« Once a nimrod, always a nimrod | Main | THIS is journalistic integrity? »
Much love to Language Log for this quote from James D. Nicoll:
The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.The hilarity in the original "Speak English, Your(sic) in America Now" article that inspired the Language Log post is even better when you keep Nicoll's quote in mind.
Is it just me, or are the most rabid "English - only" devotees simply unable to write a proper sentence in the language they defend so stridently?
Technorati Tags: Language
Posted by John C. Welch at 16:20 | Permalink
Comments
The original article was painful to read, and some of the comments were even worse, especially when the people berating the original poster for her language sounded like they could use a good course of Remedial English 101. *sigh*
The Nicoll quote is paraphrased on this shirt, which is fun to wear around editors and proofreaders at work... especially after they've had a long week of dealing with authors who know their topic but who don't have a handle on proper sentence structure.
Posted by: Debbie G | July 13, 2007 5:07 PM
How about if you just want to be part of the 'I want a universal language' crowd? It doesn't have to be English - I'd just like everyone speaking one common language.
While I'm not defending the motives of many of the 'English-Only America' folks, I do believe that non-fluency in English negatively impacts the integration of people into American society. Pressure from society to adopt the 'native' tongue served America well in the past. I think there is still some benefit to retaining it.
Posted by: Kevin | July 13, 2007 5:38 PM
As a small defense of the "English - only" argument... if such people can't even write their OWN language properly, what makes you think they'd be able to hold any sort of grasp on another, even one as similar as Spanish? If these people aren't even qualified to read and write their OWN language, their heads would explode if they had to do the same for more than one. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, except I'd probably have to clean up after them.
Posted by: Arden | July 14, 2007 3:55 AM
Kevin, it's been tried before. Look up "esperanto".
Posted by: John C. Welch | July 14, 2007 10:14 AM
The problem with the English-only and "universal language" ideas is that there is no such thing as *one* English. Which English shall we use? British English? (which of the umpteen British varieties?) American English? Which kind? (South? NY? CA?) Despite whatever your English teachers in school made you believe, there is no such thing as proper English.
Further, saying that someone is too dumb to speak their own language shows a lack of understanding about language. Sure, they may speak a different variety than you (and OK, maybe their spelling sucks, although we aren't talking about orthography here), but they are human beings and are thusly (barring brain injury) capable of learning and using a language. And I would argue that that is EXACTLY what they are doing (they *are* communicating, aren't they?), even if their grammar and use does not match your own (or that of some imaginary academy).
It is a slippery slope to equate another's lack of education or fluency in your variety of English with intelligence or worth of that individual. This is a class/culture issue, not an issue of grammatical errors.
Posted by: Empty Set | July 15, 2007 4:19 AM
There are new dictionaries every year, and every one is different. Language is fashion: there are popular trends, there are obscure rebellions, and every group customizes it in an attempt to define and express their own personality. God help us when the city council decides they need to choose our clothes.
Posted by: MonkeyT | July 15, 2007 8:27 AM
Esperanto's not really a fair comparison. The only way a language will ever become 'universal' is by having some kind of critical mass to begin with. And the U.S. English vs. British English is a minor tangent at best. The question is what value (or not) there is in having people be able to easily communicate with and understand one another. The vast majority of (English-speaking) Americans have no trouble communicating with the vast majority of (English-speaking) Brits.
Political correctness aside, people immigrating to America while having no desire to learn English is not a good thing. Yes, we should be tolerant of people's culture and the difficulty of learning English (in the short-term), and we shouldn't discriminate against them on that basis. But, if I was going to move to Russia (long-term), I'd plan on learning Russian. And I'd feel like an idiot arguing that the rest of that country should take pains to accommodate me if I didn't (or wasn't going to) do so.
Posted by: Kevin | July 15, 2007 1:05 PM
My US versus British English comment was in response to people talking about grammar/spelling/etc… not English as a universal language.
Yes, having a 'universal' language (linguists call it a lingua franca - what? not an English term?!?) is quite useful… and I would argue that English already holds that honor. The Internet is English-speaking, air traffic control is English-speaking, and I can think of numerous other examples where English reigns supreme. I don't see why we need to force English down anyone's throat. They've already swallowed.
I would like to see some evidence of immigrants in America that have no desire to learn English. I don't believe this at all. And even if they exist… so what? Their children will speak English. I guarantee it. My great grandparents immigrated to the US and never learned English. Was it because they didn't want to? Or because it was too hard? I have no idea. But they didn't. Needless to say that was "corrected" within one generation. I have a feeling that I know where this discussion is going (namely south of the border), but I believe that this idea of immigrants being resistant to learning English is a total and utter myth. If you can name me three people in all of the US that were children of immigrants that can't speak English, I'll believe you.
Posted by: Empty Set | July 15, 2007 6:42 PM
If you can name me three people in all of the US that were children of immigrants that can't speak English, I'll believe you."Won't", not "can't". There's a huge gulf between those two words, and what the "'mericuns speak english only" crowd is saying is that they *won't* learn english.
Posted by: John C. Welch | July 16, 2007 7:34 AM
Well, if no one was resistant to learning & speaking English, there wouldn't be a backlash against things like declaring English the national language. In your great-grandparents day, it was assumed that immigrants make learning English a priority, or at the very least, English would be the primary language of their children. I don't think one can argue that the same assumption holds true today.
The native-Spanish speaking percentage of the U.S. population has only grown in the past 50 years, and the number of U.S. services offered in Spanish has grown with it. Who knows how long that trend will continue?
Personally, I don't care about the legal aspect. I'm not a member of the 'You're in America, so speak English' crowd. But I do believe that with all the intolerance prevalent in America today, to choose to live here and not make learning & speaking English a priority is to invite discrimination.
The Hispanic, Asian, and Middle-Eastern families that live near me (specifically the ones that don't speak English) are socially isolated - they do not socialize in neighborhood events, and their children do not play with the other neighborhood children (and my family is the only caucasian one on my block). My daughter's favorite playmate is the daughter of one of our next door neighbors (a English-fluent Indian family). My other next door neighbor is a Persian family, who speaks little to no English, and whose only regular visitors are other Persian-speaking people.
I would like to have a better relationship with my neighbors. The lack of common language hinders that. I don't want to see anyone coming to this country discriminated against on the basis of their race or nationality. I do want the people in my community to actually participate in my community, so I'm in favor of anything that encourages making learning English a priority.
Posted by: Kevin | July 16, 2007 12:03 PM
"Is it just me, or are the most rabid "English - only" devotees simply unable to write a proper sentence in the language they defend so stridently?
Well they sure as hell better forget about the foreigners and use that energy learning Spanish. *rimshot*
Posted by: Spacemonkey | July 16, 2007 12:32 PM
Well, if no one was resistant to learning & speaking English, there wouldn't be a backlash against things like declaring English the national language. In your great-grandparents day, it was assumed that immigrants make learning English a priority, or at the very least, English would be the primary language of their children. I don't think one can argue that the same assumption holds true today.The reason I'm against it has nothing to do with any of your reasons. I'm against it because the measures that a lot of these bills push are stupid. Things like forbidding "official" signs in any language but English, etc. You want a great example of what happens when you care more about the name of the language than the intelligence behind the words, look at some of the idiocy in Quebec. Before you say "Well that's an extreme case", dude, this country is nothing if not extreme. There's no one who can point to any hard, solid, untainted proof that declaring an "Official Language" will have any net effect beyond increasing the size of government, and pandering to extremists.
The native-Spanish speaking percentage of the U.S. population has only grown in the past 50 years, and the number of U.S. services offered in Spanish has grown with it. Who knows how long that trend will continue?
Until the majority of immigrants starts speaking french? Dude, that's what I call an inane stat. Look at the immigration, hell, restrict it to legal, and look at the languages that most of those immigrants speak. It ain't french, it ain't german. It's Spanish, with Chinese/pan-asian languages running a close second, if not about to overtake. I got news for you, go to a well - organize d Chinatown, and see how much Chinese services you see. Why? Not because OMGTEHCHINKSARETAKINGOVER!!!!111 But because it makes sense not to throw up stupid language barriers just because some dumbass with a penis issue is all insecure and whiny. WTF, should Cops not be allowed to talk to suspects or witnesses in anything but english? that's a service. Would you want crimes to go unsolved because some dipshit passed a law that forbade the cops from speaking anything but English? How about firemen? Should they be banned from speaking anything but english? I guess if you don't speak english, "Die in a fire" should become a reality.
It's fun to think of "services" as the perennial "press 1 for english, parte dos para español", but "services" cover a lot of things that can bite you right in the ass if you get too jiggy.
There is a gulf between "encouraging" and "refusing to speak anything but".
Posted by: John C. Welch | July 16, 2007 3:54 PM
There's no one who can point to any hard, solid, untainted proof that declaring an "Official Language" will have any net effect beyond increasing the size of government, and pandering to extremists.I can. There'd be a clear and tangible savings in dollars for every document that federal/state/local government agencies didn't have to produce in multiple languages. But frankly, I think the social reasons I gave previously are ultimately more important.
But because it makes sense not to throw up stupid language barriers just because some dumbass with a penis issue is all insecure and whiny.
I got news for you, go to a well - organize d Chinatown, and see how much Chinese services you see. Why? Not because OMGTEHCHINKSARETAKINGOVER!!!!Tone down the rant. Your point is hard to follow when you portray everyone who doesn't agree with you as insane xenophobics.
WTF, should Cops not be allowed to talk to suspects or witnesses in anything but english? that's a service. Would you want crimes to go unsolved because some dipshit passed a law that forbade the cops from speaking anything but English? How about firemen? Should they be banned from speaking anything but english? I guess if you don't speak english, "Die in a fire" should become a reality.Should these cops & fireman be 'banned' from speaking other languages? Um, no?
Should they be required to staff people who speak other languages? Do the vast majority of (non-emergency) services you didn't mention have the same compelling reason to offer support in multiple languages? Also, no.
Boiling this down, there are 3 basic takes on this:
A) Being a non-English speaking resident in the U.S. is harder than it should be. More accommodation (government/social/financial) should be made to aid people living in the U.S. who do not speak English.
B) Being a non-English speaking resident in the U.S. is easier than it should be. Less accommodation (government/social/financial) should be made to aid people living in the U.S. who do not speak English.
C) Being a non-English speaking resident in the U.S. is as easy/hard as it should be. No significant change in accommodation (government/social/financial) should be made to aid people living in the U.S. who do not speak English.
I've yet to see a compelling argument for case A. I also think that while we're not terribly far from case C, we have been inching in the direction of case B over the last 25 years and I'd like to see that trend reverse itself (at roughly the same slow pace).
Posted by: Kevin | July 16, 2007 5:16 PM
John: OK, I can revise… show me three people who won't speak English. It just doesn't happen. (as mad as bilingualism might make the "firsters").
Kevin: Actually, the experience of my great-grandparents is much like the Mexican-American experience today. They lived in ghettos of a large US city where they were neighbors of other like-speaking immigrants. (I guess that's basically the definition of a ghetto, but I digress). Yes, they spoke their native tongue their entire lives. But their children did not. I submit that the same thing will happen for Mexican progeny. (I can tell you that this is true from personal experience.) What to do with the Spanish speakers in the meantime? I'm not sure… but I can give you a couple different reasons why case A is not the worst thing in the world. What about emergency medical care? What about rules of the road? (can't speak English = can't drive?) I could go on and on probably, but to me the point is that the government is in service to its citizenry. If that citizenry speaks Spanish, then the government has a responsibility to serve them. To do any less is showing preferential treatment in my opinion. (notice that I said citizens, not illegals).
P.S. How's everybody creating these cool blocked quotes?
Posted by: Empty Set | July 17, 2007 12:16 AM
Ah, but your great-grandparents made it a priority for their children to learn English (quite possibly as their primary language) because things like driving (and, yes, hospital visits) would be difficult to impossible without learning it. I'm not suggesting we ignore the realities of the populace for emergency services, but I think (legal) immigrants should make learning English a priority - I don't think that's too much to ask of people who want to live in this country.
If you live in a like-speaking ghetto, and all the daily required services to live are available in your language, don't you think that would slow the English-adoption rate? I have no data to say *how* much it would slow, but I have a hard time believing it wouldn't slow it somewhat.
Again, if I moved to Russia (to live), I'd expect to learn Russian. I wouldn't expect every road sign, form, hospital & policeman to know English. Spanish is tricky in the U.S., primarily because illegal immigration has been allowed to happen for so long, many U.S. states now have substantial non-English speaking populations, something that would not be the case were it not for illegal immigration.
And the quoting is done using the html blockquote tag.
Posted by: Kevin O'Shea | July 17, 2007 12:47 PM
If you live in a like-speaking ghetto, and all the daily required services to live are available in your language, don't you think that would slow the English-adoption rate? I have no data to say *how* much it would slow, but I have a hard time believing it wouldn't slow it somewhat.
This may be true to a degree, but only for that generation; and since they, being immigrants, are already speakers of another language, they have a much larger hill to climb. Much much larger than their children. It probably does not matter how much (if they did at all, I honestly don't know) that they encouraged their children to learn English. The prevailing culture will ensure that this happens. In fact, their children continued to live in said ghetto, attend church in the old language, go to the bakery and butcher in their old language, and even learn the old language in grade school. Still, they *somehow* managed to learn English as native speakers. One generation. They *lived* their parent's language (only that spoken at home) and still they became native English speakers.
A different way think about this: imagine trying to bring up your child in the US as a monolingual native speaker of something other than English. If you somehow manage to pull it off (you'd have to live in a very remote place in my opinion), they will begin their English the second they step through the front door of kindergarten. That doesn't even account for the myriad of English language sources that the child will be bombarded with (especially in a media age - it might have been different in an agricultural 1901, but not much). I can agree that those who speak another language (and do not speak English) will face bigger economic challenges than English speakers, but I still maintain that this gets "corrected" in one generation. The "firster" crowd will have you believe that the Mexicans are taking over the US and soon we will all be speaking Spanish. That is nonsense. The Canadians aren't all speaking French are they?
P.S. I should probably disclose that I have a linguistics educational background. Not that that makes my opinion any more valid… it just shows where my bigotry is going to lie. :-)
Posted by: Empty Set | July 17, 2007 6:16 PM
The "firster" crowd will have you believe that the Mexicans are taking over the US and soon we will all be speaking Spanish. That is nonsense. The Canadians aren't all speaking French are they?Really? You want to use Canada/Quebec as an example of something good from a language perspective? Because everyone I know who isn't a native French speaker from there despises the added complexity of dealing with Quebec for this very reason.
Non-fluency in English may correct itself in one generation. The larger cultural issues can take considerably longer. I don't think our society is served by cultural enclaves. Immigrants (like my grandparents) should be encouraged to join & participate in the culture, not barricade themselves against it for as long as possible.
I see (daily) negative results of immigrants who are socially isolated (in my neighborhood, and in my job). I fail to see any benefit to offering (non-emergency) services in a myriad of languages other than to slow the integration of non-English speaking people into mainstream society.
Posted by: Kevin O'Shea | July 17, 2007 8:02 PM
I can. There'd be a clear and tangible savings in dollars for every document that federal/state/local government agencies didn't have to produce in multiple languages. But frankly, I think the social reasons I gave previously are ultimately more important.No, money is. Social adjustment happens in too many ways to track or predict. But when you're talking about creating law and bureaucracy, money is very important. As we see later, even by your own admission, you're still going to need information in multiple languages anyway, so let's just kill this myth that it would be english *only*. As well, the minot cost savings you're talking about would be completely killed by the additional people and infrastructure required to enforce language laws. Law enforcement, and the administration to administer them does not come for free.
Tone down the rant. Your point is hard to follow when you portray everyone who doesn't agree with you as insane xenophobics.Um, no, it's my site? You don't like it, go elsewhere. Secondly, they're not insane, they're not thinking beyond snappy slogans and emotional/racist pandering, so it's not insanity, it's stupidity. There's a difference.
Should they be required to staff people who speak other languages? Do the vast majority of (non-emergency) services you didn't mention have the same compelling reason to offer support in multiple languages? Also, no.So you're saying that it's completely okay for first responders to be unable to communicate with people in an emergency. What about people who are visiting, who have enough english 'to get by', i.e. they can ask where the airport/bathroom/Empire State Building is, but not enough to communicate with first responders under stress, or in any detail.
I guess they don't need protection any more than US citizens should expect that even though there's a lot of people with marginal non-english skills in Europe, it's okay if they can't properly call the police/fire department, because if they wanted help, they'd be fluent in every language of every country they visit before they go, right? So you have no problem with OTHER countries refusing to assist US citizens in emergencies in any language other than their native one.
P.S. How's everybody creating these cool blocked quotes?Behold the power of CSS. Just use blockquote tags.
If you live in a like-speaking ghetto, and all the daily required services to live are available in your language, don't you think that would slow the English-adoption rate? I have no data to say *how* much it would slow, but I have a hard time believing it wouldn't slow it somewhat.Funny how the "ENGLISH ONLY" crowd never seems to have any data that show these insane number of immigrants who refuse to learn english. Note: refuse. Deliberately refuse to learn any english, even if they're born here. I've yet to see any good data on that, yet it seems to be happening all the time. Funny that.
Again, if I moved to Russia (to live), I'd expect to learn Russian. I wouldn't expect every road sign, form, hospital & policeman to know English.However, if you were in an area with a lot of US expats, or a lot of english - speaking tourists, you'd expect, and it would be reasonable that emergency personnel would have people on staff who could speak english. It's also interesting how so many common signs don't require any language. Almost as if there were some international standard designed to take language barriers out of the equation...nah, that would be too sensible. No, no, you simple have to be completely fluent in every language of every country you'll be visiting, or suffer the consequences.
Spanish is tricky in the U.S., primarily because illegal immigration has been allowed to happen for so long, many U.S. states now have substantial non-English speaking populations, something that would not be the case were it not for illegal immigration.Wow, that's really astoundingly ignorant, and ignores the millions of legal immigrants from spanish speaking places, like oh, Cuba, Puerto Rico, et al. I grew up in Miami, we had a lot of hispanic immigrants, legal mind you, from all over south and central america, and while there were, and are, huge parts of south florida that are predominantly spanish speaking, speaking spanish was never a "requirement". Not being a jerk was far more important. And the kids of the immigrants? All learned english, even is spanish was the main language at home. Wow. Imagine that. Being hispanic doesn't make you illegal or a stubborn ass refusing to learn english. How'd THAT happen.
Really? You want to use Canada/Quebec as an example of something good from a language perspective? Because everyone I know who isn't a native French speaker from there despises the added complexity of dealing with Quebec for this very reason.That's not the language, that's just the Quebecois having a really high pinhead ratio.
Non-fluency in English may correct itself in one generation. The larger cultural issues can take considerably longer. I don't think our society is served by cultural enclaves. Immigrants (like my grandparents) should be encouraged to join & participate in the culture, not barricade themselves against it for as long as possible.That's really ignoring the entire history of immigration from non-english speaking countries. The first generation ALWAYS has a harder time learning english, if they manage it at all, (at the fluency level, not the "getting by" level), because the older you get, the harder it is to learn a radically different language and way of thinking. The next generations always do better there. It's just that we're seeing lots of first generation immigrants, and ASSUMING that the fact they don't learn english instantly is a sign of an attitude problem. That's a stupid, and quite frankly, racist attitude. You think it's so easy? Go to a country where you're not particularly liked, and treated poorly solely because you're from the US, and become fully fluent in a language and different culture within the time frame you seem to expect everyone else to. We'll make it interesting, and say you need to live in Beijing, but far from any expats. Wouldn't want to slow down your assimilation rate.
Posted by: John C. Welch | July 18, 2007 4:42 PM
So you're saying that it's completely okay for first responders to be unable to communicate with people in an emergency.Is it okay? Depends on your definition of 'okay'.
Should it be expected? Absolutely, when the people in question do not speak the predominant language. Unless you're planning on staffing for every living language in the world, it's gonna happen. The only question is where you draw the line.
So you have no problem with OTHER countries refusing to assist US citizens in emergencies in any language other than their native one.Who said anything about 'refusing to assist' anyone? I have absolutely no problem with non-English speaking countries not offering services in English - in fact, I expect it. As someone who has traveled quite a bit, it's obviously convenient that English is as common as it is and that in many countries, you can get by quite well on English alone. But never would I expect that a non-English speaking should provide me with English services because (duh) I went there knowing that English was not their official language.
Funny how the "ENGLISH ONLY" crowd never seems to have any data that show these insane number of immigrants who refuse to learn english. Note: refuse. Deliberately refuse to learn any english, even if they're born here. I've yet to see any good data on that, yet it seems to be happening all the time.Again, I never said and 'insane number of immigrants', 'deliberately refuse', or 'happening all the time'. I said (quite rationally) that if all the daily required services to live are available in your language it would 'slow' the English-adoption rate 'somewhat'. Apparently since you can't argue that, you're going to respond as if I was a neo-con nutjob.
Should I likewise start assuming you're a vegan communist who only wears hemp?
However, if you were in an area with a lot of US expats, or a lot of english - speaking tourists, you'd expect, and it would be reasonable that emergency personnel would have people on staff who could speak english.I might expect it to be likely that they'd have staff who could speak english. I would not expect that they should, or think I was being oppressed if they didn't.
It's also interesting how so many common signs don't require any language. Almost as if there were some international standard designed to take language barriers out of the equation...nah, that would be too sensible. No, no, you simple have to be completely fluent in every language of every country you'll be visiting, or suffer the consequences.Tangent much?
I, too, believe in and appreciate universal icon signage. Can't we all just get along?
Spanish is tricky in the U.S., primarily because illegal immigration has been allowed to happen for so long, many U.S. states now have substantial non-English speaking populations, something that would not be the case were it not for illegal immigration.Um. No it's not, and no it doesn't. You're choosing to take everything I say in the worst possible way, so it's obvious that a rational discussion isn't going to happen.Wow, that's really astoundingly ignorant, and ignores the millions of legal immigrants from spanish speaking places, like oh, Cuba, Puerto Rico, et al.
Perhaps instead of 'substantial', I should have said 'substantially higher'. From 2000 to 2005, almost half of new immigrants to the U.S. are estimated to be illegal, and the vast majority of them are Spanish speaking. It is indisputable that were you to magically remove all illegal immigrants from the U.S. today, the percentage of non-English speakers in the U.S. population would drop considerably.
I did not say if it weren't for illegal immigration everyone would speak English (though you chose to respond as if that was my implication). All I was trying to say is illegal immigration is responsible for a considerably higher percentage of Spanish-only speakers in the U.S. Again, I don't think you really want to try to argue that's not true, do you?
Wow. Imagine that. Being hispanic doesn't make you illegal or a stubborn ass refusing to learn english. How'd THAT happen.Again, never said or implied it did.
That's really ignoring the entire history of immigration from non-english speaking countries. The first generation ALWAYS has a harder time learning english, if they manage it at all...That's a stupid, and quite frankly, racist attitude.Ha! You don't know me, but I'd love to see you pick me out of a crowd as 'racist'.
I'm guessing your definition of racist is similar to our president's definition of terrorist. Which is to say, anyone who doesn't agree with you.
You think it's so easy?No. Never said it was.
Go to a country where you're not particularly liked, and treated poorly solely because you're from the US, and become fully fluent in a language and different culture within the time frame you seem to expect everyone else to.Funny, I never specified a timeframe. I said that I think immigrants 'should be encouraged to join & participate in the culture, not barricade themselves against it for as long as possible'. If I moved to Beijing with the intention of living there, that's exactly what I would do.
By the way, I'm currently waiting for my EU citizenship, with plans to likely move there, so I'm not saying all this as someone who can just say this because I know I'm never going to do it. If I decide to live in a non-English speaking country (probably not), learning the local language to the best of my ability is at the top of my list. So, sorry, I just don't feel sympathy for someone who voluntarily chooses to permanently come to this country, and then argues that there should be greater accommodation for their native language. I suppose those that do are truly embracing the American way, however - a sense of entitlement and arrogance that everyone else should adjust to them instead of the other way around.
And the reason I probably won't move to a non-English speaking EU country? Because I know learning another language at my age is hard. I suppose I could alternatively choose to ignore that fact, and then expend my efforts on getting their society to cater more to me, but then they'd all look at me (rightly so) as a dumbass American.
Posted by: Kevin | July 18, 2007 7:37 PM
Should it be expected? Absolutely, when the people in question do not speak the predominant language. Unless you're planning on staffing for every living language in the world, it's gonna happen. The only question is where you draw the line.Common sense. If you have a large spanish or mandarin chinese population, then those get priority. Simple demographic analysis guides you here. However, if you allow that exception to the glories of "English only", then a large part of your cost savings goes away.
But never would I expect that a non-English speaking should provide me with English services because (duh) I went there knowing that English was not their official languageNo Kevin, I didn't say that. I said, refusing to provide any assistance in english. Not "happening to be able to", but rather, even if they HAVE people on staff who speak english, refusing to help you in that language. Just got shot? Sorry, no talking to the doctors for you, *even if they speak english*. Hope they guess correctly at any allergies. No police report for you, you don't speak the language, so your crime doesn't count. Of course the "English only" crowd will start allowing for exceptions, and then, well, where's your cost savings?
I said (quite rationally) that if all the daily required services to live are available in your language it would 'slow' the English-adoption rate 'somewhat'. Apparently since you can't argue that, you're going to respond as if I was a neo-con nutjob. Should I likewise start assuming you're a vegan communist who only wears hemp?Talk about tangents. I'm asking for numbers, proof. You're saying "This definitely happens". Well, if it does, then where's the money? Your political views don't make the stupidity of the "ENGLISH IS THE ONLY LANGUAGE OF AMERICA" platform any more or less stupid. You're saying that there is a definite effect, I'm saying that I'd like some real data on it. You want to pass new laws and increase the size of government, the least you can do is have real data to back it up.
I might expect it to be likely that they'd have staff who could speak english. I would not expect that they should, or think I was being oppressed if they didn't.I bet your family would be pretty pissed if you died from a simple medicinal allergy because a doctor that spoke english refused to do so because of an idiotic government policy.
Um. No it's not, and no it doesn't. You're choosing to take everything I say in the worst possible way, so it's obvious that a rational discussion isn't going to happen.Ah, the classic. "You're not agreeing with me, nor are you speaking to me in the way I think I should be spoken to so OBVIOUSLY, *you're* incapable of being rational. Somehow, I know that if I had the same attitude, but agreed with everything you said like a bobblehead, you'd think I was totally rational.
Perhaps instead of 'substantial', I should have said 'substantially higher'. From 2000 to 2005, almost half of new immigrants to the U.S. are estimated to be illegal, and the vast majority of them are Spanish speaking. It is indisputable that were you to magically remove all illegal immigrants from the U.S. today, the percentage of non-English speakers in the U.S. population would drop considerably.Let me see if I get this right. The largest source of immigrants, legal or not is Mexico. By a factor of two. Mexico is not an English - speaking country. Therefore, if you removed all the illegal mexicans (who don't speak english), the number of people who don't speak english would drop by that amount.
Did you actually spend a lot of time with that astounding display of the bloody obvious? I'd hope not, because as a logical argument, it's one that a sixth grader could come up with. That's like saying if you stop selling citrus fruits, your orange sales will drop.
Restating the obvious is not in fact a great justification for your argument that forcing everyone to immediately learn english, and leaving them in the cold if they don't or can't would bring great cost savings and other social benefits to the country.
I did not say if it weren't for illegal immigration everyone would speak English (though you chose to respond as if that was my implication). All I was trying to say is illegal immigration is responsible for a considerably higher percentage of Spanish-only speakers in the U.S. Again, I don't think you really want to try to argue that's not true, do you?You're still saying "most of our immigrants don't speak english natively, so getting rid of the illegals that don't speak english will drop their numbers". That's not a justification for what you want with regard to english only law, that's simple math. If the largest source of immigrants were China, then your theory would STILL apply, because it's so non-specific that it has nothing to do with any specific country, just all the ones that don't speak english as a primary language, which is um, most of them.
I'm sure that passes for great proof in your neighborhood, but around here, it's "DUH" logic. Care to provide some *analysis* of that point, or is that all you have?
Ha! You don't know me, but I'd love to see you pick me out of a crowd as 'racist'.Considering you paint me as irrational for not agreeing with you, I'd say you have no moral high ground there Kev. However, you are not arguing for your point with regard to any other immigrant population other than Mexicans. You're not bitching about the Chinese, the Koreans, or even Cubans or Brazilians. Just Mexicans. "Racist" is not the most precise term for your arguments, but it's the one that's the least awkward to use.
I'm guessing your definition of racist is similar to our president's definition of terrorist. Which is to say, anyone who doesn't agree with you.
As far as if *you* personally are a racist, I don't actually care. You want to sit in your basement and spank it while you dream of being appointed Lord High Lyncher, I don't care. You want to sit in your basement and spank it to "I have a dream", I don't care. I know this is a hard concept, but I don't know you, so on a personal level, i don't care about you, nor your habits, good or ill.
And the reason I probably won't move to a non-English speaking EU country? Because I know learning another language at my age is hard. I suppose I could alternatively choose to ignore that fact, and then expend my efforts on getting their society to cater more to me, but then they'd all look at me (rightly so) as a dumbass American.Yet you are in favor of laws forcing people to do things that you acknowledge as not just hard, but too hard for you to do in what you would consider a reasonable timeframe.
Doesn't that seem just a TAD hypocritical to you?
Posted by: John C. Welch | July 19, 2007 2:46 PM
&;blockquote>Common sense. If you have a large spanish or mandarin chinese population, then those get priority. Simple demographic analysis guides you here. However, if you allow that exception to the glories of "English only", then a large part of your cost savings goes away.Ranking them is easy. It's the cutoff line that's hard. And as for the cost savings, if the only services you're offering in non-English languages are emergency ones (police, fire, hospital), that's still a small percentage of every federal/state/local government form/sign/ballot/etc.
I said, refusing to provide any assistance in english. Not "happening to be able to", but rather, even if they HAVE people on staff who speak english, refusing to help you in that language. Just got shot? Sorry, no talking to the doctors for you, *even if they speak english*. Hope they guess correctly at any allergies. No police report for you, you don't speak the language, so your crime doesn't count. Of course the "English only" crowd will start allowing for exceptions, and then, well, where's your cost savings?Out of curiosity, has there even been a serious possibility of a law passing that made it *illegal* for a responder to speak to someone in a language other than English? You seem to have thrown this in as if it was the standard position of your opponent (something you seem to do a lot). I certainly didn't and wouldn't support something that asinine (and unenforceable to boot).
A more practical question is whether government organizations should have any *responsibility* to offering services in other languages. I argue they should not, though I'd prefer to let them staff people who speak other common languages if they so choose.
Translation: "I can not argue with the common-sense logic of your point, so I will instead demand you produce a study that proves the obvious."I said (quite rationally) that if all the daily required services to live are available in your language it would 'slow' the English-adoption rate 'somewhat'. Apparently since you can't argue that, you're going to respond as if I was a neo-con nutjob. Should I likewise start assuming you're a vegan communist who only wears hemp?Talk about tangents. I'm asking for numbers, proof. You're saying "This definitely happens". Well, if it does, then where's the money? Your political views don't make the stupidity of the "ENGLISH IS THE ONLY LANGUAGE OF AMERICA" platform any more or less stupid. You're saying that there is a definite effect, I'm saying that I'd like some real data on it. You want to pass new laws and increase the size of government, the least you can do is have real data to back it up.
I suspect so as well. Of course, asking doctors to refuse to speak languages they already know is (again) not the prevailing opinion of anyone but the most extreme people on this issue. I realize your arguments don't have to make as much sense if you always paint your opponent with the "insane neo-con looney" brush.I might expect it to be likely that they'd have staff who could speak english. I would not expect that they should, or think I was being oppressed if they didn't.I bet your family would be pretty pissed if you died from a simple medicinal allergy because a doctor that spoke english refused to do so because of an idiotic government policy.
No, actually it's because every other one of your responses starts with you implying I said something that is totally not my position.You're choosing to take everything I say in the worst possible way, so it's obvious that a rational discussion isn't going to happen.Ah, the classic. "You're not agreeing with me, nor are you speaking to me in the way I think I should be spoken to so OBVIOUSLY, *you're* incapable of being rational.
Somehow, I know that if I had the same attitude, but agreed with everything you said like a bobblehead, you'd think I was totally rational.Again, wrong. If there's one thing I hate more that idiotic opponents, it's idiots on my side. I generally feel embarrassed and want to say, "I'm not with stupid."
And yet, you made me spell it out that was because when I made my statement the first time, you claimed it was 'astoundingly ignorant' and 'ignored the millions of legal immigrants from spanish speaking places...'. I too, thought the point was blindingly obvious the first time, but you (again) took my comment as if I was somehow implying that if it weren't for illegal immigration, there'd be no Spanish-speaking people in the U.S.Perhaps instead of 'substantial', I should have said 'substantially higher'......Did you actually spend a lot of time with that astounding display of the bloody obvious? I'd hope not, because as a logical argument, it's one that a sixth grader could come up with.
Considering you paint me as irrational for not agreeing with you, I'd say you have no moral high ground there Kev.Oh, that's not why I think you're irrational (in fact, I never even said that). I said that a rational discussion with you is apparently not going to happen, because you approach the discussion by making misleading statements designed to make your opponents argument sound as extreme as possible. I made my original post in the hopes of constructive discussion - silly me.
Not in the slightest. I said I was in favor of laws that treat others exactly the same way I would expect to be treated.And the reason I probably won't move to a non-English speaking EU country? Because I know learning another language at my age is hard. I suppose I could alternatively choose to ignore that fact, and then expend my efforts on getting their society to cater more to me, but then they'd all look at me (rightly so) as a dumbass American.Yet you are in favor of laws forcing people to do things that you acknowledge as not just hard, but too hard for you to do in what you would consider a reasonable timeframe.
Doesn't that seem just a TAD hypocritical to you?
That's actually the exact opposite of hypocritical.
Posted by: Kevin | July 19, 2007 5:01 PM
Translation: "I can not argue with the common-sense logic of your point, so I will instead demand you produce a study that proves the obvious."REAL translation: I have no numbers of any kind to back up my position. I want to create a bigger government to enforce a law that we all know can't be enforced at any level, based solely on the fact that I don't like the fact that current first-generation immigrants aren't learning english as fast as I deem necessary."
I suspect so as well. Of course, asking doctors to refuse to speak languages they already know is (again) not the prevailing opinion of anyone but the most extreme people on this issue. I realize your arguments don't have to make as much sense if you always paint your opponent with the "insane neo-con looney" brush.You're the one trying to get me to call you that. Your politics don't make your idea any more or less stupid, because the stupidity of it is apolitical. However, actually, yes, you can force doctors to behave a certain way and not do things that they are easily able to do, and are medically sound. As an example, look at how effectively the federal government has instituted a "gag rule" with regard to abortion in federally funded clinics. All you have to do is say "if you don't do what we want, we stop giving you money". Works quite well actually. Abortion, only speaking the "allowed" language, it's all easy to enforce. You just cut off their funding if they get busted speaking the wrong language.
And yet, you made me spell it out that was because when I made my statement the first time, you claimed it was 'astoundingly ignorant' and 'ignored the millions of legal immigrants from spanish speaking places...'. I too, thought the point was blindingly obvious the first time, but you (again) took my comment as if I was somehow implying that if it weren't for illegal immigration, there'd be no Spanish-speaking people in the U.S.No, that's what you wish I said. You keep nattering on about OMGHISPANICS as though if you got rid of all the illegals, your language problem would magically go away. It wouldn't. It would involve fewer people as you said, but legal immigration does not magically make you learn a new language faster. The problem with your statement of the obvious is that you were trying to use it as some form of analysis. That may work with your friends, but here? Nah, not so much. Facts just lay there, and that's allowing for your inability to show real data proving your central point that there are huge numbers of hispanics that refuse to learn english.
I said that a rational discussion with you is apparently not going to happen, because you approach the discussion by making misleading statements designed to make your opponents argument sound as extreme as possible. I made my original post in the hopes of constructive discussion - silly me.Oh don't be silly, you didn't give a rat's fuck about discussion, because it never occured to you that I'd look at (to you) your "well-reasoned" arguments and "scintillating" logic, and say "no, actually, you have no data whatsover, and appear to be basing your argument off of your own personal experience and some wildly weak extrapolation and assumption." In fact, you completely ignored what the post was about, which was that painting English as some kind of "pure" language is hilariously ignorant. You brought a vaguely related argument to a post that was not about "Is english only the way to go" and now you're pissy that you didn't get the reaction you wanted. Wah
Not in the slightest. I said I was in favor of laws that treat others exactly the same way I would expect to be treated.It's your ability to say "It's okay that *I* cannot learn another language quickly, just not for all the immigrants to the us. They need to learn it far quicker, so that I am happy" that makes you hypocritical.That's actually the exact opposite of hypocritical.
Posted by: John C. Welch | July 20, 2007 9:19 PM
All you have to do is say "if you don't do what we want, we stop giving you money". Works quite well actually. Abortion, only speaking the "allowed" language, it's all easy to enforce. You just cut off their funding if they get busted speaking the wrong language.Man, I wasn't even gonna bother responding to your ridiculous comments anymore, but this one's really priceless.
First, the gag rule does not prevent discussion of abortion in 'federally funded clinics'. The GLOBAL gag rule prevents discussion of abortion in federally funded clinics OUTSIDE THE U.S. To do so in the U.S. would be illegal (remember Roe v. Wade?). Either you didn't know that, or you did but you (again) wanted to make your point sound better (and your opponent sound worse) by making a grossly misleading statement.
Second, you're equating the gag rule with the possibility of withholding federal funds from doctors because they speak in a language they know?!?!? Using your gag rule example, I suppose we could do that outside the U.S. (since international aid fund usage doesn't fall under U.S. legal jurisdiction), but such a law in the U.S. would be blatantly unconstitutional, not to mention almost certainly grounds for the loss of the medical license of any doctor who did it. Out of curiosity, since you're so big on wanting a study that proves the obvious, can you provide ANY basis for such a law in the U.S.?
Do you actually believe the shit you're spewing? To refer back to an earlier part of our 'constructive' discussion: As a liberal democrat who probably otherwise holds similar positions to you on other social issues, allow me to say that if you routinely make the same disrespectful, asinine, inflammatory and deliberately misleading arguments against your opponents on other issues as you have on this one, please stop 'helping' even if you agree with my position. I'd be embarrassed to have you 'help' my case.
Posted by: Kevin | July 22, 2007 12:51 AM
The Canadians seem to be able to deal with English and French fairly well, why don't you get advise from Canada about how to deal with these issues, it seems to be able to do a better Job then the States for sure.....
Posted by: Asam Bashir | July 24, 2007 10:01 AM
