When Knowing A Foreign Language Is Something To Be Ashamed Of

I think I have been rather beaten to this posting by Will Hutton writing in ‘The Guardian’: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/05/will-hutton-learn-foreign-languages  However, I guess there is no harm in me adding my perspective too.  As with Hutton, my thoughts were triggered by the fact that the two leading men aiming to be nominated to be the Republican candidate for the coming US Presidential elections, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich were attacking each other on the simple basis of whether they spoke French or not.  As the BBC noted last month, they probably both do: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16583813  Romney spent 30 months in Bordeaux and Paris as a Mormon missionary in the 1960s whilst Gingrich wrote a PhD on Belgian educational policy in the Congo 1945-60 and cites a number of French-language texts in the bibliography; he might not be able to speak French but we have to assume that he reads it.  I guess Gingrich is also ‘Dr. Newt Gingrich’ something else he is keeping quiet.  Gingrich has produced an advertisement which refers to Romney’s ability to speak French.  The reason for such an attack comes from what Republican politicians associate with Europe – the euro and all its difficulties; a strong welfare budget and an unwillingness to engage in futile military conflicts.  Like most Britons they do not seem to associate Britain with Europe.

It seems incredible that there is more to gain politically from disguising that you have intellectual skills and that the grasp of a foreign language is something to use as an insult to your opponent or at least something which you feel the electorate should be dubious about.  However, it is probably worth noting that both former President George Bush Jr. (2001-9) and his father’s Vice-President Dan Quayle (1989-93) both demonstrated difficulties with English and yet seemed sufficiently popular.  In Britain, Nick Clegg when he became deputy prime minister was viewed suspiciously by Conservatives less for his political views and more for the fact that his wife is Spanish, his mother Dutch, his father half-Russian and he speaks Dutch, French, German and Spanish; his children are English-Spanish bilingual.  In a continental politician such abilities would be commended or at worst seen as normal.  However, in the UK, as in the USA, learning can be seen as an electoral liability which is why I never saw reference to Dr. Gordon Brown or Dr. Mo Mowlem even though that was in fact the case.
  This is in sharp contrast to countries like Germany or many states in the Arab World.

Ironically Clegg is very much like the nobility and royal families of Europe of the 19^th century.  Queen Victoria (actual first name Alexandrina), born to a German family, married to a German prince, had children who married into the different royal families of Europe including those of Germany and Russia.  Victoria spoke German with her children and presumably her husband too.  At the time upper class people across Europe spoke French to the extent that you often cannot find copies of treaties Britain was party to actually in English (I have looked) as French was spoken so widely among the civil service and I imagine the entire diplomatic corps. Of course, there has always been one rule for the rich and another for the rest.  Whilst the wealthy of the UK including many members of the Conservative Party may look in disdain at our European neighbours let alone nationalities further afield and voice this attitude, this does not actually stop them from taking expensive holidays in exotic countries and mixing with the 'right sort' of foreigner; wealth is a language all of its own.
  I do not know when the attitude shifted, but to me it seems it came during the First World War as Britain looked on both its opponents and its allies with disdain and focused on things that looked 'unBritish'; even the royal family was compelled to drop the surname Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in favour of Windsor.   Throughout the 20th century foreigners seem to have lost the sense of being worthy rivals to being people who should at best be patronised and at worst attacked.  Perhaps it was the fact that Sir Anthony Eden, foreign secretary (1935-8; 1940-5; 1951-5) and prime minister (1955-7) did not reveal that he had a degree in Farsi (spoken in Iran) and Arabic and could speak reasonably good French in the documentary film, 'Le Chagrin et la Pitié' (1969) though he switches to English towards the end.  I always note that Eden could have understood the broadcasts in Arabic by his great antagonist Egyptian leader Colonel Nasser without a translator.  The fact that Eden had this knowledge yet it was effectively concealed probably shows the stage that knowing a foreign language in Britain was no longer seen as beneficial but suspicious. 

I would argue that the criticism of people for having language skills is part of a broader anti-intellectualism that has been common in the UK since the 1970s and probably quite a bit longer.  It is interesting that the website of the ‘Daily Mail’ has now just overtaken the ‘New York Times’ as the most often accessed English-language news site.  The ‘Daily Mail’ is clearly nationalistic, anti-European Integration and generally right-wing.  It tends to focus on glamour rather than intellectual issues and presents solutions to most of the world’s problems as based on getting foreigners to listen to British common sense.  Hutton takes a more specific focus in his seeking for an answer.

Hutton notes that there has been a fall of 21% in students applying for university degree courses in non-European languages, exceeding the general fall of around 9% in all university applications, despite the fact that having such skills makes graduates highly employable.  Part of the difficulty is the fall in the feed-through of students who speak any foreign languages, as only 43% of even GSCE level students study any language.  At ‘A’ level in 2011 only just over 13,000 students took French down 5% from 2010; 7,600 took Spanish; 5,100 took German a fall of 7%; Chinese was taken by 3,100; Polish by 458 and Irish by 339.  A key reason for not studying a language at university is that language degrees last 4 rather than 3 years so accruing more fees, though as with sandwich courses with industrial placements the fees may be reduced when the student is away from their home campus.

Hutton quotes translator Michael Hofmann who argues that only speaking one language traps you in a ‘cultural cage’ only able to perceive one position on issues.  Consequently he sees an advantage in terms of getting employment not simply through being able to talk to people from a different country but because you develop a flexibility of mind which allows you to adapt to different circumstances even if that is shifting from one company to another simply within the UK.  Hutton thinks that the lack of affinity for language learning stems from seeing foreigners as ‘invaders’, indeed some kind of benefit pillagers.  Whilst we like the fact that English is so widely spoken in the world (but still by fewer people that Mandarin Chinese) we do not like the fact that it makes it easier for them to come to the UK to work or claim benefits.  In addition, most British are not interested in going out to countries to assist in strengthening their economies to make even recession hit UK look less attractive.  While we may not have shaken off the sense of imperial superiority we certainly have lost any sense of a patrician approach which once was an element of British colonialism. 

Hutton feels the sense that foreigners are a threat is why those studying languages are so often ridiculed in the UK as if daring to learn the alien’s language makes you a source of suspicion, much as we see it doing in the USA.  Putting in effort to learn a foreign language, apparently shows that you are focusing on the wrong priorities because you are putting at least some emphasis on a different culture from your own and somehow that wanting to know more about another culture suggests you lack pride in your own.  As Hutton notes this cultural censuring of language learning runs counter to the best interests of those people choosing what subjects to study.  I had a friend who learnt Korean.  He seems to have been the first person ever to complete a Linguaphone course in that language as he noticed that tapes 3 and 4 in the set (this predated CDs let alone downloads) that he had bought were identical.  The company had recorded tape 4 but had been dispatching the wrong one in its place.  Anyway, he was so in demand that when travelling on public transport anyone in the UK or South Korea found he spoke Korean they would offer him a job.  Anyone who speaks fluent English and can get a decent grasp of Mandarin or Arabic or Russian or even Portuguese is liable to be in high demand and yet young people cannot see that. 

Weirdly the basic Chinese course from the Open University available on ITunesU is one of the top 3 downloaded courses but no-one seems to go beyond lesson one.  Perhaps as I have argued before the British have no language ability: http://rooksmoor.blogspot.com/2007/05/british-and-foreign-languages.html so the fall in students taking them suggests that they have stopped trying to learn the languages and humiliating themselves.  I have forgotten all the foreign languages I ever learnt and as it was only got 10% in my Chinese test after 18 months study.  However, I am not going to ridicule anyone who learns a foreign language or see them suspiciously.  It seems ironic that those who are so much more nationalistic than me are so hostile to language learning not realising that if you are ignorant of someone else's language and yet they know yours, it is you who is at a disadvantage.

What If Winston Churchill Had Died Younger?

My views on this topic can be found in my e-book ‘Other Roads: Alternate Outcomes of the Second World War’ It is available for purchase on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Other-Roads-Alternate-Outcomes-Second-ebook/dp/B00J44F2L0/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1395342550&sr=1-1

UK readers might prefer to access it through:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Other-Roads-Alternate-Outcomes-Second-ebook/dp/B00J44F2L0/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1395342343&sr=1-1

Canadian readers can access it through: http://www.amazon.ca/Other-Roads-Alternate-Outcomes-Second-ebook/dp/B00J44F2L0/ref=sr_1_25?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1395342737&sr=1-25

Australian readers can access it through: http://www.amazon.com.au/Other-Roads-Alternate-Outcomes-Second-ebook/dp/B00J44F2L0/ref=sr_1_25?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1395342887&sr=1-25

What If? Art 1: The History Book That Never Was

Recently I was introduced to a contemporary form of art that I had not encountered before: Book Art. This is not, as I initially thought, about illustrating books, that apparently comes under Print-Making, it is more books made by artists, sometimes, for example binding together collections of their images or bits of text and concertinaed pieces of paper or even scrolls with images on are popular too. Sometimes they just make one copy, sometimes they run off thousands. Some go much further and do not just use paper and card but things like wood or textiles or even metal. There is another strand which is taking existing books and altering them in some way such as cutting shapes in them or sticking in other images and/or text or even objects. A lot of the themes are pretty nostalgic: images, text and styles from the 1930s-1970s or drawing on the memories of the artists' grandparents. One thing about this form of art, which I accept would not appeal to everyone, is that unlike paintings and I suppose most sculpture, you can actually handle most book artists' work. I suppose 'book' defines its scale too, you could not have a book feasibly the size of the 'Black Watch' or even the 'Mona Lisa'.

Anyway, after this, in my search for 'what if?'s and counter-factual material, I came across an art project at the University of the West of England (acronym UWE). They do a lot of book art there apparently and in 2003, I think, asked artists to produce work under the title 'The History Book That Never Was'. The examples of the work can both still be seen and are freely downloadable if you go to: http://www.bookarts.uwe.ac.uk/nevergal.htm

This got me thinking and I wondered what it would be like to produce some of these for myself, with an emphasis less on art and more on counter-factual history, i.e. images of books which if they had actually existed would have implied an alternate history than the one that our world encountered. I do not have a sophisticated graphics package but found an old one I had that allowed me to do most of what I wanted (except write in gothic script which is a shame) and on my first effort I produce these three examples below.

'Mein Leben in der Kunst' by Adolfus Hitler (1967)

I hope got my German correct on this one, please let me know if I slipped up and what it should be. For this one I used a cover of a book that was actually in Hitler's library, it was a historical atlas so seemed to me the right sort of format for a book which would include 'plates' as photographic illustrations were called in books in the past even though it is shown as published in 1967. This was the one that I wanted to use gothic print for, but I guess by 1967 something like this, especially in a world where Hitler did not come to power and so reasserted the use of that script, would have been more likely.

If my German is correct, the title means 'My Life in Art' and the 'what if?' it suggests is that Adolfus Hitler (that was the name he was given when he was born, he had no middle name and always used 'Adolf') remained an artist and lived out his days in Austria (he was an Austrian, born in Linz close to the German border, if the German authorities had not granted him German nationality he would have been barred from becoming leader of Germany later). Wien is the German spelling of Vienna; I made up the publisher it means New World Art, after the initial one I thought of turned out to be an actual publishers and I thought they might sue someone suggesting that they published a book by Hitler. By 1967, Hitler would have been 78 and presumably a rather bitter, maybe mad artist of not large repute who had chafed seeing Germany deal with its problems in the 1920s and 1930s possibly through an authoritarian regime, but certainly stopping short of the Nazi regime and the Holocaust.

'Current Reforms in Seminaries of the Autonomous Russian Region of Georgia'

by I.V. Dzhugashvili (1947)

This one is similar. Josef Stalin's real name was Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili. He was born in 1879 in Georgia and attended seminary school until he was expelled in 1899. This book envisages that he stayed on and ultimately became a priest in the Orthodox Church of Georgia rather than becoming involved in the growing Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) which split into the Bolsheviks (who went on under Lenin to set up the USSR) and the Mensheviks (who were pushed aside in 1917-18) in 1903. Stalin did not take part in the October (November on the West European calendar) 1917 revolution which brought Lenin to power, but he was a dominant force in the Bolshevik Party and by 1928 had become leader of the USSR until his death in 1953. His rule saw millions die in engineered famines and from purges which sent them to prison camps and had them executed. This 'what if?' sees Russia having a revolution but probably going no further than that of February (March) 1917 with some kind of democracy established and increasingly autonomy for the different ethnic states of the Russian Empire such as Georgia. Valentin Andreevich Antonieff (1877-1962) in our world was a leading Russian Orthodox priest in Australia, so would have been in a position to translate a book like this if Stalin had turned out to be a reforming priest rather than a ruthless tyrant.

'Selected Speeches of Col. Gamal Abdel-Nasser'

by Professor Anthony Eden (1962)

This one is less wide-sweeping than the other two. It envisages that rather than going into politics in 1922 Anthony Eden who spoke French, German and Russian and got a First from Christ Church College, University of Oxford in Arabic and Farsi (the language of Persia/Iran) stayed on at the university rising to become a professor (for US readers, not all tutors at British universities are 'professors'; there are four ranks: lecturer, senior lecturer, reader and professor, only the highest rank is addressed as 'professor', the others are generally 'doctor' or sometimes 'Mr./Mrs./Miss./Ms.'. Professors are either promoted to being a professor usually having had an outstanding career or are 'given a chair' a special position concerning a particular area of study) and was awarded what I have called the Pococke Chair of Arabic Scholarship. Edward Pococke was a scholar of Arabic at Christ Church in the 17th century, so, though no such chair exists it would be feasible.

In our world Eden became a minister in 1931 and was Foreign Secretary in 1935-38, 1940-45 and again 1951-5; he became Sir Anthony in 1954. When Winston Churchill retired in April 1955 Eden became Prime Minister but his time in office was short-lived after the bungled attempt to re-secure control of the Suez Canal from the Egyptians in October 1956 in conjunction with the French and Israelis. This was seen as a humiliating defeat for Britain and Eden was compelled to resign in January 1957, having held the post for only 21 months. He became the Earl of Avon in 1961 and wrote successful memoirs and contributed to documentaries on the Second World War. Some feel that continued tension in the Middle East stemmed from Eden's agreement to carry out what became known as the 'Suez Crisis'; others argue it was just its failure which meant that outcome. In 1955 Eden did meet Nasser (this is where the picture comes from) who had become president of Egypt in 1952 and was to retain that position until 1967. This book envisages Eden having taken a different career path, possibly one that kept him away from large events and possibly may have led to a more peaceful Middle East in the 1950s, though maybe still turbulent later; one man or his absence could not resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. This cover is modelled on the kind of political/current affairs books Penguin produced from the 1930s to late 1960s.