Philosophy Now Forum

I taught business courses to graduate students at a state university in an Asian country, doing it mainly for the experience, and immersion in the culture. In addition to teaching several classes, I was assigned as a proofreader and academic guide for students writing term papers.

One paper which hit my desk was arguing for the widespread use of English in the classroom in rural areas of the country. Perhaps it was the poor argument of the author in 60 pages of text, or it might have been my cynical mind, but I was simply not convinced that this was a "good" thing.

While I would agree that learning English in 3rd world countries does open up opportunities for high paying jobs in the big cities, is it really necessary for someone who was born, raised, and will likely die in the same town to learn English? The country I speak of already has millions of books, and hundreds of monthly periodicals in their local language, so someone thirsting for knowledge would not be deprived. Would it not be more productive spending the time to teach them how to plow a field (or other relevant skills), instead of English, as agriculture is the main source of jobs in this region? Thoughts?

But how about internet ? English happens to be the world language. Spanish or Italian would qualify better for this job in my opinion, because you write what you hear and you read what is there, but now it is too late.
Many interesting activities on the internet take place in English.

And besides, it is a thrill to talk to some tourists and foreigners visiting one´s country. And English is the most commonly known language.

It´s o.k. to be a farmer 8 hours per day and it is not necessary to travel. But after work you may want to experience some of the world. English is a means to do it.

And the farmers may want to exchange their experiences on a farmers´ forum and why not use internet and get experiences of other farmers worldwide ?
So they do need one international language.

I do not travel. But I like to communicate with people from diffrent parts of the world. I feel like in England when I talk to Arising and some other people here. It´s even better than reading an English book.

Hi Hanuman,

First all all welcome to the board.

Looking at your user name I can guess that you are an Indian and perhaps Hindu also.

I also live in India and in a 'c' class city also.

I use to interact with people living in towns and villages a lot and found that there is no lacking of intelligence in them. But, the only reason that they are considered illiterate is because of their lacking of English language.

I think that we have entered in that era where the world has converted itself into a global village, and my friend, whether we like it or not, the communication mode of this village is English.

So, I do not think that there is any escape. Hence, it would be better if we accept it, instead of avoiding it.

But, the knowledge of English should not come at the expense of avoiding native ones.

with love,
sanjay

Thank-you for the welcome. I am actually a white American, Italian more than anything, but basically a mutt. However, I've spent a lot of time in Asia, particularly in Thailand. So, the name actually stems from the Ramakian, the Thai version of the Ramayana.

I understand the point of teaching English to provide opportunities to young people to experience other cultures and educate themselves. I guess the problem I have is I question the true motivation here. To me, I just get the feeling that its similar to missionaries running into the deep jungles around the world telling indigenous people who have lived happily for hundreds of years in their culture that they need to change their religion, language, and way of life. Particularly, in Asia where many countries were "colonized", a fancy word for occupied or conquered, attempts to change culture, even for a good purpose, I think must be looked at with a skeptical eye.

The natural people could learn an international language in order to share their cultural heritage with the rest of the world.

Hi Hanuman,

you said-
So, the name actually stems from the Ramakian, the Thai version of the Ramayana.

Actually this confused me and i thought that perhaps you are a Hindu.
I am sorry for that.

you said-
To me, I just get the feeling that its similar to missionaries running into the deep jungles around the world telling indigenous people who have lived happily for hundreds of years in their culture that they need to change their religion, language, and way of life. Particularly, in Asia where many countries were "colonized", a fancy word for occupied or conquered, attempts to change culture, even for a good purpose, I think must be looked at with a skeptical eye.

I must appreciate your intention.
You got it absolutely right.

More often than not, missionaries have their own version of human development and that is the to convert everyone to be an Christian. They use their power of means for that in the name of service of the mankind.

But, having said that, i found some of them are really concerned about the needy people also.

But, i think that there should be a distinction between English language and English or western culture.

I am advocating English language only not culture.

with love,
sanjay

Depends what people mean by "better"? Is it one of the easiest languages to speak? Yes I think as you can pretty much mangle it and still get your meaning across. In my opinion its why the America made it the trade language amongst its immigrants and its due to it already being a mash of two languages, French and Saxon, and its ability to absorb other words and terms from any language makes it very flexible, why do you think the other Europeon language users hate it but still use it to chat to each other.

Hi friends,

English is perhaps easier language than the others; especially from the eastern ones like Chinese, Hindi, Urdu etc. I cannot say much about the European ones.

As far is adaptability of the languages is concerned, all are same. Each and every language adapts some words from others. Actually it depends on the quantity of interaction, nothing else.

The disliking of English by the speakers of other European language is perhaps due to the reason that their native languages are not globally accepted as English. But, i am not sure as there may be other reasons also.

But, it is useless to argue it anymore. Arguing cannot change the fact that the English is global language right now.

Hence, it would be better to learn it instead of wasting energy at challenging its position. To me, this is common sense, and thus, philosophy.

with love,
sanjay

Not everybody hates English.
When English was critisized on a French forum I replied pathetically: Do not speak badly of English, it is the love of my life.

And I did not add: "and French is too" because the French are already conceited enough.

Only if you love a language you can learn it well, otherwise you waste your time.
Anything you do without love is a waste of time and a nuisance.
Love is the universal engine of all our doing.

Very profound, enlightening, yet simple insight. Thanks. But of course, as always, there are instances where necessity overrides love.

Necessary? Depends.
If you want to access the International jobs market; trade; then yes. It is the language of business.
If you want to stay in your village and not make money from tourists then no.

English is the world's second language.