To history, to eradicate one language is

To strip a country of it’s language, would be as perverse as eradicating it’s culture. Language is more than just words, it’s how a culture bends its knee to it’s faith and speaks to their god. The strength of the United States; the world’s longest running superpower has always been it’s diversity, cultures, ethnic backgrounds, and multilingual assets. In this essay, we will be brought into the ongoing debate of cultural genocide with English as its primary language. The evidence will show that English can not, should not, and will not be the universal language of the world.

Words are like DNA, their sequence and patterns that shape our past, present, and future. They determine whether the sun rises in the east or the west. An example of why English should not be the universal language of the world is shown in the article “ Language isn’t just a tool to communicate; it is also a huge part of our identity. It’s how we think and how we view the world” (Why English Should Not Be The International Language Of The World). This is an example because language in itself is a world of history, to eradicate one language is to erase an entire world.        If the Natives had pushed their language on the explores, than English itself might have been one of the many forgotten languages. Even the Natives knew that acceptance came through language. An example of why English should not be the universal language of the world is shown in the article “ We know that people communicate more than ideas with their language.

Subconsciously, they also communicate who they are, what they believe, and where they’re from. So the obstacles to one language are similar to the obstacle to us all wearing the same clothes” (Here’s Why The World Can Never Have One Universal Language). This is an example because language is so closely tied to one’s identity from how we pronounce our words based on the environment we live in, to how we communicate our views, beliefs, and emotions.

While it might be true that having one language would make interactions around the world easier, however the benefits do not outweigh the negative lasting impacts. An example of why English should not be the universal language of the world is shown in the article “ Humans aspire to have their own distinct identities and form different groups. The same aspirations that drive us to wave different flags, root for different teams, listen to different music and have different cultures mean we’ll continue to have different languages” (Here’s Why The World Can Never Have One Universal Language).

This disproves the argument that one language would prove beneficial because history and current actions state that it is human natural to be different.       In conclusion, English should not be the universal language of the world because to strip man of their native language is eradicating an entire persons once distinct individuality. Language in itself has proven to be ever changing to one’s unique self. Thus proving that language is too closely tied to oneself to ever truly be universal.