James Koloniaris, Blogpost 11/29

I believe that both of these scenarios are acceptable in their own ways. No matter what it is important to preserve your culture and its history but on the other hand, I do believe If all writings were understandable by one single language, in this case, English, it would supply more knowledge throughout the world. Reading these short excerpts I do see some inequality faced when one wants to write in their native language. Ngugi faces this and describes how he was punished or doing so. In the excerpt, it states, “that question is what set in motion my thinking about the unequal relationship of power between languages.” Here Ngugi acknowledges the injustices he faced further inspired him to continue writing in his native language. It shows the inequalities that are there when it comes to language and which are more “acceptable”.  On the other side of this argument, we got Rushdie who argues that all the inequalities due to language were only experienced by the older generation. In his short excerpt, it states,” It is a debate which has meaning only for the older generation.” This claim by Rushdie shows how children won’t have a problem with English due to it being a part of their everyday life. Even though this does provide advantages, people should focus on the here and now more often than the future. There should be focus on the prejudices people like Ngugi endure. This is confirmed by the way Ngugi wrote his first novel that is in the Gĩkũyũ language, on toilet paper, quite unusual. But this was done during his imprisonment in Africa for writing in the language. This goes to show the corruption there is due to language. Governments are trying to rid of people’s cultural history and it’s not right.