Should English Be A Mandatory Language?

[Mister_T]

Wow. OK, I didn't realize it went this far. I guess we can stop now. I'm actually shocked you think this.

I said I would vote for him. I didn't say it would be feesible or even possible. If I had a non-English candidate running against someone like Bush and company, I'd probably vote for Mr. Non-English if his his policies were better. With 82% of country speaking English though, it'd probably be impossible to even be considered for presidency.

But really though, this is comapring apples to oranges. We're talking about the president, not the guy at the supermarket you're trying to get a price check from.A President needs to communicate with the nation at the drop of a hat as efficiently, and effectively as possible. You can't do that with 82% of the population being English speaking.

 

[Magic Man]

I said I would vote for him. I didn't say it would be a good idea, feesible or even possible. If I had a non-English candidate running against someone like Bush and company, I'd probably vote for Mr. Non-English if his his policies were better. With 82% of country speaking English though, it'd probably be impossible to even be considered for presidency.

But really though, this is comapring apples to oranges. We're talking about the president, not the guy at the supermarket you're trying to get a price check from.A President needs to communicate with the nation at the drop of a hat as efficiently, and effectively as possible. You can't do that with 82% of the population being English speaking.

DING DING DING! We have a winner! Now you've got it! :yes:

 

[Mister_T]

Did you know Scotland has three languages? English, Gaelic and Scots. Three languages and about 5million people however everything is done in English. It is expected that everyone is fluent in these languages even in the regions where it is not the predominate language. It works far better than people not being able to communicate with one another.

I thought it was two, but now I know better.

Los Angeles alone has almost 4 million people. Of that 4 million, there are over a dozen different cultures and 8 or 9 different languages being spoken. As you can see, the scenario is quite different.

Los Angeles has become a multiethnic/racially diverse city, with major new groups of Latino and Asian immigrants in recent decades. The racial makeup of the city was 46.9% White (29.7% White/non-Hispanic[58]), 8.24% African American, 10.0% Asian, 0.8% Native American, 0.16% Pacific Islander, 25.9% from other races, and 5.2% from two or more races. 46.5% of the population were Hispanic or Latino (of any race).[59] 42.2% spoke English, 41.7% Spanish, 2.4% Korean, 2.3% Tagalog, 1.7% Armenian, 1.5% Chinese (including Cantonese and Mandarin) and 1.3% Persian as their first language.[60] Since the mid-1980s, Los Angeles has been a minority-majority city.

Los Angeles, California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think you will find that in the USA (and UK) there are far LESS bi-lingual people (proportionally) than in say France or Germany.
But it is simply a waste of time effort and money to translate all official documents into more than one language when it is much simpler to have an official language that all citizens are required to be able to speak.

I agree there a way more bi-lingual people over seas. Heck, we don't have to go over seas to find that, we can go to Canada.

And I'm happy to hear that official languages work in your part of the world. But what works for one part of the world, doesn't work for everywhere else. Here in the U.S. multiculturalism is fully perserved by not having an official langauge. That is more important than getting rid of an an "inconvenience."

 

[Mister_T]

DING DING DING! We have a winner! Now you've got it! :yes:

Only everyones not trying to be president so there would be no need to enforce an official langauge. The President is the only one who needs to be able to communicate in such a manner, not citizens.

 

[Magic Man]

Here in the U.S. multiculturalism is fully perserved by not having an official langauge. That is more important than getting rid of an an "inconvenience."

Now, now, we both agreed earlier that you can have multiculturalism and an official language. Have you changed your mind about that? You can get rid of the "inconvenience" and still have thriving multiculturalism.

I learned French, and guess what? I still live my life by American culture. Amazing how one can learn another language without threatening one's own native culture, huh?

 

[Magic Man]

Only everyones not trying to be president so there would be no need to enforce an official langauge. The President is the only one who needs to be able to communicate in such a manner, not citizens.

But those people who don't speak English wouldn't understand what the president is saying, now would they? I would think that would hurt the effectiveness of the presidents' communication.

 

[Mister_T]

Now, now, we both agreed earlier that you can have multiculturalism and an official language. Have you changed your mind about that? You can get rid of the "inconvenience" and still have thriving multiculturalism.

Nope, haven't changed my mind. I agree to an extent. One is fully (truely) multicultural, one is only partial.

I learned French, and guess what? I still live my life by American culture. Amazing how one can learn another language without threatening one's own native culture, huh?

And if your reasoning for doing was was because the majority of your immeadiate region was speaking French only and you did not feel like moving in order to function better, I'd give you a cookie.

But those people who don't speak English wouldn't understand what the president is saying, now would they? I would think that would hurt the effectiveness of the presidents' communication.

"Foreign" television stations brodcasting in the U.S. (and all over the world for that matter) don't seem to have a problem effectively communicating with people and countries who don't speak English. Nor do those same people have a problem understanding.

 

[Magic Man]

Nope, haven't changed my mind. I agree to an extent. One is fully (truely) multicultural, one is only partial.

Nope. Both are completely multicultural. One of my best friends is Armenian. His parents came over as adults. He speaks English natively, and they speak it fluently, and yet they hang out with mostly Armenians, including of course their family, and eat Armenian food, and celebrate Armenian holidays, etc. They are still Armenian, and they can speak English. That is multiculturalism at its best.

And if your reasoning for doing was was because the majority of your immeadiate region was speaking French only and you did not feel like moving in order to function better, I'd give you a cookie.

I guess you missed the point.

"Foreign" television stations brodcasting in the U.S. (and all over the world for that matter) don't seem to have a problem effectively communicating with people and countries who don't speak English. Nor do those same people have a problem understanding.

So, why does anybody have an official language then, if it's not beneficial?

 

[Mister_T]

I said I would vote for him. I didn't say it would be feesible or even possible. If I had a non-English candidate running against someone like Bush and company, I'd probably vote for Mr. Non-English if his his policies were better. With 82% of country speaking English though, it'd probably be impossible to even be considered for presidency.

But really though, this is comapring apples to oranges. We're talking about the president, not the guy at the supermarket you're trying to get a price check from.A President needs to communicate with the nation at the drop of a hat as efficiently, and effectively as possible. You can't do that with 82% of the population being English speaking.

Actually, the more i think about it and with the technology we have at our disposal today, I don't think having a non-English speaking president is as bad as I thought it was.

I think it would open the door for more diversity in office instead of always having an aging white male in office. It's would raise the bar and actually have some diversity!

 

[Mister_T]

Nope. Both are completely multicultural. One of my best friends is Armenian. His parents came over as adults. He speaks English natively, and they speak it fluently, and yet they hang out with mostly Armenians, including of course their family, and eat Armenian food, and celebrate Armenian holidays, etc. They are still Armenian, and they can speak English. That is multiculturalism at its best.

That'd be great if we were only talking about families being able to be multicultural, but we're not.We're talking about government. Multicultural citizens + multicultral government = Fully multicultural nation. Multicultural citizens + monocultural government = Partial multicultural nation.

I guess you missed the point.

Nope, I got it just fine. I just didn't agree with it.

So, why does anybody have an official language then, if it's not beneficial?

When did I say it wasn't beneficial? I never said that, quite the opposite. Just because something is beneficial doesn't mean everyone has to be forced to do it. That's the point you seem to be evading.

 

[Magic Man]

That'd be great if we were only talking about families being able to be multicultural, but we're not.We're talking about government. Multicultural citizens + multicultral government = Fully multicultural nation. Multicultural citizens + monocultural government = Partial multicultural nation.

Right. Gotcha. Let's keep us all divided. No need to bring people together in any way. We should stay our own seperate cultures, not have a government, and not communicate with each other. Sounds great! Let's do it!

Nope, I got it just fine. I just didn't agree with it.

Then, why didn't you respond to it?

When did I say it wasn't beneficial? I never said that, quite the opposite. Just because something is beneficial doesn't mean everyone has to be forced to do it. That's the point you seem to be evading.

It's beneficial for people not to kill or steal. Why should we enforce those? I'm not evading any point. When something helps people communicate and doesn't hurt anyone in the process, there's no reason not to enforce it. Countries enforce plenty of things that the whole country doesn't agree with.

 

[Mister_T]

Right. Gotcha. Let's keep us all divided. No need to bring people together in any way. We should stay our own seperate cultures, not have a government, and not communicate with each other. Sounds great! Let's do it!

Or we can appreciate and respect each others culture and live and let live. If I need to talk to you and I don't speak your language, I'll find a translator.

Then, why didn't you respond to it?

I did. :sarcastic

It's beneficial for people not to kill or steal. Why should we enforce those? I'm not evading any point. When something helps people communicate and doesn't hurt anyone in the process, there's no reason not to enforce it. Countries enforce plenty of things that the whole country doesn't agree with.

If you can't tell the moral difference between killing someone and speaking a language foreign to you, then you need to have your grade school diploma revoked.

Thank God the vast the majority of the population knows better than that.

 

[Magic Man]

Or we can appreciate and respect each others culture and live and let live. If I need to talk to you and I don't speak your language, I'll find a translator.

Yes, we can appreciate each other and respect each other...and communicate with each other, which then requires a common language.

I did. :sarcastic

No, you didn't.

If you can't tell the moral difference between killing someone and speaking a language foreign to you, then you need to have your grade school diploma revoked.

Thank God the vast the majority of the population knows better than that.

So, what do you see being so bad about an official language? And don't say it inhibits multiculturalism, because we've shown that that isn't true.

 

[Magic Man]

BTW, as I'm typing this, there is a Spanish-only set of parents trying to get information about their baby that is an inpatient here. Someone is explaining it to them, but I get the feeling they don't understand completely. I think they'd understand better if they could get the info directly from the doctor.

 

[yossarian22]

That'd be great if we were only talking about families being able to be multicultural, but we're not.We're talking about government. Multicultural citizens + multicultral government = Fully multicultural nation. Multicultural citizens + monocultural government = Partial multicultural nation.

How does an English speaking government diminish a culture within a governmentl? Language is a tool for communication and nothing more.

When did I say it wasn't beneficial? I never said that, quite the opposite. Just because something is beneficial doesn't mean everyone has to be forced to do it. That's the point you seem to be evading.

It is entirely the point. If it is beneficial and causes little harm, then we should do it. There is no reason why we shouldn't have English as an official language. The whole 'multi cultural' argument is ********.

 

[lilithu]

Well, if English is not the official language, the president shouldn't have to speak English. Do you think it would be a good idea for the president to not speak English?

That's ridiculous. We do not officially require people to have a high school diploma in order to be considered Americans, tho I think most would agree that it would be beneficial to them. Yet, how many people would vote for a presidential candidate who had not graduated from high school?!

You're argument is bogus.

 

[lilithu]

Any that have an official language.

And you can't even name one. :sarcastic

Many other countries were mono-cultural when "founded." The nation was based on an ethnicity so it made sense to have an official language. For those countries that have significant minority populations, the country often has more than one official language in order to represent everyone. The U.S. was intentionally founded based on shared principles and NOT shared ethnicity. As I said, the possibility of an official language was discussed and rejected. If it had passed, btw, it's just as likely that we'd be typing in German right now and not English. So watch your assumptions. Our Founding Fathers recognized that our fledgling nation was already ethnically diverse and they wanted to keep it that way.

 

[Magic Man]

That's ridiculous. We do not officially require people to have a high school diploma in order to be considered Americans, tho I think most would agree that it would be beneficial to them. Yet, how many people would vote for a presidential candidate who had not graduated from high school?!

You're argument is bogus.

So, speaking English is important to be in the American government, right?

 

[Magic Man]

And you can't even name one. :sarcastic

Sure. England, France, Spain...should I continue, or is that good enough. I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was necessary.

Many other countries were mono-cultural when "founded." The nation was based on an ethnicity so it made sense to have an official language. For those countries that have significant minority populations, the country often has more than one official language in order to represent everyone. The U.S. was intentionally founded based on shared principles and NOT shared ethnicity. As I said, the possibility of an official language was discussed and rejected. If it had passed, btw, it's just as likely that we'd be typing in German right now and not English. So watch your assumptions. Our Founding Fathers recognized that our fledgling nation was already ethnically diverse and they wanted to keep it that way.

What's wrong with speaking German? So, why did none of them speak German? Why was everything in English if they were pushing cultural diversity that much?

 

[lilithu]

So, speaking English is important to be in the American government, right?

Again, how is the question relevant to the OP??!