quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: No, I didn't backpeddle. "Should have to" and "should be made to" mean more or less the same thing, and for the point I am trying to make, they do mean the same thing.
They most certainly do not mean the same thing, and it's pretty sloppy to fail to distinguish between the two.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
More or less, yes they do in this circumstance.
When I said they should be made to learn the English language, that was only if they wanted to become citizens. If they don't then that's a separate issue, but if they want to become citizens, they have to learn it, that's my poisition. I later clarified, if they don't want to learn English, then I won't force them to become American citizens, thus taking away the forceful learning of English.
Give the fact that there is an "or" involved in this situation, which I have clearly stated from the beginning, yes, I think they do pretty much mean the same thing here. If anything, I misspoke when I said "Should have to" because it doesn't sound forceful enough.
In the context, I don't see the argument you're making, as a stand alone, you're entirely right. But even in that statement I said "for the point I am trying to make, they do mean the same thing." I perhaps misworded the statement you quoted there, I shouldn't have said they "mean more or less the same thing" in any circumstance other than the specific context of my argument.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think it's anti-immigration to say 'if you move here, you must learn the language'. I mean, duh, if I want to become a citizen of Italy, I had better plan on learning to speak italian. That's just basic courtesy (and probably to some degree survival). I should also learn how the government works and some basics on the laws and the history of the country. I'm asking to be part of the family, so out of basic respect, I should be eager to learn the language, the rules, the culture, and the history. What arrogance it would be for me to say "Yes, Italy is far better now that I'm here. They should all learn my language, and do things the way I'm accustomed to."
Yes, traditionally, America is a melting pot of cultures, and that is wonderful, but it also has enough history to have a culture all its own, and I think that's worth knowing and respecting if you want to be a part of the family.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When I said they should be made to learn the English language, that was only if they wanted to become citizens. If they don't then that's a separate issue, but if they want to become citizens, they have to learn it, that's my poisition. I later clarified, if they don't want to learn English, then I won't force them to become American citizens, thus taking away the forceful learning of English.
This was not at all clear the first time around, since immigration and naturalization are two different things.
If a great enough number of people are bilingual in English and Spanish, or English and Chinese, then at what point should we, for the sake of enhancing communication abilities, mandate the teaching of a second language alongside English. This is a required part of all students' lives in places like the netherlands, and as a result virtually every child becomes fluent in English, to their benefit. It is not their native language nor their state language, and yet it is part of their lives. Why do people object to adding a second language to the American way of life?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: More or less, yes they do in this circumstance.
No, they don't. "Should be made to" means that someone else is making them learn English. "Should have to" does not imply that someone else is making them learn English.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have many different experiences to draw from on this topic. 1) I speak at the latest time 5 languages other than English, 2) I work at EPCOT..a place that has 11 different countries represented with people working there who were born and raised in those countries, and 3)I was raised in a family that is very proud of it's military history and extremely patriotic! (My great-great-great grandfather won the congressional Medal of Honor for saving the life of his C.O. at the Battle of Gettysburg! -Union Army obviously enough).
I have had several incidents at work recently where managers have called me to ask me to translate for people. One was a paramedic call for a French-speaking guest. There was no one else in the entire area that could speak French at all, so I was pulled from my job and sent to assist...I have no problem with that... for me it was fun. My co-workers always come to me to help with non-English speaking guest situations - even if I don't speak the language (such as Chinese [which, by the way, I am now trying to learn])- they send the people to me hoping that I can help. I have no problem with this because for the most part these people are tourists and won't be trying to get a job or fill out IRS forms or anything. I don't even have a problem with seeing things written in English and Spanish everywhere. My problem is with the fact that things are only in English and Spanish - no other languages...even at EPCOT. Of course you can get a guide map in many languages, but when you get on Soarin' for example; the safety information is in English and Spanish (and those ugly red headset language translation devices are not usable at Soarin') so the group of 53 Chinese tourists who didn't speak English had NO IDEA what I was trying to say to them. Back in Massachusetts in the town where I grew up the population is English speaking - Russian speaking - then Spanish speaking. There are more Russians than Hispanic people in that town, yet things are written in English and Spanish...is that fair to the Russians who haven't yet learned English? Here's the difference - I have noticed that the Russian immigrants make their first priority to learn English so that they can get better jobs, make more money, and have a better life for their families. It is not a priority for some of them , or for some Spanish speakers to learn the language. I have noticed that those who do not choose to learn the language, or those who learn very little, do not do nearly as well getting the jobs that they want or making the kind of money that they want to have as those who do. Although some immigrants may not like it, it would be in their own best interest to learn to read/write/speak English to do well here. That is simply a fact of life especially in areas of this country where Spanish is not the dominant language. (In large hispanic areas I can not see that it would be such a problem.)
To put my opinion simply: learn English it can't hurt you, but it can help you. Sing the song in any language you want to, but learn it's English version as well - it's called compromise, and it helps defuse situations where people might be upset so that they become rude (as I believe Icarus mentioned earlier). I do know this; if I were to travel to France or Japan, and expected people to be able to speak English to me - they would think me a rude American idiot and treat me as less than human. If I at least tried to speak even the simplest of phrases in those languages, they would think that I had at least put some effort in to learning and they would treat me better. In Japan they would have more respect for me because I had tried to speak the language, and they would attempt to teach me more - (I have had this happen with Japanese people many times, although Japanese was my minor in college and I speak it rather well, if I don't understand something, they try to help me to learn.) I have shown a respect and courtesy in trying to learn/ speak their language, so they show me some respect and try to assist me if they can.
Ok I think I have rambled on enough in my abominable, atrocious English. English majors/ teachers please forgive my run-on sentences and horrendous grammar! Posts: 325 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yeah - South Africa has 12 National Languages including Hutu, Zulu, Africaans, Swahili...... we could have more than one national language. I for one, think students here should learn to be proficient in at least one language other than English in todays world of global communication and business. Also learning about another language and culture can help people from being afraid of other people. Learning about people who are different from me keeps me from being prejudiced against them simply because they are different. If my father had had that option, perhaps he would not be so very prejudiced (he's pretty much prejudiced against anyone who isn't him - and yes I really mean that - no understatement there!)Alas, he is old and very set in his ways.It is perhaps too late for him, but not for America's children. They can learn and help make the world a better global community. ( Wow does that sound somewhat Stepford wife-ish or what?)
Posts: 325 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Well, all I know is that I saw the Journey guitar rendition of our National Anthem -- while on the one hand I was thinking "that is very cool, very good guitar playing" on the other hand I was thinking "Francis Scott Key would be rolling over in his grave if he could hear it played that way."
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When I said they should be made to learn the English language, that was only if they wanted to become citizens. If they don't then that's a separate issue, but if they want to become citizens, they have to learn it, that's my poisition. I later clarified, if they don't want to learn English, then I won't force them to become American citizens, thus taking away the forceful learning of English.
This was not at all clear the first time around, since immigration and naturalization are two different things.
If a great enough number of people are bilingual in English and Spanish, or English and Chinese, then at what point should we, for the sake of enhancing communication abilities, mandate the teaching of a second language alongside English. This is a required part of all students' lives in places like the netherlands, and as a result virtually every child becomes fluent in English, to their benefit. It is not their native language nor their state language, and yet it is part of their lives. Why do people object to adding a second language to the American way of life?
I don't object out of principle to adding second language, but we don't even have an official FIRST language, how would we ever get to an official second language, especially to the point where we mandate teaching fluency in said language?
Thing is, if you can't get people to agree that English is a necessity for citizenship in this country, then you will never get them to agree that Spanish is in anyway justified in being a mandatory language in the schools, regardless of the benefits.
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: More or less, yes they do in this circumstance.
No, they don't. "Should be made to" means that someone else is making them learn English. "Should have to" does not imply that someone else is making them learn English.
I think they should have to, and if they want to stay as citizens that they should be made to. I recognize the difference between the force implied in "should be made to" and the opinionated format of "should have to" and I agreed with you that you're right about the basic difference in that. But what I was saying, and what Orincoro was accusing me of, backing off my original point, I think that regardless of the grammatical inherent nature of the two different phrases, when you consider everything I said in both posts, I don't the the differences are big enough to to necessitate saying I backed off of my original point. I didn't. It was simply a restatement of my position.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You were the one, I believe, who said that English is the de facto official language. Clearly that would be the first official language.
I agree that yes, in order to become a citizen one should be profficient in English... however I think we ought to stop screwing around and just make that official to stop confusing people. If you strongly promote the use of English, then you can move on to supporting Spanish and Chinese and any other language in education. The problem is that the pro-English people are fighting on their backs, arguing AGAINST foreign languages being used when they should simply be making sure English is preserved.
This remains the only part of our education system (except in some confused areas, Evolution), in which people actually claim that knowing less will someone be beneficial, and that being less agressive in subject matter will enhance learning and culture. This is patently ridiculous, and is proved wrong by virtually every European nation in which people are educated bilingually.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
If exposed to a language in a fairly intensive manner (aka. living in a foreign country, listening to the radio, watching tv, interacting with others) when the language is similar to a native language, the average adult language learner can become proficient or near-fluent in a language in between 6 months to a year.
If the language is very different (eg. English and Chinese) it will take one to two years.
Does this make a difference? To me, living in a country for decades and not learning a language is kind of off-putting because it really isn't enormously difficult (although it's not easy) to attain a passable level in it. Do I think the government should interfere and make people learn languages? Not at all. I just don't think they have any reason to be overly sympathetic to legal residents who speak other languages.
(if anyone else has heard different statistics, let me know)
Also, this is NOT meant to address illegal immigrants whose working conditions are so bad that they are isolated, have no money etc. I am talking about legal, long-term residents, especially those who want to become citizens.
Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with one of the Sunday Morning talk show journalists (I forget which one) This is a non-issue. The majority (60%) of adult Amreicans don't even know all the words to the anthem. Also given that ALL of the children of immigrants will speak English and will learn most of the correct words from watching sporting events, I don't know what the fuss is about.
My next door neighbors are illegal immigrants from Mexico, they are also a Blue Star family (their son is in Iraq). I would be my guess that they don't know the words to the anthem in English, but given the opportunity will get the spirit of them in Spanish. They are already living the words every day.
Posts: 514 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Heh, you reminded me of how every year one or two guest singers for the Cubs or Sox will forget the words to the Anthem and the newspapers and the news will make a big deal out of it for the next two days .
And to think these guys are native speakers.
Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do people object to adding a second language to the American way of life?
Because if you look at the level of literacy and comprehension of your average high school graduate, we have a hard enough time teaching them proficiency in one language, let alone two.
I tell you, I read over some of my mom's applications and cover letters, these are people sending stuff to her because they want a job, you'd think they would take time to actually make sure the letter was formatted properly and the words were spelled correctly.
I wouldn't mind mandatory Spanish in all schools, but can we please teach our kids to correctly speak and write English first?
A better solution is probably to do what we're attempting to do now - put qualified ESL teachers in the public schools to help the children of immigrants who don't speak English become more proficient in it quicker, then the kids can help teach their parents.
As for immigrants automatically learning English if they spend enough time in America, I'm not so sure about that. Look at your average city with a big enough Hispanic population, and you'll see that they tend to live in the same area, shop at the same places, and attend the same churches where everyone speaks only Spanish. Heck you can now get your cable or satellite programming in Spanish so it makes perfect sense to me that immigrants could live here for years and not learn the language if they aren't willing to go beyond their immediate surroundings to learn it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to the United States Immigration Support website (created by the US Immigration Services):
quote: All naturalization applicants must demonstrate good moral character. The other naturalization requirements may be modified or waived for certain applicants, such as spouses of U.S. Citizens. A period of continuous residence and physical presence in the United States An ability to read, write and speak English Good moral character Knowledge of the principles of the U.S. Constitution Favorable disposition toward the United States
The citizenship test is also in English, so you do have to be able to speak the language in order to pass the test. People who marry into citizenship may be exempt from some of the above.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Orincoro/Icarus -
Boo hoo.
Seriously, to Orin, how is that a dangerous attitude or dangerous words?
And Icarus, seriously? I say they should learn english and now I'm racist AND Xenophobic. . . .
Why is it so friggin radical to suggest that they should have to learn English?
Actually, you brought up racism and xenophobia; I wouldn't have mentioned it otherwise. But you expressed sentiments that are one or the other (I don't have the desire to delve into your psyche to figure out which) and then stated that you didn't want to be accused of it . . . well, sorry, but you don't get to control the reaction to your posts--especially when you post crap.
quote:I say they should learn english . . .
Except this is not what you said. Actually, if you look back, you will see this is what I said. Before your post, even. What you said was that they should be made to do so. This is not the same, and this is contrary to the spirit in which this country was founded.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Quite frankly, those suggesting that they shouldn't be made to learn English strike me as the racist xenophobes. They'd rather the newcomers are unable to participate in the process rather than have them be integrated and made a part of the American government.
This is too asinine to require a response, besides reminding you that I did say that immigrants should learn English.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think the two of you had better explain your reactions to my post better. You most of all Icarus. I have little if any tolerance for someone who blithely calls me a racist xenophobe, and usually zero respect as well.
Wow. I'm powerful frightened now. I'll lose the respect and tolerance of someone who clearly doesn't respect me anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: . . . if they want to become US citizens, they have to pass a basic English test. It has nothing to do (as far as my argument goes), with keeping traditions intact, and little to do with culture as well.
Why should latino immigrants be held to stricter standards than any other group of immigrants in American history--especially given that they have assimilated faster than any other group in American history?
quote:What are you going to do when one of these immigrants who refuses to learn English for cultural reasons . . .
You have not established that such a person exists. In 34 years in Florida, divided between Miami and Orlando, I have yet to meet such a person. In my posting on Spanish-language bulletin boards I have yet to meet such a person. And you accuse Orincoro of using strawmen.
quote:Originally posted by ELdrad: Do you even know what the words racist and xenophobic mean? Nothing in anything Lyrhawn has said has implied either of those things. The gist of what she's said is that immigrants should learn English because it's for their own good. What's racist or xenophobic about that?
Once again, this is not what Lyrhawn said. Rather, it is what I said. Lyrhawn said immigrants should be made to learn English--in response to a specifically Spanish-language issue. In defending that premise, he has used a strawman to paint immigrants who don't speak English in an unfavorable light: they don't want to learn English, because of their arrogance. Refusing to understand other people . . . assuming base motivations for them . . . advocating action against one people that has never been taken against another . . . advocating against accommodations that do not cost anybody anything. I didn't bring up racism or xenophobia--I was correcting Lyrhawn's erroneous statement--but I stand by what I said.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I'm always surprised when people tell me they don't want to see Spanish words next to English words on products. Whenever I see a product in both English and Spanish I usually smile.
It just seems strange to me that people get so upset about seeing Spanish next to precious English.
I've have never, in 35 years of existence, heard anyone complain about that.
I have. A lot. (And it has already been pointed out that the attitude was expressed here, but it bears repeating.)
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa: This is a little different but somewhat related. I was at work once and a customer was talking on his cell phone at the back of his store. He was speaking Japanese. One my co-workers came over and starting complaining that he really should learn English if he wants to live here (he was pretty vulgar in what he said). I mentioned that the guy was having a private conversation, so who the heck cares.
*nod*
I too have been told I ought to learn English, when I was conversing with friends in Spanish.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Icarus,
While I'll agree-somewhat-that taking offense at a Spanish-language American National Anthem is asinine, there is another translation which also includes some alterations.
Many people have difficulty seperating the two in their minds.
Point taken. I have not actually read the text of this anthem. I was responding on general principle: people wanting to show loyalty to the United States is a good thing, and it seems silly to get bent out of shape about it.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: More or less, yes they do in this circumstance.
When I said they should be made to learn the English language, that was only if they wanted to become citizens. If they don't then that's a separate issue, but if they want to become citizens, they have to learn it, that's my poisition. I later clarified, if they don't want to learn English, then I won't force them to become American citizens, thus taking away the forceful learning of English.
Give the fact that there is an "or" involved in this situation, which I have clearly stated from the beginning, yes, I think they do pretty much mean the same thing here. If anything, I misspoke when I said "Should have to" because it doesn't sound forceful enough.
In the context, I don't see the argument you're making, as a stand alone, you're entirely right. But even in that statement I said "for the point I am trying to make, they do mean the same thing." I perhaps misworded the statement you quoted there, I shouldn't have said they "mean more or less the same thing" in any circumstance other than the specific context of my argument.
This is incoherent. So glad you're not backpedaling.
JenniK, I will explain a little bit later in this post my general belief on how immigrants, non-English speakers, and the learning of English should be handled. For now, though, let me say, with regard to your point that translations are commonly available in Spanish and not in many other languages, that I do agree that when you travel or live in a country where you do not speak the predominant language, you accept the consequences of that lack of knowledge. And so I don't think we have a moral imperative in every situation to provide for people who have not learned English. Very often, however, it is in our best interest--as a society or as a corporation like Disney--to do so. In those situations, though, it may not be realistic to accommodate every language. I imagine there is some sort of metric of "worth-it-ness" at play here. The number of Spanish-speaking tourists at WDW likely dwarfs the number of speakers of Mandarin, and so it makes sense that Disney might feel it is feasible to offer one translation and not another. In a way, it's the same sort of metric that makes English the unofficial language of the United States. The land that the US occupies was colonized by the British, the Spanish, the French, and the Dutch. Why is English the dominant language? Because, at the end of the day, that is the language of the vast majority. There is no other reason--no inherent superiority of the English language or of English culture. It's a numbers game, and it makes sense that, given finite resources, you accommodate the majority, not the minority. More on that later.
You also, by the way, repeat the assertion that it is common for Latinos to not want to learn English. You go beyond that, in fact, and assert that other cultures are more motivated to learn English than latinos are. The last time we had an argument on latino acculturation/assimilation, I documented the fact that latinos have assimilated faster than any other major immigrant group, in terms of language acquisition or any other metric you care to advance. (Storm Saxon, where are you?) Your assertion is in error. Further, the stereotype that latinos do not want to learn English is, beyond being manifestly untrue, one I find offensive. I know it is not your intent to be offensive--consider this fair warning that I reject that stereotype and react to it in this manner.
quote:Originally posted by JenniK: I have noticed that those who do not choose to learn the language, or those who learn very little, do not do nearly as well getting the jobs that they want or making the kind of money that they want to have as those who do. Although some immigrants may not like it, it would be in their own best interest to learn to read/write/speak English to do well here. That is simply a fact of life especially in areas of this country where Spanish is not the dominant language. (In large Hispanic areas I can not see that it would be such a problem.)
To put my opinion simply: learn English it can't hurt you, but it can help you. Sing the song in any language you want to, but learn it's English version as well . . .
I disagree with none of this. At the risk of beating a dead horse, it is what I said all along.
quote:Originally posted by Kristen: Let me put this out on the table:
If exposed to a language in a fairly intensive manner (aka. living in a foreign country, listening to the radio, watching tv, interacting with others) when the language is similar to a native language, the average adult language learner can become proficient or near-fluent in a language in between 6 months to a year.
If the language is very different (eg. English and Chinese) it will take one to two years.
Does this make a difference? To me, living in a country for decades and not learning a language is kind of off-putting because it really isn't enormously difficult (although it's not easy) to attain a passable level in it. Do I think the government should interfere and make people learn languages? Not at all. I just don't think they have any reason to be overly sympathetic to legal residents who speak other languages.
(if anyone else has heard different statistics, let me know)
Also, this is NOT meant to address illegal immigrants whose working conditions are so bad that they are isolated, have no money etc. I am talking about legal, long-term residents, especially those who want to become citizens.
You are talking in hypotheticals, about a population that does not exist.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to clarify, and make it all short: My primary objection to Lyrhawn's post was the draconian statement that people should be made to do this or the other; as I will elaborate in my next post, I favor a hands-off approach to legislation whenever possible. I think we should allow and encourage people to follow their best interest, but not legislate that they do so. I think the only basis for legislation should be the effect that an action has on the rights of others. If all Lyrhawn had ever said was that it is in their best interest to learn English, I would have had no issue with it. (Especially given that this is what I had already posted.)
It seems pretty clear to me that he has backpedaled, but he says he has not. Whatever--people can judge for themselves.
Beyond that, I think we disagree on quite a few particulars, but there's plenty of room for disagreement on this issue.
Elmer's Glue's objection to the presence of Spanish in places where it does him (?) no harm whatsoever is indefensible, as far as I can see. That seems like a textbook case of xenophobia. Ditto for people who get really pissed if an automated phone system says "Press 1 for English." Is the extra button to push that big a hardship?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where I stand on accommodating speakers of other languages:
I'm a wannabe libertarian. I don't think libertarianism is ultimately fully feasible--for instance, I think public education is a necessary thing--which is why I don't actually belong to the party, but I think libertarianism is a good ideal, and a good guiding principle, absent compelling reasons to act otherwise. I think libertarian principles are the principles the United States was founded upon: legislate only when necessary. Don't legislate in order to force people to take actions you think are in their own interests to take. Don't legislate in order to spare people the cost of making poor decisions.
In case it's not abundantly clear, I think immigrants should learn English.
Until they do/If they do not, I don't think we, as a society, owe it to immigrants to make it easier for them to cope with this. There are plenty of jobs that (I imagine) I could not hold if I did not speak English. I think this is reasonable, and not something to be legislated against. (To be clear, if my lack of English were no barrier to my being able to do the job, then I would not favor discrimination on this basis. It's hard to think of a job where communication is not necessary, though.)
That being said, I believe there are situations where it is not required to accommodate non-English speakers, but it is prudent to do so. If I own a corporation, it is in my best interest to accommodate Spanish-speakers if there is a large Spanish-speaking population among my potential clientele. I don't think I should legally have to, but I think it would be foolish of me to turn away this business. I might reasonably decide that there are enough French-speakers in my area to warrant, for instance, putting French dubbing on my DVDs, but not enough Spanish speakers to make it economically worthwhile to put Spanish dubbing. (Ever notice that many more DVDs have French as an alternate language than Spanish?)
Another situation where I think being a bit accommodating is prudent is education. It is in our best interest as a nation to successfully educate the children of immigrants--including successfully teaching them English. It is my opinion that immersion, bilingual education, and ESOL accommodations are ineffective at this, and that these children would be better served by having the rest of their academics put on hold while they learn English, and spending a year in an intensive 8-hour-a-day English immersion program. (Because I do think they should learn English!) David Bowles has argued in the past that such a program would not work, and that bilingual education is the way to go. I respect his opinion, but my observations do not support it. Regardless, though, we are both people of goodwill who share a common goal, though we disagree on how to achieve it. One might question, however, how I reconcile favoring a minimum of accommodation with favoring spending government funds on creating programs to help non-English-speaking children; the main answer is that it is a worthwhile investment.
Beyond that, I think a sense of decency should motivate us to show a little more compassion to children and the elderly, because children and elderly (recent) immigrants very typically do not have a say in their migration.
My feelings on passing "official language" laws and amendments grow naturally from this libertarian viewpoint: I'm against it, naturally. Why do we need an official language? Where is the need for legislation here? I see no need for such legislation, and so I oppose it.
By the same token, I see nothing whatsoever wrong with singing the anthem in another language. Nobody is talking about making this translation in any way official. It's not going to get played at the Olympics! All this is is a harmless gesture of loyalty (!!!) among immigrants. Beyond the fact that it hurts nobody, why in God's name would an American oppose the expression of loyalty toward the United States?!*
My viewpoint is actually fairly conservative on these issues (of accommodation, specifically). I'm not some foaming-at-the-mouth member of the PC police who wants the rest of the world to bend over backward so that my people don't have to do anything for themselves. (English is my second language, by the way. How am I doing? ) However, I will still get all over your face when I see an attitude that latinos (any people, really, but latinos are obviously the ones I have a great deal of exposure and affinity to) are in any way inferior--be it in the area of work ethic, ability, or morality--or that they are in some way "the enemy," or that they should be held to different--harder--standards than other people have been held to. When I see people who object to latinos just for being, then yeah, I will react to it. When I see generalizations made that don't hold water, I will do my best to knock them down.
In my mind, this [i.e., the issue of accommodation] all comes down to market forces and enlightened self-interest (on the parts of both immigrants and born citizens, and corporations and the nation as a whole). Here is something that I find puzzling: given that my position is very well aligned with the principles of small government, libertarianism, and a free-market--values one often sees espoused by the political right--why is it the right that seems to be making all the noise about making English the official language, opposing the translation of the Anthem into Spanish, etc.? Logically, I can only conclude that other issues are at play here, and that these are not actually the core issues. One possibility that comes to mind is that the right espouses viewpoints contrary to their natural point of view because they are racist/prejudiced/xenophobic. This is not the only possibility, of course, but it certainly bears mentioning. Another possibility is that, since the left is normally seen as the champion of minorities, the right automatically takes the side opposing minorities as a knee-jerk reaction to the left. Of course, there is the fact that Republican does not equal Libertarian; in my mind, however, the differences between Republicans and Libertarians are on moral issues, and the two parties tend to have a lot of commonalities on economic issues, and this issue is an economic issue, so I just don't get it. Maybe there are other explanations that I haven't thought of, but I must say it certainly is puzzling.
* This is, of course, quite apart from the issue of whether or not it's a good translation. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the time I spent writing these posts, I was not doing the following things:
Paying my bills
Writing study guides for my final exams
Writing my final exams
Grading papers
Cleaning the house
Solidifying my summer plans
Plotting the eventual latino takeov^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h
Sleeping
If I don't get back to any replies right away, you may assume that I am catching up on one of these things instead. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really dig the Canadian National Anthem. I think it's one of the prettiest ones, and it's in a good vocal range.
Maybe if we're lucky, Canada will take over all of North America. Then we get 1) a new, better sounding and easier to sing National Anthem, 2) socialized health care, 3) toques, 4) beavers, 5) Mounties, 6) 2-color flag to save on printing costs, 7) new national nickname "Guatemala's Friendly Neighbor to the North", 8) allowed to buy Cuban Cigars, 9) funny sounding accents, 10) less reviled by world, 11) more curling. There are probably other good reasons, but I'm getting so giddy with the first 11, I can hardly go on.
We could let Quebec form it's own nation, and call it "New Lichtenstein."
Wow, could things be any more perfect?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, first of all, I hope anyone who objects to the National Anthem being translated to Spanish also objects to the previous Spanish translation done by the US Department of Education as well as the versions done in German, Yiddish, French and Samoan (all of this is from wikipedia). I can't say that I'm a fan of the newest Spanish translation, but I have no problem with it being done.
quote: Here's the difference - I have noticed that the Russian immigrants make their first priority to learn English so that they can get better jobs, make more money, and have a better life for their families. It is not a priority for some of them, or for some Spanish speakers to learn the language.
And yet I have plenty of anecdotal evidence that not only do Latin American immigrants want to learn English, but that they also are taking adult ESL classes whenever they can.
Additionally, Chiswick and Miller (English Language Acquisition Among Migrants in the United States. Research in Labor Economics. Vol. 17. 1998.) found that yes, Hispanic immigrants, especially Mexicans, have a much lower level of English acquisition than immigrants groups from other regions. However, when other variables such as the level of education and the period of time living in the US are taken into account, language acquisition rates among Latinos (male Mexican immigrants average less than eight years of schooling) are comparable to those of Northern Europeans, who tend to be among the mostly highly educated immigrants in the US (almost 12 years). So it’s not about an immigrant’s desire to learn, there are too many other factors involved.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
I nearly considered not bothering to respond at all, but I couldn’t let that much inaccuracy go without at least saying something. So I guess we start from the beginning, it’s a relatively short thread, can’t be too bad. Firstly, if you’d be so kind as to quote all my strawman arguments, I’d appreciate it.
This is what I said originally, in regards to my apparent draconian bataan death march of language skills, and to the subject of xenophobia and racism:
quote:I don't really care that much if others want to sing it in their own language. I do however, think they should all be made to learn English. It's to their own advantage. Plus, I don't want anyone to be accused of racism or xenophobia when foriegn language Americans can't vote becuase they can't understand the process, nor do I think it is necessary for ballots to be in Spanish.
You responded with this:
quote:I think people living in the US should learn English for their own sakes, but I fail to see why you think they should be *made* to do so, Lyrhawn. As has been pointed out, English is not the official language of the US.
When you give so much of a damn what other people do, I can't see how you could think that it's anything *other* than racism/xenophobia.
Now I covered why it matters to and effects people other than he who is actually learning the language, and I’ll cover that again later. What I originally said about xenophobia and racism was NOT in reference to myself, but in response to a group that could potentially cry wolf over an issue they could easily solve themselves. You are the one who leveled the accusation at me, unless you care to find another meaning in your quote. And just for the sake of curiosity, why exactly am I a racist xenophobe, since you called me it AGAIN in your most recent post?
I’ll explain my position right here, as I have done I think twice already: My position is that immigrants, of ANY nationality (and YOU are the one by the way who assumed I meant Latinos when I never said that, I have ALWAYS said immigrants generally, meaning all and any, not just those south of the border), need to, and will have to learn English before being made legal citizens of this country. When I said should be made to, I meant either make them learn English, or they don’t get to become legal citizens. And yes, that implies force, because I think it should be the law, and if you break the law, ENFORCEMENT is required. Last time I checked, enforcing laws IS in the spirit of the foundation of the country.
And by the way. Dracon never made a law that said everyone had to speak Greek in Athens or they would be put to death. Maybe we should attempt to avoid drastic hyperbole? I think it’s a little silly to say that making English a requirement for citizenship is “draconian.”
quote: Wow. I'm powerful frightened now. I'll lose the respect and tolerance of someone who clearly doesn't respect me anyway.
You know, I did highly respect you before this. But now that I see you’re a bit of a prick who assumes things and then goes on the offensive with the intent of being as inflammatory and insulting as possible, I don’t respect you. I suppose it’s possible that this is a one time thing we’re butting heads on, but I must say I’m surprised at this.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Quite frankly, those suggesting that they shouldn't be made to learn English strike me as the racist xenophobes. They'd rather the newcomers are unable to participate in the process rather than have them be integrated and made a part of the American government.
This is too asinine to require a response, besides reminding you that I did say that immigrants should learn English.
How the heck is that asinine? It’s a valid point. You don’t think it’s possible that there are politicians/special interests out there that would find it more profitable for them to have an immigrant population be non-English speaking? It leaves them woefully unprepared for the democratic process in this nation, and I think it also mainly leaves them out in the cold, and unable to participate, thus neutralizing whatever negative effect that was feared in the first place. My response to that, is that these people’s motivation could be xenophobic, or racist, or simply your basic run of the mill American self interested greed. I’m posing a hypothetical, a valid one I think, and an extremely plausible one. What in the hell is asinine about the fact that I’d rather immigrants have a voice in this country than not have one?
quote: Why should latino immigrants be held to stricter standards than any other group of immigrants in American history--especially given that they have assimilated faster than any other group in American history?
I never said that, you did. I just said immigrants, as my argument has always been for all immigrants, not just those of latino nature. Just another assumption you made. I guess I can see how you made that inference, but still, assumption without bothering to clarify.
quote:You have not established that such a person exists. In 34 years in Florida, divided between Miami and Orlando, I have yet to meet such a person. In my posting on Spanish-language bulletin boards I have yet to meet such a person. And you accuse Orincoro of using strawmen.
It’s a hypothetical, the reason doesn’t matter, just the outcome. I’ll retract that part, and just leave it at "What if an immigrant refuses to learn English." Hope that makes you happy, but that doesn’t at all weaken my argument, the high majority of which you chose to disregard in that rather long post of mine.
quote:Once again, this is not what Lyrhawn said. Rather, it is what I said. Lyrhawn said immigrants should be made to learn English--in response to a specifically Spanish-language issue. In defending that premise, he has used a strawman to paint immigrants who don't speak English in an unfavorable light: they don't want to learn English, because of their arrogance. Refusing to understand other people . . . assuming base motivations for them . . . advocating action against one people that has never been taken against another . . . advocating against accommodations that do not cost anybody anything. I didn't bring up racism or xenophobia--I was correcting Lyrhawn's erroneous statement--but I stand by what I said.
I’ve already answered the first part, "should be made to" is a question of enforcement and testing. From what I understand of information in this thread, it’s impossible to take the test to become a citizen if you don’t speak English anyway, making much of this moot. We’ve not yet gotten into a discussion on what my position is on enforced English on the non-citizen population, and I haven’t given that issue a lot of thought yet, maybe later. Also I never said arrogance, you did. For the love of God, stop frigging making assumptions about my positions without first clarifying them with me, then you can beat them to your heart’s delight. I don’t even know what "advocating against accommodations that do not cost anybody anything" means. Now whose post is incoherent? I have no idea what most of your post is referencing, as apparently you are trying to reference my positions, problem is I’m not doing any of that. Though it might be fun to watch you explain how you think I am. I think you’re attributing the "advocating against accommodations" thing to me when that was really Elmer by the way.
quote:This is incoherent. So glad you're not backpedaling
I don’t know how much clearer I can make my position. You actually seem to agree with me, so I don’t have any idea where all this hostility is coming from.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Just to clarify, and make it all short: My primary objection to Lyrhawn's post was the draconian statement that people should be made to do this or the other; as I will elaborate in my next post, I favor a hands-off approach to legislation whenever possible. I think we should allow and encourage people to follow their best interest, but not legislate that they do so. I think the only basis for legislation should be the effect that an action has on the rights of others. If all Lyrhawn had ever said was that it is in their best interest to learn English, I would have had no issue with it. (Especially given that this is what I had already posted.)
It seems pretty clear to me that he has backpedaled, but he says he has not. Whatever--people can judge for themselves.
Beyond that, I think we disagree on quite a few particulars, but there's plenty of room for disagreement on this issue.
Already answered the draconian thing, already answered several times what I mean by “should be made to” but you’ve totally ignored everything else I have said in my reasoning. Not that it really matters, as we basically agree. But I still don’t see where I backpedaled. In my first post I said they should be made to learn English, “they” as in ALL immigrants who want to become US citizens (though for my purposes, I’m starting to think all immigrants should have to, just not sure on how enforcement would even be attempted if it was even viable). Next I said they should have to. My personal feeling is that they should have to, and that if they refuse to, for whatever reason at all, then they should be sent him. That in itself is a method of enforcement, and should be all the force necessary to accommodate the phrase “should be made to.” If you still disagree, then so be it, I’m not here to ease your misdirected and unnecessary hostility.
As a general response to your second to last post, the long one about your general positions…
You could probably convince me in the end that legislating for the supposed protection of others for their own good is often a bad idea. As I said before, it certainly didn’t go as planned for the American Indians. With specific reference to my position, forced learning of the English language, which you seem to support (when you said that the children of immigrants should be taught English, I assume you mean that they won’t be given a choice in the matter, they WILL be taught English, then you take away their choice, and thus force them to), is not just a matter of it being best for them. I could prove in abundance, as I already have, that it is in their best interest, but it is also in MY best interest, and yours, and everyone else’s in America. When something affects the public good, then I think legislation is necessary, and I think a sizeable, divergent language population is a thorn in the side of the public good that could be harmful, and NOT in the sense of culture, I’ve already said that that isn’t my point. And I too agree that English as the official language is not necessary. Unless somewhere were to attempt to do it solely for the purpose of getting Spanish as the second official language, but I don’t see that ever happening, so there’d be no point in making the half hearted attempt. The serious proponents of English as the official language seem to have isolationists/purity/protectionists issues on the brain, rather than anything practical, thus I’ve yet to see a compelling argument for the necessity of such a law..
Much of your hostility towards me is, I think, misdirected and borne of a basic misunderstanding in what I’ve been saying all along. I think we agree, but are getting tripped up on language. You went on the offensive from the get-go, instead of asking for clarification, and then misunderstood my attempts to clarify. Looking at my last post, middle posts, and this post, I can see a clear line in my position and clarifications of that position, not backpedaling. Perhaps the fault has been mine for not making it clear enough, I hope I’ve done so here.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Perhaps the fault has been mine for not making it clear enough,
Lyrhawn, I hope you will take this in the spirit it is intended. The "fault" that I see in your posts is not that you weren't clear originally. It's that when it became clear that you were not clear (heh) you attacked the people who clearly misunderstood your intent instead of apologizing for the unclear word choice. And the thread degenerated into arguments about who is worth answering and who has respect for who. Now obviously either side can stop such a cycle, so why don't you give it a try? Imagine how much better your last post could be without the parts attacking Icarus for not understanding your intent, which you admit you did not originally make clear.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Barbarian: a person lacking fluency in Greek, and thus eligible for enslavement. Which for that time wasn't a whole heck of a lot different than the jobs that are currently available to American immigrants lacking fluency in English. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
FrancisScottKey wrote the lyrics, the tune is that of an old drinking song, with all that implies: a range chosen to guarantee cracked notes from drunken voices, and vulgar/obscene/profane lyrics with points scored for making them up on the spot. While FSK might have gotten torqued at having his poem inserted into such a disreputable song, how Hendrix/Journey/etc interprets the tune would be entirely moot. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The problem with legislation insisting that The Star-Spangled Banner must be sung in English ain't cuz of the language chosen : it's the language disallowed. ie USSenators LamarAlexander and BillFrist seek a vote on legislation to ban Spanish lyrics as an issue to appeal to voters who don't even care about the US except in terms of having their feelings against "folks who aren't real Americans" officially approved by the government. And so what should have remained a non-issue -- witness the non-response to the StateDepartment's translations of the lyrics -- is suddenly thrust into prominence in "Get Out The Vote" pandering to that shameless portion of the Republican core. A purely political calculation: can "English-only" draw in more bigots to vote for ya than the number of folks who will be drawn in to vote against ya cuz they're insulted* by yet another attempt to slam minorities.
* Even if they had never spoken a language other than English, there are plenty of folks whose ancestors arrived in immigrant-waves -- from Mexico, Haiti, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, Russia, PuertoRico, Poland, Norway, Japan, China, Ireland, Germany, Canada, etc -- who faced similar animosity upon arrival. And plenty of "real Americans" who jes really really don't like ethnic/etc discrimination.
posted
If the pupose of singing the national anthem is to inspire feelings of national loyalty and patriotism in the singers, it makes sense to me that one should sing it in the language closest to their heart.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush sang Star Spangled Banner en español during 2000 campaign Wed May 03 2006 09:35:20 ET
"When visiting cities like Chicago, Milwaukee, or Philadelphia, in pivotal states, George W. Bush would drop in at Hispanic festivals and parties, sometimes joining in singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” in Spanish, sometimes partying with a “Viva Bush” mariachi band flown in from Texas."
So writes author Kevin Phillips in his book AMERICAN DYNASTY.
Last week, at the height of the illegal immigrant's boycott build up, Bush told reporters: "I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English."
-- From the Drudge Report
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Can you clarify your statement to me? What population is hypothethical--the language learners or the legal residents/immigrants with proper visas?
Perhaps, I wasn't clear. My point was that it isn't incredibly hard to gain a proficient knowledge of a language if you live in the country for an extended period of time provided that you make the effort. That makes me a lot less willing to support the government's initiatives to promote bilingualism and language awareness such as instituting Spanish in public schools.
That being said, I hope you can tell that my not wanting the to have the government spend my tax dollars on programs which I don't think are necessary is FAR different from supporting an English-Only policy.
Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the pupose of singing the national anthem is to inspire feelings of national loyalty and patriotism in the singers, it makes sense to me that one should sing it in the language closest to their heart.
I think a large part of this debate is that some people feel that "real" Americans shouldn't have any other language besides English closest to their heart.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Barbarian: a person lacking fluency in Greek, and thus eligible for enslavement. Which for that time wasn't a whole heck of a lot different than the jobs that are currently available to American immigrants lacking fluency in English.
That depends entirely on which polis in Greece you're talking about, and at what point in time. in Athens, Barbarian meant anyone who wasn't born Greek, not just non-Greek speakers. And EVERYONE was eligible for slavery. Regardless though, mostly "aliens" at the time just had to pay a tax for living there.
And comparing ancient world slavery to picking grapes and washing dishes is deplorable.
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Perhaps the fault has been mine for not making it clear enough,
Lyrhawn, I hope you will take this in the spirit it is intended. The "fault" that I see in your posts is not that you weren't clear originally. It's that when it became clear that you were not clear (heh) you attacked the people who clearly misunderstood your intent instead of apologizing for the unclear word choice. And the thread degenerated into arguments about who is worth answering and who has respect for who. Now obviously either side can stop such a cycle, so why don't you give it a try? Imagine how much better your last post could be without the parts attacking Icarus for not understanding your intent, which you admit you did not originally make clear.
I disagree, not with the sentiment, I think you're right about trying to civil and such. But I think my posts were perfectly measured in tone, and only became agitated when provoked. Even in my last post, I feel I replied in measure with the subject matter. I'm not going to point fingers and such after the fact, but what's been said is in the past, and I think I made it clear that I'd like to come to an understanding.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the "nice" thing about Athenian democracy: citizens can vote on who speaks the proper Greek, ie who is a barbarian. Somewhat similar to the Republicans attempting to force a Senate vote on who sings the proper American. And on the main, Americans don't fret about about "barbarian"s on US soil as long as they pay tribute, ie taxes exceeding their intake of social services.
Interestingly, both the President's wife LauraBush and his Secretary of State CondoleezzaRice disagree with Dubya's partisan political stance opposing the singing of the National anthem in Spanish. Instead, both endorse Rice's statement: I've heard the national anthem done in rap versions, country versions, classical versions. The individualization of the American national anthem is quite under way...people expressing themselves as wanting to be Americans is a good thing.
One giant step backward. But, I also got a text message that Today in History the Emergency Immigration Act was passed which established quotas, so I don't think this is indicative of a new attitude.
(I can't believe our national government has expanded so much to rule on language usage)
Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
He's going to want to impose democracy on third world countries by accusing them of harboring extremist and isolationist religious factions, while at the same time promoting isolationism and extremist at home by redefining the federal government's role in the free lives of individuals.
He may also want some milk thrown in.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not surprised, but I don't think it'll pass, in the House I mean.
I don't think this is necessary, but like the Flag Burning thing, I don't think this has the support in the House.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is nothing more than posturing. They want soundbites for re-election campaigns - to let their constituency know they are "committed to keeping America great" by making English our national language.
Thing is, I don't disagree with the idea, I think a nation ought to have an official language and English is the obvious choice as it is the dominant language in the nation. But I disagree with the reasons they're doing it now, just to capitalize on the current political climate.
but then, I'm pretty cynical when it comes to politicians in general.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always love a national debate about the Star Spangled Banner because none of the news stations can make an official report about it without mentioning my city, Baltimore, where the song was written. Posts: 464 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) However, I will still get all over your face when I see an attitude that latinos (any people, really, but latinos are obviously the ones I have a great deal of exposure and affinity to) are in any way inferior--be it in the area of work ethic, ability, or morality--or that they are in some way "the enemy," or that they should be held to different--harder--standards than other people have been held to. When I see people who object to latinos just for being, then yeah, I will react to it. When I see generalizations made that don't hold water, I will do my best to knock them down.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
