There are around 7,000 languages spoken in the world, but that number is shrinking. Unesco estimates that half could disappear by the end of the century. So how are languages lost, and what does that mean for the people who speak them?
There are around 7,000 languages spoken in the world, but that number is shrinking. Unesco estimates that half could disappear by the end of the century. So how are languages lost, and what does that mean for the people who speak them?
The idea that literacy and life-expectancy are signs of a more “developed” country is essentially just racist colonialist propaganda.
Many cultures worldwide have traditionally transmitted knowledge orally, and their societies were built around this, with lots of in-person meetings to disseminate information. If a person speaks their traditional language and is well-versed in their traditional culture, but does not read or write (because they don’t need to), then by the standard of literacy they will be deemed as less “developed” than some 4-chan troglodyte.
Likewise, life expectancy past a certain age is kind of a ridiculous metric. People seriously believe that the longer you can stay geriatric, the more “developed” your country is.
Meanwhile, metrics like knowledge of botanical medicine or percentage of communal land ownership are often left out of these scoreboards of “development”. Things that can materially improve people’s lives are only seen as having value when non-Indigenous people do them. It is racism through and through.
So no culture ever among thousands are more developed than others, is that it?
How would you tally up the score of “development”?
If the score depends, essentially, on racist ideas of how human societies should look, valorizing old people who can read as the epitome of human achievement, then I think it should be dismissed.
And more than that, I think the entire game of defining a single consolidated “development score” is laughable at best. We can measure stats individually, and consider them in their own right. Any attempt to weight the individual scores to contribute to a total score is going to depend heavily on the judge’s personal values. There is no value-neutral way to do it.
You may feel strongly that certain cultures are more developed than others, but that is based on the stats that you value. Even if you base it on data in some way, you are basing it on the data that states have bothered to gather, which almost always captures metrics that align with their priorities and views.
So how exactly is literacy racist? I wonder what convoluted logic leads to that conclusion.
Also how is health and life expectancy a racist measure? Isn’t living a long life in good health just about the most objectively good thing a society can achieve?
No those are stats EVERYBODY should value. Or maybe you won’t send your children to school because it has no actual value, and maybe you won’t allow your children healthy food and healthcare, because that’s just a racist idea?
I can see your answer is indeed that all cultures are equally developed, which is very obviously false. It’s like saying 1+1=1, and I can not have any respect for such a view.
It’s defeatist and it doesn’t help anything in any way.
How do we improve society, if all societies are equal? It’s nonsense!!!
By evaluating individual stats, not entire societies, and by letting societies determine what they value.
You don’t need to share other people’s values. But you have no right to determine what other people should value. Big colonizer energy from you.
That’s an oxymoron, societies are collectives of individuals. If you can evaluate4 on an individual, you can collect it to evaluate a society.
You are talking like culture is some sort of religion, where it’s all made up, and completely disconnected from evidence and reason.
So you maintain that good health and long life are just a subjective values?