America Can Not Survive As Multi-Language Country
A multi-language country creates barriers between people, increases costs and tensions. This is not a one trick pony problem, but when individuals and CORPORATIONS push a multi-cultural agenda-one has to ask...why? The evidence is not in your favor. I did not want to hijack my own post, so I started a separate conversation.
Bilingualism is so anti-American, that it boggles the mind that public funds support it.
A nation of people who share a common language and customs, can better cooperate in the defense of person or property from attack.
A nation of people who cannot communicate and have different customs, will not cooperate.
For the predators, the latter is preferred over the former. A nation divided into unintelligible factions is doomed to collapse.
One language = one nation united.
------------------------
Reference :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto
“The place where I was born and spent my childhood gave direction to all my future struggles. In Bialystok the inhabitants were divided into four distinct elements: Russians, Poles, Germans and Jews; each of these spoke their own language and looked on all the others as enemies.”
- - - L. L. Zamenhof, in a letter to N. Borovko, ca. 1895
I don't have a problem with people speaking more than one language. What I have a problem with is people who want to live in an English-speaking nation who don't want to conform to the BASIC/FUNDAMENTAL precept of society: communication. All else fails when communication can not be established.
I don't care if your native language is something else - in order to function in society, you need to speak and write English. Period. No waivers. No exclusions. No costly accommodations. You do not only yourself but your children a disservice when you refuse to make the effort to learn it.
Anything that disrupts or degrades or erects barriers to communication is destructive to the COMMUNITY.
Community = collectivism = oppression.
It doesn't have do with communication. There some need for voluntary association like my church but community seem to be a way for propel to gain power over other individuals be local conservatism, liberalism or the home owners association.
Your "community" church is fine because there is no coercion, the "community" is voluntary. Collectivism, that the individual is subservient and subject to the group, requires coercion. i.e., the initiation of force or fraud.
I love language(s) and anyone can speak any language they want, any place they want as long as they do not initiate force for me to speak it.
There are sub-cultural languages in most major countries. We have Spanglish in the US, Then there's the mega language which is the tongue of commerce and daily life. If one wants to function efficiently in any locale, one must bear the burden of learning to communicate and can communicate any way they want as long as they don't initiate force (through government) to FORCE anyone to learn anything. A person has a right to do anything as long as it doesn't involve force or fraud that results in harm to another.
Regarding beer, I urge everyone to watch the Youtube video, 40 minutes: How Beer Saved The World....
And it is a complete falsehood that people exist in a vacuum. How is that person going to find a mate or conduct business? If they are strictly isolationist, they cease to exist and render themselves moot. If they remove themselves from society, are they not withdrawing their efforts and productivity as well, reducing the overall productivity of society? I would argue in the affirmative. Does this mean that they have no right to do so? No, but they can not simultaneously claim a right to participate in society AND NOT participate in society. That is an inherent logical contradiction.
heard my accent and complained about foreigners taking jobs from Americans. I agreed with him and said I confessed to taking jobs from all the other Americans who were also fluent in six languages. He dropped the issue.
Lauguages can be very helpful, when, for instance, working in international trade. But any
country is best served with having a common
language. A Polish Immigrant friend was asked whether she wanted her driver's licence instruction in Polish. She declined, but as long as government people keep assisting any and all in every way, it takes longer to learn as the
path of least resistance is perferred by many.
Another matter may be mentioned, the Scandinavian countries with their huge immigration quotas of Muslims from North
Africa and the Middle East gives free language
lessons to these newcomers. However, this is far from enough; Islam does not mix with the culture, as is the case in other European countries as well. While the lauguage difficulties
can be fairly easily solved, there is a bigger one
around the corner.
Diversity of opinion can be useful in examining options. Diversity of culture and language only brings division.
trouble,and the Netherlands are too. Their lonely
defender, Geert Wilder (if I remember his last name correctly) has even testified before our
Congress for what good it did.
One morning the professor entered her classroom and was met by a group of protester. They were dissatisfied with the way the class was being taught. They gave the professor an ultimatum. They wanted nay demanded the class be taught in Spanish. They said this should not be a problem since they knew the professor spoke fluent Spanish. The professor refused . She told the students to leave her classroom, except those actually in her class.
The students left and went to the University president’s office. Similar demands were made there. The university president told them he would look into the issue. He did not know the professor and did not ask the students what class she taught or any other pertinent facts. He called the professor in. He wanted to know why, if she spoke fluent Spanish she would not teach the class in Spanish.
The professors reply was short and to the point. “I teach sophomore ENGLISH. Not English as a second language but College Sophomore level English. I also teach English and American Literature.” The President didn’t say a word. The students didn’t return with their demands.
In todays environment, I relatively sure that she would have been required to teach the class in Spanish in order to preserve PC.
A note to the story. All of the students involved were 4th generation native born Americans and spoke English as well as the professor.
With that said this has always been a multi-cultural multi-language nation and it behooves those living here to at least attempt to assimilate with the rest of the population.
Additionally, it is in each of us personally's best interest to learn as much of anything that we are exposed to as possible, to include learning other languages. while I personally speak English and German I only read English. Of course living in West Texas my German goes largely unused. I really should pick up some Spanish.
Now that I have been polite and reasonable I will also say this. As an American it really irks me when I have to deal with someone (normally Hispanics) who refuse to assimilate and are proud of their "Home Country." Sorry but if Mexico is so freaking great take your tail back across the river!
Language is the glue that bonds different cultures into a strong society.(the American melting pot of old) They may speak their own language amongst themselves; but it is the one in they have in common that unites them into a peaceful, functioning society. The destruction of a common means of communication IS the destruction of a civilization.
Immigrants up through the late '60s used to focus on assimilating into the US, which included learning the predominant language - English. About that time, the do-gooders began to profess that this was "unfair" and immigrants should be supported with native language support, to the degree that assimilation was no longer needed - and balkanization has been the result. We now have a country that does not share commonality of nearly anything. The Hispanics have their own television stations, as do the blacks, as do eastern Europeans and Asians to lesser degrees in large cities. Swaths of the country do not speak the same language (southern FL, most of the SW US, large sections of our major cities - heck, there are some places in Chicago where you can go for a few miles in any direction and not see an English sign).
This supports the progressive approach, as it makes it very easy to manipulate these segments - with specific messages that are not easily understood outside the targeted demo, with specific programs that target specific constituencies, etc.
If this is true, do you imagine it being an out-and-out conspiracy with a few architects working up a secret plan. Or is it more like millions of people just want to see people splintered and know diversity is one way to do it?
I'm trying to imagine an engineering magazine I write for came to me and asked me to write articles that on the surface appear inclusive but are actually intended to divide people. They're too worried about how many people read it and if it covers their advertiser's products. I simply cannot imagine this complicated political agenda working its way in.
I would also ask this: which is more liberating: being able to converse with your peers or not? You are confusing the so-called choice to restrict one's own options for market transactions as freedom. It strikes me as precisely the opposite.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
"And how does forbidding people from speaking whatever language they want constitute freedom? "
>>>>>Speak whatever language you want, but don't force me to pay taxes to print anything in a language other than English. Thanks.
We SHOULD officially recognize English as the US' "national language," but the PC Police and other gutless wonders don't have the cojones or brains to do so.
imnsho
Only white trash spoke "English". By which I mean, the grammarians and philologists of medieval and renaissance Europe totally ignored English, and focused on structuring and formalizing Latin and French... which is why English is such a robust and powerful language, and why Latin is now a 'dead' language.
re: Posted by $ khalling 13 hours, 29 minutes ago...
"....You can disagree that that's what it's pushing, but both myself and my husband and clearly others immediately saw through the disguise..."
Yes, and "please give a slice of the cake to Joe and myself, too..." Improper reflexive; sorry.
"both _I_ and my husband..." [are subjects of the verb (saw) in that sentence..."
Hugs and Cheer!
If you're going to move to a country in which most people do not speak the language you speak, the culture is different from your own, and you move there, not intending to ever learn the language (or if you do, you willingly choose NOT to speak it) or respect the culture or customs, then what are you doing moving there? It's nothing less than disrespect to the new 'home' country. An invasion without arms.
When I lived overseas, I learned the language as much as I could & followed the customs & courtesies. Furthermore, if I choose to leave the USA for some other place; I will learn the language, obey the laws, embrace the customs and culture INSTEAD of THEM having to embrace my native language, customs & culture of my FORMER homeland. My .02
(ocean transportation).
But enough about courtrooms and Congress...
and were stunned, "nobody" spoke English.
If enough of the American Southwest becomes home to a large Hispanic population, then bilingualism will take its natural course. The mistake is to try to force societal changes by government fiat, which creates an "us versus them" atmosphere of hostility.
I know a lot of clever people who used to speak fluent Japanese, back when everyone thought the world would be ruled by "Japan, Inc.", and most of them struggle to remember enough to be passable tourists now.
If the government keeps its nose out of the language issues, social forces will work out the kinks in a much more hospitable way.
Dr. Z wrote: "I know a lot of clever people who used to speak fluent Japanese, back when everyone thought the world would be ruled by "Japan, Inc.", and most of them struggle to remember enough to be passable tourists now."
Flush the invaders, and Spanish will recede like an ebbing tide.
And, where Spanish-speaking, Latin-American-culture-promoting, illegal alien invaders are concerned, for me, you darned right it's an us-vs-them atmosphere of utter hostility.
Those who prize individualism or pay lipservice to it yet condemn entire groups, tarring them all with the same brush, on grounds of color or belief or cultural traditions, are living a contradiction. Get to know them as individuals, and then judge only that individual. Wholesale cultural denigration is racism taken to the totalitarian terminus.
Sadly, that all-or-nothing tendency is also hardwired, because ideas, like living organisms, are selfish and want to survive. But mankind's longest-range self-interest is not in mutual destruction of those who think or speak differently, but in the integration of diversity for mutual benefit. Like a symphony in which many individual notes can combine into a magnificent harmony.
The current panic about Islam wanting to impose its totalitarian control, to say nothing about the Christian mobilization for imposing its control, excuses wars against the physical bodies of those peoples when what we have is a war of ideas. We are slaves to our beliefs. We pervert Reason to create rationalizations. We swear we will not live for the sake of another, and then forget the other half of the equation, of not asking another to live (or die) for ours. And this is just a reformulation of the golden rule, the universal algorithm for equality and justice.
The individual IS the greatest value, and that is the most powerful idea for life and for a lasting civilization. It can prevail, not through mass slaughter but through rational persuasion. And by practicing the second half of the Galtian oath along with the first.
For a change of pace, here is a commercial I love. Brilliant concept, audacious execution: http://www.youtube.com/embed/a6W2ZMpsxhg...
Canada.
I live in Texas. I use English by default, but I can get by in Spanish... or German or Japanese or Hungarian or anything else... The ability to process languages is a measure of intelligence. You will note that American hillbillies maintain many Elizabethan forms. Perhaps the most quaint is aspirating an initial vowel: "Hit is ..." for "It is..." Even Chuck Yaeger knew the archaic forms "help, helped, holped, helped." The middle past tense evolved out of urban American English.
It is a fallacy to perceive only the Anglo march from New England across the Northwest Territory to the Pacific. The Spanish Borderland Frontier existed for 150 years... The frontier stories would be very family to any Anglo: Spanish women, settlers from Mexico, in New Mexico, in the 16th century, wielding medieval halberds to fight off native raiders stealing livestock.
In Michigan, I had a graduate class in local history. The professor started off by claiming that Detroit was "old" founded in 1704. But the Spanish had been in New Mexico for 100 years and were forced out (temporarily) by Pope's Rebellion.
When the Serbians achieved independence from the Ottoman Empire at the end of the 19th century their national assembly (diet) was for the ruling class, of course. They made LATIN the official language of the legislature. Carl Friedrich Gauss published his mathematical paper in Latin in the 1840s. How is your Latin?
When colonial Pennsylvania declared its independence from Britain, the large number of GERMAN settlers ("Pennsylvania Dutch") allowed a proposal that GERMAN be an official language of Pennsylvania.
The USA has no official language. The business of the government is conducted in English and is made available in several other languages, including Vietnamese.
Again, I live in another country. I am expected to assimilate. My mother-in-law became a US citizen she not only assimilated she received a masters in literature(in the US)-her focus was french authors. But her papers were all in english. I'm done with the strawman
"How is your Latin? "
How's your Welsh? Oh wait. Welsh isn't a dead language...
Am here, do that.
Ma raagin natukene eesti keelt. Funny you mention my former home state of PA. In Western PA, there were German decent, however, there were overwhelming Italians in my area. Regarding the Germans though, many of them were prisoners of war (Hessians) during the Revolutionary War & were camped just outside of Chambersburg. After the war, many of them chose to stay in PA. After having been in Germany some years ago, I understood why: PA looks just like Germany, minus the castles of course. Oh, my understanding of Latin?
Vabandage, ma ei saa aru. =)
English, which never met a language it didn't like, will take on a Spanish flavor. If 2/3 of the country becomes Hispanic, then maybe Spanish will take on an English flavor. There were towns in Wisconsin in the late 1800s that spoke only German. After a couple of generations what was once German became a regional dialect with lots of interesting, colorful words popping through English scaffolding.
I vote to let language evolve. William Shatner once starred in a movie scripted entirely in the manufactured language of Esperanto--anything would be better than that!
bona estis li
en arceo cantis
sed sur tero plantis
multan vinon, multan vinon
tion faris li.
Now that didn't hurt, geologist, did it ?
man, went out of the Arc and planted many vines
in the earth, that he did.. (In Esperanto)
And you're citing William .. Shatner .. as .. an .. English .. speaking ..... expert..?
Geologist wrote in stone: "English, which never met a language it didn't like..."
"Shatner... Shatner... No, he's not here. We're safe!" - Mystery Science Theater 3000
I'm all for letting the language evolve. Not the same thing as having languages parallel themselves, particularly along class lines.
Remember, the illegal alien invaders coming from south of the border are NOT speaking Navajo or Mayan... they're speaking *Spanish*.
I don't think it rational to expect the British to (re) adopt French and Spanish as co-equal languages to English simply because they are the nearest neighbors and like invading Britain.
Spanish is based on Latin, a language that has been massaged to death. There are ideas which are not as easily expressed in Spanish as English, for that very reason. Spanish, like most west European languages, does everything bass-ackwards. Whenever I try to translate a Spanish speaker, of Yoda I immediately think.
If 2/3 of the country becomes Hispanic, under current conditions, there won't BE a country to worry about multiculturalism.
And if adopting Spanish as part of English works like every other piece of social engineering the left does, English will be pushed aside and *replaced* by Spanish.
William Shatner may have the last laugh. I think there are now more people in the world who understand Klingon than Esperanto.
I once took a 3000-level college course on "Transformational Grammars," taught by a disciple of Noam Chomsky. I'd hate to think that my teacher and his standard-less take on English grammar could ever acquire government power to enforce an official language!
I think that much of the language issue evaporates if you dismantle public schools and restrict government services to legal citizens. That should cull freeloaders. Welcome any immigrant not diseased or a criminal and encourage quickly getting to work through low taxes. If we give government power over language we could wind up with an American Quebec, in the form of an enforced Spanish Texas.
I concede your points though. The late Christopher Hitchens once remarked that there was nothing predestined about the U.S. going Hispanic. He thought that the immigration system should be as open to Bosnians and South Africans as to Mexicans and South Americans, and he resented people getting shortcuts when he had played the game the right way and faithfully carried his green card.
Language will not make or break us. My grandmother's family spoke Danish and Sweedish, but I only recognize a few words. My grandfather's family spoke Albanian and Italian. I recognize only a few words in those languages. When I travel people recognize my speech as being from Wisconsin. I consistently see people learn English in one generation. I know of people whose parents are proficient but not fluent in English with kids who sound completely Wisconsin.
I am very proficient in Spanish from school. Our kids are learning Mandarin and Spanish, but they still unnerve me when they parrot our Wisconsinisms.
My Spanish helpful here. Mandarin speakers here usually are highly proficient in English, but many foreign contractors and mfrs speak only Mandarin and sometimes one other regional language. I wish I spoke Mandarin.
In my world globalization is going forward full speed, and the costs and tensions have been worked through long ago.
No nation needs to adopt the Tower of Babble to accommodate the destruction of diversity of language. It neither makes sense nor does it benefit anyone except those who do not wish to assimilate in the first place.
We live in a global society. Earth is one planet. Whatever America was has been absorbed and transmogrified both internally and externally. It is why India is changing to a market economy. The forces of globalist capitalism are very powerful, and for that we should celebrate.
If you doubt that, read Ayn Rand's essay on "Balkanization."
See here: "Global Balkanization" By Ayn Rand. A probing examination of the rise of modern tribalism in the West. It identifies the irrationalism from which the anti-concept “ethnicity” springs. http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-works...
(That must include Americanist tribalism, as well, the American "ethnicity" that is promoted by conservatives.)
Ayn Rand wrote:"What are the nature and the causes of modern tribalism? Philosophically, tribalism is the product of irrationalism and collectivism. It is a logical consequence of modern philosophy. If men accept the notion that reason is not valid, what is to guide them and how are they to live?
"Obviously, they will seek to join some group—any group—which claims the ability to lead them and to provide some sort of knowledge acquired by some sort of unspecified means. If men accept the notion that the individual is helpless, intellectually and morally, that he has no mind and no rights, that he is nothing, but the group is all, and his only moral significance lies in selfless service to the group—they will be pulled obediently to join a group. But which group? Well, if you believe that you have no mind and no moral value, you cannot have the confidence to make choices—so the only thing for you to do is to join an unchosen group, the group into which you were born, the group to which you were predestined to belong by the sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient power of your body chemistry."
This, of course, is racism. But if your group is small enough, it will not be called “racism”: it will be called “ethnicity.”
I would come to exactly the opposite conclusion. The fact that Indian English is adopting American English metaphors and words actually speaks against your case! Moreover, my wife (who has a degree in linguistics) said that the actual trend in language is not to confuse things by adding more meanings to words, but exactly the opposite: to narrow accepted word meanings and create new words for specificity. This is entirely rational if one accepts that the fundamental reason for language is to facilitate communication - the exchange and sharing of ideas.
I worked with a lot of Indian English-speaking folks in the tech world for a Fortune 50 company, and I can tell you that their English adapted to American English and their accents grew subdued quickly of necessity. The failed Dell call center (in India) is pretty potent evidence of this. I also know many Oracle DBA's who would rather wait until midnight to talk to a tech in Australia than deal with the 4-to-midnight calls to India (8 to 4 is US).
I am by no means claiming English to be a panacea language - whether it is American, English or otherwise. In reality, English is the least "pure" language on the planet (again according to my wife)! But power comes in use, and in the global society, American English is the language of commerce. Could this change? If India becomes the powerhouse economy of the world, sure.
I think the real reason Indian English will never take over as the English of the World is because of the accent - not the vocabulary. I'm in IT, so I've talked to hundreds of support technicians, and while I haven't met many techs who aren't competent, I've met more than one where because of their heavy Indian accent I've been forced to say "I'm sorry, but can I talk to your manager. I simply can not understand you." I have nothing against them or their language, but when I need to communicate, it is critical for me to be able to understand the person on the other end.
blarman said."I've met more than one where because of their heavy Indian accent I've been forced to say "I'm sorry, but can I talk to your manager. I simply can not understand you."
The problem for you is the rhythm. Indian English is similar is stress-unstress to Italian and Spanish. That YOU cannot understand it is no reflection on them.
Communication is the responsibility of BOTH parties - not just one. Your comments would place any responsibility to understand on the listener, absolving the speaker from their duty to seek to be understood. It is an absolutely absurd position and I'd strongly suggest revising it.
Further, when I'm paying for a service, guess what? They get to cater to me or I take my business elsewhere. Market fundamentals. Thus my example of the failed Dell call center.
"The primary purpose of language is to enable thinking, not communication."
I challenge you to cite one expert who agrees with you. Thinking can and does exist outside of language. No one thinks in words, we think in concepts and ideas. We use language to express those ideas to others. My wife will simply point to our one-year-old as proof. Does my toddler need language to think? To take that stance is to embrace the absurd and to deny the evidence.
Further, I would point out that were language the basis of thought, there would be no way to translate between languages! Languages CAN be translated however because they are expressions of thought - not the other way around.
Your comments go on to neglect the importance of context. They omit facial expressions. They leave out gestures. There is much, much more to communication than language alone, further emphasizing language as a tool for communication, but not the originator of such.
Take it back to animal calls. (Ravens have 31 separate calls in three dialects.) In order to express an emotive state, an animal must HAVE an emotive state. (Actually, animals do not "have" emotions: they _are_ their emotions.) But the internal experience must come before it can be communicated to others. In humans, we have the free will NOT to communicate our emotive states. We keep our ideas to ourselves. Clever Odysseus the Liar had a secret plan to retake his home from the suitors. Gilgamesh was transparent - but he "made up his mind" to build the city, fight Enkidu and Humbaba, etc., _before_ he acted.
2. There are three functions of language- a) communication, b) problem solving, c) expressing emotion
Man: " I didn't want to say anything while you were on the phone, but you're in America now. You need to speak English."
Woman: Excuse me?"
Man *very slowely* "If you want to speak Mexican, go back to Mexico. In America, we speak English."
Woman: "Sir, I was speaking Navajo. If you want to speak English. go back to England."
The issue, as far as I'm concerned, isn't with private business or individual citizens, it is with government supporting separateness.
Except in the Navy use of the word "fuck" and its declensions is quite versatile and used extensively as an noun, pronoun, verb, gerund, adjective, adverb, explicative... What other language can make this claim?
NOT FAMILY FRIENDLY, of course.
When I was in high school, you took four years of a foreign language, in my case Latin. When we relocated out west, we found the local Mexicans and even the day workers who crossed the border each day to work for my father, spoke better English than the average high school graduate in the US today. Dean Martin did not speak English at home up to high school, but knew if he wanted to make it in show business, he needed to use English. If our young people are to learn foreign languages, they will have to learn English as well, so they have a lot of catching up to do. My sister-in-law came from Thailand, and she lost no time learning Englsih, so she could live a full life, not just exist within the confines of other Thai immigrants. I have known several Navajo, and all had lovely Enlish. I have tried to study their language, which is much harder than Latin. Latin, by the way, is not dead, it is too much a part of our words to die completely. Just remember, one of the roadblocks for US students going into the job market, is their inability to communicate with those for whom and with whom they work. Without that skill, they will not advance.
Glen Beck said that this ad was dividing people, and that if you disagreed with the message of the ad, then you were a racist. Glen Beck's statement was said sarcastically, but the irony is that what he said was actually true. If anything is truly divisive in this debate, it's the subtle xenophobia which is being pushed under the guise of nationalist pride and defense of culture. But America's culture has always been a melting-pot, and stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that fact, or twisting it to support ethnic homogenization and erasure of cultural identity and heritage is irrational.
Thanks to rapid advancements in technology and transportation, the world economy is becoming more and more globalized, with international communication quickly becoming an indispensable aspect of business and trade. Long gone are the days of national autarky and isolationist mentalities. Those who cling to such outdated modes of thinking will be left in the dust. In order to succeed economically in the 21st century and beyond, it will be necessary to be fluent in at least two or three languages.
You say that the United States cannot survive as a multi-language nation, but the fact is that it's already a multi-language nation, and succeeding as an individual means one must be willing to accept and work with the uniqueness of other individuals. That isn't possible without a significant degree of humility and flexibility, as well as a profound appreciation for all the diverse beauty that the world has to offer.
If anyone truly believes that national autarky is still possible or beneficial in the modern age, here's a book which might wake you up:
The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century
by Thomas L. Friedman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53vLQnuV9...
http://www.amazon.com/The-World-Flat-3-0...
Appreciating other langauges is not the only point of the commercial. The intent, in my opinion, is to erase those distinct characteristics which made us a great nation as opposed to an identifiable nation.
Which characteristics? Man's right to himself and the products of his labor. Let's look at the beautiful cultures portrayed in the commercial. Hindu -nope natural rights definitely not a part of that culture. Souix -nope individual rights? Not taught in that culture....call me xenophobic all you'd like but Im not about to get chills over collectivist and slave cultures celebrated in a song about freedom and free nation building. But individuals from those cultures promoting and celebrating what made this country and some others unique by their values? That's a commercial worth watching.
You say that we shouldn't support or endorse slave cultures, but by that logic we would have withdraw support for a significant portion of American culture, because slavery is a big part of our nation's history. Are you honestly suggesting that we only support the culture of Northerners because they were anti-slavery, and suppress the entire Southern culture because they were pro-slavery?
For me personally, I would have to answer that question in the negative. That is, even though I do not support slavery, I can still acknowledge that there are many other cultural aspects of the American South which are very good, and entirely worth promoting. But then this position logically requires that I do the same for foreign cultures, and acknowledge that even a society which supported slavery can still have other aspects which are both beautiful and good. Otherwise I would be guilty of holding a double standard and being logically inconsistent.
Tell me, how do you reconcile this disparity? Or had you even considered it?
Later in my career, I founded and ran for 20 years a small company. Technical services to advanced materails user in power generation, defence, aerospace and other industires. 40 employees, in two facilites, half a day's flight appart. There was apsolutely no chance that I would ever consider emplying anybody without thorough command of English (slight accent alowed). Minimum education, two year college degree and skills and experience. How can you expect a non-speaker of English to be part of a problem solving team or comunicate with clients about progress of the project and ask some additional needed information about the technology envolved? That is one of the many reasons why you conduct thorough interviews before filling any openings.
Tourists...
This is an overly generalized and untrue statement. In fact it is almost as untrue as generally held statement “the emancipation proclamation freed all the slaves.”
And I see no problem with the tribal mentality of Native Americans. To me, that seems no different than having pride in one's country and national heritage. Should people expunge all nationalistic attitudes and disavow any collective pride in their nation?
I do know Walmart spends a lot of money trying to evoke tribal instincts among their workforce.
Have you ever breathed?
I have been requesntly surprized how gradually more and more the usage of English seems to be becoming imprecize. I think that Ayn Rand is rollong in her grave.
According to Merriam Webster, the definition of the word "tribe" can change depending on the context, which is why it has several definitions (just like virtually every other word in the English language). While the word "tribe" may not always be perfectly synonymous with the word "group" in every context, it can certainly be synonymous in many contexts. Therefore, the statement that tribalism is inherently incompatible with capitalism is an erroneous claim with no logical justification behind it.
As for English supposedly becoming more imprecise, what you're observing is simply the natural shift of language over time. No language that's in common use ever stays consistent forever. Language changes, morphs, and evolves with culture. Besides, Ayn Rand's claim that words have exact meanings was never true in the first place.
http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot...
It does not seem to me very smart or constructive to speak in terms such as "expunge ALL nationalistic attitudes" or "COLLECTIVE pride in their nation". Very few thigs in relaity are that black and white and pride is a feeling of an individual, perahaps to some degree similar to another individuall's similar feeling.
But if the British were influenced by imported Indian cultural attitudes, that would be A Bad Thing.
Because (all together class) cultures are not equal.
The Confederacy tried emulating the colonies, and forming their OWN country; the United States crushed and conquered them, destroying their culture in the process. Much of the belittlement of "rednecks" today dates back to that period.
I do not mean to offend you Maph, but this paragraph should be carved in stone, as it is a great epitaph to our country’s fall from the top of the industrial world. Future historians may find it useful in explaining what happened to us.
Success and diversity have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Promoting diversity and Affirmative Action as applied to the modern business is a process of reverse discrimination, and nothing more. It is a process that overlooks achievement, execution and value in favor of the color of someone’s skin and what genitals they possess in order to promote the public image of a company. It is part of the reason for the preservation and longevity of racism in our society, as it often results in better qualified people being passed over because someone else is a race the company is wanting at the time.
Or would you prefer to strip us of our freedom?
I'm Caucasian, but I have a step-mother who is Filipino, and two younger siblings (a half-brother and half-sister) who are, naturally, each half-Caucasian and half-Filipino.
There's a mildly racist guy I know named Francom who used to be in the same army unit as me, and while he's not a member of any explicitly racist groups (as far as I'm aware), he does occasionally express vaguely white-supremacist sentiments. For example, when I told him that I had a Filipino step-mother, he went off on a long rant about how he thought brown people were ugly, and how Mexican women looked like toads (the fact that Filipinos and Mexicans are totally different groups seemed irrelevant to him). I tried not to say anything, but I gave him a firm look to let him know I didn't appreciate him talking about my family like that. On other occasions, he accused Mexicans and black people of being violent and aggressive, but then turned around and bragged about how white people are supposedly the best fighters and most efficient killers, and therefore make the best soldiers.
One time when we and some of the other guys from the unit went to a gas station together, we happened to pass a Hispanic couple with a young girl who was speaking to her mother in Spanish. I passed by them without a second thought, but as soon as we were out of earshot, Francom spoke up about how it made him angry to see a little girl speaking Spanish on American soil. He said he didn't quite know why, but it made his blood boil to hear another language being spoken besides English.
When I hear people complaining about the multiple languages being sung in this Coca-Cola ad, it echos that same racially prejudiced mentality which I find so repulsive. Cultural intolerance is the seed which grows into racism, and it is racism which fuels the machinations of genocide.
There's an online video I watched recently where two actors engaged in a staged confrontation involving Islamaphobic prejudice in America, and at the end a soldier confronts the actor playing the Islamaphobic bigot, letting him know what it is he fights to defend. You can watch the video here:
http://www.upworthy.com/a-boy-makes-anti...
The attitude and values which that soldier expresses in that video are what I believe in as well, and I think our country would be a much better place if such values were universally held by everyone.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I don't mean to be rude, but I do suggest that you do some serious self-analysis and internal reflection, and really think deeply about why hearing a foreign language invoked such a negative emotional reaction in you.
Anyway, that's all I have to say about that. I hope you'll take my advice. Thanks.
' do some serious self-analysis and internal reflection'.
If an argument has to depend on an opponent doing that, no chance. Make your case, rethink your case, it could be you are wrong. If you are getting nowhere, asking for others to accept their sinfulness makes things worse.
I appreciate other cultures. Ilike to travel. I have hosted many foreign exchange students over the years :swedish, german, danish, spanish, french.I insisted both of my children immerse in another culture to learn another langauge. My son is fluent in german, my daughter french. I have close friends who speak many languages and english is not their native language. As a matter of fact they would probably agree with me regarding this argument. They 'd also laugh at your claim.
Familiarity breeds contempt. It also helps us see the ugliness of other people and cultures, without the ability to separate from them.
Oh, here we go; because we got shiny new toys made of plastic, people have *changed*, and the ways they behaved for thousands of years just won't *happen* in this brave new world.
Imagine what would happen to Atlantis if they invited all cultures to come join them, and express themselves equally. The cultures of the looters and moochers...
No, anyone could come to Atlantis, but they had to take the oath, first, and had to accept and practice the cultural values of Atlantis.
A question was once posed to Albert Einstein regarding the application of mathematics to reality, which reads, "How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?"
In response to this question, Albert Einstein said simply, "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
Ayn Rand provided us with exhilarating stories filled with majestic characters, and gave us a glimpse into the political corruption of the Soviet Union while pointing out some of the major problems with Communism, but she was never very good at philosophy or mathematics. While her stories are highly entertaining and also extremely useful tools for thought experiments, and can even potentially help an individual gain a greater understanding of certain economic issues, many of the deeper aspects of her philosophy ought to be taken with a rather large grain of salt.
Physics is not about an objective reality? There are several answers to problems of how a physical system will behave?
You are confusing solutions to human problems (inventions and art) with reality. A train, plane, horse, walking ,and a car are all solutions of how to travel between Los Angeles and New York. But none of them change the fact that it is about 3900 miles between them.
Geometry was a reference to logic. Logic applies equally to physics and mathematics.
I cannot agree with your random, unsupported assertion that Rand's ideas at a deeper level should be taken with a grain of salt. That would be like saying logic only applies at a certain level or that philosophy of science is irrelevant to metaphysics, ethics, and epidemiology.
The God Problem: How a Godless Cosmos Creates
by Howard Bloom
http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Problem-Go...
There is only one mathematics. It's neither pure nor dirty. Equations do not have answers. They are just equations. Questions have abswers, if one can find them One can apply mathematical procedueres to all sorts of life problems and questions. Most of that kind of work falls into engineering. But, engineering is an art (of things that work), not a science, not mathematics. To design, one has to make judgemennts, take risks and make choices. Realiry is neither accurate (better term than "exact") nor precise. Reality is reality. The measurements or descriptions of it may be more or less accurate and more or less precise. (Do you know thw difference between accurate and precise?)
Someone appaqrently asked Einstein a dumb question and his answer to it could not but be contaminated.
Most of the rest of that comment is arrogant and contradictory. Not worth much discussion. As AR, I believe, said, when you run into contradictions, check your assumptions.