wes@ukecc.UUCP (Wes Morgan) (11/17/86)
Considering the current movement to render the United States a
bilingual/multilingual country, certain points need to be made.
If these points have been mentioned previously, I apologize; I
only recently began reading this group.
1. With immigration to the United States continuing at its present
level <not to mention the new amnesty program>, the United States
is fast becoming a true "melting pot"; a wider variety of national-
ities are represented in today's population than ever before. This
brings the concept of national identity to a critical point. Should
these immigrants be assimilated into the American identity, or should
they maintain a separate enclave along the lines of Chinatown or
Little Sicily? I prefer the former option.
2. An American of some repute (I cannot recall the name) once claimed
that language was the great unifier in any nation. This can be his-
torically affirmed by such civil conflicts as the Basque minority
in Spain and the tribal problems in numerous African nations. It is
critical to a nation's survival and prosperity to employ a single,
relatively universal language.
3. Effecting a national bilingualism/multilingualism would create an
inestimable myriad of bureaucracy in both governmental and private
actions. Imagine, if you will, a bilingual Army in the next war;
communication drops to zero, effectiveness drops to zero, casulties
increase exponentially. <Prior to flaming me, consider the fact that
I served 2 1/2 years in the US Army at Fort Hood, Texas, which certainly
has a large Hispanic population.> Also consider the day-to-day operation
of any sizable industry. Could you deal with, say, eating in a public
restaurant and being unable to converse with your waiter? Think about
the parallel effects in dealing with law enforcement or medical opera-
tions. Surely, you can grasp the inherant chaos in such a scenario.
4. Setting this type of precedent can prove dangerous. Suppose that in
20 years or so, another minority language rises to the position current-
ly held by the Hispanic languages. Would we then effect *another* offi-
cial language?? Certainly, the argument could be made, but there must
be an end to the process. That end should be, as it has so far in
American history, with the original language. ENGLISH is, should be,
and hopefully always will be the official language of the USA.
NOTE: It should be noted that I personally am bilingual; I have been a
student of the Spanish language for 7 years and consider myself
fluent. It is my experience in Spanish-speaking environments that
leads me to the opinions stated above.
Flames to personal mail, rational opposing viewpoints to the group.
--
Wes Morgan UUCP: !cbosgd!ukma!ukecc!wes
BITNET: CS0270A9@UKCC
CSNET: wes@ecc.engr.uky.csnet
ARPANET: wes%ecc.engr.uky.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA
" Disclaimer? Huh? You mean this was supposed to be *MY* opinion?"
rob@ptsfb.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (11/18/86)
>Considering the current movement to render the United States a >bilingual/multilingual country, certain points need to be made. I think your characterization of the state of things has wrong connotations. This country has always been quite multilingual. There was a point in the 1800's (?) I am told that more inhabitants spoke German than English. Furthermore, no one is trying to make the country multilingual per se. Rather some of us are trying to be respond to the needs of the residents and *citizens* for whom English is not native nor used in their community. In addition, I have never heard of anyone who believes everyone in the US should *not* be taught to be fluent in English. You are attacking a straw man. > This > brings the concept of national identity to a critical point. Should > these immigrants be assimilated into the American identity, or should > they maintain a separate enclave along the lines of Chinatown or > Little Sicily? I prefer the former option. You imply that how immigrants wind up assimilated is a matter of a policy set and executed by someone. Additionally, I wonder what you mean to entail by the words "American identity"? Does this mean celebrating certain holidays, Christmas? Does this mean behaving like a WASP? Does this mean aspiring to a heterosexual family-oriented suburban lifestyle in the suburbs? Eating Chinese food only once a month? Where does one draw the boundaries? -- Rob Bernardo, San Ramon, CA "Whenever I get the urge to work, (415) 823-2417 I log in and read the netnews {pyramid|ihnp4|dual}!ptsfa!rob until the feeling passes."
edwards@uwmacc.UUCP (mark edwards) (11/18/86)
In article <1018@ptsfb.UUCP> rob@ptsfb.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) writes: >>Considering the current movement to render the United States a >>bilingual/multilingual country, certain points need to be made. > >I think your characterization of the state of things has wrong >connotations. This country has always been quite multilingual. There >was a point in the 1800's (?) I am told that more inhabitants spoke >German than English. That was then, this is now. The fact more people spoke german then english is interesting, any references? I would argue that times are differnent. Just daily living was harder back then, and there was no ethnic this or that either ( or at least not in the same way of today). >Furthermore, no one is trying to make the >country multilingual per se. Rather some of us are trying to be >respond to the needs of the residents and *citizens* for whom English >is not native nor used in their community. In addition, I have never >heard of anyone who believes everyone in the US should *not* be taught >to be fluent in English. You are attacking a straw man. > Sure I like to help people to, but there comes a time when to help a person in some way (while making you feel good) is harmful to the person being helped. Yes, he was attacking a "straw man", but in back of the straw man is an evil wizard pulling the strings. The wizard is called the nature of human beings. Its the ole " give him an inch and he'll end up wanting the whole mountain" , syndrome. My wife's japanese, if everyone spoke only japanese and give her everything she wanted to hear, read, or needed in japanese she would have no use to even bother with english. If you take away her incentive to learn english then she will not learn english. If you only give her half of everything in japanese then she will only learn english perhaps only half as much, but probably less then half then if you give her almost no japanese, and force her to learn english. If you make up centers that distribute information or what ever in a particular language then you will probably get groupings around this center of that language, hence chinatowns or whatever will emerge every where. I am not saying this is bad, but very probably undesirable. >> This >> brings the concept of national identity to a critical point. Should >> these immigrants be assimilated into the American identity, or should >> they maintain a separate enclave along the lines of Chinatown or >> Little Sicily? I prefer the former option. > >You imply that how immigrants wind up assimilated is a matter of a policy >set and executed by someone. But then you want to make your own policy to distribute information in a persons own language. Who is more right ? Opinions on reflection may not even be mine. mark
peterl@alberta.UUCP (11/18/86)
In article <783@ukecc.UUCP>, wes@ukecc.UUCP (Wes Morgan) writes: > Should > these immigrants be assimilated into the American identity, or should > they maintain a separate enclave along the lines of Chinatown or > Little Sicily? I prefer the former option. Wes, you are saying that multiculturalism is fine as long as every person of a different culture sacrifice his/her culture, and be submerged to something called the 'American culture'. You used an analogy of a melting pot. That is great. But you fail to understand that to be a melting pot, the American culture needs to evolve with input from the cultures immigrants bring in. That is the true spirit. Your idea of a melting pot is that all culture and ways of life must be destroyed for the benefit of th American culture. > > > NOTE: It should be noted that I personally am bilingual; I have been a > student of the Spanish language for 7 years and consider myself > fluent. It is my experience in Spanish-speaking environments that > leads me to the opinions stated above. You think just because you studied Spanish for 7 years, you are qualified as bilingual. What a Dream! > In conclusion, Wes Morgan , I say you are a racist. I think you are one of those people who think hot dogs are the greatest things on earth.
anderson@uwmacc.UUCP (Jess Anderson) (11/19/86)
In article <524@uwmacc.UUCP>, edwards@uwmacc.UUCP (mark edwards) writes: [much abridged...] > My wife's japanese, if everyone spoke only japanese and give her > everything she wanted to hear, read, or needed in japanese she would > have no use to even bother with english. [...] But Mark, that "if" is not very realistic, is it? I've studied a fair number of languages, for a variety of reasons, mostly to get access to literatures that are untranslated or difficult to render into English, with the added dividend (again, largely aesthetic, as opposed to practical) of being able to speak some of those languages. Yet if I were to move to one of those countries, I would welcome the opportunity to become *more* multilingual, that is, I would not *want* to give up my native language just because I was surrounded by a new milieu. Rather, I'd want to add to my experiences in *both* languages. [...] > If you make up centers that distribute information or what ever in > a particular language then you will probably get groupings around this > center of that language, hence chinatowns or whatever will emerge > every where. I am not saying this is bad, but very probably undesirable. I would agree that language enclaves present social, political, and other complexities, but on balance, I think they're more beneficial than harmful. I see no good reason why the whole society cannot share the (admittedly more expensive) costs *and* benefits of cultural diversity, especially when it promotes the general enrichment. If indeed we mean it when we say we respect others, I think that means respecting them as they are, possibly at some inconvenience (higher taxes, special schooling, multilingual political processes, etc.) to ourselves. I don't think language manifestations of ethnic diversity are fundamentally different from other manifestations, and I think any program that seeks to diminish the vigor of such diversities tends toward a conformity that in the last analysis works against us. In all of this (I think this was one of your points, or maybe Rob Bernardo's), I am assuming that those who wish to learn *our* language have good opportunities for doing so *if they choose to.* Given the obvious advantages, many would want to, I assume. But why reduce the options of those who do *not* want to, especially if doing so goes against not only their interests, but ours as well? (Of course, most of us could know any of the languages we happen to know better, again to our benefit. For example, illiteracy rates in the US are shockingly high, and quite a few of us have trouble with clear, simple, correct prose (not to mention spelling!) :-) [...] > mark -- ==ARPA:====================anderson@unix.macc.wisc.edu===Jess Anderson====== | UUCP: {harvard,seismo,topaz, 1210 W. Dayton | | akgua,allegra,ihnp4,usbvax}!uwvax!uwmacc!anderson Madison, WI 53706 | ==BITNET:============================anderson@wiscmacc===608/263-6988=======
cctimar@watrose.UUCP (11/19/86)
In article <783@ukecc.UUCP> wes@ukecc.UUCP (Wes Morgan) writes: > that language was the great unifier in any nation. This can be his- > torically affirmed by such civil conflicts as the Basque minority > in Spain and the tribal problems in numerous African nations. It is > critical to a nation's survival and prosperity to employ a single, > relatively universal language. Historically, I think you will find that language does not run as deep as religion, race, culture, or property. The cited examples, though I know little about them, would appear to reflect these latter differences as much as the former. Sure, there is some strain in Belgium between speakers of French and Flemish, but not as serious (well, it doesn't look as serious from here) as the previous Catholic-Protestant problems they had (in the United Netherlands). Note that the Netherlands were divided by religion rather than language. The situations in Ireland and Lebanon are instances where a single language has failed to unify a nation. Switzerland is a case where four official national languages and English (and both Catholics and Protestants) have not damaged survival or prosperity. A related argument is that a single language should define a single nation. (I know you didn't say this, but I am pointing out the relation before someone says something stupid. The Germans used this argument for aggression.) I admit that the rest being equal, a nation with one language will be more unified than one with many, but I think that the languages that count are the ones spoken, not the "official" ones. Legislating a single national language in Canada or Belgium would probably go over like legislating a single national religion in Ireland or Lebanon. -- Cary
edwards@uwmacc.UUCP (mark edwards) (11/19/86)
In article <526@uwmacc.UUCP> anderson@uwmacc.UUCP (Jess Anderson) writes: >In article <524@uwmacc.UUCP>, edwards@uwmacc.UUCP (mark edwards) writes: >> My wife's japanese, if everyone spoke only japanese and give her >> everything she wanted to hear, read, or needed in japanese she would >> have no use to even bother with english. >But Mark, that "if" is not very realistic, is it? I've studied a fair >number of languages, for a variety of reasons, mostly to get access to >literatures that are untranslated or difficult to render into English, with >the added dividend (again, largely aesthetic, as opposed to practical) of >being able to speak some of those languages. Realistic you say? Yes I was being realistic, and I have evidence to support my claims. I was stationed in Misawa, Japan ( A US Air Base) a base that had over 3,000 americans and many had their wives and children along with them, living on or around the base. Grant it that this is some what an artificial case, perhaps the extreme, but yet relevant. Only a small percentage of the Americans regularly ventured off the base, and most of them that did could not converse with the natives in their language. When I say their stay was limited, I am talking about anywhere from 1 and a half years to 3 or 4 years. A big reason they did not go off base is that off base was a foreign country. On base was America, meaning we used the American dollar as exchange, ate American food, went to see American movies, and conversed with each other in the American language. The problem is even worse now because of the exchange rate. When I went back in May it was a popular topic on Japanese TV. >Yet if I were to move to one >of those countries, I would welcome the opportunity to become *more* >multilingual, that is, I would not *want* to give up my native language >just because I was surrounded by a new milieu. Rather, I'd want to add to >my experiences in *both* languages. I would argue that we ( you and I ) are different. I did regularly go off base, and I did learn Japanese. But I do not think it is fair to say that every one would. My parents went over to Japan in May. When it was time for lunch, it was time for a big mac attack. I think its fair to say that their was a good cross section of Americans on base, most prefered the "easy" way out, to speak and eat American. > (Of course, most of us could know any of the languages we happen >to know better, again to our benefit. For example, illiteracy rates >in the US are shockingly high, and quite a few of us have trouble >with clear, simple, correct prose (not to mention spelling!) :-) I am glad you mentioned spelling and correct prose. My comments about spelling is the worst thing that happened to English is when they froze the spellings of words. Back in the good ole days the spelling of a word changed with the pronounciation. My opinion about prose is that I would like to sue my Junior High and High Schools for failure to properly teach me the rudiments of english. ( What do you think? Could I make millions ?) mark
jankok@mcvax.uucp (Jan Kok) (11/20/86)
In article <8273@watrose.UUCP> cctimar@watrose.UUCP (Cary Timar) writes: >. . . >Sure, there is some strain in Belgium between speakers of French and >Flemish, but not as serious (well, it doesn't look as serious from here) >as the previous Catholic-Protestant problems they had (in the United >Netherlands). Note that the Netherlands were divided by religion rather >than language. >. . . It is generally accepted by scientists that the latter assertion is wrong. However, it is not the main topic of this discussion so I will keep my comment restricted to a few lines. 1. I would not compare present-day strain about French and Flemish with what went on during the 16th century part of the Dutch independence war. 2. The then-Netherlands (today's Netherlands and Belgium) belonged to Spain. The revolt started and was continued because of economic suppression irrespective of religion (though taxes are much higher today). 3. That the protestant minority was severely persecuted by the Spanish occupant was not the cause of the revolt, and the presecution was objected to by all protestants, most catholics, and even the Spanish's king representative in Brussels. 4. The tolerance of the catholic inhabitants was merely a pretext for further suppression, and they suffered as much for it as the protestants. 5. The net result was that protestants and many others (one third of the Antwerp population) were driven to the north that eventually became independent. 6. Like every summary, this is a simplification which does not do justice to all aspects of what went on then. I only object to the statement that the 16-th century Netherlands were DIVIDED by religion. -- Mail: Jan Kok, CWI (afd. NW), Postbus 4079, NL-1009 AB Amsterdam, Nederland UUCP: jankok@mcvax.uucp --------------------------------------------------------------- This week's concern goes to Mr Rudolph E. Hirsch Ass, Dir who received a computer-produced letter that started with Dear Mr Ass,