Resisting Linguistic Genocide

On that account, a major key factor that shaped humanity surrounding the colonial project was the imposition of language, in which some cultures may be considered of lower rank compared to others. This type of oppression is still witnessed throughout the globe—tensions between English and Celtic languages; indigenous fighting for a voice in settler colonies such as Canada, the United States and New Zealand; and the pressures to dismiss Pidgin as a language by right in Nigeria. These examples were provided to emphasize the understanding that in such regions powerful metropolitan elites needed to secure control, internally and externally. Their logic was to enforce language in the colonial territory, gain access and improve relationships with local elites who would then perceive their native language as secondary. Like Antonio De Nebrija, Spanish humanist and writer, asserted in 1492, ‘Siempre la lengua fue companera del imperio—language has always been the companion of the empire.’

Consequently, this issue led to ‘linguistic genocide’ as it took over the entire communication system in these regions, completely erasing or impeding languages from crucially developing. Due to European imperialism, around 6,000 languages were decimated, seeing that native languages were discriminated against; as a result, such languages were not passed on to the following generations. Farrel Corcoran, author and academic, explains that ‘the global language system must be seen as dynamic rather than static,’ since language itself is supported by nothing but the power relations between trade and imperialism, ultimately conditioning the current distribution of information and communication.

Although nations gained independence and sovereignty over their territories, decolonizing thought and colonial linguistic traits are ongoing. Following the Second World War, European superiority and the stigmatization of non-Western languages have been constantly questioned; nevertheless, formerly dominated nations aimed to position themselves against their former colonial powers and dismantle the colonial status quo.

Thus, the goal of European expansion and colonialism was to extend Europe’s economic and power levels outside European borders and to propound superiority which was met by submitting populations to all sorts of atrocities. Through pillage, mass genocides and rape, this was eventually achieved.  However, other methods guaranteed European imperialism’s sovereignty and drive. Colonialism was supported by power structures such as social and hierarchical systems overflowing with tales of ‘undeniable’ European superiority. While Europe and its allies sat at the top of privilege, the colonized were described as subordinates whose very purpose in life was to be subjugated as backward, inhuman, lower class and, nonetheless, to meet all European needs. Colonization was an enterprise that not only administratively dominated the colonized territories by having exploited its resources illegitimately and illegally, but it was, above all, also an act of cultural alienation of the natives (indigenous, in the imperialist vocabulary), who saw their traditions belittled and ridiculed, their history suspended and placed in the ‘wilderness state’ in which colonial domination has always sought to have oppressed men and women. Their languages were then considered the most uneducated.

So how did colonialism and coloniality truly shape language? In order to understand the linguistic operations, we must evaluate the economic, political, religious and social factors and their repercussions on the livelihood of colonial subjects. Language and culture are products of each other thereby shaping our perception of ourselves and the world around us. Scholars believe that language is the ladder for the universe of identity and nationality. This leads to the question of what is precisely language oppression. There are several scholarly debates regarding the concept of language oppression. Gerald Roche, anthropologist and linguist, for instance, describes it as a ‘form of domination that is coherent with other forms of oppression along the lines of race, nation, color and ethnicity’. Other academics define it as the ‘enforcement of language loss by physical, mental, social and spiritual coercion’—overall, an evolution through linguicism and linguistic discrimination.

A language hierarchy was built where the oppressor’s language was considered prestigious and universal, becoming the communication tool for trade and social interactions. These practices heavily affected local languages, which eventually became subalterns within the hierarchy; furthermore, European languages retarded the development of native linguistic systems. By contrast, the colonizers’ language became vital for those ready to assimilate and adapt within the colonial sphere; elites pursued raising their children under the colonial language instead. The increase in speakers of the colonial language and its power was supported then by the binary discourses around Europeans and non-Europeans. According to Said in ‘Orientalism’, who supports this argument, Western societies built their image at the expense of belittling their colonized nations. At the same time, they managed to give legitimacy to those beliefs by recreating history and introducing their culture as universal, unique and the ultimate saviour of backwardness and superstition. Said also emphasizes the position of French philosopher, Michel Foucault, when considering that power and knowledge are forever intertwined; as in this case, they are supported by the empowerment of the oppressor language and the belief that native languages are connected to retardation.

Therefore, the ‘divide and conquer’ theory empowered the idea of a sole language which would automatically mean obedience, allegiance and a rebranding of identity. Linguistic oppression was then performed by first, the enslavement trade and death of many native speakers; second, the expansion of the bureaucratic state onto daily lives; third, the imposition of the oppressor language in institutions; fourth, the oppressor language as the link to religion; fifth, prioritizing the teaching of local elites; and lastly, military coercion into the imperial practices. The language shifted throughout time depending on the needs of the colonizers and the adaptations done by the colonized. Moreover, its sole purpose was to perpetuate and solidify colonial rule.

In the cases of Guinea-Bissau, Angola and Mozambique, former Portuguese colonies, the colonial regime even established, utilizing a law, the conditions for a native to leave the situation of ‘indigenous’ (stop being an uncivilized person, as dictated by that law) for that of ‘assimilated’. Decree and laws were made to establish conditions that allowed a Guinean, Angolan or Mozambican, having renounced their traditions and cultures, to be considered Portuguese citizens. Among the conditions indicated by the law, it appears the obligation of the individual to speak the Portuguese language correctly. By submitting the colonized into assimilating and forgetting their heritage and language, Europeans expanded their beliefs of rubbing off identity and nationality from them; linguistic and cultural erasure became crucial to destabilizing and reshaping minority groups.