Comments:

1. 

    

   Michjo:

   Much has been written about Mr. Culver’s essay, such as this forum exchange from 2005.

2. 

    

   dfan:

   I think that is exactly his point. He notes explicitly that Esperanto is supposed to be a common second language rather than a replacement for a primary language, and given his background in the movement, it would be odd indeed if he didn’t realize that.

   His main complaints seem to be 1) people’s experience of other cultures is stunted if they are insulated from that other culture’s native language; 2) the anti-krokodili sentiment seems to be contradictory to Esperanto’s stated aims.

3. 

    

   John:

   That IS part of the purpose of Esperanto, as the Prague Manifesto indicates. I think that the criticism has a bit of a double-standard itself. Personally I notice that most Esperantists love and learn other languages, as demonstrated by a poll on lernu.net.

4. 

    

   John:

   Also this seems to go against what he said: http://esperanto-usa.org/eo/node/1554

5. 

    

   Dale:

   If the goal of going to Esperanto events is to socialize with other Esperantists and improve your fluency in Esperanto, then the taboo against krokodilado makes perfect sense. This article is an excellent reminder of why that works: http://www.fluentin3months.com/the-smartest-decision-you-will-ever-make-to-achieve-fluency/

6. 

    

   Mithridates:

   It’s probably simply because the language is so small compared to “natural” languages that those that have gathered to use it aren’t really in the mood to hear others, hence the ne krokodilu. I suspect it would be much different if there happened to be an actual town or city that spoke it 24 hours a day, whereupon the visit from outside by someone speaking another language would be kind of fun in comparison.

   The only IAL I’ve ever spoken in person is Ido, and that’s with another native English speaker, but we never use English simply because it’s just not as interesting. I expect Esperanto speakers feel the same way when they are able to have the chance to get together to speak their language.

7. 

    

   SuperKali:

   I think that culver writes only his prejudices. For example, at the end he suggests to attend some language course, without mentioning the difference of cost. He suggest to support MAFUN, but he doesn’t mention that the actual situation (without Esperanto) is damaging also the hungro-finnic languages and that MAFUN and similar associations efforts are useless without a common effort for something like esperanto.

   I could criticize more his work, but I just see that it is not a well-done scientific work, this webpage is famous only because appeared in the English wikipedia some years ago (it needs some web pages to use as sources), and then was famous. But it has no scientific relevance, also this link to that website is pubblicity for it

8. 

    

   pijany:

   Yes, he was maybe a 12-year old boy who wrote a web page…

9. 

    

   JPA:

   Here’s how I responded to his essay when it first appeared four years ago. I knew Culver very well personally when he was active in the Esperanto movement — his leaving of the Esperanto movement was precipitated for the most part by events in his personal life that were linked to the Esperanto movement, rather than an objective analysis of facts…
   _____________________________________________________________________________
   Culver’s monument to sophistry

   ——————————————————————————–

   Having read Christopher Culver’s recent essay “Why Esperanto Suppresses Language Diversity: Thoughts on Leaving the Esperanto Movement” and having known the author for a number of years, I can conclude that this work is a skilled work of sophistry, using seemingly logical arguments that have no basis in actual fact, whose objective is to slander a social movement in which he failed to achieve the recognition and influence he desired.

   Christopher Culver was a candidate for the position of general secretary of TEJO (the World Organization of Young Esperantists) in 2003—he was not elected. He interpreted this as a rejection of him personally—when the fact of the matter is that he was neither sufficiently qualified nor experienced. He also wished to become the editor of TEJO’s youth magazine—a position for which he similarly lacked experience.

   But let us take a look at some of the flaws in his actual arguments:

   “A tourist who visits a foreign nation and eats only at restaurants belonging to international chains, ignoring local cuisine, understandably limits his understanding of the local culture”.

   I simply must comment that when I participated in Esperanto conventions with the author (on several occasion) he always immediately sought out the local McDonald’s and ate there with great regularity for the duration of the convention (and if he was unable to find a McDonald’s he suffered greatly), while other “culturally suppressive” (!?) Esperantists enjoyed the local cuisine, avoiding McDonald’s and other globalistic chains with great fervor. So, this fact alone shows that Christopher Culver does not practice what he preaches…

   “Yet, the Esperanto movement believes that tourists can truly have cross-cultural experiences when they speak only a foreign, constructed language and give no attention to the local language”

   This assertion goes beyond distorting the truth to embrace bold-faced lying. One would be hard pressed to find a group of people more culturally sensitive, culturally aware and culturally educated than Esperantists. For example, a good Esperantist friend of mine is presently studying Lithuanian in preparation for his trip to Vilnius for this summer’s World Esperanto Convention—he also studied Croatian before participating in the World Esperanto Convention in Zagreb in 2001, and Swedish before participating in the World Esperanto Convention in Gothenburg in 2003. In addition, at EVERY World Esperanto Convention and World Esperanto Youth Convention there are intensive language courses in the local languages, numerous excursions to places of local interest (places usually missed by traditional tourists), and extensive presentations of local (often minority) culture and arts. Does this sound like the behavior of people who give no attention to local language?!

   But there is yet another flaw in Culver’s reasoning—while it is true that Esperantists are extremely active and enthusiastic in learning other languages (especially compared to typical English-speaking tourists who think the solution to communication problems is to shout slowly in dummed-up English!), there are limits to the languages one person can reach fluency in (especially considering the fact that most of us are not wealthy people of leisure who can devote long hours to the acquisition of many languages). I, for example, have traveled extensively in Europe (Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia, Sweden, Italy, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany), as well as in Asia (Japan, Korea, Malaysia) and South America (Brazil)—all on a very limited budget. How? By using the Pasporta Servo (Passport Service)—an network of Esperanto-speaking host families around the world which offer free lodging to Esperanto-speaking travelers. Of course I do speak some of the languages of the above mentioned countries—but I would probably have to devote all my waking hours to language study for the rest of my life to master them all. But Esperanto provides travelers with a unique window into other cultures—instead of staying in tourist-friendly, English-speaking hotel chains (expensive, with absolutely no flavor of the local culture), you can stay in the homes of real people, experience real local culture and experience real everyday life. Again, does this seem to suggest that Esperantists have no interest in local languages and cultures?!

   Of course, I would be more than happy to refute the remaining arguments in Culver’s essay—and I will, if the members of the forum show an interest—but I’ve already taken up considerable space in refuting just ONE of his many fallacies. But I think that even this brief response makes it more than obvious that the only place where Esperanto suppresses language diversity is in Christopher Culver’s distorted, vindictive imagination…

   For some facts about the Esperanto movement’s major organizations (also with information on various intercultural projects and undertakings) and Pasporta Servo please see the following sites (all in a surprizing number of languages, including many less commonly encountered minority languages):

   http://www.uea.org
   http://www.tejo.org
   http://www.tejo.org/ps
   http://www.esperanto.net