Speaking of Speaking

[Jughead]

What irks me are newcomers who deliberately move into specific ethnic neighborhoods where their language is common, thus eliminating the need to learn English.

It shouldn't "irk" you. It is what has always happened with immigrant groups in our country, and it is not as a means of "eliminating the need to learn English."

That's just it, in many cases it does eliminate the need to learn English. While I lived in South Phoenix many years ago, I routinely had difficulty in obtaining service in English in my own neighborhood. This was an area that had a large Hispanic American population. When I went to a flea market for instance, many times, I was not able to effectively communicate with the seller as he/she did not speak any English. Same for fast food restaurants. I learned that many of these Hispanic Americans were born in the US, but their folks returned to Mexico when they were just infants, so they were schooled in Mexico and never had a chance to learn English. It would be expected that when many of them decide to move back to the US when they are of legal age, that they would voluntarily enroll in English language classes so they can integrate into American society, but alas many of them never bother. I would encourage them to move into a neighborhood where there are few Hispanics, this way they would have no choice but to enroll in English language classes. Knowing English then becomes a necessity for their day-to-day lives.

 

[Jughead]

In my early 20s, I had a group of friends from around the country, but most were from the East Coast. We lived on the West Coast and did a lot of things together as a group. One of the guys became a boyfriend for a while. He is Chinese American. He was born in NYC and grew up in 'China Town.' He was completely American; you couldn't get any more American, but his parents had immigrated to the US. His father was a businessman and learned English. His mother raised several fine young American men, lived for, at the time I knew her, over 25 years in NYC and never learned any English. She lived in China Town and spent most of her life there. She was a nice old lady. I don't see the harm in it at all. She raised good American boys who became good American men. She was a good person who didn't milk the system in anyway and didn't do any harm to anyone. What's the problem?

Although she was a good person, I question why anyone would move to the US if they don't intend on assimilating into the American culture, and learn English. Why not just stay where they're at as they'll be happier there? I recall the time I lived in south Phoenix in a neighborhood that that a significant Hispanic population. I was fine with them conversing in Spanish amongst themselves, however at times when I went to a fast food restaurant or a flea market for instance, I was not able to get service in English. I had to literally use sign language. I had a very limited knowledge of Spanish, so it was quite challenging to say the least.

Well, given her specific situation, I suspect she was a dutiful Chinese wife and did what her husband wanted her to do, which was make a new life in America. Her personal choice may have been different. And she was probably a simple lady without education and not aggressive or assertive as far as learning a new language or assimilating into a new culture. Why would she need to learn English when she mainly lived within the Chinese community?

Why would she immigrate to the US? Because her husband wanted her to. I can't see where the harm is. She was essentially a productive member of US society by educating her children in American schools: they were totally fluent in English and graduated from college and later had good careers and families. What did she do wrong?

English could be made the official language of the US, but it shouldn't stop people from conversing in their native tongue or mother tongue. Where's the harm? I just don't see any.

True, there's no harm in two people conversing amongst themselves in any language they want. Where there is an issue is not being able to receive service in English in certain areas of the country. Those are the areas where for the most part, the population there decided that they did not want to assimilate. That is the reason why newcomers who are not already citizens need to pass an English test if they want to become citizens, to demonstrate that they have integrated or assimilated into American culture so they can become productive members of their community.

A multi-ethnic society is good, but not a multi-cultural one.

 

[Unkotare]

What irks me are newcomers who deliberately move into specific ethnic neighborhoods where their language is common, thus eliminating the need to learn English.

It shouldn't "irk" you. It is what has always happened with immigrant groups in our country, and it is not as a means of "eliminating the need to learn English."

That's just it, in many cases it does eliminate the need to learn English. .

It hasn't with other waves of immigrants in US history and it is not the case with the current wave of Latino immigrants, who are assimilating and adopting English just like their predecessors.

 

[Pogo]

Although she was a good person, I question why anyone would move to the US if they don't intend on assimilating into the American culture, and learn English. Why not just stay where they're at as they'll be happier there? I recall the time I lived in south Phoenix in a neighborhood that that a significant Hispanic population. I was fine with them conversing in Spanish amongst themselves, however at times when I went to a fast food restaurant or a flea market for instance, I was not able to get service in English. I had to literally use sign language. I had a very limited knowledge of Spanish, so it was quite challenging to say the least.

Well, given her specific situation, I suspect she was a dutiful Chinese wife and did what her husband wanted her to do, which was make a new life in America. Her personal choice may have been different. And she was probably a simple lady without education and not aggressive or assertive as far as learning a new language or assimilating into a new culture. Why would she need to learn English when she mainly lived within the Chinese community?

Why would she immigrate to the US? Because her husband wanted her to. I can't see where the harm is. She was essentially a productive member of US society by educating her children in American schools: they were totally fluent in English and graduated from college and later had good careers and families. What did she do wrong?

English could be made the official language of the US, but it shouldn't stop people from conversing in their native tongue or mother tongue. Where's the harm? I just don't see any.

True, there's no harm in two people conversing amongst themselves in any language they want. Where there is an issue is not being able to receive service in English in certain areas of the country. Those are the areas where for the most part, the population there decided that they did not want to assimilate. That is the reason why newcomers who are not already citizens need to pass an English test if they want to become citizens, to demonstrate that they have integrated or assimilated into American culture so they can become productive members of their community.

A multi-ethnic society is good, but not a multi-cultural one.

??

We already have a (somewhat) multicultural society and that's absolutely a good thing; it enriches everybody. Without it we'd never have that Mexican restaurant (let alone the Italian one, the Indian, Thai, Chinese, etc). We'd never have kielbasa or lutefisk in the upper midwest; we'd never have gumbo or collard greens in the South. We wouldn't have Christmas trees, Hallowe'en or St. Patrick's Day. No jazz, no blues, no banjos. No eggplant parmigiana.

We've already assimiltated and integrated aspects of the aboriginal population who were here first, and from the Africans we brought here, as well as customs, foods, expressions, festivals and so on from our ancestors in Germany and Ireland and Poland and Italy and Russia and everywhere else. Without all that, we couldn't be who we are. Exposure to other cultures opens horizons and gives us other ways of looking at things. The more exposure we get of that, the better off we are. There's nothing more pitiful than the poor slob condemned to be born, raised, grow old and die without ever having seen a world outside his own.

 

[Jughead]

Well, given her specific situation, I suspect she was a dutiful Chinese wife and did what her husband wanted her to do, which was make a new life in America. Her personal choice may have been different. And she was probably a simple lady without education and not aggressive or assertive as far as learning a new language or assimilating into a new culture. Why would she need to learn English when she mainly lived within the Chinese community?

Why would she immigrate to the US? Because her husband wanted her to. I can't see where the harm is. She was essentially a productive member of US society by educating her children in American schools: they were totally fluent in English and graduated from college and later had good careers and families. What did she do wrong?

English could be made the official language of the US, but it shouldn't stop people from conversing in their native tongue or mother tongue. Where's the harm? I just don't see any.

True, there's no harm in two people conversing amongst themselves in any language they want. Where there is an issue is not being able to receive service in English in certain areas of the country. Those are the areas where for the most part, the population there decided that they did not want to assimilate. That is the reason why newcomers who are not already citizens need to pass an English test if they want to become citizens, to demonstrate that they have integrated or assimilated into American culture so they can become productive members of their community.

A multi-ethnic society is good, but not a multi-cultural one.

??

We already have a (somewhat) multicultural society and that's absolutely a good thing; it enriches everybody. Without it we'd never have that Mexican restaurant (let alone the Italian one, the Indian, Thai, Chinese, etc). We'd never have kielbasa or lutefisk in the upper midwest; we'd never have gumbo or collard greens in the South. We wouldn't have Christmas trees, Hallowe'en or St. Patrick's Day. No jazz, no blues, no banjos. No eggplant parmigiana.

We've already assimiltated and integrated aspects of the aboriginal population who were here first, and from the Africans we brought here, as well as customs, foods, expressions, festivals and so on from our ancestors in Germany and Ireland and Poland and Italy and Russia and everywhere else. Without all that, we couldn't be who we are. Exposure to other cultures opens horizons and gives us other ways of looking at things. The more exposure we get of that, the better off we are. There's nothing more pitiful than the poor slob condemned to be born, raised, grow old and die without ever having seen a world outside his own.

Yup, all these different restaurants, and foods are indeed good, and I wouldn't have it any other way. However, all these restaurants and foods reflect the multi-ethnic make-up of our society. The problem arises when different ethnic groups maintain their cultural practices in a community where positive interaction relies on commonalities in order to establish unity. Language is one of those commonalities.

If we look at Europe, and cities like London, they are having major issues now because of their pro-multiculturalism policies. They are dealing with protests, not to mention daily conflict and tension between the various ethnic groups. It's too late now to undo what damage has been done. In the US for the most part, these issues are not present despite the US having more immigrants every year than any other country. The reason can be attributed to a melting pot approach which has been way more successful in assimilating newcomers than a pro-multiculturalism approach.

 

[Esmeralda]

Well, given her specific situation, I suspect she was a dutiful Chinese wife and did what her husband wanted her to do, which was make a new life in America. Her personal choice may have been different. And she was probably a simple lady without education and not aggressive or assertive as far as learning a new language or assimilating into a new culture. Why would she need to learn English when she mainly lived within the Chinese community?

Why would she immigrate to the US? Because her husband wanted her to. I can't see where the harm is. She was essentially a productive member of US society by educating her children in American schools: they were totally fluent in English and graduated from college and later had good careers and families. What did she do wrong?

English could be made the official language of the US, but it shouldn't stop people from conversing in their native tongue or mother tongue. Where's the harm? I just don't see any.

True, there's no harm in two people conversing amongst themselves in any language they want. Where there is an issue is not being able to receive service in English in certain areas of the country. Those are the areas where for the most part, the population there decided that they did not want to assimilate. That is the reason why newcomers who are not already citizens need to pass an English test if they want to become citizens, to demonstrate that they have integrated or assimilated into American culture so they can become productive members of their community.

A multi-ethnic society is good, but not a multi-cultural one.

??

We already have a (somewhat) multicultural society and that's absolutely a good thing; it enriches everybody. Without it we'd never have that Mexican restaurant (let alone the Italian one, the Indian, Thai, Chinese, etc). We'd never have kielbasa or lutefisk in the upper midwest; we'd never have gumbo or collard greens in the South. We wouldn't have Christmas trees, Hallowe'en or St. Patrick's Day. No jazz, no blues, no banjos. No eggplant parmigiana.

We've already assimiltated and integrated aspects of the aboriginal population who were here first, and from the Africans we brought here, as well as customs, foods, expressions, festivals and so on from our ancestors in Germany and Ireland and Poland and Italy and Russia and everywhere else. Without all that, we couldn't be who we are. Exposure to other cultures opens horizons and gives us other ways of looking at things. The more exposure we get of that, the better off we are. There's nothing more pitiful than the poor slob condemned to be born, raised, grow old and die without ever having seen a world outside his own.

Absolutely! Great post.

 

[DriftingSand]

The term "multi-culture" indicates that there are different cultures. What makes a culture a culture? Those things that the members of that culture have in common. That would include cultural habits, traditions, religion, language, architecture, clothing, foods, and even certain expectations within that cultural community. So, from my perspective, the term "multicultural" means the same thing as "lacking culture." What I mean is that if nobody shares a common tradition, language, etc. then no culture exists. What I see us ending up with is a bit chaotic.

I see this chaos in the "multicultural" city in which I live. I sell stuff for a living. Some of my customers don't know a lick of English. Trying to figure out what they need is a big challenge for me and it's super time consuming (and frustrating). They came here illegally but the city of Denver is a "sanctuary" city so law enforcement is forced to maintain a "blind eye" and can do nothing to enforce our laws. Aren't laws a reflection of a culture? When a cultural community no longer has the right to enforce their laws is it still a culture?

Because I, too, enjoy my cultural upbringing I feel a bit assaulted by the influx of so many cultures who have no desire or intent to assimilate into my culture. Am I just supposed to take a back seat and learn to like it or do I have a say in the matter? If we're to embrace all of these other cultures are we out of line to expect them to embrace our culture or are we to live by a double standard?

As a result of Denver's assault on my culture I'm seeking to move to a smaller town in north/central Arizona. I'm feeling a bit forced out!!

 

[Peach]

On a thread about illegal immigration, some numbskull starting ranting about people in his country speaking a language other than English in public. Does anybody really give a rat's ass what other people are speaking to each other out in public if they are not speaking to you specifically? What business could it be of anyone else? Are there any here who really want to legislate and enforce what language people speak to each other in private conversations at home or out and about?

No, and I do not want legislation either. Considering the number of dialects in the US, I learned a bit of a foreign language when I went from Florida to Massachusetts (frappe, hoagie, commons, etc.) Actually, English speakers could learn from listening to other languages.

 

[Unkotare]

The term "multi-culture" indicates that there are different cultures. What makes a culture a culture? Those things that the members of that culture have in common. That would include cultural habits, traditions, religion, language, architecture, clothing, foods, and even certain expectations within that cultural community. So, from my perspective, the term "multicultural" means the same thing as "lacking culture." What I mean is that if nobody shares a common tradition, language, etc. then no culture exists. What I see us ending up with is a bit chaotic.

We have always been that way and we've done pretty well for ourselves as a nation.

 

[Pogo]

True, there's no harm in two people conversing amongst themselves in any language they want. Where there is an issue is not being able to receive service in English in certain areas of the country. Those are the areas where for the most part, the population there decided that they did not want to assimilate. That is the reason why newcomers who are not already citizens need to pass an English test if they want to become citizens, to demonstrate that they have integrated or assimilated into American culture so they can become productive members of their community.

A multi-ethnic society is good, but not a multi-cultural one.

??

We already have a (somewhat) multicultural society and that's absolutely a good thing; it enriches everybody. Without it we'd never have that Mexican restaurant (let alone the Italian one, the Indian, Thai, Chinese, etc). We'd never have kielbasa or lutefisk in the upper midwest; we'd never have gumbo or collard greens in the South. We wouldn't have Christmas trees, Hallowe'en or St. Patrick's Day. No jazz, no blues, no banjos. No eggplant parmigiana.

We've already assimiltated and integrated aspects of the aboriginal population who were here first, and from the Africans we brought here, as well as customs, foods, expressions, festivals and so on from our ancestors in Germany and Ireland and Poland and Italy and Russia and everywhere else. Without all that, we couldn't be who we are. Exposure to other cultures opens horizons and gives us other ways of looking at things. The more exposure we get of that, the better off we are. There's nothing more pitiful than the poor slob condemned to be born, raised, grow old and die without ever having seen a world outside his own.

Yup, all these different restaurants, and foods are indeed good, and I wouldn't have it any other way. However, all these restaurants and foods reflect the multi-ethnic make-up of our society. The problem arises when different ethnic groups maintain their cultural practices in a community where positive interaction relies on commonalities in order to establish unity. Language is one of those commonalities.

If we look at Europe, and cities like London, they are having major issues now because of their pro-multiculturalism policies. They are dealing with protests, not to mention daily conflict and tension between the various ethnic groups. It's too late now to undo what damage has been done. In the US for the most part, these issues are not present despite the US having more immigrants every year than any other country. The reason can be attributed to a melting pot approach which has been way more successful in assimilating newcomers than a pro-multiculturalism approach.

That's not true at all.

Europe is full of variant cultures, languages and ethnic groups that are and always have been, compared to us, closely packed. London (as well as Paris and lots of other places) has long been full of foreigners, mini-cultures and ethnic pockets. Partly by virtue of their being large attractive cities, partly as a result of their history in international commerce and colonization. When I lived in Paris (35 years ago) I met and/or worked with people from Gemany, Italy, all over Scandinavia, central Europe, Spain, Poland, Australia and New Zealand, Maylasia, all over the Maghreb and the Middle East; west and south Africa, and a few other places; they ALL contributed and continue to contribute to the richness of the place. They come for education and opportunity and simply life enrichment.

England alone, small as it is, contains way more languages and semi-intelligible dialects of English than we can imagine here. And people all over Europe are regularly at trilingual and quadrilingual before they're even out of childhood. No, Europe has been multiethnic and multicultural for many centuries, dude. And that makes it a lot more interesting and viscerally vibrant than, say, North America. As a result it's FAR more common to hear exotic languages, smell outlandish cooking, and see garb from far-flung places than it is here. And it's been that way really since before the Celts wandered in.

 

[Unkotare]

England alone, small as it is, contains way more languages and semi-intelligible dialects of English that [sic] we can imagine here.

That is, of course, not true. Exaggerating so much to make a supposed point makes you look like even more of a child than usual.

 

[Jughead]

??

We already have a (somewhat) multicultural society and that's absolutely a good thing; it enriches everybody. Without it we'd never have that Mexican restaurant (let alone the Italian one, the Indian, Thai, Chinese, etc). We'd never have kielbasa or lutefisk in the upper midwest; we'd never have gumbo or collard greens in the South. We wouldn't have Christmas trees, Hallowe'en or St. Patrick's Day. No jazz, no blues, no banjos. No eggplant parmigiana.

We've already assimiltated and integrated aspects of the aboriginal population who were here first, and from the Africans we brought here, as well as customs, foods, expressions, festivals and so on from our ancestors in Germany and Ireland and Poland and Italy and Russia and everywhere else. Without all that, we couldn't be who we are. Exposure to other cultures opens horizons and gives us other ways of looking at things. The more exposure we get of that, the better off we are. There's nothing more pitiful than the poor slob condemned to be born, raised, grow old and die without ever having seen a world outside his own.

Yup, all these different restaurants, and foods are indeed good, and I wouldn't have it any other way. However, all these restaurants and foods reflect the multi-ethnic make-up of our society. The problem arises when different ethnic groups maintain their cultural practices in a community where positive interaction relies on commonalities in order to establish unity. Language is one of those commonalities.

If we look at Europe, and cities like London, they are having major issues now because of their pro-multiculturalism policies. They are dealing with protests, not to mention daily conflict and tension between the various ethnic groups. It's too late now to undo what damage has been done. In the US for the most part, these issues are not present despite the US having more immigrants every year than any other country. The reason can be attributed to a melting pot approach which has been way more successful in assimilating newcomers than a pro-multiculturalism approach.

That's not true at all.

Europe is full of variant cultures, languages and ethnic groups that are and always have been, compared to us, closely packed. London (as well as Paris and lots of other places) has long been full of foreigners, mini-cultures and ethnic pockets. Partly by virtue of their being large attractive cities, partly as a result of their history in international commerce and colonization. When I lived in Paris (35 years ago) I met and/or worked with people from Gemany, Italy, all over Scandinavia, central Europe, Spain, Poland, Australia and New Zealand, Maylasia, all over the Maghreb and the Middle East; west and south Africa, and a few other places; they ALL contributed and continue to contribute to the richness of the place. They come for education and opportunity and simply life enrichment.

England alone, small as it is, contains way more languages and semi-intelligible dialects of English than we can imagine here. And people all over Europe are regularly at trilingual and quadrilingual before they're even out of childhood. No, Europe has been multiethnic and multicultural for many centuries, dude. And that makes it a lot more interesting and viscerally vibrant than, say, North America. As a result it's FAR more common to hear exotic languages, smell outlandish cooking, and see garb from far-flung places than it is here. And it's been that way really since before the Celts wandered in.

I still am not convinced that multiculturalism works. The cons far outweigh the pros. The evidence that multiculturalism doesn't work are the violent protests that we routinely hear about in large European cities that embrace multiculturalism like London and Paris. Decades ago these protests were unheard of. We have no such protests between various ethnic groups in the US, especially not violent ones, and yet the US accepts significantly more newcomers than any of the European countries.

Below is a link to one of many conflicts that exist in Europe, but not in North America. The main reason is because they encourage multiculturalism in Europe instead of a policy requiring newcomers to assimilate.

Violent Demonstration in Paris - July 13, 2014

 

[Nutz]

Yup, all these different restaurants, and foods are indeed good, and I wouldn't have it any other way. However, all these restaurants and foods reflect the multi-ethnic make-up of our society. The problem arises when different ethnic groups maintain their cultural practices in a community where positive interaction relies on commonalities in order to establish unity. Language is one of those commonalities.

If we look at Europe, and cities like London, they are having major issues now because of their pro-multiculturalism policies. They are dealing with protests, not to mention daily conflict and tension between the various ethnic groups. It's too late now to undo what damage has been done. In the US for the most part, these issues are not present despite the US having more immigrants every year than any other country. The reason can be attributed to a melting pot approach which has been way more successful in assimilating newcomers than a pro-multiculturalism approach.

That's not true at all.

Europe is full of variant cultures, languages and ethnic groups that are and always have been, compared to us, closely packed. London (as well as Paris and lots of other places) has long been full of foreigners, mini-cultures and ethnic pockets. Partly by virtue of their being large attractive cities, partly as a result of their history in international commerce and colonization. When I lived in Paris (35 years ago) I met and/or worked with people from Gemany, Italy, all over Scandinavia, central Europe, Spain, Poland, Australia and New Zealand, Maylasia, all over the Maghreb and the Middle East; west and south Africa, and a few other places; they ALL contributed and continue to contribute to the richness of the place. They come for education and opportunity and simply life enrichment.

England alone, small as it is, contains way more languages and semi-intelligible dialects of English than we can imagine here. And people all over Europe are regularly at trilingual and quadrilingual before they're even out of childhood. No, Europe has been multiethnic and multicultural for many centuries, dude. And that makes it a lot more interesting and viscerally vibrant than, say, North America. As a result it's FAR more common to hear exotic languages, smell outlandish cooking, and see garb from far-flung places than it is here. And it's been that way really since before the Celts wandered in.

I still am not convinced that multiculturalism works. The cons far outweigh the pros. The evidence that multiculturalism doesn't work are the violent protests that we routinely hear about in large European cities that embrace multiculturalism like London and Paris. Decades ago these protests were unheard of. We have no such protests between various ethnic groups in the US, especially not violent ones, and yet the US accepts significantly more newcomers than any of the European countries.

Below is a link to one of many conflicts that exist in Europe, but not in North America. The main reason is because they encourage multiculturalism in Europe instead of a policy requiring newcomers to assimilate.

Violent Demonstration in Paris - July 13, 2014

This is because Euromites invented war and hate. This is why the United States exists.

 

[Pogo]

Yup, all these different restaurants, and foods are indeed good, and I wouldn't have it any other way. However, all these restaurants and foods reflect the multi-ethnic make-up of our society. The problem arises when different ethnic groups maintain their cultural practices in a community where positive interaction relies on commonalities in order to establish unity. Language is one of those commonalities.

If we look at Europe, and cities like London, they are having major issues now because of their pro-multiculturalism policies. They are dealing with protests, not to mention daily conflict and tension between the various ethnic groups. It's too late now to undo what damage has been done. In the US for the most part, these issues are not present despite the US having more immigrants every year than any other country. The reason can be attributed to a melting pot approach which has been way more successful in assimilating newcomers than a pro-multiculturalism approach.

That's not true at all.

Europe is full of variant cultures, languages and ethnic groups that are and always have been, compared to us, closely packed. London (as well as Paris and lots of other places) has long been full of foreigners, mini-cultures and ethnic pockets. Partly by virtue of their being large attractive cities, partly as a result of their history in international commerce and colonization. When I lived in Paris (35 years ago) I met and/or worked with people from Gemany, Italy, all over Scandinavia, central Europe, Spain, Poland, Australia and New Zealand, Maylasia, all over the Maghreb and the Middle East; west and south Africa, and a few other places; they ALL contributed and continue to contribute to the richness of the place. They come for education and opportunity and simply life enrichment.

England alone, small as it is, contains way more languages and semi-intelligible dialects of English than we can imagine here. And people all over Europe are regularly at trilingual and quadrilingual before they're even out of childhood. No, Europe has been multiethnic and multicultural for many centuries, dude. And that makes it a lot more interesting and viscerally vibrant than, say, North America. As a result it's FAR more common to hear exotic languages, smell outlandish cooking, and see garb from far-flung places than it is here. And it's been that way really since before the Celts wandered in.

I still am not convinced that multiculturalism works. The cons far outweigh the pros. The evidence that multiculturalism doesn't work are the violent protests that we routinely hear about in large European cities that embrace multiculturalism like London and Paris. Decades ago these protests were unheard of. We have no such protests between various ethnic groups in the US, especially not violent ones, and yet the US accepts significantly more newcomers than any of the European countries.

That's exactly what I'm saying -- Europe has always been multicultural, and your citation of current events does not at all demonstrate a causal relationship. If mulitculturalism brought up these recent events, why haven't they been going on throughout time?

Obviously Europe has hardly been immune to war and social strife but these are products of either severe economic disparity or radical fringe politics -- not multiculturalism. The current news (which btw is *always* inflated before it gets to us) is just another iteration of that.

When I lived in Paris I hung out with the Arabs (ergo Muslims, though we rarely ever talked religion) who were everywhere, and none of this was going on. However London was on high alert --- because of IRA activities. Once again -- radical politics, nothing to do with culture clashes.

Multiculturalism is how we understand the human race. Without it we'd never have tomatoes or potatoes or cinnamon or hummus or curry or borscht or gumbo. It's what gave us jazz and the blues and bluegrass. And rock 'n' roll. Native Americans alone gave us corn, beans, squash, pumpkins, sunflowers, wild rice, potatoes, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, peppers, peanuts, avocados, papayas, artichokes, peanuts, nut oils, maple syrup, persimmon, cucumber, cranberries, melons, chewing gum, mint and chocolate. More than half of all we eat.

Exposure to unknown cultures is a gold mine. It's why we explore.

 

[Pogo]

That's not true at all.

Europe is full of variant cultures, languages and ethnic groups that are and always have been, compared to us, closely packed. London (as well as Paris and lots of other places) has long been full of foreigners, mini-cultures and ethnic pockets. Partly by virtue of their being large attractive cities, partly as a result of their history in international commerce and colonization. When I lived in Paris (35 years ago) I met and/or worked with people from Gemany, Italy, all over Scandinavia, central Europe, Spain, Poland, Australia and New Zealand, Maylasia, all over the Maghreb and the Middle East; west and south Africa, and a few other places; they ALL contributed and continue to contribute to the richness of the place. They come for education and opportunity and simply life enrichment.

England alone, small as it is, contains way more languages and semi-intelligible dialects of English than we can imagine here. And people all over Europe are regularly at trilingual and quadrilingual before they're even out of childhood. No, Europe has been multiethnic and multicultural for many centuries, dude. And that makes it a lot more interesting and viscerally vibrant than, say, North America. As a result it's FAR more common to hear exotic languages, smell outlandish cooking, and see garb from far-flung places than it is here. And it's been that way really since before the Celts wandered in.

I still am not convinced that multiculturalism works. The cons far outweigh the pros. The evidence that multiculturalism doesn't work are the violent protests that we routinely hear about in large European cities that embrace multiculturalism like London and Paris. Decades ago these protests were unheard of. We have no such protests between various ethnic groups in the US, especially not violent ones, and yet the US accepts significantly more newcomers than any of the European countries.

Below is a link to one of many conflicts that exist in Europe, but not in North America. The main reason is because they encourage multiculturalism in Europe instead of a policy requiring newcomers to assimilate.

Violent Demonstration in Paris - July 13, 2014

This is because Euromites invented war and hate. This is why the United States exists.

Wrong on two fronts. Europeans didn't invent war; it goes on everywhere in the world and always has. And the reason we exist is as a rejection of the old authoritarian caste system. We exist for reasons of political philosophy.

 

[Nutz]

This is because Euromites invented war and hate. This is why the United States exists.[/QUOTE]

Wrong on two fronts. Europeans didn't invent war; it goes on everywhere in the world and always has. And the reason we exist is as a rejection of the old authoritarian caste system. We exist for reasons of political philosophy.[/QUOTE]

You are right...Euromites just perfected it.

 

[Esmeralda]

Yup, all these different restaurants, and foods are indeed good, and I wouldn't have it any other way. However, all these restaurants and foods reflect the multi-ethnic make-up of our society. The problem arises when different ethnic groups maintain their cultural practices in a community where positive interaction relies on commonalities in order to establish unity. Language is one of those commonalities.

If we look at Europe, and cities like London, they are having major issues now because of their pro-multiculturalism policies. They are dealing with protests, not to mention daily conflict and tension between the various ethnic groups. It's too late now to undo what damage has been done. In the US for the most part, these issues are not present despite the US having more immigrants every year than any other country. The reason can be attributed to a melting pot approach which has been way more successful in assimilating newcomers than a pro-multiculturalism approach.

That's not true at all.

Europe is full of variant cultures, languages and ethnic groups that are and always have been, compared to us, closely packed. London (as well as Paris and lots of other places) has long been full of foreigners, mini-cultures and ethnic pockets. Partly by virtue of their being large attractive cities, partly as a result of their history in international commerce and colonization. When I lived in Paris (35 years ago) I met and/or worked with people from Gemany, Italy, all over Scandinavia, central Europe, Spain, Poland, Australia and New Zealand, Maylasia, all over the Maghreb and the Middle East; west and south Africa, and a few other places; they ALL contributed and continue to contribute to the richness of the place. They come for education and opportunity and simply life enrichment.

England alone, small as it is, contains way more languages and semi-intelligible dialects of English than we can imagine here. And people all over Europe are regularly at trilingual and quadrilingual before they're even out of childhood. No, Europe has been multiethnic and multicultural for many centuries, dude. And that makes it a lot more interesting and viscerally vibrant than, say, North America. As a result it's FAR more common to hear exotic languages, smell outlandish cooking, and see garb from far-flung places than it is here. And it's been that way really since before the Celts wandered in.

I still am not convinced that multiculturalism works. The cons far outweigh the pros. The evidence that multiculturalism doesn't work are the violent protests that we routinely hear about in large European cities that embrace multiculturalism like London and Paris. Decades ago these protests were unheard of. We have no such protests between various ethnic groups in the US, especially not violent ones, and yet the US accepts significantly more newcomers than any of the European countries.

Below is a link to one of many conflicts that exist in Europe, but not in North America. The main reason is because they encourage multiculturalism in Europe instead of a policy requiring newcomers to assimilate.

Violent Demonstration in Paris - July 13, 2014

Everywhere in the world has been or is multicultural. That is how it works. For thousands of years humans have migrated from one place to another, invaded other cultures, settled in areas that were also settled by people of other cultures, mixed blood with each other, and so on. This has been the case since the beginning of humankind. There is never going to be a time when that isn't so. It is always difficult and causes strife, but in the end it always works. When the Irish, Italians, etc., came to America from Europe, they lived in ghettos or their own neighborhoods, as did others who arrived during the course of American history. It takes generations for new people to blend into the the overall American culture. Those who are open minded about it will enjoy the diversity; those who aren't will always be pestered by it.

IMO, Spanish should be the second language in America, and we should enjoy that. In Europe, and around the world, many countries have a second language. No one seems to be aghast about it; it's just normal for them. They enjoy it rather than bitch about it. Where I am now is on the border with Italy; many French people here speak Italian; many Italians on the other side of the border speak French. The other day when I was a the supermarket, a women approached me and asked if I spoke Italian; she thought I was French. She wanted information about a product in the store. I said I couldn't speak Italian, but we managed to communicate somewhat anyway. The thing is, she was visiting from Italy and assumed a Frenchwoman would speak some Italian. This town, a couple of hundred years ago, used to belong to the political region controlled by Genoa.

My attitude about Americans having issues with people, even immigrants, speaking other languages is to get over it. Just get over it.

As far as the problems in London and other European cities, I have spent a lot of time in those places, such as Paris and London. I would have to go back and count how many times I've been to London or Paris, for example. The riots and strife you see in the news are far exaggerated in people’s mind. I learned a lesson long ago when I was traveling in Morocco. There was war going on there in one part of the country and the news made it look like the country was at war, but if you stayed away from the war region, which was on the southern border, you would have no idea the country was at war: everywhere else, everything was as normal. The point is that the media makes it look like there is a huge problem, but there isn't. Never once in any of those countries, have I seen any problem based on immigrants. Just haven't. And I know people who live in those countries and don't believe there is any big problem. Most of seeing a big problem with immigration is perspective

 

[Statistikhengst]

This should be a non issue.

 

[Ravi]

England alone, small as it is, contains way more languages and semi-intelligible dialects of English that [sic] we can imagine here.

That is, of course, not true. Exaggerating so much to make a supposed point makes you look like even more of a child than usual.

Educate yourself

British Accents and Dialects | Dialect Blog

Languages of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Esmeralda]

Some people don't understand about dialects and languages. Germany, small as it is, has 90 dialects. When I lived there, I lived on the southern border with Switzerland. People there and people who spoke what is considered standard German had difficulty understanding each other.