tomndebb ,you seem to ignore that the Hispanics have a large political organization that expresses a concern about the 40% drop out rate among Hispanics without mentioning a lack of English fluency as even a possible problem. They do however mention that Hispanics will be 25% of the population by 2030.
The personal aspirations of individual Hispanics have little to do with political aspirations of Latino politicians whose power is based on keeping Hispanic voters from becoming fluent English speakers who no longer need the favors the politicians promise.
You are putting words in my mouth. Democracies can function under many different sets of assumptions, but they need to be shared by by an overwhelming part of the population .
You are making an assumption that there is way to exactly translate from one language to another. The study of semantics indicates that this is false. Even when the objective meanings are similar the connotations are often quite different. You seem to ignore the difficulties when citizens are unable to talk to each other directly and have to use translators. Even if the translator is perfectly objective and has no agenda of his own, you are only hearing the translators opinion of what the other person said. This will lead to misunderstanding and discord or worse a false agreement where the differences are omitted from the translation.
Canada only functions because the French and English speakers are physically separate and Quebec is semi-autonomous.
How do you imagine an army would function if the officers only spoke French and the soldiers only spoke English?
You have in Canada, a country that is actually controlled by bilingual bureaucrats. It is a very nice country… for the bureaucrats. For people who actually think democracy involves actually carrying out the will of the people, then it is less than ideal. Democracy means more than voting. If the laws are written, interpreted and executed by bureaucrats, then you have the forms of democracy without the actuality.
I’ve already addressed Switzerland in a previous post in this thread. If you think Belgium is a good example of a well functioning democratic country, then you need to spend a few minutes reading up on Belgium politics.
Francophones and anglophones are not separated in Canada. While the bulk of francophones are in Quebec there is a substantial Anglo minority in Quebec. There are substantial francophone minorities in New Brunswick (an officially bilingual province) and Ontario (which provides numerous bilingual services including all provincial laws being bilingual). There is also Manitoba, the other officially bilingual province, although it’s francophone population is proportionately much smaller.
Laws in Canada are prepared on the instructions of the Cabinet and approved by the gov’t caucus, then must be enacted by the legislative branch. The technical work of drafting is done by professional public servants, but entirely on the instructions of the elected officials - which is the practice in modern western democracies generally, not just in Canada.
Quebec is not a semi- independent province, any more than any other province. All provinces have the same powers and are subject to the same constitutional limitations, such as the Charter. Within their constitutional jurisdiction all provinces are sovereign.
My personal experience with Ethnic Studies and Bilingual Education has been a positive one, and the the infusion of culturally relevant materials into my learning experience, is what I believe kept me in school, and pushed me into higher education; when my parent’s, and earlier generations of my family were mainly self educated, and never went to school.
The idea of conforming to the dominant culture in the U.S., by learning English, and assimilating generation by generation, is and has been happening, and IMO, if the “English only” advocates really wanted to improve drop out rates of Hispanic students, they would not be trying to roll back gains made from the civil rights struggle, or dismantle educational programs that were set in place to accommodate immigrants transition into the larger society.
IMO, high Hispanic drop out rates could possibly be remedied by starting Ethnic Studies earlier. For example, children who learn in a history class that their ancestors were the losers at the Alamo, and notice a focus on the undesirability of their language and culture, may easily manufacture an identity that leads to self hatred, dropping out of school, committing crimes, addictions to drugs, and becoming all the worst stereotypes that probably swirl through the minds of paranoid bigots.
And how does this change if we make some sort of silly “official language”?
Beyond that, every immigrant group bemoans the failures of education for their kids, often without making a big public deal about the causes beyond poverty and disaffection.
From what you appear to be claiming, Hispanics are enormously powerful, but they can’t quite exercise enough of that power to suggest to a school district that they don’t want bilingual education for their kids. (Because, Federal money, or not, few school districts are going to go directly against the people who pay millages to support the rest of the schools’ activities.)
Nothing in your linked article actually demonstrates a desire to impose Spanish on the U.S.
84 million Hispanics of whom the vast majority speak English, (as they will, since they appear to be following trends of earlier immigrants only slightly more slowly*), is just ethnic politics, just as the Irish, Germans, Italians, and Poles, etc., have exercised for years. The Spanish speakers who never learn English are pretty much relegated to their enclaves with no way to secure jobs or earn money outside them. Beyond that, the “small enclaves” I noted were those that had already survived seventy to a hundred years, or more. When they were first established, they were far larger and included many more people. Around 1910, over a third of the people in the U.S. were “foreign” speakers.
In 2000, there were 35 million Hispanic people in the U.S. of whom only 28 million actually spoke Spanish. They have already lost of quarter of their speakers and that trend will continue. It is true that the proximity of Spanish speaking lands has resulted in a wave that is larger than previous immigrant waves and some of the effects of assimilation have slowed, but the trend has not stopped.
What you posted about Switzerland was perception spin of your own beliefs that does not conform to any other perception and your claims about Belgium are equally based on an outsider’s faulty views. Again, get back to us when the Flemings or Waloons establish separate militias.
It would be interesting to discover whether you invested a lot of energy in subscribing to General Semantics and then have tried to apply it to the real world, or whether you discovered General Semantics while looking for rationalizations to excuse your xenophonic phobia.
In some sort of ideal world, it is probably true that a democracy fares better when a country employs a single language. However, that pretty much limits democracies to small cities with uniform social and financial classes, because there is nearly as much difference in understanding among people of different social classes, financial brackets, religious ideals, and working conditions as there is between people of different languages. You are shooting for an unapproachable ideal and insisting that only that ideal is valid, ignoring all the fairly successful efforts that fall short of the ideal, but continue to function for decades and even centuries. (If you believe that the English spoken in New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the Deep South, the Great Lakes, the Midwest, the Southwest, and the Northwest is uniform in understanding, then you do not understand how American English is actually spoken.)
Nobody is suggesting that Flemings and Walloons are about to form “militias” and start a civil war (but the Belgian military is actually by in large organised along linguistic lines).
The country is, however, deeply divided and language is the central issue. The Walloons in general don’t speak Flemish (the Belgian variety of the Dutch language) while Flemings more often than not can speak French. (There is, BTW, also a German speaking community in Belgium).
Everything in Belgian society comes in a Flemish and a Walloon flavor: Radio, TV, trade unions, political parties, you name it.
It’s true that the language conflict coincides with socio-economic factors. Wallonia used to be the affluent, industrialised part of the country whereas Flanders was inhabited by hillbillies who talked funny. Today, Flanders is the economic powerhouse and Wallonia is part of the European rust belt.
Considering that, up to this post, you have not posted one single citation that actually said what you claimed it said, why one earth would anyone bother to read an entire textbook just on your say-so?
This is America, Jack. As a nation, we have accepted the principle that the rights of the individual generally trump administrative convenience, and one of those rights is to retain the religion, language and culture of one’s ancestors.
In any case, a shared language is no greater a guarantee that Le People and their representatives will understand one another. 99% of our political discourse revolves around claims that statements in English have been misinterpreted or misquoted. Who gives a shit if politicians claim to have been mistranslated instead?
India has 22 official languages, not counting the 500-odd languages recognized as official at the state or local level. Not only that, but much more authority is vested in the central government than in our system. Despite that, Indians do just fine in terms of political discourse.
The same can be said of dozens of other countries. You might as well argue that you need a separate legislature and executive to be a democracy.
I think it is good for a country not to have language barriers within its borders. I think it would be good for language barriers not to exist at all. I’d opt for the adoption of English as a super-language for all international communications … which it effectively is now … if so many unique aspects of culture were not prone to disappear along with local languages. However, there is a better solution already in the works. I play online games with people from Russia, Spain, Germany and Italy. We communicate passably well using freebie language translators. Perhaps someday the translators will get good enough to make all languages optional.
Except…people living in a country should learn the language of that country. It’s simple courtesy, if nothing more. When I lived in Indonesia, I learned Indonesian. I wasn’t expert in it (didn’t live there long enough), but I could carry on conversations with only occasional resorting to the pocket dictionary.
What makes a language “a language of the country” is that a certain percentage of the people speak it. If those numbers change, then it can change what “a language of the country” is. At one time, English was not a language of North America. Things changed. Things might change again. It should be dependent on the individual choices of people who use language, not imposed by fiat.