EngL1401W - Fall 2006: Introduction to "Third World" Literature

Language determines your feelings towards a certain person, object, creature or thing. How you would express yourself in any given manor in the mood that you’re in. Your feelings are what makes up part of the thoughts that you let out. Good, bad, moody, being sarcastic, ect. Language is another figure of how you would view things such as an image of words being spoken. The words spoken to you give you thoughts and image that shape what’s in your mind. How each word is use gives you an idea of what’s going on in the novel. These are some of the ways I think language gives you. Base on what I read, I do believe language is a carrier of a culture because language goes far back into the days where it was still being developed. Like it says “its origins and development” (pg 13, The Language of…).

I think wa Thiong’o gives us a good idea of what he means by “language is the means of spiritual subjugation” on page 16, where he writes “[colonialism’s] most important area of domination was the mental universe of the colonized, the control, through culture, of how people perceived themselves and their relationship to the world.” I agree with this statement because by controlling a language you really do control the people. If colonized citizens want to be taken seriously by their colonizers, they have to learn the language. The reading also talks about the Conference of African Writers of English Expression, where they fought over the definition of African literature. It says “the debate was more about the subject matter and the racial origins and geographical habitation of the writer” (p.6), but the literature has to be written in English to qualify.

By controlling written language, the Europeans were basically changing what would be written in history books and how future generations of Africans would be taught their own past. I also think that if Africa (or any country) wants to keep up with the “global economy” they will have to learn English, and do most of their business in the English language, because it’s turning into the international language of trade. That may be my American “arrogance” talking, but I think it’s becoming a fact of life.

I am somewhat convinced by what Thiong'o has argued so far. I agree with Ororpa, in that there is no doubt in my mind that language is a carrier of culture. However, I am not sure to what extent this is true. From what I have read so far from "The Language of African Literature", I almost get sort of a feeling that Thiong'o is warning African writers (which may be hard to define after Thiong'o's struggle to define African literature), to either write in native tounges, or face the danger of losing their culture. I agree that language is a carrier of culture, but mainly on a basic and "obvious" level. As Ororpa stated, most languages are ancient and therefore carry many many pieces and traces of culture. The thing that I agree with the most so far in this reading is the part where Thiong'o seemingly defines language in the context of his argument. He states, "Language, any language, has a dual character: it is both a means of communcation and a carrier of culture." (p. 13). In my interpration of the reading so far, this means that language and its integrity are crucial in keeping a culture "intact".

In terms of colonization, imperialism and other forms of oppression, controlling a language is definitely a way in which you can control people. Shawna makes a good point about this, which can be reinforced by a childhood story that Thiong'o tells in this reading. On page 11, when he is speaking about the language takover in Kenyan schools, he states, "Thus one of the most humiliating experiences was to be caught speaking Gikuyu in the vicinity of the school. The culprit was given corporal punishment." In this situation, we have a perfect, and sad, example of how by controlling a language/people you really do control the people/language. Shawna, you are also correct about the "global" market and its demand for English, which brings us back to the issue of "First" and "Third" and "East" and "West."

Possible question: Do you feel that Ngugi wa Thiong'o is attacking Achebe and other African writers who primarily use English in their African literature?

A person can communicate most freely in their own language. It is their nature. They understand the slang and the words. They understand the impact of the words. When he compaired the idea of a missle he got the full impact when he knew the native word for it. People laugh and joke and understand better in their own language. It is a very true fact of their culture language is apart of everyculture. Its a connection to family members and people that lived before you. It is a way to express a cultures customs and a way for everyone of that culture to communictate. Language unites people.

Thiong'o's argument was very well written and had amazing rhetorical value. Although I think I agree more with Achebe's take on the matter I found that I had to continually remind myself of that fact while reading this piece. One of the best points I thought Thiong'o made was the tie between culture and communication. He first off came to the conclusion that language is a form of communication, and an important one at that (I think that is agreed by all). He then tied together communication and culture by saying that in communicating the history of one's people, you are passing on the sense of culture...therefore "Communication creates culture: culture is a means of communication. Language [therefore] carries culture, and culture carries...the entire body of values by which we come to percieve ourselves and our place in the world." I think that he explains his side well because he realized how hard of a concept this is to pass on to people that aren't multilngual, who don't understand that certain words carry much different context in another language. The reason why I disagree with Thiong'o's argument in the first place is because if African writers published only in their native language, the scope of people reached by the story shrinks dramatically...and translations made by anyone other than the author can't carry over that syntax of bias that the writer had in their initial thought process. Like Gabriel Okara and other participants of the Makerere conference argue, the struggle of finding the right wording in the European language is frustrating at times, but is worth it in the end just in order to get the message across.

I agree completely with Andrew when he says that wa Thiong'o is warning his people in a way. It really is like he is telling them that they better write in their native toungue, or else. It is very unfortunate though that that is how it has to be. I think that writing in other languages is an amazing skill that should be praised because this person is educated. And he even says that they learn English in school, so why is it such an issue to use it when they are out of school? Answering his question, I don't really think he is attacking Achebe and the other authors. More just a "I can't believe you actually wrote a book in English and it was successful." He is probably wondering why their books were well received here, but probably not so much where they come from.

I agree completely with Andrew when he says that wa Thiong'o is warning his people in a way. It really is like he is telling them that they better write in their native toungue, or else. It is very unfortunate though that that is how it has to be. I think that writing in other languages is an amazing skill that should be praised because this person is educated. And he even says that they learn English in school, so why is it such an issue to use it when they are out of school? Answering his question, I don't really think he is attacking Achebe and the other authors. More just a "I can't believe you actually wrote a book in English and it was successful." He is probably wondering why their books were well received here, but probably not so much where they come from.

I agree completely with Andrew when he says that wa Thiong'o is warning his people in a way. It really is like he is telling them that they better write in their native toungue, or else. It is very unfortunate though that that is how it has to be. I think that writing in other languages is an amazing skill that should be praised because this person is educated. And he even says that they learn English in school, so why is it such an issue to use it when they are out of school? Answering his question, I don't really think he is attacking Achebe and the other authors. More just a "I can't believe you actually wrote a book in English and it was successful." He is probably wondering why their books were well received here, but probably not so much where they come from.

I know many of the people in this class speak a language other than English. Knowing this, I am curious as to how you feel about the language argument that wa Thiong'o puts forth. Language is a powerful tool, but when we lack it, power can be lost. For example, my mother is German, but despite this I speak English with her exclusively. However, whenever we visit our family back in Germany we speak German exclusively. I never really thought about why we do this, but I think it is very similar to the use of language by Africans. While they are at home and with family they speak their native tongue, however because the children are taught in a European language they cannot use their native tongue at school. The children need to speak the European language in order to gain power through that system. For my mother the use of English with my family and me in The U.S. is because this is the language we need here. And vise versa in Germany.

On another aspect of language, I myself feel that meaning is often lost through translation, much like the participants of the Makerere conference argue. Just to paint the picture I will give a little example in German. In the German language many lengthy words can be created just by simply placing existing words together. This is why the Germans are famous for very long words, but when you translate these "made-up" words in English they lose there meaning and just do not make sense. It really is a shame that languages have these distinct features that create problems when translating. I do not blame African authors for writing in European languages because it allows for a larger amount of viewers. I do, however, feel that every language has an aspect so unique that not writing in it is a pity. It would be interesting to live in a world where English is not the language of mass communication. Unfortunately, in the future so many languages may be lost to the need for one language of mass communication throughout the world.

Language determines a lot about what people think. Whether it is through speaking or using sign language to communicate with others, it expresses how an individual feels and thinks. Without language and using sign language- because I do think that expressing yourself through movements of your arms and face is a language- then no one would really know how what you are thinking. Yes, I think language is a carrier of culture because if you think about it, the development of language does go far back and to this day, still exists. Even the cave men used sign language to communicate…therefore, there are plenty of ways a language determines what thoughts someone is thinking!

I really liked reading Ngugi wa' Thiong'o's argument on language being a kind of control on the people. I do believe that language can be a carrier of culture, and I agree with Thiong'o on that point. This is due to the fact that when we learn language, we don't just learn letters and miscellaneous words. We learn many things at the same time, because to be able to truly grasp a language, we would need to read books written in that language. The colonizer then would not pick any kind of book to teach their language with. Rather, they would logically pick the most racist book against the colonized (that is why they are called colonizers). In that sense, the colonized people would gradually become affected, at least subliminally, by their colonizers' opinions about their country (the Africans' country for the purpose of our discussion). As a result, because language affects thought about oneself and one's culture, African children would start thinking badly of their culture and their people and they would start embracing their colonizers’ language and culture. I agree with Oropa when he says that language determines one’s feelings for a person, an object, creature, or culture. I think that Ngugi is right when he says that one’s own feelings about his stand in the world is determined by language because if he is taught by that language from when he is young that his culture is bad then eventually he is going to believe that.

However, I don’t think that argument stands true in all cases because there are many factors that can make it extremely hard for the colonizer to colonize the people through language. For example, if the children were older, they would not be affected so easily. They would know better than to take everything they hear as a fact. Also, if the child is taught at home about why these colonizers are teaching the children such racist opinions and if the children are told about the aims of the colonizers, they wouldn’t be so gullible even if they are children. In fact, I believe that as the children grow up they can use the new language that they learned to their own people’s advantage. They can understand their colonizer’s culture using their language without being affected by it. From that perspective, they can free their people by knowing their colonizers’ cultures’ blind spots.

Furthermore, I don’t really think that being a child matters when they are trying to make sure that they are not affected by the colonizers’ culture. This is due to the fact that even though their opinions are simple, they still have them and they eventually become more complex. That is why the colonizers teach them specifically. I had opinions when I was a child, I remember quite vividly what I thought about the occupation. I never thought that the occupiers of my land were more knowledgeable than I am or than my people. My country’s (Lebanon) second official language is French, yet I don’t think that my people think their culture is inferior to the French culture. Therefore, I don’t think that Thiong’o showed all the perspectives of what he was talking about. He made it seem as if all Africans were affected by their colonizers’ way of thinking. I don’t think so, and just like Anna and Jane said, I think that Achebe and other African writers’ use of the English language is not so bad because they are conveying their message to a wider range of people and a bigger crowd. However, I believe that those writers should also write their books in their African language as well. Answering Andrew’s question, I don’t think that Thiong’o was necessarily attacking African writers like Achebe, I think it was more of a warning that they are going to lose the value of their own language.

I'm sorry, I know my blog is already long (I just had so much to say about it because I kind of related to the argument). I just wanted to add a funny story that proves what Anna said about the trouble with translating from one language to another. Once when I tried to translate a joke that I knew in Arabic to English for one of my friends, I ended up looking really stupid because it didn't sound so funny anymore. My friend who understood Arabic laughed because she had heard the joke in Arabic before and she thought it was funny how the joke had turned from a very funny joke to a very dull one. Just thought I'd share that, because it is truly frustrating at times.

I believe Ngugi wa Thiong'o has a valid arguement. It seems as if every African writer will end up writing in English. He has a reason to worry about this. All his life he has been forced to read and write in English. Thiong'o worries about African literature losing a part of its culture by writers using English instead of their native language. Thiong'o seems to be rightfully bitter about how pervasive the English language is, especially when it is taught in African schools as if it is the most important language in the world. I agree with Thiong'o when he says "Language, any language, has a dual character: it is both a means of communication and a carrier of culture" (13). Every author should write in whatever language they want, regardless of if it's their native language of foreign. Thiong'o shouldn't criticize Achebe for writing in English. Something is almost always lost in translation.

Language is definitely a carrier of culture. Every culture has its own dialogue, if not language. Also as the culture advances, so does some parts of the language. For example, in Egypt, I discovered that the teenagers have different names (other than the commoners) for different things. So when I went back there 2 yrs ago, I barely understood half of the words that the teenagers use to speak to each other. (One person made it up, and now all the younger generation uses it.) And on top of that, they would laugh at me because they would say that my Arabic is “old”.
Language definitely determines what sort of thoughts you think. For example, I might remember a saying that they say back home. But that thought might not be understood by the language or culture that is here. And even if they do understand it, they might come up with a different meaning for it, or interpret it in a different/wrong way.

I definately feel that language is a carrier of culture. I learned last year in Linguistics about the different languages and the different dialects within the languages. Different villages have different dialects within the language which shows how different each culture is. Language determines how we express ourselves and it enables us to be able to express ourselves. People are able to best get across things in their native language. With languge constantly changing, the only way to really maintain your native language is to continuously speak it. Like Heba said, Arabic is continuously changing and being "upgraded" so when she goes back, there are new words that she has to learn.

I agree with many people above that translating between languages is difficult, and the message you are trying to convey can easily lose its original meaning and effectiveness. I don't think wa Thiong'o was saying that writing in the language of your supressor is always bad; he would be a hypocrite if he was saying this. The very last sentence in part V states his point very clearly: "It is the final triumph of a system of domination when the dominated start singing its virtues." He is sounding off about people writing in other languages because they have lost touch with their culture. He makes a point that language is so integrated in a culture that separting the two destroys both.

I do believe being able to write in other languages can act as a tool as well. If the white man just went over to Africa and disrupted the culture without forcing his language upon the people, we would never know about it because no one would be able to write the other side of the story. The stories of the people being dominated would go unknown. We would understand very little about their culture. The author needs to be able to speak to the target audience in a language they will read and understand.

I do think that Thiong'o makes some very valid arguments, but one thing I have to question is why did he write this in English? Did he write this in his mother tongue and then it was translated into english? Because, throughout the entire reading he talks about how people should write in their native tongues and how English and French are the languages of conformity and oppressors. So, was he writing this for people outside of Africa who don't speak english and that is the purpose of writing this essay in english?

Nancy, I too thought of this as I was reading. I kind of touched on this in my blog above. I don't think he was nessecarily criticizing those that write in English, but he was angry with those that have lost touch with their native culture and language. I'm guessing he writes in English to reach a broader range of people, not sure though.

Like Nancy and Kelsy above, I also thought about the fact that this reading was in English. In fact, I also thought about how he was a professor at all these American Institutions... was he teaching in his home language or in English before he eventually completely switched over?

Also, I agree somewhat that language is a carrier of culture, but it cannot completely be one. I mean, Ngugi wa Thiong'o was brought up speaking a European language and he seems to be perfectly in touch with his culture. I think if people make an effort to keep up with their culture and continue to orally use their home language, that the culture will remain pretty much intact.

I agree with Kaitlin that language is not the only carrier of a culture. I think that language is very important but I also think that you can be in touch with your culture and speak several languages. I think the most important component of keeping a culture alive is peoples' efforts and desires to learn more about their country. And not only that but also their willingness to share their cultural with other people in and outside of their culture. Talking and learning about their culture whether it is in their native tongue or not seems to me to be one of the most important elements to keeping a culture alive.

I think language does determine how you think, because how else can you express what you feel or what you want to do? There's also sign language but basically without language, it would be really hard to express what you want. For example, in psychology class we learned about children who survived alone in the forest but weren't socially capable and for these people who had never been taught a language, it would be hard for them to tell people what they want to say. They can't go any further than the basic simple thoughts. It would be really time consuming for them to draw out or using body language to say like "there is more than meets the eye."

I also agree with Thiong'o that language is a carrier of culture because it is the way through which values, traditions, history, etc. can be easily passed down to the next generation. So to a certain extent, I think by controlling a people's language, you can control them. Because if you are taught that to speak your native language is bad like what happened to Thiong'o, then you would try as hard as possible to not speak it. The more you speak the English or European language, the more you lose parts of your native tongue. Because I think for the new Hmong generation, including me, this is true; we're taught English at school and this is making us lose our language because we barely speak it, except maybe at home-which some don't even talk Hmong at home. Now, I only know the basic sentence structures and basic words; it's also hard to talk in full Hmong sentences to the elders. So then you don't know how to talk to your elders and your people. you don't feel connected with your people. I think it also affects how you think about yourself and your people because through school, I'm taught English and the American ways of things; I don't want to do things the "hmong" way but the American way. Although at school, we're not taught that English is more superior, I do get that feeling, that my Hmong language is inferior to the English language and so as a child, I always tried to speak English. I lose a part of my culture. So in a way, they can control what you think, make you conform to their standards, and how you view yourself and your race.

I also want to add that although the control of language and its effects doesn't necessarily affect all of the people, the children are the new generation. And if these new generation don't embrace and take pride in their culture and language, then their children won't either. So although it doesn't affect the whole people in the beginning, if it continues and the colonists keep brainwashing the younger children to not value their own heritage, they'll learn to value everything of the colonists' and not theirs.

I agree with Anna's point that the language utilized may have more to do with necessity than with any sort of malintent. I would be less convinced by we Thiong'o's argument if it were not for the inclusion of the button game. By having children turn on each other for speaking in their own language, this is just wrong. It likens speaking in Gikuyu to swearing, or some such punishable action, in the child's mind. What draw would there be to speak a language that gets you in trouble? Also, having the children speak English at school makes it harder for the parents and children to bond. Anyone who's fairly fluent in another language knows that at times you think or speak in one language without really planning on it. For the children and the parents to have a harder time bonding, and for turning the children against each other, I feel that perhaps there is something to Nyugi wa Thinog'o's argument.

It's interesting what Heba said, that language also changes with the culture. As youger generations grow, the language changes due to their trends. I thingk that language defintaley not only shapes culture, but also is an important aspect of experiencing culture. I relate this to music. If you consider europe, for example, and the different music frim different countries. These are very important cultural aspects. It's interesting to note music historically and geographically. The comparisons that can be made between the different musics of european cultures can similarly be made between their languages. Since music is for me an obvious importance in culture, relating it to language makes me feel more strongly about the importance if language culturally.

Shifting gears now into the realm of "chapters' V-IX...

Before reading this second half of the document, I was excited to see how Thiong'o would bolster his original argument. However I really feel that Thiong'o really loses touch with his main argument when he wanders off into all this talk of social classes. When he starts to ramble on about the proletariat and the petty-bourgeoisie, I almost started to get lost as a reader. His agenda seems to change from language to social issues, which he says are also the result of language. However, Thiong'o does save one of his more powerful arguments about foreign languages for part VIII, when he states, "But by our continuing to write in foreign languages, paying homage to them, are we not on the cultural level continuing the neo-colonial slavish and cringing spirit? (p.26)" Besides a few similar pieces of evidence to the quote I just referenced, parts V-IX of the reading had me dissapointed and almost had me wanting to disagree with Thiong'o's main argument just because of his tangents.

Since I have only grown up with English, and am not really fluent in another language, I have found the experiences many of you have shared very interesting. I especially think Rawan’s story about translating the joke was interesting and helped me understand the reading better. There is definitely a uniqueness to each language and when we try to translate it into a different language a lot of the meaning behind the original words is lost. This is something I didn’t think about when I was reading Nguigi wa Thiong’o’s argument.

While I definitely think much of Nguigi wa Thiong’o’s argument is valid, it seemed like he really looked down upon African writers who do write in English. This is something I didn’t really understand, maybe because my native language currently isn’t in danger of being lost. Therefore, I was never forced to abandon a language for another one. Anyway, I guess I didn’t really understand why writing in English is such a bad thing. After all, and I think Jane said something like this earlier, these writers are now able to get their message across to more people in the world. They are giving people the chance to learn about African culture who didn’t know anything previously, and I don’t see how that’s a bad thing. I guess it’s kind of a lose-lose situation in a way. It is also terribly ironic that Ngugi wa Thiong’o chose to write this piece in English, when he is criticizing African writers (such as himself) of doing so.

I don't think Ngugi wa thiongo is criticizing African writers for writing in English, because, he himself wrote some in English. I think he wants African writers to originally write in African and then perhaps translate it into English. A lot of meaning is sometimes lost in translation. This is why I think he is trying to say make the African version more meaningful and the English just something to be able to show many people.

I really liked Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s argument because I think it brings up a really good point about the importance of language. I think that this is a subject that is not really discussed that often for how big of a role it plays in our daily lives. I think that Rawan brought up many important points about the role of language in our lives in that it has many cultural values tied into it, especially when learning a new language. This is also expressed in Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s quote “Language, any language, has a dual character: it is both a means of communication and a carrier of culture”. (13)
Another topic about Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s argument that I found interesting was his discussion on the effect of colonization within the context of language. I can completely understand his point of view on how he believes the influence of English within the schooling system can have a large impact on the way one views their culture. This especially holds true in his example, “English became the measure of intelligence...”. (12) If I was taught in school that English would make me a “better/more superior person” I probably would want to know and learn as much about English and the culture that it immerses itself in as possible. Everyone strives to be better in life, so wouldn’t you think that English taught in a certain schooling system would make people want to act more like the English speaking individuals?

I agree that Thiong'o isn't critisizing African writers for writing in English. I think he means that a writer is losing part of his/her culture when they give up there native language. Thiong'o says, "Language is thus inseparable from ourselves as a community of human beings with a specific from and character, a specific history, a specific relationship to the world." There is a lot of meaning to that quote. A person's native language show character and culture and shouldn't be thrown away to speak another language for any reason. I also liked Thiong'o's point that a lot of countries speak English, but most of its culture lays in England and Britain because it was their true native language. I'm not sure if I agree with it completely, but it made me think about the meaning of the origin of a language.

I also wondered why this was written in English. It is obviously to inform us and expand our knowlege about the subject, so it makes total sense that it is in English I guess! I agree that language as communication and as culture are products of eachother. He talks about how communication creates culture, and culture is a means of communication. Language carries through culture, and culture carries through orature adn literature. I believe that language is a large contributor to our lives. Obviously, if there were no language, we wouldn't know what we're missing out on, but I do think that language is a very efficient way of communication between people. Language doesn't even necessarily mean speaking. Language could be expressed through pictures, dance, expressions, etc. Even if there were no vocal language, we would improvise and have another way of communication between others. I like how in the end of section IV it says that "Language is thus inseparable from ourselves as a community of human beings with a specific form and character, a specific history, a specific relationship to the world."

“The language of African culture” was a very interesting read for me simply because I can relate to what Thiong’o was trying to say. I think many people from other “Third World” countries (including myself) share his views and concerns.

As you all know , I am from Malaysia (formerly colonized by the British) and English is certainly not my 1st language. Just like Thiong’o, I went to a missionary school, and every subject is thought in English and we were all encouraged to speak English with our friends . Though I dont recall anyone ever being caned for using their mother tongue , my grandaunt (who was fortunate enough to be admitted into a missionary school ) once told me that she was made to carry a sign that says “ I am stupid” , just cause she did badly in a spelling exercise.

I have to agree with Lisa that Thiong’o is not attacking the African writers who chose to write in English. It seems to me that he’s just expressing his concerns over the displacement of native African languages in Africa. English is viewed as “superior” and “elite” (page 12) compared to African languages. From the text we can see that native African languages has no significance whatsoever and has been put aside to fade away.
Although English is the second language of Malaysia, sometimes I feel that it overshadows the use of our national language (malay) e.g, Math and Science are still thought in English. If you speak English fluently then you will be regarded as “cool” and it is without a doubt an informal symbol of “status”.

I also agree that language has a lot of power. The words and vocabulary that is used definitely has a lot of impact. English is not my first language and it’s not my second either. It’s my 4th language. I speak a different language with my parents than my grandparents and I argue in a different language with my siblings. As Rawan mentioned, language looses some percentage of its feelings after being translated. I know because I sometimes translate from Persian to English for my little sister who doesn’t understand much of Persian and it never comes out as it is in Persian.
One more thing that I was going to add was Muslims holy book Quran is now translated in about all of the languages. I was reading different translations in the same language of English and they were getting to the same point except with different amount of emphasis. So translations definitely don’t keep the original form.
As mentioned in the packet I agree with the guiltiness of not using the mother native language that is passed down to us. And I agree with Heba that language has a lot of culture in it. But as other people mentioned, to get a wider range of readers English would be an option for some writers to go about. I would personally go with English and translate my own work as some writers do.

I’m totally late into this blog but yeah, I just got done reading everyone else’s blog and I agree a lot with what they had to say. Especially with Chao since what she wrote really touch me and I can so relate. Not just because she talked about hmong but how she relate hmong to what Thiong'o is trying to get across. But the only different is that if something like this was written in hmong, I bet that more than half of the hmong population will not be able to read and understand it because more then half of it is the new generation. We already lost one aspect of our culture. It’s the ability to write in hmong because the new generation only knows how to speak in it to a certain point or should I say can barely speak in hmong. By this I mean that my generation only knows how to make basic conversation and not the important ones like Chao said with our elders. I feel that even though language is the carrier of culture like I said before. With the hmong people I think its also the same but from what I see its the old generation that is carrying the culture and when they die the culture is going to die with them. I believe that the culture is going to die with them because it’s the old generation that knows it and practices it. The new generations including mines have no clue what so ever about our culture. Its not that we don’t know our culture, we don’t know what it is specify. Like the origins of our culture or why were even shamons in the first place. Most of the new generations they don’t even want to practice the shamon religion. There more influence by the American ways of getting rich and die young. Maybe not the dieing part but largely the getting rich part and making the English language a part of the native tongue.

After discussing this arguement and reading some of the comments I understand more what he was arguing about. I agree that if an African writer is trying to reach the working class he should speak in his native tongue however I think that is just something a writer should think about. I think a writer always needs to consider his audience when deciding how and in what language to write. I see what he is saying but i think he just comes on a bit to strong is his arguement.

I feel that the overall response that he was trying to get at was that those who wrote in English rather than their mother tounge were doing a disservice to their roots, they were unintentionally killing their culture by forfeiting to the colonial rule. Where the language stops the culture is sure to follow so he was just trying to hint at that fact towards the other big timers in the game. His audience are the common folk, the ones that he believes carry on the tradition, he was trying to become something in their eyes, he is not out to prove to the world or to show the rest of Western civilization what it is like living in Africa, he wanted to tell Africans stories that they knew and could appriciate, because that is what is important to him.

Like we discussed in class, I think that language is one of the nmost important things that a culture has. Because with out it, the culture will fall apart. There are many things that a culture can easily share with other cultures, but language is something more sacred. Something that most people in other cultures don't know, and even if they do know the language, they can't speak it the way that the natives can. There is something to be said about language, it holds cultures together and bonds people of that culture even if they don't know it.

Language is very important to a culture to keep it together. i speak urdu at home and the other pakistani friends i have that dont know how to speak urdu are so out of touch with the whole culture. sometimes its like they dont have a clue as to whats going on. that is very sad. there are some thing in every culture that cant be described with just any language. i also agree with emily that not many people realize how important their language is to their culture so they just dont practice it anymore.

I as with most others believe that language is the sole factor to keep a culture progressive. One thing that distinguishes one culute from the next is essentaily the language spoken. Every language around the world is extremlly important in that one culture. Taking a language out of a culture would be like taking a heart from a human. It is no longer living with out the sole of culure..the language.

I also agree with most others in that language is the most important factor in culture. This however made me think of another aspect about culture. I think it is important to bring up the fact that modernity has also made others think that their culture is being lost. When I say this, I am mostly referring to older generations. I have always come across people who mention how much things have changed in the past few decades and how “life used to be back in the day”; that people are loosing touch with their cultures. Would you say this idea of losing culture is the same as losing culture through the loss of language? Can these two things be tied together? Or are they completely two different sectors of culture?