All in Favor of an Apology...

There is only so much an apology can do. It cannot erase the past or undo the harm that's been done. In the case of the Aboriginals of Australia, a simple "I'm sorry" went a long way. Prime Minister Rudd's apology proves that people admit wrongdoings occurred and genuinely feel remorse for the hate crimes. An apology, especially from someone as iconic as the prime minister, is the first step in mending relationships between the Aboriginals and the rest of Australia. Mixed responses following Rudd's apology show that the indigenous Australians had more positive feelings or their feelings did not change at all. According to a local Australian poll, gratification and relief were the most popular emotions that Rudd's plea evoked. This solidifies that an apology, if done correctly, never hurts.

Dear Aboriginals: We're sorry.

Australia was populated by a dispersal of humans who left Northeast Africa, sometime around 50,000-100,000 years ago. This dispersal was probably not a case of planned expeditions like the European colonization, but rather small movements of hunter-gatherer-fisher communities played out over prolonged time periods. This "dispersal of humans" became known as the Australian Aborigines/Aboriginals or "black" Australians. Similar to the segregation seen in the Unites States during and after the era of the slave trade, a large history of mistreatment dating back to the 1800s is found in the history of the Aboriginals in Australia. Perhaps the saddest bit of history in the unfair treatment of Aboriginals is that of the Stolen Generation.

This term is used to describe those children of Australian Aboriginal descent who were removed from their families by the Australian Federal and State government agencies and church missions, under acts of their respective parliaments. According to federal policy, the Stolen Generations were taken from their homes and communities ‘for their own good’. Some white Australians believed that it would be beneficial for Aboriginal children with some ‘white blood’ to grow up in a white society. The goal was to eventually assimilate all Aboriginal children into white society. While it is unclear exactly how many children were taken from their homes, some estimate that the numbers could be between 1/3 and 1/10 of all indigenous Australian children born during that time.

On February 13th, 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd used time in Parliament to apologize to the Aboriginals for the way they had been treated in the past, with a special segment of his apology directed those part of the Stolen Generation. However, this was not the first time an apology had been proposed. During the term of former Prime Minister John Howard, many urged him to issue an apology for the previous treatment of indigenous Australians. Howard refused for over a decade to apologize to the Stolen Generations - a stance supported, polls suggest, by about 30% of Australians. Those in opposition feel that the Aboriginals should be thanking the government for removing their children from their homes and giving them, essentially a "white" upbringing. Most Australians, however, did not and do not condone the mistreatment of the Aboriginals and applauded Rudd following his formal apology.

Here are some useful links:
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's apology
Reactions to the apology
BBC News article following Rudd's 2008 apology
More information on the "Stolen Generations"

Simran Sethi & The Go Green Movement

Why should I care? What difference does this make for me? What difference does this have on my future?
While Simran Sethi had a bit of difficulty making a clear argument for her GO GREEN movement, no one can deny her strengths as a public speaker. She was simply captivating, and extremely well-versed. In between non-sequential bits about her life and times on Oprah, I did catch some interesting and thought-provoking concepts:
1. The only way to save the planet is to figure out what each of us (as individuals) can do – there is no one way.
2. The environment is everything: everything that we care about exists within this ecosystem; if it is compromised, our loved ones/things are as well
3. Environmental rights are civil rights – we all deserve access to clean air and healthy food
4. The lofty goal of saving the planet is not going to happen in “10 easy steps” – it takes all of our work
5. And lastly, why should I care? What difference does this make for me? What difference does this have on my future?

Ms. Sethi claimed that the worst possible route to getting people to care about the environment is through guilt. However, she managed to make everyone in Bovard think a bit about their friendliness towards the environment, or lack thereof. Despite the guilt trip, Simran's "lecture" was more about what she's done in her life as opposed to what we need to do to help save the planet. I am highly doubtful that her presentation persuaded anyone to start an organization dedicated to Going Green, let alone buy compact fluorescent light bulbs. Even so, it was entertaining and I give Simran Sethi an A for effort.

Here is a link for a youtube channel featuring more information about Simran and her movement: The Green Editorial

The Magori Language of Papua New Guinea

According to a census taken in 2000, there are about 100 speakers of Magori in a total population of 1,012 people. Magori is an Austronesian language of Central province, Papua New Guinea.Traditionally spoken in the some small villages in east Papua New Guinea, the language was first recorded by Europeans. Much borrowing of vocabulary from a neighboring language, Mailu, can be seen in the dialect although it does not seem to have had much effect on the phonology or grammar.

Many linguists agree that Magori was on a preliminary Papua New Guinea list as endangered with two hundred speakers, who represent 40% to 60% of the ethnic group, and a few to half the children. Even though the language was reported to be used for all important functions, the people were negative to neutral about Magori. Its demise has been reported for the last decade, but linguists are finding it difficult to record the language due to the death of almost all its speakers.

Magori has been dying out as people switch to the lingua franca of Papau New Guinea (PGN): Tok Pisin. It is estimated that more than 1000 different cultural groups exist in PNG, and most groups have their own language. Because of this, many indigenous languages are becoming obsolete to make room for this new bridge to communication.

There are 15 highly endangered languages in PGN, so why is saving one of them so important? Because of its diversity, the people in Papau New Guinea take pride in their many different styles of cultural expression that have emerged. Each group has an important role in creating its own expressive forms in art, dance, weaponry, costumes, singing, music, and architecture. Aspects of these are found within PGN's small, indigenous languages and they contribute to society's overall cultural diversity.

To Save or Not to Save

While it would be ideal to save every language and preserve each of their unique features, one has to be practical. There are not nearly enough funds and resources to revive the 3,500 languages in danger of extinction. There are many conditions to consider when deciding if a language is "worth" saving.

A language that is worth saving has a large community of functional speakers. The language should be currently passed on, even if it is not being passed as effectively as is it could be. Ideally, the language is deep rooted in history. This proves that the language has some enduring quality worth saving. If the language has a written form already available, then the likelihood of it being effectively preserved and used in the future increases. The attitude of the speakers towards the endangered language is very important. An aspect of a language "worth" saving is that its speakers have a positive attitude (or a positive attitude can be created) towards the language. Linguists may find it nearly impossible to effectively save a language without non-speakers who display a willingness to learn and speakers who display a willingness to pass it on. Saving a language is one thing, but linguists must ensure the language has potential for modernization and every day usage. A language should not be saves simply to put it on a pedestal to be admired, as many suggest is the case with Latin. The geographic location of the language is not of much importance, as long as the resources are available and the language has potential "worth." Arguably most important, if the language contains large amounts of knowledge (especially pertaining to the natural world) it should be preserved no matter what the conditions. This information is vital to the progress of society and the loss of such knowledge is almost always irreversible.


Low feasibility and low practicality sums up a language not "worth" saving. This is the case when speakers of the language are few and isolated. If a language is deprived of constant communication, efforts to save such a language will go to waste. If the geographic location is difficult to reach, one must ask: is it worth the danger? Irreversible negative attitudes held by speakers towards the language due to social or political reasons also constitute a language that may not be salvageable.

Interested in what some people are doing to save these languages? Check this out!

Linguistics and Critical Thinking

Our social issues class, Language, Society, and Culture uses real life examples pertaining to the complexity of languages in societies to incorporate themes of critical thinking and the accommodation of uncertainty. Described in the USC Course Catalogue, the objective of our linguistics class is to "discourse patterns among diverse social groups in institutional and interpersonal settings; interrelationships among language practices and gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity; social structures and cultural values as reflected in language policies and practices."

This social issue class, similar to all Social Issues courses offered at USC, steps away from simply memorizing information and turns to attaining deeper levels of understanding on the part of the students. George A. Thoma’s model “The Perry Model of Intellectual and Ethical Development” supports that a change in focus from solely acquiring large amounts of information to an actual retention and application of said information is present in schooling as students mature and progress to higher levels of learning. Superficially, it may appear as though Linguistics 115 is a course that merely utilizes the skills required to listen to a long lecture and take detailed notes. By exploring deeper into the course syllabus and objectives, one sees that the purpose is quite different than that of the obvious level.

The actual goal of the class is to challenge students to reevaluate the way they view languages and reinterpret how and why certain languages came to be. To apply this objective to the bigger picture involving society and its inhabitants, students utilize skills pertaining to critical reasoning to address problems that are sure to arise in the evaluation of what defines a language.

Purpose of Goldhagen's Analogy

The Pope and Nazi Germany

If one thing is certain, the Holy Father of Catholicism and der Furer of the Nazis have both impressively mastered the skill of one-way thinking. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen pinpoints and parallels traces of a dialectic, elitist mentality found in the lives of Pope Benedict XVI and those who participated in Hitler's Nazi Germany to warn readers of the dangers that accompany close mindedness. The effects of such is seen as the pope now applies egotistical principles (similar to those used by the Nazis) to lead the Catholic religion. Like Hitler, the pope advocates that his way is the only true way. Because complex issues are not black and white, critical reasoning is imperative for those aspects that lie in the various shades of gray. Subjects pertaining to religion, politics, and other aspects of human life cannot and should not be approached empirically as there is no “correct answer.” Goldhagen argues that this pattern of imperialism is a deadly disease stemming from the limited points of view of those in power. As the pope has "curiously spoken little" about his time spent in Nazi Germany, Goldhagen concludes that the pope "has not fully learned" the consequences of anti-Semitism and other crimes of hate. However, Goldhagen omits the fact that Pope Benedict XVI did in fact take something away from his time spent serving Hitler in WWII – intolerance.