However, the aforementioned Universal Esperanto Association (commonly abbreviated to UEA) is the largest of all the Esperanto associations worldwide, having 40,000 members approximately in 1987, of which there are ‘delegates’ in 72 countries (delegates being local representatives, of which there are over 3000), and 47 affiliated national associations. Although it has been mentioned that the very distribution of Esperanto into ‘associations’ seems insular and counter-intuitive in trying to promote the spread of Zamenhof’s work, the UEA prove much the opposite. In the years 1948 and 1966, two petitions were sent to the UN to have Esperanto’s existence and practicality as a solution to their language problems pointed out to them. In 1948, the
…show more content…
However, what must be noted is that this solution was arrived at after the departure of Britain and the United States from the discussion. It appears that the promotion of Esperanto to be used by international organisations such as the UN fell victim to politics. Considering the first General Conference was held during a political climate (1984) in which English was growing in its international influence, it could be said that Esperanto posed a threat to the dominance of Great Britain and the United States of America in international politics. in spite of this rather conspiratorial view, Don Harlow of the US Esperanto Group-supported website ‘esperanto.org’ states, “Esperanto has not been rejected by the UN or EU. It hasn 't even been considered.” In truth, the UN hold internal reviews of their language problem, particularly with regard to the astonishing expenditure required to employ translators and interpreters in the UN. However, the reviews have focused solely on traditional methods of adding languages, hiring more interpreters and translators and ensuring that all employees are multilingual. Harlow notes that, “not so much as a paragraph considers the notion of adopting a neutral auxiliary …show more content…
To begin with, there is the existing infrastructure, in terms of Esperanto societies. If governments were to promote such organisations, the interest in the language could potentially increase. Moreover, it may be possible to promote the teaching of Esperanto in schools, but the distinct lack of Esperanto teachers, professors and researchers may make this difficult. I believe that Esperanto must not be forced within a matter of months or years, but rather slowly over decades, much like its original development following 1887. Perhaps after some decades, Esperanto may be taught in schools with a view to making the language a compulsory part of the curriculum, yet we cannot be sure if there will be enough speakers to allow for substantial and widespread teaching across different nations, hence a slow introduction of the language into schools. The question raised is whether the UN ignores the possibility of Esperanto due to political reasons, resulting in Esperanto’s sudden decline from the international conscience, or whether the principles of Esperanto have a deeper philosophical and ideological undertone which may go against the current capitalist nature of
However, what must be noted is that this solution was arrived at after the departure of Britain and the United States from the discussion. It appears that the promotion of Esperanto to be used by international organisations such as the UN fell victim to politics. Considering the first General Conference was held during a political climate (1984) in which English was growing in its international influence, it could be said that Esperanto posed a threat to the dominance of Great Britain and the United States of America in international politics. in spite of this rather conspiratorial view, Don Harlow of the US Esperanto Group-supported website ‘esperanto.org’ states, “Esperanto has not been rejected by the UN or EU. It hasn 't even been considered.” In truth, the UN hold internal reviews of their language problem, particularly with regard to the astonishing expenditure required to employ translators and interpreters in the UN. However, the reviews have focused solely on traditional methods of adding languages, hiring more interpreters and translators and ensuring that all employees are multilingual. Harlow notes that, “not so much as a paragraph considers the notion of adopting a neutral auxiliary …show more content…
To begin with, there is the existing infrastructure, in terms of Esperanto societies. If governments were to promote such organisations, the interest in the language could potentially increase. Moreover, it may be possible to promote the teaching of Esperanto in schools, but the distinct lack of Esperanto teachers, professors and researchers may make this difficult. I believe that Esperanto must not be forced within a matter of months or years, but rather slowly over decades, much like its original development following 1887. Perhaps after some decades, Esperanto may be taught in schools with a view to making the language a compulsory part of the curriculum, yet we cannot be sure if there will be enough speakers to allow for substantial and widespread teaching across different nations, hence a slow introduction of the language into schools. The question raised is whether the UN ignores the possibility of Esperanto due to political reasons, resulting in Esperanto’s sudden decline from the international conscience, or whether the principles of Esperanto have a deeper philosophical and ideological undertone which may go against the current capitalist nature of