Speak English? NO! On welfare? Yeah!
g...@3-cities.com
joe...@ix.netcom.com(Charles) wrote:
> Just wanted to relate something I PERSONALLY witnessed yesterday: I
In response to the header, you need to define english for us before
you propose making fluency a requirement of state aid.
If you've ever been to northeast New Mexico, you'll find that the
inhabitants and their decendants have lived in that region for nearly
300 years. They speak english as a second language.
The question is, who decides which culture is more appropriate and why
should changing to another culture be a prerequiste for AFDC?
Geo
I see them (Greer/McCoy) more as the "Beavis and Butthead" of christianity;
"Heh heh...atheism sucks."
"Heh heh...yeah, sucks...heh heh."
- Stix
Tim Brown
joe...@ix.netcom.com(Charles) writes:
<drivel deleted>
You are a loony.
--
bath...@iglou.com http://members.iglou.com/bathroom
If guns are outlawed, what will we shoot conservatives with?
++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++
Charles
Just wanted to relate something I PERSONALLY witnessed yesterday: I
VERY pregnant, non-English-speaking Hispanic women in front of me each,
in turn, pulled out identical government checks to pay for their huge
shopping carts full of groceries.
And, believe me, that shopping cart was loaded with name-brand -- as
opposed to "generic," which I, a non-welfare-receiving US citizen,
usually try to buy -- items.
Neither could speak, it appeared, a WORD of English. They were
accompanied by a man who, one assumes, was the "significant other" of
one of them, perhaps the one who impregnated her.
Unfortunately, as I've related in some of these newsgroups before,
this is NOT a "rare" occurrence -- no matter what the Establishment
Liberals say. I see it OVER AND OVER AGAIN, virtually EVERY time I go
shopping, though the leaches typically pay with Food Stamps, rather
than cashing their US government-supplied checks right at the register.
You may recall the two young, healthy-looking dashiki-wearing,
heavily-bejeweled non-English-speaking African immigrants I wrote about
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
a few months ago who paid the cashier with Food Stamps.
And YES, by all means , there are TONS of White leaches, most of whom
are US citizens, who also collect welfare because it's "pays better"
than getting a job, any job.
But this new era of welfare-receiving immigrants is, IMO,
significantly different than the turn-of-the-century and other, earlier
immigrants to the US.
See the African-American economist/sociologist/historian Thomas
Sowell's new book, "Migrations and Cultures, for example, in which he
discusses how the Jewish, Italian, German and other earlier immigrants
made it without welfare, food stamps, "free" medical coverage, etc.,
for example.
Far better for Latin Americans, Africans, Vietnamese and others to
stay in their respective homelands and kick out the fascist elites and
oligarchs who control those countries, rather than coming to the US and
playing Uncle Sam for the sucker he now is.
The US Taxpayer: Sucker to the World.
--
"Put that coffee DOWN! Coffee's for CLOSERS only!"
"You drove a HYUNDAI to get here tonight ... I drove an $83,000
BMW . . . THAT'S my name!"
"I can speak only to a Mr. or Mrs. 'Nyborg.'"
-- "Glengarry Glen Ross"
Larry Olson
g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) wrote:
>By the way, what language people speak anywhere in this
>country is of no significance; it's a free country, and one
>of our freedoms is freedom of speech. If you can get on
>Welfare at all, you can get on Welfare speaking medieval
>Albanian. Besides, you mentioned that the people in
>question were speaking Spanish. Spanish has been spoken on
>the territory of the United States for several decades
>longer than English. It's got seniority.
>--
> }"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Gee, that's very open-minded and liberal of you. If you have any
personal experience around this though, you'd know that it creates a
chasm between the monolingual Mexican and American, and encourages all
those attitudes you'd rant against Americans for. You can't know what
people are about unless you can talk with them. When those people are
squatters, here against our law, that's rather important.
Just more evidence of how liberal egghead "openmindedness" creates
social strife.
--
Larry Olson
Charles
In <4tlc3c$7...@panix2.panix.com> g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>joe...@ix.netcom.com(Charles):
[snip]
>By the way, what language people speak anywhere in this
>country is of no significance; it's a free country, and one
>of our freedoms is freedom of speech. If you can get on
>Welfare at all, you can get on Welfare speaking medieval
>Albanian. Besides, you mentioned that the people in
>question were speaking Spanish. Spanish has been spoken on
>the territory of the United States for several decades
>longer than English. It's got seniority.
>--
> }"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Please, I'm fairly confident I know much more about the history of
the US -- particularly those areas where Spanish is most frequently
spoken -- for you to lecture me.
BTW, Spanish has been spoken on what's now US soil for MUCH longer
than merely "several decades."
As far as Spanish having "seniority," that's great!
Especially if it means that all the US Hispanics who now RECEIVE
preferential treatment under Nazi-like so-called "affirmative action"
programs will now -- in recognition of the fact that it was THEIR
Indian and later Spanish ancestors who introduced SLAVERY to the
American continent -- be refused such unjust ethnic/racial preferences?
Charles
In <DvDHM...@iglou.com> bath...@iglou.iglou.com (Tim Brown) writes:
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
>joe...@ix.netcom.com(Charles) writes:
>
><drivel deleted>
>
>You are a loony.
>--
>bath...@iglou.com http://members.iglou.com/bathroom
>If guns are outlawed, what will we shoot conservatives with?
[snip]
You are a piece of shit, "brown," . . . er, "bathroom". (How
appropriate, those names!)
Tony
In article <4tmp6l$q...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> joe...@ix.netcom.com(Charles) writes:
>From: joe...@ix.netcom.com(Charles)
>Subject: Re: Speak English? NO! On welfare? Yeah!
>Date: 31 Jul 1996 04:59:01 GMT
>In <DvDHM...@iglou.com> bath...@iglou.iglou.com (Tim Brown) writes:
> ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
>>joe...@ix.netcom.com(Charles) writes:
>>
>><drivel deleted>
>>
>>You are a loony.
>>--
>>bath...@iglou.com http://members.iglou.com/bathroom
>>If guns are outlawed, what will we shoot conservatives with?
>[snip]
> You are a piece of shit, "brown," . . . er, "bathroom". (How
>appropriate, those names!)
How clever of you. You are so witty.
What a fool.
Later,
Tony
Gordon Fitch
g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) wrote:
| >By the way, what language people speak anywhere in this
| >country is of no significance; it's a free country, and one
| >of our freedoms is freedom of speech. If you can get on
| >Welfare at all, you can get on Welfare speaking medieval
| >Albanian. Besides, you mentioned that the people in
| >question were speaking Spanish. Spanish has been spoken on
| >the territory of the United States for several decades
| >longer than English. It's got seniority.
| Gee, that's very open-minded and liberal of you. If you have any
| personal experience around this though, you'd know that it creates a
| chasm between the monolingual Mexican and American, and encourages all
| those attitudes you'd rant against Americans for. You can't know what
| people are about unless you can talk with them. When those people are
| squatters, here against our law, that's rather important.
|
| Just more evidence of how liberal egghead "openmindedness" creates
| social strife.
These are good arguments for encouraging people in the
United States to learn whichever of Spanish and English
they don't know. However, it doesn't apply to anything I
wrote above. The person I was responding to was apparently
deprecating people for speaking Spanish. Speaking Spanish
in itself is not a defect or an offense, nor does it cause
social strife. I live in a neighborhood which I would
guess is about half Spanish-speaking, and it's rather
peaceful, especially considering the poverty.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Gordon Fitch
joe...@ix.netcom.com(Charles):
| Please, I'm fairly confident I know much more about the history of
| the US -- particularly those areas where Spanish is most frequently
| spoken -- for you to lecture me.
| BTW, Spanish has been spoken on what's now US soil for MUCH longer
| than merely "several decades."
| As far as Spanish having "seniority," that's great!
| Especially if it means that all the US Hispanics who now RECEIVE
| preferential treatment under Nazi-like so-called "affirmative action"
| programs will now -- in recognition of the fact that it was THEIR
| Indian and later Spanish ancestors who introduced SLAVERY to the
| American continent -- be refused such unjust ethnic/racial preferences?
I can't think of a single attribute that Naziism and
Affirmative Action have in common. Regardless, there
doesn't seem to be any connection between seniority of the
Spanish language, or lack of it, and the application of
Affirmative Action to Hispanics, who are not defined by
what language they use. Can you draw any connections at
all, or are you just saying things at random?
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
syn...@mcs.com
g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>These are good arguments for encouraging people in the
>United States to learn whichever of Spanish and English
>they don't know. However, it doesn't apply to anything I
>wrote above. The person I was responding to was apparently
>deprecating people for speaking Spanish. Speaking Spanish
>in itself is not a defect or an offense, nor does it cause
>social strife. I live in a neighborhood which I would
>guess is about half Spanish-speaking, and it's rather
>peaceful, especially considering the poverty.
English should be made the only official language of the U.S. and
it should be the only language the government uses for routine
matters.
Spanish is a nice language, but it is not even close to being
universal. Almost anywhere in the world English is in use for
some and often quite a few purposes. English is the language
of international aviation, science, and engineering. It is
easily the most powerful language in terms of its adaptations to
our rapidly changing world, especially where technology is concerned.
What I would like to see (read: I'm dreaming) is an attempt to
make the English language more consistent where spelling, pronunciation,
and grammar are concerned. The odds against this happening are almost
has high as the odds against Esperanto becoming a major real world
language.
Has anyone ever given much though to designing a human language
from scratch? Esperanto doesn't count, since it is kind of a kludge,
but it does have some nice features. How many characters should there
be in the ideal alphabet in the ideal language? What would those
characters look like and would there be many different fonts, or just
a few very standard ones? Would characters represent distinct sounds?
I once spent a few days designing my own programming language, which
was a complex task (and the result was inferior in many ways to
several existing programming languages I am familiar with, but I was
having fun with lex and yacc). I know just enough about linguistics to
realize that designing a human language makes designing a programming
language look completely trivial by comparison. But I wonder if anyone
has looked seriously at the problem.
--
<sig>
"Annoy a Fascist: Just Say NO! to Gun Control."
-- Synergy
"Much is made of the 'haves' and 'have-nots'; little is said of the
'dos' and 'do-nots.'"
-- Thomas Sowell.
"Hiking the minimum wage is ''the wrong way to raise the incomes of
low-wage earners.''"
-- Bill Clinton, Time Magazine, February 6, 1995
"Any time a politician gets ideas, it costs us freedom and money."
-- P.J. O'Rourke on "60 Minutes", 6/16/96
"Government doesn't work."
-- Harry Browne, Libertarian Presidential Candidate
</sig>
Charles
Tony
In article <4trl46$o...@Mercury.mcs.com> syn...@MCS.COM writes:
>From: syn...@MCS.COM
>Subject: Re: Speak English? NO! On welfare? Yeah!
>g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>These are good arguments for encouraging people in the
>>United States to learn whichever of Spanish and English
>>they don't know. However, it doesn't apply to anything I
>>wrote above. The person I was responding to was apparently
>>deprecating people for speaking Spanish. Speaking Spanish
>>in itself is not a defect or an offense, nor does it cause
>>social strife. I live in a neighborhood which I would
>>guess is about half Spanish-speaking, and it's rather
>>peaceful, especially considering the poverty.
>English should be made the only official language of the U.S. and
>it should be the only language the government uses for routine
>matters.
>Spanish is a nice language, but it is not even close to being
>universal. Almost anywhere in the world English is in use for
>some and often quite a few purposes. English is the language
>of international aviation, science, and engineering. It is
>easily the most powerful language in terms of its adaptations to
>our rapidly changing world, especially where technology is concerned.
I am fluent in Spanish. Although I may be considered a liberal I do agree
that English should be the only official language of the United States.
Having said that, I thought you should know that Spanish is the most universal
language in the world. You are right about English being a more powerfull
language where technology is concerned.
Later,
Tony
Tim Brown
g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>| English should be made the only official language of the U.S. and
>| it should be the only language the government uses for routine
>| matters. ...
>I'm wondering what you and the House of Representatives plan
>to do with Puerto Rico, as well as the lands of the Mexican
>cession which are now and have always been Spanish-speaking,
>and the American Indian nations which preserve their
>languages (such as the Navaho). Kick them out of the
>country, or what? It's supposed to be some kind of a human
>rights violation, I think, to make people use a language
>other than their own at the point of a gun. You could argue
>that immigrants chose to come here and say they ought to
>learn English, but the shoe is on the other foot in the case
>of the people I'm referring to above -- the U.S. came to
>them. Now we're going to force a language on them? Talk
>about the government being on someone's back!
Synergy is a troller from way back. Don't expect him to post reasonable
responses to political matters.
--
bath...@iglou.com http://members.iglou.com/bathroom
If guns are outlawed, what will we shoot conservatives with?
David G. Hughey
Gordon Fitch wrote:
>
> syn...@MCS.COM:
> | English should be made the only official language of the U.S. and
> | it should be the only language the government uses for routine
> | matters. ...
>
> I'm wondering what you and the House of Representatives plan
> to do with Puerto Rico, as well as the lands of the Mexican
> cession which are now and have always been Spanish-speaking,
> and the American Indian nations which preserve their
> languages (such as the Navaho).
I would do absolutely nothing about Puerto Rico. I would put the legal
wheels in motion that separates the United States from Puerto Rico once
and for all. Puerto Rico should be a sovereign nation.
And as for the American Indians and the people living in the lands of
the Mexican cession (!), folks can speak any language they want. The
United States Government's official language should be English, however,
which is the point I think the original thread is going. You can do
your thing and speak Thai or Urdu or Swahili on the Island that the
Native Peoples Sold for $32 and a Bunch of Beads; however, the nation's
business should be conducted in a single language for efficiency's sake.
And that should keep conservatives and liberals happy.
--
"Cazart!" Did I really say that or did I just
think it?" - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
"Ooh, but we unleashed the lion" - Pearl Jam
Stephen Swartz
In article <antonio.41...@primenet.com>, ant...@primenet.com (Tony ) says:
>
>In article <4trl46$o...@Mercury.mcs.com> syn...@MCS.COM writes:
>>From: syn...@MCS.COM
**** SNIPPAGE ****
>Having said that, I thought you should know that Spanish is the most universal
>language in the world. You are right about English being a more powerfull
>language where technology is concerned.
Uh, I agree with everything you said except you need to substitute the
word "Chinese" for "Spanish" in the above paragraph . . . last time I
checked, 1.2 billion is still a larger number than 570 million . . .
***********************************************************************
* =8^) * Abolish the welfare state AND the police state! *
* Steve * Which is worse: a Libertarian on food stamps; or *
* Swartz * a Socialist with a bank account? *
* * Support the ENTIRE Bill of Rights! Are you ok with *
* NRA Life * a well-armed group of religious-militia members *
* AFA Life * getting together to publish a newspaper calling for *
* * a return of power to the states? If not, you don't!*
***********************************************************************
Gordon Fitch
"David G. Hughey" <dhu...@atl.mindspring.com>:
| ...
| the Mexican cession (!), folks can speak any language they want. The
| United States Government's official language should be English, however,
| which is the point I think the original thread is going. You can do
| your thing and speak Thai or Urdu or Swahili on the Island that the
| Native Peoples Sold for $32 and a Bunch of Beads; however, the nation's
| business should be conducted in a single language for efficiency's sake.
| And that should keep conservatives and liberals happy.
It seems to me that the government should serve the people,
not the other way around. And if a substantial number of
them speak a language other than English, the U.S.
government ought to be able to accomodate them. Especially
in the case of people whose language communities preceded
both English and the United States on its territory.
Efficiency is no reason to deprive people of rights.
Remember, they _have_ to deal with the government.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Tony
In article <4ttfh4$1e...@msunews.cl.msu.edu> swar...@pilot.msu.edu (Stephen Swartz) writes:
>From: swar...@pilot.msu.edu (Stephen Swartz)
>Subject: Re: Speak English? NO! On welfare? Yeah!
>In article <antonio.41...@primenet.com>, ant...@primenet.com (Tony ) says:
>>
>>In article <4trl46$o...@Mercury.mcs.com> syn...@MCS.COM writes:
>>>From: syn...@MCS.COM
>**** SNIPPAGE ****
>>Having said that, I thought you should know that Spanish is the most universal
>>language in the world. You are right about English being a more powerfull
>>language where technology is concerned.
>Uh, I agree with everything you said except you need to substitute the
>word "Chinese" for "Spanish" in the above paragraph . . . last time I
>checked, 1.2 billion is still a larger number than 570 million . . .
Spanish is spoken throughout the world. Spain and many countries in
Europe all of South America not just Mexico. Not to mention Millions of
Spanish speaking peaople right here in America and in Canada.
Gordon Fitch
syn...@MCS.COM:
| English should be made the only official language of the U.S. and
| it should be the only language the government uses for routine
| matters. ...
I'm wondering what you and the House of Representatives plan
to do with Puerto Rico, as well as the lands of the Mexican
cession which are now and have always been Spanish-speaking,
and the American Indian nations which preserve their
languages (such as the Navaho). Kick them out of the
country, or what? It's supposed to be some kind of a human
rights violation, I think, to make people use a language
other than their own at the point of a gun. You could argue
that immigrants chose to come here and say they ought to
learn English, but the shoe is on the other foot in the case
of the people I'm referring to above -- the U.S. came to
them. Now we're going to force a language on them? Talk
about the government being on someone's back!
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Tim Brown
kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson) writes:
>In article <4tt982$4...@panix2.panix.com>, Gordon Fitch <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>syn...@MCS.COM:
>>| English should be made the only official language of the U.S. and
>>| it should be the only language the government uses for routine
>>| matters. ...
>>I'm wondering what you and the House of Representatives plan
>>to do with Puerto Rico, as well as the lands of the Mexican
>>cession which are now and have always been Spanish-speaking,
>>and the American Indian nations which preserve their
>>languages (such as the Navaho). Kick them out of the
>>country, or what?
>Strawman fallacy. The proposed legislation does not prohibit people
>from speaking another language. It merely makes English the official
>language of government.
Isn't it already? Have you seen any road signs printed in Swahili lately?
I bet you haven't.
Why is it that the people who yib and yap about how we should make
English our official language or else are the same ones who want us to
switch over to the metric system just because Singapore or some other
right-wing regime tells us to?
Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?????
David G. Hughey
> | the Mexican cession (!), folks can speak any language they want. The
> | United States Government's official language should be English, however,
> | which is the point I think the original thread is going. You can do
> | your thing and speak Thai or Urdu or Swahili on the Island that the
> | Native Peoples Sold for $32 and a Bunch of Beads; however, the nation's
> | business should be conducted in a single language for efficiency's sake.
> | And that should keep conservatives and liberals happy.
>
> It seems to me that the government should serve the people,
> not the other way around. And if a substantial number of
> them speak a language other than English, the U.S.
> government ought to be able to accomodate them. Especially
> in the case of people whose language communities preceded
> both English and the United States on its territory.
> Efficiency is no reason to deprive people of rights.
> Remember, they _have_ to deal with the government.
> --
> }"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
I certainly agree that the government should serve the people. That of
course would include the people who pay for the government. It's a
question of efficiency, since the government is using my money to
function. I have no problems with people worshipping and speaking the
way they want; I have no problem with ethnic neighborhoods or whatever.
But English should be chosen as the language of the government. After
all, a overwhelming "significant number" of people speak the language.
If I emigrated to China, I would learn Mandarin or Cantonese so I could
function within the society. I am not arrogant enough to believe that
the whole of society must accomodate me just because I draw breath.
And so what if Navajo or Urqut was spoken on this continent first? Cave
men grunted; should we go back to that language since that was first?
Perhaps France and Italy should change their langauges to Latin, since
it was there first. Maybe we should just all speak Aramaic or an
equivalent ancient language.
Tim Brown
kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson) writes:
>> Why is it that the people who yib and yap about how we should make
>>English our official language or else are the same ones who want us to
>>switch over to the metric system just because Singapore or some other
>>right-wing regime tells us to?
>> Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?????
>They are?
>Hell, I've never said anything on Usenet about the metric system.
>Nor have I seen anyone suggesting that we switch to metric because of
>Singapore. Perhaps you hadn't noticed that virtually every other country
>in the world uses metric?
Congressional Republicans and the Bush Administration came very close to
banning road signs that use miles instead of kilometers. "English only"
is based on the same flawed premise as "metric only".
Gordon Fitch
Gordon Fitch wrote:
| > It seems to me that the government should serve the people,
| > not the other way around. And if a substantial number of
| > them speak a language other than English, the U.S.
| > government ought to be able to accomodate them. Especially
| > in the case of people whose language communities preceded
| > both English and the United States on its territory.
| > Efficiency is no reason to deprive people of rights.
| > Remember, they _have_ to deal with the government.
"David G. Hughey" <dhu...@atl.mindspring.com>:
| I certainly agree that the government should serve the people. That of
| course would include the people who pay for the government. It's a
| question of efficiency, since the government is using my money to
| function. I have no problems with people worshipping and speaking the
| way they want; I have no problem with ethnic neighborhoods or whatever.
| But English should be chosen as the language of the government. After
| all, a overwhelming "significant number" of people speak the language.
| If I emigrated to China, I would learn Mandarin or Cantonese so I could
| function within the society. I am not arrogant enough to believe that
| the whole of society must accomodate me just because I draw breath.
Isn't that exactly what you're saying? You -- and a
majority of Americans -- speak English; therefore the only
language the government speaks should be English. Spanish-
speakers and American Indians also pay taxes, so it stands
to reason that the government should be just as "efficient"
for them as it is for English-speakers. It's simply a
matter of equal rights.
I don't know why you want the government to be efficient
anyway; as like as not, it'll be up to no good. I prefer an
inefficient government.
| And so what if Navajo or Urqut was spoken on this continent first? ...
Many English-only types make the argument that since people
immigrate to the United States, they make a decision which
involves learning English. I just wanted to preclude this
argument by mentioning several cases of non-English-speaking
communities whose existence preceded (1) the United States
and (2) the use of English in North America. Nevertheless,
I was unsuccessful.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Alec Horgan
In article <4ttjf5$9...@news.tamu.edu>, kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E
Jackson) wrote:
> In article <4tt982$4...@panix2.panix.com>, Gordon Fitch <g...@panix.com> wrote:
> >syn...@MCS.COM:
> >| English should be made the only official language of the U.S. and
> >| it should be the only language the government uses for routine
> >| matters. ...
>
> >I'm wondering what you and the House of Representatives plan
> >to do with Puerto Rico, as well as the lands of the Mexican
> >cession which are now and have always been Spanish-speaking,
> >and the American Indian nations which preserve their
> >languages (such as the Navaho). Kick them out of the
> >country, or what?
>
> Strawman fallacy. The proposed legislation does not prohibit people
> from speaking another language. It merely makes English the official
> language of government.
>
No, in addition to this "synergy" also wishes to make English "the only
official language of the U.S." Of course he doesn't specify what this
entails, but as he did go to the trouble of distinguishing that from
making English "the only language the government uses for routine
matters," one wonders what he might have had in mind if not forcing people
to speak English.
Alec
Dan Thornsberry
Gordon Fitch wrote:
>
> syn...@MCS.COM:
> | English should be made the only official language of the U.S. and
> | it should be the only language the government uses for routine
> | matters. ...
>
> I'm wondering what you and the House of Representatives plan
> to do with Puerto Rico, as well as the lands of the Mexican
> cession which are now and have always been Spanish-speaking,
> and the American Indian nations which preserve their
> languages (such as the Navaho). Kick them out of the
> rights violation, I think, to make people use a language
> other than their own at the point of a gun. You could argue
> that immigrants chose to come here and say they ought to
> learn English, but the shoe is on the other foot in the case
> of the people I'm referring to above -- the U.S. came to
> them. Now we're going to force a language on them? Talk
> about the government being on someone's back!
> --
> }"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
The 'english only' crowd is the same cast of characters
who preached 'separate but equal' in the 60's.
Back then, they wore sheets and voted for democrats.
Today they wear play-army clothes and control the
republican party.
--
Clinton/Gore Home Page:
http://www.cg96.org
-------------------------------------------------------
A. Half a trillion bucks. 10% of the entire national debt.
Q. How much will we have to pay because the Senile Old
Fool got government off the backs of the savings and
loan business?
-------------------------------------------------------
The GOP was ordered by the NRA to attack the Center for
Disease Control for their studies on violence in America.
The GOP complied by cutting $2.6 million in funding. The
precise amount CDC budgeted for firearm injury studies.
Seems the NRA would like to keep gun deaths a secret. What
next? Will the Tobacco Institute force republicans to stop
funding cancer research? The NRA has already aligned
itself with terrorists by taking the teeth out the anti-
terrorism legislation. Perhaps they should change their
name to the National Assault Rifle and Pipe Bomb
Association of Gunloons and Republican Puppeteers.
-------------------------------------------------------
GOP - PARTY OF IDEAS
1. White people are superior to people of color.
2. Rich people are superior to poor people.
3. Big business is superior to ALL people.
4. Preachers and chemical companies should write the laws.
5. More guns on the street make your kids safer.
6. Tobacco is not harmful, but pot is deadly.
7. Christianity is the only religion that matters.
8. Jesus was the greatest American that ever lived.
9. Freedom for business is good, individual freedom is bad.
-------------------------------------------------------
Top 10 problems facing a militiaman today:
10. His stupid ass wife got herself pregnant again.
9. They said he needed a GED for the job but he knew it
was really an affirmative action thing.
8. High payroll taxes are killing his dream of some
day owning a double-wide.
7. His wife is going to find out he spent the rent
money on that new gun.
6. Those godless commies at the UN are tapping his phone.
5. His kids aren't too bright. He knows it's his wifes fault.
It makes him wish he'd married his other cousin.
4. Cockroach infestation of his home.
3. Clinton has a 24% lead.
2. Getting government off his back.
1. The FBI is showing his composite around Atlanta!
-------------------------------------------------------
In the early days, when most of the human race still lived
in caves, there were two tribes. When a family in the first
tribe lost the breadwinner, the rest of the tribe pitched in
and shared their meager resources with the less fortunate
members of the society. This tribe evolved into the liberals
of today.
The second tribe was different. When one of their own lost the
food gatherer, the remainder of the family was cast into the
elements to perish. This tribe evolved not at all, and became
the conservatives of today.
==========================================================
| | The GOP wants more guns |
| Dan Thornsberry | |
|tbe...@computek.net | and less education!!! |
| | |
|==========================================================|
| The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty; |
| but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong, |
| means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the |
| weak. -Will Durant |
==========================================================
Thank you Mr. President:
Thanks for restoring democracy in Haiti.
Thanks for the Brady Bill.
Thanks for protecting the weak from the GOP, until 7/31/96.
Thanks for getting us out of the Somalia quagmire.
Thanks for getting the economy back on track.
Thanks for stopping the carnage in Bosnia.
Thanks for returning a concern for humanity to the White House.
Thanks for bringing this country the largest wage increase
in history.
Thanks for reducing the deficit.
Most of all, thanks for making Newtie leave by the back door!
-------------------------------------------------------
Tim Brown
kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson) writes:
>>Congressional Republicans and the Bush Administration came very close to
>>banning road signs that use miles instead of kilometers.
>Really? Where are these signs in km? Or were they just going to take
>down all road signs?
You don't see metric road signs because Clinton delayed the measure that
would have punished states for daring to keep using miles. In Arizona,
they *do* have metric road signs anyway!
>And, exactly what does any of this have to do with Singapore? You
>singled them out, mentioning they are a "right-wing regime", while
>failing to indicate how they are any more influential than the entire
>rest of the world, which also uses metric.
Singapore is headed by totalitarian dictator Lee Kuan Yew, who President
Bush praised repeatedly.
>Only if you can show how metric has been used here as widely as English.
>Otherwise, "metric only" is analogous to passing a "French only" law
>here.
Why is "French only" any different from "English only"?
>In any event, it would be nice if America had the same measurement system
>as the rest of the world.
Why the hell should we? Because some overseas dictator thinks it's easier
to do business with us?
I refuse to switch, and I will secede from the union if metric
imperialism gets a full grip on America.
Douglas K Long
Tony (ant...@primenet.com) wrote:
: >**** SNIPPAGE ****
Brazil, the largest South American country, speaks Portuguese.
To say that Tejanos speak Spanish is to say that pig-latin is
a form of Latin. On the other hand, English is the lingua franca
of India - what, 800 million people? Not only is there a huge
number of native speakers of English across the world, but as a
second language English is by far the most popular.
Douglas K Long
Gordon Fitch (g...@panix.com) wrote:
: syn...@MCS.COM:
: | English should be made the only official language of the U.S. and
: | it should be the only language the government uses for routine
: | matters. ...
: I'm wondering what you and the House of Representatives plan
: to do with Puerto Rico, as well as the lands of the Mexican
: cession which are now and have always been Spanish-speaking,
On a drive in June and July between Dallas and San Francisco -
in and around northern New Mexico, around northern and central
Arizona, Including Najaho and Hopi lands, I was never expected
to speak Spanish, not even once.
: and the American Indian nations which preserve their
: languages (such as the Navaho). Kick them out of the
I've yet to meet a Navajo who couldn't converse in English.
: country, or what? It's supposed to be some kind of a human
: rights violation, I think, to make people use a language
: other than their own at the point of a gun. You could argue
Almost everything is illegal at the point of a gun. For a
government to conduct its business in a single language
usually doesn't involve gun-play. What are you suggesting,
that bureaucrats are going to be packing heat? "Say it in
English or I blow your head off." Sure.
: that immigrants chose to come here and say they ought to
: learn English, but the shoe is on the other foot in the case
: of the people I'm referring to above -- the U.S. came to
: them. Now we're going to force a language on them:
Right. We going to force people to speak only English all day long
and if they don't we're going to blow their heads off.
By the way, those comparitive few who speak Spanish - and most of
them can converse in English - are recent arrivals to this country.
The US didn't come to them; it's the other way around.
: --
: }"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Tim Brown
kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson) writes:
>In article <DvLDD...@iglou.com>, Tim Brown <bath...@iglou.iglou.com> wrote:
>>kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson) writes:
>>>Tim Brown <with the catchy e-mail address> wrote:
>>>>Congressional Republicans and the Bush Administration came very close to
>>>>banning road signs that use miles instead of kilometers.
>>>Really? Where are these signs in km? Or were they just going to take
>>>down all road signs?
>>You don't see metric road signs because Clinton delayed the measure that
>>would have punished states for daring to keep using miles. In Arizona,
>>they *do* have metric road signs anyway!
>Do they have metric only? Or both km and miles?
Metric only on Interstate 19 between Nogales and Tucson.
>>>And, exactly what does any of this have to do with Singapore? You
>>>singled them out, mentioning they are a "right-wing regime", while
>>>failing to indicate how they are any more influential than the entire
>>>rest of the world, which also uses metric.
>>Singapore is headed by totalitarian dictator Lee Kuan Yew, who President
>>Bush praised repeatedly.
>Again, exactly what does any of this have to do with Singapore? You
>singled them out, while failing to indicate how they are any more
>influential than the entire rest of the world, which also uses metric.
Singapore is the nation that the Grand Old Farty wants America to emulate
in every way. Chew gum, get caned. Forget to flush, get hanged.
>Quit dodging the questions.
>>>Only if you can show how metric has been used here as widely as English.
>>>Otherwise, "metric only" is analogous to passing a "French only" law
>>>here.
>>Why is "French only" any different from "English only"?
>Because everything from the DoI and Constitution until now has been done
>in English (even if some things are additionally done in other languages.)
>French does not have such a basis in our nation.
So neither does the metric system.
>>>In any event, it would be nice if America had the same measurement system
>>>as the rest of the world.
>>Why the hell should we? Because some overseas dictator thinks it's easier
>>to do business with us?
>In case you haven't noticed, the entire world outside the USA is metric.
>Are you suggesting that every country outside the USA is a dictatorship?
No I am not. But the countries that do use it have no right ganging up on
us and forcing us to switch, especially when the switch is designed
entirely to benefit big corporations. That's a violation of our
sovereignty.
>> I refuse to switch, and I will secede from the union if metric
>>imperialism gets a full grip on America.
>The horror!
I am dead serious. If they change the signs on my street, then bang,
bang, bang!
Gordon Fitch
syn...@MCS.COM:
| >> >| English should be made the only official language of the U.S. and
| >> >| it should be the only language the government uses for routine
| >> >| matters. ...
Gordon Fitch <g...@panix.com> wrote:
| >> >I'm wondering what you and the House of Representatives plan
| >> >to do with Puerto Rico, as well as the lands of the Mexican
| >> >cession which are now and have always been Spanish-speaking,
| >> >and the American Indian nations which preserve their
| >> >languages (such as the Navaho). Kick them out of the
| >> >country, or what?
kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson) wrote:
| >> Strawman fallacy. The proposed legislation does not prohibit people
| >> from speaking another language. It merely makes English the official
| >> language of government.
Alec Horgan <horg...@cc.memphis.edu> wrote:
| >No, in addition to this "synergy" also wishes to make English "the only
| >official language of the U.S."
kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson):
| How is that an addition? That's the same thing I said?
Alec Horgan <horg...@cc.memphis.edu> wrote:
| >Of course he doesn't specify what this entails,
| >but as he did go to the trouble of distinguishing that from
| >making English "the only language the government uses for routine
| >matters," one wonders what he might have had in mind if not forcing people
| >to speak English.
kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson):
| One wonders how you think you're convincing anyone with continued
| strawman fallacies. ...
Your straw man is indeed a straw man.
In another article, I pointed out the numerous ways an
ordinary citizen _has_ to deal with the government -- such
mundane items as obtaining a driver's license or filing a
tax return. True, the citizen can elect to not drive, not
have an income, not possess any real estate, and so on, but
otherwise she is forced to deal with the government, and if
the government speaks only English, she is forced to use
English. synergy may not have said this explicitly, but I
think he has to assume the rest of us have enough common
sense to figure out what his proposal means.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Anti-rumor
Douglas K Long <DKL...@utarlg.uta.edu> wrote in article
<4u15pt$9...@news.uta.edu>...
> Gordon Fitch (g...@panix.com) wrote:
> : syn...@MCS.COM:
snip
>
> : that immigrants chose to come here and say they ought to
> : learn English, but the shoe is on the other foot in the case
> : of the people I'm referring to above -- the U.S. came to
> : them. Now we're going to force a language on them:
>
> Right. We going to force people to speak only English all day long
> and if they don't we're going to blow their heads off.
>
> By the way, those comparitive few who speak Spanish - and most of
> them can converse in English - are recent arrivals to this country.
> The US didn't come to them; it's the other way around.
>
> : --
> : }"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
>
When I visited other countries for short periods of time, I tried to learn
at least a few phrases which would help me get by. Why? Because I was in
their country, I should do my best to follow their rules, language, etc.
If someone is coming here to live, they are coming to this country and need
to follow this country's laws, language, etc. By declaring English the
official language, we can save thousands upon thousands of dollars a year
in printing things in other languages -- voting notices, drivers license
booklets, welfare booklets, etc. One radio station I sometimes listen to
did a little investigation and discovered that it costs the county $300.00
per language per paper, on average for each language and paper the county
must print election information in. In a huge area such as Los Angeles or
New York, where there are many immigrants, this could come to quite a large
sum -- all taxpayer dollars. And if Spanish, for example, is printed,
where does it stop ..... Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese (several dialects),
Chinese (several dialects), French, German, Polish, Russian, Dutch,
Portugese, .... all the Native American languages, all the languages spoken
by various African tribes, all the languages spoken by various South
American languages (decendants of the original inhabitants) ..... I'm
sure you get the idea. Not make English the official language of the US?
What a stupid idea.
Anti-rumor
David G. Hughey
Gordon Fitch wrote:
>
> In another article, I pointed out the numerous ways an
> ordinary citizen _has_ to deal with the government -- such
> mundane items as obtaining a driver's license or filing a
> tax return. True, the citizen can elect to not drive, not
> have an income, not possess any real estate, and so on, but
> otherwise she is forced to deal with the government, and if
> the government speaks only English, she is forced to use
> English. synergy may not have said this explicitly, but I
> think he has to assume the rest of us have enough common
> sense to figure out what his proposal means.
That would be correct. If your imaginary person chooses to obtain a
driver's license, pay taxes, or deal with a governmental agency in some
fashion, she would be required to use English. When she goes to church,
reads a paper or a book, speaks with friends/family/tradespeople/God,
etc., she is free to use whatever language she wishes.
I really can't see the difference between this system and the system
employed by many governments around the world. It would be
inappropriate, and typical of the "Ugly American" complex, to check in
with a governmental agency in, say, Bejing, and expect the clerk at the
Transportation Board to converse with me about my problem in English.
Or is it okay for OTHER nations to be concerned with such things as
culture and language and so forth and not THIS nation?
> --
> }"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
David G. Hughey
Dan Thornsberry wrote:
> The 'english only' crowd is the same cast of characters
> who preached 'separate but equal' in the 60's.
>
> Back then, they wore sheets and voted for democrats.
> Today they wear play-army clothes and control the
> republican party.
(Huge sig file/other material snipped)
That is inaccurate. I support English-only for governmental
communications and I do not wear a sheet nor do I support segregation.
Nor do I, as Gordon suggests, wish to "force people" to use a language
other than the one that they prefer when they conduct the remaining 95+
% of their personal business. Your assertions are based in less than
factual awareness.
Gordon Fitch
"Anti-rumor" <anti-...@concentric.net>:
| ... In a huge area such as Los Angeles or
| New York, where there are many immigrants....
I haven't been talking about immigrants.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Alec Horgan
In article <4u15p6$4...@news.tamu.edu>, kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E
Jackson) wrote:
> In article <horgandd-030...@wok3-01.memphis.edu>,
> Alec Horgan <horg...@cc.memphis.edu> wrote:
> >In article <4ttjf5$9...@news.tamu.edu>, kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E
> >Jackson) wrote:
> >> In article <4tt982$4...@panix2.panix.com>, Gordon Fitch
> >> <g...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> >syn...@MCS.COM:
> >> >| English should be made the only official language of the U.S. and
> >> >| it should be the only language the government uses for routine
> >> >| matters. ...
>
> >> >I'm wondering what you and the House of Representatives plan
> >> >to do with Puerto Rico, as well as the lands of the Mexican
> >> >cession which are now and have always been Spanish-speaking,
> >> >and the American Indian nations which preserve their
> >> >languages (such as the Navaho). Kick them out of the
> >> >country, or what?
>
> >> Strawman fallacy. The proposed legislation does not prohibit people
> >> from speaking another language. It merely makes English the official
> >> language of government.
>
> >No, in addition to this "synergy" also wishes to make English "the only
> >official language of the U.S."
>
> How is that an addition? That's the same thing I said?
I don't think so, but if it is, then why would "synergy" have said the
same thing twice? That English should be "the only official language of
the U.S." and "the only language the government uses for routine matters"?
>
> >Of course he doesn't specify what this entails,
> >but as he did go to the trouble of distinguishing that from
> >making English "the only language the government uses for routine
> >matters," one wonders what he might have had in mind if not forcing people
> >to speak English.
>
> One wonders how you think you're convincing anyone with continued
> strawman fallacies.
>
I'm not attempting to convince anyone of anything. I'm asking you, since
"synergy" appeared to have two different things in mind by "the only
official language of the U.S." and "the only language the government uses
for routine matters," on what grounds are you entitled to assume that they
are the same?
Alec
Tim Brown
kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson) writes:
>In article <DvLKH...@iglou.com>, Tim Brown <bath...@iglou.iglou.com> wrote:
>>kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson) writes:
>>>In article <DvLDD...@iglou.com>, Tim Brown <bath...@iglou.iglou.com> wrote:
>>>>kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson) writes:
>>>>>And, exactly what does any of this have to do with Singapore? You
>>>>>singled them out, mentioning they are a "right-wing regime", while
>>>>>failing to indicate how they are any more influential than the entire
>>>>>rest of the world, which also uses metric.
>>>>Singapore is headed by totalitarian dictator Lee Kuan Yew, who President
>>>>Bush praised repeatedly.
>>>Again, exactly what does any of this have to do with Singapore? You
>>>singled them out, while failing to indicate how they are any more
>>>influential than the entire rest of the world, which also uses metric.
>>Singapore is the nation that the Grand Old Farty wants America to emulate
>>in every way. Chew gum, get caned. Forget to flush, get hanged.
>Again, exactly what does the metric system have to do with Singapore?
>You singled them out, while failing to indicate how they are any more
>influential than the entire rest of the world, which also uses metric.
I have shown again and again how the government of Singapore has us in our
grip. You'd understand if you look back at the caning a couple years ago.
>>>Quit dodging the questions.
>Yeah, quit dodging the questions.
>>>>>Only if you can show how metric has been used here as widely as English.
>>>>>Otherwise, "metric only" is analogous to passing a "French only" law
>>>>>here.
>>>>Why is "French only" any different from "English only"?
>>>Because everything from the DoI and Constitution until now has been done
>>>in English (even if some things are additionally done in other languages.)
>>>French does not have such a basis in our nation.
>>So neither does the metric system.
>Bingo! Thanks for proving my point about "English only" having no
>relation to converting to metric.
It only proves the opposite.
>>>>>In any event, it would be nice if America had the same measurement system
>>>>>as the rest of the world.
>>>>Why the hell should we? Because some overseas dictator thinks it's easier
>>>>to do business with us?
>>>In case you haven't noticed, the entire world outside the USA is metric.
>>>Are you suggesting that every country outside the USA is a dictatorship?
>>No I am not. But the countries that do use it have no right ganging up on
>>us and forcing us to switch,
>What countries are *FORCING* us to switch?
Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and other rogue regimes.
>>especially when the switch is designed entirely to benefit big corporations.
>Sure thing. A simple, base-10 system is useless to the common man.
>Riiight!
>>That's a violation of our sovereignty.
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>Just the other day I saw a black helicopter dropping little objects.
>I picked one up, and it was a damned metric socket wrench! They're
>taking over!!! Run for the hills!!!
Some teacher got arrested in Kentucky for teaching the imperial system.
>>>> I refuse to switch, and I will secede from the union if metric
>>>>imperialism gets a full grip on America.
>>>The horror!
>>I am dead serious. If they change the signs on my street, then bang,
>>bang, bang!
>What'll you use? A 9mm?
I'm good at making bombs.
Gordon Fitch
kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson):
| Help me out here, Gordo. Citizens born in this country (and children
| raised here) are educated in English. ...
Not in Puerto Rico. I'm not sure about Spanish-speaking
areas of the Southwest, or American Indian reservations.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Mitchell Holman
In article <3204F7...@atl.mindspring.com>, "David G. Hughey" <dhu...@atl.mindspring.com> wrote:
}Dan Thornsberry wrote:
}
}> The 'english only' crowd is the same cast of characters
}> who preached 'separate but equal' in the 60's.
}>
}> Back then, they wore sheets and voted for democrats.
}> Today they wear play-army clothes and control the
}> republican party.
}
}
}That is inaccurate. I support English-only for governmental
}communications and I do not wear a sheet nor do I support segregation.
}Nor do I, as Gordon suggests, wish to "force people" to use a language
}other than the one that they prefer when they conduct the remaining 95+
}% of their personal business. Your assertions are based in less than
}factual awareness.
Dade County (Miami) tried "English only for governmental business" and
it was a diaster. Emergency calls to 911 were lost because the operaters
were not bilingual. Police could not interview crime suspects, native born
Americans were unable to register their cars, and complaints to City Hall
were ignored, all because of the "English only" rule. Fortunately they
dropped that silly rule after two years, and there is no movement to revive
it.
Mitchell Holman
"I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you.
Yes, hate is good. . our goal is a Christian nation.
We have a biblical duty, we are called on by God to
conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We
don't want pluralism."
-- Randall Terry, head of Operation Rescue
Mitchell Holman
In article <01bb8233$3f781d40$28ce...@crc3.concentric.net>, "Anti-rumor" <anti-...@concentric.net> wrote:
}
}
}When I visited other countries for short periods of time, I tried to learn
}at least a few phrases which would help me get by. Why? Because I was in
}their country, I should do my best to follow their rules, language, etc.
}If someone is coming here to live, they are coming to this country and need
}to follow this country's laws, language, etc.
What country did you visit? Belgium, perhaps, were there are two
"official" languages, or Switzerland, where there are *four*? How about
Spain (which *version* of Spanish is correct, pray tell?) or Ireland (which
will it be, Gaelic or English?).
If you want to see one result of "official" language, look at Quebec, where
not only is English not recognized, it is even *illegal* to display signs or
advertisments in English. And they are constantly trying to secede to put
even further distance between them and the taint of a second language.
Sound like the direction you want America to go?
Mitchell Holman
"We need space based defense weapons because without
them we would not have won in "Red Storm Rising"
--Vice President Dan Quayle
Mitchell Holman
In article <320279...@atl.mindspring.com>, "David G. Hughey" <dhu...@atl.mindspring.com> wrote:
}
}I would do absolutely nothing about Puerto Rico. I would put the legal
}wheels in motion that separates the United States from Puerto Rico once
}and for all. Puerto Rico should be a sovereign nation.
Trouble is, Puerto Ricans do not *want* to be independant. There
have been something like 15 independence referendums/elections
since WWII, and they always end the same. They like the status
quo. Granted, there are a few secessionist and statehood political
parties, but they never get anywhere at the polls.
They are as American as you are, and want to stay that way.
Is there a problem in that?
Alec Horgan
> kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson):
> | Help me out here, Gordo. Citizens born in this country (and children
> | raised here) are educated in English. ...
>
> Not in Puerto Rico.
Nor, for that matter, much of our nation's capital.
Alec
Papa Jack
David G. Hughey wrote:
>
> Dan Thornsberry wrote:
> >Dan Thornsberry wrote:
> > The 'english [sic] only' crowd is the same cast of
> > characters who preached 'separate but equal' in the 60's.
> > Back then, they wore sheets and voted for democrats.
> > Today they wear play-army clothes and control the
> > republican party.
================================================
> David G. Hughey wrote:
> That is inaccurate. I support English-only for governmental
> communications and I do not wear a sheet nor do I support segregation.
> Nor do I, as Gordon suggests, wish to "force people" to use a language
> other than the one that they prefer when they conduct the remaining 95+
> % of their personal business. Your assertions are based in less than
> factual awareness.
================================================
Papa Jack comments:
We see Dan using the familiar "Borking" technique which is
rapidly becoming the favorite propaganda tactic of the
radical Democrats.
Unfortunately, the tactic is more effective than you might
believe. If the person smeared ignores the smear, too many
ignorant people will assume he is guilty. OTOH, if the
person smeared responds, an association is built in the
readers minds between the allegations and the person
smeared. IOW, some of the mud sticks. Meanwhile, the
person smeared is too busy defending himself to be very
effective in attacking the person who did the "Borking."
Another point is that folks who must resort to these types
of lies and distortions are always debating from a weak
position -- otherwise they would be anxious to actually
argue the issues, rather than just slinging mud and manure.
BTW, Dan, are you saying the Democratic supporters of
JFK and LBJ wore sheets? They were the top Dems in the
60s. You might want to go back and read a history book
or two. Might unscramble things in your mind.
--
{ Papa Jack
{
{ http://www.express-news.net/papajack
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal; that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." --Thomas Jefferson
Stephen Swartz
In article <4u4jo2$f...@panix2.panix.com>, g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) says:
>
>kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson):
>| Help me out here, Gordo. Citizens born in this country (and children
>| raised here) are educated in English. ...
>
>areas of the Southwest, or American Indian reservations.
Gordon:
Perhaps you were speaking tongue in cheek, but at least in the 70's and
early 80's children in Puerto Rico were taught English in school . . .
when did this stop?
Also, in the public school system in the U.S. Southwest, english is
taught to children in school also. Some school districts *include* the
teaching of spanish; but english is not optional.
I don't have any information about the reservations . . . other than
at least the Hopi's in Arizona continue to teach english in those schools
that are "reservation" schools . . .
>--
> }"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
***********************************************************************
* =8^) * Abolish the welfare state AND the police state! *
* Steve * Which is worse: a Libertarian on food stamps; or *
* Swartz * a Socialist with a bank account? *
* * Support the ENTIRE Bill of Rights! Are you ok with *
* NRA Life * a well-armed group of religious-militia members *
* AFA Life * getting together to publish a newspaper calling for *
* * a return of power to the states? If not, you don't!*
***********************************************************************
g...@3-cities.com
bath...@iglou.iglou.com (Tim Brown) wrote:
>kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson) writes:
>You don't see metric road signs because Clinton delayed the measure that
>would have punished states for daring to keep using miles. In Arizona,
>they *do* have metric road signs anyway!
Washington, Idaho and Oregon too.
Geo
"...you and I both know that I don't think..." - Zoner
edc...@vossnet.co.uk
Gordon Fitch wrote:
>
> Gordon Fitch wrote:
> | > It seems to me that the government should serve the people,
> | > not the other way around. And if a substantial number of
> | > them speak a language other than English, the U.S.
> | > government ought to be able to accomodate them. Especially
> | > in the case of people whose language communities preceded
> | > both English and the United States on its territory.
> | > Efficiency is no reason to deprive people of rights.
> | > Remember, they _have_ to deal with the government.
>
> "David G. Hughey" <dhu...@atl.mindspring.com>:
> | I certainly agree that the government should serve the people. That of
> | course would include the people who pay for the government. It's a
> | question of efficiency, since the government is using my money to
> | function. I have no problems with people worshipping and speaking the
> | way they want; I have no problem with ethnic neighborhoods or whatever.
> | But English should be chosen as the language of the government. After
> | all, a overwhelming "significant number" of people speak the language.
> | If I emigrated to China, I would learn Mandarin or Cantonese so I could
> | function within the society. I am not arrogant enough to believe that
> | the whole of society must accomodate me just because I draw breath.
>
> Isn't that exactly what you're saying? You -- and a
> majority of Americans -- speak English; therefore the only
> language the government speaks should be English. Spanish-
> speakers and American Indians also pay taxes, so it stands
> to reason that the government should be just as "efficient"
> for them as it is for English-speakers. It's simply a
> matter of equal rights.
>
> I don't know why you want the government to be efficient
> anyway; as like as not, it'll be up to no good. I prefer an
> inefficient government.
>
> | And so what if Navajo or Urqut was spoken on this continent first? ...
>
> Many English-only types make the argument that since people
> immigrate to the United States, they make a decision which
> involves learning English. I just wanted to preclude this
> argument by mentioning several cases of non-English-speaking
> communities whose existence preceded (1) the United States
> and (2) the use of English in North America. Nevertheless,
> I was unsuccessful.
> --
> }"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
FORGET the race issue and equal rights dribble. What has race to do
with this anyway? This is only an issue to liberals with a subconsious
'white-superiority' complex who keep thinking 'english=white'
thus 'english=bad'. Poor downtrodden, disadvantaged ethnic minority,
we (the great white liberal) have to protect you... Utter dibble...
Language is a communication 'tool'. English is the business
language of the world - it is the closest to an international
language the world has. English is the most efficient, most effective,
most practical, cost-effective communication 'tool' to use in a
country where most people speak it.
ps. Providing a 'crutch' to persons not knowing english hurts
their chances of success in a nation where english is widely
used. This hurts the minorities.
edc...@vossnet.co.uk
with anything? This is only an issue to liberals with a subconsious
thus 'english=bad'. Poor downtrodden, disadvantaged ethnic minority,
Matthew B. Ward
>When I visited other countries for short periods of time, I tried to learn
>at least a few phrases which would help me get by. Why? Because I was in
>their country, I should do my best to follow their rules, language, etc.
>If someone is coming here to live, they are coming to this country and need
>to follow this country's laws, language, etc.
Since when was English "the" language of the USA? We have NEVER been a
monolingual country: if you bother to read history, you would find out
that in the first century of this country, many states had communities in
which English was not the first language spoken. Our founding fathers
printed government documents in several languages; usually French and
German, at least. In the 1800's, many, many states authorized public
schools to use languages other than English as a medium of instruction.
This did not change until a histerical English-only movement in the early
part of this century not only forbade other languages in government, but
in many cases, on the street or over the phone as well. At the same
time, teaching foreign languages was outlawed in several states. The
result was a country in which most people are monolingual. If our
pathetical failure to teach foreign languages in our public schools (the
ultimate "dumbing down,") was not enough, now we are trying to pass a
constitutional amendment which would prohibit states like New Mexico and
Hawaii, which have had long-standing and successful bi-lingual policies,
from continuing those policies. It's especially sick if you consider
that New Mexico was over 50% Hispanic until about 1950; we are, in
effect, attacking a language which has been part of American culture for
as long as English has. As for the costs: less than 1/2 of one percent
of government documents in the US are printed on languages other than
English--if you don't like paperwork, then work for a smaller government,
but don't you dare attack the rights of a state like Hawaii to promote a
language that has been spoken there for far longer than English.
(MBW)
PS: By the way, I am bi-lingual, as is my fiance: if you don't like the
fact that our kids will speak more than one language, then you're living
in the wrong country, buddy.
David G. Hughey
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Trouble is, Puerto Ricans do not *want* to be independant. There
> have been something like 15 independence referendums/elections
> since WWII, and they always end the same. They like the status
> quo. Granted, there are a few secessionist and statehood political
> parties, but they never get anywhere at the polls.
>
> They are as American as you are, and want to stay that way.
> Is there a problem in that?
> Mitchell Holman
That is not the information I have. The indpendence forces are
gathering strength. The last referendum pretty much rejected Washington
authority and I am merely suggesting that we should respect the wishes
of the people of Puerto Rico and allow them to become an independent
nation.
Matthew B. Ward
I support English-only for governmental
>communications and I do not wear a sheet nor do I support segregation.
>Nor do I, as Gordon suggests, wish to "force people" to use a language
>other than the one that they prefer when they conduct the remaining 95+
>% of their personal business. Your assertions are based in less than
>factual awareness.
The last English-only movemen, in the early 1900's, resulted in languages
other than English being banned on the telephone, and in the steets. How
can we believe that you will stop with government?
Also, why do you want to create an amendment that would forbid language
minorities which have lived in the what is now the US for hundreds or
thousands of years from using their languages in public schools? Their
kids are required to attend school, and most people can't afford to send
their kids to private schools. Historically, when you ban a language
from the schools and then require kids to attend schools, that language
is usually doomed. Imagine if you were a Navaho code-talker vet, and
that you had used your language in World War II against the Japanese.
Your language is a proud part of American culture and history. You pay
taxes, yet your language is forbidden all across the public sector, which
your grandkids spend a hell of a lot more than 5% of their time in,
because they go to school. That's just plain wrong, and un-American to
boot.
(MBW)
Matthew B. Ward
The US government recognized the language rights of the Cherokee tribe
under an 1828 treaty, and agreed to substidize the first newspaper
published in an Indian tongue, the Cherokee Phoenix. In the 1830's,
however, President Andrew Jackson initiated a policy of forcible Indian
removal from the eastern United States, which became known as the Trail
of Tears, as more than one-third of the Indians died en-route to
Oklahoma. When the Cherokees used their printing press to advocate
resistance, it was confiscated and destroyed.
After resettlement in Oklahoma, the tribe established an educational
system of twenty-one schools, using Sequoyah's Cherokee syllabary to
achieve a 90 percent literacy rate in the native language. According to
a 1969 Senate report on Indian education, in the 1850's these schools
"used biligual materials to such an extent that Oklahoma Cherokees had a
higher ENGLISH (my emphasis) literacy level than the while populations of
either Texas or Arkansas."
Soon, the Federal government moved to dismantle this experiment in Indian
bilingual education and to mandate instruction in English only. In 1879,
it began separating Indian children from their families and forcing them
to attend off-reservation boarding schools. Students were punished when
caught speaking their native tongues, or "barbarous dialects," in the
words of one Federal Indian commissioner. Representative Ben Nighthorse
Campbell of Colorado, a member of the Northern Cheyenne tribe, describes
the experience: "Both of my grandparents were forcibly removed from
their homes and placed into boarding schools. One of the first English
words Indian students learned was "soap," because their mouths were
constantly being washed out for using their native language."
The Cherokees' tribal printing press, which had been used to produce
native-language teaching materials, again was confiscated. This time, it
was shipped to Washington DC, and put on display at the Smithsonian
Institution. Cherokee educational attainment began to decline, by 1969,
only 40 percent of the tribe's adults were functionally literate.
In the early 1970's, the Cherokee's began again using their native
language both as a subject, and as a medium of instruction in public
school in Oklohoma with large Cherokee populations, especially in parts
of the state which are predominately Cherokee. However, if the
English-only constitutional amendment is passed, the legacy of the Trail
of Tears will march on, and the Cherokees will be again forbidden from
using their native language, which has been spoken on this continent for
far longer than English in the public schools which most Cherokee
children attend.
(MBW)
New Years resolution for '97: "Speak languages other than English in
public, while it is still legal."
(After all, the first big English only movement resulted in languages
other than English being banned over the phone and on the street--no
shit, Sherlock, read yer history!)
"phasaa kheu watthanatham, watthanatham kheu phasaaa"
Matthew B. Ward
If, as Newt says, having minority linguistic groups in a society causes
separatism, then why does bilingual Ireland have no separatist movement,
yet monolingual Northern Ireland does? Why are there countries like
Switzerland or Singapore or the Phillipines where several languages are
used in schools and by government, yet there are no seperatist movements?
How come the United States allowed its public schools to teach in French,
German, and Swedish for the first hundred years of its history, yet there
were no language-related seperatist movements?
Answer: it isn't languages that cause separatist movements, it is
attempts to supress languages. If you look at countries like Wales or
Canada where there are conflicts over languages, you will find that there
was invariably supression of those languages in the history of those
countries. In countries like Switzerland, where there has historically
been tolerance towards languages, there are no problems.
My roommate is a young man named Michael Cruz, from Guam, USA. He is an
ex-marine and current reservist, a PROUD American. His grandparents had
their mouths washed out with soap from speaking their native language,
but now that they are allowed to use their native tongue in schools, they
have been reviving their culture, while remaining proud Americans. (Guam
sends a disproportionate number of its young men into the service). Mike
would like Guam to become the 51st state, but there is only one problem:
the federal government is discussing making a constitutional amendment
that would prohibit his native language from being used in the schools.
Being a territory, they may not be subject to the constitution in the
same way as states, but they were talking about becoming a state before
English Only came around again. After all, they are proud Americans, and
would like to be a state.
He can't understand what is not "American" about Chamorro, his native
language, as it has been spoken on Guam, which is part of the US, for
thousands of years. He knows that early Americans discussed making
French, Greek, Hebrew, or Greek the official language, as English was,
after all, the language of the British oppressors. But, thankfully, the
Founding Fathers did not mandate what language be used in government and
schools. They left that to local governments.
He does see the value of English, and thinks that all who attend the
public schools should be required to learn English, but he also knows
about the drop-out rates associated with immersion. He speaks English so
well that you would never know that it isn't his native language. Yet he
wants his kids to speak their native language in addition to English, and
he knows that this will not happen if they are sent for twelve years to
schools where only English can be used as a medium of instruction. He is
not a rich guy, and doesn't anticipate being able to afford to send his
kids to private schools. He also knows that English has NEVER been the
only language of this country, so he doesn't understand why his territory
may be forbidden to choose what languages it can uses in the schools.
Do you understand how language supression causes seperatism? If you
don't like immigration, fine. But, don't ever, ever tell people what
languages that their states or territories may use, especially if those
languages are a part of American history and culture.
(MBW)
Kurt Grosshans
In article <01bb8233$3f781d40$28ce...@crc3.concentric.net>,
anti-...@concentric.net says...
>
>
>
>
>When I visited other countries for short periods of time, I tried to learn
>at least a few phrases which would help me get by. Why? Because I was in
>their country, I should do my best to follow their rules, language, etc.
>If someone is coming here to live, they are coming to this country and need
>official language, we can save thousands upon thousands of dollars a year
>in printing things in other languages -- voting notices, drivers license
>booklets, welfare booklets, etc. One radio station I sometimes listen to
>did a little investigation and discovered that it costs the county $300.00
>per language per paper, on average for each language and paper the county
>must print election information in. In a huge area such as Los Angeles or
>New York, where there are many immigrants, this could come to quite a large
>sum -- all taxpayer dollars. And if Spanish, for example, is printed,
>where does it stop ..... Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese (several dialects),
>Chinese (several dialects), French, German, Polish, Russian, Dutch,
>Portugese, .... all the Native American languages, all the languages spoken
>by various African tribes, all the languages spoken by various South
>American languages (decendants of the original inhabitants) ..... I'm
>sure you get the idea. Not make English the official language of the US?
>What a stupid idea.
>Anti-rumor
Which means that a congressman, responding to a constituent in a language
other than English, can be sued. Fuck all those wet backs in Florida and
Texas! VOTE Republican!
Dan Thornsberry
Matthew B. Ward wrote:
>
> I support English-only for governmental
> >communications and I do not wear a sheet nor do I support segregation.
> >Nor do I, as Gordon suggests, wish to "force people" to use a language
> >other than the one that they prefer when they conduct the remaining 95+
> >% of their personal business. Your assertions are based in less than
> >factual awareness.
> >--
>
> other than English being banned on the telephone, and in the steets. How
> can we believe that you will stop with government?
>
> Also, why do you want to create an amendment that would forbid language
> minorities which have lived in the what is now the US for hundreds or
> thousands of years from using their languages in public schools? Their
> kids are required to attend school, and most people can't afford to send
> their kids to private schools. Historically, when you ban a language
> from the schools and then require kids to attend schools, that language
> is usually doomed. Imagine if you were a Navaho code-talker vet, and
> that you had used your language in World War II against the Japanese.
> Your language is a proud part of American culture and history. You pay
> taxes, yet your language is forbidden all across the public sector, which
> your grandkids spend a hell of a lot more than 5% of their time in,
> because they go to school. That's just plain wrong, and un-American to
> boot.
>
> (MBW)
>
>
on another of their race baiting expeditions. Maybe it is an attempt
by the Dole camp to prevent the use of 'deja vu' in documents
referring to the NEW BobDole supply side idiocy.
--
Clinton/Gore Home Page:
http://www.cg96.org
-------------------------------------------------------
A. Half a trillion bucks. 10% of the entire national debt.
Q. How much will we have to pay because the Senile Old
Fool got government off the backs of the savings and
loan business?
-------------------------------------------------------
A. Because they know where to find the gullible.
Q. Why do you hear so many scam ads on Rush Limbaugh?
-------------------------------------------------------
The GOP was ordered by the NRA to attack the Center for
Disease Control for their studies on violence in America.
The GOP complied by cutting $2.6 million in funding. The
precise amount CDC budgeted for firearm injury studies.
Seems the NRA would like to keep gun deaths a secret. What
next? Will the Tobacco Institute force republicans to stop
funding cancer research? The NRA has already aligned
itself with terrorists by taking the teeth out the anti-
terrorism legislation. Perhaps they should change their
name to the National Assault Rifle and Pipe Bomb
Association of Gunloons and Republican Puppeteers.
-------------------------------------------------------
GOP - PARTY OF IDEAS
1. White people are superior to people of color.
2. Rich people are superior to poor people.
3. Big business is superior to ALL people.
4. Preachers and chemical companies should write the laws.
5. More guns on the street make your kids safer.
6. Tobacco is not harmful, but pot is deadly.
7. Christianity is the only religion that matters.
8. Jesus was the greatest American that ever lived.
9. Freedom for business is good, individual freedom is bad.
10. The economy would be better if massive tax breaks are
given to the rich.
-------------------------------------------------------
Top 10 problems facing a militiaman today:
10. His stupid ass wife got herself pregnant again.
9. They said he needed a GED for the job but he knew it
was really an affirmative action thing.
8. High payroll taxes are killing his dream of some
day owning a double-wide.
7. His wife is going to find out he spent the rent
money on that new gun.
6. Those godless commies at the UN are tapping his phone.
5. His kids aren't too bright. He knows it's his wifes fault.
It makes him wish he'd married his other cousin.
4. Cockroach infestation of his home.
3. Clinton has a 24% lead.
2. Getting government off his back.
1. The FBI is showing his composite around Atlanta!
-------------------------------------------------------
In the early days, when most of the human race still lived
in caves, there were two tribes. When a family in the first
tribe lost the breadwinner, the rest of the tribe pitched in
and shared their meager resources with the less fortunate
members of the society. This tribe evolved into the liberals
of today.
The second tribe was different. When one of their own lost the
food gatherer, the remainder of the family was cast into the
elements to perish. This tribe evolved not at all, and became
the conservatives of today.
==========================================================
| | The GOP wants more guns |
| Dan Thornsberry | |
|tbe...@computek.net | and less education!!! |
| | |
|==========================================================|
| The victors called the revolution a triumph of liberty; |
| but now and then liberty, in the slogans of the strong, |
| means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the |
| weak. -Will Durant |
==========================================================
Thank you Mr. President:
Thanks for restoring democracy in Haiti.
Thanks for the Brady Bill.
Thanks for protecting the weak from the GOP, until 7/31/96.
Thanks for getting us out of the Somalia quagmire.
Thanks for getting the economy back on track.
Thanks for stopping the carnage in Bosnia.
Thanks for returning a concern for humanity to the White House.
Thanks for bringing this country the largest wage increase
in history.
Thanks for reducing the deficit.
Most of all, thanks for making Newtie leave by the back door!
-------------------------------------------------------
Matthew B. Ward
DKL...@utarlg.uta.edu (Douglas K Long) wrote:
>Gordon Fitch (g...@panix.com) wrote:
>
>: I'm wondering what you and the House of Representatives plan
>: to do with Puerto Rico, as well as the lands of the Mexican
>: cession which are now and have always been Spanish-speaking,
>
> in and around northern New Mexico, around northern and central
> Arizona, Including Najaho and Hopi lands, I was never expected
> to speak Spanish, not even once.
>
>: and the American Indian nations which preserve their
>: languages (such as the Navaho). Kick them out of the
>
>
Gee, you've actually figured it out: it is possible for a human being to
speak two languages well! Gee, what a leap! Guess what, some Native
Americans can still speak their native languages, as well as English!
How in the hell do they do it? They use it in education, of course,
because at this point, the constitution and US law allows them to use
public money for preserving part of our nation's cultural heritage.
That they can speak English and their native languages proves that
bilingualism works. But, if you forbid a language to be used in the
schools, you kill it, and that is exactly what the English-only
constitutional amendment would do: kill the last remnants of the native
languages of the USA. Many native Hawaiians have lost their native
languages, but the state has a bilingual policy, in order to preserve its
culture. The minute the ELO amendment goes down, there goes Native
Hawaiian. I can't believe you guys have the nerve to call yourselves
"conservatives"--exactly what is it that you any longer want to conserve?
> By the way, those comparitive few who speak Spanish - and most of
> them can converse in English - are recent arrivals to this country.
Right again! Guess what--most immigrants to the US lose their languages!
So, we get more monolingual people--what a waste! The question is not
how many Hispanic families who have been here for three or four hundred
years can still speak Spanish (some can, but not many), it's the fact
that Spanish is part of our historical and cultural heritage; forbidding
the entire public sector to use a language which was once the main
language of a region is insane. Other countries protect such
languages. We aren't a historically monolingual county, so it is just
plain wrong to mandate that all states have to use only one language in
the public sector.
Another thing--Any other country with 30 or so countries below it which
all speak the same language would be making damn good and sure that its
children were learning this language, but here the English-language only
movement is proposing an amendment which would prohibit public schools
from requiring foreign languages--talk about dumbing down!!
Whether anyone wants to believe it or not, the future of world business
is a little place called China, because it's got 1.2 billion people, and
if you think that we are not going to need people who speak Chinese,
think again. The US government lets my uncle bring Chinese over, with no
green card, to work for him as translators, because there are virtually
no Americans who can speak the world's first language. That is a
disgrace! Americans could be working in those jobs, but we are
cheating our kids of a basic skill. It directly stems from the first
English-only movement in the early part of this century, when many states
forbade or restricted foreign language teaching. Before that, we not only
had public schools teaching in languages other than English, we actually
taught our kids to speak foreign languages. And guess what? People
could speak German and French and Spanish, AND they could speak English!
Imagine that! A person who can speak two languages, or three languages
well! Will wonders never cease!
(MBW)
(You people are really, really ignorant)
"khrai ja waa rawg phleng hai khwaay fang--khwaay mai fang, khwaay fang,
mai kao jai"
(Who would sing a song for a buffalo to listen to--the buffalo won't
listen, won't understand)
Matthew B. Ward
Matthew B. Ward
Matthew B. Ward
>
>I really can't see the difference between this system and the system
>employed by many governments around the world. It would be
>inappropriate, and typical of the "Ugly American" complex, to check in
>with a governmental agency in, say, Bejing, and expect the clerk at the
>Transportation Board to converse with me about my problem in English.
>Or is it okay for OTHER nations to be concerned with such things as
>culture and language and so forth and not THIS nation?
>> --
Exactly!
It's not OK for us not to be concerned about culture and language. We
should be concerned with language and culture, and we are not: we have
managed to kill nearly every one of the numerous languages which form our
cultural heritage. Singapore, despite being a right-wing nation, also
preserves Malay as one of its four (?) offical languages, although there
are only a few percent of Malays left in Singapore. Why? It was the
original language of the island. Switzerland teaches Italian in its
public schools, despite the fact that native speakers of Italian are only
8% of its population. German speakers used to be 8% of the US population
in the 1800's, and we let German speakers teach German in public schools,
until the first English-only movement destroyed the country's linguistic
heritage. You want to emulate other countries!! Alright!! Now we're
talking!
What about Australia? All native aboriginal languages protected by law,
and taught in schools. The Phillipines? Tagalog, English, Spanish,
Arabic, and dozens of dialects, all which are taught to their native
speakers in the first few grades of school, until they get a handle on
English, the normal medium of instruction.
You want to protect US culture? All right! We've got German, French,
and Spanish, Native Hawaiian, Chamorro, and dozens of Indian languages
that somehow survived the last English-only movement! We don't need to
protect English--English is the last language in the world that is going
to dissappear any time soon, except for Mandarin Chinese. The fact is,
these languages are beautiful, and if you ever bother to learn a second
langauge well, then you'll realize how essential they are to education.
Our neglect of language in this country is really sad. We ought to
take Spanish, for example, and teach it to far more of our kids, and
start them off earlier so that they'll actually learn it. It's a
beautiful language, and it is part of American culture. If you want to
know why people like me think that English only is a very sad, stupid,
ignorant waste, then understand that English, while being the predominant
language of this country since day one, has never, ever been the only
language. Believe me, if I thought English needed protecting, I'd be the
first to be active in doing it. But English is just fine. It's these
other languages that form part of our precious cultural heritage that I'm
worried about. The last English-only movement almost killed them, and
now, some of them are coming back; some of our native languages may
actually have a decent chance, but banning them from being ever used as a
medium of instruction is the best-surefire to kill a language. I'll
never learn Navaho, but I am sure glad to know that a little tiny bit of
my tax dollars go to protecting it, especially after it helped win World
War II--(if you don't know about this, then find out!)
If you don't know the history of language in the US, then please read
about it. We did surpress native languages quite a bit in the 1800's,
but the First Congress had all documents printed in German and French,
and by the mid 1800's, there were public schools in America operating in
German, French, Spanish, Swedish, Polish, and Dutch. That's our
heritage! You're totally right--we should preserve our heritage. We are
a historically multilingual country, and that is why we should all
opposse a constitutional amendment that mandates English Only for all
states. It's downright un-American.
Don't get me wrong--I'm an English as a second language teacher--I
believe that all Americans should learn English well, because it is the
one language that a person can't live without in this country. But, we
should not kill what is left of our multilingual heritage, and that is
exactly why English-only is wrong.
(MBW)
Matthew B. Ward
>
>Gee, that's very open-minded and liberal of you. If you have any
>personal experience around this though, you'd know that it creates a
>chasm between the monolingual Mexican and American, and encourages all
>those attitudes you'd rant against Americans for. You can't know what
>people are about unless you can talk with them. When those people are
>squatters, here against our law, that's rather important.
>
>Just more evidence of how liberal egghead "openmindedness" creates
>social strife.
>
>--
>Larry Olson
You got the right word here: "monolingual." If English-speaking
Americans could speak other languages, there wouldn't be this level of
bias.
Spanish is part of our heritage--it is NOT the problem. What the
problem is is illegal immigration. If you are against that, fine, be
against it, but don't blame it on a language which has been part of our
culture for hundreds of years. I live on "Lopez" island, in the "San
Juan" islands, get it? Those words didn't come out of thin air.
I don't care how many illegal immigrants come here, it doesn't diminish
the historical place of Spanish in our history one whit. Sure, plenty of
countries have official languages, but most of those countries recognize
and promote minority languages which are part of their historical
heritage. Countries which have historically supressed such languages,
like Canada and Wales, have language disputes. Countries which do not,
like Switzerland and Finland, have no such disputes. Language is NOT the
problem.
I MIGHT be willing to accept English as the offical language, as soon as
the US recognizes its linguistic heritage and moves to protect those
languages.
As for immigrants, I don't believe we need to protect their cultures,
after all, they chose to move here. However, as a bilingual and English
as a Second Language teacher, I know that it is a disaster to throw kids
in an English-only environment; the dropout rates alone prove that. They
may learn English a little slower with bilingualism, but they learn it
better. If they drop out, however, they never learn it, and they never
assimilate.
Also, if you have a kid who speaks Mandarin Chinese or Spanish, which
will be languages that we will need our kids to know in the future,
(being the number one and number three languages of the world,
respectively), why in the hell would we try to prevent them from speaking
those languages? There is no reason why people can't be bi- or
trilingual--visit any country in Europe for proof. Yeah, teach them
English, but don't make constitutional amendments forbidding them to
learn anything in their native languages, because then they will
competely lose their native languages. We really should be requiring
everyone to learn second languages in schools, it's a basic subject,
after all. It's cheaper to help Chinese kids maintain their own
languages than it is to teach native English speakers how to speak
Chinese.
As for separation, look at the statistics: about half of second
generation immigrants can't even speak their parents' language, and more
than 90% are fluent in English. The vast majority of third generation
immigrants can only speak English. There is evidence that this process
is actually accelerating, not slowing down, so there is no problem with
children of immigrants who can't speak English. The only problem is that
we have a lot of first generation immigrants who can't speak English, and
some of them will never learn it, no matter how hard they try, because
older people have trouble learning second languages. If we did a proper
job of teaching foreign languages in schools, then Americans would
understand this, and the English language only movement would not exist.
Sure, you could say "there are too many immigrants," and of your reasons
for thinking this could be the undeniable fact that many first generation
immigrants have trouble learning English, but then you would be
politically active for lower levels of immigration, not for supressing a
language like Spanish which is part of our culture and history, and
useful to boot.
Finally, don't believe all the crap about immigrants not wanting to
learn English. I teach English to immigrants, and they KNOW that they
have to learn English. Every time there are free ESL classes anywhere in
this country, there are about three or four times as many people who want
to take them than there is room for them. All bilingual ballots, etc. do
is to help immigrants integrate faster. There is NO evidence that
bilingual anything discourages immigrants from learning English. It just
makes it easier for them to adapt, because, as I said before some will
never learn English that well. You go move to a different country, and
see how well you do. The important thing is, again, that we keep
immigrant kids in school, because they will learn English no problem, as
long as they don't drop out in first or second grade because we expect
them to pick it up naturally. Works for some people, but it doesn't work
for others, and we can't afford to have immigrant kids dropping out.
Again, if you don't like helping immigrants to assimilate, then be
against immigration. Whatever you do, don't blame it on language; the
more languages a person learns, the easier it gets for him or her to
learn languages. Being bilingual is a great asset, and when China rules
the business world, we will be teaching our kids Chinese as a second
language, and we will value the few native-Chinese speakers in our
society. Other societies deal with the problem of communication by
teaching everyone to be at least bilingual, why can't we? The English
language will be useful and important for hundreds of years to come, but
it will not be the only language or even necessarily the most important
one that people will need to speak to do business in this world, so don't
take your frusterations about immigration out on languages.
(MBW)
PS: speaking of the English language, I hope you know that "liberal"
means "against government," not "left-wing." At least, that's what it
means in other English speaking countries, and did in this country until
Richard Nixon decided that he needed a word to demonize the left with.
Too bad he picked a word with a wrong meaning. Monolingual Americans are
the only people in the world who are a threat to the English language.
Matthew B. Ward
Fred G. Athearn
>>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew B Ward <mbw...@seattleu.edu> writes:
Matthew> Representative Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado,
Matthew> a member of the Northern Cheyenne tribe, describes
Matthew> the experience: "Both of my grandparents were
Matthew> forcibly removed from their homes and placed into
Matthew> boarding schools. One of the first English words
Matthew> Indian students learned was "soap," because their
Matthew> mouths were constantly being washed out for using
Matthew> their native language."
Matthew> The Cherokees' tribal printing press, which had been
Matthew> used to produce native-language teaching materials,
Matthew> again was confiscated. This time, it was shipped to
Matthew> Washington DC, and put on display at the Smithsonian
Matthew> Institution. Cherokee educational attainment began
Matthew> to decline, by 1969, only 40 percent of the tribe's
Matthew> adults were functionally literate.
I think that this is what the English-only gang has in mind for
the Spanish speaking areas of the U.S.
--
Fred G. Athearn f...@sover.net http://www.sover.net/~fga
Rockingham, VT, USA finger for pgp key (802) 869-2003
Gordon Fitch
edc...@vossnet.co.uk:
| FORGET the race issue and equal rights dribble. What has race to do
| thus 'english=bad'. Poor downtrodden, disadvantaged ethnic minority,
You're the only person who has mentioned race. Spanish-
speaking persons, like English-speaking persons, belong to a
great many "races", however you define "race." Race is
completely irrelevant to this question and I don't know why
you bring it up.
| Language is a communication 'tool'. English is the business
| language of the world - it is the closest to an international
| language the world has. English is the most efficient, most effective,
| most practical, cost-effective communication 'tool' to use in a
| country where most people speak it. ...
Fine, then it doesn't need to be pushed by State force, it
will push itself. The commercial utility of English is also
irrelevant to the question, anyway.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Mitchell Holman
In article <3206C6...@atl.mindspring.com>, "David G. Hughey" <dhu...@atl.mindspring.com> wrote:
}Mitchell Holman wrote:
}> Trouble is, Puerto Ricans do not *want* to be independant. There
}> have been something like 15 independence referendums/elections
}> since WWII, and they always end the same. They like the status
}> quo. Granted, there are a few secessionist and statehood political
}> parties, but they never get anywhere at the polls.
}>
}> They are as American as you are, and want to stay that way.
}> Is there a problem in that?
}> Mitchell Holman
}
}That is not the information I have. The indpendence forces are
}gathering strength. The last referendum pretty much rejected Washington
}authority and I am merely suggesting that we should respect the wishes
}of the people of Puerto Rico and allow them to become an independent
}nation.
If Puerto Rico wants to leave the US, all they have to do is request
it. But their *have* been many referendums giving them that choice,
and the voters have turned down every one of them. Expect the
same this November.
Mitchell Holman
"The earth is actually two-thirds water...
about the equivalent of scotch at a cheap wedding."
Dick Soloman, Third Rock from the Sun
Mitchell Holman
In article <4u6gh9$p...@ravel.seattleu.edu>, "Matthew B. Ward" <mbw...@seattleu.edu> wrote:
}If, as Newt says, having minority linguistic groups in a society causes
}separatism, then why does bilingual Ireland have no separatist movement,
}yet monolingual Northern Ireland does? Why are there countries like
}Switzerland or Singapore or the Phillipines where several languages are
}used in schools and by government, yet there are no seperatist movements?
}How come the United States allowed its public schools to teach in French,
}German, and Swedish for the first hundred years of its history, yet there
}were no language-related seperatist movements?
Because Newt is wrong, that's why.
It is also part of his "logic" to blame a gruesome domestic murder
in Illinois on the "failure of our welfare system", and to label the
Susan Smith murders as "typical of the failures of Democratic
administrations".
Small wonder that no one takes him seriously anymore.....
Mitchell Holman
"When congressman Newt Gingrich was a student at Tulane University, I baptized
him by immersion into the membership of the St. Charles Avenue Baptist Church.
Perhaps I didn't hold him under long enough."
(The Rev.) G. Avery Lee, New Orleans
From: TIME magazine, letters to the editor
David G. Hughey
AgDan Thornsberry wrote:
>
> The 'english only' laws are nothing more than the GOP going off
> on another of their race baiting expeditions. Maybe it is an attempt
> by the Dole camp to prevent the use of 'deja vu' in documents
> referring to the NEW BobDole supply side idiocy.
Again, you are quite simply incorrect. If you would take the time to
read the posts, no one has mentioned race or the idea of the superiority
of a particular race. The message is simple: the government would use
English in its official communications. That's it. People are free to
communicate as they see fit in their daily lives. Russian, Spanish,
Swahili - it doesn't matter. Don't bring racism and race-baiting into
this, much less "GOP" - this isn't political and you are incorrect for
trying to make it so.
David G. Hughey
Matthew B. Ward wrote:
<snip - my server insisted>
> Don't get me wrong--I'm an English as a second language teacher--I
> believe that all Americans should learn English well, because it is the
> one language that a person can't live without in this country. But, we
> should not kill what is left of our multilingual heritage, and that is
> exactly why English-only is wrong.
>
> (MBW)No one wants to kill the multilingual heritage. No one is suggesting
that one gives up their language of choice. All we are saying is that
the goverment should use English as the language for its official
communications. This would be done for the sake of efficiency and
cost-effectiveness. I support different cultures and heritgages
maintaining their identity and I agree that language is part of that.
There is no way I would support anything that would infringe on the
rights of folks to speak their own langauge and maintain their heritage,
which is what makes this country great.
David G. Hughey
Matthew B. Ward wrote:
<snip>
>
> public, while it is still legal."
I have yet to see anything that prohibits the Cherokee from speaking
Cherokee. No one is remotely interested, Matt, despite your almost
hysterical diatribe to the opposite - from running out into the street
and speaking whatever language your heart desires. Go ahead on - bless
your heart.
And as far as speaking languages other than English in public schools
are concerned, it is extremely difficult and expensive to incorporate
the number of lanaguages and dialects into the public school system in
many school districts. In th Dekalb County, Georgia, school system for
example, schools would be required to conduct classes in: Vietnamese,
Mandarin, Cantonese, Hindi, Urqut, Russian, Laotian, Spanish, various
South and North American Indian dialects, Ukranian, Polish, etc. etc.
We celebrate the richness of the diversity of culture in our community.
We believe that ESL should be continued in our schools with primary
instruction in the native language to be continued until a proficiency
in English is establsihed. But Matt - we can't affortd to have
governments that are forced to print documents in 128 languages.
Something has to give - and this is the place. However, I am in full
agreement with your concerns about this trend continuing beyond official
U.S. government communications and I would work hard against any
expansion of this English-only philosophy beyond this point.
Mitchell Holman
}This did not change until a histerical English-only movement in the early
}part of this century not only forbade other languages in government, but
}in many cases, on the street or over the phone as well. At the same
}time, teaching foreign languages was outlawed in several states.
This is quite correct. Much of the impetus for this sprang from the
xenophobia America went thru during WWI. In fact my grandfather,
a Lutheran minister in Illinois, was prohibited from delivering sermons
in German, even though German was the first language of his congregation.
Even German-sounding words had to be renamed. Remember when
sauerkraut got the official label of "Liberty Cabbage"?
(Yikes - this stuff dates me more than I am comfortable with....)
Mitchell Holman
"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out."
- Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962
Mitchell Holman
}
}Language is a communication 'tool'. English is the business
}language of the world - it is the closest to an international
}language the world has. English is the most efficient, most effective,
}most practical, cost-effective communication 'tool' to use in a
}country where most people speak it.
}
Assuming all the above is true, and that English is the most
desireable language to speak, why does it then need to be forced
on people? What happened to the "marketplace of ideas" and
"free people exercising self-determination"?
Mitchell Holman
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone,
but they've always worked for me."
-Hunter S. Thompson
Mitchell Holman
}
}
}Soon, the Federal government moved to dismantle this experiment in Indian
}bilingual education and to mandate instruction in English only. In 1879,
}it began separating Indian children from their families and forcing them
}to attend off-reservation boarding schools. Students were punished when
}caught speaking their native tongues, or "barbarous dialects," in the
}words of one Federal Indian commissioner. Representative Ben Nighthorse
}Campbell of Colorado, a member of the Northern Cheyenne tribe, describes
}the experience: "Both of my grandparents were forcibly removed from
}their homes and placed into boarding schools. One of the first English
}words Indian students learned was "soap," because their mouths were
}constantly being washed out for using their native language."
An ironic twist to this story is the US government both suppressing
the use of native languages, but adopting them when the need arises.
During WWII, the Navy and Marines in the Pacific made much use of
the "Lakota Talkers", Native Americans who could exchange information
"in the clear", that is, without the delays of coding and decoding. The
Japanese had no way of understanding tribal languages, and their
eavesdroppers were left in the dark.
Once the war was over, the usual suppression of tribal languages was
resumed, I suspect.....
Mitchell Holman
"Sex without love is an empty experience, but, as empty experiences go,
it's one of the best".
-- Woody Allen --
Robert F Underhill
el.seattleu.edu>
Organization: The World, Public Access Internet, Brookline, MA
Distribution:
Como se dice "Newt-shit" en espanol?
Robertito de Bostonia
Matthew B. Ward (mbw...@seattleu.edu) wrote:
: If, as Newt says, having minority linguistic groups in a society causes
: separatism, then why does bilingual Ireland have no separatist movement,
: yet monolingual Northern Ireland does? Why are there countries like
: Switzerland or Singapore or the Phillipines where several languages are
: used in schools and by government, yet there are no seperatist movements?
: How come the United States allowed its public schools to teach in French,
: German, and Swedish for the first hundred years of its history, yet there
: were no language-related seperatist movements?
: Answer: it isn't languages that cause separatist movements, it is
: schools where only English can be used as a medium of instruction. He is
: not a rich guy, and doesn't anticipate being able to afford to send his
: kids to private schools. He also knows that English has NEVER been the
: only language of this country, so he doesn't understand why his territory
: may be forbidden to choose what languages it can uses in the schools.
: Do you understand how language supression causes seperatism? If you
: don't like immigration, fine. But, don't ever, ever tell people what
: languages that their states or territories may use, especially if those
: languages are a part of American history and culture.
: (MBW)
:
--
Robert F Underhill
IF the English-only rule will mean we can't use all those French and Spanish
phrases and words that make American English so colorful, or the German
and Italian words that are so necessary for our musical and scientific
conversations - then we would really be gagging our government.
And what about eating out? Or state dinners? Politicians would get so
tired of Big Macs we wouldn't need term limits.
Bob Of Boston
Keith E Jackson (kjac...@cs.tamu.edu) wrote:
: In article <wsenlkp...@granite.sover.net>,
: Fred G. Athearn <f...@sover.net> wrote:
: : "Matthew" == Matthew B Ward <mbw...@seattleu.edu> writes:
: : Matthew> Representative Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado,
: : Matthew> a member of the Northern Cheyenne tribe, describes
: : Matthew> the experience: "Both of my grandparents were
: : Matthew> forcibly removed from their homes and placed into
: : Matthew> boarding schools. One of the first English words
: : Matthew> Indian students learned was "soap," because their
: : Matthew> mouths were constantly being washed out for using
: : Matthew> their native language."
: : Matthew> The Cherokees' tribal printing press, which had been
: : Matthew> used to produce native-language teaching materials,
: : Matthew> again was confiscated. This time, it was shipped to
: : Matthew> Washington DC, and put on display at the Smithsonian
: : Matthew> Institution. Cherokee educational attainment began
: : Matthew> to decline, by 1969, only 40 percent of the tribe's
: : Matthew> adults were functionally literate.
: :I think that this is what the English-only gang has in mind for
: :the Spanish speaking areas of the U.S.
: Here come the hysterics.
: Matthew wails and moans that people will be locked up in jail for daring
: to speak a different language in public (go back and check his original
: article).
: Imagine that! You say "Que paso?" to a friend on the street and suddenly
: Newt Gingrich pops out from an alley and slaps the cuffs on you.
: Are these guys stupid or what?
: Nobody is going to be prevented from speaking or writing whatever language
: they want in their personal lives. Schools will still teach foreign
: languages.
: The only thing which will change is that the government will only do business
: in English. Since all legal citizens should be somewhat fluent in English
: anyway (even if they also speak another language) then this should be no
: problem for them. They conduct their business with the government in
: English, and then go home and speak whatever language they want.
: C'mon, you guys, your hysteria is totally discrediting you.
: --
: Milt Shook <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
: >I'm sure [Jim Kennemur] doesn't really LIKE [calling black people
: >racial epithets]. in fact, i'm sure he'd rather not have to...
--
David G. Hughey
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> So a call comes into 911 reporting an emergency in Spanish, and
> the dispatcher is supposed to ignore it because the caller is "failing
> to conduct business with the government in English"?
> Mitchell Holman
911 calls don't go to the federal government. If a locality has a large
population which traditionally speaks another language, personnel will
be available who speak the language.
Mitchell Holman
}The only thing which will change is that the government will only do business
}in English. Since all legal citizens should be somewhat fluent in English
}anyway (even if they also speak another language) then this should be no
}problem for them. They conduct their business with the government in
}English, and then go home and speak whatever language they want.
}
So a call comes into 911 reporting an emergency in Spanish, and
the dispatcher is supposed to ignore it because the caller is "failing
to conduct business with the government in English"?
Mitchell Holman
"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child."
-- Senator Dan Quayle, US News and World Report (10/10/88)
Tim Brown
kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson) writes:
>In article <Dvn8A...@iglou.com>, Tim Brown <bath...@iglou.iglou.com> wrote:
>>kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson) writes:
>>>In article <DvLKH...@iglou.com>, Tim Brown <bath...@iglou.iglou.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson) writes:
>>>>>In article <DvLDD...@iglou.com>, Tim Brown
>>>>><bath...@iglou.iglou.com> wrote:
>>>>>>kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson) writes:
>>>>>>>And, exactly what does any of this have to do with Singapore? You
>>>>>>>singled them out, mentioning they are a "right-wing regime", while
>>>>>>>failing to indicate how they are any more influential than the entire
>>>>>>>rest of the world, which also uses metric.
>>>>>>Singapore is headed by totalitarian dictator Lee Kuan Yew, who President
>>>>>>Bush praised repeatedly.
>>>>>Again, exactly what does any of this have to do with Singapore? You
>>>>>singled them out, while failing to indicate how they are any more
>>>>>influential than the entire rest of the world, which also uses metric.
>>>>Singapore is the nation that the Grand Old Farty wants America to emulate
>>>>in every way. Chew gum, get caned. Forget to flush, get hanged.
>>>Again, exactly what does the metric system have to do with Singapore?
>>>You singled them out, while failing to indicate how they are any more
>>>influential than the entire rest of the world, which also uses metric.
>>I have shown again and again how the government of Singapore has us in our
>>grip. You'd understand if you look back at the caning a couple years ago.
>Really? When have we adopted caning?
A member of Cincinnati City Council went on a campaign to have caning
instituted as a punishment for juvenile crime.
>You have not shown how Singapore controls us -- you've merely made wild
>accusations about the GOP and George Bush.
>Furthermore, you haven't shown how Singapore is at all significant in
>light of the fact that all nations but the US use the metric system.
>It's understandable that you dislike Singapore. They have squashed
>liberties. But, you have not demonstrated what they have to do with
>us living with an arcane measurement system.
The fact that we'll go to jail for using miles goes hand-in-hand with
the Singapore government's hate for liberty.
>Find a scientific journal which does not use metric.
>>>>>Quit dodging the questions.
>>>Yeah, quit dodging the questions.
>>>>>>>Only if you can show how metric has been used here as widely as English.
>>>>>>>Otherwise, "metric only" is analogous to passing a "French only" law
>>>>>>>here.
>>>>>>Why is "French only" any different from "English only"?
>>>>>Because everything from the DoI and Constitution until now has been done
>>>>>in English (even if some things are additionally done in other languages.)
>>>>>French does not have such a basis in our nation.
>>>>So neither does the metric system.
>>>Bingo! Thanks for proving my point about "English only" having no
>>>relation to converting to metric.
>>It only proves the opposite.
>Sure thing, bathroom. <pat pat>
>>>>>In case you haven't noticed, the entire world outside the USA is metric.
>>>>>Are you suggesting that every country outside the USA is a dictatorship?
>>>>No I am not. But the countries that do use it have no right ganging up on
>>>>us and forcing us to switch,
>>>What countries are *FORCING* us to switch?
>>Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and other rogue regimes.
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Please give some evidence to support this ludicrous
>assertion.
I already have.
>>>>especially when the switch is designed entirely to benefit big corporations.
>>>Sure thing. A simple, base-10 system is useless to the common man.
>>>Riiight!
>>>>That's a violation of our sovereignty.
>>>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>>Just the other day I saw a black helicopter dropping little objects.
>>>I picked one up, and it was a damned metric socket wrench! They're
>>>taking over!!! Run for the hills!!!
>>Some teacher got arrested in Kentucky for teaching the imperial system.
>Sure thing. <pat pat>
>>>>>> I refuse to switch, and I will secede from the union if metric
>>>>>>imperialism gets a full grip on America.
>>>>>The horror!
>>>>I am dead serious. If they change the signs on my street, then bang,
>>>>bang, bang!
>>>What'll you use? A 9mm?
>>I'm good at making bombs.
>Been to Atlanta lately? They did measure all their races in meters.
So what?
--
bath...@iglou.com http://members.iglou.com/bathroom
If guns are outlawed, what will we shoot conservatives with?
++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++
David Nieporent
In article <32076E...@atl.mindspring.com>,>AgDan Thornsberry wrote:
>> The 'english only' laws are nothing more than the GOP going off
>> on another of their race baiting expeditions. Maybe it is an attempt
>> by the Dole camp to prevent the use of 'deja vu' in documents
>> referring to the NEW BobDole supply side idiocy.
>> (half-acre sig file deleted)
>Again, you are quite simply incorrect. If you would take the time to
>read the posts, no one has mentioned race or the idea of the superiority
>of a particular race. The message is simple: the government would use
>English in its official communications. That's it. People are free to
>communicate as they see fit in their daily lives. Russian, Spanish,
>Swahili - it doesn't matter. Don't bring racism and race-baiting into
>this, much less "GOP" - this isn't political and you are incorrect for
>trying to make it so.
Of course it's political. It's a proposed law being pushed mainly by one
particularly party. How can anyone in their right mind claim that it
isn't political?
As for it not being racial, I suppose one could be kind and call it
xenophobic, except that nobody complains about all the illegal Irish and
Canadian immigrants. They complain about the Mexican and Cuban ones. (And
the dumb ones complain about Puerto Rican immigrants, not realizing that
Puerto Ricans are Americans.)
Of *course* it's a racial thing; it's not an economic thing, because the
government spends such a tiny fraction of a percent of its budget on these
things as to make no difference. As a budget-cutting approach, it's about
as effective as giving a band-aid to someone who was on TWA 800.
You are correct that the current law only discusses official government
communications; however, previous incarnations of the English Only
movement *have* banned the use of other languages by private citizens.
If you watched the debates in Congress, the law is based on the incorrect
premise that there is a new phenomenon where immigrants come to this
country and refuse to learn English, and that we're creating a permanent
class of foreigners in this country. It's not new. Many of the people
who passed through Ellis Island did the same. They lived in ethnic
enclaves in NY and other cities, never learning English. Their children
did, however.
And I *still* want to know what people want to happen with Puerto Rico,
Guam, et al.
Heck, I just wish the people from Alabama would learn to speak English.
--
David M. Nieporent |"I have been participating in the USENET for many
niep...@pluto.njcc.com|years now. I have never found it to be a requirement
Plainsboro, NJ |for anyone to know anything about any subject to post
DAVEY & ORIOLES 1996!!!|on any newsgroup." -- seen on talk.politics.misc.
David G. Hughey
David Nieporent wrote:
> Of course it's political. It's a proposed law being pushed mainly by one
> particularly party. How can anyone in their right mind claim that it
> isn't political?
Well, actually you are correct. Now it is political - seeing as the
Democrats have seized upon this particular issue to bring up racism and
sexism and other "isms" that will result from the enactment of the
legislation. And I thought that hysterical overreaction to events was
the hallmark of the GOP.....
>
> As for it not being racial, I suppose one could be kind and call it
> xenophobic, except that nobody complains about all the illegal Irish and
> Canadian immigrants. They complain about the Mexican and Cuban ones. (And
> the dumb ones complain about Puerto Rican immigrants, not realizing that
> Puerto Ricans are Americans.)
Now I'm confused. Who said anything about immigration? I have no
problem with legal immigration as I happen to think that diversity in
our society is a good thing. Oops - you said Irish; better reprint
those driver's manuals to include Irish.
>
> Of *course* it's a racial thing; it's not an economic thing, because the
> government spends such a tiny fraction of a percent of its budget on these
> things as to make no difference. As a budget-cutting approach, it's about
> as effective as giving a band-aid to someone who was on TWA 800.
It amazes me that you are not interested in saving even just a little
bit of money. How big does an item have to be to warrant your favors?
A little bit here; a little bit there - perhaps some of those funds
could be better used channeled into children's vaccinations or
something.
>
> You are correct that the current law only discusses official government
> communications; however, previous incarnations of the English Only
> movement *have* banned the use of other languages by private citizens.
I'm aware of that and I support legal firewalls to prevent a recurrence
of similar events.
>
> If you watched the debates in Congress, the law is based on the incorrect
> premise that there is a new phenomenon where immigrants come to this
> country and refuse to learn English, and that we're creating a permanent
> class of foreigners in this country. It's not new. Many of the people
> who passed through Ellis Island did the same. They lived in ethnic
> enclaves in NY and other cities, never learning English. Their children
> did, however.
Well, okay. Your argument is that since it was okay in the past, it is
okay now. It wasn't okay then and it's not okay now. And by the bye,
no one is saying that a person HAS to learn English (don't worry - that
precious liberty is intact). All the bill is saying is that the
communications of the United States government will be in English.
That's all.
>
> And I *still* want to know what people want to happen with Puerto Rico,
> Guam, et al.
U.S. governmental communications with regard to either would be in
English. Internal affairs would be conducted in whatever languages
local leaders see fit to use. The people would continue to use whatever
languages they see fit.
> Heck, I just wish the people from Alabama would learn to speak English.
A similar wish for people from New Jersey..... <g>
> --
syn...@mcs.com
hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) writes:
>In article <4u7m5k$b...@news.tamu.edu>, kjac...@cs.tamu.edu (Keith E Jackson) wrote:
>}The only thing which will change is that the government will only do business
>}in English. Since all legal citizens should be somewhat fluent in English
>}anyway (even if they also speak another language) then this should be no
>}problem for them. They conduct their business with the government in
>}English, and then go home and speak whatever language they want.
>}
> So a call comes into 911 reporting an emergency in Spanish, and
> the dispatcher is supposed to ignore it because the caller is "failing
> to conduct business with the government in English"?
So is 911 supposed to have someone who speaks every language
and dialect used by anyone in the U.S.? I doubt that many 911
centers have anyone answering phones who can speak Swahili.
Besides, the English-only bill has provisions which provide exemptions
for things like 911 centers, foreign trade, etc.
--
<sig>
Annoy a Fascist: Just Say NO! to gun control.
"Much is made of the 'haves' and 'have-nots'; little is said of the
'dos' and 'do-nots.'"
-- Thomas Sowell.
"Government doesn't work."
-- Harry Browne, Libertarian Presidential Candidate
</sig>
Madmartigan
On 2 Aug 1996 12:09:38 -0400, g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) wrote:
>them. Now we're going to force a language on them? Talk
>about the government being on someone's back!
At the present, the taxpayer is forced to pay for the printing of
government documents in several languages. I took a an elderly
neighbor to the Social Security office one day and noticed forms were
readily available in Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, Armenian, Korean,
Tagalog, Japanese, Thai and possibly a few more languages.
It is ludicrous to print election ballots in other languages since one
of the requirements for U.S. citizenship is to have a working
knowledge of English.
I have yet to meet a Native American who couldn't speak English.
Rudolph Lopez - Politically InCorrect Since 1972
Attention Spelling Nerds! I may have misspelled some
words in my posts. I acknowledge that, so don't even
think of wasting bandwidth to correct me.
Aztlan = Let's make the Southwest into Tijuana
It's ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, Stupid!
La Raza = KKK w/suntan
"Remember, Proposition 187 was the last gasp of
white America in California."
-Former CA State Senator, Art Torres, Now Chairman of the CA Democratic Nat'l Committee
The current White House has WhitewaterGate, TravelGate and FileGate.
Only one more gate is needed at the White House - FUMIGATE.
Madmartigan
On 6 Aug 1996 08:48:05 GMT, "Matthew B. Ward" <mbw...@seattleu.edu>
wrote:
>Don't get me wrong--I'm an English as a second language teacher--I
>believe that all Americans should learn English well, because it is the
>one language that a person can't live without in this country. But, we
>should not kill what is left of our multilingual heritage, and that is
>exactly why English-only is wrong.
Your first line indicates English as a necesity. The printing of
government forms in other languages only provides a crutch and does
not emphasize the importance of knowing English in this country.
The English First movement does not suggest outlawing the use of other
languages and the enforcement of English in government business does
not deny anyone of their heritage.
S.I. Hiyakawa once stated that language is the glue that bonds people
together.
If we all can meet on a common ground (language), it would enhance a
better understanding of each other.
mys...@seattleu.edu
In its formal Language Policy, the National Puerto Rican Coalition
(NPRC) articulates the premise that Puerto Ricans' right to full
American citizenship in the context of their own language and culture
has been guaranteed by law:
"Puerto Rico's compact of association with the United States, and
subsequent legislation and judicial opinions, recognizes the the
status of Puerto Ricans as Spanish-speaking Americans. Together with
other native-born Americans whose first language is not English, they
have the right to exercise the prerogatives of citizenship in their
language if they need to."
-Ingrid Betancourt, Wilson Library Bulletin '92-
May I add that "the right to exercise the prerogatives of citizenship"
includes the right to vote, the right to due process, and so on.
(Mystery)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
(Who will monitor the monitors themselves?)
(the Founding Fathers)
mys...@seattleu.edu
It is somewhat amusing to hear people on this newsgroup say "If the
French can have French-only," then why can't we have English only?"
The lack of knowledge of linguistic issues in this country is
frightening. If you do not understand the difference between
English-only and French only, read on.
First, there is a country called France, and they have a policy which is
erronously referred to by the American media as "French-only." If the
Americans are to imitate this policy, then the logical result would be
"American only..."
Illinois actually declared in 1923, in the throes of the first
English-only movement, its official language to be "American," which
begs the question: what in the hell exactly is "American?" Chottaw?
Sioux? Navaho? It certainly isn't "English," despite the fact that
English is the dominant language in the United States.
Two, the French-only law is quite different from English-only in any
case. The French-only law was passed in response to advertisements by
US corporations which are too lazy and ignorant to translate terms into
various countries dominant languages, so they simply use English words.
As much of language learning occurs through input, the corporate policy
of having English mixed with French/Japanese/Chinese/German/Indonesian
etc. is resulting in the loss of native words to English words in many
languages around the world. In my understanding, the French-only law
forbids non-French words from being used in advertisments; it does not
declare that the entire private sector of the country conduct its work
in French-only. The English-only movement, in contrast, seeks as its
stated final goal to pass a constitutional amendment which would forbid
any language other than English from being used by the public sector.
Please bother to actually inform yourself about linguistic issues before
making ignorant comparisons.
(Mystery, AKA MBW, my computer is down...)
mys...@seattleu.edu
"The protection of the Constitution extends to all--to those who speak
other languages as well as those born with English on the tongue.
Perhaps it would be an advantage if all had ready understanding of our
ordinary speech, but this CANNOT BE COERCED BY METHODS WHICH CONFLICT
WITH THE CONSTITUTION (my emphasis)--a desirable end cannot be promoted
by prohibited means."
--Associate Supreme Court Justice James Clark McReynolds
"Myers vs Nebraska," 1923.
The reason why the English only movement has as its stated final goal a
constitutional amendment which would prohibit all use of languages other
than English by the public sector, even for states and local government,
is that there are so many legal precedents for bilingualism in American
history. A constitutional amendment is their only chance for
permanently stamping out other languages.
My message to the House of Representatives: Don't tread on me!
"nolite se bastardes conundrum"
(MBW, mbw...@seattleu.edu)
David G. Hughey
> stated final goal to pass a constitutional amendment which would forbid
> any language other than English from being used by the public sector.
>
> Please bother to actually inform yourself about linguistic issues before
> making ignorant comparisons.
>
> (Mystery, AKA MBW, my computer is down...)
Well, give us a moment to expound on our ignorance. Often times words
generated in one language do not have an equivalent in another language.
Case in point (you don't mind if I share a real event; not one fomented
in graduate school somewhere): a classmate and her husband own a real
estate training facility. They have been contracted by the Russian
government to provide traning manuals for what will eventually be
brokers, real estate agents, appraisers, and the like. One problem (and
it's not a small problem) is the language barrier. Not that my
classmate's husband doesn't speak Russian, which he does by the way.
It's that the Russian language does not have equivalent words for many
real estate terms. Now a gaggle of Russian linguists are involved
because the Russians don't want their language invaded by a host of
English terms (understandably so). The point being that I don't think
French has a comparable term for "Big Mac". McDonald's either has to
re-name the product using a French term (and going through copyright
hassles and so forth), use the term "Big Mac", or attempt to translate
"Big Mac" into French.
Now no one is forcing McDonald's to conduct business in France. But the
French government is making life difficult for McDonald's. The local
equivalent would be for this country to prohibit foreign terms and
langauges on street signs (which hasn't happened yet) and other forms of
advertising. Pepsico would have to close down Taco Bell. That's the
difference - this government is not doing that.
And once again, it must be pointed out that no one is making the private
sector conduct business in any particular language. You are simply
incorrect to claim otherwise. I share your concerns about the lack of
firewalls in the legislation and I do NOT support a Constitutional
amendment. I would change my position before I supported that.
A passing acquaintance with English is not too much to ask from anyone
who wishes to conduct business with the Federal government.
mys...@seattleu.edu
syn...@MCS.COM wrote:
>
> g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
> >These are good arguments for encouraging people in the
> >United States to learn whichever of Spanish and English
> >they don't know. However, it doesn't apply to anything I
> >wrote above. The person I was responding to was apparently
> >deprecating people for speaking Spanish. Speaking Spanish
> >in itself is not a defect or an offense, nor does it cause
> >social strife. I live in a neighborhood which I would
> >guess is about half Spanish-speaking, and it's rather
> >peaceful, especially considering the poverty.
>
> English should be made the only official language of the U.S. and
> it should be the only language the government uses for routine
> matters.
This would be a logical idea if we were a historically monocultural,
monoracial, and monolingual country. However, we are not. It was very
common for other languages to be used by government, especially in
public schools, in the first century of American history. If you don't
know this already, then you have some serious reading to do.
Most countries which are historically multilingual (Switzerland,
Finland, the Phillipines, India, Paraguay) protect minority languages by
law, and do not forbid them from the entire public sector. Those which
have historically tried to legislate monolingualism (Sri Lanka, Canada,
Britain) create social divisions which last for decades, those which
protect minority languages (Switerland, Australia) do not have these
divisions. When the English-language only movement tells you that 66
countries in the world have official languages, they don't tell you that
45 of those countries also offically recognize and protect a variety of
minority languages. We are more historically multilingual than most
countries, so we, of all countries, should not mandate one language only
to be used for public purposes.
Languages don't create conflict any more than the mere existance of
guns creates murder; however, tell a Spanish-speaking New Mexican, a
Chamorro-speaking Guamaniam, a Spanish-speaking Puerto Rican, or a
Hawaiian speaking native Hawaiian that the Federal government has
PROHIBITED his or her language from being officially used by his or her
country, state, or territory (which is what the English-only movement
wants to do), then you have got serious problems.
Read the history of Puerto Rico for an example; requiring them to use
English for official purposes paralyed their public sector and
educational system, and if we try to do it again, they will probably
have a Quebec-style secessionist movement. Look at Canada: they, under
the British, tried to illegalize use of French for decades, and they
have created a division which lasts to this day. Requiring English-only
for the public sector would be the biggest, stupidest government
regulation in history.
Language choice should be left up to communities, not the Federal
government. My state, Washington, is officially English-plus, which
means that we mandate that all who go to the public schools learn
English well (but not English-only) and that other languages, especially
the other native languages of the state, be promoted and/or protected as
well. Who in the hell is the House of Representatives to tell us that
we can't do this?
>
> Spanish is a nice language, but it is not even close to being
> universal. Almost anywhere in the world English is in use for
> some and often quite a few purposes. English is the language
> of international aviation, science, and engineering. It is
> easily the most powerful language in terms of its adaptations to
> our rapidly changing world, especially where technology is concerned.
>
>
I believe that all of the countries below the United States in the
Americas is dominant in Spanish, except for tiny Belize (English) and
Brazil (Portugese). When these areas are fully developed, they will
naturally use Spanish as an international Latin-American language, and
their need for English will be diminished. We will be highly dependant
on those countries, in fact, they will probably be our best antidote to
the Asian dominace that we will soon see in the international business
world. We should follow the model of Australia and New Zealand, and
make sure that our children speak second languages that they will need
to keep American economically strong. Doing otherwise is cheating them
of a basic skill.
As for your "Spanish is nice, but not very useful nonsense," gee,
wouldn't it be nice if we all only spoke English? What in the hell use
are languages anyway? We already have our corporations to broadcast
advertising English 24 hours a day around the world; why don't we just
have a war and get rid of those pesky other languages?
For your information, Mandarin Chinese is the most spoken language in
the world as a first language, English is second, and Spanish is third.
If first and second language users are counted, then English comes out
ahead, but that is counting perhaps hundreds of millions of people who
know very little English.
An interesting thought: China will certainly be THE economic power of
the next century, and Asia will be what North America/Western Europe was
this century: the region which dominates the world's economy. Most of
the developing countries of Asia (Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia,
Indonesia, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Vietnam) are dominated by a
Chinese business class, many of which have deliberately maintained
Chinese, while also learning the dominant language of the country (what
we really should be encouraging our immigrants to do: keep their
languages and learn English well at the same time; would be easily
do-able if our educational system wasn't so moronic about neglecting
language).
When China rules the business world (the business profs here at SU say
we're talking in 20 years), then all of these Asian countries will put a
huge boost into teaching Chinese as a second language, as the business
language will probably become Chinese. After all, these Chinese
businessmen in say, Singapore, will already be communicating with
mainland Chinese in Mandarin. The development of pinyin (romanized
Chinese) will remove the one big barrier towards Mandarin as an
international language.
Our kids will need to know Mandarin, or it the US economy will be hurt.
Other countries treat foreign languages as a basic skill, why can't we?
It is going to cost far more not to, in the long run. And, the most
insane thing of all is an English-only constitutional amendment which,
by forcing children of all language background to attend 12 years of
public schooling in which all languages but English are banned, except
for teaching foreign language in limited circumstances (states would no
longer be able to require foreign language), make people with other
language background lose their native languages even faster than the are
already (second generation immigrants tend to be bilingual or
monolingual in English, third generation immigrants are usually
monolingual in English). Why in the hell would we try to legistlate
away the two most useful languages in the world (Spanish and Mandarin)?
It will cost FAR more to teach our native-English speaking kids to learn
those languages than it will to maintain the already-existing language
skills of immigrant children.
To give you an example of how our insanely stupid (and getting stupider
fast) polices towards foreign languages are already hurting American
workers: my uncle runs a company which does business with East Asia,
mostly mainland China and Taiwan. Usually, he would be required by law
to hire either native-born Americans or at least immigrants with green
cards. However, he has a problem: he NEEDS Mandarin Chinese to make
his company run, and it is impossible to find native-born Americans who
can speak Mandarin (of course, they exist, but they already have jobs!).
So the US government allows him to hire CHINESE, with NO GREEN CARDS,
because it knows that he is telling the truth when he says that he
cannot find American workers who have the necessarily basic skill
(speaking the world's first language). I am moving to Taiwan in three
months, to teach English and study Mandarin. I don't relish living with
the air-pollution of Taipei, but I will be learning a skill which will
guarantee me employment for the rest of my life.
I live with Filipinos and Guamanian-Americans. The Filipinos say that
one already cannot get a good job in the Phillipines unless one speaks
Mardarin, and this trend is bound to increase as China's economy
explodes. So, why are we persisting on this moronic, devisive
English-only garbage?
What I would like to see (read: I'm dreaming) is an attempt to
> make the English language more consistent where spelling, pronunciation,
> and grammar are concerned. The odds against this happening are almost
> has high as the odds against Esperanto becoming a major real world
> language.
>
> Has anyone ever given much though to designing a human language
> from scratch? Esperanto doesn't count, since it is kind of a kludge,
> but it does have some nice features. How many characters should there
> be in the ideal alphabet in the ideal language? What would those
> characters look like and would there be many different fonts, or just
> a few very standard ones? Would characters represent distinct sounds?
>
> I once spent a few days designing my own programming language, which
> was a complex task (and the result was inferior in many ways to
> several existing programming languages I am familiar with, but I was
> having fun with lex and yacc). I know just enough about linguistics to
> realize that designing a human language makes designing a programming
> language look completely trivial by comparison. But I wonder if anyone
> has looked seriously at the problem.
>
If you really understood linguistics, you would know that, although
designing a human language is possible (although a lot of work)
designing one which people would actually agree to speak is a fantasy.
Esperanto is the same kind of moronic "let's all be the same, and then
we'll all get along" subliterate garbage which fuels the English-only
movement.
Bilingualism is a great thing: the best way possible to teach people
how to critically think and understand other points of view. Most
societies in the world regard bilingualism as a thing to be admired, not
to be villified. Legislating bilingualism out of existance is the
ultimate form of dumbing-down. John Locke, the greatest conservative
educational philosopher in history, regarded language as a basic
subject, as it once was regarded in the USA, until the first
English-only movement in the early 1900's illegalized foreign language
teaching in several states, and forbade all languages other than English
from being used as an instructional medium.
The linguistic variety of the world should be dealt with by giving all
kids the opportunity to learn several languages. As long as everyone
knows at least one or two international languages like English,
Mandarin, Spanish, Russian, or Arabic, then the world will communicate
just fine, without imposing one language on anyone. Just go to Europe
and see how many people there are multilingual; it's easy to do, as long
as we start them when they are young, instead of the moronic American
habit of trying to teach people languages in high-school.
"E Plurabus, Unum"
(MBW, mbw...@seattleu.edu)
Madmartigan
On 2 Aug 1996 09:17:03 -0700, ant...@primenet.com (Tony ) wrote:
>I am fluent in Spanish. Although I may be considered a liberal I do agree
>that English should be the only official language of the United States.
It does seem ludicrous to have ballots in languages other than English
since one of the requirements for citizenships is to have a working
knowledge of English and if an immigrant wants to receive goverment
freebies they should be able to fill out the application forms in
English.
>Having said that, I thought you should know that Spanish is the most universal
>language in the world. You are right about English being a more powerfull
>language where technology is concerned.
One little exception to Spanish being universal. All international
flight communications between flight controllers and aircraft are
conducted in English. English is also used for international business.
German was once the language of technology, but English has over that
role.
Ned Kelly
syn...@MCS.COM wrote:
: English should be made the only official language of the U.S. and
: it should be the only language the government uses for routine
: matters.
YES!!!!!!
: Spanish is a nice language, but it is not even close to being
: universal. Almost anywhere in the world English is in use for
: some and often quite a few purposes. English is the language
: of international aviation, science, and engineering. It is
: easily the most powerful language in terms of its adaptations to
: our rapidly changing world, especially where technology is concerned.
I kind of like the Australian version myself. No matter, English (any
version) is getting pretty common worldwide. Normally, it's the
American-made version. (Strine is an off-brand English clone.)
: What I would like to see (read: I'm dreaming) is an attempt to
: make the English language more consistent where spelling, pronunciation,
: and grammar are concerned. The odds against this happening are almost
: has high as the odds against Esperanto becoming a major real world
: language.
Here, you are going to have problems. After all, there are several
versions of English, and all but one uses the Queen's Spelling(tm). Only
we Yanks spell "color" like that. Everywhere else, even India, it's
colour. Like I said above, I'm partial to the Aussie version, and I'm NOT
an Aussie.
: Has anyone ever given much though to designing a human language
: from scratch? Esperanto doesn't count, since it is kind of a kludge,
: but it does have some nice features. How many characters should there
: be in the ideal alphabet in the ideal language? What would those
: characters look like and would there be many different fonts, or just
: a few very standard ones? Would characters represent distinct sounds?
Someone DID think about it. There is already a human language on the
language market that was designed from scratch, and it's not
Esperanto(tm). It's Klingon(tm). This language was designed expressly for
the Star Trek(tm) series, and while it's user base is small, it's
growing.
In fact, you can get a game CD-ROM album with a "Learn to Speak Klingon"
language lab proggie as part of the software! There are Klingon clubs in
30 countries already. I bet there's someone out there with a Klingon
drinking accent! That would be hilarious to have! What would someone with
a Klingon accent say when asked "Where are you from?" ?
--
Ned Kelly Lives!!!!!! http://www.suburbia.net/~nedkelly/Seppo_Navy.html
"That isn't a knife.... This is a KNIFE!" - Paul Hogan
The Navy: It's Not Just A Job..... It's $cientology Lite!
Mitchell Holman
In article <4ua5ik$i...@Mercury.mcs.com>, syn...@MCS.COM wrote:
}hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) writes:
}
}> So a call comes into 911 reporting an emergency in Spanish, and
}> the dispatcher is supposed to ignore it because the caller is "failing
}> to conduct business with the government in English"?
}
}So is 911 supposed to have someone who speaks every language
}and dialect used by anyone in the U.S.? I doubt that many 911
}centers have anyone answering phones who can speak Swahili.
Always a builder of strawmen, Synergy/T.Mark Gibson again
exagerates a real life scenario all out of proportion.
For your information, Miami tried your English only experiment,
and gave it up for the very reason I mentioned. Your reactionary
idea failed. Give it up.
}Besides, the English-only bill has provisions which provide exemptions
}for things like 911 centers, foreign trade, etc.
So "English-Only" really means "English-Most-Of-The-Time", right?
Mitchell Holman
"The earth revolves around the sun. But ask most
humans, they'll say it revolves around them."
Dick Soloman, Third Rock from the Sun
Matthew B. Ward
>
>And once again, it must be pointed out that no one is making the private
>sector conduct business in any particular language. You are simply
>incorrect to claim otherwise. I share your concerns about the lack of
>firewalls in the legislation and I do NOT support a Constitutional
>amendment. I would change my position before I supported that.
>
It happened last time there was an English-only movement, what guarantee
do we have that you will stop at the public sector? I am not claiming
that anyone is yet making any requirements on the private sector, but
history does tend to repeat.
>A passing acquaintance with English is not too much to ask from anyone
>who wishes to conduct business with the Federal government.
>--
The fact is that we have first generation immigrants who don't speak
English well enough to exercise the prerogitives of citizenship. We also
have linguistic minorities who were here before English was, and although
many of them who have managed to hold on to their languages also speak
English well, making sweeping federal legislation which effectivly cuts
them out of public life is unfair. Finally, the English-only movement's
STATED GOAL is the constitutional amendment, which would certainly affect
more than the federal government. I am not violently oppossed to making
English the official language, but I fear a slipperly slope.
(MBW)
Matthew B. Ward
niep...@pluto.njcc.com (David Nieporent) wrote:
>In article <32076E...@atl.mindspring.com>,
As a budget-cutting approach, it's about
>as effective as giving a band-aid to someone who was on TWA 800.
>
This is correct. As government documents conducted in language other
than English are less than 1/2 of 1%, the budget issue is a red herring.
I heard an English-only advocate the other day tell me with horror that
she had heard that bilingualism costs the state government 3 million a
year. With a state population of five million, that's about 60 cents per
person; hardly a big expense! Actually, I rather suspect that her number
is low, but it is revealing how effective any discussion about how much
things cost is at brainwashing Americans. I don't think that money is an
issue, it's just another propaganda technique.
>You are correct that the current law only discusses official government
>communications; however, previous incarnations of the English Only
>movement *have* banned the use of other languages by private citizens.
>
Also correct; in 1918, for example, Iowa forbade the use of foreign
languages in schools, on streets, on trains, in public places, and on the
telephone. In 1919, the state of Nebraska passed an English-only law
forbidding the use of foreign languages at public meetings and forbidding
the teaching of foreign languages as well...
>If you watched the debates in Congress, the law is based on the incorrect
>premise that there is a new phenomenon where immigrants come to this
>country and refuse to learn English, and that we're creating a permanent
>class of foreigners in this country. It's not new. Many of the people
>who passed through Ellis Island did the same. They lived in ethnic
>enclaves in NY and other cities, never learning English. Their children
>did, however.
>
In fact, there is evidence that immigrants are learning English
faster, not slower, than they used to. The typical model of
three-generation linguistic assimilation is being replaced with a
two-generation model. A 1985 Rand Corporation study found that 95% of
second generation Hispanic immigrants speak English fluently, and more
than half cannot even speak Spanish; the second fact is a sad waste,
in my opinion. At any rate, this rate of assimilation is markedly faster
than the rate found with previous generation immigrants. Many people
theorize that the high-tech media is responsible for this change.
Also, the much-hyped idea that foreigners are "refusing" to learn
English is a known fallacy to anyone in my profession: the demand for
ESL teaching is far greater than the supply. They know that they need to
learn English. Clearly, Congress is either ignorant or lying.
>
>
>And I *still* want to know what people want to happen with Puerto Rico,
>Guam, et al.
>
You and my Guamanian roommates, whose parents were beaten for speaking
Chamorro on playgrounds in government schools in the 50's and 60's.
(MBW)