🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <783@ukecc.UUCP> wes@ukecc.UUCP (Wes Morgan) writes:
> that language was the great unifier in any nation.  This can be his-
> torically affirmed by such civil conflicts as the Basque minority
> in Spain and the tribal problems in numerous African nations.  It is
> critical to a nation's survival and prosperity to employ a single,
> relatively universal language.

Historically, I think you will find that language does not run as deep
as religion, race, culture, or property.  The cited examples, though I
know little about them, would appear to reflect these latter differences
as much as the former.

Sure, there is some strain in Belgium between speakers of French and
Flemish, but not as serious (well, it doesn't look as serious from here)
as the previous Catholic-Protestant problems they had (in the United
Netherlands).  Note that the Netherlands were divided by religion rather
than language.

The situations in Ireland and Lebanon are instances where a single
language has failed to unify a nation.  Switzerland is a case where four
official national languages and English (and both Catholics and
Protestants) have not damaged survival or prosperity.

A related argument is that a single language should define a single
nation.  (I know you didn't say this, but I am pointing out the relation
before someone says something stupid.  The Germans used this argument for
aggression.)

I admit that the rest being equal, a nation with one language will be
more unified than one with many, but I think that the languages that
count are the ones spoken, not the "official" ones.  Legislating a
single national language in Canada or Belgium would probably go over
like legislating a single national religion in Ireland or Lebanon.

	-- Cary