Giorgio Pagano’s speech at the 39th Radical Party Congress

Posted on in Politics and languages 6 view

The English prime minister, David Cameron, has recently decreed the end of multiculturalism: this is coming from the Prime Minister of the Europe’s main monoculturalism exporter leads directly to reflect on the most difficult radical battle: that is, the esperantist one.
Thanks to the linguistic inequality, England saves 18 million euros a year in comparison to non-English speaking countries of the world, that spend 350 million Euros to "Englishize" themselves, that’s without counting the advantages that an English mothertongue has when it comes to debate, negotiation and conflict.
English mothertongues, thanks to the hegenomy of their language, have even more probability to find a job abroad and hold a vast market, also due to the culture’s hegenomy of the English-speaking countries which is not limited to cinema, music or television, but also includes History of Literature, a subject high school students are forced to study, in spite of other countries which have illustrious òiterature history- think Germany’s Goethe, or Spain’s Cervantes.
In this context one should proceed on the European path, in addition to explicitly rule out political and linguistic democracy expansion in the Treaty of Lisbon, does not have reason to exist if not in the multiculturalism and democratic enviroment, and, more importantly, the linguistic enviroment.
We can see the paradox that the countries that had, at their own initiative, all invested to follow a common route, and they meet in am actual "battle of the languages," which brings us back, as always, to the current problem of patents and scholarships; considering that now the debate is not about the uncertainty of democratic multilinguism, but about that choice between English and trilinguism.
This is obvious if you consider that in a European situation countries are already aggravated by the economic crisis in general, it is likely that the balance favours the stronger side – that is England – which has not had to relinquish its wealth, and as a dominant linguistic power it is equal to France and Germany: those are three of the wealthiest countries which have the greatest number of speakers in Europe.
I think that all radicals should take interest in what’s happening to the language of the nation where their roots are, the majority of these are registered and a reasonable number of members, a nation that doesn’t invest in its own lingustic assets in a Europe that no longer dreams, but does, in fact, interest itself in American testimonies, as was already evident in 1948, from George Kennan’s words:

"We have about 50 percent of the world’s wealth but only 6.3 percent of its population. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality…We should cease to talk about human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization."
A statement which, when compared to Condaleezza Rice’s, proves that the formality has changed but the essence has not:
"The rest of the world will gain an advantage by pursuing American values, for American values are universal."
It is thanks to the American interests that allowed a war against Iraq to be conducted.

All of this is not yet possible because what Europeans are missing is a common language to communicate with; they have the same currency yet when they speak they don’t udnerstand eachother, and the only measure our governors take is to dominate a country, a difficult option for the wealthier countries to turn down and one that burdens the poorer nations.

Therefore we are always at the starting point, in absence of a transnaltional literacy.
23 years ago radicals turned themselves in to Esperantist innovation promoters, which means adopting Esperanto as a federal European and international language. We have done so, not for the sake of preference, but in the name of equal rights for everyone, because Esperanto rights, are the most convenient economic rights for all of the EU countires, including Great Britain, not favouring by birth any culture in any way.
Given that Europeanism should be the common denominator of all the Radical’s subjects, considering that the completion of the United States of Europe would create an even more fertile land for the goals all radicals which to reach. Logic would like the Esperantist battle to be considered an absolute priority, given that the Federal European dream has, as seen an mentioned before, the undefeatable obstacle which is tha absence of a common language. We are witnessing a progressive margilization, an authentic blanket of silence which covers Esperanto, and it makes it difficult to explain why, not having received any objects that are not far off from the absurd.
A policy which can’t be ignored or second-guessed by those who take economic freedom and human rights to heart.
The European Union is promoting English at the expense of other languages, whilst linguistic liberty is guaranteed by a federal European language, only the Radicals promote it in Italy, which implicates greater responsibility in a difficult but indispensable battle. The role of language in the political, cultural, religious centralization etc., has been greatly discussed by Kangas, who illustrates that:
" The exaltation of the dominant group proposes itself typically as "God’s language," think Sanscript or Arab in the Islamic word."
Paraphrasing, in the western world it is like English is the lamguage of the Money God. This is not simply a metaphor: just think of India, where the dalit worship the Goddess of English because they believe it will offer them a better future, given the impossibility of landing a job without knowing English; the bronze metal recalls the Statue of Liberty, in the meanwhile the dalit are building a temple symbollically named Banka.
Democratic Europeanism has, in this contest, a defining role and it should be the one above all the other Radicals’ goals, because the final creation of the United States of Europe would allow the conditions that would facilitate the correct outcome for all of the party’s Radical beliefs, starting from the topic of non-violence, as in Italy the initiative towards Civil Disobedience is is conditioned by the fact that if something is not on television, it does not exist, and the systematic censorization of the Radical party in televsion, not to mention the distortion, all which surely wouldn’t happen in a Federal democratic Europe which shares a certain standard.
The Transnational size of the party would gain a different value the moment in which the boundaries between the UE nations were actually broken, which would also be considered as an action against prohibition°, due to its secularism and whatnot, all the battles suffocated by the cratic°-party regime which would be forced to downsize if Europe was truly a Federal state with impartial rules, not to mention the church’s influence on ethical problems and the inevitable compromises between the states that would rise on subjects such as drugs, for example. Can you imagine a United Europe with prisons like the Italian ones, which all have a common standard?

I believe it’s necessary, however harsh, to rise up to one’s own ambition and, without pushing people’s ideas towards a certain target, not for priority reasons, but because it would act as a battering ram against the wall which prevents all other goals to be achieved, and at least gives other battles the same importance and the same in only possible venue: otherwise it is like saying that what Cameron says is correct, that multiculturism and linguistic freedom have failed, resigned themselves to the Regime – a Linguistic Regime but still a regime – which is not only opposing Europe.
A Europe in which the Italian gap between the North and South is re-presenting itself identical, thanks to trilinguism. The matter concerning the Single European Patent is important: the North European Agencies will be facilitated, saving/economizing° on behalf of the small to medium-sized businesses in other countries which will be forced to pay (instead°?). What we are looking at are translation costs that go up to 90.000 Euros for each small business which, due to the crisis period, is already struggling with the budget.
What’s the point of talking about constituent European Parliment powers that have just voted in favour of trilinguism for patents, when the real constitution is missing, the constitution of the European citizen! European Federalism must be embodied in linguistic federalism, and this is the fundamental Constitution that is missing in Europe.
We, as Radicals, take on the responsibility to promote the federal language in the European Union, in order to protect people’s and citizens’ lingustic, cultural and identity rights, but also to prevent linguistic inequality and and therefore prevent economic and emplyoment rights, and prevent it from becoming the identity of an anti-people democracy which, at this rate, will only be a ghost of a democracy.
We have this duty because in the monopolized English-speaking world a language dies every two weeks, because the English one is steadily eroding even the greatest European languages but also so that Europe can place itself in the center of global innovization through a linguistic democracy, being so that the Radical Party is the first and the only party in the world which fights to export democracy across the medium of dialoging in the mother tongue and not using violence, instead of using war.
We have this duty because in the monopolized English-speaking world a language dies every two weeks, because the English one is steadily eroding even the greatest European languages but also so that Europe can place itself in the center of global innovization through a linguistic democracy, being so that the Radical Party is the first and the only party in the world which fights to export democracy across the medium of dialoging in the mother tongue and not using violence, instead of using war.
This is why we need to relaunch a European identity based not on the gap between us, but on what we have in common.
E.R.A’s initiative, which you can all sign at our table in the atrium, and, for who is listening to us, at the link, to fight untile the European athletes that compete in the 2012 Olympics with the double flag, the national and the European one, can give birth to this European ideal across the most ancient and still the most powerful medium against oppression, that is, language, in spite of what the majority of applied Education and Economical Laws would like.
There is the choice between these alternatives: sharing and oppression, dialog and command, equality and inequality. Therefore we appeal to all the Radicals, until they actively contribute to safeguard all human rights and not shut out the linguistic ones.


No comments yet
Leaving the first to comment on this article.
You need or account to post comment.