Orthographic (Dis) Agreement
Some may think that the orthographic agreement is a recent problem, but I say that it isn’t recent at all. As a matter of fact, just for about almost twenty years ago, in 1990, a treaty was signed, that involved the Lisbon Academy of Science, the Brazilian Academy of Letters and the delegations of the African Countries of Portuguese official language. But should a language like Portuguese be changed?
Some support the opinion that if the Portuguese speaking countries stay united by the same language, the Portuguese language hegemony will remain. Others support that we, Portugal, have a lack of patriotism. Why don’t we keep our way of speaking, and they change theirs. As far as I know, we are the original Portuguese speaking country.
Both opinions are right anyway, but the truth is that the English language, for example, doesn’t need any orthographic agreement to maintain its place as the “world official language”. The truth is that the English language is spoken in more than twenty countries, with twenty different “englishes”, such as: the Australian English; the Belize English; the Canadian English; the Caribbean English; the Hong Kong English; the Indian English; the Indonesian English; the Jamaican English; the Ireland English; the Malaysian English; the New Zeeland English; the Philippines English, the English of Singapore, the South African English; the Trinidad and Tobago English; the Zimbabwe English, and the main ones, the British and American English.
The supremacy of the English language turns out obvious even with so many different “englishes” among the English speaking countries.
How can we explain the situation then?
I think that those indictments of lack of patriotism are well reasoned. We can see it everywhere. Nobody likes to see the Portuguese National Football Team full of non-Portuguese players. How much would we like to change what is ours? Like our grammar rules, our language or even our flag? I don´t think that I would like to change our flag to a new one so that instead of the armillary sphere it had a blue sphere with some white stars and a white ribbon with the words “Order and Progress” crusted on it.
We should distinguish the difference between patriotism and nationalism. Although patriotism is used in certain vernaculars as a synonym for nationalism, nationalism is not necessarily considered an inherent part of patriotism. Among the ancient Greeks, patriotism consisted of notions concerning language, religious traditions, ethics, law, and devotion to the common good, rather than pure identification with a nation-state. Scholar J. Peter Euben writes that for the Greek philosopher Socrates: "Patriotism does not require one to agree with everything that his country does and would actually promote analytical questioning in a quest to make the country the best it possibly can be. Nationalism, in the most exaggerated state, is nothing less than a euphemism to xenophobia, racism and discrimination.”
“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country…”
by 238 - Eugénio