The U.S.=the tower of Babel?

[amadeus]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Ah! The ignorance of the young!

Why don't we set up some nice prison camps for those evil non-English speakers too?

Because the population of the USA doesn't speak real English either!

How I miss your condescending tone of voice. If you move to America, just learn the language. If you're going to come here and take advantage of all of our luxuries, you have a responsibility to learn English.

Second, would you care to define "real" English? I'd consider it a regional dialect. If it's not satisfactory to you, perhaps we should call it 'American.'

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by eighty
Yeah maybe if you thought you had a choice. Take immigrants from Laos for example. Do you think they would rather stay in their native country and face genocide or risk moving to America where they may have to learn English, and possibly give up some of their own language? It would be nice if people could stay wherever they wanted.

Well, there are dozens of nations that have at least a similar culture.
They choose to come here over the 100+ other countries in the world...
It just bugs me a little to have the U.S. government underwrite foreign cultures. Democracy functions best in homogenous societies. That doesn't mean homogenuity should be the government program, but neither should stepping in the opposite direction and encouraging people to be as different as possible.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
I'd consider it a regional dialect. If it's not satisfactory to you, perhaps we should call it 'American.'

I thought we already did
Its amazing how well the English speak American though, isn't it?

 

[Pongui]

Why do people immigrate to America? First, you need to ask why did they emigrate. There's a unique story, usually sad, in every emigrant. It's not just the mother country's unemployment rate or history of emigration that makes individuals do it. Immigration shouldn't be seen as a compliment or even appretiation of the accepting nation. That would miss the point. Immigrating is supposed to erase the story, to start a new one.

Many emigrants have their hearts set on high-profile America, and apply. Many people send resumes to high-profile employers like McDonalds and Microsoft, too. To get the job, they need certain qualifications, they should speak the lingo, or be willing to learn it. If they're hired, will they define themselves chiefly as "Microsoft employee"? Of course not. People's identities are deeper and far more interesting than that, if you care to look.


Greadius: "Democracy functions best in homogenous societies. That doesn't mean homogenuity should be the government program, but neither should stepping in the opposite direction and encouraging people to be as different as possible."

Can you elaborate on that first statement? Use plain American.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Immigration shouldn't be seen as a compliment or even appretiation of the accepting nation.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Why would anyone that escape political persecution, social turmoil, or economic malaise NOT appreciate their haven?

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Immigrating is supposed to erase the story, to start a new one.

Exactly. Abandon that culture & language and start anew

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Can you elaborate on that first statement? Use plain American.

Lets see... Democracies function better in homogenous societies.
Simple observation of human nature: you're unlikely to trust strangers with your political fate. However, you are likely to trust people you know share your identical political views with your political fate. A democracy where the establishment of a democratic system, the decision making rules, the rule of law, the economic function, ect. are constantly called into question will have little time and ability to function in an effective manner. If people share general political and social values, many of those functions aren't under constant scrutiny.
For example, in Russia there is very little agreement on what type of government or state the Russian people want to live under. As a result, their democracy is muddled by a multiple division between Communists, Statist, Liberals, xenophobes... the whole gamut of political opinion.
And, obviously, civil wars and seperatism are results of a hetrogenous society unable to compromise on basic views, and lead to miserable, and entirely undemocratic, results.

That does not say homogenuity is necessary for democracy (although agreement on the decision making rules and that there ought to be a democracy is necessary). Nor does it mean multicultural societies cannot be democratic. And it is important to understand that general political values are in no way mutually exclusive to race, ethnicity, or (most of the time) religion.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Second, would you care to define "real" English? I'd consider it a regional dialect. If it's not satisfactory to you, perhaps we should call it 'American.'

I'm glad you missed me.



I mean English, as in the original way it is spoken here in the UK.
(we developed the langauge, hence why it is call 'English')
Here we spell and pronounce the words right.

Calling the langauge 'American'?
Yes! That is actually a good idea!

 

[AVN]

Originally posted by CurtSibling



Here we spell and pronounce the words right.

Calling the langauge 'American'?

Am I the only one who is seeing a contradiction here ?

 

[Pongui]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Lindstrom:
Immigration shouldn't be seen as a compliment or even appretiation of the accepting nation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greadius:
"That makes no sense whatsoever. Why would anyone that escape political persecution, social turmoil, or economic malaise NOT appreciate their haven?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Lindstrom:
Immigrating is supposed to erase the story, to start a new one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greadius:
"Exactly. Abandon that culture & language and start anew."


Do you think most people emigrate because of national economic or political problems, their goal to reside in a country having a superior economy or political process? Remember, these are individuals we're talking about.

About democracy, and social/political differences within. Are you saying that too much debate is possible and undesirable in a democracy?

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Do you think most people emigrate because of national economic or political problems, their goal to reside in a country having a superior economy or political process? Remember, these are individuals we're talking about.

Uhm... yes? Do you know of any other reason?

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
About democracy, and social/political differences within. Are you saying that too much debate is possible and undesirable in a democracy?

That twists the concept. The reason the idea is on the fringes of political science is because it risks being grossly abused, along the line of your question. It would be misunderstanding the idea to limit debate for the sake of creationg a more homogenous society, and hence a better democracy. I don't believe its possible to artificially create one, so I don't think the question is relavant. If an issue has a lot of debate, obviously there is little agreement and need for debate. If an issue has no debate, obviously there is no need for any.

 

[Pongui]

I'm trying to point out that each immigrant has their own unique reasons, which are easy to overlook. If I try to apply your generization right now to you, for example, I'd say that you were born to increase the population of the United States, you posted that reply to increase traffic at this website, and that you're proving the superiority of civfanatics.com by doing so. Of course you know that's absurd. Your parents had their own reasons for having you, you have your own reasons for posting, and you might be here even if this was a trashy site.

In my experience, emigration hinges more on their family situation, and other personal matters, than anything else. They may have a half-dream of starting afresh in the new country, but that can only be a dream. No matter where you go, there you are.

"...a more homogenous society, and hence a better democracy. I don't believe its possible to artificially create one..."

Earlier, you were against policies that would work against homogenity. Now you say policies can't create homogenity. Sounds like you'd prefer no policy.

BTW, this is a fun thread, and you're an excellent debater, Greadius.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
you posted that reply to increase traffic at this website

Exactly, its interesting so I want to see more people post here, i.e. traffic.

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
that you're proving the superiority of civfanatics.com by doing so

YES! Trust me, I've looked, I haven't found better. There are more relevant political discussion, but they tend to be filled with absurdists, close minded people, and heavily populated by immature posters (which the mods take care of here), plus this site has just the right amount of daily traffic where I can read and reply to the interesting threads without spending more time on a message board than I want. I believe civfanatics.com to be a superior message board than any I've been a member of.
And my parents, both immigrants, believe the United States to be a superior country than the one they were born in.

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
In my experience, emigration hinges more on their family situation, and other personal matters, than anything else.

That is extremely vague... what family situation would require someone to pack up and come to America?
I think that the family situation is very important in determining that (if you have dependants you're less likely to). However, examining each step, the FIRST step is that something must occur within their individual minds that leads them to believe they can no longer remain in their culture, and then something has to occur in their minds to make them believe they'd be better off in whatever value system they believe in by moving to the United States.

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Earlier, you were against policies that would work against homogenity. Now you say policies can't create homogenity. Sounds like you'd prefer no policy.

No policy is preferable, if one is necessary I'd prefer if the primary reasoning had nothing to do with generating a homogenous culture.
The closest I get to the idea of creating a homogenous society is what is included in public school cirriculum.

 

[Pongui]

If you say that people leave their countries, instead of their cultures, then I pretty much agree with everything above. Maybe I can agree anyway:

I've met a few people waiting in Canada to get into the 'States. One of them had never actually been in America, but sensed her destiny was to be an American. That was her big goal in life. I guess some people have a spiritual need to be reborn, and see American citizenship as the agent of their transformation. Does your country draw alot of these people? Maybe that's why you insist that immigrants abandon their language and culture to start anew. I said that immigrants suppose they can erase their stories to start new ones (often reinventing the old ones, I suspect), though I don't think that's practical or desirable. I guess immigrants in the 'States are more likely to proclaim themselves "all-American" than immigrants in Canada dubbing themselves "true-Canadian", probably because Canadians don't need to say it, or even say it in any particular laguage.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
I've met a few people waiting in Canada to get into the 'States. One of them had never actually been in America, but sensed her destiny was to be an American.

Never confuse reality with people's perceptions of reality.

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
I guess some people have a spiritual need to be reborn, and see American citizenship as the agent of their transformation.

Reminds me of born against Christians...

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Does your country draw alot of these people?

YES! Countless people look for a new beginning. I'm surounded by them everyday of my life.
In many ways American's are the same way, except we move within the country. That is why its relatively rare to find a family that has lived in one place for generations.

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Maybe that's why you insist that immigrants abandon their language and culture to start anew.

Not really an insistance, more like a preference.
I don't understand why they would want to come to America, live in America, but not be American. Its a great amount of hardship to endure in order to incur more hardship on themselves by refusing to conform to the society they have longed to be a part of.

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
I guess immigrants in the 'States are more likely to proclaim themselves "all-American" than immigrants in Canada dubbing themselves "true-Canadian", probably because Canadians don't need to say it, or even say it in any particular laguage.

That is because nobody knows what being a Canadian is all aboot
Or an American for that matter. It is a mystical appeal that began with Europeans in the 16th century and has spread around the world. Neil Diamond even wrote a song about it.

 

[amadeus]

How do you explain Van Halen releasing "Panama" when Manuel Noriega was in power?

 

[Pongui]

Nobody says what being a Canadian is all about because being a Canadian is about cultural freedom. In America, different freedoms are stressed. I suppose we can't have everything.

I'm interested in how, given the option, people choose between America and Canada. No doubt Hollywood has some influence! People can form a mental image of the place they're considering, imagine themselves there. I know first-time visitors (Asian) to Vancouver are confounded because the people of Vancouver look nothing like the (Californian) people on TV.


"Panama" - they probably began jamming it as "Pamela" or "Banana" but those didn't sound right. Do the words mean anything?

 

[amadeus]

Not really. But I thought it was an interesting mental exercise.

 

[MuddyOne]

Panama: meaning, according to tradition in the early Indian tongue, an abundance of fish.

Got the above from a web site. Not sure if it is accurate.

 

[knowltok2]

On the whole language thing, I think we may actually be at a time when languages can stop devolving into dialects and then seperate languages. Mass media culture could possibly provide us with the ability to overcome our natural tendancy to deviate linguisticly. Between the wide availability of printed material and the increasingly widespread use of radio, television, and the Internet, people will be more likely to universally pick up the new words and phrases that generate themselves in our daily lives. 70 years ago an American in London would have been at a loss to figure out what a lift is. Today, I believe this is less the case. I even know what a sticky wicket is.

As far as official language and all that, I think that the nation should have one official language based upon the practicality of it. This is not to say that it cannot be worked around, or even dealt with in a creative manner, but by in large, children growing up in the US will have more of an advantage the better they speak english. They will also have an advantage if they also speak Spanish, but English is, from an objective view, more important to potential success.

It is also a good idea that everyone should be able to communicate with each other. I think what people fail to realize is that culture is not a light switch or a radio dial. You don't have to have one culture 100%. The world has been blending them for 1,000's of years. It is not a surrender of culture to learn a language or pick up other aspects of another culture. I think people identify too much with their language (among other things). To me, it is certainly not english that defines me as an American. It is the values and traditions that I have and believe in, not how I communicate them. English happens to be the language of communication in America, and in my mind should be promoted as such for the common welfare.


Somewhere above someone mentioned something about the original spanish speaking inhabitants of the US. Other than Pueto Rico, I don't think this number is very significant.

 

[MuddyOne]

An English friend of mine likes to say, "America and England, two countries seperated by a common language."

I did misspeak earlier about the joining of States. Hawaii was a horrible blot on America's history. The territories taken from Mexico as well. Even though Mexico "started" it, Polk's activities were designed to provoke the attack.

I have to agree with knowltok2 though that the original spanish population is a very small percentage of the current Spanish speakers in the US.

That said, many of the posters from various countries that are against the US having an official language have, in fact, official languages in their countries. While some of them have two languages, it doesn't necissarily take into account any influx of immigrants that speak other languages. The following link is a breakdown of languages spoken in Canada.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/People/Population/demo18a.htm
Is Canada planning on adding additional "Official Languages"?
Are other countries that have significant immigrant populations and an official language planning on adding other languages?


http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Finland
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=USA

Finland is a case where it's bilinguagal official languages do pretty well cover its population. Only minor populations speak only non-official languages. Also, in 1992 they added to their laws that the sami population can deal with authorities in their native languages- which normally involves having translators present. This was added to help preserve the native culture. Samis are what in older times was meant when someone said "a Finn" from my brief research. It seems calling someone "a Finn" is derogatory now.

The USA has a lot of native languages. Effort should be made to try to keep most of them alive. Some just don't have the population left to be a feasible though. Having an official language would not help nor harm that goal though. What impacts the native languages is whether the speakers stay grouped and whether it is a written language. Not something that can be solved by laws. But improving living conditions on reservations would go a long ways.

From my perspective though, the only thing make English the official language in the US would accomplish is to codify what already exists. Businesses would continue doing as they do to please their customers. People would continue to speak to each other in whatever language they are comfortable. Government would still issue its edicts in English, post it's road signs in English, etc. And minority media would translate the edists into their languages. If too small of a minority, you won't have any translation available and will remain ignorant of what the government and the rest of the US is doing.

The US would be a tower of babel if a language was not the defacto standard, what is the harm in codifying it?

 

[Pongui]

Media will continue to consolidate written, and, to some extent spoken, language. A powerful example of the success mass media has in unifying people is with China. China is divided by hundreds of spoken dialects, but everybody can read the same (pictograph) newspaper. Since ancient times, the monolithic Chinese script has allowed this huge range of people to communicate despite their spoken languages. Too bad we don't all read and write chinese.

In the western world, we have only limited use of pictographs: arabic numerals, symbols, & smileys .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a good point, Knowltok2, about culture not being like a light switch or a radio dial. I think it's more like a DJ's mixing board. We can all march to the same drummer, or we can open up and really make some music. We can have MORE.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by MuddyOne
An English friend of mine likes to say, "America and England, two countries seperated by a common language."

George Bernard Shaw?

From my perspective though, the only thing make English the official language in the US would accomplish is to codify what already exists. Businesses would continue doing as they do to please their customers. People would continue to speak to each other in whatever language they are comfortable. Government would still issue its edicts in English, post it's road signs in English, etc. And minority media would translate the edists into their languages. If too small of a minority, you won't have any translation available and will remain ignorant of what the government and the rest of the US is doing.

The US would be a tower of babel if a language was not the defacto standard, what is the harm in codifying it?

One thing that making English official would do is to encourage its use in the schools. IMO subjects should only be taught in another language where there is a concrete plan to bridge to english fluency for the student. I just think that in the long run it s a disservice to children in the US if we do not ensure that they can read/write and speak fluent english. To me the same applies to math for example, only there isn't another math 'language'. It is a skill that we as a society have determined that our children should learn in school. With English as an official language, this would be more encouraged.