While some call it partisanship, I believe that it is simply an idealogical divide. Many of the opinions of those here are abhorrent to me. And I would confidently posit that the reverse is true as well. But even liberals would have to admit that they treat the culture of others with far more sensitivity than they ever extend their own.
Some scholars have called this a trait of the new liberals. They place the values and cultures of the rest of the world above the United States', their own country. I believe this is from the perverse self-flagellation forcefully pushed by many of the academia in liberal universities. The Spanish anthem is merely another symptom of their double standard.
In my job I have no time for such behavior. I think it is interesting to note that while the left is almost invariably against Americana, aggressive foreign policy, and protectionism, it is the right that guards the borders, fights the wars, and mans the intelligence apparatus. (A quick search of presidential polls among military members in 2004 will show 2 studies that both claimed over 70% intended to vote for the Republicans. One of them had some areas over 85%.)
Parker Cross, were you upset when Bushie sang the national anthem in Spanish on the campaign trail?
Leftists are not for the most part (can't speak for them all) anti America. They are anti right wing, which righties then interpret as anti Americanism. Two seperate items.
Well said, but not accurate.
edgarblythe wrote:Well said, but not accurate.
So says edgar, the personification of objectivity.
So says edgar, the personification of objectivity.
So snottily says Finn
edgarblythe wrote:So says edgar, the personification of objectivity.
So snottily says Finn
As a burr under thy saddle I remain.
More like a squishy turd under my feet.
edgarblythe wrote:More like a squishy turd under my feet.
Now that's lyrical.
This response is precisely why you will never rise to the status of poet.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:edgarblythe wrote:More like a squishy turd under my feet.
Now that's lyrical.
This response is precisely why you will never rise to the status of poet.
These things that you say edgar is not - objective, a poet......
Are you these things?
snood wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:edgarblythe wrote:More like a squishy turd under my feet.
Now that's lyrical.
This response is precisely why you will never rise to the status of poet.
These things that you say edgar is not - objective, a poet......
Are you these things?
Immaterial snood, but no doubt edgar is grateful for you riding to his rescue.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:snood wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:edgarblythe wrote:More like a squishy turd under my feet.
Now that's lyrical.
This response is precisely why you will never rise to the status of poet.
These things that you say edgar is not - objective, a poet......
Are you these things?
Immaterial snood, but no doubt edgar is grateful for you riding to his rescue.
How is it "material" for you to question his objectivity and creativity, but "immaterial" when I question yours?
Back to the topic:
A famous quote which I will never forget--"Anti-Catholicism is the Anti-Semitism of the Intellectuals."
Parker Cross nailed it precisely.
It would be nice to hear the national anthem sung in all the languages of our nation's citizens. We are a plural society, a nation of immigrants with distinct languages of origin. The demand of nativists that we all speak ONLY one language is absurd and (xenophobically) nationalistic in the worse sense of the term. Many voices, one song. That's America.
I partially agree with JL Nobody,but there may be a problem. When the words to National Anthems are changed, some people take offense. I do not think one would dare to sing the Iranian National Anthem with changed words in a mosque filled with the Iranian faithful, but then we are the most tolerant nation of all, are we not?
Indeed, the Cambridge Factfinder ( under languages) in the section of the United States of America shows the following:
Languages English, large Spanish-speaking minority
This shows an awareness of the large Spanish speaking minority in the USA, but JL Nobody is apparently unaware that, in some cases, a separate language( and culture) in a country does not always bode well for that country's future. Canadians can vouch for the difficulties involved when a minority decides to go its own way with their own language.
The U.S. has always been a plural and multilingual society, and it has done very well. English is the unifying language, no doubt. Noone is arguing to the contrary. But it is not the only or official language. Many people feel threatened by the demographic rise of minority groups and seem to be holding on to an image of their group's dominance by the English Only ideology--symbolic dominance in the place of actual dominance.
Many people feel threatened by the demographic rise of minority groups, says JL Nobody. That is correct. Even other minority groups, like African-Americans feel threatened by the demographic rise of minority groups but those who know American History do not feel threatened.
It is only a hundred, or at the most, a hundred and fifty years ago, when the "nativists" felt threatened by the arrival of Germans, Irish, Russian Jews, Poles, Italians, Czechs, Greeks, etc. A good deal of literature about the refuse from Europe and warnings about the "Papists" abounded. But, despite a radical shut down of the numbers of people from Europe allowed to come to the United States in the late 1920's, these "newcomers" have become the core of the USA.
There is no reason to fear the Lation migration. Some say that our country will turn into a country which has two separate nations- an English speaking one and a Spanish speaking section. I do not think this will come about. Linda Chavez has offered research which shows that the third generation Latino marries "outside" the Latino community. In fact, Chavez claims that more Latinos of the third generation are married to non-Latinos than are married to Latinos.
This replicates what has happened to other ethnic groups.
However, it is really a bad policy for Latino groups to cling so fiercely to their language and culture in public. The appearance of so many Mexican flags offended other Americans. Other groups, Irish, Germans, Italians, Poles,do indeed cling to their culture by having ethnic celebrations and, if they are of the first or second generation, using their language at home and in social groups, but they usually have not used their culture or language as a slap in the face to the host country.
The Latinos will soon become what others have become-Hypenated Americans.
Jose Garcia will marry Susan O'Connell. They will have a daughter who will be named Maria Garcia and she will marry Joseph Kowalski. The third generation child, Jose Kowalski will then be part Mexican, Irish, and Polish.
That is what America has become and will be!!!
JLNobody wrote:The U.S. has always been a plural and multilingual society, and it has done very well. English is the unifying language, no doubt. Noone is arguing to the contrary. But it is not the only or official language. Many people feel threatened by the demographic rise of minority groups and seem to be holding on to an image of their group's dominance by the English Only ideology--symbolic dominance in the place of actual dominance.
We have been a multilingual society in private but a solo lingual society in public. Most people who have come here have learned the language and have succeeded because of it. I don't have an issue with people speaking what ever language they wish in the privacy of their homes or even if private companies cater their businesses to such languages. The govt shouldn't cater to such people. What ever the govt puts out should be in English and nothing else. People should cater to the country not the country to the people. If you can't speak English then you shouldn't be able to get a drivers license in this country if you can't speak English then you shouldn't be able to become a citizen and if you can't speak English then you shouldn't be able to vote. All of these should be reserved for US citizens and given to those who take the time and pride in becoming US citizens. If you can't take the time to become a US citizen then why should the people and the US govt take the time and energy to cater to you?
The people are the government, so, if a sizeable portion does not use English effectively, the government, which is in part those challenged English readers, is obliged to communicate in their language. Why not? It doesn't hurt a thing.
