Re: a discussion on OIT: attention moderator

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...>
wrote:

>
>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> . . .
> > Unfortunately, that ideology might be what upholds
> > the group of the
> > proponent in question, and giving up the belief will
> > make it crash.
> > Look what happened in the socialist block after they
> > gave up the
> > doctrine. It's all more complicated than you would
> > like to believe.
> > Linguistics is a dangerous thing. Most East European
> > nations owe their
> > existence to it.
> > Torsten
>
>
> Look at how Third World dictatorship create enemies
> through linguistic differences and thereby prop up
> their regimes. On the other hand, Latin America is a
> failure because linguistics was not strong enough to
> hold it together. Geography defeated it. North America
> was defeated by ideology: Tories vs. Yankees. If
> linguistics had triumphed, the US would include Canada
> and Quebec would probably be another Louisiana. Yet
> the historical moment seemed to dictate whether or not
> linguistics, geography or ideology would prevail.

Again, I'm not sure what you and Torsten mean by "linguistics" in
these statements. In regard to Latin America and North America, I
think you're referring to shared language, language identity as
opposed to political identity. But I don't see why Quebec should
become another Louisiana just because it would be surrounded by U.S.
English speakers rather than Canadian English speakers ("if
linguistics had triumphed"). Or maybe I'm being too critical.

Andrew

>