Language and National Conflict

The other day I was thinking about how language relates to national conflicts.  It seems that nations are more likely to oppose each other and eventually go to war when the respective nations' common citizens do not understand their rival's language (and/or culture).

I found this interesting.  I was taught French in high school.  France has been a US ally for most of our history, and while arrogance and disputes have created some hostilities, a war with France seems inconceivable.  Most students are taught Spanish.  Again, war with Latin American nations or Spain seems quite remote.  Despite our interventionist history with Latin America, nearly all of it was covert.

Despite Germanic ancestry making up the single largest ethnic group in the U.S., German is not prevalently taught in the US, from my vantage.

Many Americans view China as one of our largest threats.  From what I've seen, Mandarin is not widely taught in school, and most Mandarin-speaking Americans are immigrants or their descendants.  I find this surprising given the size of trade and relative economic importance with China.

Similarly, Russian is not very popular either, and not widely taught in school.

Nor is Persian or Arabic...

 

While I hesitate to give full blame to such educational policy towards conspiracy, it seems like a pro-war (pro-conflict) policy.  It certainly allows misinterpretations of national leaders to flourish in the news media.

Anyone ever notice this or have more research on this?

meambobbo:

Despite Germanic ancestry making up the single largest ethnic group in the U.S., German is not prevalently taught in the US, from my vantage.

But up to WWI German was widely spoke in the U.S.

 

The source of conflict is plain old nationalism and economic intervention. It's not that related to language IMO.

Sure, the american government is probably not interested in teaching, say, german in schools since germany is 'evil' (and a powerful industrial competitor). More generally, a national government is not interested in promoting understanding with other governments because peaceful cooperation and international trade would render the national military establishment irrelevant and put the nation-state out of business.

Juan:

The source of conflict is plain old nationalism and economic intervention. It's not that related to language IMO.

The historical phenomenon known as the "rise of nationalism" was mostly about language.  The 19th century is characterized by language groups banding together and bridling against polyglot empires.  When historians talk about 19th century nationalism, they're talking about movements like Pan-Slavism (Russia wanting to free the southern slavs from the Ottoman Turkish Empire), Italian irredentism (Italians wanting to "redeem" Italian-speaking towns still under the Hapsburg Austrian Empire), and the Teutonism that united Germany. 

Lilburne:

The historical phenomenon known as the "rise of nationalism" was mostly about language.

Language is one facet of a "nation" (as opposed to a "state"), but not the only one.  For example, Valencia and Cataluña speak the same language (even if they call it differently: Catalán versus Valenciano), but Valencia is relatively pro-Spain, while Cataluña is not (Mallorca also speaks Catalán, even though they call it Mallorquín).  Austria speaks German, but Austria has always been distinctly sovereign.

Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

Language is one facet of a "nation" (as opposed to a "state"), but not the only one.

I agree, but I would say it's the most important facet.

Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

Valencia is relatively pro-Spain

Wouldn't being pro-unified-Spain be a matter of patriotism?

Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

Austria speaks German, but Austria has always been distinctly sovereign.

I would contend that insofar as Austria is distinctly sovereign qua Austria, it is more patriotic and less nationalistic.  Historians consider the weakness of the Austrian state in the 19th century as largely stemming from its swimming against the current of nationalism.  It desperately clung to its patchwork empire of Teutons, Magyars, Poles, etc, while Prussia succeeded by going with the nationalistic flow and focusing on German unity.

I think part of the confusion stems from common parlance conflating "nation" with "state" and "country".

Lilburne:

I agree, but I would say it's the most important facet.

I disagree.  I would place "culture" as the greatest facet, whether that includes a language or not.

Wouldn't being pro-unified-Spain be a matter of patriotism?

Even if El País Vasco and Cataluña were to break off, Madrid, the two Castillas and arguably Valencia remain Spanish in culture (not necessarily in language).  There is both a Spanish State and a Spanish Nation.  Patriotism comes from nationalism, but we can say that patriotism also entails coercing others who are not necessarily of your Nation (patriotism towards an Empire, for example).

I would contend that insofar as Austria is distinctly sovereign qua Austria, it is more patriotic and less nationalistic.  Historians consider the weakness of the Austrian state in the 19th century as largely stemming from its swimming against the current of nationalism.  It desperately clung to its patchwork empire of Teutons, Magyars, Poles, etc, while Prussia succeeded by going with the nationalistic flow and focusing on German unity.

Although the Austro-Hungarian Empire did fall due to nationalism, there is little doubt that there is also an Austrian Nation within that Empire.  It's an Austrian Nation which does not consider itself German, and therefore would not consider being part of a German State.