Learning Mandarin is better than learning Arabic: correct, incorrect or, erm... racist?

Great Debates
21

The most native speakers, you mean. English (probably) has the most total speakers. I suspect the number is even higher if you include people that conduct business in English but cannot speak it effectively.

Personally, I think both are a waste unless you plan you be a businessman starting a business in China (or the Arab world). Neither will ever be a lingua franca. The number of Mandarin speakers will be shrinking soon, if not already. English, on the other hand, continues to grow in influence. A major university in Italy, for instance, will soon switch to teaching exclusively in English.

22

As someone who has had the opportunity of having business dealings in both China and the Mid East, I would say that knowing Arabic is slightly better than knowing Mandarin, and the importance of both is dwarfed by the most important language in either place; English.

Most Chinese and Middle Easterners are multilingual and the concept of a lingua franca is an old one; there is not stigma to knowing or communicating business dealings in a third language. They are in short; not the United States.
As to the OP. Yes, reading through what you wrote, I could easily construe it as racist especially given the huge gaps in knowledge that are readily apparent to anyone with more than a passing interest.

23

I just wanted to say that even sven’s recent long post is one of the most interesting observations I’ve read in a while, so thanks! I know it’s just one person’s experience, but it’s changed my thinking about these issues.

If it has the resources, a school should offer as many language options as it can. If it can only offer, say, three, then make them quite different languages (ideally) – Spanish, Arabic, and Mandarin would work well, but so would, say, French, Russian, and Japanese. And it’s okay, IMHO, if one of them is a “dead” language, like Latin or Sanskrit. And if, say, the physics teacher happens to speak Zapotec or Swahili, try to see if she can teach a few lessons at least, just to give kids an idea of the range of how languages work.

And then comes the main point of this thread – the student’s decision of which language to take. After reading even sven’s post, I think the main motivation should be “sheer pleasure”. Which language are you drawn to (among the few offered), for WHATEVER reason? (For many high schoolers, it might be “the cutest teacher and/or students of the sex I’m attracted to”!). It’s the enthusiasm that matters – the desire to really get into the language, maybe take it to the next level after high school.

24

Yes, but “racist” has a definition, and it’s not “has gaps in knowledge.”
Explain yourself.

25

IMHO, it’s best to learn an easy language that you have a good chance of having authentic communication with first- and this means probably Spanish, maybe French. Language is a tool of communication, and most people stand a better chance of actually learning a language if they can use it. After that, the third language is an order of magnitude easier than the second, and you can lean whatever language makes sense in your life.

IMHO learning a language for sheer pleasure is foolhardy- the majority of people are not good at learning language out of context. Trying to game the next important language is also a lost cause- think about how many people learned Japanese in the 80s. Arabic was so hot (and it’s moment has long passed) because we started an unexpected war and most speakers could not get security clearances. Now we have a whole generation of Arabic speakers and the war is winding down.

Anyways, I think the best language to learn is the one you have the best chance of using.

26

I must agree with even sven on all her points.

It seems to me that it is important to remember for the Arab world, that a very large portion is not what the Anglo Saxons think it is, there are perhaps 85 millions who are living in the Francophone Maghreb. There is it the French and Arabic and not the English and Arabic that are used. They also do not fit the stereotype expressed in OP as places of no importance without oil, as this is only really the pays of the Golf, which are a small population of Arabs, of their populations few are Arabs and fewer are national citizens. The countries of the southern mediterannean space will be of interest for aging europe for production and marketing.

Since the OP is known as someone with strong opinions on the subject of Israel, perhaps the other person interpreted statements in this context? Between the inaccurate stereotype and other opinions it could be interpreted, although I do not think it is.

The Arabic language is used by many more non-Arabs than I think the Mandarin language is.

27

… there was no stereotype in the OP, at all.

28

I believe this is a stereotype: “with the inevitable decline in oil revenues, the Arab states themselves will see their political capital rapidly devalued.” It depends on a vision of the Arab states that is driven by one part of the region. It is, at least, an Anglo-American vision and a sentiment of the political interactions of Arab states that is based on one part of them.

But even if you call it something else, I believe it is not hard to understand how someone who might understand better the Arab region would interpret this in such a fashion. It is an over-reaction to call it racism, but I agree with AK84 how one can see such a reaction.

29

That’s not a stereotype. It’s a statement that the political power currently welded by some Arab states is due to their economic prominence due to oil, and will most likely decline in time. “The United States’ global dominance is due to a system of great universities and innovations in technology” may be correct, or incorrect, but it’s not a stereotype. Nor was my formulation ignorant, let alone possessing huge gaps of knowledge as AK claimed (but never specified let alone proved). The nations in the Arab League who are currently economic powers in the world share defining characteristics, and one of them is their oil revenue.

Even if that was false, it’s still bizarre and unreasonable to call it racist. Racism has a fairly concrete meaning, and it shouldn’t be conflated with other issues, or its actual use is vastly devalued.

30

It is a statement made of an Anglo American perspective. You have added ‘some Arab states’ but that is not your original statement.

the political importances given to the north african states, which are the states of the greatest importance to Europeans as an example has very little connections to petrol production. You made a stereotype about the entire Arab region out of something true for a small part of the region. I think it is reasonable to say that a statement that has no bearing on the majority of the Arab population, that population is found in North Africa, contains ignorance and is stereotyping. It is certain you will disagree, of course.

If I understand that your facebook conversation was informal, and I can understand racism to be a way of the person saying prejudice, it is understandable how the interpretation could occur. I agree it is not a good usage.

31

I suppose that depends on whether you interpret “Arab states” to mean “Arabic-speaking states” or “states populated by Arabs”. I would have assumed the latter, which correlate very closely to the oil producing states of the middle east. If you mean the former, then sure, but I doubt it.

32

It’s also factually accurate and still not a stereotype. I added “some Arab states” to point out that even if we’re looking at the Arab League instead of ethnically Arab states, those who have significant global power are those with oil revenue. That is, the power in question is wielded by some states within the Arab league.

The northern African states generally have very little political clout or significant economic power on the global scale. And no, the “states of the greatest importance to Europeans” are most certainly not northern African, they’re other European states followed, most likely, by Russia and China.

Arguing that the global political/economic power held by Arab states is due to oil revenues is not only not a stereotype, it also fairly obviously is not a statement about Arab states which do not hold political/economic power on a global scale. And no, "prejudice’ isn’t accurate, either.

33

A few points on this:

  1. If your “friend” is calling you a racist, perhaps they are looking beyond the facts currently in evidence. Based on what you posted, I would not level that charge at you, but I don’t know you the way your friend likely does.

  2. What you said was definitely ethnocentric at the least, which is a small stone’s throw away from passive racism or bigotry. I don’t think you were being malicious, just curiously myopic and uninformed.

  3. I suppose you could argue the racist label is thrown around too often, but some of the reason it is is because very few actual racists said outright racist things. Even if the term has a concrete meaning, the appropriate application of it is still pretty subjective.

Lastly, I think you are pettifogging somewhat here. The fact that what you said isn’t explicitly racist isn’t proof positive that the the charge levels against you was invalid. And let me be clear, I don’t know that it is valid. But your insistence that the truth of the comment is irrelevant is wrong IMO.

For example tell if you think the following statements might be considered racist or bigoted in many contexts:

Even if there are pieces of truth in each statement, there are enough loaded phrases, stereotypes, and biases that it could be argued that the speaker is more than just uninformed or ignorant.

34

Arguing the economic benefits to certain decisions in the global market is not ethnocentrism. You can not just toss around words because they sound like they’ll have impact. Even if ethnocentrism was a valid label (it’s not), it’d still be weak as it’s essentially simply a pejorative applied to any view of cultures that isn’t cultural relativism. Further, arguing that a calculus of global economic impact is 'passive racism or bigotry" (whatever weasel concept ‘passive’ is supposed to be used for there) is absolute nonsense.

35

It is a stereotype as the majority of the ethnic Arab population - which is in North Africa, has nothing to do with it, and it is an opinion advanced on the tiny minority of Arab population. I do not know what this talk of Arab League is about as this has nothing to do with that.

It is strange after the Arab Spring and the importance of Tunisie, of Egypt, etc to read this opinion, but it is a very American opnion.

I think it was clear I meant of the region.

It is your opinion. It seems to me an opinion based on a very narrow vision and knowledge of this region. I call this a stereotype. It is witout doubt you will not agree with this.

36

It likely is because your argument regarding the economic benefits is extremely poor. It’s based on a very myopic, western-centric world view. You keep treating this as an economic statement when the statement itself rested upon biased parsing of the facts.

That’s nonsense. You could make the same (terrible) argument for definition of racism.

Dude, maybe you should check your assumption and reevaluate how you appear to others. A few people have commented, as I did, that your comments could very well be construed in a way you didn’t intend. That said, let’s look at what we know. One of your friends called you a racist. If this person is truly your friend, then maybe you should figure out why this happened instead of trying to immediately dismiss his conclusions. I don’t know you well enough to know if you are a racist or what is in your heart, but someone who presumably does thinks you are. Maybe you should address that.

You distilled a rich culture with thousands of years of history to one only important (to you) because of their oil reserves. That is profoundly ignorant in a number of ways. It’s so off the mark that it makes me question the lens through which you view the world. Then you used that faulty premise to put forth an equally absurd economic argument for learning Mandarin. The charge, AFAICT, was leveled less for advocating Mandarin, but for deriding Arabic, and the Arab world and their contributions to society.

37

No, it isn’t. You’ve invented that out of thin air. It was a correct statement about the economic and global impact of Arab states, not Arab populations. As for you not understanding what the Arab League might have to do with a definition of Arab states, I leave that to other readers, I suppose.

Not if people are paying attention. The Arab Spring did not, for instance, make Tunisia an important nation in the globally economy or in terms of global political clout. Tunisia could fall off the face of the globe tomorrow, and there would be markedly limited global repercussions. This is not an “American attitude”, it’s just a fact.

You can’t get away from the facts by pretending they’re opinions, and were I wrong it would be trivially easy to show that I was. You haven’t, because you can’t, because I’m not. You can, of course, create claims about my (fictional) ignorance about the region, and pretend that a factual statement about global economic impact from the Arab states is a “stereotype”, but as you haven’t, and can’t factually gainsay my claims, it amounts to mere smoke and mirrors.

Your nonsense arguments, aside from sloppy thinking, irrational claims and tremendous ‘flexibility’ with pejorative terms, is evidently typified by a fantastic degree of imagination. But hey, if you can imagine a discussion about “Arab contributions to society”, you might as well imagine the rest of a discussion that also didn’t happen. Knock yourself out, imagine Mongols riding dinosaurs into battle.

38

And what does the relative power of Arab states have to do with the benefits of learning Arabic?

  1. Your comments fit the very definition of ethnocentrism whether you agree with it or not.

  2. Your friend called you a racist.

  3. You have been called on every one of your ridiculous arguments which you, thankfully, have dropped for the most part. Those include but are not limited to:

a. The prudence of trying to correctly predict the economic benefits of specific language attainment a generation in advance based on current trends

b. The usefulness of Mandarin right now

c. The overstated economic relevance of China in the near and medium-term future

d. The benefits and purpose of language education

You were wrong on about every claim you made. Now the fact that you seemingly went out of your way to explain to someone why learning Arabic was a waste of time when they likely didn’t ask your opinion makes it fairly clear that you may have an axe to grind on some level.

Then you come here whining, trying to get people to diagnose your lack of racist intent. When it is explained to you why some, even if they are overzealous, might feel you were being racist, you lash out with more absurdities.

I take it you agree that your avocation for learning Mandarin is unfounded on the bases you presented. Why is it still unclear to you why your friend called you a racist? Even if you don’t agree with his conclusion (not sure I do either), I think it has been sufficiently explained why someone might say that.

39

I’ll leave that question to the readers of this thread.
Curiously, you are the only one who seems not to comprehend why learning a language would have different effects depending on the national power of the states you could do business with.

No, and you obviously don’t know what ethnocentrism means. Just like you’ve now imagined that some dude I knew in high school but was on my Facebook friends page called me a racist. It’s interesting that you imagined that, as what he actually claimed was that the quoted comments I’ve already included in my OP were racist. Yet again, quite curiously, you’ve imagined a totally alternate scenario. As you’ve now shifted into Total Bullshit mode and are pretending things such as I was not only wrong, but somehow proven wrong on the purpose of language instruction, I’ll just to point out that your argument is pretty much purely high-pressure bullshit spewed through a tiny hose aimlessly:

-Nobody ‘called me’ on, let alone refuted the fact that it’s perfectly valid to try to predict what language are or will be valuable to study. In fact, your bullshit on that count ignores the fact that, time and again, the teaching of English was used as an example of a useful language to learn. That prediction is not 100% does not, in any way shape or form, rebut the argument that we should still attempt to predict useful languages.

-Nobody refuted the fact that Mandarin is a useful language to learn. Sven claimed that, for him, it wasn’t useful. You’re more than welcome to use the fallacy of anecdote and claim that constitutes some sort of scientific study and a quality refutation.

-Nor was China’s role in the future global economy refuted. No facts were provided, for example, to gainsay the fact that China’s research output is already on a path to overwhelm the United States’. And as your argument is irrational bullshit, you’re hoisted by your own petard: if it’s not possible to predict economic and linguistic trends a generation in advance, it’s not reasonable to predict Chinese population data a generation+ in advance.

It’s clear that your argument is ridiculously poor and mildly rabid as it gloms on to nonsense about “racism” and “ethnocentrism” and “passive whateverism”. Hell, it actually contains a claim, evidently not offered as auto-satire, that discussing a Facebook post is evidence that someone has “an axe to grind”. And this is after your argument contained the wonderful little bit of guilty-until-proven-innocent nonsense about how it was “pettifoggery” to argue that because some didn’t say anything that a sane person could view as racist, that that didn’t mean we should reject the claim that that person is a racist. Your argument is shocking bad, irrational, and sloppy, and I say this having argued with Gonzomax in the past. Just sit down and content yourself with believing that a discussion of global economic factors is “ethnocentrist and passively bigoted”.

40

What percentage of multi-lingual people use their language skills to “do business” in nations or with people who speak their non-native languages? The percentage (aside from English) is likely vanishingly small. That’s why all your arguments are misguided. Not only because you have no reliable way of knowing how valuable speaking Mandarin will be in the future (see: Russian/Japanese speakers in past generations), but also because language hurdles are less and less of a stumbling block in international business. Far less so for native English speakers.

[QUOTE=Wiki]
Ethnocentrism is judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one’s own culture.
[/QUOTE]

You are juding the value of Arabic and Arab culture based on what you find useful about them (oil and the requisite economic power that comes from having it). That is not the sum total of their contribution, nor is it how most modern thinkers view them Most importantly, that not a reason to learn a language, nor it a reason for castigating others for learning it.

:dubious:

I guess I just imagined you saying that.

Once again you are wrong. Aside from my own comments we have this:

[QUOTE=even sven]
Trying to game the next important language is also a lost cause- think about how many people learned Japanese in the 80s. Arabic was so hot (and it’s moment has long passed) because we started an unexpected war and most speakers could not get security clearances. Now we have a whole generation of Arabic speakers and the war is winding down.
[/QUOTE]

What proof are you looking for? Besides, the point is that Mandarin is not useful for the reasons you stated. Learning any language has a use if it’s important you as education is usually good for its own sake.

Nobody needs to refute it as it is irrelevant to whether learning the language will be useful for economic reasons. Besides, how much of that research output is published in Mandarin? Even if we accept your scenario of 21st century Chinese domination, the reality is that most Chinese people who will deal with will speak English already.

This is really really stupid. Honestly, do you not see the different between using demographic data, which largely relies on slow trends and people dying at predictable rates and predicting the IMPORTANCE and USEFULNESS of specific language attainment in a future business environment? It’s the difference between meteorology and trying to predict the companies with the highest market cap 20 years from now.

Really? If someone posts an article about kids learning a language, you think an appropriate response is to respond about how it’s a waste of time given that the nations where the language is spoken will be irrelevant when they eventually run out of oil. Yeah, sounds perfectly logical to me.