Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
> Question... what about those Spanish speakers just south
> of me and soon to be all around us? Will national policy
> determine how that is to be resolved?
Good question, and one that has plagued politicians, school systems, and
teachers since the beginning of high migration a couple of decades ago.
But we have crossed this problem before, after almost every multi-cultural
migration. For better or worse, the historical 'language of the land' has
been English. Every group migrating here to take up residence and
citizenship has acquiesced and the language taught in schools is (American)
English. Cultural groups have retained their native languages for family
and community use. But logic dictates that there must be one common,
national language. It just won't work any other way.
Perhaps there will come a time when one of the minorities out populates all
other groups, but I don't think it's likely. Especially considering the
pervasiveness of the media being conducted in English. What I expect to be
more likely is one of two things: either our national standard English
evolves by means of influences from other languages (new words,
constructions, etc.), or we over haul the whole system and start teaching
everyone a culturally neutral language such as Esperanto.
> I have as much problem with the folk not in Kansas
> implying by their majority support that theory is truth.
Granted. Those maintaining a strict secular Humanistic atheism (i.e. "There
is no God.") are as wrong as those who maintain that there is. Both are
beliefs without proof one way or the other.
> Not that I maintain one theory over the other but that if we allow
> our politicians to decide for us then we have only ourselves to blame.
Exactly. If you don't think for yourself, someone else will. Ask yourself
if that's what you really want.
> If a majority decides this, then, right or wrong, that's the way
> it is to be. This demonstrates the danger inherent in majority
> decisions... but happily it is reversible.
Yep; the weakness and the strength - the balance. But let's always keep in
mind that a majority declaration does not, in and of itself, make something
right or wrong. History is full of the majority being wrong.
> I feel for Woody in the midst of all of that narrow thinking.
I too feel for him, but am mighty glad that he's there in the thick of it!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 07 2000 - 08:54:27 PDT