NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi Everyone,

Last night I took some time to write up a proposition for the UN on a topic that is important to me. Here it is:

The United Nations,

NOTING the significant differences in all its many member nations

CONSIDERING the lack of attention given to the subject of our many and diverse languages

APPALLED at the news of linguistic persecution occurring within member nations' borders

RECOGNIZING the benefits of diversity within the world's population and the population within each nation's borders

IN THE HOPES TO
- improve relations between linguistic groups within and beyond national borders
- export every member nation's culture and ideas through a classic, time-tested method
- facilitate interaction among the peoples of the world
- improve the quality of education for all
- eliminate linguistic related prejudice and ignorance
- bring awareness of modern linguistic theory to the population at large

AWARE of the existence of large amounts of peer reviewed research establishing the positive effects of a Multi-Lingual education including the improvement of various cognitive abilities such as:
i- hightened spatial awareness
ii- improved abilities to "multi-task"
iii-overall improvement in communicative abilities in the mother-tongue

BELIEVING that the benefits of a multi-lingual society far outweigh the monetary costs

PROMOTING the International exchange of educators and the benefits of Academic Exchange resulting from a multi-lingual faculty

CONVINCED that economic boosts will result from the creation of a Language Education academic field

HEREBY MANDATES:

I) That each nation's primary educational curriculum include the mandatory instruction of a second language (to be decided by whichever means deemed appropriate by the enacting nation)

II) That each nations secondary educational curriculum include the mandatory instruction of TWO additional languages to be chosen by the student (each student should be allowed a choice of two out of at least four or more languages, the selection of which is to be decided by whichever means deemed appropriate by the enacting nation)

III) That each nation's primary, secondary, and higher educational curricula include the mandatory instruction of linguistic topics including but not limited to:
a) Socio-linguistics
b) Historical Linguistics
c) Psycho-linguistics
d) World Language Typology and Universals

IV) That each government funded university with a member nation provide a fully funded "Study Abroad" program and "Student Exchange" program in conjuction with their Language program

V) That each nation form a government body whose purpose is to protect, through monetary or any other means, endangered minority languages especially those languages of indigenous peoples and promote the dissemination of all minority languages of said nation

VI) That, in the event that an enacting nation declares any one language as being the "official" language or "national" language:
a) no citizen shall be barred from the proceedings of his government or forfeit any rights for lack of communicative ability in that "official" language
b) no other language be banned in any form
c) the government must provide free and accessible instruction in that language for all immigrants and citizens of minority language groups

VII) That the United Nation provide Educational and Financial support toward the achievement of these mandates through a newly created body consisting of representatives from each nation's linguistic groups: the United Nations Center for Language Education (UNCLE)

It's a bit long, and unfortunately I already submitted it before I realized that I should have posted it here first for your feedback, but I certainly would like some feedback from everyone to see what I should modify in case this version doesn't make it up to the queue.

I realize that this proposal might be controversial, but I'm more interested in close calls than landslide victories.

This seems a relatively well-written proposal, that is completely illegal for contradicting the "UN Educational Aid Act" resolution passed yesterday.

To get around this, you'd have to soften it from "MANDATES" to "RECOMMENDS" or something.

EDIT: And this brings blanket opposition from us: "b) no other language be banned in any form". Our nationals will speak in the language we tell them to, no other.

I think it's a wonderful idea, but some changes will have to be made before it can work.

Your mandates are too strong. Sadly, educational Resolutions are difficult to pass when they specifically set out to reform or add to each nations' systems. While Norderia already has much of what this Resolution mandates, and would not mind supporting it, Norderia only counts for 3 votes in this Assembly.

There is also the possibility that the recently passed UN Education Aid thing that Gruenberg wrote could block this. I'm not sure, entirely.

I especially like Clause 6, so if it happens that this proposal won't fly, I would take that Clause and build a proposal out of it, giving it a kind of freedom of language in politics, that says more or less what Clause 6 says -- that no language can be banned, and nobody refused because they don't speak the official language.

Welcome to the UN, I look forward to working with you.

This seems a relatively well-written proposal, that is completely illegal for contradicting the "UN Educational Aid Act" resolution passed yesterday.

To get around this, you'd have to soften it from "MANDATES" to "RECOMMENDS" or something.


Yeah, you're right, I did't take into account item 6 on "UN Educational Aid Act" but a small change should fix it...


EDIT: And this brings blanket opposition from us: "b) no other language be banned in any form". Our nationals will speak in the language we tell them to, no other.

Unfortunately, you are not alone in feeling that way. That's why with the help of like-minded UN member nations, the ratification of this act should help you see the grevious error of your ways. ;)

Unfortunately, you are not alone in feeling that way. That's why with the help of like-minded UN member nations, the ratification of this act should help you see the grevious error of your ways.
No, we'll just resign, and then toss out the other "rights" resolutions we're currently bound by. Such progress.

National languages are a subject for national legislation. That's why they're called...national languages. International legislation should stick to international affairs.

Don't be deterred, Purple Mountains. Just know that the people who want to will loophole out of it.

No, we'll just resign, and then toss out the other "rights" resolutions we're currently bound by. Such progress.

National languages are a subject for national legislation. That's why they're called...national languages. International legislation should stick to international affairs.

That's why the act does not deny nation's right to choose a national language.

However, depriving a minority language group their right to speak their native language, the language they may have learned from child-hood, the language of their ancestors seems like a civil rights issue to me.

Denying minorities their right to communicate with their grandparents or the ability to read books and letters written by their forefathers in their native tongue certainly seems like a human rights issue to me

Banning a language, one that is native to a region, is equivalent to erasing the speakers' history and eliminating their identity. Maybe this is something certain governments wish to do, but it does not bode well for those whose tongues are essentially being cut out.

The list of reasons why banning a language is a violation of human rights goes on and on.

I don't deny that there are benefits to have a nation's populace be relatively fluent in a single, state-endorsed language, but to force that populace to be monolingual, especially IF IT IS NOT ALREADY, is counter-productive and a security risk* and certainly an infrigement on civil rights which I think falls directly on the legislative doorstep of the UN.

*Let me put it this way: The field of espionage and the armed forces both benefit greatly if they have access to a population of native speakers of neighboring languages. Eliminating native speakers of an "enemy-nation's" language cannot be supplemented by extensive language training in adulthood. Very few human beings can learn a foreign language natively passed the average age of 12. Banning languages of your neighboring nations is thus a very real security risk.

This is a great idea. I don't know about the possible or impossible mandate for I and II, but it seems to me you can keep it at least for IV.

Even if we support this proposal, we are afraid by clause V, it's beautiful but we fear not pretty pragmatical:

V) That each nation form a government body whose purpose is to protect, through monetary or any other means, endangered minority languages especially those languages of indigenous peoples and promote the dissemination of all minority languages of said nation

Lets take an example in our literature, where a nation called India has more than 1600 mother tongues, with more than 400 of them teach in school and more than 20 state-official languages (as India is a federal nation). In this same imaginary world, it's widely estimated than around 25 languages disappear every year (mainly in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea).

We would like to like very much clause V, but sadly it seems to us that many languages will continue to die and nothing can prevent that. May we instead invite the author to include in his/her proposal something to improve the collect of characteristics, literature, songs, stories… of those disappearing languages.

as this stands its micromanagement so we could never support it.

what i would suggest is to concentrate on the preservation of languages rather than force a new agenda onto every school in the NSUN.

Kirisubans already speak english as well as their mother tongue, as my honourable husband already knows and our many immigrants are expected to know at least one of these languages if they want to remain in the Empire. they already have the freedom to use their own languages but the affairs of state are carried out in english and kirisuban.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero
Deputy ambassador for the Empire of Kirisubo

We would like to like very much clause V, but sadly it seems to us that many languages will continue to die and nothing can prevent that. May we instead invite the author to include in his/her proposal something to improve the collect of characteristics, literature, songs, stories… of those disappearing languages.

I don't claim that we can protect every endangered or moribund language. By "protect" I mean to include the preservation of the language through protecting the existing writings and other recorded material both audio and in print, and also by funding and creating new material, of all media, of the endangered language in the unfortunate case where the language falls beyond our ability to keep it alive.

*Let me put it this way: The field of espionage and the armed forces both benefit greatly if they have access to a population of native speakers of neighboring languages. Eliminating native speakers of an "enemy-nation's" language cannot be supplemented by extensive language training in adulthood. Very few human beings can learn a foreign language natively passed the average age of 12. Banning languages of your neighboring nations is thus a very real security risk.

I agree about the security factor. That's why Razat already has multilingual training in school. But we disagree about it being the UN's business.

I agree about the security factor. That's why Razat already has multilingual training in school. But we disagree about it being the UN's business.

Your multilingual training schools are not the UN's business, but do you disagree that banning languages is a civil rights issue? And if so, do you disagree that civil rights issues are the UN's business?

Your multilingual training schools are not the UN's business, but do you disagree that banning languages is a civil rights issue? And if so, do you disagree that civil rights issues are the UN's business?

Frankly, we don't really care about "civil rights". We're surrounded by nations that don't like us, for whatever reason, and civil rights have to take a back seat to national security. We think the UN should focus on international matters and let each nation deal with their own internal matters like "civil rights", as they see fit.

Frankly, we don't really care about "civil rights". We're surrounded by nations that don't like us, for whatever reason, and civil rights have to take a back seat to national security. We think the UN should focus on international matters and let each nation deal with their own internal matters like "civil rights", as they see fit.

Well then I strongly recommend removing yourself from the UN as it seems to be doing you very little good with all its current resolutions concerning civil rights. For example, to name a few, look at the following resolutions that your country already abides by as a UN member:

End slavery
Sexual Freedom
Keep The World Disease-Free!
Stop privacy intrusion
CHILD LABOR
Religious Tolerance
'RBH' Replacement
Fair trial
Outlaw Pedophilia
The Child Protection Act

And that's only the first 5 pages of proposals passed by the UN. If you claim that the UN should allow each nation to deal with "civil rights" issues, why are you not actively repealing the myriad of resolutions focusing on these civil rights which are currently active? It would be much easier if you simply resign your post as a member nation and live happily ever after.

Well then I strongly recommend removing yourself from the UN as it seems to be doing you very little good with all its current resolutions concerning civil rights. For example, to name a few, look at the following resolutions that your country already abides by as a UN member:

*snips list of resolutions*

And that's only the first 5 pages of proposals passed by the UN. If you claim that the UN should allow each nation to deal with "civil rights" issues, why are you not actively repealing the myriad of resolutions focusing on these civil rights which are currently active? It would be much easier if you simply resign your post as a member nation and live happily ever after.

We haven't been in the UN that long, and it's been even shorter that we've had enough endorsements to repeal any of these oppressive resolutions. Also, our current priority is to prevent anymore oppressive "civil rights" resolutions. We'll get around to proposing repeals when we can.

As for resigning, we'd love to resign and undo the damage done by the UN, but regional obligations make that impossible at this time.

Great, another proposal that would cause the UN to micromanage our nation's educational systems. The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites opposes this proposal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

III) That each nation's primary, secondary, and higher educational curricula include the mandatory instruction of linguistic topics including but not limited to:
a) Socio-linguistics
b) Historical Linguistics
c) Psycho-linguistics
d) World Language Typology and Universals
Do you really feel that linguistics is an appropriate subject for sixth graders? It seems that it would have to simplified to such an extent as to make it a waste of time. More generally, while I see the value in all people speaking a few languages, why is it necessary that everyone be well-versed in principles of linguistics?

One other concern:
I) That each nation's primary educational curriculum include the mandatory instruction of a second language (to be decided by whichever means deemed appropriate by the enacting nation)

II) That each nations secondary educational curriculum include the mandatory instruction of TWO additional languages to be chosen by the student (each student should be allowed a choice of two out of at least four or more languages, the selection of which is to be decided by whichever means deemed appropriate by the enacting nation)
I'm by no means a linguist, but it is my understanding that it is far easier to gain fluency in a language that is taught from early childhood. It therefore seems that the best route would be to (a) teach one language from primary school onward or (b) teach two languages from primary school onwards, but not (c) teach one language starting in primary school and then add a second one on halfway through in secondary school. It's your Resolution, of course, but I'd suggest the following: the UN recommends that one language be mandatory from primary school, and that schools also provide students and/or their parents the option of studying a second additional langauge, also starting in primary school.

Overall, though, Myocardia likes the spirit and much of the content of this Resolution.

With friendship,
Jeremiah Dodge
Ambassador to the United Nations
Scientific Republic of Myocardia

Do you really feel that linguistics is an appropriate subject for sixth graders? It seems that it would have to simplified to such an extent as to make it a waste of time. More generally, while I see the value in all people speaking a few languages, why is it necessary that everyone be well-versed in principles of linguistics?


Of course I don't intend for sixth graders to be able to tell me what Broca's area does. But there are certain elements of language science that I feel would benefit the public. For example; awareness that speaking "with an accent" does not imply ignorance, or that language inevitably changes and the language you are speaking now is very different from the language that was spoken two hundred years ago, and consequently that "good writing" and ultimately good communication skills do not necessarly result from following ridiculous rules like "don't split an infinitive" or "don't end a sentence with a preposition."

These Linguistic elements don't deserve their own particular subject in primary schools but should be integrated into the standard Language and Literature curricula common to most Nations' education curricula


One other concern:

I'm by no means a linguist, but it is my understanding that it is far easier to gain fluency in a language that is taught from early childhood. It therefore seems that the best route would be to (a) teach one language from primary school onward or (b) teach two languages from primary school onwards, but not (c) teach one language starting in primary school and then add a second one on halfway through in secondary school.

While it is true that native fluency in a second language is most likely to be achieved when that language is introduced at an early age, it has also been shown that young children exhibit much more difficulty learning more than one additional language in a school environment (remarkably, they do fine learning a third or even fourth language in the home, speaking with relatives or friends, there's just something about being tought a language which is only used at school which limits young children's abilities to just one). Therefore, it is actually counter-productive to overload young children with a second language in a school environment at such a young age.

HOWEVER, young adults, age 12-21 actually have the ability to learn a language faster and achieve a high level of fluency in much shorter time even when learning more than one second language. Though the chances of them learning either new language fluently is diminished (though not impossible, especially if they already speak two or three languages fluently) it is still a worthwhile endeavor and not above a young adult's capability to take on the extra language.


It's your Resolution, of course, but I'd suggest the following: the UN recommends that one language be mandatory from primary school, and that schools also provide students and/or their parents the option of studying a second additional langauge, also starting in primary school.


This is a pretty good suggestion though, specifically since it simplifies things for everyone.

We find it ironic that a proposal on "language education" is being put forth by a nation that can't spell "purple." They might want to tackle their own problems with language education before addressing the rest of the world's.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We find it ironic that a proposal on "language education" is being put forth by a nation that can't spell "purple." They might want to tackle their own problems with language education before addressing the rest of the world's.


We find it even more ironic that a nation who can't spell their own proper name, Cluychstan by the way, would harangue another nation for misspelling theirs.

I'll have you know that the word Purlple, though orthographically similar to the word for the color purlpe, which is spelled 'purple' and pronounced -purpel- is not related to it in any way, etymologically or otherwise.

The word "Purlple" in the name of our great nation "Purlple Mountains" is a proper name whose origin known only to its founding father (and his friends and close relatives). And for your information, "Purlple" is pronounced -blueish- and sometimes spelled Pruble

These attacks (you can't spell X, therefore you are dumb) are exactly what my proposal is attempting to mediate.

I really like the idea, but I can understand why some might object to specific aspects.

The Preamble and stated aims are excellent, and should be applauded.


HEREBY MANDATES:

I) That each nation's primary educational curriculum include the mandatory instruction of a second language (to be decided by whichever means deemed appropriate by the enacting nation)


No objection from us there. (Languages are already an important part of the primary education system in Ariddian, since [most] children are taught all three national languages - French, English and Wymgani, the language of Indigenous Ariddians - from infancy, and at least one foreign language from a very young age.)


II) That each nations secondary educational curriculum include the mandatory instruction of TWO additional languages to be chosen by the student (each student should be allowed a choice of two out of at least four or more languages, the selection of which is to be decided by whichever means deemed appropriate by the enacting nation)


Why not. Although this may be difficult to implement in some countries if there's a lack of teachers in a large enough number of foreign languages.


III) That each nation's primary, secondary, and higher educational curricula include the mandatory instruction of linguistic topics including but not limited to:
a) Socio-linguistics
b) Historical Linguistics
c) Psycho-linguistics
d) World Language Typology and Universals


Since you seem to mean this in a very basic sense at primary school level, this has our tentative support. Although one may question the rationale of imposing presumably fairly advanced linguistics on all students in higher education. While it is an important field, it would be understandable for some students to be more concerned with other, equally important subjects. Perhaps mandatory linguistics should be limited to primary and secondary school, and simply encouraged at the level of higher education?


IV) That each government funded university with a member nation provide a fully funded "Study Abroad" program and "Student Exchange" program in conjuction with their Language program


*nods* Again, though, this could be seen on laying a very heavy emphasis on one particular field of study.


V) That each nation form a government body whose purpose is to protect, through monetary or any other means, endangered minority languages especially those languages of indigenous peoples and promote the dissemination of all minority languages of said nation


The teaching of a nation's Indigenous people(s)' language(s) to all the nation's children is a fundamentally good idea, yes. But I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "promote the dissemination of all minority languages of said nation". Would that include the languages of all immigrant minority communities? What exactly would "promoting their dissemination" entail?


VI) That, in the event that an enacting nation declares any one language as being the "official" language or "national" language:
a) no citizen shall be barred from the proceedings of his government or forfeit any rights for lack of communicative ability in that "official" language


"Any rights" is very vague, and clearly open to abuse.


c) the government must provide free and accessible instruction in that language for all immigrants and citizens of minority language groups


Very difficult to implement. If someone immigrates from a tiny indigenous community of another nation, one with a language spoken by, say, 150 people, this resolution would enable them to demand instruction in their native tongue. How is the government supposed to provide that?


VII) That the United Nation provide Educational and Financial support toward the achievement of these mandates through a newly created body consisting of representatives from each nation's linguistic groups: the United Nations Center for Language Education (UNCLE)

This we fully support.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

We find it even more ironic that a nation who can't spell their own proper name, Cluychstan by the way, would harangue another nation for misspelling theirs.

OOC: WTF? You fail at Gaelic.

Oh, and...

I'll have you know that the word Purlple, though orthographically similar to the word for the color purlpe, which is spelled 'purple' and pronounced -purpel- is not related to it in any way, etymologically or otherwise.

This just boggles the mind.

I) That each nation's primary educational curriculum include the mandatory instruction of a second language (to be decided by whichever means deemed appropriate by the enacting nation)
This is not a good plan at all. My nation has almost only english with a few groups of people from other languages scattered around most of which only use that language in there home. So the primary advantage people have if they learn another language is that they can go to other countries more easily. I do not understand why I need to be training my people to move away.


II) That each nations secondary educational curriculum include the mandatory instruction of TWO additional languages to be chosen by the student (each student should be allowed a choice of two out of at least four or more languages, the selection of which is to be decided by whichever means deemed appropriate by the enacting nation)

uhh.. we don't need to even let people have secondary education in the UN yet. (of course I subsidize mine alot but still) This does not work very well at all either ofr the same reasons. This is extremly time consuming and wastefull. I actualy do not even have a curriculum for my universitys. I subsidze them if they seem well done and people only go to those universitys if they have a good curiculum.


III) That each nation's primary, secondary, and higher educational curricula include the mandatory instruction of linguistic topics including but not limited to:
a) Socio-linguistics
b) Historical Linguistics
c) Psycho-linguistics
d) World Language Typology and Universals

I'd love to have all my students know this. But I belive that students should work on something that is going to be important to there life.If you are going to become a linguist you should learn these. But if you are going to be an enginer I don't see the importance of knowing something like Historical Linguistics.

*yawn* I should finish getting annoyed with this proposal later. Anyway I hate it.

That's why the act does not deny nation's right to choose a national language.

However, depriving a minority language group their right to speak their native language, the language they may have learned from child-hood, the language of their ancestors seems like a civil rights issue to me.

Denying minorities their right to communicate with their grandparents or the ability to read books and letters written by their forefathers in their native tongue certainly seems like a human rights issue to me

Banning a language, one that is native to a region, is equivalent to erasing the speakers' history and eliminating their identity. Maybe this is something certain governments wish to do, but it does not bode well for those whose tongues are essentially being cut out.

The list of reasons why banning a language is a violation of human rights goes on and on.

I don't deny that there are benefits to have a nation's populace be relatively fluent in a single, state-endorsed language, but to force that populace to be monolingual, especially IF IT IS NOT ALREADY, is counter-productive and a security risk* and certainly an infrigement on civil rights which I think falls directly on the legislative doorstep of the UN.

Where exactly are you getting this idea that civil rights are an appropriate subject for the UN to deal with? And what's more relevant, where did you get the idea that it's appropriate for you to go messing around in everyone else's education system?

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Where exactly are you getting this idea that civil rights are an appropriate subject for the UN to deal with? And what's more relevant, where did you get the idea that it's appropriate for you to go messing around in everyone else's education system?

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

The right for a woman and a woman or a man and a woman or a woman and an alien from the Eagle Nebula to have carnal relations is a civil right. A right such as this is protected by the UN resolution #7

The right for two people to converse about what they are going to cook for dinner tonigh without that conversation being recorded by the government is also a civil right. That's covered under UN resolution #10

The right for a child to grow up in a clean and healthy environment, without the risk of bodily harm due to unecessary dangers is also a civil rights issue. This one proclaimed by UN resolution #14

I don't have the time or the patience to continue through all of the currently enacting UN resolutions that were voted upon and passed with the interest of civil rights in mind. A quick scan throught should provide more than enough evidence for you.

Now, with regards to "messing with everyone else's education system": We live in a very interconnected world. In order for people of different nations to get along it would certainly help us all to have a common ground built upon our common experiences. Education of our children is the best route to form this common ground. The Education Reforms passed by the UN should strive to make the world a better place in at least this respect. I believe that this proposal does just that.

A right such as this is protected by the UN resolution #7
Which should be repealed.
That's covered under UN resolution #10
Which should be repealed.
This one proclaimed by UN resolution #14
Which should be repealed.

That the UN has in the past passed resolutions on these things does not mean it was right to do so, or that it should do so again. When it passed Promotion of Solar Panels, it motioned to ban all use of fossil fuels in ten years. I think you'd agree that was a mistake, and hence it was good that it was repealed, and hasn't been replaced.

Equally, do you think the removal of DVD regions is a valuable use of UN time? I don't...but it passed Resolution #5. What about passing meaningless essay-spiels that do nothing? Productive? No. Found in Resolution #58? Yes.

A quick scan throught should provide more than enough evidence for you.
It would provide evidence that the UN has in the past seen fit to legislate on civil rights. It does not follow, however, that that translates into automatic evidence that such was right, or appropriate, or that the UN should continue to do so.

Now, with regards to "messing with everyone else's education system": We live in a very interconnected world. In order for people of different nations to get along it would certainly help us all to have a common ground built upon our common experiences. Education of our children is the best route to form this common ground. The Education Reforms passed by the UN should strive to make the world a better place in at least this respect. I believe that this proposal does just that.
Well, you're a fan of precedent:

In resolution #171, "UN Educational Aid Act", the UN voted (by an 83% majority) that nations had the right to decide on how to run their own education systems. Therefore, wouldn't it follow that we should respect this UN precedent in this proposal too?



Moving on, I think this proposal has two aspects. The educational part is ok, so long as it's softened to a recommendation or similar. The part about national languages - whilst I disagree with it - would stand a better chance on its own, as part of a proposal (probably in the Furtherment of Democracy category) devoted to the subject.

Purlple Mountains: You've fallen right into one of the greatest debates within the UN forum, namely over whether civil rights are a legitimate topic for the UN to discuss. People on both sides are deeply entrenched in their positions. Don't expect to change many minds on this matter.

However, the General Assembly is a very different matter. By and large, they'll pass nearly everything in the Human Rights category, regardless of whether the resolution is about Rights at all. Don't lose heart just because some of the sovereigntists think every human rights resolution should be repealed.

That said, I fully agree with Ariddia regarding further education. A student studying languages could well do with courses on linguistics. A student studying environmental science may well be interested in linguistics, but that does not mean they should be forced to study it given that it may have little bearing on their field of research.
To say nothing of technical colleges.

OOC: I'm going to go into infomaniac mode now. I want to know what everyone feels the point of the UN is. Personally, I feel its purpose is to protect people from their governments, really. So, civil rights, basically. I want to know what others think. I would prefer this to not be a threadjacking, so don't just speak up to say this, put it on the side of the current debate, please. And, don't make it too long or complex. Keep it to the simplest terms possible, please.

IC: "We of the Commonwealth agree that linguistics should not be mandated. Education should be held to a certain level, but learning latin isn't goin to do, say, a plumber, any good, I should think. As such, we are against this proposal."

OOC: Even my more fluffy RL self doesn't think the UN should be protecting people "from their governments". Nor can it, when it is the government that chooses whether it's in the UN or not! The UN should be collaboration in international affairs...such as the exchange program mentioned here.

And we once again point out that languages and linguistics cannot be mandated, owing to clause 6 of "UN Educational Aid Act".

Hi Everyone,

Last night I took some time to write up a proposition for the UN on a topic that is important to me. Here it is:



Certain languages get focused upon much more than others as some go extinct. To preserve the mother tongue of many first nation cultures that continue to be decimated, I was wondering if you could add a line about this problem. Also, I think you might find that languages spoken by aggressive over-populating technocratic culture may, unfortunately, be more popular than others. This could pose a problem. Just because the options are there doesn't mean that people will make a wise choice -- they may, in fact, do otherwise.

And we once again point out that languages and linguistics cannot be mandated, owing to clause 6 of "UN Educational Aid Act".I'd like to point out they already were (at least partially).

resolution 89, section 9
"Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use & develop histories, languages, traditions, philosophies, writing systems & literatures, to designate and retain their own names for places & persons"

At any rate, I'm not convinced this proposal is neccessary, given the fact there is #89 dealing with indigenous peoples, and I'm sure there are others elsewhere.

1. That's about using a language, not having part of the public education system.
2. You can bring up Resolution #89 as much as you like; doesn't change the fact it does shit all.

2. You can bring up Resolution #89 as much as you like; doesn't change the fact it does shit all.In your opinion. Fact is it did impact on statistics, thus to say it does nothing is false. Secondly, it's "significant", so it does do something based upon it's strength. Also it does exactly what it says it does, irrespective of your beliefs otherwise.

I agree it doesn't affect public education (excluding education tailored for indigenous peoples). But then it was never meant to. It was meant to stop nations ignorantly saying "Our nationals will speak in the language we tell them to, no other."

I don't recall anyone electing you arbiter of all UN resolutions.

Elimination of Bio Weapons was Strong, wasn't it? And had an effect on statistics. Therefore, it banned bio weapons.

And thank you for agreeing with me that your resolution isn't relevant to my original statement.

And thank you for agreeing with me that your resolution isn't relevant to my original statement.Let's just clarify."And we once again point out that languages and linguistics cannot be mandated, owing to clause 6 of "UN Educational Aid Act"."and ...I'd like to point out they already were (at least partially).resolution 89, section 9
"Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use & develop histories, languages, traditions, philosophies, writing systems & literatures, to designate and retain their own names for places & persons"

When you said langages cannot be legislated upon, I merely pointed out this was not absolutely true. What is true is that they cannot be mandated upon in terms of education, because of the resolution you cited (however, there is an exception with #89 providing scope for education to be tailored towards indigenous peoples and their culture).

In summary, #89 is relevant, if only to demonstrate that the UN Educational Aid Act does not act as an absolute blocker for languages and lingustics, else it would be in conflict with Indigenous peoples, and thus be illegal. Since the UN Educational Aid Act has been passed, and has not been deemed illegal, this surely means it was either unnoticed by the UN gnomes, or is not as absolute as might be thought. Since the Gnomes see all and know all, we can only assume the later.

I was also pointing out that you can't stop your indigenous peoples talking whatever language they want, which you alluded to within your additional comment on the second post in this topic.

However, none of this is really relevant to the proposal. My main point, which should be discussed more than that going off topic is I'm pretty certain that other resolutions have covered some of the other sections (such as resolution #89 providing scope for education to be tailored for indigenous peoples, and taking their languages and customs into consideration), and of course (and far more broadly and more relevantly) the UN Educational Aid Act.

I'd like to commend Purlple Mountains for a well written draft that shows a great deal of promise for the future.

When you said langages cannot be legislated upon,
I didn't say that.

Yes, my wording was clumsy, but what I meant - I think you know I meant this - was that "languages [to be mandatory elements of the curriculum] cannot be mandated".

So we agree.

Or I thought we did...
In summary, #89 is relevant, if only to demonstrate that the UN Educational Aid Act does not act as an absolute blocker for languages and lingustics, else it would be in conflict with Indigenous peoples, and thus be illegal. Since the UN Educational Aid Act has been passed, and has not been deemed illegal, this surely means it was either unnoticed by the UN gnomes, or is not as absolute as might be thought. Since the Gnomes see all and know all, we can only assume the later.
No, we can actually read the fucking resolution.

"...subject to previous UN legislation still in effect..."

You're right, kinda, but for the wrong reasons.

Suffice it to say, elements of this proposal are illegal, elements are very good, and there's some other stuff too.

I didn't know exactly that was what you meant, but I can see that now, so I think we are saying exactly the same thing, in different ways.

I'll admit being too lazy to ever read, vote or debate UN Educational Aid Act, which might have helped. :)

Moving on....

We object to this proposal on two grounds.

First, the proposal completely ignores the principle, which we hold to be overriding, that educational opportunities should be tailored to the needs and abilities of the learners. For example, the notion that we should require our intellectually challenged students to waste their time trying to learn two foreign languages is, quite frankly, nonsense. Educators should be permitted, in consultation with the students concerned and other interested parties, to devise curricula which are responsive to needs and abilities, not dictated as some one-size-fits-all mandate by the NSUN.

We are also puzzled by the mandate that "each nation form a government body whose purpose is to protect, through monetary or any other means, endangered minority languages especially those languages of indigenous peoples and promote the dissemination of all minority languages of said nation". [Emphasis added.] If this is to mean that nations should spend their money trying to promote the use of languages, it ignores the fact that language is a social phenomenon, and that people will speak whatever language they find most useful in their lives. Trying to promote the use of any language, especially those spoken by small segments of a population, is a waste of effort and resources. We would wholeheartedly support an effort to preserve a record of endangered languages, but not trying to empty the ocean with a teacup by trying to promote their use.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

OOC: *poster hides under his desk from Gruenberg's attack on his admittedly naive opinion*

Thank you for responding to the question, though. No one else seemed to care. :(

I'd like to commend Purlple Mountains for a well written draft that shows a great deal of promise for the future.

Thank you very much Hirota. And thank you all who've posted so far. I'm grateful for the discussion on this topic as it has already pinpointed several ways I might adjust this proposal for resubmission.

We are also puzzled by the mandate that "each nation form a government body whose purpose is to protect, through monetary or any other means, endangered minority languages especially those languages of indigenous peoples and promote the dissemination of all minority languages of said nation". [Emphasis added.] If this is to mean that nations should spend their money trying to promote the use of languages, it ignores the fact that language is a social phenomenon, and that people will speak whatever language they find most useful in their lives. Trying to promote the use of any language, especially those spoken by small segments of a population, is a waste of effort and resources. We would wholeheartedly support an effort to preserve a record of endangered languages, but not trying to empty the ocean with a teacup by trying to promote their use.

I agree with everything said there. But I'd like to add that economicaly everyone speaking one language would be an amazing thing(translation and other such services cost money and RL canada is a perfect example of the problems of multiple languages) Though almost impossible practically. This resolution moves in the opposite dirrection of what I belive should be done.

The Wolf Guardians'] "We of the Commonwealth agree that linguistics should not be mandated. Education should be held to a certain level, but learning latin isn't goin to do, say, a plumber, any good, I should think. As such, we are against this proposal."

The goal of this proposal is not to teach plumbers latin. The goals are to

A) enrich the mind by implicitly (and in many ways subconciously) teaching the brain that there is more than one way to say this sentence.

B) Export other linguistic groups' culture to show young and old that there is no such thing as a primitive culture, or a primitive language.

C) Improve world relations by giving the populace of one nation the ability to communicate directly with the populace of another

D) Imporve International academic endeavors by increasing the chances that those academics will be able to understand each other.

If at the very least the plumber can communicate with his next door neighbor better, or feels comfortable visiting one single foreign country where they don't speak his mother-tounge, then the most basic goal of this proposal would be fulfilled.

The goal of this proposal is not to teach plumbers latin. The goals are to

A) enrich the mind by implicitly (and in many ways subconciously) teaching the brain that there is more than one way to say this sentence.

B) Export other linguistic groups' culture to show young and old that there is no such thing as a primitive culture, or a primitive language.

C) Improve world relations by giving the populace of one nation the ability to communicate directly with the populace of another

D) Imporve International academic endeavors by increasing the chances that those academics will be able to understand each other.

If at the very least the plumber can communicate with his next door neighbor better, or feels comfortable visiting one single foreign country where they don't speak his mother-tounge, then the most basic goal of this proposal would be fulfilled.
NO, the goal of this proposal is to micromanage UN member's educational systems.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

.... Also, I think you might find that languages spoken by aggressive over-populating technocratic culture may, unfortunately, be more popular than others. This could pose a problem.

I think it's perfectly alright for some languages to be more popular than others on the simple basis that the country of that language's origin is powerful in some way. Let the majority of the world's population learn that language. As long as they learn at least that other language they'll benifit in many ways.

However, the citizens of that country who already speak that language will also have more than one tongue to work with.

In order to avoid the case where the world's languages will disappear in favor of one or two 'powerful ones' I included section VI and added the clause which forces high-school-aged young adults to learn a third language.

First, the proposal completely ignores the principle, which we hold to be overriding, that educational opportunities should be tailored to the needs and abilities of the learners.

At what age can you begin tailoring to the needs and abilities of learners? If you don't attempt to teach six year olds Cluichstani, how are you going to know they're any good at it?

Another interesting point this brings up: The nation of Purlple mountains has recently discovered that an astonishingly high percentage of humans are what we have termed "exceptional language learners." (ELL) These are people who are able to learn a second language fluently even after the critical period (about 10-12 years old). These are people you read about in history books, members of the old king's courts who speak and write 12 languages fluently. Our modern world has put aside the need for these people (except in military purposes) However, these days, ELLs are almost always unknown EVEN TO THEMSELVES because of lack of language education. If you don't attempt to learn one or two foreign languages especially after you are 12 years old, how will you know that you have a gift for learning languages?


For example, the notion that we should require our intellectually challenged students to waste their time trying to learn two foreign languages is, quite frankly, nonsense. Educators should be permitted, in consultation with the students concerned and other interested parties, to devise curricula which are responsive to needs and abilities, not dictated as some one-size-fits-all mandate by the NSUN.

Though I'm confused by your terminology (intellectually challanged students?) I agree that there may be a benefit to fine-tuning your educational system in such a way. However, few people will allow their children to go their entire educational carreer without learning, at the very least, addition, multiplication, subtraction, and division. In this sense, math is tought to all, no matter whether they believe they are good at it or not. That level of basic math is mandatory in every single educational system I have encountered.

Why can it not be the same for learning a foreign language? Why can the whole world say "two plus two equals four" in their language but not in Tamil?

We are also puzzled by the mandate that "each nation form a government body whose purpose is to protect, through monetary or any other means, endangered minority languages especially those languages of indigenous peoples and promote the dissemination of all minority languages of said nation". [Emphasis added.]

If this is to mean that nations should spend their money trying to promote the use of languages, it ignores the fact that language is a social phenomenon, and that people will speak whatever language they find most useful in their lives.

I did not mean for this to imply that the institution would work hard to teach inner city youths the moribund language of a mountain side native tribe. I meant that, in order to preserve the language and culture of that native tribe, the institution would educate and provide resources for the young people of that native tribe (and the young people who live in proximity to that tribe) in learning and maintaining that tribe's language. This is especially necessary in cases where the majority language is encroaching into the culture not only because of normal societal pressures, but by a well-intentioned but ignorant government enforcing a unilateral support of one official or national language.

Trying to promote the use of any language, especially those spoken by small segments of a population, is a waste of effort and resources. We would wholeheartedly support an effort to preserve a record of endangered languages, but not trying to empty the ocean with a teacup by trying to promote their use.

Preserving an endangered language in text and recordings is admirable and useful. Preserving the actual language and it's speakers means so much more. I do not feel that it is a waste of effort and resources to save the history and a way of life for a people. This is especially true if those people would maintain their language on their own if it weren't for the encroachment of a foreign society.

NO, the goal of this proposal is to micromanage UN member's educational systems.

You say tomato I say tomato.

I agree with everything said there. But I'd like to add that economicaly everyone speaking one language would be an amazing thing(translation and other such services cost money and RL canada is a perfect example of the problems of multiple languages) Though almost impossible practically. This resolution moves in the opposite dirrection of what I belive should be done.

These are very common misconceptions. First of all, it is quite easy and quite possible to have a bilingual or multilingual populace. There are many such nations, large and small, that exist in such ways. In those nations, there is no need for translators because each member speaks the two or three or fourty of the nation's languages.

Second, translation services cost money, but from a larger perspective they also create jobs for linguistically talented individuals. But that's beside the point. With a stronger field of language education, you are bound to find someone in your office that will speak the language you need translated. You will always need translators when working with the people of other countries. This proposal would even eliminate the use of translators for that!

At what age can you begin tailoring to the needs and abilities of learners? If you don't attempt to teach six year olds Cluichstani, how are you going to know they're any good at it?

We begin tailoring to the needs and abilities of learners at the pre-school level. We provide psychological testing to help determine the abilities of the children. As they progress through school, we provide learning opportunities appropriate to their abilities and periodic reassessment. And we also challenge them to go beyond their perceived capability. We do not force them, as your proposal would do in many cases, to waste their time in learning activities that will not benefit them and will only bring frustration and distaste for learning.

Another interesting point this brings up: The nation of Purlple mountains has recently discovered that an astonishingly high percentage of humans are what we have termed "exceptional language learners." (ELL) These are people who are able to learn a second language fluently even after the critical period (about 10-12 years old). These are people you read about in history books, members of the old king's courts who speak and write 12 languages fluently. Our modern world has put aside the need for these people (except in military purposes) However, these days, ELLs are almost always unknown EVEN TO THEMSELVES because of lack of language education. If you don't attempt to learn one or two foreign languages especially after you are 12 years old, how will you know that you have a gift for learning languages?

Allow people to try. Let them discover their talents. But it doesn't take 12 years of trying to force-feed language learning on someone to discover that it's beyond his or her capabilities.


Though I'm confused by your terminology (intellectually challanged students?) I agree that there may be a benefit to fine-tuning your educational system in such a way. However, few people will allow their children to go their entire educational carreer without learning, at the very least, addition, multiplication, subtraction, and division. In this sense, math is tought to all, no matter whether they believe they are good at it or not. That level of basic math is mandatory in every single educational system I have encountered.

Why can it not be the same for learning a foreign language? Why can the whole world say "two plus two equals four" in their language but not in Tamil?

We're surprised that the representative seems unfamiliar with the term "intellectually challenged". We'll try some other, less respectful terms: mentally handicapped... learning impaired... not very bright. There is a substantial and significant difference between expending effort to teach such people essential life skills and forcing them to try to learn something that they cannot learn -- at least without exceptional effort -- and may never have occasion to use. Everyone has need to be able to add two plus two. Not everyone has a need to say that in Tamil, or Swahili, or Swedish, or English.

I did not mean for this to imply that the institution would work hard to teach inner city youths the moribund language of a mountain side native tribe. I meant that, in order to preserve the language and culture of that native tribe, the institution would educate and provide resources for the young people of that native tribe (and the young people who live in proximity to that tribe) in learning and maintaining that tribe's language. This is especially necessary in cases where the majority language is encroaching into the culture not only because of normal societal pressures, but by a well-intentioned but ignorant government enforcing a unilateral support of one official or national language.

Preserving a language is something much different than disseminating it.

Preserving an endangered language in text and recordings is admirable and useful. Preserving the actual language and it's speakers means so much more. I do not feel that it is a waste of effort and resources to save the history and a way of life for a people. This is especially true if those people would maintain their language on their own if it weren't for the encroachment of a foreign society.

The encroachment of a foreign society creates the need for accommodation to communication in that society. Your preservation effort won't change that. People will speak whatever language is necessary to conduct their affairs. Your resolution will not stop that encroachment and will not ameliorate that need. Language is not a holy icon; it is a mechanism of communication. While it serves that purpose effectively, it will be used, and learning of it should be supported. When it ceases to serve that purpose, it will become extinct. Before that happens, every effort should be made to preserve a sound and comprehensive record of it for later use by historians, anthropologists, and linguists. But this is far different than a wasteful effort to promote the unnatural and prevent the inevitable.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

If this is to mean that nations should spend their money trying to promote the use of languages, it ignores the fact that language is a social phenomenon, and that people will speak whatever language they find most useful in their lives. Trying to promote the use of any language, especially those spoken by small segments of a population, is a waste of effort and resources. We would wholeheartedly support an effort to preserve a record of endangered languages, but not trying to empty the ocean with a teacup by trying to promote their use.

That depends very much on your sense of priorities. We see the preservation of languages as intrinsically valuable; they are the lifeblood of a culture, and enrich mankind as a whole by expressing different ways of perceiving, understanding and relating to the world.

Helping to promote and preserve the use of a minority language can be done in many simple ways. For example, establishing schools in which minority children (most notably, Indigenous children) can receive education in their own language, or funding publications (especially children's books) in those languages.

(OC: In RL, this is actually done in New Zealand, to preserve/encourage the use of languages such as NZ Maori or Cooks Islands Maori [Cook Islanders being NZ citizens, and many of them living in NZ]).


But I'd like to add that economicaly everyone speaking one language would be an amazing thing

As long as they speak this "common tongue" in addition to their native language, and not instead of it, perhaps.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

You say tomato I say tomato.
No, I call a spade, a spade.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Forget what I said about the NSUN becoming more conservative. :rolleyes:

How is this any of the UN's business?!



NOTING the significant differences in all its many member nations
Agreed.


CONSIDERING the lack of attention given to the subject of our many and diverse languages
The problem?


RECOGNIZING the benefits of diversity within the world's population and the population within each nation's borders
We recognize no such benefits and hold very little value in "cultural diversity." Beyond certain 'minor' customs.

You're going to need a lot better of a reason then that!


IN THE HOPES TO
- improve relations between linguistic groups within and beyond national borders
- export every member nation's culture and ideas through a classic, time-tested method
- facilitate interaction among the peoples of the world
- improve the quality of education for all
- eliminate linguistic related prejudice and ignorance
- bring awareness of modern linguistic theory to the population at large
No thank you!


BELIEVING that the benefits of a multi-lingual society far outweigh the monetary costs
We fail too see any such benefits to our society from this.


HEREBY MANDATES:

I) That each nation's primary educational curriculum include the mandatory instruction of a second language (to be decided by whichever means deemed appropriate by the enacting nation)
NO WAY!


II) That each nations secondary educational curriculum include the mandatory instruction of TWO additional languages to be chosen by the student (each student should be allowed a choice of two out of at least four or more languages, the selection of which is to be decided by whichever means deemed appropriate by the enacting nation)
No thank you!


V) That each nation form a government body whose purpose is to protect, through monetary or any other means, endangered minority languages especially those languages of indigenous peoples and promote the dissemination of all minority languages of said nation
NO WAY!


VI) That, in the event that an enacting nation declares any one language as being the "official" language or "national" language:
a) no citizen shall be barred from the proceedings of his government or forfeit any rights for lack of communicative ability in that "official" language
b) no other language be banned in any form
c) the government must provide free and accessible instruction in that language for all immigrants and citizens of minority language groups
NO, no, and NOOOO!

Why can it not be the same for learning a foreign language? Why can the whole world say "two plus two equals four" in their language but not in Tamil?

Because they are a lot more likely to need to say it in their own language than in Tamil...
(unless Tamil is their native language, of course...).

No, I call a spade, a spade.

Well I call it a shovel!

Thank you very much Hirota. And thank you all who've posted so far. I'm grateful for the discussion on this topic as it has already pinpointed several ways I might adjust this proposal for resubmission.

You're welcome, but may we see a redraft soon?

Multilingualism is good. Increasing education is good. It's the backwater nations, that only speak their own language, that get all dumb and warlike. You can trust the cosmopolitan nations, with open borders, not to do anything tooo stupid :)

But the UN should not be in the business of mandating what is taught in schools. Encouraging great, mandating bad.