 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / ESL Teaching / October 2004Why is it that only the spanish culture can't learn the English language?
I just received the local ballot for the upcoming mayoral election. Guess what? Surprise! It's printed (AT MY EXPENSE) in English (the official language of this nation) and, get this, of all languages, spanish. Huh? Spanish? My native language isn't either. Neither is that of my neighbor. Nor hers. Nor theirs. Few spaniards reside in this town. Plenty of intelligent Vietnamese. Lots of smart French. Some Italians. Tons of Chinese. Filipinos. Even Russians. Yet, few, if any, spanish. Yet, there it is. Another insult that I PAID FOR! Shipped right to my door instead of spoken daily into my telephone handset while calling the dmv. I just do not understand why this undue American obsession with the spanish language? All over America, English and, uh, spanish? And forcing me to pay for that? Now, if the spanish wish to talk in their tongue to their neighbors, let 'em. But, when I AM PAYING FOR the ballot, I ask, why spanish? Why not Chinese? Why not French? Why not Italian? Why not German?. Why only spanish? The uninspired of you will call me "racist" and "illiterate" and "illogical" and "biased" ... (and perhaps worse), and, while you are welcome to your initial opinion please note that I'm not taking any money from you ... and I'm not forcing you to pay for my illiteracy. Why only the spanish? The number of asians, for example, in my community so vastly outweigh the spanish that they dwarf the european community. Yet they don't require "Press 1 for Asian" on every telephone call I make to a government agency. They score highly in school. They go to work instead of standing around the Home Depot (yes, I do know *why* those guys are there at the pickup entrances). The writing as clear as day. The spanish are somehow different than the asians, the blacks, the caucasians, the natives, the polynesians, etc. But, what is that which is different about the spanish? What is so different that I should be required to pay for the absolute laziness of an entire people? Generation after generation after generation. No other culture apparently requires me to constantly & continually pay for their cultural laziness & stupididy. Please, can someone (anyone) explain to me why it's just the spanish that can't seem to understand English? Orak Listalavostok PS Flame all you like but please answer the question posed. Spanish is the second language used in your country. From the CIA fact book: United States English, Spanish (spoken by a sizable minority) HTH > I just received the local ballot for the upcoming mayoral election. > Guess what? Surprise! It's printed (AT MY EXPENSE) in English [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > Orak Listalavostok > PS Flame all you like but please answer the question posed.  Signaturehttp://www.telecable.es/personales/gamo/ GED/GB d+ s+:+ a C++ U+++ P+++ L++ E---- W++ N++ o K+ w O+ M- V PS++ PE++ Y PGP+ t 5-- X+ R-- tv-- b++ DI++ D+ G- e+++ h+ r-- z perl -e 'print 111_111_111**2,"\n";' > I just received the local ballot for the upcoming mayoral election. > Guess what? Surprise! It's printed (AT MY EXPENSE) in English > (the official language of this nation) and, get this, of all > languages, spanish. > > Huh? Spanish? There is no official language of The United States and there are lots of Spanish speaking citizens. Puerto Rico for instance has Spanish as it's language and large areas of the Southwest have many native Spanish speakers whose families lived there before the lands were annexed > > I just received the local ballot for the upcoming mayoral election. > > Guess what? Surprise! It's printed (AT MY EXPENSE) in English [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > language and large areas of the Southwest have many native Spanish speakers > whose families lived there before the lands were annexed its SignatureWithout a great storyteller, a director's just a schmuck with a viewfinder. --Frank Darabont KILL TROLLS: http://www.schmuckwithanunderwood.com/trolls.htm MC wrote on 10 Oct 2004: >> > I just received the local ballot for the upcoming mayoral >> > election. Guess what? Surprise! It's printed (AT MY EXPENSE) in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> are lots of >> Spanish speaking citizens. Should that be "Spanish-speaking citizens" or "Spanish speaking- citizens"? >> Puerto Rico for instance has Spanish >> as it's language and large areas of the Southwest have many >> native Spanish speakers whose families lived there before the >> lands were annexed > > its "their" SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. > >> Puerto Rico for instance has Spanish > >> as it's language and large areas of the Southwest have many [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > "their" Puerto Rico is plural? SignatureSuicide is much easier and more acceptable in Hollywood than growing old gracefully. --Julie Burchill KILL TROLLS: http://www.schmuckwithanunderwood.com/trolls.htm MC wrote on 10 Oct 2004: >> >> Puerto Rico for instance has Spanish >> >> as it's language and large areas of the Southwest have many [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Puerto Rico is plural? Last I looked, it was very plural. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. > >> >> Puerto Rico for instance has Spanish > >> >> as it's language and large areas of the Southwest have many [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > Last I looked, it was very plural. ....in which case, "it was very plural" should have been "they were very plural" -- no? SignatureIf you¹ve got only one story, get the f.ck out of here. --Robert McKee KILL TROLLS: http://www.schmuckwithanunderwood.com/trolls.htm MC wrote on 12 Oct 2004: >> >> >> Puerto Rico for instance has Spanish >> >> >> as it's language and large areas of the Southwest have many [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > ....in which case, "it was very plural" should have been "they > were very plural" -- no? ¿Well, now, wouldn't that have to be "Puertos Ricos"? SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. > MC wrote on 10 Oct 2004: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > Last I looked, it was very plural. You've changed the subject from an error on usenet that occurs almost as often as the typo 'you' for 'your', except "it's" for "its" and "its" for "it's" isn't usually a typo. Signature"In August Rudyard's listlessness called for another series of major and very unpleasant medical examinations.... He later joked ... 'If this is what Oscar Wilde went to prison for, he ought to have got the Victoria Cross.'", Andrew Lycett, "Rudyard Kipling" Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' ) wrote on 16 Oct 2004: >> MC wrote on 10 Oct 2004: >> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > almost as often as the typo 'you' for 'your', except "it's" for > "its" and "its" for "it's" isn't usually a typo. I thought that this was a linguiphilistic joke between me and MC. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. >I just received the local ballot for the upcoming mayoral election. >Guess what? Surprise! It's printed (AT MY EXPENSE) in English [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >The number of asians, for example, in my community so vastly >outweigh the spanish that they dwarf the european community. I, for one, am on your side. Not that I agree with you in any way, but I just have to admire anyone that can construct a sentence that says that the Asians are heavier than the Spanish, and that Asians in your community are so large that they make the Europeans look like dwarfs. In my part of the country, the Asians tend to be thin and the Spanish - especially the ladies - seem to be far from half-vast. I've never met a dwarf, but I once petted a reindeer. I don't know if it was a European reindeer or not, though. I couldn't place the accent. Your diatribe impresses me so much that I'll offer to pay for your ballot. Send me your address and I'll reimburse you for the cost of the ballot. I'll even overlook your erroneous statement that English is the official language of the United States. >Yet they don't require "Press 1 for Asian" on every telephone >call I make to a government agency. They score highly in [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Orak Listalavostok >PS Flame all you like but please answer the question posed. I'd like to, but without knowing what city or state you live in, it's pretty difficult to know if Spanish is prevalent enough in the area to warrant this special attention. There's a certain tin-foil hat style to your writing that suggests that you're a Californian, and Spanish is known to be spoken in certain parts of California (even if not your particular town), but that's just a guess. >I just received the local ballot for the upcoming mayoral election. >Guess what? Surprise! It's printed (AT MY EXPENSE) in English >(the official language of this nation) and, get this, of all >languages, spanish. In California, ballots are usually printed in English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean and Tagalog. I would say the right of people to vote in the language they best understand and are least likely to become confused or make mistakes outweights the cost to the state of having to provide voting materials in more than one language. SignatureChris Green >>I just received the local ballot for the upcoming mayoral election. >>Guess what? Surprise! It's printed (AT MY EXPENSE) in English >>(the official language of this nation) and, get this, of all >>languages, spanish. What is the Spanish for dimpled chad? > >I just received the local ballot for the upcoming mayoral election. > >Guess what? Surprise! It's printed (AT MY EXPENSE) in English [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > outweights the cost to the state of having to provide voting materials > in more than one language. They have enough trouble getting it right in one language. If the people who write the pro and con sides of the various initiatives, for example, could actually read and understand the various languages they were translated into, I expect there would be a lot more law suits after each election. This is a good reason to not teach foreign languages to Americans. Signature"In August Rudyard's listlessness called for another series of major and very unpleasant medical examinations.... He later joked ... 'If this is what Oscar Wilde went to prison for, he ought to have got the Victoria Cross.'", Andrew Lycett, "Rudyard Kipling" Listen to me: Stop using the term "Spanish" or "Spaniard" to refer to the amerindians, mestizos that happen to speak Spanish and that are from south of your border. I´m a real Spanish, I´m a real Spaniard, I´m an European, I´m white, I´m a Western man. Those people that you mention, in fact the 99% of the people that you call "hispanic, spanish, spaniard" are NONE of those terms. Imagine that I call Jamaican English because they happen to speak English. Do you think that the Englishmen will consider that the Jamaicans, the Nigerians, the Hindus are Englishmen just because they speak English and happen to be a English ex-colony??. So, it is the same for the terms "Spanish, Spaniard, Hispanic". The only people that suits those terms are people from Europe, from Spain. In fact, We Spaniards think exactly the same about the so called """Hispanics""". We don´t like them either. They have nothing to do with us Spaniards except for the language. > I just received the local ballot for the upcoming mayoral election. > Guess what? Surprise! It's printed (AT MY EXPENSE) in English [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > Orak Listalavostok > PS Flame all you like but please answer the question posed. <Snip> > In fact, We Spaniards think exactly the same about the so called > """Hispanics""". We don´t like them either. They have nothing to do > with us Spaniards except for the language. Please keep your racist filth to yourself - and stay away from misc-education.language.english where this discussion is totally OT anyway. As I understand it "Hispanic" is the usual American term for Spanish-speaking people - it means simply "of Spanish-speaking origin". Einde O'Callaghan Ohh, really?. So then We shall call all English Speakers as "Anglos". For example, Anglos are: English, Irish, Jamaicans, NIgerians, Hindus, Bangladesh, ... All of them are Anglos. I´m quite sure an Englishman will be happy to consider that the Jamaicans and Hindus are "Anglos", "Britihs", or even!!! "English" as them. I din´t state anything racist. I just wrote the plain truth. Those people from south of the border are as """Hispanic""", "Spanish", "Spaniard" as a Nigerian is an "Anglo","English", "British". Are you able to understand that?. Saying: "We don´t like those people is not racist". They don´t like us either and it is not considered racist. Why is that Mr. hipocrite??. > <Snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Einde O'Callaghan >I din´t state anything racist. I just wrote the plain truth. Those >people from south of the border are as """Hispanic""", "Spanish", [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Saying: "We don´t like those people is not racist". They don´t like us >either and it is not considered racist. Why is that Mr. hipocrite??. Saying that you don't like certain people is neither racist nor bigoted. Saying that you don't like an entire group of people is bigotry. Assuming that all of your group dislikes all of their group is further indication of bigotry. Unless, of course, you're referring to fans of soccer teams. Spaniard wrote on 12 Oct 2004: > Ohh, really?. So then We shall call all English Speakers as > "Anglos". We've already got a word for that: "anglophones". "Hispanic" is a catch-all term in the USA that means that someone has a name like Gonzalez or some distant relatives with a Spanish-language name or comes from a Spanish-speaking country or has a distant relative that comes from a Spanish-speaking country. Don't sweat it, dude. We know that only people from Spain are Spaniards. By the way, what's the easy one-word adjectival form for people who speak Spanish? There's also "francophone" for French-speaking. > For example, Anglos are: English, Irish, Jamaicans, > NIgerians, Hindus, Bangladesh, ... All of them are Anglos. You are deliberately misusing an English word for personal reasons here. Most decent anglophones don't deliberately misuse the English word "Hispanic" in that way. > I´m > quite sure an Englishman will be happy to consider that the > Jamaicans and Hindus are "Anglos", "Britihs", or even!!! "English" > as them. You aren't a native anglophone and don't live in an anglophone country, so you really have little to no standing to complain about how we use our language. You use yours the way you are used to using it and we will use ours the way we are used to using it. f you don't understand what we mean when we speak English, that is your problem, not ours. > I din´t state anything racist. I just wrote the plain truth. The "plain truth" can be racist or not racist, depending on the content. Truth has never been a defense for saying things like "Your mother is a whore". > Those > people from south of the border are as """Hispanic""", "Spanish", > "Spaniard" as a Nigerian is an "Anglo","English", "British". Are > you able to understand that?. They speak Spanish. Can you understand that? That makes them "Hispanic" by definition. If you don't like that definition, ask the anglophone lexicographers to change the definition for you. See how far that gets you. > Saying: "We don´t like those people is not racist". They don´t > like us either and it is not considered racist. Why is that Mr. > hipocrite??. If who you mean by "us" is anything like you, then we can understand why they don't like you either. It's not racist at all --- right --- it's just good judgment. Better clean the froth from your chin and jowls, Señor Perro Rabioso. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. > By the way, what's the easy one-word adjectival form for people who > speak Spanish? Hispanophone > They speak Spanish. Can you understand that? That makes them > "Hispanic" by definition. Whose definition? Hispanic means from Spain or Portugal, those being the only two countries the ancient Romans referred to with the term. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >>By the way, what's the easy one-word adjectival form for people who >>speak Spanish? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Whose definition? Hispanic means from Spain or Portugal, those being > the only two countries the ancient Romans referred to with the term. Iberia was the term used by the romans to refer to these countries. Hispania referred to the eastern part and Lusitania referred to the western part. Einde O'Callaghan (discussion restricted to mele) > Iberia was the term used by the romans to refer to these countries. > Hispania referred to the eastern part and Lusitania referred to the > western part. I stand corrected, then. But in any case, it didn't refer to the Americas, nor did it refer to people who spoke Spanish. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >>Iberia was the term used by the romans to refer to these countries. >>Hispania referred to the eastern part and Lusitania referred to the >>western part. > > I stand corrected, then. But in any case, it didn't refer to the > Americas, nor did it refer to people who spoke Spanish. But many Latin-based words today refer to things quite different from the original meaning of the Latin word. It's part of the development of language. Words take on new meanings and new words are adopted or created. Einde O'Callaghan > But many Latin-based words today refer to things quite different from > the original meaning of the Latin word. It's part of the development of > language. Sometimes it's part of political correctness. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. Mxsmanic wrote on 13 Oct 2004: >> By the way, what's the easy one-word adjectival form >> for people who speak Spanish? > > Hispanophone Thank you. A useful term. >> They speak Spanish. Can you understand that? That makes them >> "Hispanic" by definition. > > Whose definition? US government definition. That's the current standard usage in the USA today. > Hispanic means from Spain or Portugal, That's the etymology, yes, but not the current meaning in the USA. We don't care how the originators of the term used it, unless we're translating ancient texts. > those being the only two countries the ancient Romans > referred to with the term. We are not in ancient Rome anymore --- and I never was. Here's what MW11 has to say about the term: Main Entry: His£pan£ic Pronunciation: hi-*spa-nik Function: adjective Etymology: Latin hispanicus, from Hispania Iberian Peninsula, Spain Date: circa 1889 : of, relating to, or being a person of Latin American descent living in the United States; especially: one of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin –Hispanic noun SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. > US government definition. That's the current standard usage in the > USA today. What qualifies the U.S. government to define words? And why do you seem to equate U.S. government policy with standard usage? > We are not in ancient Rome anymore --- and I never was. It was more advanced than one might think but I don't miss it. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >> US government definition. That's the current standard usage in the >> USA today. > >What qualifies the U.S. government to define words? The U.S. government is fully entitled to define the words that it uses. If a law, regulation, or other document uses a word without the word being defined then different people will have different understandings of what the text means. This has to be avoided. Such definitions apply only within the context of the relevant laws and documents. They do not affect other uses of the word. SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from a.e.u) > The U.S. government is fully entitled to define the words that it uses. "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. 'It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less.'" SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. Crossposted to alt.english.usage only, and followups set. Mxsmanic wrote on 13 Oct 2004: >> The U.S. government is fully entitled to define the words that it >> uses. > > "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful > tone. 'It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or > less.'" Wrong response, maniac. You either didn't read the book you're quoting or you didn't understand what you read. Probably both, I'd wager. Only dead languages stay fixed forever. The words in living languages change in many ways. It's a simple truth, but unless you actually understand that it is a truth worth knowing, you'll never have much worthwhile to say about language. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. > > The U.S. government is fully entitled to define the words that it uses. > > "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. 'It > means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less.'" This is true to Humpty Dumpty. And the listeners and readers of the language Humpty Dumpty produces are also free to hold their own views about what the words mean to them. At some point, if sufficient divergence occurs, mutual unintelligibility obviously results. So to clearly and concisely summate, one must conclude that since we can venture backwards into the blackness of history, the words changing in their meaning, spelling and pronunciation as we go, until the word forms are lost completely like the fading of ink over time, any claims by anyone of absolute definitions, spellings or pronunciations for any words in any language based on anything other than common consensus among those who claim to speak, read and write the language in question at the time in question is certainly suspect. Don't you agree? Signature"In August Rudyard's listlessness called for another series of major and very unpleasant medical examinations.... He later joked ... 'If this is what Oscar Wilde went to prison for, he ought to have got the Victoria Cross.'", Andrew Lycett, "Rudyard Kipling" (!!) > > The U.S. government is fully entitled to define the words that it uses. > > "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. 'It > means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less.'" This is true to Humpty Dumpty. And the listeners and readers of the language Humpty Dumpty produces are also free to hold their own views about what the words mean to them. At some point, if sufficient divergence occurs, mutual unintelligibility obviously results. So to clearly and concisely summate, one must conclude that since we can venture backwards into the blackness of history, the words changing in their meaning, spelling and pronunciation as we go, until the word forms are lost completely like the fading of ink over time, any claims by anyone of absolute definitions, spellings or pronunciations for any words in any language based on anything other than common consensus among those who claim to speak, read and write the language in question at the time in question is certainly suspect. Don't you agree? Signature"In August Rudyard's listlessness called for another series of major and very unpleasant medical examinations.... He later joked ... 'If this is what Oscar Wilde went to prison for, he ought to have got the Victoria Cross.'", Andrew Lycett, "Rudyard Kipling" (!!) >>US government definition. That's the current standard usage in the >>USA today. > > What qualifies the U.S. government to define words? And why do you seem > to equate U.S. government policy with standard usage? He also provided a definition from teh Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Einde O'Callaghan (restricted to mele) > He also provided a definition from teh Merriam-Webster Dictionary. So? SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. Mxsmanic wrote on 13 Oct 2004: >> He also provided a definition from teh Merriam-Webster Dictionary. > > So? So MW11's definition of the word demonstrates that the standard meaning of that word in the USA is not what the Romans meant or what Spaniard thinks it ought to mean. How loong have you been away from the USA? I've been in Asia since 1983 and even I know what "Hispanic" means to most Americans. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. >>He also provided a definition from teh Merriam-Webster Dictionary. > > So? It shows that it is widespread usage. Not Humpty Dumpty, but usage defines what a word means and when its meaning shifts. Einde O'Callaghan > It shows that it is widespread usage. Widespread but technically incorrect. Just because it is widespread doesn't make it right, and greater precision is required when one is talking about the loss of liberty. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >>It shows that it is widespread usage. > > Widespread but technically incorrect. Just because it is widespread > doesn't make it right, and greater precision is required when one is > talking about the loss of liberty. So you're always right and other people with varying opinions are always wrong. Your opinion is the arbiter of all that is correct. Discussing with someody who has such an attitude is useless. So this and the parallel post in other thread will be my last comments to you on this issue. Einde O'Callaghan > So this and the parallel post in other thread will be my last comments > to you on this issue. Promises, promises. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > > It shows that it is widespread usage. > > Widespread but technically incorrect. Just because it is widespread > doesn't make it right, and greater precision is required when one is > talking about the loss of liberty. Lots of words are "technically incorrect", as their meaning change over time and it is no longer the same as their etymology. So what? I think I get why you don't like this usage: the term "hispanic" is now used to describe people who are not actually from the Hispanic peninsula, to which the word originally refers. Usage rules, though, you know. BTW, in times of PC, I've got a feeling that the only ones "entitled", so to speak, to complain about the usage or misusage of a national or ethnic origin term, are those described by the term itself. Am I wrong? :-) > BTW, in times of PC, I've got a feeling that the only ones "entitled", > so to speak, to complain about the usage or misusage of a national or > ethnic origin term, are those described by the term itself. Am I > wrong? :-) Dunno if that sentence of mine was very clear. I meant that that is what seems to happen. I wasn't expressing an opinion. >> US government definition. That's the current standard usage in the >> USA today. > > What qualifies the U.S. government to define words? And why do you seem > to equate U.S. government policy with standard usage? The US government put the term on every Census form since 1980; it is the official OMB term for a protected class. The word was redefined tor the USA and is standard usage. > Mxsmanic wrote on 13 Oct 2004: >>>They speak Spanish. Can you understand that? That makes them >>>"Hispanic" by definition. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > US government definition. That's the current standard usage in the > USA today. Supplementing your MWCD11 (US) definition, we have this from the very British COD11: Hispanic /hI"spanIk/ o /adj./ of or relating to Spain or to Spanish-speaking countries, especially those of Central and South America. > of or relating to Spanish-speaking people or their culture, especially in the US. o n. a Spanish-speaking person, especially one of Latin American descent, living in the US. - DERIVATIVES Hispanicize or Hispanicise v. - ORIGIN from L. Hispanicus, from Hispania ‘Spain’. USAGE In the US, 'Hispanic' is the standard accepted term when referring to Spanish-speaking people living in the US. Other, more specific, terms such as Latino and Chicano are also used where occasion demands. Recent unpleasant remarks about Spanish-speakers and the contemporary American-English usage of the word "Hispanic" have raised an issue that seems to me to require a bit of discussion here. While we may not like to hear language or opinions that hurt our feelings or push our righteous-indignation buttons, attempts to censor what people say in an international open forum don't seem justified, regardless of what the PC laws tell us we may and may not legally say in a public medium like Usenet. People like oraklistal@yahoo.com (Orak Listalavostok) and johnm152@hotmail.com (Spaniard) are no less entitled to have and express their opinions as the rest of us who may disagree with them. If readers of these newsgroups don't like what they have to say, they can always killfile the offenders or ignore their posts. Good is, theoretically, supposed to defeat evil by dint of its obvious rightness and goodness, not because it has advocates with the loudest voices, the most guns, or the political power to silence dissent. Some people with unpleasant, unpopular, and politically incorrect opinions have eventually been proved correct; most, however, have been and still are merely demagogues playing to the unthinking masses for a variety of reasons. I don't see much of a difference in the degree of perniciousness exhibited by vocal racists and bigots, on the one hand, and the equally vocal censorious self-righteously indignant, on the other. They both want to quash their ideological enemies and they both want to justify their tyrannical goals by claiming that they have the truth and know better than the other side. Such ravings and rantings are understandable from people who don't bother thinking about what they say or how they say it, but when it comes from people who invoke the PC trump-card, it is really indefensible. PC, after all, is supposed to be all-inclusive, supposed to value diversity, and supposed to be the champion of human rights, human dignity, and respect for all human beings. The problem with people who support PC --- even if they call it simple courtesy and good manners instead of PC --- is that they are as discriminatory as the people they decry. They refuse to include anyone who has dissenting opinions and feelings, they denigrate those who dissent from their own standards of goodness and morality, they attempt to deny the right of freedom of expression to people whose opinions and words they abhor, and they want "diversity" only within what they consider to be acceptable limits. In other words, they are truly hypocrites. And they are no better than the contemporary religiopolitical terrorist-fanatics who scream about killing those who insult their "religion". At least these fanatics do not try to hide their desire to permanently eliminate their enemies: their perhaps foolish frankness is as refreshing as it is frightening. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. > Recent unpleasant remarks about Spanish-speakers and the contemporary > American-English usage of the word "Hispanic" have raised an issue [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > justified, regardless of what the PC laws tell us we may and may not > legally say in a public medium like Usenet. I found the remarks extremely offensive because I find racism offensive, having been on the receiving end. I thought I was being fairly mild when I merely suggested that the remarks were off-topic in the newsgroup where I read them (misc-education.language.english) and forcefully suggested taht he confine his remarks to the forum where he was reading them, where people might find the remarks more acceptable. I've noticed that the soc.culture.* hierarchy is full of newsgroups where all sorts of outrageous racist and nationalist views are acceptable, which is why I don't read any of them and I object when their intellectual sewage intrudes into the newsgroups I read and participate in. I've confined my reply to mele as I know that Franke reads it, otherwise I'd have put "Follow-up: misc.education.language.english" in the headwere. I've put our Sapnish indtruder in akillfile and hope I'll never ahve to put up with his rubbish again. Regards, Einde O'Callaghan > I found the remarks extremely offensive because I find racism offensive, > having been on the receiving end. I thought I was being fairly mild when > I merely suggested that the remarks were off-topic in the newsgroup > where I read them (misc-education.language.english) and forcefully > suggested taht he confine his remarks to the forum where he was reading > them, where people might find the remarks more acceptable. Why don't you simply stop reading things that offend you? It is illogical and impractical for you to expect or suggest that the world censor what it says in order to match your preferences. It is very logical and practical for you to ignore anything that doesn't match your preferences. In other words, censorship at the source is not feasible and not fair; but censorship at the destination is both. > I've noticed that the soc.culture.* hierarchy is full of newsgroups > where all sorts of outrageous racist and nationalist views are > acceptable, which is why I don't read any of them and I object when > their intellectual sewage intrudes into the newsgroups I read and > participate in. You don't have to read things that offend you. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >>I found the remarks extremely offensive because I find racism offensive, >>having been on the receiving end. I thought I was being fairly mild when [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why don't you simply stop reading things that offend you? If they plop into teh middle of a newsgroup I read I end up reading them, then I killfile the poster. > It is illogical and impractical for you to expect or suggest that the > world censor what it says in order to match your preferences. It is > very logical and practical for you to ignore anything that doesn't match > your preferences. In other words, censorship at the source is not > feasible and not fair; but censorship at the destination is both. I haven't suggested censorship. i just asked the poster to stop posting to this newsgroup where it's OT. This is common Netiquette. >>I've noticed that the soc.culture.* hierarchy is full of newsgroups >>where all sorts of outrageous racist and nationalist views are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You don't have to read things that offend you. I don't read those newsgroups and I have no desire to read the drivel from there in the newsgroups I do read. Einde O'Callaghan > If they plop into teh middle of a newsgroup I read I end up reading > them, then I killfile the poster. So you've lost a few seconds of your time. Big deal. > I don't read those newsgroups and I have no desire to read the drivel > from there in the newsgroups I do read. So you want the rest of society to censor what it writes for your convenience? SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. Mxsmanic wrote on 13 Oct 2004: >> If they plop into teh middle of a newsgroup I read I end up >> reading them, then I killfile the poster. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So you want the rest of society to censor what it writes for your > convenience? You seem to be being deliberately contentious. Einde isn't going to get dragged into a flame war with you, and neither am I. You've worn out your welcome again. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. > You seem to be being deliberately contentious. You consider defense of civil liberties to be "contentious"? > Einde isn't going to get dragged into a flame war with > you, and neither am I. And yet here you are. > You've worn out your welcome again. Are you the official welcome committee? SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >>If they plop into teh middle of a newsgroup I read I end up reading >>them, then I killfile the poster. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So you want the rest of society to censor what it writes for your > convenience? No, I just want offensive racist drivel to be kept out of misc.education.language.english because it has no place here - a multi-racial and multi-cultural newsgroup dedicated to helping people learning English. Einde O'Callaghan > No, I just want offensive racist drivel to be kept out of > misc.education.language.english because it has no place here - a > multi-racial and multi-cultural newsgroup dedicated to helping people > learning English. In other words, you want the rest of society to censor what it writes for your convenience. Phrasing it in a different way doesn't change this. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >>No, I just want offensive racist drivel to be kept out of >>misc.education.language.english because it has no place here - a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for your convenience. Phrasing it in a different way doesn't change > this. It is clear that you don't understand the English language, upon which you so often pontificate. I suggested that the poster keep his opinions out of one newsgroup where they are off-topic - nothing more. But since you're always right (in your own opinion) it's useless to discuss with you. This and the parallel post will be the last I say to you on this issue. Einde O'Callaghan > I suggested that the poster keep his opinions > out of one newsgroup where they are off-topic - nothing more. You suggested that he not post messages you consider unacceptable. in other words, you want the rest of society to censor what it has written for your own convenience. Rewriting this two different ways does not change the essential meaning or intention. > This and the parallel post will be the last I say to you on this issue. We shall see. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. Einde O'Callaghan wrote on 13 Oct 2004: >> Recent unpleasant remarks about Spanish-speakers and the >> contemporary American-English usage of the word "Hispanic" have [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I found the remarks extremely offensive because I find racism > offensive, having been on the receiving end. I can both empathize and sympathize, Einde. I found both posters' remarks extremely offensive as well, but I just chalk it up to their thoughtlessness and lack of awareness of what they are really saying. > I thought I was being > fairly mild when I merely suggested that the remarks were [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > object when their intellectual sewage intrudes into the newsgroups > I read and participate in. I no longer read the couple that I used to read and post to. I agree with you that the spewage of hatred, racism, and other forms of bigotry there is outrageous and insufferable. > I've confined my reply to mele as I know that Franke reads it, > otherwise I'd have put "Follow-up: > misc.education.language.english" in the headwere. I've put our > Sapnish indtruder in akillfile and hope I'll never ahve to put up > with his rubbish again. I hope neither of those fellows comes back. They aren't worth the time to read or argue with. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. > > Recent unpleasant remarks about Spanish-speakers and the contemporary > > American-English usage of the word "Hispanic" have raised an issue [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > suggested taht he confine his remarks to the forum where he was reading > them, where people might find the remarks more acceptable. The remarks about how we shouldn't have Spanish on our ballots? How is it fair to have some languages but not all languages on the ballot? Maybe our ballots should be done up in pictures using those international symbols that no one in any country can understand. > I've noticed that the soc.culture.* hierarchy is full of newsgroups > where all sorts of outrageous racist and nationalist views are > acceptable, which is why I don't read any of them and I object when > their intellectual sewage intrudes into the newsgroups I read and > participate in. Do you get to define what is posted in the newsgroups you read? You sound like someone who wants to define all words for the rest of us. > I've confined my reply to mele as I know that Franke reads it, otherwise > I'd have put "Follow-up: misc.education.language.english" in the > headwere. Which rightfully would've got you flamed. Nothing worse on usenet than a top poster or a follow-ups setter. Signature"In August Rudyard's listlessness called for another series of major and very unpleasant medical examinations.... He later joked ... 'If this is what Oscar Wilde went to prison for, he ought to have got the Victoria Cross.'", Andrew Lycett, "Rudyard Kipling" [This followup was posted to alt.english.usage and a copy was sent to the cited author.] > Recent unpleasant remarks about Spanish-speakers and the contemporary > American-English usage of the word "Hispanic" have raised an issue [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > to permanently eliminate their enemies: their perhaps foolish > frankness is as refreshing as it is frightening. Fully agree. If you feel a poster is out of line from your viewpoint, killfile him or simply ignore him. Venting at him is not going to change his views and, in the case of a troll, is exactly what he's after. It's impossible to reason a person out of a position he didn't reason himself into in the first place (I used to have an attribution for this but can't find it right now). -- dg (domain=ccwebster) don groves wrote on 14 Oct 2004: [...] > It's impossible to reason a person out of a position he didn't > reason himself into in the first place (I used to have an > attribution for this but can't find it right now). It's a good quip. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. [This followup was posted to alt.english.usage and a copy was sent to the cited author.] > don groves wrote on 14 Oct 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It's a good quip. When I remember who said it, I'll post it properly. It's very apt right now in the US. -- dg (domain=ccwebster) > Recent unpleasant remarks about Spanish-speakers and the contemporary > American-English usage of the word "Hispanic" have raised an issue [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > justified, regardless of what the PC laws tell us we may and may not > legally say in a public medium like Usenet. PC laws? There's no law against being a racist. Signature"In August Rudyard's listlessness called for another series of major and very unpleasant medical examinations.... He later joked ... 'If this is what Oscar Wilde went to prison for, he ought to have got the Victoria Cross.'", Andrew Lycett, "Rudyard Kipling" Bill Bonde ( ``This is the Battle of Epping Forest '' ) wrote on 16 Oct 2004: >> Recent unpleasant remarks about Spanish-speakers and the >> contemporary American-English usage of the word "Hispanic" have [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > PC laws? There's no law against being a racist. I didn't say that there were laws against being a racist. There are consequences, of course. There are, however, laws against making racist remarks in email and laws that support the contractual prohibitions against making such remarks when using the network facilities of public providers, all provided in the "Terms of Use" disclaimers. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. > There are, however, laws against making racist > remarks in email ... Which laws are those? > ... and laws that support the contractual prohibitions > against making such remarks when using the network facilities of public > providers, all provided in the "Terms of Use" disclaimers. Which laws are those? USENET circles the globe. For every law that exists in one placed touched by it, there is an absence of that law in some other place that it reaches. So arguments about "laws" and "prohibitions" are not really valid here. You wish to censor speech with which you don't agree, but you are trying to give the impression that it is someone else's wish and decision, not yours. You have not succeeded in giving that impression, at least not to me (but it is true that I'm a seasoned participant in debate). SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > You wish to censor speech with which you don't agree, but you > are trying to give the impression that it is someone else's > wish and decision, not yours. You have not succeeded in giving > that impression, at least not to me (but it is true that I'm a > seasoned participant in debate). This one needs a pinch more salt, I think. SignatureMark Barratt Mxsmanic wrote on 16 Oct 2004: >> There are, however, laws against making racist >> remarks in email ... > > Which laws are those? You don't know anything about California law, do you manic. You can check out the library to see that people in that state have been prosecuted for "hate speech" (whatever that really means) for sending racist emails out to a group of people with names indicating a particular ethnicity (I forget whether it was Asian or Hispanic). Most hate speech is racist. >> ... and laws that support the contractual prohibitions >> against making such remarks when using the network facilities of >> public providers, all provided in the "Terms of Use" disclaimers. > > Which laws are those? Contract law. Ever been to law school? Ever read a law book? Ever read an opinion about the enforceability of contractual provisions? Ever sent a complaint to "abuse@[ISP].com"? Ever read those disclaimers? Do you know why they're there? Because they can be enforced. I don't know for certain, but I did send complaints to such an address and succeeded, I believe, in having a poster's ISP close his account for inappropriate posting. I say "I believe" because I didn't hear from the ISP that they had booted the poster, nor did the poster complain to me that my complaint had resulted in having his account closed. Two weeks or so after my complaint, however, that poster reemerged in the NG using a different ISP, and I did not see any of his posts for the week before he reemerged. > USENET circles the globe. For every law that exists in one placed > touched by it, there is an absence of that law in some other place > that it reaches. So arguments about "laws" and "prohibitions" are > not really valid here. You are ill-informed about that. Every public ISP in every country I know of has prohibitions against certain kinds of speech. It isn't the laws in America that will punish the Taiwanese poster who violates his ISP's prohibitions against certain kinds of taboo speech (if someone complains), but the Taiwanese laws that permit the ISP to claim breach of contract when a poster does something taboo mentioned in the terms and conditions of use he agreed to when registering with the ISP. So all your expertise at debating is for nought here. You misunderstand what you are talking about. > You wish to censor speech with which you don't agree, Would you care to specify where I expressed a wish to censor speech with which I disagree? I don't remember saying anything like that, and I think that you are falsely accusing me. I don't particularly appreciate false accusations. I say enough outrageous things on Usenet that you and others do not have to lie about what I've said to attack me. > but you are trying to give the impression that it is > someone else's wish and decision, not yours. Is that how you read my remarks above? You really ought to read again what I've said and show everyone else here how you managed to come to that absurd conclusion. I am certain that you can't successfully defend that interpretation. > You have not succeeded in giving that impression, at least not > to me Yes, and that's because you have demonstrated many times in this thread and the "spaniards" thread that your reading comprehension is severely lacking. I am very familiar with the posts of some of the other posters who made that same remark to you, and I notice that some of the posters from s.c.m.a, s.c.s, and s.c.usa, whose posts I had not encountered until these two threads, have come to the same conclusion. > (but it is true that I'm a seasoned participant in debate). And much too impressed with your own credentials to notice that your intellectual fly is wide open. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. > You don't know anything about California law, do you manic. Actually I do. But you haven't answered my question. > You can > check out the library to see that people in that state have been > prosecuted for "hate speech" (whatever that really means) for sending > racist emails out to a group of people with names indicating a > particular ethnicity (I forget whether it was Asian or Hispanic). Most > hate speech is racist. All hate speech is politically incorrect. > Contract law. Ever been to law school? Ever read a law book? Yes. > Ever read an opinion about the enforceability of contractual > provisions? Yes. > Ever sent a complaint to "abuse@[ISP].com"? Rarely. Such complaints are just discarded. > Ever read those disclaimers? What disclaimers? > Do you know why they're there? Where? > I don't know for certain ... I agree. > You are ill-informed about that. Every public ISP in every country I > know of has prohibitions against certain kinds of speech. Some do, some don't, and the prohibitions are not always the same. > Would you care to specify where I expressed a wish to censor speech > with which I disagree? Your posts have been devoted to it. > I don't remember saying anything like that, and > I think that you are falsely accusing me. You sent e-mail to abuse addresses by your own admission. > I don't particularly appreciate false accusations. So? > I say enough outrageous things on Usenet > that you and others do not have to lie about what I've said to attack > me. I don't lie. > Is that how you read my remarks above? Yes. > You really ought to read again > what I've said and show everyone else here how you managed to come to > that absurd conclusion. Other people can reach their own conclusions without my guidance. > I am certain that you can't successfully defend > that interpretation. I already have. > Yes, and that's because you have demonstrated many times in this thread > and the "spaniards" thread that your reading comprehension is severely > lacking. And you resort to ad hominem when you cannot support your position with more cogent arguments. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. Mxsmanic wrote on 16 Oct 2004: >> You don't know anything about California law, do you manic. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > All hate speech is politically incorrect. Non sequitur. In California, people have been prosecuted for specific kinds of hate speech. >> Contract law. Ever been to law school? Ever read a law book? > > Yes. I don't believe you. >> Ever read an opinion about the enforceability of contractual >> provisions? > > Yes. Again, I don't believe you. >> Ever sent a complaint to "abuse@[ISP].com"? > > Rarely. Such complaints are just discarded. If you've ever sent such a complaint --- and "Rarely" implies that you have done so on occasion, unless you're lying about that too --- then you have proved that you are what you believe constitutes a would-be censor: someone who has "sent email to abuse addresses". You are hoist by your own petard, mister seasoned debater. >> Ever read those disclaimers? > > What disclaimers? I may have used the wrong word. Perhaps I should have said "terms of use". But here is one from the Guardian Unlimited, UK, and the first paragraph of the term of use contains a disclaimer. Terms (iv)-(vii) are germane to my argument while supporting your claim that these prohibitions are not all the same: http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,12908,933909,00.html 7. Talk or discussion boards Users of our site may submit material for publication in various areas of the site, including our Talk boards. We accept no liability in respect of any material submitted by users and published by us and we are not responsible for its content and accuracy. If you want to submit material to us for publication on the Talk boards, you may do so on the following terms and conditions: (i) publication of any material you submit to us will be at our sole discretion. We reserve the right to make additions or deletions to the text or graphics prior to publication, or to refuse publication (ii) you grant us a non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, worldwide licence to republish any material you submit to us in any format, including without limitation print and electronic format (iii) you warrant to us that any material you submit to us is your own original work and that you own the copyright and any other relevant rights (iv) you warrant that the material you submit is not obscene, offensive, defamatory of any person or otherwise illegal (v) you agree not to post material which is deliberately intended to upset other users (vi) you acknowledge that any breach of these warranties may cause us damage or loss and you agree to indemnify us in full and permanently against any third party liabilities, claims, costs, loss or damage we incur as a result of publishing material you submit to us, including consequential losses. (vii) we reserve the right to remove your access to the Talk boards completely if we believe you are abusing the boards in any way. All Talk users should read our Talk policy which expands on these points. The Talk policy can be found as a link from any pages within the Talk areas of Guardian Unlimited. >> Do you know why they're there? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I agree. You think you're cute, I know, but you're just demonstrating that your debating skills are bargain-basement level with this kind of trash. >> You are ill-informed about that. Every public ISP in every >> country I know of has prohibitions against certain kinds of >> speech. > > Some do, some don't, You are talking though your hat here. You cannot produce evidence of a single public ISP that doesn't have such a prohibition. You prove yourself a liar with this kind of trash talk. > and the prohibitions are not always the same. They are similar enough to generalize about. >> Would you care to specify where I expressed a wish to censor >> speech with which I disagree? > > Your posts have been devoted to it. This is not evidence of anything but your distorted opinion. I asked for specifics and you respond with mud-slinging. >> I don't remember saying anything like that, and >> I think that you are falsely accusing me. > > You sent e-mail to abuse addresses by your own admission. You are lying again. I said "I did send complaints to such an address" --- complaints in one or two emails to a single abuse address. >> I don't particularly appreciate false accusations. > > So? So don't make any more of them. >> I say enough outrageous things on Usenet >> that you and others do not have to lie about what I've said to >> attack me. > > I don't lie. You have lied more than once in this post and at least once in your previous post. You cannot prove that you haven't no matter how much you deny it. >> Is that how you read my remarks above? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Other people can reach their own conclusions without my guidance. Other people don't need your advice about reaching a conclusion, but I'm sure that they would be interested in seeing how you managed to twist those words of mine into a call for censorship. You misrepresented what I said and deleted everything but an out-of- context phrase to use in a vain attempt to prove yourself clever and witty. >> I am certain that you can't successfully defend >> that interpretation. > > I already have. You only claim to have done so. You haven't done anything of the sort. >> Yes, and that's because you have demonstrated many times in this >> thread and the "spaniards" thread that your reading comprehension >> is severely lacking. > > And you resort to ad hominem when you cannot support your position > with more cogent arguments. Where? SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. > Ohh, really?. So then We shall call all English Speakers as "Anglos". > For example, Anglos are: English, Irish, Jamaicans, NIgerians, Hindus, > Bangladesh, ... All of them are Anglos. I´m quite sure an Englishman > will be happy to consider that the Jamaicans and Hindus are "Anglos", > "Britihs", or even!!! "English" as them. I have no problem with people calling English-speakers Anglos in certain contexts. But I suggest that you stop spamming and f.ck off back to the newsgroup you come from taking your racist crap with you. *PLONK* Einde O'Callaghan > I din´t state anything racist. I just wrote the plain truth. >>>In fact, We Spaniards think exactly the same about the so called >>>"""Hispanics""". We don´t like them either. Lying rascist bastard. The speed with which you contradict yourself rivals your willingness to post racist garbage. > Ohh, really?. So then We shall call all English Speakers as "Anglos". > For example, Anglos are: English, Irish, Jamaicans, NIgerians, Hindus, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "Spaniard" as a Nigerian is an "Anglo","English", "British". Are you > able to understand that?. I am able to understand what you claim, but you are factually incorrect. "Hispanic", in English, does not mean "Spanish". From MWOnline: Main Entry: His·pan·ic Pronunciation: hi-'spa-nik Function: adjective Etymology: Latin hispanicus, from Hispania Iberian Peninsula, Spain : of, relating to, or being a person of Latin American descent living in the U.S.; especially : one of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin You might also note that Caucasian Americans whose first language is English are often called "Anglos" regardless of their ancestry. Richard R. Hershberger > Ohh, really?. So then We shall call all English Speakers as "Anglos". > For example, Anglos are: English, Irish, Jamaicans, NIgerians, Hindus, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "Spaniard" as a Nigerian is an "Anglo","English", "British". Are you > able to understand that?. "Hispanic" is the term redefined by the US government to describe persons of all races and nationalities who have a cultural heritage descending from the Spanish language. If you don't want to agree, try the definition on the US Census Bureau website. It is correct usage in North America. Most people in Latin America would love to forget the delightful criminals from Spain called the Conquistadores. Have a little torture with your breakfast, señor? > Most people in Latin America would love to forget the delightful criminals > from Spain called the Conquistadores. Then why do so many of them speak Spanish? SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > > Ohh, really?. So then We shall call all English Speakers as "Anglos". > > For example, Anglos are: English, Irish, Jamaicans, NIgerians, Hindus, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > "Spaniard" as a Nigerian is an "Anglo","English", "British". Are you > > able to understand that?. You are totaly confused, "hispanic" in this contest refers to the LANGUAGE, whereas "ANGLO" & "ANGLO-SAXON" refers to an ethnicity, germans are also anglo-saxons, thespanish people are not anglos, they arehispanics. As a matter a fact Spanish didn't use to be the native language of the spanish people, you may call yourself "castellano" if you wish, a spaniard is any native of spain, including basques. The liberos originated from the coast of Africa, it could be that your ancesters were north africans, entonces calmate!! People in north africa are "Francophones" but not french people, you may say the jamaicans are "anglophones". Anglo-Saxons: name given to the Germanic-speaking peoples who settled in England after the decline of Roman rule there. They were first invited by the Celtic King Vortigern , who needed help fighting the Picts and Scots. The Angles (Lat. Angli ), who are mentioned in Tacitus' Germania, seem to have come from what is now Schleswig in the later decades of the 5th cent. Their settlements in the eastern, central, and northern portions of the country were the foundations for the later kingdoms known as East Anglia , Mercia , and Northumbria . The Saxons , a Germanic tribe who had been continental neighbors of the Angles, also settled in England in the late 5th cent. after earlier marauding forays there. The later kingdoms of Sussex , Wessex , and Essex were the outgrowths of their settlements. The Jutes, a tribe about whom very little is known except that they probably came from the area around the mouths of the Rhine, settled in Kent and the Isle of Wight. The Anglo-Saxons eventually formed seven separate kingdoms known as the heptarchy . The term "Anglo-Saxons" was first used in Continental Latin sources to distinguish the Saxons in England from those on the Continent, but it soon came to mean simply the "English." The more specific use of the term to denote the non-Celtic settlers of England prior to the Norman Conquest dates from the 16th cent. In more modern times it has also been used to denote any of the people (or their descendants) of the British Isles. > "Hispanic" is the term redefined by the US government to describe persons of > all races and nationalities who have a cultural heritage descending from the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > from Spain called the Conquistadores. Have a little torture with your > breakfast, señor? >> > Ohh, really?. So then We shall call all English Speakers as "Anglos". >> > For example, Anglos are: English, Irish, Jamaicans, NIgerians, Hindus, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You are totaly confused, You are also confused. I did not write either of those comments, although your editing seems to indicat I did. >"hispanic" in this contest refers to the > LANGUAGE, whereas "ANGLO" & "ANGLO-SAXON" refers to an ethnicity, > germans are also anglo-saxons, thespanish people are not anglos, they > arehispanics. In the US, the "official" OMB and Census Bureau definition describes a culture based on usage or a heritage involving the Spanish language or the nations where it is spoken. So you can have a person who speaks Spanish born in the US, a Zapotec immigrant who knows little Spanish, an Asian who speaks Spanish and comes from Lima, and a person of Lebanese descent from Argentina and consider them all to be Hispanics. The definition is not langage based, but langage referenced. A Chicano who speaks no Spanish is still Hispanic by the definiton as used correctly in the US. > The term "Anglo-Saxons" was first used in > Continental Latin sources to distinguish the Saxons in England from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > modern times it has also been used to denote any of the people (or > their descendants) of the British Isles. But in the Spanish speaking nations of the Western Hemisphere, "Anglo" refers somewhat vaguely to English speaking persons. For example, record companies form Argentina to Mexico call "Anglo" any music in English, whether by Blacks, whites, Asians or Martians. > >> > Ohh, really?. So then We shall call all English Speakers as "Anglos". > >> > For example, Anglos are: English, Irish, Jamaicans, NIgerians, Hindus, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You are also confused. I did not write either of those comments, although > your editing seems to indicat I did. My message was directed to "el-spariardo!", lo siento. > >"hispanic" in this contest refers to the > > LANGUAGE, whereas "ANGLO" & "ANGLO-SAXON" refers to an ethnicity, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Spanish and comes from Lima, and a person of Lebanese descent from Argentina > and consider them all to be Hispanics. Yes, it doesn't matter what your race is as long as you are a "hispanohablante" and/or your origin can be traced to Mexico, Cuba, porto rico...you are considered a hispanic by the US census bureau. > The definition is not langage based, but langage referenced. A Chicano who > speaks no Spanish is still Hispanic by the definiton as used correctly in > the US. It's both, a chicano is a mexican american, there is a mexican in evey chicano therefore he is labeled as hispanic. > > The term "Anglo-Saxons" was first used in > > Continental Latin sources to distinguish the Saxons in England from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > modern times it has also been used to denote any of the people (or > > their descendants) of the British Isles. > But in the Spanish speaking nations of the Western Hemisphere, "Anglo" > refers somewhat vaguely to English speaking persons. For example, record > companies form Argentina to Mexico call "Anglo" any music in English, > whether by Blacks, whites, Asians or Martians. In the spanish speaking nations, "anglo" is short for "anglophone", i.e. "anglohablante". They call the music "anglo" and they call any white person from the US Gringo, they don't call a person an "anglo" , mira!, hay un anglo en la tienda!?, they do not call a chinese person that speaks english only an "anglo"??, they call him chino or chinito ,they even call any asian chino, do they call a black person a moro , moreno or negro? . "anglo" music does not mean "anglo" musicians, Dr Dre, snoopy..M. Jackson are not called anglos, maybe Michael Jackson would've liked to be called an anglo, there is always an exception to any rule. By the way this labeling business has to go one day or an other, many people are against being labeled as such and such, in California for example you'll find a lot of people that are multi-racial and they get frustrated when asked about their race or their ethnic background, they are classified as others?? > Ohh, really?. So then We shall call all English Speakers as "Anglos". > For example, Anglos are: English, Irish, Jamaicans, NIgerians, Hindus, > Bangladesh, ... All of them are Anglos. I´m quite sure an Englishman > will be happy to consider that the Jamaicans and Hindus are "Anglos", > "Britihs", or even!!! "English" as them. Americans have many strange appellations. They call people with very dark skin "African-American," even though they've been U.S. natives for many generations; and they deny this term to people who come from Africa to the United States, if their skin is light in color. They don't call native Americans "native Americans," instead reserving that term for aboriginal Americans. They exclude Canadians and Mexicans and Brazilians from the term "American," even though all of these live in the Americas. They call Mexicans "Hispanics," even though they come from Mexico and not Spain or Portugal, whereas people from Spain or Portugal are more likely to be referred to as "Anglos," at least once their nationalities are known. It's all very strange. You've got to be carefully taught. > Saying: "We don´t like those people is not racist". They don´t like us > either and it is not considered racist. Why is that Mr. hipocrite??. Only white anglo-saxon Protestant males can be racist, under U.S. rules. People of other ethnicities can say anything they want. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > In fact, We Spaniards think exactly the same about the so called > """Hispanics""". We don´t like them either. They have nothing to do > with us Spaniards except for the language. OK, you've proven that you are just as racist as "Orak Listalavostok." It is a good thing that no one has selected you as the spokesperson for all Spaniards. Go away. > In fact, We Spaniards think exactly the same about the so called > """Hispanics""". We don´t like them either. They have nothing to do > with us Spaniards except for the language. Hispanic technically means from Spain or Portugal. I don't think any Americans realize this, however. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >>In fact, We Spaniards think exactly the same about the so called >>"""Hispanics""". We don´t like them either. They have nothing to do >>with us Spaniards except for the language. > > Hispanic technically means from Spain or Portugal. I don't think any > Americans realize this, however. Actually "Iberian" is the word for this concept. "Hispanic" means "of Spanish origin" and is used to refer to Spanish language or culture. In most (but not all) Latin American countries people speak Spanish, so Hispanic is legitimately used to refer to people from these countries. Einde O'Callaghan (discussion limited to mele) >> In fact, We Spaniards think exactly the same about the so called >> """Hispanics""". We don´t like them either. They have nothing to do >> with us Spaniards except for the language. > > Hispanic technically means from Spain or Portugal. I don't think any > Americans realize this, however. The US Government defined a new meaning for "Hispanic" in about 1978. They selected a seldom-used term and gave it a new definition to group all manner of persons who had a somewhat common linguistic heritage. terms such as Latin or Latino did not work, since they were too broad. The current definition is found in every US dictionary published in the last few decades. >>In fact, We Spaniards think exactly the same about the so called >>"""Hispanics""". We don´t like them either. They have nothing to do >>with us Spaniards except for the language. > > Hispanic technically means from Spain or Portugal. I don't think any > Americans realize this, however. "Espanya", "España", "Espagne", "Spain" "Spagna" come from Hispania. Espanyol, español, espagnol, Spaniard, spagnuolo do not come from "hispanus" or "hispanicus". The name of the language is castilian therefore the word castilian are all who speak castilian (one of the languages of Spain). Signature============================================================= "There are another worlds, but they are in this one" (Eluard) There are five worlds, but they are in this one" First world: between parallels 36 to 54 degrees. Second world: between parallels 54 to 72 degrees. Third world: between parallels 18 to 36 degrees. Forth world: between 72 to 90 degrees. Fifth world: between 0 a 18 degrees. "Mal nommer les choses, c'est ajouter aux malheurs du monde" (Camus) =================================================================== > The name of the language is castilian therefore the word castilian are all > who speak castilian (one of the languages of Spain). THE LENGUAGE any spanish person must know, said by the Constitution. Not 'one of the languages,' it's the official one of the country. Castellano and español are interchangeables. They are the same language. But the castellano is speaked out from Castilla, just there where there are _other_ official languages or dialects. A person can't be named castellano for using español/castellano just because she can be from other Autonomous Community. Españuelo is a nazionalist liar > Listen to me: > > Stop using the term "Spanish" or "Spaniard" to refer to the > amerindians, mestizos that happen to speak Spanish and that are from > south of your border. I´m a real Spanish, I´m a real Spaniard, I´m an > European, I´m white, I´m a Western man. Those people that you mention, What is a real spanish?, do you mean a basque?, how white are you?, aren't you a southern man?, are there any fake spaniards in spain?. What is your original tribe?.. Don't worry nobody is taking your "spanishism" and your "witness" from you, relax keep it all for youself it's all yours, but can you tell us who designated you to speak for all the spanish people? . Pobrecito, no tienes miedo !!, calmate!, tu eres uno blanco espanol de verdad! You are a BLANC spanish for sure!, you are not a brown spanish at all, anybody can tell that you are really a blanc spanish, it's written all over, all blanc as blanc can be, bravo!! "hispanics" don't just happen to speak spanish, spanish is their native language and it has became an integrated part of their culture. For your information, most of the modern spanish literature came from those that you don't like, go find out for yourself and compare the role that the "hispanics" played and have been playing in developing the spanish culture/literature in comparison to the "real spaniards" like yourself.. and this sub-cultured human that you are responding to is not a "real american" at all. He can't even speak english and he has the guts to complain about something that he has no clue about. He is blanc as yourself, he is as blanc as you, but he is a blanc in yellow and you are a blanc in "real white"!.. Never judge a man by his "whitness" but judge him by his "blancness", go find out how blanc you are , you may find something to fill in. > in fact the 99% of the people that you call "hispanic, spanish, > spaniard" are NONE of those terms. Imagine that I call Jamaican > English because they happen to speak English. Do you think that the > Englishmen will consider that the Jamaicans, the Nigerians, the Hindus > are Englishmen just because they speak English and happen to be a > English ex-colony??. There are over 144 languages spoken in India, dozens in Nigeria, several in Jamaica, the americas were not only a colony, they were riped from their original culture and languages, they adopted spanish language, religion and some of their culture from their invaders, you are comparing apples to oranges??? > So, it is the same for the terms "Spanish, Spaniard, Hispanic". The > only people that suits those terms are people from Europe, from Spain. Basque included?, potugues included? > In fact, We Spaniards think exactly the same about the so called > """Hispanics""". We don´t like them either. They have nothing to do > with us Spaniards except for the language. Since when a BLANC spaniard has became "WE SPANIARDS", who authorized you to speak for others?, how did you know?, did you have a vote and you find out that "YOU the SPANIARDS" do not like them "the hispanics" or it was just your BLANC mind talking!!??, > In fact, We Spaniards think exactly the same about the so called > """Hispanics""". We don´t like them either. They have nothing to do > with us Spaniards except for the language. Talk about yourself. That "us" soung a little too ambitious to me. I prefer "them" to someone who thinks like yo do (is that sentence correct?) you know... "sobre gustos no hay nada escrito" > My native language isn't either. Neither is that of my neighbor. > Nor hers. Nor theirs. Few spaniards reside in this town. > Plenty of intelligent Vietnamese. Lots of smart French. > Some Italians. Tons of Chinese. Filipinos. Even Russians. None of them have powerful government lobbies or special interest groups insisting on ballots written in their languages, though. > Yet, there it is. Another insult that I PAID FOR! Well, vote for someone who will do away with it. That's what the ballot is for, after all. > I just do not understand why this undue American > obsession with the spanish language? It's political correctness, combined with the lobbying of groups that have a vested interest in creating a Spanish-only captive underclass. > Now, if the spanish wish to talk in their tongue to > their neighbors, let 'em. But, when I AM PAYING FOR > the ballot, I ask, why spanish? Why not Chinese? > Why not French? Why not Italian? Why not German?. > > Why only spanish? Only the SIGs and PACs favoring Spanish have the clout to force such policies. > The number of asians, for example, in my community so vastly > outweigh the spanish that they dwarf the european community. Asians tend to adapt very readily to host countries when they emigrate, and in particular they don't hesitate to learn new languages. They are highly intelligent as well, in most cases. All of this combines to make them successful. And they desire to assimilate. This desire plus the desire to succeed motivate them to set aside their original languages in favor of the language of their host country. The demographics of their success proves the soundness of this policy. > Yet they don't require "Press 1 for Asian" on every telephone > call I make to a government agency. They score highly in > school. They go to work instead of standing around the Home Depot > (yes, I do know *why* those guys are there at the pickup entrances). See above. All of these phenomena are related. > The writing as clear as day. The spanish are somehow different > than the asians, the blacks, the caucasians, the natives, the > polynesians, etc. They have representatives working hard to profit from their unwillingness to assimilate in order to create a captive underclass that can function only in Spanish. This underclass will then be under the control of these representatives, since they cannot function in the mainstream. That's the real purpose, although the Spanish-speaking people victimized by it don't realize this. > No other culture apparently requires me to constantly > & continually pay for their cultural laziness & stupididy. A lot of Latin cultures are this way. Asian cultures tend to be just the opposite, as they value assimilation and group harmony. Latin cultures are macho cultures, and machismo is the enemy of progress and enlightenment, unfortunately. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > None of them have powerful government lobbies or special interest groups > insisting on ballots written in their languages, though. Well spoken. I wish Italian Americans had the kind of lobby Spanish Americans must have so that I could press 1 on the phone & vote in my native toungue. > Well, vote for someone who will do away with it. That's what the ballot > is for, after all. My ballot material was shipped to me in a single booklet, titled: - SAMPLE BALLOT (56 pages of English) - BALOTA DE MUESTRA (57 pages of Spanish) - Nothing else; just English & Spanish. The funny thing is, they didn't send me my ballot in Italian. > It's political correctness, combined with the lobbying of groups that > have a vested interest in creating a Spanish-only captive underclass. Another excellent point. I think the problem is, on my census form, there is no spot for "Italian". Just selections like (from memory): "Caucasian", "Hispanic", "Ebony", "Asian", "Native American", "Philipino", "Puerto Rican", etc. So, I just blend in with all those other English-speaking "Caucasians". > Only the SIGs and PACs favoring Spanish have the clout to force such > policies. What's a SIG or PAC? Is that English? Or Acronym? > Asians tend to adapt very readily to host countries when they emigrate, > and in particular they don't hesitate to learn new languages. They are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > favor of the language of their host country. The demographics of their > success proves the soundness of this policy. Italians are successful also. Those Italians who arrived at Ellis Island, immediately embarked for jobs in Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Hoboken, etc. They became mayors, police, clergy, singers, etc. Most important: they learned English. Second most important: they taught their children English. Thirdly: they successfully blended in with the American society because they wanted to be an American. They became one and the same. Just as the Asians did and do today. I think the Spanish inability to employ English is not a statement of their intelligence so much as an indication of their unwillingness to become one and the same with the rest of the Americans they so very much seem to deprecate. > See above. All of these phenomena are related. > They have representatives working hard to profit from their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > mainstream. That's the real purpose, although the Spanish-speaking > people victimized by it don't realize this. You seem to be the only enlightened one on this entire network. AC >What's a SIG or PAC? Is that English? Or Acronym? Acronyms. SIG "Special Interest Group" PAC "Political Action Committee" formed by a special-interest group to raise money and make contributions to the campaigns of political candidates who they support. SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from a.e.u) >I think the Spanish inability to employ English is not a statement of their >intelligence so much as an indication of their unwillingness to become one >and the same with the rest of the Americans they so very much seem to >deprecate. I don't think it's a matter either of intelligence or unwillingness. I think it's just a matter of lack of need and the resultant lack of interest. The Spanish-only speaking immigrant can locate in a Spanish-speaking community and live and work without any need for English. There is nothing that encourages many of them to acquire any English. I have a friend that works for Westinghouse that was stationed in Korea for five years. Neither he nor his wife learned more than a handful of Korean words in that five years. They lived and worked in an American enclave and had no particular incentive to learn Korean. You might also say they had no interest in learning any of the language. The Americans and British have a long history of living and working in countries and not becoming at all conversant in the native language. As long as they are well-surrounded by other English speakers, they remain monolingual. The only difference with the Hispanics in the US is scale. I don't see much difference between a Puerto Rican or Mexican that lives in the US for five year without bothering to learn English and a Brit that works on a Kenyan coffee plantation for five years and learns no more than "Quickly" in the native language, or an American embassy worker that lives in China for five years and learns no more than a handful of Chinese words. >>I think the Spanish inability to employ English is not a statement of their >>intelligence so much as an indication of their unwillingness to become one [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >embassy worker that lives in China for five years and learns no more >than a handful of Chinese words. Or indeed a retired brit who lives on an urbanisation on the Costa del Sol and never learns anything other than 'paella' and 'dos cervezas'... (I could name a lot; in fact I had a friend who made a very good living as a builder there because the ex-pat community could employ him without having to bother to speak Spanish to local craftspeople). DC > The Americans and British have a long history of living and working in > countries and not becoming at all conversant in the native language. > As long as they are well-surrounded by other English speakers, they > remain monolingual. If they remain and have children, though, the children become fluent in the local language. > I don't see much difference between a Puerto Rican or Mexican that > lives in the US for five year without bothering to learn English and a > Brit that works on a Kenyan coffee plantation for five years and > learns no more than "Quickly" in the native language, or an American > embassy worker that lives in China for five years and learns no more > than a handful of Chinese words. The difference is that the Mexicans and Puerto Ricans don't leave after five years. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >> The Americans and British have a long history of living and working in >> countries and not becoming at all conversant in the native language. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >If they remain and have children, though, the children become fluent in >the local language. You are stating this a generality? "Most" of the children become fluent in the local language? Whereever would you get that? It's entirely possible, but hardly the norm. >> I don't see much difference between a Puerto Rican or Mexican that >> lives in the US for five year without bothering to learn English and a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >The difference is that the Mexicans and Puerto Ricans don't leave after >five years. The period of time is irrelevant. It's the insularity of the community that is the issue. > You are stating this a generality? Yes. > "Most" of the children become fluent in the local language? Yes, if they attend school or are otherwise exposed to the national language. School is a key vector. > Whereever would you get that? It's entirely possible, but > hardly the norm. For immigrants, it's the norm. The immigrants' children attend school, and once they do, they are exposed to the national language, which they learn. Each generation is thus more and more assimilated with the locals. The third native-born generation is usually completely "localized." > The period of time is irrelevant. It's the insularity of the > community that is the issue. The period of time is a big factor. Once you start raising children in the new country, assimilation begins. The original immigrants can hold out for a lifetime, but the new country will be the native home of their children, who will see no reason to continue the isolation and many reasons to assimilate. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >> You are stating this a generality? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Yes, if they attend school or are otherwise exposed to the national >language. School is a key vector. I know how reluctant you are to post details - or even generalities - about your own nationality, location, and experience, but - Lordy - do you come up with some off-the-wall stuff. In many countries the children of diplomats and foreign workers are schooled in private schools and not in the local school system. It's been snipped, but part of this discussion was about a person working in Korea for General Electric. That person's children did not attend the local Korean schools. I doubt if the British children attended the local Kenyan schools. >> Whereever would you get that? It's entirely possible, but >> hardly the norm. > >For immigrants, it's the norm. The immigrants' children attend school, >and once they do, they are exposed to the national language, which they >learn. I live in Florida. I assume you understand that Florida has a high population of immigrants with Spanish or (Haitian) French as their native language. I assume that you don't know that many of these immigrant children do not pick up more than basic English in school. Even that basic English can be so accented as not to be of practical use. The schools are required to provide lessons and tests in Spanish. A student can complete the basic educational requirements without mastering English or without needing to. They can come out of high school without the ability of basic communication skills in English and without the ability to read or write English effectively. We also have a high Asiatic (mostly Vietnamese and Cambodian) population. The children of these families generally fare much better in learning English. Much, much better. This seems to be a result of family encouragement. > Each generation is thus more and more assimilated with the >locals. The third native-born generation is usually completely >"localized." Not at all so. Depends on what "completely localized" means. Better skills, but not sufficient skills. "Usually" is also a sloppy term. If you'd write "often", I'd agree. "Frequently", even. Not "usually", though. >> The period of time is irrelevant. It's the insularity of the >> community that is the issue. > >The period of time is a big factor. Once you start raising children in >the new country, assimilation begins. That's the point in an insular community. It doesn't. There are communities in this state where there is no assimilation, and no attempt at assimilation. And, no need for assimilation. > The original immigrants can hold >out for a lifetime, but the new country will be the native home of their >children, who will see no reason to continue the isolation and many >reasons to assimilate. If you have practical experience in this area, it is in a situation that is unlike the situation that I live in. Certainly, there are first-generation immigrants here that assimilate quickly and completely. You can't flip "norm" and "usually" around, though. I speak from what I personally observe and experience. You don't want to reveal what you personally observe and experience, so there's no way to tell if you are self-generating these theories or observing something that is different than what I observe. > In many countries the children of diplomats and foreign workers are > schooled in private schools and not in the local school system. Even in private schools, children are often heavily exposed to local culture, especially where the local culture is similar to or at a level near the culture of their parents (as for Americans in Europe, for example). > It's > been snipped, but part of this discussion was about a person working > in Korea for General Electric. That person's children did not attend > the local Korean schools. I doubt if the British children attended > the local Kenyan schools. Differences are greater in such countries, but eventually children and their descendants will assimilate. It's unusual for multiple generations to grow up and live out their lives entirely in isolated compounds. > I assume that you don't know that many of these > immigrant children do not pick up more than basic English in school. Aren't they being taught in English? > The schools are required to provide lessons and tests in > Spanish. Why? More SIG and PAC activity to create a captive Hispanophone underclass? > A student can complete the basic educational requirements > without mastering English or without needing to. Unfortunately, a student has no hope of entering the American mainstream unless he is fluent in English. If he does not master English, he will be fodder for a select group of demagogues for his entire lifetime, living in an isolated world cut off from the rest of society. > They can come out of > high school without the ability of basic communication skills in > English and without the ability to read or write English effectively. See above. The real reasons for this are quite sinister. > We also have a high Asiatic (mostly Vietnamese and Cambodian) > population. The children of these families generally fare much better > in learning English. Much, much better. This seems to be a result of > family encouragement. Are they taught in Vietnamese and Cambodian at school? Can they graduate from high school speaking only these languages? Are there influential groups that have a strong vested interest in maintaining a captive underclass that speaks only Vietnamese or Cambodian? > That's the point in an insular community. It doesn't. There are > communities in this state where there is no assimilation, and no > attempt at assimilation. And, no need for assimilation. Those communities will always be isolated minorities. They tend to die out in time as younger generations discover the attractions of mainstream society. In the cases to which you refer, these communities are no doubt being artificially maintained and encouraged by people who stand to profit handsomely from their existence and the captive, effectively incommunicado populations they contain. > If you have practical experience in this area, it is in a situation > that is unlike the situation that I live in. The situation you describe is extremely artificial; it does not reflect the normal development of a society, but a contrived effort to force the creation of ghettos. > I speak from what I personally observe and experience. You don't want > to reveal what you personally observe and experience, so there's no > way to tell if you are self-generating these theories or observing > something that is different than what I observe. I can tell you that there are very few SIGs and PACs working to prevent assimilation where I live, and so the natural course of societal evolution tends to rule. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >> In many countries the children of diplomats and foreign workers are >> schooled in private schools and not in the local school system. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >generations to grow up and live out their lives entirely in isolated >compounds. When you bring in "eventually" and "multiple generations", anything is possible. Members of the American Indian tribes usually speak English. That doesn't mean they are assimilated. Some are, and some are most definitely not. >> I assume that you don't know that many of these >> immigrant children do not pick up more than basic English in school. > >Aren't they being taught in English? The teachers attempt to do so. The question becomes not how they are being taught, but what they are learning. Native English speakers can sit through eight grades of classes and not learn anything. Native Spanish speakers can be even more adept at filtering out that noise the teacher is making. >> The schools are required to provide lessons and tests in >> Spanish. > >Why? More SIG and PAC activity to create a captive Hispanophone >underclass? The "why" is because of the activities of special interest groups that demand this. Since these groups are usually made up of the parents and other members of the Hispanic community, it would be difficult to attribute it to a conspiracy to hold down the Hispanic groups by the Anglo groups. In Florida, it is the Spanish-speaking population that is the most vocal and active in demanding that Hispanic students be taught and tested in Spanish. The non-Hispanic groups think this is shooting yourself in the foot, but all it takes is a few lawsuits filed by the Hispanic community. >> A student can complete the basic educational requirements >> without mastering English or without needing to. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >be fodder for a select group of demagogues for his entire lifetime, >living in an isolated world cut off from the rest of society. I agree. >> They can come out of >> high school without the ability of basic communication skills in >> English and without the ability to read or write English effectively. > >See above. The real reasons for this are quite sinister. It might be sinister if the non-Hispanics were behind it, but since the situation is just the reverse it's difficult to brand it as sinister. Stupid, would be a better description. >> We also have a high Asiatic (mostly Vietnamese and Cambodian) >> population. The children of these families generally fare much better [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Are they taught in Vietnamese and Cambodian at school? Can they >graduate from high school speaking only these languages? Not that I know of. The Vietnamese and Cambodian parents and community take the opposite position of the Hispanics. They insist that their children learn English. >Are there influential groups that have a strong vested interest in >maintaining a captive underclass that speaks only Vietnamese or >Cambodian? No. Never heard a whisper about that. Quite the opposite, in fact. >> That's the point in an insular community. It doesn't. There are >> communities in this state where there is no assimilation, and no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >out in time as younger generations discover the attractions of >mainstream society. I agree. >In the cases to which you refer, these communities are no doubt being >artificially maintained and encouraged by people who stand to profit >handsomely from their existence and the captive, effectively >incommunicado populations they contain. Oh, bullshit. The artificial maintenance is being promoted and required by the very group that stands to lose the most: the Hispanic community. Try to gain at least a modicum of understanding of the issue before you start making absolute pronouncements. You have a strong tendency to say "this is the way it is" without having the slightest idea of "this is the way that it is". You'd learn more if you asked questions and kept a slightly open mind before deciding "this is the way that it is". In Florida, the educational system and the general English-speaking community try everything possible to promote English skills in the Hispanic population. The Hispanic community fights them at every point with lawsuits requiring that Hispanic students be allowed to be taught in Spanish and tested in Spanish. We don't have enough funding for textbooks as it is. Yet, the Hispanic community is demanding that textbooks be made available in Spanish. Otherwise, they say, it's not "fair" to the Spanish speakers. >> If you have practical experience in this area, it is in a situation >> that is unlike the situation that I live in. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >assimilation where I live, and so the natural course of societal >evolution tends to rule. > In Florida, it is the Spanish-speaking population that > is the most vocal and active in demanding that Hispanic students be > taught and tested in Spanish. The non-Hispanic groups think this is > shooting yourself in the foot, but all it takes is a few lawsuits > filed by the Hispanic community. The non-Hispanic groups are right. Perhaps the Spanish-speaking population is ignorant, or stupid. Why else would it deliberately isolate itself from the mainstream? Of course, if the "population" is actually a small group of demagogues intent upon controlling other Hispanophones, the possible motives become much clearer and much easier to understand, and much more sinister. > It might be sinister if the non-Hispanics were behind it, but since > the situation is just the reverse it's difficult to brand it as > sinister. You think that people are free of evil simply because they are Hispanic? You think there are no charlatans, profiteers, crooks, ambitious opportunists, or other dregs in Spanish-speaking populations? > Stupid, would be a better description. It may be stupidity. I'd guess it's stupidity in the followers, and self-interest in the leaders. > Not that I know of. The Vietnamese and Cambodian parents and > community take the opposite position of the Hispanics. They insist > that their children learn English. A few decades from now, many of these Asians will be rich. The Hispanics will still be cleaning toilets, except for a select few who will grow fat from the hard efforts of their captive servants. > Oh, bullshit. The artificial maintenance is being promoted and > required by the very group that stands to lose the most: the Hispanic > community. Compare the most vocal advocates of these policies in that group with those who follow them most closely. You may find that there is very little overlap between the two. How many of the advocates cannot speak English? How many of those who follow Spanish-only or Spanish-first policies personally are successful in the mainstream, or successful in the Hispanic community without profiting from others in that community? > You have a strong tendency to say "this is the way it is" without > having the slightest idea of "this is the way that it is". You'd > learn more if you asked questions and kept a slightly open mind before > deciding "this is the way that it is". You'd be more persuasive if you addressed only the topic under discussion and skipped the ad hominem. > The Hispanic community fights them at every > point with lawsuits requiring that Hispanic students be allowed to be > taught in Spanish and tested in Spanish. We don't have enough funding > for textbooks as it is. Yet, the Hispanic community is demanding that > textbooks be made available in Spanish. Otherwise, they say, it's not > "fair" to the Spanish speakers. Just out of curiosity, how many of these "Hispanics" are Cuban or of Cuban ancestry? SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >> In Florida, it is the Spanish-speaking population that >> is the most vocal and active in demanding that Hispanic students be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >population is ignorant, or stupid. Why else would it deliberately >isolate itself from the mainstream? I have no idea. Basically, they want their own children to be able to be taught in Spanish and tested in Spanish. As soon as that group of parents no longer have children in school, the next group seems to pop up and replace them. I think they have their own view of "mainstream". They can function well enough in their own community without English, and that is their mainstream. >Of course, if the "population" is actually a small group of demagogues >intent upon controlling other Hispanophones, the possible motives become [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >You think there are no charlatans, profiteers, crooks, ambitious >opportunists, or other dregs in Spanish-speaking populations? No, but I still don't think the situation can be labeled as sinister. Ill-informed, selfish, short-sighted, and a number of other things, but not sinister. >> Stupid, would be a better description. > >It may be stupidity. I'd guess it's stupidity in the followers, and >self-interest in the leaders. The actions are stupid, but the people aren't. >> Not that I know of. The Vietnamese and Cambodian parents and >> community take the opposite position of the Hispanics. They insist [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Hispanics will still be cleaning toilets, except for a select few who >will grow fat from the hard efforts of their captive servants. Wow. You use phrases like "running dog Capitalistic warmongers" too? "Oppressed masses"? >> Oh, bullshit. The artificial maintenance is being promoted and >> required by the very group that stands to lose the most: the Hispanic [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >policies personally are successful in the mainstream, or successful in >the Hispanic community without profiting from others in that community? I wish you leave out references to profiting. I can't see how that factors in at all. It goes back to the sinister aspects. >> You have a strong tendency to say "this is the way it is" without >> having the slightest idea of "this is the way that it is". You'd [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >You'd be more persuasive if you addressed only the topic under >discussion and skipped the ad hominem. But, can you refute the charge? I've tangled with you before. You'd be more persuasive if you offered some credentials about your own experience, but you don't. You have your style, and I have mine. >> The Hispanic community fights them at every >> point with lawsuits requiring that Hispanic students be allowed to be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Just out of curiosity, how many of these "Hispanics" are Cuban or of >Cuban ancestry? Mostly Puerto Rican. It's a broad-brush generality, but the Cuban immigrants seem more upwardly mobile desirous. But, that's an opinion rather than a fact. It's more evident with the Cubans that came here a few decades ago. And, my own experience is based mostly on what I read and observe here in Orlando. Most of the Florida Cuban population is in the Dade-Broward area. In the Orlando area, we have a high population of Puerto Ricans and Mexicans. The Mexicans are relative newcomers, but the population is growing. > I have no idea. Basically, they want their own children to be able to > be taught in Spanish and tested in Spanish. They want their children to live an illusion, in other words. They are not in a Spanish-speaking society. > I think they have their own view of "mainstream". They can function > well enough in their own community without English, and that is their > mainstream. I've heard that there are people in NYC who spend entire lifetimes within an area only a few miles on a side. I suppose that's their prerogative, but I can't imagine why intelligent people would choose that path, and in any case such people have no influence on the mainstream, since they never leave the neighborhood. > The actions are stupid, but the people aren't. A lot of people are stupid. The smart demagogue enlists them. > Wow. You use phrases like "running dog Capitalistic warmongers" too? > "Oppressed masses"? No. > I wish you leave out references to profiting. I can't see how that > factors in at all. It goes back to the sinister aspects. It's a key motivation for "Spanish-only" initiatives. These are often driven by people who want to be leaders of a small and isolated community over which they have some sort of advantage and control. It's the idea of being a big fish in a small pond rather than a tiny fish in a big ocean. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >> I wish you leave out references to profiting. I can't see how that >> factors in at all. It goes back to the sinister aspects. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the idea of being a big fish in a small pond rather than a tiny fish in >a big ocean. Can you provide any indication at all that this is true in any part? The profit is a key motivation part, that is. If you're interested in who profits from the presence of an uneducated group without the type of skills that allow upward employment mobility, in this part of Florida it's the hospitality industry and agriculture. The hotel and motel owners depend on this group to fill the menial positions of maids and other low-wage hotel workers. Agriculture depends on the presence of this group to pick the products and do "stoop-labor" in the ferneries. Neither group appears to be involved in any form of suppression of language skills. They don't need to. I don't know what a "Spanish-only" initiative is. Some people promote "English-only" initiatives, but the "Spanish-too" groups oppose them. I've never heard of any initiative to push "Spanish-only". I think you're on the wrong track if you're looking for profit as a reason for anything that has been discussed. [This followup was posted to alt.english.usage and a copy was sent to the cited author.] > > In Florida, it is the Spanish-speaking population that > > is the most vocal and active in demanding that Hispanic students be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > population is ignorant, or stupid. Why else would it deliberately > isolate itself from the mainstream? I don't think it's the Hispanic population showing ignorance here. Would you choose to be educated in a language you were not 100% fluent in? Why should they delibrately choose a dumbed-down education when they can simply learn English as part of their education, as a second language, just like we learn Spanish? They are not "isolating themselves from the mainstream", they are choosing to get the best possible education for their children. -- dg (domain=ccwebster) >[This followup was posted to alt.english.usage and a copy was >sent to the cited author.] [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >They are not "isolating themselves from the mainstream", they are >choosing to get the best possible education for their children. What's the "best possible education" for a Puerto Rican school child living in Florida, Don? A complete understanding of Macbeth because you read it in Spanish, or the ability to communicate and function in the society in which you live? There are compromises involved. A kid should come out of school with some skills. If he can't come out with all the skills - a complete understanding of Macbeth plus the ability to communicate in the language of the land - then the emphasis should be on the most practical skills. Communication has to be right at the top. Any way you look at it, the Hispanic that learns English - even if forced to - has more opportunities available to him than the Hispanic that is better educated but less able to communicate. The better education doesn't do much for the kid if he has limited job opportunities. It shouldn't be an either/or situation, but it often is. > >[This followup was posted to alt.english.usage and a copy was > >sent to the cited author.] [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > you read it in Spanish, or the ability to communicate and function in > the society in which you live? I see no reason why you can't have both. > There are compromises involved. A kid should come out of school with > some skills. If he can't come out with all the skills - a complete > understanding of Macbeth plus the ability to communicate in the > language of the land - then the emphasis should be on the most > practical skills. Communication has to be right at the top. I won't argue that. I assume we're talking about high school graduates when you say "come out of school" and I see no reason why a student who applies herself can't have learned a lot of English as an ESL student by that time. Many native-born US students are fairly fluent in a foreign language by graduation without being taught in that language exclusively. ... -- dg (domain=ccwebster) >> >[This followup was posted to alt.english.usage and a copy was >> >sent to the cited author.] [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >I see no reason why you can't have both. I don't have a good understanding of what is taught in ESL classes, or even in language classes in high school. My guess is, though, that basic vocabulary proficiency is the objective. When you study an academic subject, you go beyond basic vocabulary. If you study Macbeth (used just as an example) in English, it expands the vocabulary. It isn't a matter of not learning the English word "newt" or "hurley-burley", but a matter of having a number of beyond-basic words thrown at the student and the student getting used to continuous vocabulary expansion. > >> >[This followup was posted to alt.english.usage and a copy was > >> >sent to the cited author.] [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > beyond-basic words thrown at the student and the student getting used > to continuous vocabulary expansion. When I took high school Spanish, the first two years were as you say. The third year was reading Spanish language books, starting slowly and working up toward harder works. Like anything else, it's up to the student and teacher how much progress is made. I would say an ESL student should be able to read and comprehend much of a daily paper in English by graduation if they apply themselves. Of course this assumes the schools are offering three or more years of ESL. In addition, many schools will have tutors available. I have done some tutoring of ESL students at our local community college and found them to be highly motivated. The opportunities are there if the students want them, if not, then that's a true failure of the system. Signaturedg (domain=ccwebster) don groves wrote on 16 Oct 2004: [...] > In addition, many schools will have tutors available. I have done > some tutoring of ESL students at our local community college and > found them to be highly motivated. The opportunities are there if > the students want them, if not, then that's a true failure of the > system. What system are you referring to? Students nowhere are brought up by systems but by parents or parent substitutes. If you mean to include the parents in "the system", I agree. If you mean to exclude them, I cannot but disagree. I have to include every student's culture and its values too. Students acquire their most important personal values from their parents, I believe, but they also acquire a host of other values from their immediate environment, and that means the cultural values of the culture in which they are raised. I tend to blame the students and their parents when EFL students don't take advantage of the educational opportunities afforded them, not some vague, ambiguous "system". One cannot teach anything to anyone unwilling to learn. My 8-year-old son, for example, continues to demonstrate that truism with his math homework. He doesn't like to do the language-based problems he gets in his 3rd-grade math class (eg, "You have $60 and want to buy an equal number of cups of green tea for yourself and your 5 classmates. If each cup costs $5, how many cups can you afford to buy?"). Last night one of his teachers called an complained that she had taught him how to do these easy problems innumerable times. She is finally angry because he continues to say "I don"t know how to do this problem". Now it seems that it's up to me to help him with these problems on the three nights a week that we are home together. I will have to learn how to quickly read and understand the Chinese in the problems, and he will have to learn how to quickly and accurately translate them into English (we will combine English, Chinese, and math lessons on these occasions). Having a parent who cares enough to sit down and help with homework seems to make a difference in most students' motivation levels; it's not enough to only urge and repeat platitudes about how education makes one more knowledgeable (usually) and generally able to find a better and higher-pay job (not at all true when compared with dope dealers' annual earnings). And taking an interest involves more than merely asking "How was school today?" SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. > don groves wrote on 16 Oct 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > ambiguous "system". One cannot teach anything to anyone unwilling to > learn. By "system" I meant the local education system. If certain classes are not offered, like ESL in a district with a moderate to high Hispanic population, then that is a systemic failure, imho, the school district is failing to provide what the community needs. Signaturedg (domain=ccwebster) don groves wrote on 17 Oct 2004: [...] > By "system" I meant the local education system. If certain > classes are not offered, like ESL in a district with a moderate > to high Hispanic population, then that is a systemic failure, > imho, the school district is failing to provide what the > community needs. I'm not sure that's true. My #1 son used to be a bilingual Spanish- English teacher at a south-central LA elementary school. The K-1-2 kids he taught spoke almost no English, and their parents spoke almost no English. The neighborhoods the kids came from were pretty much Hispanophone. The parents of the kids my son taught were not the kind of people who would encourage their kids to speak English or to do well in school, according to my son, who met many of them --- at least those who were not in prison at the moment. I don't believe that the government or the schools can raise kids, and I don't think that schools are very motivating places for kids, especially recently for American kids, and probably not at all for American kids whose parents are relatively uneducated, not anglophone themselves, involved in gangs, drugs, and organized crime, and often in jail. When those kids my son taught went home, they had no one to speak English with, only Spanish. And in LA, there is sufficient Spanish media programming that Hispanophones never have to learn English. I don't think that's the schools' fault, but I'd agree that it's the larger system's fault. My Italian peasant grandparents arrived in the USA as monolinguals, but the 9 of their 13 children that I knew all spoke fluent English and Italian and lived Italian-American lives, except for my mother, who for some reason wanted to be German, so she never spoke Italian though she understood it perfectly, and she lived an unhyphenated-American life. Her family did not live in a segregated monolingual community and neither she nor her brothers and sisters went to bilingual schools. They had no choice but to learn English. While I agree fully that a bilingual education is better than a monolingual education --- and my #2 son's education has been tri- lingual from birth (Taiwanese, Mandarin, English) --- I know he wouldn't be speaking English if I spoke to him and his mother in Chinese or Taiwanese only. To some extent, the American federal and state governments and the public schools that publish everything in languages other than English provide a disservice to immigrant children who don't have the benefits of multilingual, multicultural families and neighbors. By endorsing the idea that the governments and the schools should do everything possible to help students maintain their cultural heritage at the taxpayers' expense, they subsidize and otherwise contribute to the perpetuation linguistic and cultural ghettos all over America. I don't advocate that English become the official language of the USA, but after 33 years of teaching ESL, EFL, and English literature to people between the ages of 13 and 72 in the USA, Japan, and Taiwan, and having studied 8 or 9 languages (I didn't learn all of them well enough to speak or understand them at survival levels, only English, French, German, and Japanese) I think I have enough experience in language classrooms, with language students, and with language learning to know that motivation is the key factor. People are motivated to learn foreign languages for only a few reasons: they have to (the way I had to learn Japanese because almost nobody at the high school I taught at in Tokyo spoke English) or they want to for any number of reasons, but mostly because they have been motivated to learn by the example of their parents and other family members. I don't know what the schools could provide those K-1-2 kids my #1 taught to make them want to learn English. It's hard enough to motivate many native anglophones to learn educated English, especially if they're convinced they will never need it or that they can make more money selling drugs or boosting fancy cars than working in a bank or an insurance company. What should the school districts provide besides the opportunity to get a free and useful education? SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. > don groves wrote on 17 Oct 2004: > [...] [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Spanish media programming that Hispanophones never have to learn > English. > I don't think that's the schools' fault, but I'd agree that it's the > larger system's fault. My Italian peasant grandparents arrived in the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > subsidize and otherwise contribute to the perpetuation linguistic and > cultural ghettos all over America. These ghettos do exist but I don't think government endorsement of maintaining cultural heritage is the main culprit. People tend to gather with their own, particularly when they are newly arrived in a foreign land, for many reasons: family; friendships; business opportunities... Also, we need to be careful of moving too far in the opposite direction and destroying culural heritages in a misguided effort to blend everyone into uniformity. > I don't advocate that English become the official language of the > USA, but after 33 years of teaching ESL, EFL, and English literature [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > can make more money selling drugs or boosting fancy cars than working > in a bank or an insurance company. My experience nowhere near matches yours, obviously. As I said before, the ESL students I have worked with have all been highly motivated to learn English. As for reasons, on-the-job communication and classroom comprehension are probably the most frequent. > What should the school districts provide besides the opportunity to > get a free and useful education? Nothing, but what does a "useful" education mean if not access to subjects that are socially and vocationally important? Basic computer literacy has become very important. Any school district that does not offer this instruction is failing their community, imho. The same goes for language and other social areas. Signaturedg (domain=ccwebster) don groves wrote on 17 Oct 2004: >> don groves wrote on 17 Oct 2004: >> [...] [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > communication and classroom comprehension are probably the most > frequent. When I taught ESL at the College of Marin, Kentfield, CA, USA, my experience was also that immigrants to the US wanted very much to become proficient in English because they wanted to have better work experiences and better jobs, better communication with the anglophone-only communities they came into contact with, and better communication with their ESL classmates and teachers. I'm not faulting the immigrants who bother to come to ESL classes on their own volition. They are great students and hard workers. One poster here --- might be a Korean-American --- has claimed that based on his experience in LA, a great many of the children of Asian immigrants don't bother to learn English because they live in ethnically and linguistically homogenous ghettos and seem to expect to work in the family business in that neighborhood for the rest of their lives. I think it's difficult, if not impossible, to make meaningful generalizations about any particular immigrant group nation-wide in the US. It might be possible to do so about a particular population in a specific neighborhood, though. But I've been away from the US for so many years that I can't say anything about its immigrants or citizens other than what I read in the papers or hear on the news or pick up in my visits to my friends and family every other year or so, but then it's only the West Coast, very brief, and obviously superficial. >> What should the school districts provide besides the opportunity >> to get a free and useful education? > > Nothing, but what does a "useful" education mean if not access to > subjects that are socially and vocationally important? Aye. There's the rub. Things change so radically so quickly these days that it's difficult to convince young people, in particular, that something is socially and vocationally important. Some school teachers still think that languages and literature and art and music are important for the growing mind, but administrators believe otherwise: basic skills and teaching to those basic-skills tests seem to be taking all the honors and the cash these days. Here in Taiwan, for instance, kids don't understand why they have to learn Chinese history and the constitution of the Republic of China, or why, if they are not going to be engineers, they have to learn anything about science or math or economics, especially if they want to become English teachers or open a clothing boutique or a coffee shop. And they don't see their parents reading books, only watching TV after a hard and boring day at work. And employers hardly seem interested in anyone's outside-the-job-description skills, because everything is so technical these days. > Basic computer literacy has become very important. Any school > district that does not offer this instruction is failing their > community, imho. The same goes for language and other social > areas. I agree with both points, and it is being offered here in Taiwan, but it doesn't make learning fun or interesting for Taiwan's students. In America, when I was a high school student 50 years ago, we had to study two foreign languages in high school to be accepted by a good college. After I graduated and the '60s and '70s happened, though, language education was phased out in favor of godknowswhat. I don't think the schools are the right vector for socially and vocationally useful education as long as parents don't give a damn, teachers get no respect for what they might be capable of doing for their charges, and government uses the carrot of federal and state funding to ensure high scores on standardized tests only. I also don't think a single institution will solve the problem. It's societal and cultural. The differences in values between today's youngsters and their well-educated teachers is too great, it seems to me, to bridge for most. And there's too much emphasis on equality of academic (versus vocational) outcome for everyone in the system, a focus that leads only to intellectual mediocrity and quashes excellence in fields that aren't measured by the SATs and GREs. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. > don groves wrote on 17 Oct 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > to work in the family business in that neighborhood for the rest of > their lives. An interesting point. Possibly the great majority of people in countries that have a large immigrant presence in the US don't share our sense of mobility. It may be ingrained that they *will* spend most of their lives in one spot. Also, they are very likely to be more family-oriented than we are and their children may never aspire to leave the nest completely, just move next door. > I think it's difficult, if not impossible, to make meaningful > generalizations about any particular immigrant group nation-wide in [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > anyone's outside-the-job-description skills, because everything is so > technical these days. TV is a *major* problem, not only for the time it destroys but for its mostly trivial content. Today's leading recreational drug. A friend of mine was refused a job at Microsoft in the late '80s because they said he had "too many outside interests". In other words, they were afraid he wouldn't work 60+ hours a week. It's become difficult to have a life and also be successful in the business world. > > Basic computer literacy has become very important. Any school > > district that does not offer this instruction is failing their [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > college. After I graduated and the '60s and '70s happened, though, > language education was phased out in favor of godknowswhat. I think the two biggest mistakes made in education the last 30 years in the US have been the elimination of the foreign language requirement and the elimination of mandatory physical education. Both have done a great disservice to our youth. > I don't think the schools are the right vector for socially and > vocationally useful education as long as parents don't give a damn, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > focus that leads only to intellectual mediocrity and quashes > excellence in fields that aren't measured by the SATs and GREs. Our teachers are distraught over that very fact. One problem with "No Child Left Behind" is that it can easily lead to "No Child Gets Ahead". I think we're on the same page on most things we've talked about here. Excellent discussion, imho. Signaturedg (domain=ccwebster) > I think the two biggest mistakes made in education the last 30 > years in the US have been the elimination of the foreign language > requirement and the elimination of mandatory physical education. I've always considered P.E. very much like military service, and I'm glad it's gone. Perhaps if it had been conducted differently it would have been more tolerable, but the boot-camp atmosphere cultivated by many P.E. teachers (mainly for boys' P.E., although I saw girls' P.E. teachers who were just as bad) was unnecessary and counterproductive. Indeed, I might be more interested in sports today if I had not learn to associate sports with boorish stupidity in P.E. classes. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >> I think the two biggest mistakes made in education the last 30 >> years in the US have been the elimination of the foreign language [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >many P.E. teachers (mainly for boys' P.E., although I saw girls' P.E. >teachers who were just as bad) was unnecessary and counterproductive. At last we share an opinion. PE classes were sheer hell for me. The teachers weren't the problem, though. Going to PE class meant towel-snapping and bullying from the larger and more aggressive classmates. For some reason, guys that wouldn't bother anyone else in the school halls turned into sadists in PE class. Then, there was the discrimination of being among the last-chosen in any game because I wasn't particularly athletic myself. I ran track, but that wasn't a team sport. >Indeed, I might be more interested in sports today if I had not learn to >associate sports with boorish stupidity in P.E. classes. There we differ. I follow sports today, and enjoy watching sports. > Going to PE class meant towel-snapping and bullying from > the larger and more aggressive classmates. Ah yes, the ones who are changing tires today. > For some reason, guys that wouldn't bother anyone else in > the school halls turned into sadists in PE class. Most P.E. classes are testosterone-driven, even in girls' P.E. classes. The same is true of sports in general, of course, and this is no coincidence. Testosterone produces the type of behavior you describe, particularly in people who don't have the cognitive capacity to consciously compensate for its effects. > There we differ. I follow sports today, and enjoy watching sports. Watching sports won't protect your health. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >> Going to PE class meant towel-snapping and bullying from >> the larger and more aggressive classmates. > >Ah yes, the ones who are changing tires today. That's what we'd like to think, but it usually turns out to be quite untrue. Often, that aggressiveness changes into drive and ambition and results in success. > That's what we'd like to think, but it usually turns out to be quite > untrue. Often, that aggressiveness changes into drive and ambition > and results in success. Often the aggressiveness is testosterone unrestrained by normal or above-normal intelligence; that is, the persons in question are somewhat stupid. Stupid people tend not to succeed, overall. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > > I think the two biggest mistakes made in education the last 30 > > years in the US have been the elimination of the foreign language [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Indeed, I might be more interested in sports today if I had not learn to > associate sports with boorish stupidity in P.E. classes. So you prefer the fat a.ses we have waddling around today to having a general population in decent physical shape. It's been shown in medical studies that when kids become overweight, they tend to stay that way as adults. Signaturedg (domain=ccwebster) > So you prefer the fat a.ses we have waddling around today to > having a general population in decent physical shape. I prefer people who don't live in a stereotypically-male, military-style fantasy world. > It's been shown in medical studies that when kids become > overweight, they tend to stay that way as adults. They don't get overweight just from not having P.E. classes. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > > So you prefer the fat a.ses we have waddling around today to > > having a general population in decent physical shape. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > They don't get overweight just from not having P.E. classes. They get overweight from not getting enough exercise to offset their daily caloric intake. Mandatory P.E. classes would insure them getting a lot more exercise than they do now. Plus, it helps establish healthy habits for later in life. Signaturedg (domain=ccwebster) > They get overweight from not getting enough exercise to offset > their daily caloric intake. Maintaining weight is not a matter of increasing exercise to match calorie intake, it's a matter of reducing calorie intake to match energy requirements. Burning calories through exercise is easily an order of magnitude more difficult than reducing calories by eating less. Anyone who is fat should eat less. Exercising more is a fine idea but in most cases there just aren't enough hours in the day to exercise enough to burn the entire excess of calories being consumed. > Mandatory P.E. classes would insure them getting a lot more > exercise than they do now. Not a lot more; a little more. Not enough to compensate for significant excesses in calorie intake, and people who become obese are significantly overeating. > Plus, it helps establish healthy habits for later in life. I don't see any correlation. P.E. never had any effect on my life outside of P.E. class, and if anything, it encouraged me to swear off sports forever (even though physical activity itself can sometimes be fun). SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > I would say an ESL student should be able to read and comprehend > much of a daily paper in English by graduation if they apply > themselves. Of course this assumes the schools are offering three > or more years of ESL. What reason do they have to apply themselves, if the only place in which they use English is the ESL class? Most students will not have the foresight to realize that they will need complete fluency in English to succeed in the American mainstream, and so if they are not forced to acquire it by being taught in English, they will be at a (possibly permanent) disadvantage by graduation. > In addition, many schools will have tutors available. I have done > some tutoring of ESL students at our local community college and > found them to be highly motivated. Once they find out that there are no decent jobs for people who can't speak English, they get pretty strongly motivated. But it would be easier to cover that in the first place. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > Once they find out that there are no decent jobs for people who can't > speak English, they get pretty strongly motivated. But it would be > easier to cover that in the first place. Not true... at least, there are many exceptions. In the US, Spanish language media, entertainment and related fields is a huge industry, filled with 6 and 7 figure earners who have no need at all to know English. Similarly, in many areas like Miami, Houston and LA, there are people involved in export-import who seldom if ever use English (no drug humor, please) as they deal exclusively with Latin America. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs just in these sectors. >> Once they find out that there are no decent jobs for people who can't >> speak English, they get pretty strongly motivated. But it would be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >deal exclusively with Latin America. We are talking about hundreds of >thousands of jobs just in these sectors. That's rather like telling African-Americans that they don't need an education because there's so much money in being a professional athlete or rap star. Yes, there are opportunities in the media and in import-export, but the fields are limited and the top of the earnings pyramid is very small. Even in these fields, fluency is English has to some advantage. >>> Once they find out that there are no decent jobs for people who can't >>> speak English, they get pretty strongly motivated. But it would be [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > pyramid is very small. Even in these fields, fluency is English has > to some advantage. No advantage at all in knowing English. It is a closed group, with no need for English... just as NY Italian mecdia in the 40's and 50's had no need for English. >>>> Once they find out that there are no decent jobs for people who can't >>>> speak English, they get pretty strongly motivated. But it would be [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >for English... just as NY Italian mecdia in the 40's and 50's had no need >for English. I think that has to be hyperbole. A reporter working for "La Prensa" is going to write exclusively in Spanish. That doesn't mean that there is no advantage in speaking English. Some reporter from "La Prensa" has be assigned to cover a City Council meeting where there's to be a debate or vote on an issue that affects the Hispanic community. The reporter that can cover this situation has an advantage over the reporter that speaks only Spanish. Being more versatile, the bi-lingual reporter is more valuable and more promotable. Even the import-export employee is likely to have some contact with English-only speakers in Customs or shipping agents. Again, the more versatile employee is more valuable and more promotable. Can the Spanish-only speaker be a valuable employee? Yes, but versatility adds value. You might say there is no necessity, but I don't think you can say "no advantage". > That's rather like telling African-Americans that they don't need an > education because there's so much money in being a professional > athlete or rap star. Exactly. Why settle for a slice of the pie when it's so easy to have the whole thing? Just learn English. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > > I would say an ESL student should be able to read and comprehend > > much of a daily paper in English by graduation if they apply [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What reason do they have to apply themselves, if the only place in which > they use English is the ESL class? To learn English, obviously. You seem to have an exceedingly low opinion of Hispanic students. The ones I've worked with have been highly motivated to learn English. Many speak Spanish on their jobs because they must to communicate quickly enough to get things done and that doesn't stop them from taking ESL classes to better their chances of fully integrating into US society. Taking classes in Spanish wouldn't stop them from learning English either. > Most students will not have the foresight to realize that they will need > complete fluency in English to succeed in the American mainstream, and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > speak English, they get pretty strongly motivated. But it would be > easier to cover that in the first place. First you talk about "complete fluency", then "can't speak English". That's a huge chasm you're glossing over. Signaturedg (domain=ccwebster) > I won't argue that. I assume we're talking about high school > graduates when you say "come out of school" and I see no reason > why a student who applies herself can't have learned a lot of > English as an ESL student by that time. A high-school graduate needs perfect fluency in English, not just "a lot of English." At least if she wants any kind of decent job. > Many native-born US > students are fairly fluent in a foreign language by graduation > without being taught in that language exclusively. Maybe, but their future livelihood and standard of living doesn't depend on fluency in that foreign language, it depends on fluency in their native language. For non-English-speaking persons, the situation is reversed, and so "fairly fluent" just won't cut it. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > > I won't argue that. I assume we're talking about high school > > graduates when you say "come out of school" and I see no reason [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A high-school graduate needs perfect fluency in English, not just "a lot > of English." At least if she wants any kind of decent job. Based on my experience with recent high-school graduates, at most 20% of native-born English speakers have "perfect fluency" in English. I serve on a scholarship committee for a local company and every year we read through dozens of applications. The level of English fluency ranges from excellent to poor, and these are students who are applying at universities. For those seeking jobs directly out of high school and not going on to college, most of the people they will be competing against for those jobs won't have any better command of English than the ESL students. > > Many native-born US > > students are fairly fluent in a foreign language by graduation [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > native language. For non-English-speaking persons, the situation is > reversed, and so "fairly fluent" just won't cut it. See above. Signaturedg (domain=ccwebster) > What's the "best possible education" for a Puerto Rican school child > living in Florida, Don? The best possible education would be totally bilingual, with some classes in English and some in Spanish, such as nearly all the private schools in Puerto Rico have. The idea of a monolingual education is not well accepted by educated Puerto Rican families. > The best possible education would be totally bilingual, with some classes in > English and some in Spanish, such as nearly all the private schools in > Puerto Rico have. It would only be best from a linguistic standpoint. From the standpoint of other subjects to be learned, bilingualism is only an additional complicating factor that reduces the cognitive capacity available to study the other subjects. > The idea of a monolingual education is not well accepted > by educated Puerto Rican families. How many of these families don't speak English? SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >> The best possible education would be totally bilingual, with some classes >> in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > complicating factor that reduces the cognitive capacity available to > study the other subjects. Bilinugal education is pretty much the model for private schools all over Latin America and many parts of Europe. This concept is very different from the supposedly transitional "bilingual education" in the US in that it purposely conducts classes in two or more languages. Children are quite able to learn and employ multiple languages, especially if introduced early to the polyglot or bilingual environment. By knowing two languages well, children actually are more open to new concepts because they have learned that even language is not absolute. Early bilinguals tend to have better vocabularies in each language and to be more expressive (best English language reference is a batch of material on studies done in Canada in the 70's on this). >> The idea of a monolingual education is not well accepted >> by educated Puerto Rican families. > > How many of these families don't speak English? Very few. Anyone who can afford a private school in Puerto Rico sends their children to one... probably a quarter or more of the enrollment is in non-private schools. About 60% of Puerto Ricans are bilingual or can use English. > Would you choose to be educated in a language you were not 100% > fluent in? If it's the national language, yes. I have to become fluent in it or I'll never succeed in the country, so I may as well use it as my learning language, because that's the fastest way to become fluent. > Why should they delibrately choose a dumbed-down > education when they can simply learn English as part of their > education, as a second language, just like we learn Spanish? They should choose to learn English, and to learn other subjects in English. Asians do this and they do very well, so why can't Spanish speakers? Are they retarded, or just lazy? Why do Spanish speakers need special help to do what Asians do without any apparent difficulty? > They are not "isolating themselves from the mainstream", they are > choosing to get the best possible education for their children. Asians get better educations, and they do it without any need to be taught in their native languages. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >> The Americans and British have a long history of living and working in >> countries and not becoming at all conversant in the native language. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The difference is that the Mexicans and Puerto Ricans don't leave after > five years. The Puerto Ricans don't have to leave. They are all 100% legal residents anywhere in the US. There is no such thing as a Puerto Rican immigrant to the US. > The Puerto Ricans don't have to leave. I didn't say anything about obligation. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >>> The Americans and British have a long history of living and working in >>> countries and not becoming at all conversant in the native language. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >anywhere in the US. There is no such thing as a Puerto Rican immigrant to >the US. No one said they had to leave. I disagree with mxsmaniac on many issues, but he didn't say that. We understand all about the status of Puerto Ricans in the US. If you want to contribute, read what has been written and don't comment on what was not written. >>The Puerto Ricans don't have to leave. They are all 100% legal residents >>anywhere in the US. There is no such thing as a Puerto Rican immigrant to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of Puerto Ricans in the US. If you want to contribute, read what has > been written and don't comment on what was not written. What was written was, "...Puerto Ricans don't leave after 5 years." Puerto Ricans have no place to leave to. They are home, they are Americans. To write otherwise is to show that you do not, indeed, understand the status of Puerto Ricans in the US. Their status is the same as that of Texans in the US. Like Southwest Airlines' slogan, "free to roam about the country." > What was written was, "...Puerto Ricans don't leave after 5 years." So? Nothing in that statement implies that they are required to leave. > Puerto Ricans have no place to leave to. They are home, they are Americans. They can return to Puerto Rico from the mainland. I doubt that most of those who come to the CONUS feel that they are "home," even though they haven't emigrated from their native country. > To write otherwise is to show that you do not, indeed, understand the status > of Puerto Ricans in the US. To base arguments on statements that were never made is a fallacy in debate. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >> The Americans and British have a long history of living and working >> in countries and not becoming at all conversant in the native [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If they remain and have children, though, the children become fluent > in the local language. Don't kid yourself. There's a long tradition in the British Foreign Service (and, I suspect, other Diplomatic services and other professions) of sending the kids 'home' to boarding school. Some of our most seriously repressed celebrities have travelled that route. Kipling was one of many sent back to England from India at the age of 5, not returning until he was 17. The British Civil Service still pays a special allowance to Government officers serving abroad to help them pay boarding school fees back home. Plus the Brits (and I would guess other nations) have founded and run schools abroad that teach the UK curriculum in English so that the children of Government officials, British military personnel and others so-minded don't have to adapt to local educational methods. eg http://www.cobisec.org/ibis.htm , http://www.cobisec.org/bbs.htm Hell, there's a list of Brit Forces schools here http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/reports/index.cfm?fuseaction=sce A friend of ours who had qualified and worked as a teacher in the UK for several years went over to Germany to teach at such a school. Home from home. And foreign families often live in some kind of enclave, whether it be family housing in the context of a military barracks or simply an area popular with families of a certain nationality. Which was handy in the Boxer rebellion. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > Don't kid yourself. There's a long tradition in the British Foreign > Service (and, I suspect, other Diplomatic services and other > professions) of sending the kids 'home' to boarding school. The British have been crippling the social and emotional development of their children with boarding schools since time immemorial, it seems. Most nationalities don't make this mistake, however. > Some of our most seriously repressed celebrities have travelled > that route. Kipling was one of many sent back to England from > India at the age of 5, not returning until he was 17. I've always been amazed by the practice. Apparently the British don't love their children, since they are eager to send them far away for as long a period as possible. It explains what people euphemistically call "British reserve"; more like British trauma, I'd say. > Plus the Brits (and I would guess other nations) have founded and run > schools abroad that teach the UK curriculum in English so that the > children of Government officials, British military personnel and others > so-minded don't have to adapt to local educational methods. That's very different, though, since it's extremely difficult to escape the local environment, especially over multiple generations. And as I've said, the British seem to be atypically insular. > And foreign families often live in some kind of enclave, whether it be > family housing in the context of a military barracks or simply an area > popular with families of a certain nationality. Immigrants and their children may. But as generations pass, children move out into the larger culture. Children born in a country feel no special ties to other, faraway countries and are much more willing and able to adopt local culture. The isolation that their parents might prefer will seem constraining to them (and it is). SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >> Don't kid yourself. There's a long tradition in the British Foreign >> Service (and, I suspect, other Diplomatic services and other [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of their children with boarding schools since time immemorial, it > seems. Most nationalities don't make this mistake, however. Most nationalities do, actually. Though it's always a minority at the rich end of the money-train. Indeed, many of them (Saudi, Kuwait etc) actually send their children to Brit boarding schools. Imagine! >> Some of our most seriously repressed celebrities have travelled >> that route. Kipling was one of many sent back to England from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > long a period as possible. It explains what people euphemistically > call "British reserve"; more like British trauma, I'd say. Y-e-e-s. Should we mention the Bushes sending young George away in his impressionable adolescence to a boarding school in Noo England? I wonder what that did to *him*? SignatureJohn Dean Oxford [This followup was posted to alt.english.usage and a copy was sent to the cited author.] > >> Don't kid yourself. There's a long tradition in the British Foreign > >> Service (and, I suspect, other Diplomatic services and other [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > impressionable adolescence to a boarding school in Noo England? I wonder > what that did to *him*? Appears he wasn't so impressionable after all. -- dg (domain=ccwebster) [...] > > [T]here's a long tradition in the British Foreign >> Service (and, I suspect, other Diplomatic services and other >> professions) of sending the kids 'home' to boarding school. [...]> >> Plus the Brits (and I would guess other nations) have founded and run >> schools abroad that teach the UK curriculum in English so that the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the local environment, especially over multiple generations. And as > I've said, the British seem to be atypically insular. [...] In SW London and thereabouts there are flourishing and really rather impressive schools teaching appropriate curricula, and with appropriate forms of "culture", for children of German, French and American parents who are in the UK for a fairly short time - three or four years, perhaps. Probably there are such schools elsewhere and for other nationalities, too - these are the ones I knew well when I lived in that part of England. For younger children it may well be best to attend the local UK primary school (though it's very likely to be a church school, which may offend some parents), but the very different demands of examinations or other procedures leading to university admission (A Levels, the Baccalauréat, the Abitur . . .) need specialist preparation at secondary school if a student is not to be put at a disadvantage. The best, and sometimes the only satisfactory, way to get that preparation may well be at boarding school. I saw the problems caused by mismatches between national systems when I had to write detailed reports on boys either moving to the US with their families or applying at 18 to US or Canadian universities. The forms they were sent asked for information we no longer had or had never gathered, and our assessments had to be set out under baffling headings or in terms we didn't fully comprehend. I suppose the basic problem was that we relied almost entirely on the results of annual or final formal written examinations, supported by subjective impressions of a boy's attitudes and personality, whereas the US and Canadian systems seemed to depend on a record of grades for papers (which we'd call essays or coursework). The US academic aptitude tests, which boys sat at my school, were the only direct and supposedly unbiased information available to the overseas assessors. Alan Jones > >I think the Spanish inability to employ English is not a statement of their > >intelligence so much as an indication of their unwillingness to become one [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > embassy worker that lives in China for five years and learns no more > than a handful of Chinese words. I think that spanish should be mandatory in public schools, I still can't get over the fact that most americans are monolinguals?, why?, . In my experience, knowing more than one language had enabled me to be a better person and more understanding about others. We'll have less bigots and less ignorant racists, had we all been at least billinguals!. I really can't see why spanish is not taught in primary schools along with english?, do people hate it so much, or do they think by learning it they'll end up by home depot waiting to be picked up??!!, where does the problem lie?, i.e. why "ENGLISH ONLY!??". > I think that spanish should be mandatory in public schools, I still > can't get over the fact that most americans are monolinguals?, why?, There are arguments for mandatory study of a second or third language, but I don't think that Spanish should be forced upon students as the mandatory choice. Very large areas of the U.S. have no use for Spanish at all, so they may as well learn other languages. > In my experience, knowing more than one language had enabled me to > be a better person and more understanding about others. A better person? That is perhaps a bit generous. But learning languages does tend to broaden one's outlook a bit, although the British have specialized in "learning" languages without absorbing any culture and without even acquiring any practical proficiency in the languages. > I really can't see why spanish is not taught in primary > schools along with english? Why should it be? > do people hate it so much, or do they > think by learning it they'll end up by home depot waiting to be picked > up??!!, where does the problem lie?, i.e. why "ENGLISH ONLY!??". They realize that the U.S. is essentially a monolingual English society, and Spanish is of little use in much of the country. Learning a second language might be intellectually stimulating, but there's no clear reason why it must be Spanish. Many Americans will never encounter foreign languages unless they travel, and those who travel often travel to places where Spanish is not the local language. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > > I think that spanish should be mandatory in public schools, I still > > can't get over the fact that most americans are monolinguals?, why?, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > mandatory choice. Very large areas of the U.S. have no use for Spanish > at all, so they may as well learn other languages. I mentioned spanish due to the fact that is spoken by at least 35 million people in the US. You are right, I believe that the students should be given the right to choose their second language. > > In my experience, knowing more than one language had enabled me to > > be a better person and more understanding about others. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have specialized in "learning" languages without absorbing any culture > and without even acquiring any practical proficiency in the languages. Which british are you talking about?, not even one out of 10 speaks an other language, there are as monolinguals as the americans are. > > I really can't see why spanish is not taught in primary > > schools along with english? > > Why should it be? Why not?, had I known, i would've not asked. > > do people hate it so much, or do they > > think by learning it they'll end up by home depot waiting to be picked [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > foreign languages unless they travel, and those who travel often travel > to places where Spanish is not the local language. How did they realize it?, to my knowledge there are about 140 or more languages spoken in Los Angeles alone., USA is by no means a monolingual society, let's rephrase your statements "The anglo-saxons" which are the majority tend to be more monolingual people than the rest, by anglo-saxon I mean any person of a germaic-speaking people descent (english, german, dutch..). Well, for the ones that do not often travel nor encounter other languages besides english, they have the right to refuse to teach their kids an other language. Had that "asian" known spanish language, he would've never been a racist towards the spanish-speaking people, he would've been a much smarter and a much better person. Racism is due solely to ignorance and lack of understanding. As a matter a fact according to recent studies , it has been scientifically proven that knowing a second language at an early age increases the grey matter in the brain ,i.e, if you want to produce a more intelligent generation , you must teach them a second language starting at age 5, otherwise... I also truly believe that knowing an other language besides english will eventually lead to less descrimnation and less racism, most people are racists for the simple reason that they are ignorants towards others people cultures. Knowing a an other language enable you to be more understanding and more tolerant towards others, it'll be much easier for you to live next door to a hispanic had you known his/her culture, i.e. his/her language. NB: I think that not demanding from public school to teach the children an other language besides english is an other form of child abuse, they are depriving them from becoming smarter, more understanding and more tolerant in the future. > I mentioned spanish due to the fact that is spoken by at least 35 > million people in the US. You are right, I believe that the students > should be given the right to choose their second language. [...] > Which british are you talking about?, not even one out of 10 speaks an > other language, there are as monolinguals as the americans are. What happened to the 35 million who spoke Spanish in the preceding paragraph? > How did they realize it?, to my knowledge there are about 140 or more > languages spoken in Los Angeles alone. Los Angeles, like the rest of the U.S., is dominated by English. > ... USA is by no means a monolingual society ... It wasn't in your first paragraph, it became so in your second paragraph, but now it isn't again. You aren't very persuasive if you continually contradict yourself. > ... let's rephrase your statements "The anglo-saxons" > which are the majority tend to be more monolingual people than the > rest, by anglo-saxon I mean any person of a germaic-speaking people > descent (english, german, dutch..) ... Most Americans are effectively monolingual, whether they are "anglo-saxons" or not. Those whose ancestors immigrated from non-"anglo-saxon" areas are also monolingual, after three generations or so. > Had that "asian" known spanish language, he would've never been a > racist towards the spanish-speaking people, he would've been a much > smarter and a much better person. Asians in the U.S. know that the path to success and assimilation is paved with fluency in English. On that point at least, they are a lot smarter than many Spanish speakers, who prefer to live an illusion. > As a matter a fact according to recent studies , it has been > scientifically proven that knowing a second language at an early age > increases the grey matter in the brain ,i.e, if you want to produce a > more intelligent generation , you must teach them a second language > starting at age 5, otherwise... No, this has not been proven. It is speculation, like so much concerning language acquisition. Proving or disproving it would require highly controlled studies and vivisection, neither of which are ethically permissible with human subjects. > I also truly believe that knowing an other language besides english > will eventually lead to less descrimnation and less racism, most > people are racists for the simple reason that they are ignorants > towards others people cultures. Knowing another culture helps; knowing another language doesn't. Many bigots have learned Greek and Latin throughout the ages. > ... it'll be much easier for you to live > next door to a hispanic had you known his/her culture, i.e. his/her > language. It may be difficult for him to live next to me, though, if he speaks only Spanish and insists on living in a ghetto of his own creation. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. Well, we could be arguing for decades and decades and we will never agree on certain issues. Playing with words to deviate from the main topic leads only to more "obscurtism". When I say american, I mean W.A.S.P and I'm not being a bigot, I'm not including people of greek, asian, spanish, italian, jewish, mexican, arabic, araminian.... and this is a general belief in the US. Since in the US everything is statistically done, let's do a census and find out which group is multi-lingual or the ones that are the least to be multi-linguals, it is not a deniable fact that most americans(born in the us) generally speaking are monolingual, but most of them are the ones of an anglo-saxon origin, and you don't have to go three geneartions back, I'm talking about the new generation. Talking about the younger generation , under 30. Saying that asians excel better because they are fluent in english is a pure and plain misconception. Most Asian do not speak one word of english, they all stick together and work together, mostly in mom-pap businesses,and they speak their native languages amongst themselves, take for example the korean community in LA or even the chinese community, or even the vietnamese, on the other hand you'll find the children of asian immigrants mostly monolingual , whereas the other US born children of other immigrants are fluent in both languages, a hispanic is fluent in both, a french in both, a czeck in both, a russian in both, an arminian in both, except for asians. By all means anything can be debatable, I'm just saying what I've been seeing and experencing. Now the main topic, do you think teaching the new geneartion an other language besides english should be mandatory ? Do you think that being fluent in at least two languages do good or harm to the future generation. Apparently, you are arguing the fact that learning an other language at early age increases the grey matter in the brain, i.e. increases intelligence. > > I mentioned spanish due to the fact that is spoken by at least 35 > > million people in the US. You are right, I believe that the students [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > It may be difficult for him to live next to me, though, if he speaks > only Spanish and insists on living in a ghetto of his own creation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3739690.stm The british finally got it!. > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3739690.stm > > The british finally got it!. I'd like to know how many brainy Brits (or indeed Americans) speak a language other than their native English - speak it fluently. I mean. Can someone carry out a survey of, say, the winners of Nobel prizes for the sciences and members of the Royal Academy or its US counterpart? That might, or might not, prove the theory that learning a second language when very young makes someone generally more intelligent. Alan Jones >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3739690.stm >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >or might not, prove the theory that learning a second language when very >young makes someone generally more intelligent. <sticks head above the parapet just long enough to say:> Science *is* a second language. SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from a.e.u) >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3739690.stm >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Science *is* a second language. Well, yes, though perhaps not learned in the cradle. And what about music? Don't they say that constantly hearing Mozart raises a baby's IQ to genius level, or something like that? (I wonder why Haydn won't do instead . . .) Alan Jones > >I think the Spanish inability to employ English is not a statement of their > >intelligence so much as an indication of their unwillingness to become one [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > embassy worker that lives in China for five years and learns no more > than a handful of Chinese words. Tony, "scale" counts! :-) > So, I just blend in with all those other English-speaking "Caucasians". Which makes you a racist by association. > What's a SIG or PAC? Is that English? Or Acronym? SIG = special-interest group PAC = political action committee > Italians are successful also. They are now. During prior waves of immigration there were a lot of losers. Most of their descendants have assimilated, however. > Those Italians who arrived at Ellis Island, immediately embarked for jobs > in Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Hoboken, etc. They became mayors, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > an American. They became one and the same. Just as the Asians did and do > today. The Italians were not nearly as efficient at it, no doubt because of their culture. For a long time, quite a few of them very much resembled modern-day Mexican immigrants. And of course Italian immigrants were instrumental in developing some aspects of organized crime. > I think the Spanish inability to employ English is not a statement of their > intelligence so much as an indication of their unwillingness to become one > and the same with the rest of the Americans they so very much seem to > deprecate. Correct. Everyone can learn a language, but not everyone is willing to do so. > You seem to be the only enlightened one on this entire network. Political correctness casts a long and dark shadow. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. In alt.english.usage on 9 Oct 2004 12:50:01 -0700 oraklistal@yahoo.com (Orak Listalavostok) posted: >I just received the local ballot for the upcoming mayoral election. >Guess what? Surprise! It's printed (AT MY EXPENSE) in English [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Yet, few, if any, spanish. By now I noticed, and it continues to the end, that you capitalize other nations and languages, but not Spanish. I think you're a jackass. >PS Flame all you like but please answer the question posed. What does it mean when an obnoxious jackass says "please"? Not a thing. >Yet, there it is. Another insult that I PAID FOR! >Shipped right to my door instead of spoken daily [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >Orak Listalavostok >PS Flame all you like but please answer the question posed. s/ meirman If you are emailing me please say if you are posting the same response. Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years Indianapolis, 7 years Chicago, 6 years Brooklyn NY 12 years now in Baltimore 20 years >By now I noticed, and it continues to the end, that you capitalize >other nations and languages, but not Spanish. I don't agree that all Spanish speaking peoples are lazy; but, you, Mr. Mierman, are easily proven wrong simply by reading the record. >In alt.english.usage on 9 Oct 2004 12:50:01 -0700 oraklistal@yahoo.com >(Orak Listalavostok) posted: >>Huh? Spanish? Here is a capitalized "Spanish". >>The number of asians, for example, in my community And, here is a lower case "asian". >> they dwarf the european community. Is not "european" lower cased indeed? >> The spanish are somehow different than the asians, the blacks, >> the caucasians, the natives, the polynesians, etc. Oh Mr. Mierman, they seem to be treated similarly here too. What *was* your point, Mr. Mierman? In alt.english.usage on Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:33:05 GMT Christina DeMello <cdemello@us.oracle.com> posted: >>By now I noticed, and it continues to the end, that you capitalize >>other nations and languages, but not Spanish. > >I don't agree that all Spanish speaking peoples are lazy; but, you, >Mr. Mierman, are easily proven wrong simply by reading the record. No I'm not. And you misspelled my name. >>In alt.english.usage on 9 Oct 2004 12:50:01 -0700 oraklistal@yahoo.com >>(Orak Listalavostok) posted: >>>Huh? Spanish? > Here is a capitalized "Spanish". But it's the start of a sentence. I believe that's why he capitalized it. >>>The number of asians, for example, in my community > And, here is a lower case "asian". But Asian is not a nation or a language. This sentence does not prove me wrong. >>> they dwarf the european community. > Is not "european" lower cased indeed? And European is not a nation or a language. >>> The spanish are somehow different than the asians, the blacks, >>> the caucasians, the natives, the polynesians, etc. > Oh Mr. Mierman, they seem to be treated similarly here too. None of the ones above are nations or languages. >What *was* your point, Mr. Mierman? What was your point again? s/ meirman If you are emailing me please say if you are posting the same response. Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years Indianapolis, 7 years Chicago, 6 years Brooklyn NY 12 years now in Baltimore 20 years > I just received the local ballot for the upcoming mayoral election. > Guess what? Surprise! It's printed (AT MY EXPENSE) in English > (the official language of this nation) and, get this, of all > languages, spanish. > > Huh? Spanish? Why not spanish?, I bet you that the city and/or community you have been living in carries a spanish name. I'm guessing that you live in alhambra in Los Angeles county where the majority are of asian descent, they became the majority in recent years. You should be happy that you receive the ballots in two languages, instead of bitching why don't you ask your city officials to send them written in your native language as well, I'm pretty sure that most of your people can barely speak english and that is regadless of how long they've been living in the states. Apparently you seem to be shocked, an indication that you came from a land of an authoritarian regime where one master, one ideology and one language rule. Didn't occur to you that america is a free and a democratic country and the majority speaks and the rights of the minority are respected, it just happens that the spanish-speaking people which are the majority by far compapring to the other minorites, wanted and demanded the spanish language!. Go and ask for your native language and see if you will be denied, and afterwards come back and complain as much as you want. Apparently the spanish-speaking people do care about their culture, are you blaming them for that?, or are you blaming yourself for not caring about yours?, don't you know that most ,if not all, mexicans/hispanics are billingual, i'm talking about born im the USA mexicans?, how many of you asian people that are US born and don't know one word of your native language?, and you still don't give a damn, as long as money keeps on coming by the bundles, isn't true?. There is no official language in the USA(do you know why?, hint: freedom), english has became the defacto "official" national language, the people have chosen so. Can you imagine yourself living in california without a mexican?, do you know what would happen to califorina's economy?, apparently you are either ignorant or blind, the spanish-speaking people have been carrying california for decades and without them you'll starve to death. By the way I'm not a spanish-speaking person and english is my third language, pero estoy aprendiendo espanol y me le gusta muy bien y estoy aprendiendo koreano tambien, comprende!!??..I even know some korean words, things I would never know in my country of origin. Wake up and smell the coffee, be glad that you had a chance to move from your native country to the land of the free, instead of being thankful, you complain?, it seems to me that too much freedom does not suit you!!. Eh!,business in your native country is booming!!, you are free to reconsider your initial decision, there is no spanish over there, and for sure you'll be getting eveything you'll be paying for , you'll always get your money worth. Apparently you know nothing about the american life nor about its culture, you saw some spanish-speaking people standing by home depot looking for work and you assumed that those are the spaniards??(your word) and that's it, they are actually sending ballots for them to read in spanish so they can vote??, frankly you are either a stupid person, ignorant or just plain blind racist pig, I bet that if it were written in german you wouldn't complain, probably you wouldn't know the difference between the two for both german and english belong to the same group , they are both germaic languages, and from reading your post , one can easily detect how good your english is, you still can't differentiate between "outweigh" and "outnumber" and that is a pure indication that you can't speak english and you are probably envious of the spanish-speaking people. I give you an advice, try to convince your community that no matter how hard they try they'll always remain asians, do like the "hispanohablantes" do, ask for your rights that you pay for, start by collecting signatures from the residents of your city/community and follow the rule of law and let FREEDOM RING!, otherwise take the orient express back to your native country and you won't have to pay for the spanish culture anymore!! Creo que tu tienes(tengas) que apprender espanol porque ti engles es tan malo que me parece que tu vengas justo de llegar de asia, trata de apprenderlo, es mejor para ti!!, pude ser que tu vayas convertirte en un persona muy razonable y intelligente tambien, y como eso vas conocer la cultura de los hispanohablantes, yo estoy seguro y cierto que va te gusta muy bien . By the way, what else do you pay for and you don't like?,are you satisfied with everything you pay for?, are you getting everything you pay for?, apparently you are not paying enough for english, or it could be that the people you paid are not fulfilling your needs?, if so you have the right to sue!!, sue the anglos :)), they didn't teach you well enough.. Why don't you make a list of the thing you have been paying for and find out out how many of them you either don't understand and/or they are of no use to you, I bet that you'll find a lot, dont' you think so? Hint: start with the english language, you paid for it, or didn't you?. Go tell them that YOU DIDN'T pay for SPANISH-SPEAKING people or the spanirads(as you call them)culture, . Register in your closed mind that the spanish culture is written all over, and it will never be neglected nor ignored by any sensible human. Hispanic culture is an integrated part of the american culture, either you like or not, as long as you are paying for the american culture you're paying for the "hispanic" culture as well, a non-negotiable fact, and that is AMERICA to you, and if you are not satified with the things that you have been paying for , you have the right to sue your city and get your money back , try it, they might fall for it, it's a free country, everybody has the right to sue. By the way "Los Angeles" is not an english word, I bet that you didn't know it, so is "San Francisco", "Santa Monica", "Santa Ana", "Sacramento", "Santa Barbara", "San Jose'", "Monterrey", "San louis obispo", "San Climente", "San bernardino", "Fontana", "Santa Clarita", "San Diego", except for "Alhambra" which is not spanish name, I believe that the spaniards know its origin but most hispanics don't, do you know why?, hint: Use " culture, hispainc, spanish, american , history", what about "California", hey!, you have been paying for the spanish culture as soon as you set your foot in the land of the free, and you call yourself a smart person?!. I think that you work very hard and you are very concerned about your money knowing the fact that they used to tell you what to do with your own money in your native country and they used to provide you with the necessary means to survive and they never taught you about the USA, had they taught you the truth back then, you'll be defending and fighting for the "hispanic" culture rather than criticizing it and putting down the "hisponohablantes" or "hispanoparlantes". I truly believe that your post is a sign of ignorance or that of newcomer from an asian country that is trying very hard to fit in and believes that he is an american and/or should be american by supporting "ENGLISH ONLY" language. America is not business only, sometimes you pay for things you don't like or you don't even use, that's democracy and freedom to you, go do some reading on american society, culture and history and then come back all new and enlightned, you may see things better by reading, apparently you can't understand ziltch by seeing. > My native language isn't either. Neither is that of my neighbor. > Nor hers. Nor theirs. Few spaniards reside in this town. > Plenty of intelligent Vietnamese. Lots of smart French. > Some Italians. Tons of Chinese. Filipinos. Even Russians. Why do you mean by "a lots of smart french??", "intelligent vietnamese"?, Some italians?, tons of chinese?, filipinos?, russians? And you, what are you?, a fat chinese?, or an intelligent vietnamese? Va te faire foutre, tu n'es qu'un sale racist, un nouveau debarque' qui ne sait meme pas ecrire une phrase complete en anglais, et tu viens nous chier ici avec tes idioties. I believe that there are many spaniards on this newsgroups that can translate the above in more than one language.. Proportially speaking, there is a much higher percentage of asians like yourself that do not know much about english comparing to the hispanics. Go get educated, start by learninng spanish..It's the best thing that you'll ever do in your life.. It shows from the above statement that you are just a freeking racist, anybody can see how you classified the people by race and ethnicity and by their level of intelect.. How can you classify the vietnames and the french people by intelligence (the most intelligent), the chinese by their weights (tons of them), did you weigh them?, and what about the other plain ones?, they have no attributes, no quality of whatsoever, just plain people with no intellect, and no weight??, are they weightless, invisible, mindless??!!, do they lack intelligence?, what are you trying to insinuate?, what's your point? By the way "french" refers to the language and not to the person. Instead of complaining about the hispanic culture, why don't fight for your own culture and demand from your local authorities to respect your culture and ask them to send you ballots in the language you know best which is certainly not english, trust me they'll do it as long as you vote for them, try it, but make sure that you form the majority in your community, it seems to me that the TONS of chinese(mandarin) language will be accepted without a single doubt, try it and see. But make sure to not say "There are intelligent vietnames, smart french, italians, and TONS of chinese!!??", somebody may sue you for defamation and descrimanation and you may end up in the slamer with a lot of spanish-speaking people where only spanish culture reigns , I would watch what I say if i were in your position, they do like their culture and language and they do usually carry the mexican express card, do you know what it is? :)). You really sound funny!, Hasta luengo amigo! Anyong he ke seo ! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.