"The place where I was born and spent my childhood gave direction to all my future struggles. In Bialystok the inhabitants were divided into four distinct elements: Russians, Poles, Germans and Jews; each of these spoke their own language and looked on all the others as enemies. In such a town a sensitive nature feels more acutely than elsewhere the misery caused by language division and sees at every step that the diversity of languages is the first, or at least the most influential, basis for the separation of the human family into groups of enemies. I was brought up as an idealist; I was taught that all people were brothers, while outside in the street at every step I felt that there were no people, only Russians, Poles, Germans, Jews and so on. This was always a great torment to my infant mind, although many people may smile at such an 'anguish for the world' in a child. Since at that time I thought that 'grown-ups' were omnipotent, so I often said to myself that when I grew up I would certainly destroy this evil."
—
Basically, the central thesis driving the creation of this language was that the primary conflicts between various groups of people is linked to an inability to adequately communicate often because of differences in language. Historically, this, at least to an extent, seems to be true across the board. The Ancient Greek word for barbarian, varvaros, literally meant a person who did not speak Greek. It was a clearly derogatory term, used primarily in reference to Persians and later, Turks. In fact, even before Ancient Greece, Ancient China had a similar issue. In Ancient China, a "barbarian" was more or less the same thing - a foreigner, a stranger, marked off by a difference in culture. Culture, in this case, and in most cases, being inextricably linked to language. I won't go into it here because it's beyond the scope of this blogpost, but certainly in Ancient China language, especially written language, was key to not being a "barbarian".
Again, taken shamelessly from Wikipedia:
"The Chinese had at least two reasons for vilifying and depreciating the non-Chinese groups. On the one hand, many of them harassed and pillaged the Chinese, which gave them a genuine grievance. On the other, it is quite clear that the Chinese were increasingly encroaching upon the territory of these peoples, getting the better of them by trickery, and putting many of them under subjection. By vilifying them and depicting them as somewhat less than human, the Chinese could justify their conduct and still any qualms of conscience."
The quote above can really apply to any culture and their reasoning for vilifying and dehumanizing other peoples. I don't agree with Zamenhof's claim (if it is in fact the claim he is making; I'm not super knowledgeable on the subject) that much conflict stems primarily from language barriers and divisions. Conflicts arise because of other reasons, like those given in the quote above. Language being used as an excuse for hatred is symptomatic of that.
Anyway, Esperanto ended up basically being a failure. Some people speak it (my mom knows one person who does). Apparently schools in San Marino are taught in Esperanto. It's become somewhat of a joke to people. Those people see Zamenhof's project as stupid and naïve. I disagree.
Even though I think his central premise is false, and even though he failed in his attempt at creating a universal language, I still think the general idea was a good one. Let's outline why.
Esperanto is an example of an International Auxiliary Language
First of all this is good because being bilingual is great for brain function. I don't have any Wikipedia articles to support that claim, but I'm pretty sure there's a strong correlation between intelligence and the amount of languages someone speaks.
Secondly, Esperanto specifically is a good introduction to other languages. Having recently set my Facebook to Esperanto because I
But wait, Viv! Stop right there! What if, in learning this second language, it ends up replacing the native language of the area! That erodes traditional cultures, which leads to the erosion of global diversity! That's bad, no?
Well, inquisitive reader, yes. It is. But from what I understand people grow up speaking their native cultural language, and use it daily provided that they live in their home country/region. Plus, since the ideal IAL (in my mind) is not specific to another country (for example if English were to be the IAL), there would be no problem of diminishing culture because the IAL at hand shouldn't be importing any one particular culture to supercede the one already present. The IAL shouldn't ever be made to be more important than the native language.
Thirdly, this DOES solve some communication problems. Not the kind of problems that Zamenhof thought stemmed from lack of communication, but I don't think one would deny that it could reduce misunderstandings. This is what I like to call "awesomesauce". Communication is good. Plus, if you want to learn other languages, you can - there's nothing stopping you. It could also become a sign of respect to learn another country's native language.
So yeah. There's my little rant. Obviously this doesn't solve all problems of bigotry and hatred between cultures. But it's still a step in the right direction, because communication is key to overcoming problems. Esperanto may have just been ahead of its time.
Authors Note: Couldn't really find a place to put this in here, but Wikipedia Solresol. It's an IAL based on SINGING. Awesome.
-Viv
Nitin Nohria: Communication is the real work of leadership.
