Liturgical hermeneutics
  • This is a wonderful little essay blog post.
    Read to the end or you'll miss the point.
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,193
    Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

    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.

  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    Although, like one of the commmenters said, Latin is probably the most imperialistic language ever spoken on Earth. :/
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,949
    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.
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    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.
  • Well, the British Empire was the largest the world has seen, so I suggest that become true anti-imperialists and cease using English.
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,949 we Catholics say.
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636

    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).
  • I know of a fellow, not an emporer though, who spoke Polish and rather conquered my stubborn spirit, if nothing else.
  • G
    Posts: 1,388
    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.

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)