guns, austraila has the boomerang (sp), the germans have beer, russia has vodka, canada has maple surup and there is alot more things like that.

NOW north america, great britian, austraila and i know im missing places, all speek english.

BUT all have a different culture, different system of law and belife, there for its not the language that makes a culture, tho it does support it in ways, its not the only thing or the main thing.

just look at canada and the united states, we are right next to each other, we do alot of busness with one and other, but we are very different.

(i know i miss spelled alot but i just got up from only having 3-4 hours of sleep)
[SIZE="1"][INDENT][COLOR="Red"][B]spy46[/B], lack of sleep is not a valid excuse for poor spelling. Please use something like hotmail [which is free] or word to spell check your posts. It makes it a lot easier for people to understand what you're trying to say if it's spelled correctly. Good grammar and punctuation is also helpful so please improve your posts. Thanks. ~Rachmaninoff[/COLOR][/INDENT][/SIZE]

[eleanor]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I agree with James. Culture can survive with or without language, but if you look at something like Korean culture, the language certainly plays a part. There are parts to the Korean language that don't exist in any other language and say a lot about the culture surrounding it. Similar themes can be found in other Asiatic languages, especially Japanese/Chinese, but it's still unique. I'm sure this applies to every culture and its lanauge as well. Language and culture feed off of each other, so they both change over time. [/font]

[Lethargy]

[SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkGreen]It's one thing to be proud of your heritage, but then there are those who are [B][I]proud[/I][/B] of their heritage, the latter generally being stubborn and/or narrow-minded.

Now, before someone gets in a huff over that statement, let it be known that I have full right to say this. Practically everyone on my father's side of the family is from [B]the South[/B], and they are very proud to be from [B]the South[/B]. That being said, they are very vocal toward my "big city" ways.

Personally, I think that it is absurd for one to take so much pride in their culture or heritage that they shut out new ideas and live in the past.

Oh yeah, and as great as [B]Southern Hospitality[/B] might initially be, it becomes really old, really fast.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[Mr. Maul]

[quote=Lethargy][SIZE=1][COLOR=#006400]It's one thing to be proud of your heritage, but then there are those who are [B][I]proud[/I][/B] of their heritage, the latter generally being stubborn and/or narrow-minded.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[SIZE=1][COLOR=#006400]Now, before someone gets in a huff over that statement, let it be known that I have full right to say this. Practically everyone on my father's side of the family is from [B]the South[/B], and they are very proud to be from [B]the South[/B]. That being said, they are very vocal toward my "big city" ways.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[SIZE=1][COLOR=#006400]Personally, I think that it is absurd for one to take so much pride in their culture or heritage that they shut out new ideas and live in the past.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[SIZE=1][COLOR=#006400]Oh yeah, and as great as [B]Southern Hospitality[/B] might initially be, it becomes really old, really fast.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/quote]

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]This thread is about language, [B]Lethargy[/B], although I understand what you're talking about.[/SIZE][/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]In the case of Quebec, I think they need to stop their whining and deal.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]They've been threatening to separate from Canada since WWII? Stop with the empty threats and get on with it already. I believe that if they truly were so serious about it, they would have done so by now.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]All this commotion because they want to speak French.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[Udon]

[FONT="Courier New"][SIZE="2"][COLOR="SeaGreen"]Either wayI believe a culture can maintain its culture without it. But it wouldnt be much of a culture...[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Mr. Maul'][FONT=Verdana]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]In the case of Quebec, I think they need to stop their whining and deal.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]They've been threatening to separate from Canada since WWII? Stop with the empty threats and get on with it already. I believe that if they truly were so serious about it, they would have done so by now.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]All this commotion because they want to speak French.[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]


[color=#9933ff][font=lucida calligraphy]But that's the thing, they do speak french. They have an obscure dialect of French that originated in their province ages ago and that's their primary language in that province. It's on their liscence plates and one of the cities in the province has a language police. They're the reason the rest of Canada has to have everything in French and English/ Plus because of their whining they get more money than any other province.

And don't even get me started on the 95 referendum...

The thing is though that I believe that although language is part of who you are it doesn't completely define you since ANYONE can learn a second or third language given the chance and half a brain.

But your culture is more about history and traditions than just language.[/color][/font]

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'][color=#9933ff][font=lucida calligraphy]I was having this arguement/ discussion with my friend from Quebéc about how you don't need language to maintain your culture and he's claiming that you do need language to maintain your culture. Which to me is an insult because I'm Irish American and to my knowledge Gaelic which is an Irish language is virtually unknown to most people of Irish decent not living in Ireland.

So now I have to ask the rest of you all. What do you think? Can you have a cultural heritage without being able to speak your ancestral tongue?[/color][/font][/QUOTE]

Of course not. I know you're a New Yorker, but I would never imagine you swearing.

Oh, THAT language.

Well, I have a Norse heritage. I don't even know what my supposed native tongue is called. "Uffdaish" or something. As far as I'm concerned, your friend may as well have just told you to shrink four feet and wear green. This kind of stuff has no bearing on your heritage. That said, I thought Gaelic was Scottish. Too much Robert Louis Stevensen for me, I suppose.

[2010DigitalBoy]

[COLOR="DarkOrange"]As an American, I probably have no right to talk about culture. But I think that wether or not one has their culture is in the eye of the accusor. Some people say you o, some say you don't, there's no concrete answer or line drawn between 'cultured' and 'not cultured'.

Sorry if someone else already said that, I didn't read it >_>[/COLOR]

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'][color=#9933ff][font=lucida calligraphy]So now I have to ask the rest of you all. What do you think? Can you have a cultural heritage without being able to speak your ancestral tongue?[/color][/font][/QUOTE]Why not? Even though language is important, as you said later in the thread, there's a lot more to it than the language. Since things change, especially language, it's kind of pointless to say one has to maintain it in order to preserve their culture. By that reasoning, it's already long gone since the language is most likely not what it use to be. So though it's important, language isn't the end all when it comes to maintaining one's culture.

[retro LOV3]

Well, I would say that language makes up a small fraction of one's culture, but it does not specifically define it. Confining culture to a country's language is absurd; you wouldn't limit American culture to candy bars and Dairy Queen (although, admittedly, that's basically all we have to our name -- we never really thought of anything else original). Language was just a means of communication when it was first developed; we all spoke the same language until the Tower of Babel was attempted. Then God broke up our languages and scattered them across the earth so that we could not understand one another.

So, essentially, language was a part of the different cultures on Earth. However, it would be a shame to define one's culture with language, because so many cultures do share the same language. Thus, culture has not emerged from language, but rather, [I]with[/I] it.

[spy46]

ya thats more or less my thinking.

if you stay true to your traditions or what ever, your culture will live on, but just to change the language does almost nothing to it.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"] I agree with James. Culture can survive with or without language, but if you look at something like Korean culture, the language certainly plays a part. There are parts to the Korean language that don't exist in any other language and say a lot about the culture surrounding it. [/font][/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff][font=lucida calligraphy]I can't believe that no one has brought this up. Korean culture is an excellent example of how you don't need to be allowed to speak the language to have culture.

Korea was taken over by Japan in 1911 (date subject to debate) and the Japanese government prohibited their dress, culture and language to be used. But everything still prospered and people kept their culture in secret and worked hard to maintain their heritage.

So there you have it, culture can survive without language[/color][/font]

[Yoshi]

before i launch into my tirade: chibihorsewoman, your korean example is faulty mostly because you emphasize that language and culture was disallowed. disallowed is not equivalent to does not exist. you make it clear that the koreans kept these things alive in secret. this secret upkeep seems the primary reason that korean culture still exists. that and heritage is not the one-to-one equiavalent of culture.

anyways, continuing: i dunno anything about quebec...

that having been said, i think language is as much a part of culture as food and clothing and on par with religion/superstition (and by superstitions i'm not trying to say its trivial or fake, but like sidhe or rusulka simply more unique legends or mythos of a culture).

language itself is something that grows and evolves, it is often synthesized and spliced and amended. this is evidenced in extreme cases by the almost spontaneous formation of pidgeon languages in situations where you have large amounts of people from at least two distinct cultures and language backgrounds with no or few means of communication. in effect, they create a new simpler language to facilitate trade such and exist as evidence of a thriving new synthesis of culture. not the death of either of the constituent cultures, but a small mixing mirrored in the language, a detail solidified by the fact that if such a synthesis continues and children of mixed heritage a born the pidgin itself evolves becoming more expressive and such.

lesser examples of this culture reflected in language are more readily seen in life today in things like spanglish and the like. the mixing of english and hispanic cultures in first generation or second generation hispanic families is mirrored in the mixing of the language generally used at home and among those of similar backgrounds.

i think there might be enough circumstantial evidence to actual claim that language is an essential part of culture and that without language culture doesn't exist. not only do i believe this is the case because i think language and communication are themselves an integeral part of what it means to be human, but also because languages that have become stagnant and unchanging are generally languages of cultures that no longer exist.

consider dead languages like latin where the medium of the language itself has no new words, dialects: no variations of expression being created... ...the culture centrally dependent on that language no longer exists, there is no roman empire. the only time languages stop changing is when the culture entrenched in it no longer exists.

things like slang and dialects and the adoption of new variations of expression are evidence that a language is being used, that, in a sense, culture is being exercised. dialects or often geographically linked for good reason, they form where a language is being used/practiced and thus evolving in a unique way: many times evidence of a culture developing in a unique way.

what's this mean for irish-americans who've forgotten or never knew gaelic and the like? well, it means they aren't irish. not to be offensive, but i think even they will admit that they are irish-american: a culture that, while it derives much from the same celtic roots, is distinct from its parent cultures.

in any case, i just wanna reiterate my strongest point, language itself is central to the concept of a human being because communication and social interaction are central to the concept of what it means to be human. language itself is primarily a result of culture because while we may be wired to quickly pickup languages as children its clear that as children we only* pick up language that we are exposed to language derived from our culture geneologies and ultimately shaped by the adaptions of these geneologys to the time and place where we pick them up.

to relegate a culture to its language by saying a culture is fundementally dependant on its language (though admittedly not entirely defined by its language) is not, i think, silly because it defines a culture in terms of how its members primarily communicate and interact with each other. how members of that culture clothe the ideas they create and share, i think, is the main physical manifestation of a culture regardless of that culture is something as small as a street gang, a country, or an occupation.

footnotes:
*certain cases of children isolated/abused/neglected from birth for long periods of time suggest that if we do not hear human language within certain critical periods we do not end up being able to fluently learn language (incidently this critical period phenomena is also seen in birdsong)[SIZE="1"][INDENT][COLOR="Red"][B]Yoshi[/B], You're off to a great start, however, please use something like hotmail [which is free] or word to spell check your posts. It makes it a lot easier for people to understand what you're trying to say if it's spelled correctly. Good grammar and punctuation along with capitalization is also helpful so please work on that. Thanks. ~Rachmaninoff[/COLOR][/INDENT][/SIZE]

[spy46]

well consider this.

look at Canada, usa, england and Australia.

all speak english tho not exactly the same kind.

each has a different culture, different laws and systems of government, not to mention different traditions.

so does the language make the culture? no.

it does help it in small ways to stand out in its own ways, but not as much as some internal belief systems and or styles.

the problem with this is that, Quebec thinks that if they no longer speak their kind of french, they will no longer be who they are, that the language is the key stone to who they are but will not listen to any one that will say other.

it would be like an american saying that them not being allowed to own a gun would not make them an american.

a brit saying not being able to have tea time would not make them a brit.

canadian saying not being able to play hock does not make them a canadian.

or some one from australia saying them not being able to have that one kind of had and the boomerang does not make them an auzie.

[Yoshi]

[quote name='spy46']well consider this.

look at Canada, usa, england and Australia.

all speak english tho not exactly the same kind.

each has a different culture, different laws and systems of government, not to mention different traditions.

[/QUOTE]

the english each country speaks is not the same: there are a number of different words used, they sound obviously different, etc etc. in essence they don't speak exactly the same language, its more like spanish and portuguese and italian but hasn't drifted that far. it could be argued that these societal differences are in fact reflected in the different dialects of english used by each country.

[quote name='spy46']

so does the language make the culture? no.

it does help it in small ways to stand out in its own ways, but not as much as some internal belief systems and or styles.

[/QUOTE]

i'm not arguing to what degree language makes a culture stand out, i'm arguing that
it is a reflection of a culture's history and belief system and style. why do the three countries you mention have english as their main languages? because historically the us and australia were english colonies ruled by britain and then split off. would it be possible to have the america we have today if we had french as our main language? i'd say no. not because our material or technological accomplishments would not be possible with a different language (like french), but because there would not have been that historical link between the us and england and then that english would not have been mixed and changed with the influx of immmigrants from europe.

is language culture? no. there are some cultural things that clearly aren't the language, but can a unique culture exist without a unique language (i'm not saying it has to be big unique, just distinct)? i'd argue no.

[quote name='spy46']
the problem with this is that, Quebec thinks that if they no longer speak their kind of french, they will no longer be who they are, that the language is the key stone to who they are but will not listen to any one that will say other.

it would be like an american saying that them not being allowed to own a gun would not make them an american.

a brit saying not being able to have tea time would not make them a brit.

canadian saying not being able to play hock does not make them a canadian.

or some one from australia saying them not being able to have that one kind of had and the boomerang does not make them an auzie.[/QUOTE]

i don't think we disagree on this final point at all (i think you're trying to explain the quebecian position after having tried to undermine it, so correct me if i'm wrong)

finally, while you are arguing from the standpoint that for quebecians language seems to be a keystone so that if you remove it their culture collapses. i think its clear not that their culture will entirely collapse, but that the culture will change fundamentally into something different without that language. i.e. (quebec w/language) will not be the same culture as (quebec w/out language).

and that argument is mirrored in all your examples. an american who doesn't feel threatened by general government baring of firearms ownership comes from a pretty fundamentally different background then one who does. some states have gun cultures some don't, yeah?

[spy46]

well im not trying to undermine them, but i was trying to show a simple idea of what their problem is and what not.

tho i do stand by what i say until proven other wise.

i did note that the nations i listed do have a different kind of english, different spelling of some words and what not, but if you were to talk to or read some thing from some one in one of the other nations, you would still be able to understand it.

with quebec, only they speak that kind of french, because of that the government has it mandatory that students learn how to speak english and this is some what where the *their trying to remove our culture* is coming from.

they are so obsessed with the idea that they will not listen to any one that tells them that they cant or would not be able to do it, the simple reasons are that they do not have enough of the facilities such as farms, factories or other needs that a nation would require to keep it up and running.

there also seams to be the idea that they just want to cut them selves off from the rest of the world all together, some kind of a mix with the iron-curtain and the berlin wall.

personally if they were to finally do this, i would say to treat them as a nation by making a full out border, border guards and just finally shut them up.

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='retro LOV3']Well, I would say that language makes up a small fraction of one's culture, but it does not specifically define it. Confining culture to a country's language is absurd; you wouldn't limit American culture to candy bars and Dairy Queen (although, admittedly, that's basically all we have to our name -- we never really thought of anything else original). Language was just a means of communication when it was first developed; we all spoke the same language until the Tower of Babel was attempted. Then God broke up our languages and scattered them across the earth so that we could not understand one another.

So, essentially, language was a part of the different cultures on Earth. However, it would be a shame to define one's culture with language, because so many cultures do share the same language. Thus, culture has not emerged from language, but rather, [I]with[/I] it.[/QUOTE]

I resent that! You didn't mention Arby's!

Anyway, funny story about the Tower of Babel. The idea was that if we don't all communicate he same, we won't be able to band together and decide we don't need God anymore. Of course, God realized that he created us smart enough to decipher each other's languages, so he invented Race. Now everyone's too stuck up to want to understand each other!