Immigration?

[hibernal_dream]

This is interesting - it's certainly in line with the "culture as coexistence" theory that Justin posted.

New research has found genetic evidence that people of African origin have been living in Britain for centuries and many of their descendants are unaware of their African ancestry.

The research was published by the medical charity, The Welcome Trust.

The result came as a surprise to researchers carrying out a general study on the Y chromosome.

They found that a white man with a rare Yorkshire surname had a type of Y chromosome thought to be unique among people of West African origin.

Genetic dating techniques suggested that his African ancestor was in the United Kingdom 250 years ago.

A follow-up study of people with the same surname, which has not been revealed for ethical reasons, found that one third had the same African variation.

This backs historical data that records Africans in the UK centuries ago - some as Roman soldiers defending Hadrian's wall.

Turi King from the Welcome Trust says nearly half the people in the study had the African Y chromosome.

"I just happened to find this in one particular surname, with one individual to start with, and then I started recruiting other people with the surname and found that there are eight of them within the 18 that I managed to recruit with the surname that actually have this African Y chromosome."

 

[speed]

Talk of "mono" or "multi" culturalism is blind to what "culture" is.

Culture is no mere enactment of tradition or custom, nor something willed. One is acculturated in culture, not in possession of culture or cultures as if they are artifacts one can shop for.

Culture is, crudely and broadly, the all encompassing relationality of ones being-in-the-world. On corrupt.org, I saw one speak of "bio-regionalism" which is an apt concept (it captures many important features).

Culture is indeed "regional", but not in the sense of arbitrary demarcations of human fancy, but the factors of "bio-regions" which exert similar pressures and experiences upon a population.

Let's look at a common custom to reveal the difference between culture and the contrived technicity of "tradition" (which is oblivious to context and thereby ontological significance): the Tannenbaum.

It is well known that the "Christmas Tree" is one of many pagan practices appropriated by Christianity. Here, I am not concerned with the reasons and motivations behind such a political/religious appropriation, but how an activity moves from contextual/relational significance ("actual" culture) to that enframed, hollow mimicry we mistakenly call "culture".

The "evergreen" is called so in reference to its climate. Only amongst the turn of seasons, the contrast of snowfall and dormant flora and fauna with the bursting of buds and offspring of warmer months does "evergreen" make sense. It is that which is ever-green amongst the blanket of grey and white- what reminds men of that land of fertility and vivid color in the dark and short days of winter. In this context (bio-regionalism), its symbolic and spiritual significance is grounded.

Now, one finds "Christmas trees" everywhere. How ludicrous to see the ever-green featured in the windows of homes in the American southwest! Not only does evergreen not grow in the arid regions, but its "ever-greenness" is no longer significant, its relation to the seasons, geography, and most importantly, its people is totally lost (its culture). It is merely a prop one sets-up because "that is what you do"- what the "they" does in the technicity of "culture". What was once significant is rendered as an arbitrary commodity.

The same goes for "cuisine": A people ate this and that fish, harvested certain strains of grain, hunted boar and deer because that is what flourished in their world, not because of mere "tradition". Now, we harvest, in a grotesque manner, millions of head of pig, millions of hectares of wheat in mechanized plants because "traditionally" our "culture" eats such "things"- there is no concern for the context of people, their land and resources, but only some alienated notion of the supreme importance and "worth" of repetitive activity oblivious to ontological significance.

Culture intrinsically implies "diversity", in the sense of true difference. It displays difference because it is contextual existence. "Mono-culturalism" mistakes shared "tradition" and artifacts for "culture", is oblivious to context and significance (under its ontic gaze, the Tannenbaum of a farmer in Baden is the same as the plastic fabrication in the beach side homes of L.A.) . "Multi-culturalism" (which is not used as a way to describe the existence of multiple cultures [totally superfluous] but some sort of "co-existence" of different cultures which harmonize with one another in a fruitful union) mistakes culture as something fixed, the product of human creation which possesses self-contained meaning, which can be ripped from its context and modified and adjusted at whim. How mistaken this view is.

There are cultures on the planet, but one is in culture, not cultures. Actual culture cannot be exported nor summed, as its ground is its context, its world of meaning and significance. Multiculturism is a mere mish-mashing of socially associated artifacts which have long been stripped from culture. Multiculturism is not a culture of rich synthesis, but the annihilation of meaning, context, and diversity itself; the fulfillment of technical, ontical metaphysics.

Excellent post.

I agree with your analysis, but I wonder if the very meaning and idea of "culture" has changed for America at least. Does America not have a overwhelming "culture" (apart from New York, San Fran, Seattle, Miami), that has morphed from these traditional meanings and significance, and now has become this mish-mash with little meaning and significance--a culture of Italian cuisine Olive Gardens, Texas Roadhouses, and so forth. Isnt this absolutely hollow artifice of "culture" we've created, just as powerful as what its replaced?

Here's the definition of culture: Anthropologists most commonly use the term "culture" to refer to the universal human capacity to classify, codify and communicate their experiences symbolically. This capacity has long been taken as a defining feature of the humans. However, primatologists such as Jane Goodall have identified aspects of culture among human's closest relatives in the animal kingdom.[1] it can be also said that " it is the way people live in accordance to beliefs, language, history, or the way they dress. "

If we take the anthropological defnition, then I refer to my Order of Things thread, as the very idea of culture is changing; its the classifications and the forms that are not only important, but change with time. If those meanings change, then our very idea of culture changes.

 

[speed]

I think this article by Baudrillard is an excellent commentary on the meaning of culture (even if you dont agree with the crazy cranky old Frenchman).

http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=385



Justin S.' comments reminded me of Baudrillard, and thus I've returned to his interesting thinking.

 

[OldScratch]

Immigration is not (only) a racial issue. It is a matter of safety in all societies.
Illegal immigration is wrong, wether you want to accept it or not. If you want to become a citizen, with all the rights other citizens have, you have to have all your documents and respect the country's laws and habits.

If only you could convince our glorious elected "leaders" that it were so simple and logical. Alas, you would have your work cut out for you indeed! Given that we now have roughly as many illegal invaders in America as Scandinavia does citizens(give or take a few million)...it should be safe to say we have lost control of the "documents and respect" part. :Smug:

 

[Norsemaiden]

This is interesting - it's certainly in line with the "culture as coexistence" theory that Justin posted.

New research has found genetic evidence that people of African origin have been living in Britain for centuries and many of their descendants are unaware of their African ancestry.

The research was published by the medical charity, The Welcome Trust.

The result came as a surprise to researchers carrying out a general study on the Y chromosome.

They found that a white man with a rare Yorkshire surname had a type of Y chromosome thought to be unique among people of West African origin.

Genetic dating techniques suggested that his African ancestor was in the United Kingdom 250 years ago.

A follow-up study of people with the same surname, which has not been revealed for ethical reasons, found that one third had the same African variation.

This backs historical data that records Africans in the UK centuries ago - some as Roman soldiers defending Hadrian's wall.

Turi King from the Welcome Trust says nearly half the people in the study had the African Y chromosome.

"I just happened to find this in one particular surname, with one individual to start with, and then I started recruiting other people with the surname and found that there are eight of them within the 18 that I managed to recruit with the surname that actually have this African Y chromosome."

I hate this report. It is such stupid propaganda and really suggests that the race deniers are panicking.

Firstly: everyone is of African origin. That is where humanity is supposed to have evolved. Presumably morons are totally unaware of this, yes.

Next: They have found some sort of genetic material that a tiny minority (a handful) of Yorkshire men with a very rare surname have in common with a miniscule number of north Africans. (As it says on the version of the report that I have read). Seems like a bit of a storm in a tea cup.

Plently of races have had some odd person of another race enter their genepool at some point. Even the nazi SS only required that someone joining them could trace their Germanic ancestry back 200 years. You don't keep every gene from all your ancestors, they keep getting lost through natural and sexual selection and refined. Anyway we are all 99% or so the same as Chimps genetically.

Next it mentions Roman soldiers defending Hadrian's wall. It is a very annoying fact for the race deniers apparantly, that there were never any legions from Asia or Africa based in Britian. They attempt to give the impression that there were but that is not the case. The nearest thing to it was a legion from Syria. It is quite possible that there was the odd Black African man, but this would have been rare. Could be some apparantly white British natives ended up with some genes as a result, such as curly hair or whatever. It really is of no consequence, yet the media was touting it as if to say "look! Race doesn't exist because some Yorkshire men who look like white men have genes from negroes!". Isn't it obvious how ridiculous that is?

 

[vikingligrveldi]

isn't speaking english should be a requirement for living here, legally?
so, then all the people that can't speak english are illegals, right?

America has no national language and never has. The idea that all Euro immigrants have always spoken English displays a total lack of knowledge about US history. Throughout the high-points of European immigration to the United States there were isolated pockets of German-towns, Swedish-towns, Italian-towns etc. These maintained for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries before the boundries of these seperate races became one unified identity, "white". Now "white" in America usually means someone who is a hodge-podge of European (and often non-European) races such as part-Scot, part-Native-American, part-Polish, part-Jewish etc etc.

The raw fact of the matter is that people emigrating from a poor country generally don't have the time or money to pay for language schools so that they can come to America and become a lawyer or some other high paying job. They usually end up doing something like washing dishes or mopping floors. I am not saying it is right to run across the border, but I can empathize with their needs to feed their children, which often drives their act. Besides Mexicans are much the same as many Americans they are "white" races of Europe such as Spanish, Germans etc mixed with the Native people of Mexico. I don't have a problem with Mexicans. Some of the coolest people and truest metal heads I have met have been Mexicans. And I will also say that I have never met an American-born Mexican who can't speak English.

Also, if they can somehow make money without speaking English like say a Mexican or Chinese guy who runs a grocery store geared toward their own race, then who are we to say that we should interupt the natural progress of the free-market by telling them they must speak English?? 90% of the people I see on a daily basis are "white" anyways. I wonder if you people who hate mexicans so much would still hate mexicans who act "white"?? Spanish is a European language anyways.

 

[Norsemaiden]

America has no national language and never has. The idea that all Euro immigrants have always spoken English displays a total lack of knowledge about US history. Throughout the high-points of European immigration to the United States there were isolated pockets of German-towns, Swedish-towns, Italian-towns etc. These maintained for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries before the boundries of these seperate races became one unified identity, "white". Now "white" in America usually means someone who is a hodge-podge of European (and often non-European) races such as part-Scot, part-Native-American, part-Polish, part-Jewish etc etc.

The raw fact of the matter is that people emigrating from a poor country generally don't have the time or money to pay for language schools so that they can come to America and become a lawyer or some other high paying job. They usually end up doing something like washing dishes or mopping floors. I am not saying it is right to run across the border, but I can empathize with their needs to feed their children, which often drives their act. Besides Mexicans are much the same as many Americans they are "white" races of Europe such as Spanish, Germans etc mixed with the Native people of Mexico. I don't have a problem with Mexicans. Some of the coolest people and truest metal heads I have met have been Mexicans. And I will also say that I have never met an American-born Mexican who can't speak English.

Also, if they can somehow make money without speaking English like say a Mexican or Chinese guy who runs a grocery store geared toward their own race, then who are we to say that we should interupt the natural progress of the free-market by telling them they must speak English?? 90% of the people I see on a daily basis are "white" anyways. I wonder if you people who hate mexicans so much would still hate mexicans who act "white"?? Spanish is a European language anyways.

One of the main problems is that they will work for a fraction of the wages that a white person will work for. They wont stand up for their rights. They just think: this is better than how it is in Mexico so I am not complaining. This is great for the ruthless capitalist who wants slave labour and is terrible for the working man who finds himself competing with people who are grateful for crumbs from the table.

 

[OldScratch]

America has no national language and never has. The idea that all Euro immigrants have always spoken English displays a total lack of knowledge about US history. Throughout the high-points of European immigration to the United States there were isolated pockets of German-towns, Swedish-towns, Italian-towns etc. These maintained for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries before the boundries of these seperate races became one unified identity, "white". Now "white" in America usually means someone who is a hodge-podge of European (and often non-European) races such as part-Scot, part-Native-American, part-Polish, part-Jewish etc etc.

The raw fact of the matter is that people emigrating from a poor country generally don't have the time or money to pay for language schools so that they can come to America and become a lawyer or some other high paying job. They usually end up doing something like washing dishes or mopping floors. I am not saying it is right to run across the border, but I can empathize with their needs to feed their children, which often drives their act. Besides Mexicans are much the same as many Americans they are "white" races of Europe such as Spanish, Germans etc mixed with the Native people of Mexico. I don't have a problem with Mexicans. Some of the coolest people and truest metal heads I have met have been Mexicans. And I will also say that I have never met an American-born Mexican who can't speak English.

Also, if they can somehow make money without speaking English like say a Mexican or Chinese guy who runs a grocery store geared toward their own race, then who are we to say that we should interupt the natural progress of the free-market by telling them they must speak English?? 90% of the people I see on a daily basis are "white" anyways. I wonder if you people who hate mexicans so much would still hate mexicans who act "white"?? Spanish is a European language anyways.

What people here hate Mexicans?
Either way, there are a number of issues with your logic here. First of all, while some Mexicans may be more dominantly European(as a variety of so-called Hispanics are) the majority of illegal invaders currently filtering into the US are of the Mestizo classification, which is hardly a primarily Caucasian ethnic extraction. Additionally, the vast majority are in fact not native born as the individuals you describe, which likely accounts for your rather atypical experience with Mexicans in America.
Neither these folks themselves or anyone else classify them as "white," except perhaps for the official government designations which often list Mestizo criminals and the like as White for clearly deceitful purposes(ie. PC)
The overwhelming majority of Mexicans(or Hondurans, Guatamalans, etc.) in my area are very dark-skinned, asiatic featured, small statured peoples(rarely more than 5'5" tall at best - the men that is)

More importantly though, no sensible person cares if immigrants(preferably of the legitimate variety) can or do speak languages other than English - I would encourage it - but they should also understand the native language of their "adopted" country. The chief complaint is the need to provide official documentation, education or services(medical, legal ,etc.) in foreign tongues to accomodate people who simply can't be bothered to learn English. Living in New York I have a tremendous exposure to Spanish-only-speaking "immigrants"(of whom there are scores in my own town). They generally cannot communicate with law enforcement, employers, hospital and healthcare personnel, educators etc. without special "bi-lingual" assistance.
This is costly and patently unfair to the generations of immigrants who came to this land, often speaking little English, but learned swiftly or did without - my own Grandparents from Germany included.

This has nothing whatever to do with "hating" anyone. Indeed, if only it were that simple...

 

[vikingligrveldi]

One of the main problems is that they will work for a fraction of the wages that a white person will work for. They wont stand up for their rights. They just think: this is better than how it is in Mexico so I am not complaining. This is great for the ruthless capitalist who wants slave labour and is terrible for the working man who finds himself competing with people who are grateful for crumbs from the table.

You must not have been watching TV last year when there were mass protests in virtually every major American city...

Also, its not immigrants faults if Americans don't go to college to become Engineers, Chemists and other high paying professions but instead fight with Mexicans for jobs mowing lawns and washing toilets. If these hypothetical workers have no greater prospects than these after growing up in the most technologically advanced nation in the world with not free but required education and college available to anyone who works hard, that's their problem. Besides there is a minimum wage which most crappy jobs stick by. Its not like places were paying 20$ an hour to wash dishes before Mexicans came along. That's just the nature of life and yes capitalism, if you don't have any marketable skills and you don't have the intelligence and guts to become an entrepreneur you end up slaving your life away at mcdonalds.

 

[vikingligrveldi]

but they should also understand the native language of their "adopted" country.

Which Native language should they speak?? Navajo?? Apache?? English isn't the "native" language of America, it is the language of a foreign culture. Americans by your logic should be learning the regional "native" language of their state!

 

[OldScratch]

Which Native language should they speak?? Navajo?? Apache?? English isn't the "native" language of America, it is the language of a foreign culture. Americans by your logic should be learning the regional "native" language of their state!

How patronizingly clever. Modern 'Norwegian' isn't the traditional language of Norway either - what is your point? If you wish to ignore the fact that America has been an English-speaking country for centuries, and certainly since its official inception; and as it directly pertains to the discussion at hand, then I suppose you have that right.
And your last statement is completely false. My logic only suggests that people flooding into a a sovereign nation(in this case illegally), wishing, nay demanding to be fully "included" and accepted, would do themsleves and everyone else a favor by at least making an attempt to learn the basics of the primary language spoken in that nation...as if you didn't know fully well what I meant.

 

[vikingligrveldi]

How patronizingly clever. Modern 'Norwegian' isn't the traditional language of Norway either - what is your point? If you wish to ignore the fact that America has been an English-speaking country for centuries, and certainly since its official inception; and as it directly pertains to the discussion at hand, then I suppose you have that right.
And your last statement is completely false. My logic only suggests that people flooding into a a sovereign nation(in this case illegally), wishing, nay demanding to be fully "included" and accepted, would do themsleves and everyone else a favor by at least making an attempt to learn the basics of the primary language spoken in that nation...as if you didn't know fully well what I meant.

I guess you didn't know what I meant, that this "nation" was stolen from the native population by violent means. Besides as I already stated America has no national language. Besides you said the "native" language. I was just making the point that most Americans aren't indigenous to the land, and that is really the only reason I can see for implementing a national language. And where did you hear that America has been an English-speaking country for centuries?? That is laugh out loud funny. I don't know where you picked that up but it is quite inaccurate. Americans have been linguistically diverse since the inception of the country. In fact here is a little quote of what Ben Franklin thought about Germans;

"Why should the Palatine boors be suffered to swarm into our settlement, and, by herding together, establish their language and manners, to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanized us, instead of our Anglicifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs any more than they can acquire our complexion?"

Benjamin Franklin 1751


There are over 100 languages spoken in the United States, not just English. And by your logic, if someone should learn the dominant language of their area, and you live by a bunch of hispanics, you should learn Spanish, the primary language of your area. I mean the whole argument is over baseless accusations anyway, that Spanish speakers don't want to speak Spanish. What's the big deal?? If you don't like it move to Idaho.

PS I am not sure what the Norwegian comment has to do with anything...

 

[OldScratch]

I guess you didn't know what I meant, that this "nation" was stolen from the native population by violent means. Besides as I already stated America has no national language. Besides you said the "native" language. I was just making the point that most Americans aren't indigenous to the land, and that is really the only reason I can see for implementing a national language. And where did you hear that America has been an English-speaking country for centuries?? That is laugh out loud funny. I don't know where you picked that up but it is quite inaccurate. Americans have been linguistically diverse since the inception of the country. In fact here is a little quote of what Ben Franklin thought about Germans;

"Why should the Palatine boors be suffered to swarm into our settlement, and, by herding together, establish their language and manners, to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanized us, instead of our Anglicifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs any more than they can acquire our complexion?"

Benjamin Franklin 1751


There are over 100 languages spoken in the United States, not just English. And by your logic, if someone should learn the dominant language of their area, and you live by a bunch of hispanics, you should learn Spanish, the primary language of your area. I mean the whole argument is over baseless accusations anyway, that Spanish speakers don't want to speak Spanish. What's the big deal?? If you don't like it move to Idaho.

PS I am not sure what the Norwegian comment has to do with anything...

What language was the Declaration of Independence written in? The Constitution? The Articles of Confederation? Have most of these things not been in place for several centuries? What language is the US Penal Code written in, the Tax Code, the various Charters, Constitutions, and By-Laws of every State in the Union? What do you find laughable about this?
More specifically, why do you persist in claiming I ever said only English has been spoken in America at any given time? I already said, speak whatever language(s)you like...but must this preclude some manner of common language so Americans at least have a hope of effectively communicating with one another, their officials, their teachers, policemen, doctors, etc?

Your general argument, as near as I can tell there is one, is perplexing at best. Are you suggesting a polyglot society, wherein no common language is utilized for official transactions, national communication and the like is preferable?

And as for America being "stolen" by violent means...what nation was not to some degree? History is one gigantic land-grab, and many populations of European nations, for instance, are hardly indigenous either. Shall we work our way back through recorded history and bemoan every "theft" by force along the way?

 

[vikingligrveldi]

What language was the Declaration of Independence written in? The Constitution? The Articles of Confederation? Have most of these things not been in place for several centuries? What language is the US Penal Code written in, the Tax Code, the various Charters, Constitutions, and By-Laws of every State in the Union? What do you find laughable about this?
More specifically, why do you persist in claiming I ever said only English has been spoken in America at any given time? I already said, speak whatever language(s)you like...but must this preclude some manner of common language so Americans at least have a hope of effectively communicating with one another, their officials, their teachers, policemen, doctors, etc?

Your general argument, as near as I can tell there is one, is perplexing at best. Are you suggesting a polyglot society, wherein no common language is utilized for official transactions, national communication and the like is preferable?

And as for America being "stolen" by violent means...what nation was not to some degree? History is one gigantic land-grab, and many populations of European nations, for instance, are hardly indigenous either. Shall we work our way back through recorded history and bemoan every "theft" by force along the way?

Its not as complex as it seems to have a multi-lingual society, just look at Switzerland. Hell look at the entire developed world, which has more or less unanimously chosen English as a second language. Paradoxically the acceptance of Spanish would increase English fluency naturally to Spanish-speaking foreigners. But it really doesn't matter how much you cry and complain about it because virtually every business with half a brain is beginning to conduct their affairs in Spanish and English. If you owned a business would you miss out on such a huge demographic?? Likewise the government is already set up as a multi-lingual entity. There are translators and translated documents in many languages available throughout the government. This may sound like a craaaazy idea to solve things, but maybe we should begin teaching foreign languages to children at young ages. I mean we are moving into a new globalized world, it would be nice if xenophobes wouldn't try to push America back while the rest of the world steps forward.

Should we bemoan history? Well the plight of the Native Americans continues to this day so I would hardly call it ancient history. On the one hand you say since the constitution was written by wealthy Englishmen centuries ago we should speak English, yet because they eventually murdered off many of the Natives we should forget that piece of linguistic history because it took place a long time ago. Is this an issue of numbers or history? A substantial chunk of the population speaks Spanish if it is numbers, Native-Americans are more ancient if it is history.

I can't see what is so perplexing?? I don't believe the government has the right to regulate language. They already have enough power without telling people how they must speak. Besides its none of their business what language people speak. If I even want to speak in Quenya it's my damn right....

 

[OldScratch]

Its not as complex as it seems to have a multi-lingual society, just look at Switzerland. Hell look at the entire developed world, which has more or less unanimously chosen English as a second language. Paradoxically the acceptance of Spanish would increase English fluency naturally to Spanish-speaking foreigners. But it really doesn't matter how much you cry and complain about it because virtually every business with half a brain is beginning to conduct their affairs in Spanish and English. If you owned a business would you miss out on such a huge demographic?? Likewise the government is already set up as a multi-lingual entity. There are translators and translated documents in many languages available throughout the government. This may sound like a craaaazy idea to solve things, but maybe we should begin teaching foreign languages to children at young ages. I mean we are moving into a new globalized world, it would be nice if xenophobes wouldn't try to push America back while the rest of the world steps forward.

Should we bemoan history? Well the plight of the Native Americans continues to this day so I would hardly call it ancient history. On the one hand you say since the constitution was written by wealthy Englishmen centuries ago we should speak English, yet because they eventually murdered off many of the Natives we should forget that piece of linguistic history because it took place a long time ago. Is this an issue of numbers or history? A substantial chunk of the population speaks Spanish if it is numbers, Native-Americans are more ancient if it is history.

I can't see what is so perplexing?? I don't believe the government has the right to regulate language. They already have enough power without telling people how they must speak. Besides its none of their business what language people speak. If I even want to speak in Quenya it's my damn right....

Given that many stubborn "Spanish-only-speakers" of whom you seem so enamored, are indeed illiterate or only semi-literate in their own native tongue, I suspect your envisioned merrily Balkanized utopia may not turn out quite as well as you may think.
It is curious that you are perfectly comfortable with the government being constrained with providing and/or translating documents and services in every conceivable language or dialect at who knows what exertion and expense to the taxpayer, yet you indignantly bristle at the simple suggestion that establishing a single common national language would be some egregious govt. intrusion! And once and for all, you or anyone else may SPEAK whatever language you wish...that doesn't mean a common language isn't desirable or reasonable.

And taking a look around the globe, as the grand social-experiment of multiculturalism flounders from London to Los Angeles, it may be that the wicked "xenophobes" you speak of are way ahead of the curve, rather than behind it as you suggest. Alas, today it is only bi-lingualism on the table...what shall it all look and sound like when no two blocks of any major city can communicate in any common language? Take a look into the staggering array of languages being (theoretically)taught in the New York City schools, and the incredible cost and complexity this glorious folly entails.
Switzerland is an ethnically similar nation, that is but a fraction of the size of America, wherein perhaps three languages maximum are spoken. Do you honestly believe that phenomenon will replicate itself in the major urban centers of America, where the population of one smaller city easily dwarfs a Switzerland not only in numbers by in ethno/cultural disparity a hundredfold?

 

[vikingligrveldi]

Given that many stubborn "Spanish-only-speakers" of whom you seem so enamored, are indeed illiterate or only semi-literate in their own native tongue, I suspect your envisioned merrily Balkanized utopia may not turn out quite as well as you may think.

It is not some master scenario I have envisioned, it is the reality that has already become...wake up...I could just as easily accuse you of being a utopist in that you think there is any possible way to stop immigration and prevent people from speaking Spanish...

It is curious that you are perfectly comfortable with the government being constrained with providing and/or translating documents and services in every conceivable language or dialect at who knows what exertion and expense to the taxpayer, yet you indignantly bristle at the simple suggestion that establishing a single common national language would be some egregious govt. intrusion!

I don't really care about a government. If the government didn't exist I would be perfectly fine with that. I believe in the free-market as the determiner of human affairs. The government by all accounts is always an intrusion. But regardless of that there is a government so, do you know how much it would cost to implement an English-only policy? Have you thought of the reprocutions of not being able to translate Spanish in emergencies? You are living in a dream world if you think there is any way to get rid of Hispanics. And yes granting the government power to issue such a drastic decision would doubtlessly lead to some huge breach of civil rights.Its the nature of the beast give them an inch they will take a mile.

And once and for all, you or anyone else may SPEAK whatever language you wish...that doesn't mean a common language isn't desirable or reasonable.

Ok go write a letter to your local congressmen then. Lots of things are desirable and reasonable. I consider a multi-lingual society desirable and reasonable. In fact I believe Americans should speak 3-4 languages.

And taking a look around the globe, as the grand social-experiment of multiculturalism flounders from London to Los Angeles, it may be that the wicked "xenophobes" you speak of are way ahead of the curve, rather than behind it as you suggest.

How have Los Angeles and London floundered?? This statement doesn't even make sense to me. Is it to say that multi-culturalism flip-flops from Los Angeles to London or what??? I don't consider multi-culturalism a grand social-experiment, but rather something that has flourished in every port of any city which resides near a reasonably large body of water for thousands of years. London (and all of England) is a good example of a mixed society which dates back to antiquity Romans, Celts, Normans, etc. And no they didn't all consider each other a common race. I bet there are still some limeys who don't believe the Irish are humans...

Alas, today it is only bi-lingualism on the table...what shall it all look and sound like when no two blocks of any major city can communicate in any common language?

I don't know, walk down the street in New York City or Paris and you tell me... I am starting to wonder if you have ever been to a large city. When you go you will see things like "china town", "greek town", "russian town", etc etc...In fact in many other countries there are "American towns". Maybe you should go to another country sometime so you can figure out what it's like to not be the majority. Just a suggestion...

Take a look into the staggering array of languages being (theoretically)taught in the New York City schools, and the incredible cost and complexity this glorious folly entails.

Yes denying them education would be a brilliant plan. Then we can have a totally uneducated underclass of minorities roaming the streets. And (not theoretically) schools teach mainly in English already. As I said before second generation Hispanics and children who move here learn English in school. You think their parents don't want them to? They come here to try and have a better life, not take the place over.

Switzerland is an ethnically similar nation, that is but a fraction of the size of America, wherein perhaps three languages maximum are spoken.

OK look at India, a country with roughly three times the population of America and 16 official national languages, which can be divided up into hundreds of dialects. And for the record, there are four official languages in Switzerland not including English.

Do you honestly believe that phenomenon will replicate itself in the major urban centers of America, where the population of one smaller city easily dwarfs a Switzerland not only in numbers by in ethno/cultural disparity a hundredfold?

People thought that the Irish, Italians and Polish were worthless garbage a hundred years ago, but they have become the most successful white ethnicities. Why should I assume because Mexicans have slightly darker skin pigment they will be any different?

 

[OldScratch]

It is not some master scenario I have envisioned, it is the reality that has already become...wake up...I could just as easily accuse you of being a utopist in that you think there is any possible way to stop immigration and prevent people from speaking Spanish...


I don't really care about a government. If the government didn't exist I would be perfectly fine with that. I believe in the free-market as the determiner of human affairs. The government by all accounts is always an intrusion. But regardless of that there is a government so, do you know how much it would cost to implement an English-only policy? Have you thought of the reprocutions of not being able to translate Spanish in emergencies? You are living in a dream world if you think there is any way to get rid of Hispanics. And yes granting the government power to issue such a drastic decision would doubtlessly lead to some huge breach of civil rights.Its the nature of the beast give them an inch they will take a mile.



Ok go write a letter to your local congressmen then. Lots of things are desirable and reasonable. I consider a multi-lingual society desirable and reasonable. In fact I believe Americans should speak 3-4 languages.



How have Los Angeles and London floundered?? This statement doesn't even make sense to me. Is it to say that multi-culturalism flip-flops from Los Angeles to London or what??? I don't consider multi-culturalism a grand social-experiment, but rather something that has flourished in every port of any city which resides near a reasonably large body of water for thousands of years. London (and all of England) is a good example of a mixed society which dates back to antiquity Romans, Celts, Normans, etc. And no they didn't all consider each other a common race. I bet there are still some limeys who don't believe the Irish are humans...

I don't know, walk down the street in New York City or Paris and you tell me... I am starting to wonder if you have ever been to a large city. When you go you will see things like "china town", "greek town", "russian town", etc etc...In fact in many other countries there are "American towns". Maybe you should go to another country sometime so you can figure out what it's like to not be the majority. Just a suggestion...

Yes denying them education would be a brilliant plan. Then we can have a totally uneducated underclass of minorities roaming the streets. And (not theoretically) schools teach mainly in English already. As I said before second generation Hispanics and children who move here learn English in school. You think their parents don't want them to? They come here to try and have a better life, not take the place over.

OK look at India, a country with roughly three times the population of America and 16 official national languages, which can be divided up into hundreds of dialects. And for the record, there are four official languages in Switzerland not including English.



People thought that the Irish, Italians and Polish were worthless garbage a hundred years ago, but they have become the most successful white ethnicities. Why should I assume because Mexicans have slightly darker skin pigment they will be any different?

This is essentially pointless at this point. You irritatingly presume a great deal about me and others with whom you disagree here and elsewhere. Thus, I no longer enjoy or have use for this tedious exchange-you win. Think what you wish...as you have pointed out so many times, that is indeed your right.

 

[Norsemaiden]

There are an estimated 1800 languages spoken in Africa. Some African languages, such as Swahili, Hausa, and Yoruba, are spoken by millions of people. Others, such as Laal, Shabo, and Dahalo, are spoken by a few hundred or fewer. In addition, Africa has a wide variety of sign languages, many of whose genetic classification has yet to be worked out. Several African languages are also whistled for special purposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_languages

I remember when I was a child I once said I would like to learn how to speak "African"!

There is a huge amount of diversity between the tribes in Africa. They have so much variation there because Africa is the birthplace of humanity, from which we all spread.

Because of all this diversity, Africa has always been a violent place with tribes killing eachother.

Right now, South Africa, the "Rainbow Nation" has a similar amount of violence to war-torn Iraq. Mostly this is, indirectly, tribal because the people do not share enough in common and are thus prone to exploit eachother and commit crime. This is the future for all of humanity. It is not so much that Black people are prone to behave this way, but it is the diversity and the mixing with and proximity to other tribes that results in this. There would be no end to it. Not ever. Nature pulls people apart, even while race mixing happens. Nature always sets one kind against another, and favours separation. That's how evolution works.

The best hope for peace is by separating the various groups. For about ten years before the advent of Black majority rule in S Africa, "homelands" were set up, which had the result of drastically reducing the violence. In these homelands, the various tribes were separated and it was the idea that they would be sovereign nations.

Now all that has been undone, but will humankind ever learn from their mistakes?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article1195242.ece

 

[SatanicBunny]

There are translators and translated documents in many languages available throughout the government. This may sound like a craaaazy idea to solve things, but maybe we should begin teaching foreign languages to children at young ages. I mean we are moving into a new globalized world, it would be nice if xenophobes wouldn't try to push America back while the rest of the world steps forward.

Spanish could theoretically be an official language of U.S, that would improve the position of Spanish speaking people and then it would even be possible to teach Spanish to some young kids at school.

My native language is Finnish, but since only about 5 million people speak it, it has no use outside of this country. Therefore I have studied English since I was 7, Swedish since I was 13 (we are even forced to study it, since it is one of the official languages of Finland) and few months ago I began to study Russian.

And I can tell you that it would not be impossible at all for the children to begin studying for example English and Spanish at the age of 7 or 8. It would help them a great deal in future.

 

[OldScratch]

Spanish could theoretically be an official language of U.S, that would improve the position of Spanish speaking people and then it would even be possible to teach Spanish to some young kids at school.

My native language is Finnish, but since only about 5 million people speak it, it has no use outside of this country. Therefore I have studied English since I was 7, Swedish since I was 13 (we are even forced to study it, since it is one of the official languages of Finland) and few months ago I began to study Russian.

And I can tell you that it would not be impossible at all for the children to begin studying for example English and Spanish at the age of 7 or 8. It would help them a great deal in future.

But why on earth should Americans do this? Spanish speaking peoples make up a tiny percentage of the American population. All Hispanics, of who many are native born and do indeed speak fluent English, comprise perhaps 14% of the population. So only a fraction of that number is in fact Spanish-only in terms of linguistic knowledge.
Either way the vast majority of Americans do speak English. English is considered the language of international commerce, the internet-common usage lingo etc. The ONLY people who legitimately benefit from Americans universally learning Spanish is of course the small minority of Spanish-only speakers. What possible logic is there in encouraging Americans to do this? Better we should stem the illegal tide from south of the border, and stop this convoluted nonsense post-haste.

Americans should be encouraged to learn second or even third languages...but not to accomodate a flood of illegal invaders who can't be bothered to learn any English when peoples from Finland to Egypt, who likely have no plans on illegally sneaking into America or the UK can somehow manage the task!