March of the
English versus the feudal languages!!
VED from VICTORIA INSTITUTIONS
The theme discussed in this book was first written by me in December 1989. Later, around 1999, some additions were done to the original theme. However that writing was in the style of a discourse, and since it was done under severely dynamic situations, it was not done in a comprehensive manner. I had showed the writing to many persons; almost all who read it did agree that there was a lot of truth in what had been written. Some, especially those who had formal academic qualifications, did act as if stung with jealousy. And some of these guys did try to just use the ideas as their own.
The theme is so odd that some persons did react with acute levels of mental violence to me, on hearing the theme. It has been my experience that in any debate on social issues, wherein I bring in the themes discussed in this book, persons simply go wild, on hearing so bizarre an argument, that instead of battling the ideas, they generally go in for personal attacks.
In this new writing, which is an entirely new writing, at some places, I have simply cut and pasted the original writing. Many of my forebodings that I had felt many years ago, are repeated here. Also, I have made use of a term ‘indicant word’, which was not there in the original writing.
In between, I need to mention that I did sent the earlier writing of about 32,000 words to a lot of universities in many nations. It is possible that at least some persons may have used the ideas as their own, in their research papers. Circa 2001
March of the Evil Empires!
English versus the feudal languages!!
Cover illustration by Ashwina C DEV
The author wishes to state that all ideas and themes in this book are absolutely original and not copied from any book or writings of any other person. No other person’s opinions or ideas have been taken for making this book. Hence, no part, theme, style, language or the underlying idea in this book, should be taken for the making or writing of any other book, in English or in any other language, without permission obtained from VICTORIA INSTITUTIONS.
Aaradhana, DEVERKOVIL 673508
Calicut district, India
www.victoria.org.in Mobile: 91 9656100722 [Telegram]
Date of publishing of this version: 1^st^ of June 2016
First drafted in 1989. First online edition around 2000
This is a book containing a revolutionary idea about understanding of human beings. The basic understanding that is being put forward is that languages, which are the software for human communication, are powerful media, which not only can help in communication, but also does contain extremely powerful designs and programs, which literally design all societies. Languages are actually that can create a definite and pre-definable pattern, along which all human beings arrange themselves, to form different societies.
Different type of languages forms different type of societies. For instance, a group of persons who think and talk in Tamil would form a society, which would have remarkable Tamil features, and identifiable behaviour patterns. A group of persons who do the same thing in Spanish would display definite Spanish looks, demeanour, behaviour and social pattern and arrangement. An English speaking society would be having its own definite looks and, also a very easily identifiable interpersonal interaction configuration.
From this understanding, which actually is a very complicated theme, yet dealt here in a most easy to understand manner, the book goes into the depths of the theme and shows the definite difference that English has when compared to many other languages. Here the author claims to show that popular English (pristine-English), as practiced in English nations, is much different from many languages, in that there is an evident lack of feudalism or hierarchy in it, when it is compared to those languages.
All languages, which do have feudal content in them, create social relationships, and social structure according to the feudal design in the language. This very much affects the social cohesion, homogeneity, family structure, anthropological features, efficiency, mental calibre, sense of security, history, township planning, civic sense, dressing, work atmosphere, economy and many other things.
From this premises, the book goes on to discuss the chance of the various nations having feudal content in their languages. It then proceeds to debate on the various nations of Europe, including France and Germany; East Europe, Asian nations, African nations and many others. Actually, here the debate does not aim at identifying the feudal element. Instead the aim is to show that there is a definite relationship between the programmes in a language, and the history, society, and other aspects of the people who speak in that language.
Many shocking connections between the languages and the historical experiences of the nations are brought into limelight and the subject of discussion.
From here, one specific nation, that is India, is debated upon. The discussion goes deep into the recesses of the Indian languages, and a connection to Indian social systems, behaviour, efficiency, historical experiences, family systems, liberty, anthropological features etc. is built up, in a most diligent manner. The aim of using India is to use this understanding to extrapolate on to the wider international scene.
After establishing the connection between the Indian languages and the Indian behaviour systems and human demeanours, the theme goes on to the international scene. Here the emphasis is on English nations. An understanding of how different the English nations, namely are from European, African and Asian nations is dealt on.
Now, actually what I have written has a lot of importance for the English speaking societies, of all colour and breed. For, there is every chance that the miniscule English nations will be overtaken by the storming hordes of non-English speaking nationalities existing in various level of English comprehension. The that they bring in may play havoc with the smooth working English social environments. To protect the English social scene, first of all an understanding of what is the virus, and then the means to them should be had. So that, all immigrants can be made to undergo a virus elimination programme before they get embedded into the English societies.
An understanding on what would happen, when the non-English language and social systems impact on English social systems is debated. The great amount of that the non-English language and social systems can create on English societies and nations is a thing that needs to be understood, in very careful terms. In these times, when the English nations are being inundated with non-English language and social programmes, and the whole world is suddenly talking about g, without understanding the parameters and full significance of this term, it is highly imperative that the English nationals do think deeply on what would happen to them, when they become connected to highly complex and heavily feudal, nations.
This book contains an insight into a subject, which no native English speaker can comprehend until a time comes, when he or she is completely overwhelmed by the sheer weight of the feudal communication systems. [Check my recent book: British sailors in Indian stinking jails]. For, they live on the other side of the fence from where the comprehension of this side is very vague, and definitely of a most ludicrous type.
A lot of themes, including on how advisable it is for Britain to integrate itself fully into the European Union, is debated from this singular perspective. Also, such things as that of the issue of the wider impact of outsourcing of jobs and business procedures, non-English-speaking people immigration into USA etc. is dealt with, from this same perspective.
It is the author’s claim that the book is of resounding importance, and a to a new understanding of many historical and social events. And that based on this understanding a lot of predictions, studies, insights, and forewarnings etc. can be drawn up. And that the themes dealt here may have much to contribute to the various fields of human knowledge like anthropology, sociology, history, political science, economics, administration, management, psychology, space travel, language studies, war and peace etc. For, the software known as language is one thing that is common in all activities and endeavours of human ambitions. It has a singularly all-consuming affect on every act, planned and executed, by human beings.
I would request the reader to go through the contents list fully before starting the reading of the book. And I would also request that the book be read from beginning to end in a continuous manner.
The five parts.
This is a book with a very strange theme.
It is the author’s claim that it contains a very original idea in terms of understanding a very strong force that designs the various components of a society, and the multitude of factors relating to a person’s personality, when living in a particular society.
This book comes in five parts. The last chapter does not have much bearing to the main theme and aim of this book, even though it is connected to the theme and may, in its own way, have significance independently. And this part has been dealt with only in a most elementary manner.
[Note: As of now, I have developed the minor contentions in the last parts into three books:
1. Software codes of Reality, Life and Languages!
2. Codes of reality! What is language?
3. Machinery of Homoeopathy. ]
The first part of this book introduces the theme of feudalism, and other factors in human languages, and its effects on national, personal and social character. A concept of languages being software programs for human communication, and hence the possible prevalence of programs that are viruses is enunciated. On the basis of this understanding, an attempt is made to explain the experiences of some nations, of all continents, including Europe.
In the second part of this book, the nation of India is discussed in a rare manner, taking into consideration the feudalism in the Indian languages. On the basis of the theme of feudalism in languages, many of India’s social experiences are discussed from a very new approach. Since India has many states and languages, one state, that is, Kerala, and its language Malayalam, is taken into focus, and in the discussion, given prominence to point out the features. The aim of this Part is to understand many nations’ socio-cultural characters, along with their historical experiences, by extrapolating from the understanding we get from the discussion on India.
The third Part contains the theme of what would happen if the feudal language themes and the viruses brought in by the immigrant populations, infect the English nations. The discussion also, goes into an understanding of the historical experiences of the English nationalities, of all colours, when they were exposed to the feudal social conditions. This part is actually a sort of forewarning, and an attempt to give guidelines on how to ward-off the imminent threat of what may later be understood as the attack of the evil empires.
The author conveys a rare understanding, which he can claim is something of an open secret, not much understood by the populations of the English nations. The author has no conflict with any nation. However, he does earnestly believe that a persevering superiority of native English-speaking nations of whatever colour or breed is good for the planet.
English in comparison with other languages
The overpowering force of a feudal language
Heed these words
The International Effect-a preparatory reflection
The seeming coincidences
Asian capitalistic countries
The South American continent
The Middle East
United States of America
The indicant words
The general social affects
Mr., Mrs.& Miss.
Effects on the young
Stunting of Physical Features
Police Behaviour and Techniques of Investigation
Social mobility of Women
Consider the following illustrative situations
Marriage of a girl
Independence in Women
Intimacy between men and women
Men’s attitude to women & its effect on women
The sweetness of a government job in India
Indian Bureaucratic culture
Hierarchy inside the bureaucracy
The avoidable disasters
The common courtesies in English
A quotation from History
Effect of abstinence
Political control on Bureaucracy
Hierarchy from the other end
The report dt. dec 26 2003.
Making of laws and rules
The international dealings
The social affects of a feudal language
Formation of castes
A driver’s experience
Society as a giant Computer
Vulnerability of the Black Sheep
The Blacks in the USA
Bridging the Class divide
Parks and Seaside
The concept of politeness
The Metamorphosis of Respect
Manipulation of superiors
The instinctive aloofness
The lack of courtesy in social scenes in India
A matter of perspective
A factor of anthropology
A factor of anthropology
Envisaging a behaviour
A brief page on Kerala
The miscellaneous affects
Techniques of leadership
Towns and Cities of India
The incessant movement of population from villages to towns in India
Non-Sharing of knowledge
The thousand Mutinies
A humorous story
The weakening of a people
Dignity of labour
To put it briefly
The immobility of an employee in a feudal language environment
Teacher and student
Parental type of behaviour by so-believed scholars and intellects
The English experience
Macaulay and his theory of filtration
Economy and its connection with the language of the place
Language and economy
Social titles and their effect
Let us see the international scene
The facade of tolerance
On to the wider world
What they bring
Amar Singh Rathore
Englishman working under a person from the feudal language area
Comparing the Indian Boss, with his English Counterpart
What happens to an English minded person when he lives in a feudal language area?
The colonial British
The predicament of the British living in colonies
Dignity of labour; and also on slavery
Dignity of Labour
Slaves of U.S.A
An incident to remember
Back to slavery
Back to dignity of labour
Schools with Asian language study
From British History
Back to School
Nepotism and corruption
Kind of people who might be able to migrate to the English countries
Virus in the workplace
Virus in the work place
The evil empires
The concept of Evil Empires
A matter of perspective
The English base of USA
Hatred for Britain and USA
The international organisations
A report from an Indian Newspaper
Bad news for babus who pull strings for foreign contracts
Now back to UN
What lends to the bravery of the English citizens?
English under siege
The alien impact on English
The English under siege
Computer and its finer affects
A case study
A slight digression to the literary side
The god of small things
Reading English Classics
The European union
Note of caution
Feudalism in Britain
The four divisions of Britain
Outsourcing, racial bias etc.
The latest Indian leaders from abroad
The Significance of Britain
A fast paced contemplative glance at the social undercurrents that could affect the American lifestyle and society, on its impact with feudal communication software.
The Mystical Powers of Language
The American Heritage
The desperate attempts
The underlying paradox
The Uncommon Understandings
The double-edged face
The need of the hour
The diabolic situation
The Stark Stupidity
The medievalism in India
A disturbing comparison
Democracies in an oblique stance
A one-way ticket to disaster
The shallow understanding
The Two Indians
The Infectious Negativity
Swarming of the nation
Gullibility at its worst
A drama that may be oft repeated
Chapter 8 : Erasing social refinement
The English Student under Siege
Provoking one’s sense of refinement
The contradictions in civility
The Mental Disturbances
The flawed comparisons
Need to comprehend
Implications of Space Research Collaborations
The ridiculous policies
Immigration to English nations.
The colonial experience
The finer aspect of job outsourcing
The Power of the Web as a media
The overwhelming affects
The foolish opportunity
The fragility of superiority
A single parameter of globalisation
The natural component of leadership
The social embedding
Chapter !: The generalisations
Mental Effects, including telepathic effects
An Introduction to a perspective
A man who lives for a long time in Tamil Nadu*, the Tamil state in India, and speaks Tamil* for so many years, builds up a Tamil look. A man, who lives in Kerala*, achieves a Malayalee* look after many years of residence; and a man who lives in England, among Englishmen, acquires an English look. A Negro who lives in the United States of America has a physical and mental personality, which is remarkably different from a Negro who lives in a free African country.
A person’s language affects his physical appearance and also a lot more. In fact, language is a software, which pervades the whole of human society and its thought process in a much wider and deeper manner than is understood at present.
It is my contention that it can affect not only the anthropological aspects of a man, but also a lot many other factors like his social structure, social standing, dressing, inhibitions, daring, emotional stability, town planning, economic prosperity, poverty, efficiency, intelligence, administrative structures, history, leadership, collective intelligence, collective behaviour, employer-employee relationship, hierarchical line of pecking order and almost all themes that one can think of in connection with human beings.
Later, one may even take this theme into the realm of the animal kingdom, also.
To put my contentions in a nutshell, I would claim that the software programs in a language could have more affect, with much more resilience, than any other social factor ever discussed. It is more powerful than religion, more powerful than labour relations*, more powerful than patriotism, religious affiliations, and even family connections.
It may be seen that English, and English speaking societies, do have a rare level of liberalism, intelligence, neatness, efficiency, sense of decency and honesty, and certain innate strength about them. However the times are changing. The concept of global village is being put forth by the elite of the newly emerging nations. It is only a matter of time before these persons bring with them the effects of their languages into the English nations, and cause much consternation to the English societies.
At the same time, leaving them with no clue as to what is going wrong with their perfect societies. For, with the arrival of these exotic communication software, a new hitherto unknown type of negativity would be seen to envelop the individuals, and also the whole society, and lead to the splintering of age-old conventions which have otherwise withstood the onslaught of time. A number of happenings and behaviours would be seen to take place, which may perfunctorily, and also with much shallow understanding of issues, be explained as racial hatred, colour discrimination etc. Moreover, both the causative factor, as well as the effects of these incidents may be seen to have a *domino effect.
To begin on what I am harping on, I need to discuss on the comparison of English with other languages. (I must put it on record that I do not know many other languages including European languages). Here, I am forced to warn the reader that for at least a few pages, he may seem to be in a sea of unfamiliar terms and usages.
NOTE dated 21^st^ May 2016: Please read one of my latest books: What is different about pristine-ENGLISH?
English is a non-hierarchical language when compared to many other languages. For our immediate purpose, I may compare it with some Indian languages. One may discern certain striking factors in Indian languages*, when one look from the pedestal of English. The main thing would be that communication is highly graded with different words used in connection with different level of persons.
For example, take the case of the word You. In most Indian languages, this word splits into three different words: In Hindi, it metamorphosis into [Aap], *Thum and Thu. These words stand in three different social standing. Yet, if we say that they completely stand in three different social levels, then it would not give the complete picture. For, all these words do have a very complicated effect, all depending on who is addressing whom, the relationship between them, the level of intimacy between them, the context of the communication etc. all tending to have a very complicated effect not only on them, but also on the persons around them.
In the South Indian languages*, these words start with such words as Nee (Tamil, Malayalam), Neenu (Kannada) etc. Then comes the next level of words, such as Ningal, Neenga, Nimbdhu etc. The third level is that of Thangal, Ungal etc. However it is not correct to say that all the three levels in the different languages do have corresponding and equivalent social implication. For, the effects of each are different in the different languages, and differing societies. For, the Hindi Aap does not fully correspond with Thangal of Malayalam. It is more equivalent to Ningal of Malabari (erstwhile language of Malabar). Yet, in certain contexts, Aap cannot be said to be equal to Ningal, especially when used to the officialdom.
In Malayalam, another word has come into usage in very recent times. That is Saar. This is more equal to Aap (You) and a little beyond and does not just mean You, but also means He, She etc. and also has become a word to signify a social title. It also has a cumulative meaning of Sir.
Then, we can take the case of the word He. This also splits into a lot of equivalent words, each with different social significances. In Hindi, the words can be USS and UNN. In the Malayalam, they are, more or less, converted into the words Avan, Ayal, Avar, Adheham, Saar etc.
For the word She, the words may be Aval, Avaru etc.
And for animals, generally the term used is equal to the word It or the lower term for the word He, or She is used.
The same effect comes for the term used in the sense For him, For her etc. And also, for the words used for meaning His and Her.
There are many other finer issues that also have a cumulative negative effect on the communication between the different persons in the vernacular society. One is the use of the name of a person. In English, it may be used for referring or for addressing, with or without a Mr., Mrs., or Miss. prefixed to it, depending on whether there is a formal or informal relation between the person who uses it and the person referred to. In a minor way, it might indicate a seniority or otherwise by the usage of the prefixes. However, in vernacular languages, names cannot be used without a proper fixing of a factor of respect to it. And, its absence could very well indicate a lot more about a person’s social inferiority; and this usage (i.e. the absence of respect) would come with a package of all other words, such as the words for He, You, For him, His all in the lower indicant level etc.
In English, name can be used for addressing, referring to, calling etc. in the first name form in casual cases, and in the surname form in formal cases. However in Indian languages, its use in the above situations is heavily restricted. Names can be used at random by the senior with regard to a junior or lesser person; but the reverse is not possible. Even when used in the latter case, it must be suffixed with a term of respect. This term must be understood to be different in sense from such prefixes as Mr. or Mrs., for these are, more or less, neutral in terms of respect. The indicant terms of unavoidable respect in feudal languages do impress upon the person, who concedes it, of his own inferiority.
Moreover, expressions of formal respect cannot ordinarily be reciprocated, or given back, without the situation seeming funny. Even though in the English context, addressing a person, say an executive in a company by a salesman by his surname with a Mr. prefixed would go unnoticed, in the Indian context only really self-confident persons with real background would dare to do so. And that too, when speaking in English. And, this is true in the case of communication between other elements of society. When a person is calling his elder brother, a younger person is addressing a person whose age is a more, even a bit more, in all these situations the elder is addressed with a term of respect suffixed.
I have not yet been able to understand why almost all Indian terms of respect are in the form of a suffix and not in the form of a prefix. The prefixing words like Mr., Mrs. etc. do not somehow suit the Indian understanding of respect. There might be a real logical reason for it; but at present, it is not known.
NOTE added on the 21^st^ of May 2016: Please read my book: Codes of reality! What is language?
So, the terms Mr., Mrs. etc., which are used as prefixes, are themselves understood as terms of impertinence in the Indian languages. And so, when one tries to bring in a sort of informality in acutely obsequious relationship with subordinates and tell them to address by just a Mr. prefixed, the affect is a complete disaster. For, the subordinates understand it is as a sort of breakdown of formal relationships, and go in for complete non-usage of Mr. and enter into the first name relationships. Actually, what was intended was only an attempt to establish a formal relationship, by avoiding of a feudal relationship.
It is possible that wherever Indians, who have not been tutored in the correct conventions of English usage, go, they would bring in a breakdown of beautiful English conventions. And naturally, the long-term effect on serene English social settings can be imagined.
When discussing all these aspects from a distance and with the insulation given by distance, one may not understand the power these words have, when one is living in a society that function in these languages. In other words, when the software, on which societies function is having these peculiarities, then whenever one wants to interact in a free manner, unhindered by restraints, then these languages would start functioning as if they are infected with a software virus. That is, at each vital point a program would get activated that would hinder communication.
It is not correct to say that there is always a hindering of passage of ideas. The opposite is also true. For, if the various persons in the varying social positions use the correct words, proper for each social position, then acceleration in velocity of not only communication, but also of actions is also discernible.
When discussing this aspect of language, one of the main limitations is the fact that I have to do it in English, for the understanding of the English speaker. Many of whom do not know and have not experienced the crippling effect this has on human psyche. It may be understood that what I aim to relate to you is the greatest factor that effect human societies, and clearly defines why English societies have a natural tendency to develop into beautiful nations, while many others exist in varying levels ranging from pure barbarism through the semi-civilised societies in Africa and Asia; the bewildered societies of East Europe and to the reasonably developed nations of Asia, Africa and West Europe. Understanding the inner social program of each individual language can explain why different linguistic groups show large, well-defined social behaviour pattern and can very well account for the repetition of, more or less, same historical follies, and incidences in the different nations.
The native English speaker has no idea how good a communication software, he is in possession of. He has no inkling that when he is using the words You, He, She, His, Her, Him, and Mr., Mrs., Miss. etc. his communication program is running fast, and without any hindrance, when compared to another person whose communication program is in another language. The English speaker is not aware that the other man who is using a software other than English, has to monitor other persons’ actions, levels of social functioning and many other factors and make a value evaluation and start using the appropriate package of words, at each and every commencement of, and also during the duration of communication with another person or about another person. He also has no idea that for every package of words that he uses, he is putting himself for the evaluation of others, who also strive to measure him and place him on either a pedestal or a lower platform.
When any non-English speaking person starts speaking English, he can immediately feel the mental freedom this language is giving him. Hence, for this person, life in an English environment would be more liberated, at whatever level he is functioning. Yet, the same cannot be said if an English man were to function in a non-English environment. If he were on the top, everybody below him would praise his equanimity, sense of poise, and his gentleness. But if he has to function at any level below, with non-English speaking persons above him, and in an environment of no English, then it would be an environment of mental darkness. He would have to bear a new sort of mental and physical suppressing, which he may not be able to explain, and he himself would doubt his mental sanity. And others would find that he is snobbish, unwieldy, unmanageable and a general nuisance to the feudal set-up.
As an introduction, and to make the reader understand the sheer force and power of these words in the vernacular, I will give a small illustration. Beforehand, I must mention that most of my illustrations that include my own personal experiences were noticed and recorded in my head because I was keenly observing all these aspects for the purpose of this writing.
When I was in Delhi*, a place where the language is Hindi, I used to go and meet many businessmen, in the course of my business, which included even meeting Publishers. Suppose when I am sitting with the Proprietor or Manager, or Editor, or even with my friend who may be a Businessman, I need a glass of water. I tell the man sitting opposite (in this case, either the Proprietor, Manager etc.) that I need a glass of water. He would immediately call his subordinate, either the lower staff or his secretary to get a glass of water. In Hindi, the word for He is either USS or UNN, and for For Him the words are USS Ko, and UNN Ko respectively. The former without formal respect and the latter with formal respect. What he would say would be: Give him a glass of water. Or something to that effect. When the first dialogue is dealt out, one can distinctly feel the subordinate personnel keenly seeking for the key word used, that is, whether it is USS or UNN.
The effect the different words can create is purely remarkable. For, if the word used is UNN, the whole atmosphere in the office changes, to an air of sweetness. The body language of the subordinate changes unconsciously to exhibit reverence and deference. There is not only an air of submission, but also a quickening of bodily movement to accomplish the requirement. At the same time, if the word used is USS, then also the effect is supremely phenomenal. The subordinate personnel’s body language changes to that of marked discourtesy, and the air in the whole office turns to that of indifference and disdain. A general immobility unconsciously comes into play. The requested item’s arrival is not as fast as could have been in the other case. In both cases, there would have been no other verbal communication made to indicate the importance, or lack of it, of the person referred to, other than the change of UNN to USS.
This exquisite power of words to propel or to retard social mobility and interaction has actually to be experienced to be understood. For persons who are attuned to the English systems to understand the sharpness of the sting that feudal languages have on human personality and psyche is very difficult, unless they know the feudal languages. For, even in the illustration given above, it needs to be emphasised that the person about whom the reference is made would actually also be exhibiting a corroborating body language that goes with the words used. Or at least, he is mentally forced to change his body language.
Now that I have made an illustration, I would like to declare that there is tremendous force in words in all feudal languages. And the general characteristics of a society, or nation, or even a country is the cumulative effect of all these words as used by different sections of society.
Words are connected to the whole society, and each and every word with a feudal connotation does connect every member of the society with a particular level of social standing. Once a particular word is connected to the personality of a person, and it spreads through the society, then that word acquires a tremendous energy with regard to that person. This word, and all the other words, that would then come in a package can exert a social force that can cause spontaneous belittling, or deliberate honouring of a person. And this effect, on the long term, can bring in changes in his personality, posture, bearing and demeanour. And it can affect all persons who are connected with him or her.
To sum it up, feudalism or hierarchy in communication brings in division, especially in heterogeneous people. Elders keep away from youngsters, seniors from juniors, the financially higher-ups from the underdogs, the teachers from the students etc. Moreover, the individuality of the inferior is stifled. But then it adds to the glory of the superiors. The studded respectability given to them and the meek obsequiousness exhibited by the inferiors affect the mentality of the former and add to their ego. The lesser persons find it natural that they are inferior. In this situation, the communication between the two is similar to that of a parent and a child. The former’s speech is in the form of a declaration, and the latter naturally would not dream of questioning the same, as it would amount to disrespect.
NOTE added on 21^st^ of May 2016: The above mentioned ideas do need a lot of elaboration. What is given above is only a very superficial content of the exact phenomenon.
What I am saying here would be very easily understandable to all persons who have lived in a feudal language environment. For instance, I would say that persons from Asia would definitely get a beautiful idea of what I am meaning. And possibly the citizens of many a European country would also understand this. Yet, persons who are native English Speakers, and who have not lived in any other language environment, may not immediately understand the real understanding of what I mean. In a way, this theme remains a secret that has been kept away from the English-speaking social intelligence without much deliberate effort or concerted conspiracy.
Heed these words: In these times, when the English societies, that have contributed much to the modern world, is opening up to the whole world societies, and at the same time bearing the blame for all negativity that inflict the other societies, it is imperative that the English world understand, what it is that is coming over to their nations. And the long-term impact, it could have on their societies.
Here as a sort of footnote I wish to add that the word hierarchy is an English word. And so, naturally the concept of hierarchy is known to an English native speaker. However, when reading this book, he or she should bear in mind that the ‘hierarchy’ as understood in a feudal language setting, with varying levels of indicant words, is an entirely different phenomenon, with no connection or comparable meaning in the English language. The effect, both of benevolence and that of malevolence, that indicant words can have on human psyche is not easily relatable to an English mind.
Feudal languages have a tendency to create rupture in a society and in interpersonal relationships. Yet, feudal language societies can also be very strong and harmonious. An example of this would be the erstwhile* financial superpower Japan. Another would be Germany of the pre-Second World War time. Yet, they are not efficient or intelligent in the long term. These things I would discuss later.
We can first discuss the various countries. First of all, I must admit once again that I do not know any European language or even Asian Languages other than some Indian languages. Yet, India does have a wide variety of languages, each with a number of dialects. Certain languages do also have different social structures imprinted on them, the design of which may change with differing geographical locations.
First of all, let us take the case of England. Here I am not saying Britain, for I am not very sure of the languages in the other parts of Britain, namely Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. I know that these places do have different languages, though English is more popular all over. I do believe that these other languages may have traces of feudal structure in them. For, I can deduce that much from historical incidences.
It is true that English does have words, which are feudal in structure. Words like Your Majesty, My Lord, My Lady, His Highness, Your Excellency etc. Yet, it must be insisted that these are only words that are used to the nobility. And their usage does not come down into the midst of the common folk. Meaning that the different social levels among the layman do not necessitate their usage among them. For example, a worker does not address his boss as Your Majesty, or My Lord.
Britain existed on the fringe of the European continent, with a resounding resilience that was rarely seen elsewhere. The easiest supporting argument for this is the fact that this nation has rarely been conquered by outsiders. And the saying: England always wins the last battle.
· One may say that the Magna Carta, that was signed in England, which indeed shows that the nobility could debate with the Monarchy, happened in England as a coincidence;
· That Sir Francis Drake* could rule the seas and defeat the Spanish power both in Europe and in the Americas, was a coincidence and his destruction of the Spanish Armada was a piece of pure luck;
· That the small England could have so many geographical discoverers because of its proximity to and affinity for the seas;
· That small groups of Englishmen could go out into the newly discovered geographical areas and take over the leadership of these societies and transform them from strangle-dom to liberated societies because they were more capable than the natives in both physique and intelligence;
· That Robert Clive*, a young English youth, with just a handful of men, more of natives, could defeat the combined power of French and the mighty Indian kings due to a string of strange coincidences that led to the defeat of his enemies;
· That the Sepoy Mutiny*, which has been later described by Indian historians as the First War of Independence, which was going gloriously for the native-feudal classes suddenly turned disastrous for the them because of the brilliance of the military leadership that immediately reached this part of the South Asian peninsular region from England.
· That everywhere the English went, they ultimately won and ruled as a single political entity and not as mutually competing states, as has always happened in this peninsular region, (even if a son is given power to rule a province), as proof of the innate intelligence of the English people.
· That Industrial Revolution* commenced in England due to a strange historical coincidence.
· That the common Englishman contributed much to all sort of sciences, including Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Medicine etc. because, due to some factor of luck, they had some scientific genes in their chromosomes.
· That almost all wars, with the possible exception of one with their own people, that of USA, they have won at the end, braving and bearing all reverses and adversities because God always saves their Kings and Queens.
· That megalomania* and dictators are not a common English phenomenon, because of again some historical coincidences.
Well, all these coincidence and pieces of luck are believable in themselves and in isolation. However when all of them are listed out, they pale beyond the realms of just pure coincidences and luck. There must be a most logical causative factor that pervades the whole English history in sharp contrast to the other nationalities and societies. And this factor is the lack of hierarchy or feudal positioning that does not creep into the language when English is spoken between persons. And its immediate effect, in sharp contrast to feudal languages is that one cannot be addressed to or referred to or described in varying level of dignity or indignity in accordance with what he or she does for a livelihood, or in accordance with one’s family stature or of one’s family members’, or in comparison with one’s financial soundness.
This gives a sense of security to the individual and also to the total society. Its finer effects are of so vast a domain that each need to be discussed in relation to the effect a feudal language has on the individual and his society.
But before going to the various aspect of this in the context of England, we need to discuss about the various other countries all round the world. We can start with France, a country that existed very near to England and has immense themes in its history to correspond with that of England.
Most of the nations do have languages, which have elements of software codes that do act as viruses, if the society wants to achieve a non-feudal, liberated, highly interacting and intelligent society. At the same time, these viruses cease to act as such, if the society aims for feudal set-ups. These viruses may start clicking when a certain number of persons interact, from certain levels. Actually this number and the sort of levels at which they start functioning can actually be calculated. However at the moment, we do not have the adequate understanding of this phenomenon, the required instruments nor the calibration to do so.
Yet, if one observes, one can clearly discern it. To use a blunt illustration, I can say this: In many South American* countries, when a certain number of persons, from certain pre-definable social or intellectual levels, interact for sometime in close quarters, there would develop deep animosity among them, possibly leading to violence.
France is a country, which existed very near to England and was in constant bafflement about why England is so different from them. By geographical size though much bigger than Britain, it could never compete with it. Even in historical incidences where they initially had the upper hand, once the English came to compete with them, they had to leave and allow the English to take over. The history of Colonialism* can give beautiful examples of this.
Historically, there must be a very significant feudal factor in the French language. This is very much evident from the French history. The terrible, callous feudal set-up, in which men and women turned into selfish brutes, not because they were not moved by the piteous position of their fellow citizens, but by an overpowering feeling of fear, of being dragged down to the depths of the feudal set-up, if they were to interact and imbibe the feelings of the lower citizens, made them shrink from any association with the downtrodden.
This overwhelming, social fright is a direct effect of a feudal language. The lower forms of existence, as per the feudal languages, do have an awesome power of negativity. This negativity is also very infectious, to those who interact at such negative levels, without proper protective armour. This armour is a protection of acceptable, financial or social standing, and should be invincible to a lot of social negativity. These themes need to be discussed in detail, to make it understood. It will be done at a later stage. For the time being, I request the reader to kindly try to imbibe as many ideas as possible. For, the discussion here is on something, a native English speaker would never have thought about.
French history is one of violent and extreme swings in ideology: autocracy*, revolution*, terror*, Napoleon*, return of the Louis kings, commune and many other swings in between. One of the causes of the French revolution could be the social injustice made extreme by frustrations caused by feudal strictures on communication.
Napoleon had a wonderful and trained army. He fought with the English many times. The English did not have any standing military of comparable size at any time. Yet, Napoleon’s most wonderfully planned attacks on England, and on British possessions, all failed. One may easily ascribe all this to ill-luck, or to Napoleon’s lack of capacity, or his over ambition, or to a factor luck for the British, or may even say that there is genetic factor in the British that make them adventurous, risk takers, brave or even physically and mentally more capable. Yet, the real reason would not be any of these. The real cause would be the differences in the communication software of the French and that of the English.
In the English case, their communication software would allow many levels of individuals to function with equal intelligence and inter-actability, without igniting mutual animosity, competition, jealousy or even insecurity. At the same time, even though Napoleon was undoubtedly much better in capability and intellect than his English counterparts, he would be dogged by all these factors cropping up among his subordinates.
NOTE added on the 21^st^ of May 2016: Napoleon’s abilities would actually be interwoven with the hidden codes of the French language.
Only the personality of Napoleon would be the common thread that holds them together, when all these other factors would be actually pushing the individual constituents in different direction, and striving to break the group. Even Napoleon would himself be under compulsion to constantly restraint and redesign his natural personality, and external behaviours to suit the needs of what would appeal to the common understanding of what heroism and leadership is, as highlighted in the French language. The British leadership would be under fewer pressures, as they won’t be as much on a pedestal as Napoleon was. This problem would actually haunt the French at every level of leadership.
The contempt for the lower classes is very much evident in one of Napoleon’s famous dialogues. Napoleon called the British, a nation of shopkeepers to show his contempt for them. This very statement really reflects, and can establish the attitude of the higher society to the merchants and the other commercial classes in the French language. This attitude, which was to cost France heavily when they went in for competition in commercial enterprises, with the nation of shopkeepers.
The French could have come under the influence of two factors: one its own feudalistic language, where the lesser person was made to comprehend his lower stature and the social superior had to exhibit aloofness from them. Two, the proximity to England, where externally the institutions were similar. However the language softened the sharpness of the social stratifications, and gave more individuality and capacity to interaction all-round. The secret of this was confounding to the French. This could explain some of the factors that led to the revolution.
Another thing about this language is that it would easily convert the leaders into despots and the secondary level of leadership to levels of insecurity. I do think that the French revolutionaries were a little bit conscious about the feudalism in their language. This is evident from the pain they took to popularise the term ‘Citizen’*, an attempt to bring in equality in communication. I don’t know the social stature of the word ‘monsieur’ , and whether it had a feudalistic content in it, and if it had, what was the reaction of the French Revolutionaries to it. Here I may mention in passing that Karl Marx* may have brought in the word Comrade ,* with equal purpose, (because of his German language background).
Another significant hint that I have is that in every feudal language social system there is the technique of using highly stinging jokes and sly or boisterous laughter by the lower individuals, to counter the stifling effect of the language,. It gives them a means to assuage their hurt egos and to achieve a feeling of equality with the higher levels. The higher-up is very much vulnerable to jokes, and humour, vicious or benign from the lower statured individuals. They find it hard to sustain their social standing in the language in the limelight of the wit.
NOTE added on the 21^st^ of May 2016: The modern Internet lingo LOL when used in an offensive manner is also a similar tool used by the relatively lower-statured individual.
A person who can joke about a superior personage, without offence should himself be of similar standing and his audience should also be of similar stature. Now it has been said that the jokes of Voltaire* were very displeasing and distasteful to the nobility, in France. Now in many places, where there is feudal language, and the political system is a farce called democracy, humour and sly jokes are the techniques that the lower guy practices to get even with the higher ups. For it severely discomforts the latter and at the same time leaves them with nothing much to do anything about it. For to even react to it would bring them to a level of interaction with the lower person, whose very existence they would be happy to ignore. (Here I would like to say that recently the Communist leaders of Kerala, took serious antipathy to Malayalam* visual media producing comedy programmes mocking their feudal leaders.)
However whatever turmoil or revolution or social changes, both peaceful or violent, comes in society, if there is something wrong in the underlying logic of the society, the same events would repeat. However much you try to set up better institutions, these would grow up to be just a repetitions of the same old ones.
In many ways, unless there have been changes in specific areas in the language software of France, whatever has happened will happen again. Not necessarily in the same manner. For the world has changed heavily. But the same root designs in the way the society functions would continue. A sort of immaturity and also a continuing feeling of not achieving the ideal social situation has been a hallmark of France. Another one is that they are not dependable as a nation. A sort of smarting under somebody’s snub, sort of behaviour is also a continuing character. Even if one were to befriend them, and they feel slightly lesser in importance, in comparison to their partner, at critical moments they would put on a show of high placed self-righteousness and go off in a tangential direction. All with the aim of showing the world that they have an independent mind. For in their language, an understanding of their secondary status would have been bothering them.
Historically, in any event, they competed with the English, they have ended up in secondary position. However the reason for this need not necessarily be the genetic superiority of the British. It could more be due to the negativity in their own social communication software. Here it must be emphasised that I do not question the beauty of the French language; or the amount of philosophical debates it contain. It is very much possible that there would be much philosophy in it. For in all feudal language societies, life is very complicated. Philosophies have a lot of space and chance to sprout in those terrible social confines.
Yet, there may be one aspect on which they could keep the British far behind them. That is on the autocratic power of their monarchs, or in the grandeur of their Palaces. Both are reflections of the slavery they could impose on their citizens.
When talking about the French and their historical antipathy to the British, Voltaire, the famous French philosopher needs to be discussed here. He is well known for his enduring infatuation for the British social and political institutions. An emotion that must have created a definite degree of antipathy towards him from the feudal establishments of France. And could be one of the reasons why he had to leave his country, and seek employment elsewhere. Yet, it is possible that he must have missed the real reason why the English institutions had a beauty and a quality of self-healing, that made them forever young and dynamic. This reason is the non-hierarchical quality of the English language.
Actually, this panacea of self-healing is embedded in the English language. The language assures that every individual, at an individual level is equal in communication codes. Any official can be addressed by his surname. Other words do not discriminate any citizen on the basis of his station. No political leader or bureaucrat, is holy or unapproachable, or beyond an ordinary citizens preview of analysis. The language psychology does not awe an ordinary man due to the magnificence of anybody or any institution.
So, in an English-speaking institution, even if there were no external manifestation of institutional democracy, communication between the ordinary member and the positional leader would be of a more equal level. So, a process of instinctive checks and balances that can self-repair any ailing part would work, soundlessly. Tthat too without breaking the system.
This is what the French language and people must have missed, historically.
German language would definitely be having feudal elements. For, the general history of divided and fragmented statehood points to that. The general talk of discipline can mean not real self-discipline as understood in English, but a sort of regimentation enforced by language and punishment.
Here one thing to be understood is that in feudal language set-ups, regimentation can be enforced by language only if the structure is strong, and each level of superior-junior relation is well defined, and also a level of homogeneity is there in the population. In places where the populace are from different racial, or social groups, each having its own different perception of the levels of each professional, financial, age or even social group, feudal languages, instead of lending stability, would lead the society to the absolute opposite of it. That is, it would lead to anarchy, instability, division and fragmentation.
In such social-design software programs, a social non-entity is a powerless personage. Yet, once he comes into power, and he manages to use the feudal programs in the language with profound understanding, and with clever sensibility and sensitivity, the language program can give him astonishing power over his fellow country. They would be subdued by the general attitude of servitude that would naturally build up.
Hitler’s* rise to the level of a despot could have been aided by the language. For in a situation of feudalistic language, the people can accept as leader only one who can assume a halo of superiority and un-approachability. The word ‘ Fuehrer ’* by which Hitler was referred to could have more implied sense than just `leader’ in the German language understanding.
In the context of Hitler, Jews also need to be discussed. They can be discussed in a separate heading later.
Italy is definitely a feudal language country. The language would definitely have feudal elements. The country would definitely show either signs of deep regimentation, or a splintered structure. Obviously, it is the latter.
Either the Monarchy should be very strong, or the feudal Lords would be very strong, and in a position to compete with the Monarchy, and leave it at tenterhooks. There is no Monarchy now in Italy. It is a presumed republic. In the feudal language ambience, this literally means, not the rule of the people, but by persons in various levels of social, and bureaucratic positions.
When the Italians came to the United States of America, they brought in the Mafia*. There is no doubt that the internal strength and stability of the Mafia structure was singularly aided by the feudal language. Any non-Italian being in any level of the Mafia structure would have acted as a virus for the feudal structure. He or she would be a disturbing influence to the general direction of movement of command, order, obligation, and also of discipline.
To elaborate on the character of the Italian Mafia, the [Costa Nostra][:*] The high level of command & obedience inside the Mafia is a real clue that shows that there was something in the communication i.e., language that ensured it as a matter of spontaneous indoctrination. It is only a natural extension of my contention that in the Mafia and any other similar organisation, where unquestioned obedience and sincerity fixed by hierarchy can be exacted, the relations are maintained by a feudalistic language. The feudalism in the Italian Mafia, which had existed in America, is only an extension of the realities in their Mother Country.
However one thing must be remembered: A feudalistic language can ensure discipline only in a situation where the hierarchy of leadership is clearly understood. If there is confusion in this aspect, the result would be anarchy. To make it clear: feudalistic language ensures discipline in a country only if the people are homogenous. The result could be opposite if the people are heterogeneous; and the proper gradation among the people is not clear or is confusing.
Another factor to note is that if a Italian woman was only a good housewife in Italy, and not a personage with individuality as a common Englishwoman, they would be having a different mental demeanour when compared to a native-English woman. The causative factor for this may be traced to phrases, wordings, and structure of sentences used in connection with women, in Italian.
In the context of Italian woman, one interesting thing should be mentioned here, in passing. Rajiv Gandhi, who was the Prime Minister of India, had a homely Italian wife. When he died, the halo that pursues feudal personages in Indian languages shifted on to her. People here in India do identify white skin with the British. Any white skinned is mistakenly taken to belong to the race that ruled the peninsular region of South Asia, for about 100-150 years. Even though the Indian government has spent immense amount of money on teaching disparaging themes about the English, there is still a certain amount of grudging belief in their capability. Now, the funny thing is that people expect or did expect something of the same level as of the British from Mrs. Gandhi. And naturally, they are yet to be satiated in this regard. I intend no disparagement of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. Here I have only touched upon the Indian social psychology.
Another extension of my contention would be that in a feudal language environment, the person becomes a ‘brutish savage’, who would have a strange mental software program that is entirely self centred, opportunistic, suspicious, paranoiac, and entirely aiming to socially strangle anybody who is enfeebled enough to be under his control. It is a natural reaction of the insecurity that the hierarchy in the language induces in the individuals who live under its software codes. I can develop this contention at a later stage. Now I can only declare it and leave it at that.
NOTE added on the 21^st^ of May 2016: Please read: Codes of reality! What is language?
When we compare the Political Treatise, Prince written by Machievalle, in the medieval times, we would find that it has a political ideology of deception by the ruling person. The whole ideology is, based on suspecting the motives of the general people by the ruler and the need to exhibit a deceptive face to them.
I don’t intend to discuss that ideology here, but what I want to say is that, more or less, the same, practical political guiding theories have been written in an ancient Sanskrit work, much before Machievellie’s ‘Prince’, by Chanakya*, the work being called Arthasasthra*. This work is not a mere political guide. For it does go into the many aspects of administration. Its ideology is also on the basis of, more or less, the unreliable loyalty and inconsistencies of persons. That everybody is equivalent to a savage in his principles. I find it interesting that there is similarity in the themes of these works, one from the northern parts of the South Asian peninsular region, and the other, Italian. Could there be some level of similarity in the social structure, of Italian, and the specific language of the people of that time? I think was Magadhi, Ardhamagadi, Prakrit or even Sanskrit. All these languages might be dead as of now. However, it is quite possible that they all were very feudal in their internal codes.
The language in Japan could definitely be feudalistic. Possibly in a very severe form. However being a homogenous nation, it does bring in discipline. Here the lesser guys would definitely have no independent individuality; his whole personality would be one of dependence and fitting into the slot of the system and maintaining his profile there. I quote from the book Society of Modern day Samurai by Masatugu Mitsuuyki; “The employer’s principal position is parental. He places the employee in a position dependent upon himself. It’s dependence between parents and a child. In western countries, a newly employed worker is instructed as to what he is supposed to do and how. Even though his immediate superior keeps an eye on the worker, in actual fact he operates on his own and expects no assistance from anyone. Their relationships are confined to exchanging labour for money. All that a Japanese worker receives is notification concerning his starting pay and a colourful booklet about the firm. The notification is not contract, but a certificate of mutual relations informally defined as follows: you have been accepted into the family. Be dependant upon it and you will be helped’. These relations are based on the feudal concept of dutiful gratitude. Accordingly, the worker assumes the following stance: `In gratitude for the concern and trust on part of the family, I believed in the best way possible’.”
NOTE added on the 21^st^ of May 2016: The word ‘Western’ is a misnomer. ‘Western’ can mean Eastern Europe, Western Europe or even the USA and Canada of the American Continent. It can even mean England or Great Britain. Only native-English nations are different from the feudal social structure. Even though it is quite possible that at least a few of the nations in Continental Europe also might have planar languages.
This quotation may give a very rosy picture. However the reality need not be so. This quotation is from the superior’s viewpoint. With the spread of English, the concept of individual’s individuality has also spread. The individual who is a worker need not necessarily be happy in his faceless submissive position. He may not enjoy the prospect of displaying his servitude to a lot of others, and also, the pressure to be superior to many others, as part of natural communication requirement. However in a feudal society, he has no escape. He has to find his position in the system and also see that he builds up juniors to himself over whom he is superior.
In this society, there would be a mad rush to get into professional courses. The youth would put in their everything to enter Medical, Engineering, Management and other university courses. A missing in this would be equal to a lifetime failure. Beyond that, it could hold a person in a position of helpless subjugation.
A job in the government would also be highly liked. The competition would be high and the stakes, which would remain as an invisible undercurrent, would also be high. Suicide in this society would be high.
The prosperity that Japan displays is only a façade. It would not last in the face of the increasing incidences of persons belonging to the traditionally lower social strata penetrating the higher strata. This could create real turmoil in the social mould that has remained immovable for centuries. The language structure would initially resist this demolition of social hierarchy. Later it would lead to a state of hopeless mismanagement and interpersonal animosity in the individuals in the society. However the chance to shift into English, whenever Japanese language could create havoc, among the educated individuals and escape the tyranny of the language could provide a safety valve for the society, from a highly explosive pressure that could build up.
However another factor could also be at work. That is the strong connection Japan has with the English speaking countries like Britain and United States of America. This also could help the society to feel that it has a lifeline.
The effect of Japan on the English society can be briefly dealt here. Elaboration can be done later. In the Japanese society, there could be simmering discontent and unhappiness among the middle classes and lesser sections. Only, they wouldn’t have the necessary means of expressing it. In many cases, they wouldn’t even understand the reason for their distress. They may tend to blame the English societies for their woes, when actually the real cause may be just in front of them: the Japanese language.
Compared to the English-speaking Boss, a Japanese boss would be more powerful and despotic. For he gets instinctive homage from his juniors. This could be a point of shallow envy for the English bosses. However there is nothing in this system for an English worker, or even for the society at large, to envy.
There would be reasons for a Japanese worker in America or England to be liked. For, he is ever ready to exhibit a profuse sense of homage. However what has to be remembered is that once this person grows into a boss, he also expects the same amount of belittling actions of homage and respect. He prefers those who would willingly extend it. And this factor could slowly erode the individuality that now exists in the English world.
Actually, persons who think and function in feudal language software programs do have a sort of ambivalent and ambiguous two-sided personality, which are starkly different and distinct from each other. One of meek obsequiousness, when he or she is on the lower pane; and other of stifling regimentation. It need not be understood that the latter behaviour comes with loud and pretentious arrogance. It can also be displayed effectively with supreme finesse using soft words and an affable demeanour.
China is very naturally a very feudal country, notwithstanding the communist* cloak it is exhibiting with so much nonchalance. The language would be extremely feudal. With contempt for the working class; and with supreme indifference to the comfort of everyone other than the ruling bureaucracy, life would be just a reflection of ancient feudal times.
One may see the well-dressed young men and women, who adorn the capital cities, and the modern commercial cities of China. However the millions who remain nameless and possibly faceless, may be living a life of extreme subjugation. The power that subjugates them won’t be seen in the rulebooks. For they exist in the stranglehold inside the language codes.
It needs to be said that persons from English-speaking countries, who do not understand the niceties of the Chinese language would not feel or understand the power of the feudal words; and the intangible mental chain they tie on a person’s mind and personality. For the foreigner, the layman would be seen to function in a sort of mechanical perfection and harmony, with no external force or command to be seen or heard. They would miss the unseen omnipotence that fill the air. They would remain in blissful ignorance of what is the real social motivating factor in China.
The regal authority of Ghengis Khan, which ran throughout China in the ancient times would be based on the solid strength of the intangible chain that existed in the language. This place each person in the structure, in tight positions with little manoeuvrability from the general dictates.
China is a communist country and hence it is a presumed classless society. However I would contend that the moment a person from the English West, entered into China, what would impress him most would be the existence of solid social classes. It would be headed by the senior positions of bureaucracy. A general air of contempt for all service-oriented careers would be very much evident. Communism would exist as a farce, as in many other similar places, all round the world. Here I must emphasise that I do concede to the general sincerity of the communist revolutionaries in all places where the language is feudal. Yet, they also ultimately fall into the trap of the same feudal language social structure.
In this context, one may even rethink about the *Opium Wars that paved the way for British supremacy over China. Contempt for the merchant class was very much in exhibition among the official class of China at that time. This attitude will still be in evidence over there. The feudal language would give a feeling of supreme omnipotence and of megalomania, which are common afflictions that affect all bureaucrats when they are able to communicate with the common class, in a feudal language. The language lends a feeling of supreme capabilities.
It is this attitude that led to the war. This could have been avoided if the bureaucrats were living in conditions that are more down-to-earth. They had the same attitude Napoleon also exhibited for the benefit of his followers. That Britain was a nation of shopkeepers.
When the English came for trade, the higher officials did not allow them to approach them without exhibiting exquisite actions and poses of servitude. The English merchants were expected to show all inclinations of homage as shown by native merchants, which they invariably declined to do. Even the English ambassadors were treated as mere tribute bearers and they were also expected to perform the Kowtow * or the nine prostrations, before the Emperor. By understanding the underlying codes inside the English language, one can very well expect they would not do this. (Actually, this aspect of the English personality, that they are second to none, anywhere in the world, is what gives them the edge, over others). The Chinese feudal leaders and Bureaucrats till the very end were disinclined to accept the English merchants as equals and negotiate with them on a level of equality.
Bowing before the officialdom in feudal China. This is practically there in all feudal language nations, including India. However, the physical bowing may have disappeared. However, in the language codes, people do bent, bow and cringe before the officialdom even now.
Credit line: Wellcome Trust logo.svg
This file comes from Wellcome Images, a website operated by Wellcome Trust, a global charitable foundation based in the United Kingdom. Refer to Wellcome blog post (archive).
References Library reference: ICV No 15478
Photo number: V0015171
Full Bibliographic Record: http://catalogue.wellcomelibrary.org/record=b1175176
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.
This stupid attitude of pseudo superiority forced them to hold on to their belief of the inferiority of the merchant-class from England. The English merchants were not under similar strangleholds of the language, as experienced by the Chinese merchants. This was the real starting point of dispute and antipathy. It led to the Opium Wars.
Again, the English won in a war, which they fought, from few ships in a far-away land, which even in those days could claim the greatest of human resources.
Actually the war was not fought between two groups of people. It was between two different communication software. The one, which had the least of communication blocks and could function faster with the least of hindrances, won. It was only the most logical thing to happen.
Usually, in feudal language conditions, persons tend not to move out from the sphere of influence of their feudal position. Wherever they go, they tend to carry their feudal positions for exhibition. In a way, this lead to a life of living in an artificial halo, with not much understanding of the realities. They communicate only with persons who are willing to show exquisite homage, who do it possibly to exploit the situation. These persons slowly tend to think that the whole world is of minor importance in comparison to their own worth.
This stupid attitude is very much evident in the letter sent by the Chinese Emperor to the English King. The size of Britain is insignificant when compared to that of China. Any gift that came from the English Monarch could only be regarded as a piece of homage, and not as a gift from an equal person. A part of the letter is quoted here:
You, O King, live beyond the confines of many seas, nevertheless, impelled by your desire to partake of the benefits of our civilisation, you have despatched a mission respectfully bearing your memorial. Your Envoy——has crossed the seas and paid his respects at my Court on the anniversary of my birthday. To show your devotion you have also sent, offerings of your country’s produce.
I have perused your memorial: the earnest terms in which it is couched reveal a respectful humility, on your part, which is highly praise worthy. Swaying the wide world, I have but one aim in view, namely to maintain a perfect governance and to fulfil the duties of the state: strange and costly objects do not interest me. I—have no use of your country’s manufactures. It behoves you, O King to respect my sentiments and to display even greater devotion and loyalty in future, so that by perpetual submission to our Throne, you may secure peace and prosperity for your country hereafter.
Tremblingly obey and show no negligence.
NOTE added on the 21^st^ of May 2016: This is only an English translation of a letter written in a terribly feudal language. The exact evilness embedded in the words will never get translated into English. For, English does not have any corresponding words codes.
Some historians have opined that King George of England must have been shocked at the audacity and arrogance expressed by the Chinese Emperor in his letter to him. For, the Chinese Emperor was addressing a small king and that, in Chinese language could have allowed the bold impoliteness of expression. However my own feeling is that the Monarch of England and his councillors must have been amused by the tone and this letter itself could have given them the evidence of the underlying stupidity and structural weakness in the Chinese society.
Here it must be emphasised that when the English West is thinking of going for commercial enterprise inside China, they should go from a position of supreme strength. They should maintain an armour of impenetrable united-ness. They should only interact from a base of English language and never, ever try to bring in or allow the entry of Chinese language into their environment. For once the environment turns Chinese, power would move to the hands of the Chinese bureaucrats, and the English would lose their vantage position.
Here I would like to slightly digress on to a certain factor about communist leaders. In many countries, they enjoy great power and, naturally, the luxury power can deliver. At the same time, they have to live within the limitations proposed by their political philosophy. In the modern world, this is a very difficult. For modern technologies have brought in gadgetry that, if kept at a distance, can offer a real tormenting temptation.
Let me take case of communist leaders in India. Many of them, after getting across to the national political canvas, get to taste the international scene. The satellite television, Internet, Computers, International travel, Five Star Hotels etc. The cosiness of these items really intoxicates them, for they have come from philosophical areas, which very forcefully argued that all these are the toys of the exploiting rich. They slowly start making all these items a part of their living style. Later they find that from the vantage positions that they occupy, they can easily be a part of the businesses which these technologies offer.
The next scene is that they are all running businesses of vast dimensions, like Satellite TV channels &c. They also having their fingers in various such enterprises. Now, the communist parties descend to condoning capitalism, and private ownership. All in the name of progressive correction of ideology. However it should be understood that this is only a opportunistic, fooling of the followers. For what is being done is to use the ideological change to legitimise the capitalistic ventures of the Communist leaders. These leaders naturally are very feudal in their social communications. . The same thing is now taking place in China.
Now we can think of Russia – a historically sluggish empire with strength more in bluff and pretensions than in reality, it has always displayed inherent feudal tendencies. A huge landscape governed always with a supreme lack of efficiency and sensibilities, it has withstood the test of time, because of some strange codes in its language software.
In the erstwhile Soviet Union, which was the natural growth of the Russian Empire, with its multitude of States and Nationalities, there were a number of languages. Some from the Asian side and some from the European side. The European language of Russian was in supremacy. However being in close contact with the Asian languages, which are generally highly feudal in nature, much feudalism may have been superimposed on the Russian language, even if it otherwise did not have any. Life in such a software program would never have given the solace from feudalism, even when the so-called force of liberation, that is, Communism came into power.
The feudal elements in the language could have easily aided the party officials and the bureaucracy to turn their stations into fiefdoms. If the languages do have this character, then no amount of ‘Perestroika*‘ or Glasnost ’* would liberalise the Soviets. The liberalism could only allow the more prominent elements in society to build up capitalistic organisations, which at heart would be just a modern manifestation of feudalism. In other words, the old communist leaders and officials would end up as owners and proprietors of gigantic commercial organisations, which the English West may imagine to be Capitalistic, but in reality would just feudal organisations.
Another connected feature of the stifling atmosphere of a feudal language is that it can both create dissension, and at the same time hold the mutually antipathetic components together in a web of dynamic, mutually destructive unity. Everyone holds on to the system, as it is the only thing, which gives them an identity. However when one fine morning, when the system fails, then forces of dissension would become overwhelmingly powerful and individual components would move in tangential directions.
The statements that I have now made in the last paragraph need much refinement and development and that can be done only in another area. So, the assertions that I have made may just stand alone, for the moment, awaiting more detailed interpretation.
Feudal languages make individuals live in a strange stifling atmosphere. A feeling and an air of heavy subjugation, which individuals who have always lived in perfect English conditions, would find difficult to sense and perceive. Communism may appear as a flawless and fitting answer and solution for this affliction. However as long as the language is feudal, Communism cannot help. For, the Communist leaders and other officials would just replace the ancient feudal lords, and manoeuvre themselves into the senior, significant positions in the language hierarchy. And the show will go on, with possibly more dogmatic, ideological justification.
As a total generalisation, I would state here that the amount of feudal content in Asian languages might be more in quantity and also in intensity. This I mainly infer from the messy looks of the Asian town planning, messy administrative structures and also from the general stunted anthropological looks in persons of a number of areas, with a few exceptions.
Now let us take the case of the Asian Capitalistic Nations. Japan, South Korea, India, Pakistan etc. Japan, we have already discussed in isolation. Here I may make some sweeping generalisations.
None of these countries are, and never can be capitalistic countries. What is going to be identified as capitalism is just feudalism, in a more cunning and ingenious attire. Actually in these places what exists, as capitalism is really a metamorphosed form of ancient feudalism. All these societies have a non-tangible ingredient, which acts as a limiting factor to liberating the people and keeps them under the tutelage of despots, minor or major. This non-tangible factor is the feudal language software codes.
The English West, mainly America, has consistently taken an attitude of helping the growth of capitalism, in these countries, thinking that it would give more liberty to the people. However the reality is that it is not the common people who come up. Only a certain limited number of persons, who act in constant association with the ruling and local bureaucracy, get all the benefits. These persons also put all their ingenuity to see that the common person does not achieve the liberty that was originally aimed for. For, in a feudal language set-up, it could severely challenge their positions.
Many times, America has helped the ruling forces to tackle the outburst of the suppressed populace, identifying them with leftist upstarts. Herein I must interject the contention that Englishman with rectitude from any native English-speaking country would be able to bear the life in these Asian countries as an ordinary citizen or bear what the local citizen is made to live as. Leftist ideology is only a trap that awaits the intellectual person who desperately seeks a solution for the miseries he sees. From the background of this reality, the English West to taking sides with the ruling forces in the Asian countries, be it in Japan, India, China, Sri. Lanka or anywhere else is actually an act of perversion and misguided intellectual arrogance.
Liberal capitalism is an outgrowth of English Language.
This statement requires much more elaboration. I state it for the time being and leave it as that, till I come to a place, when I can elaborate with more inputs.
We need to discuss Hong Kong now. A British colony for a long timer, it was an island of prosperity in a region, known for poverty and privation. Now it is in Chinese hands. It was just a case of handing over on a silver platter, a jewel to a group of monkeys. They would not know the value to what they have been given. It is only a matter of time, before Hong Kong becomes a sort of capital of mess and mischief.
Many citizens of British Hong Kong would miss the old rule. The rules would now be different. Earlier, there would have been a striving for impartial, good governance, with a premium for dignified, interaction with the officialdom. Now, dignified communication would be a negative factor. What would move the official bosses would be obsequious behaviour, with a set of rules of homage. A feeling of unquestionable supremacy of the bureaucracy would prevail. The politicians would also be very insecure, and would in many cases be just a supplicant of the bureaucracy, instead of the man to leash the bureaucrat. The feudal power of the bureaucrat would increase manifold.
What else is going to happen? Well, the financial discipline that the British had, with characteristic ease brought in would be lost, and in its place, the mess and chaos of a heterogeneous feudal land would come. There would be a tumble down of financial prosperity, in times to come, for the average man. However, the higher-ups would have a favourable time. Hong Kong which could have been once described as the financial capital of Asia, would lose it place, plunging many a local nation into financial distress, due to the loss of a secure place, where rule of law is precise, fast and detached from status of personalities, for financial dealings.
However, would the British official on deputation to Hong Kong have liked the place, during the British times? It is possible he would have felt stifled and suffocated, when dealing with the local society.
Now let us move to the South American Continent. A place with a strange antiquity. A place where the Continental European blood (non-English), mixed and lived in close quarters with the native blood. A place where Continental European languages, impacted with the native languages. Both could have feudal elements. Or only one side could have it. Now it does not matter. For, I am sure the present day languages in these nations are heavily imbedded with feudal inclinations and dispositions.
In a nation, where each person may try desperately to cling on to some superior claim in ancestry, or blood, or lineage, to escape the suppression by the language, and where the other individual may not be inclined to accept the more likeable aspects and may allude to the more disparaging aspects, tensions and intense animosity would linger around in the social circles, like a haunting ghost. This negativity would haunt the minds and social systems. It would lead the nations to what they now have in common: political and social instability along with economic chaos.
Historically, these countries, which did have a history of colonialism, do have another common feature or missing: These countries did not have English colonialism. So the one thing, they missed was the enduring administrative systems and rule of law, which was a characteristic feature of British colonialism all round the world. This English colonial rule legacy, if they had, would have given them some degree of stability.
At the same time, they on their own have failed to create any stable systems. Absolutely due to a mixture of feudal languages and heterogeneous population. Hence among these countries, the stable ones would only be those ruled by despots i.e., persons who are venerated and have a halo around them. Ordinary concepts of practice of democracy would be converted into farce.
I may not assert here that if five persons meet on the street, and interact in close quarters for a few hours, they would start fighting. However there might be enough ingredients in the language to cause it to happen, if the combination of individuals is from a definite, well defined, or pre-definable mixture of social, age, financial and official positions.
All the constant civil wars, and military coups, and other civil strife could be the result of a real need for the people to reach a level of contentment. For, every man and group of men, who reach the various levels of power would suddenly or slowly metamorphosis into unbelievable, unapproachable entities; a change that the language programme would force very naturally.
[*The Middle East]
There are certain nations in the Middle-East, which are very small in size, yet remain in deep significance in the World, due to their financial clout based on Oil, and Oil based businesses. Some of them may have gone beyond the parameters of Oil, but that is not the issue of discussion here. These countries include nations like the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait etc. With negligible native human resources, and also very weak militarily, they maintain their political sovereignty mainly on the basis of the support lend to them by the countries of the English West.
One common thing noticeable in these countries is the general neatness of town planning, a thing that is remarkable for its sharp contrast to what is seen in other Afro-Asian countries. For many years, the administrative systems, courteous adherence to traffic rules, neat buildings etc. were admired much by the populace of the neighbouring Asian nations.
These countries are reputed to be much disciplined. It was also believed that there is no corruption there. It is believed that it is so, because of the stern laws enforced over there. This belief is slightly erroneous. For, the efficiency of the systems was not due to the stern laws and efficient law enforcing machinery. Rather, it was due to the fact that these nations were maintaining a lot of relationship with the English nations, and for a long time the actual management was in the hands of native-English (Britons).
Actually, these countries, for a long time even after independence, were, more or less, managed by people from the English speaking nations, by their being in positions of prominence and authority. This is the reason for the efficient social functioning in these countries. For, there are many other countries where laws are enforced with equal severity, but with no apparent difference to the efficiency of the society.
Now we are seeing an emerging phenomenon. In some of these Middle Eastern countries, positions of authority and prominence are increasingly being filled by people from the Asian continent. For, the cost factor is heavily in favour of the Asian Bosses. These persons are no less in efficiency than the English, but then they bring in with them their feudal culture also, in which professional relationships and interactions are weaker when compared to the strings of family and social hierarchy. In a matter of few years, these countries will slowly show signs of corruption, nepotism, and inefficiency. The change will be slow and subtle and may not be noticeable for a long time, but it will come.
Another thing that needs mention here is that the Arabic language need not be as feudal as the other Asian languages. However there may be regional and national variation, with their consequent affect very much evident on the social psyche.
This country is an absolute creation of the English natives. All social systems here are basically British; or to put it in more clear terms, English. However it was a country made by people who were forced to leave their sanctuary of home, native place, family, friends and everything that one may build up in a lifetime.
Incidentally, one may, for reasons of pedantry, claim that America is different from England, and so many similar things. It may be so. But I claim here to show that the great base and the canvas on which America exists are English. I will do it at a later stage.
USA is different from the South American countries, as Britain is different from the rest of Europe. America would have more in common with Canada, than with any of the South American countries. Off course, it is because of the sameness of language. Yet, both countries, one may notice, are prosperous, with good town planning, democratic in practice as different from democratic in pretence as in the South American countries; the citizens of both countries get dignity from the officialdom; as against either disdain if one is an ordinary mortal, and resounding respect if one is a big man in South America.
Yet, America is the place where the language can liberate anybody; even if they have lived in tutelage for decades in the stranglehold of their native tongues.
Now America is getting filled by people from diverse language background; from the West Europeans, East Europeans, the South Americans, Black Africans, Arabs, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Pakistanis, Sri. Lankans, Indians, and Bangladeshis etc. to many others of varying colours and languages.
When persons who have lived in the terrible regimentation of feudal languages, come over to America, and start speaking English with the same parameters that the British practice, the effect is one of supreme liberation. One, which they can never, never achieve in their own country, whatever their position or wealth. This statement needs a lot of elaboration and understanding; and can be dealt only at a later stage.
Yet the continuous and incessant bombardment of alien cultural ideology embedded in feudal languages, could create experiences, which are not English and will lead USA to social tensions. Though the extreme emotional disturbances, it causes would be understood as racial feelings and colour discrimination, the real reasons could be the strange, and disturbing social restructuring that is being forced on an easy going English society. Ordinary, peaceful persons would react violently to alien disturbing cultural signals, which are disturbing, and at the same time difficult to understand.
With callous indifference, one can claim that America is the melting pot of cultures. If full melting does take place, and an English mould is formed, it is all right. However I have fears that with this severe influx of alien cultures that come with a package of virus software, a stage may come, at least, in certain areas, where the innate resilience of the English structure may be severely tested; and cause much distress to the individual persons; and can in a matter of time, cause domino effect on many other areas, causing strange happenings of technological failure, inefficiency, conflict, hatred, events that may be described with shallow understanding as racially motivated, decent and peaceful persons acting with unnatural violence etc.
Rude officialdom, arrogant and trigger-happy police, increasing corruption, insolent attitude to persons who are judged to be doing lower jobs, time-consuming judiciary, rules and regulations, which are laughable in meaning but having a sting from which many get hurt, and a general feeling of hopeless for the solitary individual, as against the might of the society are all general characters of the effect of feudal languages.
What has to be borne in mind is that feudal languages do have elements in them, which aim at subjugation; and where they fail to do so, they may at least cause deep mental hurt. That too, in an extremely soft and inconspicuous manner, that it may not be discernible to another person, other than the person who felt it. Though persons who do not know these languages may not actually understand the full significance of each and every word; they may be able to sense the negativity from the body language of the person who says the words, and of the other’s of the same language who may actually understand it.
Beyond all this, there may be a factor of mental waves, or energy, which may radiate along with the words, which may have a deeper effect than is currently understood. It could all lead to a lot of side effects, possibly due to a sort of domino effect, and the effect need not be at the place the disturbance took place. Examples could be unexplainable road rages, air rages, shooting of colleagues, and so many actions with criminal overtones, by seemingly decent persons.
Yet, persons who actually come from these feudal language countries would display a supreme level of emotional balance, which they could and would never have displayed in their own country. For, what they are experiencing is a freedom in the English nations, which they could not have dreamt of, in their wildest dreams, if they did have the imagination to conceptualise it.
More, actually much more, needs to be said on America; but those things can be dealt with only after much discussion of other basic things, is finished.
I do not know anything about the Dutch language. However, I do think that this is one language that may have certain characteristic of the English language; namely, the lack of feudal grading of citizenry, who otherwise do not have any feudal pedigree. I deduce it on the basis of the fact that these are the people who have held up to the British might, just on the basis of their human quality factors. And in an African country, where they had the opportunity to handle political power, they did improve the lot of the local population. Even this dialogue of mine may not be acceptable to many. At the same time, I am not very sure how much of the credit can be shared by the British, who also did have political power there, and did aim to improve the lot of the natives, facing sharp antipathy from the Afrikaners*.
I am not in a position to make much comment on Jews, other than comment from the basis of some of their international reactions and something from their antiquity.
One thing that has caught my imagination is the history of Jesus Christ*. Taken from a secular point of view, many of his deeds do smack of an attitude of a revolutionary, bent on wiping out the corruption and the strangling hold on the society by a section of the dominant class. At the same time, at the end of the scene, the very section, that is the common people, who should have seen him as their saviour against the exploitation by the master class, cried for his blood. Both these phenomena do point to a sort of feudal content in their language. For, stifling domination by a section is a very sharp pointer to a feudal language structure. And the fact that at the end of all the show the people would still bend before the powers that be is also a feudal-language phenomenon. For, a feudal language does lend an enchantment to all higher positions that one really reels with pleasure whenever one gets an occasion to appease the higher person, and achieve his pleasing approval.
Now, I am in a premise that I do not have much idea about. So, my comments may need to be confirmed. But then all my judgements regarding languages and nations that I do not know much about, are based on information, which came to me through reading and comments, on the basis of which I have developed some understanding on them. At the same time, I stand by the correctness of my original understanding that there is a factor of the structure of the language that defines all social phenomena.
Another thing that has to influence this understanding about the Jews, is the consistent nuisance value, they have evoked in almost all nations, where they were in financial power. The word nuisance should be qualified here. For in many places, where they lived, there has been antipathy to them socially. Yet, it need not always be that they are in the wrong. They may be positive in a negative society, or they may be negative in a positive society, or both may be negative. These ideas also need to be discussed in relation to certain factors in their spoken language. I do not know much about what they spoke either during the age of Jesus Christ, or in during the recent centuries. Their language is considered to be Hebrew*. Or was it Aramaic? But then, what they did speak in other nations like Germany among themselves, and how much some other language features influenced their spoken languages like German, I have no idea. Or whether, they were disturbed by the feudalism in the local languages like German etc., is also a moot point.
It is only natural that I discuss South Africa here. It is easy to claim that the Dutch settlers exploited the Black Africans and they never allowed the Blacks natives to come up in life. It is a very complicated question. However, if anyone wants to speak on this affair, they should first check if there is any component of feudalism in the local Black African languages and dialects. And also, see if the major Black leadership come from higher feudal hereditary. If it is so, then it could very well be said that the Blacks would have been better off under the Dutch settlers’ rule. If both the answers are in the affirmative, then I can put it in words that there would be many Blacks who would improve their lot fantastically under the Black Majority rule, but the majority would be in plights, which are very pitiably indeed. And the more the difference builds up, the more the blame would be put on the erstwhile Afrikaner* rule.
Here I may seem to be saying that the White settlers are better people than the Blacks. That is only a mistake, easily made. For my arguments are on so fine a borderline, that they, if not properly understood, can seem to stand for the opposite of what it was intended to stand for.
What I am trying to say is that if the language software of the Blacks does have a stinging feudal element, then it will clearly be the reason why the Blacks do not improve as a group. And that same factor must have, indeed, been the reason why they were so disunited, weak and mutually antagonistic that led to the supremacy of the settlers on them. If this factor of feudal content is indeed in their language, then it is only correct that the Afrikaner did keep them at a distance; or else the same virus would infect and inflict them also.
Since the Black majority rule has come, naturally the native languages would once again be blooming. Now, what is disturbing is that if the Black languages and dialects do have this feudal content, then the whole country would get infected by it, the settlers included. Instead of the social and administrative systems and conventions improving, one could see a marked and steady movement to disaster. But these things being slow, solitary individuals may not be able to discern the disaster that looms on the horizon.
What I would like to say is, to put it more effectively, that the Blacks in South Africa, as a whole group, would not achieve the grandeur of the Blacks in U.S.A, unless they are able to remove any feudal language or dialect they otherwise use, and imbibe English as used in Great Britain or U.S.A. If they continue to feel fierce passions for their native tongue, or any other language just because of its hereditary associations, then they would just be carrying on the ancient encumbrances of the major peoples of Africa.
Now let me discuss Great Britain. Britain was just an island on the fringe of the European continent. Yet it has been the most significant nation on earth, when the total effect its presence has caused for the whole world is taken into account; and most of it of a rare positive quality. Being very near to the European continent, the social systems and philosophies that prevailed all over Europe influenced Britain also.
The British language, that is English, may also possibly have been having a certain level of feudalism in it in the far away ancient times. Yet, it may have certain areas, which allowed aristocracy to debate the issue of Magna Cart with the Monarchy, and yet not destroy the prestige of the Monarchy, and make the whole affair into an intelligent experience. The significance of what I said here is that in many other language environments what had happened would have led to a lot of simmering anger due to bruised egos, which would have been a result of the running of the language software through the minds and mouths of a lot of persons. This would have led to the destruction of the political system; instead of the strengthening of the system that, took place in England.
Whatever be the ancient character of the British language, that is English, it must have slowly developed in a most positive manner, shedding it hierarchical character (it did have any), from among the common communication. And then Britain started becoming different from the other European nations. Slowly the language started allowing the common men, the freedom to communicate to each other without any reference to their age, social, official or financial position. It was a wonderful experience that most of the mankind all round the world is yet to experience. This is the real reason for the blossoming of so many scientific discoveries in Britain, and also of so many remarkable incidents in the British history.
This is the real reason, why a common British citizen could think of the Gravitational* pull and then lead on the argument to reach the realm of classical science; why the British administrative systems, though remarkably simple, was unique; why every branch of human knowledge bloomed in the minds of the common citizens, while at the same time many other country were filled with remarkable scholars, and hallowed persons, with negligible contributions to human knowledge. And this is the reason why British claim themselves as a nation of geniuses*, when actually they are only a nation of ordinary persons using their brains and social communication to process ideas in a most un-harried and unhindered atmosphere.
At the same time, the supreme geniuses and scholars of the feudal nations had to preserve a significant part of their daily thought and attention for maintaining and extracting their proper respect, decorum and dignity, especially from the lower class of people. Their every action would be first and foremost aimed at impressing the least of the persons in the society. And the least of the citizens could disturb them with the most minor of words, used in a heartless and indifferent manner.
In this context, a mention may be made of the European Nation; a conglomeration of diverse European nations. Britain has not joined it. To put it in so many words, Britain has saved itself from a sure route to unmitigated disaster. To deliberate more on this issue, many more themes have to be finished. When the basis of my contention is set and ready, I will come back to this theme.
In this part, I am going to make a deep study on the effects of the feudal languages, using India as a frame of reference for study and analysis. From the understandings that can be taken from this study, I intend to debate on the international effects of feudal languages.
Since there is need to take up a specific language for study, reference and comparison, I am taking the various attributes of Malayalam for discussion. One reasons for this is that I do know Malayalam. Another factor is that this language is heavily feudal* in nature, even though the Malayalees might consider it as one of the best languages in the world. Along with this, the Indian state of Kerala also is taken for reference, for Malayalam is the language of this state. However it may be borne in mind that the ultimate aim is to study the multifarious affects of a feudal language on the various attributes of human beings, and the society they create.
The reader is warned that in this section, he or she is about to enter into a deeply weird world, and till he comes out of this section, he or she may seem to be in a highly confusing location. He or she may wonder if there is any need to understand India so deeply to pursue an international affect.
If the next part seems too unwieldy to read in the first attempt, the reader may go through the first three or four chapters, and then move on to Part III. He or she can come back at a leisurely pace, when the 3rd part is over.
Now let us take India, as a suitable example to survey the finer aspects of feudalism in language. So let me start from India, and build up my arguments.
But why India?
The reasons are many and varied.
One that I was born there, and hence I can take a lot of illustrations from Indian societies, anthropological features, history, administrative structures, social behaviours, dressing standards, social phobias and many other items.
Another wonderful reason is that India exists as a sort of a union of many diverse language nationalities, all joined together because of another wonderful historical incident, the British rule in the South Asian peninsular region. This kaleidoscopic diversity of languages and the consequent immensity of cultures, and attitudes and behaviours, all would give me an abundance of material to help me convey my understanding.
The Indian languages may be said to be based on two ancient language systems: One Sanskrit and the other the Dravidian languages, starting with Tamil. For the time being, we need not trouble ourselves about the other language systems that are also there in this location.
Both Sanskrit and Tamil are feudal. Hindi and most of the languages of the northern parts of the peninsula may trace their ancestry to Sanskrit; while the Dravidian languages include Tamil, Kannada, Telugu and Malayalam. Malayalam actually does contain lot of influence of Sanskrit also.
While there are feudal elements in all these languages, the functioning and position of these feudal programs are at different levels or stages, when compared to each other. So each language creates slightly different social reactions and social designs, patterns and arrangements. Also, inside the same language, the feudal fixing of certain groups of persons, at the various levels, may differ in their levels, strength and intensity, depending on the place, and also on the differing dialects.
It is possible that the reader has not got any idea of what I have tried to convey here. Forbearance, please!
Now I aim to delve deep into the theme. The significance of this study should not be lost on the reader. For, language is the software program on which the whole society functions. In years to come, one may understand that language is the very powerful tool, or structure, which dictates and designs the whole of human functioning as a group. Every single significant word, spoken and also unspoken, does have a singular effect on the whole society. And the blueprint of social topography is encoded in unmistakably powerful codes, in the language of the place.
In all Indian languages, there are Key words or [*indicants], which are seemingly insignificant, but the usage, or presence of them can give deep insight to the onlooker or the hearer, on the financial, social or feudal position of the person referred to, or of the person to whom it is addressed, or of the person himself who has spoken it. These words are usually very short, and to the person who does not know the language, it may not even be audible in the whole chatter of seeming gibberish. However this gibberish would be compact communication packages, which convey not only information, queries and feelings, but also strong social designs; which can force a person to bend, pay homage, show respect, show indifference, be arrogant, be condescending, be insincere, be insecure, be mentally disturbed, be efficient, be intolerant to capability and efficiency, show signs of mental instability etc.
When thinking in English, one may not understand this. But persons from native-English ancestry who during the colonial era married into native families in the South Asian peninsular region, and joined their social systems, after imbibing the local languages, may have understood and endured the power of feudal languages. However, whatever shock they must have felt, could never be conveyed to the inhabitants of England. For, there was no tool available for them to gauge it, and mention it.
Many British colonial official of integrity have commented on this theme, but what they got in return from the British citizen sitting at home was a harsh judgement based on English logic. A superb example of this would be Robert Clive. His claim that all systems, and ethics and etiquette in British-India are the exact opposite of what was there in Britain was possibly taken with scorn. I don’t know whether he could convey what he meant. Possibly not. In fact, it was not a matter of all systems, ethics and etiquette being different. More it was that there were differing systems, ethics and etiquette towards different levels of people, in the South Asian subcontinent. There was no universality in these aspects.
We will first begin with the language structure. It has already been discussed in a minor manner in the earlier pages.
The Key words or indicants, in the case of the Indian languages are usually the following: You, He, She, His, Her, Him, For him, For her etc. There are usually three forms for each of these words. One is of deep respect, conceded to persons who are commonly accepted as superior, and should be given deference.
The second is of secondary level of respect. This level is of a slightly insecure level, for its usage sometimes presupposes that the speaker is undecided whether he judges him to be of social worth or not. It is also a stage of intense monitoring, measurement and disturbingly intense and penetrating queries on personal issues.
The third is the level of no respect and of disdain, or of intense intimacy. Actually, this is the most stable of all stages, for it cannot go further down. Once a man is snubbed to this level, and he mentally accepts this level, he loses a lot of his social abilities, in the sense that others immediately perceive it mentally. And tend to keep him to this level. For otherwise, if he is allowed more freedom of staying at their level would not only not increase his level, but also reduce the other person’s level in the eyes of others. It is a complicated machinery at work here. Cannot deal with it in detail here.
However another attribute of this level also needs to be made clear here. This is a level, which gives the most amount of freedom to the addresser on the addressed. It can very well be intrusive freedom. But then this is also the level of deep intimacy. So, this is the level at which intimacy exists between friends. And also, this is the level of intimacy that exists between husband and wife, man and lover etc., with the latter being in the lower indicant level. Yet, the fact remains that in many languages, this level is imposed on the female, while the husband has to remain on the first or second level of indicants.
In certain languages like Tamil etc. even verbs come embedded with indicants. That is, for the statement Please sit down, there are a varied levels of words to be used. At the same time, it may be borne in mind that there are no equivalent words for the word Please. For that matter, one may not find equivalents for so many others words like Kindly, Sorry, I apologise, I regret, Beg your pardon, which can convey the same sense in feudal languages. For, all words, which are used as equivalents, do come with feudal overtones, and cannot be used by a senior to a junior, a superior to an inferior etc. If it were done, the social effect would be ludicrous.
Words like sit down would have a term affixed to its end, if it were addressed to a superior or honourable man, which would signify hallowed respect. To persons who the other person measures as of lower social status, the appendage of respect would be avoided.
All this works beautifully in a homogenous society, where everyone’s social and financial status is known and maintained in immutable positions. Possibly in a country like Japan, it may have been possible for a long time. However in India, the reality is different. More so, after the arrival of the British rule. There has been severe tumbling down of centuries-old feudal hierarchy. In this new half-baked liberation, the feudal languages create havoc.
As of now, people have to move among varying groups, and interact with newer social situations. Each person is automatically monitored and measured, and a sort of ranking mark is assigned for him in the society. Howver this monitoring and measuring may be irksome for decent persons, especially when persons of base cultural standards do it.
At times, a person may not be able to display his real, exceptional social attributes. Or he may fail in this endeavour; or the other man with malicious intent would care not to take into consideration, the superior attributes and with deliberate strategy concentrate on the weaker attributes. Then the final result would be tragic as far as his social circumstance is considered.
To facilitate the correct usage of indicants, the people have developed an unconscious mentality of monitoring other fellow beings in the society. It is expressed in the form of an uninhibited curiosity into other’s affairs. People, whom you meet even casually, exhibit an intense desire to know your background with emphasis on your professional, social and financial status etc. When two persons get casually acquainted in a place, say a train, the talk is not on detached subjects but more on each other’s intimate attributes. This helps them to measure each other and categorise the persons, which helps them to immediately qualify the relations in the expressions and words used in oral communication, that is, indicants.
In many cases, one cannot say that one is not interested in divulging all these details to all persons, who are not from a very intimate social circle. If one does say that, it is taken as an offence and also a feeling that he or she has some lower or negative attribute to hide becomes acute. If one is for some time in close contact with any group of persons, who are persisting in their query, and he or she refuses to divulge more, they would very naturally become offensive. For this lack of interest in sharing one’s social levels may be taken as an affront. They would claim it as a right to know more about him. In a way there is a reason for it. For, without such information, they would not be able to place a man in the right file or folder in their brain. For each person should be assigned a position, and he should be stored along with the correct group of people. Then all the necessary indicants and other attributes come naturally from that location. In its absence, he becomes a sort of continuing nuisance to the brain.
What really happens is that when two persons of not markedly different social status meet and converse, they initially commence acquaintance with a level of equality and mutual respect. Once both want to pursue their social communication, they would, in an instinctive manner, which is, more or less, spontaneous, ask each other questions which in an English setting may be taken as purely intrusive. A sort of sub-conscious or even sometimes deliberate measuring of the other person takes place. According to that measurement, a change in the indicant words becomes imperative, and takes place with shocking speed. Sometimes it may be to a higher indicant, very respectful terms, or in the other case, to a lower indicant, purely derisive usages. The real distress comes in the case when the other man, either spontaneously or even deliberately, ignores some of the positive features, and uses the lower indicants to the utter anguish of the other man. These are all continuing factors that repeatedly cause mental fracture in the society.
All indicants come in a package. For, example the lowest level of You will be packed with the lowest level of Him or Her; and with the lowest level of His or Hers. In a tightly packed closed society, these indicants become a sort of attribute of the personality of the person itself, from which it is not at all easy to escape.
Another factor of these packages is this: In English, one may call an individual, You dog, or You son of a bitch. Now in the feudal languages, it is not possible to say You, son of a bitch, when the You used is of the superior or secondary level. Only with the lowest indicant can the sentence You, son of a bitch or He is a son of a bitch, work. Other combinations will not work. In other words, one cannot be extremely impolite to persons who are in the higher indicant levels. At the same time, to persons who are in the lower indicant levels, impoliteness and downright vulgar behaviour comes very easy. Actually, impoliteness is implied when a person is addressed in the lowest indicant level.
The lowest levels are of the servants, the staff, the subordinates, the poor, the dependants, the financially weak, persons of lower age etc. The lowest indicants indicate a sort of defenceless situation, with no cloak or armour of respectability to protect oneself from the piercing and intrusive questions and queries that reach right inside the most intimate sections of one’s personality. Along with it, comes an invitation to taunt other persons. Actually, this tendency to taunt individuals who are in weaker situations spring from the insecurity that many individuals suffer in this language situation, wherein they themselves are at a disadvantage in a certain combination of social situations.
For example, persons who are of comparative lower age have to exist on the lower indicant, in the presence of relatives of senior age. And sometimes in the presence of outsiders of senior age, also. They get taunted. There is a pecking order. Generally, persons in this language situation exist with a sort of multiple personalities. In the presence of acknowledged seniors, they put on a cloak of meek obsequiousness, and bear the taunts extended by the seniors. However they seek to avenge this by perpetually seeking for individuals over whom they can dominate. Once they get one, they also do the taunting. In most cases, it is borne cheerfully, even though it has its toll on the individuality as well as the general stature of the individual concerned. Generally, this taunting goes down the ladder of social interaction, with each group seeking a lesser group. However, the relationships are not pleasant, with communication always hinging on offensive talk, and not on intelligent communication of ideas.
Now if one notices Indian children, and how they communicate with the elders, one can notice a sort of frivolous childishness in their demeanour. At the same time, children from English nations can be noticed to communicate with a different demeanour and pose, which is very much mature, and developed. If an Indian child who communicates in the vernacular were to behave in the same pose, it would immediately be judged as impertinence and too bold, or as over smartness and frowned upon. It can cause severe unease and antipathy in others.
It may be noticed that English children address elders with a Mr. or Mrs. or Miss. prefixed to their names. No Indian child schooled in the vernacular would dare to do it unless given extreme training to do it. He or she would not be able to imagine such boldness on his or her part. Such a small thing, which in the English world, the least of persons can do without much demur or comment, would become a Herculean task for the Indian. Herein would lie, the difference between India and English nations.
What is a simple thing for the English child is a Herculean task for the Indian adult, who lives in India. One can easily see the ease with which the English youngsters could become officers in the East India Company Army* and parade the Indian soldiers who were possibly much older than them.
However this theme also requires a bit of inspection. For, in the feudal set-up, young children did boss over very elder adults of the lower castes, with effortless ease. But not in the English way. They used the local feudal language as a powerful tool of subjugation. This is still a fact of life in feudal areas in India even now, wherein one may find the usage of the lower indicants for adults of the lower castes by the individuals of the higher castes of all levels of age. Yet, it would not evoke any sense of rebellion in the lower castes, other than just more discipline. What could create disturbance to the society is if the lower caste adult were to use the lower indicants for the children of the higher castes.
In English, one uses the name of a person to address him, with either a prefix of Mr., Mrs. or Miss. if the relation is on a formal basis. This prefix is removed once the relation reaches a level of informal interaction. However in the Indian languages, the name of a person is not to be used in such a natural manner. What one may judge as trivial issues in English, in a feudal language tend to place a person in rigid addressing positions, which one cannot do otherwise without causing severe disturbance.
For example, if one is of younger age, or lesser social or financial position, or is a subordinate, or is dependant in terms of finance, or of getting a business order; in all these situations, one has to come down in stature and use relevant suffixes to the addressed person’s name. In certain cases, it is just a practice of pretence. Especially when doing business. In such cases, one dons a subordinate attire, use all sorts of self-demeaning stances, and use the best words of homage to achieve the results. Yet, in such cases, the other man is tolerated in one’s society only till the end of his or her utility as a source of business benefit. Generally, there is a factor of deception in these relations.
Younger persons also need to use the term Elder Brother or Elder Sister to the elder persons. Once such a hierarchical relation is established, there are two choices for the elder or senior person in the relation. Either he can start using the lowest indicant terms to the junior individual, which is more intimate, but at the same time more demeaning, or he can use the secondary level of indicants, which is more formal. In a way, the society understands the choice utilised in a number of ways. One, if he uses the lowest indicant words, he can be understood as more mentally strong, more commanding, and more effective; for in this relationship he has achieved a certain level of subjugating the other individual. Or he may also be understood as lacking in civil manners, less refined and more crude. In fact, an undercurrent of understanding in the vernacular is that if one is polite, refined and cultured, one is less effective, less socially strong, and lacking in managerial qualities. The cultured behaviour is an effeminate quality. .
In husband-wife relations also, the relationship exists with a vector quality. That is, there is a factor of direction. From the husband’s direction, the words to the wife are all of the lower indicant, intimate form. From the wife towards the husband, it is all terms of deep respect and reverence. In south Indian languages, the husband’s name is suffixed with terms of Elder Brother, like Chettan, Annan etc.
Before the coming of the British, even though many persons of varying races, nationalities, and culture did come to the geographical area we now identify as Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, and did rule varying geographical areas here, none did bring in such a profound change as the British. What they brought in was not just the railways, the postal system, the tarred roads, the rule of law, the security on the long travel routes*, modern standards in dressing, the modern education, liberalisation of women, the civil administrative system, equality before the law, the concept of democracy, the opening of recruitment to public services to the common citizen, abolition of Sati*, the ignoring of the power of the caste system etc.; but also another fantastic thing that the Indian could never conceptualise or visualise in their wildest of daydreaming.
And that was English. For the first time in known history, the common citizen was given a communication software, whereby he could contemplate on the highest and the lowest individual in the nation with the same level of freedom and sense of dignity. This was a social software program that was in complete contrast and the very antithesis of all understanding the society had for a long, long time. This must have caused a lot of genuine misery and grievance for a lot of persons, including the British. The cumulative effect of this new software was and is very complicated. It would require a lot of time and space to delve on the various finer effects of this momentous eventuality.
NOTE added on the 22^nd^ of May 2016: Read my book: What is different about pristine-ENGLISH?
In a stagnant social order, where people did not move much from their home base, the society was fixed by the language in a rigid hierarchy. The higher castes, and other people of dignity, could and should address and refer to all persons in the lower hierarchy with the words of the lower indicants. There was no problem. The problem arises only when an upstart, who could not bear the stifling regimentation and wanted to use his intellect to the best of his abilities, and also above his social standing, was born. But then, rarely could he do anything about it. For everyone around him including those above his social level, those on his social level and those below him would place him in such a narrow social space, and that too dictated by the limited space allowed by the language, that he won’t be able to manoeuvre himself out.
Even the children of the higher castes could address everyone below them in social standing by the lower indicants. But with the coming of the British and their hasty return before fully deleting the original language program, has left India with a lot of mutually antagonistic social software programs.
An example: The lowest indicant word for You in Malayalam is Nee. It was the word used by the higher castes to the lower caste persons of all age. Generally, in these so-called liberal days, most persons do not like to be addressed by this term by strangers, even though it is the common word used when a level of intimacy or subordination is established. It is generally used for persons of the servant class. At the same time, it is also the common word used for communicating with children. This word has a social force of suppressing the individual socially. Once this word is used in communication, in the sense of subjugation, then that person would feel the subjugation socially with all others sensing his subordinated social and communication level. This word naturally comes with a package of other words of the same indicant level.
The most immediate effect on the person’s personality would be that he is mentally subordinated in a manner not understandable and conceivable in English. It is a sort of impotency of mental capability which diminishes one’s major social mobility (other than from a distinctly lower level). This man then unconsciously starts to program his mind to achieve his ends from a pose of obsequious servility. The word honour as understood in English, has very little meaning and sense to this man. His whole sense of honour is related to rising up to the higher indicant level. Everyone who is on the higher indicant level is an honourable man, and everyone of his own indicant level or below, are plainly dishonourable men, whatever their other qualities of intellect or refinement may be.
At another level, this is seen in the behaviour of youngsters. In feudal Indian languages, youngsters are inferior. The problem is that there are so many kinds of inferiors, in India. Some are based on caste, some on the basis of their type of jobs, some on the basis of their type of business, some on the basis of their associations and companions, some on the basis of their intellectual level, some on the basis of their physical strength, some on the basis of the strength of their voice, some on the basis of their age etc.
Once a reputation of inferiority is socially established, then the various kinds of lower indicant verbal use come and assault them. However in this regard, there may be not much difference in the psychological effect it imparts. For, the same effect that a servant has to bear will be felt by one who is inferior in age. And it hurts, mentally.
So to assure that they are not treated as such, the youngsters desperately resort to various techniques. An air of pretended seriousness, sometimes rudeness, an air of affected intellectualism, snarling voice etc. is some of the modus operandi used. But then these are also the techniques, the vast sections of the populace also utilise for similar ends.
For a youngster, a youthful look may not a good thing in this regard. So, an effort is made to exhibit a grownup face, by either putting on a serious or stony face, or to grow a moustache and / or a beard. As such, one may see a lot of persons resorting to growing moustaches and beards. The anticipated end-result is more respect from the society.
Policemen also generally display hideous moustaches. (Actually, this has more to do with the parental and slave master attitude of the police). A cherubic or the baby smooth face would be a severe disadvantage in a feudal language environment.
So generally, the feudal languages insist that our behaviour should be crude and our looks rough, to be seen as mature and macho to achieve respect with words. But here again, I must emphasise that this is so because of the general heterogonous nature of the society.
The long-term effects of this mental software program are wide and varied with wide ramifications. One of the major long-term effects is an eventual stunting of the physical features. The facial features also changes to adjust to the mental software program. Facial expression also changes to suit the same. In fact, this difference is very much discernible if two Indian children, one brought up in an English atmosphere, and the other in an Indian language atmosphere is observed with intelligent diligence. And again, among the children who have been brought up in an Indian Language atmosphere, those children who have borne more sting of the feudal language, like those children coming from the lower social strata, or from very restrictive and stifling family or living atmosphere would exhibit more effect of this language.
Each indicant word makes a definite affect on the mind, features, and muscles that control emotion and facial expression. For, example, the lowest indicant word for You, in Malayalam Nee would give a very severe negative effect, and the highest indicant word would give an entirely different affect on the mind. It is the long-term cumulative effect of this infliction that causes the adjusting of facial features, and even physical growth, in individuals living in a feudal language environment.
Again, a few more aspect of this affect must be made clear. One is that Hindi, and other related languages do not have as much sting, as the South Indian languages. Actually, persons from South India, once they live in the north and become conversant in Hindi, find it easier to communicate with others of their own language in Hindi, as there are less prohibitive communication codes in Hindi. This is especially so, when persons from Malayalam background go to the North.
Now coming back to the word Nee (You-lowest indicant). Many Malayalee individuals, who are in senior social positions, do not like their children to be addressed as Nee by the servant class. (For, the factor of who and of what level, is using the lower indicant words also have a great bearing on the mental and social affect that comes about.) At the same time, some of the individuals in the servant class do find it awkward to address the children of their masters with the lowest indicant Nee. These persons instead take recourse to such words as Kunje, Mone etc., which literally mean child, whenever they have to use the word You.
Each word, of higher or lower indicant level, has a personality of its own, which is very infectious. This is an infection, which is very visible socially. Once a person is infected by the negative indicants, others of the senior indicant level maintain a very conscious, and at the same time very imperceptible, arrangement to see that he or she is kept in his or her own social position. The idea I am trying to convey here is a bit complicated. It may be understood without much of my immediate efforts in due course, as this theme blossoms out in the coming pages.
Visit: http://www.Shakespir.com/books/view/661295 to purchase this book to continue reading. Show the author you appreciate their work!
This is a book containing a revolutionary idea about understanding society, human behaviour, history, anthropological features and many other aspects of human beings. The basic understanding that is being put forward is that languages, which are the software for human communication, are powerful media, which not only can help in communication, but also does contain extremely powerful designs and programs, which literally design all societies. Languages are actually powerful machines that can create a definite and pre-definable pattern, along which all human beings arrange themselves, to form different societies. Different type of languages forms different type of societies. For instance, a group of persons who think and talk in Tamil would form a society, which would have remarkable Tamil features, and identifiable behaviour patterns. A group of persons who do the same thing in Spanish would display definite Spanish looks, demeanour, behaviour and social pattern and arrangement. An English speaking society would be having its own definite looks and, also a very easily identifiable interpersonal interaction configuration. A QUOTE from the book about what would happen to the US, when feudal language speakers swarm into this once good quality English nation. This was written around 1990: ...a stage may come, at least, in certain areas, where the innate resilience of the English structure may be severely tested; and cause much distress to the individual persons; and can in a matter of time, cause domino effect on many other areas, causing strange happenings of technological failure, inefficiency, conflict, hatred, events that may be described with shallow understanding as racially motivated, decent and peaceful persons acting with unnatural violence etc. Rude officialdom, arrogant and trigger-happy police, increasing corruption, insolent attitude to persons who are judged to be doing lower jobs, time consuming judiciary, rules and regulations, which are laughable in meaning but having a sting from which many get hurt, and a general feeling of hopeless for the solitary individual, as against the might of the society are all general characters of the effect of feudal languages. What has to be borne in mind is that feudal languages do have elements in them, which aim at subjugation; and where they fail to do so, they may at least cause deep mental hurt. And that too, in an extremely soft and inconspicuous manner, that it may not be discernible to another person, other than the person who felt it. Though persons who do not know these languages may not actually understand the full significance of each and every word; they may be able to sense the negativity from the body language of the person who says the words, and of the other's of the same language who may actually understand it. Beyond all this, there may be a factor of mental waves, or energy, which may radiate along with the words, which may have a deeper effect than is currently understood. It could all lead to a lot of side effects, possibly due to a sort of domino effect, and the effect need not be at the place the disturbance took place. Examples could be unexplainable road rages, air rages, shooting of colleagues, and so many actions with criminal overtones, by seemingly decent persons.