We are a multiple language country. In response to the Coke Commercial
Posted by rustylypps 10 years, 10 months ago to History
Overheard at a grocery store by someone waiting in line behind a woman speaking on her ceel phone in another language. Ahead of her was a white man. After the woman hangs up, he speaks up.
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."
Read more at http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/44...
Also, the south western United States was settle not by Anglo-Europeans but by Hispanic Europeans. If I recall correctly they spoke Spanish.
That said, there should be one official language in the US. The translation of documents into multiple languages should not be required by law.
Since the majority of Citizens of the United States speak English this is the presumptive official language of legal documents, ballots etc.
There are very few other countries that have multiple languages on ballots, legal documents etc. as a matter of law.
In that respect we need to be a nation with one OFFICIAL language. If the citizen and residents want to speak another fine
but don't make it mandatory that legal documents be translated into multiple languages.
No, we aren't. The colonists, who did immigrate here *before we were a nation*, formed the nation. The nation was formed intact by native colonists, primarily of Anglo-Saxon derivation (being British colonies). Immigrants came to this country, finding it already intact, and fitting themselves into its framework.
This "nation of immigrants" stuff annoys me because it undermines the already largely forgotten fact that we are a republic.
What our gov't has done is remove this commonsense by accommodating multi-language use with multiple language forms, telephone operators and phone trees, etc.
"Ma'am, if you want to speak Navajo, go back to the lands we left you, squat in the filth of your tent, and speak Navajo to your heart's content. But don't take advantage of the benefits the Anglo-Saxon cultural philosophy brought to this desolate land (such as this grocery store) without embracing that culture."
"Alright, and I'll take everything the English brought here... including this grocery store and its abundant foodstuffs."
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/44...
_______________________________
Language can naturally be a barrier to communication, of course, but I don't see how promoting acceptance of multicultural attitudes divides anyone. If anything, it erases those divisions by helping us see the beauty of other people and cultures.
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.
[khalling said] 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...
Cool, so when Obama dies of natural causes, we can hang his wife and their entire staff of servants to serve him in the afterlife, the cultural attitude of the ancient Chinese.
As khalling has said, cultures are not equal. The culture that created America, derived from Anglo-Saxon culture, based upon Roman Republican values, IS superior to the pseudo-socialist oligarchy cultures found in the third world and elsewhere.
We had the right answer 200+ years ago. We don't need people with the wrong answer given equal voice with ours.
As Ludwig Von Mises said, peaceful coexistence requires the equal participation of all in the democratic process.
Men are equal. Ideas are not. Men are equal, cultures are not.
"As Ludwig Von Mises said, peaceful coexistence requires the equal participation of all in the democratic process. "
Fine, then let's make sure all have equal participation in the democratic process. There are about a billion Chinese we can let vote in the next election.
At least when *I* feel suicidal I'm not out to take the whole country with me...