of intentions,but they are treading on dangerous ground,and they carry with them some unpalatable fellow-travellers. The linguistic campaigners'debt to Romanticism has left them,like most multiculturalists,with a thoroughly confused notion of rights.When Nettle and Romaine suggest,in Vanishing Voices,that "the right of people to exist,to practice and produce their own language and culture,should be inalienable",they are conflating two kinds of rights-individual rights and group rights.An individual certainly has the right to speak whatever language he or she wants,and to engage in whatever cultural practices they wish to in private.But it is not incumbent on anyone to listen to them,nor to provide resources for the preservation of either their language or their culture.The reason that Eyak will soon be extinct is not because Marie Smith Jones has been denied her rights, but because no one else wants to,or is capable of,speaking the language.This might be tragic for Marie Smith Jones-and frustrating for professional linguists-but it is not a question of rights Neither a culture,nor a way of life,nor yet a language,has a God-given right to exist. Language campaigners also confuse political oppression and the loss of cultural identity.Some groups-such as Turkish Kurds-are banned from using their language as part of a wider campaign by the Turkish state to deny Kurds their rights.But most languages die out,not because they are suppressed,but because native speakers yearn for a better life.Speaking a language such as English,French or Spanish,and discarding traditional habits,can open up new worlds and is often a ticket to modernity.But it is modernity itself of which Nettles and Romaine disapprove. They want the peoples of the Third World,and minority groups in the West,to follow "local ways of life"and pursue "traditional knowledge"rather than receive a"Western education".This is tantamount to saying that such people should live a marginal life,excluded from the modern mainstream to which the rest of us belong.There is nothing noble or authentic about local ways of life;they are often simply degrading and backbreaking."Nobody can suppose that it is not more beneficial for a Breton or a Basque to be a member of the French nationality,admitted on equal terms to all the privileges of French citizenship...than to sulk on his own rocks,without participation or interest in the general movement of the world."So wrote John Stuart Mill more than a century ago.It would have astonished him that in the twenty-first century there are those who think that sulking on your own rock is a state worth preserving. What if half the world's languages are on the verge of extinction?Let them die in peace.of intentions, but they are treading on dangerous ground, and they carry with them some unpalatable fellow-travellers. The linguistic campaigners' debt to Romanticism has left them, like most multiculturalists, with a thoroughly confused notion of rights. When Nettle and Romaine suggest, in Vanishing Voices, that “the right of people to exist, to practice and produce their own language and culture, should be inalienable”, they are conflating two kinds of rights - individual rights and group rights. An individual certainly has the right to speak whatever language he or she wants, and to engage in whatever cultural practices they wish to in private. But it is not incumbent on anyone to listen to them, nor to provide resources for the preservation of either their language or their culture. The reason that Eyak will soon be extinct is not because Marie Smith Jones has been denied her rights, but because no one else wants to, or is capable of, speaking the language. This might be tragic for Marie Smith Jones - and frustrating for professional linguists - but it is not a question of rights. Neither a culture, nor a way of life, nor yet a language, has a God-given right to exist. Language campaigners also confuse political oppression and the loss of cultural identity. Some groups - such as Turkish Kurds - are banned from using their language as part of a wider campaign by the Turkish state to deny Kurds their rights. But most languages die out, not because they are suppressed, but because native speakers yearn for a better life. Speaking a language such as English, French or Spanish, and discarding traditional habits, can open up new worlds and is often a ticket to modernity. But it is modernity itself of which Nettles and Romaine disapprove. They want the peoples of the Third World, and minority groups in the West, to follow “local ways of life” and pursue “traditional knowledge” rather than receive a “Western education”. This is tantamount to saying that such people should live a marginal life, excluded from the modern mainstream to which the rest of us belong. There is nothing noble or authentic about local ways of life; they are often simply degrading and backbreaking. “Nobody can suppose that it is not more beneficial for a Breton or a Basque to be a member of the French nationality, admitted on equal terms to all the privileges of French citizenship... than to sulk on his own rocks, without participation or interest in the general movement of the world.” So wrote John Stuart Mill more than a century ago. It would have astonished him that in the twenty-first century there are those who think that sulking on your own rock is a state worth preserving. What if half the world's languages are on the verge of extinction? Let them die in peace