One thing always amazes me is that there are so many different languages in the world. It could be the Babel tower which separates people from each other. But they are the results of our ancestors' creativity, and it makes the world so much more diverse that we will never get bored.
But language is also politics. I talked about the language situation in one of my previous posts, and today I want to talk about several examples in which two or more languages are virtually the same one, but they are named differently for a certain political or historical reason.
1. Hindi and Urdu:
Hindi and Urdu, together having about 500 million speakers, are spoken in a pair of political arch-rivals. True, there are considerable differences in vocabulary, especially in the formal language. Urdu draws much vocabulary from the fellow Muslim Persian and Arabic, while Hindi from the ancient Sanskrit. Plus, the written scripts are so different that many people wouldn't realize they are virtually the same language. In fact, they derive from the same dialect close to Delhi. Hindustani is a more academic and neutral way to address the two languages/two versions of the same language.
2. Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin:
Under Comrade Tito, Serbo-Croatian was spoken by the majority of Yugoslav people, with the rest spoke closely related Slovenian and Macedonian. But today, nobody would claim that he/she speaks Serbo-Croatian. For them, it is either Serbian for Serbs, Croatians for Croats, Bosnian for Bosniaks, even Montenegrin for the newly-independent nation. There are indeed differences nowadays, since different countries are standardizing their language differently, and they have been based on different dialects. But their difference is still trivial. It is, of course, good for a guy to claim that he speaks five languages, including Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian. In response, I may claim I speak American English, British English and Chinglish. They are still the same language today. But they may become different enough to be separated linguistically after the bitter political division.
3. Romanian and Moldovan:
Moldova, a former republic of Soviet Union, maintains that its official language is called Moldovan, which is a continuation of the Soviet policy. This is aimed to damp down any talk of unification with Romania. Most part of Moldova was Romanian-speaking, and it was part of Romania until the Second World War. In the eastern part of the country, there are significant Russian and Ukrainian populations, who have established a break-away but unrecognized republic. But all of those cannot change the fact that Moldovan is identical to Romanian. The only difference is Moldovan is written in the Cyrillic alphabet.
4. Indonesian and Malay
When the "Thousand-Island Nation" gained its independence from the Netherlands, the government found that people speak so many different languages, and those languages can be very different on different islands. As part of the attempt to unite the newly-independent country, they "borrowed" the language from the neighboring Malaysia. The new Indonesian is not based on any language in Indonesia, but a dialect of Malay language. When Malaysia accused Indonesia stole their cultural heritage in a tourist commercial last year, what they really meant was that the whole language which unites Indonesia was stolen from Malaysia. For Malaysians, ss that actually something to be proud of?
5. Finnish and Karelian
Karelian is spoken in the Russian Republic of Karelian, but many people simply regard it as dialect of Finnish language. Karelians share their history with the neighboring Finnish, and a significant part of the republic was ceded by Finland after the Soviet invasion. Republic of Karelian was once at the equal level with other 15 republics, which showed Stalin's intention to annex Finland completely. Fortunately for Finland, he failed.
6. Persian and Dari
Dari, which refers to the historical court language of ancient Persian Empire, is spoken in Afghanistan. The name was encouraged by the Afghan government to distinguish with the language in the neighboring Iran. There are indeed some difference in phonology and vocabulary, but they are the same language. Mr. Ahmedinejad, any response?
7. Lao and Isan
Isan is the name given by the Thais to the combination of Lao dialect in their country. It is suffering from the official discouragement of the Thai government, which doesn't allow it in the public occasions. It doesn't even have its alphabet.
Please tell me if there are more examples.
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
October 2, 2010
August 28, 2010
Revolutionaries never retire!
Fidel Castro is back. Although without the usual endless diatribes, his short speech in the parliament showed his determination to continue leading his people. Weak as he is, no sign of retirement can be smelt in the air. As Fidel once said, "revolutionaries never retire."
Indeed, they don't. Mao, Stalin, Kim Il-Sung. All of them died at the height of their power. Similarly, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Chiang Kai-Shek and other non-communist dictators didn't give up their power voluntarily until they were beaten by enemies or their healths.
Some people asserted that had Hitler died in 1938, he would have been one of the greatest leaders in the history of Germany. Why don't they simply give up their power early to secure a good legacy? Because they believe they can do better to realize their ideals? Hitler might have thought so, but history proved it wrong.
The desire for power is certainly a main reason. When Alvaro Uribe reluctantly accept the decision of the Supreme Court that he wouldn't be allowed to seek a third term, Colombians felt relieved. They certainly admired Sr. Uribe, who has brought huge positive change to his nation in his two terms. But endless amendments of constitution will remind us of their increasingly dictatorial neighbor, Venezuela. Losing him is a loss, but the political structure is strengthened. Uribe will also be remembered as a great leader in the history. There is rumor that Uribe would like to run for the mayor of Bogota. The lust of power is unstoppable. But fortunately, Uribe has chosen to come to Georgetown. I hope he can stay longer to let his successor rule without his shadow.
Russians are not that lucky. Mr. Putin found a better way to stick to power. In countries without a strong rule of law, positions in the government doesn't necessarily represent power. Deng Xiaoping ruled China as a Vice Premier, and after his semi-retirement, as the Chairman of Military Commission. But his influence was paramount, and different factions in the government needed to seek his approval to gain an upper hand. In Russia, Putin re-interpret the power distribution between the President and the Prime Minister. People are speculating whether he will return to the office after 2012, but it seems that being Prime Minister can prolong his influence forever.
But Uribe and Putin are not dictators. They were elected, and they are genuinely popular. What about the dictators without democratic mandate? Being in power can certainly give them more time to collect wealth as what many African leaders did. But when you are rich enough, why not leave the office and take their time to enjoy those wealth?
I think fear is the best reason to explain. Without the rule of law, there is no protection of former leaders. They can have immunity for life (Mr. Nazarbayev did that), but that can be revoked. They cannot even trust their proteges, because there isn't a lack of examples of betrayal. For leaders of rogue states like Bashir from Sudan, there's one more reason to stay put. As Professor Vreeland said, the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court only strengthened their determination to stay in power for fear of being extradited by their successors. Gripping the power in their hands is the only way to prevent retribution. Passing power to their children can ensure that their tombs and legacies will be properly guarded.
But there are examples that show us transfer of power is possible without a liberal democratic system. Since 1980s, Chinese leadership has adopted the rule of retirement. For different levels of officials, there is a mandatory retirement age, up to 68 years old for politburo members. The welfare is luxurious, with private cars and private secretaries funded by taxpayers. Although the previous leaders keep their influence to some extent, meddling is rare. Political struggle exists, but no shots have been directed to retired top leaders. Apparently, China is not a good example of rule of law, but the ruling party can be run with proper self-regulation to ensure the continual survival of the party. This is certainly an interesting case to study. For Fidel, Chinese leaders are no longer revolutionaries. I think they wouldn't mind as long as there are golf courts for them to enjoy their lives.
Indeed, they don't. Mao, Stalin, Kim Il-Sung. All of them died at the height of their power. Similarly, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Chiang Kai-Shek and other non-communist dictators didn't give up their power voluntarily until they were beaten by enemies or their healths.
Some people asserted that had Hitler died in 1938, he would have been one of the greatest leaders in the history of Germany. Why don't they simply give up their power early to secure a good legacy? Because they believe they can do better to realize their ideals? Hitler might have thought so, but history proved it wrong.
The desire for power is certainly a main reason. When Alvaro Uribe reluctantly accept the decision of the Supreme Court that he wouldn't be allowed to seek a third term, Colombians felt relieved. They certainly admired Sr. Uribe, who has brought huge positive change to his nation in his two terms. But endless amendments of constitution will remind us of their increasingly dictatorial neighbor, Venezuela. Losing him is a loss, but the political structure is strengthened. Uribe will also be remembered as a great leader in the history. There is rumor that Uribe would like to run for the mayor of Bogota. The lust of power is unstoppable. But fortunately, Uribe has chosen to come to Georgetown. I hope he can stay longer to let his successor rule without his shadow.
Russians are not that lucky. Mr. Putin found a better way to stick to power. In countries without a strong rule of law, positions in the government doesn't necessarily represent power. Deng Xiaoping ruled China as a Vice Premier, and after his semi-retirement, as the Chairman of Military Commission. But his influence was paramount, and different factions in the government needed to seek his approval to gain an upper hand. In Russia, Putin re-interpret the power distribution between the President and the Prime Minister. People are speculating whether he will return to the office after 2012, but it seems that being Prime Minister can prolong his influence forever.
But Uribe and Putin are not dictators. They were elected, and they are genuinely popular. What about the dictators without democratic mandate? Being in power can certainly give them more time to collect wealth as what many African leaders did. But when you are rich enough, why not leave the office and take their time to enjoy those wealth?
I think fear is the best reason to explain. Without the rule of law, there is no protection of former leaders. They can have immunity for life (Mr. Nazarbayev did that), but that can be revoked. They cannot even trust their proteges, because there isn't a lack of examples of betrayal. For leaders of rogue states like Bashir from Sudan, there's one more reason to stay put. As Professor Vreeland said, the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court only strengthened their determination to stay in power for fear of being extradited by their successors. Gripping the power in their hands is the only way to prevent retribution. Passing power to their children can ensure that their tombs and legacies will be properly guarded.
But there are examples that show us transfer of power is possible without a liberal democratic system. Since 1980s, Chinese leadership has adopted the rule of retirement. For different levels of officials, there is a mandatory retirement age, up to 68 years old for politburo members. The welfare is luxurious, with private cars and private secretaries funded by taxpayers. Although the previous leaders keep their influence to some extent, meddling is rare. Political struggle exists, but no shots have been directed to retired top leaders. Apparently, China is not a good example of rule of law, but the ruling party can be run with proper self-regulation to ensure the continual survival of the party. This is certainly an interesting case to study. For Fidel, Chinese leaders are no longer revolutionaries. I think they wouldn't mind as long as there are golf courts for them to enjoy their lives.
July 2, 2010
Russian spies in New York suburb? Nothing is too strange to believe.
Obviously, several Russian spies, who pretend to be normal American families, were arrested recently. This happened right after President Medvedev's visit. The Russian President and President Obama were still in Canada for a G8/G20 summit. The reaction from the Russian government is noticeably silent.
This event is significant not only because this reminds of us the spy war between these two Cold War nemeses. It raises a lot of questions because people are wondering what kind of intelligence they can collect. It seems what they can learn from their presence in the United States is not more than what we can find on the internet. So why on earth did Russia keep those spies? Why was this ring broken at this particular moment when the US-Russia relations has just started a reset? There could be two scenarios.
First, some hawks in the U.S. intelligence community wanted to embarrass the Russian President and strangle the recent chemistry between those two countries. It is known that those alleged Russian families have been under CIA surveillance for quite some time. Why did they arrest them right now, right after the two presidents had their nice hamburgers in Rosslyn? After watching several U.S. TV shows, I have learned that how hawkish the generals in the Joint Chiefs can be, and how they tend to snub the judgment of the politicians (like what General McChrystal did). I can imagine the same situation in the intelligence community. This can explain a lot.
Second, a more daring guess was made by a Russian media. They claimed that those spies were actually abandoned by the Russian government. The Russians gave their information to the U.S. as a gift of the better attitude towards them. For them, they started to realize how useless they were and they had been thinking about getting rid of them. Keeping their mouth shut requires the Russian government, who was hit by the global slowdown, to pay them in U.S. dollars. Probably it's time to end this endless and meaningless operation. Considering the recent behavior of the more pragmatic President Medvedev, this doesn't sound that implausible after all.
Anyway, this story sounds very weird. The truth, I am afraid, won't be revealed to us, the general public, before long.
This event is significant not only because this reminds of us the spy war between these two Cold War nemeses. It raises a lot of questions because people are wondering what kind of intelligence they can collect. It seems what they can learn from their presence in the United States is not more than what we can find on the internet. So why on earth did Russia keep those spies? Why was this ring broken at this particular moment when the US-Russia relations has just started a reset? There could be two scenarios.
First, some hawks in the U.S. intelligence community wanted to embarrass the Russian President and strangle the recent chemistry between those two countries. It is known that those alleged Russian families have been under CIA surveillance for quite some time. Why did they arrest them right now, right after the two presidents had their nice hamburgers in Rosslyn? After watching several U.S. TV shows, I have learned that how hawkish the generals in the Joint Chiefs can be, and how they tend to snub the judgment of the politicians (like what General McChrystal did). I can imagine the same situation in the intelligence community. This can explain a lot.
Second, a more daring guess was made by a Russian media. They claimed that those spies were actually abandoned by the Russian government. The Russians gave their information to the U.S. as a gift of the better attitude towards them. For them, they started to realize how useless they were and they had been thinking about getting rid of them. Keeping their mouth shut requires the Russian government, who was hit by the global slowdown, to pay them in U.S. dollars. Probably it's time to end this endless and meaningless operation. Considering the recent behavior of the more pragmatic President Medvedev, this doesn't sound that implausible after all.
Anyway, this story sounds very weird. The truth, I am afraid, won't be revealed to us, the general public, before long.
September 20, 2009
End of the Star War?
Obama administration finally scrapped the plan to install anti-missile defense system in Eastern Europe. The plan was put forward by the previous administration, which they claimed to be a precaution to potential Iranian missile threat, but actually stirred Russian government's strong objection.
Some politicians and analysts voiced their concerns. They believe this move, clearly aiming to appease Russia before Obama's meeting with Pres. Medvedev in a few days, is a damaging precedent. The growing-aggresive Russian government will certainly be encouraged to take a more hawkish and less cooperative foreign policy. Moreover, this will anger Poland and Czech Republic, indicating U.S. will abandon their interests whenever necessary.
I applaude this move, because this serves the best interests of the United States, Eastern European countries and the international community.
The plan was based on a non-existent Iranian threat to Europe. Iran's long-distance missile technology still has a long way to go, and whether he wants to threaten Europe is also disputable. But what we know is this installment will certainly make Russians angry. Of course, Russian's assertion of sphere of influence in Eastern Europe is objectionable, but showing off power in front of Russia's front door is not a good way to quell Russian's growing ambition, but to stimulate it.
Realists believe the states will always ask for more if they are given what they want. That was possibly true during the time of Cuban Missile Crisis, but whether it would be the case now is questionable. No longer a superpower, Russia understands his capability and limitless demand wouldn't help his dream of reemergence. On the contrary, Obama administration's new plan strips Russia of his excuse of non-cooperation. Russia now will face a massive pressure from international community to work with other countries in forcing Iran to terminate its nuclear program. It also weakens the popular support of hawkish foreign policy in Russia. This is not a surrender of power, but a correction of a non-starter in the first place.
On the other hand, this plan doesn't mean that U.S. forsakes its right to install any missile system in Eastern Europe in the future if necessary. And military believes the new plan will work more efficiently.
We should also remember the fact that Polish and Czech governments and public didn't like that plan proposed by the Bush administration at first. The high cost and a clear provocation to Russia is hurtful to both of them. The implication on the relations with those two countries won't be so distrastrous as many predict.
Flexibility in foreign policy is always important. Setting too many things as non-negotiable would hurt the foreign policy-making process and the result is unlikely to be pleasing. Being tough will never bring an ambitious Russian back to the table, so why not try something new? The end of the star war is a good news for everyone.
Some politicians and analysts voiced their concerns. They believe this move, clearly aiming to appease Russia before Obama's meeting with Pres. Medvedev in a few days, is a damaging precedent. The growing-aggresive Russian government will certainly be encouraged to take a more hawkish and less cooperative foreign policy. Moreover, this will anger Poland and Czech Republic, indicating U.S. will abandon their interests whenever necessary.
I applaude this move, because this serves the best interests of the United States, Eastern European countries and the international community.
The plan was based on a non-existent Iranian threat to Europe. Iran's long-distance missile technology still has a long way to go, and whether he wants to threaten Europe is also disputable. But what we know is this installment will certainly make Russians angry. Of course, Russian's assertion of sphere of influence in Eastern Europe is objectionable, but showing off power in front of Russia's front door is not a good way to quell Russian's growing ambition, but to stimulate it.
Realists believe the states will always ask for more if they are given what they want. That was possibly true during the time of Cuban Missile Crisis, but whether it would be the case now is questionable. No longer a superpower, Russia understands his capability and limitless demand wouldn't help his dream of reemergence. On the contrary, Obama administration's new plan strips Russia of his excuse of non-cooperation. Russia now will face a massive pressure from international community to work with other countries in forcing Iran to terminate its nuclear program. It also weakens the popular support of hawkish foreign policy in Russia. This is not a surrender of power, but a correction of a non-starter in the first place.
On the other hand, this plan doesn't mean that U.S. forsakes its right to install any missile system in Eastern Europe in the future if necessary. And military believes the new plan will work more efficiently.
We should also remember the fact that Polish and Czech governments and public didn't like that plan proposed by the Bush administration at first. The high cost and a clear provocation to Russia is hurtful to both of them. The implication on the relations with those two countries won't be so distrastrous as many predict.
Flexibility in foreign policy is always important. Setting too many things as non-negotiable would hurt the foreign policy-making process and the result is unlikely to be pleasing. Being tough will never bring an ambitious Russian back to the table, so why not try something new? The end of the star war is a good news for everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
