Why we have to pay for language revitalization

It's more than reasonable to ask why there should ever be government (a.k.a. taxpayer) support for revitalization of indigenous languages. After all, language shift is an individual choice, right? And what was done in the past isn't my current responsibility, right?

Well, all that would make more sense if not for two points. First is that more or less by logical definition, the currently threatened indigenous languages of this continent survived the early colonial period fairly well on their own: it's recent, no earlier than 20th-century policies that have helped push most languages over the brink.

Second is that I am pretty sure that for practically all of these languages, we can demonstrate that government power was brought to bear (directly or indirectly) down on and against the free choice of indigenous peoples to maintain their own languages in their own homes and communities. Since that is the case, denying governmental responsibility for a large part of why these languages are currently threatened is the same as, say, denying governmental responsibility for waging a past war which it now admits was wrongly motivated and/or unjustified. It is not fun for taxpayers, but nonetheless, reparations/restitution are a requirement in such cases for any government that wishes to be considered civilized and responsible.

Look at it this way: if the government came and burned down your house, especially the library you'd been building up your whole life, all the while telling you that they knew what was best for you in doing so, you would expect reparations from that government. Say, some credible amount at least towards rebuilding that library. And that government couldn't simply say, "Well, WE in particular didn't burn down your house and library. That was OTHER people who just used the power of this government to pull it off." Governments are responsible for the consequences of the actions of their predecessors. Otherwise we could totally just not worry about the national debt. So when you have a clear case of a government stepping in and actively infringing on the basic individual rights of a group, using their institutional power to coerce them into doing what the government wants and thinks is best for them, then I think you have an argument for more responsibility than just ceasing to carry out that illicit policy. There's a clear debt owed, due to the immoral and unconstitutional imposition on personal (and by extension, minority-group) rights.

Or to put it even more simply: if I burn down your house and library, my responsibilities to you don't end just because I promise not to do it again.

So this is, above all, a question of responsibility and accountability, like it or not.