Speaking is not indispensable. It is communicating that is.
You see, many years ago, before people learned to speak, they could communicate.
A language is merely a medium of communication. It is not the language that is important.
It is what the language conveys that matters.
For purposes of this article, by language is meant that medium of communication that relies on phonation.
You see, dear reader, not all people can speak. On the other hand, all people can communicate.
This reality clearly captures the folly of laying too much emphasis on the ability to speak, to literally lend voice to one’s thoughts.
In future, Zambia should elect a president who cannot speak English, or better still, one that cannot speak at all.
It is difficult to imagine this, yet allow it, but it should be permitted because it is not the speech of a person that we should focus upon, it is the content of his mind that we must decipher and understand.
From the outset, let me state that this article does not present an argument against language or speaking.
This paper merely argues against the exaggerated emphasis that human societies have placed on language.
This paper argues for letting all people communicate.
You see, dear reader, language can indeed be a barrier to communication.
Let me illustrate.
Take Zambia for instance. Zambia has adopted English as its official language.
Now, dear reader, how many Zambians today, in April of 2011, can speak in English let alone understand it well?
The answer to this question ought to worry every advocate of communication.
The answer is that only a small fraction of the 13 million Zambians can articulate their thoughts fluently in English or understand thoughts articulated to them fluently in English.
From the foregoing, you will then see that when emphasis is placed on the expression of one’s thoughts in one language this then becomes a veritable barrier not only to communication but to the participation by people in matters dear to their own welfare.
Lamentably, sometimes such emphasis, a veritable form of segregation is legislated for and enforced by law.
Through such fallible legislation, many people, people that have something of value to ‘say’ or communicate are not allowed to do so and by such exclusion, many human societies are denied the indispensable contribution to human advancement from many.
In Zambia, if a person cannot speak in English or understand what is being said in English, such a person is often viewed as possessing a lower standing in society.
Such a person is treated askance, frowned upon and shunned as if with a disgusting disease.
People that are so discriminated against are often viewed as inferior in intelligence or backward.
This is wrong.
Though it truly reflects intelligence, the ability to speak a language, be it English or any other, is not a direct or reliable or sole measure of an individual’s intelligence.
There are many people in the world today that simply cannot speak and yet they are intelligent, knowledgeable and wise.
Note that.
You see dear reader, there should come a time in the life of Zambia as a nation when one should be allowed to become Republican president without placing one’s language as a precondition, without insisting that such a person should be able to speak at all or speak in a particular language such as English.
It is not the language that one uses that is important. It is what they have to communicate that we must place the premium on.
Besides, should interpretation be called for when one wishes to communicate, let the services of one so coached in such ways be engaged for purposes of ensuring that the audience receives the message from the one sending it.
Media of communication are many.
Dear reader, observe that in human life, there is both verbal and non-verbal communication. And fluency in both these ways of communicating can indeed be attained.
It is not that we should let the people speak; it is that we should let the people communicate.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a Republican president expressing his or her thoughts in Chitonga, Chichewa, Icibemba or Kikaonde.
Such an approach to communication would broaden the field for people to participate in their own governance without the now extant subtle yet real exclusive practice.
In addition, such an approach would enable all to benefit from the thoughts of many.
At present, only a few exposed citizens have the opportunity to undertake national activities for the sole reason that they can express themselves well in English, althogh itself a foreign language.
The shameful thing is that the excluded many are very knowledgeable people, are profoundly intelligent and are admirably wise.
Usual are the moments when out of courtesy people do not protest when their leader addresses them in English.
Despite their not understanding what their leader is saying, they remain quiet based on the fear of being found out that they cannot understand him or her or merely because of sheer politeness.
In times like these, communication then fails.
The leader then goes away mistakenly thinking he passed on the message, and the audience leaves quietly disgruntled and muttering under their breath their anger at the arrogance that seemingly educated people tend to exhibit. Discord remains.
Dear reader, there should come a time in Zambia when fluent in Chikunda, a Republican president will articulate in that language the contents of a National Development Plan (NDP) to the country’s citizens.
An interpreter or interpreters will then play their part to make the message understandable to the rest of the citizens that are Chikunda-naive.
Such a level of national tolerance and acceptance shall veritably reflect a higher state of being for the country.
The argument in this article is that the deaf and dumb are not idiots.
An idiot is here defined as a person whose mental capacity is so rudimentary as to render such a person non-functional.
The deaf and dumb, you see, are truly not idiots.
Many of them, if not all, are highly intelligent people, people that possess knowledge and wisdom, who merely suffered the misfortune of losing the ability to speak and hear either from birth or afterwards.
Now, dear reader, here is the million dollar question. Would you allow a deaf and dumb person to become your Republican president?
Chances are, because you are so bigoted, you would not allow it and yet it is perfectly in order that such a person should be offered an equal chance at such leadership.
The probability of a deaf and dumb person becoming Republican president anywhere in the world is a slim one if at all extant.
This is so not because such people cannot lead. It is because society is so mistakenly prejudiced. It is because we do not exist in a barrier-free environment.
Though Nature provides for such people to lead, on the other hand, man has mistakenly erected huge barriers such as language which preclude the participation of such people in national leadership as exemplified above.
Dear reader, note that a ‘deaf and dumb’ person is here used metaphorically as well as literally.
A deaf and dumb person is in this paper illustrated as a proxy for someone who cannot speak.
After all, as an example, if you cannot speak Chichewa or French, aren’t you really deaf and dumb in as far as that language is concerned? I know I am although I'm trying to learn as much Chichewa as I can & my girlfriends been very supportive, when it comes to French let's not even go there.
You see, the use of language is a veritable exaggerated fixture in the lives of human beings.
When emphasis is placed on speaking one particular language for communication in a nation, this then represents a clear barrier that excludes the participation of many in their own affairs.
Barriers can be a good thing. Naturally, barriers define what should be done and what should not.
For instance, in Nature, barriers prescribe the boundaries of what is evil and what is not. Nonetheless, barriers to human survival and prosperity ought to be eliminated.
Dear reader, English in Zambia is a veritable barrier to the progress of many.
Though its use should not be abolished but encouraged instead, the use of other languages, languages that Zambians are comfortable with and fluent in should also be legislated for, encouraged and reach wide acceptance.
Knowledge, intelligence and wisdom are not expressed in one language.
These are universal to all human beings.
Yes, let the people speak, but more importantly, let the people communicate.
You see, a visit to the lion’s den teaches one a lot about the lion.
Similarly, your habitat says a lot about you, dear reader.
You see, many years ago, before people learned to speak, they could communicate.
A language is merely a medium of communication. It is not the language that is important.
It is what the language conveys that matters.
For purposes of this article, by language is meant that medium of communication that relies on phonation.
You see, dear reader, not all people can speak. On the other hand, all people can communicate.
This reality clearly captures the folly of laying too much emphasis on the ability to speak, to literally lend voice to one’s thoughts.
In future, Zambia should elect a president who cannot speak English, or better still, one that cannot speak at all.
It is difficult to imagine this, yet allow it, but it should be permitted because it is not the speech of a person that we should focus upon, it is the content of his mind that we must decipher and understand.
From the outset, let me state that this article does not present an argument against language or speaking.
This paper merely argues against the exaggerated emphasis that human societies have placed on language.
This paper argues for letting all people communicate.
You see, dear reader, language can indeed be a barrier to communication.
Let me illustrate.
Take Zambia for instance. Zambia has adopted English as its official language.
Now, dear reader, how many Zambians today, in April of 2011, can speak in English let alone understand it well?
The answer to this question ought to worry every advocate of communication.
The answer is that only a small fraction of the 13 million Zambians can articulate their thoughts fluently in English or understand thoughts articulated to them fluently in English.
From the foregoing, you will then see that when emphasis is placed on the expression of one’s thoughts in one language this then becomes a veritable barrier not only to communication but to the participation by people in matters dear to their own welfare.
Lamentably, sometimes such emphasis, a veritable form of segregation is legislated for and enforced by law.
Through such fallible legislation, many people, people that have something of value to ‘say’ or communicate are not allowed to do so and by such exclusion, many human societies are denied the indispensable contribution to human advancement from many.
In Zambia, if a person cannot speak in English or understand what is being said in English, such a person is often viewed as possessing a lower standing in society.
Such a person is treated askance, frowned upon and shunned as if with a disgusting disease.
People that are so discriminated against are often viewed as inferior in intelligence or backward.
This is wrong.
Though it truly reflects intelligence, the ability to speak a language, be it English or any other, is not a direct or reliable or sole measure of an individual’s intelligence.
There are many people in the world today that simply cannot speak and yet they are intelligent, knowledgeable and wise.
Note that.
You see dear reader, there should come a time in the life of Zambia as a nation when one should be allowed to become Republican president without placing one’s language as a precondition, without insisting that such a person should be able to speak at all or speak in a particular language such as English.
It is not the language that one uses that is important. It is what they have to communicate that we must place the premium on.
Besides, should interpretation be called for when one wishes to communicate, let the services of one so coached in such ways be engaged for purposes of ensuring that the audience receives the message from the one sending it.
Media of communication are many.
Dear reader, observe that in human life, there is both verbal and non-verbal communication. And fluency in both these ways of communicating can indeed be attained.
It is not that we should let the people speak; it is that we should let the people communicate.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a Republican president expressing his or her thoughts in Chitonga, Chichewa, Icibemba or Kikaonde.
Such an approach to communication would broaden the field for people to participate in their own governance without the now extant subtle yet real exclusive practice.
In addition, such an approach would enable all to benefit from the thoughts of many.
At present, only a few exposed citizens have the opportunity to undertake national activities for the sole reason that they can express themselves well in English, althogh itself a foreign language.
The shameful thing is that the excluded many are very knowledgeable people, are profoundly intelligent and are admirably wise.
Usual are the moments when out of courtesy people do not protest when their leader addresses them in English.
Despite their not understanding what their leader is saying, they remain quiet based on the fear of being found out that they cannot understand him or her or merely because of sheer politeness.
In times like these, communication then fails.
The leader then goes away mistakenly thinking he passed on the message, and the audience leaves quietly disgruntled and muttering under their breath their anger at the arrogance that seemingly educated people tend to exhibit. Discord remains.
Dear reader, there should come a time in Zambia when fluent in Chikunda, a Republican president will articulate in that language the contents of a National Development Plan (NDP) to the country’s citizens.
An interpreter or interpreters will then play their part to make the message understandable to the rest of the citizens that are Chikunda-naive.
Such a level of national tolerance and acceptance shall veritably reflect a higher state of being for the country.
The argument in this article is that the deaf and dumb are not idiots.
An idiot is here defined as a person whose mental capacity is so rudimentary as to render such a person non-functional.
The deaf and dumb, you see, are truly not idiots.
Many of them, if not all, are highly intelligent people, people that possess knowledge and wisdom, who merely suffered the misfortune of losing the ability to speak and hear either from birth or afterwards.
Now, dear reader, here is the million dollar question. Would you allow a deaf and dumb person to become your Republican president?
Chances are, because you are so bigoted, you would not allow it and yet it is perfectly in order that such a person should be offered an equal chance at such leadership.
The probability of a deaf and dumb person becoming Republican president anywhere in the world is a slim one if at all extant.
This is so not because such people cannot lead. It is because society is so mistakenly prejudiced. It is because we do not exist in a barrier-free environment.
Though Nature provides for such people to lead, on the other hand, man has mistakenly erected huge barriers such as language which preclude the participation of such people in national leadership as exemplified above.
Dear reader, note that a ‘deaf and dumb’ person is here used metaphorically as well as literally.
A deaf and dumb person is in this paper illustrated as a proxy for someone who cannot speak.
After all, as an example, if you cannot speak Chichewa or French, aren’t you really deaf and dumb in as far as that language is concerned? I know I am although I'm trying to learn as much Chichewa as I can & my girlfriends been very supportive, when it comes to French let's not even go there.
You see, the use of language is a veritable exaggerated fixture in the lives of human beings.
When emphasis is placed on speaking one particular language for communication in a nation, this then represents a clear barrier that excludes the participation of many in their own affairs.
Barriers can be a good thing. Naturally, barriers define what should be done and what should not.
For instance, in Nature, barriers prescribe the boundaries of what is evil and what is not. Nonetheless, barriers to human survival and prosperity ought to be eliminated.
Dear reader, English in Zambia is a veritable barrier to the progress of many.
Though its use should not be abolished but encouraged instead, the use of other languages, languages that Zambians are comfortable with and fluent in should also be legislated for, encouraged and reach wide acceptance.
Knowledge, intelligence and wisdom are not expressed in one language.
These are universal to all human beings.
Yes, let the people speak, but more importantly, let the people communicate.
You see, a visit to the lion’s den teaches one a lot about the lion.
Similarly, your habitat says a lot about you, dear reader.
No comments:
Post a Comment