Language and Patriotism?

Question

Why is language considered important for Patriotism? I think Language should be considered as mode of communication, why people give added importance to their so called "Rashtrabhasha"?

Language and Patriotism?
Why is language considered important for Patriotism? I think Language should be considered as mode of communication, why people give added importance to their so called "Rashtrabhasha"?
"Rashtrabhasha" is not an English word I agree, but it means Language of a country. I would like more inputs from Indian Intellectuals who are out there.

Answer 1

The american Congress had never even considered declaring English the nation's official language until 1981, when a constitutional English Language Amendment was introduced by the late Senator S. I. Hayakawa. The only previous official-language legislation dates back to 1923: a bill designating "American" the national tongue. The idea proved especially popular with Irish Americans, who saw an attempt to insult the British Empire. The measure died in Congress without coming to a vote, but was adopted by the state of Illinois (where English was quietly rehabilitated in 1969).

Americans have traditionally resisted language legislation, beginning in 1780, when John Adams proposed to establish an official Language Academy to set standards for English. This idea was rejected by the Continental Congress as an improper role for government and a threat to individual liberties. A century later President Teddy Roosevelt's attempt to "reform" English spelling met a similar fate. There was no English proficiency requirement to become naturalized as a U.S. citizen until 1906 – the first major language restriction to be enacted at the federal level.

On the other hand, the Continental Congress saw nothing wrong with printing its Journals and other official documents in German and in French (hoping to win Québécois support for the Revolution). No patriotic objections were raised against accommodating these politically significant minorities. States were even more likely to cater to minority needs. Before World War I, bilingual education was common in areas where nonanglophone groups enjoyed political clout. During the 19th century, state laws, constitutions, and legislative proceedings appeared in languages as diverse as Welsh, Czech, Norwegian, Spanish, French, and of course, German.

At other times, Americans have imposed restrictive language policies. California rewrote its state constitution in 1879 to eliminate Spanish language rights. In 1897, Pennsylvania made English proficiency a condition of employment in its coal fields, a none-too-subtle way to exclude Italians and Slavs. Security fears during the World War I era led to unprecedented bans on public use of the German language – in schools, on the street, during religious services, and even on the telephone.

So it is impossible to characterize any American "tradition" on the official language question. History is rarely so cooperative. Our responses to diversity have ranged from accommodation to tolerance to discrimination to repression, usually determined by factors that have little to do with language. These have included a minority group's race, religion, numbers, political clout, and cultural distinctiveness, as well as the majority group's feelings of prosperity, stability, or paranoia.

Demographic research shows that now, more than ever, language patterns in America are a case of "Babel in reverse."<1> A massive shift to English continues. This trend has been somewhat masked by rising immigration levels over the past two decades, following half a century of restrictive quotas. So it is not suprising that many Americans have trouble grasping the paradox: While the number of minority language speakers is increasing, so is the rate of linguistic assimilation. All available evidence suggests that today's newcomers are learning English – and losing their native tongues – more rapidly than ever before. English was far more "threatened" in earlier times; yet it survived quite nicely without official status.

About a third of the world's nation-states have official language provisions in their constitutions. But few of these designate a single language for government. Some do so at enormous cost to civil liberties – Turkey, for example, has criminalized minority language usage in many contexts. Others elevate a single national language for purely symbolic, ceremonial purposes. But a larger number of constitutions include explicit provisions for minority rights, giving official status to more than one language. In practice, some of these guarantees are faithfully observed; some are ignored. Elsewhere language laws serve a planning function, for example, in post-colonial nations that remain linguistically diverse. Or they may seek to mediate ethnic rivalries.

It is impossible to generalize about the meaning of an official language. Political contexts vary enormously. It would mean one thing for a small "unilingual" country – Iceland, let's say – to declare an official language as an emblem of national pride. It would mean quite another for the United States to do so, where the political impact would be to restrict and denigrate minority tongues that already are subordinate to English. And recently, it meant something else again when the colony of Puerto Rico ended its official bilingualism, imposed by military force in 1902, in favor of Spanish as its sole official language. (The new policy lasted barely two years, an indication of its unique political subtext: combat between Puerto Rico's statehood and "commonwealth" forces.)

Answer 2

I don't know what a "Rashtrabhasha" is (I'm guessing its not an English word) but I think you are confused. Language has very little to do with patriotism. Patriotism could be seen as a result of language differences but there were languages before there were nations. I speak four different languages and I live in a bilingual country--does that make me unpatriotic? Not really. Many countries taht are very proud of their country and language often learn the languages of other countries. Look how many Asians want to learn English now and those are some very patriotic countries.

Answer 3

language should not be considered important for patriotism. in the united states right now there is a push for english to become the national language, but that's not right because all of the people that are in the united states are descendants of people who came from other countries and spoke other languages. the poeple who came to america first, came from all over the world and spoke many diferent languages. they gave up their lives in the home country to come here. if that is not patriotism then i don't know what is

Answer 4

Language has nothing to do with patriotism....Tagore wrote in Bengali an Indian language, Bharati in Tamil.....Today India's rashtrabhasha maybe Hindi...but our constitution was written in English....some of the great works were etched out in Englisg or other vernacular languages!
Vandé Matarm is in Sanskrit.
People who give importance to Hindi are a bit ignoramus about the fact that Hindi never existed in the 15 century.
There are a whole lot of languages we ought to be proud of....Sanskrit, Tamil, Bengali!
We remain Indians irrespective of what language one communicates in.
A Bengali is no less an Indian than a Tamil or a Punjabi or a Khasi...

Answer 5

Majority of the people in USA ...have and use as a prime lasnguage the Eiglish language and them for the time been control the wealth and the future of this nation. So if you are an outsider you like it or not soon or later you will have to deal with them. Your own minority can't offer you the opportunities that the English speaking majority has. So if you want to survive and do well in USA you have to learn to speak and write English...otherwise go back home you will do a lot better dealing with your own circle.

Answer 6

I think language is associated with patriotism because it can be a distinguishing characteristic. In America, there is a movement to make English the national language, and this meant to counter the negative effects of multiculturalism and diversity. There must be some elements common to all parties of the group, and communication, being so integral to the experience of being human, naturally becomes a topic. It is important to remember who wants us to make language patriotic, why they want it to be so, and to make our own decisions about whether or not language should be patriotic in a given situation.

Answer 7

Because having your own language is very much a part of having an identity that separates you from other nationalities. Ethnic Ukrainians have been trying for centuries to break free from Russia's control- historically, Russia has at times included with its suppression of the Ukrainian people the intolerance of written Ukrainian- Russian was THE language. Now that Ukr is free, there has been a resurgence of the Ukrn language and every 'hot-blooded' patriot is also Ukrn speaking- it is part of what sets them apart from Russia. For many, the Russian lang is associated with Russian domination in Ukraine. Living here and seeing this has helped me to understand the ethnic Ukrn people...

Answer 8

Because our language is part of our culture, just as much as our food, clothes, customes, ect...
Throughout history countries have tried to dominate others by abbolishing anything to do with their culture, especially their language.
Good example is in Spain, the Pais Vasco (Basque Country) has fought for their independence for different reasons, one of them being their language. When Franco was alive, he stopped everybody from speaking any language that wasn't Spanish, trying to get them to lose their identity, their culture.
Almost every region in Spain has a different language, going back to when they were all kingdoms, so obviously, the language goes with the roots, with the origin.

Answer 9

one million dollar question-the torment of india caused by this lingua. himalayan blunder gaandhi has committed. ther is no unity but diversity arose because of this. all languages r good . as one vethaathri maharishi said that language gives u comfort and solace that is ur mother tongue. if u go across states we cannot find out ways to go since everythig is in the stte language. the common language is not added to the guidance. more over nothern state hate english and southern states hate hindi. in my opinion English is best for adknistration and sanskrit for spirituality and statelanguages on ly for expression and communications. politicians r exploiting by this language fanatism