It is hard to believe that in a day and age where we can travel in space, move information across the world in a fraction of second and cure all manner of disease, that fundamentalism is still alive, and it appears it is making a rebirth. From the crowded city of Tehran, or the rugged of Afghanistan, we've been hearing about how intolerant Sharia Law is, and how having a religious law imposed is so constitutionally wrong, and so violates democracy and basic human rights. It is a moral grey area where the rich democracies of the world (read: United States) have the 'right' to 'liberate' areas that voted for a non secular governing body, however in their own 'free' society, countries like France have banned Burqas[1]. Even in the United States, a supposed secular country, the mostly Christian denomination takes many liberties with it free speech.
However it is only barely tolerable that discrimination against minority groups, like trying to build the Mosque at Ground Zero[2], or even the Chaser joking around about a mosque in Mosman[3]. People would like to think that as countries get richer, more educated and more diverse, there should be greater tolerance and less segregation should occur.People WOULD LIKE TO THINK, however in the fervor of post 9/11 setting, the entire multicultural facade was unraveled. Like how 'open' minded people started looking at their neighbours differently because the people who attacked the Twin Towers were from 'the Middle East'. It's truly disgusting to see that this what globalistation breeds, secret intolerance that bubbles to the surface (see Cronulla Riots and Indian student assaults). This is political climate we live in, a politically correct but socially incorrect democracy that is like a jigsaw puzzle with all the pieces in the wrong place. With people who'd like to think, yeah we love the culture of other races, we love the cheap labour and the tourism, but just don't live in MY country. This is quickly changing ideology, but still a current and extremely relevant one. It is not the immigrants fault that they are willing to work harder, or work for less, or be more talented at your job than you are. That inherent criticism that people are having their jobs 'taken' is redundant. The fact that the industrial juggernaut that was America is in decline is a showing that after centuries, laziness breeds inefficiency and also pent up frustration. The end result is like a spoiled child, wanting the privileges but not wanting to compete for less. As a result people become annoyed, it's all the Mexicans fault that they will work for less and work harder than we do. It's all the Chinese fault that we're out of manufacturing, not that our production techniques were obsolete and our wages too high.
What recently transpired in Bastrop[4] High is a travesty, not only a travesty but a farce on the very foundations of what the United States is built on. To ostracize and make a pariah out of a student, who was only following the LAW, trying to stop a STATE funded Christian prayer at a graduation, is wrong. It is not a worshiping ceremony, it is not a Christian celebration party, it is an entire school graduation ceremony, celebrating the years of education and not the church. The hypocritical nature of the American secularist ideal is so twisted and wrong it challenges any sane person to try argue with a Christian conservative. "It was wrong for the Muslims on the other side of the world to have their religion forced upon their people, however it is totally fine for our secular state to shove Christianity up every single citizens ass and call it a free country". A free country should be free of tolerance, free to worship however you want, but it shouldn't be a bigoted community that wont tolerate another culture other than the majority. I am sure that if a Muslim prayer was heard in the ceremony, every Christian the goddamn United States would be up in arms, crying the shit out of themselves that they let a Muslim pray in their country. I'm sure they would say that this violates the law they themselves violate every single day, and only add to the list of hypocrisy that country is founded on. I end this by saying, not everyone is stupid and not everyone believes in one thing or is totally intolerant of beliefs, because they're not. Some people are don't need to force their religion, after all I believe worship is a personal affair and that organizing it makes a fallacy of it. After all, what logic is a divine being that requires people to congregate and openly worship him/her/it. Don't believe the millenia old hype, I don't need to worship publicly to know how to be a good person. I don't need a man in robes to tell me that murder is wrong, however I especially don't need a man in robes to tell me that how people living their life should be impending by an organisation with no credibility.
And don't get me started on homosexuality and fundamentalism. Two gay people should have every right to be happy. [take for example my friend Botong, he and his partner should be free to love each other... and not get bashed for being in Melbourne by either racists or homophobes, or worse Christian fundamentalists]
[1]http://www.smh.com.au/world/first-arrests-as-france-bans-burqa-20110412-1dbcg.html
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51
[3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R6DfwqUSuY
[4]http://www.alternet.org/belief/151086/high_school_student_stands_up_against_prayer_at_public_school_and_is_ostracized,_demeaned_and_threatened/
Friday, May 27, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Modern English vs eng
Modern English vs eng
Neo-"Politics and the English Language"
English is one of the most remarkable languages in the world for its ability to adapt, evolve and create new words every day. The dictionary is always expanding, and although many words fall into oblivion, the beauty in English is in the ability to choose unique words to create tone, even though the words are mostly synonymous with each other. However, the rise of a "Modern English" a term coined by Orwell in his famous essay "Politics and the English Language"[1] is apparent everywhere in society, however whether or not it is a entirely bad thing as prescribed in 1950, can be argued.
Indeed Orwell was attempting to criticise writing where the "concrete melts into the abstract", in other words, where the ambiguity of "Modern English" hides the truth, or disguises a lie. Stereotypically, the "Modern English" he was referring to is the same used by politicians, or by those of literary prowess - whether self-proclaimed or otherwise. Yet, Orwell also warns in 1984 of "Newspeak", an exaggerated language of over simplification, where simplicity creates ambiguity, in much the same way as in "Modern English". Therefore Orwell was preaching not only of the problems with unneccesary complexity, but also simplicity, in both corrupting language and thought.
Like most things in life, it is about the efficient allocation of resources to maximise their potential or in simpler terms, it is about balance. For like most modern politicians, Orwell's stance on language was centrist. The ancient Ying-Yang belief in applicable to most things including language. Language must be complex enough to express ideas accurately, but simple enough to be understood. Too much of either will generally cause bad prose, as already expressed by Orwell.
Most strikingly though is the fact that language most naturally evolves along with society, and in particular technology. The rise of mobile phones, 'texting' and instant messaging has arose a new form of English. "Text English" is the use of irregular pre-fabricated phrases to represent proper English. This new idea brings upon the fact that the 'centre' of English language is growing increasingly simple. There must be a time where one must stand up and rebel against this simplification. Old English, or the English used during the Enlightenment era, would be considered "Modern English" to a person who reads Orwell, and one day perhaps, Orwell's words will one day become "Modern English" for one who reads text messages.
For example, a passage in Frankenstein[2]:
"I do not know how long i remained in this situation, but when i awoke i found that the sun had already mounted considerably. The wind was high, and the waves continually threatened the safety of my little skiff. I found that the wind was north-east, and must have driven me far from the coast from which i had embarked."
can be translated into English used today:
"I don't know how long it was, but when i awoke, the sun was up. The wind threatened my little skiff's safety. The north-easterly wind blew me far away from where i embarked."
which can be translated into "Text English":
"iono how long, but sun=up when i woke. wind threatend my lil skiff. NE wind blew far from where i was."
One cannot possibly say that simplicity is beauty. Nor can one say that complexity is also beauty. The balance between the two must be judged to the best of the ability of the writer in order to communicate the ideas. Despite the constant evolution for English, one must define a 'Golden Age' of the language, much like those scholars of Latin have placed upon 70BC-43BC[3]. In English, i would like to think that this 'Golden Age' falls upon its form in formal documents today.
It is natural for a language to eventually decay and be superseded by another but i do wish that the current form of English be preserved as long as possible and one day be studied by scholars as the 'Golden Age' of English. This decay has already formed as an idea in many people's minds including one professor who claims that everyone "should simply accept as variant spelling those words our students most commonly misspell"[4]. It is up to those who choose to write to balance the battle between the complexity necessary for idealism, and the simplicity needed for comprehension, and although this balance is shifting further into simplicity, one can only retain the English they know best, one that passes the Spell Checks currently in word processing programs.
References:
[1]http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
[2]Frankenstein - Mary Shelley (1818)
[3]http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/237476/Golden-Age
[4]http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=403092
Neo-"Politics and the English Language"
English is one of the most remarkable languages in the world for its ability to adapt, evolve and create new words every day. The dictionary is always expanding, and although many words fall into oblivion, the beauty in English is in the ability to choose unique words to create tone, even though the words are mostly synonymous with each other. However, the rise of a "Modern English" a term coined by Orwell in his famous essay "Politics and the English Language"[1] is apparent everywhere in society, however whether or not it is a entirely bad thing as prescribed in 1950, can be argued.
Indeed Orwell was attempting to criticise writing where the "concrete melts into the abstract", in other words, where the ambiguity of "Modern English" hides the truth, or disguises a lie. Stereotypically, the "Modern English" he was referring to is the same used by politicians, or by those of literary prowess - whether self-proclaimed or otherwise. Yet, Orwell also warns in 1984 of "Newspeak", an exaggerated language of over simplification, where simplicity creates ambiguity, in much the same way as in "Modern English". Therefore Orwell was preaching not only of the problems with unneccesary complexity, but also simplicity, in both corrupting language and thought.
Like most things in life, it is about the efficient allocation of resources to maximise their potential or in simpler terms, it is about balance. For like most modern politicians, Orwell's stance on language was centrist. The ancient Ying-Yang belief in applicable to most things including language. Language must be complex enough to express ideas accurately, but simple enough to be understood. Too much of either will generally cause bad prose, as already expressed by Orwell.
Most strikingly though is the fact that language most naturally evolves along with society, and in particular technology. The rise of mobile phones, 'texting' and instant messaging has arose a new form of English. "Text English" is the use of irregular pre-fabricated phrases to represent proper English. This new idea brings upon the fact that the 'centre' of English language is growing increasingly simple. There must be a time where one must stand up and rebel against this simplification. Old English, or the English used during the Enlightenment era, would be considered "Modern English" to a person who reads Orwell, and one day perhaps, Orwell's words will one day become "Modern English" for one who reads text messages.
For example, a passage in Frankenstein[2]:
"I do not know how long i remained in this situation, but when i awoke i found that the sun had already mounted considerably. The wind was high, and the waves continually threatened the safety of my little skiff. I found that the wind was north-east, and must have driven me far from the coast from which i had embarked."
can be translated into English used today:
"I don't know how long it was, but when i awoke, the sun was up. The wind threatened my little skiff's safety. The north-easterly wind blew me far away from where i embarked."
which can be translated into "Text English":
"iono how long, but sun=up when i woke. wind threatend my lil skiff. NE wind blew far from where i was."
One cannot possibly say that simplicity is beauty. Nor can one say that complexity is also beauty. The balance between the two must be judged to the best of the ability of the writer in order to communicate the ideas. Despite the constant evolution for English, one must define a 'Golden Age' of the language, much like those scholars of Latin have placed upon 70BC-43BC[3]. In English, i would like to think that this 'Golden Age' falls upon its form in formal documents today.
It is natural for a language to eventually decay and be superseded by another but i do wish that the current form of English be preserved as long as possible and one day be studied by scholars as the 'Golden Age' of English. This decay has already formed as an idea in many people's minds including one professor who claims that everyone "should simply accept as variant spelling those words our students most commonly misspell"[4]. It is up to those who choose to write to balance the battle between the complexity necessary for idealism, and the simplicity needed for comprehension, and although this balance is shifting further into simplicity, one can only retain the English they know best, one that passes the Spell Checks currently in word processing programs.
References:
[1]http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
[2]Frankenstein - Mary Shelley (1818)
[3]http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/237476/Golden-Age
[4]http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=403092
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)