top of page
March of the Evil Empires!
English versus the feudal languages!!
Anchor 1
First drafted in 1989. First online edition around 2000
It is foretold! The torrential flow of inexorable destiny!
Part 5 - The generalisations
1. The generalisations

Now I am going to the concluding parts of my book. Here I need to discuss a few general things, for the purpose of contemplation.

Generally, we believe that our looks and physical features are entirely depending on our genetic design, and also on what one eats. However, I would like to go beyond that and claim that something which can be defined as the communicating software otherwise known as language, can also have a very significant role in defining a person’s look, and physical features.

I would claim that other conditions being equal, a person’s facial features, postures including the bent or lack of it at the neck region, height, corpulence or lack of it, agility and grace of movement, and certain qualities related to intelligence like resourcefulness, tendency to exhibit genius, inventiveness, expression of calibre, and certain attributes connected to social living like the spontaneous creation of neat, and tidy townships, civic sense, dignified behaviour to fellowmen, poverty in society or lack of it etc. have deep connection with the common language of the society in which one lives, speaks, thinks and functions in.

To put it in a nutshell, if a person is brought up in England, in an entirely English atmosphere, a lot of English expressions can be seen exhibited in that person. If that same man had been brought up in Tamil Nadu State of India, in an entirely Tamil environment, he would exhibit significant Tamil attributes in all his physical and mental aspects. At the same time, in a feudal language situation, there is a wide variation in how one looks. For example, a man who is a government employee would exhibit a very assertive look when compared to an average, ordinary working class individual. The latter would have a natural, subservient looks. Yet, both would have a common Tamil look.

In fact, one would see that the language forces a person to look his position in society. I remember once, what I did tell a young man who came to me, seeking some suggestion on improving his social stature. He came with unruly looks, uncombed hair, and unshaved face. I had an idea that if he wore good, well-pressed cloths, cut his hair short, had a shave, and changed his footwear, he would look fine. This man was working as a helper to a salesman. That is, he went along with the salesman in the vehicle, and helped in giving the items to the various wholesale shops.

On hearing my exhortations, another man butted in and told me, that if that man did redesign himself as per my ideas, then he would lose his job. For, he is a helper, and not a manager. If he looks so smart, everyone around him would be at unease. For then he would not suit the lower indicant words, which are kept apart for referring to, and communicating with him.

So it may be understood that the untidy looks of the majority of Indians, and the superlative looks of the insignificant number of dominating Indians are actually a component of the feudal languages they are using. My contention remains that if the same Indian, who looks grotesque, can be reprogrammed with English as his language of thought, communication and social living, he would not only look pretty wonderful, but also would be wonderful.

And from this premises, I would go further and add that the language a mother, thinks in and hears everyday can affect the looks of the to-be-born baby. However how do I prove it? I must admit that I have few proofs with me. Yet there is something I have in my possession, which I may at one point of time use as a definite proof. However for the present purpose of argument, I may request any reader who is in a position to do so, to compare the expressions and physical features of a Black baby of USA descent, with that of a Black baby with African native language, but of same professional class. And make a statistically valid comparison.

Cloning: From this premises, I naturally have to go into the field of cloning. Can a Hitler’s clone become another Hitler? It is not possible. Let us imagine a Malayalee couple who talk full Malayalam, getting the DNA of Robert Clive and making one clone of Clive. It would be absolutely preposterous to think that it is possible that another Clive would come. All the natural assertiveness, courage, features and looks would change with the language.

World of Animals: Now, I need to go into the world of animals. Is there any communication system between the different members of a group of animals? It has been found that in many animals and creatures like ants, bees, monkey, gorillas, apes etc. there is a definite pecking order. That only signifies the presence of some sort of a communication software in their possession. In which case, this can be either of a free-interacting software like English or a very feudal, hierarchical one like in feudal languages. The whole studying of the social anthropology of the animal world needs to take these aspects into significant consideration, and try to see if the structure of that communication software can be changed in isolation.

For, just imagine a group of alien extra-terrestrials trying to study the human social systems. If they do their study on Tamilians, Chinese, or Japanese, they would get three different types of social behaviour. Yet when all the three are compared with an English social system, it would be found to be entirely different. In such a case it would be found that the three former ones do have more in common than in difference.

Another thing about animals is in regard to what happens to their personality, when one deals with them in a feudal language and when one communicates with them in English. I would really like to see if there is a definite difference in the demeanour of an elephant in an English Zoo, which is under an English Keeper’s custody, and that of an elephant in India, where it is under the control of the crude Mahouts, who are literally of low social status. The demeanour of the Indian Mahouts is of the serving class, and their superiors usually keep them in the lower indicant word level. I have heard the Mahouts use the lowest indicant words to the animal and that too in a very crude, brutal and snarling sound. The crude and brutal manner goes with the lower indicant terms. I would like somebody to study and see what the definite impact on the Elephant is, when a lower status man uses the lower indicant words on it. Whether the animal can sense that it is being crudely prodded by the man who is not only puny, but also of low social status, among the human beings.

In this regard, I would like to state that in India, cows are kept in many houses for domestic milk purposes. They are kept in supremely terrible and shocking conditions of perpetual shackle-dom, with no thought that they too need some level of freedom and clean and hygienic living conditions. These cows are generally referred to and understood in the lowest indicant terms. What has to be done is to compare the demeanour of the cows in an English country and see if there is any difference in their demeanour and physical stature.

Another thing that comes to my mind is the ancient understanding that good, thoroughbred Arabian horses, once they are brought to the South Asian peninsular region, lose their superlative characters, by the second generation. Could it be because of the impact of the lower indicant level of addressing by the stable boys, who are obliviously of the lower indicant level in the society?