July 12, 2005
Multiculturalism is no Threat
I have confidence in America. We are overcoming the PC view of tolerance and we will make Americans of immigrants as we always have. It just is not possible to maintain a multi-cultural society the way the PC guys advocate. You can have a dominant culture that tolerates the manifestations of some others. That’s it and this is nothing new for America.
In 1910 there were more immigrants as a percentage of the population. As today, native born Americans worried. Let me assure those that oppose a multicultural America that they have nothing to worry about. And I can caution the proponents that they can't achieve their goal. The very diversity of it all ensures Americanization.
Most people can handle two cultures. If an American marries an immigrant, there is a chance for their children to grow up in a bi-cultural home. We all have seen this. But if immigrants from two different places marry, it becomes much more complicated. What language and culture does the Chinese-Spanish couple teach their children? What happens when their children date another mixed culture kid? The permutations grow exponentially. So everyone defaults to the easiest solution and the default option (what happened in the past) is American. I see this phenomenon with my kids' friends. We live in a diverse neighborhood. My kids have Arab, Korean, Chinese, German and Indian friends (among others). When they all get together, the only language they can use is English and they are developing a common culture that will someday be called American.
(Some immigrants will isolate themselves in ethnic enclaves and sentence themselves and their progeny to poverty, but that is not multiculturalism; just stupid.)
Language is an interesting challenge. I have lived in various countries and at one time spoke four languages fluently, but never at the same time. It is too hard. A person with normal language talent just can't concurrently keep more than two languages fluent. Some people can't learn even one other language. (I don't count being able to ask for a bathroom or directions to the train station as language proficient.) There are two kinds of people who casually advocate people learn multiple languages: those who have unusual language talent and those who have never tried to function at a high level in another language.
Now my Euro readers are going to write in and tell me that they have friends who can speak several languages. So do I. Some people can. My guess is that it is about 25% of the population, not a small number, but not a majority and most people can't. And most Europeans can't. They speak English and their own language. They speak a third language much less well or not at all.
Anyway, what this means is that bilingual or bicultural is possible. Multicultural is not. And in the U.S. we have too much diversity for anyone reasonably to learn. So we will have "American" multiculturalism. It will be a lot like what our grandparents grew up with if they lived in a immigrant big city. And when the process is all done, we will have Americans.
A thoroughly reasonable postulation. Good read. One of the things I love about America is its freedom to celebrate historical ethnic culture in a society that is dominated by a culture uniquely its own built out of that diversity, and having been founded as colonies of British, Spanish, and French and heavily influenced by indiginous American and Mexican peoples.
In Detroit, decades ago, there was a building called the International Institute, which hosted to the public at large weekend festivities based on teaching and learning ethnic dances, songs, histories, foods and recipes I loved attending and enjoyed learning new things from people there who came from places all around the world. Though I was a white, male young adult born and raised American, I felt at home their on Friday nights dancing Jewish or Hungarian dances with folks so pleased and happy to share what they knew with me.
It was for me, the best that America had to offer a young man born and raised here trying to find his way.
All immigrants group together regardless of country or time. What exactly do you propose? FORCE the immigrants to become Americans? What exactly IS an American? This talk of culture, immigration and race is pretty pointless. People will do want they want. If they want to be assimilated, that is their choice. If they want to be unique, that’s ok too.
CHOICE is what I consider being American is all about. What is yours?
Posted by: Aldous at July 13, 2005 12:22 AMGuys,
Do we actually get E Pluribus Unum?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pluribus_unum
“E pluribus unum is a national motto of the United States of America. Translated from Latin, it means “From many, one” or “Out of many, one,” or in a direct translation, “One out of more.” It referred to the integration of the 13 independent colonies into one united country, and has taken on an additional meaning, given the pluralistic nature of American society from immigration. The motto was selected by the first Great Seal committee in 1776, at the beginning of the American Revolution. Pierre Eugene DuSimiti鲥 originally suggested E pluribus unum as motto. In 1956, “In God We Trust” was added as another national motto, but did not replace E pluribus unum. Worth noting is that a similar motto — In varietate concordia (Unity in diversity) — was adopted by the European Union in 2000.”
From Many ONE.
So I guess that we abandon our national motto so that we can be PC?
Or do we look at it as only a suggestion?
I have no problem with those that are immigrants to America looking for a better life. Those that take the time to actually become Americans. Those that take the time to learn our laws, those that take the time to learn what being an American is all about. Those that want to be Americans, not just to belly up to the trough of American kindness.
I have a problem when America is over run with those that do it illegally.
The excuse that these folks do jobs no one else wants to do doesn’t wash anymore.
Rocky said: “I have a problem when America is over run with those that do it illegally.
The excuse that these folks do jobs no one else wants to do doesn’t wash anymore.”
Absolutely right, Rocky. Greed as justification for the dangerous, dangerous policy of keeping borders fluid, does not wash, at all, PRESIDENT BUSH!!!
:-) Think he heard me?
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 13, 2005 03:03 AMDavid, both parties are responsible for the porous borders. There is too much risk for either side in losing that important hispanic vote and I deplore both parties for that. We, as Americans, must demand that our government do something to secure our borders and soon.
Posted by: Jay at July 13, 2005 09:20 AMVery interesting piece. I took special interest in the multi language issue because it reminded me of a personal experience.
Many years ago I was on a business trip to Cologne (I think correct word is Koln) Germany. It was a beautiful train ride from Frankfort following the Rhine river, seeing the vineyards, etc.
In any case, the hotel that I stayed in was a small comfortable one with very nice management. I got into a discussion with the managers (a husband and wife) who told me that they speak seven languages fluently. I was amazed and asked why.
They explained that in the hospitality business in that part of the world at any given point in time there would be guests from all locations and to communicate properly they needed this multi lingual skill to stay in business. It was because of the “closeness” of other language speaking countries.
For comparison they told me that in America even though someone lives 3000 miles away, they speak the same language. So wherever we go in America we can talk to and understand anyone. Made perfect sense then.
Now this many years later, depending upon our reason for being in a specific city or location in America the comparison may no longer be true.
This obviously because of the tremendous influx of immigrants (legal and otherwise) and how they choose to adapt to American life.
This possibility IMO invites improvement.
Posted by: steve smith at July 13, 2005 09:21 AMI have to agree with Jack,Rocky, and David, as per the article and the previous comments.
It would seem that this can be a bipartisan thread?
Retain your culture but learn the common language enough to fuction ?
I wonder if learning the common lang.(english) would be helped by not printing everything in multipals?
I like Bush’s basic idea of Temperary work permits that would screen people first, allow them to pay taxes, get legal temp. drivers licenses, and be reviewed after 3 yrs.
Secure the borders to illeagals, but promote honest legal immigrants.
No welfare and healthcare to people that broke our laws to sneek in. We can’t even afford that for our own citizens!
Change our citizenship laws to prevent just taking your first breath on American soil the only requirment! That is insane! There is a new bill in congress(sponcered by a Rep. from Calif.) that would do just that.
NOTHING will change on these issues without bipartisan support. Neither side of the isle is dumb enough to try it alone and anger the hispanic voters!
Posted by: Beagle at July 13, 2005 09:57 AMBeagle, good thoughts. But be careful of the bait and switch in the legislation. If the Bill does not call for securing the borders FIRST, then, granting legal visas to current illegal immigrants, the Bill is nothing more than a fulcrum to use against a whole class of people, born here working Americans.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 13, 2005 10:53 AMDavid,
I posted this in another thread, it fits nicely to my post here.
“An interesting form of immigration is going on in Michigan.
Detroit has a very large arab population. It seems that pregnant arab women come here with a vacation visa, get welfare,have the child(paid 100% by taxpayers), then go home with their brand new US citizen!
Heres the kicker, they are very rich arab women!
Now in 16-18 yrs.will the trained American Jihadist come back to blow us up?
They are a US citizen, we cant keep them out.
They dont need a visa, they can get a legal pasport and drivers license as soon as they get back.
I dont have a link to the story, but I’m sure someone could search and find it.
Makes you wonder?”
Even Paul in Euroland seemed to agree with me on that one.
The citizenship thing goes far beyond those that wish to work here.
I agree with your points also, I hope you agree with Jay’s and mine that it will take bipartisanship to get anything meaningful done?
Posted by: Beagle at July 13, 2005 11:12 AMI was raised near Cleveland, Ohio in the 30s. There was a pretty good east European population there. I wasn’t in the middle, but I knew kids whose parents were first generation Americans. Serbs, Checks(my spelling), Poles, Italians, etc. My peers were fluent in English. Most of the parents were good enough at it. They did have their enclaves, of course,and neighborhoods did maintain their ethnicity. BUT…stores and commercials business in the rest of the country had signage in Englsh. Period. You picked up the phone and weren’t ask what language. Politicians didn’t compromise American and suck up to them. They, in turn, only wanted to be Americans, and didn’t insist they deserved special attention.
They thought of themselves as Americans. They came over here to be Americans.
The assimilated. You know, the melting pot concept. Now we have the fruit salad concept. Now these multicultlural fans want a United States of Mexico or a great new Balkans nation.
One language is a prime key of why this country functions so well. No language barriers, no border crossing impediments from state to state. No multi-identity nonsense. Yes, you can be proud of your heritage, but it is yours. Don’t make me adapt to it. Let us all be Americans without the hyphens.
Posted by: Dee Lee at July 13, 2005 11:42 AMI don’t think there is a serious movement by any ‘PC’crowd, whoever they are, to get people to learn multiple languages. If someone decides to learn Spanish, it is because it is to their benefit. If an immigrant decides to learn english - it is certainly to their benefit.
I agree with Aldous, people will do what they want.
Posted by: Tom G at July 13, 2005 11:46 AMIt astounds me that people here haven’t made more note of two facts:
1. Despite being the dominant language in the country, primarily for historical reasons, English is by no means our “national language”. We do not have a national language in America.
2. No note whatsoever has been taken that English is from ENGLAND. It is not “American”, it is not “the american language”, it was itself imported to this country by immigrants.
If English is really so great (and personally, I tend to think it is), shouldn’t normal market pressures be sufficient to force immigrants to learn the language? Isn’t the free market of ideas, in this case languages, the best principle to work with here? If another language achieves dominance through such a free market, isn’t it the democratic thing to allow that?
I’m very much opposed to language requirements to be considered American. Many good people have come to this country and chosen to retain their own cultures and even languages while pursuing new lives in America. The Pennsylvania-Dutch, are an excellent historical example of this. Their decedents, as far as I’m aware, now uniformly speak english even if they choose to practice the Amish lifestyle. I’m for allowing free-market societal pressures to push people into learning english over time, rather than making it a requirement. And I’m not really opposed to the same free-market pressures forcing us to learn other languages as well.
Posted by: Jarandhel at July 13, 2005 12:32 PMAlso, by requiring any sort of national language to be considered American, wouldn’t we be again abandoning the principles of federalism and states rights?
Posted by: Jarandhel at July 13, 2005 12:36 PMRepublican’s platform stands for less regulation, less intrusion by federal government, and downsizing government, and yet, they keep adding more laws and Constitutional Amendments, and police enforcements to their wish list.
Marriage Amendment
Flag Burning Law
English Language law
Anti-stem cell laws
Anti-abortion laws
Presumeably anti ethnic “hyphen” laws
Anti sexual act laws
Anti obscenity laws
Hey Republicans, I have a great idea to simplify your task. Simply pass a Constitutional Amendment that says, any person present in America without a visa, who is not white, and Quaker, Amish, or Mennonite, will be deported regardless of citizenship status. You can change the US to what you want in one fell swoop. If that sounds reminscent of Nazi Germany’s plan, it is not accidental.
English is our national language, certainly by tradition and practice. I don’t see particular reasons to protect it, but we should also not spend too much time, money and energy printing ballots etc in other languages.
Most people will want to learn English. Ironically, it is only in English speaking countries where you have significant resistance. Even the French now teach in English in some of their business schools and the French air force trains in English.
Anyway, I wouldn’t force anyone to learn English. But those who don’t can’t expect others to accommodate them. And anyone who doesn’t learn English is assigning himself a subordinate role in this society. Even in world society, English is becoming a requirement. English is the only language that can be useful almost anywhere in the world. Any immigrant group who won’t learn English is stupid. It is their business, but I have to wonder about such a dysfunctional culture.
Jarandhel,
I don’t think anyone is trying to force anyone to learn the common language of english in America.
But why force everyone to pay all the costs to accomidate those that refuse to attemp to learn?
Like it or not, english is getting to be the world language. Every modern country in the world teaches english as the first choice for a 2nd language.
Do you wish to promote the “tower of babble” ?
The only ones that get really pissed about that are the french, what the hell is the downside of that?
Posted by: Beagle at July 13, 2005 01:22 PMSteve Smith
I have heard people claim to speak several languages and have seen some people who can. But being able to speak to guests at a hotel is relatively easy in terms of vocabulary and language function. I can order beer in almost all Euro languages, but I can’t speak them.
It also depends on what languages you speak and how much they are related. Learning several Romance languages, for example, is doable. A person who speaks Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and French is much less impressive than one who speaks Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese and Arabic. In America we are getting more into languages in disparate language groups.
David Remer,
I usually enjoy and am impressed by what you write in these blogs, since when did you become so anti-republican? The last post was reminicent of hard left comments, when did you venture out of talking about the issue at hand and attack a party? That’s the kind of stuff that makes people so mad at the hard left, constantly attacking instead of discussing the issue. Just making an observation.
English is our national language, certainly by tradition and practice. I don’t see particular reasons to protect it, but we should also not spend too much time, money and energy printing ballots etc in other languages.
Sorry, no. “National Language” is an official designation. There have been repeated measures in almost every session of congress back to our founding to make english the national language, and they have all failed. By history and tradition, we have chosen to have no national language. We have a language that is currently the most common, that is all. And the reason to print ballots in other languages is that there is a free-market demand for it, nothing more and nothing less.
Anyway, I wouldn’t force anyone to learn English. But those who don’t can’t expect others to accommodate them.
Sure they can. It’s called supply and demand, and it’s part of free markets. If there is a demand for accommodation, and someone sees a benefit in supplying it (perhaps cheaper labor, perhaps to appeal to customers who speak the same language), that’s a mutually beneficial arrangement.
And anyone who doesn’t learn English is assigning himself a subordinate role in this society. Even in world society, English is becoming a requirement. English is the only language that can be useful almost anywhere in the world. Any immigrant group who won’t learn English is stupid. It is their business, but I have to wonder about such a dysfunctional culture.
Hate to break it to you, but Mandarin Chinese is on the upswing as a world language, and English as a first language is on the decline. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0226_040226_language.html
Posted by: Jarandhel at July 13, 2005 01:53 PMBeagle,
I don’t think anyone is trying to force anyone to learn the common language of english in America. But why force everyone to pay all the costs to accomidate those that refuse to attemp to learn?
So don’t force them to learn, but take away all public accommodation of language differences because you don’t want the public to pay for it? So you can only get police protection, etc, if you speak fluent english or are willing/able to pay for your own translator? Gee, no force involved there at all.
Like it or not, english is getting to be the world language. Every modern country in the world teaches english as the first choice for a 2nd language.
Please see the article I posted a link to in my reply to Jack. English is on the decline as a world language.
Do you wish to promote the “tower of babble” ?
This analogy is so flawed I don’t even know what you’re asking. The Tower of Babel was supposedly a tower built to try to reach heaven in a time when all men spoke one language. God himself supposedly prevented this by confusing their languages and preventing them from working together. (PS, this is also the ultimate proof that the bible is not literal, God was trying to stop man from reaching heaven by building a really big tower. We commonly fly planes above the clouds, we’ve sent rockets to the moon and beyond… what’s past the earth is outer space, you don’t hit heaven if you go high enough.)
I *think* you might be asking if I promote a nation where everyone speaks different languages and similarly can’t work together, like in the story of the Tower of Babel. I don’t, I simply feel it’s important to allow language to be dictated by natural market forces. It’s also important to note that our present accommodations for people who speak different languages have arisen out of these market forces, and doing away with them would be artificial interference with the market. And such accommodations also allow us to continue to function in a society where diverse languages are spoken, without the problems created by God’s confusion of languages.
The only ones that get really pissed about that are the french, what the hell is the downside of that?
It’s amazing to me how quickly everyone has jumped to demonize the French during the Bush administration. HIstorically, France has been one of our staunchest allies.
Posted by: Jarandhel at July 13, 2005 02:11 PMJack, I know some people that would call you a liberal for saying “multiculturalism is no threat.” Amazing ain’t it?
Posted by: Zeek at July 13, 2005 02:17 PM“HIstorically, France has been one of our staunchest allies.”
Jarandhel,
Big emphasis on Historically! Not presently.
Kevin, it appears my use of the words, Hey, Republicans, should have been more specific. But, I did elaborate that the comment is directed toward those Republicans who seek to restrict freedom in America and act contrarily to the Bill of Rights.
I guess I am just getting my fill of the Republican party’s rhetoric being too often 180 degrees opposite their actions. Smaller government? Fiscal responsibility? Spreading freedom in the world while working diligently to impede it here at home?
Believe me, I have my bones to pick with the Democratic Party too, and I have written about some of those. But the Republicans are our nations leadership, and their saying one thing and doing the opposite again and again, is just beyond the pale.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 13, 2005 02:21 PMKevin:
Big emphasis on Historically! Not presently.
Why, exactly? Because France didn’t support the war in Iraq?
Posted by: Jarandhel at July 13, 2005 02:27 PM“Why, exactly? Because France didn’t support the war in Iraq?”
Not so much that they didn’t support us as much as why they didn’t, But they tie into each other.
When was the last time they supported us on anything?
Posted by: Kevin at July 13, 2005 03:02 PMDavid,
I was just curious, I just have never heard you come down on one particullar party.
I do agree with the fact that both parties have issues though.
Posted by: Kevin at July 13, 2005 03:03 PMJack,
I rember a time when French was the “language of diplomacy”. I think that it had more to do with colonialism than the fact that everyone thought that it would be cool that everyone speak French.
It was also well known that if you were visiting France and at least made an attempt to speak the language, the reception was much warmer than if you expected, no, insisted the French speak English. This was one of the reasons that Americans gained their nasty reputations overseas. Speaking louder doesn’t help matters either.
As I have stated before, I have traveled the world for my job. One of the first things I try to do is learn some of the rudimentery phrases that will make my stay a pleasent one, both for myself and for my hosts.
In a country the size of America, you would think that it would be a plus that people could communicate with each other.
What some of our illegal friends don’t seem to realize, is that, if they aren’t a citizen of America, they are a guest, and as such they should make every effort to act like one.
Occasionaly I enjoy lunch at one of your typical American fast-food outlets. It would be nice to have the person taking my order and my money able to understand at least some of what I am saying.
Kevin:
Not so much that they didn’t support us as much as why they didn’t, But they tie into each other.When was the last time they supported us on anything?
Umm, gee, I dunno… AFGHANISTAN?? They were our second largest military partner there as of November LAST YEAR.
Posted by: Jarandhel at July 13, 2005 03:18 PMJarandhel
Oh that’s right, they weren’t selling arm to them at the time!
Jarandhel,
The lack of affection for the French isn’t something new!
They have acted like arrogant A-holes for about 60 years!
The fact they haven’t changed is fortified by leaders like jock-strap chirac.
My opinion dont mean shit on that issue, unless it is shared by most here In America and in europe.
Chirac may be an athletic supporter, but thats about it!
Aldous said….
“All immigrants group together regardless of country or time. What exactly do you propose? FORCE the immigrants to become Americans? What exactly IS an American? This talk of culture, immigration and race is pretty pointless. People will do want they want. If they want to be assimilated, that is their choice. If they want to be unique, that’s ok too.
CHOICE is what I consider being American is all about. What is yours?”
I want to focus on the statement “FORCE the immigrants to become Americans”.
I do not think we want to FORCE an immigrant to become an American. It is reasonable to assume that an individual migrates to this country so that he can become an American citizen and enjoy the freedoms offered.
That said, I firmly believe that we should regulate (and enforce) the amount of time that we will allow for the citizenship process to take place. During that time, it is reasonable to afford the immigrant most of the advantages of citizenship (excepting for gun ownership, subsidize health care, welfare, etc.)
A reasonable amount of time should be allowed for that immigrant to learn the language. We should not have to compromise or adjust our communication methods to accomodate the immigrants.
Once the citizenship time period has elapsed and the immigrant has not opted for citizenship or failed the test, back he goes to wherever he came from.
In the interim if immigrants wish to form their own communities or sub-cultures, they should be free to do so.
I am speaking of LEGAL immigrants. All duly registered and with periodic validation checks. An ILLEGAL imigrant should be deported immediately.
The lack of affection for the French isn’t something new! They have acted like arrogant A-holes for about 60 years!
France is one of the two most arrogant countries on the planet. And, when they opposed us on the Iraq invasion, they went head-to-head with the other one.
And the French have been arrogant for a lot longer than 60 years!
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at July 13, 2005 05:25 PMRob Cottrell, you are absolutely right about France. Now if they had the largest economy and military in the world, we would not call them arrogant, we would call them important, like the U.S. The only thing standing between us and arrgance is military and economic might to back it up.
Of course, that does not stop a billion or two people in the world from calling us arrogant, but, we know better. “Sticks and stones…”, we say!
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 13, 2005 06:16 PMJarandel
I can only tell you what I have seen.
Wherever I travel, people know English. In many of the places where people didn’t know English 20 years ago (E. Europe, Central Asia) many people know English now. You can go around the world using English. You can’t do that with Chinese. Or let me put it this way, if you go to China, you can conduct much of your business in English. If a guy from China goes to Europe or America, he can’t unless he is in a Chinese community. The number of native speakers is less important in this case than the number of that can understand that language.
English is not only the language of the United States. Many non-Americans with no affection for us at all are eager to learn English because it is the world language. In fact, that is one of the reasons Americans have trouble learning other languages. Too many people speak English. We play a little game of pretending to speak the languages when we know the other guy can speak English.
I am not opposed to learning other languages. My job required me to learn several languages at professional levels, so I know how hard it is to learn a language and how hard it is to maintain a language if you don’t get to use it much. And as an English speaker you don’t get to use it much. I have also noticed that many people who say (or think) they speak a second or third language actually don’t.
There is a big difference between being able to speak (converse) in a language and knowing enough phrases to get by in a simple encounter.
In order to be able to converse in a language you must THINK in that language.
As with anything else, words are easy, thoughts are the foundation.
Posted by: steve smith at July 13, 2005 07:15 PMChoice is what America is all about?
WOW!!!!!
There are several words that must be combined to say what America is all about; choice is one word that is way down the list.
Let us start with freedom. We have the freedom to say that choice is what America is all about.
Freedom is being able go the the Mosque, Synagogue, Cathedral, or church of ones belief or even vistit someone elses belief structure. Freedom is being able to vote into office people who are totally against our own principles but have enough people to support their own; and also voting into office on the narrowest of margins someone we enjoy working with or have administer, legislate or direct the workings of government. Freedom is being able to pursue the profession of our choice or even to become a bum if one chooses.
This could go on and on of course. But, freedom is one of the first words to consider when we talk about what America is all about.
Tom:
What is freedom but the power to make choices?
Posted by: Jarandhel at July 13, 2005 07:53 PM“HIstorically, France has been one of our staunchest allies.”
Jarandhel,
Big emphasis on Historically! Not presently.
The best friends tell you what they believe to be the truth, whether you want to hear it or not. And just because the admin of Chirac clearly set out to stymie Bush, don’t let that confuse you. Most French people despise him. The only reason he was elected last time, was that the it ended up as a run off between him and Jean Marie Le Pen, the leader of the French extreme right neo fascists. Call it the lesser of two evils.
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at July 14, 2005 02:34 PMJack,
A very nice piece. I agree multi-culturalism, by it’s very nature, is no threat. America will continue to absorb and melt with our immigrants as we’ve always done. Unfortunately, by making it more difficult to learn the dominant language (see, I didn’t have to use “National Language” when such a thing doesn’t exist, unlike our National Flag or National Bird) by making it so convenient to retain your former language, we are slowing the melting process. It’s slower, but through the generations it is inevitable. If we force it upon ourselves, we could perhaps go the way of the mythical Tower of Babel, but that doesn’t seem likely considering how arrogant and stubborn the American populace truly is.
Jaranhdel said:
I don’t, I simply feel it’s important to allow language to be dictated by natural market forces. It’s also important to note that our present accommodations for people who speak different languages have arisen out of these market forces, and doing away with them would be artificial interference with the market.
Changing the laws to require we print every piece of government paperwork in a variety of languages and/or require the government to provide translators is a by-product of new “tolerance” mentalities. The market force for such actions has long been present, but since the legislation wasn’t present the “foreigners” adapted and became Americans.
Both English and Mandarin Chinese are dominant languages due to force. The British forced English on the Irish, Scottish, Indians (those who are actually in India) and New World tribes and immigrants, just to name the top examples that come to mind. The Chinese were traditionally not the cohesive nation we know them for now. For centuries (possibly millenia) the Chinese had a language that was universally understandable only in written form and few could read and write because of the complexity of their written form. The various groups of Chinese individuals couldn’t understand each other when they traveled too far. A mutually understandable language was forced on them by the Emperor(s) who united them and made them one nation.
Forcing unity of language has historically been the only means (that I’m aware of) that resulted in unity of people. America has, historically speaking, forced many different groups of immigrants to learn our language.
Posted by: Stephanie at July 14, 2005 07:19 PMOn an uglier note: We have, also historically, forced immigrants to segregate from those “true” Americans whenever the influx of a particular ethnicity was too great (or we were involved in a war with their native land). German immigrants faced this. As did Irish, Chinese, Hispanic, ect. I’m not saying we did this LEGALLY, but as a society our ancestors did this.
That is an American tradition, even if it is not an American law. I think, if we can help encourage immigrants to learn our most dominant language, give them reasonable incentitive to do so, without segregating them from our culture at large, we would be creating a new American tradition that better suits our American ideals.
And I totally agree with Steve Smith who said:
I am speaking of LEGAL immigrants. All duly registered and with periodic validation checks. An ILLEGAL imigrant should be deported immediately.Posted by: Stephanie at July 14, 2005 07:27 PM
Jaranhdel,
“It’s also important to note that our present accommodations for people who speak different languages have arisen out of these market forces, and doing away with them would be artificial interference with the market. And such accommodations also allow us to continue to function in a society where diverse languages are spoken, without the problems created by God’s confusion of languages.”
I think I am going to disagree with you on this point.
There was a time in this country that everyone strove to learn English. Immigrants in the late 1800s to early 1900s may not have spoken English, or ever even learned English. They did, however, make sure that their children and grandchildren learned the language, because it was the way that they saw to get ahead in this country.
Bilingual ballots were not even required until the Voting Rights Act of 1975. And even then there were those that fought against them. Most of the printed multilingual information that our government puts out didn’t exist until the late 70s early 80s.
My point is that most multilingual info was put out by the government was so folks could vote and drive.
People aren’t learning English in this country, because we have made it too easy not to.
Posted by: Rocky at July 14, 2005 10:40 PM
