I think this thread was accidentally closed during the move from General Questions.
I am re-opening it.
Utter nonsense.
Multiple democratic countries currently function quite nicely with large segments of the population speaking separate languages.
And we should follow these examples? Make non-English speakers second class citizens so we can have the same problems these countries have?
Apples and oranges. The conflicts in Africa, (and the Middle East), that resulted from colonial powers drawing arbitrary lines to include already warring ethnic groups while dividing other ethnic groups are the result of imposing national lines on people who had no control over where the lines were drawn.
This has nothing to do with whether a people that chooses to unite under one banner needs to speak to each other in the same language. Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, and India have all survived quite nicely despite having multiple languages. Have there been conflicts between the various peoples divided by a language? Sure. Just as there have been conflicts between peoples of the same nation over the allocation or resources, trade, finance, religion, and other issues. Has it led to the actual dissolution of any of those nations? No.
My understanding is, in India, if you don’t speak English, you’re a second-class citizen.
My understanding (as a non-Indian) is that English is the only neutral language everyone in India can somewhat agree on. Other languages like Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Tamil, Gujarati, Assamese, etc all have local populations. Using any of these languages implies a connection with (and preference for) that population. If a Telugu speaker and a Marathi speaker meet, for example, do they talk in Telugu or Marathi? Either language is giving one of them the “advantage” in the dialogue. English, as an outside language, avoids this favoritism. It’s nobody’s first language and everybody’s second language. So everyone in India can speak English on an equal footing.
Maybe that’s what we need to do in the United States. Avoid the controversy over English and Spanish by adopting Latin as our official language.
Old-fashioned. Let’s go with Lojban! (It’s like Esperanto only nerdier.)
In the case of Belgium, many would argue that the dissolution of the country is imminent, language issues being the central concern.
And I have read that in Quebec, Canada, they have some sort of a language police which fines restaurant owners who put up menus in English only.
The Swiss are doing all right, I guess.
No, you need to understand English (or learn the answers to the citizenship exam by rote without understanding them, as my aunt did) in order to become an American citizen. You do not need to understand English in order to be an American citizen.
The requirement is higher to join the group than to belong to it.
And as someone who grew up under threat of death by those people you support, please imagine for a moment we’re in the Pit, eh?
Get back to us when the Walloons or Flemings actually raise their own militias. Language is not the divider in Belgium; it is the cultural marker to identify which side one is on. The split is based on inequalities of wealth that originated in the Industrial Revolution with some reversals at the coming of the Information Age.
Language is an issue in Quebec, (although appealing to 30 year old tantrums hardly makes your point), but it is, again, a cultural marker for economic divisions, not a point that is actually tearing apart the country.
Thank-you for slipping in a factual answer to one of my questions. Especially before somebody decides to close or move the thread.
Not sure why you included Ireland, but there is a key difference between those others and what we would find in the US: All those other countries have a main language in distinct areas. While almost all Swiss speak both French and German (and English), they don’t all speak Italian. It’s not like the three main languages are sprinkled randomly around the country, and as you drive in the different regions, you don’t necessarily even see traffic signs in anything but the local language.
What would be the states with majority Spanish speakers, and how would that improve things? The polyglot countries you listed are simply a result of “facts on the ground” as historically linguistically distinct areas were formed into a single country.
Perhaps there was a time when a state like New Mexico could have established itself as a Spanish speaking enclave within the US, but not anymore. If Puerto Rico ever becomes a state, it might make the US comparable to those other countries.
At any rate, I’m not arguing that we need to make English the official language. I don’t think we need to do so. But your argument for not doing so doesn’t really support the idea.
I can’t help but notice that no one wants to quantify how many natives of the United States can’t speak English. There are around 11 million illegal aliens in the United States and another million legal immigrants. Can anyone actually document more than 1 percent of the native population that can’t speak English at least as a second language. Puerto Rico is a problem, but frankly they should be given independence like the Philippines. The current commonwealth status isn’t satisfactory to anyone.
Anyone born and raised in the US, unless he has mental problems, is going to have to go to school, taught in English, until some point. There is no way a non-special needs person could grow up, go to school, and not speak English. The problem of the native, non-Enlgish speaker is a phantom.
The only exception I can think of is perhaps some Indians (or other aboriginal group) growing up entirely on a reservation. Any parent who would willfully deny his child the ability to speak English in the US is a terrible parent, if you ask me.
Many pseudo democratic empires function, but not well. What you see are oligarchies that are actually controlled by a small minority of the population. You don’t seem to be able to distinguish between democratic forms and the actuality. You probably think that Russia is actually democratic.
That doesn’t make much sense considering an independent Quebec would be much worse off, economically, than a Quebec as province of Canada.
Are you claiming that Canada isn’t a real democracy?
How does making English the official language help matters? Encouraging everyone to learn English would help (although it makes it harder for English-speaking Americans to learn foreign languages, which screws us overseas, but that’s another story) but the government only functioning in English further isolates those who don’t speak it, makes them more of an underclass.
Ifd I hold up Russia as a multilengual country, feel free to attack it. Your straw man that ignores the reality of the countries that have already been mentioned in this thread is simply a way to avoid addressing the point that you erroneously claimed that such countries could not function as democraices when, in fact, they do.
Because Ireland has two official languages, Irish and English.