[jd3189]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Is the importance of a nation state "back home" a really strong factor for keeping ethnic heritage alive -- I'm thinking something like the Tibetan diaspora, Assyrian diaspora etc.? Also, perhaps the Ur-example, the Jewish diaspora (prior to the state of Israel in modern times)?

Also, ethnic revivals in the 60s and 70s included African Americans re-asserting African-ness (e.g. choosing names like Malik, Ayesha etc.) that were not associated with reconnecting to a physical nation-state or learning the language of a nation state.

Thinking about it, perhaps it's just that language learning is hard, and many people think the reward of it probably seems not worth it honestly (being able to communicate with people outside the Anglosphere and watching original untranslated, undubbed, unsubtitled non-Anglosphere stuff may not be a high priority). Lots of people love to take part in ethnic revivals and resurgence movements without the language component. You can wear the dress of your ancestors' culture, cook the food, with far less time commitment than re-learning the ancestors' language.

Even the most proudest members of many of the most famous ethnic communities still often show their pride, expressing it most fully, in the English language -- e.g. African American music, Jewish comedy, Irish literature. Being able to create and express their ethnic identity through the Anglosphere in many cases seems to override desire to re-make a connection outside the Anglosphere.

I would agree that language learning is an extra part of maintaining the culture. As much as language is intertwined with culture, culture is still greater than just language. You don’t necessarily have to know Spanish to enjoy authentic tacos and burritos and you don’t need to know German to learn and gain from famous psychologists like Jung, Freud, etc. The essence is what matters and I can only assume that all language does is act as a “gatekeeper” to a certain culture.