In order to disprove the fact that language spread is often not the rosy picture painted by politicians the effect on the recipients of this “education” must be examined, after all most “good deeds” are far from altruistic and usually have benefits or advantages for the ”doer”, some believe true altruism doesn’t exist at all. So unless this politically selfish “stealth tactic” causes any damage to those who supposedly benefit is there any harm in its provision?

Kramsch (1998) puts forward the Sapir’s Whorf principle of linguistic relativity as evidence that taking away someone’s language or making it redundant in everyday life is actually culturally damaging, as according to the theory different languages offer different ways of perceiving and expressing the world around us, thus leading their speakers to conceive the world in different ways. If this intrinsic link to one’s birth culture is removed surely there will be some harmful effect? Proof of this is perhaps found in various resistances shown to English Language Teaching throughout history and the reasons its resistors provide.