Re: CHAT: Support/Oppression of Conlanging

Jan van Steenbergen wrote:
>
>  --- "Thomas R. Wier" wrote:
>
> > > > > > Speaking of prejudice, does anyone know of any actual political
> > > > > > repression of conlangers besides that of Stalin and Hitler
> > > > > > against Esperantists?)
> > > >
> > > >In Stalin's case, at least, it had to do with the fact that
>Esperantists,
> > > >like philatelists, had lots of contact with the outside world.  This,
> > > >naturally, was a Bad Thing, and so off to Sibiria both groups went.
> > > >In Hitler's case, the same probably applies, but the fact that
>Zamenhof
> > > >was a Jew, and a Zionist at that, probably also colored the decision
> > > >to send them to the death camps.
> > >
> > It really doesn't have to do with fascism at all so much as
> > totalitarianism. As a cacologist friend of mine put it once, "This is
> > a totalitarian state, right? So, sometime down the line the government
> > is going to have to have a policy on Esperanto." Stalin had lots of
> > problems with Undesirables like Cossacks, Ukrainians, and basically
> > everyone in the Caucasus, and Stalin was no Fascist.
>
>Wasn't he?
This's, of course, a question of definition.  "Fascism" has become one of
those political derogatives that people more or less automatically bash
political enemies with. However, the almost completely state-run economy and
society that Stalin created wasn't that similar too those of Germany and
Italy during the 30s, which all agree where Fascist. Indeed, I'd argue that
German society 1933-39 was more similar to France's than to the Soviet
Union's. So, if I were trying to uphold some meaningful definition of
"Fascism" more narrow than "totalitarianism", I would say that Stalin was no
Fascist.

><snip Pioneer Story>
>
>What we should always bear in mind when speaking about politicies in the
>former USSR, is the immense discrepancy between theory and praxis.
>The long-term ideal of the communist party was a communist world republic.
>Despite their disputes about how to achieve it, Stalin, Trotsky, and others
>all
>agreed on this ultimate goal.
>All kinds of expressions of national consciousness were considered alien
>and
>hostile to this plan. Therefore, the official line of the Communist Party
>regarding the 140 nationalities inhabiting the USSR, was the idea of
>rapprochement (sblizhenie), followed by a merger (slijanie) into one great
>"Soviet People". Theoretically, a culturally neutral, international
>language
>like Esperanto could fit in perfectly within this ideology.
>In reality, however, from the moment when Stalin took over, Soviet
>communism
>has been soaked with nationalism. Very soon, the Russian nation became the
>model for all other nations. An important milestone in this respect is
>Stalin's
>toast, after winning World War II, to the Russian people (completely
>neglecting
>the fact that many representants of other nationalities had fought for The
>Case
>as well and had equally suffered from the war).
>The answer to the question: why this Russian nationalism, is probably the
>same
>as the answer to the question why, despite their totalitarian ideology,
>communist leaders always tried to legitimize their power by organizing
>quasi-democratic elections. They strongly believed, that they were exactly
>what
>the people wanted and needed, and did everything underline that. By linking
>communist ideology to an appeal to people's patriotism, they hoped to
>mobilize
>even more support for their actions.
>Strangely, this tactic often proved effective.
Surely, utilizing nationalism for strengthening the ruling group doesn't by
itself make you Fascist?

                                              Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

Replies