[WikiEN-l] Queen Elizabeth II

Thu Mar 10 17:34:33 UTC 2005

-------------- Original message -------------- 
> Silverback wrote 
> 
> >Now if only the debate could be conducted in American english, the debate 
> >becomes more clear. The issue all along has been not whether Austrailia 
> >is a republic, but whether it is a democracy. In American english, no it 
> >is not a democracy, it has a constitutionally limited form a government, a 
> >republic. Therefore, since Austailia is not a democracy, when we 
> >translate back to Austrailian english, Austrailia is not a republic. The 
> >queen has been irrelevant to the whole issue, just as she is to nearly 
> >anything in Austrailia. 
> 
> 
> This strikes me as perfect evidence of how people who have done no research 
> and yet who try to participate in discussions only waste other people's 
> time. The phrase, "In American english, no it is note a democracy" manages 
> to be both ignorant and irrelevant. Americans have many different ways of 
> using "democracy," and most Americans would say Australia is a 
> democracy. But so what? Why does it matter what Americans think? 

I'm not saying it did matter, but it might have mattered, because translating into "American" is an abstraction.   No, it is not quite like abstracting to predicate logic, but it is abstracting away from the emotion laden usages of the words in the Austrailian discussion.  Perhaps people could listen a bit more because, since it was the American words being used, they would feel less of an immediate need to be defensive.

But it is an abstraction in another sense.  The Americans have an ideological tradition starting with some of the founders and kept alive by conservatives, libertarians and classical liberals, which made a specific point that the US was not a democracy, but a republic.  By republic they meant the rule of law, constitutional law, that could not be overridden by the majority.  So, while Americans can be as sloppy in its use of democracy and as happy to call itself a democracy as the rest of the English speaking world, when democracy is drawn in opposition to republic, not only is the word republic understood in this context, but a less common definition of democracy is.  So, by abstracting to American english, not only is emotional distancing achieved, so are more precisely defined and accepted meanings.  In American, we know whether or not Austrailia is a republic, by the American definition.  

By introducing reasoning in American english into the discussion, there are two hopes.  One is that the editors will be given new tools to refine their thinking, perhaps reaching agreement in a less emotional laden setting, and agreement they would then have to translate back into their Austrailian if possible.   The second is that even if they can't resolve their dispute, perhaps they will take a fancy to the American distinctions, and we can have a common language once again.

On another of your points was that people who are going to interject themselves should study and become familiar with the Austrailian constitution, etc.  I disagree, in my experience, if the parties in their discussion cannot explain the issues clearly to a third party unfamiliar with the issues, then they probably don't understand the issues themselves.  A third party who doesn't understand can often be an impetous to clearer explanations and understandings on their parts.

                            -- Silverback