And of course, you must be dying to know, which word was the lucky winner?

Web 2.0. That’s right, of all the delicious, erudite, decorous, grandiloquent, and downright abstruse words in the English language, Web 2.0 is magical number 1 million. They wanted to choose something timely, Payack says, so people could look back hundreds of years from now and find reflected in that one single word an entire cultural moment. The words that cluster around 1 million, which were considered and then rejected for the place cultural immortality, also say much about who we are, and apparently don’t want to be remembered as: Jai-Ho, for example-999,999; N00B-999,998; carbon neutral-999,995; octomom-999,993. And of course, 1,000,001, Financial Tsunami. That’s two words, which confuses me, but moving on…

As this multicultural bunch of words indicates, the growth of the English vocabulary is also intrinsically linked to its increasing global spread. Some 1 billion people worldwide speak English. That’s still slightly below Mandarin, but this figure does not include the 750 million more who can’t claim fluency but likely understand English well enough to listen to some English news or talk to an American tourist. At minimum, the ready supply of recent college grads with a lust for travel and a need for cash guarantees this number will continue to grow. Yet one question remains, more disquieting than any of the rest: As English enjoys laudable growth in both its vocabulary and its global reach, is it also fulfilling its most lofty ambition of bringing the world closer together?

Amongst my demographic of the young and university-educated, it’s almost impossible to find someone not at least conversational in English. Yet while for most people of my generation, the world has become a linguistically borderless place, most of us still choose to friend and marry within our own cultural circle. My South American friends say it’s because others don’t dance as well or understand family in the same way. My Turkish friends say friendships and relationships require a high level of mutual respect and deference. My European friends look for the romance of difference, where I want the stability of compatibility. We are accustomed to thinking of these as the kind of broad, cultural generalizations open communication will allow us to erase. But this is not my voice. It is the confident, fluently English voice of friends from other cultures, and right now they are using it to articulate their differences.

A recent headline in Foreign Policy speculates: “The key to U.S. world domination: We speak English.” The continued spread of English will ensure the long-term survival of U.S. values, like peace, democracy, and the free market, the article suggests. There are any number of problems with that statement, but the one that bothers me most is the suggestion that a common language is somehow enough to save the world. As children we learn language through fairytales, which makes words seem like magic. Eventually we realize that words themselves are static, and our imaginations are responsible for creating magic. Now too we are poised to comprehend each other, without truly understanding one another, unless we see that a common language is not the end but the starting point.

So happy 1 million, English. May you truly be the vehicle by which we change the world. And may I also live 114 years so I can one day get around to learning what number 999,988, chengguan, means.

Engler’s book sheds light on several of the skeletons harbored in the closet of Canada’s foreign relations record. While the book may be an alternative to the political posturing of our government–and much of the mainstream media’s slanted coverage–it may also be a difficult pill for wool-eyed idealists to swallow.

Canada is often seen as—to quote Salutin—the “backwaters of empire,” an innocent bystander to the bullying tactics of the nation’s southern neighbours. Engler points out that while nearly nine out of ten Canadians view this country as a benevolent force in the world, the truth isn’t always so kind. Engler’s book draws attention to some lesser known fragments of Canada’s diplomatic past and present: its undermining of the democratically elected Aristide government in Haiti; its role in overthrowing Salvador Allende and subsequent support of the Pinochet regime in Chile; piggybacking on Uncle Sam in the Middle East and even supporting South African Apartheid.

At his book’s launch, Engler spoke of the ideal Canada—one  whose foreign policy initiatives would be centered upon being good neighbours as opposed to self-interest. While Engler insists that he is not an expert in foreign policy he points out that, as a journalist, “informing citizens about what their governments, corporations and other institutions are doing is a central task.” Engler writes: “The goal of this book is to reveal a side of international relations that our governments and corporations have kept hidden from the vast majority of us. This black book, unlike a secret list of girlfriends kept by a lothario, has a progressive purpose: To inspire Canadians to demand change.”