David, this is a very interesting article and challenges my thoughts expressed in http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3765 in which I argued for the particular as being the basis for the universal. My point was that unless the universal (in Christian theology the history of Israel and the person of Jesus) is based on particular historical events then it is in danger of floating off into idealism. In that case it is not grounded in actual human experience and will suffer what all utopian thinking suffers from, a disconnection from human reality. My criticism of the UN and on the notion of human rights on which it is based, is that the latter is based not on historical event, but on a philosophical idea about justice being inherent in the individual instead of being guarded by a community that shares a common life. Your use of the Babel story would suggest that this is a tower not long for this world. It has shaky foundations even though the ideal that it is based upon look good and true. But what we have here, as you suggested, is just another example of human hubris, a reaching after the things of God that will end badly. You predict a utopian vision that looks like the Christian version of the kingdom of God, except that it is man made and we all know what happens to them!
This is not to say that the UN should be dismantled, it may be the best thing we have, but it is dangerous to place so much hope in it and dangerous also to see it as the machine that will eventually heal the earth.

As one going on 85, and having that shortish schooling as was typical of the bush during the depression when it was cheaper to have your kids doing the farm work, during retirement now having a wonderful time catching up, especially during these Online commentary sessions.

Talking about birds teaching humans. Now my wife has had a dickens of a time trying to stop black and green ring-necked cockatoos eating her new rose shoots. But we also had a rather friendly couple of kurrawongs which we had been feeding off our high back verandah hoping to sort of train them in to shoo the cockies away from eating the new rose shoots.

Now and again the cockies were also sneaking in having a go at the seed that was suitable for kurrawongs, which sadly was also suitable for whom we call the thieving crows.

Well the crows have now been scared off by a colony of little honyeaters with a half-dozen attacking a single big crow like Stuka dive-bombers. But getting back to languages, now these ring-necked cockies, like our butcher-birds, though not as tuneful, do have slightly different length calls, one having been proven to make coo-coo calls to my wife to give it and its friends more tucker.

And whether you might all believe it or not - but this ring-neck and its mates now leaves my wife's roses alone, as long as she leaves out the necessary parrot food.

Still talking about languages, as both mainly of British stock my wife and I are not happy these days with English-speaking being the desired language for global communication, believing it could be one of the things causing hatred towards us not not only from the Islamics but also other third world peoples. Maybe like the birds are telling us, it's about time us over-arrogant Anglophiles got the message.

George C, WA - Bushbred

IN its manifesto Crossing the Divide, addressed to the UN General Assembly, the 'Group of Eminent Persons' convened by the UN Secretary-General Kofi Ann.in to which I belong, which also includes Richard von Weizsacker, Jacques Delorx, Nadime Gordimer, Prince Hassan of Jordan, Amartya Sen and a dozen other personalities, has stated:
It is ill advised to consider primordial ties as necessarily detrimental to the-cosmopolitan spirit. We know that our strong feelings, lofty aspirations and recurring dreams are often attached to a particular group, expressed through a mother tongue, associated with a specific place and targeted to people ol the same age and faith. We also notice that gender and class feature promi nently in our self-definition. We are deeply rooted in our primordial ties, and they give meaning to our daily existence. They cannot be arbitrarily whisked away any more than one could consciously choose to be a totally different person.

Hans Kung “My struggle for freedom” Memoirs. P4.

I think this puts the counter case excellently.

David I was respecting your post until I see you show little respect for the leaders of our nations with comments like this:

Quote, "There can be little doubt that Howard’s tendency is towards lumping Australia with Caucasians, so he is for retaining ties with Mother England (no republic) and strengthening ties with Daddy USA (support for the “war on terror”)."

Obviously you cannot be taken seriously!

I heard this concept 40 years ago, but then it was that the headquarters of world government was to be in communist Russia. World government can only operate on a Totalitarian basis, and I'm sure the individual prefers personal freedom and choice, and is not willing to surrender that for the views of a possible Dictator. What happens is butcher birds will masacre the defenceless and delicate to establish their territory.

> "... Esperanto project failed."

Is the time over?
When did the history, the world, ended?
-Does the author remembers Latin, The once "world language"?

great piece....latin was never a spoken much out side Europe.

Hoping that the people of the Earth will unite as one is strictly a pipe dream.
When members of the same family often cannot live in peace how do you expect that tribalism will disappear?
It is not human nature and if you add the way other creatures defend their special territory, it is not going to happen because it is alien to the way we are.

Sells

Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments.

What is meant by "primordial ties"?

David

Yes David, thanks for a very interesting slant on world affairs. I agree with Sells: however close we might think we come, humans can never bring Heaven to Earth. But the struggle is still well worthwhile!

Some points of disagreement, however. The “triumph” of the English language is largely a furphy. There’s a whole article in this topic, but suffice to say there is evidence that proportionately there are not many more English-speakers around the world than there were about fifty years ago.

The current popularity of English is mainly due to the economic power of Anglophonic nations over recent decades. It’s one phase in history. Around the 1920s and 1930s there was a widespread agreement that French, not English, was set to become the world-language. As the economic and political influence of France waned, so did the global status of its language.

As for Esperanto, it has huge – and largely disregarded – potential as an instrument for bridging cultures and nations. Esperantists do not propose it as a replacement for existing languages. It is designed as “a handshake between nations”, a means by which people of different cultural backgrounds can meet and interact on equal terms without the fear that one language will usurp the position of another. Thus it can be a way of actually helping to protect the cultural roots of each community while also allowing it to do business, conduct research, share social events and so on with communities which speak different languages.

And world-government only possible through dictatorship, Philo? Surely it will be just another step in the perpetual increase of organisation of humanity! My ancestors no doubt swore that only tyranny could unite them under one rule in Britain and Germany. Here in Western Australia a few sandgropers still cry for secession from the Commonwealth because “their” resources, money and effort are “misappropriated” by Eastern oppressors. The United Nations can work if the member nations make it work, just as our nation can succeed to the extent that its individual citizens help it to do so.

“Primordial ties” is part of the quote so I can only guess what it means. I guess it means ties to country, place, language, tradition, story, religion, music, food etc. These are the things that define us. It is often the case that anomie results from the loss of these ties as in native cultures overrun by alien culture or in immigrants. There is the danger of MacDonaldization, the reduction of all building to look like any international airport or 5 star hotel. When you get rid of difference what do you replace it with? Sovereignty may not be eradicated without loss of identity.

About how the birds lump together and discriminate, I prefer to hear the opinions of ornithologists. And let the theologians discuss about the meaning of the tower of Babel.

I don´t know about ornithology and theology, but I do know about languages and, especially, Esperanto, which I speak every day. I regret that David James has a mistaken idea about Esperanto. This language is spoken nowadays by two millions people in 120 countries. It is an easy-to-learn language, that allows to people of different ethnic tongues to communicate on an equal footing. Besides, I should like to point out that Esperanto doesn´t have the pretension to replace the national languages.

All the masterpieces of the world literature (Shakespeare, Dante, Cervantes, etc.) are translated into Esperanto, and there are many books originally written in this language.

Course of Esperanto by Internet:
http://www.institutoesperanto.com.ar

David,

A somewhat unique view of the future of our world and of our place in it, all 'lumped' together. The last throes of apartheid?

I am interested in your 'work in progress' - what is the focus of 'I Just Want My Children to be Happy'? Is it an observation piece on the state of the world or a proactive discourse on how we can be happy? Does it follow the same themes as this article? Genre? Target audience?

Are you, in fact, a 'serious ornithologist' as your article suggests?