National Language

[CAnnoneer]

Social darwinism isn't dead, even though it's been laughed out of most academic centers ever since people decided that fascism was a bad thing. I guess people who study all day just don't know anything.

HSS academics belittle a lot of things, failing to mention who pays their salaries and why. After you graduate and get a real job, you will have a crash introduction to practical social darwinism as well, never you worry. That is, unless you'd like to move from one insulated shelter to another, possibly an HSS teaching position?

Ann Coulter:" The way to cure a liberal is to have him/her move out of the parents' house, get a real job, and start paying taxes."

Deciding what is and is not latino culture based on some brown looking people who cut you off on the freeway is as wrongheaded as the French making judgments about American culture based on some fat-roll sporting, tan shorts wearing, nose-picking tourists.

You just shot your argument in the foot. The French have got us down pretty accurately.

 

[DRZinn]

I believe the National Language of Mexico is Spanish, but in places where it makes sense to speak English or post signs in English, you get English.

But if you want to conduct business with the government, you do so in Spanish. Which, that being Mexico, is as it should be.

 

[shootinstudent]

Ann Coulter:" The way to cure a liberal is to have him/her move out of the parents' house, get a real job, and start paying taxes."

I'm not a liberal, but that's tangent to the point. It's strange to claim that academics don't know anything. Sure, they may not be experts at laying cement or processing auto insurance papers, but they do very well with making sense of broad concepts like "this or that culture is bad and others are better." Which is why for every xenophobe who says "the cure is to get a job", there is someone on the other end of the spectrum who can rightly say: "the cure for xenophobia is to take some time off work to get an education that goes beyond filling out forms and punching holes."

You just shot your argument in the foot. The French have got us down pretty accurately.

I have a higher opinion of us than you do. Most Americans are thoughtful, polite, good and well educated people. That's why we've been remarkably good, despite a vocal minority, at consistently defeating xenophobic, racist, and other policies that are more suitable to a fascist state than a free one.

Hopefully we can keep up with the progress. America's in much better shape today than it was in 1930 when xenophobia and racism were the rule rather than the exception, and I think that even including those mexicans who cut you off on the freeway, we're much better off leaving those old attitudes in the dustbin. A "these irish/italians/polish/blacks don't share our culture!" attitude in those days created misery and division, and I see no reason why reviving the same attitude towards Mexicans will be any different today.

I offer my most sincere thanks to women voters, civil rights activists, and anyone else who might have been responsible for that change.

 

[CAnnoneer]

I'm not a liberal, but that's tangent to the point.

Yet all your points are straight from the liberal-multicultural-kumbaya-socialist catechism. Thread after thread. How come?

It's strange to claim that academics don't know anything.

Real academics know a lot, especially in the technical, hard-science specialties. Most social-science people are a whole different story. It is because of their bearing on politics. What makes them particularly despicable is that they might even have the IQ horsepower to see that what they teach is propagandist rubbish, but they keep doing it, because they refuse to pay the psychological price of admitting simple ugly truths about the world and themselves. They know only too well that the worse and more useless they are, the more rabid leftist they are. They know that without lies and propaganda, nobody would pay anything for what they sell.

Which is why for every xenophobe who says "the cure is to get a job", there is someone on the other end of the spectrum who can rightly say: "the cure for xenophobia is to take some time off work to get an education that goes beyond filling out forms and punching holes."

Hahahahaha... You really do not know whom you are talking to, do you. I bet you do not have half the degrees I do. Hahahaha...

Don't you worry. When people like you finally cause the destruction of this country through civil war and satrve and die off in the process, people like me will pick up the pieces and rebuild it from sticks and spit. But, your kind won't be welcome to partake in the bounty.

In the end, Darwin always wins.

 

[shootinstudent]

What makes them particularly despicable is that they might even have the IQ horsepower to see that what they teach is propagandist rubbish, but they keep doing it, because they refuse to pay the psychological price of admitting simple ugly truths about the world and themselves. They know only too well that the worse and more useless they are, the more rabid leftist they are. They know that without lies and propaganda, nobody would pay anything for what they sell.

No doubt you've arrived at this opinion based on a long, professional study of what "they" are writing and doing? I think you are confusing disagreement with error. Definitely, most academics do not buy the hierarchy of "cultures" theory that was prevalent in the days of phrenology and fascism, but that doesn't mean that the things they do believe are all mindless propaganda.

Hahahahaha... You really do not know whom you are talking to, do you. I bet you do not have half the degrees I do. Hahahaha...

In the first place, the comment was a general one, just like yours, and no, I don't know who I'm talking to. But looking at the statistics for degrees in this country, I'd feel pretty comfortable taking you up on that bet.

But that doesn't really matter anyway, because more school just makes you less able to think, right?

If darwin always wins, then there's a message for you in history: racism, xenophobia, and inequality of all kinds is a proven recipe for suffering and failure.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Keep dancing, SS, your time is running out. Nature/Darwin has a vicious sense of humor.

 

[American By Blood]

Not to stoke the fires, but both shootinstudent and CAnnoneer should read "Why Johnny Can't Think" by Bob Whitaker. The author himself admits that the book is a rant and not the sort of thing that you could quote in a paper, but he does a good job of describing the anti-scientific manner in which the "social sciences" are currently conducted and how damaging that state of affairs is to our society.

As a student, SS, I'm sure you've witnessed it yourself although it may be so common in your environment that you've lost all sensitivity to it. If you care to, take a second to think of all of the times you've witnessed people debating in person or print where one side is "defeated" by the other through the use of epithets like "racist," "sexist," "homophobic," etc. Then think of all of the instances in which you've seen academic professionals argue in this fashion. Epithets are not arguments, popular assumptions are not facts, and orthodoxy is not law. Unfortunately, though, the former in these pairs passes for the latter all too often in the "social sciences."

 

[shootinstudent]

As a student, SS, I'm sure you've witnessed it yourself although it may be so common in your environment that you've lost all sensitivity to it. If you care to, take a second to think of all of the times you've witnessed people debating in person or print where one side is "defeated" by the other through the use of epithets like "racist," "sexist," "homophobic," etc. Then think of all of the instances in which you've seen academic professionals argue in this fashion. Epithets are not arguments, popular assumptions are not facts, and orthodoxy is not law. Unfortunately, though, the former in these pairs passes for the latter all too often in the "social sciences."

I've seen it, but it's not common, because academic professionals seem to love to tear each other apart in dueling articles and at conferences. Mostly this style of argument happens in politics and in the news media, where deep analysis takes a back to seat to 30 second soundbites. This happens on both sides of the spectrum, since "racist xenophobe" and "bleeding heart liberal" fit equally well into the evening highlights.

Maybe it's just the schools I've been to and the authors I've read, but in all honesty, I think neither liberal nor conservative positions are so irrational that they only have name calling to justify them. Usually, the name calling is the same sort of thing liberal media did with research by John Lott or Gary Kleck: took some select conclusions, and then called them absurd without making any argument (or even indicating they'd read the books).

That's exactly the same thing as claiming that all the "social sciences" are full of irrational types, only based on the fact that a good number of people in the humanities support left-leaning policies.

 

[gc70]

The idea of having a national language seems unnecessary and no more than a political gesture. Conversely, eliminating government support for multiple languages appears to make sense. While the monetary savings might be nominal, it would be a clear acknowledgement that a common language is beneficial to everyone. Businesses can, and should, cater to their clientele, but government should have a single standard that applies equally to everyone.

 

[Harve Curry]

You need more then an idea of a national language,
we need a law written in plain english that says that ENGLISH is the official langauge of The United States. Anything less will not be adhered to, will cause confusion, beauracrats, politicians and future politicians will screw it up if they don't have a clear defined direction to follow. If you don't think so look at the 2nd Amendment.

 

[gc70]

Harve,

Our country has gotten by for more than 200 years without a legally-mandated official language. What's the compelling reason to adopt one now?

 

[Biker]

GC...

Because our country has never been faced with the kind of threat it faces now - tens of millions of people who neither have the desire or need to assimilate.

Biker

 

[gc70]

Biker, I understand that rationale and do not believe in catering to those who do not wish to assimilate. But I would rather reduce government by eliminating laws (multi-lingual mandates) rather than increase government by making a new law (official language).

 

[Harve Curry]

gc70,
Sorry it took me so long to get back. Biker pretty much answered. I see your in/near Tennesse? Maybe different where you are.
Here in the SW schools have to have bilingual teachers. Some places you cannot go and speak english. Mexican flags and no United States flags. Stores stock shelves with the english printed side turned to the wall.
Goverment paper work has to be printed in both languages to placate the hispanic.
I'm in my 50's. when I was growing up if someone asked where you from? We said America. Then if they asked what country did your folks or grandparents come from? Then thats a different answer.
The point is I'm American first. Not a Mexican American or a African American, or a Irish or Italian American.
I'm an American of Irish descent.
Many Mexicans have an attitude of their Mexican and don't give a dam_ about anything American except the dollar. But they live here and work the system. There is many good hard working Americans of Mexican descent who help settle this country around here, some within a few hundred feet of my house and they don't like the illegals .

 

[gc70]

Harve,

I live in North Carolina and conditions are not as pronounced as you describe, but the influence of the hispanic influx is still very evident.

I think we should deal with issues in the public/government realm. We don't need, nor should we have, multi-lingual government forms and signs, public school classes conducted exclusively in languages other than English, or labor laws that are enforced inconsistently. As a voter and taxpayer, I have a voice in how the government runs and I say cease coddling illegal aliens and catering to immigrants who won't assimilate.

Unless I'm putting up the capital, it's not my affair how a business is run. I vote with my wallet and businesses can choose to cater to me or others.

As far as individual attitudes, that's something that can't be legislated.

 

[cuchulainn]

For the record, you guys actually want two things.

1) National language of English.

2) Law barring government documents in non-English.

They're not the same thing. For example, a nation with an official language nonetheless can be nice and translate documents for a language minority absent a ban on doing so.

I'd guestimate that you've got about a 25% chance of getting 1) passed. Right or wrong, you've got no chance of getting 2) passed.

 

[c_yeager]

Because our country has never been faced with the kind of threat it faces now - tens of millions of people who neither have the desire or need to assimilate.

Biker

ASSIMILATE? When did that become the point? Our forefathers didnt assimilate to America, neither did my ancestors. They carved out a piece of this country for themselves. That is the whole meaning of the "melting pot" concept. Yeah, immigrants change to fit America, but America also changes to fit them. That is the American way. This country has *never* been about complying with some kind of made up "standard" of cultural acceptance.

Even if we were to accept this notion it still wouldnt be the first time this country faced this "threat". I seem to remember hearing about a whole lot of little ethnic groups that really pissed off the locals when they set up their own places with their own customs, Little Italy, various Irish enclaves, Chinatowns, and a thousand others. So why is it such a big problem now? Is it because the people who are now moving here dont "look" like Americans? Your really going to have to tell us what is so different about this situation *today* than it was 100 years ago.

 

[Biker]

C Yeager....

I don't want 20 million Mexicans carving out a piece of this country for themselves, especially when they want to make it an extension of Mexico.
If you disagree, vote accordingly.
The difference between now and 100 years ago are the sheer numbers and the fact that today's immigrants share a contiguous border with the USA, thus making it unnecessary to assimilate.
Biker

 

[c_yeager]

I don't want 20 million Mexicans carving out a piece of this country for themselves, especially when they want to make it an extension of Mexico.
If you disagree, vote accordingly.

Biker

You still havent told us why this bothers you so much. Is it because there are 20million of them, or is it because they are Mexicans?

 

[Biker]

C Yeager...

I'd feel the same way if 20 million French speaking Canadians chose to invade and make large sections of my country into France.

Clear?

Biker