This theory is supported and expounded upon by Toves Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) who talks about language being used for “control and domination, resistance and self-determination.” He talks of a calculating three step process used to persuade individuals to replace their mother tongue with another language, and believes this is usually for the financial, social or cultural gain of the language’s country of origin. He explains that in order to do this, one must invalidate the languages and culture of the area or social group in question. This is achieved by presenting the minority languages as wanting or as handicaps. The three steps through which this achieved are: glorification of the dominant/majority group, its language, culture, norms traditions, institutions, level of development, observance of particular human rights and so on; stigmatization and devaluation of the minorities/subordinate groups and their language, culture and beliefs in order to make them seem primitive, non-civilized, backward and unable to adapt to postmodern technological “democratic” information societies; rationalization of their relationship in every sphere, economically, politically, educationally, linguistically. So that every action of the dominant group is seen as a beneficial act for the minority group (so they are e.g. helping, giving aid, teaching democracy etc.) Skutnabb-Kangas provides examples of glorification: “the language of the superior ethno-national group (Nazi ideology), stigmatization “. The English Cape Town newspaper “The Cape Times” wrote in 1906 “Afrikaans is the confused utterance of half-articulated patois” (quoted in Prague 1995a:7) , with regard to rationalization Geoffrey Best shows that satirical parodies of French liberation were not far from truthful :” We have arrived and you are free. Anyone found on the street after sunset will be shot.”