How does a government using one language stop the flow of ideas?
Are you drunk today? I am an advocate of a private business doing what it can to succeed. If I had a busines I’d put signs up in any language that would help me and hire people who cold communicate with the broad customer base. The issue is should the government declare an official language for itself.
I apologize if my polite request asking you to rephrase what I couldn’t decrypt irked you. I’ll try not to make that mistake again. That said, what crackposts am I following? I didn’t link to Tanton. In fact, I had never heard of him until a previous exchange with you (I believe).
Well, then you shouldn’t have relisted part of my sole language list, namely, “Countries with an Official Language theat is not English”. It didn’t help your case. Do you not see that? And now you dance and talk about the G8 and population numbers. :rolleyes:
Oh boy, one of those countries “helping” your argument is El Salvador, (that list is wrong, the Salvadorian constitution mentions Spanish as the official language) as a Salvadorian/American I have to tell you that having one official language does not lead to unity.
And in the past, it was using an indigenous language that made the speaker be a target of the repressive military governments, at least they spoke the offical language.
Thanks for your help? When I said you were not seeing Latinos as humans it was rhetorical, don’t give more examples that it is not so.
What? Are you referring to my “Thanks for your help” to Unregistered Bull? If so, explain how that goes to me not seeing Latinos as humans. If not, explain further.
It would send a clear and unequivocal message to non-English speakers that they are not welcome.
How does multilinguilism threaten “the idea of America?” The idea of America is that it’s a place open to people from anywhere in the world, who want to come here and make a better life for themselves in whatever way they see fit. Once again, you are proposing to protect the greatness of America by destroying one of the very things that make us great.
The point of the argument you’ve just elided to “blah blah blah” is that it shows that immigrants are already learning English as fast as they can, so refusing to meet them halfway by provided important services in a language they’re more familiar with will not make them any more inclined to learn and adopt the language. If anything, it will make them less so inclined, because you’ve told them emphatically that the government in not interested in helping them to assimilate by making it easier to interface with it.
And the symbol you are putting forward is, “America: Non-English speakers need not apply.” No, that’s not the message you want to put forward, but that will be the message you send.
What weaseling? You wanted clarification on what I meant, I clarified for you.
Incidentally, comparing me to tomndebb is only going to be received as a compliment. I wish I could deliver the sort of rhetorical smackdown he regularly serves you. I’ve not yet seen the two of you tangle where tom~ hasn’t utterly demolished you on every point you’ve raised. This thread included.
'Course, I’m biased towards that view, because I tend to agree with the positions he argues, so I doubt the above paragraph is going to have any effect on you, except perhaps to alert you that trying to prove something by comparing me to him is only going to backfire on you.
Well, not everyone is as willing to roll over and be kicked as you are. A lot of people, particularly the sort who are willing to leave everything behind and move to another country to start over, have a sense of pride, and aren’t too keen on being the punching bag for a bunch of nativists trying to score cheap political points.
I do, but what you’re peddling is more like homeopathy than real medicine: a useless solution to a problem that does not exist, which will only make the patient sicker.
Which is why, once again, everything you believe in must be fought at every turn, with every weapon available. Because we need to preserve the idea of what this country is, and that idea runs entirely counter to your vision of it.
And now you’ve gone and torpedoed your entire argument. How on Earth does having a country that recognizes two different languages make the nation less inviting to other language groups, than having a nation that recognizes only one language group? Seriously, think about this for a second: what you’ve just said makes no sense at all. Imagine a potential immigrant from China, looking at the US. Currently, with the widespread translation of important documents into other languages, he can see that, although his English isn’t so good yet, he can still come here and get by, because the government will meet him halfway while he brings his language skills up to snuff.
Now imagine that same immigrant, looking at a US with your laws in place. His English still isn’t so good, and now that means he might not be able to get a driver’s license. He won’t be able to understand tax forms (which are already inscrutable enough to native English speakers) and if he screws those up, he could wind up in serious trouble. And he sees that the sizable contingent on your side of the argument who, unlike yourself, are out-and-out racists have started gaining ground in our political system. You really think he’s more likely to move to the US? Or do you think he’s going to look for some place that’s more open to helping immigrants assimilate into the political system, like New Zealand?
It amazes me that you can make the argument that “English only = inclusionary,” but “English + other languages = exclusionary” without rupturing a blood vessel in your brain. A five year old could look at that argument and spot the glaring logical flaw in it.
It will encourage them to band together, alright. Against the government, which has just bent over backwards to make things as difficult as possible for them to use its services.
By the way, in reference to that list you posted: what exactly do you think that proves? As amply demonstrated by my conversation in this thread with shootermcqueen, the sort of “official language” policy you’re talking about has little to nothing to do with the official language policies of other nations. How many of the countries listed as having only one official language refuse to provide any government services in languages other than the official one?
That only works by (again) expecting all the readers here to not have memories of what you posted. You mentioned culture several times, that is more than just government, stop being cute by insulting the intelligence of others, I don’t think you will convince anyone today with the argument that your opponent is drunk.
If the government is forbidden by law to conduct any business with its citizens and residents except in its official language, that stops the flow of ideas to those citizens/residents who do not know the official language.
This is a bad thing, especially considering that the ideas in question include ones like “Tax returns must be filed by April 15”, “The Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires all workplaces to have proper fire exits”, and “Driving with this temporary permit between the hours of sunset and sunrise is illegal”. Those are some ideas that I really want to see flowing uninterruptedly to the people who need to know them, whether or not those people can speak English.
As noted several times by other posters, any designation of English as the “official” language of the US is either an empty gesture (if it doesn’t actually forbid the use of other languages) or an inefficient and stupid restriction on governmental communication (if it does forbid their use).
Yes, it is referring to your “thanks for your help” you pointed that by his “own criteria he has built an argument for having the U.S. become” a one official language country too. That was not his intention and you know it.
What you demonstrated with your answer was how an ignorant you are on the histories that show how many of those countries used the official language as an item of repression of others. Unity is not a good point to bring in favor of a “one language only” position. Humanity was not a part of the enforcement of the “official language”.
Not according to this website. This website gives English as the official language and Gilbertese as the de facto language of the population. This site tells you a bit about where English is understood in the country.
Your assertions about Hindi and English as the official languages of India is also in error. See here and here.
Some other have asked you this before, perhaps in this thread, but certainly in other threads; however, I suddenly feel the need to ask you now: Do you really think it’s not possible to check your outlandish claims or are you merely repeating the outlandish claims of others because you really don’t know how to check them yourself?
It would do nothing of the sort. It would say “Come here, become one of us.”
I think you would agree that the more we can understand one another the better, right? And one extreme we have everyone sopeaking the same language. On the other we have peolpe speaking hundreds of different languages. I posit that the shooting for the former extreme (not that it will ever be reached) is better for unity, cohesion, and just understanding each other.
(Bolding mine) The part I bolded looks brand spanking new to me, If I recall correctly tom’s repeated claim is that they are learning English as quickly as previous immigrant groups. If you know differetnly, please provide a cite. If you don’t, please see that by adding that phrase you altered the argument. My point along those lines is that they would be encouraged to adopt the language MORE quickly.
I don’t think so. Do all countries that have a sole official language have the same sign hanging around their necks? That’s not the way I take it.
I seemed to have hit a nerve here. Good. There is still hope for you. And I see now that maybe your “joking” before wasn’t so much “joking” after all. Hmmm.
GUFFAW!!! Going to another country and instead of whining I accept things for what they are, take no personal insult in it, and do what will benefit me, and that’s being willing to roll over and be kicked? Heavens—I might need to write Safire and have him explain to me this strange idiom “willing to be rolled over and kicked”, because it must not mean what I think it means.
Right back at ya.
Right now, the U.S. has no official language, although most everyone around the world would probably agree that we are an English-speaking nation. If we enshrined English, no problem, no surprise (as to the language). If we enshrined English and X (Spanish), that changes the face of the U.S. to the rest of the world. In a positive way to Latin America, and a negative way to the rest of the world. More inclusionary to Latin America, more exclusionary to the rest of the world.
[/QUOTE]
I’d say he is still more likely to move to the U.S. Especially since, as I understand, it’s so difficult to emigrate to New Zealand. But even New Zealand aside, he will move to where he thinks he has the best opportunity to succeed. The U/S/ will still be rich in opportunity, even if it requires a little more work on the immigrants part. PLUS, I fully expect there to be help for him from private organizations. It’s not as if as soon as english is declared the official language ogf governement that there will be NO WAY to access information like tax forms and drivers license booklets/exams in just as many languages they’re available in now.
Well, I just explained it in a way that a four year old should be able to understand it. So there!!!
Oh, come on. Simpy declaring a single language for the government = making things as difficult as possible for them to avail themselves of its services? I think you miss the mark by a lightyear. You may want to recalibrate you hyperbole catapult.
Well, as I explained, it went to show that declaring a single official langauge shold not be viewed as extreme or draconian. It is actually the norm. That was the only reason. Nothing more, nothing less.
You relayed a story about a Chinese business in the U.S. attracting Mexican patrons. You ended that paragraph with: “It is part of the American culture alright, too bad it is not good enough for people like you”, clearly implying that I have a problem with that. I don’t. If you insist that I do, show where I’ve said as much. If you cannot, and you can’t, I would ask and expect you to retract that statement. If not, that is a reflection on you, not me.
To help you out in the future, let me say that I do not think that the government should tell businesses what language they can advertise in or what language is spoken in the establishment. I do wish that English was even more prevalent than it is and I think that declaring English the official language would move us closer to that goal. But even if English is the official language for government, I would be completely against them imposing restrictions on any establishment. Well maybe one: all heaslth and safety information must be made available in Eanglish, along with whatever other language(s) the establishment thinks prudent.
Well—…well—…well, I guess that settles that! :rolleyes:
I’m glad you were able to grasp that. I tried to make it obvious enough even for you. Though I did consider adding “Poopie-Head” at the end. Come to think of it, I probably should have. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
A question as to this list of countries with official languages; what proportion of them have this as a solely ceremonial affair and which actually only provide documents in a certain language, as magellan would like?
'Cos there’s a pretty big difference between “Sure, whatever, we’ll have an official language” and “All paperwork must be in this language. All government business must be in this language”. I’m pretty surprised this information isn’t on the linked cite, actually, since grouping it as it has been done would tend to inflate the numbers. And hey, that would just be misleading.
You are correct, there are two different issues. One is should there be an official language. Subsequent to that is what does that really mean from a practical standpoint. Idon’t however, thiink the site is misleading as the information goes to the first point.
Stop including culture then. Stick to government. That is why is so good not having unlimited edits in the SDMB, you cannot hide your past here.
Ok then, the proposed law is pointless. That was easy.
What is not, is the expected lawsuits that I see coming from proponents and opponents of the law if it comes to pass, the proponents will protest the law is not going far enough and the opponents will find it too restrictive. (here I think the money that will be spent on litigation alone will surpass any savings you expect by limiting any government effort to one language only)
It will all depend on the details and who is enforcing the law. If president Reagan or both Bushes were president if such a law was approved, I would had few reservations, with a Tancredo as president, for example, I would not have any confidence in the way his administration would enforce the law.
The problem here is that you have mentioned Tancredo as your hero before, so don’t expect me to believe your comforting language* over here.
Or like Native Americans in the past said: it looks like a forked tongue.
I’m afraid I was implying *you * were being misleading. Since your point in posting it was to show that it “…is far from some drastic, draconian notion” - i’d take that to mean you were attempting to use it to support your views on what that means from a practical standpoint. Since making a language official with no practical differences wouldn’t be drastic or draconian and no-one’s saying it is, and all.
Whether the site itself is being misleading depends on its aims. An excerpt of their agenda;
These all seem like practical points to me. Certainly the information itself goes to the first point. But is it intended to deliberately mislead people into thinking it’s for the second point? Are they perhaps using the list to try and make people think that these countries have situations in place similar to the ones they’d want in? I can’t tell. But it could certainly do with a better label.
Regardless if I replied to sarcasm, the reply included the explanation. It is your problem if you ignore that same language is not the same as unity in a country. When one points out that inhuman measures were used in several “same language” efforts in other countries and you ignore it, then I have to assume something else from you…
