Good point. Nothing to do with what I’m talking about, but good point.
Since it’s only Mexicans we’re talking about, maybe I should talk about the languages of Mexican and American. Shit, in that case, I can retire to the Carribean!
I am a rather elderly person so I remember when people started losing their jobs for inability to operate various kinds of software. And small businesses began losing customers for the same reason, if they did not make the shift. It was a change in the market to which the employee base had to adapt or become unemployed.
It is certainly true that in some places and in some industries in the US, bilingual employees are more valuable to their employers than are monolingual ones. It is also true that in some industries and in some places, the market is shifting or has shifted and then, well, the absence of social net becomes apparent. If you want to include spanish speakers in your customer base or your employee base, it is useful to, er, hire spanish speakers.
But I don’t really see how the desire of businesses to expand their customer or employee base is the fault of some number of people who refuse to learn english. And (other than the Cuban community in Miami, which is a policy question of another kind) I frankly doubt that this is a real problem.
Like your great, great, six thousand times great grandmother, I moved to another country as an adult. I live in Holland. I heard my first word of Dutch when I was over the age of thirty. I have every benefit and support imaginable: I have a gift for languages, Dutch is not the first language I learned beyond my native language, I was raised in a bilingual environment, I am very bright and quite thoroughly educated, I have the daily support of native speakers in my own family, and in Holland you do indeed get free language classes. They even pay for your books and child care for your kids. Further, very close to everyone in Holland speaks english. I pulled down a score on the Test of Dutch as a Foreign Language commensurate with the score pulled down by native speakers. On everything but grammar, my grammar continues to suck.
And you know what? I still have trouble with people on the phone in Dutch now and again. On the phone you do not have the benefit of nonverbal signals to help you along, particularly when people use expressions and idiom or when they are talking about things you do not understand. Health insurance, for example – the Dutch approach to health care is very different from what I am used to and everyone assumes I must know what this form or that procedure or the other board or institution is. But I do not, and so it comes across like the adult voices in the Peanuts series. Mwah mwa bwah mwah mah. Medicine is still an issue. Despite the fact that the doctor does much of his training in english and I speak dutch, it took us about fifteen minutes of talking together to conlude that chicken pox was indeed waterpokken. And we got there only because I remembered that its proper name is varicella. Thus ensured much argument because the doc refused to believe that my child had been vaxed against chicken pox – he could not figure out why anyone would vax a healthy child against that so he assumed it must be a misunderstanding. I have enormous difficulty in dealing with my childrens’school, despite everyone’s best will and effort and the fact that we all speak the same languages. Most of these are what I term as falling into the cultural gap – the fact is that the approach to school, the role of school and parent, even simple things like holidays and so on, are different. And no one guards against the misunderstanding because each of us expects certan things because those things are normal.
But I have no idea what is normal for them and the reverse is also true.
When I got here I went through a near-Keystone kops level of surreality trying to figure out exactly how one goes about getting a job in Holland as a foreigner. It was an educational experience, I have to tell you.
I could go on for days. I will spare you. My point is, I speak Dutch. I have devoted enormous energy to learning to speak Dutch. Nevertheless, I have many of the problems you cite as evidence that people refuse to learn english. Therefore I doubt that this is really the problem.
You know, most people are not really bright and most people do not have a gift for languages and most people do not have the constant support of native speakers in the home as I have. Most people in the US do not get free classes with childcare available, scheduled at different times to accomodate the need to work and located on the bus line and so on. It is not a priority for the nation, so it is not done. They are trying to pick it up as they go along. The support they have gotten, they have gotten from their own community. It is then not a real surprise that some tend to remain inside that community.
I apologize in advance, because this post will read somewhat like a read your own adventure, because I’m not sure where your opinion differs from mine, and I have some questions for you depending on where we branch, and I believe doing it in one post will help avoid misunderstandings.
First off, I believe that the decisions of the fire department is based on economic necessity. I would think that originally the fire department was primarily English speakers and bilingual people. Surely, any hiring manager hiring into that kind of environment will pick a qualified English or bilingual speaker over a qualified Spanish speaker. The existence of Spanish only firefighters thus tells me that there’s a lack of qualified English or bilingual firefighters.
Do you agree that the fire department had to hire Spanish only speaking firefighters because there are a lack of qualified firefighters who speak English?
If you agree, would you agree to the following statements or answer the following questions?:
-
the fire department is in no position to put the onus on people to learn English, because it needs firefighters, and the only qualified applicants don’t speak English.
-
by hiring non English speakers only as a last resort, isn’t the fire department putting the onus on people to learn English?
If you disagree, why do you believe that a hiring manager would regularly hire someone who can’t effectively communicate with everyone before hiring a qualified applicant who can effectively communicate with everyone?
Now that we have some firefighters who don’t speak English, who would you have lead them? someone who can speak to them? or someone who needs to get by through gestures, or a translate?
Can we agree that the fire department was forced into its decision to hire non English speakers, and that having bilingual managers makes more sense than managers who can only communicate with half the work force?
Well, even so, if all those non English speaking firefighters spoke English, then the fire department wouldn’t have this problem, and the monolingual managers could keep their positions, right?
Well, what do you suggest we do about it? I sincerely doubt that there are very many non English speakers in America who don’t want to learn English. In most jobs, I imagine that not speaking English is a very serious hurdle to getting hired for anything that pays better than manual labor, and many locations and services are inaccessible due to lack of Spanish signage and lingual knowledge of employees. Sure, I don’t doubt that there is a portion of the population that doesn’t put in serious effort due to not knowing where to start, or lack of gumption, but I doubt the people who get hired at the fire department are from this portion, as there are plenty of lazy Americans who will be hired before a lazy immigrant.
Do you suggest that non English speakers wait to learn English before immigrating? Does this help the fire department at all? now instead of having able bodied competent workers who can’t speak English, they have no one. They have to go short staffed, and make the job even less attractive due to a need to increase hours. What’s even worse is that, immersed in American culture and working alongside English speakers, the non English speakers can probably learn English a lot faster than at home, so when the fire department could have an English speaking and capable employee, it instead is months away from seeing the same employee, but with less experience and probably less English speaking ability.
But…but–is half the Western hemisphere reading this thread? How–it’s in English!
(cheap shot, but I’m getting pissy reading this thread)
Re the poster upthread about her (his?) Dutch experience–thank you. That has created some insight for me–not the posts about moral fiber and not so subtle racism and everyone should “heart” Spanish.
Also–the seasonal construction workers who don’t speak English–it’s not that simple that English speakers didn’t show up for the work. The contractors are most likely going around or outside a union and also paying the non-English speakers alot less than English speakers. Didn’t Walmart get into legal trouble with its cleaning staff by using the same tactics? (well, not the union bit, this being Walmart and all, but the other part). Sorry if that’s not clearer, I have to go to work now and deal with people who have no English at all–but want top quality health care, despite non-compliance on their part. It’s a great job, really…
Sure, any time.
I think you are in the worst of it. The langauge issue is red hot here also, though mostly not with respect to folks who speak english. The city of Rotterdam was talking about instituting a "Dutch only"rule for conversation on teh street; I don’t think it went anywhere but Rotterdam is now on teh cutting edge in this area.
I had a conversation with a nurse here on this subject and she said it was like practicing veterinary medicine, which stuck with me. The only thing is, the patients already have their own ideas about what’s wrong with them and what it means and how it should be handled, as opposed to animals who do not.
I think the pitfalls with respect to medicine are very special – somebody mentioned problems explaining deductibles to an eight year old. Now imagine trying to discuss your breast cancer symptoms and treatment with your eight year old as translator. Add on top of the regular issues you might have whatever cultural baggage you have regarding power relationships within the family and the likelihood of any really good communication becomes very small indeed.
Last month my MIL had a Whipple procedure for pancreatic cancer and since I do all the shopping and cooking (we all live together) I got to meet with the dietician. I also had to learn how to work with her feeding tube while she had it and a certain amount about wound care for diabetics. We all got through it because it was important. But it was not easy for anybody.
Though it isn’t all about language, amoung the biggest problems they had was convincing my MIL that the operation had zero chance of having cured her diabetes – and everybody in that conversation was a native speaker of dutch, lol. It bears remembering that hardheaded little old ladies are hardheaded little old ladies in every language. 
So you would rather refuse care to those whose English language skills are poor?
You really like being up on that cross, don’t you? It must be “I hate duffer”, it couldn’t be that your arguement sucks?
The point is those crew bosses that aren’t bi-lingual are (potentially) negatively affecting the lifespans of the firefighters under their command. Meanwhile the squad bosses (the guys under the crew bosses) are not required to be bi-lingual!
“One or the other is going to pay a price. It happens to be the ones that don’t know Spanish”, better to risk the lives of the firefighters than demote a crew boss to squad boss :rolleyes:.
Thanks, a nod to “They Live” more than RAW/Principia Discordia.
Makes it easier to find my posts in a thread.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fnord]
You guys should try living in SA - we have 11 official languages. Eleven. 3 in my province alone.
I speak 2 of them from a very young age, but I prefer one of them for technical issues. And here, you’re required to speak at least 2 for any sort of government job. Or a job as a nurse, even.
I know, duffer. I understand that. It’s absolutely clear.
Your OP is still wrong.
You have no evidence that the crew won’t or can’t learn English. All you have is evidence that the crew has not yet learned English. It’s not an instant process. It takes time, but it appears that the state of Oregon cannot afford to wait for them to acquire the language. They need firefighters right now.
Let me ask you this: what do you think Oregon should do to meet their manpower shortages in their firefighting crews?
Again, you have yet to show any evidence of people refusing to learn English. You’ve found evidence of people who have not yet learned English. That’s not at all the same thing. As shown repeatedly in this thread, the overwhelming majority of recent immigrants are learning English, and they’re learning it at record rates.
A very commendable liberal attitude! What other career skills do you want that you think the state should be paying for you to learn? Programming? Car repair? Accounting? Maybe we should just nationalize the DeVry Institute.
And his answer was pretty much exactly what I said, wasn’t it?
So what’s your problem?
Well, if I speculated on what his problem was, he’d probably go into an apoplectic fit about me trying to “mind-read”.
So anyway, you obviously had no trouble interpreting what I said. More evidence for my hypothesis that magellan01 either has trouble with reading or was attempting to play “gotcha”.
That or maybe you’re reading my mind right now. GET OUT OF MY HEAD, MILLER!
It’s a bit early for the crack pipe, isn’t it? He addressed my question. You didn’t. Because you couldn’t. Because you did not/could not know that he was of the opinion that he phrased things poorly. (You even admitted you didn’t see the point of the question.) You did not know that he did not mean to convey an extremist sentiment. I didn’t either, which is why I asked. Him. Tell me, what would you suggest someone do if they are unclear about a poster’s meaning: not ask for clarification?
I don’t see why you’re being so thick about this. You’re original response was inappropriate. If you were trying to be helpful, fine. But my response to you explained what I was looking for, and that you, lacking mind-reading abilities, were unable to provide it.
You admit that you phrased things poorly and that my reading was a reasonable one based on what you actually wrote, yet you still want to float the idea of poor reading comprehension on my part. :rolleyes:
Regarding “gotcha” and the “hinting” you also float, I responded to your post and, devoid of the mind-reading abilities of others, am awaiting your reply.
I admitted I phrased things poorly. I didn’t “admit” that your reading was a reasonable one based on what I wrote. If you decontextualize one sentence, then yes, your interpretation makes sense. Indeed, that’s why it was poor phrasing. But there’s nothing reasonable about doing that. You’ve seen my posts throughout this thread; your attempts to demonstrate that I was secretly arguing something that I plainly am not were, in their very nature, unreasonable.
And examining it again, there is nothing ambiguous about my use of the word “hinting”. I’m not going to be your remedial reading teacher, magellan01. If you wish to have pointless arguments over the syntax of your opponents’ statements, you’re going to have them all on your own.
Go away, magellan01. You’re not saying anything worthwhile. You’re not making any useful or interesting points. You’re starting arguments over word choice. Your contribution to this discussion has been negative.
Look, some people need coffee to get going in the morning. I need my rock. Is that so wrong?
I said exactly the same thing he did.
So what? Wether or not he phrased it poorly (I don’t think that he did), I still understood what he was trying to say, and explained it to you. So again, what’s the problem?
Which, it should be noted, is not the same thing as not understanding the question itself. Your question was a bizarre non-sequitor based off an obvious misread of what he had actually written. Given a correct interpretation of the post, your question was pointless. “I don’t understand the point,” was simply a more polite way of saying that.
In fact, I did know he did not mean to convey an extremist sentiment. This did not require any sort of special ability beyond understanding fairly basic English. I read what he wrote, saw that there was no extremist sentiment expressed, and pointed that out to you. Why this upsets you so much is, I admit, somewhat puzzling.
Sure. And you got your clarification. From both the primary source, and a third party who could see that the content you were reading into that post did not, in fact, exsist.
“Inappropriate?”
And yet, I did provide it. Where did my explanation of what he was saying in that post differ from his explanation of what he was saying in that post? I gave you exactly what you wanted: a correct reading of a passage that you had misunderstood, illustrating why your question was meaningless.
So what’s the problem, exactly?
He did no such thing. You seem to be having uncharacteristic problems with reading comprehension in this thread, and an oddly antagonistic attitude over the whole affair. Perhaps there is some other agenda you are persuing here?
My apologies.
No, you did not address the opening phrase, which was what sparked my question. He had been discussing the issues for a while and then he said, “And the real problem…” I took that to mean what he actually wrote. That although what preceded it was problematic, that here was the heart of the problem. I thought it was a bit of an extreme position, so I asked him. I don’t know his world view, but I have been shocked on the boards before (Der Trihs, for example). So, I did what I thought was the logical, reasonable, and polite thing: I asked for clarification.
His words did, infact, convey an extremist sentiment, which is why he has now separated himself from the sentiment conveyed by his words.
In that it was not a question someone else could answer. I was asking for clarification, the intent behind the words he wrote. If it were a fact (date, number, etc.) and you offered it up before the poster responded, thanks all around.
This is a debate board that uses the written word. I digested those words accurately. Reasonably. The proof of which is the poster’s retraction of the sentiment his words expressed. If there is confusion by a reasonable interpretation of what is written that is not the reader’s fault. When all we have to go by is the words we type it is incumbent upon each of us to write with care. We’ll all make mistakes from time to time. But to admit that you made a mistake and then blame the reader is asinine. Especially when the reader simply asks you for clarification.
Agenda? What are you talking about?
You speak of writing with care; given your attention to such matters, I can only conclude that when you claimed I said your interpretation of "The real problem . . . " was “reasonable”, you were deliberately lying rather than being careless with the facts.
I read your posts. Eventually you chose to “point” to the heart of the problem by saying “But the real problem…”. Based on what you had previously written it seemed more extreme, so I asked for clarification. There are people on this board that hold what I consider extreme positions. Some who may even hold that particular position. So, what did I do? I asked you for clarification.
And then YOU get all huffy. Well FUCK YOU, douchebag.
And yes, this has turned into a mess. But that is not my doing. I asked a simple, polite question. Miller tried to help, he was unable to because he was not you. And when you did respond you were all pissy and annoyed that someone dared to ask you for clarification—on a post you admit you phrased poorly. Imagine if MIller didn’t respond, or responded once, and then you, when youu did respond simply said something to the effect, “No, I see how you could have read it that way, but I didn’t mean to imply that at all. I simply meant…”
So, I don’t think I’ll go away, but thanks for the suggestion. Here’s one for you: Try taking responsibility for the words you use type on a debate board. That, and go fuck yourself.
Right: the real problem isn’t simply that duffer was incorrect, but that he was incorrect in such a manner as to further the lies and misrepresentations of racists. This was abundantly obvious from both context and a plain reading of the text.
There is no part of this sentence that is factual.
And again, how is what I wrote different from what Excalibre wrote? You read his post and came to an incorrect interpretation of what he was saying. I provided you with the correct interpretation. Where was my answer incorrect? Where does what I wrote differ from what Excalibre wrote?
Wrong on both counts.
He has not done this anywhere in this thread.
The problem is, your interpretation was not reasonable. As shown by the fact that other readers (such as myself) were able to digest his reading and come, through no great effort, to the correct reading of his statement.
True, except what you have failed to acknowledge here is that the error was not made by Excalibre. It was made by you. His post was perfectly clear: you are the one who could not properly parse it. Which happens to everyone, but getting angry and defensive when this is pointed out does you no good service. You misread his post in a particularly bizarre way. You screwed up. Stop demanding that other people apologize for your failure.
I don’t know. That’s why I asked. You interpreted a perfectly intelligible post in a way that makes no logical sense, then reacted with inexplicable hostility when it was pointed out to you. This indicates that your problem is not with the post itself, but with some other element of the thread or the character of the posters with whom you are disputing.
Or you’re simply irrational. But based on your posting history, that would be a recent and unexpected development, so I’m going with the unstated agenda theory for the time being.
So the fact that I just caught you in a blatant lie doesn’t faze you enough to stop you from saying this?
The fact is that given how much I’ve talked in this thread - and it’s a lot - that there could be no possible doubt as to my commitment to addressing this matter on the basis of pure facts. Miller had no problem understanding my post. There’s no evidence that anyone but you did. By taking one sentence out of context, you could misinterpret my point. But by examining the entire message, you couldn’t. You’re playing a childish game of “gotcha” instead of having a worthwhile discussion of the merits of the issue; you are hijacking what was a discussion with at least some tiny relevance in favor of one with none whatsoever. And when what I said was accurately summarized by Miller, you abused him, which demonstrates pretty clearly that you were not interested in understanding what I meant but rather in catching me saying something you could twist out of context.