Right to protest, common sense need not apply here

The teacher who is indeed wise does not bid you to enter the house of his wisdom but rather leads you to the threshold of your mind.
-Khalil Gibran

Rant on -

Some New Yorkers might have heard recently about a new public school opening up in the Brooklyn, for everyone else, the Khalil Gibran International Academy is a school opened this week to teach all students normal classes in English and Arabic.

Personally, I'm not to keen on the idea of a publically funded school to specilize in any language apart from English (In US only). That money to hire teachers, and prepare for a cirriculum for mixed language schooling plus a lot of other issues cost more money, which could be used to hire more teachers, or give the existing one raises, and/or fund other programs for existing schools.

However, I am appalled by the response of some. The school was labelled as an extremest religious muslim school to teach children how to strap on bombs on themselves and hate Jews more. Now, New York has many other schools that are taught dual-langual, but since this one is English - Arabic, it was naturally assumed by a fair few to be a school of violence!?!
Growing up in Dubai, and seeing that there are good and bad people there, just like everywhere in the world, I know that is an extremely unfair assessment of classifying the speakers of an entire language as evil Jew killing, Nazi like, America and freedom haters.

If those who had even bothered to check, Khalil Gibran, who the school was named after, was a prominent poet, raised in Lebanon and live in America, provided so much to the American culture, believed in pacifism, not violence.

Never mind that several Jewish groups have repeatedly vocalised support for the school, and that the school has a Jewish principle, the students will still be taught how to slaughter evil America, because ofcourse, that's what Arabic is about.

For six years, because of where I came from, I took a fair bit of attacks, among various things focusing on my integrity, and my loyalty to my country. And I took it, because what happened that one day scared a lot of people, and I can understand fear, but attacking a group of grade 6 students by branding them America's future terrorists is utterly disgusting.

- Rant off

nk, all I can say is that I totally agree with you in this. Just because someone speaks Arabic, or lives in Iran or Iraq, does not meant that they want to destroy everyone else.

That is awful. Personaly I believe there is nothing wrong with being bilingual, but that we should not cater to those who don't speak English. Furthermore what happened on 9/11/01 was horrible.... but it does not mean that anyone of that descent are terrorists. That is like saying that I am a slave driver because I am white.... that is awful!

My opinion as harsh as it may sound
Fuck em, learn to speak English.
Is it California where they give the driving test is 37 different languages ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnite

My opinion as harsh as it may sound
Fuck em, learn to speak English.
Is it California where they give the driving test is 37 different languages ?

---

I agree with you 1000%, if I go to Mexico, I need ot learn Spanish, France - French, if people want to live in this country (The UNites States) they NEED to learn ENGLISH, a 2nd language is fine but there primary language has t be English in the United States

but also remember ALL those who study Islam, or the Koran are NOT all terrorists either

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

but also remember ALL those who study Islam, or the Koran are NOT all terrorists either

---

A vital point mkemse and nk, its all to easy to think muslims are all a bunch of bomb-flinging terror junkies, straggly illiterates or drugs/arms dealers just because they happen to come from vaguely the same part of the world as UBL, or happen to respect the same sacred writings that he claims to do -and speak a tongue that sounds funny to us. Of course most muslims who get to follow the news loathe what bin-Laden or the guerillas/private armies of Darfur are doing just as much as we do
Besides, without for one moment aiming to defend the jugheaded phenomenon of terrorism, there is a rightful anger in countries like Egypt, Lebanon, Indonesia or Iraq after having been cheated of the rich assets of your country for many many years, having seen the oil, coal, metals, wines, gas and fruit or anything else put safely in the hands of foreign corporations with the backing of foreign troops- or even by the soldiers of the local dictator (who finds it more easy for the time being to cooperate with outsiders who will pay his arms and palaces). Most of us here are from nations where you can take it for granted that the neighbour states don't meddle in your politics, wouldn't try to stage an armed revolt or plot to kill politicians, ministers and journalists, and where free speech, press, tv and print is something we all take for a given thing.
In many Arab countries none of that is the case (in particular, free press and strong media companies of your own country are rare) and you don't get a change just by writing a new law, it takes time, and a bit of security around yourself and your country, to grow into it. You can't expect free and mature newspapers and tv channels to flourish in a state where everyone is carrying a gun, inflation is at 300%, 1 out of 4 grown people don't have a job, bombs are going off at sixes and sevens and the borders are under fire every year. That just doesn't work, those conditions breed despair, cynicism, puffed-up nationalism leaning on old days gone by - or terrorism.

The anger at being seen as a bunch of hobos and branded as sympathizing with the dictator and his army just because you don't have an easy option to get rid of him is totally understandable I think, and this despair doesn't always look attractive in the media. In 1991, when the US forces had overtaken the main Iraqi army (not all of Saddam's armed forces though) and seemed to be on the verge of marching up to Baghdad. tens of thousands of people rose against Saddam hoping to get rid of him. There was no further offensive though .- for some reason, Bush and the Allied command chose not to push through, and those Iraqis and Kurds were mown down, butchered and lots of civilians tortured, raped and hanged.

Big surprise that they were not likely to listen to any words coming from the US side and encouraging them to revolt in the next 12 years - and big surprise that they are disgusted now at still not having much of a real stake in the future of their country, "How come they didn't have the guts to revolt and get rid of the Tyrant?" - yeah indeed, how come?

I think a bilingual school for arabic is a very good idea...the only way to resolve our differences with other nations is to seek common ground and mutual understanding. I feel it's a bit short-sighted to assume we don't need to fund programs to interact with and understand other countries on a level beyond 10-minute presentations. Those worried about the funds can imagine how many defense dollars it'll save us some day. Language is a huge key in forming lasting relationships: our closest allies today are countries we've fought bitter wars against in the past, but who we have learned to empathize with because we communicate easily and frequently.

As for learning the language of where you go...raise your hand if you know Shoshonee, Navajo...anything native? Learn, adapt, assimilate, it's the real American way, hombre. "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free," not just your well-educated upper middle class families relocating because of overseas business ventures. Coming to this country should be about seeking freedom and mutual benefit through ingenuity and hard work, not mutually compatible linguistics.

As for the initial topic of this thread...the moronic bigots who pre-judge others...unfortunately, that's a part of America as well, and the current direction of our nation is towards more of it, not less. We are quickly becoming what we most despised; the twin towers weren't martyred for freedom, they were conquered in the name of oppression. The terrorists won :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnite

...Fuck em, learn to speak English ...

---

Fuck you! What is it about English speakers? Too stupid or too lazy to cope with any other language: they'd rather commit genocide than learn a new language.

When the Angles, Saxons and Jutes came to England, they didn't bother to learn the local language. They imposed their own. Later their descendants tried to eradicate the native languages of Scotland, Ireland and Wales. They successfully eradicated Cornish and Manx. This was deliberate policy - to control the population.

In the Americas, the same people wiped out the native languages and imposed their own. In India, Australia and New Zealand, their cousins did the same to a greater or lesser degree. And, of course, the same thing happened in Africa.

There's something very flawed in the nature of people descended from those small German tribes: a fearful arrogance and self-righteousness replacing a desire to accomodate and to adapt. Xenophobic, to use a foreign word, and paranoid, to use another.

The point about any dual language school is to promote both languages and to improve understanding and harmony. Refusal to accomodate other languages can only lead to isolationism and ignorance - and that's only worthy of "Little Americans".

TYWD

P.S. Go to any of the countries you mentioned, and you'll easily find someone who can speak English. You won't have to have learned their language at all. Go to Sweden or any Scandinavian country, and you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't speak English (s/he'll probably speak German instead!).

I once had occasion to telephone a filling station in Sweden (from the UK). The telephone was answered in Swedish, as you would expect. My first words were, "Do you speak English?" and the girl replied, without hesitation, and in that beautiful Scandinavian accent, "Of course, Sir."

Speaking for myself, I tend to agree that Americans, especially, tend to balk at learning other lanquages. But the issue in this country right now is whether we, as a nation, should be required to cater to every language spoken by "visitors" to our land. I have no quarrel with someone emigrating here and retaining their own language and customs. What I do object to is the concept that the United States is REQUIRED to help them retain their language without learning English.

If you come to this land with a French driver's license it will be accepted by any police force in the country, whether or not you can speak English. But if you want to apply for a driver's license from here, I feel it is only reasonable to expect you to learn at least enough English to take the test. Too many people feel that we must provide the test in their native language, at our expense.

True, many European natives speak English quite well. I am constantly, and pleasantly, surprised by the number of people from overseas who can make themselves understood, at least, in my language. I know, despite taking several languages in school, I could not do the same. But if I were to move to, for example, Germany, I would expect myself to learn the language there, for my own benefit if for no other reason. I would not, could not, expect everyone I meet to understand English, nor would I expect the German government to kowtow to my inability to speak their language.

Like many in this country, my ancestors moved here from central Europe. They came speaking little or no English, and they settled in areas where others who spoke their language already lived. But they worked to learn English, because they had adopted this country as their home, and because they wanted to become citizens. Their children, my grandparents, were taught in English speaking schools, and had to learn from English speaking teachers. They didn't expect their teachers or their classmates to understand Polish or Slavik. And this is the way things still are in virtually every country in the world. You want to live there, you'd better learn the language.

Yet in this country we are being inundated with DEMANDS for bi-lingual schools, primarily English and Spanish. More and more ads and signs are being posted in both languages. There was even a case in Philadelphia where a store owner was blasted by the city politicians for posting a sign in his store saying "English only spoken here." In my mind this is criminal.

There are strong reasons why English is so common in large areas of the world. The primary one is probably the influence of Hollywood on young people everywhere. Many businesses throughout the world want, or wanted, to do business here, and needed to learn the language. (Conversely, it seems that American companies wanting to do business overseas haven't always bothered to learn the languages and customs of their customers. That is also appalling and arrogant in the extreme.)

As for specialized schooling for other cultures or ethnic groups, I have no problems with that. But if they want to be citizens of this country, they should be required to ALSO learn English. After all, they have come here, presumably, for a better life. Trying to turn us into what they left behind is counterproductive at best!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

When the Angles, Saxons and Jutes came to England, they didn't bother to learn the local language. They imposed their own. Later their descendants tried to eradicate the native languages of Scotland, Ireland and Wales. They successfully eradicated Cornish and Manx. This was deliberate policy - to control the population.

In the Americas, the same people wiped out the native languages and imposed their own. In India, Australia and New Zealand, their cousins did the same to a greater or lesser degree. And, of course, the same thing happened in Africa.

---

One thing to remember: those people came as conquerors, not as immigrants. They imposed their own languages and cultures on the survivors of the conquered lands. And it wasn't only English speakers. Many parts of the Caribbean and West Africa speak French to this day. Most of Central and South America speak Spanish or Portugese. Even Canada retains a remnant of French colonialism in Quebec. And let's not forget, French and Spanish and Italian, of course, are derived at least in part from the Latin spoken by their Roman conquerors. Even German and Russian have Latin influences, notably the titles Kaiser and Czar, which come from the Latin Caesar.

... the issue in this country right now is whether we, as a nation, should be required to cater to every language spoken by "visitors" to our land . . . What I do object to is the concept that the United States is REQUIRED to help them retain their language without learning English.

I don't believe that any US authority or enactment requires that immigrants be helped to retain their original language at the expense of learning English.

I understand that 30 states in the USA have declared English to be a de jure official language, and of those, one has declared Spanish to be an official languge, another has declared French an offical language and a third has declared Hawaiian (no - it's not Alaska!) to be an official language in addition. I don't know what the position is with regard to the US's overseas possessions apart from Puerto Rico, which has Spanish and English as official languages. So far as I am aware, the remaining 20 states (including New York) and the USA federally have no official language, and no duty to use or preserve English any more than French, Spanish, Hawaiian or Arabic, apart from the obvious fact that, if they didn't, their laws and ordinances would not be understood.

But even where a state has only one official language, there is nothing wrong with it trying to make the life of its inhabitants easier by speaking to them in a language they understand. (We do it a lot over here in UK. Only far-right fascists and stubborn Little Englanders seriously believe that our nationhood is being jeopardised as a result. Most of the rest of us think it is being enhanced.) It's just common courtesy to speak their language if you can, as I have already illustrated, and it makes bloody good commercial sense too! If A Inc and B Inc are both competing for business from a French company, and A Inc translates its tender into French and quotes a euro price, while B Inc tenders in English, quoting a dollar price, then 5'll get you 500 that A Inc gets the business!

Allowing, or even helping, other languages to flourish won't undermine the position of English within the state or the country at large.

As for dual language schools. They encourage the use of both, and maybe that way both languages are enriched. What they don't do is undermine English, and they don't force English speakers to learn another language. If you refuse to learn another language, go to an English-only school.

A question for you: You are crossing a road. A car driven by a Spanish-speaking citizen of New Mexico, who is taking his driving test, is bearing down at you at a frightening pace. Would you prefer it if the driving examiner yelled "Stop!" or "¡Alto!" to the driver?

India has 22 official Languages and hundreds of unofficial languges and gets by without any undue threat to its nationhood or to the integrity of any particular language. So don't fret about one little English/Arabic school, or the fact that California is cosmopolitan and knows it.

TYWD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

One thing to remember: those people came as conquerors, not as immigrants. They imposed their own languages and cultures on the survivors of the conquered lands. And it wasn't only English speakers. Many parts of the Caribbean and West Africa speak French to this day. Most of Central and South America speak Spanish or Portugese. Even Canada retains a remnant of French colonialism in Quebec. And let's not forget, French and Spanish and Italian, of course, are derived at least in part from the Latin spoken by their Roman conquerors. Even German and Russian have Latin influences, notably the titles Kaiser and Czar, which come from the Latin Caesar.

---

The first wave, the invaders, were the conquerors. After them came the migrants who wanted to settle the new lands their warriors had conquered. And it was then that the new language bagan to be imposed.

Yes, the French and Spanish did it too. Does that make it better?

I'm not sure what your point is about German and Russian having Latin influences. I believe that much of Germany and all of Russia stayed outside the Roman Empire so could not have a foreign tongue foisted upon them by conquerors. However, if it was useful, they would adopt Latin words to serve a purpose their own language failed to fulfil. English does that all the time. Let's see. From Arabic we have, admiral, alcove, candy, chemistry, genie, hazard, jar, lemon, lute, magazine, mattress, nadir, racket, sash, syrup, tariff, and zero - a selection from the hundreds of words used in everyday English from Arabic languages.

TYWD

Well if America is the land of liberty and champion of democracy the answer should be pretty self explanatory. I don't know american laws but i assume they are similar to England. The cuuriculum must cover certain subjects and education standards meet certain requirements. Failure to do this would mean the state was not fullfilling its commitment to providing good basic education. Beyond that its up to the school.

PS a bit more foreign language for americans may not be a bad thing. I think the intelligence services are desperately short of arabic speakers and who was that politician (Qualye?) who regreted not learning latin at school because it would help him in his visits to latin america!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

[I]I don't believe that any US authority or enactment requires that immigrants be helped to retain their original language at the expense of learning English.

---

Increasingly in this country, states, cities and counties are being required to post dual language signs for services. There are also more and more forms and instructions which are having to be printed in two languages. Sure, in some cases this is a necessity. But it is my opinion that the US should declare English to be its official language, and require prospective citizens to be able to speak and read it at least enough to pass a citizenship test.

Quote:

---

But even where a state has only one official language, there is nothing wrong with it trying to make the life of its inhabitants easier by speaking to them in a language they understand. (We do it a lot over here in UK. Only far-right fascists and stubborn Little Englanders seriously believe that our nationhood is being jeopardised as a result. Most of the rest of us think it is being enhanced.)

---

Agreed, there is nothing wrong, and probably good for all concerned, providing there is enough of a demand. What galls me is that more regulations are being written which force states which do not have a large Hispanic population, to spend the funds necessary to print dual language forms, even though they probably won't have much use for them.

Quote:

---

It's just common courtesy to speak their language if you can, as I have already illustrated, and it makes bloody good commercial sense too! If A Inc and B Inc are both competing for business from a French company, and A Inc translates its tender into French and quotes a euro price, while B Inc tenders in English, quoting a dollar price, then 5'll get you 500 that A Inc gets the business!

---

Absolutely! It makes perfect business sense. IF B Inc wants to compete in that market. But again, the problem arises when you FORCE B Inc to speak their language. As in the example I gave earlier, the city of Philadelphia forced that business owner to remove his "English Only" sign or face stiff fines. Mind you, he wasn't trying to prohibit non-English speakers, merely informing his customers that English was the only language he spoke.

Quote:

---

As for dual language schools. They encourage the use of both, and maybe that way both languages are enriched. What they don't do is undermine English, and they don't force English speakers to learn another language. If you refuse to learn another language, go to an English-only school.

---

Again, almost no argument, except the part about them not forcing English speakers to learn another language. It can be kind of difficult to learn something when half of your lessons are given in a language you don't understand. And as you say, you don't have to go to that school. UNLESS that school is the public school where you live and that second language is MANDATED by the state of federal authorities. Then you have the choice of attending a dual language PUBLIC school, or paying for a private school. My argument is that the dual or foreign language schools should be the private schools, not funded by tax dollars.

Quote:

---

A question for you: You are crossing a road. A car driven by a Spanish-speaking citizen of New Mexico, who is taking his driving test, is bearing down at you at a frightening pace. Would you prefer it if the driving examiner yelled "Stop!" or "¡Alto!" to the driver?

---

If I am in New Mexico, which has a high Hispanic population, I would imagine the examiner knew both languages and would use whichever was appropriate. But if I am in Hickville, Montana, with only one Hispanic family within 500 miles, chances are the guy won't speak Spanish. And probably not many others there will, either. But the way things seem to be going, that examiner in Hickville might lose his job if he doesn't understand Spanish.
And what if it's an Arabic driver. Must he learn Arabic as well? And Portuguese? And Russian, and Turkish and every Chinese dialect also? For better or for worse, the US is an English speaking country. If I wanted to emigrate to Mexico I would be required, by law, to speak Spanish. All I'm saying is that the same requirements should apply here. You want to live and work in the US? You want to become a US citizen? Learn to speak the language!

Increasingly in this country, states, cities and counties are being required to post dual language signs for services. There are also more and more forms and instructions which are having to be printed in two languages.

You're telling me that your legislators have passed laws in various states saying,

Be it hereby enacted as a Federal/State Law that, from the date hereof:-

(1) Driving Tests shall be conducted in the language of the candidate,

(2) Forms appertaining to government business shall be made available in any language required by the applicant, and

(3) Any instructions issued by a government department shall be issued in all languages necessary for them to be understood by the intended recipients.

OK - I know you don't write laws like that, but I exaggerate to make a point. If you are aware of such a law or byelaw, please tell me. I shall be amazed, but I suppose nothing is beyond the politically correct brigade.


What galls me is that more regulations are being written which force states which do not have a large Hispanic population, to spend the funds necessary to print dual language forms, even though they probably won't have much use for them.

If that's true, I agree it's stupid to require states that have no speakers os a particular language to legislate in that language. But in USA, this might just be the legislature being forward thinking. Some states will soon become predominantly Spanish speaking, by all accounts. Only oppressive legislation coupled with the brutal suppression of Hispanics will stop that. Take it from us Brits. We know. We've done it. Otherwise, it's a nonsense.

But it's dafter of the state concerned not to seek a waiver or exemption.

... the city of Philadelphia forced that business owner to remove his "English Only" sign or face stiff fines. Mind you, he wasn't trying to prohibit non-English speakers, merely informing his customers that English was the only language he spoke.

The Irish have been coming into the UK for hundreds of years looking for work. In the 1950's many Jamaicans came to this country to settle down and try to find work. At that time it was common to see signs in many hotels/hostels, shops and workplaces saying "No Irish, No Blacks. No Gypsies." Some of the hostels might have added, "No dogs." Those signs are illegal now.

It is just possible that the Philadelphia authorities interpreted "English only" as racial rather than linguistic. It was definitely intended to be provocative because in an English-speaking district, you would announce that you speak other languages if you do, but you would not bother to announce that you speak the same language as almost everyone else unless you had an ulterior motive. Do they prohibit signs that say "Ici on parle Francais" or "Hier Mann spricht Deutsche"?

Again, almost no argument, except the part about them not forcing English speakers to learn another language. It can be kind of difficult to learn something when half of your lessons are given in a language you don't understand. And as you say, you don't have to go to that school. UNLESS that school is the public school where you live and that second language is MANDATED by the state of federal authorities. Then you have the choice of attending a dual language PUBLIC school, or paying for a private school. My argument is that the dual or foreign language schools should be the private schools, not funded by tax dollars.

I suppose I have to concede a lot of what you say here. I agree you cannot legislate against wilful ignorance.

I don't see why that prevents a state running dual langage schools in districts where two langages are spoken. I don't think state schools should be dual language in areas where only one language is spoken, but I doubt there are many (or do they bus people in to justify it?).

Moreover, I don't suppose the pupils of the Khalil Gibran International Acadamy will be 100% English speaking, or that pupils who have no desire to learn Arabic will be forced to attend it. Meanwhile, the new school adds to the richness and diversity of New York's culture. And Arabic speaking Americans (13th most common language in USA according to the 1990 census) are just as entitled to receive a full education as Spanish speaking Americans, French speaking Americans or English speaking Americans.

But the way things seem to be going, that examiner in Hickville might lose his job if he doesn't understand Spanish.

I won't hold my breath until that happens.


And what if it's an Arabic driver. Must he learn Arabic as well? And Portuguese? And Russian, and Turkish and every Chinese dialect also?

If, and only if, there's a justifiable demand for it. And then, why not?

For better or for worse, the US is an English speaking country.

... and Spanish, and French, and German. There are hundreds of languages spoken in USA, including many that are native to your country.

You want to become a US citizen? Learn to speak the language!

Which one?

Oh and I just read an article on emigrating to Mexico. It wasn't official, but it didn't mention the need to learn Spanish once. And Spanish is not Mexico's official language de jure, just de facto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

Fuck you! What is it about English speakers? Too stupid or too lazy to cope with any other language: they'd rather commit genocide than learn a new language.

When the Angles, Saxons and Jutes came to England, they didn't bother to learn the local language. They imposed their own. Later their descendants tried to eradicate the native languages of Scotland, Ireland and Wales. They successfully eradicated Cornish and Manx. This was deliberate policy - to control the population.

In the Americas, the same people wiped out the native languages and imposed their own. In India, Australia and New Zealand, their cousins did the same to a greater or lesser degree. And, of course, the same thing happened in Africa.

There's something very flawed in the nature of people descended from those small German tribes: a fearful arrogance and self-righteousness replacing a desire to accomodate and to adapt. Xenophobic, to use a foreign word, and paranoid, to use another.

The point about any dual language school is to promote both languages and to improve understanding and harmony. Refusal to accomodate other languages can only lead to isolationism and ignorance - and that's only worthy of "Little Americans".

TYWD

P.S. Go to any of the countries you mentioned, and you'll easily find someone who can speak English. You won't have to have learned their language at all. Go to Sweden or any Scandinavian country, and you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't speak English (s/he'll probably speak German instead!).

I once had occasion to telephone a filling station in Sweden (from the UK). The telephone was answered in Swedish, as you would expect. My first words were, "Do you speak English?" and the girl replied, without hesitation, and in that beautiful Scandinavian accent, "Of course, Sir."

---

You know I don't know when it was that you decided you didn't like me, and I really don't care why or when, but if you can't hold an intelligent conversation without insulting me then, no fuck you!

Why should I have to learn to speak another language, I live in America, English is the normal language here, so I see no need to learn to speak another language. I am not stupid or lazy.I would put my IQ up against yours any day of the week like I said don't insult me any more jackass!