Fading species and dying tongues (NYT)

[P. Kerim Friedman]

Is it just me, or is there something strange in the way the article
goes from talking about how "abuses continue to be committed in the
name of education, modernization and national identity" to decrying how
"language bullies ... try to shame a child into learning his
grandfather's language..."?

First of all, are such "language bullies" really a problem? What about
the value of a grandchild being able to communicate with her
grandparents? And secondly, although I agree that the scientific
metaphor is flawed, he seems to see the fact that the issue is
"political" as somehow being equivalent to "dirty" or "unnatural". That
is to say, even though he discusses the "abuses" against certain
languages, he then seems to naturalize the decline of old languages
(and the creation of new ones), so that he can then find a moral
equivalence between the depriving of someone of the right to speak
their own language and the efforts to teach that language to their
grandchildren!!! Instead, I would have thought to argue that the
political nature of the question makes such present political efforts
all the more justified. David Berreby seems trapped in the very
scientific metaphors he is trying to criticize.
On Friday, June 6, 2003, at 02:34 AM, samuels at anthro.umass.edu wrote:

> Don't know if anyone posted this recent column from the 5/27 NYT
> Science
> Times...
>
> Fading Species and Dying Tongues: When the Two Part Ways
> By DAVID BERREBY
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/27/science/27ESSA.html?
> ex=1055044800&en=56d9cf3cd7a5513f&ei=5070
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1635 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/linganth/attachments/20030606/ced6e371/attachment.bin>