The writer was able to get the liberal progressive readers to nod their heads with neck-snapping affirmation, only at the end to place a large brick wall in front of them upon which they could bloody their nose.
While "imperialistic" is a devil-word these days, empires are just a fact of history; they come and go, and they last for a time because a big space for economic and cultural interchange, without border obstacles and internal wars, brings some advantages (cf. the European Union).
But having an empire makes the language imperialistic? Then Greek, Arabic, Russian, Chinese, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and English are too, along with various American aboriginal languages, and some Asian ones I don't know.
Latin has long ceased to have any real "imperial" associations. Anyone who claims to be offended on these grounds is disingenuous. The Roman and Frankish empires are long gone. Any assocations are purely notional.
The article was funny, but, I mean, I think there are a lot more things the author could have satirized rather than imperialistic languages. I can't even think of a language which was never associated with an empire, except maybe Polish (always getting conquered, never conquering).
Not to be pedantic, but under the Commonwealth Poles (with the Lithuanians,) did expand their borders in a way that might be considered "empire-building." They even held Moscow for a while in the 17th c. But the extraordinary levels of tolerance and democracy, and the fact that they were seldom aggressive rather than retaliatory in their warfare, kept it from ever being an empire, even when they were the most powerful country in Europe.
Ooops -- I just thought, considering the original topic, you might think this is satire. It's not.
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.